Hollyweird Liberal Actress Julianne Moore Doesn't Believe In God

USmagazine.com:

In therapy she trusts. Julianne Moore told The Hollywood Reporter in its new issue that she doesn't believe in God. Instead, she's placed her faith in her therapist and herself.

The Still Alice actress, 54, explained how she's developed her spiritual outlook, much of it stemming from her childhood. "The idea that you're the center of your own narrative and that you can create your life is a great idea," Moore told THR. "I totally believe it. I've been really lucky, but I feel I've completely created my own life."

It's this innate sense of personal control that's made Moore believe — at least in her personal life — the absence of a supreme higher power. "I learned when my mother died five years ago that there is no 'there' there," Moore told the mag. "Structure, it's all imposed. We impose order and narrative on everything in order to understand it. Otherwise, there's nothing but chaos."

Moore opened up about her mom Anne Smith's 2009 death at age 68 from septic shock. "We don't know why it happened," the actress revealed. "She went to bed, and it turned out she had a huge bacterial infection."

I've been saying for years that most social liberals are morally bankrupt because they don't believe God. As for this one, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's followed her career and the kind of roles she takes on: ones mostly filled with debauchery including playing a lesbian at least twice. So stupid when people use tragedy as a reason not to believe in God, yeah keep listening to your therapist instead of the Word of the Lord you conceited nitwit.

RELATED: Why Does God Allow Tragedy and Suffering?

Chris Christie Speech @ Iowa Freedom Summit

RELATED: Chris Christie tackles his problem with conservative voters

Christian Blogger, Veronica Partridge, Takes a Stance Against Lust-Inducing Leggings, Gets Bashed By Conservative-Hating Liberals

People.com:

While the debate continues on whether or not leggings are pants, one woman has made a choice to not wear the popular spandex bottoms in public for a very specific reason. Veronica Partridge, a Christian wife, mother, farmer and homemaker based in Oregon, posted on her personal blog about why she has made the decision to no longer wear leggings.

“Was it possible my wearing leggings could cause a man, other than my husband, to think lustfully about my body?” she wrote in a post that has now been shared over 50,000 times on Facebook. “Sure, if a man wants to look, they are going to look, but why entice them?”

She made the decision to stop wearing yoga pants and similar bottoms out in public after having her beliefs about the temptation associated with leggings confirmed by her friends and her husband.

“It had been something that was on my mind for quite some time,” she tells PEOPLE. “I didn’t want to possibly cause another man, especially a married man, to look at me in a way I believe he should only look at his wife.”

Partridge makes it clear, however, that these are her own beliefs, and she has no intentions of pushing them onto others.

“I was never trying to start a movement or try to tell women how to dress,” she says. “I was just sharing my personal decision on my personal blog.”

The lifestyle blogger says she was surprised by how much attention — mostly negative — this particular post received.

“Never did I expect it to go so viral,” Partridge says. “If I knew it was going to, I would have never posted it.”

Mind you, this is her choice. A decision she posted on her OWN blog. Some Godless social liberal must've seen it, ran with it and got with a bunch of their friends to spread her testimony, while intent on smearing her at the same time. Of course she doesn't have to apologize for anything and of course, no remowned feminist will come out to publicly defend her because of her conservatives views. It's how they do.

RELATED: You Shouldn’t Judge This Blogger For Giving Up Leggings To Protect Her Relationship

Idiot White Liberal Icon Lena Dunham Equates Bill Cosby Scandal To Holocaust

TheDailyBeast.com:

After comparing Bill Cosby’s rape allegations to the Holocaust in a recent Time Out New York interview, Lena Dunham published an Instagram post clarifying her comments. 

In the original TimeOut interview, Dunham said, “It’s sort of like saying someone’s obsessed with the Holocaust. It’s not, ‘I’m so angry about Hulk Hogan’s sex tape.’ This is a huge issue, and it speaks to the way that we abuse power and the way that celebrity allows for injustice.” 

In the Instagram post, Dunham says she’s “already aware comparing Bill Cosby to the Holocaust wasn’t my best analogy.” Dunham recently hired crisis manager Judy Smith, the inspiration for Olivia Pope’s character on Scandal.

RELATED:  HBO’s Girls Sees Smallest Premiere on Record Despite Hype; Dunham’s PR Disasters to Blame?

Justice Anthony Kennedy To Decide on Gay Marriage In April

TheDailyBeast.com:

The other shoe has dropped for same-sex marriage.

