Dads: If You Don’t Want Your Daughter to Date Charlie Sheen, Lil Wayne, Beavis or Butthead, Read This

Here are my 10 Commandments for my daughter’s potential boyfriends.
Please facebook, email and tweet this list and my accompanying new video to dads who do not want their daughters to ever date or marry Lil Wayne, Charlie Sheen, Beavis or Butthead.
Commandment I. Thou shall understand that your presence doesn’t make me happy. And know this: I’ve got a PI doing a background check on you at this moment.
Commandment II. Thou had better have a life. I have worked my butt off providing a good life for my daughter; therefore, you better have ...


Another Reason To Declare Independence from Obamacare SCOTUS Disaster

Many have weighed in on the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare much better than I could. Two of the best were Rush Limbaugh’s and Mark Levin (download the June 28th show for free and share it widely). But a few things remain unmentioned as far as I can tell.
First, the SCOTUS decision means the low-income uninsured won’t likely see any change to their status.
How is that? How can a law designed in large part to help the poor obtain insurance, a law that taxes and spends so much, end up with no ...


Obamacare Survives, but Political Playing Field Has Changed

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the Obama administration’s health care legislation was a victory for the president, his administration and his party. Their most ambitious legislative achievement has not been nullified, and they are not left in obvious disarray.
But it is only a partial victory and in some ways not a victory at all, both in the short run electorally and in the long run in terms of the constitutional order.
Politically Obamacare, as its critics call it, remains highly unpopular. It’s possible that the court decision will boost its ...


On Vacation This Week

I’ll be off this week on vacation although my columns will still run. While I’m gone, have a great July 4th and enjoy the other columnists and bloggers. I’ll see you next Monday!


Library of Congress Picks 88 Unobjectionable Books that “Shaped America”

Atlas Shrugged shaped America? You wouldn't know to look at the place. The Library of Congress,
established by President John Adams, has announced its list of
Books that Shaped America
," determining that two-thirds of
America's cultural history took place in only the last 112

That at least is the evidence from the
publication dates
, just 27 of which are from before the
twentieth century. Only 20 predate the Civil War. Suck on that,
Francis Hopkinson, Susanna Rowson and Charles Brockden Brown!
Phyllis Wheatley, you did your people great honor, but you just
didn't shape America. 

All those people were big sellers. Hopkinson signed the
Declaration of Independence. But even once-popular writers who are
still known didn't make the list. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow gets
shunned. (You know, he's only the guy who came up with "I shot an
arrow in the air" and "Listen my children and you shall hear of the
midnight ride of Paul Revere" and "By the shores of Gitche
Gumee..." It's not like he wrote anything hummable.) James
Fennimore Cooper is nowhere to be found. Ralph Waldo Emerson
doesn't show up. Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allen

These lists are more or less designed to rub you the wrong way,
so I have two big beefs. One is the lack of early literature noted
above. The other is the hesitant approach to popular literature —
by which I mean popular-in-its-day literature like Maria Susanna
Cummins' The Lamplighter — which teach you more about the
people and manners of ye olde tymes than do canonical works.

There are some interesting choices. Uncle Sam's bibliophiles
held their noses and included Atlas Shrugged, though I
think the idea that Ayn Rand's novel shaped America falls under the
"if only" rubric. Peter Parley's Universal History sounds
like one for the night table. 

There's a pronounced split between "shaping" and literary value.
I can grok (cf. Number 73) including Unsafe at Any
if you're talking about influence on American law
and culture, but Ralph Nader doesn't exactly set the bookstore on
fire with his prose stylings. And Moby Dick seems like a
reasonable choice for literary attainment, but how can it have
shaped America when it was barely read for almost a half-century
after its debut? 

