Monday, April 8, 2013

White House Complains “Drudge Is Muddling Our Message”

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 5 Apr 2013 | John Semmens

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer complained that the Drudge Report (a prominent website for news headlines) is “hurting our message.”
“If it were only Drudge we had to contend with we’d be okay,” Pfeiffer said. “The problem is other media are picking up his content and demanding to know our response. This flies in the face of the protocol we have striven to establish. We feel that the media should be getting their main thrust from us. They should not be badgering the Administration with notions originating from outside.”
Thus far, Pfeiffer’s approach toward combating this threat has been to seek to intimidate media representatives who cite Drudge as a source for questions they raise. “My first effort is to establish that mere mention of this discredited source is a reason for reporters to be embarrassed,” Pfeiffer bragged. “If this is insufficient to bring them into line, my suggestion that they may be cut off from participating in our future briefings if they don’t behave themselves usually does the trick.”
“In a perfect world irksome intrusions from pests like Drudge wouldn’t exist,” Pfeiffer added. “Getting from here to there, though, is likely to take some effort. For the time being we are going to have to swat them down whenever they rear their ugly heads. This doesn’t mean we aren’t seeking a more permanent solution.”

MSNBC: Your Kids Belong to the State

Rush ^ | 4-8-2013 | Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: Melissa Harris-Perry is a professor. I believe she's at Tulane. It's a major university, wherever she teaches. She's an African-American professor at Tulane. That's right. She also has a show on PMSNBC. Of course they've got this slogan over there called "Lean Forward" or some such thing. Hosts of their shows are cutting promos that they run on the network, and last week they began airing a new Lean Forward promo for her show, which airs on the weekends. This is that promo.

HARRIS-PERRY: We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the households, then we start making better investments.

RUSH: There you have it. Now, I'm sure some of you hear this and you're livid, and you're outraged. The thing that I really want to impress upon you is that this is not far out. This is not new. It is not unusual. It used to be. Stuff like this used to be. If anybody five years ago or even two years ago had said this? "Whoa, whoa! It's really lunatic stuff," people would have said. "Oh, man, that is really extreme!" But it isn't new. What's new is that she has total confidence in saying it.

She's not worried that a majority of people are gonna disagree with this. But this is Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto. The nuclear family has always been under attack by communists, by leftists. The nuclear family -- just like religion -- must be destroyed, and in its place, "the community," the collective. So while this is outrageous in its self-contained form, it isn't anything new. I guess one of the things that is the most frustrating to me is that liberalism and socialism and Marxism and this kind of stuff have been out there on display for people to see and recognize and accept as true for decades.

It isn't anything new. Yet in the past people would hear something like this and choose not to have to deal with it. That would have meant taking action, and it was much easier to say, "Nah, that's never gonna happen. I mean, that's just not going to happen." So where has that left us? All of these things we thought were never gonna happen are now happening -- and the opposition party, which in this case is the Republican Party, has basically one item in their agenda, and that's stop these guys.

But there is no alternative. There is no vision. There is no equally correlating long-term vision being articulated by the opposition to this. All we're doing, all the party's doing is saying, "We have to stop those guys. In the way of stopping it, we'll agree with some of it. Maybe partial amnesty or whatever. We'll moderate our terms here on social issues. Okay, gay marriage? Fine. We can see where that'll work. All right, all right." But there's no push-back, and so there's no reason for Melissa Harris-Perry to be worried about any negative fallout or feedback from this.

Because as far as she's concerned, everybody thinks this now. I want you to listen to it again. I want you to listen to just how naturally it flows off her tongue. I want you to listen to how matter of fact it all is; how she just presumes everybody agrees with this. This is not something she even has to defend. This isn't an argument that she has to win the debate about. This is a conclusion now that we've all come to, and everything in here is a conclusion. "We've not spending enough on education."

