Search This Blog

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Trayvon Martin's Father Cleaning Up Gang-Related Past

Trayvon Martin's Father Cleaning Up Gang-Related Past

on Sun, 30 Jun 2013

If the apple supposedly doesn’t fall far from the tree, Trayvon Martin’s father Tracy has beenpruning his tree of his past to make sure his son’s image isn’t tarnished by it. Photos have emerged of Tracy Martin after his son’s death in which there is a tattoo on the side of his neck with an undefinable word; a later photo shows that tattoo was erased, replaced by a tattoo with two hands clasped in prayer. Other photos show Martin alternatively posing with a group that brandished the Crips gang finger signs or stood with a different group in front of raining dollar bills; both pictures featured Martin making a hand sign that The Conservative Tree Housesays are gang-related.

Martin recently told the black-interest blog The Root, “(y)ou can’t prepare your child to contend with the warped mentality of someone else. You can only teach them to be good and live by the laws of the land. George Zimmerman acted in a deranged way — and all the evidence supports that. I know how society negatively portrays black boys, and my son Trayvon wasn’t naive. He wasn’t blind to stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. But I shouldn’t have to tell my child to fear walking to the store to get snacks just because he’s black.”

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Charles Krauthammer: Nationalized gay marriage, now inevitable

Charles Krauthammer: Nationalized gay marriage, now inevitable
Charles Krauthammer 
June 27, 2013

Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages even in states that have legalized it. This week, the Supreme Courtruled DOMA unconstitutional.

There are two possible grounds, distinct and in some ways contradictory, for doing so. The curious thing about the court’s DOMA decision is that it contains both rationales.

The first is federalism. Marriage is the province of the states. Each state decides who is married and who is not. The federal government may not intrude. It must therefore recognize gay marriage where it has been legalized.

View Photo Gallery: Sketching gay marriage at the Supreme Court: Post editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes shares her drawings of the scenes at the Court.

If that were the essence of the argument,the court’s 5-4 decision would have been constitutionally conservative, neither nationalizing nor delegitimizing gay marriage. It would allow the issue to evolve over time as the people decide state by state.

It would thus be the antithesis of Roe v. WadeThat judicial fiat swept away every state abortion law that did not conform to the court’s idea of what abortion law should be. Even many liberal supporters of abortion rights have admitted that Roe was an unfortunate way to change the law. It prevented a stable social settlement of an issue, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, that at the time was headed in the reform direction. The Roe ruling removed abortion from the political arena, thus disenfranchising the citizenry, tainting the resolution of the question and leaving us with 40 years of social strife.

On the face of it, the court avoided that disaster regarding same-sex marriage by adopting judicial modesty. Gay marriage? You, Washington, have no business meddling in state business. To those married and living where such marriage is recognized, you must provide the normal federal spousal benefits, etc. Otherwise, you don’t.

Good outcome. It allows popular sentiments on gay marriage to translate themselves democratically into law. Which in turn allows, in contradistinction to abortion, a political settlement of the question state by state. It may not satisfy everyone, but it does give everyone a voice in the disposition of the issue and a sense of the legitimacy of the outcome.

Except that in the DOMA decision, the court added a second rationale: equal protection. In states with same-sex marriage, Washington must give the same federal benefits to gay couples as to straight couples because to do otherwise is to discriminate against the gay couples. After all, they are equally married in their states. For Washington to discriminate against them is to deny them equal protection of the laws. Such discrimination is nothing more than irrational animus — and therefore constitutionally inadmissible.

But notice what that second rationale does. If the argument is just federalism, the court is saying: Each state decides — and we, the court, are out of here. But if the argument is equal protection, one question is left hanging. Why should equal protection apply only in states that recognize gay marriage? Why doesn’t it apply equally — indeed, even perhaps more forcefully — to gays who want to marry in states that refuse to marry them?

If discriminating (regarding federal benefits) between a gay couple and a straight couple is prohibited in New York where gay marriage is legal, by what logic is discrimination permitted in Texas, where a gay couple is prevented from marrying in the first place?

Which is exactly where the majority’s second rationale leads — nationalizing gay marriage, the way Roe nationalized abortion. This is certainly why David Boies, the lead attorney in the companion Proposition 8 case, was so jubilant when he came out onto the courthouse steps after the ruling. He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.

So why didn’t Justice Anthony Kennedy, the traditional swing vote who wrote the majority opinion on DOMA with the court’s four liberals, take that step? Why did he avoid doing the full Roe — nationalizing the procedure in question and declaring the subject now closed? I suspect he thought it would be a bridge too far. At least for today.

