Following The Money

The good news is that Congress has chosen a panel to look into Planned Parenthood‘s fetal tissue practices. The bad news is that today’s Washington Times reports that the six Democrats named to the investigative panel have received more than $81,000 from PACs affiliated with Planned Parenthood. I am sure their investigation will be totally unbiased despite the amount of money received. Yeah, right.

The article reports:

More than half of those donations, or $43,362, came in the 2012 and 2014 election cycles, according to LifeNews.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi assigned the Democrats to the panel Wednesday, saying she was “proud to name six strong champions of women, families and facts to stand up against the latest Republican assault on women’s health.”

The Democrats are Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, Rep. Jackie Speier of California, Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee‘s Select Investigative Panel, chaired by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee Republican, is charged with examining “medical procedures and abortion business practices” stemming from allegations raised by recent hidden-camera videos involving fetal-tissue procurement from Planned Parenthood.

Anyone who has watched the videos of abortionists harvesting fetal tissue has very little doubt as the humaneness of this practice, much less the legality. Even if you are willing to defend the practice of abortion-on-demand in the latter stages or pregnancy, I do not understand how you can condone the actions depicted on the videos. The fact that this matter is even being discussed is a truly sad commentary on the value our culture places on the lives of the most innocent among us.

President Obama And The Democratic Party

Yesterday John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line about Tuesday’s election results. The article notes some of the results:

Matt Bevin was elected Governor of Kentucky.

Republicans maintained the majority in the Virginia Senate.

Ohio rejected a proposal to legalize marijuana.

The Sheriff of San Francisco, who supported the ‘sanctuary city’ was defeated.

Houston voters rejected an initiative claiming to be non-discriminatory that discriminated against Christians.

There are some happy conservatives around the country right now. However, the Associated Press (AP) did not see it that way.

The article at Power Line reports some of the comments from AP about the election:

State and local elections across the country this week produced warning signs for both Democrats and Republicans as they press toward next year’s presidential contest.

…Democrats lost ground in state legislatures and governor’s mansions, raising questions about the party’s strength when Barack Obama’s name isn’t on the ballot.

…And in Kentucky, Republican Matt Bevin’s win for the governorship could be a sign that many voters are serious about electing outsider candidates.

…That sounds good for the GOP, whose leading presidential candidates are Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

…But Democrats still have important demographic advantages in the states that often determine presidential elections.

…And Republican leaders are skeptical that outsiders’ rebellious appeal will be sufficiently deep and lasting to send such a candidate to the White House.

The article at Power Line mentions one inconvenient fact:

The AP fails to mention that the Obama administration has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. President Obama is widely seen as both incompetent and outside the mainstream of American politics. This has largely driven the flight of voters to the GOP, not only in the House and Senate, both now under Republican control, but also in state offices across the country.

The conclusion:

It is remarkable how far the press will go to cover for the Democrats, even after ballots have been cast. But does it do the Democrats much good? On the evidence of the last five years, the answer is no.

At some point, the American voters are quite capable of looking past the hype and seeing the impact of eight years of President Obama. The next President will have to reconstruct both our economy and our healthcare system. It is becoming obvious that the Democrats are not capable of doing that.

Are We Being Played?

It looks as if Paul Ryan will be the next Speaker of the House. That is not horrible news, but for the average conservative, it really isn’t great news. Paul Ryan is very smart, he understands the budget better than almost everyone, and he is well respected. However, he is not a strict conservative. The upside of Paul Ryan as speaker is that he can explain positions and articulate ideas very well. He will be good at contrasting differences between Republican and Democrats on most issues. The downside is that he is not really a strict conservative. So why are we getting Paul Ryan as Speaker?

There is such a thing as the ‘political class.’ There is also such a thing as the ‘donor class,’ the people who supply large sums of money to election campaigns. According to Rush Limbaugh on his show yesterday, Paul Ryan’s position on immigration appeals to both the Republican and Democratic donor class. The Democrats want voters and the Republicans want cheap labor. Therefore, Paul Ryan will be the next Speaker of the House.

The Daily Caller also posted an article about this yesterday.

The Daily Caller concludes:

Politics is messy. And while members of the Freedom Caucus are hard core conservatives, they do not share the same passion that animated the people who were most actively opposed to a Speaker Ryan. Additionally, Ryan has assured them he will not seek immigration reform while President Obama is in office.

Once you get past the “amnesty” issue — which was a deal breaker for some — Ryan is obviously the most conservative candidate who could ever realistically get the job. And a super majority of conservatives in the House, it seems, agree.

As usual, there is no perfect solution. The question in my mind is whether or not the people have a say in this process. Have we reached the point where the political class and the donor class unite to overrule the people’s class? We will see in the future whether or not this was an acceptable solution.

There Really Is No Free Lunch

There really is no free lunch (unless your parents or grandparents provide you with one!). Unfortunately, a substantial percentage of American voters have not figured that out yet.

The following video is posted on YouTube. It is from “This Week with George Stephanopoulos“:

George Stephanopoulos rightly observed that all of the free things Bernie Sanders was promising would cost money.

