Thursday, June 7, 2012

Mole helps Rep. Issa whack Justice Dept.

The Hill ^ | 6/7/12 | Jordy Yager

With the help of a mole, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has turned the tables on Attorney General Eric Holder.

Issa has long been exasperated with Holder, claiming that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been withholding information on a controversial gun-running operation. But through an anonymous source, Issa has obtained information about the initiative that is under a federal court-ordered seal.

Giving such information out is a federal crime, raising the question of whether the Justice Department will seek to prosecute what Republicans are calling a whistleblower.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Holder LIES: Emails Using Words ‘Fast and Furious’ Don’t Refer to Operation Fast and Furious! ^ | June 07, 2012 | Matt Cover

( – Attorney General Eric Holder claimed during congressional testimony today that internal Justice Department emails that use the phrase “Fast and Furious” do not refer to the controversial gun-walking operation Fast and Furious.

Under questioning from Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who read excerpts of the emails at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight, Holder claimed that the phrase “Fast and Furious” did not refer to Fast and Furious but instead referred to another gun-walking operation known as “Wide Receiver.”

However, the emails refer to both programs -- "Fast and Furious" and the "Tucson case," from where Wide Receiver was launched -- and reveal Justice Department officials discussing how to handle media scrutiny when both operations become public.

Among three of the emails (see Jason Weinstein Email Fast, Furious.pdf), the second, dated “October 17, 2010 11:07 PM,” was sent by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein to James Trusty and it states: “Do you think we should have Lanny participate in press when Fast and Furious and Laura’s Tucson case [Wide Receiver] are unsealed? It’s a tricky case, given the number of guns that have walked, but it is a significant set of prosecutions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Dems Now Believe Obama Could Lose

The Time ^ | JUNE 7, 2012 | Mark Halperin

With five months until Election Day, Barack Obama faces a grim new reality: Republicans now believe Mitt Romney can win, and Democrats believe Obama can lose ...
Last week's anemic job-creation and economic-growth data was sandwiched between two Bill Clinton specials: in one television interview, the 42nd President lauded Romney's business record as "sterling"; in another, he veered from the Obama line on the extension of Bush-era tax cuts ... The failure to unseat Wisconsin's Republican governor Scott Walker in a recall election was another bad sign for Democrats since it will rev up conservatives nationwide, including the kind of millionaires who gave big bucks to Walker's effort ...
Veteran Democratic strategists from previous presidential bids and on Capitol Hill now wonder if the Obama re-election crew is working with the right message ... The White House remains on a rough political trajectory, with a potentially adverse Supreme Court decision on the Obama health care law looming, additional bad economic news from Europe coming and more worrisome polling pending ...
Another danger for the President: the media freak show. Stalking that circus' center ring is Matt Drudge, whose caustic website continues to help drive the news cycle with an emphasis on negative, mocking items about Obama and Vice President Joe Biden and their wives.
The latest sign of Drudge's potency: Ed Klein, the author of the virulently anti-Obama book The Amateur, was barred from major TV appearances and mostly ignored by the mainstream media, but the book's prominence on Drudge's website propelled it to the No. 1 slot on the New York Times nonfiction list.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Canada Bracing for Massive Influx of Wisconsin Boat People

Coast Guard on Alert

OTTAWA (The Borowitz Report) – The Canadian coast guard was on alert today, preparing for what it fears could be a massive invasion of boat people from Wisconsin.
Conor McGlindon, commander of the Royal Canadian Mounted Coast Guard (RCMCG), said that satellite photos had revealed a “substantial flotilla” in the making, as Wisconsinites prepared to flee their state for their neighbor to the North.
“Word has gotten around that we have policemen, firemen, and basic school lunches up here,” Mr. McGlindon said. “You can’t blame these boat people for seeking a better life. But we are under orders to intercept them.”
In Canada, officials fear that refugees from Wisconsin will brave the treacherous journey across Lake Superior in the hopes of giving birth to so-called “anchor babies” on Canadian soil.
Mr. McGlindon offered reporters a look at satellite photos showing the boat people larding their vessels with wheels of premium cheddar cheese, possibly in the hopes of bribing Canadian officials on Superior’s northern shore.
“We are telling all of our men that under no circumstances should they accept offerings of cheese,” he said. ”These boat people are desperate and they will try anything.”
Reports of the looming refugee crisis coincided with the release of a new poll showing that Gov. Scott Walker is now the most hated man in Wisconsin, narrowly edging Brett Favre.
Speaking at the state capitol, Gov. Walker seemed philosophical about his legacy: “I’m not worried how history will remember me, because if I have my way there won’t be any history teachers.”  

Abandoned in Moscow

Standpoint ^ | June 7, 2012 | Juila Pettengill

What will it take for the Obama administration to realise that their treasured "Reset" is the foreign policy equivalent of Monty's Python's dead parrot? The insults and harassment heaped upon Michel McFaul, the American Ambassador to Russia, apparently aren't enough.

Ever since his appointment in December, Michael McFaul has been subjected to a steady stream of overall hostility from Kremlin-sponsored front groups and the media. Now, the Foreign Ministry itself has joined in. Their latest salvo has taken the form of a twitter war. Russian officials have issued a barrage of tweets berating McFaul for remarks he made to an audience of students on US-Russian relations, calling them "unprofessional" and full of "deliberate falsehoods."

The speech was in fact a rather anodyne list of all the ways in which relations have supposedly improved as a result of the "Reset" policy. Indeed, the presentation's only discernible offence is being tremendously over-earnest: it actually ends with a slide saying "Let's keep talking." The idea of depicting McFaul's address-more reminiscent of the cheesy American game show "Let's Make a Deal!" than Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech- as somehow combative demonstrates either paranoia or a wonderful sense of humour.
McFaul has previously been subjected to harassment by the Kremlin-sponsored youth group Nashi, as well as the state-owned television channel NTV, which McFaul has accused of hacking into his personal diary, as the channel's camera crew had developed a knack of knowing the Ambassador's exact schedule. In one YouTube video, thought to bear all the hallmarks of a pro-Kremlin media hit job, McFaul was even compared to a paedophile.
The timing of this escalation in hostility is a crude message from the newly-returned President Putin: the reset is over-if it ever actually existed in any real sense-and we're not afraid to bully you. With popular protests against Russia's kleptocratic, authoritarian state continuing to attract large crowds, whipping up anti-American sentiment is a desperate attempt by Putin to deflect attention from his own diminishing popularity.
As has become a pretty regular occurrence, McFaul has taken to Twitter to defend himself. Yet the Obama administration has barely raised any public protest at the verbal attacks or harassment the Ambassador has faced. The spectacle of an American ambassador being harassed and treated with visible contempt by his host country is bad enough; the American government's anaemic response insults not only McFaul, but the American people.
This behaviour is a small example of a much larger problem, and a reality the Obama administration refuses to face: Russia is an authoritarian state that relies on coercion to survive. America can bend over backwards to accommodate them, and still find its hand slapped away because, fundamentally, the Putin regime judges Russia and America's mutual interests to be few and far between. President Obama need only consider Russia's culpability in the brutality raging in Syria to see what kind of state they are dealing with. What will it take to convince the Obama administration that their dreams of comity will not materialise as long as Putin prevails, and to stand up against their bullying-both against the Ambassador and abroad?
Julia Pettengill is the Co-Chair of the Russia Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society, and author of the report "The Russia Opposition: A Survey of Individuals, Groups, Strategies and Prospects".