But he knows that the double rationale underlying his DOMA opinion has planted the seed for going Roe next time. It was prudence, not logic, that stayed his hand. “The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding,” wrote dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia with a bit less delicacy, “is its sense of what it can get away with.” Next case — Kennedy & Co. go all the way.

Gallup: 43% of Uninsured Americans Unaware of Obamacare Fines

Gallup: 43% of Uninsured Americans Unaware of Obamacare Fines

on Sat, 29 Jun 2013

A new Gallup poll finds that 43% of uninsured Americans remain unaware that under Obamacare they must obtain health insurance or face fines and penalties.

The poll, taken June 20-24, asked the following: “As you may know, under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, starting January 1 most Americans will be required to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Were you aware of this before now?”

Eighty-one percent of respondents answered affirmatively, but only 56% of the critical uninsured segment of the population knew of the Obamacare requirement.

Under Obamacare, uninsured Americans will face a phased in penalty structure. In 2014, the fine will be $95 per person and will climb to $695 in 2016 for people who earn between $9,500 to $37,000 a year. From there, says Henry Blodget of Business Insider, the fines increase:

Less than $9,500 income = $0

$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695

$50,000 income = $1,000

$75,000 income = $1,600

$100,000 income = $2,250

$125,000 income = $2,900

$150,000 income = $3,500

$175,000 income = $4,100

$200,000 income = $4,700

Obamacare’s grand opening is set for January 2014.

The federal government has missed several deadlines as it scrambles to cobble together the government health care exchanges in time for October enrollment.

This month the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report warning that theblown deadlines could complicate Obamacare’s implementation.

"Much progress has been made, but much remains to be accomplished within a relatively short amount of time," said the report. "And while the missed interim deadlines may not affect implementation, additional missed deadlines closer to the start of enrollment could do so."

The Obama Administration says it is confident its government healthcare overhaul will go smoothly.

“We’re going to implement the law well, and we don’t worry,” said Obama strategist Dan Pfeiffer earlier this month.

Other Democrats, like Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) have been less sanguine; Baucus says he sees “a huge train wreck coming down” upon Obamacare’s unveiling.

Palin to GOP: You've 'Abandoned' Reagan Democrats, Insulted Hispanics

Palin to GOP: You've 'Abandoned' Reagan Democrats, Insulted Hispanics

on Sat, 29 Jun 2013

On Friday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin blistered the Republican establishment for abandoning blue-collar Reagan Democrats and insulting Hispanics a day after the Senate passed its immigration reform bill with the support of 14 Republicans. 

"Great job, GOP establishment," Palin sardonically wrote on her Facebook page. "You’ve just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this amnesty bill, and we needed them to 'enlarge that tent' of which you so often speak. It’s depressing to consider that the House of Representatives is threatening to pass some version of this nonsensical bill in the coming weeks."

Palin also said she would like to "point out the obvious" to the Republican establishment: "It was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote. Legal immigrants respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this amnesty bill with favors, earmarks, and crony capitalists’ pork, and call it good."

"You disrespect Hispanics with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law," she said.

As Byron York has written, Mitt Romney would have lost the election even if he had won 70% of the Hispanic vote. And as Breitbart Newsthoroughly documented, Romney would have won the election had 389,821 more working class voters in four states turned out to vote. Palin urged Americans to read the Breitbart News article that detailed how the Senate's amnesty bill betrayed working class Americansof all ethnicities. 

By noting that the immigration bill devastates working class Americans regardless of race, Palin is emphasizing that the best way for Republicans to win over minorities and expand the party's tent is not to pander to various racial and ethnic groups, but to instead embrace and fight for working class Americans that are people of all races and ethnicities. 

Friday, June 28, 2013

Obama Calls Rubio to Congratulate Him on Immigration Reform

Obama Calls Rubio to Congratulate Him on Immigration Reform

on Fri, 28 Jun 2013

On Friday, President Obama took time out from his trip to Africa to call members of Senate’s so-called “Gang of Eight,” including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), to congratulate them on the immigration reform bill that passed the Senate on Thursday in a 68-32 vote. 

Obama was unable to actually reach Rubio. Obama also called Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) to push him to take up the Senate’s immigration reform package.

Jay Carney, White House spokesman, did not say what the president’s strategy would be on dealing with the House over immigration reform. Carney added that the bill “enjoyed substantial bipartisan support in the Senate,” and said that the president would make clear to the House “what our principles are and to provide the significant amount of policy expertise that we have, and data that we have, and to be as helpful to the process as we can.”