An article at The Libertarian Republic quotes the response:

“I think if you’re looking about guaranteeing paid family and medical leave, which virtually every other major country has… that will require a small increase in the payroll tax,” Sanders said.

“That’s going to hit everybody,” the host remarked.

“That would– yeah, that would,” Bernie acknowledges.

Of course, when you’re calling for $18 trillion in new spending (around $2 trillion more than the nation’s entire GDP), you are going to get inventive with how to pay for it. Bernie will raise taxes on everyone and that’s just the kicker. If Sanders were to become president, he would severely devalue our dollar to enable spending, the results of which would be inflation and a higher cost of living for everybody.

Bernie! You’re supposed to promise them free things– now you’ve spilled the beans that people will have to pay for these things. Think of how disillusioned you supporters will be when they find out you want to tax them more

The average low-information voter would probably find a way to blame the Republicans!

Is There Room For A Moderate In The Democratic Party?

The stage for the Democratic Party held a declared socialist, an undeclared socialist, a former governor who taxed rainfall, someone whose issue was bringing the metric system to America, and a former Republican. Jim Webb is the former Republican. He is also known as a very common-sense politician who tends to be toward the middle of the political spectrum. USA Today posted an article today stating that Jim Webb has dropped out of the Democratic race for President and is considering a run as an independent.

So what are the implications of this? First of all, I suspect Jim Webb has already received a number of telephone calls from major Democrats asking him not to run as an independent. His running as an independent would give moderate Democrats an option in the Presidential race. If the Democrats feel sufficiently threatened by Jim Webb as an independent candidate, I am sure he will be told that he is a contender for Vice President.

I seriously doubt that Jim Webb will run as an independent. Although I respect him as an independent thinker, the amount of pressure brought to bear to prevent that run will, I believe, prevent him from running.

However, this has been a very unpredictable election cycle. Stay tuned.

Fact Checking The Democratic Debate

My Way reported the Associated Press fact check of the Democratic debate.

Some highlights:

Hillary Clinton saying that she did not support the Trans Pacific trade agreement.

THE FACTS: Clinton did not say anything about mere hope in her speeches around the world in support of the trade deal. She roundly endorsed the deal taking shape.

In a November 2012 speech in Australia, she declared the Trans-Pacific deal “sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” a sentiment she echoed in many venues.

Clinton said in the debate that when she looked at the final agreement last week, “it didn’t meet my standards.”

The final agreement, however, dropped or changed some provisions that liberal activist groups — the wing of the party she is assiduously courting at this stage of the campaign — had strongly criticized.

Bernie Sanders complaining that almost all new wealth is going to the top 1%.

THE FACTS: Sanders appears to be relying on outdated data. In the first five years of the economic recovery, from 2009 through 2014, the richest 1 percent of Americans captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses. While certainly a large gain, that is a lot less than “almost all.”

In just the first three years of the recovery, from 2009 through 2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that occurred because of impending tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that took effect in 2013.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw their incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years.

Tax policies influence the actions of businesses and the people that run them.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she has been transparent about her emails.

THE FACTS: Clinton has yet to explain how the server was set up and serviced, whether she informed the State Department about her decision to use the private system and, most important, how it was protected from hacking attempts.

Russia-based hackers tried at least five times to trick her into infecting her computer system with malware in 2011, The Associated Press learned, and her server was hit by attempted cyber intrusions in 2014 from China, South Korea and Germany.

Her server also was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. But her campaign has repeatedly declined to address these details.

The article mentions that the free college tuition programs espoused by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would shift the burden of the cost of a college education from the student to the taxpayer. It would do nothing to lower the cost of that education.

Please follow the link to the article to read the details on the other lies told by the Democratic frontrunners.

Some Random Thoughts On The Democratic Debate Last Night

I will post more detailed comments on the debate, but these are just my initial reactions:

  1. It was interesting to hear millionaires complain about income inequality. Are they planning on redistributing their own wealth? Bill and Hillary Clinton’s combined net worth is $121 million; Bernie Sanders‘ average net worth is $528,014. Bernie Sanders is not a millionaire, but he is in no way struggling economically. Are the Democrats on the stage prepared to pay the higher taxes needed to pay for all the free things they are suggesting?
  2. Let’s take a look at income inequality for a moment. An entrepreneur starting his own business may work as many as 80 hours a week. In the beginning of the business, his hourly pay rate will probably be well below the minimum wage. After a few years of hard work, he may build a million dollar company and make some drastic changes in his lifestyle. The income inequality there is the result of work-effort inequality. The government cannot (and should not) guarantee income equality–what the government needs to protect (not guarantee) is equality of opportunity. Equal opportunity is more likely to be achieved by the government getting out of the way than by the government interfering.
  3. The biggest threat to America’s security is not global warming. Global warming has not been proven to exist–much less to be man-caused. I suggest checking Watts Up With That, one of the best scientific websites on climate for specifics.
  4. Before we decide that the issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails are a partisan issue, we might want to take a look at the laws broken and the national security compromised. There is sufficient evidence in those emails that Sidney Blumenthal was working closely with Hillary Clinton (after she was told by President Obama not to hire him)–even naming a CIA-operator in an email that was on the private server. Scooter Libby went to jail for less.
  5. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a lobbying group (also a gun safety education group) similar to many liberal lobbying groups. They are  not villains–they are simply protecting the Second Amendment.
  6. If the rich are evil (as was implied) and gained their wealth at the expense of everyone else, how do the millionaires on the stage explain their wealth? Was it also evil or was it okay because it was theirs?

