Why there is something really, really scary about this building?
By Elijah Garcia
There was a startling display of supernatural power at the ARC in Martinez California last Friday night. Mario calls three people out and begins by telling them the distance that they drove to get to the meeting. He said, “You came from 60 miles away.” But he did not leave it there,” you are from 60 miles south of here.”
This man is a total stranger to Mario but his entire life opened like a book. Mario described the man as a pastor. “Satan has tried so hard…almost succeeded. You have been drilling into solid rock. You have had partners that drilled with you, who then left and started their own thing. This has since died. “The Lord is saying that the drill bit is at the last layer of shale. You are one inch away from a gusher.”
Mario then continued “The Lord is saying ‘there is a gusher about to break forth’. It involves thousands of people. There is oil in the ground. Oil represents the Holy Spirit and joy. There is a revival of joy coming! Satan brought heartbreak. He brought heartbreak because he knew that joy would be the center piece of this revival.” The man looked stunned and was in tears. He could hardly contain himself emotionally.
But now it was Mario’s turn to be shocked: The man then asked to speak a couple of words. He told the audience how he was exactly 60 miles south from here. He also said that everything Mario said was true.
This Pastor’s name is Dennis Conner. He had been following Mario for over 38 years. He always wanted Mario to preach at his church but only in “God’s time” That time is March 2, 2014 because, well, here is the rest of the story
You see, Doug Morris called Mario two days before this and said “there is a pastor in Campbell California who is asking you to come preach right away.” Out of the blue the Holy Spirit said “go to this church.” Mario told Doug to confirm the date of March 2nd and Mario never gave it another thought.
Now standing right in front of him was that very pastor. Mario had no clue that he would drive 60 miles. Not only this but God had the pastor come late or he would have met Mario before the meeting. Instead a supernatural event took place in its exact order. Mario was essentially prophesying that in a church that he was to preach in 9 days hence would see an outpouring, a gusher that would affect thousands of people.
That is why this building is so scary…because there is no telling what is going to happen inside this Sunday. That is why there is a buzz today around the Bay Area. “What is going to happen in that building? Why is God so emphatically warning us to be ready? Why such a blazing prediction? Stay tuned!
If you live anywhere near the San Jose area, please join us for these two explosive meetings
Sunday March 2 at 10AM and 6PM Calvary Temple of Campbell 202 Railway Ave Campbell CA 95008 Call 408 379 3700
Click below to hear the actual audio of the prophetic word as it was being given.
Reid hammered by GOP after claiming all ObamaCare ‘horror stories’ untrue
Published February 27, 2014
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is being hammered by Republican lawmakers after he claimed on the Senate floor that all the ObamaCare “horror stories” being circulated are untrue.
Reid tried to clarify his remarks late Wednesday by saying he was only referring to the “vast majority” of stories featured in ads funded by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group, and not the complaints of everyday Americans. However, he added fuel to the fire by continuing to slam the group’s backers, the Koch brothers, calling them “un-American.”
Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips, in response, said Reid had effectively “attacked the character and integrity of every American who had the courage to share how they’re being hurt by the president’s health care law.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., called Reid’s original remarks “astounding and offensive.”
Reid said Wednesday morning on the Senate floor that he believes Americans for Prosperity hires actors in their ads to tell fake stories about canceled policies, higher premiums and ruined lives under ObamaCare.
“There’s plenty of horror stories being told,” Reid said. “All of them are untrue. But they’re being told all over America.”
It was an apparent reference to, among other instances, an AFP ad that featured a woman with cancer who claimed her health care became unaffordable under the law. Her story was called into question by critics, but she and AFP are standing by the ad.
The outcry over Reid’s comments from Republican lawmakers was swift. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said he is demanding Reid apologize to those who have felt ill effects from ObamaCare.
“The majority leader, and any Democrat who agrees with him, owes an apology to all Americans who are suffering under this disastrous law and whose personal stories he has dismissed as ‘untrue,’” he said.
The communications director for Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., noted in a press release Blunt has taken it upon himself numerous times to read personal stories of ObamaCare’s negative impact on the Senate floor.
“A fair question for the Majority Leader’s office today: Does Harry Reid believe Missourians are making this up?” spokeswoman Amber Marchand said.
Reid in his speech urged Americans to focus on what he says are the true stories: stories of Americans whom the law has helped.
