I have to admit that I was much more anti-Hillary than pro-Trump in this election, but as a Catholic and a Constitutionalist, I was pleased with Donald Trump’s victory on several levels. As a Catholic, this was an election about Life. There was simply no way I could support a radically pro-abortion candidate like Clinton. Abortion is one of the non-negotiable issues that Catholics can never support for any reason. To listen to Hillary in the debate suggest that a woman has the right to kill a child in the womb just before birth made my stomach churn. I am still not completely confident that Trump is a pro-life as he tried to portray himself during the campaign, but I am sure about Mike Pence and I am confident that, with a Republican in the White House, Congress will finally have the backbone to defund Planned Parenthood, and I fully expect them to hold Trump to his promise of appointing pro-life Constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court.
As a Constitutionalist, I agree wholeheartedly with Charles C. W. Cooke that we finally have a chance to get back to our constitutional system of separation of powers and checks-and-balances. I think that Trump’s campaign was sufficiently independent – and adversarial – that the Republican Congress will have the unique opportunity to oppose him if he “goes rogue.” We know the Democrats will oppose him out of habit or spite, the same way the reflexively supported Obama in whatever he wanted to do, so Congress finally has a chance to reassert itself in our Constitutional system. It’s been a long time coming.
So suppose President Trump decides to nominate his sister or some other liberal judge not on his announced list of Supreme Court candidates. I fully expect, and would demand, that the Senate would reject the candidate both because he/she is unqualified but also to show the president that he doesn’t have carte blanche as Obama did. Also, once again, I expect the vice president to have some say in the process as well. Seeing the list of qualified people that the president-elect has chosen (Rudy for AG!), I’m less worried than I was a few months ago that he’ll do anything stupid.
And finally, I choose to believe that someone who would go through the last 18 months as Mr. Trump has, must have some idea of the magnitude of what he’s gotten himself into. I may be giving him more credit than he deserves, but I think he’s finally run into something bigger than he is. I’m sure he’s confident to believe he can handle it, and I hope he can, but I hope that the first time he steps into the Oval Office, he experiences a sense of humility befitting the job. And I’ll continue to pray for him and for our country. I ask you to do the same.
Star Trek: The Next Generation
I’m a sucker for time-travel stories. Whether it’s Harry Potter, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Back to the Future, Stephen King’s 11/22/63 or anything else, a good story about the hero traveling back in time and affecting (or restoring) “the timeline” is one of my favorite diversions. If the plot is clever and resolves itself well, I’m even willing to put up with hokey dialog and two-dimensional characters. I just love it when a story, which can easily open itself to paradox, cliché and deus ex machina anti-climax, manages to apply self-consistent logic and arrive at an exciting, thought-provoking and satisfying ending.
Of course, we know that time travel is impossible. You can’t go back in time and murder your grandfather, there are no alternate universes and there is no grand government conspiracy hiding an actual time travel device so we just think it’s impossible. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to change the past, at least not if you’re a progressive, or whatever term the left chooses to apply to itself. The only hard part is getting yourself into a position to do it, such as becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
If you’re like me, and believe that words have meanings and expect that logical self-consistency is essential for any set of laws to make sense, then you would agree that once a law is passed it’s meaning should remain constant until such time as the legislature chooses to amend or repeal the law. That’s a pretty basic feature of any “government of laws, not of men.” The problem, as the left sees it, is that our Constitution was set up to make it hard to change the law, but we conservatives see this as a feature, not a bug.
The way the Constitution says you change a law is to advocate for the change and convince the legislature to pass the amendment, get it approved by the other house and have the president sign it into law. But that can be difficult since (ideally) each legislator is beholden to a constituency (those pesky “we the people” again), so they have to convince them that it’s a good idea too. If they can’t, then they may get voted out in the next election. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. What if there were an easier way?
Let’s suppose that time travel were actually possible. Our legislative crusader could go back in time, maybe to the Constitutional Convention, and actually advocate to change the Constitution. Maybe convince James Madison that the first amendment should include that phrase “Congress shall make no law limiting the ability of a mother to kill her unborn child at any time during her pregnancy.” Then the Supreme Court never would have had to wrestle with the abortion question in Roe v. Wade.
Instead, the left has discovered that Legislative Time Travel is much easier. All they have to do is decide what policy they want to enact and then declare that the meaning of the appropriate legislation is actually different from what everyone thought it was originally, and – surprise! – it actually means just what it needs to mean to enact whatever policy they want. They did it with abortion, they did it with gay “marriage” and now they’re doing it with “transgenderism.” Instead of going back in time and convincing Madison, all they have to say is “Madison really meant whatever I wish he’d meant.”
And the Obama administration doesn’t even have to go back that far. By reinterpreting Title IX to include the nebulous term “gender identity” they have the chutzpah to tell legislators, many of whom are still around, that the law they passed to prohibit discrimination based on sex now means something completely different.
So now we find ourselves in an alternate reality where laws are no longer logically self-consistent, since “gender identity” is completely subjective and this made-up interpretation of plainly written law is now in direct contradiction of the First Amendment in forcing churches and religious organizations and employers to go against the practice of their faith (i.e. the free exercise of their religion) to accommodate what the American College of Pediatricians has classified as a psychological disorder.
Since we don’t believe in Legislative Time Travel, we need representatives who will follow the Constitution and not just make things up as they go along. Since Clinton has pledged to be Obama’s third term, we can expect more of the same if she is elected. It says a lot about how far left Clinton and the democrats have become that Donald Trump is actually the candidate who is more likely to restore our timeline to one that make sense.
Six months ago I bluntly told you that in a Ted Cruz Donald Trump race, Trump was the establishment pick:
If Ted Cruz is willing to take on practically his entire caucus as the junior senator against a powerful Senate leader how much more willing will he be willing to do so with the bully pulpit & the power that comes with it in his hands? The Supreme Court Fights alone will be epic and I suspect a man as familiar with the court as he will managed to find actual conservatives to both nominate and fight for.
Now contrast that worry with what the Establishment will had to deal with in a Trump administration. Picture a group of people appointed by a pragmatic deal maker and picture the establishment and even the left having to deal with Trump and his appointees, many of whom will be self-made and have absolutely no loyalty to the conservative electorate that said establishment loathes so much.
Then finally consider Trump himself, he prides himself as being person who is a great negotiator and dealmaker. The problem with a dealmaker is the key question: “What do you give up to make the deal?”
If you are an Establishment republican or even a democrat that question will console you, but as a social conservative it does not.
So for me it’s no surprise that John Boehner is now on the Trump train:
The former House speaker also described the two other Republican candidates as friends. He recalled playing golf with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump for years, and said they were “texting buddies.” Despite Trump being short of the 1,237 delegates required to win the nomination, Boehner accepted that The Donald is the presumptive Republican nominee.
While he did not praise Trump’s policies, the former speaker said he would vote for The Donald in a general election. He said he would not, however, vote for Cruz.
What? This isn’t possible, we’ve just been told for months by the Trump campaign that Ted Cruz is the insider and Donald Trump was the outsiders and that Ted Cruz maintaining the opposite was lying.
Next thing you’ll be telling me that Ted Cruz is telling the Truth about Donald Trump being liberal:
Boehner may have attacked Obama’s sharpest critic, but he had positive words for the president himself. The Stanford Daily reported that the former speaker “reflected positively on his relationship with Obama. Although he acknowledged that the two disagree, Boehner said the two get along well.” While it is good to make friends across the aisle, the sharp criticism against a fellow Republican — one of the most insistent and orthodox conservatives in recent memory — contrasted with praise for the putative head of the Democratic Party strikes conservatives the wrong way.
The former House speaker also praised Hillary Clinton, after briefly mocking her sexist campaign. “Oh, I’m a woman, vote for me,” he said, but the crowd reacted negatively. Later, he admitted that he has known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.
Boehner also added that he thinks Bernie Sanders is a nice guy and the most honest politician in the race, even though he disagrees with the Vermont senator’s positions on nearly all of the issues.
So to sum up, John Boehner, fan of Clinton, fan of Sanders, fan of Obama, fan of Trump, hates Ted Cruz.
What does that tell you? I know what that tells Ted Cruz:
“If you’re wondering who has actually stood up to Washington,” Cruz said, “John Boehner has made it crystal clear” that Donald Trump is not that candidate
Oh Boehner and friends aren’t stopping at hitting Ted Cruz:
The same players who detest Ted Cruz have now recruited a straw man RINO to run against Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), one of the most intrepid conservatives in the House of Representatives.
and who are they funding to oppose him?
Well, who is Tom Atkinson? He is the quintessential wealthy trans-ideological Republican. He donated to a liberal Democrat, Kathy Taylor, who ran against the Republican mayor of Tulsa. That Republican mayor, Dewey Bartlett, is Tom Atkinson’s own brother-in-law! Atkinson has tapped Shane Saunders, a former aid to John Sullivan, the RINO Bridenstine defeated in 2012. Saunders is known to be close with Boehner as well.
On Atkinson’s campaign website and in his ads, he sells himself as a conservative and not a politician. But how could a conservative donate to a prominent Democrat who funded Emily’s List and held fundraisers for Joe Biden?
So for all the republicans who were outraged over John Boehner who have within a few months of cheering his departure bought into the false attacks on Ted Cruz by the Trump campaign let Ted answer it directly:
John Boehner, in his remarks, described Donald Trump as his texting and golfing buddy. So if you want someone that’s a texting and golfing buddy, if you’re happy about John Boehner, Speaker of the House, and if you want a president like John Boehner, Donald Trump’s your man.
A lot of people have been played this cycle and in the internet age there is no excuse for it.
Yesterday we talked about how for the GOP their real fear is that key patronage positions leading to increased power would go to people whose primary loyalty was to Trump and not to party.
That is the reason why they are potentially willing to elect a woman who was willing to leave Americans in trouble to die rather than risk a Trump presidency.
But here on Election day, as I celebrate the end of robo calls that have been never-ending It occurs to me that if he wants, Mr. Trump has the ability to craft a far more effective revenge on the GOP than a mere 3rd party run.
Here in Massachusetts I’ve gotten robo calls for presidential candidates (I say vote Cruz) and state rep candidates (I say vote Tran) but the greatest number of calls I’ve received have been for candidates for the GOP state committee. (I say vote Frank Ardinger & ignore the Gov’s ticket)
Now ask yourself this. What if Donald Trump decides to get involved in these races on the state level?
Picture for example if a Donald Trump, to use Massachusetts as an example, angry about how he’s treated decides next time around to run his OWN slate of GOP state committee people?
Picture Trump holding rallies in Worcester and drawing 5000, 10000 or 20000 and urging them to go to the pols and vote for a Trump slate. Picture him standing next to a candidate and giving him the Trump imprimatur.
Then picture if even a fraction of those people he draws turning up for what is normally a sleepy election with turnout so low the primary job of the police at the polling stations is to keep the elderly poll workers awake. Remember the height different between Governor Baker and Dean Tran at his rally. Well when it comes to drawing voters in an election Trump dwarfs Governor Baker in the same way.
Suddenly you don’t have a GOP state committee that looks like the establishment or like Charlie Baker, Suddenly you have a GOP state committee that looks like Donald Trump.
Now imagine that picture repeated state by state nationwide. Having nightmares yet GOP?
I can see the naysayers now: “Surely you jest, not only would that be very expensive but very time-consuming and what about the conservative activist and the Rand Paul activists etc they won’t go along with this?”
To that I say, Trump has the money, he has the voters, an he’s the type of guy who doesn’t forget slights so he’ll be highly motivated. It will keep his name in the headlines which he will love, and as for the activists, given how they’ve been treated by the party leaders I suspect they will not need a lot of persuasion to join a Trump attempt to “throw the rascals out”…oh and don’t call me Shirley.
And that’s just talking state Committees, it could get much worse for the party.
In the last election cycle Ted Cruz did not challenge any sitting GOP incumbent, he didn’t endorse Matt Bevin when he was running against Mitch McConnell nor did aid John Cornyn’s worthy challenger Dwayne Stovall. In the current election cycle, frankly Senator Cruz is a tad busy…
…but what about next one?
Now picture Donald Trump in this scenario instead of Ted Cruz. Picture Trump holding huge rallies and bringing his turnout machine to the various states for primary opponents of GOP incumbents. Cripes he might even get Cruz to go along with him on this.