Overall, the Democratic debate was a circus. If the Democrats will the next election, it will be because Americans have totally abandoned their Constitution.

Sometimes Media Bias Is Very Subtle

One way the mainstream media is showing its favoritism toward Democrat candidates is the way the debates are conducted. A website called bizpacreview posted a story today about CNN’s plans for the debate.

This is the quote that says it all:

As much as CNN “trumped” up their Republican debate to get the candidates digging at each other, the network will handle the Democrats with kid gloves.  And nobody is expecting sparks to fly, with Rush Limbaugh calling it “a dryball.”

Moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper said in a Sunday interview, “Going into the Republican debates, you pretty much knew there were a number of candidates who were willing to [attack each other].” He added, “That’s not the case, so far as we’ve seen, on the Democratic side.”

“I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off,” Cooper continued, contradicting the entire format of the Republican debate CNN hosted.

CNN’s Jake Tapper seemed very comfortable getting the GOP candidates to face off against each other.

Translated loosely, what is being said here is simple–we are hoping that the Republican Presidential candidates will destroy each other and we can appear to be objective. However, we don’t want the Democratic Presidential candidates attacking each other, as that would provide ammunition for the Republicans during the actual Presidential campaign.

The article reports Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Monday:

So it’s Anderson Cooper who’s just out front here saying, sorry, we’re not gonna do that, we’re not gonna pit these people against each other…  [They] certainly don’t think they have to be critical of people on their own side for credibility, which, sadly, is what many Republicans still believe.  That the only way you can be credible as a Republican or as a conservative media person is to be critical of your own team.  That proves that you’re not biased.  That proves you are not afraid to criticize your own people.  Except it never happens on the left.  CNN would never, ever, do anything. Now, the candidates might, but CNN’s not gonna do anything to make any of these people look bad.  They rally the troops. They circle the wagons. They do everything they can to protect.

The political parties (and the people in them) are entitled to act in any way they please. It is just a shame that the mainstream media chooses to take sides and the American voters do not get a clear picture of their choices.

Symbolism Over Substance

The Washington Examiner reported today that the House of Representatives has voted to suspend federal funding of Planned Parenthood for a year. The vote was largely along party lines–five Democrats joined the Republicans in calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood for a year.

The article reports:

After Friday’s House votes, the Planned Parenthood fight will move to the Senate, which is expected next week to consider a spending bill with a defunding measure attached, although Republicans admit they’ll almost certainly fall short of the 60 votes needed to pass it. Then the major question will be whether Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers can negotiate a spending bill if conservatives don’t give any ground.

House Democrats were outraged by the Friday vote, and defended Planned Parenthood’s work providing non-abortion healthcare services to poor women. They also accused Republicans of pushing the issue to shut down the government.

This is another example of why Donald Trump is leading in the polls. The Planned Parenthood videos were horrific. Even if they were edited, it was obvious that Planned Parenthood was making money selling aborted baby body parts. The media has chosen to give very little attention to this matter, and thus it has generally escaped the attention of the American public. However, at some point in the future, when the facts are actually known, many Americans are going to wonder what kind of people would participate in selling baby parts for profit.

The funding of Planned Parenthood will not stop–they have paid too much for those Democratic Senators, and those Senators want to continue to receive nice campaign contributions from the Planned Parenthood PAC‘s so that they can remain in office (see This is a show vote, and unless the Republicans make a strong stand on this and other matters, we will continue to see Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders surge in the polls.

Stepping Back And Looking At The Big Picture

There are a number of conservatives seriously alarmed at the rise of Donald Trump. Donald Trump has not consistently espoused conservative principles and probably does not qualify as a conservative in the minds of many of the conservative intellectuals. What Donald Trump represents is the anger of the conservatives at the miserable performance of the establishment Republicans in Washington. The conservatives believed what they were told–elect Republicans and things will change–the debt will decrease, ObamaCare will go away, and the Republicans will check the runaway executive orders of President Obama. Right. And I saw a flying pig last week.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an open letter to Jonah Goldberg, a conservative who is concerned that the Donald Trump candidacy will destroy the Republican party.

The article reminds us:

Angered (by the tricks used to pass ObamaCare), we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.  Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

We are still waiting.

The article points out:

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Again, the Republican party ignored the people who elected them.

The article cites the Iran deal:

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.  Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

The elected Republicans again ignored the wishes of the people who elected them.

The article lists examples of the establishment GOP working against the will of the voters. Please follow the link to the article to read the list. It is eye-opening.

The article concludes:

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?


Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?


