Tag Archives: liberal

Holder As a Supreme Court Justice? It Is Scary and It Is Plausible

With the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder, unquestionably the most activist – and most divisive – attorney general in the history of the country, everyone seems fixated on who will replace him, and rightly so. The position of nation’s “top cop” is one of extreme importance. As was witnessed with Mr. Holder’s tenure, a biased, activist and agenda-driven attorney general can tear at the fabric of our society. But while everyone seems pre-occupied with who his successor will be, the possibilities of Mr. Holder’s future is what has some forward-thinking people concerned.

If Pres. Obama is swift of feet – and with Valerie Jarrett as his task-master it is hard to believe that he won’t be, he will see his next nominee for US Attorney General fly through the Senate confirmation process. This will happen courtesy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manipulation of the confirmation vote process. Susan Ferrechio writes in The Washington Examiner:

“Democrat changes to the filibuster last year should give President Obama’s attorney general pick a gliding path through the Senate in the lame-duck session.

“Last November, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate rules so that nominations for Cabinet positions and most judicial posts needed only 51 votes, instead of the 60 that had been required. That means the person President Obama nominates to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder will not face a potential Republican filibuster.

“Lawmakers plan to return Nov. 12, and no matter who prevails in the Nov. 4 elections, Democrats will remain in the Senate majority until the end of the year. Democrats control 55 votes, while Republicans make up 45 of the chamber’s lawmakers.”

No doubt, We the People will have to suffer through two more years of an activist Department of Justice, one too pre-occupied with “social justice” to give a second thought to “justice for all” or “blind justice.” Of course, it is hard to imagine a more divisive social justice activist than Eric Holder. Nevertheless, I am sure the man – or woman – who takes the helm at the DoJ will provide adequate protection for the Obama Administration, just as Mr. Holder did.

The question now is this. What is Eric Holder going to do? Mr. Holder, as it the case with the total of the Obama Administration sans Joe Biden, is a young man in political terms. His has a long and influential future ahead of him as the first Black activist US Attorney General. My fear is that Mr. Obama may want to reward his political “bag man” with a nomination to the US Supreme Court. And while it is not a sure thing, it is a possibility.

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait reports that while Progressives wish to see Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire so that President Obama might seat another Progressive activist on the US Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg is none too fast to agree:

“If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”

Mr. Chait continues:

“The facts Ginsburg describes are true, but the conclusion she takes away from them is almost certainly wrong…

“It is true that Republicans retain the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. They may use this power to restrain the president from nominating a particularly objectionable figure, as both parties have done in the past. But if they use it as a generalized blockade, stopping Obama from nominating any mainstream Democratic figure, then Senate Democrats would almost surely enact another rule change. If Senate Democrats won’t sit still for Republicans using the filibuster to take away Obama’s right to appoint a federal judge, they surely wouldn’t sit still as Republicans prevent Obama from filling a Supreme Court seat…”

To wit, it is not only possible, but plausible that Mr. Obama, at the insistence of Valerie Jarrett and the Chicago Progressive machine, could nominate his trusted social justice foot soldier – before the new Congress is convened – to his just reward as a candidate for the position of United States Supreme Court Justice. All they need to do is to move the arguably less radical Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of the way to usher in Eric Holder, who would unquestionably serve as the most radically ideological justice ever to serve on the court.

So, the ultimate question for those who honor the Constitution is this. What is to be done to defend against this scenario becoming a reality?

One avenue to travel is to execute an all-out assault on every incumbent Senate Democrat running for re-election; an assault that would send the message that should they agree to confirm Mr. Holder as a Supreme Court Justice, extremely well-funded recall campaigns will be launched in the most vicious of manners against each and every one of them.

Another avenue that could be traveled is to take a page out of the Texas Legislature’s Democrat handbook. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could instruct the total of the Senate Republicans to refuse to return to Washington, DC, after the 2014 Midterm Election in an effort to refuse Mr. Reid a quorum call. Of course, Mr. Reid being the slippery politician that he is might find a way around that.

But one solid avenue would be for Republicans to thoroughly examine the constitutionality of the idea of the impeachment of a United States Supreme Court Justice. Fortunately, there is a wee bit of latitude in the US Constitution for this measure.

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Emphasis mine)

That Mr. Holder was found to be in Contempt of Congress during his tenure as the attorney general, it is fair to say that he exhibited “bad behavior” during that time. In accepting a nomination to the US Supreme Court – and assuming the Reid-led Senate would confirm him, he would be taking the Oath of Office as a US Supreme Court Justice under false pretenses, as his past performance proved beyond doubt that he repeatedly violated the US Constitution by ignoring equal justice under the law for all Americans.

None of these choices are optimal but each presents a possible solution. And each should be considered seriously. An Eric Holder nomination to the US Supreme Court would be a direct threat to the United States Constitution, and one we can ill-afford.

Yes, Mr. Holder, Words Matter

In February of 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama spoke to a campaign rally crowd in Wisconsin and declared that “words matter.” In shaping the image that was the centerpiece of the “idea of Obama,” he ginned-up an air of intellectualism using the tactic of manipulating through emotion, a potent tool in the Progressive war chest. “Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said. “I have a dream. Just words. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Just words. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just words…just speeches.” Indeed, Mr. Obama is absolutely correct, a rare point where I agree with him. The problem is this. If we hold him to his own words, then the statements of his closest ally, Attorney General Eric Holder, must be taken literally. This is where I find myself very concerned.

The events in Ferguson, Missouri, are serious on many levels. We have the death of a young man. We have the brutal beating of a police officer at the hand of this dead young man. We have a community that exists on the head of a racial powder keg, begging for a spark to light the fuse. And we have perhaps the most politically motivated – and many would say, and rightfully so, divisive – United States Attorney’s General in the history of our nation in Eric Holder, injecting himself into this delicate situation; usurping the authority of local, county and state law enforcement and making some statements where words certainly do matter.

