Author Archives: Katherine Revello

Obama Individual Mandate Hypocrisy

On the campaign trail in Cincinnati, President Obama criticized Mitt Romney for flip-flopping his position on the indivudal mandate, apparently because of displeasure among the right wing Washington elites. Obama stated that as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney supported an individual mandate, then suddenly reversed his position because of right wing pressure:

“And the fact that a whole bunch of Republicans in Washington suddenly said, this is a tax — for six years he said it wasn’t, and now he has suddenly reversed himself. So the question becomes, are you doing that because of politics? Are you abandoning a principle that you fought for, for six years simply because you’re getting pressure for two days from Rush Limbaugh or some critics in Washington?

However, Mitt Romney has never fought for the so-called principle of an individual mandate on a national level.He’s never renounced the individual mandate in Romneycare,  to the chagrin of much of the Republican electorate. In every Republican debate this year, he firmly defended the individual mandate, but on a state level. Romney believes healthcare, and a purchase mandate in particular, is a program states should decide to implement. He has never backed down from that position, despite criticism from right-wing figures like Rush Limbaugh, and he’s never supported a national purchase mandate. In essence, he’s never flip-flopped on the issue.

The same, however, cannot be said for Obama’s position on federal purchase mandates.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, in an interview with CNN, he strongly dismissed the idea of an individual mandate.

So, who is abandoning principles Mr. President? Mitt Romney, who at least seems to grasp the concept of federalism, or you, whose position has completely flipped over the past 4 years?


Obama on Campaign: I’ve Tried to be Bipartisan

At an Ohio campaign stop on Thursday, President Obama spoke to local media and did what he does best- shifted the blame. He told a WLTW reporter that he thinks most people would agree he’s tried to be bipartisan, it’s the Republicans who won’t play along.

Really Mr. President? Is it bipartison to allow your party leaders to name call? Joe Biden calling the Tea Partiers terrorists, Maxine Waters saying the Tea Party could go straight to Hell, and she’d help them get there- that’s being bipartisan?

After three years without a budget, isit bipartisan to fear-monger about the most serious Republican proposal and say it would cause inaccurate weather predictions?

Mr. President, the bipartisanship is two parties working together and compromising to meet an end where both can find something to be happy with.

Bipartisanship is not proposing radical ideas and calling anyone who disagrees with you a terrorist or an ideologue. Bipartisanship is not refusing to even consider the ideas put forth by leaders across the political aisle. Bipartisanship is not using executive privilege to mandate a policy you can’t pass through legislation. And most of all, bipartisanship is not using the office of the presidency to try to shame or heckle opponents into voting in your favor. None of these are the actions of a bipartisan president. These, your actions, are the actions of a petulant child, who can’t countenance not getting his way.

And as for common sense ideas, Mr. President-

Common sense ideas like health care ‘reform’ that results in the largest tax increase in American history, inordinately affecting the middle class? Common sense ideas like spending at a rate  a trillion dollars above  federal income and nearly tripling the inherited deficit? Common sense ideas like multi-billion dollar stimulus packages, that years later still leave the unemployment rate hovering around 8%?

Do you really think these sound like common sense ideas to the American citizen trying to live within a budget? To the citizen who has been struggling to find work? To the citizen who has had to make cuts in their spending in order to feed their family?

The American people are not stupid, Mr. President. They know the difference between common sense and power-mad. And they are tired of the same old excuses. It’s the Republicans fault is it? You’ve been using that excuse since the day you stepped into office, and your party has been in control that entire time. Maybe it’s time for you to stop blaming others, and put some of those common sense ideas into action.



RI Senator- Tax Rates Don’t Affect Small Businesses

Tax policy was the subject of a panel, titled 98 to 2: Raising Taxes to Invest in America and Promote Fairness, held in Washington last month. The panel was associated with former Obama administration official and radical Van Jones’s Take Back the American Dream Conference, which basically aims to advance progressivism.

The panel consisted of several prominent progressive activists and politicians, among them Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, of Tea Partiers are racists and part of white supremacist militias fame.

The main goal of the panel was finding the best way to sell tax increases to the American people and to counter the Republican idea that taxing the rich hurts jobs, since the rich are  usually job creators. Amidst the debate, Senator Whitehouse chimes in with the stunning statement that he isn’t aware of a single small business in Rhode Island that is affected by tax rates.

