Saturday, May 17, 2014

Nancy Pelosi is, once again, uttering nonsense! ^ | May 17, 2014 | Michael Schaus

I know this isn’t really much of a shock: but Nancy Pelosi is, once again, uttering nonsense. This time, her aimless string of platitudes was focused (and I use the word “focused” rather loosely) on immigration reform. Like many of her progressive allies (in both parties) she rambled about the need for America to create a “path to citizenship”. Nancy, we already have a path to citizenship… And generally, the first step to becoming a US citizen isn’t breaking our Federal immigration laws. According to CNS News: “As a country, we cannot, let me say, we cannot prohibit a path to citizenship,” Pelosi said Tuesday at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation annual economic summit in Washington, D.C. Right… Because expecting hopeful immigrants to follow the laws, regulations, and procedures for lawful immigration, is clearly a prohibition on welcoming new US citizens into the country. (I’m sure you recognize the need for a sarcasm font as much as I do.) It seems to completely confound the Liberal loon from San Francisco that some Americans want citizenship to be given only to people who haven’t already displayed a blatant disregard for our legal system. (Giving citizenship to illegal immigrants is kinda like retail stores giving out discounts to shoplifters… It just doesn’t seem like you’re rewarding the correct behavior.) But, of course, Nancy continued: “I don’t think we as a country want to be a country that says, ‘You can do our work, but you can’t have the rights of a citizen in our country,’” said Pelosi. “It’s more about who we are as a nation.” Ok, I must be having a stroke… I think I agree with her words. Something tells me, however, that our solutions are probably a bit different. While Nancy seems to believe that America should toss aside its respect for the rule of law (by allowing illegal immigrants to magically obtain citizenship after displaying a clear contempt for our immigration system), I tend to believe that – well – we just shouldn’t hire illegals. I mean, heck: Rahm Emanuel has announced that Chicago will start hiring illegals en mass. Liberal utopias, like San Francisco, have promised to give de facto immunity to illegals and their unlawful employers. Aside from the fact that Americans are feeling a little left out of the workforce nowadays, this plan doesn’t really seem to do the poor illegal immigrants any favors. As Nancy Pelosi (unwittingly) pointed out: Illegals are living in a perpetual shadow economy, with no representation, hope, or economic mobility. What’s ironic, however, is that the liberal/ progressive promise to hand out de facto amnesty (through selective implementation of immigration laws) only exacerbates the current crises in American immigration politics. Maybe we should start enforcing citizenship requirements on employers, instead of allowing this shadow economy to flourish? Perhaps we should actually implement the laws we have on the books? After all, these laws were not written to exclude, or discriminate against, immigrants. Quite the opposite, actually. They were created to protect the hopeful immigrants who trudge through our bureaucratic process of legal immigration. In essence: Our immigration laws protect immigrants who respect the rule of law. Nancy Pelosi’s ramblings, along with the “amnesty-politics” among progressives of both parties, have done far more damage to immigrants in America than a little governing has ever done. Maybe we should look at simply enforcing our laws, rather than implementing some loony California liberalism.

The VA Scandal: It’s Here to Stay

Coach is Right ^ | May 17, 2014 | Jim Emerson, staff writer
The Veterans Administration (VA) “waiting list” scandal and allegations of a cover-up have tarnished the reputation of an agency that was created to help America’s veterans. The Phoenix VA hospital is at the eye of the storm, engaging in a behavior pattern of falsifying medical records in order to conceal lengthy delays in the keeping of patient appointments. To date four other VA facilities are also under investigation. Around the country numerous whistle-blowers are speaking up exposing an institutional behavior of hospital mangers putting bonuses before health care. VA Secretary Eric Shinseki has ordered a nationwide review of clinics at VA Medical Centers across the country in order to assess veterans’ access to care. Of course, Shinseki ordered the review only because the House Veteran’s Affairs Committee had grown tired of being stonewalled by VA leadership and issued a subpoena in an attempt to force the VA into providing information relating to the "wait list" scandal. Clearly, VA senior leadership was playing a “wait list” game with Congress just as their clinics had been with patients. Being an election year this scandal is here to stay since both sides of the aisle are calling for action. After all, the American people sympathize with victims of bureaucratic abuse, especially when those victims have served in the military. VA acting Inspector General Richard J. Griffin testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee this week, promising to complete an “exhaustive review” of VA practices by August.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