If we are talking about shaping America, where's Leon
Uris' Exodus, which ignited popular support for Israel
while spending years on the bestseller list? Or if we're talking
about reflecting America, I'd like to see some mortal
favorites like Rona Jaffe's The Best of Everything or
Jerome Weidman's I Can Get It for You Wholesale,
interesting, revelatory books that have sunk into obscurity but
could use the help of a big institution to alert readers to their

It's not like there's a shortage of evangelists. The Library of
Congress has a brief
 in which officials talk about Important Books, but
the real eye-opener is how many high-level employees the national
library has. Next time you're wondering why we have no choice but
to raise the debt ceiling, keep in mind that we're employing a
Librarian of Congress; an associate Librarian, Library Services; a
Law Librarian of Congress; a National Ambassador, Young Peoples
Literature; a Project Manager, National Books Festival; a Chief of
the Rare Book and Special Collections Division; a Reference
Librarian; and a Teacher-In-Residence. And the
Poet Laureate
hasn't even weighed in yet. 

Anyway, here's the full list: 

  • Experiments and Observations on
    Benjamin Franklin 1751
  • Poor Richard Improved and The Way to Wealth
    Benjamin Franklin 1758
  • Common Sense Thomas Paine 1776
  • A Grammatical Institute of the English Language Noah
    Webster 1783
  • The Federalist anonymous 1787
  • A Curious Hieroglyphick Bible anonymous 1788
  • A Survey of the Roads of the United States of America
    Christopher Colles 1789
  • The Private Life of the Late Benjamin Franklin, LL.D.
    Benjamin Franklin 1793
  • American Cookery Amelia Simmons 1796
  • New England Primer anonymous 1803
  • History of the Expedition Under the Command of the Captains
    Lewis and Clark Meriwether Lewis
  • The Legend of Sleepy Hollow Washington Irving
  • McGuffey's Newly Revised Eclectic Primer William
    Holmes McGuffey 1836
  • Peter Parley's Universal History Samuel Goodrich
  • The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
    Frederick Douglass 1845
  • The Scarlet Letter Nathaniel Hawthorne 1850
  • Moby-Dick; or The Whale Herman Melville 1851
  • Uncle Tom's Cabin Harriet Beecher Stowe 1852
  • Walden; or Life in the Woods Henry David Thoreau
  • Leaves of Grass Walt Whitman 1855
  • Little Women, or Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy Louisa May
    Alcott 1868
  • The American Woman's Home Catharine E. Beecher and
    Harriet Beecher Stowe 1869
  • Mark, the Match Boy Horatio Alger Jr. 1869
  • Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Mark Twain 1884
  • How the Other Half Lives Jacob Riis 1890
  • Poems Emily Dickinson 1890
  • The Red Badge of Courage Stephen Crane 1895
  • The Wonderful Wizard of Oz L. Frank Baum 1900
  • Harriet, the Moses of Her People Sarah H. Bradford
  • The Call of the Wild Jack London 1903
  • The Souls of Black Folk W.E.B. Du Bois 1903
  • The History of Standard Oil Ida Tarbell 1904
  • The Jungle Upton Sinclair 1906
  • The Education of Henry Adams Henry Adams 1907
  • Pragmatism William James 1907
  • Riders of the Purple Sage Zane Grey 1912
  • Family Limitation Margaret Sanger 1914
  • Tarzan of the Apes Edgar Rice Burroughs 1914
  • New Hampshire Robert Frost 1923
  • Spring and All William Carlos Williams 1923
  • The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald 1925
  • The Weary Blues Langston Hughes 1925
  • Red Harvest Dashiell Hammett 1929
  • The Sound and the Fury William Faulkner 1929
  • Joy of Cooking Irma Rombauer 1931
  • Gone With the Wind Margaret Mitchell 1936
  • How to Win Friends and Influence People Dale Carnegie
  • Idaho: A Guide in Word and Pictures Federal Writers'
    Project 1937
  • Their Eyes Were Watching God Zora Neale Hurston
  • Our Town: A Play Thornton Wilder 1938
  • Alcoholics Anonymous anonymous 1939
  • The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck 1939
  • For Whom the Bell Tolls Ernest Hemingway 1940
  • Native Son Richard Wright 1940
  • A Tree Grows in Brooklyn Betty Smith 1943
  • A Treasury of American Folklore Benjamin A. Botkin
  • A Street in Bronzeville Gwendolyn Brooks 1945
  • The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care Benjamin Spock
  • The Iceman Cometh Eugene O'Neill 1946
  • Goodnight Moon Margaret Wise Brown 1947
  • A Streetcar Named Desire Tennessee Williams 1947
  • Sexual Behavior in the Human Male Alfred C. Kinsey
  • The Catcher in the Rye J.D. Salinger 1951
  • Charlotte's Web E.B. White 1952
  • Invisible Man Ralph Ellison 1952
  • Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury 1953
  • Howl Allen Ginsberg 1956
  • Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand 1957
  • The Cat in the Hat Dr. Seuss 1957
  • On the Road Jack Kerouac 1957
  • To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee 1960
  • Catch-22 Joseph Heller 1961
  • Stranger in a Strange Land Robert E. Heinlein
  • Silent Spring Rachel Carson 1962
  • The Snowy Day Ezra Jack Keats 1962
  • The Feminine Mystique Betty Friedan 1963
  • The Fire Next Time James Baldwin 1963
  • Where the Wild Things Are Maurice Sendak 1963
  • The Autobiography of Malcolm X Malcolm X and Alex
    Haley 1965
  • Unsafe at Any Speed Ralph Nader 1965
  • In Cold Blood Truman Capote 1966
  • The Double Helix James D. Watson 1968
  • Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee Dee Brown 1970
  • Our Bodies, Ourselves Boston Women's Health Book
    Collective 1971
  • Cosmos Carl Sagan 1980
  • And the Band Played On Randy Shilts 1987
  • Beloved Toni Morrison 1987
  • The Words of Cesar Chavez Cesar Chavez 2002

