Friday Mourning Frizz

Witch’s Will For A Mourning In September

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

Quote of the day:

  Americans for Tax Reform estimates that taxpayers will be forced to spend a total of 7.5 million hours each year complying with Obamacare. Huh. Guess it’s a good thing they’ll only have part-time jobs.

My Top 3:


Obama and Syria: Stumbling Toward Damascus

The President’s uneven Syria response has damaged his  office and weakened the nation. It’s time for one more pivot

  by Joe Klein

On the eve of the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Barack  Obama made the strongest possible case for the use of force against Bashar  Assad’s Syrian regime. But it wasn’t a very strong case. Indeed, it was built on  a false premise: “We can stop children from being gassed to death,” he said,  after he summoned grisly images of kids writhing and foaming at the mouth and  then dying on hospital floors. Does he really think we can do that with a  limited military strike—or the rather tenuous course of diplomacy now being  pursued? We might not be able to do it even if we sent in 250,000 troops and got  rid of Assad. The gas could be transferred to terrorists, most likely Hizballah,  before we would find all or even most of it. And that is the essence of the  policy problem Obama has been wrestling with on Syria: when you explore the  possibilities for intervention, any vaguely plausible action quickly reaches a  dead end.

The President knows this, which makes his words and gestures during the weeks  leading up to his Syria speech all the more perplexing. He willingly jumped into  a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has damaged his presidency  and weakened the nation’s standing in the world.

It has been one of the more  stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever  witnessed. The failure cuts straight to the heart of a perpetual criticism of  the Obama White House: that the President thinks he can do foreign policy all by  his lonesome. This has been the most closely held American foreign-policy-making  process since Nixon and Kissinger, only there’s no Kissinger.

There is no  éminence grise—think of someone like Brent Scowcroft—who can say to Obama with  real power and credibility, Mr. President, you’re doing the wrong thing  here. Let’s consider the consequences if you call the use of chemical weapons a “red line.” Or, Mr. President, how can you talk about this being “the  world’s red line” if the world isn’t willing to take action?

Perhaps those  questions, and many others, fell through the cracks as his first-term  national-security staff departed and a new team came in. But Obama has shown a  desire to have national-security advisers who were “honest brokers”—people who  relayed information to him—rather than global strategists. In this case, his new  staff apparently raised the important questions about going to Congress for a  vote: Do you really want to do this for a limited strike? What if they say no?  But the President ignored them, which probably means that the staff isn’t strong  enough.


Let me state for the record that I think Joe Klein is a complete asshole. He’s kissed Obama’s ass so much his mouth is in a near permanent pucker. That’s what makes this article so stunning. It is the only reason I posted it. For the rarity of it. For the hypocrisy of an Obot who seems to have suddenly seen the light. A short moment of reason I’m sure.


Bloomberg’s Influence Takes A Hit In Voter Rebuff

NEW YORK — For billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, throwing away  $350,000 is equivalent to most Americans dropping loose change between the sofa  cushions.

But the concern for Bloomberg is not the amount of money he personally  invested in the effort to save the seats of two Colorado state senators — an  effort that failed when both were ousted from office Tuesday by voters  apparently displeased with their roles in passing gun control legislation.

Instead, the overriding worry for the 71-year-old mayor is that the defeats  seem to underscore his increasing inability to nationally impact the public  policy issues he’s most involved with.



This Depressing Economy

It’s far closer to the dreadful 1930s than you might think.

  by Tom Blumer

The government’s August jobs report from its Bureau of Labor Statistics was all too typically lackluster.

It is true that 164,000 seasonally adjusted payroll jobs were added during the month, per the Establishment Survey of employers, but June and July were revised down by a combined 75,000. The Household Survey used to determine the unemployment rate had even grimmer news, as it showed that 115,000 fewer Americans were working in August than in July. The only reason that the official (“U-3″) unemployment rate fell to 7.3 percent is because the civilian workforce shrunk by over 300,000, taking the labor force participation down to 63.2 percent, that figure’s lowest level in since 1978.

Looking back further, since President Obama was first inaugurated in January 2009, seasonally adjusted employment per the Household Survey has increased by just over 2 million, while the number of adults not in the labor force has skyrocketed by almost 10 million.

On Wednesday, the Obama administration indicated that it wants to take the focus off of Syria and for the umpteenth time shift the president’s energies back to the economy. Haven’t you guys done enough damage already?

It may be hard to get used to the idea, but the onslaught of statistics such as these in the areas of employment and output indicates that we’re in an economy which, in certain statistical respects, more resembles what the nation experienced during the 1930s than during the other far more legitimate recoveries seen since World War II.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the level of human suffering currently occurring — though it has been virtually ignored and vastly understated by an establishment press which has seemingly excised the terms “homelessness” and “tent cities” from its dictionaries while losing its directions to the low-priced weekly motels where so many downtrodden families now live — is anywhere near what it was during the Great Depression.

That said, data at the federal government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that the economy under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took barely longer to recover from the steep 26 percent nosedive in real gross domestic product (GDP) which took place from 1929 to 1933 than the economy under Barack Obama has since the most recent recession’s 4.3 percent real GDP decline officially ended in the second quarter of 2009. It may be that the only thing keeping the Obama “recovery” from looking worse on the GDP front is that quarterly stats didn’t become available until shortly after World War II.

The economy under Roosevelt recovered what had been lost in 1936, three years after the Depression’s trough, and grew at a compound annual rate of almost 11 percent to get there. That pace of growth, accompanied by the decade’s high unemployment, explains the popular saying about that period, namely that “the Great Depression wasn’t so bad, if you had a job.”