Prosecution Witness: Trayvon On Top of Zimmerman, Punching 'Ground and Pound' Style

Prosecution Witness: Trayvon On Top of Zimmerman, Punching 'Ground and Pound' Style

on Fri, 28 Jun 2013

On Friday, in testimony devastating to the prosecution’s case against George Zimmerman in his murder trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, prosecution witness John Good stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him  mixed martial arts style – Good used the term “ground and pound” -- before Zimmerman shot him. According to Good, he thought Zimmerman was shouting help as Martin beat him. “That’s what it looked like,” he stated. “It looked like there were strikes being thrown, punches being thrown.”

The prosecution struggled to downplay the testimony of its own witness, at one point objecting to a written record from Good being admitted into evidence. The prosecution’s caseseems to be that Zimmerman stalked Martin for racial reasons, “evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual,” initiated a confrontation to that end, but somehow allowed Martin to gain the upper position in a physical fight and shouted “help!” repeatedly before shooting him.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

Poll: Obama supporters divided between radical Islam and Tea Party as top terrorist threat

Poll: Obama supporters divided between radical Islam and Tea Party as top terrorist threat

By John Haywardon Thu, 27 Jun 2013

This is one of those times when the headline pretty much sums up the story.  The poll in question, from Rasmussen, shows what happens when a very gullible group of people is subjected to a toxic brew of propaganda and bitterly divisive politics for several years:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters consider radical Muslims to be the bigger threat to the United States today. Thirteen percent (13%) view the Tea Party that way, and another 13% consider other political and religious extremists to be the larger danger. Six percent (6%) point to local militia groups. Two percent (2%) see the Occupy Wall Street movement as the bigger terrorist threat. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

However, among those who approve of the president’s job performance, just 29% see radical Muslims as the bigger threat. Twenty-six percent (26%) say it’s the Tea Party that concerns them most. Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.

As for those who disapprove of Obama’s performance, 75% consider radical Muslims to be the bigger terrorist threat. Just one percent (1%) name the Tea Party.

The complete absence of any actual Tea Party terrorism evidently matters no more to these folks than the violent riots, and the occasional aborted bridge bombing, pulled off by the Occupy crowd.  Why, the Tea Party even cleans up after its rallies, unlike certain other demonstrators I can think of.

The post Poll: Obama supporters divided between radical Islam and Tea Party as top terrorist threat appeared first on Human Events.

Does the South Belong in the Union?

Does the South Belong in the Union?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

 Is the Second Reconstruction over?

The first ended with the withdrawal of Union troops from the Southern states as part of a deal that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the disputed election of 1876.

The second began with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a century after Appomattox. Under the VRA, Southern states seeking to make even minor changes in voting laws had to come to Washington to plead their case before the Justice Department and such lions of the law as Eric Holder.

Southern states were required to get this pre-clearance for any alterations in voting laws because of systematic violations of the 14th and 15th amendment constitutional rights of black Americans to equal access to polling places and voting booths.

The South had discriminated by using poll taxes, gerrymandering and literacy tests, among other tactics. Dixie was in the penalty box because it had earned a place there.

What the Supreme Court did Tuesday, in letting the South out of the box, is to declare that, as this is not 1965, you cannot use abuses that date to 1965, but have long since disappeared, to justify indefinite federal discrimination against the American South.

You cannot impose burdens on Southern states, five of which recorded higher voting percentages among their black populations in 2012 than among their white populations, based on practices of 50 years ago that were repudiated and abandoned in another era.

You cannot punish Southern leaders in 2013 for the sins of their grandfathers. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, black turnout in 2012 was higher in Mississippi than in Massachusetts.

Does this mean the South is now free to discriminate again?

By no means. State action that discriminates against minority voters can still be brought before the Department of Justice.

Even the “pre-clearance” provision of the VRA remains. All the court has said is that if Congress wishes to impose a pre-clearance provision on a state or group of states, Congress must have more evidence to justify unequal treatment than what “Bull” Connor did in Birmingham back in 1965.

Congress could pass a bill today authorizing Justice Department intervention in any state where the registration of blacks, Hispanics or Asians fell below 60 percent of that electorate.

What Congress can no longer do is impose conditions on Southern states from which Northern states are exempt. Washington can no longer treat the states unequally — for that, too, is a violation of the Constitution.