VA Fast-Tracks Sex Change for Manning While Vets Die on Waiting Lists (Sickening)

breitbart ^ | 5/16/14 | t rose
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has formally approved the request of Pvt. Bradley Manning, convicted for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, to be temporarily transferred out of military custody in order to undergo expensive hormone therapy and surgery to become a woman. Manning, whose taxpayer-funded request to change his name from Bradley to Chelsea was approved last month by a Kansas court, has been able to obtain repeated diagnoses from military doctors that he suffers from “gender dysphobia”; a condition of someone ‘discontented’ with the sex they were ‘assigned with’ at birth. It was first listed as a medical condition in 2007 by the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Two Pentagon officials quoted by WUSA-TV, the CBS News affiliate in Washington, D.C., claim the transfer orders were submitted because neither the Defense nor Veterans Department authorize such medical services, while the US Bureau of Prisons does. Pentagon Spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby denies the claim, saying no decision has been made to transfer Manning to a civilian facility. As the medical needs of Manning, convicted in 2013 and sentenced to 35 years in prison for stealing 750,000 classified defense department documents in order to disseminate them to Wikileaks, were being assiduously attended to by America’s defense establishment, untold hundreds of American servicemen and women suffering from genuine life-threatening and acute medical conditions have allegedly been left to die on at least seven waiting lists managed by the US Veterans Administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

More Obamacare Workers Reveal They Were Paid To do Nothing!

NewsMax ^ | 16 May 2014 | Sandy Fitzgerald
More workers hired to process Obamacare applications are revealing how they've been filling their days sleeping, playing board games, reading, or fighting with each other on many days when there was little or no work. "I walk out every day feeling as if I have contributed nothing," a worker from the London, Ky., Serco facility told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Thursday. A former worker at a processing center in Wentzville, Mo., processing facility, Lavonne Takatz, said she and other workers played games or slept because there was nothing for them to do. She and other workers said company and government supervisors knew they were being paid to do little or no work at all. “We played Pictionary. We played 20 Questions. We played Trivial Pursuit,” said Takatz, who worked at Serco's Wentzville center from October through April. In some cases, the boredom led to gossiping and fights, former employees said. Monica Colvin, who worked in Wentzville's facility until January, said co-workers pushed her and unplugged her computer, and eventually she she had to visit a doctor for anxiety and depression.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Steven Seagal: When Benghazi is Exposed, Obama Will Be Impeached [VIDEO] ^ | May 16, 2014 | Captitalism Institute
“Never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people like the people who are running it at this day.”  “When we have leadership that thinks that the Constitution of the United States of America is a joke, when we have a President who has almost a thousand Executive Orders now, when we have a Department of Justice that thinks that any kind of a judicial system that they make up as they go along can get by with whatever they decide that they won’t do.” “What’s happened with Fast and Furious? What’s happened with the truth about any of some of the greatest scandals in American history that have happened right before our eyes?” “If the truth about Benghazi were to come out now, I don’t think that this man would make it through his term, I think he would be impeached.” “America is a great country where we have designed a system based on the Constitution where we have freedom of speech, we’re allowed to disagree and say what we want to say, and should not be persecuted for it. But on the same token, those who have something to say that is too controversial really have to be very, very careful, and I think right now we are at a sort of tipping point where, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, we have to realize that we have to put the parties aside and all come together as Americans and realize that we have to take this country back.”

Industry Group Warns Prescription Costs Will Rise under Obamacare!