We're going bankrupt on all we're spending on education! We're getting nothing for it. I've got the story of what's happening at Bowdoin College up in Maine coming up. I'll give you the details here just a second. "We're never invested as much in public education as we should have"? We're throwing money down a rat hole drain of public education! We lead the world in public education spending. We lead the world in getting the least for it. "We've had a private notion of children that your kid is yours and your responsibility"?

How old-fashioned!

How utterly irresponsible was that! How selfish could you be, thinking that your kid is yours? That was never the deal. The kid belongs to all of us. Look, as I say, Mrs. Clinton tried this. "It Takes a Village," and what was the reaction then? Everybody laughed at it, made fun of it, and had jokes at her expense. I know I did. A lot of people did. Back then, in the nineties when Mrs. Clinton's book came out, nobody ever thought anything like that would ever really happen, where the state would literally claim ownership of your kids.

It was so foreign, it was so out of the realm of common sense and even belief that people never, ever took it seriously. Yet these people keep plugging away, and they keep setting up their Head Start programs, and they keep setting up national publicly funded government-run day care centers, and they keep furthering the notion that somebody else can raise your kids better than you can. They got traction on the idea that fathers are the worst thing for a kid, especially for girl kids 'cause fathers are predators.

Fathers are dangerous, rapists. They beat up their mothers on Super Bowl Sunday. All this outrageous stuff everybody laughed at and said, "No way anyone will believe that," they just kept plugging away at it and they think it's commonly accepted as fact. Here, listen. This is a professor. I don't know of what, but it doesn't matter. She could be a professor of history. She's teaching this rotgut. It doesn't matter. Okay, here's Melissa Harris-Perry.

HARRIS-PERRY: We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the households, then we start making better investments.

RUSH: Folks, that is as foreign as anything I've ever... That, to me, is insanity. This is, you know, go get the guys in the white coats, bring the little van up, take her away. That's what this is. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children. So we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families. We need to recognize that kids belong to whole communities, and not 'til then will we start spending the right amount of money on it. So how does this manifest itself?

You need your yard mowed, what do you do? You go knock on the door down the street and say, "Your kid that you don't own, I do today for the next hour. Your kid's gonna mow my yard, and then after that my trash needs taking out, and after that I need somebody to go to the grocery store for me. My kid's tied up, so I'm claiming your kid." How does this work? What is the practical application? What she is saying, Melissa Harris-Perry, what she is saying here is as old as communist genocide. But, the fact that it is said in America on a cable news channel, and is considered fairly benign is what has changed. What's changed is that people believe this. This isn't that big a deal anymore. That's what's changed, folks.

Housing Recovery? 11.7 Million Unemployed, 89.9 Million Not in Labor Force

Confounded Interest ^ | 04/08/2013 | Anthony B. Sanders

I just spoke on a panel with Rick Sharga and two others on the state of the economy at the REOMAC conference in Dallas. My presentation was called “Headwinds in Housing Recovery: Employment And Government.’dallaspresentation
Here are some additional charts (I was only given 5 minutes). The first is the number of unemployed in the USA which stands at 11.7 million. While this is an improvement since 2009, we only just got below the WORST unemployment numbers of the Carter era.
And the Not in Labor Force has steadily risen to 89.9 million.
Add the two together and you have you 101.7 millions Americans not working!
We are entering another spring/summer slowdown.
This chart points to the structural employment problems in the USA that are not being fixed.
We will not see an actual sustainable housing recovery unless the employment situation improves dramatically.
In other news, Switzerland’s 2 year sovereign yield remains below 0%.
Investors are seeking a port in global economic storm. The US, Japan, German and Swiss sovereign markets continue to attract investors.

