Witch’s Will For A Sunday Mourning
Joke for a Sunday Morning
The Liberal Democrat Way
ifty thousand people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained
out and a refund was due.
The team was about to send out refunds when someone stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the their interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the richest people.
Their plan says:
- People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they had less
money to spend.
- People in the $15 seats will get back
$15, because that’s only fair.
- People in the $25 seats
will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a
- People in the $50 luxury seats will have to pay
another $50, because they already have way too much money to spend.
- People driving by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game
will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, just because they
need the most help.
For Best Articles This Morning:
The new F-word: Father
by Kathleen Parker
News that women increasingly are the leading or sole breadwinner in the American family has resurrected the perennial question: Why do we need men?
With each generation, the question becomes more declarative and querulous. Recent demographic shifts show women gaining supremacy across a spectrum of quantitative measures, including education and employment. Women outnumber men in college and in most graduate fields. Increasingly, owing in part to the recession and job loss in historically male-dominated fields, they are surpassing men as wage-earners, though women still lag behind at the highest income and executive levels.
My argument that men should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, men are fundamentally good and are sort of pleasant to have around. Most women still like to fall in love with them; all children want a father no matter how often we try to persuade ourselves otherwise. If we continue to impose low expectations and negative messaging on men and boys, future women won’t have much to choose from.
We are nearly there.
Serving the press
by Michael Goodwin
If you can judge a man by his friends, surely you can judge a president by the complaints he cares about most. By that rule, it is revealing that President Obama, beset by scandals and anger across the land, is making the care and feeding of the media his first priority.
The president ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to meet with journalists upset over prosecutors seizing Associated Press phone records and labeling a Fox News reporter a potential “co-conspirator” in a leak case. Obama also ordered Holder to solicit proposals for changing the rules governing such cases — and did it publicly to demonstrate his concern about “government overreach.”
Leave it to the media barons to miss the irony — and the joke at their expense. The president who has made government overreach the defining issue of his tenure is now concerned about it when it gores their ox. Aren’t they special!
Even more telling, Holder’s demand that the meeting be off the record didn’t bother some of the credulous people normally regarded as cynics. The Washington Post, one of the few organizations to attend, reported in breathtaking fashion that Holder “completely endorsed the president’s statement that reporters should not be at legal risk for doing their job.”
Holy scoop! If journalists are good children, next week the president and the attorney general might deign to say they believe in the First Amendment — off the record, of course.
No wonder the mainstream press is about as popular as an undertaker. It covered for Obama while the economy tanked and millions lost their jobs. Its loud outrage over American losses in Iraq under George W. Bush went mute when losses in Afghanistan soared under Obama.
You would think the snooping on them would alert journalists that their biases had betrayed them, and that because Obama came after them, he would be absolutely ruthless with those who opposed him.
But their callous indifference to other cases of government abuse of power reveals why much of the public correctly views the media as just another special-interest group. You’ve heard of crony capitalism — crony journalism is its grubby twin.
Instead of being the watchdog that holds the government accountable, much of the Washington press corps plays lapdog and falls into a deep swoon as soon as Obama rubs its belly. To hell with their fellow Americans whose rights were also violated.
Sunday Kind of Quote
“Nobody ever wrote down a plan to be broke, fat, lazy, or stupid. Those things are what happen when you don’t have a plan.” – Larry Winget
Things of Interest
Placing the Obama IRS Scandal Into Perspective
by Ed Driscoll
Americans, particularly those who aren’t as obsessed with politics as you and I are, tend to have very short memories when it comes to politics. But comparing the IRS and Eric Holder scandals with how the left acted towards the Bush administration in the immediate wake of 9/11 helps to place it into rather sharp perspective. Here are a couple of attempts from this past week.
First up, Jonah Goldberg, in the latest edition of Ricochet’s “GLoP” Podcast, named for its hosts, Goldberg, Rob Long, and John Podhoretz, had this to say:
It’s funny. On the IRS front, in some ways, the best thing that could happen from a conservative perspective, is if this doesn’t reach all the way to Obama. And I’m no long sure that it doesn’t; I think that it may in fact lead to Obama, in more than a sort of rhetorical, set the tone, kind of thing…
Regardless, it would certainly be better for us if it turns out that this is a sort of systemic scandal, a policy scandal, that lets us make arguments about the size of government, rather than arguments that are about Obama’s criminality, that are going to lead to impeachment nonsense, and all that. Better to sort of put the system on trial, as it were.
On the press thing, I’m torn…the analogy or the comparison that keeps coming to my mind isn’t necessarily the Valerie Plame thing; it is what Christopher Hitchens referred to as “Ari Fleischer’s Reign of Terror.” Remember when Ari Fleischer said, in response to an idiot congressman who said something bigoted about Sikhs in Louisiana who have turbans on their heads, or as he said, diapers on their heads, and something absolutely idiotic Bill Maher said about how the 9/11 terrorists were braver than Americans. And all Ari Fleischer said, off the cuff was: people should probably watch what they say these days.