The Roberts court just took a giant stride to restoring the Union. Yet the hysterical reaction to the decision reveals a great deal. What do critics say they are afraid of? While conceding that immense progress has been made with the huge turnout of black voters in the South and the re-election of a black president, they say they fear that without the pre-clearance provision this would never have happened. And now that the provision no longer applies to the South, the evil old ways will return.

On several counts this is disheartening. For what the critics of the court decision are saying is that, no matter the progress made over half a century, they do not trust the South to deal fairly and decently with its black citizens, without a club over its head. They do not believe the South has changed in its heart from the days of segregation.

They think the South is lying in wait for a new opportunity to disfranchise its black voters. And they think black Southerners are unable to defend their own interests — without Northern liberal help.

In this belief there are elements of paranoia, condescension and bigotry. Many liberals not only do not trust the South, some detest it. And many seem to think it deserves to be treated differently than the more progressive precincts of the nation.

Consider Wednesday’s offering by Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson. The South, he writes, is the home of “so-called right-to-work laws” and hostility to the union shop, undergirded by “the virulent racism of the white Southern establishment,” a place where a “right-wing antipathy toward workers’ rights” is pandemic.

The South is the “the heartland of cheap-labor America. … When it wants to slum, business still goes to the South.” Then there are those “reactionary white Republican state governments.”

Were a conservative to use the term “black” as a slur the way Meyerson spits out the word “white,” he would be finished at the Post. Meyerson’s summation:

“If the federal government wants to build a fence that keeps the United States safe from the danger of lower wages and poverty and their attendant ills — and the all-round fruitcakery of the right-wing white South — it should build that fence from Norfolk to Dallas. There is nothing wrong with a fence as long as you put it in the right place.”

Harold looks forward to the day that a surging Latino population forces “epochal political change” on a detestable white South.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” 

The post Does the South Belong
in the Union?
 appeared first on Human Events.

68 Senators Vote to Create Incentive for Employers to Hire Amnestied Immigrants Over U.S. Citizens

68 Senators Vote to Create Incentive for Employers to Hire Amnestied Immigrants Over U.S. Citizens

By John McCormackon Fri, 28 Jun 2013

The immigration bill passed by the Senate Thursday afternoon would give some employers a financial incentive to employ "registered provisional immigrants" (illegal immigrants granted legal status) instead U.S. citizens.

As the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein recently reported: "Under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead."

On Tuesday, THE WEEKLY STANDARD asked five U.S. senators about this problem, and none of them knew if it was a problem. "We're trying to solve that right now. I don't know if that's been solved," Senator Max Baucus of Montana (chief author of Obamacare) told THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

"I don't know. I'd have to look at it closely," said Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. "I just haven't read it that closely to know."

As The New RepublicInvestors' Business Daily, and the Washington Examiner have all reported, this problem certainly does exist, and the bill was never amended to fix the problem before it was passed by the Senate on a 68-32 vote Thursday afternoon. "[Registered provisional immigrants] are not subject to mandate and the do not count towards an employer's penalty," Sean Neary, communications director for the Senate Finance Committee, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email late Thursday night.

The Gang of Eight’s Bill Will Never Become Law

The Gang of Eight’s Bill Will Never Become Law

By John Hinderakeron Fri, 28 Jun 2013

Not unless House Republicans have completely taken leave of their senses, in which case, for the first time in my lifetime, talking about a new party won’t be crazy.

As many flaws as the Gang’s bill has, we can never repeat too often that it is fundamentally misconceived in a manner that cannot be made right with a fence or even with improved interior enforcement, valuable as those things may be in their own right. The fundamental problem with the bill is what it does with legal immigration. Instead of reforming our Ted Kennedy-inspired, irrational 60s-era immigration regime, it perpetuates it and even makes it worse. Thus, the Bill authorizes somewhere between 30 million and 60 million new legal immigrants over the next ten years, 90% of them low-skill and low-wage. The Democrats hope this will create a mammoth and permanent underclass that will be forever dependent on government for security, and will reliably vote Democrat for generations. Certain business interests hope the bill will deal a crippling blow to America’s working class, driving down wages and providing an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor.

That isn’t admirable, but it makes a certain kind of sense. And we know that Democrats are contemptuous of blue-collar workers and don’t care what happens to them. Cheaper household help for bicoastal liberals? What’s not to like? But why should Republicans acquiesce in this vicious assault on America’s working class?

I am not sure why more Republicans haven’t joined in Jeff Sessions’ lonely crusade to expose the deeply misguided, if not malignant, heart of the Gang’s legislation. On this issue, as on several others over the last few years, Sessions has been the bellwether. Today he spoke at length against the Gang’s bill. In this brief excerpt, he sounded what I think (and Sessions thinks) is the most important theme: the bill was crafted by special interests to serve the Democratic Party and certain narrow economic interests by driving down the wages of America’s blue collar workers:

Let’s hope House Republicans are listening.