And picture the wall to wall coverage the MSM will give all these efforts, you’re talking more free media than the GOP can buy.
How fast with GOP incumbents fearful of such a scenario decide to line up behind Trump?
Now as I’ve said over and over. I’m a Ted Cruz man. I’ll be voting for him today and I URGE any person reading, particularly Trump people, to get behind Ted who is the conservative who has actually fought and paid the price to trying to do all of the things Donald Trump is now promising to get done. Along the same lineYesterday Pastor Kelly warned of the spiritual price of “win at any cost”.
But if the people don’t take my advice or the Pastor’s and go with Trump, then we must, as a republic respect their choice. I submit and suggest to the GOP establishment that trying to silence the voice of the voters, even if they choose the “wrong” candidate is not only the wrong thing to do, it’s the Dumb thing to do an it will have consequences far worse and longer lasting than they establishment fools realize.
GOP don’t say you haven’t been warned.
It’s Election Day so by the end of the day we wipe away speculation and replace it with hard facts and numbers.
Likewise we start a new day with a new $61 goal and the hope of dropping our current deficit for the year below $1289 & 21.1 days. We’re already $2 on our way.
To those who helped us make our goal yesterday Thank you so much.
To those both able and inclined to do so today you can help us close that gap by hitting DaTipJar.
Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:
If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.
If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC
If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.
Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
As a person who is a bit of a defense hawk I’m not down on Kelly Ayotte like a lot of other conservatives. I have noted on more than one occasion she has talked real sense on military matters, has been great on Benghazi
Oh look, Sen. Kelly Ayotte is on television again talking about Amb. Rice. She’ll continued to be ignored so the left can play sex card.
Yesterday she raised an incredible point at the Hagel Hearings that nobody seems to have caught Of course he also voted against a sense of the senate in designating the Islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization and he told us during the hearing that it was because of it was part of an elected legitimate Iranian government. I don’t think that the people who rose up in 2009 in the green movement who were persecuted and shot at by the Iranian government would call that government a legitimately elected government. Nor would, at the time that he voted against designating the Islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization at the time they were assisting those in Iraq who were murdering our troops.
That is simply devastating. Yet it got absolutely no airtime in the MSM. Why, because it can’t be refuted, there is no way to describe that vote in a positive way and there was nothing in either Senator Ayotte’s demeanor nor her delivery that can be used to attack her on style or substance.
The left has wanted to bring down the only national pol to the right of Chris Christie in the NH and now they’ve finally found a picture of Kelly Ayotte they think they can sell to the General public & New Hampshire voters.
Additionally Ms. Ayotte has been willing to give me time on occasion and it’s much appreciated.
Bottom line I like Kelly Ayotte. She’s not as conservative as me or frankly as I’d like but she the most conservative member of the Senate from any state north-east of Pennsylvania and that combined with her performance on national defense issues means something.
And because I like Kelly Ayotte I’d like to give her some free advice:
However, Ms. Batchelder is not just an average audience member. She’s a paid political operative of the GOP and a paid staff member of Team Jeb Bush:
Let him do it with someone who isn’t on your staff:
However, as previously noted, it didn’t take long to discover that Lauren Batchelder was not just an ordinary audience member, she is actually a current staffer for Senator Kelly Ayotte and also working in New Hampshire on behalf of the Jeb Bush 2016 campaign.
Your name being associated with this not only pisses off the base that you are going to need to turn out in full next year to be re-elected but by asking the question
“…do I get to choose what I do with my body?”
your intern Lauren Batchelder in one fell swoop put your pro-life credentials in doubt and the last thing you need is single issue NH right to life voters deciding you’re not worth their vote.
I don’t know if the Bush people put you up to it or not, if you knew about it or not, or if your staffer did this on her own but for the sake of a one day sound bite that backfired on the Bush campaign, they’ve given the base and the pro-life community, two groups that NEVER forget a reason, to distrust you.
This is bad.
Moreover because of Ms. Batchelder’s attempt to erase her affiliations the apology I’d normally suggest may not fly because destroying the evidence doesn’t do much for one’s credibility, it makes one look like Hillary Clinton.
Thatwas incredibly stupid.
So take my advice: Approach your staff and tell them this:
“The next time a candidate with a campaign that’s pulling single digits in the polls tries to use them for a stunt with the potential to piss off the base like this you have a choice: Say NO or resign publicly.”
Oh and it goes without saying that if Ms. Batchelder is still working for you by the end of the week the signal it will give to the base and pro-lifers will be so unmistakable that no amount of advice of mine will help.
If you looked at the Mainstream media Thursday evening and Friday morning there was a single theme. The Conservative caucus in the house was doomed, they were stuck with John Boehner and that if they force an election for speaker through a motion to “vacate the chair” they will create a speaker who will destroy conservatives etc etc etc
Such was the conventional wisdom brought to you by the same people for whom the conventional wisdom at 8 AM Thursday was “Kevin McCarthy will be the next speaker of the house.”
This is exactly wrong. The time for the GOP conservative caucus to strike is NOW, the time to make a motion to vacate the chair is NOW and the time to force the feckless GOP members to make a decision between the base and the establishment is NOW!
However everyone is ignoring a card, that the Conservatives / Tea People have, a card, a wild card, a card that they likely will never have in play again.
They have Donald Trump.on the GOP primary ballot.
You see in a normal year, the Tea Party might manage to bring a primary challenge to a sitting congressman and unless the congressman is very new or very weak that threat might or in just the right district it will only be an annoyance because their name recognition will be enough to carry them through against any unknown challenger.
But not in the year of Trump!
In the year of Trump a whole new set of voters will be going to the polls on primary, voters who are not loyal to the GOP establishment, a set of voters who look at the establishment that attacks with scorn, a set of voters who are ready to follow Trump..and people who pledge their support to him.
What happens if in such an environment a GOP establishment candidate gets a primary challenger runs as a Pro-Trump Candidate?
Suddenly: You have an opponent that has instant credibility with that set of new voters.
Suddenly: You have an opponent that is newsworthy to not only local media but national media.
Suddenly: All those checks that Trump can’t take from donors for political reasons have a professed Pro-Trump destination that can accept them, checks that can be used to finance a pro-Trump rally in that district
Suddenly: You have an opponent who would share a stage with Trump and might even get a chance to speak to a huge crowd.
and most frightening of all to a member of the GOP establishment in the house
Suddenly: You have a credible well financed challenger ready to unseat you.
I suspect such a candidate would do anything to avoid such a situation, even support the freedom caucus candidate for speaker.
Now there are of course risks, particularly if Trump suddenly collapses but the media and the establishment has been predicting Trump’s collapse for the last three months and it hasn’t happened yet and it’s certainly not going to happen before a GOP leadership vote.
And of course given Mr. Trump’s legendary humility there is absolutely no chance that he would want to promote congressional candidates who are specifically promoting and supporting him for president is there?
If the freedom caucus wants to move members of the GOP establishment this is the scenario that they should put in front of every member preparing to vote with Democrats to stop them.
Before we begin with my objections to yesterday’s proceedings let me tell you a few things I DON’T object to.
I DON’T object: To the current speaker pushing his deputy for the job. As a member of the house in good standing he has every right to support his favorite candidate as any other member.
I DON’T object: To the establishment GOP doing their best to line up votes for said candidate in the house. This is an election and they are trying to win it, that’s how elections work.
I DON’T object: To the establishment using the media to their advantage, this is s political fight and in such a fight you use the assets you have.
I DON’T object: To these guys arguing against a tea party candidate. They believe it is in their best interest to defeat us, so naturally they are going to make the case against, that’s how politics works.
Stipulating all those things and giving our friends in the establishment GOP all of those caveats let me say this.
I object in the strongest possible terms for the GOP to cancel the leadership elections after their candidate drops out.
We keep complaining that the Democrats in the Senate block votes and don’t allow the representatives of the people to make a decision but now just as the caucus is preparing to vote, with three declared candidates ready to make their case, one of them drops off and suddenly the election is off?
This is the type of BS that conspiracy theorists talk bout.
If Steve McCarthy decides to drop out of the race because he put is foot in his mouth, or because he doesn’t have the support or if he’s afraid of scandal that’s on him, but there were two other members in good standing of the House of Representatives GOP caucus ready for the vote who weren’t running away from the decision of the caucus. It was incumbent on the officials there to make a decision rather than string along the nation.
That’s just cowardly BS, our fix isn’t in so we’re not going to vote anymore, what a bunch of losers.
If the members of the GOP aren’t capable voting for a declared candidate for speaker how are they going to be able to make decisions that actually matter?
I’d remind each one of those members that they begged the people at home for the chance to do that job and there are literally dozens in not hundreds of people in each of their districts who would love to have that position if they don’t want it anymore.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abandoned his bid for speaker Thursday afternoon just minutes before the election, throwing the House of Representatives into chaos.
Outgoing Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced during a meeting of House Republicans that elections were being postponed. Pandemonium broke out in the Longworth Office Building, where Republicans had been expected to nominate McCarthy, as lawmakers and aides reacted to the news with astonishment.
“With all the voter distrust of Washington felt around the country, I am asking that any candidate for Speaker of the House, majority leader, and majority whip withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds he has committed since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican Conference and the House of Representatives if they become public,” Jones wrote in a letter to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).
Feel free to disagree (Yid with Lid does) but I’d like to point out the day started with former Vice president Dick Cheney endorsing him and he’s a smart enough cookie not to spend political capital foolishly. He would have figured the Benghazi remarks wouldn’t sink him but likely wouldn’t have known about anything Walter Jones might have been referring to.
Unless you’ve been in a cave the last 2 days, you know that the Supreme Court once again rewrote what Justice Antonin Scalia has taken to calling SCOTUSCare to judicially extend tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance to the poor and middle class purchasing insurance on federally-established insurance exchanges. Much has been made over said subsidies, with the Congressional Republicans preemtively saying that had the letter of the law been applied and said subsidies on the federally-established exchanges been struck down, they would rush in to “temporarily” allow those subsidies to happen through 2017.
However, the case itself was never about the subsidies themselves, but rather the penalt…er…taxes that those subsidies allowed to be applied. Indeed, both the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and the dissent written by Scalia admit that it is all about the tax, and in Roberts’ case, preserving what he transformed from a penalty to a tax.
As Scalia points out, the phrase “Exchange established by the State” appears innumerable times throughout the law. Indeed, it expressly defined the word “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”.
The goal of limiting the subsidies to those in states where the state set up the exchange rather than the federal government was to put political pressure on the states to be the proverbial bagmen for the federal government by offloading the cost of the exchanges from the federal government to the states. That the Democrats failed in their attempt to blackmail the states into becoming their bagmen (a wise fiscal decision, as those states that set up, or tried to set up, their own exchanges are finding to their peril) is not something for the IRS, or six Lawgivers-In-Black, to “correct”, especially when the Republicans said that they would do the “correcting” on at least a temporary basis.
The elimination of said subsidies in states with federally-established exchanges would, in a plain-text reading of the law, also eliminate the threat of the individual non-insurance tax for every couple, virtually every multi-member family, and most single people making between 100% and 400% of the poverty level in those states as the cost of the second-cheapest “silver” insurance plan would rise to above 8% of their income. Similarly, the two types of employer non-insurance tax are predicated on at least one “full-time” employee (that is, one who worked at least 130 hours in a given month) getting subsidized coverage, with the elimination of the subsidy eliminating the liability of those employers operating solely in those states.
Roberts, in defending his 2012 declaration that the individual tax is indeed a tax, admits that result would cause great financial harm to the overall SCOTUSCare scheme. Again, the role of a judge, even a Supreme Court Chief Justice, is not to save the other branches of federal government from bad financial bets through judicial rewrites of law, especially since Congressional Republicans vowed to do just that.
I guess we could count ourselves “fortunate” that my darker prediction of Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black finding a way to keep the taxes fully-intact while striking down the subsidies didn’t happen. On the other hand, given the Congressional Republicans were going to fully-cave (though supposedly temporarily) on the issue of subsidies, I doubt that allowing them to keep the fig leaf of Kabuki Theatre Opposition will much matter. It will simply take a bit longer for them to do the expansion of SCOTUSCare that they previously did for Social Security (thrice) and Medicare.