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 16 May 2014 | John Semmens
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) reports that a study comparing out-of-pocket costs under Affordable Care Act health insurance policies will likely exceed costs under employer sponsored plans by an estimated 130%. John Castellani, president and CEO of PhRMA, expressed concern that “millions of Americans may be priced out of receiving the medicines they need. This completely contradicts the Administration’s promise that the Affordable Care Act would provide coverage equivalent to or better than what people had prior to the new law.” Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Bill Corr disputed the implication that the health of Americans would be negatively affected. “Most of the prescription drugs people take are unnecessary,” Corr asserted. “Some are outright harmful when all of the negative side effects are taken into consideration. So if higher out-of-pocket costs reduce the consumption of these drugs not only will we save money, we will save lives.” “If the general public had known that boosting consumers’ out-of-pocket drug costs in order to discourage consumption was an intended outcome of the President’s health care reform I doubt they would’ve supported its passage,” Castellani observed. “I certainly know our organization wouldn’t have supported it.” “What these outsiders may have believed is not important,” Corr replied. “The key was to reform our nation’s health care system by whatever means necessary. The ACA is now the law of the land. We will carry out its provisions as the President deems appropriate. If this cuts into drug manufacturers’ profits, so be it.” In related news, health insurance executive Marcus Merz, CEO of PreferredOne, says another accomplishment of Obamacare will be “to help people break away from the idea that they should have a range of choices when it comes to who will treat them. Choice adds to the cost of health care. The less of it there is, the more we save.”

Rep. Paul Broun: VA Scandal Shows Obama's 'Disdain' for Military!

Newsmax ^ | 5/16/14 | staff
The mushrooming Veterans Affairs scandal is indicative of the Obama administration's "disdain" for the military, U.S. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia believes.  "This administration seems to have a disdain, maybe even a hatred for the military, as well as our veterans," Broun told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newmax TV. "Just from the military perspective, I was talking … to a three-star Army general. He didn't have enough rounds of ammunition for his troops to go out to the rifle range and just requalify with their rifles." "I've talked to pilots who don't have enough fuel for their helicopters, their jet aircraft, and their transport aircraft to stay current. This is totally unacceptable, and the American people need to rise up and say no to this administration." Doctors working at VA facilities in Phoenix say managers ordered them to place chronically ill patients on a secret waiting list.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Deficit Is Down, So Thank The Tea Party! ^ | May 16, 2014 | Stephen Moore
American history has been profoundly shaped by citizen-driven grass-roots movements that spontaneously combust into seismic political change. This is the story of the Founding Fathers, the abolitionists, the progressives, the civil-rights movement, the 1970s tax revolt and ... it's time to add to that list the oft-maligned tea party movement. We don't fully recognize the earthquake change brought about by these millions of military veterans, housewives, nurses, schoolteachers, construction workers, senior citizens, investment bankers and clergy who saw the recklessness and immorality of debt, redistribution, Washington waste, federal bailouts and ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi couldn't have gotten it more wrong when she snorted that this was an artificial "astroturf" movement controlled by the Koch brothers and the Republican National Committee. In reality, this was a local and organic movement of mostly political neophytes. Their tactics and goals were sometimes politically naive and a few times counterproductive. But I was on the Washington Mall on 9/12 when at least a half-million gathered to express their rage against a government that had come unhinged. Their common bond was a healthy contempt for the centralized power, arrogance,ignorance and greed of the privileged class in Washington. The tea partiers didn't like the policies of George W. Bush much more than those of Barack Obama. This was never partisan, though the anger was directed at the party in power — the Obama Democrats. What did they accomplish? That question was answered in part by the latest government report on the budget and the debt.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