After tens of thousands of defiant gun owners in Connecticut chose not to register their semi-automatic rifles to comply with a hastily-passed gun control law, the state is now taking some action. Officials are reportedly notifying gun owners who submitted late applications that they have one last chance to get rid of their “illegal” weapons.
State officials did accept some gun registration applications that were submitted after the Jan. 4 deadline, however, not all late applications were accepted, the Journal Inquirer reports.
“But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines,” the report adds.
So gun owners who actually tried to register their guns and magazines, intentionally late or not, are now on the state’s radar for owning guns that became illegal overnight. Owning an unregistered semi-automatic rifle or high-capacity magazine that was legal prior to Jan. 3 is now a class D felony under the new law.
While we can’t confirm the authenticity of the letter above, the Journal Inquirer, which is a local paper covering North-Central Connecticut, reports the state does hold notarized letters for violators.
“No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the Courant reported.
Republican state Sen. Tony Guglielmo recalled talking to a constituent who informed him that some gun owners are intentionally taking part in “civil disobedience” because they feel the law is unconstitutional.
It’s unclear if the state plans to start prosecuting gun owners who don’t dispose of their semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity magazines — or if they have a plan to check to see if the late applicants comply with the warning. It’s also uncertain if the state plans to go about identifying gun owners who didn’t try to register their guns at all.
Though it was too late to contact the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection on Wednesday, TheBlaze will reach out to the agency on Thursday.
From time to time I will have the people I’m discipling write out their own pastoral obituary. I ask them to write out how our enemy would take them out, rendering them unable to serve their family and communities. As you can imagine, the answers vary, but always serves as a really helpful exercise as they are forced to confront issues of character, etc.
You see, taking the same exercise I’ve used with pastors, for the past year I’ve been thinking how the enemy would/might be trying to take down the American church. Now what I’ve noticed is that the original temptations Jesus faced (which can best be boiled down to Appetite, Affirmation and Ambition) are somehow warped and insinuated into the culture.
As each culture is distinct and different, a smart enemy would come at each culture in subtle ways, tempting them in ways they don’t see or expect, and with things that would look different from culture to culture.
For instance, the issues the European church deal with are actually quite different than the ones the American church is dealing with – even though often times they are put under the same broad umbrella of “Western Church.” Sure, there are some similarities, but the attack is different. More nuanced.
But those original temptations of Appetite, Affirmation and Ambition are slowly insinuating themselves into everything we call CHURCH. We just often don’t recognize it or see it.
And so this is how, if our enemy gets his way, the American church could be taken out:
The idea of celebrity is deeply woven into American culture and values. All you have to do is look at the ridiculous nature of Reality TV and you see how Americans are constantly craving celebrity (either to be a celebrity or to find the next celebrity and stalk their every move).
Now there is nothing dark or sinister about “celebrity” in and of itself. You can’t find an argument that says Jesus wasn’t a huge celebrity in his day.
However, there is a difference between being famous and being significant. If Jesus was famous, it’s because he was doing something significant. The problem with many pastors is they make decisions, develop personas and define success from the lens of what will make them a celebrity/famous (even if they don’t know it or see that they are doing this).
So in American church culture, it’s pretty easy to become a celebrity: Grow a HUGE church. Now all in all, it’s not terribly difficult to grow to be a giant church if you have the right tools at your disposal – but that doesn’t mean the ends justify the means of getting there.
For instance, though Jesus was a celebrity in his day, he was willing to say things that ran people off in droves. In fact, the book of Mark chronicles the way (from about the mid-point of the book on) how people left Jesus to where, at the end, virtually no one was left. NO ONE wants to be associated with him for fear of the consequences.
That’s a Charlie Sheen-esque flameout (obviously without the character issues!). That’s not something you see too often in American churches.
I suspect it’s because riven deeply into the American psyche is the desire to be a celebrity. And American pastors are very susceptible to this. Many subtle things happen in people who desire to this kind of celebrity status:
* They can disengage community and isolate themselves, setting themselves up for moral failure.
* They can make decisions that are numbers driven and not always Kingdom driven.
* They can skew to a shallow understanding of the Gospel as opposed to a holistic one that leads people to discipleship.
* They can put the good of their church (their personal Kingdom) over the good of God’s Kingdom.
Question: In what ways are your decisions made by a subtle undercurrent of ambition and a hope for celebrity?