Given that FDR didn’t take office until March 4, 1933 — the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, passed earlier that year, established our current January 20th Inauguration Day, beginning in 1937 — it’s reasonable to believe that the Depression’s bottom occurred in the third or fourth quarter of that year. This would mean that full recovery, if real GDP had been computed on a quarterly basis, may have been achieved just nine or ten quarters later, though it’s conceivable that it could have taken as long as 15 quarters.

The economy under Obama didn’t see real GDP return to its pre-recession peak until the second quarter of 2011, the eighth quarter after the recession’s end, and did so with paltry compound annual growth of only 2.3 percent; it was nine quarters before BEA issued multi-year revisions in July. In every other recovery from a downturn since World War II, real GDP returned to it pre-recession peak in one, two, or three quarters.

Now let’s compare FDR and BHO using “Buffett’s Benchmark,” so named because it’s the standard by which Warren Buffett, the Obama-worshipper of Omaha, defines a recession’s end. In his view, that doesn’t occur “until real per capita GDP gets back to where it was before,” i.e., its previous peak.



Poll: Americans Oppose Raising the Debt Ceiling Even If U.S. Defaults and Say Government Wastes 60 Cents of Every Tax Dollar

The public says Obama disappoints on transparency and that Congress passes too many laws. It’s split on Snowden, trusts Facebook less than the IRS on privacy, and opposes a bailout for Detroit.


Don’t that just say it all?

Why the Media Will Never Treat Conservatives Fairly

By: Erick Erickson

I have written a number of pieces in the past year about conservatives having a “poor little ole me” attitude when it comes to the media.  Conservatives are convinced the media is out to get them.  They are convinced the media is covering up stories and covering for the Obama Administration.

Often, conservatives are flat out wrong.  They are so convinced the media is out to get them they do not even make their case to the media.  They give up without starting.

Each time I write about these things, members of the media retweet the posts glowingly and approvingly.  And while I stand by each of those posts I’ve written, the media itself needs to be held accountable because, if members of the media were truly honest, must admit it is biased against conservatives.

As objective as the media claims to be, the so called Gang of 500 — the reporters and chattering class who develop the conventional wisdom in politics — is mostly of the left or married to the left.  There is a revolving door between the media and leftwing politics that rarely exists on the right.  It shapes the world view of the members of the media and necessitates conservatives working even harder to get their opinions, views, and stories heard.

I have encountered this bias throughout the media in my professional life and seen it up close over the years.

Today comes word that Richard Stengel, Time’s managing editor, is leaving the magazine for the State Department.  He is but one in a long line of liberals who have, for years, feigned objectivity when his world view is decidedly of the left.

Consider the others.[1]  [Update: Over at the Daily Beast, Ben Jacobs notes 15 journalists have moved into the Obama Adminstration]

Perhaps most famous is Jay Carney.  He is currently the White House Press Secretary.  Before that he was in the Vice President’s office.  Prior to that, he was Washington bureau chief at Time magazine working with Richard Stengel.  Stengel, in 2008, defended Carney’s decision to go into the Obama Administration.  Of course he would.

When Jay Carney left Vice President Biden’s office, the Vice President went to the Washington Post and hired Shailagh Murray as Carney’s replacement.  She is married to Neil King of the Wall Street Journal.  King, if you want a window into his world view, thought it controversial that an evangelical church would participate in the 50th anniversary celebration of Martin Luther King’s speech in Washington.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Southern Baptist preacher and this group opposes gay marriage.  King’s daughter once said her father didn’t take a bullet for gay marriage.  This is all shocking enough to warrant a story.


Worth a Read:

The Colorado recall was about more than gun control

ByRosslyn  Smith


Detroit Considers Pushing Union Retirees Into Obamacare Exchanges…


Dick Durbin Bringing St. Skittles Mother To Testify At Senate Hearing On Stand Your Ground Laws…


I had sympathy for the parents of Trayvon Martin at first. Since then, this females use of her dead son to  get her face on television has changed that. I have zero sympathy for this POS. Her 15 minutes is all used up. And so is she. How about a hearing on Jeffry Babbitt? Oh wait, that was a black on white MURDER witnesses by dozens of people. Never mind. No spin for the liberal race baiters there.

Drudge Defends Bloggers by Attacking ‘Fascist’ Feinstein’s ‘Disgusting’ Comments


Hey Feinstein – bloggers can cut and paste just like “real” jouralists.Were they that venal.

Media Malpractice:

NBC Gives More Time to Hillary Clinton Getting an Award Than to Benghazi  Anniversary

In news briefs on Tuesday and Wednesday, NBC Today anchor Natalie  Morales touted: “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be given the  National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal for her years in public service and  her work on human rights.” The two segments totaled 36 seconds of air time.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the network morning show only managed to offer a  couple mentions, totaling 10 seconds, to the anniversary of the September 11,  2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans – a major  security failure that occurred during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.


  Cockroach Of The Day:

Mike Malloy

Libtalker Malloy Uses 9/11 Anniversary to Accuse Dick Cheney of Having Flight 93  Shot Down

Liberal radio host Mike Malloy has made some truly asinine comments in his  career, but what he said on the twelfth anniversary of 9/11 Wednesday truly  takes the cake.

Discussing the tragic events of twelve years ago, Malloy said United  Airlines Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania with “orders from a  bloodthirsty son of a bitch named Dick Cheney”


Perhaps I should go easier on Malloy since it has been obvious for a very long time that he’s insane. So he’s an “insane” cockroach.

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