NSA Scandal: Keep Fighting for Civil Liberties

NSA Scandal: Keep Fighting for Civil Liberties

on Thu, 27 Jun 2013

The American people are in an uproar over the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) has gathered billions of phone and Internet records from millions of American citizens. In response, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has now introduced legislation that could substantially limit the NSA’s data-collection programs under both the USA PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

While Leahy’s bipartisan legislation may sound propitious on the surface, the fact is, current FISA restraints on presidential prerogatives to gather intelligence from our enemies abroad, and those who communicate with them, may already be unconstitutional. In other words, Leahy's legislation may be superfluous and actually counterproductive.

As Judicial Watch argued in its amicus curiaebrief in American Civil Liberties Union vs National Security Agency in 2006, “Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that addressed the issue concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information and that such surveillance constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.”

To further weaken intelligence gathering as Leahy has proposed, could be dangerously constraining--particularly during a time of war (which continues, despite this president’s seeming unwillingness to acknowledge it). Experience shows that reforms in response to intelligence gathering abuses usually result in more government (the Department of Homeland Security), do not address the issues that need attention, and hamper legitimate intelligence collection.   

So, why is the public, along with politicians from both parties, in such an uproar? Perhaps, it is because both the public and the politicians know that we cannot trust Barack Obama. And this lack of trust extends to even Democrats such as Leahy. America’s intelligence surveillance system only works if we can trust the decision makers. 

Attorney General Eric Holder’s role in the James Rosen scandal provide a vivid case in point. Holder authorized a search warrant to obtain the emails and other records of Rosen, a Fox News reporter. In order to get these records, Holder approved legal language suggesting that Rosen may have violated the Espionage Act. AsBreitbart reported, Holder then compounded this scandal by telling the House Judiciary Committee that he had not been involved in any potential prosecution of journalists. Just days later, it came out that he had personally signed off on the Rosen surveillance.

Little wonder that Holder has become a regular on Judicial Watch’s “Top Ten Corrupt Politicians” list. As we said in his 2012 citation, “Holder shamelessly operates the most blatantly politicized Department of Justice (DOJ) in a generation… Every day that Eric Holder remains at the helm, the Department of Justice sinks further into the abyss of cronyism, corruption, and deceit. And it is well past time for him to go.”

Obama has defended his NSA spying on American citizens by broadly proclaiming that his efforts have “saved lives.” He claims that tracking billions of phone and Internet records from millions of Americans has been “a circumscribed, narrow system” with every intercept potentially relating to a terrorist investigation. The American people aren’t buying it.  Hence the Leahy move, however misguided, to rein Obama in. And it doesn’t help that the NSA’s chief, Admiral James Clapper, seems to have been purposefully misleading, to put it charitably, when he testified under oath that the NSA does not collect data on Americans. 

There are legitimate reasons for allowing trustedgovernment officials to gather intelligence from our enemies abroad, and those who communicate with them -- with the emphasis on the word “trusted.” But I do not trust Obama or this government generally to follow the law and not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. This administration has a habit of abusing its authority (the IRS), ignoring the law (immigration), and lying about national security (Benghazi). Congress and the American people are therefore right to question the seemingly senseless gathering of data on every American with a phone. Given the Obama record, further revelations about the NSA will likely show that the administration was indeed abusing its authority, ignoring the law, and lying about national security.  

Idiot Nancy Pelosi: We Should 'Celebrate' Obamacare on July 4th

Nancy Pelosi: We Should 'Celebrate' Obamacare on July 4th

on Fri, 28 Jun 2013

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently informed the nation that July Fourth isn't just for fireworks and independence any more. It is also the day we should "celebrate" Obamacare.

Sure July Fourth is traditionally celebrated as the day we declared independence from Great Britain, an action that preceded the Revolutionary War and set the tone for our nascent nation. But now it has another significance. As far as Pelosi is concerned it is "health independence" day, too.

"Next week, when we celebrate Independence Day we'll also be observing health independence," Pelosi said during a press briefing recorded by CSPAN. She goes on to say that, "this week marks one year since the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. It captures the spirit of our founders. The spirit they wrote in the Declaration of Independence... So, we’ve had Social Security, Medicare, and now health independence, and that’s something our members will take home to celebrate over this Independence Day."

