Unlike the mainstream media (especially Politico), I believe in context. So below this poll, you will find any and all background information needed to answer questions 1 – 3.

Question number four speaks for itself.

—–

(more…)

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post was (along with Politico’s Dylan Byers) one of fascistic GLAAD’s primary co-conspirators in the blacklisting witch hunt to get CNN’s Roland Martin suspended from CNN, over a few perfectly harmless and defensible tweets Martin fired off during Sunday’s Super Bowl.

With Martin’s bloody scalp clenched in his teeth, it looks as though Wemple is apparently a little disappointed that he’s not being celebrated by his media colleagues as some kind of sacred slayer of homophobes. In fact, from the looks of a bitter post he published a little over an hour ago, Wemple ended his victory dance, looked around, and discovered that he was the only one who showed up at the celebration he planned for himself. 

Methinks Wemple is feeling a little naked and alone due to the fact that his MSM pals aren’t as eager to describe Martin’s tweets in the same way he hysterically did — as a “homophobic outburst.”

Hear Wemple whine:

Here’s how the Associated Press described those tweets:

CNN suspended political analyst Roland Martin on Wednesday for “offensive” tweets during the Super Bowl that some critics said were anti-gay.

(more…)

The Washington Post was very excited to report on Feb. 5 that President Obama has finally achieved “the edge” over Mitt Romney in a “general election matchup” poll. The Post was pleased to note Obama was “boosted by improved public confidence” and that he now led Romney by over 50%. Well, he does if you don’t poll actual voters, anyway and therein lies the major problem with the Post’s polling.

The flaw in the Post’s poll is that they seem to have polled “adults” instead of “likely voters” and this fact calls into question the claim in the headline that “Obama holds edge over Romney in general election matchup.” You see, you have to be an actual voter before your opinion in an “election matchup” much matters but the Post apparently did not make sure that its respondents were actual voters before declaring that Obama is now winning over more voters.

But the bigger problem is the fact that the Post has decided it no longer needs to include the partisan breakdown of its respondents for readers to assess. The Post did not include the percentages of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in its polling data so there is no way to know if the poll included a fair representation of all parties or if the whole poll was weighted heavy with Democrats.

The Post has had troubling polls before. Ed Morrissey notes for instance that a WaPo poll from April of 2011 had 22% Republicans overpowered by 33% Democrats and 38% purported independents. If the Post is shorting Republican representation, no wonder the Obamessiah seems to be surging!

By excluding in reports its partisan breakdown, the Post risks having its results easily dismissed by serious readers. It makes the poll practically worthless. Of course, the problem is that the average reader won’t realize that things are askew with the polling and will accept the claims of Obama’s popularity at face value. But maybe that’s why the Post won’t include its partisan breakdown in its reports? As Morrissey says, “it’s easy to assume that the reason that the Post has ended its sample transparency is because they have something to hide.”

(more…)

***UPDATE: As expected, Politico’s Dylan Byers uses Martin’s suspension to once again admonish CNN for not “punishing” (his word) Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch.

Fascistic GLAAD wins another scalp.

Over the years, CNN’s Roland Martin has said some awfully outrageous stuff about Republicans and the Tea Party — and not on his Twitter feed, but on the air at CNN. He’s pretty much accused us of being everything  just short of Nazis due only to legitimate policy differences we’ve had with his precious Barack Obama. As a response, the left-wing speech police — who disguise themselves as “media watchdogs” — have never (according to memory and Google) put any pressure on CNN to have Martin fired, suspended, or reprimanded.  

And they shouldn’t. Martin has every right to be a racial demagogue, and CNN has every right to broadcast him. I don’t like the guy, but the thought of trying to silence him is anathema to everything I believe in. Unfortunately for Martin, the Washington Post and Politico aren’t big fans of the First Amendment and, as a result, just a few minutes ago it was reported that CNN has suspended Mr. Martin “for the time being.”

Martin’s sin? Tweeting a few childish jokes only a fascistic outlet like GLAAD could get away with pretending they are offended by. 

Martin’s mistake? Martin inadvertently stepped into a trap he probably didn’t know existed, and as a result he is now receiving an invaluable lesson about today’s politically-correct hierarchy, where gay trumps black. 