Fossil Discovery: More Evidence for Asia, Not Africa, as the Source of Earliest Anthropoid Primates

Science Daily ^ | 06/07/2012

An international team of researchers has announced the discovery of Afrasia djijidae, a new fossil primate from Myanmar that illuminates a critical step in the evolution of early anthropoids -- the group that includes humans, apes, and monkeys. The 37-million-year-old Afrasia closely resembles another early anthropoid, Afrotarsius libycus, recently discovered at a site of similar age in the Sahara Desert of Libya.
The close similarity between Afrasia and Afrotarsius indicates that early anthropoids colonized Africa only shortly before the time when these animals lived. The colonization of Africa by early anthropoids was a pivotal step in primate and human evolution, because it set the stage for the later evolution of more advanced apes and humans there.
The scientific paper describing the discovery appears June 4 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
For decades, scientists thought that anthropoid evolution was rooted in Africa. However, more recent fossil discoveries in China, Myanmar, and other Asian countries have rapidly altered scientific opinion about where this group of distant human ancestors first evolved. Afrasia is the latest in a series of fossil discoveries that are overturning the concept of Africa as the starting point for anthropoid primate evolution.
"Not only does Afrasia help seal the case that anthropoids first evolved in Asia, it also tells us when our anthropoid ancestors first made their way to Africa, where they continued to evolve into apes and humans," says Chris Beard, Carnegie Museum of Natural History paleontologist and member of the discovery team that also included researchers from Myanmar, Thailand, and France.
Beard is renowned for his extensive work on primate evolution and anthropoid origins. "Afrasia is a game-changer because for the first time it signals when our distant ancestors initially colonized Africa."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

160 cities across U.S. gear up for rallies protesting Obama mandate Friday

Life Site News ^ | June 7, 2012 | CALVIN FREIBURGER

June 7, 2012 ( - On Friday, tens of thousands of pro-life Americans in 160 cities across the United States will rally against the Obama Administration’s abortifacient birth control mandate.

Organized by Pro-Life Action League’s Eric Scheidler and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society’s Monica Miller, the national Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally has chosen Friday, June 8—the 223rd anniversary of James Madison’s introduction of the Bill of Rights to the first Congress—to protest the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s policy forcing religious employers to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

Almost 100 pro-life and religious liberty organizations, including Human Life International, Live Action, Operation Rescue, Catholic Vote, the Alliance Defense Fund, and many others have joined the coalition supporting the rallies.

The group argues that the HHS mandate, part of Obama’s health care reform law, violates the conscience rights and religious liberties of private healthcare providers.

The rallies come just weeks before the highly anticipated ruling on Obama’s health care law from the U.S. Supreme Court.

“If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, we must ensure that religious freedom will be protected in subsequent health care legislation,” said co-director of the rallies, Monica Miller. “But if Obamacare is not struck down, we’ll be sending the federal authorities a clear message that the faith based institutions and private businesses affected by the HHS Mandate simply will not comply with it.”

“The federal government has no business defining the scope of religious ministry,” said Miller, referring to a “religious exemption” in the HHS Mandate drawn so narrowly that it excludes such religious institutions as Catholic schools and hospitals.

After an initial flurry of protests, HHS did issue an “accommodation” to alleviate concerns, but critics dismissed the change as an “accounting trick.”

“In the so-called accommodation, insurance companies—not the religious employers themselves—would be forced to pay for the abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception,” organizers of the rallies observe. “However, since any funds the insurance companies would use to make such payments ultimately come from the premiums paid by employers, Obama’s ‘accommodation’ is nothing more than a kind of economic shell-game.”

The first Stand Up Rally, which took place on March 23, attracted over 63,000 participants in 145 cities. Organizers say they expect higher numbers on Friday.

Most rallies begin at noon local time Friday. Location and contact information for all events can be found on the Stand Up Rally’s website.

A Thank You Letter to the Left (Wisconsin)

The Isthmus ^ | 6/7/2012 | Spectator

by Spectator

To all leftists, occupiers, unionistas and malcontents, Thank you!

What an election! We couldn’t have done it without you. Without your tantrums, outbursts and boorish behavior we might have stayed home for this election. Without your filthy, pot smoking hemp -headed minions occupying and violating the Capitol we might have been complacent. Without your obnoxious protests, boycotts and other actions from your union playbook, we might have sat this one out.
But you couldn’t hold back. You couldn’t restrain yourselves and behave like adults. You couldn’t accept the 2010 election results. We sat and watched as you erupted in a juvenile hissy fit that embarrassed Wisconsin. The spectacle you created is what motivated us. And thanks to your ill-mannered behavior, we won. We turned out. Big time! And now we are organized and energized. Committed. “All in”. And we aren’t going away. We now have our own organizations (no dues required), an army of volunteers and the means to communicate. And countless new sources of funding, including a donor base from all 50 states. And we have “iverifythe recall” to ferret out your infiltrators in our future local elections.
So thank you Mike Tate, Graeme Zielinski, Fred “Loonie” Levenhagen, Ismael Ozanne, Maryanne Sumi, Noble Ray, Charles Tubbs, Joanne Kloppenberg, Segway Boy, John Chisolm, public employee union members, UW TA’s, WEAC, SEIU, MTI, AFSCME Council 24 in Union Grove and WI prison guards,. Thanks for the death threats, the intimidation, the bullying, belligerence, thuggery and goonish behavior.
The lack of ethics and the failure to enforce rules and laws.
Thank you for putting your selfish, greedy motives on display for all taxpayers to see.
Your antics might have made you feel good but they didn’t make you look good.
They sickened the rest of us.
Thank you Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley. Your petty politics woke us up.
Thanks you Miles Kristan for dumping the beer on Robin Vos’s head.
Thank you University doctors for writing the phony excuses; Madison teachers for calling in sick or dragging your students to the protests without permission.
Thank you Katherine Windels for making death threats against the Governor.
The noontime capitol singers who taunted Sheboygan high school students.
Thank you WEA Trust for raping Wisconsin taxpayers.
Thank you Gwen Moore for your embarrassing minstrel show.
And thanks all of you for harassing the Walker family at their private home.
You have all been exposed.
Your tactics have been rejected.
Your bad behavior has been forever captured on You Tube.
Thank you Peter Barca and fellow Assembly members for donning your foolish orange T-shirts and screaming “shame” at legislators just doing their jobs.
Thank you Mark Miller and all 14 senators for fleeing the state and making fools of yourselves in the process. Illinois need a few more village idiots.
Thanks for showing us what democracy doesn’t look like.
And Mayor Barrett. How grateful we are that you chose one low road after another in your issue-less campaign against the Governor. This was your strike three. You are out. Take a seat on the bench and stay there. I have a hunch this was your final at-bat.
All of you helped turn Wisconsin permanently red.
Your Governor, Scott Walker, will not just complete his first term, he is all but assured as many future terms as he seeks. He will be your governor for a long, long time. Get used to it. And his national “rock star” status just might lead him to be your President some day.
Just think, it couldn’t have happened without you!
So to all of you blue fisters, thank you from the bottom of my happy, red heart.
A Wisconsin taxpayer

Majorities say White House failed on economy, health care

Fox News ^ | 6/7/2012 | By Dana Blanton

While American voters consider the Obama administration successful on national security, majorities say it has mostly failed at stimulating the economy and improving health care -- two areas the White House cites as major legislative accomplishments.

