When Charity Becomes Political

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial recently about charities that are funding the ‘never Trump’ movement. I find it hard to view what these organizations are doing as charity.

The article reports:

An investigation by the Washington Free Beacon looked into the progressive community organizing group called the Center for Community Change Action (CCCA), which has spearheaded the anti-Trump “resistance.” What the Beacon found by looking at the group’s unredacted tax returns was surprising: Far from being funded by like-minded activists and grass-roots contributions, the anti-Trump CCCA is secretly funded by major charities with respectably wholesome, centrist images. In some cases, the charities fund other extreme left-wing activist groups, too.

Among those giving money to the CCCA — which, the Beacon notes, “has been involved in direct action against President Donald Trump and Republicans before and after the November elections” — include the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Ford Foundation and billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which have together funneled millions of dollars to the anti-Trump, anti-conservative, anti-Republican activist group.

Kellogg alone gave $3 million, while the Ford Foundation ponied up $2.3 million. Soros delivered a cool $1.75 million to the anti-Trumpistas.

And there were others, among them the California Endowment (created by the 1996 acquisition of WellPoint Health Networks by Blue Cross of California), $524,500; the Marguerite Casey Foundation (started by UPS founder Jim Casey), $515,000; and the National Immigration Law Center, $316,000.

These groups are funding the ‘resistance,’ a group of sore losers attempting to undermine America’s representative republic. I really don’t know what has happened to the Democratic Party and the ideas it used to espouse. I used to be a Democrat, but that was when you could be a conservative Democrat and remain in the party. Now the Democratic Party has become the party of ugly. They oppose anything, even if it would help move America forward. They stand for nothing except opposition to Donald Trump. It is sad that the Democrats and so many Republicans have become so attached to the Washington establishment that they have forgotten that they were sent to Washington to represent the American people. It truly is a shame that some charities have chosen to fund ‘the swamp.’

 

The Politics Of Personal Destruction May Not Always Work

In 1971 Saul Alinksy published Rules for Radicals. Rule Number 13 states, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

This policy has been used by the Democrats since Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court. Most of the time it works. The Democrats are planning to use that tactic on Senator Jeff Sessions who has been nominated for the position of Attorney General under President Donald Trump. This time it may not work.

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article with a few thoughts on what we can expect from the Senate Confirmation hearings on Jeff Sessions.

The article states:

It has become clear that, at least until Donald Trump nominates a Supreme Court Justice (and quite possibly beyond that point), congressional Democrats intend to make opposition to Sen. Jeff Sessions’ nomination as Attorney General the centerpiece of their early resistance to the new president. The talking point you will hear and read about the most is alleged racism by Sen. Sessions. However, the true reasons for the opposition are (1) his desire to enforce, rather than ignore and revamp, U.S. immigration law and (2) his color blind vision of civil rights law.

The article at Power Line includes comments from Donald Watkins, a prominent African-American attorney from Alabama. Attorney Watkins states:

Donald V. Watkins said he first encountered Mr. Sessions during their days at law school, when the future senator was the first white student to ask him to join a campus organization — the Young Republicans.

Mr. Watkins declined, but said his interactions with Mr. Sessions throughout the years have convinced him the man President-elect Donald Trump wants to make the next U.S. attorney general is a good man.
“Jeff was a conservative then, as he is now, but he was NOT a racist,” Mr. Watkins wrote in a Facebook post in May, which he reposted Friday afternoon, just hours after Mr. Trump announced Mr. Sessions as his pick.

Mr. Watkins said he wished he’d come forward in 1986, when Mr. Sessions had been nominated to be a federal judge. His appointment was derailed by Senate Democrats, including then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden and current Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary, who said Mr. Sessions had shown racist tendencies. The late Sen. Arlen Specter, who at the time was a Republican but later switched parties, also joined in opposing Mr. Sessions.

A few years later, Mr. Watkins said he ran into Mr. Sessions in Birmingham and said he was surprised Mr. Sessions didn’t call him as a witness.

“At the end of our conversation, I told Jeff that I had failed him and myself. I should have volunteered to stand by his side and tell the story of his true character at his confirmation hearing. The fact that I did not rise on my own to defend Jeff’s good name and character haunted me for years. I promised Jeff that I would never stand idly by and allow another good and decent person endure a similar character assassination if it was within my power to stop it,” Mr. Watkins writes.

If the Democrats involved in the Senate want to have any credibility in the future, they should be very careful how they handle these confirmation hearings. Senator Sessions has a reputation as a fair and honest man. The Senate Democrats are in serious danger of losing any remaining reputation for integrity that they may have.

The Impact Of President Obama On The Democratic Party

On November 10, The Washington Post posted an article about the impact of the Obama Administration on the Democratic Party.

This is a graph from that article:

democraticpartyWow.

The article states:

We tend to focus on the loss of the presidency as the example of Democratic failure. That’s blinkered. Since 2008, by our estimates, the party has shed 870 legislators and leaders at the state and federal levels — and that estimate may be on the low side. As Donald Trump might put it, that’s decimation times 50.

So what happened? The Democrats lost the Presidential race this year for many reasons. Hillary Clinton was a seriously flawed candidate. It became obvious that the Democratic primary was rigged to make sure she won. That was the first mistake. The history of scandal that follows the Clinton family was also a problem. I suspect that had Jim Webb been the candidate, the Democrats would have won the Presidency, but he was far too conservative for today’s Democratic party bosses. The Democratic Party has moved to the left. People like John Kennedy would be out of step with the current Democratic Party. The move left became obvious in 1992 when Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was denied a speaking slot at the Democratic Convention because he wanted to represent the pro-life minority. The leftward progress has accelerated since then.