The first hit the floor last November, when the Sixth Circuit upheld the “traditional marriage” restrictions in four states, thus creating a split among the federal circuits.

This was exactly what was not present a month earlier, when the Supreme Court let stand lower courts’ rulings on the same issue. Back then, Justice Ginsberg said, “there is no need to rush.”

But once the Sixth Circuit diverged from the opinions of the 4^th, 7^th, 9^th, and 10^th, such a need arose—if not to rush, then at least to decide the matter, perhaps once and for all.

That need was answered today, as the Supreme Court agreed to take up four cases (now consolidated into one) challenging state marriage bans. Oral argument will be in April and May, and the decision likely rendered in June.

For now, let the tea-leaf-reading begin.

On the one hand, same sex marriage has been described as “inevitable” by many august legal pundits (including this one). It is legal in 35 states plus the District of Columbia, with nine more states in the appeals process, and four now at the Supreme Court Bar. That’s just about everywhere.

Heck, even conservatives have grudgingly come around.  Several of the recent judicial opinions upholding marriage equality have been written by conservative judges.

Republicans including George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Laura Bush are on board. Even Christian Right poster boy Kirk Cameron said Christians should blame themselves, not others, for the “decay” in marriage—an analysis borne out by economic data.

On the other hand, there are several signs that indicate this may turn into yet another partisan battle, with Justice Kennedy deciding once again.

First, Justice Thomas said in an official statement that he would’ve liked the Court to take up the marriage cases last fall. “For reasons that escape me,” he said, “we have not done so.” No matter how inevitable same-sex marriage may seem, ultimately the decision will come down to these nine judges.

Second, the Court has bifurcated the current appeal into two distinct questions: first, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and second, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

These are legitimately distinct legal questions. Yet if we are looking for signs and portents, the fact that the Court has so clearly teased them apart indicates that it might rule one way on the former question, another way on the latter. That kind of “split the baby” reasoning would be of a piece with the current court’s judicial conservatism—especially that of Justice Kennedy himself.

Third, and most importantly, the actual holding in Windsor—the case that invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act and got the ball rolling on same sex marriage—was actually far more narrowly written than the way it has been construed by lower courts. Although the precise connection between the two arguments of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was not entirely clear—indeed, Justice Scalia called it “argle bargle”—the fact is that federalism (and the traditional role of the states in defining the ambit of marriage) had as much to do with the result as did the Fourteenth Amendment.

Subsequent judicial opinions have largely ignored this point, focusing instead on Justice Kennedy’s holding that there was no rational basis for DOMA’s discriminatory measures. And if there’s no rational basis for DOMA, there’s no rational basis for state laws either.

To be sure, the Sixth Circuit, now under review, provided not one but a half dozen such bases. And here are those bases: Allowing the democratic process to proceed, that state marriage laws are not a federal question at all, constitutional originalism, natural law, multiple motivations for anti-gay laws, gay people are not a ‘discrete and insular’ class, and that the meaning of marriage only evolves when the majority says it does.

But with concerns of federalism cutting the other way—that is, in favor of allowing state definitions to stand—perhaps a more important question is whether that’s the right standard of review at all.

I mean, let's be honest...it's really going to come down to what one guy thinks. 

RELATED: The Supreme Court’s possible gay marriage gift to the GOP in 2016

The Wrongly Accused Frat at UVA Is Owed a Few Apologies

TheAtlantic.com:

This week, the University of Virginia announced that it is reinstating the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. The chapter was suspended when Rolling Stone published allegations that an undergraduate named Jackie was brutally gang-raped at one of its parties.

Rolling Stone's feature has since been discredited by commentators and news organizations including The Washington Post, which rigorously debunked its reporting. The debunking is consistent with the findings of police in Charlottesville, who've concluded that while Jackie may or may not have been raped or assaulted on the night in question, she was not attacked at Phi Kappa Psi.

Fortunately, no individual members of Phi Kappa Psi were named in the false allegations. It is nevertheless worth reflecting on the collective ordeal that they suffered when it was widely believed that many of them engaged in premeditated evil.