General Shinseki: Democrat Hack

Rush ^ | May 16, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: We've got veterans dying because they're not getting adequate medical care. Do you remember this name Shinseki, this guy that's running the VA. Eric Shinseki, do you remember why he's famous? Do you remember why he's even at the VA? Shinseki was one of the first uniformed military people to trash Bush and the Iraq war for the Democrats back in the second term of George W. Bush. And I'll never forget, John Kerry, who, you may not know, served in Vietnam, was running around quoting Eric Shinseki day in and day out. I'm gonna have one of my researchers look into it. I'm gonna find out exactly when it was that Shinseki first popped up as a uniformed -- this is key now, active duty uniformed critic. He was one of the first and he became an instant hero of the left and the media. So they put him over at the VA, and just like everybody else in this administration, they can't run diddly-squat. But you tell these people that our troops are raping women and terrorizing children in Iraq, and they'll believe it just like that, and they'll make a move to put 'em on trial just like that. You put 'em in charge of actually doing something for people and they fail miserably. But you put 'em in charge of caring and saying how much they care, and they excel at it. BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Eric Shinseki. His notoriety began even before the Iraq war began. Eric Shinseki was a uniformed Democrat, actively opposed to Iraq before it started. John Kerry loved him, the John Kerry that served in Vietnam, constantly quoting him. One of the things that Shinseki said, he was the Army chief of staff at the time. I mean, this isn't an insignificant position. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told Senator Kerry he was going to need several hundred thousand troops -- this is in response to a question of the committee -- several hundred thousand troops. General Shinseki said there was no way to win the Iraq war. No way to go in there. No way to occupy unless we sent several hundred thousand troops. And then John Kerry said they retired General Shinseki for telling him that. The president hasn't listened. This was in a debate on October 8th, 2004. This was Kerry talking to the American people in a debate. So Shinseki's been a hero of these people for a long time. If you think you've heard the name, that's why. Army chief of staff opposed Iraq, said it wouldn't work, it's impossible. Bush wasn't adequately prepared, no way. Kerry loved it. Now the guy's running the VA into the ground, patients are dying. New York Times praised Shinseki back in 2009. A second act for General Shinseki. They love this guy. You have to understand, folks, this is classic. The guy's not qualified to run anything except in his own mind and the in minds of these leftists 'cause he cares. He made his bones, he came out, he humiliated Bush, he thought. He criticized Bush. He was anti-war, anti-Iraq. And he was the one that allowed all the Democrats to -- let me reset this picture here for just a second because the vote authorizing use of force in Iraq was a two-phased vote. The Democrats misread the public mood, and when the original vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq was taken, a lot of Democrats voted against it. And then they learned that the vast majority of the American people were for it and they demanded a second vote. Bush acquiesced, okay, if you want to vote again, go ahead. He had the Republicans in Congress, go ahead and let 'em vote again. So the Democrats could all go on record as supporting the use-of-force authorization in Iraq.Now, another thing that you may not remember. This didn't happen overnight. Bush spent 18 months building up his case, making his case, traveling all over the country and making speeches, going to the UN and, you know, General Powell, the weapons of mass destruction. But my point is -- I'm not trying to relive the WMD thing. The point is Bush didn't say on a Friday we're going to war on Monday and do it. It was a year and a half. The president made his case.The American people overwhelmingly supported him in the first vote to authorize use of force. I mean, the president even withheld action until Congress had voted. He gave them an opportunity to be part of it, and the first vote, a whole slew of Democrats voted "no." And the outrage directed at them from the American people was such that they demanded a second vote. Hillary, John Kerry, all of them ultimately in the second vote voted to go to war in Iraq. That's why everything that they did after that is hypocritical and phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roll because they voted for it. They wanted to act like they never did. They then spent six years saying Bush lied. Well, we went back and found out that Bill Clinton in 1998, in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal, used almost the same statistics and the same reasons. It was uncanny, the words that Bill Clinton used seeking support from Congress to use force in Iraq in '98 that Bush used in 2002, 2003, really was uncanny. And when Clinton wanted the authorization to use force in 1998, every Democrat voted for it without thinking about it, granted, Democrat president, Democrat Congress, you got it. Here comes Bush, four, five years later, same arguments, folks, do not doubt me, same arguments, Democrats want no part of it, 'cause they politicize everything. Then they see that the American people are all for it, they demand a second vote. And after the second vote, General Shinseki pops up and says, well, this doesn't have a prayer. You can't do this without hundreds and hundreds of thousands of troops, we're not ready, this isn't gonna work, and that's all it took. Shinseki gave the Democrats the cover to run away from their "yes" votes on the use