Monday Musings

Happy Monday SUFA 🙂 As we head towards the first holiday weekend of the summer, the political landscape is full of scandals and the weather has been deadly in many parts of the MidWest.  The latest was  a trailer park in Shawnee, Oklahoma.    As a kid, we always thought trailer parks as tornado magnets.  I would not choose to live in one in tornado alley.   We all somehow live in areas that can have deadly weather events.  All of these events are horrible for those affected.   As we watch these events unfold, let’s not pretend that planning for these types of events isn’t important.   Do your best to understand what events may affect your area, and prepare as best you can for them.   In some cases such as hurricanes, floods  and wildfires, evacuation may be the best plan.  For people dealing with blizzards or lengthy power outages, staying home may be in order.  Have a storm cellar where tornados are common.   Regardless of location, plan ahead and stay safe.



  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. “Four months later, former White House communications director Anita Dunn in 2009 said of Fox, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Well, maybe these words explain the IRS scandal!

    Use the IRS to shut up your opposition and use the DOJ to intimidate the press. And constantly work to divide Americans based on political affiliation. Might work too-if the American people continue to allow it.

    The Obama Administration’s Two-Front War on Fox
    By John Fund
    May 20, 2013 9:50 AM

    The Washington Post is reporting that the Justice Department took extraordinary steps to investigate Fox News reporter James Rosen for possible leaks of classified information
    about North Korea:”It used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails.”

    Context is everything. The very same month Justice’s probe into Rosen’s story began, the Obama administration’s war on Fox News began. As NRO’s Eliana Johnson has reported:

    In June of 2009, the president complained about a “certain cable network” devoted entirely to attacking his administration. Four months later, former White House communications director Anita Dunn in 2009 said of Fox, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” adding, “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” The administration went on to try to exclude Fox from the network pool that covers the White House, making a recent appointee — pay czar Kenneth Feinberg — available for interviews to every network but Fox. When the other networks refused to conduct the interview until Fox was included, the White House relented. But the verbal assault continued, with Obama telling Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 that the network represents a point of view that is “ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.”

    The public war that the Obama administration waged against Fox News was ugly enough. Perhaps with the Washington Post story we are now seeing the tip of the iceberg regarding the administration’s private war against Fox News.

  3. Yes-Let’s

    May 20, 2013
    A smoking gun in IRS scandal?
    Rick Moran

    Via Ed Morrissey, Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator has tracked down either a fascinating coincidence or a smoking gun that puts Obama right in the middle of the IRS scandal.

    (Note AS website isn’t loading at the moment – no doubt because of massive traffic)

    According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

    The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

    Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30

    In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

    The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

    April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

    In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

    The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

    Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country.

    Lord presents compelling evidence and makes a reasoned, logical argument. Read the entire article for some additional background on executive orders and other meetings between Kelley and Obama.

    But, in the end, the possibility of coincidence is still there. The role that coincidence plays in history is undeniable and even the most outrageous juxtapositions that one would think couldn’t possibly happen, do indeed occur.

    The tragic coincidence of Oswald getting a job at the book deposity less than 2 months before Kennedy visited Dallas is one such coincidence. How about the coincidence of the terrorist Gavrilo Princip who remarkably, happened to be buying a sandwich in a shop when the Archduke Ferdinand’s car – having taken a wrong turn – stopped right in front of the door, allowing the young assassin to kill the duke and begin the series of events that led to World War I.

    These are the “What If’s” of history and to ignore coincidence is to be made to look foolish.

    We don’t know what the president and union chief talked about. Nor do we know what we have here except some very troubling facts. At the very least, there are questions that Congress needs to ask the right people.

    Thomas Lifson adds:

    Everyone, even Dana Milbank, knows that President Passerby is not a detail guy, that he doesn’t involve himself in the details. So why is he meeting with the head of one of the government employee unions? He doesn’t do routine meetings. So what was the important business that required a presidential appointment for Kelley?

    Okay, this is not ebnough to convict in a court of law, but it is a damning peice of evidence nonetheless.

    Rick Moran responds that, “actually, we’d have to know if he meets with other govt employee union heads. Could be routine.”

    So let’s find out.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  4. I agree, in this instance, lets follow the lead of Obama and his administration-lets fire the top people and stop allowing the elite to blame the little guys who are only following the directives of their bosses- so they can keep their jobs and feed their families.

    May 20, 2013
    If Government Were a Business, Obama Would Already Be Fired
    By William Sullivan

    Let’s begin by stating the obvious. If government were a business, and subject to economic realities and the consequences of its ignoring them, it would have been liquidated long ago — its remaining assets of value would have been reclaimed by its creditors and shareholders (both of which are the American taxpayer), and its market share of consumers (also the American taxpayer, and those they are gracious enough to financially support) would be sought by other, more efficient businesses.

    But let’s pretend for a moment that it is a business. And let’s pretend that this business had engaged not only in unethical practices, but illegal practices, completely betraying the trust of its shareholders and customers and and disavowing the very foundational principles upon which its business is predicated.

    The IRS, an agency under the control of this government that Obama assures youngsters is no threat to liberty whatsoever, has done exactly that. They have apologized for selectively harassing, excessively scrutinizing, and denying benefits to conservative groups these last years.

    Of particular note, the Treasury Department’s inspector general J. Russell George disclosed on Friday that the Obama administration officials were well aware of his auditing the IRS for its political screening policies in June 2012. Convenient as the IRS’s targeting of Democrats’ enemies was, the Obama administration chose not to reveal any of this knowledge to the public in the 2012 election year, yet it now feigns shock and indignation at the prospect that the IRS could have acted irresponsibly and illegally.

    Transparency, indeed.

    Obama is reasonably implicated in this crime, and this crime is nothing short of tyranny.

    The IRS acted in direct defiance of that most hallowed of our laws, purposefully enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which ensures that a free people’s right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is to be protected by the government. The people are not to be punished by the government against which that petition is directed.

    Would the First Amendment have any purpose at all, if not to forbid the government from doing exactly this? And yet IRS commissioner Steven Miller appears to seemingly perjure himself before Congress, suggesting that the agency has done nothing illegal, despite having admitted and apologized for its disregard of the First Amendment.

    As Jon Stewart regretfully admits, there is good reason the IRS would seek to punish groups that teach and study the Constitution while the IRS blatantly subverts the concepts to be found therein.

    There is no hyperbole too strong to describe this revelation. The IRS is now the Tax Gestapo, the Party Enforcer, and the soon-to-be Ministry of Worthiness when it comes to acquiring health care.

    And as the president gives lip service about his concern, other Democrats express outrage, Republicans finally embrace the opportunity to lace into the administration for its disregard for the Constitution, and grassroots conservatives, beaten and battered by a government leviathan they could not defend against, are justifiably expressing their discontent. But the question is, whose heads figuratively roll for this injustice?

    It should be simple. If government were a business, Timothy Geithner and the rest of the IRS Oversight Board would not have the political protection to pass the blame. They would be held accountable to the fullest extent possible for violating our most sacred of laws.

    And for the same reason, Obama arguing that he was ignorant of the offense, which now appears to be a lie (his administration, at least, was made aware), would not hold the slightest bit of water — if government were a business.

    In the world of business, and in the real world outside government, leadership is invariably implicated in failure. John Maxwell, in his book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, refers to this as “The Law of the Lid.” Of the 21 laws, it’s Number One. summarizes this law this way: “Your leadership is like a lid or a ceiling on your organization. Your church or business will not rise beyond the level your leadership allows. That’s why when a corporation or team needs to be fixed, they fire the leader.”

    Again, it’s pertinent to note: this is law number one, and it is step number one — the one thing that must happen before anything else can happen. The leadership must be fired.

    Also pertinent to note is that the government seems well aware of this law.

    Government recognized that figurehead leadership is inescapably culpable for the actions of those divisions under that leadership. When the government assumed control of GM and its operations, and when they assumed control of AIG’s operations, the government immediately removed the CEOs of both in efforts to “fix” the companies. They knew without question that this was the first step on the road to recovery.

    How can the government now defend the notion that the guys at the top are barely, if at all, culpable for the IRS’s actions, irrespective of the extensively large and impossibly cumbersome network of agencies that this administration and the government now oversee?

    If government were a business, Obama would have already been fired. If we lived in a sane world, impeachment proceedings against him and criminal proceedings against the IRS executives involved would begin forthwith.

    And if sense applied prevalently in Americans’ appraisal of this bloated and exceedingly powerful government, we would demand in unison that the government eliminate the excess by slimming it down, reducing the influence and reach of its agencies, and thereby making this necessary evil, as Thomas Paine profoundly reminds us that government is, a more efficient and less intrusive evil.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  5. I have emailed my accountant to let him know I am involved in Tea Party activities, was a True the Vote volunteer during Walker’s recall and based on this adm’s criteria, could be subject to an audit. What a third world country this adm and its believers have turned us into.

  6. May 20, 2013
    What Hurts the Most about Benghazi

    By Karin McQuillan

    I can’t look my old liberal friends in the eye after Benghazi. Most partisan disagreements are forgivable, and I try hard not to lose dear friends over politics. Benghazi is different. Benghazi isn’t political for me. Benghazi is about Americans fighting jihadis for their lives and being abandoned to die by politicians. It is about Obama and Clinton calculating what the headlines would look like if they tried to save them or if they did nothing. They chose nothing, and they almost got away with it.

    David Gelernter points out on that,

    It was the radically partisan Edward Kennedy who proposed that a senate select committee investigate Watergate-but in February 1973, the Senate voted unanimously to create that committee. Republican Senator Howard Baker was vice chairman, and asked the key question: “What did the president know and when did he know it?” Which Democratic senator will ask that question today…?

    So how do I look my friends in the eye?