At least the Brady
and makers of understated arthouse films still give
Longfellow his due:



One-on-One with Marco Rubio

The run-up to the presidential election is really a debate about growth and taxes, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told CNBC on Monday. "Growth helps the debt be more manageable, unemployment, all of these things," he said...


How Would A Corporate Tax Cut Create Jobs??

Thomas PaineAfter reading these articles, I’m afraid that I can’t say that it would. It seems that the “job creators” are not too interested in creating jobs.

Putting a million or so people back to work would do a lot of things. it would increase the revenues to the government, decreasing the deficit.

It would give over a million people the money to buy things necessary or unnecessary, which would in turn force businesses to increase production, which would mean even more jobs, which would reduce the unemployment rate even further.

All of this would have a muliplier effect on the economy, making everything in the economy better.

Since all of these corporations already have record cash reserves, how would giving them even more cash reserves cause them to create more jobs? Why wouldn’ t they simply continue to hoard this excess money like they are currently doing? Why wouldn’t they continue to stash this money overseas, like they are currently doing to avoid paying US taxes, like they are currently doing?

Since the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations were essentially “citizens,” shouldn’t these “citizens” be required to do what the rest of us real citizens do?  I think so. With the right of citizenship comes the responsiblility of citizenship.

What am I mising here? Read these articles and explain it to me.

Companies in North America boast healthy balance sheets—but how soon growth will return. We live in unusual economic times. As countries and as individuals, we have never been more in debt. Corporations, on the other hand, are flush with cash. Worried about volatility, they’re hoarding money—and holding back the very growth they’re anxious to see return. What’s more, their flawed way of evaluating risk is causing them to miss out on potentially lucrative opportunities.

Earnings at large non-financial companies in the U.S. are at 5.5% of GDP— more than 50% above the average of the past 25 years–why-business-must-spend-its-cash-reserves

But with Apple leading the way, the amount of cash held by U.S. corporations hit a record $1.24 trillion, about 57 percent of it in overseas accounts to avoid paying taxes that would be owed if it was repatriated.

The record amount of cash came even though many companies increased capital expenditures, dividend payments, share buybacks and acquisition spending last year, the report shows.

In addition to record amounts of cash, non-financial companies covered by the report also posted record revenue of $10.4 trillion and cash flow from operations of $1.3 trillion.

The University of Maryland study, commissioned by the UN’s International Labour Organization, places the cash stockpile at the more modest value of $508 billion — more than the GDPs of Poland, Sweden, Norway and Saudi Arabia.

If all that money was spent, the study concludes, it would create 2.4 million jobs, reducing unemployment by 1.5 percent, and also lifting up the country’s GDP by one percent this year, 1.5 percent next year, and 1.6 percent in 2014. If just half that money was spent, the study continues, one million more Americans would have work.

It’s not as if companies need these liquid assets, the researchers note. The ratio of cash-on-hand to current liabilities is 14 percent higher than the historical average. But the uncertain economic environment has created a “paradox of thrift,” in which companies invest little, create fewer jobs, and make the economic environment that much more uncertain.

“Now, as government fiscal austerity hampers U.S. economic growth, new private spending becomes essential to close the employment gap,” said Jeffrey Werling, one of the report’s coauthors and the executive director of the University of Maryland’s Inforum Research Center, in a press release. “Investment in new plant and equipment could help pick up the slack from reduced government expenditure, boosting payrolls and providing a much-needed jolt to economic activity.”


Incoming search terms:

  • job creators ilo



Did Liberal Pressure Bully John Roberts Into Voting for ObamaCare?

CBS News is

that Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican
appointee who sided with the Supreme Court's liberal voting block
in voting to uphold President Obama's health care law, switched his
vote after initially coming down against the law's individual

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme
Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of
President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act,
but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals
to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with
specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring
him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically,
Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the
justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort
to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He
was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives
handed him their own message which, as one justice put it,
essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion,
including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis
imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the
sources said.

Why did Roberts switch? The article says that no one knows for
sure, but speculates that pressure from liberal editorialists and
others who warned that the high court's reputation would be ruined
if it struck down the law might have made Roberts reverse his
initial position:

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas,
deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are
pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New
York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be
influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that
are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice,
he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also
is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to
the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to
strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the
President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it
would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings,
when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the
conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly,"
the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and
decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried
to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response,
according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

At the legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy, Stewart Baker
that Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave an unusual and "weirdly
belated" speech urging Roberts to vote in favor of the law—weird
because the initial votes on the case had already been cast. Those
types of speeches, Baker notes, are usually a bad idea, or at least
a gamble, because of the possibility that they will backfire. So
why did the senior Democrat on the Senate's judicial committee make
such an unusual gamble right around the time that Roberts is now
said to have "gone wobbly" and changed his vote? Were there leaks
from within about Roberts' wariness that went only to one side of
the aisle?

The existence of the CBS story, which reporter Jan Crawford says
is sourced to two court insiders (possibly even current
), is amazing enough on its own. But if the story and
its speculation about the reasons behind Roberts' switch are true,
then the implications are downright shocking: Essentially, it would
mean that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was bullied into
changing his position, and the ultimate outcome, on perhaps the
most consequential Supreme Court case in the last several decades,
because prominent Democrats and liberals threatened to throw a
temper tantrum if he didn't vote the way they wanted. 


More Proof We Need More Conservatives in Congress

Every Republican swears up and down that he/she supports limited government, a balanced budget, and free markets.  Yet, once again, only a fraction of Republicans in Washington were able to stand for those ideals.  The House and Senate passed the Obama highway bill/student loan stimulus on Friday with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. [Read more about the bill here and here.]

Among other things, this bill bundled together three major policy extensions.  Republicans pledged to end that practice – a practice which forces members to vote for or against one component because of another extraneous portion of the bill.  Although we believe that conservatives should have opposed every aspect of the bill, some members possibly wanted to support just the flood insurance provision and not the student loan or transportation extension.  It makes no sense to bundle them together for the purpose of getting out of town before the holiday week.  Yet, that’s exactly what they did.

Just 52 Republicans, 21% of the conference, voted against this budget buster, which violated several tenets of the GOP Pledge to America.  Only 19 Republicans in the Senate voted no.