of force in Iraq and allowed them to pretend those "yes" votes never happened. And so over the next six years, the Democrats and the media did everything they could to destroy Bush, to secure defeat in Iraq so they could hang that around Bush's neck. You remember the Daily News stories of the body counts, all the stories of terrorism committed by American troops. The now deceased Pennsylvania Congressman had an airport named after him. John Murtha. Some of the stuff that they were saying about our troops, folks, was unconscionable. And it was all political. But the guy that really paved the way for all these Democrats, particularly in the Senate, to run away from their authorization to use force votes was Eric Shinseki, uniformed, Army chief of staff, ripping into Bush gave 'em all cover. Because here's a military guy, expert, he's Army chief of staff. So he was paid back by being named VA -- here's the New York Times story in 2009. "Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the retired Army chief of staff who presciently predicted that stabilizing Iraq would take more troops than had been committed to the invasion, pledged Wednesday to transform the Department of Veterans Affairs to better fulfill the nation’s promises to those who have served in uniform." As Obama's nominee -- Obama hadn't even been immaculated yet. This is before the inauguration, January 2009. This is two days, in fact, January 14, two days before I went public and said, "I hope he fails." Just to give you some timeline. "As President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee to head the second-largest bureaucracy in the government, behind the Pentagon, General Shinseki said that if confirmed he would streamline the disability claims system, use new information technologies to improve the delivery of benefits and services, and focus on unemployed and homeless veterans. ... When he retired in June 2003 after 38 years as a soldier, General Shinseki was the highest-ranking Asian-American in United States military history." That speaks for itself, too. So that's the guy they sent over there to run the VA that's made an absolute mess of it, as big a mess of the VA as Obama has made of Obamacare. It's such a tragedy. It is a genuine tragedy that these people are in leadership positions. They just don't have the qualifications. And, I'm sorry, folks, but caring just isn't a qualification, not by itself.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: October 8th, 2004, St. Louis, Washington University. It's the second debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, the haughty Senator John Kerry, who at one time in his life served in Vietnam. They're talking about the Iraq war. Remember, Kerry was part of the cabal that asked for a second vote. After first voting "no" on the use of force, they all wanted to vote "yes" to get on the right side of public opinion. And then Shinseki came out and said, "You can't do this without multiple hundreds of thousands of troops." And, by the way, he was not right. I mean, the surge, the maximum number of troops we had in Iraq's 170,000, and Shinseki said we needed at least twice that. But we pulled it off with the surge, and we eventually got out of there victoriously. What's happened since is another story, but the Iraq war -- see, the problem is too many people think we lost it. The media has got everybody convinced we lost the Iraq war, that we were humiliated, Bush didn't know what he was doing, because there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. So it was all lost. It was just a humiliating experience for the US and another reason why we shouldn't use our military very much. See, the left loves military failure, particularly when they're not in the White House, because it just gives 'em another bit of ammo to advocate for not using the military, except for Meals on Wheels type thing, social experimentation, this kind of thing. But military failure, "Oh, yeah, man. See that? We have no business being in Iraq." Now, if the hashtag doesn't work to get the girls back you wait, these same people are gonna say we should send maybe some armed drones in there instead of just camera-equipped drones. But I just want to play for you, 2004, St. Louis, presidential debate, here's John Kerry, who just a year earlier had voted for the Iraq war.KERRY: We didn't have enough forces. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told 'em he was gonna need several hundred thousand and guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that. This president hasn't listened.RUSH: Now, my point in playing this is Shinseki has been a hero to the left since 2003. He got the VA gig because of it. Kerry was one of his big champions, loved him, loved him, uniformed military Army chief of staff ripping into Bush. That's all the cover they needed. I got sick and tired of hearing the name Shinseki here, Shinseki there. He was the only person according to the media or the Democrat Party that had any military credibility. Rumsfeld didn't have any, General Myers didn't have any, nobody active duty prosecuting the war had any credibility. Shinseki had all the credibility. And now look at the VA under these people. It's an embarrassment. It's worse than an embarrassment. It's a disaster. BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Now, one other thing with John Kerry. He claimed that George Bush fired Eric Shinseki for his disagreement statements on Iraq. Not true. Shinseki's retirement was announced in April of 2002, long before he testified about the Iraq war. His retirement was announced easily a year and a half before he said anything about Iraq. So Kerry just made that up.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Okay. Shinseki has fired somebody at the VA. They got a scapegoat. Have his name right in front of me but he's gone. Shinseki stays, predictably so. END TRANSCRIPT

