Blog Archives

The left would be justified in loathing Christians… if they were all like Al Sharpton

Plenty of folks in the professional left despise Christians and if all Christians were as loathsome as Al Sharpton, they’d have plenty of good reasons. 

Consider Sharpton’s essential role in the massive race-based fraud called the Tawana Brawley case, the Crown Heights riots (resulting in one death), and the Freddy’s Fashion Mart debacle which left seven dead.

Unfortunately for the left, Rev. Sharpton is one of the inmates helping to run the MSNBC asylum. Does it bother the MSNBC leadership even a little? (Maybe so, but apparently not enough to say anything or to take action.)

While we’ve all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, some—like Sharpton—epitomize the magnitude and substance of our failures.


A bad week for the left

How was this week bad for the left? Let me count the ways:

  1. Anti-gun control types in the Democrat controlled Senate rejected the President’s pleading and made him look inept on politics, policy, tactics, and strategy.
  2. The President compounds his inept demeanor by appearing angry, weak, and unpresidential.
  3. Vacuous gun controllers follow the President and respond with empty and angry emotionalism.
  4. The Boston Marathon bombers aren’t white Americans.
  5. The President takes pains to keep from calling the Boston Marathon bombing an act of terrorism until someone tells him he looks like a fool by not to doing so.
  6. The President’s 2014 budget is upside-down with the public.
  7. Dana Milkbag Milbank is reduced to comparing Ted Cruz to Joe McCarthy.
  8. The global economy hasn’t looked this bad since Jimmy Carter FDR occupied the White House.
  9. We don’t get fooled again becomes the cry of the not-left regarding the Gang of Eight’s (twice the fun of the Gang of Four!) 2 A.M immigration bill.
  10. The traditional media re-discovers the limits of their powers to protect the President.
  11. The traditional media shrugs off their epic post-Boston Marathon bombing fail.
  12. Liberal “elites” (an oxymoron, yes) demonstrate—again—they epitomize economic befuddlement.
  13. Revelations of an abortionist/butcher that the media has been shamed into addressing.

Was this this week any good for the left? It wasn’t a total loss: they co-opted Marco Rubio into serving as one of the point-men for the Senate’s amnesty immigration plan and have the Boy Scouts looking to go gay. That and they got a kid arrested for wearing a t-shirt with a gun on it.

Why are lefties against capitalism, for homosexuality, and for abortion?

How is it that so many on the left are against capitalism, for homosexuality, and for abortion?

After all, don’t many lefties worship at the altar of Darwin? And yet…

… if Darwin’s theory of evolution were true, “there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners…

Wouldn’t this make capitalism, which the left views as a ruthless competition, a natural extension of our Darwinistic nature? You know, “We’re born this way,” and all that?

And speaking of being born this way, given Darwin, why would we have homosexuals? The much used “I was born this way” argument would seem to be at odds with Darwinism (in addition to the wonderment of how such genetic information could be passed along to begin with). So, contra Darwin, it would seem that being a homosexual would tend…

…to shorten our lives, or to lessen the number of children we have, or both.

The same—lessening the number of children we have—would also be said of abortion. In fact, there’s a Darwinistic argument against gun control baked-in here as well: Go out and kill yourselves; that’s just more for me!

Perhaps this is it: the left has a secret Darwinistic conspiracy—a part of their disinformation program—whereas they pretend to be against capitalism, for homosexuality, and for abortion in order to minimize the number of competitors who might otherwise seek to go forth and multiply.

And yet a simpler explanation would be this: for reasons not well understood, lefty Darwinists are creatures who can wholly deceive themselves.

While there seems to be no obvious Darwinistic benefit to self-deception, the left has harvested a substantial benefit by deceiving others.

Bob Menendez Introduces New Immigration Legislation

(Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, PMNS)

U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., used a fundraising stop at a Santo Domingo church to announce he would introduce legislation to allow Dominican Republic prostitutes under the age of 16 to freely immigrate to New Jersey.

The Senator said the issue was one of fairness and opportunity for “young, ethnically underrepresented sex workers from island nations” and that the legislation had nothing to do with his participation in an “agreement in principle” on immigration reform nor with the FBI’s recent investigation into his dabbling in underage Dominican prostitutes.

“The fact I’m here today to announce this important legislation has nothing to do with the charges I expect Attorney General Holder to get dropped,” Menendez said. “Even if the charges were true, which I can deny until I’m under oath and perhaps even later, maybe it wasn’t prostitution… maybe I was just making a sex tape and needed some actresses.”