On Thursday a federal grand jury indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert for breaking banking laws and lying to FBI agents. Prior to his entry into politics, Hastert was a teacher and a state champion wrestling coach at Yorkville High School 50 miles southwest of Chicago. The charges are rooted in a sexual affair with a male student at that school–the over $1 million the man nicknamed “Coach” in Congress was apparently hush money to keep the man quiet.
Amid the reports of the bombshell Hastert indictment was news that legislation authorizing a $500,000 statue of the former speaker for the grounds of the state capitol was introduced earlier this month by state House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat who is also chairman of the state party. According to AP, Hastert, citing the ongoing state budget crisis, declined the offer. Or more likely, he saw his indictment on the horizon.
Madigan’s proposed 2016 Illinois budget includes a $4 billion deficit–despite constitutional requirements that the state budget must be balanced. But Madigan, who was arguably the most powerful Democrat in state government even when Illinois had a Democratic governor, somehow found money–or maybe he didn’t–to put the Coach in bronze.
Worse, Illinois’ public worker pensions are unfunded by an astounding $110 billion.
Democrats are not serious about cutting spending in Illinois.
As for Hastert, his speakership was of the Illinois-kind. House Republicans who played Denny’s game were rewarded earmarks–and that reckless spending contributed to the end of the GOP majority in the House in 2006.
The Coach also played footsie with Illinois Democrats–and he was a leader in the bi-partisan graft machine dubbed the Combine by Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass.
So in a way, while Hastert is deserving in a twisted way of the honor of $500,000 statue, preciously scarce taxpayer funds should not be squandered on this monument.
My immediate reaction, in the comments section of the Hot Air post, was that this is the “logical” extension of the 2011 cave on the debt ceiling to foreign policy. To wit, it’s a changing of an active Congressional approval to one of active Congressional disapproval in order to con those of us outside the DC bubble.
The big item that is part of Corker’s bill is that it completely accedes to the notion that whatever agreement is reached is not only is an “executive agreement”, but one that requires no actual Congressional approval, much less the 2/3rds approval by the Senate a treaty requires. In fact, the bill explicitly allows for the waiving of all the sanctions against Iran if there is no action taken by Congress. In that respect, it’s worse than the various iterations of the “fast-track” trade negotiation authority that had existed for nearly the last 4 decades. Fast-track at least required the active approval of Congress.
With that said, given there wouldn’t be 2/3rds of Congress willing to override a Presidential veto of a maintenance of sanctions, it really doesn’t matter. According to the Congressional Research Service (courtesy the Federation of American Scientists), all of the statutory sanctions can be waived, and many of them outright terminated, by Presidential authority. In fact, the “prohibition” on those waivers during the Congressional review period specifically doesn’t apply to those made by mid-May, and arguably any made prior to the submission of a final agreement to Congress.
One could point to the fact that Congress would get semi-annual reports on Iran’s compliance with a nuclear deal, with an expedited consideration of a reimposition of sanctions as punishment for non-compliance, as a “positive”. However, given the punishment would require 2/3rds of both houses of Congress (after an Obama veto) to happen, and thus wouldn’t happen, it is equally meaningless.
Mika Brzezinski:OK, I got just one thing to say – it’s just my instinct in a couple of meetings with him: I wouldn’t underestimate him. … I wouldn’t underestimate him. I think this guy is really, really smart. I don’t agree with a thing he says.
Donny Deutsch: And you think he has a chance to be a serious contender? That’s a – I’m not saying he’s not smart. He’s a U.S. Senator.
Mika Brzezinski: I wouldn’t underestimate from him having a big impact in this election and not being the 9-9-9. I’m just saying. That’s my instinct. We’ll see.
At the start of the Young American for Freedom event Friday night in Nashua NH something took place that reminded me of the days when I was the same age as many the young people in attendance. It was the screening of this short video on the media & Ronald Reagan.
The film was a stroll down memory lane as I watched again saw a young Joe Biden, a young Chuck Schumer and members of the media, many still alive, attacking Ronald Reagan as a fool , a dunce , an uncaring and unfeeling warmongering ogre who would destroy the country at best and the world at worst and recalled my own history professor at what was then Fitchburg State College saying how much Ronald Reagan scared him..
I laughed inside as those media and political giants insulting Ronald Reagan in the public forums that they had exclusive control of at the time never suspecting they would fail utterly to harm his popularity but decades later they would be using Reaganesque as a positive adjective for people like Barack Obama.
What was most interesting about that film was how familiar the words sounded to anyone who has been following the media reaction to Ted Cruz and, Andrew Kaufman the director of the Reagan Ranch pointed out the parallels as he introduced the Senator. While the left’s critique is an excellent parallel between Senator Cruz and President Reagan the real parallel between the pair can be best described in the words used by Abraham Lincoln to describe US Grant:
“I can’t spare this man, he fights!”
Ronald Reagan fearlessly fought for the principles of conservatism he did so without anger, without yielding and with a smile.
That more than anything else is the perfect description of what Ted Cruz means to conservatism.
Since his first moment in the congress Ted Cruz has fought.
The Senate passed a Republican-authored budget plan early on Friday that seeks $5.1 trillion in domestic spending cuts over 10 years while boosting military funding.
This is a double whammy not only do we get cuts rather than an increase but we get a huge contrast with the Harry Reid Era:
The House passed its budget resolution on Wednesday after a similar process of debate and amendment. Some journalists might be unfamiliar with this process after six years of Democratic Party grandstanding under the cataclysmic leadership of Harry Reid, but this is called “regular order” budgeting. Reid’s decision to abandon that process was what led to several years of budgeting by brinksmanship, “fiscal cliffs,” debt-ceiling standoffs, and the like.
Reid just announced his retirement, I wonder if he didn’t want to deal with the ads that would practically write themselves?
To be sure we likely need a lot more budget responsibility that this package produced and that’s why some people like Rand Paul voted “No” but if you are my age and lived through decades of unfettered Democrat power in congress that people under 40 might not remember the concept congress of cutting the budget, even slightly is a huge deal.
Now granted we need a lot more cuts and we will need strong conservative to keep them honest but in the end this budget resolution means the GOP is capable of , at least slowly moving our financial house in the direction it should be in.
That’s a good sign and the leadership deserves credit for getting it done.
Guy Fleegman: I’m not even supposed to be here. I’m just “Crewman Number Six.” I’m expendable. I’m the guy in the episode who dies to prove how serious the situation is. I’ve gotta get outta here.
Galaxy Quest 1999
Michael Corleone:It’s not personal Sonny, it’s strictly business.
The Godfather 1972
Vince Wilford was drafted by the New England Patriots back in 2004 and has played 11 seasons with the team. In those 11 years he managed four trips to the Superbowl and two wins. The first was during his rookie season with the patriots and apparently his second may be in his last:
Veteran defensive tackle Vince Wilfork tweeted Thursday that the New England Patriots have informed him they will not pick up the option in his contract, thus making him a free agent when the new league year begins Tuesday.
Now Wilfork is considered a good player at his position and will reportedly be a desirable free agent top player at his position but there is a logical financial reason for this move:
Will the likely end of the Vince Wilfork-New England Patriots marriage bode well for the return of Darrelle Revis and Devin McCourty to New England?
Not picking up Wilfork’s option gives the Patriots a projected salary cap savings of $8.9 million. CSNNE.com Patriots Insider Tom E. Curran says that money could help retain their pending free agents in the secondary, who were a big part of their Super Bowl-winning season.
The Pats could of course still sign him for less money but the bottom line is this. irregardless of his past performance as far as the Patriots are concerned Vince Wilfork is as expendable as a red shirt in the old Star Trek series (as illustrated in Mad Magazines parody song of the 70’s sung to the tune of The Age of Aquarius).
♫ As your ship files through the galaxy, to far away places way past mars. Be sure that your adventures, do not kill off the stars!
And you can do it with a crew that’s expendable, crew that’s expendable. Expendable! Expendable
Minor actors that you bring on, perish when you meet a Klingon. Other ones you bring on later die within a planet’s crater. And although we try to save them we can not because the script has made them expendable. Expendable! ♫
An Elmwood Park man pleaded guilty on Tuesday to conspiring with his brother to violate federal election law by steering $21,400 in illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez.
Benedetto Bigica, 45, admitted that he worked with his brother, Joseph, of Franklin Lakes, from April 2005 to April 2008 to make the illegal contributions
The response from the Menendez campaign was…interesting
A spokesman for Menendez has acknowledged that the senator was the unnamed federal official cited in court papers in the case but said Menendez was a victim of Joseph Bigica’s.
“Senator Menendez’s campaign, a victim of the fraud that ensued, cooperated fully with the investigation,” Mike Soliman, Menendez’s state director and former campaign manager, said Tuesday.
Yes you read that right.
Based on my what I’ve already written I’d say Menendez, like Dinesh D’Sousa is likely guilty as sin, but he was likely guilty as sin from 2005-2008 when those illegal contributions were made. He was likely guilty as sin when I was writing about him in 2012 and 2013 and I suspect he was guilty as sin all through 2014.
The question becomes, if this was all true, why is justice only interested in him now? PJ media and Ted cruzandothers think it’s because of his opposition to an Iran deal. As Cruz said:
“The announcement this week by the Justice Department that they were bringing charges against Bob Menendez — I will point out that the timing seems awfully coincidental that … in the very week that Bob Menendez showed incredible courage to speak out and call out President Obama for the damage that his policy is doing to our national security … the Justice Department announces they’re moving forward with the criminal prosecution,” Cruz said.
“It raises the suggestion to other Democrats that if you dare part from the Obama White House, that criminal prosecutions will be used potentially as a political weapon against you as well,” he added.
But think about it. Menendez was defending Israel and expressing suspicion of Iran long before this month. The Kirk Menendez Amendment putting sanctions on Iran dates from 2011 Why were his speeches and critiques not enough to cause a break?
That’s actually easy. He wasn’t expendable then.
Before Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012 a high profile hispanic was vital. Before the 2014 with the prospect of control of the senate hanging by a single seat, every person with a “D” next to their name was vital.
And even a few weeks ago with the first test of the Democrats ability to shake down Mitch McConnell & John Boehner it was vital to make sure there was party unity.
It isn’t Menendez’s corruption, nor his support of Israel, or even his outspoken condemnation of the Iran deal that doomed him. It’s because like Vince Wilfork. He’s suddenly no longer worth the price.
Given the educational standards advanced by Democrats in public school one might expect members of the party to have issues with basic skills such as math comprehension & Geography and problem solving.
However the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representative is Nancy Pelosi who having been born in 1940 was educated long before her liberal fellows took over the educational system and under her leadership her caucus is giving strong evidence that not only are their mathematical skills on par with former Democrat speaker Tip O’Neill but their geographical and problem solving skills are greater than expected.
To wit, they have taken a look at the electoral map and have concluded that there is little or no chance of their party convincing enough voters in increasingly conservative congressional districts nationwide to return control of the house to their party anytime in the decade, let alone in the near future leaving their liberal agenda in doubt.
“Personally, I don’t want to waste two years,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said Wednesday. “And I think that the crazy Tea Party type would probably not be willing to work with us on anything.
“My hope is that, what comes out of this is that Boehner realizes that there are some people in his caucus who are unreasonable, and you can never get them to say ‘yes’ to anything,” McGovern added. “Rather than spending so much time agonizing over how to please them, maybe he just ought to focus on how you build more bipartisan coalitions and actually get some things done.”
McGovern is making perfect sense here, why bother spending millions of dollars in a futile effort to sell your horrible destructive ideas to the American public when you just have to win over already elected republicans in fairly safe districts? The math is so much easier.
And if there is one thing we know if there is one thing the GOP establishment and leadership have in common with the Democrats, it’s their absolute hatred of the GOP conservative base.
You might want to keep that in mind the next time the GOP asks you for money.
Because we’d rather not take someone else’s word for it, we inquired independently. This weekend, Speaker Boehner’s office assured us House Republicans had no plans to capitulate to the demands of Senate Democrats. As to the speculation that there was some kind of a deal with Pelosi? “There is no such ‘deal’ or promise,” says Boehner Spokesman Michael Steel.
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise echoed the sentiments saying, “There is no such deal and there’s no such bill,” Scalise said on “Fox News Sunday.” “On Friday, there was a bill on the House floor to pass a clean funding bill. We rejected that because we said we’re fighting the president on what he’s doing illegally on immigration,” according to The Hill.