Ben Carson Said He’d Run for President if He ‘Felt Called by God’ — Well, Guess What?

The Balze ^ | 16 May 2014 | Billy Hallowell
Ben Carson, the famed neurosurgeon who delivered a bold speech critical of President Barack Obama at least year’s National Prayer Breakfast, is reportedly warming up to the idea of a presidential run.  Carson told the Weekly Standard this week that he’s “starting to feel” a tug to possibly run for national office, highlighting the intense response he gets when he travels around the nation speaking about contemporary issues. He spoke specifically about a woman whom he said truly touched him when she implored him to seek the presidency. She just kept clinging to my hand and said, ‘You have to run. You have to run,’” Carson told the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes. “And so many people tell me that, and so I think I’m starting to hear something.” But Carson said he’s fully aware that running for president is no easy feat. “It’s a daunting thing,” he said. “I know how vehemently the left will come after you, try to destroy you, try to destroy your family.” Carson continued, “But at the same time I recognize that people like Nathan Hale — he said, ‘My only regret is I have but one life to give to my country’ … and if everybody runs for the hills because they’re afraid that somebody is going to attack them or their family, then [the left] will have won.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

NPR Admits Opposition To Obama May Not Be Due To Racism But Because He’s Terrible! ^ | 5/13/2014 | Brian Anderson
We’ve been told over and over that opposing President Obama’s socialist anti-American agenda is due to deep-seated racism and not any conservative values one might hold.  Now, the National Public Radio (NPR), of all media outlets, has posted a piece on their blog saying that there might be something more to disliking Obama than just racism. I know, I’m shocked too. This refreshing revelation from a decidedly left-leaning news source starts out with a great premise: There’s no question we’re living in a time of divisive politics, when roughly half the country is likely to hate the president, no matter whom he or she might be. And back it up with a good quote: “If any white Democrat had pushed through a billion-dollar stimulus plan and a takeover of the health care industry, he would have been equally detested by conservatives and Republicans,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and consultant.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

President Hillary Clinton?,Four More Years Of,"What Difference Does It Make"?

 by Cruz_West_Paul2016

Now here is another reason not to vote for Hillary.Do we really need another four years of hearing the excuse,"What Difference Does It Make?", and "I Don't Recall"?

Do we really want another four years of monthly scandals&embarrassing debacles where all of the Democrat Leaders will refuse to answer any questions regarding the latest Presidential Oops?,By 2016 we would have already dealt with 8 years of blaming Bush/It's not my fault,"I Know Nothing"and "Dude Excuses".So can we expect to hear "What Difference Does It Make" from Hillary every time someone in her cabinet really screws up under her watch?,or will she just avoid taking questions like most Democrats do.

Dem poll: Half of young Obama voters don’t plan to vote blue in November!

Hotair ^ | 05/16/2014 | Guy Benson
Behold, yet another data point indicating that Obama’s 2012 re-election coalition is splintering or flat-out apathetic heading into the midterm cycle, via the Washington Post:
As this graph illustrates, less than a third of Obama’s 2012 Millennial voters say they’ll “definitely” vote for Democrats this fall. Almost as many have abandoned the party label completely, either by shifting to independent status or by supporting Republicans. When this Democratic pollster tabulates the data, he finds that only half of all the young Obama voters surveyed will definitely, probably, or maybe vote for Democrats in the midterms. The rest plan to sit at home, or to back other candidates. In 2010, Millennial turnout dropped significantly compared to 2008, and the gap between the two parties among those who did vote narrowed considerably. The strategist’s advice to Democrats, therefore, is to “heavily invest” in turning out “progressive Millennials,” pronto. If the party heeds his counsel, expect to hear a lot about gay marriage and birth control over the next six months. Also via WaPo, here’s a chart that employs the (fairly Democrat-friendly) NBC/WSJ polling series to track this year’s fundamentals, comparing the current numbers to surveys conducted before previous midterm waves. Chris Cillizza says the results “should scare Democrats:”
Those indicators — which are also reflected in other public polling — would certainly seem suggest that Democrats are cruisin’ for a bruisin’ this fall. But lest conservatives start counting chickens, allow me to float two friendly reminders: (1) The most vulnerable Senate Democrat incumbent, on paper at least, is leading his (highly impressive) Republican challenger by double digits according to some polls, though others show a very tight race. (2) Republican-held Senate seats in Georgia and Kentucky aren’t necessarily gimmes either. I’ll add one more: Even if young Obama voters do blow off the midterm elections this year, they sure seem pretty susceptible to hype over famous presidential candidates with cool friends and vague, history-making campaign themes. What could go wrong?* *AP, feel free to just FedEx me the Eeyore crown whenever you have a spare moment.