America is a Representative Republic–not a Democracy. President Obama’s Administration has not brought America prosperity, peace, or security. Most Americans are not as well off as they were when President Obama took office. It has become very obvious that many of the lofty Democratic Party ideas do not work. ObamaCare is a prime example. It is time to go back to common sense–lower taxes, less government, encouraging a work ethic and the free market. These are principles that are totally alien to most of the Democratic party. Actually, they are alien to many Americans. However, Americans know when they are safe and prosperous and when they are not. I believe that is why the Democratic Party, at least temporarily, has collapsed in the past eight years.

 

It Is About Time Someone Said This Loudly And Clearly

Donald Trump gave a speech yesterday in Dimondale, Michigan. I don’t know how much of it the mainstream media will report, so I am posting some highlights. The full text can be found at Heavy.com.

Here are a few highlights:

…But to achieve this New American Future, we must break free from the bitter failures of the past – and reject the same insiders telling us the same old lies.

No group in America has been more harmed by Hillary Clinton’s policies than African-Americans. If Hillary Clinton’s goal was to inflict pain on the African-American community, she couldn’t have done a better job.

Tonight, I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen in this country who wants a better future.

The inner cities of our country have been run by the Democratic Party for 50 years. Their policies have produced only poverty, joblessness, failing schools, and broken homes.

It is time to hold Democratic Politicians accountable for what they have done to these communities. It is time to hold failed leaders accountable for their results, not just their empty words.

Look at what the Democratic Party has done to the city of Detroit.

Forty percent of Detroit’s residents live in poverty. Half of all Detroit residents do not work.

Detroit tops the list of Most Dangerous Cities in terms of violent crime.

This is the legacy of the Democrat politicians who have run this city. This is the result of the policy agenda embraced by Hillary Clinton.

The only way to change results is to change leadership. We can never fix our problems by relying on the same politicians who created our problems in the first place.

…By contrast, the one thing every item in Hillary Clinton’s agenda has in common is that it takes jobs and opportunities from African-American workers. Her support for open borders. Her fierce opposition to school choice. Her plan to massively raise taxes on small businesses. Her opposition to American energy. And her record of giving our jobs away to other countries.

…Hillary Clinton’s plan would bring in an estimated 620,000 refugees in her first term – at a lifetime benefit cost of some $400 billion dollars, according to the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee. She wants to be America’s Angela Merkel. By the way, for the price of supporting 1 refugee in the United States, we could support 12 in a safe zone in the Middle East.

The improved refugee screening standards I have proposed will save countless billions of dollars. We will invest a portion of the money saved in a jobs program for inner city youth.

The African-American community has given so much to this country. They’ve fought and died in every war since the Revolution. They’ve lifted up the conscience of our nation in the long march for Civil Rights. They’ve sacrificed so much for the national good. Yet, nearly 4 in 10 African-American children still live in poverty, and 58% of young African-Americans are not working.

…Michigan lost more than 1 in 4 of its manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. As you know, NAFTA was signed by President Bill Clinton. It was supported by Hillary Clinton. Right here, in this community, you’ve lost 1 in 7 manufacturing jobs since Bill Clinton put China into the World Trade Organization – another Hillary Clinton-backed deal. Detroit lost more than 1 in 3 manufacturing jobs following the NAFTA and WTO agreements supported by my opponent.

No industry has been hurt more by Hillary Clinton’s policies than the car industry. It’s been a total disaster.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, before NAFTA went into effect, there were 285,000 auto workers in Michigan. Today, that number is only 160,000.

In 2014, GM announced plans to double its investments in Mexico by 2018.

In April 2016, Ford Motor Company announced plans to invest $1.6 billion constructing an auto plant in Mexico.

That same month, Fiat Chrysler announced 1,300 layoffs. Lear Corporation launched plans to build two new factories in Mexico.

…Look at the world before and after she became Secretary of State.

Pre-Hillary, in early 2009, Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence.

Libya was stable.

Syria was under control.

The group we know today as ISIS was close to being extinguished.

Iran was being choked by sanctions.

Now, fast-forward to present time.

After Hillary, here is what the world looks like:

Iraq is in total chaos.

Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war and a refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the United States.

ISIS has been unleashed onto the entire world.

Iran – the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism – has been put on the path to nuclear weapons, and was given a $400 million ransom payment, something which has now been confirmed after President Obama’s lies.

This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and terrorism.

America deserves a better legacy. All of you deserve a better future. I am the change agent. Hillary Clinton is the defender of the status quo.

This speech reminds us of our recent history. It also highlights the fact that President Obama’s Administration has not been good for either the black or white community. The only people who have truly prospered under President Obama are the cronies that have been subsidized by the government–for example the green energy companies (some of which have gone bankrupt). President Obama has forced the closing of coal mines, and indications are that Hillary Clinton will continue in the same direction.

I have previously stated (and will continue to do so in the future) that Donald Trump is not a perfect candidate, but in this election cycle we do not have perfection. If he does what he says he will do in the speech he made yesterday, America will be better off. It is high time that Americans look at what forty or more years of Democrat control has done to some of our cities. If cities are a laboratory to experiment with economic policies, it is obvious that the economic policies applied have failed. I realize that there are multiple reasons for that, but the governing party has to share a large part of the responsibility. It is time for a change in our country and time for a change in our major cities. Donald Trump represents that change.

If You Don’t Like What Someone Is Saying, Change The Meaning Of The Words Used

One of the things I miss about New England is Howie Carr. He has always had an ability to hit the nail on the head when discussing politics. He posted an article in the Boston Herald today discussing how the political class and the media have changed the meaning of words to suit their needs. Evidently the English language is something of an ever-changing, growing thing (like the way Democrats see the U.S. Constitution).

Some examples from the article.

On Friday night, Obama referred to an airstrike as a “kinetic action” and his sock puppets in the media nodded. If George W. Bush had said the same thing, they would have described it as a “war crime.”

Bernie Sanders lashed out at Hillary Clinton, saying that she took money from “the fossil-fuel industry,” which was formerly known as “Big Oil.” But now the big tent of bad energy must be expanded to include coal.