I truly believe that this article expresses the frustration of the conservatives in the Republican party. Right now there is very little difference between the establishment Republicans and the Democrats. If the establishment Republicans don’t wake up soon, there will be two political parties–the Democrats and the Conservatives. Donald Trump is not the problem–he may be a symptom, but he is not the problem.

Fixing Washington One Thing At A Time

Most Americans are not happy with the way Washington works (or doesn’t work). Conservative Republicans complain that they keep voting for Republicans, Republicans win, and nothing changes. Democrats complain that the Republicans are blocking President Obama’s policies, but almost everything President Obama has wanted to do, he has done–if not through Congress, through Executive Order. There is, however, someone in the House of Representatives who has proposed a way to change the status quo.

On Monday, Breitbart posted an article about Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Representative Meadows has initiated a “motion to vacate the chair.” The motion would remove Speaker John Boehner from his position as the Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Meadows said “it’s time for our leaders to stop making promises and leaving them unfulfilled.” He added that, based on the whip count, if a vote had taken place to remove Boehner from the speakership before the recess, he would have had to wrangle up votes from house Democrats to keep his seat.

“At town hall meetings and every where I go, people tell me, ‘I’m, standing with you. We’re standing behind you.’ There is a growing momentum. I’m hoping that leadership can change course and they are willing to listen, and willing to fight for Americans.”

Meadows believes that it’s a good sign that, if we had a presidential Republican primary right now, we would have a “more non-conventional nominee than an establishment one.” Meadows concluded saying that, “Having the people at my back is better than having D.C. in my Pocket.”

The dissatisfaction with Washington politics is on both sides of the aisle. The dissatisfaction partially explains why both political parties have popular candidates that have historically had very loose relationships with the parties–Bernie Sanders is described as a Socialist–not a Democrat, although he caucuses with the Democrats in Congress, and Donald Trump has been a Democrat for more years than he has been a Republican.

I think Representative Meadows represents the feelings of the average American. They may not know exactly what is needed, but they know something is wrong. Representative Meadows is willing to take a first step toward changing Washington.

The Ugly Side Of Politics

This article is based on two articles. One article is from Front Page Magazine on August 25th, and the other article is from The Washington Times yesterday.

The Front Page Magazine article reports:

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Iran Lobby cash had made the White House count on him as the Republican who would flip, but Flake came out against the deal. The Iran Lobby invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed.

I understand that lobbying is a legal part of American politics, but it bothers me to see lobbying done by a country whose leadership is shouting, “Death to America.” Iran has never claimed to be an ally of America and has been killing American soldiers since the 1980’s (Iran funds Hezbollah, who bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983). If lobbying is legal (which it is, and I suspect will continue to be), I have no problem with our allies meeting with Congressmen. However, I do believe that donations from foreign countries are illegal. Despite the fact that IAPAC is probably based in America, they represent donations from a foreign government. That is illegal.

Fast forward to The Washington Times story from yesterday.

The Washington Times reports:

Democrats will try to mount a filibuster to block the Iran nuclear deal from even having to reach President Obama’s desk for a veto, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid signaled Saturday in a statement.

He and his party colleagues already have enough committed supporters that they would be able to sustain an Obama veto and allow the Iran deal to proceed, but a filibuster would be an even bigger coup, halting the issue earlier in the process and heading off a protracted — and potentially politically costly — veto fight.

What does this actually mean? It is very simple. The Democrats (many of whom have been given money by the Iranian lobby) do not want to go on the record as voting on the Iranian nuclear deal. It is common knowledge that the American people overwhelmingly oppose this agreement and that it is a bad deal. However, many Democratic politicians have been bought.

It is also disturbing to see how far-reaching the efforts of the Iranian lobby are. The Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee was Hillary Clinton’s national campaign finance director before pleading guilty to fraud.

Front Page Magazine reports:

Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years.  A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.    

 In the House, the Democratic recipients of IAPAC money came out for the deal. Mike Honda, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Iran Lobby backed the nuke sellout. As did Andre Carson, Gerry Connolly, Donna Edwards and Jackie Speier. The Iran Lobby was certainly getting its money’s worth.

But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins weren’t Markey or Shaheen. The real victory had come long before when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.\

This is the kind of corruption we need to remove from our national government. Term limits might be a good first step.

Curbing Runaway Spending In Washington

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today about spending in Washington. The article included the following chart:

The chart shows the impact that the spending caps have had on the federal budget. The decline in spending is due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. The caps limit both domestic non-entitlement spending and national defense spending. However, it is becoming obvious that the President wants to be free of those restraints.

The article reports:

The White House plan would increase discretionary spending to $1.091 trillion from $1.017 trillion. This $74 billion increase would be split evenly between defense and domestic spending. The 7% hike in 2016 would dish out plums to unions, foreign aid groups, the education blob, government contractors, federal employees, the climate change lobby and other tax guzzlers.

Our Senate sources tell us that Minority Leader Harry Reid is threatening in private that if Republicans don’t give Democrats the raise they want, there will be fiscal paralysis in the Senate and another government shutdown Oct. 1 — which, of course, they will blame on the GOP.