“We are not giving in to Senate Democrats’ blackmail,” Boehner said, “Will keep fighting Obama’s unilateral action on immigration to protect Constitution.”
As I mentioned before I missed CPAC this year depriving people like Sharyn Bovat of Cannoli but I’m working hard to reduce my debts via a long term contract I’m working on so I can go next year.
As part of that contract I was at a location today for a few hours and on heading home was dying for a Chinese Buffet so naturally I headed for Tang Dynasty in Leominster mass which has the best such buffet in the area.
Unfortunately when I got there I discovered they for whatever reason didn’t have their buffett.
Now normally I would have just had a lunch special but I had my heart set on a chinese buffet so I remembered a place I hadn’t been to for almost a decade named King Buffet located next to the cinema in Fitchburg.
Now I had recalled that the place had left a bad taste in my mouth but I figured they deserved another chance, so I headed down there, sat down, filled my plate and after two bites instantly remembered why I hadn’t been there since my sons where still in grade school.
While Tang lost my business for one day, my experience today guaranteed that I would be back there the first chance I get.
And THAT brings us to Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate.
It had been nearly ten years since the GOP held the US senate and despite the dismal performance of Senate Democrats the American People in General and conservatives in particular had not chosen to give power back to the GOP.
This week was our first taste of Mitch McConnell’s senate leadership and it was an excellent reminder of why the establishment GOP has managed to lose two presidential elections to the least experienced, least qualified and most incompetent person ever to seek or hold the office of president of the United States in living memory.
There was no reason for Mitch McConnell to lose this fight. Every three days he should have bought up the house bill, and every time the Democrats filibustered it he should have been in front of the camera reminding the American people and the media that the Democrats were more interested in scoring political points than funding DHS.
He and his lieutenants should have been on every TV show saying that if the Democrats believe giving special rights to people who break our laws is more important than defeating ISIS & defending this country and should have played that card every single day. When pressed by the media saying Barack Obama would just veto the bill he could reply that a veto threat is just a threat until it happens and that if the president values lawbreaking more that defending the country that is up to him.
But instead he not only gave the Democrats what he wanted he allowed the media the narrative they desired.
If conservatives wanted to let Harry Reid be the majority leader they would have stayed home in Kentucky and Iowa and North Carolina etc etc etc.
I’ve learned my lesson when it comes to King Buffet if they are going to provide a sub par product I will take my custom elsewhere.
Conservatives are getting a taste of rule by the GOP establishment. If Mitch McConnell & the GOP are going to provide an inferior product we’ll take our votes elsewhere.
Or to put it in a way the establishment understands. If you expect conservatives to show up and give you those plum Chairmanships in congress and those plum appointed jobs that comes with a GOP president don’t give us a sub standard product.
In 2009, evil Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan, while screaming “Allahu Akbar,” murdered 13 soldiers and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood in Texas. For over five years our military–its commander-in-chief of course is Obama–refused to call this slaughter an act of terror. Instead the Fort Hood shootings were classified as “workplace violence.” This injustice wasn’t just a matter of semantics–some benefits and compensation were withheld from the victims because of the heartless definition.
Of course Obama could have added to his plethora of executive orders by righting this wrong. But he didn’t.
But on Friday, thanks not to Obama but to a change in the legal definition of terrorism by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, the Fort Hood shootings are now classified as terror acts–and the wounded will soon be awarded Purple Hearts.
Hasan, who is now imprisoned on death row at Fort Leavenworth, had communicated with Anwar al-Awlaki, who until his 2011 death was leader of Al Qeada in Yemen. The shrink also had business cards printed with SoA after his name–an acronym for soldier of Allah.
Last year Hasan wrote to the leader of ISIS, telling him, “I formally and humbly request to be made a citizen of the Islamic State.”
Now will Obama himself finally call the Fort Hood murders an act of terror?
there are a lot of affluent-but-hardly-wealthy folks in blue states who would be very unhappy to hear that that nice Westchester home Mom and Dad bought for $15,000 in 1952 is going to be subject to a capital gains tax — at the same time as they’re suddenly paying income taxes on the capital gains and dividends in little Sally’s college account. . . .
Taxing the earnings on college savings accounts is even stranger, both because this hits the middle class, and because if you tax the earnings, there’s not all that much point to having the account; essentially, Obama is taxing college savings accounts in order to fund universal community college. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and what it tells you is that Obama has already run through most of the practical and politically palatable ways to tax the affluent.
Yeah, this will hurt Blue State types harder, but hey, they voted for Obama. This is a win-win: He gets the blame, or he vetoes it.
Ed Driscoll disagrees and makes a good point:
As with Democrats talking George H.W. Bush into raising taxes in 1990, one huge danger to this sort of game is that Democrats will play along in 2015 and then run ads like the above the following year directed towards the individual GOP senators and congressmen who raised taxes:
While those individual ads are a good point Ed misses the real argument that makes this a non-starter.
Why does Reagan matter here because while the Democrats hate Reagan almost as much as they hate actual Christianity (as opposed to pseudo Christianity that doesn’t actually believe anything) he is their goto guy for justifying many of the things they do. Ironically while Reagan knew that with enemies one must “trust but verify” Reagan never figured out that congressional democrats were among them.
Ronald Reagan made a deal with Democrats to Raise Taxes and Cut Spending, they did the first but not the second. This deception not only served the needs of Tip & the rest of the caucus at the time but for twenty years every time Democrats want to justify a new tax they point to Reagan signing the Democrat Tax increases of the 80’s
The fact that this was his side of the bargain, that it was the Democrats who insisted on these tax increases and broke their word (surprise surprise) never seems to come up as far as the liberal left of today is concerned these are the Reagan Tax increases as if Democrats had nothing to do with them at all.
But that’s not the only Reagan Example there is also Amnesty.
Democrats played the very same game, Ronald Reagan made a deal, in return for border enforcement he would make legal millions who had violated law to come here. Once again he kept his side of the deal and the Democrats keeping the same game plan did not.
And to no one’s surprise today’s Democrats conveniently forget both their betrayal of Reagan and their passage of Amnesty As far as they are concerned it is Reagan’s Amnesty and that’s that.
So what does this tell us about any possible deal with the left on the Obama Tax increases?
1. The Democrats will not keep to any deal made, Harry reid has already acted in bad faith and anyone who thinks this President or administration will enforce any parts of any law passed that he doesn’t like deserves all the trouble they get from it..
2. Not only will the Democrats use the GOP’s passing of tax increases in campaign ads as Ed suggested but if the GOP is foolish enough to go along with this every single media outlet from this point on will classify these not as the Obama tax increases but the Republican tax increases.
One might debate if this is a smart diplomatic move or no when dealing with an ally, but perhaps Israel’s prime minister is using a Christian standard to judge who is a ally or no:
“Either declare the tree good and its fruit is good, or declare the tree rotten and its fruit is rotten, for a tree is known by its fruit.
One could take a look at the condition of the Middle East to see how good his policies have been, but rather than rehash the last few years let’s take a peek at two events of this week
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will represent the United States at the 70th anniversary ceremony for the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp on Tuesday—rather than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden—while other countries are slated to send their heads of state.
well it’s not like other heads of state are showing up…oh wait:
“Heads of state from France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark will be present,” Wiser adds.
President Barack Obama will cut short his three-day trip to India to travel to Saudi Arabia to pay respects following the death of King Abdullah, U.S. and Indian officials said today, hours before the U.S. president was to depart for New Delhi.
The schedule change means Obama will skip plans to visit the Taj Mahal, the white marble monument of love. Pradeep Bhatnagar, a top state official based in the city of Agra, where the Taj Mahal is located, said U.S. security officials informed him of the cancellation today.
So let’s get this straight, the head of a Regime that doesn’t allow women to vote, or drive & restricts Christians & Jews (if they were allowed) is worth this Administration time.
Remembering murdered jews by either the Nazi’s or Islamic Terrorists is not.
Update: Now I know why Obama took the bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office
When in November 1932, shortly before Hitler came to power, and Churchill was in Munich doing some historical research about the First Duke of Marlborough,…an intermediary [Putzi Hanfstaengl] tried to get him to meet Hitler, who was in Munich at the time and had high hopes of coming to power within months. Churchill agreed to meet Hitler, who was going to come to see him in his hotel in Munich, and said to the intermediary: “There are a few questions you might like to put to him, which can be the basis of our discussion when we meet.” Among them was the following question: “What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?”
This may seem a simple sentiment to us now, but how many people, distinguished people from Britain, the United States and other countries, who met or might have met Hitler, raised that question with him? So surprised, and possibly angered, was Hitler by this question that he declined to come to the hotel and see Churchill.
The “good” news is that Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Roy Blunt (R-MO, and the chair of the Senate Rules committee) will seek to do that through the regular order of having 2/3rds of the Senate vote to change the rule instead of Reid’s parlimentary trick of using a simple majority to change the interpretation of Senate rules. The bad news is a multitude: they are confidants of Senate Majority “Leader” Mitch McConnell (R-KY), they appear to have no intention of restoring the filibuster for other Presidential nominees though that is still on the books, and they somehow got Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on board.
The excuse that the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees has to go now in order for it to be gone for the next President is a bunch of hogwash. The next Senate will be sworn in before the next President. Rather, it has all the hallmarks of yet another betrayal by the more-or-less minority half of the bipartisan Party-In-Government, especially since two of the four Supreme Court Justices most likely to not make it to 2017 are not ultra-liberal and one of those is one of the three reliable conservatives.
At the moment, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is one of the few who wants to keep the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. I somehow suspect he’ll change his tune once McConnell and company explain who gets shafted the most.
Gen Patton: Major! You the executive officer here? Maj Walker:Yes, sir. Gen Patton:What’s Your name? Maj Walker:Walker sir. General Patton :Well You’re now commanding officer! You’ve got 4 hours to break through that beachhead. lf you don’t make it, I’ll fire you!
This time, Ellmers and Walorski opposed the bill because the exception is too burdensome — despite running in both cases as pro-life legislators who pledged to act on those principles. This despite the fact that this exception is demanded by abortion advocates in any kind of limiting legislation as a baseline expectation to deal with the <1.5% of abortions to which those exceptions apply. That data, by the way, comes from surveys done by the abortion-supporting Guttmacher Institute, and not law enforcement data on reported incidents of rape.
Ellmers and others appear to be worried about the message that this bill sends as one of the first actions from a new Republican Congress.
Ed notes that when Democrats controlled the Senate and there was no chance of it getting to the President’s desk congresswoman Ellmers was singing a different tune:
Tell me has the scientific information become less reliable in the last two years or was that vote an example of what Ted Cruz referred to during his famous all nigher as a show vote?
Full disclosure, I’ve interviewed Rene Ellmers, she was on my radio show and has been a friend to this site. Furthermore I’ve given her the benefit of the doubt in the past when there were questions about some of her positions in the past.
But I’m not a republican and I’m Catholic before I’m conservative and abortion is a sine non qua at this site.
So in the interest of giving some solid advice to a person who has been a friend here let me point out two facts that Pro-life Republicans understand but congresswoman Ellmers feeling her oats after reelection might have forgotten.
The GOP in the 114th congress holds a majority with 247 seats.
They will still have said majority if it becomes 246.
Nov 8th 2016 isn’t as far off as one might think.
If you can’t get people to see the light I recommend making them feel the heat.
Rep. Renee Ellmers, the North Carolina Republican who led the charge to pull the House GOP’s 20-week abortion ban bill this week, could have a bruising primary from the conservative wing of her party in 2016.
Jim Duncan, the chairman of the Chatham County Republican Party, is mulling a bid against Ellmers, according to multiple GOP sources in the Tar Heel State.
Duncan could not immediately be reached for comment. But GOP operatives say Duncan was looking at a primary challenge against Ellmers before this week. Operatives say Thursday’s events — in which a group of anti-abortion protesters in Washington, D.C., for the March for Life demonstrated outside her Longworth office — could push Duncan toward entering a primary race.
This is how it should happen every time one of the people we elect to represent us instead betray us. We should not be afraid to take corrective action against those we send to Washington, and the sooner in their career you do it, the better.
