Friday, February 28, 2014

The Hotline's Senate Race Rankings: Republicans in Command!

National Journal ^ | February 27, 2014 | Steven Shepard and Julie Sobel
The 2014 Senate landscape continues to look challenging for Democrats. Republicans can take back the chamber after eight years of Democratic control with a net gain of six seats, and the seven seats most likely to flip are held by Democrats in states President Obama lost in 2012. The most important change since we looked at the Senate map three months ago is the glut of outside spending, particularly against Democratic incumbents in the majority-making seats of North Carolina, Louisiana, and Alaska. The nonprofit, conservative group Americans for Prosperity has dumped tens of millions into those states, beating up incumbents who now have--at best--50/50 chances of retaining their seats. Republicans are well positioned to win a Senate majority in 2014. A favorable map, combined with a positive national environment driven by disapproval of the health care law, have put Democrats on the defensive. The rankings are best considered in tiers. The first two seats are very likely to flip, while in seats 3 and 4 Republicans are favored to take over. In seats 5 through 7, Democratic incumbents in red states are deeply vulnerable, and if Republicans win the top four, they need only two of the three seats in this tier to control the Senate. Seats 8 to 12 are also close to 50/50 races. Colorado debuts in this tier after the top recruit, Rep. Cory Gardner, decided to run. In seats 13 to 15, the Democratic incumbent is likely to retain control of the seat, although the races bear watching--and Republicans don't need seats 13 to 15 to wrestle control of the majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Five years later, the Tea Party prepares for their Reagan moment!

Washington Examiner ^ | 02/28/14 | Charlie Spiering
"You see, Ronald Reagan was not part of the establishment," talk radio host Mark Levin reminded them. "He was an outsider, and like you and so many others throughout history, he had the courage to stand up and be counted." Levin reminded the audience that Reagan and his supporters were once disparaged by the media and the "ruling class." To illustrate his point, he read assessments of Reagan from the media and his fellow Republicans in the late 1970s. He cited a 1974 column from George Will suggesting that Reagan was too old to run for president and that Reagan supporters were "kamikaze conservatives" left over from the Barry Goldwater era. "Does this not sound familiar to you?" he asked as he audience laughed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

VA sends $4,800 bill to triple-amputee Purple Heart recipient after he spoke out against Obama!

Poor Richard's News ^ | November 6, 2013
If you want to see where government-run healthcare gets you, look no further than what the VA is doing to Airman Brian Kolfage after he spoke out against Obama. Our veterans who sustained injuries in combat deserve the best treatment we can give them, but the VA just sent Purple Heart recipient Brian Kolfage a bill for $4,000. Here’s the letter he just received from the VA: Kolfage is an outspoken critic of the Obama administration and wants to know why his records were pulled in the first place. He’s written about the whole story on his Facebook page (emphasis mine): Two months ago I received a letter from the VA stating they over paid me and that I needed to provide evidence proving otherwise. So I mailed in everything showing that in fact I wasn’t over paid what they were stating, hard evidence too. I then get a letter stating its been resolved. Now today I get this letter showing that they are taking money out of my disability compensation that I receive for losing my three limbs… I call the number listed and the automated system says call back another day, WTF, you’re taking my money and you can’t even answer the phones. This is the garbage that so many veterans have been dealing with over the past few years. And its complete [expletive] that someone can lose half their body for their country then they pull our records to nickel and dime us because the government is broke. After dealing with this for over a month I’ve decided to share my experience. This is exactly why we do not need a full blown government healthcare system run by the IRS, because they will target opposition, they will mess up, and they will take your money even if its by mistake. Then it will take months to even correct it, and this is just the VA, imagine this on a scale 30,000 times larger! If this is how our nation treats our most severely wounded think about how they’ll treat those who are everyday citizens. The only people who are truly taken care of these days are those who control us and are politicians, they ensure their own are granted every privilege that they can come up with while screwing those who are trying to survive. IS THIS THE CHANGE YOU VOTED FOR? please tell WHY my record was pulled for one thing, and then a background check was done, then my money is being taken… for what? FREEDOM OF SPEECH!? To his credit, Kolfage makes it clear that his objective isn’t to get any money out of this. He’s not looking for sympathy, just to expose how corrupt the VA is. He turned down one twitter user’s offer to pay for his medical expenses:

Three Cups of Tea: Tea Party still holds the high ground this year for its 3rd national election.

National Review ^ | 02/28/2014 | John Fund
The Tea Party turns five years old this week, and the mainstream media are filled with stories saying it has lost clout and influence. Certainly the unfair assaults on it as racist and extremist have taken a toll, but in terms of where the political landscape is right now, I’d easily take the Tea Party’s tactical position over that of its liberal critics. For now, the midterm elections are shaping up as a disaster for Democrats. MSNBC host Chris Matthews said last Sunday that “to the Democrats, this election, a rosy scenario is to lose five Senate seats, not six,” the number the GOP needs to pick up to win Senate control. “They could lose ten,” Matthews concluded. Indeed, Republicans such as Virginia’s Ed Gillespie and Colorado’s Representative Cory Gardner, who had no plans to run for the Senate last year, are jumping in. Gardner told Republican strategist Joe Brettell in a recent interview that he thinks Democratic incumbent Mark Udall can be beaten for one reason: Obamacare. “He’s vulnerable because 335,000 Coloradans have had their health insurance canceled, because he was a rubber stamp for President Obama and displayed a lack of leadership for the state.” In addition, Republican strategists note that the most inexperienced tea-party candidates are unlikely to win GOP primaries this year, pointing to the flagging fortunes of Steve Stockman in Texas and Matt Bevin in Kentucky. An exception is Republican state senator Chris McDaniel, who is closing in on 78-year-old GOP senator Thad Cochran in Mississippi. But McDaniel is a seasoned candidate and Mississippi a safe seat for the GOP no matter who wins the primary. It’s a mistake to focus on a single poll at any point in the election cycle, but this week’s New York Times survey is worth noting because a) the size of its survey means a smaller margin of error than in most polls and b) the Times’ pollster has a history of getting results that lean in favor of liberals in Democrats. If that’s the case, the Times poll spells Trouble for Democrats, with a capital T. Despite the internal fissures within the GOP, Republicans are favored by voters for Congress this fall by 42 percent to 39 percent. A big reason is President Obama’s dismal 41 percent approval rating, with only 38 percent approving of his handling of the economy. Among independents, only 31 percent like his economic performance. That may be one reason why independents now tilt by a decisive 43 percent to 29 percent in favor of Republican candidates for Congress this fall. Democrats will point to a Times poll result showing that 40 percent of voters think Republicans are nominating candidates who are too conservative. But the same survey shows that 41 percent of voters think Democrats are putting up candidates that are too liberal. The two-party system increasingly chafes at more and more voters. But it’s Democrats who have to bring their base out, and there are signs that their voters aren’t as enthusiastic about voting this fall. As much as the media focuses on GOP divisions, consider that four out of ten Democrats now think the economy is “fairly bad” or “very bad.” Even on social issues, Democrats are more divided than commonly thought. Only 55 percent of Democrats now say abortion should be “generally available,” with 26 percent supporting greater restrictions on its availability and 16 percent supporting an outright ban. Obamacare continues to drag down the president’s numbers. A full 42 percent of respondents in the Times poll want it repealed entirely, up from 34 percent in January. Among independents a full 45 percent now support full repeal. All of this looks like good news for Republicans, until one recalls that the last 30 years have seen many GOP challengers to Democratic incumbents falter. In fact, in the 16 national elections since 1982, the GOP has defeated only 14 incumbent Democrats (less than one per election) while the Democrats have defeated 36 incumbent Republicans. And Republicans will have to beat incumbents to have any chance of taking back the Senate. That’s why Obama’s approval numbers’ staying low is important to Republican prospects. It gives them their best chance to create a wave election that could topple incumbents. “Over the last decade, just nine Senate candidates have won elections with a president of their party below his national approval average in their state,” National Journal has concluded. “That’s about one success in every ten races.” On that score, the 2014 Senate playing field is potentially brutal for Democrats. Democrats are defending seats in five states — Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia — where Obama’s approval rating was at or below 35 percent in 2013, according to Gallup. In four other states where Democrats hold a Senate seat that’s up in 2014, Obama’s approval rating was well below his national average of 46 percent: Louisiana (40 percent), Colorado and Iowa (42 percent), and North Carolina (43 percent). In Oregon, New Hampshire, and New Mexico the president had a 45 percent job-approval rating, just below his national average. That’s a whopping total of eleven Democratic seats that could potentially be in play this November. Only a couple of GOP seats are in jeopardy, and in both Georgia and Kentucky the Obama approval numbers are weak. The New York Times poll shows that 24 percent of Americans consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, down from its high-water mark of 31 percent at the time of the 2010 election. But that still represents an energized base of supporters, many of whom are eager to vote. Democrats don’t have anything like that now, given that the “hope and change” pro-Obama fever of 2008 has faded and it’s so much harder to turn Democrats out in midterm elections. That all helps explain that despite all the premature notices of the Tea Party’s decline this week, there were so many smiles at yesterday’s fifth-anniversary celebration in Washington (sponsored by Tea Party Patriots and, among others). In politics it helps to be right, and most of the warnings tea-party advocates issued about the Obama administration have been validated by events. — John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.

Tea Party Warns of ‘Permanent Damage’ from Proposed IRS Rules

Pajamas Media ^ | 02/28/2014 | Bill Straub
WASHINGTON – A co-founder of the nation’s largest Tea Party organization told a House panel Thursday that proposed regulations limiting the political activity groups can engage in and still meet tax-exempt status will inflict “permanent damage” on the advocacy efforts of grassroots organizations. Jenny Beth Martin, president of the Tea Party Patriots, told the House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs that the rules proffered by the Internal Revenue Service to limit political activity will “silence” organizations and lead to an “infringement on the rights of the American people to freely associate, speak their minds and petition their government.” “We have produced voters’ guides, hosted candidates’ debates, encouraged voter registration, supported get-out-the-vote efforts and assisted local groups in lobbying on specific local and national legislation,” Martin said. “We have invited members of Congress to speak at our rallies and events not as candidates but as experts on important topics. We have posted news about national events on our social media sites.” “The current rules recognize all these activities as non-political,” she said. “The proposed rules would classify them all as political.” Should the regulations ultimately meet with approval from the Obama administration, grassroots organizations will have to, among other things, disclose the identity of their donors, a requirement that could inhibit fundraising. Outfits largely funded by unidentified contributors have emerged as a significant political power in the last few years. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that such donations have gone from $87.2 million in 2008 to $256.3 million in 2012. The new IRS initiative, announced in November, has left organizations on both sides of the political divide distressed. The agency is looking to update and clarify rules regarding the type of political activities various “social welfare” groups operating under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code can engage in while maintaining their status. The agency decided to review the section dealing with tax-exempt organizations in wake of an ongoing controversy involving political groups, most of which lean conservative, that have had their tax-exempt applications delayed, rejected or subjected to probing questions. Under current law, groups seeking status under 501(c)(4) can only operate “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” But they are permitted to engage in additional activities as long as their “primary” emphasis remains on social welfare. The proposed regulations would prohibit social welfare groups from involving themselves in get-out-the-vote drives or printing voters’ guides. They would be prohibited from contributing money or other items of value to a candidate or a political party and they face a limited time period when they can directly cite a candidate in a campaign ad or on a website. Thursday marked the final day of a three-month public comment period on the proposed rule changes. More than 100,000 individuals and groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to Martin’s Tea Party Patriots, have weighed in, with many expressing strong objections. On Wednesday, the House, in a 243-176 vote, passed the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014, which prohibits the IRS from asking taxpayers questions regarding religious, political or social beliefs for one year, a direct stab at the proposed IRS regulations. The proposal has drawn the support of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky. “Grassroots groups right across the political map are upset at what they view as an assault on their First Amendment rights,” McConnell said. “All you have to do is read their own words. One group of primarily left-leaning First Amendment advocates said the new regulation would ‘impose serious burdens on free speech and hinder the democratic processes it serves.’ An official with the ACLU described the IRS’ proposed regulation as creating ‘the worst of all worlds.’” James R. Mason, III, senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said his 501(c)(4) group opposes the proposed rule “in its entirety” because it “unlawfully restricts the First Amendment free speech rights of millions of Americans who belong to social welfare organizations and who depend on these organizations to influence public policy and society in beneficial ways.” “The proposed rule would threaten the ability of HSLDA to advocate for homeschool freedom at the local, state, and federal level and would threaten the ability of HSLDA to share what elected officials, judges, and government officials are saying about homeschooling, both good and bad,” Mason said. “Each and every provision of the proposed rule would have a serious negative effect on HSLDA’s ability to advocate for homeschool freedom as we have done since our founding in 1983.” Mason also maintained the proposed rule oversteps the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service. Gabriel Rottman, legislative counsel/policy advisor for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the organization has problems with the IRS package “from a First Amendment perspective and as a simple matter of workability.” “America’s constitutional democracy depends on vigorous and unfettered debate,” Rottman said. “We acknowledge that sometimes political pugilists do not play by Marquis of Queensberry rules. But the First Amendment to the Constitution demands that political speech be protected from government interference with only the narrowest of limitations.” While the ACLU commends the IRS for attempting to address some of the perceived problems with the current regulations, Rottman said “we continue to advocate for a true bright line test that will preserve the ability of groups at all points on the political spectrum to advocate vigorously on the issues of the day without fear.” The IRS has not indicated when it might render a final determination on the proposed rule change.

Senate Candidate From Texas Urges Border Residents To Shoot 'Wetbacks' On Sight!