…With these people, every day is 1984 and they’re the Ministry of Truth. Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act — and it’s unaffordable. And when your income-tax return is docked because you couldn’t afford affordable care, it’s not a fine, it’s a “shared responsibility tax.”

How about the word “settled”? Settled science is in fact religion, and any researcher who dares dissent from the various cults’ orthodoxies will lose his research grant and any chance for tenure, and eventually may even be prosecuted. (Ask Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.)

The article reminds us that settled law is anything the Democrats decide it is. The Second Amendment, which goes back to the origins of America, is not settled law, yet abortion is. Five minutes after the concept of marriage was redefined by our government, the new definition became settled law. Settled law is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

The article continues:

Higher taxes are an “investment in the future” — their future, not yours. A teachable moment — an opportunity to lecture you on your shortcomings. Dialogue — see teachable moment. Affirmative action — racial discrimination on behalf of Democrats.

Drunkards and drug addicts now have substance-abuse disorders. They are chemically dependent.

Illegal aliens are undocumented workers, even though most of them don’t work. They live in the shadows, except for when they’re going to the State House on weekdays during business hours to issue non-negotiable demands for more handouts.

An earned income tax credit is a welfare payment for someone who doesn’t pay taxes, and thus cannot receive a “credit.” A subsidy is likewise a handout if it goes to any industry that actually produces something, in which case it’s “crony capitalism.” But if the subsidy goes to Democratic bundlers running bust-out “green” energy companies that produce no energy — that’s a “smart” investment.

The article also points out the differences between the way things Democrats do and things Republicans do are reported. Republicans lie; Democrats misspeak. When a Republican changes his mind, he ‘flip-flops.’ When a Democrat changes his mind, he is ‘evolving.’

Please follow the link above to read the entire article–there are some amazing examples of misuse of the English language in it.

The Lies Begin To Add Up

Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill, have never had a strong reputation for honesty, but sometimes it is a good idea to remind ourselves why they have such a miserable rating in that area. Last week The Hill posted an article by A. B. Stoddard about Hillary Clinton’s rather distant relationship with the concept of truth.

The article notes:

In the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, even though Clinton beats most GOP candidates, Sanders performs better against them, and she loses independents in every match-up. Her numbers on honesty and trustworthiness, according to Qiunnipiac, are 36 percent to 60 percent — worse than for any candidate in either party.

It is a sad reflection of the values of American voters that a candidate who has such a low rating on honesty and trustworthiness is leading the fight for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party.

The article goes on to list some of Hillary Clinton’s more recent lies:

Clinton said she was transparent, yet her emails were under congressional subpoena for years while she kept her private server a secret. 

Clinton said she used one device at State for convenience, but she in fact used several. 

She said her email server was destroyed, but it was not. 

She said she handed over all work emails to the State Department, but then congressional investigators turned up others. 

She said she responded to a routine records request from the State Department and turned over her emails when several other secretaries of State did, but State officials were asking for her emails in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional investigations months before that.

Clinton said the State Department affirmed that 90 percent of her work email was captured on the State.gov accounts of other employees — a statistic department officials conceded, after she repeated it under oath in her Benghazi Committee testimony, they know nothing about. 

Clinton claimed in March “there is no classified material,” yet indeed there was. 

Clinton has repeated numerous times that the arrangement was “allowed,” though no one in the administration has ever said they approved her server. So Democrats — like Republicans — assume she is making a misleading statement about her own unorthodox decision to do something no Cabinet secretary had ever before done.

When asked on NBC’s “Meet The Press” whether she deleted any emails to hide information from future investigations, Clinton said the idea “never crossed my mind.”

America is a representative republic. We elect our leaders. We get the leaders we deserve. If that is the degree of honesty that we expect from our President, we are in serious trouble.

 

President Obama As A Democratic Party Leader

Some interesting statistics.

ObamaDemocrats1ObamaDemocrats2So what is going on here? This picture might help.

ObamaDemocrats3This is the 2012 presidential election map by county. President Obama won because his support was in areas that were densely populated and had a large number of electoral votes. As you can see by the map, in non-urban America, a large number of American voters did not support President Obama. I still believe (contrary to what the media tells us) that America is politically a center-right country. The reason Democrats prevail in urban areas is that many of the people who live in those areas are dependent on the government for some sort of financial aid. Many of the people who live in urban areas fear that if government grows smaller, their financial aid from the government will also grow smaller. Many of the people in these areas could easily be described as ‘low-information voters‘ who are often lied to and manipulated by candidates. Urban areas are also the places where you will find the highest amount of voter fraud. It is much easier to cast a fraudulent vote in a large precinct than in a precinct where everyone knows everyone else.

I have no suggestions on how to put a Republican in the White House in 2016. I am also more interested in what a candidate stands for than his party label. If a truly conservative Democrat ran for President, I would vote for him. I just wonder if America has reached a point of no return in federal spending and if this runaway spending train can be stopped.

Why We Need A Repubican Senate

CBN News posted an article today about what has been happening in the United States Senate since Harry Reid has been in charge. Harry Reid’s main goal as Senate Majority Leader has been to ensure that the Senate stays in the hands of the Democrat party. One method he has chosen to to do that is to make sure Senators do not have to vote on anything that might be controversial for Democrats.

The article reports:

The Institute for Liberty’s Andrew Langer points out Americans are often leery of Congress passing new laws, especially when it involves their tax dollars.

“They don’t want the government to take any more of that money,” Langer said. “So it’s not a bad thing that it’s not passing bills to reach its hands into their pockets and steal their money.”

But he points out that Reid is not only blocking votes — often on very important issues — he’s allowing votes on questionable measures, like a recent one that critics say would have restricted the free speech of political interest groups.
 
“So Republicans have passed bill after bill after bill that have simply languished because Harry Reid refuses to bring them to the floor, while he brings idiotic bills like the bill to go after free speech of groups,” Langer said.
 
According to Hart, the mainstream media would have you believe the Republican majority in the House are just as bad at stifling legislation sponsored by Democrats. But he says the numbers in the Senate prove otherwise.
 
“Since July of 2013, there have been 14 votes on Republican amendments and hundreds and hundreds filed,” Hart said of the Senate. “And in the House you have a Republican speaker who’s allowed almost 200 votes on Democrat amendments.”

What we need are Congressmen who put the good of the country above their own quest for power or the quest for power for their political party. When you vote in two weeks, ask yourself, “Do I want a Senate who represents the people who elected it, or do I want a Senate controlled by one person who thinks only of his political party?”

It’s Only Unfair When The Other Guys Do It

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about a video  Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, has done for the Democrat Senatorial Campaign. The video warns that if the Republicans take over the Senate, they might use a “tricky, little-known maneuver” to “ram through” their “right-wing policies” with only 51 votes, instead of the 60 votes “usually required” in the Senate. In case you have forgotten, that ‘tricky little-known maneuver’ is called reconciliation and was used by the Democrats to pass ObamaCare.

On October, 18, 2011, James Capretta posted an article at National Review which stated the following:

Without reconciliation, Obamacare would not have become law at all. It’s true that the main Obamacare structure was passed by the Senate in December 2009 under normal rules for legislative consideration. That’s because Democrats at that time had 60 votes (including two independent senators who caucus with them). They didn’t need to resort to reconciliation to pass the bill as long as  all 60 of their senators stuck together and supported passage, which they did.

But then Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race in January 2010; the Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority and could no longer close off debate on legislation without the help of at least one Republican senator.

At that point, the president and his allies had two choices. They could compromise with Republicans and bring back a bill to the Senate that could garner a large bipartisan majority. Or they could ignore the election results in Massachusetts and pull an unprecedented legislative maneuver, essentially switching from regular order to reconciliation at the eleventh hour, thereby bypassing any need for Republican support. As they had done at every other step in the process, the Democrats chose the partisan route. They created a separate bill, with scores and scores of legislative changes that essentially became the vehicle for a House-Senate conference on the legislation. That bill was designated a reconciliation bill. Then they passed the original Senate bill through the House on the explicit promise that it would be immediately amended by this highly unusual reconciliation bill, which then passed both the House and Senate a few days later, on an entirely party-line vote.

The article at Power Line states:

Reich knows all of this, but he is secure in the knowledge that the Democrats’ rank and file, including the donors to whom MoveOn’s video is addressed, are ignorant of the most basic facts of government and do not have memories that reach back to the distant past of 2010. So there is no effective constraint on dishonesty if you are a Democrat bent on fundraising.

In order to survive, a representative republic needs an informed electorate. It is unfortunate that at the moment America does not have one.

Big Government Protecting Itself

The Boston Globe reported yesterday that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has quietly transferred 500 of his managers into the state public employee union. Governor Patrick will be leaving office after the upcoming election and the governorship is expected to be turned over to the Republicans. This move prevents the Republicans from downsizing the Massachusetts bureaucracy. Placing the managers in the state public employee union will also qualify them for a series of 3 percent raises and insulate them from firing when the next governor takes over.

The article reports:

While smaller clusters of management positions have been converted into union positions in the past, this is the largest sweep into the union in at least two decades, according to administration and union officials.

Rolling the managers into the 22,000-member union will effectively protect them from any house-cleaning that might occur when the next governor takes office in January — a particular likelihood if Republican Charlie Baker were to take over after eight years of Democratic leadership.

Union employees generally have to be removed “for cause,” while managers serve at will.

Obviously, this move will make downsizing the Massachusetts state government more difficult for the new governor. It will also increase the cost of state government, although Patrick administration officials have stated that the cost to the state would be “less than $500,000.” When did we reach the point where $500,000 was not significant?

Hopefully This Bad Behavior Will Not Be Successful And Thus Will Not Be Repeated

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the continuing Democrat party attacks on Charles and David Koch. The article reminds us that “It is rare for the Democratic Party to send out a fundraising email that fails to invoke the specter of the “Koch brothers,” who are treated essentially as bogeymen.”

The article reports:

This is unprecedented in our history. Never before has a political party based a campaign on demonizing individual, private citizens who hold opposing beliefs and who exercise their First Amendment right to participate in the political process. In my view, it would be a very bad thing if attacks like those the Democrats have made against Charles and David Koch–which, frankly, border on the insane–were to become the norm.

Charles and David Koch are American citizens who have been very successful in business and are exercising their right to free speech. To attack them for their wealth and involvement in politics is an example of class envy at its worst. Hopefully the attack will not be successful and will not be repeated in future campaigns. The politics of pitting one American against another in the way the Democrats have done is very unattractive.

Somehow This Didn’t Get A Lot Of Coverage

Have you noticed that every time a Republican seems to be a frontrunner for the 2016 Presidential race a scandal, lawsuit, or criminal charge arises? This is not because Republicans are corrupt or because Republicans do unethical things–it is because Democrats understand how to use the courts and the media. A recent example of this is the scandal involving Chris Christie and the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge. Remember how much you heard about this when it first became news? Well, now that there is no evidence that Governor Christie had anything to do with the lane closings, how much have you heard?

Fox News recently reported the following:

The U.S. Justice Department probe into the Bridgegate scandal hanging over Chris Christie’s political career has found no evidence so far that he knew of the traffic lane closures in advance, reports said Thursday.

Federal officials opened an investigation nine months ago to determine what the Republican governor might have known about the September 2013 lane shutdowns on the George Washington Bridge, and when.

The probe to date has turned up no evidence Christie had any prior information or directed that lanes be closed for four days, federal sources told WNBC.

Somehow the story just isn’t as important when Governor Christie cannot be blamed.

Justice Administered?

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon reported that California State Senator Roderick Wright was convicted of eight felony counts including perjury and voter fraud and was sentenced to 90 days in jail. I wonder how many times people who are convicted of eight felony counts are sentenced to only 90 days in jail.

The article reports:

Senator Roderick Wright of Los Angeles was convicted in January of lying about whether he lived in the district he sought to represent, the first in a string of criminal proceedings against three state senators this year that effectively cost Democrats their two-thirds majority in the California Senate.

“This is not what I call a victimless crime,” said Judge Kathleen Kennedy, who denied Wright’s request for a new trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.

She said Wright was no longer eligible to hold elective office in California.

It’s time to clean up politics on all levels. Pay attention to the people in your area running for local offices, and if you see anything strange going on at your local voting place, report it.

 

The Democrats Attempt To Destroy Another Contender

Unfortunately the Democrat party is very skilled at using the media to destroy Republican candidates who are a threat to Democrats in future elections.  Actually, it’s not much of a challenge, because the media tends to lean left anyway. In the past, Mitt Romney was painted as an uncaring, wealthy snob, although in Massachusetts he was known for his compassion and generous giving to those less fortunate. Sarah Palin never said, “I can see Russia from my back porch.” Tina Fey said that on Saturday Night Live, yet the quote was made to illustrate that Sarah Palin was an idiot, which she is not. The Republicans were accused on waging a ‘war on women,’ when more than one Democrat was accused of sexually harassing or groping his staff. Somehow that was overlooked. Anyway, the list goes on. The latest attempt to take out a Republican before he becomes dangerous is currently going forward in Texas. The tactic that was used to remove Tom DeLay from the political scene is now being used on Rick Perry.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line reported on the indictment of Rick Perry. He noted that the Travis County district attorney’s office was also the office that indicted Tom Delay. The article notes that it took Tom DeLay years to clear his name, and by that time, his political career was ruined. That is what the Travis County district attorney’s office is attempting to do to Rick Perry.

The article reports:

A grand jury in Travis County, Texas, indicted Governor Rick Perry today. Why? For exercising his constitutional prerogative by threatening to veto, and then vetoing, an appropriation to support the public corruption unit in Travis County’s district attorney’s office. This followed the arrest of the county’s district attorney, Democratic Party activist Rosemary Lehmberg, for drunk driving, after she was found “with an open bottle of vodka in the front passenger seat of her car in a church parking lot in Austin.” Ms. Lehmberg served 45 days in jail.

…Conservatives should respond to this indictment by rallying around Perry. The indictment is a bad joke, intended simply to generate negative publicity. As with the bogus DeLay indictment from the same source, years may go by before it is finally proved baseless. In the meantime, conservatives should stand behind Perry and denounce the politically-motivated machinations of Texas Democrats.

The politics of personal destruction has worked for Democrats in the past. It will continue to work until Republicans learn to recognize it and expose it for what it is. It’s up to conservatives to stop this attack on Rick Perry. It is quite possible that the country-club Republicans will not join us in exposing this as a political attack. Rick Perry has done and is doing a good job in Texas. He does not deserve this sort of nonsense.

Why We Need Informed, Educated Voters

David Limbaugh posted an article today at Townhall.com about President Obama’s continuing claim that the Republicans want to impeach him. Speaker of the House John Boehner has clearly stated that he is not interested in impeaching President Obama, so what is this about? A large part of it is about fund raising for the Democrat party.

On July 28, the Washington Post reported the following:

The Democrats’ congressional campaign arm pulled in $2.1 million in online donations over the weekend — the best four-day haul of the current election cycle — largely propelled by fundraising pitches tied to speculation that House Republicans could pursue the impeachment of President Obama.

That’s part of the story. Another part of the story involves the blatant flaunting of unconstitutional actions in an attempt to goad the Republicans into impeachment. Why impeachment? Because it energizes the far left of the Democrat party base.

David Limbaugh concludes:

So he is not only ratcheting up his rhetoric to accuse Republicans of a plot to impeach him, though House Speaker John Boehner has clearly indicated that is not in the cards, but also trying to force their hand into actually impeaching him. To this end, he is planning on upping the ante by issuing a far-reaching unilateral order granting amnesty to millions.

That’s right. The leader of the Free World is trying to provoke Republicans into impeaching him or otherwise stirring a constitutional crisis.

This is stunningly unprecedented. But more and more people are wising up to his serial abuses of power and his partisan agitation.

I don’t have a great track record as a prognosticator of elections, but I am strongly sensing his party, as a direct result of his policies and lawlessness and its shameless refusal to rein him in, is going to get a titanic comeuppance in November.

America is either going to be a representative republic or a banana republic. Voters in November will make that choice.

 

Different Laws For Different Groups

PJ Media posted an article today about the latest attack on religious free speech.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)recently released a press release that included the following:

FFRF filed suit against the IRS shortly after the presidential election in 2012, based on the agency’s reported enforcement moratorium, as evidenced by open and notorious politicking by churches. Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in fact, has become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity. The IRS, meanwhile, admittedly was not enforcing the restrictions against churches. A prior lawsuit in 2009 required the IRS to designate an appropriate high-ranking official to initiate church tax examinations, but it had apparently failed to do so. 

The IRS has now resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations. The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations. While the IRS retains “prosecutorial” discretion with regard to any individual case, the IRS no longer has a blanket policy or practice of non-enforcement of political activity restrictions as to churches. 

In addition to FFRF’s lawsuit, IRS enforcement procedures with respect to political activity by tax-exempt organizations have been the subject of intense scrutiny by Congress. As a result, the IRS is reviewing and implementing safeguards to ensure evenhanded enforcement across the board with respect to all tax exempt organizations. 

Until that process is completed, the IRS has suspended all examinations of tax-exempt organizations for alleged political activities. The current suspension, however, is not limited to church tax inquiries. 

The article at PJ Media points out:

Democrats routinely campaign from the very pulpit of majority black churches. It happens every single election cycle. Pastors in those churches regularly push parishioners to support the Democratic Party, to support specific government social policy, and even specific candidates for office.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has not sued to get the IRS to investigate any of that. Its targets are churches that align with the more conservative Pulpit Freedom Sunday movement. That tells us what the foundation and the IRS will really be investigating.

The IRS will be monitoring churches to listen for pastors supporting the right to life, the sanctity and traditional definition of marriage, traditional values in general, perhaps even patriotism. Those are the churches, based on the angle that the foundation lawsuit takes, that will potentially find themselves under IRS investigation.

It appears that there will be one set of rules for conservative churches and one set of rules for liberal churches. What happened to equal justice under the law? Why do only liberal churches have First Amendment rights?

FFRF filed suit against the IRS shortly after the presidential election in 2012, based on the agency’s reported enforcement moratorium, as evidenced by open and notorious politicking by churches. Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in fact, has become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity. The IRS, meanwhile, admittedly was not enforcing the restrictions against churches. A prior lawsuit in 2009 required the IRS to designate an appropriate high-ranking official to initiate church tax examinations, but it had apparently failed to do so. 

The IRS has now resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations. The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations. While the IRS retains “prosecutorial” discretion with regard to any individual case, the IRS no longer has a blanket policy or practice of non-enforcement of political activity restrictions as to churches. 

In addition to FFRF’s lawsuit, IRS enforcement procedures with respect to political activity by tax-exempt organizations have been the subject of intense scrutiny by Congress. As a result, the IRS is reviewing and implementing safeguards to ensure evenhanded enforcement across the board with respect to all tax exempt organizations. 

Until that process is completed, the IRS has suspended all examinations of tax-exempt organizations for alleged political activities. The current suspension, however, is not limited to church tax inquiries. 

– See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/20968-ffrf-irs-settle-suit-over-church-politicking#sthash.rEhbLVZy.dpuf

FFRF filed suit against the IRS shortly after the presidential election in 2012, based on the agency’s reported enforcement moratorium, as evidenced by open and notorious politicking by churches. Pulpit Freedom Sunday, in fact, has become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity. The IRS, meanwhile, admittedly was not enforcing the restrictions against churches. A prior lawsuit in 2009 required the IRS to designate an appropriate high-ranking official to initiate church tax examinations, but it had apparently failed to do so. 

The IRS has now resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations. The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations. While the IRS retains “prosecutorial” discretion with regard to any individual case, the IRS no longer has a blanket policy or practice of non-enforcement of political activity restrictions as to churches. 

In addition to FFRF’s lawsuit, IRS enforcement procedures with respect to political activity by tax-exempt organizations have been the subject of intense scrutiny by Congress. As a result, the IRS is reviewing and implementing safeguards to ensure evenhanded enforcement across the board with respect to all tax exempt organizations. 

Until that process is completed, the IRS has suspended all examinations of tax-exempt organizations for alleged political activities. The current suspension, however, is not limited to church tax inquiries. 

– See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/20968-ffrf-irs-settle-suit-over-church-politicking#sthash.rEhbLVZy.dpuf

Reading Between The Lines

One of the recent ideas to come out of the White House is that Republicans want to impeach President Obama. Admittedly, Sarah Palin has made that statement, but the silence from other Republicans is deafening. There’s a reason for that.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article with a picture that tells us everything we want to know about impeaching President Obama.

This is the picture:

ImpeachmentEmail06

Impeachment talk makes great fundraising. It also distracts people from the domestic and foreign failures of President Obama. The biggest mistake the Republicans could make right now would be to attempt to impeach President Obama. Impeachment is probably the only way the Democrat party can be competitive in the mid-term elections.

Even Uninformed Voters Won’t Believe These Statements

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted a video showing Democrat’s recent statements about the security of our southern border. The video is also found at YouTube.

The fact that Washington is not effectively handling the border crisis is bad enough, but do they have to insult our intelligence in the process?

Misleading The Public For Political Gain

President Obama’s ratings are falling through the floor, and the Democrat needs a rallying cry to avoid being thrashed in November. They think they have it–free birth control (and abortion drugs).

NJ.com is reporting today that 35 Democratic senators in Congress have sponsored a bill they call “Not My Boss’s Business Act.” The obvious question here is, “If it’s not my boss’s business, why does he have to pay for it?” However, the real bit of information that the people screaming about the Hobby Lobby decision have overlooked is the fact that Hobby Lobby refused to pay for only four out of twenty forms of contraception. The company has funded, and will continue to fund the other sixteen.

An article posted at the Daily Caller about the move to undo the Hobby Lobby decision yesterday concludes:

In other words, while most Americans, except those with religious or moral objections, will happily share in the costs of a poor women’s birth control, few would see any reason to pay for contraceptives for Senators Murray, Boxer, or the vast majority of American women. Paying for their own birth control will neither deny them access nor violate their rights. You might say it is an outrage to contend otherwise.

 

 

A Multi-Faceted Approach To Censorship

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about a group, Mayday PAC, headed by Lawrence Lessig, supposedly formed to ‘take the money out of politics.’ While I admire their noble objective, sometimes it pays to look at the past actions of people supporting a point of view.

Last week Mayday PAC raised $5 million to elect politicians who will pledge to reduce the influence of money in the American political process. That sounds as if they are doing exactly what they are opposing.

The article gives us some basic facts about the group and its objectives:

Lessig pitched wealthy donors in the tech community last week on the utility of restricting corporate political speech, saying their political agenda would be much easier to advance if opposing forces were restricted from influencing the political process.

“We have no protection for network neutrality because of the enormous influence of cable companies’ money in the political system,” he told TechCrunch. “If NN is your issue, then this is why you should see that politic$ is your issue too.”

…Lessig has been explicit about the ideological nature of his campaign finance reform position. Liberal political ideas would prevail, he insists, but for the ability of their detractors to spend money opposing those ideas.

Lessig took a similar tack with respect to climate energy policy. Environmentalists, Lessig said in 2012, spent “hundreds of millions of dollars … to get global warming legislation, and they got nothing.”

“If money didn’t buy results in Washington,” he said, environmentalists would have been able to achieve their goals by injecting substantially less money into the political process.

The article explains some of the ties between Lessig and Democrat organizations and operatives. The bottom line here is simple–most Democrats who are campaigning to ‘take the money out of politics’ do not include union money in that statement. The anger is there because with the Citizens United decision, the playing field of big money has been leveled–generally speaking corporations donate to Republicans and unions donate to Democrats. It used to be that all the big money in politics went to Democrats and came from unions.  A website called Open Secrets tracks campaign donations. Just for the record, there is still more money going to Democrats than Republicans.

When you read the article at the Free Beacon, you discover that the reason for wanting to ‘take the money out of politics’ is to censor the opposing viewpoint. That is not what American is or should be about. The push to ‘take the money out of politics’ is more dangerous than any amount of money in politics. Censorship under any name is wrong and has no place in America.

Voter Fraud In The Very Early Stages Of The 2008 Election

On Thursday, Fox News posted a story about voter fraud during the primary election season in Indiana. Four Democrats have been charged with forging the presidential primary petitions needed to get candidates on the ballot.

The article reports:

Among those charged is the former long-time chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party, Butch Morgan, who allegedly ordered the forgeries. He was forced to resign when the allegations were first made public last October, even though his lawyer, Shaw Friedman, told Fox News at the time that Morgan did not do anything wrong.

The St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration‘s Democratic board member, Pam Brunette, Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton and Democratic volunteer and former board worker Dustin Blythe also face charges.

According to affidavits, St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office worker Lucas Burkett told investigators that he was part of the plan that started in January 2008 “to forge signatures on presidential candidate petitions instead of collecting actual signatures from citizens.”

I have no doubt that campaign workers for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards could have collected enough signatures to put their candidates on the ballot. Why then did they find it necessary to forge the signatures? I have worked on election campaigns. Gathering signatures is time-intensive, but it is a necessary part of the process. I might also add that when campaign workers are gathering signatures, they have a chance to hand out information on their candidates and encourage voters to support their candidates. This fraud actually represents a missed opportunity.

What inspired these Democrats to think they could avoid the process? I am more concerned with the thinking behind the actions than the actual actions. To me, this illustrates that these people have no respect for the electoral process in their state and in America. It is my hope that the people who forged these petitions will not only go to jail, but that they will be denied voting privileges for the rest of their lives. They obviously do not respect the voting process.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Surprise Victory For Republicans

Guy Benson at Hot Air posted an article today on the special election held in Arkansas on Tuesday. The election took place in Craighead County, which has not been represented by a Republican in the state senate since reconstruction. John Cooper, the Republican candidate, won the election with 57.21 percent of the vote.

On Sunday, the Daily Kos reported:

The Democratic nominee is Steve Rockwell, a businessman and political science professor at Arkansas State University. The Republican nominee is John Cooper, a retired businessman and former candidate for the State House of Representatives.

…On the politics side of things, this election is huge. Craighead County is a key area of the state for both Mark Pryor and Mike Ross to win (they need to get at minimum 49% of the vote in this county to win the state) If Rockwell can’t put up a decent showing, Democrats are going to have some serious issues going into 2014.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

So here we had a contested race in a traditionally Democratic area, the outcome of which held significant implications for Mark Pryor’s re-election bid.  An Obamacare-related controversy drove the campaign. Oh, and according to an email blast from the NRSC, the Republican candidate was outgunned on the spending front by a three-to-one margin.

There is hope.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Really Is About Priorities

I have spent some time in the past week ranting about the cuts to the military pensions included in the budget deal. Every day the news about the deal seems to get a little worse. Today is no exception.

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line yesterday about another aspect of the budget compromise the Senate will be voting on in the next day or so.

The article explains one aspect of the budget negotiations in the Senate:

Harry Reid runs the Senate with an autocratic hand. One of his favorite tricks is called “filling the tree.” Reid will offer a series of amendments to legislation that “fill the tree,” making it impossible for any Republican amendments to be offered. In this way, Reid prevents Republicans from having any input into legislation and spares Democrats from having to vote against popular Republican initiatives.

Today, Reid filled the amendment tree on the Ryan-Murray budget to foreclose further amendments. Sessions wanted to propose an amendment to the spending bill that would delete the veterans’ benefit cuts and replace them by closing a loophole that allows illegal immigrants to suck billions of dollars out of the treasury.

So what is this loophole and how much does it cost? There is something called the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC). I have written about the ACTC before–rightwinggranny.com and rightwinggranny.com.  A person does not need to have a social security number or pay income taxes in order to receive money under this program. This program is known to be a source of income for people who are in America illegally.

The article reports:

According to a 2011 report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, millions of people without valid Social Security numbers received a total of $4.2 billion in ACTC in 2010 – up from $924 million in 2005. The IRS is expected to issue some $7.4 billion in ACTC payouts this year.

The article concludes:

In order to allow his amendment to be heard, Sessions offered a tabling amendment to get rid of the filled amendment tree. That would have cleared the way for his amendment to be voted on, but the Democrats closed ranks on behalf of illegal immigrants and defeated Sessions’ motion on a nearly straight party line vote. The only Democrat to vote for the motion was Kay Hagan, who is up for re-election next year and evidently didn’t want to have to explain a “no” vote to her constituents.

Prioritizing illegal aliens over military veterans: that tells you all you need to know about the Democratic Party.

It is time to replace every current Congressmen who voted to defeat Jeff Sessions‘ motion. It is a disgrace that Congress would give money to people who are in America illegally before they would honor the promise America made to its soldiers when those soldiers enlisted.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Good Advice From A Senior Democrat

On Thursday, The Atlantic posted an article written by Ted Van Dyk, a Democrat campaign strategist who once worked for Hubert Humphrey. The article examines what the current Democrat party needs to do to maintain its power in the 2016 election. He is obviously not happy with the direction his party is currently taking.

He points out that the Barack Obama that is President today is very different than the Barack Obama that campaigned in 2008. (Actually, I disagree with that statement–Barack Obama has not changed–he has just behaved the way a community organizer would behave. Barack Obama had no administrative experience. Some Americans understood that–many Americans ignored that fact.)

Mr. Van Dyk notes:

Before 2008, Obama looked like a liberal of moderate temperament. He had the bad luck to take office at a time of financial and economic crises overshadowing everything else. He has said since that he underestimated at the time the depth of the crises. That no doubt led him, before growth and stability had been restored, to undertake in 2009 a remake of the entire health sector. Both his stimulus package and healthcare proposal were mainly designed by House Democratic leaders and the interest groups that supported his 2008 campaign. There was no serious attempt, in formulating either program, to draw Republicans into participation, as LBJ had done in 1965. Provisions allowing the sale of health-insurance products across state lines, and providing for meaningful tort reform, could have done that without forfeiting Democratic support. Trial lawyers would have objected but not jeopardized the bill’s passage.

This is spin. The depth of the crisis had nothing to do with ObamaCare. ObamaCare was the result of lack of leadership on the part of the President–he didn’t write it, and I doubt that he has read it–he simply let the old Democrat guard in Congress put together their dream package for special interests–that is why there are so many Democrat supporters excluded from many of the regulations, e.g. union plans that are grandfathered in.

Mr. Van Dyk further notes:

Obama’s 2012 reelection is little comfort for Democrats. His total vote was smaller than in 2008, and it did not constitute a mandate for any particular agenda. It instead depended on two things: first, an unprecedentedly skillful identification and mobilization of key Obama voter groups that had grown in importance over the previous four years; and second, highly effective scare campaigns designed to convince those groups that Mitt Romney and Republicans were heartless plutocrats, servants of wealth, and enemies of women, Latinos, African Americans, and the middle class.

Demonizing his opponent worked for President Obama. The Republicans, hopefully, have learned from that experience and will not let it happen again. The demonization began during the Republican primaries and was not answered by the Republicans at the time. By the time the charges were answered, the moment had passed and the conversation had moved on. The foundation for some of the demonization of Mitt Romney began with the question by George Stephanopoulos to Mitt Romney on birth control. That was not a ridiculous question–it paved the way for the charges that the Republicans were waging a ‘war on women.’

Mr. Van Dyk concludes:

Wedge politics and tailored political messaging can bring a campaign or even a presidency short-term success. But, for the longer run, most Americans feel they are in it together and badly want bipartisan action to keep the economy stable and growing, to keep the country safe here and abroad, and to keep American society open and fair. Americans want from Democrats what Obama promised in his 2008 campaign. Financial and economic crises diverted him, he opted for partisanship with his first-term initiatives, and the resulting gridlock leaves Democrats with three years to consider their future path.

By 2016, this veteran hopes, party leaders will conclude that the big things should be tackled first and that, because of their difficulty, they must be addressed on a bipartisan basis. May they also conclude that there is more to gain by uniting all Americans than by treating them separately as political subgroups.

I agree that bipartisanship is the solution, but I am not sure it is possible. Washington has become a snake pit of one-upmanship rather than a place where people actually work together to solve America’s problems. I suspect the only solution to that situation is to remove anyone from office who has been there for more than one term.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does Anyone Believe Anything President Obama Says?

We are at a sad point in America. American presidents have always been accused of stretching the truth beyond belief, but with President Obama and ObamaCare we have reached a level of boldface lies that I believe is unique.

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted a story listing President Obama’s latest lies about ObamaCare.  Just as truth is one of the first casualties of war, it is also one of the first casualties of upcoming elections. Many Democrat congressmen will be running for reelection next year and are genuinely worried about the impact of ObamaCare on their campaigns. Thus we have creative facts about ObamaCare flowing from the White House.

The article reports:

In late November, for example, Obama complained that “instead of rooting for failure, or refighting old battles, Republicans in Congress need to work with us to improve those things about the Affordable Care Act that aren’t working as well as they should.”

Obama’s attempt to escape responsibility for the failure of his signature domestic achievement isn’t surprising. But in this case, he’s falsifying the record.

The list of positive changes to ObamaCare passed by Republicans and Democrats and signed by the President includes the repeal of a tax reporting scheme requiring business to list all payments exceeding $600 a year to any vendor (that amount is so small it could include buying flowers for the office staff on Administrative Assistant‘s Day). The Republicans also removed a long-term care provision that was unworkable and another provision involving a “free-choice voucher” program. Generally speaking, the Republicans are not the problem–ObamaCare is. However, look for more attempted blame shifting during the coming year.

The article reminds us of the cost of ObamaCare and how the President is claiming that it will reduce the cost of healthcare:

…the rate of growth in national health spending has slowed in recent years. It was just 3.9% in 2009, 2010 and 2011. And employer premium growth had been on the downtrend.

But these have nothing to do with ObamaCare. The latest report from the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — the official scorekeeper of health spending — says the spending growth slowdown is “unrelated to the (Affordable Care Act).”

It also reports that ObamaCare will add to national spending over the next decade. Other reports have pinned much of the slowdown on the recession and Obama’s lousy recovery that followed it. Plus, ObamaCare is now pushing premiums up.

As Charles Blahous, a former trustee for Social Security and Medicare, puts it, Obama’s latest cost-cutting claims “are just as groundless as the ones that misled so many Americans to believe they would be able to keep their previous coverage.”

At this point in time, the only way to fight these lies is with the ballot box. Americans need to vote against anyone who supports ObamaCare. That is the only way we will get rid of this horrendous program.

Enhanced by Zemanta