Here’s a color-coded spreadsheet of the House vote sorted by Cook PVI (most Republican to least Republican district).  We’ve got a lot of red state Republicans who have no interest in balancing the budget, limiting government, or restoring free markets.

It’s votes like this that separate the men from the boys.  Upon closer scrutiny, you will find that only a small fraction of the party actually supports the principles of the Republican Party.  As we’ve pointed out a number of times, and will continue to show at The Madison Performance Index, many of our most conservative districts are represented by statists.

After the Supreme Court failed to uphold our Constitution, we must focus our attention on Congress.  We applaud the 52 GOP House members and 19 senators for supporting limited government.


Charles Schumer warns Republicans: Pushing for Obamacare repeal will cost you the election

**Written by Doug Powers

Bipartisanship is not dead. It’s so nice of Charles Schumer to reach across the aisle and graciously advise the Republicans on what they need to do in order to avoid election slaughter in November:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday warned Republicans that they would suffer at the polls if they continued to push for a repeal of the president’s healthcare reform bill.

“If Republicans make that their number one issue, the repeal of healthcare, they are certainly going to lose the election, in the House and the Senate and the presidency,” said Schumer on CBS’s “Face the Nation”.

“Bottom line is most Americans are not for repeal. If you look at all the polls, a little more than a third are for repeal,”** he said.

Forget about Republicans. The first people Schumer should be advising to “embrace Obamacare or lose the election” are his Senate colleague Claire McCaskill and many other Dems.

According to most polls I’ve seen lately, even post-SCOTUS decision, more than 50 percent favor repeal of all or at least parts of Obamacare, which of course includes an incredibly high percentage of Republicans and even a quarter of Dems. Nobody — with the possible exceptions of select Berkeley sanitariums and motivational meetings for “Obamacare still a BFD” t-shirt salespeople (“Kool Aid is for closers only!”) — honestly believes Republicans will ruin their chances in November by supporting repeal.

President Obama did get a slight bump from the SCOTUS ruling, but there’s also this:

In some good news for Republicans, the Supreme Court ruling is energizing opposition to the 2010 healthcare law.

In the new poll, more than half of all registered voters – 53 percent – said they were more likely to vote for their member of Congress if he were running on a platform of repealing the law, up from 46 percent before the ruling.

Also, Schumer joined the White House and other Dems in insisting that the Obamacare law isn’t a tax, and is therefore unconstitutional:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe


Now more than ever we must continue praying for religious freedom

Since it is now proven that Obamacare is a tax, Father Z has a most excellent question:
Isn’t it now the case that if the Obama Administration punishes St. Ipsidipsy Catholic Hospital in Black Duck for refusing to provide employees their abortifacient pills, then the Federal Government is taxing the exercise of religion?
Why yes, yes it is. And the Department of Health and Human Services wants it that way. A tax on religion.
I believe Muslims call that the Jizya. Now it’s Barack Hussein Obama’s fee for being Catholic in America.
Are ...

1Jul/12Off and Drudge Report: Center Right? Who Are They Kidding?

In case you hadn't noticed, the Romney campaign is completely shunning the mainstream media, and yesterday Zac Moffat, Digital Director of the Romney Campaign, admitted as much in an interview with operative Larry O'Connor: Romney Campaign: Drudge, Breitbart Leading Rise of Center-Right Media.

My jaw hit the floor when I read this headline. "Center-right?" They have got to be kidding. has been busily promoting every lunatic far right conspiracy theory that bubbles up from the toxic Tea Party base, including Birtherism. And Drudge Report? You mean the site that has a permanent link to Alex Jones' whacked-out conspiracy site and frequently features their insane stories? This is "center right" now?

These are the websites on which Mitt Romney is relying to get his message out -- two of the craziest race-baiting, conspiracy-peddling sites on the web, with readers who frequently spew torrents of vile, gutter-level racism.

For example, the deranged, mindless hatred in this thread of comments at, about a speech given by Michelle Obama at a Nashville church: Michelle Compares Obama to Biblical Figures.