Obama's Western Defense Grid


Obama: Unbalanced Budget 'Doesn't Spend Beyond Our Means' (sure)

CNSNews ^

 By Fred Lucas
( – President Barack Obama said his budget--to be released Wednesday--would not spend beyond our means.
“It’s a budget that doesn’t spend beyond our means, and it’s a budget that doesn’t make harsh and unnecessary cuts that only serve to slow our economy,” Obama said Saturday during his weekly address. “We’ll keep our promise to an aging generation by shoring up Medicare, and we’ll keep our promise to the next generation by investing in the fundamentals that always made America strong--manufacturing, innovation, energy and education.”
However, on Friday, White House Spokesman Jay Carney did not say the president's budget would ever balance the federal accounts. Instead, he said it would reduce the "deficit." The deficit is the amount the government spends above and beyond revenue in any given year. Deficit spending is financed by the government borrowing money and increasing the national debt.
The federal debt now exceeds $16.7 trillion.
“In addition to replacing the sequester, we would have an additional $600 billion in deficit reduction bringing us to $4.3 trillion overall over a decade, which exceeds the goal set by bipartisan commissions,” Carney said.
The Congressional Budget Office said in its March Monthly Budget Review, “If lawmakers enacted no further legislation affecting spending or revenues, the federal government would end fiscal year 2013 with a deficit of $845 billion.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

UN Calls for Disarming those 55 Years and Older

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 5 Apr 2013 | John Semmens

The recently passed UN Global Arms Trade Treaty contains a provision that would ban those over 55 years old from owning guns.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon explained that “most crimes are committed by gun-wielding assailants who generally are younger than their victims. If we allow those who are near the end of their lives to use guns to kill these younger assailants the human race will be losing more ‘life-years,’ on balance. Therefore, it is better that these elderly victims not be given the means to resist even if that means they will be slain by their attackers.”

Farmer Wins Right to Display Anti-Obama Signs On His Own Property

CNS News ^ | April 8, 2013 | Craig Bannister

Michigan farmer Vern Verduin has won the right to display signs critical of Pres. Obama - on Verduin's own truck and property - after Gaines Township officials took him to court in an effort to force him to remove them.
In response to First Amendment arguments raised by The Rutherford Institute, a state district court has dismissed charges against the Michigan cattle farmer who was cited and fined for displaying political banners critical of the Obama administration on a farming truck parked on his private 40-acre lot.
Verduin, Gaines Township officials alleged that his political banners violate the township's sign ordinance, which allows only business-related signs on vehicles, restricts the size to no more than 20 square feet, and limits the time period for displaying political signs from 45 days before an election to ten days past an election.

The banners mounted by Vern Verduin on his farm truck read:

  • "Marxism/Socialism = Hunger and Poverty" and
  • "Obama's 'Mission Accomplished,' 8% Unemployment, 16 Trillion Debt
Verduin, Gaines Township officials alleged that his political banners violate the township's sign ordinance, which allows only business-related signs on vehicles, restricts the size to no more than 20 square feet, and limits the time period for displaying political signs from 45 days before an election to ten days past an election.

But, Judge Steven Servaas of the 63rd District Court found the sign ordinance for the Gaines Township to be unconstitutional, agreeing with The Rutherford Institute's arguments that the ordinance violated the First Amendment because it treated commercial speech and advertising more favorably than political speech.
In September 2012, Gaines Township officials ordered Vern Verduin, who owns and operates a 40-acre cattle farm, to take down two political banners displayed on one of his farming trucks, which was parked on his private property.
Standing firm in his free speech rights and insisting that politics is a year-round discussion, Verduin continued to display the political banners and