    This is the question that haunts me. Do Democrats – not the party leaders, not mainstream journalists whose job depends on Democratic Party loyalty – would ordinary, real people, all those regular Democrat voters – would they care if they did pay attention? That is the heart of my curiosity. Because I care so viscerally about Americans serving our country being betrayed for political gain. There’s something truly awful about Obama and Hillary sacrificing men’s lives because attempting to protect them would be inconvenient to his election campaign, to her political ambition.

    Surely ordinary Democrats understand that underlings don’t decide to withhold military or emergency assistance to 34 Americans under attack from jihadis on 9/11?

    I’d like to understand. Do Democrat voters truly think these actions by a President and Secretary of State are not important? I know we are different on many questions of war and peace and diplomacy. But this is a small, human story. A handful of men, attacked by Islamists, fighting for their lives, abandoned for election politics. We don’t do that in America and pretend it’s okay, do we?

    This isn’t about differences of opinion on the war on terror. It’s about pure, raw, election politics, and calculus about headlines, and counting votes, and the fear it will look bad if Osama bin Laden’s death didn’t solve very much at all.

    There is no politician in America who has the right to sacrifice another man’s life to avoid a difficult headline.

    There is nothing confusing about what happened that night and in the following weeks. We don’t need all the gritty and ugly details, easily available on the internet. It is obvious that Obama and Hillary had to issue the directives. The CIA or the military would not ignore a terrorist attack on a U.S. embassy on 9/11. Both CIA chief, General Petraeus, and AFRICOM’S commander, General Ham, said they did not issue orders to not intervene. The directive could only come from our Commander in Chief. Can you imagine if no one asked President George Bush how to respond to 9/11 because he was busy talking to elementary school children? President Obama was not even busy. He just retired for the night, we are told. He was told about what was happening and he did…nothing.

    There was no meeting of the national security team in the situation room, so familiar to us all from the President’s Bin Laden photo op. Obama did not talk again with his Secretary of Defense. American military forces stationed 600 miles away in Sicily – one hour and fourteen minutes away by a commercial airliner – were not sent. We didn’t send medical personnel. After the first attack, we didn’t send men to secure the annex. Pleas for help were ignored. Special operating forces in Libya were ordered twice to not go to the rescue. The men in Benghazi were left on their own to fight and die.

    Obvious lies were issued by Obama and Hillary in the days that followed. They were stupid lies, already belied by the events – blaming a video, denying it had anything to do with 9/11. Asked by a campaign reporter if requests for help were denied, Obama said he ordered “Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” But far from ‘whatever we need to’ Obama’s administration and military did nothing at all.

    Asked why the U.S. military did not do more, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday the first rule in such a situation is not to deploy troops into harm’s way …

    Clearly no orders reached Panetta to “do whatever we need to” to secure personnel. Obama’s and Clinton’s lies were offensively transparent the moment they uttered them.

    Those men in Benghazi, beloved by their families, brave, patriotic men serving their country, were abandoned to die because the attack on an embassy didn’t match the campaign talking points about the brilliance of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy. There wasn’t supposed to be a 9/11 attack after killing bin Laden and Clinton’s signature policy, the Arab Spring.

    Apparently it was deemed less politically damaging for Obama to withhold rescuers, go to bed, go to Las Vegas the next day, and then lie about what happened. Obama’s calculus was right. He understood our media’s unbridled and corrupt support for him. He understood how Romney could be bullied by the press into silence. He understood how willing and motivated Democrat voters were to accept his lies about Benghazi.

    Obama calculated he could get away with it before the election, and he did. Clinton calculated her supporters would care less, and she is still right. She knew that the interviews of the family members, their pleas for justice, would not touch the hearts of her followers – and she was right. The abandonment of those men was condoned and covered up and excused with alacrity by the entire Democrat political apparatus, including the Democrat media.

    They got away with it because Democrat followers don’t care.

    That is as immoral as it comes for me.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    I’m gonna add a ? to that second to last comment.

  7. Did a lot of reading on left sites yesterday-the articles don’t bother me all that much but the comment sections-just makes one feel like America is doomed. None of these scandels matter per these comments because 1. the white man just doesn’t want a black man in the Presidency or 2. the conservatives deserve it.

  8. Abortion Doc Who Kept Remains of 35 Aborted Babies Loses License

    by Cheryl Sullenger | Annapolis, MD | | 5/20/13 12:17 PM

    The Maryland Board of Physicians has permanently revoked the license of abortionist Nicola I. Riley in a scathing 24-page order issued May 6, 2013, that prohibits her from ever again applying for licensure or reinstatement of her license.

    “In view of the fraudulent and deceptive nature of Dr. Riley’s criminal conduct, her demonstrated lack of candor and integrity on her application to the Board and to Utah and Wyoming, and her demonstrated propensity for dishonesty and misrepresentation, Dr. Riley’s unprofessional conduct is not remediable,” stated the Board. “In light of the unprofessional manner in which she treated this critically damaged patient, the Board does not believe that Maryland patients would be safe in the hands of this physician. Dr. Riley’s fraudulent acts and unprofessional treatment of the patient merit the permanent revocation of her medical license in this State.”

    Riley’s license was first suspended in September, 2010, after having perforated the uterus and pulled out a bowel of a patient at a secret late-term abortion clinic in Elkton operated by the notorious abortionist Steven Chase Brigham. Complaints were filed by the Elkton Police and a physician at a Baltimore hospital where the patient was air-lifted for emergency surgery that saved her life. Physicians who treated the patient found that part of her fetus had been shoved into her abdominal cavity when Riley ruptured her uterus. Her ability to bear children in the future is in doubt. [Read the full account with links to Board Interview Transcripts]

    Police raided the Elkton facility and found the remains of 35 frozen late-term aborted babies. Riley and Brigham were arrested and charged with murder of the babies, but charges were dropped when an expert witness who planned to testify that all the babies died in Maryland withdrew from the case under pressure from the abortion lobby.

    Brigham, who has no license in Maryland, operated the clandestine bi-state abortion business that was designed to evade the laws that banned him from doing abortions in New Jersey after 14 weeks. Maryland has no gestational limit on abortions, making it a haven for those who seek quick profits from the lucrative late-term abortion market where fees can range from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars.

    Brigham would begin the very late abortions at his office in Voorhees, New Jersey, then caravan the women in full blown labor down to Elkton, Maryland, where the abortions would be completed with the aid of Riley. Brigham asserted that since all the babies died in New Jersey on the first day he saw them that Maryland had no jurisdiction to prosecute him. New Jersey has failed to pursue a criminal case against Brigham.

    Riley was reamed by the Board for failing to have an emergency plan for complications at the Elkton abortion clinic, failing to call for emergency help for at least an hour and a half after she pulled the bowel during a difficult abortion, and for transporting her critically injured patient to a nearby hospital in the back seat of Brigham’s rental car.

    Of the decision to transport the patient in a private vehicle, the Board stated:

    Dr. Riley’s decision was also faulty and unprofessional because it involved lifting up a consciously sedated ad slumped-over patient in order to move her from the operating table to a wheelchair, from a wheelchair to the car, and from the car onto another wheelchair before arrival at the Union Hospital ER…The patient’s bowel, usually in a sterile compartment in the abdominal cavity, was protruding in to her unsterile vagina. [An expert for the State] opined that lifting her up, putting her in a seated position and moving her around in this manner risked further prolapsed of bowel into that area and causing injury to a longer length of bowel.

    “Transporting patients via personal vehicle is an all-too common practice in the abortion industry, which is done to conceal the fact that a patient suffered an injury,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Abortionists everywhere must be held accountable when they engage in this dangerous practice.”

    Riley was also found to have engaged in fraud and deception when she blatantly lied on her Maryland medical license application about a previous felony conviction. The Board also found that Riley lied to obtain licensure in Wyoming and her home state of Utah.

    Riley downplayed a “no contest” felony conviction while serving in the military in 1990, indicating that she failed to report an identity theft and credit card fraud scheme that was being carried out by others under her command. She told the Board that the military records were “sealed due to my top secret security clearance” and that her personal records had been destroyed in a storage fire, giving the Board the false impression that her criminal records were unattainable.

    In reality, Riley pled guilty to her direct involvement in the identity theft and credit card. Riley would take personal information of other servicemen and fraudulently obtain credit cards that she would use to purchase expensive jewelry and other items.

    Operation Rescue discovered Riley’s conviction and obtained her court records from the U.S. Army, which were then forwarded to Wyoming and Utah. As a result, Wyoming forced Riley to relinquish her medical license. However, Utah was slow to act and allowed Riley to continue practicing under the restriction that she not engage in the practice of abortion.

    “We have forwarded Riley’s Maryland revocation decision to the authorities in Utah and have urged them to permanently revoke Riley’s fraudulently-obtained license there as well,” said Newman.

    As for Brigham, there is nothing the Maryland authorities can legally do.

    “Unfortunately, because Riley’s cohort, Brigham, has no license in Maryland, he is outside their jurisdiction and cannot be punished,” said Newman. “His New Jersey medical license, the only one he has left, is under suspension, but that has not stopped him from operating his chain of abortion clinics that continue to prey on vulnerable in at least three states.”


    Recently, Brigham’s two remaining Pennsylvania abortion clinics were forced to close, but he continues to operate abortion clinics in New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia.

    “If Riley is too dangerous to see patients in Maryland, that means she is too dangerous to see patients in Utah or any other state. It also means Brigham is too dangerous to continue operating his shady abortion clinics as well,” said Newman.

  9. Wow-Kathy take a look at this-Lots of people need to go to jail and never get out. It is more than obvious that our government is using all it’s powers to attack these organizations by attacking their livelyhood.

    • Yep – this is what I was referencing above. Saw her on Huckabee show yesterday. True the Vote is the organization that was cross referencing all the Walker recall petitions and I was a volunteer with them.

      Jail is too good a place for the evil that is this administration and those that do their dirty deeds. No need for tax payers to continue to pay for their existence. Slip them a mickey and be done.