A Fox News poll released Thursday shows 55 percent of voters think the Obama administration has mostly succeeded on making the country safer.

More than half of voters think the administration has mostly failed at creating new jobs (56 percent), stimulating the economy (54 percent) and improving health care (52 percent).

Roughly a quarter of Democrats agree that the administration has failed on creating jobs (28 percent), boosting the economy (24 percent) and improving health care (22 percent).

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Non-citizens Voting in Florida? (Purging the rolls hasn’t been easy.)

National Review Online ^ | June 7, 2012 | Katrina Trinko

In Florida, state officials are encountering stiff resistance to their efforts to take non-citizens off the voter rolls.

The Sunshine State’s recent history provides a compelling case for why voter rolls must be accurate: In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush won the state by a mere 537 votes. So last year, when Florida officials realized there was a way to check voter rolls to make sure every voter was a citizen, they jumped at the opportunity.

Because the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles tracks the legal status of those who obtain driver’s licenses — i.e., whether the license holder is a citizen or legally present through a visa or some other method — officials were able to compare this list with the list of registered voters. It wasn’t a foolproof method: Someone could have been a legal alien at the time he obtained a driver’s license and yet could have become a citizen by the time he registered to vote years later. Still, the comparison between the voter-registration records and the driver’s-license records seemed like a reasonable starting point. And it revealed that up to 180,000 Florida voters were potentially not citizens.
But the state wanted a more accurate way of determining voters’ citizenship status. So last year, Florida asked the Department of Homeland Security for access to the department’s citizenship records, which have more current information. Despite repeated requests, the department has yet to give the state access, prompting Florida secretary of state Ken Detzner to write a letter to Secretary Janet Napolitano late last month, asking that DHS cooperate with Florida.
“Federal law expressly requires your agency to respond to state inquiries seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within its jurisdiction for any purpose authorized by law,” Detzner wrote. “Additionally, DHS has recently stated that the SAVE database could be used for voter-registration purposes. . . . Yet after nine months of requests, we have not been granted access to that information or any other available DHS database.”
Meanwhile, Florida had sent letters to 2,600 voters notifying them that the state had reason to believe they were not citizens. If the voters were citizens, they could contact their local elections supervisor and provide proof of their citizenship. If they were not, or did not respond to the letter, it was up to the local elections supervisor to decide whether the person should be left on the voter rolls for now or not.
Detzner spokesman Chris Cate says there have been some instances of “people who are actually non-citizens contacting the supervisor of elections and saying, ‘Remove me from the rolls.’” In Miami-Dade County, for instance, the supervisor of elections “informed us of 13 people last week who had contacted her office and requested to be removed from the voter rolls.” “The last thing we want to do is remove an eligible voter from the voter rolls,” Cate stresses. “We’re not aware of anyone who’s an eligible voter that has been removed as a result of this process.”
But Detzner’s efforts have stirred controversy nonetheless. Florida Democrats highlighted the case of 91-year-old World War II veteran Bill Internicola, who received a letter asking him to verify his citizenship if he wished to remain a Florida voter. Several Florida Democrats serving in Congress, including current Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, signed a letter to Governor Rick Scott, requesting that the process be ended. “Providing a list of names of questionable validity — created with absolutely no oversight — to county supervisors and asking that they purge their rolls will create chaotic results and further undermine Floridians’ confidence in the integrity of our elections,” wrote the Democrats. Further fuel was added to the controversy when the Miami Herald released an analysis “of the list [of 2,600 voters that] found it was dominated by Democrats, independents and Hispanics.”
Last week, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Detzner, suggesting that Florida was acting illegally. T. Christian Herren, chief of the voting section of the department’s civil rights division, wrote that Florida needed to obtain approval before taking any such action in five counties that are “subject to the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”
“Our records do not reflect that these changes affecting voting have been submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for judicial review or to the Attorney General for administrative review as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” Herren wrote.
Additionally, Herren argued that Florida had violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which stipulates that “a state shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.” Florida’s primary is scheduled for August 14.
Florida has not yet replied to the letter, though the Department of Justice had requested a response by Wednesday. “We’re evaluating our options right now with the goal of having accurate voter rolls and upholding the integrity of Florida’s elections,” Cate says.
“We have a legal duty under both state and federal law to ensure the voter rolls are current and accurate,” he points out. “Removing ineligible voters from the voter rolls isn’t something we need to be told, isn’t something we just begin to do because it’s an election year. This is something that we do every year, year-round.”
Katrina Trinko is an NRO reporter.

Obama administration classifies jobs with political purpose(bus driver, bicycleshop clerk, etc)

fox ^ | 6 7 12

The Obama administration on Wednesday acknowledged a wide-ranging definition of “green jobs” that includes bus driver, bicycle-shop clerk and other unexpected lines of employment, which the chairman of the GOP-led House oversight committee said is being done for “clearly political purposes.”

GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made the assertion during a hearing on how the administration counts so-called green jobs and the Labor Department’s recent change to how reporters can access key unemployment reports and other information.

The Labor Department "has jeopardized the integrity of employment data in some cases for clearly political reasons," he said.

Issa suggested the administration is reclassifying such jobs to prove that billions of taxpayer dollars, through the federal stimulus program, have created green, or environmentally-focused jobs – a major initiative for President Obama.

“It’s about politics. It’s always been about politics,” said Issa, R-Calif. “If you work at the Salvation Army, that’s a green job.”...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

These Sad Charts Show How Desperate Young People Are For Jobs!

Business Insider ^ | 06/07/2012 | Aimee Groth

Today's college grads have it tough, but those with less education are up against even greater odds.
Researchers at Rutgers — The State University of New Jersey just published a report, "Left Out. Forgotten? Recent High School Graduates and the Great Recession," looking at how those with high school diplomas are faring in today's job market.

The report, led by researchers Dr. Carl Van Horn and Dr. Cliff Zukin, surveyed 544 recent high school graduates from the classes of 2006 to 2011, with a weighted demographic representative of the U.S. population. They found that a shocking 88 percent took low-paying, temporary jobs with an average wage of $7.50/hour after graduating.

"There is tremendous pessimism among high school graduates about what the future holds for them," the researchers wrote.

In other words, the future for this demographic is bleak.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Hits Links for 100th Time! (Maybe we should just let him stay out there until January- when the adults take back over!)