“What works well for me at home, I don’t have this, you know, poll-tested…I say, look I don’t know a single small business in Rhode Island that is going to be made or broken by tax rates.  What’s going to make or break small business is whether people are actually coming through the door to spend money, whether they have customers.”

What Senator Whitehouse’s ridiculous statement fails to take into account is a recent meals tax proposal that caused an uproar among small businesses in his state. The proposal to add a 10% tax to all meals caused an aggressive campaign against the proposed tax, lead chiefly by restaurants. Cities like Newport, which rely on money tourists bring in, through restaurants especially, complained that the tax would crush them. It would force them to raise prices, which would drive away business.

Rhode Island is the smallest state in the nation, and has some of the highest taxes on small business in the nation. Unemployment is well above the national average, about 11% in May, and every year, more and more businesses leave the state because of the high costs Rhode Island’s high taxes cost business owners.

Maybe Senator Whitehouse should spend a little less time participating in panels sponsored by communists, and a little more time amongst his constituents.


Healthcare ‘Tax’ Constitutional?- The Founders Might Say Otherwise

In today’s completely stunning decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal justices, creating a 5-4 majority that declared the individual mandate  a ‘tax’ and therefore constitutional.

Unbelievable though it may be, because of Chief Justice Roberts, the federal government can now essentially force you to do whatever it sees fit through the power of taxation. For example, let’s suppose the federal government institutes a law stating you must maintain a certain healthy weight and have to work out an hour every day to maintain that weight. Don’t want to? Fine, just pay a tax. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, that’s completely constitutional.

This is so obviously not constitutional, you can almost hear James Madison and the rest of the Founders weeping. After all, wasn’t one of the primary reasons the Founders declared independence because of ‘taxation without representation’? The Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, the Tea Act which led to the Boston Tea Party- all of these were heavy taxes imposed on the colonists that vastly affected trade in the Colonies. The Founders maintained it was tyrannical for a distant government to impose such heavy, burdensome taxes on its people.

How is this any different?  The Supreme Court has ruled that the individual mandate is Constitutional as a tax- a tax you have no say in. You must either have health care, or pay a tax. Your objection means nothing to the federal government. How is this not tyranny- the tyranny of a government over a voiceless people, of the same sort the Founders objected to?

It is not constitutional as a tax. The federal government’s taxing power is limited to three specific purposes- paying debts, national defense and guarding the nation’s Welfare (interests). An individual purchase ‘tax’ meets none of these requirements.

But you don’t even have to be familiar with the language of the taxing power to know that the Founders would be inherently opposed to this, and would never have given the federal government this type of absolute power over the people. In fact, they rebelled against it. History is repeating itself. The question is, what are We the People going to do about it? Lie down and let the government seize more power? Or let our voices be heard?

Supreme Court Rules Obamacare Constitutional

At 10:07 today, the Supreme Court ruled, against all expectations, to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Chief Justice Roberts joined the left side of the Court, causing a 5-4 ruling, which upheld the individual mandate. Justice Kennedy did join the minority and vote against the ACA. The Court ruled that the individual mandate is a tax and is therefore constitutional.

In the words of the SCOTUS blog:

“The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read,”

Details are still emerging, however, this ruling can be read as nothing but an overwhelming defeat for President Obama and his big government policies.

A Guide to the Healthcare Ruling- What Could Happen and What It Means

This week, the highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare’s constitutionality is expected as early as Monday or as late as Thursday.

Depending on the ruling, Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida could turn out to be the biggest Supreme Court decision, possibly since the New Deal era NLRB v. Jones & Loughlin Steel. This case, one of the first cases upholding FDR’s policies after his threat to pack the court, is the reason for the current broad interpretation of the commerce clause. A ruling against Obamacare could overturn this interpretation.

There are three possible ways that the Supreme Court could rule.

  1. They could uphold Obamacare. If this is the case, it will most likely be because Obamacare is considered a tax, not implemented until 2013, and the Court will rule they cannot adjudicate on it until it goes into affect.
  2. Part of the law will be overturned. If this is the case, most likely the individual mandate will be struck down.
  3. Obamacare in its entirety will be overruled. Based on oral arguments, this will be because they see the power of a federal government that can tell you to purchase insurance as an absolute and unlimited government.

If the judges do rule against Obamacare, either in part or in whole, it could spell the era of a new Supreme Court.