  10. So it wasn’t “Citizens United” “Citizens United”? But, but, but…..

  11. “The abortion lobby claims that as long as we have tight regulations on abortion, a black market will exist. Abortion, they argue, is like any product or service that consumers want and government prohibits or overregulates. If they can’t get what they want legally, they will get it illegally.”

    I would really like for pro-abortion people to contemplate what the above words mean. The abortion pushers have been using the back alley abortion as one of the main reasons why we must allow abortions-but if you look at their words it is clear that there is no time during a pregnancy where not allowing an abortion would relieve us of being guilty for causing back alley abortions. So forget viability as a stopping point-they will not be happy and will not stop pushing until abortion is on demand through-out the whole pregnancy. Let’s face it the whole “choice” argument demands it too- since the baby is still a part of the mother after 24 or in some cases 27 weeks of pregnancy.

    Then let’s look at the argument of disabled babies being aborted-well if that argument works before the baby is born, why shouldn’t it work after the baby is born.

    Why Do “Pro-Choice” People Promote Abortion Instead of Childbirth?

    by Star Parker | Washington, DC | | 5/20/13 9:44 AM

    With the convictions in the case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell – three counts of murdering live babies and one count of involuntary manslaughter – abortion is back in the national discussion.

    It’s pretty clear from the Grand Jury report that, during Gosnell’s thirty plus year career, he likely murdered hundreds, if not thousands of babies. But because of the difficulty in documenting it all, he was just convicted of three.

    Reports now are coming in from around the nation indicating that more Gosnells are out there.

    The abortion lobby claims that as long as we have tight regulations on abortion, a black market will exist. Abortion, they argue, is like any product or service that consumers want and government prohibits or overregulates. If they can’t get what they want legally, they will get it illegally.

    We also hear that we get Gosnells when government refuses to pay for the abortions of poor women. The Hyde Amendment, they say, which prohibits Medicaid compensation for abortion, makes unsafe abortion inevitable.

    Poor women, according to this reasoning, desperate because of an unwanted pregnancy, pressed because regulations and costs make abortion difficult to get, turn to sleazebag doctors, who will do it cheaply, with no regard for the woman, the law, or safety.

    But it is ironic that those who call themselves “pro-choice” argue that the only alternatives facing low-income women are unsafe abortions done by sleazebags or government subsidized abortions.

    There is another choice, but those who call themselves “pro-choice” don’t want women, particularly poor women, to consider this option.

    This option is called birth.

    When conservatives talk about a culture of responsibility, we’re not just talking about the personal responsibility of the individual in trouble. We’re talking about the personal responsibility of the rest of us toward that individual.

    There are now thousands of crisis pregnancy centers operating nationwide. Over 2000 are affiliated with either Care Net or Heartbeat International. I maintain a regular active speaking schedule for and consult with these centers.

    They work with pregnant women in trouble and provide them the services they need to have their child. They provide ultrasound, parental counseling, life management counseling, help with the physical needs of the mother and child, and, if need be, help with adoption services.

    Unwanted pregnancies often are the result of loneliness, fear, and lack of information. Crisis pregnancy centers deal with all this

    The left, so called “pro-choice” activists, have an interesting concept of a culture of responsibility. That is to promote a culture that detaches sex from love and responsibility, that minimizes the central importance of family, that justifies youth sex, promiscuity, and the “hook-up” culture. In short, a culture which encourages people to relate to each other in the same callous way as it encourages women to relate to the unborn children that often result from it all.

    Then they want taxpayers, other people, to foot the bill.

    Is it any wonder we live in a country in which we are drowning in debt directly as a result of this culture of entitlement?

    Planned Parenthood, which rakes in hundreds of millions in the abortion business, actively discourages women from going to crisis pregnancy centers.

    On the Planned Parenthood website, they call these centers “fake clinics…that have a history of giving women wrong and biased information”.

    These crisis pregnancy centers are financed and run by committed Christian Americans where women often, for the first time in their lives, experience love and meaning.

    The information they get, that Planned Parenthood calls “wrong and biased,” is that life should be chosen over death and that responsibility is a community affair.

    It is not a given that we must live in a country of promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion. We do have choice.

    We can reprogram the destructive culture that we have created and in which we now live.

  12. Yes, lets talk to the seam. 🙂

    Let’s Exploit Liberal Hypocrisy
    Kurt Schlichter | May 20, 2013

    Some establishment types are shaking their heads as they warn conservatives that we must not politicize the Administration’s Benghazi bungling, its Obamacare shakedowns, its AP records grab or its IRS abuses.

    Like hell we mustn’t. We must. Big time.

    The last couple weeks’ revelations of fresh and compelling examples of the kind of duplicity and petty tyranny we conservatives have been screaming about for five years have presented us with what military folks call a “seam.” A “seam” is the border where two different units meet, and it is generally the kind of weak point you want to drive your forces into in order to split your opponent’s front and rout him. These latest scandals have revealed a seam between two elements of the liberal coalition, the liberals who actually believe some of what they say and the cynical leftists who merely crave power.

    Let’s split that seam.

    But to do so, conservatives must ignore the voices of the fussy and the fainthearted and ruthlessly exploit it. We can and should – and must – politicize the hell out of these shameful imbroglios.

    There’s nothing wrong with politicizing politics. In fact, it’s kind of difficult to imagine why politics shouldn’t be politicized – politics is, after all, by definition political. In fact, it’s only this week, after it became inconvenient, that the liberal establishment changed its collective mind and determined that politicization was once again a bad thing. It was a good thing when liberals were slobbering at the chance to use the massacre of innocents by a lunatic to deprive law-abiding citizens of their sacred fundamental right to keep and bear effective arms. Back then, politicizing misfortune was not only A-OK but a moral imperative.

    This week, not so much.

    The hypocrisy surrounding the concept of politicization illustrates the opportunity conservatives have had fall into their collective lap as a result of this tsunami of scandals. Today’s liberalism is a festival of hypocrisy, of purported values solemnly praised and heartily defended right up until the second it stops being in the interest of liberalism to do so. At that point, these sacred values get discarded like so many whiskey bottles in the Kennedy compound’s recycling bin.

    Of course, no discussion of liberal hypocrisy could begin without a reference to Teddy Kennedy, who did his part in the War on Women by personally running up the casualty rate. Bill Clinton was another friend of women, at least until they complained about him and were insulated by his liberal guardians.

    Liberal champions of minorities didn’t hesitate to make an icon of Robert Byrd, who was either a Grand Imperial Cyclops or an Exalted Kleagle in the Democrat-founded KKK. And the liberal champions of the innocent and the helpless won’t help you if you are too innocent or helpless – if you are, say, a fetus you are out of luck.

    The current administration’s love of civil rights and liberties came to an end about the time the President removed his hand from the Bible in January 2009. Free speech was an awesome concept when liberals were using it against their opponents. But once liberals took power, free speech became an appalling obstacle to true progress. Freedom of religion stopped being important when some religious people abused that right by opposing liberal initiatives on religious grounds. And as for the Second Amendment, well, don’t let the text fool you into thinking it gives you any rights.

    If it was to the Administration’s short term political advantage to quarter soldiers in private houses without the consent of the owner they would be showing the Third Amendment the door.

    We now have an Administration that lied about what happened in Benghazi, and is now lying about its lies. We have a cabinet secretary shaking down healthcare companies for “donations” to a propaganda fund for Obamacare. We have the government grabbing up reporters’ cellphone records, and we have the IRS randomly selecting for persecution people and entities who just happen to oppose the regime’s goals.

    For some liberals, this is just too much to swallow, and we should focus on splitting them out of the liberal coalition. This is the seam.

    We spend so much time seeing and reading the ravings of the zombie liberals of the media and the blogs that we forget there is another group of liberals who are liberal because – for whatever misguided reason – they think liberalism is the right way to be. In other words, there are liberals who actually believe what liberalism used to purport to support – including civil rights, civil liberties and the rights of traditionally disadvantaged people.

    It is interesting that from those ranks come some of the most dedicated and effective conservative activists – people who became conservative not because they changed their views but because they didn’t. Liberalism left them. They believe in individual rights and in equality before the law. They hate prejudice and bigotry in all their ugly forms. They embrace every individual’s value, and want to see every individual have a chance to live and to succeed.

    They are people like Andrew Breitbart. Andrew was not born a conservative. He wasn’t raised a right-winger. He started out a liberal, but he actually took seriously what liberals said. His great sin – and why he was and is so hated by liberals – is that he refused to stop believing in those values when those values stopped being useful. His outrage was not that liberals were liberal; it was that establishment liberals were liars, that they struck poses as defenders of what was true and good and then abandoned them without a second thought if another pose better served their purpose.

    This is the seam, the liberals who have a sense of right and wrong, who truly believe in the values the liberal establishment merely pays lip service too. You can see them tentatively raising their heads in response to the avalanche of scandals, noting that maybe the Administration could be a bit more forthcoming on Benghazi, that perhaps siccing government enforcers on political opponents is a bad thing to do.

    They sense the truth, and they need time to get their head around it. Liberalism has left them too.

    This is why it is no time to go all wobbly. This is why it is no time to ease up on the accelerator. The unvarnished truth, presented clearly, forthrightly and undeniably, will be a wedge that drives them out of the liberal coalition.

    Now that the mainstream media has itself felt the clammy grasp of government oppression, for the first time since the inauguration the White House has reason to fear the headlines in the morning papers. The press senses blood in the water, and some elements of it seem to be stirring out of their lethargy and spinning up into a well-deserved feeding frenzy.

    As conservatives, we should not overplay our hand. We should not babble about impeachment or oversell the revelations. We should let the media be the delivery system for the bad news – it’s a lot harder to shoot the messenger when the messenger is the undeniably liberal Washington Post.