Naturally, media watchdogs who, in the past, have taken no issue with Martin’s race-baiting, are now into day three of their passive-aggressive censorship crusade that pushed CNN into taking the kind of action that puts another win in the column of GLAAD’s ongoing censorship crusade.  

(more…)

Senator Marco Rubio is a bona fide political star able to communicate his ideas and vision with an eloquence few can match. He’s also Hispanic and a Republican, which freaks the left out — and by “left,” I of course mean the mainstream media.

The media’s biggest fear is Obama losing his upcoming reelection, and Rubio is the kind of VP candidate that keeps the corrupt MSM up at night. Not only could he help swing the all-important Hispanic vote into GOP territory; he also hails from the all-important swing state of Florida.

The nightmare scenario for Obama’s MSM Palace Guards is this attractive, articulate young man taking it to Obama on the campaign trail while wrapped in the mantle of history as the very first Hispanic nominated as vice president.

Unfortunately, the MSM is corrupt but not dumb, which is why over the last few months we’ve seen two major pushes from two major news outlets to discredit, toxify, and marginalize Rubio. Oh, and both of those stories were riddled with factual errors that we’re assured were nothing more than honest mistakes.

The first hit came from The Washington Post back in October. Their information was so blatantly wrong that early one Saturday morning I caught them red-handed quietly scrubbing away their mistakes from the hit piece. This is what I wrote at the time:

(more…)

- Irony: super transparent, no government secrets Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is getting his own television show … on Kremlin funded and comically controlled RT America, aka Komrade Kommuniqué.

It’s the television channel that has given voice to a thousand anti-western conspiracy theories, while avoiding criticism of the hand that feeds it. Now state-run Russia Today, the Kremlin’s English-language propaganda arm, has forged an unlikely partnership – with the self-proclaimed defender of truth and freedom Julian Assange …

… “Our viewers are open to the discussions that will be presented through Julian’s show on our channel,” the channel’s editor-in-chief, Kremlin loyalist Margarita Simonyan, said in a statement.

I can’t wait to see how long Assange lasts the moment he speaks of Russia and whispers of revolution after their last exercise in pretending to hold an election.

- Reuters comedically botches a hit piece on Marco Rubio:

Reuters is out with a tough story on Sen. Marco Rubio today, arguing that, the senator “has had significant financial problems that could keep him from passing any vetting process as a potential vice presidential choice…”

Unfortunately, it appears many of the facts are either wrong or exaggerated.

By my count, there were at least 7 errors or exaggerations:

1. “Rubio also voted against Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee who is of Puerto Rican descent…”

(Rubio wasn’t even in the senate then.)

- Romney finds use for WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin commentary as mailer content.

(more…)

- I can’t tell if I’m watching MSNBC. Stuff Liberals Say via Ace:

- WaPo ombudsman: Yes we’re biased and we need to start scrutinizing Obama’s record:

Deborah Howell, Post ombudsman from 2005 through 2008, said at the end of her tenure that “some of the conservatives’ complaints about a liberal tilt [at The Post] are valid.”

I won’t quibble with her conclusion. I think she was right.

- News archives proves gun control laws will fail.

(more…)

- Keith Olbermann reminisces about what was his career, albeit it on MSNBC, while at MSNBC’s old offices.

- Irony defined: progressives angry at Dana Loesch’s illustration of their hyper-dramatic Marines reaction say worse to her online. Definitive reading from SooperMexican:

Not only should that give pause to any rational thinker who is not blinded by their hatred of Conservatives, but it is substantiated by the advocacy of just such acts against Dana Loesch from those supporters of the filthy liberal view. I’d like to provide some evidence of this, by documenting just some of the tweets Dana received in the course of this controversy. Of course, all of this is perfectly fine, since the situational ethics of the left allows for any violent act to be wished on Conservatives and, at the same time, hypocritically demands conservative “civility“.

- Loesch and Bill Maher make front page of the Daily Mail. This presents the question: why aren’t Huffington Post (to where Maher contributes), Media Matters, Think Progress, Politico, and Mediaite going after Maher? Why no petitioning to HBO? Is Maher getting a pass because he’s a man? Is Loesch targeted more because she’s a woman? Why are these entities not going after Mark Levin or Michael Savage?

- THIS:

Today, the NY times is setting up the next media fiction to save the destroyer in the White House. Get this: the NY Times is advancing the idea that the Marines are responsible for the failure of Obama’s “peace” negotiations with these soulless savages. As if.