The oral arguments of the case are interesting, chiefly because the majority of the discussion over the laws validity relies upon the Constitution. The federal government maintains they have the power to issue a purchase mandate through the taxing power of the Commerce Clause and through the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. As it happens, the language of both clauses proves exactly the opposite.

The taxing power of Congress is limited to three specific purposes- paying debts, providing for the common defense and providing for the general welfare of the United States (meaning the welfare of the nation, not social welfare programs). As the Tenth Amendment states, the powers not expressly given to the federal government, if they are not prohibited to the states, lie with the states. Obviously, this makes a federal purchase mandate, as a tax, unconstitutional since it is not a power granted to the federal government.

Similarly, the Commerce Clause states Congress can regulate commerce among the several states. The intention of this, as defined by The Federalist Papers, is to oversee that commerce between states, such as a transaction between Connecticut and Maryland. The purpose of this is not to regulate commerce within states. Again, based on the original intent, the purchase mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

However, this case is significant specifically because of the Constitutional arguments. The majority of cases argued before the Supreme Court are adjudicated based on case law- that is laws and precedents established by the rulings of previous cases, not their Constitutionality. This of course, is not in line with the definition of the Supreme Court’s function as explained in The Federalist Papers, which is to determine if the implementation of laws is in line with the Constitution. But, the strictly Constitutional arguments in regards to the healthcare law may set a new precedent. Whether the Supreme Court rules for or against the law, the ruling will be based on what powers the federal government has, through the Constitution, over its citizens.

The second reason this ruling is important is because it involves the commerce clause. The Supreme Court’s ruling in NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel is seen as one of the most pivotal cases in this country’s history. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled that even though business activities may be strictly intrastate, if they have close ties to interstate commerce, Congress had the authority to ‘protect’ that commerce from burdens and regulations. This gave Congress the authority to legislate on virtually anything business related, because under that interpretation, basically all commerce is considered interstate. This Supreme Court case really began the era of a broader, more powerful federal government. But, if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, this precedent could be reversed. If the Supreme Court denies the constitutionality of the individual mandate on the grounds of the Commerce Clause, they are essentially saying that something you purchase in one state is not interstate commerce just because you may use it in another state. This could be the catalyst that starts to shrink much of the power that Congress and the executive office received from the New Deal.

There is of course the possibility that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of the healthcare law. Hopefully, if this is the case, it will be because they consider the individual purchase mandate a tax, and cannot rule on taxes that are not in effect yet. If however, they rule that the individual mandate is constitutional, this could become the era of a federal government that has virtually no limits. Even if that’s the ruling, it’s likely Obamacare will be challenged again over whether the contraception coverage mandate violates religious freedom.

Whatever the ruling turns out to be, it has the makings to be a case as significant as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, and could substantially alter the power of the federal government.

Senator Obama Scolded Bush Over Executive Privilege Use

As the House Oversight Committee moves to a vote today on whether or not to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over the infamous gun-running program, Fast and Furious, President Obama has claimed executive privilege in an attempt to shield Holder.

The power of executive privilege, while not expressly granted in the Constitution, has been upheld by the Supreme Court and allows the president and certain members of the executive branch to not answer to certain types of charges, such as the Congressional subpoena, that the legislative and judicial branches may try to bring.

However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano noted on Fox News earlier today, this may ultimately hurt both Holder and Obama, as in order for executive privelege to apply, the president must be personally involved. This counters statements that Holder made during Congressional testimony.

Executive privilege has only been exercised 25 times since Reagan’s presidency, most frequently by Bill Clinton, who exercised the privilege 12 times. During his presidency, George W. Bush utilized the power 6 times. Unfortunately for President Obama, in 2007, he appeared on CNN and told Larry King that Bush’s use of the privilege was not a good reason to withhold information from Congress. Then-Senator Obama criticized Bush for hiding behind the power, and stated that the American people deserve to know the truth.

Apparently in Obama’s eyes, the same high standards of transparency Congress and the American people deserve don’t apply in this situation.

Altruism versus the Individual in Public Education

The long wait for summer is almost over as school years are beginning to wind down. And that of course means graduations- a celebration of scholastic success and new beginnings, a time when young people begin to discover themselves and start the attainment of their dreams. But amidst the proms, barbeques and recognition of achievement, is there something darker? Could it be that the public educators are using the opportunity to implant a dark seed in the minds of graduates to undermine personal achievement? An idea that the investments made in them are not truly for the sake of their individual success?