    But politicize it we must – in hearings, on talk shows, to reporters. We have found the seam. Our wedge is truth. And we need to drive it in with a sledgehammer.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Bad strategy unless it is coupled with GOOD policies and even BETTER people running for office.

      The OLD GUARD has to be the target………regardless of party.

      OUT with the OLD and IN with the NEW.

      • Don’t at all understand why keeping these scandals in the public eye is a bad idea no matter what else happens-although I do see the importance of pointing a finger at all big government cronies.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Ignoring these things is why they continue. Voting in Federal elections is a joke!

          • Not voting vs. ignoring-seems to lead to the same outcome. 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              All voting does is allow the corruption to continue on, unfettered. Please, explain how this will change under the current 2 party situation, I’m curious. 😉

    • The “charity” run by President Barack Obama’s half-brother that was fast-tracked for IRS tax-exempt status is based at a Virginia UPS store, according to its website.

      The organization’s IRS filings list another Virginia address that is actually a drug rehab center where the foundation does not appear ever to have been based.

      The Barack H. Obama Foundation is run by Abon’go “Roy” Malik Obama, the half-brother of Barack Obama.

      As first reported by The Daily Caller, the foundation was speedily approved for IRS exemption by Lois Lerner, the IRS senior official at the center of the targeting of conservative organizations that have waited over two years to receive tax exempt status. (RELATED: IRS official Lerner speedily approved exemption for Obama brother’s ‘charity’)

      The charity was even given retroactive tax-exempt status despite never having bothered to apply for it. And its history of soliciting donations before receiving tax-exempt status was apparently overlooked.

      The address listed on the site is 107 S. West St. #401, Alexandria, Va., which houses a UPS store on a street that includes a tailor, a Catholic Charities thrift shop and a Gold Works jewelry store.

      “They probably just rent a mailbox here or receive mail here,” said a UPS employee when asked if the store was the address for the Barack H. Obama Foundation. She did not know if Malik Obama, who his website says divides his time between Kenya and Virginia, had been in to the store.

      A visit to the UPS store revealed that there is a mailbox numbered 401.


      The address listed in the group’s IRS filings — 4201 Wilson Blvd. Ste 110-152, Arlington, Va. 22030 — is even more suspicious, as it is a marketing center for A Better Today Recovery Services — a drug-and-alcohol treatment organization.

      A receptionist who answered the phone at A Better Today said neither she nor anybody in the office had heard of the Barack H. Obama Foundation. She said A Better Today had been located at the Arlington address for “a couple years.” The IRS filings that list the Arlington address as the foundation’s headquarters were dated May 2011.

      Read more:

      • He He He-I can’t help but laugh-which is better than my first inclination-or maybe it’s not but it’s better than jail.

  13. Oklahoma-the distruction is so bad-must pray for these people.

  14. Hmmmm, for the life of me-I cannot think of any reason, why the reason these people where blamed would need to be classified.

    Exclusive: Hillary’s Benghazi ‘Scapegoat’ Speaks Out
    by Josh Rogin May 20, 2013 2:53 PM EDT

    Raymond Maxwell, the only official at the State Department’s bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to lose his job after the attacks, tells Josh Rogin that he’s been scapegoated by Hillary Clinton’s team.

    Following the attack in Benghazi, senior State Department officials close to Hillary Clinton ordered the removal of a mid-level official who had no role in security decisions and has never been told the charges against him. He is now accusing Clinton’s team of scapegoating him for the failures that led to the death of four Americans last year.

    Raymond Maxwell was placed on forced “administrative leave” after the State Department’s own internal investigation, conducted by an Administrative Review Board (ARB) led by former State Department official Tom Pickering. Five months after he was told to clean out his desk and leave the building, Maxwell remains in professional and legal limbo, having been associated publicly with the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American for reasons that remain unclear.

    Maxwell, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs from August 2011 until his removal last December, following tours in Iraq and Syria, spoke publicly for the first time in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast.

    “The overall goal is to restore my honor,” said Maxwell, who has now filed grievances regarding his treatment with the State Department’s human resources bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the interests of foreign-service officers. The other three officials placed on leave were in the diplomatic security bureau, leaving Maxwell as the only official in the bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which had responsibility for Libya, to lose his job.

    “I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” he said.

    Maxwell was removed from his job on Dec. 18, the day after the ARB report was released, and subsequently placed on administrative leave, which is meant to give the State Department time to investigate whether Maxwell should be fired or return to work. Five months later, that investigation seems stalled and Maxwell sits at home, where he continues to be paid but is not allowed to return to his job.

    The State Department declined to comment on the reasons that Maxwell and the other officials were placed on administrative leave, or on what the four were told about the reasons for the decision. It did confirm that the ARB did not recommend direct disciplinary action because it didn’t find misconduct or a direct breach of duty by the officials. “As a matter of policy, we don’t speak to specific personnel matters,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

    Since the leave is not considered a formal disciplinary action, Maxwell has no means to appeal the status, as he would if he had been outright fired. To this day, he says, nobody from the State Department has ever told him why he was singled out for discipline. He has never had access to the classified portion of the ARB report, where all of the details regarding personnel failures leading up to Benghazi are confined. He also says he has never been shown any evidence or witness testimony linking him to the Benghazi incident.

    Maxwell says he had planned to retire last September, but extended his time voluntarily after the Sept. 11 attack to help the bureau in its time of need. Now, he is refusing to retire until his situation is clarified. He is seeking a restoration of his previous position, a public statement of apology from State, reimbursement for his legal fees, and an extension of his time in service to equal the time he has spent at home on administrative leave.

    “For any FSO being at work is the essence of everything and being deprived of that and being cast out was devastating,” he said.

    Soon after being removed from his job, Maxwell was visited at his home late one evening and directed to sign a letter acknowledging his administrative leave and forfeiting his right to enter the State Department. He refused to sign, responding in writing that it amounted to an admission he had done something wrong.

    “They just wanted me to go away but I wouldn’t just go away,” he said. “I knew Chris [Stevens]. Chris was a friend of mine.”

    “Behind Beth’s back, Maxwell ended up being put on administrative leave.”

    The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately.

    “Cheryl Mills directed me to remove you immediately from the [deputy assistant secretary] position,” Jones told Maxwell, according to Maxwell.

    The decision to remove Maxwell and not Jones seems to conflict with the finding of the ARB that responsibility for the security failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi should fall on more senior officials.

    “We fixed [the responsibility] at the assistant secretary level, which is in our view the appropriate place to look, where the decision-making in fact takes place, where, if you like, the rubber hits the road,” Pickering said when releasing the ARB report.

    The report found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department,” namely the Diplomatic Security (DS) and Near East bureaus. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns testified in December that requests for more security in Libya, denied by the State Department, did reach the assistant secretaries and “it may be that some of my colleagues on the 7th floor saw them as well.”

    But Jones was not disciplined in any way following the release of the report, nor was the principal deputy assistant secretary of State at NEA, Liz Dibble, who is slated to receive a plush post as the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London this summer. In the DS bureau, the assistant secretary, principal deputy, and deputy assistant all lost their jobs. In the NEA bureau, only Maxwell was asked to leave.

    Jones and Dibble were responsible for security in Libya, Maxwell and three State Department officials said. What’s more, when Maxwell was promoted to his DAS position in August 2011, most responsibility for Libya was carved out of his portfolio, which also included Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Although Maxwell did some work on Libya, all security related decisions were handled by Dibble and Jones, according to the three officials.

    One State Department official close to the issue told The Daily Beast that Clinton’s people told the leadership of the NEA bureau that Maxwell would be given another job at State when the Benghazi scandal blew over. Maxwell said Jones assured him he would eventually be brought back to NEA as a “senior advisor,” but that Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, reneged.

    “The deal that NEA made with Cheryl Mills and the 7th floor was to keep Ray within NEA and just give him another portfolio. For whatever reason, it didn’t go down like that and that was a complete shock to Beth [Jones], because that was the deal that Beth made with Cheryl,” the official said. “Behind Beth’s back, Maxwell ended up being put on administrative leave.”

    Jones and Mills both declined to comment for this article, but a source close to Mills denied that any kind of deal was made or reneged on regarding Maxwell’s future employment. The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was based on the classified portion of the ARB’s report, which named Maxwell specifically, the source said, but since the ARB didn’t say that Maxwell had committed a “breach of duty,” he couldn’t be outright fired.

    “Administrative leave was the best option available within the very narrow authority that anyone had. That was the harshest discipline the department could mete out,” a State Department official involved in the decision making process said. “There really weren’t any other options available. If they could have been fired they would have been.”

    One person who reviewed the classified portion of the ARB report told The Daily Beast that it called out Maxwell for the specific infraction of not reading his daily classified briefings, something that person said Maxwell admitted to the ARB panel during his interview.

    “The crime that he is being punished for is not reading his intel. That explains why Jones and Dibble were not disciplined,” this person said.

    Maxwell had no response to this allegation other than to say he has not been officially counseled on what he did wrong and has not been allowed to read the classified report. Also, he believes that Clinton’s staff, not the ARB, was in charge of the review of the attack that took place during her watch.

    “The flaws in the process were perpetrated by the political leadership at State with the complicity of the senior career leadership,” he said. “They should be called to account.”

    “There are people who seem to have responsibility who have yet to be held accountable.”

    Eight months after the attack, Congressional investigators and outside groups are still pressing the State Department to explain how the ARB came to the conclusion that four mid-level officials were the only ones with responsibility for the failures that led up to the attack.

    The Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA), has announced that he will subpoena Pickering in order to compel him to submit to a deposition. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the subcommittee on national security, told The Daily Beast in an interview that he wants to know exactly why Maxwell and the three other officials were placed on administrative leave, and have not been granted due process to defend themselves.