Prior to these allegations, the collegians were living in their frat house. After the publication of the Rolling Stone story, the young men began to receive hate emails, voicemails, and threats of violence. Angry protestors massed outside their house and shouted as if at gang-rapists. That alone must've seemed surreal and difficult to face, especially for a group of 18-to-22-year-olds. Then in the wee hours of one morning, vandals broke several frat house windows with chunks of cinder block and bottles and tagged the outside of the house. "This situation is just beginning," the perpetrators soon threatened in an anonymous letter. "We will escalate and we will provoke until justice is achieved for the countless victims of rampant sexual violence at this University and around the nation." Needless to say, the vandals achieved no justice for rape victims by victimizing these young men.

The college students living in the frat house ultimately fled to different living quarters, even as they were trying to wind up their academic work for the semester. "Our brothers are obviously concerned with their personal safety and the safety of the house,” fraternity president Stephen Scipione told the student newspaper. Meanwhile, people were shouting "rapist" at fraternity members on campus. Men in Phi Kappa Psi were presumably questioned by police in the course of their investigation. Alumni from the frat asked themselves if the institution to which they once belonged had morphed into a venue for gang rape and felt stigma for their bygone association. Parents of members were stressed and upset too, whether because they felt their sons were being unfairly maligned or worried that they'd joined a fraternity that conducts gang rapes as a matter of course.

The fact that Phi Kappa Psi's membership was falsely accused of this crime does not mean that most rape accusations are false–the opposite is true–or that there isn't a need to reduce the number of rapes and sexual assaults that happen on college campuses, even granting that some activists overstate the number of victims.

It should be possible to push for reforms that would reduce the too-high number of rape victims while advocating against rushes to judgment in individual cases. All credible rape accusations should be investigated. Before the results are in the accuser should have the private support of friends and various resources. But nothing is gained when angry mobs with no particular knowledge of a case gather en masse to shout epithets at people who weren't even accused as individuals.

RELATED: UVA Reinstates Fraternity at Center of Rolling Stone Story

HBO’s Girls Sees Smallest Premiere on Record Despite Hype; Lena Dunham’s PR Disasters to Blame?

Mediaite.com:

In what some might think is the best news of the day: The numbers are now out for the much-hyped fourth season of HBO’s Girls… and they’re ugly.

In the lush timeslot that is Sunday at 9:00 p.m., the program drew just 680,000 viewers, which is down 40 percent from last year’s premiere (which also aired during the Golden Globes). In the key ages 18-49 demo, Girls raked in only 390,000 viewers, a drop of 35%. Context is everything, so it should be noted that the late Sex and the City averaged three million viewers in its fourth season. Needless to say, Sunday night’s viewership total was the lowest ever for a Girls‘ season premiere. 

Of course, its ubiquitous star, Lena Dunham — coming off of appearances last week on The Howard Stern Show to the Today Show (where Savannah Guthrie awkwardly offered up herself for a role on the show) to The Tonight Show — will likely find a way to blame Republicans/neocons/conservative white men for this ratings humiliation, as apparently the star is responsible for exactly nothing. 

Doesn’t matter which disturbing or debunked story you want to choose from, Dunham has turned off more than a few people who aren’t conservative or politically active or male, particularly with these accounts of her unsettling interactions with her younger sister growing up:

As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.

And:

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.

Once those anecdotes set off some public fury, Dunham went underground for a bit after her own self-described rage spiral. But once you thought she would be out of the spotlight — at least until the media came running to promote her new season premiere — along came a past sexual assault allegation she shared in the same book that somehow makes Rolling Stone’s UVA frat house rape “exclusive” look like Pulitzer-winning material. 

If you recall, Dunham claims she got high on Xanax and cocaine one evening in college and decided to bring “the resident campus conservative” named Barry home. From there, she claims he assaulted her. A few problems arose, however, once several publications ranging from Breitbart to Gawker (later) decided to look more closely into her account. You probably know the rest by now: The story was so full of holes that Dunham’s own book publisher (Random House) was forced to alter future printings of the book while offering to pay for “Barry’s” legal expenses that he amassed while attempting to clear his name. 

The media, of course, still adores her. ESPN’s Bill Simmons — my favorite writer — interviewed her today for Grantland and declared Dunham was a victim of a “smear campaign” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Pains me to say it but the Sports Guy embarrassed himself today, allowing his subject to say this about the allegations against her for fabricating the campus rape story:

“That article [from Breitbart, debunking her claims] came out on the day after I launched a Planned Parenthood campaign and the day before the midterm elections,” she explained, once again turning another topic into a partisan issue. “One thing I’ll never say about right-wing websites–they’re good at what they do.” Simmons didn’t bother to bring up Gawker or Random House or even remotely challenge her. Again, amateur interviewing from a big-time writer.