It was with horror that I sat through my local high school’s graduation and senior awards ceremony and noted the subtle emphasis placed not on personal achievement, but altruisim. Senior project awards were given out based on the project’s altruistic efforts. Speakers praised the hard work of the graduates as being for the good of the collective student body. With alarming frequency, altruism is spoken of in glowing societal terms. And if someone, say a trusting and impressionable young high school graduate, does not know what altruism is, they would probably accept its goodness without question.

But what is altruism really? It is inherently statist- individuals are taught they have no worth in themselves. In fact, as an individual, they are a burden to the collective. They drain the collective’s resources and weaken it with their selfish needs and interests. The only value they have to society is through charity to other unfortunates, charity that comes to their own personal detriment.

In its true context, altruism is not desirable. It is extremely detrimental to the power of the individual, which this country was built on. Controversial though it may be, the question must be asked- is public education purposely undermining the self-worth of our young people? And for what reason? The fact that the public education system is teaching our students, the future of this country, that they have no self worth, is disturbing indeed.



Obama Flouts Constitution With Immigration Edict

The Obama administration’s latest flouting of the Constitution came today when it was announced that they will stop deporting illegal immigrants. If the illegals came to the country under the age of 16, and have led law-abiding lives since their arrival, the Obama administration will bypass Congress and grant work permits to illegals under the age of 30, providing they have been in the country for at least 5 continuous years, graduated from high school, served in the military or have a GED. Illegal immigrants meeting these requirements can apply for a two-year work visa, which has no limits on the number of times it can be renewed. The Obama administration claims this will not be a path towards citizenship, but allow illegal immigrants to work legally, without the fear of deportation.

This policy basically institutes the highly contentious DREAM Act, which would create a path towards citizenship for illegal immigrants who attended college or served in the military. The DREAM Act has come before Congress on multiple occasions, but has failed to pass.

This policy is ridiculous for two reasons. One, it is unconstitutional. All legislative powers in this country are granted to Congress, not the president. This new immigration policy is an edict – the president telling the rest of the government what they shall and shall not do. It is disturbingly dictatorial.

Secondly, the very premise on which the law rests is paradoxical. The policy grants work visas to illegal immigrants who have led law-abiding lives since their arrival in the country. They are illegal immigrants; their presence in the country is in itself a crime. Furthermore, this policy, which basically grants amnesty to illegal immigrants, will be nothing but a magnet, drawing more illegals into the country. This not only undermines the economy and undermines our national defense, but seriously hurts legal immigrants who come to this country, work hard and obey the laws, in the hopes that they can gain citizenship.

The Wisconsin Recall: Foreshadowing the 2012 Presidential Race

Today’s recall vote of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has been touted as a crucial measure of the upcoming presidential election by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals say Walker’s defeat is a victory over the so-called fascistic measures Walker took to strip state workers of their apparently unalienable collective bargaining rights. As a growing number of states push right to work legislation, which allows individual workers to negotiate benefits without forced unionization, the Wisconsin recall is the frontline of the union battle for liberals.

Conservative pundits across the aisle see a win by Walker as a resounding endorsement of small-government, pro-liberty ideals represented in Walker’s fiscally responsible balanced budget, which turned a projected  1443 billion dollar budget deficit into a projected 154 million dollar surplus. As conservatives fight a growing national deficit, the threat of tax hikes and the continuing lack of a federal budget, Wisconsin represents the successful implementation of fiscal policy that conservatives argue for on a national level.

But the Wisconsin recall is important to the presidential election for another reason. Much like the 2008 presidential election, Wisconsin recall efforts have been lead by thug tactics and spending by highly organized unions and national progressive groups, while the movement to defeat the recall is largely grassroots, led by small, individual contributions going to phone calls calling conservatives to get out and vote. Walker has also relied on TV and radio ads.