Fox News Latino ^ | 2/26/14 | Fox News Latino
A Texas businessman who is running for the U.S. Senate in the GOP primary is drawing fire for referring to people who cross the border illegally as “wetbacks” and, later, defending his use of the slur. Chris Mapp, who is among several candidates challenging U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in the GOP primary on March 4, used the term during an editorial board meeting with the Dallas Morning News. In explaining its endorsement of Cornyn in the primary, a Dallas Morning News editorial said: “South Texas businessman Chris Mapp, 53, told this editorial board that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on to their land, referred to such people as ‘wetbacks,’ and called the president a ‘socialist son of a bitch.’” Later, in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News, Mapp defended his use of the word and his characterization of undocumented immigrants. He described the slur as normal for Texans. Mapp said its use is as “normal as breathing air in south Texas,” according to the newspaper. “We can't have illegal immigrants, drug cartels, human traffickers or terrorists coming across our border,” he said. “Our borders can either be sealed by choice or force, and so far choice hasn't worked.” Cornyn condemned Mapp’s remarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

This should be taken seriously!


Alcohol Labels Just Like Cigarettes

Liquor manufacturers have accepted the Government's suggestion that the following
warning labels be placed immediately on all varieties of alcohol containers:
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell happened to your bra and panties. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you
are whispering when you are not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing
like a retard. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell your
friends over and over again that you love them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to think you
can sing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe that ex- lovers are really dying for you to telephone them at four in the morning. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you can
logically converse with members of the opposite sex without spitting. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that
you are tougher, smarter, faster and better looking than most people. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to think
people are laughing WITH you. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause pregnancy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may be a major factor in
getting your ass kicked.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WARNING: the crumsumpten of alcohol may Mack you tink you kan
tpye reel Gode.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Killing Medicare Advantage: Another lie about Obamacare exposed!

SENTINEL ^ | 2/27/2-14 | EDITORIAL
February 27, 2014 Lewistown Sentinel
 About 16 million older Americans rely on Medicare Advantage policies to supplement their government health insurance. We have warned for years that drastic cuts in federal funding for Medicare Advantage were part of the Obamacare scheme.  President Barack Obama and his fellow liberals have accused those of us sounding the alarm about Medicare Advantage of lying. That sounds strange indeed, coming from a White House exposed repeatedly for not telling the truth about Obamacare.  Once again, the liberals' dishonesty is being unmasked.  Medicare officials have released a 148-page report on plans for the program next year. It includes a cut in funding for Medicare Advantage.  When Obamacare was being debated, some analysts warned it would involve billions of dollars in Medicare cuts. It turned out that among liberals, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was the least dishonest of all when she commented that Americans would have to pass the Obamacare bill to know what was in it.  Now we know the critics were right. Obamacare will cost senior citizens dearly. They can pay more to maintain existing health insurance or settle for reduced benefits. Another Obamacare lie has been exposed. How many more will have to be revealed before the program is repealed?

In My CHair?

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore were in an airplane that crashed. They're up in heaven, and God's sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Al first: "Al, what do you believe in?" Al replies, "Well, I believe that the combustion engine is evil and that we need to save the world from CFCs and that if any more freon is used, the whole earth will become a greenhouse and we'll all die." God thinks for a second and says "Okay, I can live with that. Come and sit at my left." God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?" Bill replies, "Well, I believe in power to the people. I think people should be able to make their own choices about things and that no one should ever be able to tell someone else what to do.
I also believe in feeling people's pain." God thinks for a second and says "Okay, that sounds good. Come and sit at my right." God then address Hillary. "Hillary, what do you believe in?" "I believe you're in my chair."

Is Cruz out of Control? (Absolutely not) ^ | February 27, 2014 | Cal Thomas
What you think of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) depends on who you believe. Is the freshman senator on an "ego trip," putting himself before country (Dana Milbank, The Washington Post), or is he standing on his principles (Cruz's conservative supporters)? ABC chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl says Cruz is "so hated" among GOP senators that "he's going to need a food taster." In a telephone interview with me, Cruz acknowledges he would not win a "Mr. Congeniality" contest if it were up to the Republican leadership in the Senate, but contends that they and some of his colleagues are out of touch with the will of the people: "The reaction in Washington is the polar opposite of the reaction outside Washington," he says. "People across the country are frustrated that so many elected officials in Washington are not listening and ignoring the concerns of the people." I ask him about his controversial move last week to change Senate rules by requiring 60 votes to pass the debt ceiling increase, instead of a 51-vote majority. Cruz responded, "...there is no universe in which I would be willing to consent to allow (majority leader) Harry Reid to raise the debt ceiling with no spending reforms on only 51 votes. The reaction from a significant number of my colleagues was considerable anger and dismay." Cruz rejects the notion that a vote against raising the debt ceiling would have produced another government shutdown, favoring Democrats. He points to history: "The last 55 times the debt ceiling has been raised, Congress attached significant conditions to it 28 times. Virtually every major spending restraint Congress has passed has come through the debt ceiling." As two examples, he cites the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act, which, according to its co-author Sen. Phil Gramm, was "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending" and last year's Budget Control Act, nicknamed "sequestration." How does Cruz expect to get the reforms he wants without a Republican Senate majority, not to mention a Republican president? "We have the same number of votes we had when we got the Budget Control Act," he maintains. "If we had stood together and voted no, we could have blocked this from happening. ... We would (then have sat) down and negotiated a resolution, a compromise, with some meaningful spending restraints." What about the Republican and larger Washington establishment and the Tea Party? The prevailing wisdom is that the Tea Party harms incumbents, replacing them with conservative purists, who then lose the general election. Not true, says Cruz. While acknowledging that Tea Party candidates Christine O'Donnell (Delaware) and Sharon Engle (Nevada) lost to Democrats in 2010 races that stronger candidates might have won, Cruz says the overall record of Tea Party candidates is far better than the establishment's record. He cites Florida, where Marco Rubio beat Charlie Crist in a primary despite Crist's support from the GOP establishment. Cruz says Rubio was the right candidate given Crist's post-election switch to the Democrats. Crist is now running for governor as a Democrat. Cruz offers other examples in which Tea Party candidates won over hand-picked establishment candidates: Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania; Mike Lee over Robert Bennett in Utah; Rand Paul over Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's candidate, Trey Grayson, in Kentucky. He might add himself to that list. "Every one of these," he says, "was elected by the Tea Party against huge opposition from the establishment and all of their money." Can promoting such candidates win back the Senate for Republicans in November? Cruz says, "Many of the critics are saying the path to victory in November is for Republicans to put their heads down, don't rock the boat, don't take any stands. ... I think history has proven that that is a consistent path to failure. The way to win in November is for Republicans to take principled stands. ... That doesn't mean we need to fight on everything. You pick your battles. ... When Washington politicians retreat on every issue, it demoralizes grassroots conservative activists who are the key to winning in November." Given the results of the last two presidential elections and their own poor record, the GOP establishment may want to put themselves on "Cruz control."

IRS: “Not even a smidgen of corruption.” That’s why it’s a phony scandal!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 2-27-2014 | MOTUS
smidgenBig Guy told O’Reilly that there’s “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS actions taken to investigate conservative groups. Now Congressman Trey Gowdy wants to know just how big a smidgen is. Is it more than a soup├žon? Less than a scintilla?With all due respect, and despite the fact that BHO has completed his own internal investigation and concluded that the IRS is a phony scandal, House Oversight Chairman Darrel Issa – and Trey Gowdy - are still not satisfied:
Worth watching the whole thing if you have timeAnd they want more answers from Lois-I-did-nothing-wrong-butt-I’m-taking-the-Fifth-Lerner.IRS Political GroupsAccordingly, the Chairman has recalled her to testify to Congress next week. Her attorney says she will only do so if granted immunity. Immunity for what? Not a smidgen of wrong doing? Not a scintilla of corruption? Congressman Gowdy says there will be no immunity until we know exactly how big a smidgen is.This is almost as good as the season premier of The Americans!Meanwhile, Harry Reid has called out all those lying Americans who are making up horror stories about their Obamacare experiences. He later walked back his accusations, saying only the “vast majority” of them were liars.I don’t know what to think; if Obamacare isn’t fraught with horror stories problems unrealized opportunities, why does Big Guy have to keep unilaterally changing all the rules?delayed obamacareButt enough of all this; let’s talk about something fun. Do you remember how anxious you all were to see the rest of this frock that Lady M wore at the 2012 Governor’s Ball?mo gov ballWell, finally, you can; it’s now on display in the Smithsonian, cleaned, nipped and tucked for display:5b8186b9e6adda074c0f6a706700db53The frock, designed by Indian-American designer Naeem Khan especially for Lady M, is part of a special Smithsonian exhibit - “Beyond Bollywood: Indian Americans Shape the Nation” - on the history of Indian immigration to the United States and the influence of Indian-Americans.*Hee* - “Indian Americans Shape the Nation.” Actually, it’s the NASA designed industrial strength containment systems that do most of the “shaping” for Lady M, butt the gowns are a nice finishing element. And Naeem is definitely one of Lady M’s favorite designers “shaping” America:
Screenshot Studio capture #1790Lady M in various frocks designed by Naeem KhanOf course, some of Naeem’s designs “shaped” America better than others.naeemAnd there’s not even a smidgen of construction involved in any of his creations. The man’s a creative genius!Maybe we should recruit him to redesign Obamacare.pj boy3Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror

Demonization of ObamaCare Opponents Intensify ^ | February 26, 2014 | Rightwingerpatriot
As the dreadful effects of ObamaCare continue to pile up, the far left shows their true beliefs as they savagely go after any person who dares raise a criticism. We all know how "tolerant" liberals actually are, but they continue to sink to new lows as they intensify their war on those who are most vulnerable to the Affordable Care Act. From the floor of the US Senate to individual states, liberals are looking to bully the unprotected into silence. Our first case in point takes place in Michigan, where a Democrat candidate for US Senator is going after a cancer patient. Gary Peters, the candidate in question, is attempting to bully Julie Boonstra and local television stations for airing an ad where she describes how ObamaCare has jeopardized her health. His campaign has ordered the stations to stop running the ads or they could lose their FCC license. Sadly, Gary Peters isn't alone. Practically every other leftwing media group is pushing the fake narrative that there are no ObamaCare horror stories. These entities include the New York Times, the LA Times, and Mother Jones. Probably the most odious was a blog post by Paul Krugman, who says, "the true losers from ObamaCare generally aren't very sympathetic." Guess people who lose their health coverage or have medication costs that are needed to keep one alive skyrocket thousands of dollars per month are just evil people, not sympathetic. What utter tripe. What this boils down to for the liberal is that, "We don't care who gets screwed as long as the state becomes more powerful and all-controlling. Don't you peasants understand you need big government to survive?" The ends justify the means no matter who gets hurt. On the national front, the paragon of wit and virtue, Harry Reid, said on the Senate floor that the ObamaCare horror stories being told are untrue. Reid also went after the liberal version of the boogeyman, the Koch brothers, calling them "un-American." (Reid conveniently ignores the fact that he has directly benefitted from George Soros, who is easily the most dangerous anti-American person with his tremendous wealth gained from manipulating the financial system.) All of this is done for a reason: to silence dissent and keep the truth from the American people. Democrats are running scared as their lies fall on increasingly deaf ears as people are seeing their health policies cancelled or their premiums shooting through the roof. Still, you have to admire their pluck (if not their morals) by continually shouting, "What are you going to believe? What I tell you or what you see with your own two eyes?"

The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class!

Amazon ^ | 2014 | Fred Siegel
This short book rewrites the history of modern American liberalism. It shows that what we think of liberalism today – the top and bottom coalition we associate with President Obama - began not with Progressivism or the New Deal but rather in the wake of the post-WWI disillusionment with American society. In the twenties, the first writers and thinkers to call themselves liberals adopted the hostility to bourgeois life that had long characterized European intellectuals of both the left and the right. The aim of liberalism’s foundational writers and thinkers such as Herbert Croly, Randolph Bourne, H.G. Wells, Sinclair Lewis and H.L Mencken was to create an American aristocracy of sorts, to provide a sense of hierarchy and order associated with European statism. Like communism, Fabianism, and fascism, modern liberalism, critical of both capitalism and democracy, was born of a new class of politically self-conscious intellectuals. They despised both the individual businessman's pursuit of profit and the conventional individual's pursuit of pleasure, both of which were made possible by the lineaments of the limited nineteenth-century state. Temporarily waylaid by the heroism of the WWII generation, in the 1950s liberalism expressed itself as a critique of popular culture. It was precisely the success of elevating middle class culture that frightened foppish characters like Dwight Macdonald and Aldous Huxley, crucial influences on what was mistakenly called the New Left. There was no New Left in the 1960s, but there was a New Class which in the midst of Vietnam and race riots took up the priestly task of de-democratizing America in the name of administering newly developed rights The neo-Mathusianism which emerged from the 60s was, unlike its eugenicist precursors, aimed not at the breeding habits of the lower classes but rather the buying habits of the middle class. Today’s Barack Obama liberalism has displaced the old Main Street private sector middle class with a new middle class composed of public sector workers allied with crony capitalists and the country’s arbiters of style and taste.

Shovel Ready

Minimum Wage


Socialism vs Capitalism

Hope and Change

Severe Depression

Dr. Feelgood


The Church

Cross the line!

Run Hillary Run!

Redness not Blackness


Another Detroit!

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

To an Old Friend . . . ^ | February 26, 2014 | Paul Greenberg

Your Honor, It is always a pleasure to recall you, even in your last but still undiminished days. Last time I saw you, you were hooked up to various tubes and electronic monitors, but your mind -- oh, your mind! -- was as graceful, your words as succinct, your manner as judicious, your spirit as luminous as ever, maybe more so. As if you were packing up, getting ready to leave, clearing your docket of anything extraneous, and preparing to make a clean break from this life, leaving your affairs in their usual order. You were listening to my small talk, pausing before each response, as was always your way, before responding in whole sentences -- whole precise, brief paragraphs without a needless word. You replied to my every comment, just on a level one step higher. Just enough to raise the level of the conversation without losing me. Your ears were attuned to my every word while your eyes followed the ball game on the television at the foot of your hospital bed. "Do you like baseball?" you asked. Is a bluebird blue? "Have you ever come across a paper called 'The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule'?" you wanted to know. No, I hadn't. "In that case," you said, "I'll see that you get a copy." You did. It turned out to be the best explanation this baseball fan had yet encountered of how the common law develops in response to each challenge. And why it is superior to the kind of codified law -- see the Napoleonic Code -- that begins to grow archaic from the moment it's adopted. Because it's too rigid to reflect the ever-flow of time and events, the flux and change that must mark the course of human events. . . Put it this way: Ever pass a stop sign rising at a lonely intersection out in the country where it would take an act of imagination to picture any traffic at all? It's a safe bet that some ghastly accident occurred there. It's the same with the common law. It reflects the process of challenge and response in the real world, not an abstract legal one. The common law endures because it changes as judges interpret it, adapting to each real need in an all too real world. It reflects things as they are, usually hurtling toward us at a high rate of speed. . . You aren't just missed, absent friend. But remembered and consulted in memory. ("What would Richard Arnold have to say?") Not since Learned Hand had an American jurist been described as "the greatest judge never to have sat on the Supreme Court of the United States." How did you come to earn that distinction? Because a president of the United States lacked the vision to see that a decade of service by a Richard Sheppard Arnold on that high court, which was as long as you would live after your fatal illness was diagnosed, would have been worth infinitely more to the country than the longest tenure on the court by whichever nonentity that president chose to appoint in your stead. You know the type he would choose: some whited sepulchre who stages a road show with an equally sonorous colleague to debate the decisions they made -- all for the entertainment and edification of us rubes out here. They succeed only in making a spectacle of themselves and the law. Judges who comment on their decisions off the bench, as if they were coaches talking about their strategy in a post-game interview, raise neither their stature nor the law's. They lower both. This is not some kind of game. It is -- or should be -- the law of the land. You made the news just the other day, Your Honor, when your name surfaced in the late Diane Blair's notes on conversations with her long-time friend Hillary Clinton, who shrugged off your remarkable mind, character and grace with a dismissive phrase or two. Some folks wouldn't recognize greatness if they were standing in its shadow, as Ms. Clinton was at the time. It was a time when everything was going wrong at the White House, and she responded by going off like a pack of Furies in some Greek tragedy, only in her case it was all buzz and no bite. Hillary Clinton's little hissy may have reached its profane nadir when she told her friend Diane that she'd opposed your being nominated to the highest court in the land (which is where you belonged) because she wanted to vent her spleen on the publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who's named Walter Hussman, and just pressure the paper in general. Or as she unfortunately put it: "...G------ Hussman needs to know that it's his own g------ fault; that he can't destroy everybody from Ark. and everything about the state and then not pay the price for his precious Richard. He needs to get the message big-time, that Richard might have a chance next round if Hussman and his minions will lay off all this outrageous lies and innuendo. They should have their noses rubbed into it." (Caveat Lector: I've taken the liberty of correcting some of the misspellings in this section of Mrs. Blair's memoir, but left the rest of Hillary Clinton's diatribe unchanged.) Goodness, can the First Lady really have thought that the editorial policy of the paper I work for was for sale in exchange for a political appointment? What was she going to offer us next -- a mess of pottage? Somebody should have sent the lady -- well, the woman -- a copy of the First Amendment with a few of its phrases underlined, like freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those ideas are kind of respected around this newsroom. But time passes, memory fades, and we forget. In this case, we forget how petty, how mean, how crass, how as self-absorbed as Tom and Daisy Buchanan in "The Great Gatsby" the Clintons could be. And then a scrap of paper like this one surfaces, and brings it all back. Like a bad hangover. But you were beyond all that, Your Honor, in life as you are now in memory. A Yiddish saying comes to mind at such times: Some of the dead still live and some of the living are already dead. Rest easy, Your Honor. That's how you were addressed, and the salutation applied. In so many ways. --Inky Wretch

Obama's Minimum Wage Economy ^ | February 26, 2014 | Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal came up with the perfect name for the Obama economy that you'll be hearing a lot in this year's midterm election campaigns. "After more than five years under this administration, the Obama economy is now the minimum wage economy," the Republican governor told reporters after a meeting he and his gubernatorial colleagues held with Obama at the White House. With his anemic economy still unable to produce enough jobs to put millions of unemployed Americans back to work full-time, Obama is offering a old, threadbare idea to raise the nation's minimum hourly wage to over $10. Congress's budget analysts say it could result in the loss of at least a half million jobs, and possibly a million. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that forcing small businesses to raise their hourly wages would result in layoffs to keep their payroll costs down, or cause employers to hire fewer low- wage workers in the future. In a nation with a workforce of 160 million people, many of whom are jobless or can only find part-time work, this is a poor excuse for an economic recovery program. In fact, it is pathetic. Making struggling businesses in a weak economy pay higher wages is not a plan to get America growing again. "I think we can do better than that. I think America can do better than that," Jindal said. If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is almost word for word what John F. Kennedy told voters in the 1960 presidential election as he touted his plan for cutting income tax rates for everyone to boost economic growth and job creation. Surely we can do better than this, but don't hold your breath believing that this do-nothing president will put the American economy back to work anytime soon. What could we do right now to jump start the engine of a stalled economy? For starters, Jindal suggested that the president could approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline "if he was serious about growing the economy." That would create thousands of jobs and give the U.S. energy industry a booster shot that would send a signal to the economy that we're serious about boosting the growth rate beyond its anemic 2 percent range. But Obama has been dithering over this issue for the past two years because he fears his approval will anger his party's radical environmental allies in a critical election year that could put Republicans in charge of the Senate. His reluctance is holding back the economy and stronger job growth in the process. But that's not the only pro-growth initiative he has been blocking. Congress's tax-writing committees have been at work since 2011 on overhauling our costly, dysfunctional tax code that is also hurting our economy, slowing down job creation, and making us less competitive in global markets. House Republicans, led by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan, were expected to lay out their plan Wednesday. It would simplify the tax code by slashing its seven tax brackets down to two: 10 percent for lower income workers and 25 percent for the top rate. The plan would be revenue neutral because it calls for eliminating a number of tax loopholes and exemptions that now litter the tax code. This is what the co-chairmen of Obama's deficit-cutting commission proposed in his first term in a report that the White House has ignored ever since. But the idea took hold in Congress where Camp and his Senate Democratic counterpart, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, were working together on a tax reduction bill. But as their work was bearing fruit, Baucus decided he would retire from the Senate at the end of of his term. Still, it appeared a deal between the two was possible. That is, until Obama suddenly offered Baucus the prestigious post of ambassador to China, getting rid of one of tax reforms' most enthusiastic supporters. It certainly wasn't because Obama decided that Baucus was head and shoulders the most qualified candidate for the post. Indeed, Baucus said at his nomination hearings that he knew next to nothing about China. The timing of Obama's offer to Baucus raised eyebrows in and out of Congress since it meant that any possibility of tax reform was dead in the Senate for this year. That's because the chairmanship of Baucus' committee fell to liberal Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon who has since focused on other issues that he considers higher priority. It's unclear whether House GOP leaders will take up tax reform this year, though they haven't ruled out doing so in the months to come. Congressional reformers think that if Speaker Boehner puts it on a fast track, it would send a powerful political signal to voters that the GOP is serious about a pro-growth initiative that would strengthen our economy and put Americans back to work. And where's Obama in all of this? The Washington Post wrote Tuesday that "the White House continues to show little interest in a comprehensive tax overhaul." The newspaper went on to say that "administration officials have dismissed reform of the individual code, saying it would be mathematically impossible to lower the top rate paid by the wealthy, protect the middle class and achieve Democrats' goal of raising fresh cash to shrink chronic budget deficits." This was to a large extent what critics said of President Kennedy's across-the-board income tax cuts: They would worsen the deficits, endanger middle class programs, and benefit the rich. But in the end, his tax cuts led to business expansion, created jobs and it didn't worsen the deficit. By the end of 1960s, we had a budget surplus. Obama says he wants to lift the middle class as well as those below the poverty income line, but he's opposed to pro-growth, pro-job policies to do that. Instead, he and his party have become the champions of a jobless, minimum wage economy. What a contrast in economic policymaking. Kennedy defended his tax cuts for all incomes by saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats," while Obama and the Democrats say raising the minimum wage is the best we can do.

Welfare Payout Statistics That Will Make You Really Angry! ^ | February 26, 2014 | Seriously Epic Staff

Now, don’t tell me that welfare recipients aren’t innovative! No reason to stand on your feet waiting to get your check. Just put your flip-flops next in line and go back and sit on your ass. What a great country!

Related Article Corporate Welfare Statistics That Will Make You Sick

With all the talk about unemployment benefits and welfare, it’s important to understand just how much money we’re talking about.

In 35 states, welfare, housing assistance and other benefits pays more than a minimum wage job, according to a new study by the Cato Institute. The study also found that in 13 states, the payout is more than $15 per hour.

Of course, this study doesn’t take into account that not everyone on public assistance receives all of the programs. But if they did, their payout would be significantly higher than even a starting teacher’s salary in 11 states or a computer programmer in 3 states.

The states with the highest welfare payouts – more than $20 per hour – are Hawaii, with payments equaling $29.13 per hour, DC at $24.43 per hour, Massachusetts at $24.30 , Connecticut at $21.33, New York at $21.01 per hour, New Jersey at $20.89 per hour, Rhode Island at $20.83 per hour and Vermont at $20.36 per hour.

Critics say this ignores real situations. The study “does make a lot of assumptions about what benefits a typical family receives and argues that all the means-tested programs should be included in their fictional family profile,” said Catherine Lawrence, an assistant professor at the University of Albany’s School of Social Welfare. “”Research with actual families shows the extreme financial strain of living on welfare or low-wage work; neither welfare nor low-wage employment alone do a very good job supporting the health and well-being of families with children.”

It varies from state to state, but most states’ welfare payouts top out after about 60 months in one lifetime.

The study was called “The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off, 2013, authored by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes.

How do these statistics make you, the reader, feel?

Obama’s Treasonous Squandering of American Power

Conservative HQ ^ | 2/26/14 | CHQ Staff

We don’t usually flak for The Washington Post, but every so often the Washington elite’s liberal “paper of record” gets something right, or at least asks the right question.

Such was the case on Monday, February 24, when the Post published an opinion piece by Richard Cohen entitled “Susan Rice and the retreat of American power,” that detailed a bill of particulars against President Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, and the President himself, for the treasonous squandering of American lives, treasure and influence in the world’s affairs. While what happened at Benghazi, Libya and how the events there led to the deaths of four Americans receives some treatment in Cohen’s column what interests us is Cohen’s drilldown on the favorite tactic used by Rice and Obama to sell their foreign policy failures as success: the false choice or straw man of “American boots on the ground” versus doing nothing, or at least nothing effective. As Cohen so correctly observed: “An increasingly messy world is looking for guidance. But not only does the United States refuse to be its policeman, it won’t even be its hall monitor. The utterly false choice in Syria articulated by Rice — America can do nothing because it won’t do everything — is noticed by the rest of the world. Obama threatened ‘consequences’ if someone stepped ‘over the line’ in Ukraine. Ah, another line. Is it red?” Cohen, however, misses the opportunity to ask the final, and most important, question: How would Obama enforce “consequences” even if he had the inclination to impose them? The President and his Secretary of Defense have just announced that the United States military will but cut back to the lowest level it has been since before World War II, which was the last time the dangerous threat of super-nationalism that concludes Cohen’s article stalked Europe. And along with the announcement of the cuts came this statement from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, “we are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted.” The reason, said Hagel, is that the current force is “larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready.” Translation: We blew the money we should be spending to protect America and defend western civilization on Nancy Pelosi’s “shovel ready” stimulus program, green energy, doubling food stamps and other Democratic Party vote-buying schemes. So the only way we can use economic influence or expand our military capability is to borrow more trillions from the Chinese. The result of this is, as retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney put it to Bill Gertz in an interview for The Washington Free Beacon, the Obama administration is “continuing on its path of unilateral disarmament that was started by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in April 2009.” “This action,” said McInerney, “will escalate the demise of our military unilaterally and we still have no strategy for defeating radical Islam after 9/11. This is very dangerous.” Through the peculiar combination of lies, arrogance and ignorance that is the hallmark of almost all Obama foreign policy actions the President has squandered the legacy left to him by conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan, and his anti-communist Democratic predecessors, such as President Harry Truman. It took sixty-nine years to build America into the world's only superpower; it has taken Obama less than six to flippantly throwaway America’s national influence and unilaterally disarm America through a conscious and treasonous hollowing-out of America’s military capability.

Young Conservatives Fuel Optimism in the Liberty Movement! ^ | February 26, 2014 | Bob Barr

Normally these columns highlight the fact that something bad has occurred in American politics; in recent years, something usually relating to federal spending, privacy, government surveillance, loss of individual liberty, erosion of Second Amendment rights -- come to think of it, most everything this Administration does. This week, however, something’s different. There’s a slight whiff of optimism in the air; not a lot mind you, but enough to justify sitting up and taking notice. After years of being buffeted by government’s relentless drive to increase its own size, scope, cost and power, there is some evidence the tide may be turning; or if not turning, at least beginning to negotiate such a maneuver. Last week in this column, I wrote about a plan by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (commonly known as “ICE,” a branch of the Department of Homeland Security) to build a national database for tracking license plates, using data collected mostly by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Several other notable voices in the liberty movement also covered this dangerous program, helping to rally the voices of millions of Americans against its implementation. Within days of first being proposed, DHS announced it was scrapping the program. “The solicitation, which was posted without the awareness of ICE leadership, has been cancelled,” said ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen with a straight face. Removing the veneer of bureaucratese that invariably disguises reality when government officials speak, what she really said was, “We’re sorry we got caught.” But that wasn’t the only good news last week. A controversial program hatched by the Federal Communications Commission, which would have placed federal “monitors” in newsrooms across the country sniffing out “media bias,” also received the axe after being proposed. Like DHS, the FCC was on the receiving end of severe criticism from prominent privacy advocates like Judge Andrew Napolitano, and even one of its own, sitting commissioners! The FCC apparently has decided – at least for now -- the fight wasn’t worth it, and backed-down. Regrettably, the Commission already had wasted more than a half-million taxpayer dollars greasing the skids for the program’s implementation. It is not simply a few small victories in the press, or an occasional constitutionally-correct decision rendered by a lone judge, which are becoming small but bright points of light beginning to shine in the long, dark tunnel of government power. What is stirring a slight but very palpable sense of optimism is seeing a growing number of young people fighting back against the Big Government juggernaut -- a frightening vehicle that has accelerated markedly since Obama first raised his hand and mislead the American people into believing he actually was a supporter of the Constitution to which he swore feigned allegiance. Just this past weekend, for example, a report surfaced about the rise of significant numbers of young, liberty-minded conservatives. In particular, the article focused on Young Americans for Liberty, an organization for young adults who seek to restore the Constitution in American politics, by electing pro-liberty candidates to office. “We are just getting started,” YAL Executive Director Jeff Frazee told US News. “Our hope is to raise between $10,000 and $50,000 per candidate.” Polling indicates that groups like YAF could not come at a more opportune time. Attacks on America’s fundamental freedoms occur with increasing frequency, as Obama settles into his role as a second-term Commander-in-Chief unburdened by even a fig leaf of constitutional respect. Making matters worse is the near complete absence of constitutional push back from most members of Congress and the Department of Justice. Yet, liberty is also in danger on college campuses as well -- a crucial ecosystem of knowledge where students often develop their first meaningful political identities. When schools try to manipulate this self-exploration, such as banning the distributions of pocket Constitutions on Constitution Day (a special thanks to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for intervening), they become dangerous battlegrounds for the minds of these students rather than a toolshed from which students identify and learn to wield intellectual principles objectively. Fortunately, many students are fighting back against such bullying administrations, just as other Americans are fighting back against a bully government. Recent victories over onerous government programs show progress is being won. Importantly, polls are showing that these new “liberty voters” tend overwhelmingly to favor Republican candidates. Ronald Reagan completed his final term in office before many of these voters were even born, but it is his vision and understanding of Liberty that guides them; even if they don’t remember its author.

Eric Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With!

townhall ^

Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with The New York Times, Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.
It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Nugent: Obama ‘Really Wants to Destroy America’

Tea Party ^ | Feb. 25, 2014 | Politico

After last week apologizing for comments calling the president a “subhuman mongrel,” Ted Nugent on Monday attacked the administration for what he called similarities to Nazi Germany.
The rocker and gun rights activist defended some of his past remarks on Monday on Dennis Miller’s radio show, days after apologizing for using the term “mongrel” to refer to President Barack Obama, which caused a storm of controversy when he hit the campaign trail for Texas Republican governor hopeful Greg Abbott.Miller pressed Nugent on using the term “jackbooted thug.” “The guy, he’s just a horribly inept civil servant,” Miller said, according to audio posted by left-leaning watchdog Media Matters. “He’s just the guy in the toll booth who keeps giving back too much change to people and I’ll be glad when he’s out of there, but he’s not a Nazi.” “Well I don’t think he’s Adolf Hitler,” Nugent said, but he told Miller he disagreed that the “jackbooted thug” comment was inappropriate. “There was an incrementalism to what happened in Germany and other places historically, where they came in slowly,” Nugent said. “And I think that’s what Obamacare is, that’s what I think most of what he represents. The IRS — I really believe that what we see with the IRS can be compared accurately and historically to the early maneuvers of people like jackbooted thugs, like the Brownshirts [Nazi Storm Troopers]. I really believe that and I think that you are being too soft on them.” Miller again told Nugent he disagreed with the comparison, but Nugent pressed that the President Barack Obama wants to “destroy” the country. “I think he really wants to destroy America. I think he wants to follow the Saul Alinsky ‘Rules for Radicals’ book, destroy our economy, have a … war between the haves and the have-nots.” In his apology on Friday, Nugent said he was trying to learn from “better men” with whom he had appeared on the campaign trail and said he would try to use “more understandable language” rather than “street-fighter” terms in the future.

How to irritate Obama

Save me $8000!

Not even a smidgen of truth!

The Promise!

The Museum

Red Lines Crossed

Homicides Committed

"A Free People..."

Your Cherry Tree!

An Oscar!

Would they?

Snake Handlers!

My hands are tied!

Fly, my pretties!

Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to queers!

The Matt Walsh Blog ^ | February 25, 2014 | Matt Walsh

We critics of modern society tend to run into a problem very similar to the one you encounter when you go to a bar with 27 different beers on tap.
Sometimes, we just don’t know where to begin. That’s how I feel when I read about the progressives working themselves into a lather over that religious freedom bill in Arizona. The legislation simply solidifies a business owner’s right to act according to his or her religious beliefs (I say “further solidifies” because the First Amendment already covers this ground pretty thoroughly). “News” outlets like CNN, engaging in blatant editorializing (surprise!), refer to it as ”the anti-gay bill,” because part of religious freedom is the right to not participate in activities which you find mortally sinful. It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity. Yet, the cases that sparked this law are hardly discussed. The progressive mob claims that this legislation is about shoving gays to the back of the bus and making them drink out of separate fountains. George Takei echoed the sentiments of many when he likened the Arizona bill to “Jim Crow.” And here we arrive at my quandary. There are so many lies being told about this bill; so many ridiculous and offensive exaggerations; so many untruths, half-truths, and truth-omissions; so many dishonest tactics at play, that I’m utterly overwhelmed by it all. The propagandists are shouting from all around me, and I can’t engage them from every side at once. If I had the time, I’d specifically address the continued comparisons drawn between the historical plight of blacks in America and the imagined plight of gays in present day. I’d point out how this is much like comparing a stubbed toe to the Holocaust. We should remember that blacks were in chains in this country. They were literally treated as less than human. They could be legally murdered and beaten and starved. They were set apart, cast aside, and violently and systematically oppressed. Not only are gays in a better position than this, but the two scenarios are diametrically opposite. Unlike historical blacks, gays are afforded special legal protections. They are celebrated by the president, Hollywood, pop culture, the media, mainstream culture, and most major corporations. They are hoisted on a pedestal by only the most powerful and influential people in the country. Black people ought to deliver a sound verbal smackdown to any historically illiterate gasbag who even attempts to paint the slightest equivalency between the suffering of blacks and gays. But I could write several pages on this aspect alone, and maybe I will soon. For now, I think I have to do the work that the media, and even many talking head ”conservatives,” won’t. Left wingers are busily constructing fantastical narratives about restaurant owners who wish to prevent gays from eating at their establishments, and cab drivers who want nothing more than to drive right past the gay man hailing him on the sidewalk. Meanwhile, here in the Land of Things That Actually Happen, nobody is proposing, nor condoning, nor anticipating, nor hoping for, nor looking to specifically protect that sort of thing. That sort of thing isn’t happening, and it won’t happen. It’s not an issue. It’s not real. It’s a fantasy. A lie. A total fabrication. Instead, some see it necessary and prudent to stop private citizens from using the courts to force other private citizens to actively participate in a particular act which they find morally objectionable. That’s all. And — unlike the handwringing about the mystical Denny’s manager who might try to use the Bible to justify not serving pancakes to a lesbian — this is a real thing that has occurred several times recently. Examples: Hands On Originals. The Christian owner of a local t-shirt company declined to produce shirts advertising Lexington’s annual Gay Pride Festival. Hands On Originals had likely made shirts for many gay people in the past. As far as I know, they never asked anyone to fill out a questionnaire about their sexual proclivities before ordering their apparel. In this case, however, the company was being asked to advertise for a gay pride festival. He politely turned down the business and even pointed the organizers to other manufacturers that would make the shirts at the same or better rates. Nobody’s rights were infringed upon. Nobody was victimized. Nobody was even inconvenienced. But the bullies at Kentucky’s Gay and Lesbian Services Organization smelled an opportunity. They dragged Hands On before the “Human Rights Commission” and accused them of “human rights violations.” The HRC sided with the gay bullies. So did Lexington’s mayor. Lexington’s mayor is openly gay, by the way. But I’m sure that had nothing to do with his opinion on the matter. Masterpiece Cake Shop. The Christian owner of a Colorado bakery has been forced by a judge to bake cakes for gay weddings, after declining the business 0f two gay men who wanted him to make a cake for their same sex nuptials. The baker didn’t refuse them “because they’re gay.” In fact, he specifically said: “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” He had a problem with the activity itself, not the people participating in it. But the gay couple, instead of respecting the man’s beliefs, decided to whine to the ACLU. Eventually a lawsuit was filed, and the couple complained in court of being “dehumanized.” DEHUMANIZED. Because some guy wouldn’t make a cake for their wedding. Dehumanized. Unborn babies butchered in abortion mills? Sorry, not dehumanizing. One bakery in the entire country decides not to make dessert for a gay wedding? DEHUMANIZING. Makes sense, right? Elane Photography. A New Mexico judge ruled that a small photography company in the state is not allowed to decide which weddings they will photograph and which weddings they won’t photograph. He compelled the Christian photographers who own the business to work gay weddings, despite their religious convictions. This ruling came after Elane Huguenin politely declined to photograph a lesbian wedding back in 2006. As Huguenin explained: they will “gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.” But this wasn’t good enough. Even though the lesbian customers promptly found a different photographer who charged better rates, they still took the matter to the courts. Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts. A florist in Washington state was sued after she decided not to provide flowers for a gay wedding. In this case, even the customers admit that the business owner had served them many times over ten years. If she wanted to “refuse service to gays,” she would have already. But it wasn’t the gay men she had a problem with — it was the gay wedding. Of course this explanation, reasonable as it might be, wasn’t sufficient. She was dragged to court. The lawsuit, I believe, is still ongoing. In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual. It’s absolutely nonsensical. It also, again, makes any comparison to “Jim Crow laws” seem insane. Blacks were denied basic services because they were black — not because of their activity. The gay people in these cases are asking Christians to specifically participate in a morally objectionable act. You can tell me that gay weddings are not morally objectionable, but that isn’t up to you. That’s your belief. This is their belief. In America, we are supposed to be free to live according to our convictions. We can only be stopped from living our convictions if our convictions call us to do harm to another. Were any of these gay couples “harmed” by having to go back to Google and find any of a thousand other options? Perhaps their feelings were hurt. Fine. Are we saying that we have no right to do something if it might hurt someone’s feelings? Are we prepared to take that logic to its fullest extent? Put differently, to tell a Christian that they must provide services to a gay wedding because that’s what a gay person wants, is to say that one must condone the actions of a gay person in order to affirm the dignity and inherent human worth of a gay person. Now we have, yet once more, provided special legal accommodations to this protected class. No other group is afforded such privileges. I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary. I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful. And you know what? I would never try. Maybe that’s what separates liberty lovers from liberals. For all their talk about “minding your business” and “this doesn’t concern you” and “live and let live,” theirs is truly an ideology of compulsion. The free speech and expression of other citizens must be tamed by the whip of their lobbying, legislating, and litigating. It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a “right” to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer. But this is tyranny. It doesn’t have to make sense. Make no mistake: this is tyranny. Tyranny is not injured emotions, hurt feelings, and minor inconveniences. Tyranny is the government compelling a man or woman to conform to a dogma or bow to an idol. Tyranny is when you are forced to abandon your beliefs and fall in line. And tyranny is still tyranny, even when it comes wrapped in tolerance and “human rights.”

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Tolerant Liberals

Black Pastors: Impeach Holder!

cns ^ | 2/25/14 | Penny Starr

A coalition of black pastors announced on Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that they are launching a campaign to gather one million signatures on a petition calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for violating his oath of office by trying "to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex 'marriage' agenda."

"President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have turned their backs on the values the American people hold dear, values particularly cherished in the black community: values like marriage, which should be strengthened and promoted, rather than weakened and undermined," says a statement by the Coalition of African American Pastors that has been posted online with their impeachment petition. "Our nation calls for the building up of a healthier marriage culture; instead, our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children," says the coalition.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

At the Supreme Court, a royal mess for ‘King Barack’

The Washington Post ^ | 2-24-14 | Dana Milbank

It has the makings of a royal mess for “King Barack.” Monday morning’s Supreme Court argument about the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases went badly for the Obama administration — so much so that the real question before the justices seemed to be how severe the EPA’s loss would be. The administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, pleaded with the justices to recognize the “urgent problem” of climate change, because the “threat to future generations gets worse” with each passing year. But as the argument played out, the court’s swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, made clear that he agreed with the conservatives that the administration had gone too far in its carbon-dioxide regulations. Even some of the liberal justices voiced skepticism about the Justice Department’s position. “I know litigants hate this question,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Verrilli. She asked which of two rationales he would prefer “if you were going to lose.” “I knew you were going to ask me that question,” the solicitor general replied.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Where to, Mac?


Why the Left Is Having a Nervous Breakdown ^   | 6/24/18 | Roger L. Simon  The Left is having the worst flu season ever. Almost all of them have been infected by Trump D...