    “I certainly would like to hear their side of the story. It seems fair that they should be given that opportunity. If they can’t get it within the administration, I think Congress would love to hear their story,” he said. “Secretary Clinton says she takes responsibility, but that seems like lip service rather than the reality because there are people who seem to have responsibility who have yet to be held accountable and I don’t understand that.”

    Chaffetz and Issa sent a letter in January to State asking why Clinton, Deputy Secretary Tom Nides, and Deputy Secretary Bill Burns were not interviewed by the ARB. Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted in Oct. 10 congressional testimony that he was in the loop on decisions regarding security requests in Libya before the attack. He was interviewed by the ARB but not identified as having done anything wrong.

    “The ARB tried to blame everyone but hold no one responsible, except for some of the lower level people who were not in control of the situation,” said Chaffetz. “You have a report that seems incomplete at best.”

    Susan Johnson, the president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), told The Daily Beast that administrative leave does damage to a foreign service officer’s reputation and career if it goes on for more than a couple of weeks, much less several months. The treatment amounts to a de facto disciplinary action, she said.

    “There’s a feeling that foreign service officers often end up as scapegoats when scandals rise to congressional or public attention,” she said. “Our broader concern is to ensure some measure of fairness and transparency, ensure some reasonable process that meets some kind of minimal standard here.”

    AFSA sent a letter to Burns in January asking a number of questions about the review process and the criteria senior department leaders used in choosing to discipline the four individuals removed from their jobs in relation to the Benghazi attack.

    “The State Department began an administrative process to review the status of the four individuals placed on administrative leave. That review process continues and Secretary Kerry will be briefed with an update, and decisions will be made about the status of these employees,” Psaki told the Beast. “This internal administrative process can take some time.”

    She added: “It is also important to remember that the four people discussed are all long-serving government officials who over the years have provided dedicated service to the U.S. Government in challenging assignments.”

    Maxwell just wants his day in court. He wrote a poem on his personal blog in April which referred to the State Department’s treatment of the four officials removed from their jobs after Benghazi as a “lynching.”

    Last week, he posted another poem about the growing Benghazi scandal.

    “The web of lies they weave gets tighter and tighter in its deceit until it bottoms out -at a very low frequency – and implodes,” he wrote. “Yet all the while, the more they talk, the more they lie, and the deeper down the hole they go.”

  15. NARAL Opposes Ban on Elective Late-Term Abortions
    10:17 AM, May 20, 2013 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

    Send to Kindle
    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    On Friday, Arizona congressman Trent Franks announced he will be introducing a bill to prohibit abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy, with exceptions for when the mother’s life or physical health is at risk. NARAL president Ilyse Hogue condemned the modest restriction in a statement:

    “Rep. Franks is using this bill in a shameless effort to exploit the terrible tragedy in Pennsylvania where Kermit Gosnell was just convicted of murder for performing illegal abortions that resulted in killing of infants and women. The women of America deserve better.

    “Gosnell was a criminal whose activities were made possible by the very kind of anti-choice policies Franks is advancing. By cutting funding, reducing access and imposing unnecessary restrictions on safe and legal abortion, anti-choice politicians have forced women – especially low-income women – into the waiting hands of unscrupulous operators like Kermit Gosnell.

    “We will fight this senseless attack and protect the rights of all women.”

    Franks’s bill would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, the point at which babies can feel pain and the point at which some babies can survive long-term if born:

    “In June 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported a Swedish series of over 300,000 infants,” Dr. Colleen Malloy testified before Congress in 2012. “Survival to one year of life of live born infants at 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 weeks postfertilization age was 10%, 53%, 67%, 82%, and 85%, respectively.” So a law restricting abortion after 20 weeks would not run afoul of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dictate that abortion must not be restricted prior to “viability.”

    Franks’s new bill will be debated in the wake of the murder trial and conviction of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who killed infants immediately after they were born by severing their spinal cords. That trial left many Americans asking what the moral difference is between killing a baby born at six months and killing that same infant moments before birth. “What we need to learn from the Gosnell case is that late-term abortion is infanticide,” wrote liberal columnist Kirsten Powers. “Legal infanticide.”

    Although Gosnell is behind bars, tens of thousands of late-term abortions (or “legal infanticides,” if you will) take place in America every year. Dr. LeRoy Carhart has said he will perform “purely elective” abortions on babies 28 weeks into pregnancy in the state of Maryland. Another late-term abortion doctor named James Pendergraft says he will perform even later abortions under Maryland’s “health exception” if a pregnancy is causing “anxiety and stress.”

    Although congressional Republicans usually prefer state laws to federal laws, the 2003 partial-birth abortion ban passed Congress with the support of even the staunchest federalists, including former congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The Gosnell trial highlighted the need for federal laws regulating late-term abortions because the state of Pennsylvania turned a blind eye to Gosnell’s “house of horrors.” Gosnell’s abortion facility was not inspected by the Pennsylvania government for 17 years. A resolution introduced by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania called on Congress to “evaluate the extent to which such abortions involve violations of the civil right to life of infants who are born alive or are capable of being born alive, and therefore are entitled to equal protection under the law.”

  16. How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press
    by Kirsten Powers May 21, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
    Much of the Fourth Estate shrugged when the Obama administration attacked Fox News, writes Kirsten Powers. But now it’s coming for them, too.

    First they came for Fox News, and they did not speak out—because they were not Fox News. Then they came for government whistleblowers, and they did not speak out—because they were not government whistleblowers. Then they came for the maker of a YouTube video, and—okay, we know how this story ends. But how did we get here?

    Turns out it’s a fairly swift sojourn from a president pushing to “delegitimize” a news organization to threatening criminal prosecution for journalistic activity by a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, to spying on Associated Press reporters. In between, the Obama administration found time to relentlessly persecute government whistleblowers and publicly harass and condemn a private American citizen for expressing his constitutionally protected speech in the form of an anti-Islam YouTube video.

    Where were the media when all this began happening? With a few exceptions, they were acting as quiet enablers.

    It’s instructive to go back to the dawn of Hope and Change. It was 2009, and the new administration decided it was appropriate to use the prestige of the White House to viciously attack a news organization—Fox News—and the journalists who work there. Remember, President Obama had barely been in office and had enjoyed the most laudatory press of any new president in modern history. Yet even one outlet that allowed dissent or criticism of the president was one too many. This should have been a red flag to everyone, regardless of what they thought of Fox News. The math was simple: if the administration would abuse its power to try and intimidate one media outlet, what made anyone think they weren’t next?

    President Obama went after Fox News in this 2009 interview with CNBC.

    These series of “warnings” to the Fourth Estate were what you might expect to hear from some third-rate dictator, not from the senior staff of Hope and Change, Inc.

    “What I think is fair to say about Fox … is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “[L]et’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.” On ABC’s “This Week” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Fox is “not really a news station.” It wasn’t just that Fox News was “not a news organization,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel told CNN’s John King, but, “more [important], is [to] not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization …”

    These series of “warnings” to the Fourth Estate were what you might expect to hear from some third-rate dictator, not from the senior staff of Hope and Change, Inc.

    Yet only one mainstream media reporter—Jake Tapper, then of ABC News—ever raised a serious objection to the White House’s egregious and chilling behavior. Tapper asked future MSNBC commentator and then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “[W]hy is [it] appropriate for the White House to say” that “thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a ‘news organization’?” The spokesman for the president of the United States was unrepentant, saying: “That’s our opinion.”

    Trashing reporters comes easy in Obama-land. Behind the scenes, Obama-centric Democratic operatives brand any reporter who questions the administration as a closet conservative, because what other explanation could there be for a reporter critically reporting on the government?

    Now, the Democratic advocacy group Media Matters—which is always mysteriously in sync with the administration despite ostensibly operating independently—has launched a smear campaign against ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl for his reporting on Benghazi. It’s the kind of character assassination that would make Joseph McCarthy blush. The main page of the Media Matters website has six stories attacking Karl for a single mistake in an otherwise correct report about the State Department’s myriad changes to talking points they previously claimed to have barely touched. See, the problem isn’t the repeated obfuscating from the administration about the Benghazi attack; the problem is Jonathan Karl. Hence, the now-familiar campaign of de-legitimization. This gross media intimidation is courtesy of tax-deductable donations from the Democratic Party’s liberal donor base, which provides a whopping $20 million a year for Media Matters to harass reporters who won’t fall in line.

    In what is surely just a huge coincidence, the liberal media monitoring organization Fairness and Accuracy in the Media (FAIR) is also on a quest to delegitimize Karl. It dug through his past and discovered that in college he allegedly—horrors!—associated with conservatives. Because of this, FAIR declared Karl “a right wing mole at ABC News.” Setting aside the veracity of FAIR’s crazy claim, isn’t the fact that it was made in the first place vindication for those who assert a liberal media bias in the mainstream media? If the existence of a person who allegedly associates with conservatives is a “mole,” then what does that tell us about the rest of the media?

    What all of us in the media need to remember—whatever our politics—is that we need to hold government actions to the same standard, whether they’re aimed at friends or foes. If not, there’s no one but ourselves to blame when the administration takes aim at us.

  17. Is there any honest person in this guy’s circle? Wouldn’t you think there would be a background check to determine a person’s eligibility for such a position and something like, oh I don’t know, a bank failure perhaps? would preclude her from it? Not so here. Makes her more than qualified to be in O’s adm. What a continuing nightmare.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Two things buried in this story.

    1. My friends and I are always complaining about how “crowded” is getting in our part of the world. How the damn people have overrun our Rocky Mtn. region. Then I see a map like this one (the purple pop. density) and realize it is all “relative”. Still don’t like though.

    2. Severe weather events may or may not be connected to Global Warming/Climate Change. They DON’T KNOW. You can use that on all your lefty friends who keep trying to tie every major storm to “Climate Change”.

    For the record, big storms like hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms are created by UNSTABLE AIR when you have Cold and Warm fronts colliding. Or Cold and Warm air from convection. This happened in the high desert. Hot ground and air temps rising and forming nasty Thunder Storms with severe downdraft winds.