Walker has raised about 30.5 million dollars, about two thirds coming from out of state contributions. While Tom Barrett, Walker’s Democratic challenger, has raised only about 4.2 million dollars, about a quarter of it comes from organized labor, much of it from in-state contributions. However, much more money has been spent by national labor unions on funding a vast network of field offices in Wisconsin. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), The National Education Association (NEA) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are the nation’s three biggest public unions and have contributed millions to independent groups and PAC’s in Wisconsin. These groups, like We Are Wisconsin and the Greater Wisconsin Committee, have focused TV and radio ads and mailings, and most importantly bussing in union employees to protest and canvass. Many individuals the unions bussed in are paid to protest and have no idea why they are there. Others rely on thug tactics to intimidate private citizens into voting. Most notably, the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund, a progressive group, sent out mailers containing private voting records in an attempt to get Wisconsin citizens to intimidate their neighbors into voting against Walker.

And this is why the Wisconsin vote is so important. The 2008 Obama campaign was supported largely by the virtually unlimited resources of organized labor unions like SEIU and AFL-CIO. The 2012 election promises to be much of the same. The Wisconsin recall is a microcosm of the national election. The question is, can a loosely organized, grassroots led campaign, relying on volunteerism and donations from private citizens defeat the powerful machinations of the union machine, drawing on heavily organized and plentiful numbers and money? If it can be done on a state level, chances are it can be done on a national level, and this is why the Wisconsin recall is important for reasons other than partisan politics and ideals. It foreshadows what promises to be a nasty fight for the future of the nation.


Nanny Michael Bloomberg’s War on Sugary Drinks

Cherishers of personal liberty, beware. Food nanny New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has picked a new target in his war on unhealthy eating choices- large sugary drinks.

Citing the concern of public health officials over a nationwide obesity problem, Bloomberg has proposed a ban on all sugary drinks over 16 ounces from the city’s movie theaters, delis, street vendors, stadiums, arenas and restaurants. Sugary drinks over 16 ounces can be purchased from convenience stores, grocery stores and drug stores. Diet sodas, fruit juices, alcoholic beverages and dairy based drinks are excluded from the 16 ounce limit.

The ban must be approved by the city’s Board of Health, but since Bloomberg appointed the officials to the board, it is unlikely that the ban will meet any opposition. If the proposed ban moves swiftly, sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces could become illegal in New York City as early as March.

What does that mean for residents and visitors in the city? For a start, forget that large cup of Starbucks coffee you enjoy. It’s larger than 16 ounces, and therefore illegal. Same story for your favorite soda. If however, your drink of choice is a milkshake, an alcoholic beverage or diet soda, you can purchase sizes larger than 16 ounces at any convenient location.

If you’re one of those unfortunate people who enjoy a large coffee or soda from a convenient location, feel free to purchase multiple sugary beverages of a smaller size, but know that you should feel guilty about it.

As Mayor Bloomberg stated in a stunning interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC :

“If you want to order two cups at the same time, that’s fine. It’s your choice. We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things. We’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

Watch the full interview here:

Bloomberg on Andrea Mitchell

Obviously, the thinly constructed rationale of Bloomberg’s statement does not hold up. Bloomberg is attempting to control your intake of sugar, a substance not concretely linked to weight gain, by limiting the locations and amount you can obtain beverages containing sugar from. In doing so, he limits your right to make decisions about what is best for your personal health. Not only that, but the ban of drinks over 16 ounces has serious impacts on private business. Small delis and restaurants can no longer sell large drinks. How will that affect their profit margin? Is a large nationwide chain like Starbucks supposed to amend their menu to meet the ban? As a citizen, you may be forced to spend your money in a grocery store you dislike rather than a deli you do like, just to get your large drink. Frequently, purchasing two small drinks is more expensive than purchasing a large drink. How is that helpful for a family on a budget?

So clearly, Michael Bloomberg is taking away your rights, and at the same time taking on eerily Big Brother like qualities in trying to impress guilt on your eating decisions.

Ironically, shortly after declaring war on sugar, earlier today Bloomberg unveiled a massive donut, 1 foot in diameter, as part of an annual holiday celebrating New York’s Donut Lassies who served the sugary and fatty treat to soldiers during World War I. Confused as to why sugar and trans fats in your diet are bad, but not in donuts? Never fear, New York City Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs explained away the hypocrisy by saying that celebratory events are different from a public health agenda. In other words, it’s okay for Bloomberg to push what may be deemed unhealthy foods outside of his governmental capacity, but private citizens who may wish to make choices including ‘unhealthy foods’ in their lives are not free to do so.