Think about the timing of the tinkle news drop. You. are. being. so. played, America.

- Irony defined:

The Daily Show
The Association of Opinion Journalists (the new name of the National Conference of Editorial Writers) has a project to restore civility to public discourse. Froma Harrop, the group’s president, explains how the project squares with her own comparison of the tea party to al-Qaida in a syndicated column. (To give credit where it’s due, The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto pointed out the issue before “The Daily Show.”)

“A lot of them don’t get irony or humor.”

“How the f*ck could I get through to both of her?!”

- The Wall Street Journal puts down its crumpet, looks down its monocle at you, and discusses the horrors of the unwashed masses leaving fingerprints all over journalism. (Don’t tell it that Twitter has been breaking the big stories first. Like bin Laden.)

- “Those who do dare to speak up are promptly attacked for it. Big Journalism’s Dana Loesch describes the backlash she’s received for a few statements she made on her radio program yesterday to the effect that the reaction to the incident has been overblown.”

(more…)

Nothing could be more repugnant than ridiculing the actions of a grieving family after the death of a child. It has not been a surprise that Leftists, who celebrate a culture of death, would pile on presidential candidate Rick Santorum and his wife for their actions following the death of their child. Nothing is off limits to the left and their politics of personal destruction.

Scott Olsen/Getty

Jake Tapper, one of the few true journalists left in the main stream media, recently wrote a blog entry discussing the progression of this attack on Santorum. Most of the left’s high-profile, atrocious hit pieces have been covered at Big Journalism here and here so there is no reason to cover them more. Tapper brought attention to a new piece, a column in the Boston Herald, by Jessica Heslam.

It was a pleasant surprise to see the Boston Herald publish a column written by a person who’s actually suffered through a trauma similar to the horror the Sanotrums experienced. The article is very poignant, indeed heart-wrenching.

I was 26 weeks pregnant with my first child, and it had been a blissful pregnancy. But on that beautiful July morning, something wasn’t right. I hadn’t felt my baby move, so I called my doctor’s office.

As I lay on the table in the dark ultrasound room, the technician glided the wand over my swollen belly. She then quietly slipped out of the room to get the doctor. My mind was racing and tears streamed down my face as I desperately held the hand of my husband, Herald reporter Dave Wedge.

It is impossible to imagine a loss of this magnitude without having experienced it personally. In spite of this reality, leftists have continued to peddle the meme that the manner in which the Santorums dealt with the death of their child is somehow weird or the result of some odd right-wing extremist quirk. As Heslam points out, that is far from the truth,

We were gently encouraged to hold our stillborn baby. I was terrified. I had no idea what to expect. No idea what my baby would look like. How on earth could I hold a child whose smile and cries I would never see or hear?

One of the nurses swaddled my daughter and put her in my arms — an act for which I am eternally grateful. Despite our fears and trepidation, the nurse assured us that holding our baby daughter would help us through our ordeal. As painful as it might seem, it would help us heal.

Grace was beautiful. She had my husband’s lips and my big toe. We told her how much we loved her and how sorry we were. Our families got to see her, too, and a priest came to our hospital room to bless her.

This story is eerily similar to the story the Santorums describe about their own loss and how they were counseled to manage it.

The Santorums’ actions are in line with American Pregnancy Association guidelines, which urge grieving parents to talk to and touch their stillborn babies — and for family members to spend time with them as well.

(more…)

Who could possibly forget the sordid love affair between Prince Charles of Wales and the homely Camilla Parker-Bowles, Duchess of Cornwall, resulting in a forsaken Princess Diana?

On January 2nd, the Washington Post ran with this headline, ”Callista Gingrich, America’s Camilla Parker-Bowles”. To call this “a stretch” is generous. The purpose of the article is quite clear, as this paragraph aptly demonstrates:

Whether intentionally or not, the image she presents is all wife and no mistress. Formal and reserved in her red blazers, ruby lipstick and stunningly coiffed platinum hair, Gingrich does nothing if not project the portrait of political spouse. One wonders if she does so precisely because she is debuting in the role after all those years as the other woman.

It is as if the Washington Post is disappointed that Callista does not present the image of a disheveled mistress (translation: whore). Were they expecting her to wear knee-high leather boots and fishnet hose?