We live in a culture that revolves around consuming. Every TV commercial, every store, every credit card company, every bank, every TV show or movie, every piece of clothing, car or product, every website, every restaurant every everything is tailored to fit your desires, needs or personal preference.
We are easily infuriated when things don’t happen exactly as we want them. We exist in a place that implicitly says this: “We are here to serve you and meet your every whim and desire. Let us take care of you.” What’s more, it’s never enough.
Eventually the house or the car get older and we want new ones. The clothes aren’t as fashionable and we want something more in style. That restaurant is getting boring, we must find another. Our favorite TV show is wearing thin, so the search begins for the next favorite. And on and on and on.
This is how we are wired to think in the United States. And it is all backed up by this rationale: You’re worth it. You deserve to have what you want, how you want it, when you want it. And for the most part, the church plays the exact same game.
We do as best we can to provide as comfortable an experience as humanly possible, using every means at our disposal to attract them in (and then keep them in). So we tailor what we do around their wants and desires. That’s Marketing 101, right? The problem is at the end of the day, the only thing that Jesus is counting is disciples.
He doesn’t seem to care too much about converts, attendance, budgets or buildings. It’s about disciples. And, by nature, disciples are producers, not consumers.
Yet most of our churches are built around feeding consumers. I’d argue 90% of the church’s time, energy and resources are linked to this. But the issue is this: The means you use to attract people to you are usually the means you must use to keep them. In other words, if you use consumerism to attract them to your church, it often means you must continue using it to keep them or else they will find another church who will meet their “needs.” And yet, that consumer mentality is antithetical to the Gospel and to the call of Discipleship.
Disciples aren’t consumers, they are producers. Jesus cared about disciples more than anything else.
Question: In what ways is your church community using consumerism as the means to draw people to a Gospel that is, in and of itself, anti-consumerism?
You will never find a more hyper-competitive culture than you do in the United States. As a foreigner living in this land, I can attest to that with the utmost respect. Americans love to win, they love the struggle of the journey and love holding up the gold medal of victory. Now don’t hear me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with being competitive, it’s just how competition has become warped and twisted within our culture. And it’s that, at least in the church, we are competitive about the wrong things.
Much of the American church finds itself competing with the church down the road. “Are we bigger than them? Do we have more influence than them? Do we have the best/biggest youth group in town? Do people like to get married in our church building? Do people like our church better than theirs? ”
The fact of the matter is that there is a battle, we do have an enemy and we should be competitive – but against our enemy! What we haven’t seen is how crafty he is. This seems to be the alliance he has struck with the American church: “I’ll let a good chunk of your churches grow, just not at the expense of my territory.”
And so what happens? 96% of church growth is due to transfer growth and not churches striking into the heart of our enemy’s territory. We’ll consider it a win because we have the new service or program that is growing – but that growth is mainly from people coming from other churches. That’s not a win! That’s a staggering loss.
Furthermore, for many pastors, we don’t think we’ve won until we’ve won AND someone else has lost. Seriously?! For sure, we have an enemy and we should be competitive, but we should be competing against our enemy, knowing that the final battle has already been won, and not competing against our own team members.
So gifted and skilled is our enemy, so conniving is he, that he has convinced us that beating the people on our own team is victory while he stands back and laughs, rarely having to ever engage in conflict, protecting his territory. He is beating us with a slight of hand, with a clever distraction, turning us against ourselves. Question: In what ways are you competing (both in actuality or simply in your mind) against people who are on your own team?
In all honesty, it isn’t that the American church will ever truly die or cease to exist. It will always be there. But it is entirely possible that if these three critical issues aren’t addressed and dealt with, it will be a hallow shell that is spiritually listless.
If we think through Celebrity, Consumerism and Competition, the anti-body against all of these is sacrifice. Learning to lay down what builds us up and giving to others instead. Learning to serve, rather than to be served. Looking for anonymity rather than celebrity. To build a culture of producers rather than a consumers.
To live in a vibrant, sacrificial community fighting a real enemy rather than competing against the same community God has given us to fight WITH rather than AGAINST. It’s about sacrificing what we want for the glory of God and the advancement of his Kingdom, regardless of our advancement or desires.
Clearly this is what Paul was getting after in Philippians 2:6-11 when describing the attitude of Jesus as taking on the attitude of a servant, willing to sacrifice all acclaim and equality with God. It was a willingness to set aside and sacrifice celebrity, consumerism and competition at the altar of the incarnation.