Pelosi also bent history to chide the GOP saying that if Paul Revere was a Republican, today he would be running through the streets shouting "sequester is coming!"

Transcript of Pelosi's opening segment

Pretty soon we'll all be leaving for the Fourth of July recess. Next week, when we celebrate Independence Day we'll also be observing health independence.

This week marks one year since the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. It captures the spirit of our founders. The spirit they wrote in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Affordable Care Act offers just that--a healthier life and the liberty to pursue a person's happiness to be free of constraint, be job-locked, because they're policy-locked and so if you wanted to be a cameraman, a writer, you want to be self employed, if you want to be, start a business, if you want to change jobs, whatever it is you want to do you are free, you have the liberty to do.

So, we’ve had Social Security, Medicare, and now health independence, and that’s something our members will take home to celebrate over this Independence Day.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

The 'Angry Birds': GOP Senators Voting for Amnesty Over Security

The 'Angry Birds': GOP Senators Voting for Amnesty Over Security

on Thu, 27 Jun 2013

Breitbart News has compiled a list of the Republican Senators who voted for amnesty over border security and interior immigration law enforcement for readers’ information. Below, you will find a list of their names and phone numbers for an office in their home states.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- 603-880-3335 – Nashua Office

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee -- (423) 752-5337 – Chattanooga Office

Sen. Jeff Chiesa of New Jersey -- 202-224-3224 – (DC office as he does not have district offices)

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine -- (207) 622-8414 – Augusta Office

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee -- 901-683-1910 – Memphis Office

Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona -- 602-840-1891 – Phoenix Office

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- (864) 250-1417 – Upstate Regional Office in Greenville

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah -- (801) 524-4380 – Salt Lake City office

Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada -- 702-388-6605 – Las Vegas Office

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota -- 701-250-4618 – Bismarck Office

Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois -- 217-492-5089 – Springfield Office

Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- (520) 670-6334 – Tucson Office

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- 907-586-7277 – Juneau Office

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida -- (904) 398-8586 – Jacksonville Office


Boehner: Senate bill still DOA in House

Boehner: Senate bill still DOA in House

Washington Times

House Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that the Senate's immigration bill, which is poised to pass later in the afternoon, is still not going anywhere in the House.

"The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes," the Ohio Republican said flatly at his weekly press conference, before going on to attack the Senate version as too weak on border security.

Earlier this week the top Senate Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid, had urged Mr. Boehner to consider taking and passing the Senate bill as-is, saying that is one way to do an end-run around House Republicans who oppose giving illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship.

But Mr. Boehner rejected that option, saying the House will instead act on its own bills, which are being written by Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte.

Mr. Boehner also said any bill that comes before the House will have to have the support of a majority of House Republicans — which likely rules out a pathway to citizenship.

Mr. Boehner, in his remarks, specifically mentioned the progress by Mr. Gootlatte and House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul in moving separate bills, which seemed to signal that the speaker is leaning toward the piecemeal approach of immigration legislation, rather than taking up a broad bill as the Senate has done.

"Chairman McCaul has done a good job passing a border security bill, Chairman Goodlatte is doing good work over in the Judiciary Committee, and if immigration reform is going to work, it's essential that the American people have the confidence that it's being done correctly," Mr. Boehner said. "That's how the House will approach this issue."

The American Spectator : Obama’s War on Prosperity

The American Spectator : Obama’s War on Prosperity

President Obama’s Administration is beginning to feel like one endless freshman orientation, you remember the kind where they used to sit you down the first week of college and tell you you’d been oppressing blacks and women all your life and had to spend the next four years doing penance?
Four years ago he began his Inauguration by announcing that fossil fuels were a thing of the past and that we would now get our energy from “wind, sun and soil.” He spent the next four years trying unsuccessfully to push cap-and-trade through Congress and subsidizing a bunch of scraggly “renewable energy” projects that haven’t produced much of anything except a few notable scandals.
Now with unemployment still pushing 8 percent, with participation in the work force at a historic low of 62 percent, with the economy limping along in a five-year doldrums, and with the financial system starting to tremble as Ben Bernanke lets up the pressure on interest rates, the President has decided to stake his second term on — another initiative against coal! This time there isn’t even any blather about “creating jobs” or “building a new economy.” We’re just going to punish ourselves, pure and simple. Coal plants are going to shut down, electricity prices are going to soar, people are going to be put out of work, but that’s just too bad. We’ve sinned by putting “toxic” carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — even our very breathing implicates us! — and we’re just going to have to suffer the consequences.
There are several things that can be said about this. First, if coal plants are shut down, what is going to take their place? The reflexive answer is “natural gas.” Wholly against his inclinations, President Obama has managed to preside over the greatest fossil fuel revival in American history. Production of gas and oil have soared to new heights so that talk about scarcity and “peak oil” are almost forgotten. All of this, of course, has taken place on private lands, in the midsection of the country, outside the purview of federal regulations, far from Washington, so that the country is being divided more and more into the productive breadbasket west of the Appalachians and east of the Rockies, and the “consuming” centers of the East and West Coasts that want to drive away anything to do with energy production from their borders.