Many Republicans are inclined to go along with the great fiscal escape plan. Some have legitimate concerns about more money needed for our military in times of growing national security threats. Already 60% of the cuts are in defense, even though military spending is less than 20% of the budget. But many GOP appropriators just want more domestic pork for their own districts.

I would like to remind every Republican Congressman now serving in Congress. You were elected to bring the spending under control. If you are not able to do that, we need to elect someone who can. End of story.

Why Voter Identification Is Important

This is an old story, but it is worth revisiting as the changes to the North Carolina voter id laws are making their way through the courts right now.

In April 2014, PJ Media reported that there was massive voter fraud in North Carolina during the 2012 election. Unfortunately, voter fraud is pretty common in most states. The only real way to stop it is through requiring voter identification. Those who have gained through voter fraud are reluctant to see an identification requirement to vote. There are also some politicians who are currently proposing that we allow noncitizens to vote.

The article at PJ Media reports:

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state, thanks to a 28-state crosscheck of voter rolls. Initial findings suggest widespread election fraud.

  • 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
  • 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
  • 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

So what is the penalty for committing voter fraud? Double voting is election fraud under state and federal statutes. Punishment for double voting in federal elections can include jail time.

The article also reported:

In addition to the above, the crosscheck found that more than 13,000 deceased voters remain on North Carolina’s rolls, and that 81 of them showed voter activity in their records after death.

There is a quote that goes around Facebook periodically, “Grandma voted Republican until the day that she died. After that she voted Democratic.”

If you say that I am being unfair by accusing the Democrats of voter fraud, can you explain to me why the Democrats are the party that has opposed voter identification laws in states where voter fraud exists?

Add This To Your Current List Of Really Bad Ideas

On Friday, The Boston Globe reported that there was a move to draft Michael Dukakis (former Massachusetts Governor) to run for President in 2016. First of all, Michael Dukakis is 81 years old. I thought the Republicans were the party of old white males.

The article reports:

Max Smith, who describes himself as a Democratic activist from Boston, said this is no joke, that there are political donors from Boston and New Hampshire who want to help fund the effort.

“The [State Department] e-mail revelations are going to rock the Hillary Clinton campaign. We need somebody with stability,” said Smith, who is part of the Draft Dukakis campaign.

But the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee told the Globe that another potential Dukakis versus Bush matchup is not in the cards.

“I am absolutely not a candidate for the presidency,” said Dukakis, who is 81. “Kitty and I are supporting Hillary.”

It sounds like Governor Dukakis is more in line with the mainstream Democratic party than the people who are supporting him. His decision not to run is a very intelligent decision. It’s probably the only political thing he has ever done that I wholeheartedly agree with.

When I first saw this article, I checked the source because I didn’t believe it. I still really can’t imagine what a disaster his candidacy would be. I remember him well as the Governor of Massachusetts.

The Silly Season Is In Full Swing

The Silly Season usually occurs a few months before an election, but because of the importance of this Presidential election, it has begun more than a year early. I will be posting comments on the Silly Season as it progresses, but I have a few comments on the early events.

It is interesting to me that both parties have people out of the party establishment doing very well. The Democratic Party establishment does not love Bernie Sanders, and the Republican Party establishment does not love Donald Trump. Neither man would be willing to follow orders from the party establishment if he actually become President. We could debate whether or not that is a good thing, but we need to understand that the party establishments fear that threat.

So what should we learn from this? This is a temper tantrum by Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. People of all political stripes are tired of having their wishes ignored by the political elites who are currently in control of Washington, D.C. We have phoned, emailed, faxed, held rallies, formed tea parties, formed occupy Wall Street, and all but stood on our heads and spit wooden nickels, and Washington has chosen to ignore us. I think it would be a mistake to elect either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, but I think the energy around their campaigns is something that the establishment in Washington needs to take note of.

There is another aspect of this campaign season I find interesting. Below is a chart showing voter participation by age:

As you can see, senior citizens vote. If you are 65, in 2012 you were born in 1947. You were part of the generation the lived through major cultural changes in America. Some of you protested the War in Vietnam; some of you served in the War in Vietnam. Some of you attended Woodstock. Some of you did drugs. Some of you didn’t do drugs. Some of you fought for legal abortion; some of you protested legal abortion. You are a very diverse generation that has had a lot of influence from the time you were born because of your size. This is the generation that will determine our next President. It is a generation of diverse politics, independent thinkers, and stubborn mules. It is a generation that has never been afraid to fight the ‘establishment.’ It will be interesting to see what they do next.

The Path To National Prosperity


Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today citing the results of a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and University of Chicago economist James A. Robinson.

The study reports:

It’s long been a truism that democracy brings benefits and flexibility to an economy that help boost growth. But some theoretical work “suggests that not all the mechanisms unleashed by moving political institutions from autocratic to democratic are positive for economic growth.” The economists built a model that controlled for possible unexpected influences — such as recessions and negative economic shocks, which often take place before a nation turns democratic. It’s tricky.

After doing the necessary number fiddling, what they found was pretty remarkable: “Our central estimates suggest that a country that switches from autocracy to democracy achieves about 20% higher GDP per capita over roughly 30 years.” That’s a huge difference.

The article mentions that after the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a movement around the world toward democracy. Unfortunately, some of the countries that attempted to become democracies have slipped back to their totalitarian ways. Russia, Venezuela, China and Argentina have all encountered major financial crisis since moving away from democracy. The statistics indicate that one of the most basic solutions to those financial problems would be a move toward democracy. The other kingpin of national prosperity is private property rights (rightwinggranny). That is an area where Americans need to be paying attention to what their government is doing. Less private property rights means less prosperity for the citizens of a country. Freedom breeds prosperity. We need to make sure we guard our freedoms.



It’s Not Only A War On Coal

On Sunday, Stephen Moore posted and article at the Washington Times about President Obama’s war on coal. Oddly enough, it’s not really about coal. Somehow in recent years, the environmental movement has been taken over by an extreme element more closely related to communism than environmentalism. These are the people who want total government control of even the puddles that form on your lawn in the Spring.

The article at the Washington Times noted some very interesting facts about the war on coal:

In fact, almost all of the states that are politically liberal and vote unfailingly Democratic are low coal use states. Washington, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are also in the top 10 states least reliant on coal. Only conservative Idaho is a red state with low coal consumption.

Meanwhile, the heavy coal using states bleed red. West Virginia, Kentucky and Wyoming are all states that get about 90 percent of their electric power from coal. Missouri, Utah, Indiana and North Dakota also get 75 percent of their electricity from coal.

Here is the information in chart form:

So what is the war on coal about?

The article reports:

But the pain from the new EPA rules won’t be evenly distributed across America. Far from it. The coal producing states like West Virginia and Wyoming will see massive job losses and increases in electric utility costs. The nationwide costs will be about $100 billion a year eventually or a reduction in GDP by about one-half percentage point, the Heritage Foundation finds. But for heavily impacted states — Republican areas in the Midwest, South and mountain states — the costs will reach about $1,200 a year to average families. Mr. Obama’s policies that have had such a crushing effect on middle-income family finances are about to get a whole lot worse.

The liberal coastal states will feel only modest effects because they don’t use much coal.

Would Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, two of the biggest cheerleaders for the new regulations, be so euphoric if their voters were paying these massive costs for their green agenda? But the east and west coast green snobs can live with raising costs and unemployment in “fly over country.”

It’s time to label the Obama green policies what they truly are: steep taxes on red state America. By the way, many purple states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia also get hammered by Mr. Obama’s climate change agenda.

The article concludes:

I did the rough calculations. For every reduction in BTUs burned from coal in the United States, China and India alone will burn 10 to 12 more BTUs. Even if the United States cut coal use to zero over the next 20 years, global emissions from coal will rise sharply. So the Obama plan is all pain no gain. It would be like trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the Third World by having Americans use more birth control. Stupid.

But back to the Obama assault on red and purple states. Let’s hope the voters get the message that Mr. Obama’s green energy policies are directed at their jobs and their paychecks. Most people in blue states and the workers around the rest of the world won’t feel a thing. This is fair?

It’s time to get back to a time when Congress passed the laws and our elected officials took responsibility for the laws they passed.

Follow The Money

The filibuster in the Senate yesterday prevented the defunding of Planned Parenthood. I am heartbroken that after videos showed that Planned Parenthood is selling aborted baby body parts, we couldn’t even cut off their federal funding. I wonder how people can be aware of what is happening to these unborn children and support the organization.

I looked up some of the political contributions Planned Parenthood makes. The information can be found at This is what I found:

PlannedParenthoodDonationsIt gets even more interesting:


This is how politicians can ignore the dismembering of babies and avoid a vote to defund Planned Parenthood. The Democrats who voted in support of Planed Parenthood are bought and paid for. The Republicans are not. The funding of Planned Parenthood by the federal government allows them to have the money to pour into political campaigns. This is a vicious cycle, and it needs to be stopped.



Why We Need Conservative Republicans In Congress

After all the fuss this week about Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts, you would think it would be a given that Washington at least would stop funding Planned Parenthood. It would be nice if they would shut them down, but defunding them would be a really good  beginning. Since the Republican party platform is pro-life and the Republicans control the House and the Senate, defunding them should be fairly easy. If Republicans who believed in the Republican platform controlled the House and the Senate, it would be easy to defund Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, the Republican leaders in the House and Senate only believe in the Washington elite.

The Daily Signal posted the following yesterday:

What we saw in the Senate on Sunday is unprecedented in the annals of Senate history. It consisted of the majority leader and the minority leader denying members the ability to have votes on their amendments and indeed the ability even to have a roll-call vote. The denial of a second for a vote, which was aggressively whipped by the Republican majority, is an extraordinary measure designed to gag senators and enforce the will of the McConnell-Reid leadership team.

It saddens me as a Republican to see Republican leadership lead the effort to kill an amendment that would have prevented lifting sanctions on Iran unless and until Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and unless and until Iran releases American hostages.

Make no mistake, granting a sufficient second for a roll call vote is done customarily in the Senate. Denying it is extraordinary, and it is done as a consequence of McConnell’s being afraid for his members to be on record on this issue.

I want my Senators on record on this issue. It is disgusting that under a Republican Senate and House the dismembering of babies and selling of baby parts will not only be allowed to continue–it will be subsidized.

Over The Top

On Wednesday, the Hartford Courant reported that the Connecticut Democrats will be changing the name of their annual fund raising dinner. The dinner has previously been called the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey Dinner. John Bailey is a former Democrat party boss. It is possible that his name will remain in the new title given to the dinner. Jefferson and Jackson are being eliminated because of the fact that they were slave owners.

The article reports:

“Let’s work together to show the rest of the state exactly what it means to be a Connecticut Democrat,” party Chairman Nicholas Balletto said before introducing the resolution.

In part, the resolution said, “As members of the Democratic Party, we are proud of our history as the party of inclusion. Democrats have led the way on civil rights, LGBT equality and equal rights for women. … It is only fitting that the name of the party’s most visible annual event reflects our dedication to diversity and forward-looking vision.”

The article further reports:

Connecticut Democrats have had various ideas about the issue. U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, one of the state’s top liberal Democrats, has defended Jefferson — but at the same time said that both Democratic presidents are “very complicated” historical figures.

“I’m proud of Thomas Jefferson,” DeLauro told The Courant recently. “I think Thomas Jefferson is a founding father.”

Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut NAACP, had also asked state Democrats to consider a new name for the annual fundraiser.

“Democrats have a deeply rooted history with slavery,” he said recently. “They need to do the right thing.”

Before you rush to condemn slave holders in Colonial times, you need to remember that slavery was legal worldwide. It was an accepted practice. Slavery was outlawed in England in the early 1800’s due to the work of William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, who saw it as his Christian duty to end the practice. Slavery is a horrible practice, but before you condemn those who practiced it, think of the way future generations will look at abortion in America and the selling of baby body parts. Every generation is a mixture of good and evil. We do not have the right to condemn past generations when we are doing things as bad or worse than what they did.

If the Democrats no longer want Jefferson and Jackson, I am sure the Republicans will be glad to acknowledge the part both men played in the founding and keeping of America. They were not perfect men, but they were men used by God to guide this country.

Defending The Indefensible

Yesterday I posted a story showing a video of a Planned Parenthood executive negotiating the sale of aborted baby parts. Obviously, Planned Parenthood is denying the charges.

Today, The Hill posted an article stating Planned Parenthood’s claim that the video is misleading and that the only thing Planned Parenthood was doing was sharing fetal tissue for medical research.

The article reports:

Democrats have been mostly silent on the issue as details continued to emerge Tuesday evening, when Planned Parenthood released 11 pages of attack points against the makers of the video.

The rapid rise of what has widely been called a “sting video” has surprised some Democrats on the Hill, including one aide who called the attention “unexpected.”

When asked about Republicans’ planned investigations into Planned Parenthood, Schakowsky said she wanted an investigation, instead, into the Center for Medical Progress, which she called “a phony company.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another prominent supporter of abortion rights, also dismissed the latest attacks against Planned Parenthood.   

“They’ve been attacking Planned Parenthood for years,” she said. “They’ve been calling for investigations for years, and they surface videos and they come on the attack … and I think it’s outrageous.”

Lee also said she has not seen the video.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is also a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said she had not heard of the video and could not comment.   

“I’ll take a look at it, but I did not see it so I have no idea what’s in it,” she said.

Take a look at these arguments. Demanding an investigation into the Center for Medical Progress is a way to deflect attention away from Planned Parenthood. Another defender of Planned Parenthood refuses to acknowledge that there might be anything new in this video. Another defender would not comment because she had not heard of the video. Does anyone believe that you could have turned on the news at any time yesterday and missed hearing about the video?

The article also reported:

Democrats have been mostly silent on the issue as details continued to emerge Tuesday evening, when Planned Parenthood released 11 pages of attack points against the makers of the video.

Note that Planned Parenthood is not defending its actions–it is simply attacking the people that exposed the truth.

The selling of any part of aborted babies should be illegal. I don’t care what the purpose is, it should be illegal. We have people complaining about scientific testing done on animals. Who is standing up for murdered babies? We have people protesting the killing of baby seals. Who is going to protest the killing of baby humans?

This practice should not even qualify as part of any civilized society.

Words Of Wisdom From A Democrat

Yes, you read that right. As the Democrat party deals with the candidacies of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and possibly Elizabeth Warren there is a quieter, more rational candidate. His name is Jim Webb.

Jim Webb was interviewed on Fox News Sunday today. The Daily Caller posted an article about the interview.

The article posted Jim Webb’s remarks about the direction his party has taken:

BRET BAIER: You mentioned the Democratic race. In the RealClearPolitics average of polls, you’re at about 2.3 percent, and well behind the front runner, Hillary Clinton. You have an uphill climb against this Clinton machine. Most political analysts will tell you that Democrats have moved resolutely to the left and that basically Hillary Clinton has renounced Clintonism, which really was the vital core of the center, used to be, in your party. In a party that seems to thrill to Bernie Sanders and maybe long for Elizabeth Warren, who are the Jim Webb Democrats?