Fifty years ago, as these three subtle threads were being woven into the American church, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., serving as a prophetic voice, said this:
If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.
We are now into the second decade of the 21st century and we find ourselves still, for the most part, refusing to sacrifice what we want for what God is asking of us and his Church. Will we have the courage to sacrifice as Christ sacrificed? Will we do the things that cost us so that his Kingdom may advance?
“For him to threaten the power of the government to silence her sounds more like Vladimir Putin in Russia than a member of Congress in the United States,” Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, told “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.The ad featured Julie Boonstra, a Michigan woman battling leukemia, who said she lost her healthcare due to Obamacare and said her new health coverage was more costly. She said she would not back down in her efforts to tell her story.“I’m very upset with them for trying to stop my ad. I battle cancer every day. They’re not going to intimidate me. I have my First Amendment right, my freedom of speech. And I will stand behind that,” Boonstra told Fox News on Monday.Peters, who voted for Obamacare, is running for the Senate seat vacated by fellow Democrat Carl Levin. Napolitano said that while Peters originally supported Obamacare, now “he’s running from it, and he’s trying to silence her.”Campaign lawyers for Peters contacted the station running the ad and threatened to pull its license for “failure to prevent the airing of ‘false and misleading advertising.’ “Napolitano called it a “new low” for a member of Congress to attempt to “silence political speech.” The remedy to counter political criticism, Napolitano said, was not to suppress speech, but to have “more speech.”“If you don’t like what she’s saying, congressman, get on the air and defend yourself,” he said.Should the TV station pull the ad, Napolitano said it would be a “body blow to the First Amendment.” He said the “two-bit threat” to the station was not permissible under the law.
They will audit you, show up at your place of employment and sic other executive agencies on your family or business.
Now, the Obama administration intends to unilaterally modify the tax code in further efforts to silence political speech.
In November, the IRS announced that it would completely transform the 501(c)(4) classification used by groups organized for the purposes of “social welfare.”
From veterans‘ organizations to civic education programs, many important nonprofits fall under this designation.
Currently, contributions to these organizations are not tax deductible for their donors, but these groups are not required to pay taxes to the U.S. federal government.
These nonprofits are allowed to participate in the political process, within limits, and typical activities include voter education, advocacy and holding town halls. Many free market groups file under this classification.
The new rules would virtually halt such activities. Plus, the IRS would require 501 (c)(4) non-profits to pay taxes, knowing full well that these groups cannot afford to do so.
Their intent is to force groups into reclassifying under a different category of the tax code, as 527 non-profits. The 527 groups are not taxed on their donations, but they are required to disclose their donors to the Obama administration.
Conservative groups would be forced to choose: Change their classification to a 527 non-profit and open up their donors to abuse at the hands of Washington bureaucrats, or shut down all-together because they can’t afford the taxes levied against them if they remain a 501(c)(4) organization.
The Obama administration argues that the current rules governing 501(c)(4) groups are too complicated for them to administer properly.
Their complaint is pretty perplexing, considering the rules governing these non-profits aren’t new. In fact, they were established in 1959. Fifty-five years seem like plenty of time for the IRS to figure out how to regulate nonprofits.
Unsurprisingly, such changes to the IRS code won’t affect a key Democrat political beneficiary — labor unions.
These groups, while nearly identical to 501 (c)(4) non-profits, fall under the 501 (c)(5) classification. Their regulations would remain untouched in this IRS overhaul, so they would be free to continue politicking as they have in years past.
This is an obvious political move by the Obama administration, as labor unions contribute the vast majority of their political donations to Democrats.
What can be done to stop this? So far, tens of thousands of patriots have registered concerns by submitting public comments to the IRS. Freedom-loving Americans refuse to be silenced.
In the meantime, congressional Republicans are working legislatively to prevent the IRS from silencing political dissent through manipulation of the tax code by executive fiat.
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives is voting on a measure that would prohibit the IRS from implementing its proposed new regulations on tax-exempt groups for one year.
This will give Congress the ability to continue its investigation into the IRS targeting scandal and long-term oversight over the agency.
Sadly, this is just the latest in the never-ending saga of Obama’s executive overreach and use of the federal government to punish those with whom he disagrees.