RELATED:  Lena Dunham: ‘I Don’t Care What Conservative White Men Think About Me’

Charlie Hebdo Magazine Will Continue To Go Out Of Its Way To Offend Muslims and All Religions In General

NBCNews.com:

Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine that was attacked by Islamic militants last week, will publish a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad on the cover of its next issue, according to Liberation, a newspaper that is helping the magazine continue operations. 

The picture, drawn by the staff cartoonist known as Luz, and published online Monday by Liberation, of course risks further enraging fundamentalist Muslims. 

It depicts a bug-eyed Muhammad holding a sign that says "Je Suis Charlie," the now-popular phrase that connotes solidarity with the magazine, and with the principles of free speech that its brand of humor represents. 

Under the figure of Mohammed are the words, "All is forgiven." The normal run for Charlie Hebdo magazine was previously about 50,000 copies, only in French — but the new issue will have a 3 million-copy run, in 16 languages. 

There's a big difference between "brave" and sheer stupidity.

RELATED: A German Paper That Reprinted Charlie Hebdo Cartoons Was Firebombed

Mitt Romney Tells Donors He’s Actively Considering Running Again

HotAir.com:

Some children want to be cowboys, astronauts, or pro athletes. I wanted to be conservative America’s premiere “Romney 2016?” trollblogger.

Live your dreams, my friends.

It may not be only the right flank of the Republican party that’s crowded in 2016. Mitt Romney is more open to a third presidential bid than ever before, according to friends and top donors of the former Massachusetts governor, which means there might be a bloody battle on the establishment side of the field as well.

“The governor is preserving his options — that’s the message I’ve gotten from Boston,” says Robert O’Brien, a Los Angeles lawyer who served as a foreign-policy adviser on Romney’s 2012 campaign. When I spoke with O’Brien in December, he told me that Romney was not considering a 2016 run but that “circumstances could change.”

In Romney world, the thinking about a 2016 bid has ratcheted up, and his top donors, most of whom remain quite loyal, have gotten the signal. O’Brien tells me that the shift in his own language reflects what he’s hearing from Romney and his team in Boston, which right now consists only of Spencer Zwick, who served as finance director on both of Romney’s presidential campaigns, and Zwick’s deputy, Matt Waldrip. Both Zwick and Waldrip work with Romney’s eldest son, Tagg, at the Boston-based private-equity firm Solamere Capital. O’Brien has spoken with a number of key donors who have relayed their hope the governor will run; they are sending him the message, either directly or through former staffers, that they want him in the race.

It’s not gonna happen. Even if, against all odds, Christie sobers up from his football-induced euphoria and realizes that he’s going nowhere in the primaries, especially now that Bush is in the race, there’s no way Romney will get in and risk splitting the establishment/centrist vote with Jeb. For him to do it, you’d need first to eliminate that risk by having the entire right side of the field implode — Rubio falters because of amnesty, Rand Paul falters because of foreign policy, Cruz falters because of his role in the shutdown, etc etc etc. Even then, someone like Jindal or Walker would probably pick up the disaffected conservative votes, not Jeb. Why would Romney sabotage a fellow establishmentarian like Bush and risk handing the nomination to a more right-wing candidate like Jindal or Walker by jumping in at that point and dividing the center? Even if every candidate on the right faded and Jeb raced out to an enormous, seemingly prohibitive lead, paint me a picture where the donor class would encourage Romney to disrupt Bush’s momentum by joining the race himself. The people who bankrolled Mitt three years ago and who’ll be bankrolling Jeb now may have mild preferences for one or the other of them, but ultimately they don’t much care which gets the nomination so long as a conservative doesn’t. Give me a scenario in which that calculus changes and suddenly there’s support in the monied center of the party for the idea that Jeb Bush himself must be stopped and there’s only one man to do it.

It’s not happening. But Bush, prudently, is taking no chances. Even before I encountered the phrase in the excerpt below, my thought upon reading the opening was “shock and awe.”

Jeb Bush’s allies are setting a fundraising goal of $100 million in the first three months of this year—including a whopping $25 million haul in Florida—in an effort to winnow the potential Republican presidential primary field with an audacious display of financial strength.