Thanks to the fracking boom (no thanks to President Obama and his eco-nuts on that) and the Saudis attempting to do to said boom what they did to the Soviets in the 1980s, the price of gasoline has plummeted. In fact, most of the stations in the Milwaukee area are charging less than $2 per gallon, a level I thought I would never see again.
However, the Political Class has deemed that gasoline is too low, and that government, in this case the federal government, needs more taxes, using the temporary situation of relatively-inexpensive gas as the pretext to push the gas and diesel taxes higher to “save” the United States Highway Trust Fund.
Notably, the push includes the three Republican Senators who have the chairs of the three committees that likely would have jurisdiction over such a move – Environment and Public Works Chair James Inhofe (R-OK), Finance Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair John Thune (R-SD). For their parts, Inhofe and Thune claim to not favor doing so, but that the option should be “on the table”. That is DC-speak for “let’s do it”.
Inhofe then destroyed his credibility on the issue by calling it a “user fee”. The fuel taxes haven’t been strictly a “user fee” since 1982, when a penny of the 5-cent increase to 9 cents per gallon was dedicated to mass transit, with another 0.1 cent dedicated to fuel tank clean-up. Mass transit’s share has since increased to 2.86 cents per gallon.
Earlier today, Pete gave the rosy political analysis of the politics of the CRomnibus, or as it should be called, the CRUMMYbus. I disagree, but before I get to that, there have been a couple of developments that are happening as I type:
Congress passed, and President Obama signed, a stopgap spending measure to keep the government open through Wednesday.
The Senate reached an agreement to pass the larger CRomnibus with no changes.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) forced a vote on the constitutional point of order regarding the CRomnibus’ funding of Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal aliens, which failed in a massive showing by the bipartisan Party-In-Government.
It is an unmitigated disaster for the Republicans. On every major point of full-year spending, the Democrats got what Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted – full funding for ObamaCare for the rest of the fiscal year, full funding for the 3-month start of amnesty for illegal aliens, and a continuation of spending at a clip that adds more than $1,000,000,000,000 in new debt per year.
Even worse, the Republicans lost the optics of what the Democrat Presstitute Organs successfully framed as “consessions” to Republicans – a slight reworking of the Frank-Dodd throttling of the financial sector for the benefit of, mainly, Citigroup and an increase in the amount of money that can be donated to national political committee. Both items are actually on the Democrat wish list, and for much the same reason – campaign cash.
First, Citigroup, which allegedly wrote the weakening of Dodd-Frank, has been giving more to Democrats than Republicans every cycle since 2006. Of course, the chief objector on the far-left side of the aisle, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), received exactly $0.00 from them, so take her objection with a grain of salt.
The increase in donations to political parties is, similarly, a lifeline to the nearly-bankrupt Democrat National Committee. The Republican National Committee, while nearly as reviled by conservatives as by the Presstitute Organs, is doing rather well financially.
For those of you who thought that there might be a fight over executive amnesty for illegal aliens in a few months when the short-term funding for Homeland Security runs out, I have some bad news. Sen. Cruz’s attempt to raise a constitutional point of order regarding its funding was rejected by a far larger majority than the number of incoming Republican freshmen Senators.
I may not go as far as Ace and actually vote for a Democrat in 2016, but my Republican RepublicRAT representatives, Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Johnson, no longer have my vote in either any future primary or any future general election. The advesarial two-party system is dead – may the bipartisan Party-In-Government join it.
I’m guilty of many things, but one is talking about race and Things Black too much.
The reputational demise of public astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson elicited a great deal of Schadenfreude, but it depressed me for one reason: I liked seeing a black person talk about something other than race, being black, or crime–the last of which is all too often a byproduct of race. Finding out that Mr. Tyson is a bit of a charlatan made me sad.
That said, in this post, I will be again guilty of discussing race, but only to point to three pockets of hope on the subject.
The mindterm election this past week saw the turning of the U.S. Senate to the GOP and GOP gains for the House. Among these are Senator Tim Scott (SC), Representative-Elects Mia Love (UT-4), and the much-less heralded, but no less significant Will Hurd (TX-23). That these three people are black and Republican is remarkable in itself, but some might also find it equally remarkable that the majority of each constituency is non-black. (Mr. Hurd’s district consists of mostly of Americans of Mexican ancestry.) However, this shouldn’t be surprising at all.
Most (all?) U.S. congressional districts represented by black Democrats–Congressional Black Caucus members–have long been carved out for them. I contend that each one of them has been planted by the Democrat Party and the party heavily funds all of their campaigns.
It is a method of keeping each of these districts voting Democratic, keeping the voters quiet about economic progress, and it feeds on the indoctrinated notion that having a representative who looks like you somehow elevates you. That same notion explains why virtually all black American voters voted for Barack Obama, especially in 2012. And I need to repeat: it keeps each of these districts voting Democratic. This is how the fallacy of black=Democrat was born.
An inverse anecdotal example: I live in a district with a majority-black voting base–formerly represented by Maxine Waters and recently re-carved in order for Karen Bass to retain her place at the table–and have watched, cycle after cycle, as Republicans–usually black, but not always–have haplessly run, including the locally famous homeless activist Ted Hayes in 2008. These brave people get no publicity and, usually, little funding, though Mr. Hayes got a great deal of the latter.
Back to the newly elected black Republicans, the demographics of these pockets of post-racialism is the real progress: that three people who do not look like the majority of their constituents can be elected by them and that three black politicians can base their campaigns on issues other than race.
Right Now Lena Dunham’s autobiography is blowing up in her face causing the cancellation of book tours around the world as she is reaping the whirlwind thanks to her (not conservatives) foolishly detailing her behavior as a youth and teen that our friends on the left have not yet (despite efforts in that direction ) been able to normalize, in print but to furthermore threaten suit against people who accurately quoted her detailing of said actions.
Kimmel has gotten a fair amount of flack for this but there is a reason why I put the word “defending” in quotes.
Consider the point he is making that a 7 year old as a rule, is not capable of understanding such things, is not unsound. Given that we live in an age of zero tolerance where school administrators are overreacting to a kiss on a playground rather than reflexively attacking Kimmel for his assertion it should be answered both in general and in the context of the larger point of Lena Dunham.
So right off let me start by conceding the following two logical premises:
1. Even in our highly sexualied culture as a rule A seven year old does not understand what “molestation” is.
2. As a rule judging a seven year old by adult standards is unjust
There is a reason why adults are judged differently than children Kimmel’s point could be extended to any number of behaviors from theft to violence, thus I have no problem conceding those two points.
But having made said concessions let me point out the things from Ms. Dunham’s situation that Mr. Kimmel’s tweet and premisses doesn’t address.
1. By any objective standard said actions were not appropriate & if done by a person of age and understanding would be clearly illegal.
2. According to Dunham’s own book said actions continued deep into teenage years
3. If said actions were done by a male a sister the reaction of our friends on the left would likely be different.
4. If a Sarah Palin, a Ted Cruz or a Megan Kelly wrote such things concerning their youth to the MSM not even a Zombie apocalypse would trump it. The cultural left and their allies in the media would grab ahold of the story like a starving dog and they were hounded out of the public and shunned by everyone outside of the gonzo porn community.
Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter noted for his primitive brand of highbrow pornography, his canvases anchored by puffy neon-pink labia; her photographer mother filled the family home with nude pictures of herself, “legs spread defiantly.” Self-styled radicals from old money, they were not the sort of people inclined to enforce even the most lax of boundaries.
For a person to regret actions one has to understand there is something to regret, Dunham clearly did not grow up in such an atmosphere, Picture for a moment what would have happened if this behavior took place with a person other than her sister, say a neighbor or the kid sister of a friend on a sleepover. Such behavior would be as Williamson describes it:
the sort of thing that gets children taken away from non-millionaire families without Andover pedigrees and Manhattanite social connections.
I challenge anyone to dispute either of the quotes from Mr. Williamson above.
Given these facts of course Ms. Dunham, while understanding now that such behavior by an adult would be in her own words the acts a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl of course she would consider that same behavior perfectly normal behavior for a girl 7-17 and worthy of publication.
How could she think otherwise?
Now lets consider Mr. Kimmel tweet again, he didn’t mention Ms. Dunham by name, he didn’t address any of the points I talked about above in fact to my knowledge beyond that tweet and a humorous follow-up on the reaction it generated he hasn’t really said a thing. In fact one might consider that he was making a point totally independent on any opinion he may have on Ms. Dunham period.
So in my mind I think the critique of Jimmy Kimmel here is unwarranted based on an interpretation of opinions not in evidence.
However the as for the critiques of Ms. Dunham, she brought those on herself.
Exit Question #1 Given these facts how much of her regret at being hetrosexual and currentrage spiral over the reactionsto her screed might come from am emerging awareness that her own perception of morality might be skewed?
Exit Question #2 To those who take umbrage with my point about normalizing behavior I give you Dana Perino
@iowahawkblog makes me wonder if the editor/publisher bothered reading the book. Didn't anyone say "ummm we better be prepared for this…"
As everyone knows I supported first Karen Testerman and then Bob Smith for the GOP Senate in NH furthermore I argued that nominating Scott Brown might cause 2A and pro-life people to stay home.
However not only did Scott Brown win the primary but he’s run an excellent campaign overall. Combine this with a poor campaign by Shaheen, and the record of president Obama on Ebola & ISIS and viola Senator Brown has a real chance to take that seat.
In one respect win or lose Brown has already done a huge service for the GOP. When the election season began nobody was picking NH as a state the GOP could flip. Thanks to a strong well-financed campaign by Brown the left has spent an inordinate amount of 3rd party/national money resources defending New Hampshire that they could have spent in Louisiana, or Alaska, or North Dakota, or Colorado, or Arkansas, or Iowa, or North Carolina or Montana or Virginia or in the Florida Governor Race etc etc etc.
Taking money from the left is good, but winning the Senate is better and now the Tea Party and Conservatives in New Hampshire have a chance to not only spike the ball providing a final service for conservatives running nationwide.
Until election day an election is like a marketing campaign, but on election day it’s like a battle where morale is critical. As New Hampshire is one of the eastern states it will be reporting earlier than many other states.
If the Democrats media allies can project a victory in New Hampshire fairly early it will keep up the morale of liberals farther west where pols are still open who will be working as hard as they can to hold senate and house seats. It will provide a narrative that will make it easier for Democrat talking heads to keep the troops fighting till the last poll closes.
But picture if by 9 or 10 PM New Hampshire is still in doubt, or better yet imagine if the networks find themselves calling the state for Brown.
Picture the analysts on MSNBC trying to spin a Brown victory as not a fatal disaster for Democrats, picture them trying to give hope to their party faithful farther west, that a loss in NH doesn’t mean the Senate is going GOP bigtime while wearing drawn faces. Even a race that can’t be called will have a depressing effect.
Such a blow could be critical, if the left decides there simply isn’t hope how many may choose to give up? How many will go home, stop working, vote for a green or 3rd party liberal or even to not bother to vote figuring they can’t make a difference. Picture what that will mean not just in Senate & House races but up and down the ticket for the GOP.
While Senator Brown is not the ideal candidate to many conservatives aiding a victory by him on Tuesday might in NH might make the difference between winning and losing for stronger House and Senate conservatives across the nation.
So I urge you , if you are a New Hampshire Tea Party voter, a second amendment defender or even like me, a strong pro-life voter and considered staying home or even voting 3rd party reconsider, because choosing to elect Scott Brown may do more for your cause than you can possibly imagine.
Let me introduce you to Ann Wofford she is the GOP candidate running in the Massachusetts 3rd District for congress
Yesterday I had the pleasure of watching her debate incumbent Niki Tsongas in Devens Ma. and if you following my livetweet of the debate you would realize she is something special.
Tsongas is a practiced debater and a well spoken woman but Wofford not only answered questions directly but her plain-spoken opponent was not only more than a match for her but bluntly spoke truths that would make any Conservatives’ heart go pitter patter on comprehensive healthcare
question on jobs #wolford Talks about regulation killing jobs ” Congress has shown it can’t do comprehensive anything” #ma3#ma3debate
Those three quotes: The Federal government is not here to save us, Nobody believes this president anymore and “Congress has shown it can’t to comprehensive anything” would all be best sellers at any GOP event nationwide and are sentiments that a majority of the country might support.