Public engagement and the Republican resolve are critical to fighting it. Together, we can stop this government abuse.
Rep. Tom Price, M.D. represents Georgia’s sixth congressional district. He is vice chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, and a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the IRS.
White House co-hosts MIT workshop as part of project on ‘collecting, analyzing, and using’ big data
1:39 PM 02/24/2014
The Obama White House is co-hosting a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) workshop on “big data” as part of an administration effort to analyze how to collect and use complex data for public policy.
It comes as little surprise that the White House is analyzing “big data” collection considering the effectiveness of the 2012 Obama campaign’s personality-tracking voter targeting database created through its “Project Dreamcatcher.” The information from that database is now held by Obama’s nonprofit advocacy group Organizing for Action.
White House counselor John Podesta, a left-wing operative who founded the Center for American Progress, and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker will represent the Obama administration at the March 3 workshop, “Big Data and Privacy: Advancing the State of the Art in Technology and Practice” with MIT president L. Rafael Reif.
Even though they got the word “privacy” in there, the White House project makes clear that it is focused on “collecting, analyzing, and using” data for policy purposes.
“Last month, the President asked Counselor John Podesta to lead a comprehensive review of how ‘big data’ – data sets so massive, diverse, or complex, that conventional technologies cannot adequately capture, store, or analyze them – will affect how Americans live and work. Senior administration officials have since begun to look at the implications of collecting, analyzing, and using such data for privacy, the economy, and public policy,” according to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Additional workshops will be held at New York University and University of California-Berkeley.
MIT professor and Obama economic adviser Esther Duflo developed the theories that were employed to help build French Socialist president Francois Hollande’s successful voter-tracking database, which were then carried over to the Obama 2012 campaign.
That description has since been undermined by evidence that the incident was not spontaneous, but the result of a concerted terrorist effort.
Republicans have spent over a year accusing the administration of orchestrating a cover-up to minimize the political fallout, but Rice has insisted she was simply voicing the best intelligence assessment available at the time.
“The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues, and indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And that information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct. But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”
Asked about Rice’s comments Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the administration’s most persistent critics on the issue, said they left him “almost speechless.”
“She read talking points that we are now beginning to believe came from the White House, which were absolutely false,” McCain explained. “We now know that the director, that the C.I.A. station chief on the ground sent a message immediately saying, ‘Not spontaneous demonstration.’ And of course, the information was totally misleading, totally false. And for Susan Rice to say such a thing, I think it’s a little embarrassing, to tell you the truth.”
In her appearance on NBC, Rice also said the U.S. is making headway on finding those responsible for the attack.
“The investigation is ongoing, and it has indeed made progress,” she said. “But the point is we will get the perpetrators. And we will stay on it until this gets done.”
There have been times when the CNN host Piers Morgan didn’t seem to like America very much — and American audiences have been more than willing to return the favor. Three years aftertaking over for Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors at Fox News and MSNBC.
It’s been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.
CNN’s president, Jeffrey Zucker, has other problems, but none bigger than Mr. Morgan and his plum 9 p.m. time slot. Mr. Morgan said last week that he and Mr. Zucker had been talking about the show’s failure to connect and had decided to pull the plug, probably in March.
Crossing an ocean for a replacement for Larry King, who had ratings problems of his own near the end, was probably not a great idea to begin with. For a cable news station like CNN, major stories are like oxygen. When something important or scary happens in America, many of us have an immediate reflex to turn on CNN. When I find Mr. Morgan telling me what it all means, I have a similar reflex to dismiss what he is saying. It is difficult for him to speak credibly on significant American events because, after all, he just got here.
I received a return call from Mr. Morgan and was prepared for an endless argument over my assumptions. Not so. His show, he conceded, was not performing as he had hoped and was nearing its end.
“It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” he said, adding that although there had been times when the show connected in terms of audience, slow news days were problematic.
“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it,” he said. “That’s run its course and Jeff and I have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.”
Mr. Morgan said that his show, along with much of the rest of CNN, had been imprisoned by the news cycle and that he was interested in doing fewer appearances to greater effect — big, major interviews that would be events in themselves. Although a change has long been rumored, it was the first time that both he, and the CNN executives I talked to, acknowledged that his nightly show was on the way out. Plans for a replacement at the 9 o’clock hour are still underway, but Mr. Morgan and the network are in talks about him remaining at CNN in a different role.