You can go back and look in Nexus at the things that people like Frank Rich said about this. Frank Rich said that that comment will be remembered as culturally more significant than 9/11 itself. He would constantly refer back to it as if this was the day that changed America, when the government said people have to watch out for what they say.
Now, if your response to those kinds of claims is anything other than bald-faced laughter and ridicule, then the idea that somehow using the friggin’ Espionage Act against [Fox News’] James Rosen, which is basically saying that James Rosen is an enemy of the state – that’s what the Espionage Act is all about, right? If you can’t get worked up about that, but you thought that Frank Rich and all those jackwads were completely right about Ari Fleischer, then you’re just an idiot.
And second, Brian Cates at Big Journalism recalls how another post-9/11-attempt at pushback from the left against President Bush helps to place the Obama administration’s IRS scandal into context:
The reason the IRS scandal is so awful is that the power of the Federal Government was used by political partisans to single out citizens for abuse based on their completely legitimate political views.
The AP/Fox News scandals are also important because abuse of Federal power threatens a free press, something that is vital to the survival of a democratic republic.
And it definitely puts a burr under the saddle of Liberals that they can’t use their usual tu quoque arguments to try to head off any consequences for what’s been done.
Their usual ‘Bush/Republicans Did It Too’ argument can’t be used.
When did Bush’s administration:
- lie about a terrorist attack?
- go after the Left with the IRS?
- spy on reporters using the DOJ?
- kill American citizens with no due process through drone strikes?
The things Progressives fear-mongered about, that Bush was going to have people thrown in jail for checking out the wrong library books, didn’t happen.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Liberals want to pretend the things that are coming to light only now, that went on from 2009-2013 are nothing, a sideshow, a circus, just a political witch hunt. Well it was a witch hunt.
Federal bureaucrats used the power of their offices to suppress & single out citizens & groups based on their political views when they weren’t busy spying on reporters. This is a subversion of the entire American governmental system.
Our electoral system has government power as the PRIZE of winning elections after arguments have been made on a level playing field. You cannot have a system in which one party is entrenched and using the power of Federal agencies to suppress all other political parties. Whatever kind of governmental system that would be, it would not be an American or a Constitutional one.
* * * * * * *
What Progressives claim Conservative will do in abusing State power to thwart their Utopian aims, Progressives will THEMSELVES do to ADVANCE those same Utopian goals.
Liberals spent 8 long years claiming Bush wanted to target them & suppress their speech and their views by using State power. Then a Progressive administration turned around and *did* what they accused Bush of wanting to do.
Or as Jonah wrote back in 2006:
Liberals are geniuses at unleashing social panics because A) it never occurs to them that their motives are anything but pure and B) because they are almost exclusively focused on short term tactics. And yet they are invariably shocked when these moral frenzies come back to bite them. McCarthyism was a direct consequence of both the Red Scare and the Brown Scare. And when the tactics they mastered were turned on them, they acted as if they came from nowhere.
Bipartisan Tango and Lawless Justice
By Clarice Feldman
Two things caught my attention this week: first, the ridiculous way Democrat partisans, erroneously appointed by President George W. Bush to government positions from which they exercised their power, to undercut Republicans are by reason of the Bush appointment tagged “bipartisan” by the media.
Secondly, the widespread ignorance of the Bill of Rights and their obligations by oath to obey the Constitution by government lawyers in Washington and at the state level.
Two “bipartisan” exemplars are James Comey, whom President Obama nominated this week to head the FBI and Douglas Shulman, whom Bush had appointed to head the IRS and under whom that agency began a partisan attack on Obama opponents.
James Comey, as you may recall, came to Washington from the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, where he made his name by successfully prosecuting Martha Stewart. His selection is praised this week by the New York Times as proof of Obama’s bipartisanship. Those of us who, like Thomas Maguire, have a better sense of history, remember Comey otherwise as a fiercely partisan anti-Cheney force.
The Times reminded readers that Comey refused to authorize warrantless wiretaps.
The Washington Post also referred readers to the hospital room confrontation pitting White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card, Bush’s chief of staff, against Comey over waterboarding. It also reminded readers of Comey’s role in selecting his former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald to conduct a special investigation into who leaked the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame, which led to the conviction of Vice-President Cheney’s aide, Scooter Libby (not for the leak but for remembering something different than perhaps Tim Russert did.)
Like Thomas Maguire, I remember Comey’s role as more partisan than heroic:
Which leads to my perspective — a Republican group was pushing back on a number of fronts against Dick Cheney’s aggressive view of Executive power and the best way to fight the war on terror. Warrantless surveillance and enhanced interrogation were two disputed areas. The Plame “investigation” was never a serious attempt to find out who may have leaked information about Valerie Plame (hence the cursory non-investigation of Armitage and Powell at State and the utter pass given to NBC’s Russert, Mitchell and Gregory) — the focus was on bringing down Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney.
Just to review the timing — Jack Goldsmith took over the Office of Legal Counsel in October 2003 and promptly raised questions about enhanced interrogation and warrantless wiretapping. He tried without success during the fall of 2003 to get James Comey, then a Deputy AG, read into the surveillance program. On Dec 30, 2003 Ashcroft recuses himself from the Plame investigation and Comey appoints Special Counsel Fitzgerald. A month later, Comey was read into the surveillance program, and by March we had the famous hospital showdown.
