Saturday, November 8, 2014

Contributions from Celebrities to Obama

Open Secrets ^ | 2013 | Staff 

Kauffman, Marta Producer $7,500
Landau, Jon Producer/Manager $7,500
Forman, Milos Director $5,800
Crowe, Cameron Director/Writer $5,750
Haysbert, Dennis Actor $5,500
Hathaway, Anne Actor $5,000
Henley, Donald H Singer/Songwriter $5,000
Howard, Cheryl Actor/Celebrity Spouse $5,000
Howard, Ronald Director/Actor/Producer $5,000
Jones, Quincy Record Producer $5,000
Kanal, Tony Member of 'No Doubt' $5,000
Johansson, Scarlett Actor $5,000
Johnson, Don Actor $5,000
Johnson, Earvin "Magic" Former NBA Player $5,000
Ferrell, Will Actor $5,000
Gregory, Tom Producer/Writer $5,000
Grenier, Adrian Actor $5,000
Griffith, Melanie Actor $5,000
Hall, Deidre Actor $5,000
Handler, Daniel "Lemony Snicket" Children's Author $5,000
Hanks, Thomas J Actor $5,000
Hargitay, Mariska Actor $5,000
Lauren, Ralph Fashion Designer $5,000
Lear, Norman Producer $5,000
Karas, Barry W Actor $5,000
Ladd, Alan Jr Producer $5,000
Kennedy, Kathleen Film Producer $5,000
Kerns, Joanna Actress $5,000
King, Stephen E Author $5,000
Kors, Michael D Fashion Designer $5,000
Legend, John Musician $5,000
Longoria, Eva Actor $5,000
Louis-Dreyfus, Julia Actress $5,000
Lynch, Jane Actress $5,000
Maguire, Tobey Actor $5,000
Malick, Wendie Actress $5,000
Marshall, Garry K Producer/Director $5,000
Midler, Bette Singer $5,000
Curtis, Jamie Lee Actor $5,000
Chopra, Deepak Author/TV/Physician $5,000
Chopra, Rita Author/TV/Physician $5,000
Clooney, George Actor $5,000
Cole, Kenneth Fashion Designer $5,000
Davis, Vernon Football Player $5,000
Degeneres, Ellen Comedian $5,000
Denton, James T Actor $5,000
Devito, Danny Actor $5,000
Dicaprio, Leonardo Actor $5,000
Dooley, Paul Actor $5,000
Dooley, Winifred Screenwriter $5,000
Douglas, Kirk Actor $5,000
Foxx, Jamie Actor $5,000
Franzen, Jonathan Author $5,000
Garner, Jennifer Actor $5,000
Ewing, Patrick Former NBA Player, now coach $5,000
Danner, Blythe Actor $5,000
Downey, Robert Jr Actor $5,000
Duff, Hillary Actress $5,000
Dumont, Thomas M Member of 'No Doubt' $5,000
Abrams, JJ Producer/Director $5,000
Adams, William Rapper $5,000
Allen, Byron Comedian $5,000
Alpert, Herb Musician $5,000
Alpert, Lani Singer $5,000
Anthony, Carmelo NBA Player $5,000
Apatow, Judd Producer/Writer/Director $5,000
Baldwin, Alec Actor $5,000
Bergeron, Tom Television Show Host $5,000
Black, Jack Actor/Comedian/Musician $5,000
Bochco, Dayna Television Director $5,000
Bochco, Steven Television Director $5,000
Burch, Tory Fashion Designer $5,000
Cannon, Nick Actor/Musician $5,000
Capshaw, Kate Actress/Celebrity Spouse $5,000
Carey, Mariah Singer $5,000
Carter, Vince NBA Player $5,000
Minkoff, Rob Director - Animated Films $5,000
Morrison, Toni Author/Professor $5,000
Mourning, Alonzo Jr NBA Player $5,000
Murphy, Eddie Actor/Comedian $5,000
Newman, Randy Singer/Songwriter $5,000
Norton, Edward Actor $5,000
Orman, Suze Personal Finance Expert $5,000
Pasdar, Adrian Actor $5,000
Paulin-Ferrell, Viveca Actor/Celebrity Wife $5,000
Perlman, Rhea Actor $5,000
Perrette, Pauley Actor $5,000
Pierce, Wendell Actor $5,000
Popovich, Gregg C NBA Coach $5,000
Rosenthal, Philip Producer/Writer/Actor $5,000
Rosenthal, Rick Director/Producer $5,000
Smith, Emmett III NFL Player $5,000
Smith, Jada Pinkett Actor $5,000
Smith, Will Actor $5,000
Smith, Yeardley Voice Actor $5,000
Sorkin, Aaron B Screenwriter $5,000
Spielberg, Steven Director/Producer $5,000
Springer, Gerald N Television Host $5,000
Stefani, Gwen Member of 'No Doubt' $5,000
Stiller, Ben Actor/Comedian $5,000
Streisand, Barbra Singer/Songwriter $5,000
Takei, George Actor $5,000
Tarantino, Quentin Director/Writer $5,000
Thomas, Marlo Actress $5,000
Turk, Trina Fashion Designer $5,000
Wells, John Marcum Producer $5,000
Wilson, Rita Actor $5,000
Winfrey, Oprah Television Host & Mogul $5,000
Wintour, Anna Editor of Vogue $5,000
Woodward, Joanne $5,000
Yorkin, Cynthia S Actor $5,000
Young, Adrian Member of 'No Doubt' $5,000
Sinatra, Nancy Singer $4,900
Mason, Marsha Actor $4,900
Donovan, Tate Actor $4,862
Palladino, Amy Sherman Producer/Writer/Director $4,848
King, Tabitha Author $4,802
Cumming, Alan Actor $4,800
Britton, Constance Actor $4,750
Questlove Musician $4,700
Guttman, Ronald Actor $4,650
Shalhoub, Tony Actor $4,460
Reiner, Carl Director/Producer/Writer $4,300
Harris, Emmylou Singer $4,300
Platt, Oliver Actor $4,292
Walden, Snuffy Composer $4,123
Taylor, Josh Actor $4,100
Richie, Nicole $4,000
Hackett, Martha Actor $4,000
Epps, Omar Actor $4,000
Edwards, Anthony Actor $3,700
Slater, Christian Actor $3,625
Bakula, Scott Actor $3,500
Mann, Michael Director $3,250
Kristofferson, Kris Singer/Songwriter/Actor $3,002
Harris, Edward Actor $3,000
Daniels, Greg Writer/Producer/Director $3,000
Taylor, Christine Actress $3,000
Stiller, Christine Taylor Actor $3,000
Celotta, Jennifer Producer/Writer $2,981
Hotchkis, Joan Actor $2,825
Thomas, Lenore Actress $2,750
Brinkley, Christine Model $2,650
Braff, Zach Actor & Director $2,500
Chase, Chevy Actor $2,500
Cheadle, Don Actor $2,500
Brooks, James L Director & Producer $2,500
Blume, Judy Author $2,500
Alda, Alan Actor $2,500
Davis, Geena $2,500
Jackson, Samuel L $2,500
Johnstone, Lance NFL Player $2,500
Keaton, Michael Actor $2,500
Farrelly, Peter J Screenwriter $2,500
Lacusta, Deborah Writer $2,500
Manilow, Barry Singer $2,500
Tinsley, Boyd Musician $2,500
Schlamme, Thomas Director $2,500
Rock, Chris $2,500
Oberst, Conor Musician $2,500
Nimoy, Leonard Actor/Director $2,500
Mobley, Cuttino Basketball Player $2,500
Yamaguchi, Kristi Figure Skater $2,500
Helgenberger, Marg Actor $2,450
Craven, Wesley Director $2,400
Zellweger, Renee K $2,300
Vila, Robert Television Show Host $2,300
Parriott, James Producer $2,264
Alvarez, Carlos Screenwriter/Actor $2,250
Douglas, Michael Actor $2,200
Moore, Terry Actress $2,030
Mraz, Jason Singer/Songwriter $2,000
Oswalt, Patton Stand-up Comedian $2,000
Sarandon, Susan Actress $2,000
Todd, Jennifer Producer $2,000
Vance, Courtney Actor $2,000
Whitford, Bradley Actor $2,000
Valletta, Amber E Model/Actress $1,900
Lake, Ricki Actor $1,750
McDonnell, Mary Actress $1,500
Ephron, Nora Novelist/Journalist/Screenwriter $1,500
Arquette, David Actor $1,500
Leto, Jared Actor/Musician/Director $1,405
Loeb, Lisa Singer $1,250
Scorsese, Martin Director $1,250
Ruffalo, Mark Actor $1,156
Elizondo, Hector Actor $1,100
English, Diane Director/Producer $1,000
Dumars, Joe Basketball Player/Manager $1,000
Barrett, Josh Football Player $1,000
Labunka, Iya Producer $1,000
Glass, Philip Classical Composer $1,000
Sakai, Richard Producer $1,000
Richardson, Patricia C Television Actress $1,000
Parsons, Estelle Actor $1,000
Stoermer, Mark Bassist $1,000
WALLA, CHRISTOPHER Musician $1,000
Weber, Steven Actor $1,000
Adams, Brooke Actress $838
Fain, Sarah Screenwriter $750
Penn, Kal Actor/Activist $501
Paul, Alexandra Elizabeth Actor $500
Whitehead, Zoe Actor $500
Ullman, Tracey Actress/Comedienne $500
Sendak, Maurice Author $500
Shue, Elisabeth Actor $500
Soderbergh, Steven A Director $500
Wolkowitz, Morton Producer $500
Dunne, Griffin Actor $500
Apple, Fiona Singer/Songwriter $500
Browne, Jackson Singer $500
Chenoweth, Kristin Actress/Singer $500
Grace, Topher Actor $500
Guggenheim, Davis Producer $500
Gunn, Tim Reality Television Star/Fashion Expert $500
Koz, David Saxophonest $500
Lee, Bobby Actor/Comedian $500
Masterson, Sean Actor/Writer/Comedian $500
Milano, Alyssa Actress $500
Reeves, Perrey Actor $466
Phillips, Julia B Producer $450
Grazer, Brian Producer $400
Hall, Robert David Actor $250
Kane, Carol Actress $250
Luckinbill, Lucie Arnaz Actor/Daughter of Lucille Ball $250
Lawrence, Sharon Elizabeth $250
Cary, Diane Actress $250
Carlin, Frances S Actress $250
Barron, Constance Actress $250
Adams, Anthony NFL Player $250
Gilliand, Jean Actor $250
Rifkin, Ron Actor $250
Rikaart, Greg A Actor $250
Tomlin, Lily Actress/Comedian $250
Wilson, Mary Louise Actress $250
Wolkowitz, Anita Actress $250
Lewis, Richard E Comedian $200
McGovern, Maureen Singer $200
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 25, 2013. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...")
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

The South: Solid once again—for Republicans!

Associated Press ^ | Nov. 8, 2014 8:17 AM EST | Bill Barrow 

With the walloping Republicans gave Democrats in the midterm elections, the GOP stands one Louisiana Senate runoff away from completely controlling Southern politics from the Carolinas to Texas. Only a handful of Democrats hold statewide office in the rest of the Old Confederacy.
The results put Southern Republicans at the forefront in Washington—from Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to a host of new committee chairmen. Those leaders and the rank-and-file behind them will set the Capitol Hill agenda and continue molding the GOP’s identity heading into 2016.
In statehouses, consolidated Republican power affords the opportunity to advance conservative causes from charter schools and private school vouchers to expanding the tax breaks and incentive programs that define Republican economic policy. The outcome also assures that much of the South, at least for now, will remain steadfast in its refusal to participate in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...

Congresswoman Proposes Barack Obama Sperm Bank!

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 7 Oct 2014 | John Semmens 

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex) says she will introduce legislation that would establish a federally funded Barack Obama sperm bank in the upcoming "lame duck" session of Congress. She says she got the idea from a similar proposal to establish a Vladimir Putin sperm bank in Russia.

"We can't afford to fall behind in what could turn out to be a critical competition to propagate the seed of the nation's best and brightest," Lee argued. "Granted, it would be decades before the offspring of President Obama's banked sperm could be expected to make a strategic difference, but if we fail to act now we will come up short at a possibly crucial time in the future."
According to Lee, a socially beneficial byproduct of this strategically oriented measure is that "it would give women a better option than shacking up with some lowlife who beats her and steals her welfare money. The President would, of course, still be an absentee father, so the child would qualify for benefits. And if genetics plays true, the child will most likely have a better life than peers sired by criminals and deadbeats."
In related news, Harvard University announced a new course titled "What What in the Butt: Anal Sex 101." A spokesperson for the University explained that "the purpose of this course is to help students learn the facts about this exciting, yet often misunderstood form of pleasure. We take pride in staying ahead of the curve by offering to teach skills that less enlightened institutions shy away from out of fear of criticism."

Pelosi, Reid, Obama: Hey, it’s business as usual for us!

Hot Air.com ^ | November 7, 2014 | ED MORRISEY 

Election results? We don’t need no stinkin’ election results. If Barack Obama sounded defiant — as well as out of touch with reality — in his post-election press conference, the rest of Democratic leadership hardly sounds any more aware. Nancy Pelosi signaled full steam ahead for another term as leader of the House Democratic caucus, but Politico reports that some members wonder when Pelosi and her clique will take a hint from voters … but probably not enough of them to matter:
No Democrat is gearing up to challenge Nancy Pelosi in public, but behind the scenes some Democrats are saying it’s time for new blood at the leadership table ahead of 2016.
Senior aides said they hope the party’s big losses Tuesday would encourage the minority leader to expand her network of allies and advisers to include a broader set of voices for crafting election messaging and congressional agendas.
“If I had to make a bet, I think she would be the leader this coming cycle, but folks hope that Nancy Pelosi will reach out and include some folks that aren’t often included,” a senior Democratic staffer said. …
Nearly a dozen senior aides and Democratic insiders said there is a desire for a broader election message from party leaders. There are complaints about Pelosi focusing so strongly on women without a broader message that could play to other groups, such as older voters and men.
“As a party, we need to change,” another senior Democratic aide said. “[Voters] like our policies. All this leftie [talk], the country likes, but somehow the message about us as individual members of the conference isn’t breaking through. There is great unrest.”
Not great enough to consider, y’know, changing leadership after three straight losing seasons. Pelosi has now officially led Democrats to more minority caucuses (2010, 2012, 2014) than majority caucuses (2006, 2008). This isn’t an issue of getting more feedback from the caucus; it’s an issue of Pelosi’s militant progressivism being out of synch with American voters. It’s also an issue with House Democrats lacking a certain intestinal fortitude to point that out on the record and develop a challenge to her leadership before she leads them even further into the wilderness, and potentially damages their prospects for holding the White House the next time out.
They aren’t alone in that regard, either. Harry Reid plans to run for another term as caucus leader even after the debacle on Tuesday, but that’s not the only way in which Reid has distanced himself from reality. He’s planning to double down on Kochsteria even after the miserable failure it produced in this election:
Prompted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats spent millions of dollars spotlighting Republican ties to the billionaire conservative megadonors Charles and David Koch. But despite Republicans — and some Democrats — publicly decrying the strategy after Tuesday’s GOP wave as an ineffective waste of money, Reid told allies on election night that he planned to continue hammering the brothers, according to an operative close to him.
And big-money liberal groups ranging from the Democrats’ Senate campaign arm and House super PAC to the outfits run by billionaire Tom Steyer and conservative-turned-liberal enforcer David Brock all signaled that they intended to pursue anti-Koch spending and oppo tactics headed into the 2016 election.
Brock’s American Bridge outfit on Thursday began circulating a memo to senior Democratic congressional aides and big money groups making the case for redoubling the effort to make the Kochs into boogeymen.
Titled “Dear Koch Brothers: We Aren’t Going Anywhere,” the memo, obtained by POLITICO from a source who received it, contends that the GOP takeover of the Senate makes it more important — and potentially more effective — to call attention to the Kochs’ influence in the GOP.
Tom Steyer? Isn’t that the multibillionaire who spent $57 million or more to make climate change the central issue of the midterms? How did that work out for Democrats, anyway? Besides the hypocritical irony of harnessing a billionaire to go after another billionaire for being active in politics, the message is false on its face. Reid and the Democrats are going elsewhere — into the minority, in large part because they ran a campaign that harangued voters about non-sequiturs like Kochsteria, the “war on women,” and climate change when voters cared much more about the economy, jobs, and competent governance.
In my column for The Week, I note that the theme running through this week of utter denial actually goes back months, and on these same points:
The president was absolutely right — his administration and agenda were definitely on the ballot, in all but name. But instead of approaching this dynamic honestly, Democrats instead adopted a strategy of distraction. Both the Democratic Party and their big outside groups tried talking about nearly everything except what voters considered most important in this cycle — the economy (which still gets low marks from voters), jobs in an era of historically low workforce participation, and competence in government.
In a stunning display of denial of the mood and interest of the electorate, Democrats instead launched broadsides against the Koch brothers, spent tens of millions of dollars to talk about climate change, and continued their demagoguery about a “war on women.” In Colorado, they even managed to combine the latter two into an epically foolish NARAL-produced ad known as “Sweet Pea,” in which a boyfriend patronizingly tells his girlfriend that Republican Cory Gardner not only caused a condom shortage but refused to acknowledge that climate change is “weirding our weather.” …
The election results speak to the wages of denial and of lecturing voters rather than listening to them. So do the exit polls. In Colorado, women accounted for only 48 percent of the vote, the lowest in 22 years. Nationally, women only favored Democrats by five points, far below what they expected and certainly below what they needed to remain competitive.
Ironically, it was this turnout on which Obama built his argument that the midterms weren’t a referendum on him at all. “[W]e’ve got to look at is the two-thirds of people who were eligible to vote and just didn’t vote,” Obama said in his press conference on Wednesday. In 2008 and 2012, Obama continued, “[w]e got folks to vote who hadn’t voted before, particularly young people.” However, in 2012 Obama got fewer voters to the polls and a smaller share of the vote, and since then lost ground in every single demographic. That includes “young people,” which moved more than 10 percent to the GOP from 2012 to 2014, and was one of the rare demos in which Republicans improved over 2010. He also failed to address the fact that while about a third of the electorate turned out, two-thirds of the electorate still feels that the country is going in the wrong direction, as Josh Gerstein pointed out in Politico after the press conference.
The hair-of-the-dog strategy won’t fix Democrats’ failures; it will only deepen them. Their first move should be to get rid of the leadership that led them into a second straight midterm disaster. The votes that will take place later this month on those positions will demonstrate whether the reduced numbers of Democrats on Capitol Hill will join them in denial, or wake up and get serious about listening to voters rather than haranguing them with demagoguery.

Obama Flashback: ‘If you don’t like my policies, go out there and win an election.’

pjmedia ^ | November 6, 2014 | BRYAN PRESTON 

On October 17, 2013, President Obama said: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position.Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

Don’t Enable Obama’s Executive Amnesty in Lame Duck!

www.cruz.senate.gov ^ | November 5, 2014 | Senator Ted Cruz 

WASHINGTON, DC - Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today sent a letter to Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, signed by Sens. Mike Crapo, R-ID; Mike Lee, R-UT; Pat Roberts, R-KS; Jeff Sessions, R-AL; and David Vitter, R-LA expressing opposition to President Obama's announced intention to take unilateral executive action by the end of this year to lawlessly grant amnesty to immigrants who have entered the country illegally.

"The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete' than its power over immigration," the letter said. "Therefore, President Obama will be exercising powers properly belonging to Congress if he makes good on his threat. This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers." 

The letter continued: "As majority leader of the Senate, you have the responsibility of not only representing the citizens of your State, but also of protecting the Constitution through vigilant exercise of the checks and balances provided under the Constitution. Therefore, we write to offer our full assistance in ensuring expeditious Senate debate and passage for a measure that preserves the power of Congress by blocking any action the President may take to violate the Constitution and unilaterally grant amnesty; however, should you decline to defend the Senate and the Constitution from executive overreach, the undersigned Senators will use all procedural means necessary to return the Senate's focus during the lame duck session to resolving the constitutional crisis created by President Obama's lawless amnesty."

The text of the letter is below:
November 5, 2014

Senator Harry Reid
Majority Leader
S-221, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Leader Reid:

We write to express our alarm with President Obama's announced intention to take unilateral executive action by the end of this year to lawlessly grant amnesty to immigrants who have entered the country illegally. The Supreme Court has recognized that "over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete" than its power over immigration. Therefore, President Obama will be exercising powers properly belonging to Congress if he makes good on his threat. This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers.

As majority leader of the Senate, you have the responsibility of not only representing the citizens of your State, but also of protecting the Constitution through vigilant exercise of the checks and balances provided under the Constitution. Therefore, we write to offer our full assistance in ensuring expeditious Senate debate and passage for a measure that preserves the power of Congress by blocking any action the President may take to violate the Constitution and unilaterally grant amnesty; however, should you decline to defend the Senate and the Constitution from executive overreach, the undersigned Senators will use all procedural means necessary to return the Senate's focus during the lame duck session to resolving the constitutional crisis created by President Obama's lawless amnesty.
Sincerely,
###

Scott Walker Embarrasses Labor Unions…Again!

Townhall.com ^ | November 7, 2014 | Matt Vespa 


Politically, are labor unions finished? It appears that might be the case.

 Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker once again humiliated organized labor with his comfortable re-election last Tuesday. While polls showed a close race, Walker beat his Democratic opponent, Mary Burke, by a 6-point margin 52/46.
Labor unions had put Walker in the cross hairs ever since his 2010 gubernatorial victory, failed to oust him in the 2012 recall (Walker received more votes in this election than in the 2010 race), and came up short again in this contest.
Walker is now a definite 2016 contender, with a reputation of being unbeatable given the political environment that he presides in, but what do labor union attribute to their serial failure to get rid of this guy; it’s the Koch brothers (via Politico):
What the labor movement now has to ask itself is: How could it lose three times — in 2010, a 2012 recall vote and now in Walker’s 2014 re-election — to the nation’s most blatantly anti-union governor? How especially in Wisconsin, cradle of the early 20th-century Progressive movement and birthplace of public-sector unionism? If not here, where?Much of the answer, as Trumka’s statement suggests, is that labor simply can’t match the financial resources available to Walker through the Koch family and other pro-business allies. But another part of the answer is surely labor’s inability to break free of a decades-long steep decline that prompts many of its natural allies to judge it politically irrelevant.

Of six anti-labor governors the AFL-CIO targeted for defeat earlier this year, Walker occupied pride of place. “It’s not been tough for us to get volunteers in Wisconsin,” Trumka boasted late last month on MSNBC. “He’s sort of like the poster child of that across the country.”
Walker was labor’s public enemy No. 1 practically from the moment he was elected. He stunned public employee unions a month after the election when he said that weakening them was essential to bringing state spending under control. He was looking, he said, at anything from outright decertification to various “modifications of the current laws in place.”
Then again, Trumka also predicted Alison Lundergan Grimes would beat Mitch McConnell. That race ended up being a blowout, where Grimes was slaughtered by the soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader 56/41.
So, it’s probably not prudent to look into Trumka’s crystal ball when it comes to elections.
Also, the Koch brothers, again; yes, Americans for Prosperity was projected to spend at least $125 million on the 2014 midterms, but one donor alone–Tom Steyer–blew $73 million on progressive candidates.
And, when you go the OpenSecrets, there are a lot of labor unions on the top donor lists for527 groups and organizations.
Also, when you have a candidate who runs on her corporate bona fides only for the electorate to discover that she was reportedly fired by her own family for incompetence, that’s not dark money’s fault; that’s just bad candidate vetting.

Senator Soldier: A Day After Winning, Joni Ernst Is Back In Fatigues (BDU)

Iowa’s new senator-elect has other duties before she heads to Washington.

By Benny Johnson

The Four Horsemen

Canada Free Press ^ | 11/07/14 | Dr. Brad Lyles 

Sitting astride his Pale Horse, Obama has introduced Death into the heart of our nation.

Six years ago Obama unleashed the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse upon a largely unsuspecting nation. The merciless work of Death, War, Conquest, and Famine is nearly complete.

Hope Earlier this week the results of the mid-term elections coaxed a timid light from the darkness. Hope flickered. Perhaps Republicans might once again adopt the Conservatism always victorious in past contests with evil. Perhaps in doing so Conservatism might belay the six-year reign of terror unleashed by our President.
Actions Needed To forestall the consummation of the doom already assigned us by the Democrat Party and Progressives everywhere, it is necessary in this moment of possibility to contemplate those actions we might take, must take, to overcome the Apocalypse now holding dominion over the larger part of our world.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

Obama Executive Amnesty Is ‘A Nuclear Threat’!

The Daily Caller ^ | 11-7-2014 | Neil Munro 

President Barack Obama’s promise to roll back parts of the nation’s immigration laws is a constitutional “nuclear threat,” Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus said Friday.

Obama “is just throwing a barrel of kerosene on a fire if he signs an amnesty order,” Priebus told reporters at a Friday breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, also shifted the GOP’s public policy on immigration by downplaying the support for comprehensive immigration reform that it adopted after the 2012 presidential loss.
Obama’s failure to guard the border against Central American migrants this summer, he said, “created a situation that I think may have not existed before that episode that may have galvanized the country,” around the need for improved border security before other immigration issues.
Priebus’ sharp language shows that the GOP is confident it can win the political challenge created by Obama on Wednesday, when he reiterated his September promise to reduce enforcement of immigration laws by December.
“Before the end of the year, we’re going to take whatever lawful actions that I can take that I believe will improve the functioning of our immigration system,” Obama said in his post-election press conference.
Executive action by the White House, Obama said, “should be a spur for [congressional Republicans] to actually try to get something done.”
That something, he said, is an immigration bill that allows companies to hire more foreign professionals and also gives “an opportunity for folks who’ve lived here, in many cases, for a very long time … but aren’t properly documented … [to] get through a process that allows them to get legal.”
“You send me a bill that I can sign, and those executive actions go away,” he challenged the new GOP leaders in Congress.
Several polls show strong opposition to a unilateral executive amnesty.
The executive action would be a rejection of Americans’ Nov. 4 demand for more cooperation in Washington D.C., and create a constitutional crisis by challenging Congress’ authority to write the nation’s laws, Priebus said.
Obama’s threat, Priebus said, “in our mind [is] a nuclear threat to reject the basis of the separation of powers doctrine, to reject Article 1 and 2 [of the Constitution] within the power of the press.”
Obama’s threat is also a rejection of the midterm election results, Priebus said. ”What he’s essentially telling the American people is that he doesn’t give a damn about Republicans and Democrats working together … and to heck with getting along and working together in Washington.”
He’s “just throwing a barrel of kerosene on a fire if he signs an amnesty order,” he said.
Obama’s failure to enforce border protections has also changed the public’s view of the issue, Priebus said.
By failing to guard the border this year against the wave of 130,000 Central American migrants, “I think he’s unified the country and the electorate around one big principle — that we need to secure the border,” Priebus said.
“I think he created a situation that I think may have not existed before that episode that may have galvanized the country,” he said.
“Because of the president’s haphazard political game, that created an environment that will not allow the legislature to move forward unless people can be convinced that border is secure. … we’re talking about border security first,” before
“As to the immigration issue, I think it’s pretty clear — you know, comprehensive immigration reform’ has become a loaded language,” Priebus said. “It means something different to everybody that you ask.”
“Ultimately, immigration reform is a subject that most people in our party agree that we need to tackle,” he said.

Obama Lashes Out at Republicans During White House Bipartisan Lunch!

The Gateway Pundit ^ | 11-7-2014 | Jim Hoft 

Obama met with Republican leaders today at the White House for a “bipartisan lunch.”
This was his first meeting with Republican leaders after Democrats were shellacked in the midterm elections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HxyrML3Wkww
Obama lashed out at Republicans when the cameras were turned off.
The AP reported:
Republicans attending the postelection lunch at Obama’s invitation said they asked him for more time to work on legislation, but the president said his patience was running out. He reiterated his intent to act on his own by the end of the year if they don’t approve legislation to ease deportations before then and send it to him to sign.
The Republicans’ approach, three days after they resoundingly won control of the Senate in midterm elections, “seemed to fall on deaf ears,” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a telephone interview. “The president instead of being contrite or saying in effect to America, ‘I hear you,’ as a result of the referendum on his policies that drove this last election, he seems unmoved and even defiant.”
“I don’t know why he would want to sabotage his last two years as president by doing something this provocative,” said Cornyn…
The meeting was tense at times, according to a senior House Republican aide. The aide was not authorized to describe the back-and-forth publicly by name and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, about to lose his grip on the upper chamber, barely said a word. The aide said at one point as House Speaker John Boehner was making an argument on immigration, Obama responded that his patience was running out and Vice President Joe Biden interrupted to ask how long Republicans needed. Obama angrily cut Biden off, the aide said.

A Time To Clash: Why Obama Will Be Driven From Office!

ClashDaily.com ^ | 11/7/14 | Donald Joy 

Shazam! I recently wrote of an impending “Democrat bloodbath” in the mid-term elections, but even I didn’t expect the wild and complete revolution that just took place across this land. The full-blown blitzkrieg to victory for Republicans unfolded in so many places and on so many levels that one has to take a minute or so to reflect on what actually happened, why, and what is to follow. My prediction is that Joe Biden will remain, like a drunken old motel night clerk, to run out the clock on this grisly abortion of an alleged presidency. Obama will be gone before his second term is fulfilled.
The obstinately arrogant Obama is signalling a final showdown with Ted Cruz’ revitalized and reinforced Tea Party coalition over, among other things, Obama’s proposed executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. It is an ultimate-stakes game of political “chicken” which will force congress to remove a perversely delusional, power-mad president.
It’s easy to make such a bold and provocative prediction, especially when one is a relatively obscure writer and therefore will suffer no great loss of reputation, property, or prospects if one is wrong. However, I find the forecast reasonable, and have reasoned it out. Through his continued lawlessness, Obama will flippantly dare congress to impeach him, and despite not really wanting to do it, they will have to.
A reporter’s question to Obama on the day after the electoral slaughter stands out as telling. CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta pulled no punches, confronting Obama by saying: “I know you don’t want to read the tea leaves, but it is a fact that your party rejected you in these midterms. By and large, they did not want you out on the campaign trail in those key battleground states. How do you account for that?” Of course, in his rambling reply, and true to his pathologically dishonest character, Obama proceeded to pretend that no such thing happened.
It did happen. A vast plurality of Democrats themselves finally know that they have backed a smooth and excitingly novel yet incompetent, inferior criminal fraud all along, and not even their party’s usual amount of cheating and race-baiting could counter the flood of millions of rampaging Republicans who swarmed to the polls to turn the Democrats’ former messiah — via most of his accomplices running as proxies — into electoral roadkill. Who knows just how many of the Democrat rank-and-file actually switched and voted Republican this time, but we can be certain that millions of them just stayed home; didn’t vote at all, either out of demoralized resignation, or, in the cases of millions of Obama’s young and minority base, oblivious ignorance and that an election was even taking place.
In the absence of months-long media frenzies, nationally televised debates, and classroom discussions about an impending presidential election, the average yahoo on the street really has no clue that midterm elections even occur. Hence, those in the upper IQ ranges and having a seasoned awareness of politics are the ones who mainly turn out to vote in midterms (I admit that when I was much younger and much less interested in politics, I didn’t vote in midterm elections myself, that I can recall).
That dynamic is largely what gave Republicans the green light to now do whatever they see fit to do, in terms of stopping Obama’s anti-American lawlessness and subversion. They now have the power to utterly thwart Obama. They must use it, because he will leave them little choice. They cannot fool themselves nor the country into thinking Obama is interested in cooperation. They should have learned that from the way Obamacare was violently rammed down the country’s throats.
Obama, being an “all-in” radical ideologue of the type described in social philosopher Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer,has telegraphed his radical intentions since day one. He has succeeded in pushing through on many of them. He shows no signs of relenting now. As notoriously quoted in the title of Hillary Rodham’s senior thesis at Wellesley College, adherents (as we know Obama to be one) of Saul Alinsky’s radical left-wing “community organizing” principles believe, in their politics, “There Is Only The Fight.”
For Obama, despite an electoral revolution and full-blown rejection of him and his policies, there is no new spirit of kumbayah reconciliation and working things out with Republicans. There is only the fight.
Lately, Obama has repeated again and again his plans to try to enact amnesty for millions and millions of illegal aliens by executive fiat, ignoring congress and the will of the people. Americans are overwhelmingly against wholesale amnesty for illegals, executive or legislative. But Obama sees this as perhaps his last chance to finish the job of wrecking America as we once knew America, on behalf of those he sees as deserving of the spoils. As he has shown us over and over and over again, Obama does not care one bit about finding compromise with opponents within the legal framework of the Constitution. Republican statesmen in general have expressed their reluctance to initiate impeachment against him, for reasons both stated and unstated, and that fact only helps fuel his belligerent defiance. However, key players have gone on record saying that they’ll do it if they must. My declaration is that the ISIS Apologist-in-Chief and Reconquistador-in-Chief Obama, despite refusing to know his place in the new political equation, and even though many others speak as if it’s time for Republicans to play nicey-nicey with him and with his largely unrepentant fixers to “get things done,” is finished. He will provoke his own end. He’s been given far too much leeway already, anyhow. It’s just a matter of time, and of procedural ugliness, until he is removed. Once that happens, Ted Cruz’ and Trey Gowdy’s ad-hoc coalition government of allies and ambivalent RINO figureheads will be able to at least macro-manage the addled whackjob Biden until January of 2017. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, if they remain the nominal leaders of their respective legislative bodies will merely be dragged along. We all know Ted Cruz is the real president of the United States.
Whether Obama’s ouster will happen by his own sudden resignation in the face of impending impeachment (as with Richard Nixon), or will result from formal impeachment and conviction, I cannot say. I do think, however, that Obama will be driven out by those whose job it is to remedy his high crimes and misdemeanors. He will be removed like a cancerous tumor, because he will continue to act as he has thus far — according to his nature.

Wendy Davis Campaign Blames Massive Defeat on Ebola!

LIFE NEWS ^ | 11/7/14 | Steven Ertelt 

In one of the most bizzare explanations for losing a campaign ever, a spokesman for pro-abortion Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis blamed the massive loss to pro-life Governor-elect Greg Abbott on ebola.
From Breitbart:
wendydavis11Texas State Senator Wendy Davis was steamrolled in her bid to become the state’s next governor, and it appears that her staff believes Ebola has something to do with the failure of her campaign.
Speaking on behalf of Davis’ campaign, Communications Director Zac Petkanas told the Wall Street Journal, “The losses that you are seeing in very blue states are simply amplified in states like Texas where there is already a structural advantage for Republicans,” he said. The Journal added that, “Another challenge, [Petkanas] said, was that Texas was at the center of two issues — immigration and the Ebola scare — that helped drive Republican voters to the polls.”
Many Americans do remain concerned about Ebola entering the country from heavily-afflicted nations in West Africa. However, most analysts attribute Davis’ loss to a poorly-run campaign and inability to connect with Texas voters.
Writing at LifeNews, Luis Zaffirini offers a well-thought-out analysis of how Davis’ extreme pro-abortion views turned off Texas voters, including Hispanics, making it so she was unable to obtain even 40 percent of the vote in the race.
After Wendy Davis rose to near stardom when she staged an 11-hour filibuster to block a pro-life bill in the Texas Senate, the Texas Democratic Party tried to use her candidacy in the Texas gubernatorial election to rebuild party infrastructure that had dissipated during their nearly-two-decades-long absence from statewide office. She was subsequently held up as a new paradigm of a supposed abortion consensus though it was apparent that she stood in direct opposition to the actual consensus of the people of Texas.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Battleground Texas, a Democratic group that has spent a year and a half trying to make Texas more hospitable to Democrats, hoped to prove a point by Davis capture a larger percentage of the vote than in the 2010 contest, when Democrat Bill White lost with 43% of the vote. Senator Davis lost last night with a little less than 39% of the vote.
This places her somewhere between Bill White and the 2006 Democratic candidate, Chris Bell, when there were 4 gubernatorial candidates on the ballot who each took more than 12% of the vote.
If these campaigns were trying to prove a point, they certainly proved two important ones: that running a pro-abortion candidate is not a winning formula in the Lone Star State, and that the Latino vote is neither sympathetic to the pro-abortion message nor is it monolithic.

Here’s How The GOP Victory Could Cause Obama To Leave The Constitution In A Pile Of Ashes

Western Journalism ^ | November 6, 2014 | L. Todd Wood 

Obama doesn’t like it.
He’s been repudiated by the voters, and he doesn’t like it. He’s supposed to be loved by the masses, but they have turned on him. He’s supposed to be the Democratic savior, but the Democratic candidates for the most part didn’t even want to be seen with him.
The man who uttered the words “Don’t worry, you have me” has no one. The emperor has lost his clothes.
Where do we go from here?
President Obama is going to get defensive. He’s going to get mean. He’s going to do whatever he wants, the Constitution be damned.
He’s not just a narcissist; he’s a gangster. He is a criminal. He has used the power of the chief executive office to hurt others.
He has gone after the political opposition with the federal government’s power. He is worse than Nixon.
Nixon had an enemies list, but he never acted on it. When he was busted, he had the dignity to resign.
President Obama has no such dignity. All he has is anger and resentment and the refusal to admit reality.
Charles Hurt was right when he wrote that America is entering the most dangerous period in a hundred and fifty years.
Who knows what this man will do? He is worried about his legacy. Not the legacy that most Americans would want (i.e., one of doing what is right for America.)
No, Obama is worried about doing what is right for his agenda. He is worried about his communist principles remaining after he is gone.
He wants a legacy of lawlessness and change. Not positive change, but destructive change.
He is going to legalize illegal behavior alright. He is going to grant amnesty to millions of non-U.S. citizens. “Screw the Americans; I’ll show them!”, he thinks to himself quietly as he orders thirty-four million green cards.
He will try as hard as he can to redistribute as much money as he can to his base. He will try as hard as he can to appoint the most liberal judges in history.
In short, this man will do anything and everything he can to hurt this country. I hope the new Republican Congress has the nerve to stand up to his illegal activities. It’s like a drugstore owner standing up to the Mafia when they demand a shakedown.
Be afraid, America; be very afraid.

Fire Valerie Jarrett: If Obama wants to shake things up, his closest adviser should be first to go!

Politico Magazine ^ | November 7, 2014 | Carol Felsenthal 

Almost since the start of Barack Obama’s presidency, people who have actual, real duties in the West Wing of the White House—the working, executive part of the government, that is—have been urging him to do something about Valerie Jarrett. Push her into the East Wing, where she can hang out with Michelle Obama and the White House social secretary, or give her an ambassadorship—or something—but for Pete’s sake get her out of the way of the hard work of governing that needs to be done.
Now it’s really time to do it.
Let’s stipulate right away that it would be unfair to blame Jarrett, the longtime Obama family friend and confidante, for the walloping that the president and his party suffered at the polls on Tuesday. And Jarrett will no doubt be needed in the weeks ahead to comfort her old pals, Barack and Michelle. What happened on Tuesday almost couldn’t be worse for Obama personally—not just the Senate’s going Republican but all those governorships lost, including Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s defeat in Obama’s adopted home state, even after the president and first lady came to Illinois to campaign for him. The morning after the elections, Democrats and their top staffers were hopping mad, blaming Obama and, by extension, his staff for the defeat.
But let’s also face facts—and expect the president to do so as well. We’re at that point in an already long-toothed presidency when things inside really need to change....
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Time to rethink Hillary Clinton 2016

The Washington Post ^ | November 7, 2014 | George Will 

Now that two of the last three Democratic presidencies have been emphatically judged to have been failures, the world’s oldest political party — the primary architect of this nation’s administrative state — has some thinking to do. 

The accumulating evidence that the Democratic Party is an exhausted volcano includes its fixation with stale ideas, such as the supreme importance of a 23rd increase in the minimum wage. Can this party be so blinkered by the modest success of the third recent presidency, Bill Clinton’s, that it will sleepwalk into the next election behind Hillary Clinton?
In 2016, she will have won just two elections in her 69 years, the last one 10 years previously. Ronald Reagan went 10 years from his second election to his presidential victory at age 69, but do Democrats want to wager their most precious possession, the presidential nomination, on the proposition that Clinton has political talents akin to Reagan’s?
In October, Clinton was campaigning, with characteristic futility, for Martha Coakley, the losing candidate for Massachusetts governor, when she said: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” Watch her on YouTube. When saying this, she glances down, not at a text but at notes, and proceeds with the hesitancy of someone gathering her thoughts. She is not reading a speechwriter’s blunder. When she said those 13 words, she actually was thinking.... 
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

Silent Campaign Exposes the Democrats

 by sr4402

The Republicans did not have a national campaign except to send back Obama's words to haunt him. It was a nationally silent campaign and whoever came up with it was a genius.
As long as the Republican spoke out about any national issue, the Lamestream Media would speak out against it. Whether it was abortion, healthcare, racial bating; it did not matter, the media would take the side of the Democratic party.
By avoiding speaking on these issues and focusing like a laser on Obama's misstatements and obvious mistakes (Ebola and ISIL), they avoided the Democrats and the Lamestream Media's trap.
Whoever came up with it this time was a genius. But it will only work one time. The Democrats and their nasty henchmen in the media will only redouble their efforts. They will use more race baiting tactics, they will keep up their efforts to make the problems that arise from their bad policies from being discussed and they will continue their hopes to give illegal aliens our votes (you can count on it).
No, this time the silent campaign worked and the Democrats were exposed for what they are. Lets just hope that the American people remember and decide to return to our founding principals rather than to follow the paths the Democrats were on.