Witch’s Will For A Sunday Morning
I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.
Cartoon of the day:
My Favorite Articles For Today:
Media is blindly following Obama
After President Obama spoke about Iraq, Politico posted a story last week that said Democrats were “starting to unite” behind his policy. It reported that party members “from a broad ideological spectrum” supported the decision to deploy 300 military advisers as terrorists threatened Baghdad.
Readers who ventured beyond the frothy claim were rewarded with this hidden gem: “Senate Democrats actually did not watch the president’s speech on Thursday, instead talking energy policy over lunch.”
In other words, anything Obama said was good enough for them. Nothing, not even the possible creation of a new jihadist state, can wake Dems from their hypnotic daze. Their master’s voice turns them into iron filings, obedient to his magnet.
Pass the dessert, I vote yes!
What, pray tell, is the Obama “policy” they are uniting behind? Since he didn’t actually articulate one, the only conclusion is that they support him, period.
That the leftist media remain a sucker for story lines about Democratic unity, as opposed to those about a Republican “civil war,” is a disgrace that helps define the age of Obama.
Uncurious and unserious journalists are not journalists. They are stenographers at best, shills at worst.
Their abdication is destructive. The refusal to subject Obama to the same critical standard applied to Republican presidents provides cover for policies that lack public support. And that blackout of skepticism serves to keep potentially wayward Democrats in line. Then and only then is it possible to claim they are “starting to unite” behind a policy that doesn’t exist.
Contrast that fable with the results of a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll: It found Obama’s approval rating falling to 41 percent, with only 37 percent approving of his foreign policy.
A staggering 54 percent say they do not believe the president “is able to lead the country and get the job done,” with just 42 percent saying he can. A Gallup poll finds only 31 percent approve of his handling of immigration.
The dreary view of the president reflects the reality of ordinary Americans who see a weak economy and mounting crises at home and abroad. From the VA and IRS scandals, the ObamaCare mess and the surge of illegal immigrants on the southern border, to slaughters in Syria and Iraq, Russia’s advance on Ukraine and China’s aggression against its neighbors, they see the world turning darker and more chaotic.
Clinton Candidacy Imperiled by Overexposure
In electoral politics, familiarity often breeds comfort. The more recognizable a politician is the more likely that politician can expect to enjoy a certain level of support from among his or her constituency. But when familiarity descends into overexposure it can constitute the tipping point upon which a politician’s appeal begins to wane.
This appears to be the conundrum facing Hillary Clinton in her build up to the 2016 presidential campaign season. Her noncommittal demeanor toward 2016 notwithstanding, there is not a pundit or voter from California to Maine that doesn’t fully expect the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State to aggressively pursue the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
But the tepid response Mrs. Clinton has received to some of her more recent attempts to generate publicity and support points to a public less inspired by the sui generis of her candidacy and instead growing tired of the omnipresent and clichéd Clinton dynasty.
The release of Mrs. Clinton’s much ballyhooed autobiography, Hard Choices, was expected to generate not only tremendous sales but also initiate a favorable public discourse highlighting her own, self perceived personal and political accomplishments.
Instead, a preview and promotion of the book caused a backlash among her critics, much of which was centered around her almost dogmatic adherence to a dubious YouTube video as the genesis of the attacks in Benghazi and her near laughable cries of poverty upon leaving the White House.
As the Washington Post noted, “So, yes, it is technically true the Clintons left office in debt. But, a year later, the couple’s assets had soared.” Whatever debt the Clintons incurred while occupying the White House was quickly surmounted by the tremendous earning capacity of the former President and First Lady.
The Good News Democrats
The town was pretty empty except for tourists Friday afternoon, but the Press Club bar was packed and loud. Even with my hearing aids tucked away in my purse, I hardly missed a word.
Jack the bartender turned away from the tap and pointed me to an empty booth as a sweaty fellow who had just quickly downed his vodka on the rocks lamented that Americans now had little confidence in the news media. Twenty-two percent expressed some confidence in the newspapers; 18% in TV news, and 19% in the internet. “I remember when we used to make fun of those Internet posters, the guys in pajamas we called them,” he moaned, slamming his glass on the zinc and motioning for a refill.
“What do they want anyway?” the gal who writes for one of the Style Sections seated next to him asked. “Ever since Obama was elected, we’ve been handing them sugar-coated news. I mean if they wanted us to act like the fourth estate and root out government corruption, they should have elected Romney,” she added. “But, no, we figured a little dash of Kardashian doings, some candid shots of cinema beauties without makeup or designer clothes, an occasional story of make-believe right-wing mad shooters and the phantasmagoric “war on women” would be enough to satisfy their thirst for seedy tales.”
“Remember how great it was during Watergate?” one of the older Washington Post editors mused. “We were Gods. People couldn’t wait for the morning edition’s latest scandal droppings. And now…” his voice trailed off wistfully.
“Now,“ I thought, “you guys are sitting on an enormous story that in comparison makes Watergate seem microscopic. In retrospect — considering all the scandals of this administration, which you have consistently underreported — today Watergate seems to be a vestige of a far more innocent era. Kind of like people once being scandalized by women wearing bloomers at the beach and bobbing their hair”
Was Dinesh D’Souza’s Book Banned from the New York Times Bestseller List?
The Washington Examiner is charging the New York Times with an insidious form of censorship.
The way the Times calculates sales and assigns rankings for new books is a closely guarded secret. But the facts strongly suggest an element of bias in the Times‘ refusal to include D’Souza’s book on its influential non-fiction bestseller list.
The Washington Examiner reports:
His new book, on sale for three weeks, isn’t just absent from the top 10 lists already set for the next two Sundays, but totally missing from the list of the nation’s top 25 nonfiction hardcovers despite having sales higher than 13 on the latest Times chart.
According to sales reports provided to Secrets, D’Souza’s new book America: Imagine a World Without Her, sold 4,915 in the first week and 5,592 in the second week. Had it been included on the upcoming June 22 Times hardcover nonfiction list, it would have ranked No. 8, and then No. 11 on the June 29 list that puts Clinton’s sales at 85,721. The lists are widely circulated in the publishing industry before they go public.
The Times is somewhat mysterious in how it calculates its list, but it includes several books selling well under 3,000 copies in a week. A spokeswoman said, “We let the rankings speak for themselves and are confident they are accurate.”
America is expected to explode when the accompanying movie debuts next month. In America, D’Sousa slams Obama’s agenda and targets Clinton too — maybe one reason the Times hasn’t recognized it.
Readers School Politico on ‘Missing’ IRS Emails
By P.J. Gladnick
The emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials are gone forever. Therefore any more complaints about it are nothing but Republican nitpicking. Case closed.
That pretty much sums up the attitude of Politico writer Rachael Bade whose Wednesday article title pretty much sums up what she portrays as the futility of any more investigation into retrieving those missing emails, “Sources: Lois Lerner’s emails likely gone forever.” Got that? Or so she seems to hope. However, her writing off the possibility of ever finding those emails elicited a tidal wave of response from Politico readers with over 21,000 comments, many of which begged to differ with her hasty conclusion. First let us read Ms Bade hopefully bid goodbye forever on the chances of IRS email recovery:
Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive has been recycled, making it likely the lost emails of the lightning rod in the tea party targeting controversy will never be found, according to multiple sources.
Multiple sources that never heard of backup servers? Anyway, let us permit Ms Bade to continue her funeral sermon for the undead:
The latest news suggests such professionals may never get the chance to try again — and the IRS has even said its criminal investigators who specialize in rebuilding hard drives to recover hidden information from criminals were unable to restore the data back in 2011. But this is only likely to further enrage Republicans, who are fuming over the matter and suspect Washington officials drove the selective scrutiny.
And I bet those criminal investigators tried really, really hard.
The IRS told congressional investigators on Friday that the emails of Lerner, the former head of the tax exempt division that was found to have singled out conservative groups for additional scrutiny, were lost from 2009 to 2011 in a computer hard drive crash in early summer 2011.
Dog ate the homework. Very convenient. Well, Ms Bade seems to accept that excuse and the fact that the emails are “lost” forever but her readers beg to differ in a big way:
Lois Lerner’s emails can probably be retrieved another way, even though her computer supposedly crashed. Just find out what company the IRS contracted to service their technical support. (GAO knows the answer to that.) Ask that company if they were required to back up her computer and/or emails or not. That company can tell you if they have the missing emails.
With the likes of “journalists” like Rachael Bade is it any wonder that the public’s opinion of the news business is at an all time low? Too bad Ms. Bade didn’t take up a respectable profession like prostitution or bank robbery. Oh wait, she did take up the first – she’s a first class presstitute and is probably a card carrying member of the JournoList and one of Ezra Klein’s little bitches.
I cannot adequately express my revulsion and loathing for the corrupt media.
Worth a Read:
More smoke at the IRS — and not only from the hard drives
This 13-month refusal to name a special prosecutor has become its own curiosity
Vote of No Confidence: Americans Have Little Faith in Media
Television news, the most prominent medium, has fallen to a historic new low. In 1993, at the beginning of the Clinton administration, 66 percent of Americans expressed confidence in TV news. Now only 22 percent place their confidence there—a four-point plummet from last year.
US Border Is So Secure That 378 TODDLERS Were Able to Cross Into the US This Year
ABC news editor switches genders, then switches back.
4 Disgusting Ways Liberals are Defending Hillary Clinton’s Smear of a 12-Year-Old Rape Victim