House of Representatives Fails to Pass Bill Banning Sex-Selective Abortion

This afternoon, the House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would make sex-selective abortions a federal crime. This vote comes shortly after pro-life group Live Action released two undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood workers encouraging sex-selective abortions.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Trent Franks R-Ariz., would have made aborting a baby based on its sex or coercing a woman into an abortion based on the baby’s gender a federal crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Bringing a woman into the United States for the purpose of a sex-selective abortion also would be a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill would not have punished the woman seeking the abortion.

246 representatives voted for the bill and 168 voted against, but the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass and fell short by 30 votes.

Republican supporters of the bill argue that there is clear evidence in the US of women aborting their baby due to its female gender, especially amongst women who come from cultures where having a male is preferable. This practice is well known in countries such as India and China, although sex-selective abortions have been banned due to the imbalance in the gender ratio it causes. In the wake of Live Action’s video showing employees telling customers how to get a sex-selective abortion, US abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, has refused to ban the practice of sex-selective abortions.

Democrats opposed the bill because they say the evidence of sex-selective abortions is limited. They also voiced fears that doctors would be policing their patients. Earlier, White House spokesperson Jay Carney spoke about the sex-selective abortion debate, stating that President Obama did not support a ban because he believes the vote to be purely ideological. Carney also expressed the president’s reluctance to insert federal law into private and personal decisions.

Republican legislators have noted that this fight comes in the middle of Democratic claims of the so-called Republican war on women, yet given the opportunity to protect unborn women, Democrats have refused to do so.

Conservative Personality S. E. Cupp Sickeningly Attacked by Hustler

Conservatives may be familiar with gutsy GBTV personality S. E. Cupp. Cupp, who frequently appears on Fox News and various media outlets is a strong, fiery conservative who minces no words about her opinions, and doesn’t apologize for them either.

Because of this, she’s been the subject of personal attack before, although none quite as reprehensible as Hustler magazine’s recent decision to doctor an image of Ms. Cupp. Under the heading “What Would S. E. Cupp Look Like With a D*ck in Her Mouth?”, Hustler published a ‘composite fantasy picture’ of Ms. Cupp with genitalia in her mouth as an indictment of her pro-life stance, apparently justifying this sick attack with a disclaimer saying the image is altered and ‘should not be taken seriously’.

A redacted image of the photo, taken from The Blaze:








The caption attached to the photo reads:

“S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News program, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.”

Where is the National Organization of Women? Recently, they sponsored a boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program because of his comments about Sandra Fluke. Yet, the virtual rape of a woman is somehow not their concern? The About section of NOW’s website states that, among other things, NOW focuses on representation of women in the media. Surely then, this despicable media attack of S. E. Cupp is in the realm of NOW’s concern. Or could it be that, because Ms. Cupp is a conservative, NOW somehow does not deem her worthy of defense?

Hustler has every right to publically disagree with Ms. Cupp’s conservatism and pro-life stance, but that right is not extended to character defamation or actual malice. Given the nature of the photo, and the commentary alongside, the malice behind Hustler’s image is hard to miss. Hustler refers to Ms. Cupp as ‘a member of the dark side’- read conservative. They call her support of life ‘a dumb idea’. And the doctored image they suggest is Ms. Cupp’s idea of preventing unwanted pregnancy. This is much more than disagreeing with Ms. Cupp’s opinion. Disagreeing with her pro-life stance is the paragraph accompanying the photo, which snidely mocks her conservatism. Malice is the phallic image, doctored to portray her in a manner she neither acted in or agreed to be portrayed in. S. E. Cupp may be a public figure, and open to public comment, but that status does not mean her rights vanish. This is not a joke, as Hustler suggests. This is sick and perverted.

This brutal attack on a conservative woman once again shows where the true war on women stems from. Not the right wing media, but the left wing media, which for all it claims to see women as more than mere sexual receptacles, can apparently only respond to arguments they disagree with by name calling and creating images which portray women as receptacles. Women everywhere should be outraged, and not just at Hustle for portraying Ms. Cupp in this light. Women should be outraged that the National Organization of Women puts party politics above the rights of people it claims to represents. If NOW had any scruples, they would be defending Ms. Cupp’s rights to speak her mind instead of remaining silent in this disgusting attack on a strong woman.

Obama Writes Himself Into Presidential History

Conservatives are mocking the Obama administration yet again this week due to the White House’s alteration of many presidential biographies. Beginning with Calvin Coolidge, facts about the Obama administration’s actions are linked with the actions of previous presidents through a Did You Know? section at the bottom of the webpage.