Mr. Zucker, the former chief of NBC, inherited Mr. Morgan from Jonathan Klein, his predecessor, but it is now his problem to fix. In the year he has been there, CNN has introduced promising shows around the edges and will be unveiling documentaries along the lines of the very successful “Blackfish” to run on Thursday in the 10 p.m. hour.
But the chronic troubles of prime-time remain. Sometime before the network “upfront” events in April, when advertisers buy commercial time for the fall season, Mr. Zucker needs to signal how he will fix CNN’s prime-time problem, and that begins with Mr. Morgan, whose contract ends in September.
Mr. Morgan has some significant skills that do translate across platforms and cultures. While working as a newspaper editor and television personality in Britain, he was involved in a number of controversies, but he developed a reputation as a talented, probing interviewer. In his current role, he has shown an ability not only to book big guests — former President Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, the real Wolf of Wall Street among them — but also to dig in once they are on set.
“I think I can credibly do news and the ratings reflect that, but it is not really the show that I set out to do,” he told me. “There are all kinds of people who can do news here. I’d like to do work — interviews with big celebrities and powerful people — that is better suited to what I do well and fit with what Jeff is trying to do with the network.”
Old hands in the television news business suggest that there are two things a presenter cannot have: an accent or a beard. Mr. Morgan is clean shaven and handsome enough, but there are tells in his speech — the way he says the president’s name for one thing (Ob-AA-ma) — that suggest that he is not from around here.
There are other tells as well. On Friday morning, criticizing the decision to dismiss a cricket player, he tweeted, “I’m sure @StuartBroad8 is right and KP’s sacking will ‘improve performance’ of the England team. Look forward to seeing this at T20 WC.” Mr. Morgan might want to lay off the steady cricket references if he is worried about his credibility with American audiences. (His endless trolling of his critics on Twitter did not exactly help, either.)
People might point to Simon Cowell as a man with an accent and a penchant for slashing discourse that Americans loved, but Mr. Cowell is dealing with less-than-spontaneous musical performances, not signal events in the American news narrative. There was, of course, the counterexample ofDavid Frost, who did important work in news, but Mr. Frost did popular special reports and was not a chronic presence in American living rooms.
Mr. Morgan, who was chosen in spite of that fact that he had never done a live show, had the misfortune of sliding into the loafers of Mr. King, who, for all his limitations, was a decent and reliable stand-in for the average Joe.
In a sense, Mr. Morgan is a prisoner of two islands: Britain and Manhattan. While I may share his feelings about the need for additional strictures on guns, having grown up in the Midwest, I know that many people come by their guns honestly and hold onto them dearly for sincere reasons.
Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.
He regrets none of it, but clearly understands his scolding of “stupid” opponents of gun laws was not everyone’s cup of tea.
“I’m in danger of being the guy down at the end of the bar who is always going on about the same thing,” he said. He added that he was sure there were plenty of people in the heartland angry “about this British guy telling them how to lead their lives and what they should do with their guns.”
In the current media age, no one is expected to be a eunuch, without values or beliefs, but Mr. Morgan’s lecturing on the evils of guns have clanked hard against the CNN brand, which, for good or ill, is built on the middle way.
We don’t look for moral leadership from CNN, or from a British host on a rampage. Guns, along with many other great and horrible things, are knit into the fabric of this country. There are folkways peculiar to America that Mr. Morgan is just learning, including the fact that if you want to stick out, you first have to work on fitting in.
On the “Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon, First Lady Michelle Obamaexplained that it was more important than ever for young people older than 26 to sign up for health insurance.
“A lot of young people think they’re invincible, but the truth is young people are knuckleheads,” she laughed, pointing out that they often cut themselves while cooking or injure themselves by dancing on bar stools.
Obama added that thanks to Obamacare, coverage for young people was much cheaper.
“Now young people can get insurance for as little as $50 a month, less than the cost of gym shoes,” she explained.
Fallon pointed out that the website healthcare.gov was actually “up and running.”
The First Lady joined a skit with comedian Will Ferrell and Jimmy Fallon, who played two awkward girls hosting a talk show called “Ew!”
Obama explained to the two “girls” that it was important to keep moving, and the program quickly evolved into a dance party.
She also explained that potato chips were “ew” and encouraged them to eat kale chips instead, because they were high in Omega-3 fatty acids.