  19. ” I would not choose to live in one in tornado alley.”

    Seems very different from what I remember you saying about those who chose (or had to) live on the coastline … more compassion for the red staters, perhaps? 🙂

    • I live in tornado alley Charlie. I do so by my own choice. I know the risks. Today I topped off my gas tanks. I also have food & water for more than a week. I also have a storm shelter. My remarks aimed at those on the coast were that they did not prepare in advance and take reasonable precautions. I think it was/is accurate. This is not a criticism of where they choose to live. We all make choices and take risks. Chicago see’s few tornado’s or earthquakes, but who would want to live in all that urban violence?

      And I have been “touched” by a tornado. One almost destroyed our business. It totaled out our main building and damaged a secondary storage building. I repaired the less damaged building and shifted production there until we build a new building. Insurance paid for the new building but had we waited for them, we would have gone bankrupt.

      • “Today I topped off my gas tanks. I also have food & water for more than a week. I also have a storm shelter. My remarks aimed at those on the coast were that they did not prepare in advance and take reasonable precautions.”

        Let’s see .. people who live in apartment building on the coast who don’t own a car … no topping off … may have food, but not water … or a bathroom (assume, like it happened, some elderly person lived on the 8th floor of an apartment building in Hoboken, NJ) … your remarks may have been aimed at those who didn’t prepare (even if they couldn’t?) … but what about those here who specifically made fun of those who “live” on the coast? I know for a fact BF did … I’m pretty sure some others here made some asshole remarks as well … but, then again, when assholes speak, it’s time to strike a match 🙂

        • Nah, Charlie…I do not think that anyone, like me, who lives in tornado alley made fun of any hurricane victim. We know what it is like to live in these areas. We have hail storms and tornados on a regular basis. So do the people that live in Oklahoma….an F 5 is a nasty bugger…compact and will destroy almost anything….including schools with reinforced interior walls. It is a risk we run and we know the risks….

          The politicians need to stay out of it….let the locals deal with it. No Federal laws need to be passed… is a local situation as it should be on the coastal areas in hurricane season. Being prepared is essential…..even for an apartment dweller.

          How in the hell are you, my cannoli friend?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Not really Bubbles, It’s called personal choice. I also don’t want to live near any coast, but mostly the West coast. It has nothing to do with politics at all, just a choice. I don’t like earthquakes and I don’t like hurricanes. I do enjoy a good Thunderstorm. I’m quite amazed by the power of Mother Nature, just not amazed enough to live in tornado alley.

      We get tornado’s sometimes, but they are rare. A good nasty thunderstorm is most likely to cause issues, but that’s life. Winter has a different type of threat, but not much as far as the problems that would occur (power outages, blocked roads, etc)

      For someone who hasn’t seen much outside the Eastcoast, maybe you should read about other places. Everywhere we go, bad things can happen because of weather.

      Peace! May you and yours be happy and healthy 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      If NO CRIME was committed or believed committed then there is NO REASON to plead the 5th.

      Congress could also grant immunity from anything discovered in testimony.

      • Contempt of Congress


        Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person’s conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

        Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who “willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

        Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.

        Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress.

        I am confused-this seems contradictory-so can they charge her with contempt or not.

      • Lol, my friend……pleading the 5th is a guilt plea….I think everyone understands this.

    • Good take by JennyBeth Martin (who happens to be my tea party contact):

      JennyBeth Martin
      Too bad #IRS Lois Lerner did not care about #teaparty groups’ #FirstAmendment rights like she now does her 5th Amendment rights #tcot #tgdn

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Not surprising, some left wing media says the tornado in OK is targeting conservatives. Oh My, pick a term, but leftism is a disease, lets call it BOHS, or Bag Of Hammer Syndrome 🙂

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    OH NO! The gullable Climate Change crowd are not going to like this at all :
    Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

    As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.

    The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

    “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    Almost all ‘heating’ radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

    It’s been nothing but a fraud and a hoax all along. I bet there are going to be some really bad feeling people out there who have been led down the path about this by their nose rings 😆

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I feel bad for Todd. Everything he was led to believe about Climate Change is false. If I were him I would sue Al Gore (actually, Al Gore should be arrested for attempted fraud). Sorry Todd 😦

      • I really think we should take our chances and leave the climate alone. Perhaps the scientists were right in the ’70’s when they warned of the coming ice age. Their solutions then, including spreading carbon (think of that oil sand residue) over the ice caps to increase melting would have led to a disaster. We should become good stewards of the planet, do all things in moderation, encourage conservation for the sake of conservation, clean air and water for the sake of clean air and water and stop trying to meet unmeetable goals.

        There is rally only one sure way to really physically impact this planet and that would be a significant die off of the human race. Not that the extreme climate/environment freaks are not already working on that one.

      • Here that, Todd. G-man, SUFA’s BF substitute for “all knowing” says the rest of the world is wrong and he’s right … 🙂

  22. gmanfortruth says:
  23. Here you go – because the Tea Party has always been known for violence. (BTW, with sequester, how in the world is there money for this????)

  24. So I have a question on this whole pleading the 5th thing. This Lerner lady is reporting to her employer(s), so to speak. How can she plead the 5th? So if I’m pulled into my manager’s office for questioning about my work, let’s say, I can just plead the 5th? This seems like the wrong use for this right.

    • “I am not a crook” “I did not have sex with that woman” now “I have not done anything wrong” Same lies, different wording.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The “fifth amendment” relates to GOVT interrogation. Your Boss is NOT Govt. You can refuse to answer you Boss and he/she can probably fire you. You could answer and they could a) fire you, b) turn evidence over to police to investigate, and probably fire you also, or c) say OK get back to work.

      Under b) you would still NOT have to answer questions by the Police that might incriminate you once they start their investigation.

      Congress is Govt AND it has the power to have someone arrested and evidence given in testimony to Congress can be used in any subsequent criminal trial, should one occur.

      Clinton’s impeachment was for lying under oath. He should have been removed from office for that offense, of perjury. Had he violated some other related law his lies about his affair could have been brought as evidence against him, as well as his testimony to the Grand Jury.

      Now an interesting thing about today’s “5th pleading”. The lady in question gave a speech to Congress while under oath. She in effect “testified” that she was “innocent”. This could be viewed as a “waiving of the 5th Amendment Right”. By raising questions of her innocence without questions first, she opened the door to having to answer questions related to her testimony.

      Oh, and Congress is NOT her Boss. That is officially the President.

      • Thanks. Figured as much, but still it seems fishy. Yes, Trey Gowdy from SC was quick to respond to that potential faux by Lerner. Issa should’ve been ready. Since he dismissed her, can he bring her back if they find out Gowdy was correct?

  25. Hmmmm, I know of two instances where something similar happened. Younger person’s parents found out about relationship and weren’t happy and reported it to police. Both of these were 18/19 males and 14/15 year old females. Don’t remember either case yelling, “it’s because they are heterosexual!!!!”

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Notice how Benghazi has faded from the news?

    Notice how Hillary Clinton has faded from the news?

    Notice how the media is now outraged over Govt actions against them when they laughed off or ignored the same violations against private citizens for years?

    Notice how the Republicans and Conservative Pundits keep beating on Obama and his poll numbers remain the same?

    • Notice how Amnesty got pushed through committee?

      Notice how North Korea/nukes isn’t the hot button it was a few weeks ago?

      Not sure Benghazi has disappeared; more whistleblowers are coming forward and just going through the security clearances, or whatever steps they need to do.

      Poll numbers? The left is desperately trying to keep them afloat.

      • Stop the presses … why not wait until 2016 … when yous all can “notice” how the Dems win the white house again 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I raised that point as a continuation of my comment the other day.

        Constantly attacking Obama personally over all this will be seen as PETTY. Unless they lose the MEDIA support. That is cracking but not lost yet.

        The powers on the left are quickly moving towards Hillary. If this keeps up Obama’s power will diminish quickly.

        So, the proper strategy, in MY opinion, is to focus on the abuses of power in the Federal Govt and then tie it to those Congressmen who are party to all this. If your an R you have to create doubts about Clinton but you don’t go on personal attack just yet. If your an L or Indep. you focus on BOTH parties and cry out for GENERAL REFORM.

        The GOAL is to get large turnover in the House and Senate next year. The scandals need to be used in that context.

        Now is the time for the Right Congress Critters to propose the Flat Tax or Fair Tax, to propose an Immigration Bill SEALING the southern border, etc, etc, etc,.

        They should also be proposing a serious and SIMPLE plan to start reducing the DEBT.

        The general idea here is stay focused on ISSUES and soften the attacks on PEOPLE.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Looky, looky here. Social unrest in the Hallmark of Social Democracy and Social Justice States.

    The world according to the Socialist………….. everyone must be equal in order that everyone is equally depressed but COMPLIANT.

    • Imagine, social unrest?

      Ever hear of the WATTS riots? How about Detroit? I remember a few in good old Canarsie, Brooklyn when I was in high school … then there was 4 dead in Ohio (sounds like a good song) … I seem to remember a few native american issues as well … but why bicker … here’s a standard of living index …

      Sweden … way ahead of the good old US & A … guess what the A stands for …

      • Just A Citizen says:


        So the European country with the high standard of living is rioting in the streets. Yep, that makes a lot of sense.

        LA Riots were responsible for turning Idaho into a long term RED State. So YES, Charlie. I have heard of those riots. You forgot Chicago.

      • Ahead of Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands! Holy crap, I thought that I’d do better there.

      • Charlie, feel free to move to Sweden. I have heard great things about that country. Just pack up and go, but take all your jurassic thinking with you. The leftist race card is so old, it don’t even mean anything. All your babble about those who “can’t”. Oy Vey, that’s what families and friends are for. What do you do to help those that need it? I help Seniors everyday. I donate to Make a Wish Foundation all the time. I donate to veterans issues as well. What do you do Charlie, besides piss and moan? Just wondering. Sweden is waiting for you with open arms (NOT). Get going man, whats the hold up?