Number of the Week: U.S. Youth Unemployment at 22.9%

Wall Street Journal ^ | 04/08/2013 | Ben Casselman

22.9%: The unemployment rate for Americans under age 25, adjusting for the decline in the labor force since the start of the recession.
Perhaps no group has been hit harder by the recession and grinding recovery than the young. The official unemployment rate for those under age 25 is 16.2%, more than double the rate for the population as a whole. In percentage terms, unemployment has fallen far more slowly for young people than for the wider population.
Those figures actually understate the severity of the problem, however. The government only considers people “unemployed” if they’re actively looking for work. People who stop looking—whether they’re retired, in school, raising a family or living on friends’ couches — are instead considered “not in the labor force,” even if they would prefer to work given the opportunity.
When the recession began in December, 2007, 59.2% of the under-25 population was in the labor force, meaning they were either working or looking for work. Today, that figure has fallen to 54.5%. That may not sound like a big drop, but it makes a huge difference. If the so-called participation rate had remained unchanged, there would be 1.8 million more young people in the labor force today than there actually are. Counting those people as unemployed, rather than out of the labor force, would push the unemployment rate up to 22.9%. That’s only a hair better than the 23.9% youth unemployment rate in the euro zone, and has shown only very modest improvement during the recovery.
The decline in the participation rate among the young can’t all be attributed to the recession. Labor force participation among young people peaked at just under 70% in 1989, and has trended downward ever since, primarily due to rising rates of college attendance.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Margaret Thatcher turned around Great Britain!

AEI ^ | 04/08/2013 | James Pethokoukis

Credit: Time
Credit: Time
“My job is to stop Britain going red.” – Margaret Thatcher, Nov. 3, 1977.
But the former UK prime minister, who died today, did far more than that. The Iron Lady reversed decades of statist policies that had turned Britain into the sick man of Europe. And in the process, Thatcherism provided inspiration for the burgeoning free-market revolution in America, as well. She privatized. She cut taxes. She busted unions. As economist Scott Sumner has noted, “Britain had lagged other European economies for decades, growing far more slowly than most economies on the continent. Thatcher’s reforms were among the most comprehensive in the world.”
Just compare the real per-person GDP performance of the UK economy versus the French economy. One nation in 1979 started to again embrace markets, the other did not. Brits went from being 10% poorer than Frenchmen to being 10% richer. The lady was not for turning, but thanks in great part to her policies and determination, the economic fate of the UK and the West was.
Thank you, Margaret Thatcher!

Documents 'damning' for Holder

WorldNetDaily ^ | Aug 8, 2013 | Taylor Rose

"Court fight over 'Fast and Furious' papers ratcheting up"
WASHINGTON – A court fight over documentation of the Fast and Furious scandal, where the U.S. government trafficked weapons to drug dealers in Mexico, is just ratcheting up now.
But Katie Pavlich, author of the New York Times bestseller “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up,”news editor of and an expert on the Fast and Furious scandal, says the documents will be “damning” for Attorney General Eric Holder, and possibly even President Obama.
She said both politicians should be concerned “based on the evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder chang[ed] his testimony multiple times under oath in front of Congress.”
“I think these documents are pretty damning to him,” she told WND in an exclusive interview.
It was reported just last month that a federal judge has ordered the House Oversight Committee and Holder to work with a mediator in their battle over the paperwork from the Fast and Furious scandal.
The 2009 exposure of Fast and Furious by whistleblowers revealed the government’s deliberate decision to sell guns to prohibited buyers and allow them to be taken to drug cartel operations in Mexico.
Read Pavlich’s comments about the government’s false flag operation against gun dealers as well as how the government retaliated against the whistleblowers who revealed the scandal.
Pavlich earlier revealed how the government, when the operation blew up, decided to attack and retaliate against the whistleblowers who brought to the public’s attention the misbehavior.
She also explained earlier to WND how the goal of the operation was to create a false flag situation that the Obama administration could use to lobby for more gun control.
It was U.S. District ........
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sandra Fluke, the Priest, and the Protestants

National Review ^ | 04/08/2013 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

Do you hear all the talk about the “inevitability” of same-sex marriage? Are you watching the second round of “war on women” ads aimed at opponents of the HHS mandate? President Obama insists that even employers who are opposed to abortion and contraception must provide insurance offering these options to their workers — and employers of religious organizations (even at family-run, long-established, morally oriented businesses) will receive no relief.
We need to take a deep breath and consider how these radical changes might affect our freedom.
On a secular campus in a major city — George Washington University in Washington, D.C. — a priest at the Catholic campus-ministry outpost has come under fire for voicing Church teaching on abortion and marriage from the pulpit and, perhaps the greatest of sins, for believing the doctrine so fervently that he actually counsels students against what the Church teaches to be sinful activity.
The controversy isn’t about homosexuality. It isn’t about sex. It isn’t even about Catholicism. It’s about freedom. Are we free to believe, preach, and openly practice certain ideas that may run counter to the beliefs and practices of others? Are pastors free to inform consciences?
A Protestant community in Montana helps bring this issue into focus. The Big Sky Colony is a self-sustaining farming community with religious roots in the Protestant Reformation. They take a vow of poverty, share communal property, and support one another through the farm. The state government is insisting that they provide workers’-compensation insurance to the members of the community. Luke Goodrich, their lawyer at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, points out that providing this insurance would be a “a direct violation of Hutterite vows to renounce private property, to receive no compensation for their work, and to resolve all their disputes without asserting legal claims.” This is a crucial case, Goodrich says, because “if the government can force the Hutterites to violate 500-year-old religious vows, no religion is safe from the government’s whims.”
The Hutterites are not being bad citizens or asking for special treatment. They “are gladly subject to a host of government taxes and regulations,” Goodrich points out. “They pay taxes on all of their agricultural produce. They follow all regulations governing their dairy, hog, and grain production. They provide comprehensive, modern medical care to all of their members. The one requirement they object to, and the one that violates 500 years of religious practice, is a new law requiring them to provide workers’ compensation to their members.” Labor interests in the state have complained that the Hutterites’ exemption gives them a “competitive advantage.” Montana’s new law moves away from an exemption the Hutterites have received for 100 years; they want to continue the century-old tradition.
The Big Sky case is an educational opportunity, a reminder that the United States has long been not only an example of religious freedom as an essential element of a flourishing republic; we’ve also been a haven to people who are fleeing persecution. The Hutterites “have withstood five centuries of persecution, but laws like this one could easily end up driving them out of Montana,” Goodrich says. “Nobody should have to flee the United States in order to practice their religion.”
“When can the state force religious believers to violate their conscience?” is the question at the heart of the Hutterite case, Goodrich says. This is also the question at the heart of the Sandra Fluke controversy, which the media have portrayed as an issue about a single woman and her freedom to use contraception. Does the government have the right to force people who have moral objections to abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization to pay for these procedures? No one is going to take away a woman’s access to contraception. But does, say, Cardinal Dolan have the right not to pay for it if this woman is working for him? Of course. Right?
That should be the easy question. Now: Do we have the right to insist that marriage, which we’ve long understood to be between a man and a woman, protect this definition as a matter of law? Or do we presume to remake the institution, thereby insisting that the man-and-woman connection is not necessary, that we were unenlightened to ever see it that way? And if we do that, are we condemning as bigots all those who still believe marriage is that ages-old, socially beneficent structure by which a man and a woman generally seek to raise children?
When we talk about tolerance and discrimination, we have to consider the full array of consequences. Once the law changes to mandate more tolerance of same-sex marriage, it’s hard to see how George Washington University can avoid discriminating against a priest who opposes the idea.
As we discuss these issues and soon process the aftermath of whatever the Supreme Court rules in two marriage cases, we ought to consider what is reasonable when it comes to government power and people with varying views and values. In our laws and cultural tradition, we are the stewards of a remarkable gift of religious liberty. We need to write laws that make distinctions and protect freedom. How can we make sure that we respect the rights of the priest, the cardinal, and the Hutterites, too?
— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online. This column is available exclusively through Andrews McMeel Universal’s Newspaper Enterprise Association. She is director of Catholic Voices USA.