JIM WEBB: I believe we can bring a different tone to the Democratic Party. You’re right. The party has moved way far to the left, and that’s not my Democratic Party, but in and of itself. We need to bring working people back into the formula. Next Saturday, in the far southwest of Virginia there’s going to be a medical clinic, a remote area medical clinic to take care of people who don’t have medical insurance. It’s out at the Wise County fairgrounds. I hope Fox will go down there and take a look at it. They’ll going to take care of at least 6,000… people with no medical care. They’re going to pull about 3,000 teeth. These are people who have been forgotten by both parties and, I think, they need a voice.

The Democrat party has claimed for years to represent the forgotten man. However, both the Republican and Democrat parties have been taken over by special interest groups that have forgotten the forgotten man. Very few Americans are currently represented by either party establishment. It is time for Americans to begin to take back whichever party they choose to support. The time for allowing the establishment of both parties to do what is in the interest of their party rather than what is in the interest of America is over. There used to be small-government, constitutional conservatives in both political parties. Now it is hard to find those people in either party. It is up to the American people to elect people who will support the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land and who will actually represent the voters and not the political class.

POSTSCRIPT: I just watched the entire interview. Frankly, that is the only thing Jim Webb said that I agree with.

The New Voting Laws In North Carolina

The North Carolina legislature has been working on a good voter identification law for a while. They are aware of the fact that a law has to be strong enough to be effective, yet able to get through any court challenges that may ensue. I don’t understand why the Democrat Party supports voter fraud, but that is a story for another day.

The Voter Integrity Project North Carolina released the following press release yesterday:

Update on Voter ID Compromise

June 19, 2015


June 19, 2015 (RALEIGH)–After tapping several legislative sources today, we’re convinced the GOP caucus did not “intentionally” gut the voter ID law. Also, their limited window into election fraud analysis leads them to believe the new loophole won’t be a big deal in North Carolina. We humbly accept the former assertion but guardedly accept the latter.

At the end of the day, their new exception will, indeed, allow anybody to walk in with one of several non-photo pieces of paper (called “HAVA IDs”) and be guaranteed a vote that counts . . . so long as they fill out the paperwork correctly. We view this as a major security breach, but Rep Lewis said South Carolina, only had 114 voters exercised this loophole. We hope the same holds true here, but we’ll prepare for the worse.

Rodent Problems

Several highly placed sources convince us that it was an inside job. This emergency legislation was caused by middle- and lower-level bureaucrats at DMV who collected fees for those “free” voter ID cards and demanded more documentation than allowed by law. Whether accidental or deliberate, those state employees raised new doubts about winning the entire voter ID lawsuit and that’s what triggered the lopsided vote count.

Unconfirmed report: One of DMV’s victims was a State Senator’s own mother, so they’re paying closer attention now.

At any rate, we’re modifying our “tell them to veto cry” and are now urging them to investigate the sources of such harassment, . . . down to the specific employee.

The notion of “progressive” moles undermining Republicans in the NC government complex is no shocker. One Rep even laughed, “they’re not used to having Republican bosses.” But jokes aside, Linda Paine, Director of California’s Election Integrity Project, even caught their DMV subverting laws against driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. So, NCDMV workers hassling applicants for their free voter ID cards is all too plausible . . . and very convenient for voter ID opponents!

Governor McCrory and Transportation Secretary Bob Tata owe the public a full explanation.

Sometimes you just have to take a first step before everything falls into place.


The Intolerance Of Those Who Call For Tolerance

On Thursday the Daily Haymaker posted an article about some recent events in North Carolina that are an affront to the concept of freedom of speech. Recently New Hanover County school board member Tammy Covil posted an opinion on a closed Facebook page.

This is her post and one of the replies after it was screen captured and sent to the Democrat party:


She posted this on a Facebook page that was supposed to be for a closed group. It is her personal opinion. Obviously it does not agree with the person who replied at Equality NC, but are they both not entitled to their opinions?

The article concludes and suggests a course of action:

The left sees Covil as a big problem.  She is serving on the state’s Common Core study commission. My New Hanover sources tell me she is a possibility for superintendent of the school district there.

Covil has spoken out against the teaching of nonsense like “gender fluidity.”  (I’ve heard about that in some amphibians and reptiles, but not in humans.)

The lynch mob has already set up a Facebook page aimed at shutting Covil down.

If you live in New Hanover County, do what you can to help this woman out.  If you don’t live there, talk to any of your friends who do.  Donate money to her campaign. Leaders like Tammy Covil — who dare to stand firm on their principles — are our only hope for saving our society, our culture, and our country.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of gay marriage, there is no reason to shut down free speech on the issue. Ms. Covil is a conscientious person who is doing a good job in her role as a New Hanover County School Committee member and as a member of the Common Core study commission. What she said, essentially, is that she holds a Biblical view of marriage. She is as entitled to her belief as those who oppose her are to theirs. The difference is that she is not trying to shut down their right of free speech.