The fundamental issue here is why this headline and story were even written. What could this article possibly contribute to the debate over who should be the next Republican nominee? The answer of course, is nothing. It is a vapid bit of “journalism” written with the sole purpose of disparaging the Gingriches and inflicting whatever damage is necessary to ensure the re-election of President Obama, who the WaPo openly admires.

As if one such piece were not enough, the Washington Post published another article entitled “What Newt Gingrich’s three wives tell us about the president he’d be.” Nothing new to add here, just a reporter’s opinion piece spun as hard news.

(more…)

The Internet doesn’t kill newspapers. Publishers do.

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth emailed her year-end thank-you memo to a bunch of WaPo swells on New Year’s Eve (her first mistake). Before the electrons were even dry, the must-read Jim Romenesko posted her email in its entirety with the breaker that Weymouth blew air kisses to almost everyone at the Post—except executive editor Marcus Brauchli.

Image Credit: Washington Post

A C-Suite semaphore? Perhaps. But the real news wasn’t the errant Post Toasties. The real news was the unintentional candor with which Weymouth described how she is driving the paper straight into a digital tar pit.

If you care a whit about real journalism (in any medium), this memo will irk you, and not because of the grammar issues.

I can overlook the dozen or so typos—it was New Year’s Eve, after all. And I can ignore the “they’re-their” slip-up. Spell check doesn’t always catch that one. I can even see past the occasional subject-verb-agreement lapse.

No. No, actually, I can’t. She’s the publisher of the Washington Freakin’ Post, fer chrissake! Doesn’t she have people to catch that??

But what really gives me eye-bulge is watching the Sacagawea of the Fourth Estate instruct her expedition to press on after they’ve reached the Pacific. (more…)

Courtesy of the Washington Post.

Writer Amy Gardner makes no attempt to explain her headline. We’re left to assume that she’s equating Callista Gingrich and Camilla Parker Bowles because they both were at one time the “other woman.” That’s pretty much where the similarities end, unless Gardner thinks that Gingrich is the heir apparent to the White House, the Gingriches the royal family, and that the White House is the same as the English monarchy. The Kennedys seem closer to such a comparison.

The Washington Post is eager to tell you all about Gingrich’s past troubled personal life, but won’t touch the story of Vera Baker, or the 20 years the Democrat opponent spent sitting in a church where antisemitic and racist remarks were considered “Gospel.”

(more…)

Can a Christian be a libertarian? A column with some questionable logic that prevents the piece from being truly thought-provoking. A few things:

Libertarians talk a lot about economics, and rightfully so. Money is central to a healthy economy. Christians are also concerned about money; in fact God talks frequently about money in the Bible.

Actually, money is mentioned more in the Bible than anything else. I’ve written previously of this here. Scriptures tell us that money is a tool with which evil can control man. The Bible obviously doesn’t give political doctrine specific to the Fed, but rather as Christians we are taught to use our access to money as a way of evangelism through deed. This is something libertarianism leaves out, the God part. Are libertarians conservatives without God? That’s a question friends and I have discussed.

It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same.

This passage presupposes that every conflict in which the United States has ever engaged is due to the United States’s frat boy aggression and need to sow its seed of democracy by force. Furthermore, it’s odd to me that a follower of limited government would advocate for a state-endorsed religion as a way of nation building, supplanting the previous logical fallacy. This author quotes Paul more than the Bible, which tells me everything I need to know about this piece. Ron Paul is not God. What is truly unfortunate is that by making the universal straw man that “modern American churches seem to think,” i.e. all churches, the author betrays a (conscious or subconscious) prejudice against churches based on his own presupposition.

Horn misses a huge part of Christ’s work, exemplified in Matthew 10:34:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

I get that Horn wants to promote his stylized version of Biblical interpretation, but he should realize that Ron Paul’s words carry no weight compared to Christ’s, and he perhaps should study the Word of God more than Paul’s words, especially those newsletters.

(more…)

On Wednesday morning the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake posted an infographic that was a perfect example of how one can use a graphic chart to influence the public in subtle ways, ways that we of the center right better start employing in our own efforts if we want to win over the public.

Blake’s post, “Why People Hate Congress,” fits in well with President Obama’s class warfare rhetoric as employed by his campaign to set different economic classes against each other in a desperate and cynically populist bid to get reelected next year. There is little of substance to Blake’s post other than to fan the flames of the sort of hatred that he wants to see grow in order to aid Obama in 2012.