        • I eat … and drink … and come here for a good laugh, G … why else would anyone come here? Not taking the racist bait today? Hmmmm, could it be the video moved you?

        • “I help Seniors everyday. I donate to Make a Wish Foundation all the time. I donate to veterans issues as well. What do you do Charlie, besides piss and moan? Just wondering.”

          How do you EVER find the time, G? You’re on here with 50-100 posts a day, apparently all day … and it sure seems to me (and the civilized world), you’re the one doing the pissing and moaning, boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee … 🙂

  28. What a cluster of inept, corrupt, whatever term you want, people we employ. If I worked for any part of government, and especially for the IRS, I would be coming out of the woodwork trying to disassociate myself with this gang of morally deficient humans.

    • “If I worked for any part of government,”

      including the military? Wow, you must so morally superior to the rest of the civilized world.

      • I have morals yes; I guess that would make me superior to someone who doesn’t.

        • 😆

          • All hail Kathy … oy vey

            • Oh, lighten up Nonno! 😉

            • Nope, not at all, Charlie. We all are confronted every single day with the option of doing the right thing vs. not and I’m not perfect and have made many, many bad decisions in my life. But what we’ve seen just recently with the IRS hearings is that many, many people not only allow themselves to be sucked into devious, unethical actions, but seem to have no problem promoting this toxic, evil behavior and lying about it. We all have a choice on not only how we act, but how we react. We’ve not seen much in the way of basic honesty from those in our government recently, and my point was that if I was connected with these people, I would want to get myself away from them and make sure I was not included in the sinking ship.

              Does any of this even make sense to you?

              • Well, it reads like a crusader (you). I have a funny feeling, you’ve probably been around people who’ve done immoral things (acted immorally, etc.), but then again, one person’s morality is another person’s immorality (a concept I don’t think many here at SUFA ever acknowledge). For instance … I happen to believe abortion is murder (at any stage), yet I still accept a woman’s right to choose (does that make me immoral?). I don’t believe in either of the wars today, but supported both when I voted for Bush (believe it or not) … but our Iraq and Afghanistan wars have now become so morally offensive to me, I believe any soldier taking part of it is acting immorally. Does that make the soldiers immoral? I’d say, no, but to me, yes. You see what I’m saying?

                As to the IRS and Obama, et al … this is a government owned by the 1%, so I’d suggest blaming them.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    A good commentary on how Govt permitting creates power not otherwise delegated.

  30. While Charlie and I have our differences, we do agree on many things as well 🙂 Here is one that He has right and I agree.

    • This actually happened in NY this week … Bloomberg had the city seize a bunch of auto repair shops in Flushing (near Citifield–bought and paid for by NY’ers, not the Muts) … and the property and businesses were seized without warning. Put about 100 people out of work in a flash, and of course, nobody from the city government was available for comment. A brief news at 5:00 bulletin and it’ll all be forgotten by the weekend. Gee, I wonder what will go up in those businesses place? Word is he’s looking to “gentrify” the area … yeah, capitalism is a beautiful thing … so long as you’re the one with the capital, anything goes … and all in the name of liberty and patriotism … you guys need to drink caffeinated coffee.

      • In case you missed it, most of the opposition to that absurd SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain came from the right, not the left. How about that lady in Conn. whose house (4 generations) had to come down for the mall parking lot. There are times when it is justified and times when it is not. I remember when we wanted to seize three crack dens in Brooklyn (Brownsville) to build new lower middle class row houses and the courts sided with the crack dens. By the way this seizure was part of the underground deal with the Mets for building the new stadium. Did you hear him talking to the taxicab guy when the courts upset his plans for new cabs, “I will crush your business when I leave office”. This guy is a real Psycho and unfortunately has the money to make everybody’s life miserable.

  31. So, really, no comments on the video that shows a young black kid pointing to a black doll as bad, the white doll as good, and then associating herself as bad? Nothing to say at all? Did it move you just a little? Or you’re all too hard for that kind of emotion? Is it possible the institutional racism in America is that obvious or was it a Hollywood scheme by all them progressives to appeal to your emotions instead of that good old rational thought? Most I know who viewed the video thought it was sad … there’s an out for yous! Just call it sad … or say what you really feel (ha, you can’t even post your actual names) … 🙂

    • No, Charlie, I have absolutely nothing to say…..not about that. Pretty much anything posted on the Internet today is questionable…..especially things like that video. I think that most everyone recognizes that emotional content is just that…..emotional. I will say that I have not run across anything like that here since the 60’s but I do know, that in some circles, children are still being taught clap trap like you posted to keep fanning the flames of racism…, I am becoming very numb to these type of things as are most people. It is becoming the ” chicken little” syndrome.

      • Colonel … I think SUFA is the chicken little story … the world is falling apart … liberty is out the door … etc. … the progressives are out to take our property, etc, etc., etc. … what is amazing to me is how none of you seem to identify (or care) about 1% of the population running your lives (and instead blame the strawman government, which is owned by the 1%) …

        So, I guess than it’s 1 vote for an Internet farce not to be believed because racism is a thing of the past in the good old US&A …

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Further proof you don’t read what is said here or think about it.

          “what is amazing to me is how none of you seem to identify (or care) about 1% of the population running your lives (and instead blame the strawman government, which is owned by the 1%) … ”

          If you going to make accusations about “none of you” then you should make some effort to be truthful.

        • Charlie… know me better than that. I have never said anything FOR the one percent…..never. Everyone with 1/2 a brain knows that there are the elites that control everything…..even in SWEDEN, my friend. You will never get rid of that……never. Even your utopian world will be controlled.

          What I do know is this. Government is something that needs to be controlled by the people. It matters not about wealth too much. You can take all my money today…..give it away… where I have nothing….and I will have it again…..with or without government. Your progressive movement is in charge now and they are no different. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and you can see this by the corruption of the IRS, the denial of radical Islamic, the abuse of power in the press….etc etc. I know you see this. There is no middle ground…you are either for it or against it.

          I also know that this government, today, is more corrupt and more power hungry since The Kennedy’s and Richard Nixon…..whom I remember well. You will vote your democratic, progressive movement, and when you do… will be a vote for more of the same. You have stated this before. But, I sense you do not care in this.

          I also said that racism is NOT a thing of the past. What I said was, and believe, is that institutionalized racism is a thing of the past. However, I do believe that the progressive movement is a well designed mantra to keep racism. They believe that if you give away things, it makes people better and more equal. I say it is the opposite. Any child today, that says the things that the video showed……is being taught that and they are being taught that for a purpose. That purpose is to keep them down…..forever. That is what I feel the progressive movement is all about. So, the progressive movement is not about the power of the people… is still about that 1% you rave about. Pretty simple really.

          I firmly believe that you can take every penny in the world today, you can take every home and burn them down, you can eliminate wall street ( which is what should happen anyway )…..distribute it evenly to where everybody is equal…….and before a year is out…….the same people will have it again.

          What is astounding to me, is that most of the progressives that hammer wall street…..have their 401’s and IRA’s……….that is the hypocrisy.

          So, sir, get off the racist thing… is time worn……and I will STILL share your canoli and you can share my fajitas anytime. I still luv ya man…….but you do not have me fooled.

    • or say what you really feel (ha, you can’t even post your actual names) … 🙂

      We could Charlie, but don’t for all those paranoid reasons. It is paranoid to think a government agency would use it’s power to punish an individual for being a conservative, right? You seem to view this as impersonal, what is going on today. To the people the IRS has targeted, it is very personal. Some of them are looking at having their lives severely impacted. Financial ruin is pretty personal, and that is what some of them are facing.

    • Well worth far deeper examination which, if there is institutional racism , it is instilled from the side that says…..”you are not good enough yourself, you need us to help you”. responsibility is the key to self worth. I daresay, anyone here, left or right will admit that their success came from the knowledge that they “could” do it.

      We have had 50 years of the war on poverty, food stamps, rent subsidies, Headstart, preferential hiring and admissions. Are we better off? We have had an African-American President for nearly five and are we better off? Does the entire minority community or at least a significant portion feel that because the president is who he is and has made it to the top that they have a better chance? I fear that they would answer no. That video you speak of says no and says it LOUDLY!.

      There is something very, very wrong out there. To understand what must be done, one must look at what has been done and discard it.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Re: Comments on your video, from the 1950’s.

      Shades of race identity boil down to a doll test

      May 06, 2005|By Clarence Page

      NEW YORK – It was a simple test. You give a child two dolls, one white, one dark-colored, and ask the child which one he or she likes best. Which one does he or she want to play with? Which one is the “nice” doll? Which one looks “bad”? Which one do you like best?

      When black psychologist and educator Kenneth B. Clark asked these questions while researching the impact of segregation in 1951 (with his wife, Mamie Phipps Clark) on 16 black children in South Carolina, most of the children preferred the white doll. Ten of the children considered the white doll to be the nice doll. Eleven thought the brown doll looked bad.

      Mr. Clark’s death Sunday in his New York state home at age 90 reminds us of how profoundly the story of his doll test has shaped modern notions of how racism can be internalized in self-destructive ways.

      Yet, curiously, few of the obituaries and tributes to him bothered to mention how the doll test was more valuable as symbolism than as science. Its sample group was too small by modern standards. There was little pursuit of why the children preferred one color over another. Nor was there a control group of white children through which we could compare how often they might prefer a black doll.

      Nevertheless, the results of the study were startling enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to cite them in its unanimous 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ruled racially segregated schools unconstitutional.

      A half-century later, we can see that the high court’s view only scratched the surface of what social scientists already were learning in the early 1950s about the complexities of race in America.