The headline is a blatant lie, first off. Michelle Obama never "compared Obama to Biblical figures" in this speech. Watch their own video -- it shows exactly what a sick race-baiting lie this is.

And then, in response,'s readers filled up the comment thread with repulsive, hateful comments, drenched in racism and religious fanaticism, just like they do every single day.

Ladies and gentlemen -- the new "center right." And this selection is just a fraction of the hatred in this thread, of course. I didn't quote the dozens of commenters calling Obama "the Antichrist" and "Satan."

Mooch-el is right.....he's the black Jesus!!!!!!!


The ONLY biblical figure Obama could compare to is JUDAS.......for betraying America and everyone of it's citizens!  The POS isn't fit to even breathe the air in this country.....neither is his lardbutt, thunderthighed, gorilla-faced piece of trailer trash wife!


There was nothing in Allene177's post about the color of anyones skin and nothing that was written was out of context with the facts.
There wasn't a footprint or vapor of hate in that post, it was just calling a spade a spade.




The violator in the Oval Office is a mooh latto, not an african anything. By
definition he is just a mooh lattoo but the sick puppy press will not use the
real word and the monitors of this page will not allow it to be used.


Deranged animals who think they are gods cannot be civilized


Sorr y that your "Ma gic Knee grow" isn't so 'mag ical' anymore.


Obama does kind of resemble that donkey's caboose in the manger scene.


Pigbama more represents what comes out of the donkeys caboose.


Oh my God these people stop at nothing, KING OBAMA BENT WAY OVER, just like he does to the leaders that hate America. Keep bowing oh Great One, you are not God Almighty you are the Devil and the American people know it. OBAMA THE GREAT LIAR AND DESTROYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


she is the uglies first lady ever


Obama is just .25 b l a c k. He's also .25 A r a b, so he's just as much an A r a b president as he is a b l a c k one.


Like Obam, this moron is smoking to much crack !!!!!


SEMBY get a grip dude. We do not have African American president. We have a socialist pawn who is actually by definition a mooh latto. Breitbart will not allow for the correct spelling so I use a variation.

But the truth is there is not and it is likely that there will not be an African American president. The dude stinking up the White House and the Oval Office is by definition a mooh latto !


If they are so into the "African" title thing.... why doesn't he GO BACK to AFRICA and be the first AFRICAN tyrant. It would be convenient....he wouldn't have to use the "-American" suffix because we all KNOW he HATES America and what it stands for.....My God...what POS's they are.


I am also tired of him being called African-American, he is a half breed plain and simple, which means neither race accepts him unless they think he can do something for them.


This woman has lived off whites her entire life, yet she not only hates whites, she hates America.


YEA The Jack-Azz that had to be pulled out of the mud hole


disregard, moo-chele. what would a mu-slime know about the bible in the first place?


Sunday Video Break: Reverso


Savannah Guthrie Replacing Ann Curry on TODAY, What Can We Expect?

Media watchers are announcing that Savannah Guthrie has been tapped to replace the departed Ann Curry on NBC’s long-running morning show, Today. So, what can we say of Guthrie? What has she done before to prepare us for her role at Today?
Will Guthrie be that long-awaited “unbiased” denizen of NBC, the one that will bring credibility to Today? My Magic 8 Ball reads Don’t count on it.
In fact, Guthrie has already been called out over the years by media watchers for biased interviews and comments. Here are just a few ...


In Obama’s America, A Somewhat Less-Free Press

Campaign operatives masquerading as media “fact checkers.” A President who uses the power of the Executive Branch to shutdown blogs. Do American journalists care? The left-leaning sensibilities of America’s dominant journalist culture are well established.  But what isn’t so well established is how comfortable American journalists are with the undermining of their own craft, by a Democrat [...]


The Supreme Court and King Solomon

Only those familiar with the Old Testament story of King Solomon deciding to split the baby in two to find out who the true mother is can rival the Court’s tortured logic and the impossible task of implementing policies when faced with the outcome of the Supreme Court's decisions on Obamacare and Arizona's immigration law. [...]