The Post’s Blake also ended up having to pull the graphic off his The Fix blog post because it simply did not illustrate what he claimed it did in his story — but that is another issue that we’ll deal with at the end of this report.

Blake begins his piece asking, “Want to know why Americans hate Congress?” He then goes on to claim it is in part because our elected representatives in Washington D.C. are members of the eeeevil rich.

The fact that members of Congress are getting richer (and 57 members come from the top 1 percent, according to USA Today) confirms what Americans suspect about the people who are running this country: that they don’t empathize with normal people.

Of course, with a dispassionate application of logic, having a few dollars more than the next guy does not ipso facto make the richer guy so out of touch that he cannot empathize with anyone in a lower salary range. Only those filled with hate make this assumption. Empathy has nothing to do with class, money, or politics. It has to do with one’s character.

Further there are plenty of members of Congress with the character to understand and have empathy with others. Then there are some that don’t. People are people, rich or poor.

It is also telling that even Blake admits that Congress has always been filled with “the rich.” The founders were not groveling in poverty, after all. It often takes a person that has achieved a certain place in society to become elected. I mean, should they be elected, how can anyone expect “the poor” or even the lower middle class to afford to fund homes both in D.C. and back in their district? Who can afford to leave their family and business if half the year off more to fly off the D.C. to attend to government business? And with the costs of elections and the Byzantine election laws these days causing many candidates to self fund, it will only be natural that “the rich” end up being our representatives in Congress.

But special attention has to be paid to the graphic Blake used to illustrate his story. And what a masterwork of subtlety it is. Blake claimed that the illustration made by a well-known hate-the-rich researcher from California showed in graphic form the distribution of wealth among both chambers of Congress. The graphic depicts the “top 1%” and the “next 9%” in the color red. Then it uses blue to show the “following 10%” and the “bottom 80%.” Notice what is going on? That’s right, this graphic uses the color red to depict the eeevil rich. And what is the color red in politics these days? None other than the color the Old Media has assigned to the Republican Party.

(more…)

It is inconceivable to me that on issues not involving the fairly declarative Ten Commandments, anyone would skew the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament into something that fits their partisan political point of view. And as far as the Ten Commandments go, there’s more than a little of the old coveting in the subtext of this latest nonsense from the utterly shameless Washington Post:

Christmas means the redistribution of wealth …

The concept of society’s structural sin that is suggested in Pauline teaching was crystallized in the theology of liberation when it appeared among Latin American theologians after the II Vatican Council. Based on a socio-economic secular analysis of history in secular academia, theologians like Father Gustavo Gutierrez spoke of structural sin. Upholding an unjust political and economic system would only perpetuate injustice, they argued. Good people could be trapped into a web of doing bad things because society fostered a way of acting that normalized immoral behavior.

Detractors have caricatured Liberation Theology as advocating violent revolution against White capitalists. In contrast, based on the Just War Theory, theology restricted violence to a response against violent attack, reasoning that self-defense is legitimate when measured by the countervailing force trying to take away human life and liberty. (The Declaration of Independence was founded on that same principle: armed revolution in defense of God-given rights is “as American as apple pie.”)

A-hem:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour’s.

I must’ve missed the asterisk in the tenth commandment and the small print at the bottom the of the tablet that reads:

(more…)

Something to understand about how bias works in the corrupt mainstream media is that it has less to do with what Obama’s Media Palace Guards cover than what you might think. Frequently, bias can be found in what isn‘t covered, but more often than not, bias comes from The Narrative. In order to destroy or build up something or someone, The News Narrative is used to drive and define whatever the MSM wants to drive and define. A perfect example is how the MSM all but ignored Obama potentially lying about his relationship with Bill Ayers but wouldn’t stop driving the story surrounding Herman Cain’s personal life. In fact, Cain’s private life trumped Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and anything having to do with Barack Obama’s own past — something his MSM Palace Guards wouldn’t look into in 2008 and surely won’t consider today.