Click link above for entire article

Obama needs to act Already acting like Lame Duck - The Hill

Obama needs to act - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill |

It is only six months into his second term and President Obama is playing the lame duck.
From U.S. involvement in Syria to containment of Iran’s nuclear program, passage of comprehensive immigration reform to a debt-ceiling increase, or a smooth landing for his unpopular healthcare program, Obama’s immediate governing challenges seem far less interesting or urgent to him than his legacy wish list. What else could explain the fact that he is talking about tackling climate change and reducing nuclear arsenals when there is little to no political viability for either goal?
It is convenient to explain away Obama’s current posture as stylistic: the same long-view, no-drama manner he has always brought to the job of leader of the free world. Yet being aware that he isn’t likely to accomplish much after, say, this fall, when the congressional midterm campaigns begin, it’s startling that Obama still appears so passive.
The president may believe all is well, but his approval rating has dropped considerably since winning reelection last year. In just a few weeks, Americans have learned the government can collect limitless data — inadvertently or otherwise — on all of us, watched markets rattle over fears the Federal Reserve could even consider a stimulus slowdown in a jobless recovery, and witnessed the Chinese and the Russians laugh us off as Edward Snowden slithers around the globe and the U.S. government sits powerless, hoping someone will ship him back here. The president’s attempt to talk Russian President Vladimir Putin into some cooperation in Syria, where Obama was finally forced to aid the opposition against the Assad regime, fell embarrassingly flat two weeks ago. Days later he pledged at the Brandenburg Gate to ask the Russians to participate in a nuclear weapons reduction they have no interest in. Now, Putin’s poking Obama in the eye by harboring Snowden, who leaked our secrets and jeopardized our security, as potential for a growing regional Middle East conflict increases by the day.  

Read more: 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

NAPOLITANO: The truth shall keep us free - Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: The truth shall keep us free - Washington Times

Which is more dangerous to personal liberty in a free society: a renegade who tells an inconvenient truth about government lawbreaking, or government officials who lie about what the renegade revealed? That is the core issue in the great public debate this summer, as Americans come to the realization that their government has concocted a system of laws violative of the natural law, profoundly repugnant to the Constitution and shrouded in secrecy.

The liberty of which I write is the right to privacy: the right to be left alone. The framers jealously and zealously guarded this right by imposing upon government agents intentionally onerous burdens before letting them invade it. They did so in the Fourth Amendment, using language that permits the government to invade that right only in the narrowest of circumstances.

The linchpin of those circumstances is “probable cause” of evidence of crime in “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” If the government cannot tell a judge specifically what evidence of crime it is looking for and precisely from whom, a judge may not issue a search warrant, and privacy — the natural human yearning that comes from within all of us — will remain where it naturally resides: outside the government’s reach.
Congress is the chief culprit here because it has enacted laws that have lowered the constitutional bar that federal agents must meet in order for judges to issue search warrants. It has commanded that this be done in secret.
And I mean secret.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Karl Rove: More White Votes Alone Won't Save the GOP

Karl Rove: More White Votes Alone Won't Save the GOP

By The Wall Street Journalon Thu, 27 Jun 2013

As immigration reform grinds its way through the U.S. Senate, the main focus has rightly been on the legislation's policy consequences. But there are important political implications, especially for the GOP, that are worth examining. Some observers, including Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan and the Center for Immigration Studies, argue that if Republicans want to win back the White House, they should focus on white voters (who comprised 72% of the electorate in 2012) rather than worrying about Latinos. After all, new Census Bureau estimates are that 100,042,000 whites voted in 2008 but only 98,041,000 did in 2012. 

New GOP Strategy: Give Democrats a Big Head Start!

New GOP Strategy: Give Democrats a Big Head Start!

By Ann Coulteron Wed, 26 Jun 2013

After the bad news on gay marriage out of the Supreme Court this week, here’s some good news for conservatives: Demographics are on our side!