RELATED:  Mitt Romney, Who Swore He Isn’t Considering 2016 Run, Is Now Considering It

Nate Silver: Chris Christie Is Too Moderate To Win GOP Nomination

Townhall.com:

For all you Christie detractors, you will probably enjoy the news from pollster/data cruncher Nate Silver, who suggested that the New Jersey Republican is too moderate to win the GOP nomination. Jeb Bush is more conservative than Christie, and Silver is skeptical that Mr. Christie could be successful in the invisible primary; “a tumultuous time of speechmaking, fundraising, coalition-building and constant travel, as they seek to boost their name recognition, stand out from the field, and secure the GOP nomination once the voting begins,” according to the Columbia Journalism Review. 

Which GOP Candidate is right for you? Take the quiz!
With other big names, like Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush mulling presidential runs of their own, it seems hard for Christie to stand out. He survived the insanely ludicrous media circus over the so-called “bridgegate,” but his national approval ratings have dipped; he’s pretty much where every other possible GOP candidate is in the polls concerning a theoretical head-to-head match-up with Clinton. 

While Silver mentions that Christie isn’t totally damaged goods, he also noted that the governor’s dip in his favorability ratings undercuts the electability narrative he could use to sell to voters, who might otherwise reject him for his moderate stripes (via FiveThirtyEight):

Christie, however, ranks to the left of Bush by the statistical systems that measure candidate ideology. 

Indeed, Christie takes moderate positions on the very issues where Bush notoriously deviates from the party base — such as immigration and education — along with others where Bush lands in the GOP mainstream, like on gun control. (Christie has a C grade from the National Rifle Association.) Any voter who opposes Bush for ideological reasons probably won’t find a lot to like in Christie either.

He probably lacks the discipline to win the “invisible primary.” The candidates who survive the early stage of the invisible primary tend to be those who avoid making news when they don’t need to. Donors and other influential Republicans won’t want to nominate a candidate who will risk blowing a general election because of a gaffe or scandal that hits at the wrong time.

Christie’s transgressions against Republican orthodoxy and tendency to make the wrong kind of news can amplify one another. If Christie were seen as a staunch conservative, Republicans might be more inclined to rally around him and critique the “liberal media” for persecuting him. But Christie has not always been a team player for the GOP. His speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention seemed to go out of its way to avoid praising Romney. And Christie’s embrace of President Obama as the two toured seaside communities hit hard by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 also rankled many in the GOP.

RELATED:  The cost of Chris Christie's devotion to Dallas

Financial Times Calls Charlie Hebdo ‘Stupid’ for ‘Provoking Muslims’

Mediaite.com:

Hours after 12 editors and cartoonists at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were executed by Islamic extremists, the Financial Times‘s editorial board published a strongly-worded editorial criticizing the magazine for their “editorial foolishness.”

“If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech,” the London paper wrote (subscription only), noting Charlie Hebdo‘s long history of needling Muslims, Catholics, Jews, and pretty much everyone in existence. But they added: “France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.”

They continued:

This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

The Financial Times added that their actions, and the resulting terrorist attack, would only serve to stoke anti-Islamic sentiment in France. “Anti-Islamism forms part of the electoral appeal of a party that topped the polls in May in France’s European Parliament elections,” they noted.

Charlie Hebdo‘s offices were firebombed in 2011 for publishing an image of the Prophet Muhammad as its “guest editor” on its cover, right around the time that Innocence of Muslims sparked mass protests for its offensive portrayal of Muslims.

I agree. As a black man, sure I have the right to walk back-n-forth around a town loaded with Klu Klux Klanmen in the middle of the day, but is that a good idea? No it isn't. These radical fundamentalists have recently shown that they no problem killing children in the name of whatever deity they claim to serve. You think risking your life to go out of your way to continually make fun of Allah is ever a good idea? You're stupid enough to think there won't be any repercussions esp. after they already warned you not to do it again. Not to condone this atrocity in any, way shape or form...but common f-cking sense people.

RELATED: French police identify gunmen in attack on Paris magazine that killed 12

Newt Gingrich Fires Back at Bob Schieffer over Steve Scalise - "Being in the Klan is OK If You Are a Democrat"

RELATED: The smearing of Steve Scalise

Why Mike Huckabee Matters - A Lot

WashingtonPost.com:

Almost nobody is giving Mike Huckabee a chance in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

But the former Arkansas governor, who stepped down from his Fox News hosting gig on Saturday as he weighs another run, still matters. A lot.