Communism Won in America with Obama ^ | 26 Nov 2012 | Joe Miller

In an extraordinary column last week, Russia’s de facto government press arm declared that the era of “Miss American Pie” was over in the U.S. Citing Obama’s reelection, Pravda stated that the “Communists have won in America…”
Why? Because the US is “an illiterate society” that continues to buy off on Obama’s “lies of less taxes while he raises them.” The US educational system is also held responsible, with Pravda stating that it was “conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents.”
As you might have gathered, Pravda’s hit on Obama as a communist isn’t a glancing blow. It seems to be the overriding theme of the article:
He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.
Pravda also criticizes the growing American attack on religious freedom, saying that “Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

All the resources you need to stop the Senate from taking our guns

War to Mobilize Democracy ^ | April 7, 2013 | netWMD Staff

ACT NOW! if you want to keep your guns. This article provides citizens all the resources they need to stop extremist "gun control" advocates and explains why NOW is the time to act. If you think the democratic process doesn't work, remember that New Mexicans just beat ALL state gun control legislation in the 2013 session. Please read on...

Starting tomorrow and for possibly the next few weeks, President Obama and Senate Democrats led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), are going to do everything they can to destroy the Second Amendment, our great Constitution's guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." These anti-gun proponents have no scruples, and will do and/or say practically anything to disarm good citizens. Purportedly, Harry Reid is going to "use his gun bill to portray Republicans as 'rape supporters.'"

Coming up for consideration by the Senate is legislation "that would criminalize the private transfer of firearms between law-abiding Americans," would ban "assault weapons" and many other semi-autos, would ban "large-capacity magazines," would require a national gun registry (see here also), and impose taxes on the gun registration process.

Most of you know the implications of such anti-gun laws and have read much on the subject, so I will not dwell on those ramifications, just give you essential links to read here, here, here, and here.

Don't wait. Act now. Here are all the resources you need to beat the current wave of national anti-gun legislation:


Write a polite and factual letter to the president and each of your elected representatives in Washington. Keep it short and sweet and to the point (e.g., "I urge you to oppose Sen. Feinstein's and Sen. Schumer's gun control legislation"). State the facts by reading these links here and here. Follow up by calling each of your elected reps, making a short statement emphasizing what you composed in your letter (you can use any of the stock letters shown below). Using any/all of the following links, you'll find the resources you need to:

You can also contact information for all your elected representatives by clicking on these links:

Feel free to use our stock letters:

Feel free to distribute any of these take-action flyers:

Add/embed action-link code into your own website:

His Brain?

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Fight like a woman

Posted Image

A Gun...

Posted Image


Posted Image

...the most racist people

Posted Image

God & Guns

Posted Image

You don't need guns...

Posted Image

Irena Sendler

Posted Image

Liberal Logic

Posted Image

Broadcasters worry about 'Zero TV' homes

AP ^ | 4/7/13 | RYAN NAKASHIMA

Some people have had it with TV. They've had enough of the 100-plus channel universe. They don't like timing their lives around network show schedules. They're tired of $100-plus monthly bills.
A growing number of them have stopped paying for cable and satellite TV service, and don't even use an antenna to get free signals over the air. These people are watching shows and movies on the Internet, sometimes via cellphone connections. Last month, the Nielsen Co. started labeling people in this group "Zero TV" households, because they fall outside the traditional definition of a TV home. There are 5 million of these residences in the U.S., up from 2 million in 2007.
Winning back the Zero TV crowd will be one of the many issues broadcasters discuss at their national meeting, called the NAB Show, taking place this week in Las Vegas.
While show creators and networks make money from this group's viewing habits through deals with online video providers and from advertising on their own websites and apps, broadcasters only get paid when they relay such programming in traditional ways. Unless broadcasters can adapt to modern platforms, their revenue from Zero TV viewers will be zero.
"Getting broadcast programing on all the gizmos and gadgets — like tablets, the backseats of cars, and laptops — is hugely important," says Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters.
Although Wharton says more than 130 TV stations in the U.S. are broadcasting live TV signals to mobile devices, few people have the tools to receive them. Most cellphones require an add-on device known as a dongle, but these gadgets are just starting to be sold.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...