As M. Stanton Evans has recently pointed out, ”Believers in religious doctrine, the traditional family and pro-life attitudes on abortion are systematically outperforming their secular-liberal opponents in the demographic sweepstakes — having appreciably more children per couple — resulting in a fertility gap that works against the liberals.”

Republican states, such as Utah and Kentucky, have been steadily gaining population, while liberal states, such as New York and Vermont, are consistent demographic losers. It should not come as a surprise, though it always does, that people opposed to abortion are out-populating those who consider abortion a right.

Jewish publications have repeatedly observed that the declining fertility rate among all American Jews except the Orthodox — the group that votes 86 percent Republican — means that, in another generation or two, Jews could be majority Republican. (What a wonderful world it would be if Marco Rubio had half of Chuck Schumer’s IQ!)

But liberals always have a workaround. For decades, their solution to the left’s demographic collapse has been immigration. Idiot Republicans being buffaloed into supporting Rubio’s amnesty bill are not merely throwing Democrats a lifeline — they’re allowing Democrats to flip an imminent conservative victory into a permanent liberal majority.

With native-born liberals unwilling to reproduce themselves, liberals need a constant influx of new Democratic voters from other countries — and there happen to be 11 million of them living here right now! Contrary to Rubio-Republicans who think “they all look alike,” the vast majority of Hispanics are not “social conservatives.” (That’s blacks, Marco.)

In addition to being the one ethnic group most opposed to capitalism – even more than Occupy Wall Street protesters! — polls show that Hispanics are more pro-abortion than other Americans (66 percent of Hispanics versus 50 percent of other voters) and favor gay marriage more than other Americans (59 percent compared to 48 percent of all voters). They also support big government by an astronomical 75 percent and Obamacare, in particular, by 62 percent. (Polls: Pew, ABC, ABC, Pew, Fox)

Of course the Democrats want these illegals voting!

It is of no concern to the Democratic Party that illegal aliens are lawbreakers and overwhelmingly minimum-wage workers. Liberals don’t care about the working class having millions more low-skilled workers competing with them, and they certainly don’t care about the country. They just want to win elections. (If only it would occur to Republicans that they need to win elections, too.)

Next, Democrats will be demanding that we set up polling booths in the prisons and sending Marco Rubio out to argue that we already have “de facto” prison-voting.

As happens with so much mischievous legislation, Republicans are being told, “We have got to do this yesterday!” If we don’t produce a global warming bill, the American people will have our heads! If we don’t pass campaign finance reform tomorrow, the voters will punish us! You’re not seriously thinking of blocking a new gun control bill, are you?

Then, it always turns out: No, there’s not going to be a backlash. The only politicians ever punished for a gun vote were the entire House Democratic caucus in the Republican sweep of 1994. The only politician who was ever punished for his position on global warming is Al Gore.

But Democrats love to act like everything’s a crisis, so Republicans don’t have time to think and can be stampeded into doing something stupid. When it comes to government, doing nothing is often the best course.

Republicans have to understand: You are not going to be punished by Hispanics for voting against this Obamacare-like monstrosity of an amnesty bill. If you have Hispanics in your district, they’re already voting against you.

The Lindsey Graham argument is: Now when they vote against you, they’ll really hate you.

Hispanics are 8.4 percent of the electorate, so we’re talking about the 80 percent of 8.4 percent of voters who will never vote Republican, anyway. They will allegedly hold this one anti-amnesty vote against Republicans — despite polls showing Hispanics don’t care about amnesty. Those are the voters Republicans are determined to make hate them less, while enraging every American who doesn’t benefit from cheap labor or Democratic votes.

Meanwhile, don’t imagine, Republicans, that you can buy off your anti-amnesty constituents with another meaningless vote to repeal Obamacare.

Does it occur to these brainless wonders in the GOP that the Democrats wouldn’t be agitating for amnesty if it didn’t get them votes? That’s all it’s about. Liberals want the rest of the world’s poor to come here not only to raise their children, clean their houses, manicure their lawns and cook their meals, but to give birth to the Democratic children that liberals aren’t having.

Human Events

Trayvon's Mom Sat In with Prosecution Star Witness During Initial Police Interview

Trayvon's Mom Sat In with Prosecution Star Witness During Initial Police Interview

on Thu, 27 Jun 2013

Rachel Jeantel, the prosecution’s star witness in the George Zimmerman trial, said on Thursday on the stand that Sabryna Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin, sat next to her during her first interview with the state attorney and law enforcement. As Kathi Belich of WFTV tweeted, “That is highly unusual. I have never heard of the alleged victim’s family sitting in on a witness interview in 32 years.”