And when Niki Tsongas pushed a minimum wage increase as a panacea for women in distress & the middle class in distress Wofford bluntly answered “We live in two different worlds.” that pretty much sums up conservatives vs liberals on real life. I summed up the debate here
And livetweeted throughout the event. I didn’t shoot much video other than the closing statements
but the Lowell Sun site has video available. but that not what struck me about this debate.
as I mentioned when summing up this is the first time I’ve gone to a Tsongas debate and didn’t see a line of Niki Tsongas yard signs lining the road that you take to the debate, in fact if I didn’t know which road to take or have printed directions a person driving through the main road through Devens who have absolutely no idea this event was going on.
I submit and suggest this was deliberate, Tsongas is a good candidate but Wofford is an impressive woman and the last thing you want if you are an incumbent of the Gilligan party in one of the most depressed districts in a state is to highlight an opponent that simply radiates competence.
But that point raises another. It’s one week before election day. Why am I only now discovering this about Ann Wofford?
The district is considered relatively competitive, and Tsongas has several times barely cleared 50 percent against relatively unknown and outspent GOP opponents. There have even been competitive primaries for the chance to face her.
But this time, nobody stepped up—which is why, Wofford tells me, she decided to do it herself. “I just feel that is outrageous,” for the incumbent to go unchallenged, she says. “I do not feel that I am represented by my current congressperson, and I refuse to be told you have no choice.”
In a year when competence is the #1 issue, in an era where the left is constantly pushing the “anti-woman gop” lie don’t you think that a highly competent, poised woman who can go toe to toe with a long-term incumbent might be someone you want to push? Particularly when you’ve only got three contested congressional seats in the state:
Wofford, a chemical engineer with 17 years in the private sector, was raised in Western Massachusetts and now lives in Haverhill with her husband and two daughters. She emphasizes fiscal responsibility, concerns about the Affordable Care Act (her husband works in New Hampshire, where just one provider participates in the health insurance exchange), and securing the borders against illegal immigrants. Her rhetoric, while not rabid by any means, is a bit too Tea Party-tinged for most of the state, but will resonate with a lot of people in that district.
So will her demands for more transparency in the federal government, and her charge of “dysfunction” in Washington politics. “It’s a separate world, where they help each other,” while the middle class stagnates, she says.
So you’ve got an intelligent, well educated and successful woman running in a competitive district and the party is doing squat to push her? Excuse me?
If I was the in charge of pushing the GOP in the state neither I nor any of my surrogates would be making a media appearance without mentioning Ann Wofford. If I had a visiting out-of-state party member visiting I’d have Ann on stage to meet them. The moment any person from either the left or the press (but I repeat myself) breathed the words “War on Woman” I’d be throwing Ann Wofford in their faces.
At the very least, Wofford stands as a welcome female face for a Massachusetts Republican Party sorely lacking them. Good luck trying to remember the last Republican woman nominee, let alone winner, for Congress or U.S. Senate in the Bay State.
On the national level I understand the party not putting a lot of resources into Massachusetts because, well it’s Massachusetts one of only 4 states that Obama is not upside down but that doesn’t excuse people at the state level not getting the word out. Other than Mary Lotz, Frank Ardinger and Richard Shufford I haven’t even heard a person mention her name. let alone tweet it.
After all how are you going to get the national party to kick in to turn things around if you don’t even let them see when you have a diamond in the rough?
I admit that this is my first piece on Wofford this cycle & I should have gotten to her sooner but despite what some might think I’m not paid to promote the GOP (although hits to DaTipJar are happily accepted) and there are people in the party who are, hell I’m not even a republican.
Anyway her web site is here. She deserves your support and attention because this is a woman to watch even if you have to figure out to watch her on your own.
One can not look at this election cycle and watch the once feared Obama collapse without seeing parallels with the historical fall of tyrannies.
If you look at the history of repressive regimes there are two hard and fast rules concerning them:
1. Their Power is completely based on the fear of the population:
Mirror Spock:Terror must be maintained or the Empire is doomed
Star Trek Mirror Mirror 1967
This fear is usually established right at the start by a few choice examples and once established keeps people in line. It permeates every single ordinary activity. The butcher the baker and the candlestick maker all could be ready to report any dissent. Furthermore it doesn’t have to be fear of death, people with something to lose, a position, a business, any comfort they have might be even more effective that the threat of death to someone who has nothing.
As long as that fear is maintained the regime’s power remains. It creates a seal on the people that can’t be penetrated.
2. Once the fear is gone, the regime’s fall is very quick:
Marn:Citizens, I elect to join the Revolution.
Doctor Who The Sunmakers 1977
Fear has one weakness, it generates anger. Eventually either due to outside pressures or inside pressures the anger begins to leak out into the open, usually at the fringes on the edges. Unless it’s crushed , more and more of that repressed anger leaks out until it becomes overwhelming. The enforcers and toadies seeing what’s coming switch sides to save their skin until finally the regime tears open like the bottom of wet paper bag, the Mussolini or Ceaușescu is seized and it’s all over.
And that is what has apparently happened to Barack Obama this cycle.
At the very start any critique of Barack Obama was restrained by fear, not of violence, but of the race card.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were the first targets , their tongues tied, even as her supporters were intimidated in the Texas primary.
John McCain was next, unwilling to attack for fear of being dubbed racist by the media who loved him when he was attacking George Bush.
The Republicans in Congress were next cowed during the first two years, terrified of the race card and the power of the president, and mindful of the example being made of a Sarah Palin was willing to fight, by the media.
The regime didn’t see what was coming in 2010, tyrannies usually don’t, but when they did, sprang into action using the power of the government to go after the Tea Parties that had risen up against them. Placing fear in the heats of the donors and business in a failing economy afraid of being audited. Playing , with the help of the media the race card liberally and intimidating a feckless Mitt Romney unwilling to attack. By this they to maintain their power.
The power of the Obama administration was built on a lie of competence , was maintained by fear and intimidation but now that fear is gone. It only remains to be seen if he will take his entire party with him.
Update: Doug Mataconis objects to my use of the word Tyranny,
@DaTechGuyblog Calling it tyranny is the kind of pointless partisan rhetoric that makes me glad I’m not part of the partisan world anymore
Last week, I wrote about how her family’s investments were steeped in companies who are sending jobs overseas while retraining the employees impacted through a tax payer funded government program.
The article before that I wrote about how Hagan skipped critical meetings, including one on ISIS, in order to fundraise.
Prior to both of these bombshells, we learned that Hagan’s family businesses had pocketed stimulus cash to the tune of $390k. We’ve just learned this week that scandal is worse than we originally thought, with an additional $400k added to the Hagan windfall and what looks to be a company created by one of Hagan’s family members just to take advantage of the stimulus funds.
But here’s where we stand: Companies owned by family members of Kay Hagan got more than $400,000 in taxpayer funding to finance upgrades at facilities and for businesses they own — not just the $300,000 in stimulus and USDA grants we initially found. The grants used tax dollars to offset the costs of improvements in the physical plant, and provide tax breaks for one of the companies, and reduce the energy bills of another. Kay Hagan’s husband and son created a solar company and allowed it to handle some of the work. And we’re still digging for additional documentation.
As this excerpt above mentions, the total mentions money beyond the stimulus in the form of a USDA grant. A grant of which apparently the USDA office is blocking access to the records.
So bad, Kay Hagan declined to a debate this week. Her staff stated they agreed to three debates back in July and that this one was not on the schedule. Whether the Hagan campaign likes it or not, they are in a tight race and every appearance counts — scheduled or not.
Her absence on Tuesday evening was noted and has been tweeted repeatedly using the hashtag #EmptyChair. Fitting.
Hagan’s team decided to tweet during the debate though. How brave of them.
If you enjoyed this article, you should really check out other pieces written by Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent Seven writers and maybe hit that tip jar!
A.P. Dillon (Lady Liberty 1885), is a Conservative minded wife and mother living in the Triangle area of North Carolina. A.P. Dillon founded the blog LadyLiberty1885.com in 2009. After the 2012 election, she added an Instapundit style blog called The ConMom Blog. Mrs. Dillon recently participated in Glenn Beck’sWe Will Not Conform. Mrs. Dillon’s writing, in addition to Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent 7, can also be found at StopCommonCoreNC.org, WatchdogWireNC and WizBang. Non-political writing projects include science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished. Her current writing project is a children’s book series.
Richard Tisei is the GOP candidate for congress in MA-6 his website is here. Tisei was the Lt. Gov candidate for the GOP last time around, and had spent 26 years in the MA House and senate before that.
He is openly gay and married his boyfriend last year. He has not been shy about hitting the GOP over gay marriage making big headlines at the start of the Mass GOP 2014 convention by boycotting it, stepping on former running mate Charlie Baker toes. It would have been the only story of the GOP convention if the party didn’t shoot Baker in the foot in an idiotic attempt to keep Mark Fisher off the ballot.
Last time around Tisei ran against the corrupt John Tierney in the 6th and lost by a hair. This year given the GOP wave coming, he was expected to beat him, but Democrats threw the rascal Tierney out in the primary by an overwhelming margin nominating Seth Moulton in the 6th.
What really makes things interesting is Seth Moulton back story. He parents are ultra liberals yet he still enlisted to fight in Iraq while disagreeing with the war and furthermore served multiple tours because he thought it was the honorable thing to do. It the type of thing that makes a conservative’s Heart go pitter patter
Moulton is a guy who had the world by the Balls, coming out of Phillips Andover and Harvard….. he could have written his own ticket….but obviously he answered the need to give back and serve our Country in Iraq.
Your Nanepashemet Mountain of a Man doesn’t know him, never met him, never even shook his hand. But a guy with his promise doesn’t show up that often.
When I look at the photo above, taken during one of his four tours of duty in Iraq….. I see an “American”. I will register as a Democrat if necessary, but I’m voting for Seth Moulton for the Massachusetts 6th Congressional District seat…. and I hope you do too.
However that didn’t slow him down and he not only beat Tierney, he crushed him.
Given Mr. Tisei’s bouts of Scozzafever which enraged folks like Yankee Pundit and Mouton’s character you might think voting for Moulton would be an easy call for a social conservative & some spoke to me highly touting Moulton’s character & military record so I went to his web site…
…and discovered that while Moulton is a man of exceptional character (a great rarity for the party these days) he’s not only liberal but ULTRA liberal both on social & fiscal issues. His record on the issues is everything I have written against since I’ve first started this blog.
Here are the two candidate in debate:
So what you have is this, A socially liberal Republican who is not shy about attacking & embarrassing his party but is good on fiscal issues vs a Democrat of exceptional moral character who is spectacularly wrong on just about every issue. It’s enough to make a Republican go Tevye
If you are a republican who votes on issues alone the answer is obviously Tisei
On the other hand If you are the type who dislikes career pols Moulton is an obvious choice.
If you are a tea party guy voting on fiscal responsibility Tisei is your man.
On the other hand If you want to make Tisei pay a price for what he did to Charlie Baker you want Moulton.
If you want the National GOP to have every vote they can in congress you want Tisei
On the other hand If you figure the GOP majority is pretty secure & don’t want to risk a relapse of “Scozzafever” in Washington then Moulton is the guy
If you want to play the “inclusive party” card then Tisei is your man.
On the other hand If character is your #1 factor Moulton is the guy
If you want Massachusetts to have at least one GOP member to protect our interests in the majority then Tisei is the choice
On the other hand If you think with war brewing a vet is the best choice you want Moulton
If you value legislative experience in a congressman you want Tisei
On the other hand if you want someone who has strong beliefs and will always vote them you want Moulton
If you want to stop a candidate whose backstory would give national appeal to liberalism you vote for Tisei
On the other hand If you want to stop someone who might use a national position to hurt social conservatives in the party you vote for Moulton
My district is ma-3 and I’m voting for Ann Wofford & I’m not going to lose any sleep over this it. Here’s why:
When Tierney’s wife tax evasion conviction broke in 2010 the Boston Globe said this:
You can crow all you want about some kooky yard sign of the president in a turban or whatever but this is a bit more serious to the tune of, oh, seven million dollars. Hudak may be painted as a wing nut – and rightfully so – but he doesn’t have any immediate ties to serious law breaking like this. Keep it mind that Tierney voted against the internet gambling ban while all of this was going on.
The Globe’s willingness to endorse Tierney simply shows that there is no level of corruption or illegality that a democrat can do, oh I’m sorry be “ignorant” of that would cause them to endorse a conservative republican.
Two years later when Tierney faced the openly gay socially liberal GOP candidate Tisei, they re-elected him AGAIN.
So if Democrats were willing to elect and re-elect the corrupt Tierney in the 6th what kind of miracle is it going to take for Tisei to beat an ultra liberal Democrat with impeccable integrity in a district where the GOP has won two races in the last 45 years and none of the last 9.
I’m a man of faith but even faith has limits.
I’m going to spend my time worrying about races that the GOP can actually win, because in my opinion not only is Moulton going to win in MA-6 I predict it’s not going to be close.
Yesterday the Hill noted that Ted Cruz turned up in Kansas to say a few words on behalf of Pat Roberts (R-KS?) who is fighting for his political life to save a Senate seat that has belonged to the GOP since before I was born:
Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) waded into the Kansas Senate race Thursday, touting beleaguered Republican incumbent Pat Roberts as the contest’s only true conservative.
Cruz’s visit follows that of Sarah Palin who came in earlier to buck up the longtime GOP senator who had held off a determined challenge from Tea Party candidate Milton Wolf, a challenge that alienated the tea party base necessary for him to win.
That problem makes it VITAL for Roberts to be able give tea party supporters a reason to vote for him and Ted Cruz had such a reason in his hand:
Cruz noted that when he waged a 21-hour filibuster to protest ObamaCare last year, Roberts was one of only a handful of senators who came to the floor to support him. Roberts, standing next to Cruz behind the podium, reminisced about a Senate attendant reminding him to put on a tie before speaking on the floor in the early hours.
Cruz started with his 21 hour floor speech something that couldn’t be ignored. First it couldn’t be ignored by republicansin the Senate:
Within hours of Liz Cheney, now a candidate for the Senate in Wyoming, announcing her support of Ted Cruz’s filibuster, Senator Mike Enzi, who Cheney is primarying, took to the floor of the United States Senate and declared he stood with Ted Cruz.
Pat Roberts, the elderly Senator from Kansas who may soon be getting a stiff primary challenge, stiffly stood on the floor of the United States Senate to show he too stood with Ted Cruz.
Rand Paul, after NBC News reported he may disagree with Cruz’s filibuster threat, went to the floor of the Senate and stood with Ted Cruz.
That illustrates a point about conventional wisdom, our friends on the left and in the media along with many in the GOP were adamant that Ted Cruz’s moves vis a vis Obamacare which took place one year ago were going to be a disaster for the party
Obmacare’s launch has been a dismal failure so dangerous that if you are a Democrat running for election in 2014 you’re running away from it, fast!
So lets summarize:
Ted Cruz make a fight that the establishment shied away from. He took on a position for principle not popular with the media and public. He made that fight with lots of risks and little upside and pushed the media to the point where that media made absolutely sure that the entire country knew which party wanted to stop Obamacare and which party with one voice was dedicated to protecting Obamacare from repeal and or delay at all costs….
…right up until they weren’t.
and now that move, which gave Pat Roberts a chance to confirm his conservative street cred might just be the move that saves him.
Closing thought, last year I argued that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Ted Cruz was doing the GOP establishment a huge favor by staying out races which involved incumbent Republicans. Yesterday’s appearance for Pat Roberts is the final piece in the puzzle whereby Ted Cruz, like Rand Paul before him, earns chits with the establishment GOP that he will be in a position to cash in during 2016 if he chooses to do so.
One might argue that this is contrary to the principles of the Tea Party, but one might also argue that the move Cruz support Roberts in Kansas demonstrates that in a room full of people who think they are playing chess with checkers players he is playing Diplomacy instead of chess.
Herod the Great:Guilty in the womb, Guilty in the stars, I’ll bring down those stars and snuff them out in blood! This s my world I will not share it with an infant. There’s no room for two kings here like a new born scorpion (stomping sound) underfoot!
Jesus of Nazareth 1977
One of the most depressing polls I’ve read concerning the upcoming midterm election is this NH poll quoted by Hotair this week.
While it shows NH-1 looking very good for the GOP (Guinta +10.3) and tight Races between Brown & Shaheen for the senate (Shaheen up+ 0.5) and Havenstein vs Hassan for Governor (Hassan up +3.8) it also shows one of the best candidates the GOP has, Marilinda Garcia trailing incumbent Ann Kuster by 11.1 points.
That number seems rather high. Over the last century NH-2 was reliably republican from 1915 till 1991 but democrats have won 3 of the last four elections. Winning in Democrat waves years like 2006 (D+7.1) in the Big Obama wave of 2008 (D+15) losing in the GOP wave of 2010 (GOP + 1.6) but winning again in 2012 with Barack Obama back on the ballot ( D+4.8).
Given that close race in 2012 one would think that with Barack Obama’s NH popularity at -5 (-5/50 with 43% Strongly disapproving) in a year that is looking more and more like another GOP wave this race should be a lot closer instead of polling as if enough Massachusetts residents have crossed the border to turn the district permanently blue.
Either way , given those numbers and the closeness of the Governor’s & Senate races in NH not to mention a party desperate to hold the Senate nationwide you might logically assume the various Liberal PACS supporting Democrat candidates would not be spending a lot of time or money going after Marilinda Garcia as she has not been within single digits in any RCP poll since mid August.
You’d be wrong.
One of the realities of being a candidate in NH with only one prominent TV channel in the state (WMUR channel 9) is a large amount of your ad buys will be on Boston TV stations frequented by NH viewers and if you are one of those NH residents who for examples watches The Big Bang Theory on Channel 38 from 7-8 PM weekdays you are seeing a lot of attack ads going after Marilinda Garcia like this one.
In fact lately I can’t turn on a TV without seeing something like this from either the DCCC or pseudo pacs like “Americans for Responsible Solutions” piling on Marilinda Garcia. For some reason they are throwing the kitchen sink at Marilinda Garcia in a race that is polling safe for democrats. The question is why are they doing this at the same time when vulnerable Dems around the country are clinging on for dear life?
Marilinda Garcia is everything the Democrats fear most, she is young, she is smart, she is attractive and she is hispanic and she has been an effective pol in the state of New Hampshire and an unabashed unafraid conservative. They hate her the the way Peter Page hated Shane Hawkins in the movie The World’s End.
Now imagine just for a moment that Marilinda is a democrat and Mr. Sullivan a republican. Would there be any other story in the media when this took pace? The outrage would extend across every channel. Media giants would decry such sexism? Ms. Garcia would be a household name pegs as a rising star in the party and the attacks on her would be decried by all right minded people.
Alas that is not to be, she is a conservative with a “R” next to her name so she is subject to the great realities of life: Any attack on her, no matter how sexist, will be unworthy of condemnation or even notice.
The key word there being “Rising Star”. The one thing the left and the media (but I repeat myself) didn’t want was Marilinda Garcia to be defined by the electorate as the strong smart dynamic woman she is, who on top of everything else is also an excellent retail politician as I noted in an interview with her earlier this year:
DaTechGuy: I was watching the interview you were doing over there and I noticed something interesting at the end and it’s one of the little things about you that impres me. When you were done with that a lot of people the go from interview to interview you actually went from that one to here You made it a point to thank the cameraman and shake his hand and hello and that’s the type of retail that’s the type of authenticity you don’t see with some politicians they just get so jaded. I know that’s not so much a question but a statement but How important is it for to you to make sure you identify with all the voters including the cameraman and the person there to make your case?
Marilinda Garcia:Well I think that I’m naturally personable I’m mean I love to meet people you know People are what make life interesting right, friends family and just random people you meet in the store, on the airplane wherever, I love to talk to people, but to your point, it is challenging because it’s unfortunate that in the hubbub of the race, that you have to talk to this one, talk to that one and kind of the way everything you say is on the internet forever so it can paralyze you if you let it. But I really do try to just stay who I am and you know treat everyone like I like to be treated so to that effect he’s there’s he’s a human, he’s so I try to say ‘hello’.
If you watch the full interview with State Rep Garcia
…you will recognize at once would recognize in a second hat this woman is something special.
And that’s why she was ignored by the media for months to keep her unknown to the voters and it’s further why, even when trailing by double digits is the subject of unrelenting attack, as I said back in March….
And while she might get some attention at GOP conferences, CPAC and places like the NRLC 2014 where she sat for an interview with me about her NH-2 run.
…outside those GOP events she won’t be introduced to the country by the MSM. If fact she can’t be because she is the living embodiment of all that the media insists the GOP is not. She will remain invisible to the MSM until she becomes too prominent to be ignored.
You might as well rename the Pacs going after her as: “Americans who don’t want a young attractive effective Hispanic GOP woman in congress on the national stage”
That’s why the left will stop at nothing to destroy her, because in a state as small as New Hampshire a pol who can do retail politics well always has a shot. Particularly if you kick in a few dollars to her campaign here.
I think the national Democrats would just as soon lose every other race in New Hampshire that see Rep Marilinda Garcia take her seat in congress. I think they’re that afraid of her.
They oughta be
If you think this site and the writers who write here are worth your support please consider kicking in so we can reach our final goal for the year
Since last autumn’s government shutdown, when “Barrycades” blocked visitors from entering National Park Service sites such as Yellowstone, but also open-space plazas such as the World War II Memorial in Washington, the NPS has gone from America’s most-loved federal agency to a place among the rest of the Everglades-type muck that is the national government.
The National Park Service, which is part of the Interior Department, is about to sink deeper into the mire, the Denver Postreported two days ago.
The National Park Service is proposing to boost entrance fees at 131 of the 401 public properties it manages.
“The proposed increases in park entrance fees will allow us to invest in the improvements necessary to provide the best possible park experience to our visitors,” said Park Service director Jon Jarvis in an Aug. 14 memo [emphasis mine] to regional directors urging them to foster public support for the first fee increase since 2008.
With an eye toward sprucing up for the Park Service’s 100th anniversary in 2016, Jarvis is asking regional directors to conduct public outreach this fall and winter so fees can be implemented as early as next summer.
Entrance fees could increase the popular Rocky Mountain National Park by 50 percent and a whopping 150 percent at Great Sand Dunes National Park. Worse, the NPS’ “public outreach” on the rate hikes begins in late October, just as visitation at the parks plummets.
The National Park Service’s annus horribilis didn’t end when the Barrycades were lifted. Later that fall, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), while placing much of the blame on Congress, eviscerated the NPS for overlooking maintenance of the popular parks and wasting money on barely-visited sites.
“This is an agency that spends $650 million a year administering a $2.6 billion budget,” says Coburn — a ratio he calls, “outlandish.”
His report cites dozens of cases of waste. The Eugene O’Neill National Historic Site in the San Francisco Bay area, for example, averages less than 10 visitors a day. “With nine employees, the National Park Service often has more staff working the grounds, than daily visitors,” the report says.
While the NPS opposed adding the O’Neill home to its roster of properties, its director, the aforementioned Jon Jarvis, appears to favor adding the Pullman District on Chicago’s South Side as a National Historic Park. Pullman, then located outside of Chicago’s city limits, was a Pullman Company-owned planned community and the epicenter of a violent 1894 strike. The strikers lost, but a few years later the Illinois Supreme Court forced the Pullman Company to divest itself of its namesake town.
The Pullman District and its period architecture is moderately interesting to a history buff such as myself, but after twenty years of attempts by local government to elevate it as a tourist attraction, the rest of America remains unimpressed. The Heartland Institute’s Steve Stanek phrased it best, “Pullman National Park? You’ve Gotta be Kidding.”
As for sneak-attack entrance fee hikes by the most-transparent-administration-in history? You’ve gotta be kidding. Especially if it ends up that visitors to places such as Rocky Mountain National Park end up subsidizing a Pullman National Park, which by the way, would almost certainly end up as a Valhalla to the labor movement and other left-wing causes such as planned communities–but only if such towns are planned by government, not by capitalists of course.
President Obama’s point man on “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is nothing more than a pseudonym for amnesty for illegal aliens, is fellow Chicagoan Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat who represents Illinois’ gerrymandered fourth congressional district.
Last week Gutierrez, while speaking at a convention of the far-left La Raza (The Race) last week, said Hispanic voters need to head to the ballot box to “punish” Americans such as myself who don’t believe in open borders and who, in his words, want to
“criminalize children who come to our border.”
Well, when these kids, regardless of their circumstances, cross our border they are breaking the law.
Gutierrez views himself as an Hispanic congressman, not as a congressman who is Hispanic. Stick with me on this one–who can blame him?
After the 1990 decennial remap, an Hispanic majority district was drawn that was centered mostly in Chicago. But creating the district was problematic. Hispanics in Chicago were concentrated in two pockets–one on the northwest side of the city, at the other on the southwest side. Between those areas was–and still is–Chicago’s predominantly-black West Side. So the cartographers created what Roll Call dubs “the Latin earmuffs,” which has only been represented by Gutierrez. Only minor changes have been made in the following remaps to the shape of the district.
So of course Gutierrez looks into his mirror each morning sees an Hispanic congressman.
But if districts in Illinois were drawn as they are in neighboring Iowa–by a computer that only takes population into account–the fourth might instead be, to swipe a phrase from Jesse Jackson, a rainbow coalition district. Perhaps Gutierrez would still be its representative. But rather than bowing to identity politics, Gutierrez would serve Illinois as a congressman who is Hispanic.
The McCullen v Coakley case that removed the three-point lines in Massachusetts is the potential to have some interesting effects on both the national level and the local level.
Locally of course Coakley is Martha Coakley the current AG of Massachusetts now running for governor. Earlier this month Steve Grossman managed to get the endorsement of the Democrat party for the nomination while Coakley is still leading in the polls.
Coakley will likely be able to parley her name on that case to gain further sympathy from hard core pro-abortion activists, while Grossman can argue that Coakley team did a poor job arguing for the law before the court, so poor that she lost unanimously.
There is also the possibility that outgoing governor Deval Patrick might try to rush a new law through with his large majorities, as both Coakley & Grossman are in state government it’s unclear who that would help.
On the Republican side the issue is a godsend for Mark Fisher. Fisher has already gotten the endorsement of Mass right to life and can engage the base by his celebration of the result.
“Charlie hopes the current law is upheld,” a Baker spokesperson told BostInno. Though vague in nature, the statement could be taken in a manner that Baker is, in fact, pro choice, or that he’s simply a proponent of laws enacted at the state level. Either way, his show of support for the cause, however broad in his choice of words, a positive direction for bipartisan collaboration in customarily blue Massachusetts.
Now Fisher is going to need a lot of breaks to beat Baker and this certainly isn’t enough to make the difference but it’s important to note that last thing Baker needs is a reminder to activists that he is squishy on life, particularly if we end up with a 3rd party candidate that’s pro-life on the ballot.
Any believing catholic wanting to avoid mortal sin (you know the type that sends you to hell) would be duty bound given the choice between pro-abortion candidates & a pro life one can only vote one way. As for myself as a Catholic no election is worth my soul.
While this case is likely to make things a little more interesting in Massachusetts it’s going to make things a LOT more interesting in New Hampshire.
Scott Brown ran as a pro-choice candidate last time around, I still remember the ads, they made me sick but as there was not a pro-life choice it was possible to morally vote for him.
In the GOP primary in NH that’s a different story, Senator Brown already has a guns issue that could cost him the 2nd Amendment voters, this case can’t help but highlight that he is a pro-abortion republican which will certainly energize pro-life republicans to turn out in a primary against him.
Nationally the ruling might be a wash simply because the case was 9-0 (take a look at the twitter to see leftist heads explode over the unanimous decision, but Ed Morrissey when reading the decision proper noticed what I did:
There was a considerable amount of disagreement on the idea that the law was content-neutral, and this is the crux of the problem for free-speech advocates. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a scalding concurrence in part, with Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joining, warning that this decision makes proving a violation of content neutrality in speech restrictions all but impossible:
The four conservatives justices sans the chief wrote concurrent opinions bluntly saying this was unconstitutional on its face while the actual decision practically listed the ways Massachusetts could pass a law that the court could support.
That suggests that the decision was written the way it was in order to get the 9-0 result rather than the 5-4 at best result that would have given conservatives the whole 10 yards. It’s not unusual for a Chief to try to get a unanimous court but those who pay attention might read the tea leaves and decide that it’s more important to get the majority in the Senate to keep the president from replacing any of those 4 liberal votes that was against him today.
If you are a regular reader of this blog you know I think Senator Scott Brown NH Senate run is a mistake that has some potentially disastrous consequences for the GOP in NH. I think it would have been better if Senator Brown had choose to run in Massachusetts and I suspect Charlie Baker would have preferred the same., instead.
But with Brown’s candidacya fait accompli it’s time to look at the bright side, particularly for people like me who support other GOP candidates..
First of all lets acknowledge the biggest advantage of the Brown Candidacy the money.
Before Brown’s entry in the race where Shaheen had a huge advantage in both name recognition and cash.
Scott Brown is a money machine that is drawing national money to the NH GOP race,
Because of Senator Brown’s high name recognition and his strategy of totally ignoring his primary opponents practically all of his money and media can be spent attacking Shaheen. Brown’s high media profile combined with the media wanting him to be the candidate guarantees those attacks will get exposure other attacks would not.
Suddenly Jeanne Shaheen has to play defense against a well funded primary opponent attacking her. It also means Jeanne Shaheen will be spending the vast majority of her money counter attacking Senator Brown to the exclusion of anyone else.
And the media, cheerleading for Shaheen will be doing the same, practically pretending the remainder of the GOP field: Smith, Rubens & Martin are ignored.
Now in almost any other state such a situation would be the sound of doom for the rest of the GOP field, but in NH it’s a potentially spectacular development.
Imagine that you are Bob Smith or Jim Rubens till September 9th, the entire air war that you would need to launch against Senator Shaheen is going to be fought for you while at the same time Brown takes all the flak allowing you to take no damage in return.
Now if you live in Ohio, or Texas or even Wyoming you might think this is a real problem but New Hampshire is the perfect place to run a small budget ground game.
NH is a small state, its 10 counties consist of only 244 Cities and towns. Only 26 of them have a population over 10,000 and only Manchester has a population over 100,000. It is also a small state in area, one can drive from on end to the other in just a few hours A candidate who did three events a day from May through August could literally do an event in every town in the state, give two extra visits to the cities & towns with over 10,000 residents and STILL take one day a week off to unwind.
If you’re, Bob Smith Jim Rubens that’s very doable.
While Brown courts the big money Donors & the GOP establishment Smith & Rubens can concentrate on the base,. Now that my candidate Karen Testerman has pulled out and endorsed Smith it’s even a bigger deal since Rubens draws from the same pool that Senator Brown does.
It is time for all of us to put aside pride and focus on our greater GOAL, that of fighting for Family, Faith and Freedom. I will not force our principle-driven primary voters to make a self-defeating choice. After much prayer and consultation, I will step aside to allow Senator Bob Smith to be the ONLY conservative name on the primary ballot.…
Senator Smith has a well-earned reputation of standing firm for our conservative beliefs and values and for fighting Washington to stop their overreach. Bob Smith was TEA Party before it had a name.
Smith was already nearly within the margins for going head to head against Shaheen – down by roughly six – and any significant bump from former Testerman voters could easily put him in the lead.
And if that’s the case Shaheen could pivot but she does’t DARE pivot, because Brown attacks aren’t about to stop and Shaheen’s record of support for the increasingly unpopular Obama becomes more dangerous by the day. I’ll give Jazz again
… …All of this spells trouble not only for Shaheen, but for anyone perceived as being soft on conservative issues. So is Brown simply destined to steamroll to the nomination with a pile of out of state money, only to lose to Shaheen later? I still wouldn’t bet the farm on it. We may be seeing more of Bob Smith’s name as the summer wears on and we slowly make our way to the state’s very late, Sept. 9th primary.
If Bob Smith wins the GOP primary Jazz Shaw will look like a genius to the MSM only just shy of Nate Silver.
Today the NYT is reporting on the runoff race in Mississippi with the headline: Cochran Asking Blacks to Rescue Him in Republican Primary
Bishop Ronnie C. Crudup stood before roughly a dozen of his colleagues at a weekly Baptist fellowship meeting last week and asked for their help in a fight that, until now, would have been unthinkable for a black pastor in Mississippi: “Let’s send Senator Thad Cochran back to Washington,” he urged.
If you if you look at the web site for new Horizon church international Bishop Crudup seems quite a man and is a pretty good get for Cochran.:
Ronnie C. Crudup, Sr., is the Administrative Bishop for the Fellowship of International Churches. He is also Senior Pastor of New Horizon Church International, an exciting and rapidly growing church in Jackson, Mississippi, which he founded in 1987. He is highly regarded as a compassionate pastor, prolific Bible teacher, dynamic preacher, and visionary leader who proclaims a message of consecration and empowerment to the masses and gives practical steps on how to fulfill one’s divine calling and destiny in Christ.
and he’s a very busy man too:
Bishop Crudup is known to be a man of great faith who is on the move for the Lord. He is a frequent speaker in schools, churches and prisons across the country. He is host of “New Horizon Presents” and “The Issues” – a television broadcast ministry and is passionately involved in international missions in Malawi, South Africa, and Zambia. Countless thousands know him by his signature statement, “To Count It All Joy.
Getting Bishop Crudup to take time out of his busy schedule to publicly support Republican Thad Cochran in order to stop the tea party candidate State Senator Chris McDaniel is pretty big news and Ashley Parker & Jonathan Martin’s piece on the whole does a pretty good job covering it.
But they have managed to miss the lede in their own story.
Go and give it a read. Can you spot the story screaming to be covered? No? Well don’t feel bad I suspect the reason you missed it is due to the use, or lack thereof, of a specific an honorific adjective and it’s replacement with a different one.
Here is the key paragraph with the key word bolded.
The Cochran outreach campaign is taking many forms. The “super PAC” supporting the senator, Mississippi Conservatives, is paying African-American leaders, including Mr. Crudup, to help lift black turnout on Tuesday, said Pete Perry, a Republican strategist here who is working for the group.
So why does that “Mr.” matter so much? Because of what that paragraph says.
One might, if one is a conservative giving to a pac called “Mississippi Conservatives” see a story in paying off black leaders in order to stop a conservative candidate.
One might if a liberal, see a story in black leaders being paid by a conservative pac to produce support for a Republican senator, after all if “conservatives” can buy black leaders and possibly the votes they influence once they can do it again (insert Harry Reid Koch speech here).
One might if interesting in clean elections in general find the whole concept that you can apparently “buy” black leaders. If you look how this is mentioned so casually as if it’s the most normal thing in the world in the piece you might find it VERY troubling.
All these things come to mind but consider what happens if you read that paragraph again with “Mr.” replaced by “Bishop”
The Cochran outreach campaign is taking many forms. The “super PAC” supporting the senator, Mississippi Conservatives, is paying African-American leaders, including Bishop Crudup, to help lift black turnout on Tuesday, said Pete Perry, a Republican strategist here who is working for the group.
Suddenly the story is obvious, The “Paper of Record” in the United States states that Pete Perry, a Republican strategist claiming his pac is paying an influential and well-respected black Bishop to increase black turnout for his candidate.
Can you see the headline: Respected Bishop takes cash payment to produce votes
Nah, who a I kidding, such a headline would not only help elect a tea party candidate in Mississippi but might draw scrutiny on just how the Black vote is obtained in elections nationwide.
And what member of the MSM wants to talk about that?
Update: I should point out that I called the MS GOP to get contact info for Pete Perry & e-mailed him asking if this story was accurate, I also called the Bishop’s church with my inquiry but was told he would not be available till monday so I sent a request by e-mail asked it be forwarded as I was going to post within 18 hours & mention this on my radio show.
I further e-mailed both times reporters asking if they had Mr. Perry’s statement on tape & the context that it was given in. All of these requests were made by 2 PM EST on Friday, 14 hours before this post went up, as of this writing 6:58 AM EST Saturday, I’ve not heard back from any of them.
Update 2: I heard back from Bishop Curdup this weekend he was able to say the Times quoted him accurately. As to Mr. Perry’s statement while he could not speak for others he would not confirm the statement of Mr. Perry concerning monies paid, but has said he (Bishop Curdup) is raising money for a pac. He referred to it as “our” PAC to fund their efforts. Post on the subject to come.
This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.
For a full month I ask a fixed amount $1465.
Thanks to a solicitation we’ve been able to make the goal this month but we’ve been shy from Feb through May
If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.
Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 58 1/2 more subscribers at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.