Reaganite Republican ^ | June 7, 2012 | Reaganite Republican

Remember how the press reamed W for his fondness of the game? Even when he quit so as to show respect for our fighting men and women overseas?

As president, Barack Obama's now played four times what Bush did (24 outings) in his entire two terms in office [MSM: -crickets-]

Although Dear Leader often bans cameras in a bid to prevent bad imaging, the numbers don't lie... this president is far more concerned with screwing around
and taking lavish vacations than with fixing the gargantuan mess he's made of this country... seems the only thing he really takes serious is fundraising.

Yes, last Sunday's outing made it an even hun for our brave slacker-in-chief.
And just do the math- that's cca 30 outings/year, or 2.5/month. Do you know anybody that has the time to golf like that? I sure don't-
as Romney recently noted, that's 1700+ holes! And guess who's paying the greens fees... same saps that sponsor Mooch's relentless bingeing (you).

So, is he any good, after all that practice? The guy's no (38 under-par first time out!) Kim Jong Il, that's all I know...

Maybe we should just let him stay out there
until January- when the adults take back over!


Video/more at Reaganite Republican

Photo ID, the Left, And Voter Fraud ^ | June 7, 2012 | Edward white

A recent business trip got me thinking about those on the Left who oppose the movement by States to increase the security of elections by requiring people to produce photo identification (“ID”), generally a driver license or government-issued identification card, although there are other forms of permitted ID, before they can vote. As this is an election year, this issue is back in the news.

On this trip, it seemed that every time I turned around I was having to show people my ID: the TSA agent inspected it before I could get through security at the airport; the man at the car rental desk wanted my ID before I could rent a car; the lady at the hotel reception desk asked for my ID before I could check in; the guard at the courthouse asked for my ID before he would let me enter the building; store clerks asked for my ID after I handed them my credit card to buy something; and I had to show another TSA agent my ID before I could get on the plane to come home.

The more I thought about it I realized that, even when you are not traveling, you need an ID in this country for everyday events such as cashing checks, getting a loan from a pawn shop, obtaining a library card, and, depending on how old you are or how young you look, buying cigarettes and alcohol.

Yet, despite the frequent need in everyday life for Americans to display an ID, those on the Left oppose it when it comes to casting a vote. Their main claim is that it disenfranchises the poor, in particular, because obtaining an ID is a burden that discourages voting. In this claim, the Left seems to focus on obtaining driver licenses, rather than government issued photo IDs. Granted, not everyone drives so not everyone wants or needs a driver license, but that is no reason not to obtain a photo ID.

Unlike getting a driver license, you do not need to take a test to get a photo ID. All fifty States and the District of Columbia offer them to their residents who do not have driver licenses. As a general rule, to obtain a photo ID you need to provide proof of residency/citizenship and your Social Security number. There are organizations to help the poor, specifically, with the process.

The documentation required to obtain a photo ID is among the same documentation a person needs to provide to obtain public assistance in the State of Iowa [pdf], or food stamps in the State of Minnesota, or government-provided health care services (Medi-Cal) in the State of California, which also happens to require citizens to show a driver license or photo ID to obtain Medi-Cal, meaning they had to obtain one of those forms of ID first by providing the necessary documentation.

Moreover, obtaining a photo ID is not expensive. For example, the State of Maine charges $5.00, the State of Pennsylvania charges $13.50, and the State of Michigan provides them for free to senior citizens and to the blind.

Thus, the Left’s main reason for opposing voter ID laws is an exaggeration. Obtaining a photo ID is not an undue burden and is actually not something out of reach for those Americans interested in voting. Since voting generally takes place every two years, there is adequate time to obtain a photo ID before it is needed at a polling place. And, if those on the Left are concerned that some have a difficult time obtaining photo IDs, they should help them gather the necessary documentation and help them obtain the ID, just as they assist people in other areas of need.

So what’s the real reason behind the Left’s opposition to voter ID laws? Undermining America’s electoral process is something those on the Left know how to do since it advances their agenda. They do not want laws to prevent this activity. Breaking a law has consequences.

For instance, ACORN (a well-known national organization whose efforts primarily benefited Democrats) was convicted last year of voter fraud in Nevada. Two years ago ACORN settled a lawsuit in Ohio, where ACORN had been sued for engaging in a widespread pattern of corruption by submitting false voter registrations. As part of the settlement, ACORN agreed to give up its business licenses in Ohio and cease all activity in that State. Because of its various scandals, ACORN has disbanded nationwide.

Requiring a form of photo ID is a reasonable way to ensure fairer elections. Without it, there is no guarantee of the identity of the voter, and voter fraud becomes easier to accomplish. All you need to do is vote for yourself at your polling place. You then go to a different polling place and vote on behalf of someone who recently died. All the information you need to obtain their ballot (name, address, date of birth) can be found in their obituary and in a phone book. In fact, the State of Florida recently discovered 53,000 dead voters who were still registered to vote. Of course, voter impersonation is a criminal offense; so do not do it. Last year a NAACP leader in Mississippi was convicted of a voter fraud scheme, including voting in the names of dead people.

The ease of voting under someone else’s name was recently illustrated in a video of a man who went to the polling place where United States Attorney General Eric Holder is registered to vote. The man, who looks nothing like Holder, gave the poll worker Holder’s name and address. The man asked whether he needed to show his ID. The poll worker said no and was about to allow the man to vote as Eric Holder when the man left the polling place saying he would feel better if he went and got his ID. (Holder opposes voter ID laws; he claims, as do many on the Left, that there is no problem with voter fraud in this country, despite the evidence to the contrary.)

The strength of our republic rests on an electoral system that is free from fraud and corruption. An ID requirement is a simple and necessary measure to achieving that strength. Those on the Left, however, oppose it, despite the ease with which people can obtain photo IDs, the frequent need to show identification, and the recent examples of voter fraud. As with many things in life, when someone opposes a commonsense solution to a problem the reason is because the problem benefits their interests. Luckily, there are those who are working to ensure fair elections, despite the opposition from the Left. That is a good thing for voter fraud ultimately redounds to no one’s benefit, no matter one’s political preference or persuasion.

Holder admits Axelrod, White House helped Justice Dept craft Fast and Furious public relations

The Daily Caller ^ | June 7, 2012 | Matthew Boyle

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted on Thursday that President Barack Obama’s chief campaign strategist David Axelrod and the White House are helping the Department of Justice craft its messaging about Operation Fast and Furious.
“We [Holder, Axelrod and the White House] have certainly talked about ways in which we could deal with the interaction between the Justice Department and Congress — about ways in which we would,” Holder said in questioning before the House Judiciary Committee.
Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes pressed Holder further by asking him if Axelrod, Obama’s re-election campaign and the White House were involved in crafting the DOJ’s policy for dealing with press. He said they were. “In terms of trying to get any message out that was consistent with facts and make sure it was done in an appropriate way, I’ve had conversations like that with people in the White House.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Holder: DOJ Will ‘Vigorously Use’ Voting Rights Act Against States ^ | June 7, 2012 | Matt Cover

( – Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee Thursday that the Justice Department will “vigorously use” anti-Jim Crow provisions in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prevent some southern states from purging ineligible voters from their rolls and enacting voter-I.D. laws.
"It is the position of this Department of Justice and certainly this Attorney General that we will vigorously defend and vigorously use Section 5. The need for it is still there."
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires several southern states and counties in states such as California and Florida to get federal “pre-clearance” before they change any voting eligibility laws or voting requirements or procedures.
Originally, the provision was designed to combat the legacy of racist Jim Crow laws passed in some states to prevent black people from voting.
Although Holder stressed the "need" to “vigorously use” Section 5, he did not say which states he thinks are pursuing racist policies that require Justice Department interference.
The Justice Department recently cited Section 5 in a letter to the state of Florida ordering it to stop an ongoing effort to purge ineligible voters from its rolls, focusing on illegal immigrants in particular. Five Florida counties are required to gain pre-clearance from Justice under Section 5.
Justice also blocked a South Carolina voter-I.D. law in December 2011, saying it violated Section 5’s prohibition on racially discriminatory voting laws. In March 2012, the department also blocked a Texas voter-I.D. law again saying that the requirement that people show a photo-I.D. to vote was racial discrimination.

The White Side

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America .. Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation.. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.... This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.. Jeremiah Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ' 60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??

Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona ? And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many
were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids...? Is white America really responsible for the fact
that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times
those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the
black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals
choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the
reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago. This needs to be passed around because, this is a message everyone needs to hear!!!

OK........... Will you pass it on?

YES. I did but will you?

Because I'm for a better America

I am
Not racist,
Not violent,
Just not silent anymore.

Ahead of Fast and Furious hearing, Issa tells Holder ‘lead or resign’

Daily Caller ^ | 6/6/12 | Matthew Boyle

Ahead of a Thursday morning House Judiciary Committee hearing to question Attorney General Eric Holder on Operation Fast and Furious, House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa made his message clear: “Lead, follow or get out of the way.”

“When you’re attorney general, you don’t get to follow,” Issa added during an appearance on the Fox News Channel on Wednesday morning. “So [Holder needs to] lead or resign.”

On Tuesday, Issa announced that his committee had obtained evidence proving that senior Department of Justice officials approved the tactics used in Fast and Furious.
In a letter to Holder, Issa specifically said his committee has “obtained copies of six wiretap applications in support of seven wire intercepts utilized during Fast and Furious.” Those documents, he said, “show that immense detail about questionable investigative tactics was available to the senior officials who reviewed and authorized them.”
Issa explained that the documents prove that Holder and other Justice Department officials in the Obama administration provided false statements to Congress.
During his Fox News appearance, Issa said, “We’re interested in who signed or saw these documents,
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Cruel June for Obama, Dems and could get worse

The Ass. Press ^ | June 7, 2012 | Donna Cassata

Just one week old, June already is proving a cruel month for President Barack Obama and the Democrats — and it could get a lot worse.

The political blows from Tuesday's bitter loss in Wisconsin's gubernatorial recall and from last week's abysmal unemployment numbers, bad as they were, could multiply before the month is out.

The Supreme Court will pass judgment shortly on the president's signature legislative achievement — the 2010 law overhauling the nation's health care system — and also will decide on his administration's challenge to Arizona's tough immigration law...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Walker, Unbowed!

The National Review ^ | June 5, 2012 | The Editors

The year-long saga of the Wisconsin recall is, at long last, over, and Scott Walker is still standing. The low-key Republican governor has withstood a sustained (and expensive) onslaught from the forces of Big Labor and its allies on the Left that featured everything from the coordinated cross-border retreat of intransigent Democratic lawmakers, to the occupation of the state house by a band of radicals, bongo drummers, and high-school truants, to ill-fated attempts to nullify Republican legislative majorities and pick off uncooperative judges. Walker’s enemies did everything but release the kraken.

And yet, he won. Throughout, Walker has stayed even-keeled, evincing—if not exactly cockiness, then something like the fatalism and serenity of an innocent man in the middle of a trial for his life. An equanimity, and a faith that his reforms would be embraced by Wisconsin voters, that turns out to have been fully warranted.

Walker won because his reform program is popular, and because it is working. The governor’s personal approval numbers in Wisconsin hover around 50 percent — not bad for a man whom most Wisconsinites have seen Photoshopped into a Hitler mustache and Nazi regalia at least once in the last year. But more telling is the popularity of Walker’s reforms. According to one recent Reason-Rupe poll, 72 percent of Wisconsinites favor the requirement that public-sector workers increase their pension contributions to 6 percent of their salaries. And 71 percent favor making government employees pay 12 percent instead of 6 percent of their health-care premiums.
Such commonsense measures, which put public-sector employees on a more even footing with the taxpayers who pay their salaries, have already led to over $1 billion in savings across the state, saving public-sector workers from layoffs in the bargain. The reforms’ success has also neutralized them as campaign issues for Walker’s opponents, who were forced to turn away from the very raison d’être of the recall and emphasize instead a grab-bag of non-issues (Walker’s record on women’s rights?) and non-controversies (vague and discredited whispers about a pending Walker indictment and a secret college love child?) in the final weeks of the race.
Walker won because he represented the taxpayer, while his opponent represented the groups whose livelihoods depend on bilking the taxpayer. Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett served as less of an alternative than a vessel for Big Labor’s unmoored wrath. Barrett raised a mere $4 million on his own, while outside PACs did the heavy lifting — We Are Wisconsin raised more than $5.5 million in the last month alone, including seven-figure donations from AFSCME and the AFL-CIO, six-figure donations from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, and a mere $720 from its three (that’s three) individual donors. The Left will complain that Walker outspent Barrett handily, but this is no vice considering Walker also handily outraised Barrett in individual donations, about three-quarters of which were for less than $50. It was Walker’s strength, after all, that convinced national Democrats to stop spending on a race they didn’t think they could win.
And, most of all, Scott Walker saved his job by being the adult in the room. While Democrats in Washington seem to be relying on their belief that the United States government is “too big to fail” to justify a program of taxing and spending our way out of debt, the states don’t have such a luxury. And so, across the country, in states red, blue, and purple, they have turned to men like Scott Walker — and Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels, and others — to close structural deficits, stabilize out-of-control spending, and break the death embrace between Big Labor and Big Government. In taking this toxic partnership head on, in a state with a rich progressive history no less, Walker became its biggest target. His enemies spent a year and a half preparing to take their best shot at him. And a combined total of $100 million or so later, they missed. They missed because voters are starting to understand that governing through crisis requires someone willing to make unpopular choices, stand up to entrenched interests, and hold the line against loud and determined opposition.
Quite simply, Wisconsin voters realized that if they no longer had Scott Walker, they would have to invent him.

Gov. Rick Scott: voter purge lawful, feds are wrong and breaking the law (tells DOJ to pound sand)

The Miami Herald ^ | June 6, 2012 | Marc Caputo and Steve Bousquet

In a sharply-worded letter, the Scott administration all but dares the Justice Department to sue Florida for allegedly violating voting rights laws.

Gov. Rick Scott’s election’s chief on Wednesday defiantly refused a federal demand to stop purging non-citizens from Florida’s voter rolls, intensifying an election-year confrontation with President Barack Obama’s administration as each side accuses the other of breaking federal law.

In a sharply worded letter, Scott’s administration claimed the Department of Justice doesn’t understand two federal voting laws at the heart of the dispute and was protecting potentially illegal voters more than legal ones.

Florida also accused another federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security, of violating the law by denying Florida access to a federal citizenship database.

“This hardly seems like an approach earnestly designed to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that eligible voters have their votes counted,” said the letter, written by Scott’s hand-picked secretary of state, Ken Detzner, a fellow Republican.

Detzner also submitted a list of four questions that he wants the DOJ to answer.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Ann Coulter Dot Com ^ | 7 June 2012 | Ann Coulter

I watched the Wisconsin returns on MSNBC Tuesday night, and it came right down to the wire between "the Democrats were outspent 7-to-1" and "Republicans are stripping union rights!" As we go to press it's still too close to call.

Obama wanted to go to Wisconsin, but he just didn't have time. He's been doing so many campaign fundraisers lately he barely has time to play golf.

The left's "outspent" argument is ridiculous. Unions take money by force from members, hire hundreds of political operatives and give them salaries to work on campaigns, then call them "volunteers" so their work isn't reported as a campaign contribution.

Luckily for them, government employees' non-punishing work schedules leave them plenty of time to be in a constant state of grievance, demanding recalls after any election they lose, and mobilizing voters.
This election had nothing to do with people being paid a fair wage for the work they do. The question is: Do you want a society where the people whose salaries you pay make more than those who pay them?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

From Hope and Change to Fear and Smear! ^ | June7, 2012 | Victor Davis Hanson

Barack Obama lately has been accusing presumptive rival Mitt Romney of not waging his campaign in the nice (but losing) manner of John McCain in 2008. But a more marked difference can be seen in Obama himself, whose style and record bear no resemblance to his glory days of four years ago.

Recently, the president purportedly has been reassuring Democratic donors that his signature achievement, Obamacare, could be readjusted in the second term -- something Republicans have promised to do for the last three years. What an evolution: We have gone from being told we would love Obamacare, to granting exemptions to favored companies from it, to private assurances to modify it after re-election -- all before it was even fully enacted.

Obama's calls for a new civility four years ago are apparently inoperative. The vow to "punish our enemies" and the intimidation of Romney campaign donors are a long way from the soaring speech at Berlin's Victory Column and "Yes, we can." Obama once called for a focus on issues rather than personal invective. But now we mysteriously hear again of Romney's dog, his great-great-grandfather's wives, and a roughhousing incident some 50 years ago in prep school.
The "hope and change" slogan for a new unity gave way to a new "us versus them" divide. "Us" now means all sorts of targeted appeals to identity groups like African-Americans for Obama, Latinos for Obama, gays for Obamas, greens for Obama, or students for Obama. "Them," in contrast, means almost everyone else who cannot claim hyphenation or be counted on as a single-cause constituency. In 2008, the Obama strategy was supposedly to unite disparate groups with a common vision; in 2012, it is to rally special interests through common enemies.
Remember the Obama who promised an end to the revolving door of lobbyists and special-interest money? Then came the likes of Peter Orszag, who went from overseeing the Obama budget to being a Citigroup grandee, and financial pirate Jon Corzine, who cannot account for more than $1.5 billion of investors' money but can bundle cash for Obama's re-election. If you told fervent supporters in 2008 that by early 2012 Obama would set a record for the most meet-and-greet fundraisers in presidential history, they would have thought it blasphemy.
Obama is said to go over every name on his Predator drone targeted-assassination list -- a kill tally that is now seven times larger in less than four years than what George W. Bush piled up in eight. Guantanamo is just as open now as it was in 2008. If Obama supporter and former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was once accusing President Bush of being "torturer in chief," he is now an Obama insider arguing that bombing Libya is not really war and that taking out an American citizen and terrorist suspect in Yemen is perfectly legal. Previously bad renditions, preventative detentions and military tribunals are now all good.
Some disgruntled conservatives jumped ship in 2008 for the supposedly tightfisted Obama when he called for halving the deficit in four years and derided George Bush as "unpatriotic" for adding $4 trillion to the national debt. Yet Obama already has exceeded all the Bush borrowing in less than four years.
What accounts for the radical change in mood from four years ago?
The blue-state model of large government, increased entitlements and high taxes may be good rhetoric, but it is unsound reality. Redistribution does not serve static, aging populations in a competitive global world -- as we are seeing from California to southern Europe. "Hope and change" was a slogan in 2008; it has since been supplanted by the reality of 40 straight months of 8-percent-plus unemployment and record deficits -- despite $5 billion in borrowed priming, near-zero interest rates, and vast increases in entitlement spending.
Obama's bragging of drilling more oil despite, rather than because of, his efforts is supposed to be a clever appeal to both greens and business. Private equity firms are good for campaign donations but bad when a Republican rival runs them. "Romney would do worse," rather than "I did well," is the implicit Obama campaign theme of 2012.
To be re-elected, a now-polarizing Obama believes that he must stoke the fears of some of us rather than appeal to all of our hopes by defending a successful record, while smearing with the old politics rather than inspiring with the new. That cynical calculation and constant hedging and flip-flopping may be normal for politicians, but eventually it proves disastrous for the ones who posed as messianic prophets.

The Four Lies About the Economy That Obama Needs Voters to Believe ^ | June 7, 2012 | Larry Elder

President Barack Obama's re-election turns on his ability to convince voters that

1) Obama inherited a "Great Recession,"

2) every "independent" economist supported the "stimulus,"

3) "bipartisan" economists agree that Obama's stimulus worked, and

4) as actor Morgan Freeman puts it, racist Republicans say, "Screw the country ... we're going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here" -- nothing to do with deeply held policy differences.

That's a lot of merchandise to push.

1) Take this "Great Recession" business.
Remember the "misery index"? The term, popularized by former President Jimmy Carter, used to mean inflation plus unemployment. Unfortunately for John Kerry, by the time he ran for president in 2004, the misery index stood at 7.4 midway into the election year, the same as when George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000. What to do? Change the definition. Kerry invented a new misery index, one that included only high-rising costs like college tuition, health care and gas prices.
Similarly, "bad economic times" used to mean, above all, high unemployment. Within a year of Obama's presidency, unemployment climbed to 10.2 percent. Within three years of Reagan's presidency, unemployment reached 10.8 percent. Under Obama, inflation has been -- at least so far -- rather modest. Early in Reagan's presidency, inflation reached 13.5 percent. Rather than describe this era as the "Great-Recession-turned-around-by-Reagan's-pro-growth-policies," many pundits and scribes dismiss this period of extraordinary growth as the "me decade" or the "decade of greed."
2) "There is no disagreement," said then-President-elect Barack Obama, "that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy."
What?! More than 200 economists, including several Nobel laureates, signed on to a full-page ad placed in major newspapers by the libertarian Cato Institute. Eventually, over 130 more economists became signatories to the ad.
It read: "With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
"More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.
"To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
These 350 or so notable economists notwithstanding, Obama later doubled down: "This is what independent economists have said -- not politicians, not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. And what these independent experts have also said is that if we don't act, the opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth."
3) Obama surrogate Steve Rattner recently said that Obama's stimulus worked -- as confirmed by "bipartisan" economists. As proof, Rattner offered the findings of "bipartisan economists Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder," who "agree that ... we would have had unemployment substantially higher than what we've had over the last two years."
Blinder, a Democrat, served as a member of the Clinton administration and later advised presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. As for Zandi, he did serve as a presidential campaign advisor to John McCain. Like Blinder, Zandi is a self-described Democrat.
Zandi likes "maverick" McCain, a Republican who voted against the first George W. Bush tax cuts using the same left-wing argument about the cuts benefiting the rich. Zandi's man, summoning his inner Dennis Kucinich, once said, "I cannot support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
As to the alleged unanimous expert opinion on the effectiveness of Obama's stimulus, Stanford economist John Taylor debated this on NPR with Zandi. Taylor's analysis, shared by many other economists: "I just don't think there's any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good."
4) Democrats never tire of trotting out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said his "single most important political goal" was to make Obama "a one-term president." Horrors! Why, doesn't this just make McConnell the very personification of sinister! Republican opposition for the sole purpose of bringing down Obama, the first black president, yada, blah, etc.
Apparently, it is outside the brain capacity of people like Morgan Freeman to understand something: One way to defeat bad, leftist Democrats' policies is to defeat bad, leftist Democrats, who seek to implement those bad, leftist policies. It's not complicated.
Nothing personal.

Bill Press Hates Our National Anthem, With Its 'Military Jargon' and 'Home of the Brave' Stuff

Newsbusters ^ | 06/06/2012 | By Tim Graham

If it wasn’t odd enough for MSNBC weekend talker Chris Hayes to feel great discomfort at the idea of calling our war veterans “heroes” because it was too warlike, on Tuesday’s Full Court Press on Current TV, lefty Bill Press said he finds “The Star-Spangled Banner” is just embarrassing because of the “military jargon” in it and the idea that somehow we live in the “land of the brave,” as if nobody else is grave.

Not only is it apparently “absolutely, monumentally unsingable,” Press proclaimed, “But it’s an abomination. First it ranges two octaves most people can only do kind of one octave. I mean when you think about it, it’s bombs bursting in air rockets red glare it’s all kinds of, you know, a lot of national anthems are that way all kinds of military jargon." (Video from Current TV below)


The rant continued: "And the land there’s only one phrase ‘the land of the free’ which is kind of nice and ‘the home of the brave?’ I don’t know...Are we (Americans) the only ones who are brave on the planet? I mean all the brave people live here. I mean it’s just stupid I think. I’m embarrassed every time, I’m embarrassed every time we hear it."

The musical complaint came first: "It is a major crusade of mine a major cause of mine and that is to get rid of the Star Spangled Banner. Now I know you’re going to say I am not a true American I’m not patriotic. I don’t think patriotism has anything to do with it. The National Anthem is just absolutely monumentally un-singable. I mean it’s – there’s so much wrong with it. I don’t know where to start."
Press brought up the subject because the CBS folks at 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair magazine decided to take a poll asking who should write a new national anthem -- as if there was a demand for such a thing. (It would be a better idea to ask if the CBS Evening News should get a new theme song to get them out of third place.)

It should be said that Press doesn't hate other patriotic songs. He said the "words are perfect” in My Country, Tis of Thee. And "I really love God Bless America, nobody belted it out better than Kate Smith." And Ray Charles singing America the Beautiful "still gives me goosebumps.”
But our Anthem? “It’s time to junk it,” he said.


Reading Romney [Scott Walker effect]

The Weekly Standard ^ | June 6, 2012 | William Kristol

Mitt Romney's statement last night was more interesting than the normal formulaic election night press releases of the genre.

Here it is:

“I congratulate Scott Walker on his victory in Wisconsin. Governor Walker has demonstrated over the past year what sound fiscal policies can do to turn an economy around, and I believe that in November voters across the country will demonstrate that they want the same in Washington, D.C. Tonight’s results will echo beyond the borders of Wisconsin. Governor Walker has shown that citizens and taxpayers can fight back – and prevail – against the runaway government costs imposed by labor bosses. Tonight voters said ‘no’ to the tired, liberal ideas of yesterday, and ‘yes’ to fiscal responsibility and a new direction. I look forward to working with Governor Walker to help build a better, brighter future for all Americans.”
Romney goes out of his way to associate his agenda with Walker's (the second sentence), and to identify himself personally with Walker (the last sentence). And he poses the choice at the presidential level as comparable with or analogous to the choice in Wisconsin: "the tired, liberal ideas of yesterday" vs. "fiscal responsibility and a new direction."
The Romney camp has been uncertain as to whether to associate its man with, or distance him from, the sometimes controversial and divisive, Tea Party-infused, anti-establishment Republicanism of 2010. Walker's victory—and his ability to increase his margin from 2010—might well have tipped the balance in the Romney camp toward running at the head of a phalanx of bold conservative reformers, who have after all been pretty successful at governing, rather than running away from them. Or, to put it differently: The Romney camp may conclude that Scott Walker, his message and his spirit, are not part of the problem but rather part of the solution to Romney's electoral task (especially with working-class voters, including private-sector union members). After all, if Romney could hold 94 percent of Walker's vote from last night in November, he'd win Wisconsin, and the presidency.
So I'd expect to see more of the spirit of Scott Walker—and of Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Susana Martinez, Bob McDonnell, Mitch Daniels, or, if you want to go back a bit, Tim Pawlenty and Jeb Bush—in Romney's message over the next weeks. I'd expect to see Romney calling attention to successful Republican governance at the state level. I'd expect him to show up more with such figures in swing states.
And I'd expect one of them to be on the ticket. I could still make a case for a reformist senator (Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, or perhaps Rob Portman) or congressman (Paul Ryan). But given that Team Romney would like to run against Washington, I think they'll be inclined to pick a governor. And given Romney's insistence on his VP being ready to be president, they'd presumably prefer a governor who's got some national experience or at least two terms as governor plus national exposure. So I suspect we may be heading toward a Romney-Daniels ticket...or, possibly, Romney-Bush or Romney-Pawlenty. Or could Romney just decide not to over-think things and pick the governor who most clearly embodies Scott Walker's combination of policy and political success—Scott Walker?

Hatfields & McCoys


GODBillion Jobs!

Indian Tribes

BIG Gulp

"Bring Out Your Dead"

I Don't Recall!

All About Trust

Buy Soviet Underwear!



Too Stupid

Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again!

The American Catholic ^ | 6/7/2012

A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that Christian photographers cannot refuse to photograph a “gay wedding” on religious grounds. The absurdity and tyranny of this ruling is almost unfathomable, but what is less surprising is the vindictive nature of the entire case. As an entire slew of court cases in Canada demonstrates, the radical homosexual movement is not about fairness, tolerance or equality. Like its equivalents among racial minorities (think Black Panther Party) or feminists, it is about envy, revenge, and domination. As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Whether your are Christian or not, whether you have homosexual inclinations or not, the implications of the New Mexico court’s rulings for political liberty, religious freedom and private property rights ought to frighten you if you care in the least about these concepts.
The primary reasoning behind the court ruling is that sexual orientation, under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, is a protected category. As such, no one offering a public service – which this photography business is presumed to do – can lawfully refuse services on the grounds that those seeking them are homosexual. As abhorrent and Orwellian as I find most “human rights” legislation to be these days (its always some secular militant view of what constitutes “human rights”), not even the law ought to prevent the photographers from refusing service.
There must be, logically, a difference between one’s sexual orientation and one’s actions. Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way), absolutely no one has to get “married”, or in this case, to have a public ceremony in which two people claim to be married. The real test of New Mexico’s law would have been if a homosexual individual sought photography services, or even two homosexuals who weren’t asking for wedding photos. It was specifically the act of a “marriage” that the photographers sought to abstain from. Are gay “weddings” a protected category of actions? What if they asked the photographers to take pictures of them performing lewd sex acts, or implied sex acts? Moreover, if for instance religion is also a protected category, would the photographers have a legal obligation to photograph an occult ritual or a sacrilegious desecration of holy objects conducted by Satanists?
The court’s decision was presumptuous, ideological, and outrageous. It constitutes a violation of the private property rights and religious liberty of the photographers. It destroys the social fabric by forcing people to act against their moral convictions when there are plenty of reasonable alternatives available. More perversely, however, it serves to reinforce the utterly dishonest narrative that equivocates historical discrimination against black people with efforts to oppose the legitimization of the radical homosexual agenda. There isn’t a good or service or actual right being denied to people who identify as gay. There are plenty of photographers who will participate in a “gay wedding.” But this isn’t good enough. This vindictive movement will hunt down every dissenter until the world is purified and remade to their liking.
This is oppression. It is part of a concerted effort to invade the thoughts, beliefs and values of American citizens and particularly Christians and force them in a different direction. It is about thought-policing and ideological conformity. We must oppose it, and refuse to stop until the line is so firmly entrenched that none would dare attempt to cross it.

Elite Media Distorts (spins) Wisconsin Exit Polls and Results

The Sunshine State News ^ | June 7, 2012 | Matt Towery

They are at it again. Following what can only be described as a butt-kicking win for Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin's recall election, many media pundits were trying to "split the baby" by acknowledging Walker's win, but pointing to exit polls that show President Obama with a seven-point lead against Mitt Romney in that state. There is just one problem with their story: It fails to acknowledge just how far off the exit poll was in the gubernatorial contest.

To add insult to injury, the elite media bashed Matt Drudge for supposedly posting information saying the exit polls showed Walker safely winning, declaring the polls to show the race as very tight. Turns out the exit polls they referred to were wrong. Perhaps we should just go to The Drudge Report to get the accurate information from now on.

I continue to contend that exit polls are darn close to useless. I prefer polling a base model and then taking key county or even precinct results as early numbers arrive in order to project a winner. It works better and actually can often be released with a better sense of accuracy than these horrible exit polls that the media are often afraid to release.

Considering the exit polls the media relied on showed a razor-thin difference between Walker and his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the logic behind some huge lead for Obama, produced by the same exit polls, melts away. Walker defeated Barrett by seven-point margin.
Apply that same analysis to Obama's seven-point lead in the same exit polls and the race in Wisconsin is actually closer to being dead even. Wisconsin is hardly a bastion of Republican power or conservative might, yet it is even up for grabs. And this says much more about all of the polls and predictions we have seen to date.
In order for an exit poll to truly have any value, it must somehow take the various selected precincts from which information is gathered and attempt to place it in some "model" that reflects party identification, age, race and gender proportions normally seen or expected for a certain statewide race. My guess is that these polls likely skewed stronger towards younger voters and perhaps Democrats than was the actual turnout.
This would suggest that pollsters who are "weighting" their polls in other states, particularly the critically close swing states such as North Carolina, Florida and Ohio, might want to reexamine their allocation of young voters as well as consider increasing their proportion of "independent" voters that they use as they process the raw data they collect.
What might that mean in terms of these states? It might mean that Florida and North Carolina, traditionally Republican presidential states, are not as close as recent polls suggest, with Romney leading Obama. It would also make states like Missouri and Colorado, considered potential swing states that lean Obama, more than likely toss-ups that could easily go Republican in November.
And I am not a GOP rah-rah pollster (yes, my opinion is more rah-rah!). In fact, when polling for one of the nation's top sources of political news in 2008, my results showed Obama carrying both Florida and North Carolina. But a few things have changed in four years that cause me to believe that, if the election were held today, Romney would carry both states. First, we do not see the "on fire" energy for President Obama in 2012 among voters under 30 that existed for candidate Obama in 2008.
Second and more importantly, the percentage of those who view themselves as moderates or who say they are "independent" as to their party affiliation in a general election (regardless of how they might be registered for primary purposes) is not only high, but is leaning more Republican than in 2008. Many of these same "independent" voters desperately wanted change in 2008 and supplied Obama with the margin of victory in the major swing states.
We are still far from November, and as will remain my contention, the result of the presidential debates will likely determine who wins the contest for the presidency. But my Wisconsin-based interpretation of the national electoral mood is based on something more tangible than a guess about the strength of unions or weariness over recalls. My evaluation is tangible based on the exit polls -- as compared to reality

Spin Much?

The Walker Vote Earthquake - break umbilical cord between the state treasury and union treasuries!

The American Spectator ^ | June 7, 2012 | Peter Hannaford, "Reagan's Roots"

.........In California, signatures have been gathered for a voter initiative, "Stop Special Interests," on the November ballot that, if passed, would break the umbilical cord between the state treasury and union treasuries. In California, among others, the state deducts union dues from public employee paychecks and sends these directly to the unions, thus saving them the need to persuade public employees to sign up to let the union bosses use their money in elections. This is the umbilical cord and the California unions have used it to become the most powerful special interest in Sacramento, having great influence over the Democrat-controlled state legislature.

What happens when the umbilical cord is broken? It happened in Wisconsin last year as part of Governor Walker's reform legislation. Dues stopped flowing from the state treasury to the unions. They had to sell their services to the workers.

Result: dues paying is down to 28 percent of the Wisconsin public work force.
Across the country, voter discontent has been building against overly-generous public employee benefits. Declining revenues in the recession sharpened public focus, along with the realization that, in many cases, these benefits had become far greater than they are in the private sector. In short, it began to look as if the taxpayers were working for their own employees.
What will the public employee unions do? Reeling from this loss, it is unlikely they will try another vengeance move such as the Walker recall. They also face a daunting task if many legislatures, county boards, and city councils propose reform measures, especially ones on the ballot for voters who are in no mood to continue "business as usual."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...