Unfit for Office

National Review Online ^ | May 14, 2014 | Dr. Benjamin Carson
The recent escalating arguments over whether there should be further congressional hearings on Benghazi are troubling. The fact that there are substantial numbers of people who feel that there is nothing more to investigate when four American lives were lost and no one has answered for this crime provides an indication of how far our sense of justice has slipped. This should not be a partisan issue, because the implications of ignoring or prevaricating about the underlying mistakes will have far-reaching consequences. The United States has diplomatic establishments throughout the world, and if they can be attacked without consequences, it greatly diminishes our influence despite any protestations to the contrary. What does it say about our judgment if we have diplomatic establishments for which we make inadequate provisions for protection? This is especially disturbing because it was revealed that requests by the diplomatic facility in Benghazi for more protection were refused. There had been attacks on the facility not long before the fatal attack, and hostile actions had been taken against the British, which they were wise enough to react to appropriately. Even more confounding was the decision to abandon our personnel at the facility because someone decided that our military forces could not reach them in time to effect a rescue. How could such a decision be made when no one knew how long the hostile action would last? When our top officials make decisions to abandon our own people because they feel the situation is hopeless, they also abandon the concept of American exceptionalism and create doubt in the minds of all future military participants about the intention of their superiors to expend maximum effort to preserve their lives when they have sacrificed everything for our nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Silly press corps, we have now entered the stop-asking-questions phase of the VA scandal!

Hotair ^
by Mary Katharine Ham
 In most cases, I have come to realize that the Obama administration is easier to understand if you dispense with the notion that there is some sort of plan other than getting through each day by minimizing immediate political damage to the highest degree possible without regard to long-term goals. But while I’m not always confident there’s a plan for actual policy, there’s always a plan for avoiding questions and blame on scandals. On the VA scandal, that plan has been enacted. Step 1: “We’re just finding out about this ourselves and are as appalled as anyone over these allegations. We vow to get to the bottom of this and, if true, right this wrong swiftly and thoroughly. Nothing less than the honor of our nation and our people is at stake, and that will not come to harm on my watch.” Step 2: “We are investigating ourselves right now to make sure we get to the bottom of this. It’s important that we get all the facts from ourselves, and in the meantime it would be inappropriate for ourselves to answer questions about the investigation we’re conducting on ourselves.” Step 3: “Didn’t I just tell you we started an investigation of ourselves? Also, we noted our outrage. I cannot possibly make any statements about the very obvious wrongdoing that occurred on our watch until the investigation we’re conducting of ourselves is completed, printed on paper and in my hands. Anything else would jeopardize the integrity of our investigation of ourselves. Is that what you want?” Step 3 is where ABC’s Jon Karl found himself today, on the receiving end of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s indignation at the mere asking of questions after the administration has expressed grave concern and started an investigation. Up next, Step 4: “Only crazy wingers even ask questions about stuff like this. Are you a crazy winger? Do you think it’s a grand conspiracy in which the President of the United States conspired to personally hurt veterans? Do you think that’s an appropriate question to ask?” Step 5: Wait six months, refer to formerly outrageous scandal as phony. Step 6: Slow walk investigation and especially the release of requested and possibly incriminating documents for a year or more. Step 7: “Oh, that ‘scandal’? Dude, that was a year ago. Who’s still talking about that?”