Something else the corrupt MSM does is cover their collective butts. Even though media bias is now so obvious no one even bothers to pretend it doesn’t exist, for some reason entities like the Washington Post still like to pretend it’s a serious, objective, and responsible news outlet — which is why we got this dropped on us on Christmas Day:

Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs

Linda Sterio remembers the excitement when President Obama arrived at Solyndra last year and described how his administration’s financial support for the plant was helping create hundreds of jobs. The company’s prospects appeared unlimited as Solyndra executives described the backlog of orders for its solar panels.

Then came the August morning when Sterio heard a newscaster announce that more than a thousand Solyndra employees were out of work. Only recently did she learn that, within the Obama administration, the company’s potential collapse had long been discussed.

“It’s not about the people; it’s politics,” said Sterio, who remains jobless and at risk of losing her home. “We all feel betrayed.”

Since the failure of the company, Obama’s entire $80 billion clean-technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign.

(more…)

WaPo:

The White House’s relationship with the reporters who cover it has blown hot and cold throughout history. And this year, some reporters say, things have taken a decidedly frosty turn.

When a reporter gets something wrong or is perceived as being too aggressive, the response is often swift and sometimes at top volume, reporters say. …

Glenn Thrush, who is a reporter for a Web site and Capitol Hill newspaper, Politico, said his encounters have been far more mild than what he experienced as a reporter covering New York City politics for Newsday.

“Coming from a New York tabloid background, having a flack speak to me in an elevated tone does not make me crawl under my desk,” he said. “It does not terrify me to have someone raise their voice occasionally. The expectation in covering the White House is that it’s always going to be about using the good china. Sometimes this is about paper plates.”

(more…)

- Do some fact-checking organization confirm liberal bias?

- Chelsea Clinton’s NBC debut:

- Roger Ailes is writing an autobiography.

- The ABC debate brought in big number for the network: 7.5+ million viewers.

- Journalists have the vapors and say that NYPD treats them unfairly, like in the video below.

(more…)

- Time Magazine lists as its biggest story of the year … Occupy Wall Street. Seriously.

Time Magazine serves up its year-end list, Occupy-style.

The Occupy movement has remained leaderless, amorphous and spontaneous — demonstrators carry signs advocating everything from financial reform to healthcare reform to a ban on fracking — it’s still unclear what sort of real lasting political effect the movement can have. But the sheer persistence of the occupations, galvanized by incidents of heavy-handed policing in New York and California that shocked the nation, have given the protesters’ appeals for economic justice a weight that may play a real role in the upcoming presidential election.

Really? Just the other day:

A German reporter asked Browne if he thought the Occupy movement needed its own song. “You don’t need a new song for the movement,” he said. “It’s got plenty of songs. It just needs people to show up and sing.”

He’s right. But where are they?

A lefty WaPo blogger just blew Time’s story there. The movement is already dead and there weren’t enough of them to accomplish anything in the first place.

(more…)

WaPo’s Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite abuses both her position as a Washington Post writer and as someone charged with the heady responsibility of covering areas of religious faith.

This has to be read to be believed:

We need to start taking student loan debt seriously, both as a troubling moral issue and as a ticking economic time bomb. By some reports, student loan debt in the U.S. will exceed 1 trillion dollars this year, more than the credit card debt of all Americans.

A whole generation of young Americans is at risk in this excessive borrowing. They fall further and further behind in “servicing their debt” because they have no way to keep up with the payments as many of them are unemployed or underemployed. They will delay starting marriage and families; they dare not take the risk of quitting a paying job (if they have one!) and starting their own business to create jobs, and they certainly cannot save to buy a home. They are trapped.

Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” (Matthew 6:12) Forgiving debt is a moral issue. Forgiving some of the worst of this student debt is crucial literally to save this American generation.

[...]

Currently, I’m advocating debt forgiveness. It is the moral thing to do and it is the right civic thing to do. This is what Jesus actually meant; real debts, real debtors, forgiving and forgiven. This is what government is actually about—of the people, by the people, for the people. We still have a chance to show young people that democracy can work for the common good.

This woman is not only drunk with her own power, she’s also way, way out of line. And what a simpleton to think the answer to this complicated question is as cut and dried as she presents it.

After all, who holds that trillion dollar student loan note?

Not the evil banks or even the evil 1%. Not the moneychangers and not the Romans.

We the taxpayers own that trillion dollar note. And some of us taxpayers never enjoyed the benefit of a college education because we couldn’t afford one, and we surely can’t afford another trillion dollars added to the deficit just to benefit the college-educated elite.

(more…)