      In his 1991 book Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American Identity, psychologist William E. Cross Jr. of Cornell University examined “Negro identity” studies from 1936 to 1967 and debunked self-hatred as too simplistic a notion to describe black identity during Mr. Clark’s era or now. Modern obsessions with proving black pathologies of various sorts have caused us to overlook important adaptive strengths in black culture and psychology, he said.

      Indeed, some subsequent tests of white children have found them almost as likely to choose a black doll as black children are likely to choose a white one. SEE THAT CHARLIE? READ IT AGAIN.

      I, for one, discovered this lesson in 1993 when our son, then age 4, came home from preschool and announced, “I want to be a white policeman when I grow up.” I grabbed my handy copy of Raising Black Children, by noted black psychiatrists James P. Comer of Yale Medical School and Alvin F. Poussaint of Harvard Medical School. Their advice: Relax.

      It’s quite normal, the esteemed doctors said, for children to take full notice of color differences at age 4, but they don’t necessarily attach any value to the various colors. They eventually learn color values from us, their parents and other elders, the same as they learn other values.

      Indeed, self-hatred does not explain why two-thirds of black Americans have escaped poverty while others have not. But it might offer some insight as to why some black teenagers, entranced by hip-hop rebellion, display a self-destructive hostility toward mainstream success as “acting white.” AGAIN, WHO IS TEACHING THEM THIS BEHAVIOR?

      Rather than relax too comfortably with the notion that we Americans have put racism behind us in this era of Oprah Winfrey, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, we also need to look more deeply into the psychological impact that centuries of racism have had on today’s young people. MY NOTE: IN ORDER FOR RACISM OF PAST DECADES/CENTURIES TO IMPACT TODAY’S YOUTH, SOMEONE HAS TO BE PERPETUATING THOSE AFFECTS.

      When I watch rap videos with my son, now a teenager fully enthralled with hip-hop, I marvel at how much has changed since Mr. Clark’s doll tests. Negative imagery about black folks used to come almost exclusively from white folks. Now black folks cash in on it too.

      What a country.

      Clarence Page is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a Tribune Publishing newspaper. His column appears Tuesdays and Fridays in The Sun.

      • “Indeed, some subsequent tests of white children have found them almost as likely to choose a black doll as black children are likely to choose a white one.”

        Like I said, JAC, you’re a funny guy … the key words here, JAC: “some subsequent tests” … “almost as likely” …

        My, my, no wonder the right is often accused of streeeeetching fiction (or what might be) into fact …

        So, JAC, try READING IT AGAIN … 🙂

      • I remember watching Dr. Clark on a panel one day many years ago. the issue was forced busing, Boston was the city I believe. Everybody else on the panel, mostly composed of white liberals was Gung-Ho to force integration. Dr. Clark, looking pained, tried to explain to these folks that there would be consequences. They went back and forth for awhile never losing their enthusiasm for messing with peoples lives. Dr. Clark kept pointing out that doing this without a plan might lead to “white flight”. I will never forget his quote, “There are a limited number of white chips in this poker game.” RIP Doc, you were one of the sane ones.

        • I believe that’s called institutionalized racism (via real estate) … and I too was guilty (taking my kids out to Port Washington, Long Island (buying a house there and leaving Brooklyn) … you allow one area to fall apart for no other reason than race, it’s racism.

          • I’m sorry Charlie-racism-did you leave because you hate people different than you or because you are scared of people simply because they are different than you or because you think you are better than a whole race of people? Did you base your decision on race? Or did you have other reasons -like I don’t know, thinking your kids were in danger based on actual, reality based actions that were happening at the school and in the neighborhood?

            I’ve heard people in Chicago having a fit about closing the schools because they don’t want their kids to have to walk through dangerous neighborhoods to get to their new school-is this based on racism or real facts based on what is happening in the neighborhoods?

            People throw that word around a lot where it doesn’t belong. My mother in law-lived in the same house for years-she didn’t move out when other races started moving in-she just got to know her new neighbors-when it became obvious that the house across the street was selling drugs, she didn’t move out-she and her neighbors just kept calling the police until the people finally moved out. But when children walking to school started to be harassed and actually abducted off the street-why that old racist white woman moved-seems she actually loves her grandchildren and didn’t think political correctness was worth them getting hurt.

            • VH … very spirited, but I think you’re missing the point. I was guilty of white flight, and yes, because I was concerned for safety and education … but why is that? Why would an education system permit a school to turn to shit just because the neighborhood changed color? Before you place the egg before the chicken, remember that the neighborhood was safe and the schools performing fine until the white flight that was the result of homeowners seeing their property value decrease overnight because a single black family moved on a block (this when it was still safe and the schools still operating up to speed).

              I believe that’s institutional racism.

              • The education system allowed it? Why did the parents allow it? Schools are run locally (for the most part). You’re saying they were great schools, blacks moved in and the powers that be just let the schools go to hell? Huh? Doesn’t even make sense. Think possibly there is more to it?

  32. I wonder what the London attack would be called in the United States……

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    This morning we have an example of a STUPID REPUBLICAN. And this from a group that is always touting the Constitution. Good grief!

  34. Koch Brothers rule their land (which yous defend) with an iron check book …

  35. Charlie….question for you… you believe that cultures clash? If so, do you believe that if one wishes to move away from a culture that does clash with yours, is that actually racism? It matters not the color of skin….but a matter of culture.

    • I understand culture clash, but when real estate agents devalue the price of property because a black family moves into a neighborhood (which is what happened where I was brought up–in Canarsie), it has nothing to do with culture (unless you want to disguise racism as culture clash).

      • The weird thing is over time, that same neighborhood has seen real estate value climb back up … it is mostly western Carribean now, but very expensive.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Real Estate agents don’t devalue property.

        They can reduce the listing prices but the reality is that values will be what the buyers are willing to pay.

        I am guessing your experience is largely Urban Myth.

        • I am guessing your experience is largely Urban Myth.

          NO, it’s capitalism at its best … creating and maintaining a class based society …

  36. Someday I want to be a headline writer for Drudge! Can you imagine how much fun they have? Course in this case, the subject matter makes it very easy……

  37. @Kathy … you said, “The education system allowed it? Why did the parents allow it? Schools are run locally (for the most part). You’re saying they were great schools, blacks moved in and the powers that be just let the schools go to hell? Huh? Doesn’t even make sense. Think possibly there is more to it?”

    Sure there is … white flight with teachers as well … seniority headed for the hills …

    Real estate went down why? The wonderful free market promoting a class structure maybe? Pitting middle class whites against black trying to enter the middle class … and on and on it goes … the problem, of course, is everything is turning into a city/urban area these days … soon they’ll be nowhere left to run … and that is when the shit will hit the fan … when people will start asking why is it all of us who do the work get so little while fat cats who produce nothing reap all the profits?

  38. Come on, Wingies … I’m bored today (light day at work) … come out and play!

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Evidence of downright stupidity.

    Day before yesterday was a local election on fluoridated water and some school board elections, etc. I wanted to share something I personally witnessed.

    Oregon is one of those “liberal” states when it comes to accessing the ability to vote. Mail in ballots for example. They also set up ballot boxes for people to deposit their “mail in ballots” should they forget to mail them in on time.

    So here is what I saw. Two vote “officials” standing outside the County Library with the Ballot Box on a table next to them. Some people parking and walking over to deposit their ballots.


    Many more were simply pulling up and handing the “officials” their ballots and driving off. Leaving before they could witness whether those ballots were deposited or not. One car with one driver, handed the “official” SEVERAL ballots. I could see four with others visible but could not count. The official “looked all of them over and sorted them” before finally putting them in the box.

    This “drive by” ballot dropping went on for 15 minutes, one after another, until I finally left.

    I did not see any ballots that were not put in the box by the “officials” but the potential was glaring.

    The “stupidity” is with the voter who hands their ballot to a stranger then drives away without ever confirming it was put in the box.

    More “stupidity” by the “official” for putting himself in the position of handling someone’s ballot.

    Of course, in an area where most everyone THINKS THE SAME what the hell difference does it make?

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    Charlie, Read everything about “white flight” and such. I don’t see it as racism at all. I guess if you understood the history of Youngstown, Ohio, which you don’t, you would have a different view of things. It is quite common for people of different ethnicities to congregate in the same areas, so id blacks all live together in one area of a city, by choice, is that racism? If the italians or Chinese congregate in one part of cities, is that racism too? We have Chinatown, and many other areas of the country well known for their ethnicity, so is that racism? No Charlie, it is not. Your claim of racism because of “white flight” is utter bullshit.

    • It’s not just the USA that has this issue, Sweden, Germany, the UK etc. Here’s a link on the Sweden issues:

    • Youngstown, Ohio? I lived in NY’s Little Italy, Putz (which then and now is mostly Chinese) … those were areas, when established, that had EVERYTHING to do with racism (you moron) 🙂 … but it’s all utter bullshit. No such thing as white flight … G, you’re not only consistently wrong, You’re consistently hilarious! 🙂

      And how ’bout those Gay scouts! Yeah, baby! Progressives on the march …. some of yous must be duking your pants about now … 🙂

  41. Charlie, In agreement about the 1%, how about posting a list of names of these people? That would be very helpful when things go to hell. 🙂

    • I’m not for whacking them (yet) … but I am for stripping them of every dime they earned off the backs of others … no problem with that.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Where is my cut of your book proceeds?

        You made money off my back and those of my brothers. Where is OUR FAIR SHARE of your book revenues?

  42. Gay scouts! Progressives on the march … your world is turning upside down! 🙂

    • I really don’t have a problem with the boy scouts allowing gay members-should just be kids hanging out together and learning how to do stuff-no reason for sexual preference to enter the equation-now if the Progressives decide to use the boy scouts to promote the LGBT or to outlaw any religious events-then I will change my mind and suggest they change the rule back.

%d bloggers like this: