November 19, 2013

AP’s Sherman Effectively Labels Anthony Kennedy a ‘Conservative’ As Supremes Allow Texas Law to Stand

Never one to let facts get in the way of the proabort narrative, Mark Sherman at the Associated Press characterized today’s 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Texas’s abortion law to stand while on appeal as one rendered by “the court’s conservative majority.”

Really? Anthony Kennedy is one of the justices in the criticalPlanned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed in principle (though without many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” That’s hardly “conservative,” though Sherman at least applied the “liberal” label to the four dissenters. Excerpts follow the jump (bolds are mine):


White House’s Pfeiffer: Obama Not in Gettysburg Because Is a Disaster — For Dems

Can anyone imagine a top Bush 43 adviser, say Karl Rove, telling a reporter that his boss couldn’t attend an important American historical anniversary event because “he’s too busy trying to save the Republican Party”?

Dan Pfeiffer is “Assistant to the President of the United States and Senior Advisor to the President for Strategy and Communications.” Today, in response to a tough but fair question tweeted by Ron Fournier at the National Journal, Pfeiffer said that President Barack Obama wasn’t attending the ceremonies surrounding the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address because “there’s this whole website thing that someone suggested might destroy the Dem Party.” The exchange would surely generate a great deal of press coverage if it involved a conservative or Republican presidential adviser, but the only story other than at Fournier’s National Journal was at the Hill, a popular burial ground for such stories. The Fournier-Pfeiffer exchange, with some external razzing, follows the jump (HT Twitchy):


Lifson on the Faked 2012 Pre-Election Unemployment Figures

At American Thinker, based on John Crudele’s report Monday evening at the New York Post:

The real question is whether the faked interviews were skewed toward reporting jobs held. One can imagine that if there was pressure to fake the interviews, then there was also pressure to make them report more employment. But this is impossible to know without putting people under oath.

Clearly a Congressional investigation is merited.

On President Obama’s watch, we have seen fraud employed to influence the 2012 election regarding Obamacare, so it is not much of a stretch to believe that unemployment data also was faked to influence the election. This raises questions about the legitimacy of his victory.

Well, given the fact that both the seasonally adjusted and raw numbers of employed per the Household Survey went up by 873,000 (eventually revised down to 810,000) and 775,000, respectively — alltime September highs in the nearly 70 years of such record keeping — there was always reason to be suspicious that the reporting was skewed towards “jobs held.”

And I’ll have to admit that I was wrong last year, in a very important sense. I defended the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which processes the data it is given, but I didn’t consider the possiblity that the Census Bureau would manipulate its basic data collection. Now the only question is whether the bureau did slipshod work or if deliberately juiced the numbers. Given that the manipulation, according to Crudele’s sources, “escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today,” the odds are clearly with the latter.

As to Lifson’s assertion that this situation “raises questions about the legitimacy of his victory,” that ship sailed long ago, for at least the following three reasons. (There are several more; the three identified are the most obvious.)

Obama’s 2012 election “victory” has already been delegitimized by the IRS targeting of tea party, conservative, and social values groups.

Obama’s 2012 election “victory” has already been delegitimized by the cascade of lies about Benghazi.

Obama’s 2012 election “victory” has already been delegitimized because his unconditional guarantee that “If you like your plan-doctor-provider, you can keep your plan-doctor-provider” has indisputably been proven false.

AP Headline and Story: Group Which Opposes Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘Anti-Gay’

UPDATE: Which would of course mean that Barack Obama was anti-gay until May 2012.


The “About” page at the Florida Family Policy Council (FPPC) tells us that it “is one of 38 other state based policy council around the country which are associated with Focus on the Family,” and that its mission is “to strengthen Florida’s families through public policy education, issue research, and grassroots advocacy.” It claims that is basis for public argument is “using good research, sound arguments and articulate presentations to make the case for pro-life, pro-family values in the public square.”

FPPC opposes same-sex marriage. According to the Associated Press and AP reporter Brendan Farrington, in a Sunday story (HT Twitchy) carried at the Miami Herald which seems not to have appeared at the wire service’s national site, that means the FPPC is “anti-gay”:


Politico’s Stephanie Simon Twice Claims Arne Duncan Apologized for ‘White Suburban Moms’ Remark; No He Didn’t

I don’t want to go overboard here, but most of the print establishment press deserves a bit of grudging credit in the Arne Duncan “white suburban moms” controvery.

Most of them aren’t characterizing the gutless attempt by Barack Obama’s education secretary to back away from his spiteful, condescending, bigoted comment Friday as an apology — because it wasn’t. In a Monday post at the Department of Educations’s Homeroom blog (how courageous — not), Duncan only admitted that “I used some clumsy phrasing that I regret,” and that “I singled out one group of parents when my aim was to say that we need to communicate better to all groups,” while repeating many of the tired lies which have accompanied Common Core’s imposition from its inception. There was no admission of wrongdoing, and nothing resembling an “I’m sorry.” Predictably, Stephanie Simon at the Politico was among those who considered Duncan’s dumbness an apology (links are in original; bolds are mine throughout this post):


Mark Steyn: ‘Thus Spake Obama’

Filed under: Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:05 am

Read the whole thing. Here’a a key excerpt:

… as historian Michael Beschloss pronounced the day after his election, he’s “probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Naturally, Obama shares this assessment.

So, if I follow correctly, the smartest president ever is not smart enough to ensure that his website works; he’s not smart enough to inquire of others as to whether his website works; he’s not smart enough to check that his website works before he goes out and tells people what a great website experience they’re in for. But he is smart enough to know that he’s not stupid enough to go around bragging about how well it works if he’d already been informed that it doesn’t work. So he’s smart enough to know that if he’d known what he didn’t know he’d know enough not to let it be known that he knew nothing. The country’s in the very best of hands.

Michael Beschloss is right: This is what it means to be smart in a neo-monarchical America. Obama spake, and it shall be so. And, if it turns out not to be so, why pick on him? He talks a good Royal Proclamation; why get hung up on details?

Until October 1, Obama had never done anything — not run a gas station, or a doughnut stand — other than let himself be wafted onward and upward to the next do-nothing gig. Even in his first term, he didn’t really do: Starting with the 2009 trillion-dollar stimulus, he ran a money-no-object government that was all money and no objects; he spent and spent, and left no trace. Some things he massively expanded (food stamps, Social Security disability) and other things he massively diminished (effective foreign policy), but all were, so to speak, preexisting conditions. Obamacare is the first thing Obama has actually done, and, if you’re the person it’s being done to, it’s not pretty.

Tuesday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (111913)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:05 am

This open thread will stay at or near the top today. Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow. Other topics are also fair game.

Positivity: Evangelize with honey, not vinegar, Cardinal Dolan says

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:00 am

From Baltimore:

Nov 17, 2013 / 04:09 pm

Christians should be warm, and so invite people into relationship with Christ and the “yes” of the Gospel, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, says.

“Evangelization means attracting people to the person and message of Jesus Christ,” Cardinal Dolan explained to CNA Nov. 12 during the U.S. bishops’ general assembly in Baltimore, Md.

“If they fall in love with Jesus and the Church, then we can begin to do a lot of the conversion and the tough moral teaching,” he continued, adding that “we can never turn our back on those.”

Cardinal Dolan was outgoing president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at the assembly; his successor in the post is Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville.

The cardinal pointed to the teachings of St. Francis de Sales , saying that “you attract a lot more people with a teaspoon of honey than with a teaspoon of vinegar,” adding that “anything that we can do to be human, warm, compassionate, joyful,” will help evangelization efforts.

“The old philosophers will tell you ‘good always attracts’,” Cardinal Dolan continued, adding that “anything that we can use to attract” others to the good of the Gospel will serve to evangelize the world.

“If we come across as negative and crabby and mean and judgemental, we’ll turn people away. If we come across as embracing, engaging, warm and inviting, we’re going to get them in.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.