That's because, arguably more than any other potential candidate, Huckabee has an extremely niche and devoted base of support: evangelical Christians. The ordained Southern Baptist minister is a natural fit for this group, and it's a major reason he did as well as he did in 2008.

What some people forget about Huckabee's 2008 run was that he didn't just win Iowa; he also won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia. His eight wins, in fact, were not far behind second-place Mitt Romney's 11, and Huckabee won more than 20 percent of all votes cast, despite dropping out with more than a dozen states yet to vote.

And just about every state that Huckabee won was among the most heavily evangelical in the country. Here's a recap of the 31 states that held regular primaries or caucuses by Feb. 9, with Huckabee's showing compared to the evangelical population of the state.

In all but eight of these states, Huckabee's showing was within single digits of the evangelical population -- or better.

Now, does that mean Huckabee has a chance to win or will carry these states in 2016? Not necessarily. His devoted base is both a ticket to the dance and the reason he'll struggle to win the nomination. There quite simply aren't enough evangelicals out there. In fact, there is no state outside the South and the lower Midwest that is more than one-quarter evangelical.

(Huckabee also struggles on the financial side of things, which was a big reason he couldn't sustain his post-Iowa momentum in 2008.)

But while Huckabee monopolized this demographic in 2008, these same evangelical voters are key to plenty of candidates who are considered as formidable in 2016, up to and including Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

RELATED  Mike Huckabee Is Leaving Fox News

Sharyl Attkisson Sues Obama Administration For Violating Her Rights

NewsBusters.org:

Fox News's Howard Kurtz reported on Monday that former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department and the U.S. Postal Service over the hacking of her computers. Kurtz noted that Attkisson "alleges that three separate computer forensic exams showed that hackers used sophisticated methods to surreptitiously monitor her work between 2011 and 2013." The journalist seeks $35 million in damages against the federal agencies.

The Fox News host later pointed out that Attkisson and her lawyers claim to "have 'pretty good evidence' that these efforts were 'connected' to the Justice Department." The correspondent asserted that she was "caught in a 'Catch-22,' forcing her to use the lawsuit and an administrative complaint to discover more about the surveillance through the discovery process and to learn the identities of the 'John Does' named in the complaints."

On her own website, Attkisson outlined that she filed "administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and certain unnamed employees and/or agents of the federal government." She added that she had "filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia alleging certain violations of her constitutional rights based on information implicating the federal government in illegal electronic monitoring and surveillance of her home and business computers and phones from 2011 to 2013."

Back in May 2013, the then-CBS journalist revealed that her personal and work computers had been hacked, and indicated during an interview with a radio station in Philadelphia that "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," who also had been investigated by the Department of Justice for his reporting about the CIA's intelligence on North Korea. Three weeks later, CBS News confirmed, via an investigation by an outside cyber security firm, that "Attkisson's computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson's accounts."

RELATED:  Concha: Chris Hayes’ Attkisson Interview Sums Up MSNBC’s Issues in One Question

Actress Kaley Cuoco Asked If She Is A Feminist, Her Response Made Feminists Angry

DCGazette.com:

You will seldom hear a Hollywood actress speaking out against the craziness of feminism these days. That’s why it was so refreshing to read the views of actress Actress Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting on the issue. She stars in the popular sitcom, “The Big Bang Theory”, and she is making quite an impact of her own. When asked in a Redbook interview if she was a feminist, she responded with,

“Is it bad if I say no? It’s not really something I think about.

Things are different now, and I know a lot of the work that paved the way for women happened before I was around… I was never that feminist girl demanding equality, but maybe that’s because I’ve never really faced inequality.

I cook for Ryan five nights a week: It makes me feel like a housewife; I love that. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but I like the idea of women taking care of their men. I’m so in control of my work that I like coming home and serving him. My mom was like that, so I think it kind of rubbed off.”

My goodness, did a Hollywood actress just say that she LIKED serving her husband? That poor naive woman! Doesn’t she know that taking care of your husband makes you weak? Hasn’t anyone told her that in order to be equal you have to participate in vile acts, like dressing up in vagina costumes or writing demands on your naked body? I mean, how else do you expect to be taken seriously?

Liberals have already started attacking Kaley on Twitter for her comments about feminism. One user tweeted,

“How can someone who is reaping the benefits of the feminist movement (via her large paycheck) not be a “feminist”?

Another offended liberal wrote, “Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting’s thoughts on feminism are as tragic as her haircut. Barf.”

Kaley responded on twitter by saying ” I apologize if I offended anyone. Anyone who knows me, knows my heart, and knows what I really meant. ”

RELATED: Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting apologizes for saying she's not a feminist

Sarah Palin Posts Photos of Son Stepping on Dog

OregonLive.com:

A Facebook photo of Sarah Palin's 6-year-old son, Trig, standing on the family dog has sparked criticism and animal abuse accusations against the one-time Republican vice presidential nominee. 

Nearly 67,000 people liked the post, and 11,000 have shared it. But many of the 22,000-plus Facebook comments were sharply critical of the former Alaska governor after her New Year's Day post: 

"May 2015 see every stumbling block turned into a stepping stone on the path forward. Trig just reminded me. He, determined to help wash dishes with an oblivious mama not acknowledging his signs for "up!", found me and a lazy dog blocking his way. He made his stepping stone." 

MeLinda Johnson wrote, "Poor dog! I AM NOT A LIBERAL, thank you! Common sense here?"

No child should be allowed to stand on a dog, Loreine Fitzgerald-Webber wrote, but to post it as though it was cute is infuriating.  "I'm posting (as) a dog lover and mother who also had cared for children with (Down) syndrome. She is sending him the wrong message," she wrote.

"Just because the dog is good enough not to react doesn't mean it doesn't still hurt him... would you lay on the floor and let your son use YOU as a stepping stool?" Catanya Nelson wrote. "Animals are family members too and they should be treated as such. Just because you can does not mean you should. Poor puppy."

Others stood up for Palin, saying the dog could move if it wanted to. 

"My kids climb all over our big dogs and they don't mind at all," Julie Leatherberry wrote. "If they don't like something they get up and walk away and jump over the baby gate to have some time alone."

Palin responded to the criticism Saturday afternoon on Facebook:

"Dear PETA,

Chill. At least Trig didn't eat the dog."

After taking shots at Ellen DeGeneres and Barack Obama, she blasted the group as "double-standard radicals" who are "always opposing Alaska's Iditarod – the Last Great Race honoring dogs who are born to run in wide open spaces, while some of your pets "thrive" in a concrete jungle where they're allowed outdoors to breathe and pee maybe once a day?" 

"Our pets, including Trig's best buddy Jill Hadassah, are loved, spoiled and cared for more than some people care for their fellow man whose politics may not mesh with nonsensical liberally failed ways or don't fit your flighty standards," she continued. "Jill is a precious part of our world. So is Trig."

This is just wrong. Of course, the predictable right-wing extremists and Palin defenders will call this nothing but a liberal reach, but allowing your kid to use a pet dog as a step stool is just stupid and lacks parental responsibility, much less common sense.

RELATED: Animal rights groups slam Sarah Palin

Paul Krugman Must Be Joking: Readers 'Have No Idea Which Party I Favor In General Elections'

NewsBusters.org:

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the hero of liberals everywhere, did a year-end interview posted Monday with Ezra Klein of Vox. Clearly, he must have been in a slyly silly mood as he told Klein that Times readers would have "no idea with party I favor in general elections."

EZRA KLEIN: What do you think about the argument that’s playing out on the left between the vision of the Democratic Party represented by Hillary Clinton and the vision represented by Elizabeth Warren? Do you think they’re that different?

PAUL KRUGMAN: I would say at this point it looks mostly like symbolism. Among liberals in America, there’s actually fairly widespread dismay over actually what I think of as Clinton-Blairism; the kind of ‘90s liberalism that is not really taking on economic inequality, not really taking on Wall Street. And there’s a sense that Hillary Clinton might be a return to that.

But I don’t think Hillary Clinton is going to try and make it 1999 again. I remember in 2008 — as a Times columnist, I can't do endorsements, so you have no idea which party I favor in general elections — but I was skeptical of Obama at a time when a lot of people on the Left were very, very high on him. I heard a number of people saying, oh, god, if Hillary is elected, she's going to bring in the old Rubin crowd, people like Larry Summers, to run the economy. And then Obama got elected and did exactly that. I think, if anything, he was more conventional on economics than she was.

I think at this point, Elizabeth Warren is now the visible embodiment of the wing of the Democratic Party that’s determined not to return to Clinton-Blairism. That makes her useful even if she doesn’t run, as — I don't know — a ghost or something looming over Hillary.

RELATED:  Paul Krugman Actually Thinks His Readers Can’t Tell Which Party He Favors