Menendez continued: “Although its true my good friend Dr. Salomon Melgen has a small, 11 million dollar tax problem, I fully expect the new Secretary of the Treasury to handle such difficulties and I hope to be spending more time with the lovely young ladies of Santo Domingo soon. And no matter what, it isn’t like I’m providing F-16s to jihadists or guns to Mexican drug lords.”

Menendez, while wearing his hairpiece, is perhaps best known for his startling resemblance to Representative Henry Waxman.

The FBI would not comment on the allegation other than to say, “It’s true, he does look like Waxman.”

Regarding the Senator’s pending criminal charges, the FBI spokesman added, “Although this case would certainly come to trial if it were against a normal U.S. citizen, the ‘drop charges’ decision package is on the AG’s desk as we speak. If the AG slow rolls the package, which we don’t think he will, we expect some sort of Potemkin board of inquiry like we had with the Benghazi debacle.”

(Philup Nubia and Zerxes Jones-Smith from PMNS’s Santo Domingo Information, Research, and Translation Service enclave contributed to this article.)

Two of the left’s favorite eco-terrorists

rooThe New York Times says Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel.

So what’s a great sinner to do? Perhaps establish a process of buying carbon indulgences with one’s travel miles or even easier, just rely on your liberal bona fides.

This topic only needs to be addressed because the very same New York Times observed Hillary Clinton’s main claim to fame in her tenure as Secretary of State seems to be that she traveled many miles.

In an airplane.

And yet another publication wryly observed, “If diplomatic achievements were measured by the number of countries visited, Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the most accomplished U.S. secretary of state in history.”


Yes, those suffering under the debilitating intellectual effects of libotomies often confuse 1) activity with adding value and 2) intentions with outcomes.

Under Secretary Clinton, shuttle diplomacy was exchanged in favor of shuttle activity. Shuttle activity, to paraphrase the Secretary herself, ‘Is what it is,’ but don’t pretend it’s anything else. After all, What difference does it make?

Of course, there’s another eco-terrorist, selflessly planning to rack up the carbon sins in the name of saving the small people from themselves. (And it isn’t even the easily mocked super-crony capitalist/crazed sex-poodle Al Gore.)

‘Do as I say and not as I do’ is a recurring—and annoying—liberal theme.

Hollywood irony alert: actors ♥ blacklisting

Hollywood has taught us well that blacklisting is something that must never, ever occur again.

Just how grievous was blacklisting? The dark period was a crimson stain on our collective national soul, almost akin to the sin of slavery.

As such, freedom of expression and association are profound American ideals which must never be suppressed.

Unless it regards Zero Dark Thirty. Then it’s ok. For some. Somehow.


Liberal triple play fail of the day

Leftists, be they journalists, economists, or especially politicos don’t understand the world, nor do many ever willingly open their eyes.

First case in point, Broncobama on Michigan voting to become a right-to-work state:

But President Obama, ever the demagogue of dishonesty, took to the stump Monday in Redford, Mich., claiming the measure takes “away your right to bargain for better wages and working conditions.” That‘s a shameful lie from a shameless president who regularly affirms his shamelessness with such deceit.

And despite the blinders worn by so many, the evidence is clear that right-to-work laws benefit companies, their employees and their states‘ coffers.

The left fails to understand that the economy—and just about everything else—responds to all sorts of inputs (including idiotic “inputs” like forcing people to join unions and involuntarily pay union dues) by taking action. “Action” in such a case includes things like building automobile plants in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia (among others) where labor costs are lower.

But it seems the left would rather see car building in Michigan go the way of the Edmund Fitzgerald. (I thought libs were mainly secular humanists, with Charles Darwin as one of their gods; if so, why can’t they see right-to-work as a case of economic adapt or die? The answer is pride: they foolishly think they can write self-beneficial laws, practice crony capitalism, and have a centrally managed economy that works. History disagrees.)

Second, it seems there is great progressive angst and gnashing of teeth when libs hear Google has routed $10 billion in profits through a Bermuda sub-headquarters in order to avoid paying about $3.5 billion in taxes to Uncle Sugar. Avoiding taxes is legal, evading taxes is what brought Al Capone down (that and syphilis). Google is making a rational response to maximize their company’s financial power and it turns out Google is just the tip of the iceberg:

J.P. Morgan JPM +1.15% estimates that American companies currently hold a cool $1.7 trillion in profits outside the U.S. They keep them there because if they brought them home, they’d be taxed at 35%. Hewlett-Packard HPQ +1.47% has told its shareholders that “substantially all of HP’s total cash balances are held outside the U.S.” Two-thirds of Apple’s $121 billion in cash is held outside the U.S. Most other multinationals can tell a similar story, and a substantial number hold those profits in subsidiaries based in Bermuda.

(A cool $1.7 trillion? Just think: that could cover a whole year of the Obamanomics driven Obamadeficit.)

When liberals avoid paying taxes, they shrug it off as “something everyone does.” When an American-based company does the same, libs go apoplectic (and imagine if it had been Wal-Mart). Want to drive these now-American companies towards an ever-greater overseas presence? Keep writing laws that induce them to do just that.

Finally, lefties fail to see that by removing barriers to competition, jobs and wages should both increase. It’s a basic reflection of supply and demand, and if there were fewer impediments to starting a business, there might just be more business and more employment options available to workers. But in our regulatory state, a place of ever-increasing larding on of new legislation, who will be willing to fight city hall, county governments, state governments, the Department of Labor, the EPA, et al.?

We don’t really know the answer to that, but all else being equal, we can reasonably say fewer entrepreneurs will emerge when government builds such barriers to competition. That means fewer entrepreneurs which means fewer start-ups and small businesses and that’s where most jobs are created (except in today’s environs where most jobs created are government jobs and don’t create value nearly commensurate with their costs).

Instead America is stuck with—by its own choice—an Executive who appears to understand nothing about basic economics (or for that matter, truth), supported by a mainstream court-eunuch media who is dedicated to this Executive, madly (and angrily) scribbling economists who are out of their depth and deny reality, politicos with fatal levels of hubris and self-deception. Mistakes have consequences and that’s why the country is headed in the wrong direction.

How leftist journalists make a living

How do leftist journalists make a living?

One important way is by serving as media outlets for similar thinking politicians. You know, the whole court eunuch/stenographer to the king thing?

Sometimes these sort of left-on-left love-ins are done with the court and/or king off the record so a to release the journalist from their alleged responsibility to report the facts.

The Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington is generally forthcoming about her enterprise and its journalism.

Except, that is, when she’s invited to an off-the-record meeting [along with “Most of MSNBC’s prime time lineup — Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell” and The Washington Posts  Jonathan Capehart and Greg Sargent…] in the White House with President Obama. “Since it was off the record, she’s unable to discuss,” responded Huffington Post spokesman Rhoades Alderson when asked whether his boss could pick up the phone.

How’s it all work? Simple: the leftist politicians have a point of view they want to promote and the leftists journalists want to promote the point of view. It’s called insider access and in this case, it would be better called boosterism. Depending on insider information is largely the same for those who write on sporting teams, the entertainment industry, activities in the judicial and law enforcement communities, etc., and yet the boosterism is not nearly so rampant.

The political flip side happens with the journalistic right as well, but since lefty journalists outnumber the right approximately 20 to 1, it has far less effect.

And when the right is in power and the left lacks the access they traditionally have, what do they do?

They throw darts, criticize, and distort the right. This behavior is a result of their natural inclinations and also, based on directions from their political handlers.

And that’s the way it is.

The brilliance of Ross Douthat

Ross Douthat is a voice in the wilderness. (The wilderness is, of course, the New York Times.)

Ross has not only captured the essence of Obama’s big government America but he’s boiled it down to a bumper sticker which the left can now offer: the government will solve your problems.

Big government thus becomes Staples with its “easy” button.

Skeptics ask “If big government were going to solve our problems, wouldn’t they already be solved by now?” Or “If deficit spending could fix the economy, shouldn’t it be in grand shape by now?” Similarly they can point the failures across history of government to solve people’s problems; consider Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cambodia, and Red China for starters.

The reality is big government does not create value that’s commensurate with it’s costs. That, and the reality the poor you shall always have with you.

Big government promises to solve economic problems, disassociation, single parenthood, and the challenges it has itself created, fostered, and fermented via multiple moral hazards:

…the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.

Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women…

…the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.

It seems that liberals fail to acknowledge that man is a fallen creature and that government is made up of flawed human beings just like us. The bigger the government (or the more powerful the government; they seem to go hand in hand), the bigger the accumulated flaws. The founding fathers had it right: government is to be constrained and not encouraged.

Non-government solutions—like families or the Church—face the challenge of still having to work through flawed human beings but generally with a better root-cause analysis. That is, they more often acknowledge our problems are first a condition of the heart (or of our basic nature) and somewhere after that, a condition of the pocketbook.

A Progressive Surge?

Only flat-earthers, as epitomized by The Nation, could take a narrow Obama victory (getting fewer votes than John McCain in 2008 and losing 10 million voters) and call it A Progressive Surge.

Mark Steyn offers a more realistic take on the Obama surge:

In the course of his first term, Obama increased the federal debt by just shy of $6 trillion and in return grew the economy by $905 billion. So, as Lance Roberts at Street Talk Live pointed out, in order to generate every dollar of economic growth the United States had to borrow about five dollars and 60 cents. There’s no one out there on the planet — whether it’s “the rich” or the Chinese — who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve…

That’s a more accurate description of the progressive/regressive surge: increased federal debt, government misinvestment, and the Ponzi scheme that pays for it.

To lean on one of the left’s intellectual leaders, it’s the government spending, stupid. Things that can’t continue forever won’t.

Libtards fail to understand economics

The Obamunists, AKA the libtards, clearly fail to understand economics. Somehow, they are incapable of grasping that massive government intervention (for example, Obamacare) might actually dissuade business from hiring or from sustaining current hiring levels. Libtards are the ones who think things like healthcare, Obamaphones, and food stamps are free.

From Twitchy, one person knows the truth:

Among the commandments of life under the Obama administration: thou shalt not speak ill of Obamacare. Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter was hammered with Twitter abuse after informing shareholders and franchisees in August that implementing Obamacare would necessarily increase costs of running the business. Applebee’s [sic] is under the gun today after Zane Tankel, a franchisee whose company runs 40 New York-area restaurants, told Fox Business Network that a hiring freeze might be in the works.

Libtards somehow don’t get, or choose not to get, that government disincentives—whether ever-increasing regulatory constraints or government directed “investments”—lead to crony capitalism and reduced consumer (and employment) options.

Is the idea of government pizza—Papa Sam’s?—appealing?

Ultimately, someone must create value for society and the government can’t do it as well—or at all—as the market can.

Oliver Stone speaks truth to power… sorta

Oliver Stone may as well prepare his apologies now for his gaffe—that is, speaking an unsayable truth—regarding Broncobama.

From Politico (and interestingly, running after the election. Coincidence, I’m sure.):

In Oliver Stone’s new book — “The Untold History of the United States” — the filmmaker, along with historian Peter Kuznick, argues that, “The country Obama inherited was indeed in shambles, but Obama took a bad situation and, in certain ways, made it worse.”

Of course the above assessment is constrained—in certain ways—but a better question becomes this: in what way or ways—exactly—has Barry made things better? Anyone… anyone?

More from the stoned one (and his helper):

Despite their critiques of the current administration, both [authors] still adopted a “best of two evils” attitude towards Obama.

“I believe he has a heart, I do,” said Stone. “But what follows him? He’ll be out of office in four years. Who’s going to be in office in 2020 when the weapons are worse? If another administration comes in like the Bush or Romney administration, what’s to prevent them from using these weapons in a far more sinister way?”

The next questions: 1) sure he has a heart but does he have a brain? 2) what weapons? and 3) given Bush has already had his chance to use the existent weapons “in a far more sinister way,” how can one explain why he didn’t do so, and more so, why his failure to do so makes him scarier than Dear Reader who has?

And one more blurb:

“I see more potential in Obama, as critical as I am,” said Kuznick. “I don’t believe that’s truly his essence and his soul. I think if we mobilized forces and pushed him the right direction, he’d be happy to be pushed.”

The NBA and historians, it would seem, reward potential versus performance. Besides that, it appears Obama is the one doing the pushing and we’re the ones facing the cliff.

Enjoy the ride down, Americans.

Enjoy the ride down, Americans.

Enjoy the ride down, Americans.


Bruce Springsteen and Joe Biden

Bruce Springsteen is a man who sings as if he’s blown-out an o-ring and is inexplicably called ‘The Boss.’ He was once an angsty rock-n-roller; now Springsteen’s been reduced to an aged-out sing-and-raise-money guy for the left. Ah, Glory Days.

Joe Biden is a gaffe-master and is the epitome of why politicos have spokesmen. While Joe often traffics in more than mere gaffes—trending towards drooling idiocy—he remains well-known for accidentally telling the truth.

And it seems Bruce Springsteen has accidentally spoken the truth, ‘freaking out’ over Dear Reader being crushed like a grape during the first debate. If only David Axelrod had pre-briefed Bruce on the party’s approved talking points…

The first term is what freaked me out…

Leftists, liberals, and progressives attempt to re-define reality

denialWhat a drag it is to be a lefty/liberal/progressive and to have to live in the real world. In fact, this conflict of worldview with reality can lead to a massive case of cognitive dissonance, or more likely, denial.

You have David Axelrod, Obama’s handler, who denies the polls.

You have pro forma Obama supporters who put on their brave Barack face while knowing they’re living a lie.

You have typing heads that are begging for the 2008 Obama voters to show up in 2012 because if they fail to do so, the Third Reich is right around the corner. (And if not the Third Reich, then Robert Reich.)

You have an influential mainstream media source that fails to accept economic principles at the elementary-school level.

Things that can’t continue forever—like denying reality—don’t.

Two recurring themes come to mind: 1) George Orwell was a prophet and 2) man remains the only creature capable of lying to himself.

The end-state of the left’s quest for power

When their ideologies fail, the left attempts to spin, often attempting to re-define language or dissembling. When those efforts fail, they often attempt to assert control via brute force (and at the individual level, consider this Chinese diver or American gymnast Dominique Moceanu).

But something that can’t continue on forever won’t, hence the historical failure of communism and the failure of today’s welfare state.

Sadly, reality seems to hold little sway over those intellectually vested in the failed ideas of the left.

What then remains? The left is reduced to lying to one’s self—and others—a well-practiced art.

Controlling the economy

Liberal politicos, agencies, commissars, czars, bureaucrats, and their court stenographers all have a problem with their worldview: it isn’t reality-based.

Their worldview asserts government is in control and that with only a bit more government power and with the right enlightened leaders pushing government’s mighty levers, intractable problems will simply go away. Whoosh.

And when that doesn’t work, as it hasn’t for the President, you are forced to run from your own record and blame others.

Reality shows that the economy is a little more difficult to control. From Janet Daley:

The economy is now beyond the control of national governments, and therefore outside the remit of democratic politics. It has become truly global, and thus a law unto itself; nation states have gone broke in their attempt to feed its gargantuan appetites for consumption and debt. The remedies for this began in panic and are now ending in delusion: first the banks went bust and were bailed out by governments; then the governments went bust and needed to be bailed out by – whom? International funding agencies which get their cash from – where? From central banks which will have to print gigantic amounts of money to replace all the money that simply disappeared in the bad debt that bankrupted the banks in the first place. And if we all agree to accept the illusion that this newly printed cash has actual value – if we all clap really hard and say that we believe in fairies – then the whole show can get back on the road and we will be rich again.

When you unpack the liberal economic mash of how value is created down to the component level, you’re left with their fundamental (and sad) assertion: and then a miracle occurs.

But and then a miracle occurs won’t carry the day for the secular, cynical, and progressive; it isn’t adequate. Instead,

The official solution… is to eradicate more forcibly than ever the messy democratic accountability of national governments to their people.

Hence the undemocratic and extra-legal actions of the aforementioned politicos, commissars, agencies, czars, bureaucrats, and media stenographers. Legislation by regulation and/or executive order must rule the day. It’s for your own good, they say.

Unwinding the work of many well-intentioned fools would normally be be a multi-generational task but it’s likely to move much faster once the people realize the dire straights our elites have placed us in.

The insanity of liberal economists

Linsanity is (was) the Jeremy Lin phenomenon.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Argument from ignorance asserts a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

This makes Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, AKA Paul Rugrat and Robert Tyke insane. And ignorant.

Jeremy Lin is merely on the Knicks injured reserve, but he could be back for game five versus the Heat. Were he to suffer a brain injury instead of a knee injury, he might want to consider a future as a liberal economist. But I digress…

Both Krugman and Reich offer the same “economic” shtick over and over again: Borrow more money. Spend more money. Print more money. Repeat ad infinitum until the next national-level collapse and/or revolution.

From the Rugrat:

Critics [like Krugman himself] warned from the beginning that austerity in the face of depression would only make that depression worse.


…the failure of austerity policies to deliver as promised has long been obvious. Yet European leaders spent years in denial, insisting that their policies would start working any day now, and celebrating supposed triumphs on the flimsiest of evidence.

The failure of austerity policies in the above context means this: to try and approach living within a nation’s means. Snip.

…serious analysts now argue that fiscal austerity in a depressed economy is probably self-defeating: by shrinking the economy and hurting long-term revenue, austerity probably makes the debt outlook worse rather than better.

Yes, the Rugrat considers himself a serious analyst. And perhaps because no one has come up with a model to disprove him, regardless of the self-evident non-austerity fail, he considers his hypothesis to be true. And Reich is cut from the same dwarfish cloth.

Here’s Reich, who is at least more succinct (if no less insane):

Blame it [that is, the epic European economic fail, sans Germany] on austerity economics – the bizarre view that economic slowdowns result from excessive debt, so government should cut spending.

Naturally, the Europe to America implication is this: bad things will happen to the United States should we practice “austerity.”

Yet only a liberal economist (or two) could think the U.S. Government adding over $6.2 trillion to the national debt in the last four fiscal years is somehow approaching the aforementioned and dangerous austerian approach.

That’s because we all know that deficit government spending somehow magically creates a multiplier effect of something greater than 1.0. Except when it doesn’t. Like for at least the last four years.

And such borrowing becomes problematic if the money isn’t paid back, or if it is, if it’s paid back at less than full value, either due to financial haircuts or inflation.

As to the serious analysts tag the Nobel Prize winning Krugman credits himself with, I must defer to polymath Nassim Nicholas Taleb of The Black Swan fame. Taleb refers to the aforementioned Nobel Prize in economics as “absurd” “pseudo-science” which is “reminiscent of medieval medicine.” And he’s got more, far more, but here’s a good representative chunk:

…economic models, it has been shown, work hardly better than random guesses or the intuition of cab drivers…

Other than that, liberal economists should be inherently trusted, honored, and deferred to. At least as much as random guesses and cab drivers.

The purposeful obfuscation of Dana Milbank

Dana Milbank is a reliably liberal media lapdog at the Washington Post (not the John Philip Sousa march, but the newspaper).

Sometimes—through random success, just as a blind squirrel might find an acorn—Milbank says something funny, interesting, or topical. Generally, he does not.

In this recent column, he does not enjoy random success. Instead, Milbank delivers a reliably partisan and predictable attempt to slime Paul Ryan. Why? Because 1) Raul Ryan’s budget position has been endorsed by Mitt Romney and 2) Mitt Romney will running against Barack Obama in November.

Milbank’s issue at hand is that Paul Ryan had the audacity to deliver a draft budget instead of taking the do-nothing approach meekly favored by the Harry Reid-controlled Senate (no budget in three years, but they did reject the President’s 2012 budget 97 to zero) or the fairy tale/mentally ill 2013 budget delivered by the President (non-endorsed 414 to zero in the House).

Here’s Milbank’s beef:

…Ryan, the author of the House Republican budget endorsed by Mitt Romney, said his program was crafted “using my Catholic faith” as inspiration. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was not about to bless that claim.

A week after Ryan’s boast, the bishops sent letters to Congress saying the Ryan budget, passed by the House, “fails to meet” the moral criteria of the Church, namely its view that any budget should help “the least of these” as the Christian Bible requires: the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the jobless. “A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons,” the bishops wrote.

Milbank’s writing is disingenuous at best, ignoring the overarching context the mentioned and earlier budget-focused USCCB letters to the Congress, both of which say the following: 

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

The above context provides much for the USCCB to find wrong with all versions of the federal budget (and more so, for every federal budget ever produced). First, and of greatest significance, think Obamacare and abortion and ponder how that protects or threatens human life and dignity. But the USCCB also groused against proposed Administration cuts to “safe and affordable housing,” the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, and “the entire foreign operations budget.”

But noticeably unmentioned by the USCCB is the whole Exodus 20:15 thing, better known as Thou shall not steal.

By continuing to grow the federal deficit in the Obama manner, the Administration is stealing from future generations (assuming the debt is someday repaid, a stretch) or else from debt holders (who will be forced to take pennies on the dollar paybacks).

Obama will be forced to address his record during the campaign and after the elections, Mr. Milbank will be able to settle into the intellectual easy chair of railing against the new president and nostalgically longing for the old one. It’s good work if it suits your disposition.

The Mad Skills of Keith Olbermann

blovermanKeith Olbermann is again removed for cause, AKA fired.

I’m shocked, shocked!



Mr. Olbermann is said to have some mad skills. If the above were released within minutes, it would appear these skills are as a typist and bridge burner, as opposed to being a coherent thinker.

His replacement, Client Number 9 (AKA Eliot Spitzer), is sure to prove more pliable, less prone to self-destruction (well, regarding the workplace anyway), and is an affirmation of Mr. Gore’s attempt to recycle things that have gone past their use-by date.