In an op-ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mr. Holder attempted to present a balanced approach, calling for calm and temperance on both sides of the issue. But hidden in his words – and let’s remember, this administration insists that “words matter” – was a declaration that literally reserved the final opinion on the matter to the Department of Justice and, in fact, the Attorney’s General himself:

“This is my pledge to the people of Ferguson: Our investigation into this matter will be full, it will be fair, and it will be independent. And beyond the investigation itself, we will work with the police, civil rights leaders, and members of the public to ensure that this tragedy can give rise to new understanding — and robust action — aimed at bridging persistent gaps between law enforcement officials and the communities we serve. Long after the events of Aug. 9 have receded from the headlines, the Justice Department will continue to stand with this community.” (Emphasis mine)

If someone makes a pledge to someone, or to a group, it is – usually – a declaration of intention: “I pledge to be there,” “I pledge not to let you down,” “I pledge to adhere to the law,” “I pledge to do my best.” In Mr. Holder’s crafted statement he declares that the investigation into the events in Ferguson, Missouri “will be,” as if to say “it will be what we determine it to be.” Wouldn’t a more appropriately crafted statement be worded to say, “This is my pledge to the people of Ferguson: I will do everything in my power to make sure that the investigation into this matter is done to the fullest extent and I will insist, at every turn, that it be done in a fair and just manner for everyone involved…”

Now, there are those who will roll their eyes and say that I am splitting hairs; being too critical of Mr. Holder and his attempt to quell the discord between the “warring factions” in Ferguson. Perhaps I am. But I have been delivered to this point because of Mr. Holder’s words and actions. Put bluntly, just as the race-baiters in Ferguson seek to remove the duly-elected county prosecutor because – suddenly – he isn’t qualified to prosecute capital murder cases (does that mean all the convictions before this need to be “investigated?”), I do not trust Eric Holder and his racial activist DoJ attorneys not to inject prejudice into their investigation; into their opinion of what “full” and “fair” actually constitute in the end.

This distrust is not without reason. From the very beginning Mr. Holder has injected race into every domestic issue his office has touched. From the non-prosecution of the New Black Panthers who intimidated White voters at a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008, to his statement about hundreds of millions of Americans being “cowards” on the issue of racism in America, to his explanation of why Congress held him in Contempt of Congress for perjuring himself before a congressional committee investigating Operation Fast & Furious and obstructing their investigation, there hasn’t been – not once – an instance where he, or his closest deputies, haven’t injected race into their calculations and efforts. Race, for the Holder Justice Department, is a deciding factor.

In fact, J. Christian Adams, a former attorney for the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice, writes at PJMedia.com:

“PJ Media has been covering the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division for years. This is the unit that will be investigating the shooting in Ferguson and deciding whether to charge the police officer with civil rights crimes.

“PJ Media had to sue Eric Holder to obtain the resumes of the lawyers he hired to populate this unit. No wonder. The ‘Every Single One’ series at PJ Media revealed that all of Holder’s attorney hires were leftists, some even with a history of anti-police activities…

“Why does it matter that the DoJ unit that will investigate the Ferguson police is stacked with leftists and ideologues? Because anti-police biases of lawyers in this unit have resulted in gross prosecutorial misconduct against police officers.”

It is for exactly this reason that Mr. Holder and his crew cannot be trusted to be “full” in their investigation or “fair” in their findings. And this is exactly why the declarations that, “Our investigation into this matter will be full, it will be fair…” cannot be seen as a statement of truth. Mr. Holder’s idea of “fair” is skewed because he is a racist, or at least hobbled by the idea of rampant racism in the United States.

Perhaps a little background on Mr. Holder’s mindset is in order. The Daily Caller reports:

“As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned ROTC headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as ‘armed,’ The Daily Caller has learned..

“Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the ‘Malcolm X Lounge.’ The change, the group insisted, was to be made ‘in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.’

“Black radicals from the same group also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman until their demands were met. Holder has publicly acknowledged being a part of that action.”

It is obvious, given Mr. Holder’s radical past – and his debilitating obsession with racism, that he has not evolved along with almost two generations of Americans who have learned to see past the cultural malady of racism. It is obvious that he sees everything through the lenses of racism; an age when hooded thugs (yes, thugs can be white…and Democrat) hunted the Black man and White people who stood up for evolving into a culture that sees no race but, instead, judges people by the content of their character. This is one of the main criticism society has with the gangsta thug culture prevalent in the urban Black communities. Far from where Mr. Holder believes we exist as a society on the issue of racism, we exist as a culture that has grown past the sins of generations past; this is where we live, in a colorblind society, where character counts and excuses for acting violently and without intellectual measure are the song of victimhood.

What is not obvious is how Congress allows this man to remain seated as the United States Attorney’s General.

And what is assured, sadly, is this. Eric Holder’s DoJ will define what justice is in Ferguson. And justice for all will not be served.

It Is Time, Democrats, to Send Mr. Reid Home

In these ridiculous times, where transparency is clandestine, science proves instead of disproves, and falsely instilled self-esteem trumps real education, I truly don’t expect even the most honest of Liberal or Democrat – and certainly not any Progressive – to understand, or even hear, what I am about to say, but for the good of our country I pray that they do. Truth be told, we rank-and-file Americans cannot trust the “Frank Underwoods” who lurk inside the Washington Beltway – on both sides of the aisle – to do anything on behalf of their constituencies any longer. They are frauds and converts to the oligarch. It is time we start depending on ourselves to affect real, true and honest change.

The examples of just how power-centered and self-serving the oligarchs in the US federal government have become are too many to list, although, if push came to shove, we could start amassing a list, in and of itself worthy of entry into the Guinness Book for longest continuous list of political transgressions against a people. From the IRS coercion of Conservative non-profit groups, to the political payoff that the billion-dollar so-called stimulus was to Blue State governments and labor unions, to the “too-big-to-fail” redistribution of taxpayer dollars through TARP to the über-greedy financial elites for their irresponsible financial skullduggery, the Janus-faced disingenuousness of our elected class – a disingenuousness meant to stave-off the torches and pitchforks of the taxpaying public – knows now shame…and yet we continue to tolerate it.

Stunning. Have we become that self-loathing as a people?

But even while we tolerate the power-hungry manipulations of the elected class – the elitists, the Progressives, the oligarchs – they have always been careful to at least pretend to care about the people. The entire game Progressives play is based on the false-premise that the “better educated” know how to care for the masses better than the masses know how to care for themselves. The illusion foisted by a great many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans (read: establishment Republican…Ann) is that they are standing with and for “the people,” executing a pursuit of limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual freedoms. Yet we all know that government does everything (but for achieving military superiority) poorly and at a greater price than the private-sector. And we all stand witness as government keeps expanding, both in size and scope. Now we can add overt disdain for the American people to that list.

On February 26, 2014, United States Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), stood on the floor of the greatest chamber of debate – or at least what used to be – and openly expressed his hatred for the American people. Once again, abdicating his responsibility to serve his constituents, while playing partisan politics at the expense of the nation, Mr. Reid said, in defending the Patient Protection & Affordable Healthcare Act:

“Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.”

I will overlook – for the moment – the fact that the most powerful man in the US Senate can’t speak proper English when entering his testimony into the Congressional Record. Lord knows there are members of Congress guilty of more egregious butchery of the English language.

It is beyond dispute that millions of Americans have been adversely affected by this unconstitutional piece of legislation. Millions have been denied the medical insurance they prefer while millions more have been told they must either pay more or go without; left to pay an IRS extracted penalty. Still hundreds of thousands more are being put into life-threatening situations where medical treatment deemed necessary for survival is not either outside their capability to afford, not authorized, or both. The putridly ironic thing about all of this is that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was imposed on the American people under the ruse of it being “for the common good.”

To say that Mr. Reid’s comment adds insult to injury is to affect injury to insult. And while it is serving as great fodder for the elitist Washington punditry, it is much more serious an issue than that, and two-fold.

For those whose lives have now been called into question; whose life-saving treatments have become too expensive to afford; or whose treatments have now been denied, this is a direct threat – and a government mandated threat, at that – to the guaranteed right, offered us as US citizens under the bedrock understanding of Natural Law, to “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” While self-serving, power-hungry, elitist manipulators like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stare, wax-faced, into the television cameras extolling all of the “common good” that the Affordable Care Act is doing, millions face the prospect of dying for the Progressive Movement’s dream of a one-payer, nationalized health insurance system…health insurance, not healthcare, system.

While this faux benevolence is continuously presented as compassionate, needed and “the right thing” to get behind by the oligarchs and their toadies – the Progressive mainstream media, it is neither compassionate, needed nor the right thing to do. It is a redistribution of wealth that is literally costing people their lives…here…in the “land of the free.”

And what does Mr. Reid say about those who are facing the loss of their lives because of the ACA? What does he say about the real-life, fact-based stories of those who have been denied “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” because of Progressive benevolence?:

“…Tales…Stories made up from whole cloth…Lies, distorted by Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements…”

And as egregiously rancid as this reality is – and it is, the idea that the most powerful man in the US Senate would openly call those facing debilitated health and/or death because of his Progressive ideological zealotry “liars” is not only unacceptable, it should serve as the defining reason for why he should be: a) removed from Senate leadership by his Democrat colleagues immediately; b) reprimanded and censured but the whole of chamber immediately; and c) retired by the people of Nevada at the next election.

Our American system of government was based on the idea that those who would be elected to office – be it at the federal state, county, township or municipal levels – would be understood as those in the service of the public; public servants. Today, this notion – this foundational understanding of our American governmental system – has been grotesquely bastardized , done so with all the Progressive glory that could be mustered in its execution; destroyed at first by expunging the check and balance of States’ Rights through the ratification of the 17th Amendment all the way through to the imposition of having to purchase a private-sector product (health insurance) to be considered a true and faithful American citizen. Our country has been fundamentally transformed…“top-down, bottom-up, inside-out.”

George Washington, a man who could have been king would he have wanted the title, warned – warned – in his Farewell Address of the evils of “factions” (read: political party):

“However combinations or associations of [factions] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government – destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

“Let me now…warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…”

We, the American people, should not suffer the unbridled arrogance of Mr. Reid, evidenced not only by his lust for partisan faction, but by his open and overt disdain for our fellow citizens; fellow citizens now disenfranchised by the Progressive understanding of “the common good.” Mr. Reid is the perfect example of the “evils of faction.” He is a disgrace to his elected office. He is a disgrace as an American. And he is not suited to his station in the US Senate.

If Democrats in the US Senate – as well as in general – do not seize this moment to make an example of Mr. Reid, then from this day forward let the Democrat Party be known as the toady to the Progressive Movement; the entirety of which is unworthy to lick the heel of Mr. Washington’s boot.

It’s Not a War on Christmas

As the season of “peace on Earth, goodwill toward men” goes forward, so too do the disingenuous protests of the secular activist Progressives; protests against anything that might be construed, interpreted and/or seen as the religiously based, existing in the public square, be it the government square or the private-sector square. Many Americans find the objections of these secular Progressive activists to be not only in bad taste, but an assault on reasonable sensibilities and traditions. But to the secular Progressives, this annual “offensive” is a necessity; a “nudge,” if you will. And it has a lot more to do with an overall ideological goal than it does with removing Christ from Christmas.

It is true that, whether you believe Christmas is centered on a celebration of the birth of the Christ Child or not, Christmas is a federally recognized national holiday. Christmas was designated a federal holiday by the United States Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant in 1870, however this only applied to federal employees in Washington DC, the designation expanding, applying to all federal employees in 1968. To this legal end, Christmas is codified. But even before the holiday’s official recognition by the United States government, Christmas was a culturally recognized holiday around the world:

“Christmas is an annual commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ and a widely observed cultural holiday, celebrated generally on December 25 by billions of people around the world. A feast central to the Christian liturgical year, it closes the Advent season and initiates the twelve days of Christmastide, which ends after the twelfth night. Christmas is a civil holiday in many of the world’s nations, is celebrated by an increasing number of non-Christians, and is an integral part (central event) of the Christmas and holiday season.”

Given that the Founders and Framers of the United States of America rooted the entirety of our Founding Documents in the Natural Laws found in the Judeo-Christian philosophy, the recognition of a day designated to celebrate the Alpha and the Omega of this philosophy is not only fitting, but serves to offer up an opportunity to embrace a retrospect of what the root philosophy of all Americans is and should be.

To be sure, the United States is, in fact, a nation of immigrants; a diverse collection of cultures that over time have infused our unique American culture with rich and honored traditions. But, in each of these cultures, as part of each of these traditions, has always been, at their core, a celebration of thanks to the Deity, to God, to a Higher Power over the flawed egos of man. Perhaps that is what makes the traditional season of Christmas one that transcends cultures and languages; lines on a map; and political ideologies…all but for Progressivism’s most zealous.

At the core of turn-of-the-century Progressivism lays the notion that man can be perfected, nay, must be perfected if, in fact, there was to be a “Second Coming.” In an excerpt from The Social Gospel at DiscoverTheNetworks.org, authors, Daniel Flynn and Jonah Goldberg are credited with exposing:

“Flourishing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Social Gospel Movement was a Protestant intellectual phenomenon headed by clergymen who sought to reconcile Christianity with a Progressive social agenda; who saw the state as the instrument by which God could intervene in human affairs and promote the collectivism supposedly advocated by Jesus. This collectivism, said exponents of the Social Gospel, held the keys to the eradication of all manner of societal ills: inequality, alcoholism, crime, racism, poverty, ignorance, exploitation, and violence.

“Whereas Conservative theologians saw redemption and reconciliation strictly as matters between each individual and God, Progressives in the Social Gospel Movement held that redemption could only be achieved collectively, by means of unified, social and political activism. They maintained, moreover, that the Second Coming of Christ could not occur until humankind had eliminated all social evils by means of such activism. One notable mouthpiece of the Social Gospel was the Baptist minister and theologian Walter Rauschenbush, who said: ‘Individualism means tyranny.’”

Today, with the injection of hyper-secularism into Progressivism, an almost atheistic tenet has taken hold of the modern Progressive Movement. 21st Century Progressives (or modern day Progressives) are more inclined to believe that man – not a Higher Power, a Deity; not God – is the issuer of rights; that the rights we enjoy not only as Americans, but as “citizens of the world,” are derived from governments and not from Natural Law; from elitist oligarchs and bureaucratic experts and not by Intelligent Design.

So it is that modern Progressives need to expunge the idea of a higher power from the American (and, in fact the world) lexicon. If the idea of God, or Deity or Higher Power is to exist, then the authorities of man to establish right from wrong, good from bad, normal from abnormal, tolerance from intolerance, can always – always – be questioned. If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual “food chain.” The only way to do this is to eliminate the idea of the Higher Power; the Deity; God.

When one understands the need for secular Progressives to directly attack the idea of God; of Christ as the Son of God, it makes sense to take the fight to the opposition on their home turf, in this instance, Christians and Christmas (although Easter is actually the holiest day in the Catholic/Christian faith).

By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their religious beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive” for their wont that Christmas include the idea of the Christ Child, Christianity and Judeo-Christian ethos, i.e. The Nativity in the public square; Christmas Carols that feature Christian lyrics; and even merchants saying the salutation “Merry Christmas” for its root word of “Christ,” Progressives aim to “shame” the truly tolerant and inclusive (any true understanding of Christianity reveals that Christians, and not Progressives, are the truly tolerant and inclusive). By shaming or making the majority of Americans “uncomfortable” for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.

To wit, this is not a “war on Christmas,” as Bill O’Reilly would say. This is a war on the very notion of the existence of God.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Liberal vs. Conservative: Racist

Via Joe For America:

Fear. Hate. Divisive. Tool.
The first 3 words above are pretty self explanatory, but “Tool”, I think needs to be explained.
In this day and age, with logic in short supply, with the media telling you what and how to think, and politicians and political parties always looking for an edge and more power the word “racism” has become a tool.
These “examples” below are designed to shut you up, hence a “Tool”:
I want the government to do its job and secure the border. Somehow, someway I’m a racist for making that statement. If you feel the same way, you are also a racist.
I have criticized Barack Obama’s policies, somehow in the eyes of some media and congressmen, that makes me a racist. If you have done this you are a racist too.
If you belong to the wrong political party (per the media) you are probably a racist.
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel use RACISM as a tool to stay in power, no matter how much it hurts the very people they say they represent.

Roe at 40: A Discussion with Live Action’s Lila Rose

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PMOn January 22, the United States celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which legalized abortion in all fifty states.  In doing so, the Court usurped a developing consensus amongst the state legislatures on the issue, and violated the principle of federalism that should guide how we enact policy in this country.  Nevertheless, Roe, in estimates from The National Right to Life Committee, has been responsible for 54,559,615 abortions since 1973.  As Daniel Halper wrote for The Weekly Standard on January 22,”that…means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.”

I was fortunate to have a discussion with Live Action’s President, Lila Rose, on the future of the pro-life movement, and what activities they intend to aggressively pursue in this vicious front of America’s culture war.  Live Action has been at the forefront of documenting abuses made by Planned Parenthood in various undercover stings across the country.  What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

In the wake of the 2012 elections, pro-life Americans found themselves back in the minority.  What does Live Action plan to do to turn that tide, especially reaching out to the youth, and urban areas where most abortions are performed?

Sure.  Well, first of all – I mean a lot of the latest polling indicates that more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. And there’s certainly in the last forty years, despite the Supreme Court case  [Roe v. Wade] that vandalized our constitution and made abortion somehow a right – Americans – more and more with the rise of the ultra sound imagery and with the rise of independent media have been seeing the truth about the child in the womb. And the number of pro-lifers is increasing.  Particularly, one of the strongest demographics is young people.

Live Action’s work reaches over a million people every week through social media. We have a news website that’s contributed by over 50 writers; most of them young people, investigating and doing original reporting on the abortion industry – and lobby.   And it’s really been amazing to see this growth from people all over the country – the grassroots – who want the truth about human dignity and who want to expose the violence of abortion  – the injustice of abortion.  And that is a movement that’s only growing.  And Live Action also has a magazine, a leading pro-life magazine, for students on hundreds of high school and colleges, and reaching them every day on campuses, as well as online – and that’s one of the programs we’re going to be aggressively building in the next year because we believe that when you put the truth in front of students – when you put the truth in front of young people. When you put the truth out there, then it changes hearts and minds, and we’ve seen that again and again.

A new NBC/WSJ poll showed that 70% of Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and 24% want it to be overturned.  Thirty-nine percent approve of the decision, 18% disapprove – but 41% don’t have enough information to make an opinion.  In that regard, how successful have you been in educating Americans, who may not know much about Roe v. Wade – or its implications on our society?

Right, it’s a great question. I think that – that study directly reveals the amazing opportunity we have as a movement because there are a lot of people who are unreached in our country with the truth about abortion and human dignity.  And Live Action may be reaching a million people online every week.  But there are over 300+ million more people to reach.  So, this is really just the beginning of – you know, this is – we’re at an amazing point where we have the tools at our disposal, and the truth at our disposal – and now it’s a matter of how many people can we reach.

Is Live Action, as an organization, planning to lobby Congress to resurrect PRENDA (Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act), which punishes doctors for performing sex-selecive abortions?

Sure.  Well, the focus of Live Action Advocate, our 501 (c) (4) that I’m involved with, and the focus of Live Action Advocate, as it has been one of the rallying cry/calls of the pro-life movement is to make sure that the biggest abortion chain in the country, Planned Parenthood, is no longer receiving the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that it get every year from the government – and under President Obama that number has skyrocketed to half a billion of taxpayers dollars goes to the biggest abortion chain.  So, that really is the priority.  We need a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  We need to establish the personhood of the unborn child, and part of the path to make that happen we need to make sure that the abortion industry, in our country, is not being subsidized by the government.

Rose also debunked the claim that abortion represents only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, which was also exposed as false in a op-ed in Life News by the Americans United for Life Legal Team last October.  However, it’s still a tough fight.  As Allahpundit wrote for Hot Air last November, only 38% described themselves as pro-life, compared to 54% who identified themselves as pro-choice.  However, this was fresh off the 2012 elections, and Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock’s unfortunate comments about rape and pregnancy surely didn’t help the cause. However, Life News’ Steve Ertelt has disputed recent polls showing a pro-choice majority.

Furthermore, Allahpundit wrote today that the NBC/WSJ poll could be skewed (NBC! no way!):

because Gallup didn’t specify ‘three months’ in its phrasing of the Roe question, more respondents focused on the entire term of pregnancy and that dropped the numbers. Or there could be some quirk in the methodology, specifically having to do with the number who answer ‘don’t know’ about Roe.

In the NBC poll, just six percent answered “not sure” when asked if the decision should be overturned; in Gallup, by contrast, “no opinion” draws 18 percent, which is more than 10 points higher than that figure used to be circa 2002-03. How come? Gallup has a theory:

Gallup trends indicate that the increase in public uncertainty about overturning Roe v. Wade is largely the result of a growing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 29 expressing no opinion. This suggests that the generation born entirely after Roe became law has had less exposure to information about the decision than those who lived through the original decision…

[…]

Good news and bad news there, obviously. Younger voters who express no opinion are potentially persuadable by pro-lifers, so in theory the anti-Roe numbers could expand in time. (Democratic overreach will help: Gallup notes that support for making abortion legal in all cases dropped after partial-birth abortion became a hot topic in the mid-90s.) Problem is, young adults are famously more liberal than other age groups on a variety of issues. That doesn’t mean they can’t make an exception for abortion.

Although, he did say that engaging Millenials on this issue is “going against the ideological tide.”

Nevertheless, Rose’s outreach initiatives through social media is where pro-lifers can turn the tide.  Case in point,  despite his poor economic record, Barack Obama vastly outspent Mitt Romney in social media last year, and won.  Go to where young people get their information.

This opportunity is accentuated with the resignation of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s President Nancy Keenan, who left since “most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue,  [while] NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters.”

This whole fight is based on public opinion, which is shiftable sand.  However, with the dissemination of the facts, the malfeasance of Planned Parenthood, and the utilization of social media – pro-lifers, like Lila Rose, could easily gain the strategic edge over the long term.

The latest Live Action news, including their recent investigation into Planned Parenthood’s complicity in sex-selective abortion, can be found here.

 

Dems Gain the Voter ID Edge, Again

Screen Shot 2013-01-09 at 2.17.44 PM

The pendulum in the war between liberals and conservatives continues to swing with Democrats regaining the voter ID edge in the aftermath of the 2012 election.  According to Mike Flynn of Breitbart, he wrote today that this shouldn’t be a surprise.

new survey by Gallup shows Democrats regaining their edge in party identification over the GOP. In 2012, 47% of Americans identified as Democrat or lean-Democrat. 42% identified as GOP or lean-GOP. In 2011, the two parties were even, with each claiming 45% of Americans. In 2008, however, Democrats held a 12-point edge in voter identification.

The results shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, given the Democrat victories in November. The edge, however, came from Independents leaning more toward the Democrats than the GOP. In 2011, more Independents leaned toward the GOP. 18% of Americans identified as Independent, lean-GOP against 14% who were Independent, lean-Dem. In 2012, those numbers flipped, with 16% of Independents leaning Dem and 14% leaning GOP.

These numbers can change.  Public opinion is shiftable sand; therefore, there are no permanent victories in politics.  However, another interesting find relates to the Tea Party.  While some thought the movement was dead last summer, those rumors were dispelled with the primary – and general election – wins of  Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).  However, now only 8% of likely voters identify themselves as Tea Partiers.

Paul Bedard wrote in The Washington Examiner on January 7 that:

 Some 30 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party, down from 51 perent in 2009.

56 percent said it has become less influential.

From Rasmussen:

Views of the Tea Party movement are at their lowest point ever, with voters for the first time evenly divided when asked to match the views of the average Tea Party member against those of the average member of Congress. Only eight percent (8%) now say they are members of the Tea Party, down from a high of 24% in April 2010 just after passage of the national health care law.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 30% of Likely U.S. Voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party. Half (49%) of voters have an unfavorable view of the movement. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

In April 2009 when the Tea Party protests against President Obama’s spending policies first erupted, 51% of Americans held a favorable opinion of the movement. However, just 35% felt that way by last July.

Only 34% of voters now believe the Tea Party movement is good for the country, down from 49% in April 2011. Slightly more (40%) think the Tea Party is bad for the country, while 17% say neither.

A majority (56%) of voters agrees that the Tea Party movement has become less influential over the past year. Just 21% feel it has become more influential, although even more (23%) are not sure.

So, will the next discussion, on a long list of subjects, amongst conservatives be concerned with the Tea Party, and their influence within the party? Are they responsible for the country’s shift back to left?  Stay tuned.

The GOP Got Punk’d

It’s over.

So far, I have seen the media, libertarians and independent voters, fraud, and liberal thuggery blamed for the GOP loss last night. None of these, individually or collectively, is to blame for the fact that Obama was re-elected. The blame lies in our own inability to combat the culture of dependency and present a vision that combats the plays on fear that liberals use to win support from the average voter.

Women and Hispanic voters came out big for Obama. They came out despite Obama’s broken promises on immigration reform and despite his own White House employment gender disparity. Why? Because his very effective campaign of fear convinced them that the GOP fully intended to deport every immigrant and tear apart families and to summarily shove women barefoot into the kitchen, pregnant with rapist spawn. We have done nothing to give them any reason to think differently. Political campaigns, at any level, are no place to espouse personal ideology that will not be entertained in policy. As much as I cannot stand liberal ideology, suggesting legislating of morality is never going to sit well with a majority of Americans.

The right, collectively, allowed an out-of-touch group of political elites hand pick a nominee that didn’t represent anyone except themselves. While I truly believe that Mitt Romney is an excellent businessman, a great man, and loves America, he never represented the mainstream right. His nomination was exemplary of everything that is wrong with the GOP today. He ran his campaign as the personification of everything that the left was demonizing. There was nothing wrong with Mitt’s business dealings in Bain or his religious ideology, except that they are the very things that the left uses in terrifying liberals into entitlement submission.

If the right want to win, from State offices to the Presidency, it is time they came to grips with the fact that their current and proposed representatives are more RINO than Republican. The GOP says it is the party of smaller government and less spending. Nothing in Romney’s five point plan indicated either of those pieces of the Grand Old Party’s platform. The cheerleaders who jumped on the Romney Express to failure endorsed a candidate contrary to everything that they fought for in the last four years. Romney was not a moderate in the GOP party… he IS the GOP party in it’s current state. You want the GOP to have the confidence of the majority? Hold them to their platform, and stop accepting everything they shove down your throats.

I listened to Romney debate. I read Romney’s speeches. I know his governing record. The left did, too. Did you? I heard three things in his Five Point Plan: Hope and change, more spending, more government. And, as far as the left was concerned, every time Romney or Ryan said “Five Point Plan”, they may as well have been saying “Nine. Nine. Nine”

Can we do this right, this time? In the next four years, can we make the GOP the party of smaller government? Can we get them to put up candidates who can articulate the message of individual responsibility and personal liberty without invoking images of midnight raids to deport anyone with brown skin or a raped victim forced to give birth to her attacker’s child? Can we use pop culture our advantage by encouraging film, music, and entertainment that espouses family values and responsibility? Can we stop making excuses as to why we have failed to make our own message appealing? Can we?

Disagree? Agree? Want to hear more? Join me tomorrow night, at 10pm EST on In Deep to start on the road to winning between now and 2016.

Still Undecided? Maybe This Will Help.

I do not understand how anyone can be undecided at this stage of the game. The two candidates, Romney and Obama are the complete opposites of one another, Romney for less government and Obama for big government. It should be a no brainer, either you want more government intrusion in your life, or you do not. It is so simple to me I cannot understand how anyone in America can be undecided at this stage of the game. The list below should help you decide what side of the fence you stand on.

1. Are you against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand?

2. Do you believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity?

3. Do you believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran, Chinese and North Korean communists?

4. Do you believe that there was no art before federal funding?

5. Do you believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s?

6. Do you believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural?

7. Do you believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding?

8. Do you believe that the same teacher who cannot teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex?

9. Do believe that hunters do not care about nature, but PETA activists do.

10. Do you believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it?

11. Do you believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make “The Passion of the Christ” for financial gain only?

12. Do you believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution?

13. Do you believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high?

14. Do you believe that Margaret Sanger, Susan Sarandon and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison?

15. Do you believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not?

16. Do you believe that the only reason socialism has not worked anywhere it has been tried is because the right people have not been in charge.

17. Do you believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal?

18. Do you believe America is an evil place, but Venezuela is a kind and generous place?

19. Do you believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy?

20. Do you believe Obama is not a Socialist?

Well my friends, if you answered yes to the above questions, I am so sorry to tell you this, but you are a Liberal. Since Obama was the most Liberal Senator in Washington and is the most Liberal President that I can remember, your choice should be clear; you want Government running your life. On the other hand, if you answered no, then you want a free America, where people have a choice to run their own lives, with little Government interference.  I am glad I could help clear things up for you undecided’s who are “left.”                            Now, go vote.

 

This is one man’s opinion.

 

 

 

How to Convert Your (Psycho) Liberal Girlfriend

Are you trapped in a hot relationship with a progressive plaything that is 100% based on physical attraction? Do you wish that your longing for this psycho lib lover was as much for her mind as her lady parts?

Well, you’re in luck. In just a few easy steps, you can illustrate to your lascivious liaison just how wrong left-wing ideology is without earning a PhD. in Psychiatry. Those with hang-ups about fifth-grade sex-ed language might want to check out.

Is your woman a ‘taker’ in the bedroom? Does she keep asking for more and more without any concept of just how much effort it takes to keep her satisfied? Well, introduce her to the concept of capitalist love-making by insisting on an oral trade agreement. You don’t go down, unless she goes down. She might even be introduced to math with a 69.

But what if she insists on coming first to the party and calls you ‘selfish’ if you don’t oblige? You can playfully ask if she would like to be forced into gratifying you for nothing in return, because that’s pretty much what the government does.

If she’s one of those freaky 50 shades types who gets off on BDSM, she might bite. After all, who but a masochist would vote for the Democrat Party over and over again without noticing that liberals make a mess of everything they touch? In that case, go to Plan B: role play.

Pretend that you are an IRS inspector and she’s in for a very invasive audit. She either opens everything up to you completely or it’s time to be fuzzy-handcuffed to the bed. For the sake of transparency, she must wear a see-through negligee.

“Oh, yes please!” she cries, much to your surprise. Time to go to the toolbox. Does she need the clamps put down on her? What might be learned with a more intensive probe?

If she still doesn’t understand the voluntary basis of an adult relationship, one could give her a real tongue-lashing. That might turn her on to the idea that she should give as well as receive.

As a last resort, one could call a bunch of strangers over for a piece of the action. After all, this is what happens every time the government redistributes your hard-earned cash to people you don’t know. You can even hold a vote on what is to be done, given that we live in a ‘democracy.’

Then again, she might be receptive to the idea, not understanding that it is okay to say ‘no’ to people who intend to take advantage of you. At this point, one should tell his disappointed friends to go home and that their intervention failed.

She might have ‘daddy’ issues and think that government is the father she never had. She should be spanked for voting Democrat and a riding crop might do the trick. Just don’t leave any marks or she will definitely call the authorities.

But if she still doesn’t see the light, one could blindfold her and say you’re the government and that there are no limits to what you are going to do to her. Essentially, that is what a country without a Constitution is: a coercive institution that will screw you at every turn and strip you of your rights. If all else fails to get through, it’s time for a break-up.

DNC Schedule: Day 1

Day 1 of the DNC is full of events and speakers. Here is the full list of todays events:

9 a.m. – 10 a.m. Morning Prayer Gathering (Room 211AB/212AB).

10 a.m. – 2 p.m. Caucus Session 1. Women’s Caucus (Ballroom ABCD).
9:30 a.m. – 11 a.m. R+D and America’s Energy Outlook. Moderator: Amy Harder, Energy and Environment correspondent, National Journal. Panelists: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.); Marvin Fertel, president and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute; Mike Howard, CEO, Electric Power Research Institute; Michael Levi, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Richard Newell, Gendell Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, and director of The Energy Initiative.

10 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Introduction – Speakers: Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state and chairman of the National Democratic Institute; Kenneth Wollack, president, NDI; Dan Murrey, executive director, Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee.

10:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. The 2012 Campaign: The Role of Primaries, Nominating Conventions and Presidential Debates. Panelists: Frank Fahrenkopf, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates; Paul Kirk, former senator, co-chairman emeritus of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and former Democratic National Committee chairman; Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and former DNC chairman; and Elaine Kamarck, Harvard lecturer and former Clinton White House senior policy adviser Moderator: Eugene Robinson, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, The Washington Post.

11:30 a.m. – 2 p.m. Latino leaders luncheon: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the Democratic National Convention, will be honored.

Location: Marriott City Center (Grand Ballroom), Charlotte .

12 p.m. – 2 p.m. Caucus Session 2. LGBT Caucus (Room 203AB). Senior Council (Room 211AB/212AB).

12 p.m. – 2 p.m. The U.S. Conference of Mayors delegation holds a luncheon and press availability.

Location: Omni Hotel, Grand Ballroom, 132 East Trade St., Charlotte.

2 p.m. – 4 p.m. Caucus Session 2. LGBT Caucus (Room 203AB). Senior Council (Room 211AB/212AB).

3:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. How They Would Govern – Panelists cover how the next administration would turn campaign promises into reality, including working with Congress and setting priorities, all within the context of our contemporary political process and challenges in the U.S. and throughout the world. Panelists: Tom Daschle, former Senate majority leader, co-chairman, ONE Vote 2012, and vice chairman of the NDI; Vin Weber, former congressman and former chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy; John Podesta, chairman and counselor of the Center for American Progress, former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton; Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent for The New Yorker; Scot Lehigh, columnist for The Boston Globe – Moderators: Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; John Fortier, director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

3 p.m. – 5 p.m. – Voto Latino hosts policy forum “People Powered Politics,” addressing immigration, economics and education. Participants include: Rosario Dawson, Maria Teresa Kumar, Cecile Richards, Javier Palomarez, Lily Eskelsen, Jose Antonio Vargas and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.).

3:30 p.m. – 5 p.m. Religious Liberty Panel – Catholics for Choice hosts a panel discussion on “Keeping Faith in the Democratic Party: Protecting Religious Liberty for Everyone,” featuring speakers from member organizations of the Coalition for Liberty & Justice.

Location: Holiday Inn Charlotte Center City, 230 North College St., Charlotte.

Speeches from the Time Warner Cable Center:

5:00 P.M. – 6:00 P.M.:

  1. • Call to Order by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  2. • Invocation By His Eminence Metropolitan Nicholas, Bishop of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Detroit
  3. • Presentation of Colors, Disabled American Veterans, The Stanly County Chapter 12 Honor Guard
  4. • Pledge of Allegiance, 3rd Grade Class, W.R. O’Dell Elementary School from Concord, North Carolina
  5. • National Anthem by ‘Glee’ actress Amber Riley
  6. • Stephen J. Kerrigan, Chief Executive Officer of the Democratic National Convention Committee
  7. • Welcome Video
  8. • Presentation of Credentials Committee Report from Co-Chairs
  9. • Presentation of Rules Committee Report from Co-Chairs
  10. • Appointment of Convention Officers
  11. • Gaveling-in of Permanent Chair
  12. • The Honorable Steny Hoyer
  13. • Andrew Tobias
  14. • Alice Germond
  15. • Roll Call for Attendance

6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.:

  1. • Platform Committee Remarks by Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Retired)
  2. • Platform Video and Remarks by Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker
  3. • Remarks by N.C. Gov. Bev. Perdue
  4. • American Hero Video: Education
  5. • American Voices Remarks by Ryan Case
  6. • Mary Kay Henry from International President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
  7. • Rep. Charles Gonzalez (Texas) and Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (N.Y.)
  8. • Gov. Pat Quinn (Ill.)
  9. • Ohio firefighter Doug Stern
  10. • Va. Senate candidate and former governor Tim Kaine

7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

  1. • Charlotte Mayor Anthony R. Foxx and Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.)
  2. • An Economy Built to Last Video: Education
  3. • Women of the US House of Representatives
  4. • Jimmy Carter Video
  5. • Ken Salazar
  6. • Kennedy Family Tribute Video
  7. • Remarks
  8. • Joe Kennedy III, Mass. House candidate
  9. • Singer Ledisi
  10. • Fomer Rep. Robert Wexler (Fla.)

8:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

  1. • Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak
  2. • Rep. Jared Polis (Colo.)
  3. • Stronger Together Video: Reproductive Choice
  4. • Maria Ciano, American Voices
  5. • Nancy Keenan , President of the National Abortion Rights Action League – Pro-Choice America (NARAL)
  6. • Progress for People Video: American Veterans
  7. • Nate Davis, American Voices
  8. • House candidate Tammy Duckworth (Ill.)
  9. • Gov. Lincoln Chafee(R.I.)
  10. • Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.)
  11. • Progress for People Video: Health Care
  12. • Stacey Lihn
  13. • Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.)

9:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.

  1. • Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland
  2. • HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
  3. • Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
  4. • Kal Penn, actor and former Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement
  5. • Craig Robinson and Maya Soetoro-ng, Brother of Mrs. Obama and Sister of President Obama
  6. • Stronger Together Video: Equal Pay
  7. • Lilly Ledbetter
  8. • Gov. Deval Patrick (Mass.)

10:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.

  1. • Gov. Martin O’Malley (Md.)
  2. • Joaquin Castro, Texas House candidate and brother of keynote speaker
  3. • Julián Castro, Mayor of San Antonio
  4. • Michelle Obama Video and Remarks by Elaine Brye
  5. • Michelle Obama
  6. • Benediction
  7. • Recess

 

The 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina

Debunking 5 Paul Ryan Myths

When Mitt Romney chose Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate nine days ago, he forced Democrats to engage in serious intellectual debate in the coming weeks and months, rather than demagoguing which has been the main practice of the Obama/Biden campaign as of yet.

Paul Ryan holds his Plan, The Path to American Prosperity

Well, that’s what one would have thought, because, well, conventional wisdom says so. However, in the latter, Democrats and the left have tried to demonize Paul Ryan in every way absolutely imaginable. The day after the announcement of Paul Ryan to be the running-mate of Mitt Romney, the attacks started. From Ryan’s budget, to a ‘war on women’, to Ryan ‘pushing grandma off of the cliff’, let’s debunk five myths about Paul Ryan.

1. The Ryan Plan Destroys Medicare.

The Liberal New York Congressman, Rep. Steve Israel has recently claimed that the Romney/Ryan ticket is a “nightmare for seniors who’ve earned their Medicare benefits. For the last 18 months, we’ve said Republicans will have to defend the indefensible—their vote to end Medicare.” The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been running around spewing lies claiming that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare as we know it. This wouldn’t be the first time that Schultz has lied, or probably the last. Look at what she said regarding presidential tax returns and Mitt Romney.

The Wyden-Ryan Medicare Plan – yes that is Democratic Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon – says that the plan will not affect anyone over 55. Anyone over 55 wouldn’t see a change in their plans or their benefits. Anyone under 55 wouldn’t either, unless they voluntarily chose to take part in the Plan. Washington would still be paying the premiums for the healthcare choices you made, and if you believed in the basic principles of free-market capitalism, this would improve the services while driving down the cost.

Furthermore, the liberal leaning Urban Institute recently found that the average citizen will pay $149,000 in Medicare taxes, while only taking out $351,000 in medical services during retirement. In reality, the party that doesn’t want to reform Medicare, and who doesn’t want to ‘change Medicare as we know it’, is single-handedly destroying the system from the inside out.

2. Paul Ryan is a Constitutional Obstructionist

According to a recent Gallup Poll, the 112th Congress’ approval rating has hit an all-time low. Of course, Obama, his administration, and his campaign blame the GOP for the gridlock in Congress, which may we not forget; Paul Ryan is a part of. It’s not necessarily fair, considering the House has passed massive amount of bills that focus on economic recovery that have been killed by Harry Reid in the Senate. May we also not forget that, a) Obama’s ‘serious’ budget was rejected by everyone in both the House and the Senate, and b) Ryan’s Budget passed the House by a vote of  228-191.

Contrary to what the President said yesterday during his surprise visit to the press room of the White House, he is stepping across the preverbal line ‘in the sand’. “So, if you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities. It’s time to put politics aside and pass it right away,” the President said last week in Iowa. But in fact, the House has already passed a measure that helps farmers that have been struck financially by the drought.

3. The Ryan Budget is Extreme

President Obama’s Campaign Manager, Jim Messina, someone who probably actually hasn’t sat down and read the Ryan Plan, is calling the plan ‘radical’.

New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman, is spewing the common lies about the Ryan Plan. He said the plan, “would kill people, no question,” while the Plan would “cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge.” In defense of Coolidge, life wasn’t that bad under his leadership – low taxation, high economic growth and relative peace. But, to anyone’s surprise, this isn’t true. The Ryan Plan only brings back non-military discretionary spending to the 2008 levels. The plan also cuts the federal bureaucracy and it’s subsidies by 10% and it reforms the compensation plans of federal employees.

But when we talk about discretionary spending as a percentage of the entire budget, you don’t have to be an economic genius to know that Krugman does have a point, but a very misleading one at that. Because mandatory spending has grown at about six times that of discretionary spending over the past 20 years, it’s really easy to argue that President Obama will keep discretionary spending at levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge – anyone could.

However, there are a lot of Conservatives that aren’t exactly in love with the Ryan Budget. For one, it balances the budget over ten years versus the Connie-Mac Penny Plan which balances the budget over eight years. Don’t we know that anything a president implements that expands past his time in office, usually never completely comes to fruition? Meaning, I seriously doubt that the Ryan Budget would make it all ten years.

Moreover, the Ryan Plan only reduces spending from current levels of 24% down to 19.8% of the GDP. Several leading economists have pointed out that this would only bring down federal expenditures to post-WWII levels. Furthermore, in the Ryan Budget federal spending increases over the next ten years, and revenue each year after. The budget would expand from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022.

4. Ryan is at ‘War with Women’

Didn’t we all see this one coming? It’s a classic ‘hail mary’ out of the playbook of the left against anyone on the right. Democratic Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy said that Ryan “believes we should ban all birth control as well. He voted for that.” The President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, said that Ryan “supported the ‘Let Women Die Bill,’ which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it.”

Gosh, Ryan really does hate woman, right? Wrong. Ryan has never voted or said any of these things that he is being accused of. However, he did vote for the “Protect Life Act,” which would have, if it passed, rewritten provisions in Obamacare that allowed for federal subsidies to be provided for abortions. Ironic, because liberals and the left already claim that the government doesn’t fund abortions. “Protect Life Act,” also had a provision that exempted Catholic hospitals from having to pay for contraception or abortions. He also supported a bill that would have dulled the HHS Mandate that Catholic hospitals provide free condoms.

5. Ryan’s Plan Favors the Rich

Another classic play from the playbook of those on the left – class warfare. A day on the campaign trail just wouldn’t be right with a little class warfare. Many on the left have claimed that Romney “chose a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment” of a “new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy…”

Regardless of what you will hear from Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton or an Obama SuperPAC add, there are absolutely zero special tax cuts in the Ryan Budget ‘for the wealthy’. Common sense tells you that when Washington enacts across-the-board tax reform, the rich (who already pay the vast majority of the taxes) are likely to benefit. Ryan’s Plan however, only supports keeping the current tax rates that we’ve had for the last decade – one’s that a lot on the left have also supported.

What the Ryan plan does do is simplify our tax system. We currently have a six-bracket tax system. Under the Ryan Plan, this would be simplified to two tax brackets – the lower bracket being a 10% bracket, and the upper bracket being a 25% bracket. This plan fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax, and cuts corporate tax rates to reflect those of other competitive nations to the U.S. Ryan and Romney both also support closing loopholes that wealthy Americans disproportionally use.

 

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Shamefully Exploits Teen Girls to Slam Ryan Vote on Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Thomas Roberts

Towards the close of today’s MSNBC Live, anchor Thomas Roberts presented a segment featuring three New Jersey teenage girls who started a petition on the left-leaning Change.org website demanding female moderators for the upcoming presidential debates.  The young ladies succeeded in getting 180,000 signatures for their initiative.

But rather than simply hailing their civic activism, Roberts decided to expoloit these girls to slam Rep. Paul Ryan over his no vote for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — which does nothing to equalize pay for women but simply expanded the statute of limitations to file suit in court — by saying “do you think he’s going to have a tough time defending his no vote to Martha Radditz when he gets asked about that?”

Elena Simbears, one of the teens featured, said “I mean, I think so. It’s really disappointing for many women to know that they don’t have the support of someone who can possibly be leading our country and women still have such a long way to go. That is just a step backwards.”

I’m afraid to inform Roberts and Simbears that the notion of Lily Ledbetter being honored in Washington is a false narrative.  In fact, when the Paycheck Fairness Act was debated on the Senate Floor, some interesting facts were brought to light.  Despite the fact that this piece of legislation was retaliatory against House Republicans who tried to pass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon reported back on May 24 that:

Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 33.8 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

Can someone define hypocrisy for Mr. Roberts?  On April 11th, Stiles also did an “analysis of the 2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff. This document provides the names, titles, and salaries of 454 of Obama’s workers. While women at the Obama White House earned median annual salaries of $60,000 last year, the equivalent remuneration for their male colleagues was some $71,000 — roughly 18 percent higher.”

Journalists on the Left need to do their own fact checking before frivolously bashing politicians with whom they disagree.

« Older Entries