Cheney had made a lot of enemies, not all of whom were on Team Blue.
The Commissioner is In (the White) House
Much is made of the fact that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, now at Brookings, a Democratic think tank, was also a Bush appointment and therefore, it is supposed, readers should ignore the outrageous partisan activities of the agency instituted under his watch. Shulman not only had been a Democratic political contributor, but his wife is a senior program advisor for Public Campaign, which describes itself as an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”
In case you’ve been sleeping or your name is John McCain, “special interests” are not defined in the press or “public interest” world as unions, George Soros, or the Rockefeller Foundation — they are farmers, small businessmen, anti-abortion groups, and the NRA. In other words, just as Shulman turned the IRS into an arm of the Democratic Party, his wife was plowing the same field from outside the government.
How bipartisan could Shulman have been when he spent somewhere in excess of 150 days visiting the White House during his term?
And how hand in glove was the harassment aimed at the conservative grassroots, and why is Comey’s appointment of concern? Because the IRS obviously coordinated it with other government agencies.
This matryoshka doll of a scandal just keeps on opening up. How many figures will be scattered around when it’s all over?
Taking a Wrecking Ball to the Ivory Tower
By Kyle Peterson
It’s no secret that American higher education is broken, and that it has been for a long time. Animal House, the gold standard for party-till-you-puke college comedies, the film that made “Toga!”a rallying cry for generations, was released, let’s not forget, in 1978.
But things have only gotten worse in the past thirty-odd years. The Western canon has been supplanted by grievance studies and esoterica, classes with dramatic names like The Clothmakers: Queer Weaving Techniques of the Late Sumerian Epoch. I exaggerate, but not much. Try these actual course names on for size. The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie (Occidental College). How to be Gay (University of Michigan). Dead White Men (Macalester College). Invented Languages: Klingon and Beyond (University of Texas at Austin). And my favorite, the excellently titled “Oh, Look, a Chicken!” Embracing Distraction as a Way of Knowing (Belmont University).
Market forces that once governed the speed of cost increases have come uncoupled, and administrators have pushed the accelerator to the floor. Tuition at public institutions has soared 300 percent since just 1990. Politicians’ education subsidies beget tuition hikes, which beget further subsidies. Students pay the same interest rates on student loans whether they get As in a lucrative field like nuclear engineering, or Ds in puppetry. American student loan debt has reached $1 trillion, surpassing what we owe on credit cards.
It would be tempting to blame this state of affairs on lazy students and rogue professors, or maybe on our Congressmen, since nobody likes them anyway. But though each of those groups is culpable to some extent, the biggest and most pernicious culprits are cultural. These are the enemies that talk show host and former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett and his co-author David Wilezol take on in their new book, Is College Worth It?, recently released by Thomas Nelson. Chief among them is the veneration of the bachelor’s degree, variously manifested in college’s role as a class indicator and in the widespread idea that a university diploma is a prerequisite for a middle-class life.
Worth a Read:
Judge Jeanine Pirro: “Eric Holder Should Be Indicted”
More Than “A Few”: Targeting Scandal May Involve 88 IRS Officials
by Kate Hicks
Was the IRS scandal just the work of “a few low-level employees” in Cleveland providing bad “customer service?” It seems the targeting of conservative groups may have been more widespread than top officials initially let on, with 88 IRS employees now tasked with providing “relevant documents” in the search for the culpable parties. A few…a lot…not much of a difference, right?
Head of Anti-Gun Group Accused of Beating his Wife
Court challenges could tear down major pieces of ObamaCare
President Obama’s healthcare law is under attack in the courts even as the administration sprints toward full implementation.
Despite surviving a stiff challenge at the Supreme Court last year, some of the law’s biggest provisions remain at risk from legal challenges.
Last But Not Least
Why This Scandal Is Different
by Peggy Noonan
Sometimes when you’re writing part of a column you keep getting close to the meaning of what you want to say but you don’t quite get there, the full formulation of the idea eludes you. Then two days later, relaxing in conversation with friends, the thought comes to you whole, and you think: That’s what I meant to say. That’s what I was trying to get.
This week I had one of those moments. I kept trying, the paragraph kept not quite working, the deadline came.
I got an email last night that had the effect of a clarifying conversation. It was from a smart friend who works in government. He understood the point I was trying to make about how the current IRS scandal is different from previous ones and more threatening to the American arrangement. I had written that this scandal isn’t a discrete event in which a president picks up a phone and tells someone in the White House to look into the finances of some steel industry executives, or to check out the returns of some guy on an enemies list.
But my friend got to the essence. He wrote, “The left likes to say, ‘Watergate was worse!’ Watergate was bad—don’t get me wrong. But it was elites using the machinery of government to spy on elites. . . . It’s something quite different when elites use the machinery of government against ordinary people. It’s a whole different ball game.”
That’s exactly what I meant.