Many of the links made between Obama and previous presidents are inane and meaningless where real policy is concerned. For instance, under Herbert Hoover’s biography, the addendum mentions that Hoover signed the bill that created the Department of Veteran Affairs, and that Obama is ‘committed to serving the needs of veterans’ by modernizing health care benefits.

The Did You Know? under Calvin Coolidge’s biography notes that Coolidge was the first to make a public radio address, and somewhat lamely points out that Obama is the first president to hold virtual meetings online.

Many of the links to Democratic figureheads are the most obscure. For instance, the Did You Know? section under FDR’s biography notes that FDR signed the Social Security Act, noting that Obama is working to ensure Social Security will be there to protect future generations.

Obama’s link to JFK is his celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps, which JFK helped create.

LBJ is noted for having signed Medicare into law, which the White House claims Obama strengthened by signing Obamacare into law.

Gerald Ford’s biography has not been altered so far.

But perhaps the most outrageous claim, is Obama’s supposed link to Ronald Reagan. The Did You Know? under Reagan’s biography reads:

In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

In Reagan’s speech, no mention of secretaries is mentioned. Reagan mentioned that a bus driver shouldn’t pay more in taxes than a millionaire. Of course, he was strictly talking about income tax, not comparing capitol gains rates to income tax rates. In fact in the same speech, Reagan advocated against raising taxes and instead closing loopholes and cutting taxes across the board.

Also noted- Reagan declared Martin Luther King Day a national holiday, which the first and second families celebrate by participating in service projects.

Michelle Obama is also mentioned for her Let’s Move initiative to ‘promote healthier lifestyles’. This is mentioned in conjunction with President Eisenhower’s Council on Youth Fitness.

The Obama adminstration’s attempt to insert itself into every moment of American history has spawned a Twitter hashtag, #ObamaInHistory, which is being used to mock the biographical alterations.

A few examples:

@JohnSantorelli: Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in 1492 and Obama was there to apologize and bow to the natives. #ObamaInHistory

@EthanMyers007: 30,000 Americans died on the Oregon Trail due to lack of health insurance. #ObamaInHistory

 The widest criticism of the biographical alteration is drawn from a speech Michelle Obama gave during the 2008 campaign. She mentioned that Barack knew they were going to have to rewrite history- and to many, it appears that this is exactly what Obama is doing. For more, go to

Tea Party Backed Richard Mourdock Beats Incumbent Dick Lugar

Just when the mainstream media was championing the death of Tea Party extremists, proof of the movement’s life and influence arose in Indiana, where the longtime Washington insider lost to the fiscally responsible, small government candidate.

Tuesday night’s GOP Senate primary ended with Tea Party-backed Richard Mourdock beating Dick Lugar, Indiana’s veteran senator of thirty-five years, by more than 20 percentage points.

The race can be boiled down to the electorate’s frustration with career politicians with deep ties to Washington. Lugar is 80, and has held his seat since 1977. For many Indiana voters, the Indiana primary was a referendum on Lugar’s unaccountability to his voters. He came under heavy fire when it became known that he did not own a residence in Indiana. Rather, Lugar was staying in an Indianapolis hotel, and reportedly paying for it with taxpayer funds. Lugar’s cooperation with Senate Democrats also angered his constituents. In 1991, he co-sponsored the Nunn-Lugar Act with Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). The bill worked towards nuclear nonproliferation, which Lugar has been a proponent of.

Richard Mourdock was elected the Indiana State Treasurer in 2006. Since then, he has worked hard towards fiscal responsibility. Mourdock was able to return about 10% of the state budget to the treasury each year. He led a fight to challenge the legality of the Obama administration’s bailout and takeover of Chrysler, taking the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. He also is an outspoken proponent of constitutionally limited government.

Democrats are already attacking Mourdock, saying that the GOP has taken an ‘extremist turn’ by  nominating Mourdock. Democratic National Committee Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said in a statement “It’s official: The Republican Party is now indistinguishable from the Tea Party.” The attention the Democrats are already focusing on the race promises to result in a long and heated Indiana Senate race. Mourdock, who credits the Tea Party with his victory, will face Democrat Representative Joe Donnelly in a November general election. The Indiana election will be a key race in November. Republicans need to take four seats to win the Senate majority.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »