Senator Marco Rubio has been criticized by many Tea Party activists for his stance on illegal immigration, but that doesn’t seem to hold him back in the polls. Look at these results from CNN’s latest poll among Republican voters:
Overall, 17% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents back Bush for the GOP nomination, while 12% support Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Paul and Rubio stand at 11% each, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 9% and Cruz at 7%…
Remarkable: Bush and Rubio both poll at 18% when respondents are asked which candidate best represents the future of the Republican Party. In Florida, his home state and one of the states the Republican nominee will have to win, Rubio even beats Hillary, which is in no small part due to his popularity among Hispanic voters:
Bush is still at the top of the polls, but Rubio is getting closer. If he keeps this up — and I see no reason to believe he won’t — he isn’t merely a contender, but one of the top favorites. Yes, this could very well be his breakout moment, especially if he beats Bush for the Hispanic vote.
On March 24, cannabis oil activist Shona Banda‘s life was flipped upside-down after her son was taken from her by the State of Kansas. The ordeal started when counselors at her 11-year-old son’s school conducted a drug education class. Her son, who had previously lived in Colorado for a period of time, disagreed with some of the anti-pot points that were being made by school officials.
The school called the police. Coppers showed up at Shona’s home, searched everything, and ended up finding two ounces of cannabis oil which she uses to treat her Crohn’s disease. The result? She could lose her child — her ex has already been granted temporary custody of her son — and Shona faces the battle of her life.
If this horrendous story doesn’t convince you that marijuana should be legalized, I don’t know what will. It’s absolutely insane that Shona and many others like her are treated like psychopathic mass murderers, just because they use cannabis to treat an illness and because they believe others should be allowed to do the same.
Here’s the video of this ridiculous search:
Jeb Bush’s candidacy has a problem, says brother George.
“It’s an easy line to say, ‘Haven’t we had enough Bushes?’ After all, even my mother said, ‘Yes,’” the former president told an audience of 7,000 health IT experts here on Wednesday.
I’ve heard many other people say similar things in recent weeks. Americans “don’t like” dynasties, so Jeb has an uphill battle to fight.
Baloney. Americans love dynasties.
If they didn’t, the Kennedys would have disappeared decades ago from the political scene, Hillary wouldn’t stand a chance of winning, and Jeb would’ve been too busy painting with big brother George to run for office. And let’s not even mention (OK, we will mention him) Rand Paul, who’s only supported by hipster libertarians because he’s Ron Paul’s son.
Dynasties sell, especially in America. And George W. knows it.
Oh no, he shouldn’t have said this:
We either adopt it all or die, they’re not big enough. I tell people they need to look like the rest of America. That means tattoos, without tattoos, with earrings, without earrings, black, white, brown. You go to a Republican event, it’s all white people.
What nonsense to focus on race. Race is purely a social construct, it doesn’t actually exist. Different skin colors exist, but that doesn’t mean anything in itself. If I see grass in different shades of green I don’t conclude that they’re different “races of grass,” that one color is better than the other, or that one is overrepresented in a particular field. I’m guessing neither do you.
I refuse to accept the entire concept of race as reality — because it’s not. If Rand would follow this approach, he would foster a healthier debate and spare himself embarrassments like this one two years ago:
Who’s right (and wrong) here? The cab driver? The two ladies who kissed each other and filed a report about the cab driver? Or the policeman who gave the cabby a $15,000 fine?
A cabby who claimed he had a “no-kissing policy” in his yellow taxi was hit with $15,000 in fines for ordering two female passengers to stop smooching — and then shouting vulgar epithets at them when they got out. TV producer Christina Spitzer and her actress girlfriend, Kassie Thornton, said they barely exchanged a peck in the back seat early into their ride when hack Mohammed Dahbi became enraged.
As John Hawkins points out, liberals will undoubtedly be torn in this case because the driver is a Muslim (and therefore supposedly deserving of preferential treatment) while the women are gay (and therefore also supposedly deserving of preferential treatment). However, that isn’t what this issue is really all about.
The question is: whose rights triumph in this particular case? Do the women have the “right” to do as they please, to show affection to each other wherever they go and whenever they want? Or can a cabbie say that he doesn’t want any kissing in his car? Would he have dealt differently with them if one of them was a guy? If so, does that matter?
As I see it, this boils down to property rights. When the women entered Dahbi’s taxi they had to adhere to his rules, no matter how bigoted and backwards they are. He’s clearly a fundamentalist who deserves no sympathy whatsoever, but that doesn’t mean his right to property doesn’t exist. Don’t like it? Get out of his taxi and find another one — preferably one driven by a man (or woman) with at least something approaching a modern worldview.
At the NRA’s annual convention yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz once again presented his vision for America… and for his presidential campaign. The biggest take-away isn’t that he’s pro-Second Amendment (we already knew that), but that he’s determined to run a positive campaign. Just watch the video:
Of course Cruz criticized President Obama and other Democrats for implementing horrendous policies that do tremendous damage to America and the rest of the world, but his message was — overall — very positive. He emphasized time and again that he’s inspired and motivated to fight “for your constitutional rights” and that he still believes that “the promise of America” can be reignited.
He already promised he’d run a positive campaign shortly after he announced his candidacy.
The question is whether such a campaign can produce a winner. Many modern-day experts believe it can’t, which is why we’re seeing attack ad after attack ad when elections are close. However, there are some success stories of mostly positive campaigns that aimed to inspire. Think about Ronald Reagan in 1980 and especially in 1984. He, too, had a clear vision for America and tried to rally people behind it.
Cruz is taking a risk — winning a negative campaign is easier — but if it pays off, it’ll pay off big time. After all, he’ll then have won the nomination without having made a lot of enemies, which will make it likelier that they and the grassroots will throw their support behind him if he’s the last man standing (against Jeb).
When Ted Cruz announced he’d run for president, there were some self-declared experts who said he’d have a hard time competing because he wouldn’t be able to raise enough money. Well, think again:
Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is getting into the shock-and-awe fundraising business.
An associate of the Texas senator, a recently announced presidential candidate, tells Bloomberg that a cluster of affiliated super-political action committees was formed only this week, and among them they are expected to have $31 million in the bank by Friday.
That’s $31 million in less than a week. We already know that the eventual Republican nominee will have to raise as much as $1.5 billion; by raising more than thirty million in a few days, Cruz and his supporters prove he’s not merely the Tea Party’s sweetheart, but also a fundraiser extraordinaire.
Twitter users have already responded to the SuperPACs’ performances thus far. Some, like me, believe it’s fantastic and inspiring, others call it “grotesque.” In all cases, however, it’s clear that everybody is very impressed — if not shocked.
Cruz hauls in $31 million in Superpac cash. Grotesque and unprecedented. http://t.co/2UK9o9Dsrd
— Steve Brodner (@stevebrodner) April 8, 2015
Call it whatever you want to call it, but the fact of the matter is that it’s extremely impressive. As this Twitter user points out, it proves that Cruz is, indeed, a viable candidate — despite the establishment pretending he has no chance whatsoever of winning this race.
Ted Cruz shows he can hang: His new super PACs are expected to have $31 MILLION in the bank by Friday http://t.co/jNoUHhP1cM
— Rebecca Nelson (@rebeccarnelson) April 8, 2015
Did I already say “eat that, Jeb”? I think I did. In any case:
— Stubbornly Me. (@lybr3) April 8, 2015
In other words:
That’s exactly right. And the best news? Everybody’s aware of it.
Bloomberg.com has published an interesting and often hilarious article about the most curious items in Rand Paul’s online store. Now, it’s all fun and games when he’s trying to sell folks a Rand Paul Webcam Blocker, but the follow item has me a tad bit concerned:
This is ridiculous.
Rand Paul, to raise money for his quixotic presidential campaign, is selling autographed copies of the U.S. Constitution for $1,000. WHAT?!
— Filippellius (@Filippellius) April 7, 2015
I’m aware that presidential candidates have to raise an insane amount of money just to compete, but they should try to be at least somewhat ethical about it. You’re abusing the Constitution to raise funds? Seriously? You don’t have any qualms about using that most sacred document? What’s next? Putting your autograph on a Bible and selling it for $1,000 more?
Apparently, “Constitutional conservative” means candidates willing to sell the US Constitution for $1,000. Rand Paul http://t.co/0ZLpM0jZcS
— David of LosferWords (@LosferWords) April 7, 2015
If Paul respected the Constitution, he’d sign some pocket editions and sell them for the cost price. Instead, he’s acting like a pimp, telling America’s founding document to “show me the money!”
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so darned embarrassing.
CNN seems to be losing the liberal rivalry (or death battle) against MSNBC:
Breitbart believes CNN’s troubles are caused by its “hatred” for “Christians”:
CNN’s week-long misinformation campaign that used the Indiana and Arkansas religious freedom bills to gin up hate against Christians by dishonestly portraying them as fiery bigots, did little to help the left-wing network in its ongoing death struggle with MSNBC for last place. Monday thru Thursday of last week, the height of CNN’s anti-Christian Hate Campaign, saw the embattled network lose handily to MSNBC in total viewers during the all-important primetime hours.
I don’t think CNN’s hatred is limited to Christians, as such. Rather, they want to destroy everything related to conservatism. Traditional Christianity is evil, and the same goes for traditional marriage. Federalism? Terrible! How dare you even mention it?! Personal responsibility! Brr, begone!
As Breitbart points out, the network is clearly “driven by a desire to destroy” these values and ideas. Apparently, they think that this strategy will help them win the battle against MSNBC. The problem? Viewers don’t just want to hear what’s wrong (with others’ views), they also want to hear alternatives. If you don’t have any to offer, you’ll end up destroying yourself rather than your opponents.
That’s what’s happening to CNN right now. MSNBC also hates traditional family values, but Rachel Maddow and co. at least have an alternative vision for the future. CNN doesn’t.
This is the most hilarious interview with Ted Cruz I’ve seen thus far. Thank you CNN, for delivering this epic bit of blowback:
Please, somebody, help me, I can’t stop laughing. Bash tried to smack Cruz around by comparing him to Obama (funny, she didn’t have a problem with the current president having no executive or much political experience when he ran for the White House in 2008), hoping it would silence and embarrass the senator from Texas.
She got a healthy dose of “you’ve got to be kidding” me instead.
Two years in the Senate, not much experience … yeah, but “I wasn’t a community organizer” and Obama was “basically a backbencher,” which you obviously can’t say about Cruz. He has made a name for himself by standing for his principles, even if he has to take on his own party’s leadership. The result? It was Bash who didn’t know what to say and who was reduced to a pathetic pile of hackery.
Love it. Here’s to CNN inviting Cruz on more often so he can continue to humiliate their partisan hacks.
Apple CEO Tim Cook isn’t happy with Indiana’s new bill to restore religious freedom. He explains why in an op-ed for the Washington Post:
There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.
A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
There’s certainly an argument to be made for the view that discriminatory practices towards gays are morally unacceptable. I believe, for instance, that people should be able to live the life they want to live, whether others think it wrong or not. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone else, leave them alone. If gays, therefore, want to marry or live together: have fun.
However, that isn’t the real subject here. In its very essence, this is about religious freedom: the very foundation of liberty in general. You can’t pretend to be a free society and take the freedom of religion away at the same time. It’s either/or: either you allow people to live according to their religious views, or you establish a know-it-all, oppressive government. There’s nothing in between.
So Cook is wrong. We shouldn’t sacrifice the freedom of religion in order to shove “tolerance” down people’s throats (it isn’t even possible to force people to be tolerant, but that’s neither here nor there). If we do, we end up living in a society that’s considerably less free and eventually even less tolerant than the one we currently have. Cook’s probably fine with that, but rational human beings are not.
Luckily, federal law already agrees with that. Indiana’s so-called “controversial law” is based on SCOTUS’ Hobby Lobby decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that religious employers can choose not to provide certain services if they are in breach (a “substantial burden”) with their religious views. Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act builds on that decision; it’s not a new law, but an affirmation of SCOTUS’ ruling.
The awesome Ben Shapiro – one of the best young radio talkers in America, and a great writer to boot – has just released another terrific video. The subject? Obama’s negotiations with Iran. The question he tries to answer is: can Islamonazi-in-Chief ayatollah Khamenei be trusted?
Obama believes that you can negotiate with everybody. Something about “smart power” and “smart diplomacy.” There’s just one minor problem with that line of thinking: you can’t. For example, it was a major mistake of the British to negotiate with Hitler; their diplomatic agreements with him actually allowed Hitler to rebuild his army and, later, to invade large parts of Europe. None of that would have happened if Neville Chamberlain had a little something called “a spine.”
Ayatollah Khamenei may not be German, but he’s a nazi nonetheless – an Islamonazi that is. He lets crowds chant “death to America” (and they mean it), he’s busily trying to develop nuclear weapons that will actually enable him to attack Israel and the U.S. and, oh yeah, he’s a believer in a Shiite version of Radical Islam, whose sole aim it is to conquer and dominate the entire world. The only thing he wants to negotiate about is how long it’ll take him to reach his goals, not whether he’ll be able to commit the genocide on all non-believers he dreams of.
Or, as Dr. Evil would say:
So, a question to Obama-supporters who do think you can negotiate in good faith with the ayatollah: have you learned nothing from history? On what do you base your assumption that he can be trusted? On his hatred for America? His support for terrorist organizations everywhere? Or his calls to wipe Israel off the map? Please tell me.
Bill Whittle is awesome. No. That’s an understatement and too generic. He’s the greatest videoblogging conservative the world has ever seen. Case in point? This hilarious, spot-on and intelligent video about the hardcore Left’s new idea to let 16 year olds vote.
In short: no. Just no. In fact, it could very well be the most horrific idea of the last ten years. Yes, that includes Obamacare and the president’s plans to negotiate with the Islamonazis in Iran.
Whittle says that he considers voting a “civic duty,” but I disagree with that. It’s a civic privilege. We’ve made a major mistake in the West — in both Europe and America — by allowing people who live on the dole to vote. General voting rights — without any requirements except for being a citizen — have enabled the lazy and incompetent to live entirely off of people who actually try to be successful and take care of their families. Considering man’s natural inclination to do as little as possible to get by, it isn’t exactly illogical that most Western countries have become social democracies, if not downright socialist.
Sixteen year olds aren’t capable of taking care of themselves (which is why their parents do it for them). Letting them vote would undoubtedly result in more unaffordable government programs that will, in the years to come, bankrupt the country. I understand Obama and his ilk don’t have a problem with that, but those of us who actually love America beg to differ.
So Senator Harry Reid is set to retire. Apparently he wants to enjoy the rest of his life with his wife and children, which won’t be difficult to do since he’s worth an estimated 10 million dollars nowadays. How he did that as a career politician is anyone’s guess, but that’s neither here nor there.
He says he’ll be in the Senate for 22 months more, promising to continue to do as much damage to the country as he can. Apparently, he’s quite proud of that.
Well, I have a slightly different take on the senator’s career. He started out as a supposedly conservative Democrat who was all about fiscal responsibility, but over the years he has (d?)evolved into a liberal hack who’s one of the main reasons that America is currently on the brink of bankruptcy. I can’t wait for this guy to go home and spend “more time” with his family.
Good riddance! Let’s hope he’s privately more principled than he was in the Senate. Because if he isn’t, his wife will have her hands full with him and the many problems he’ll create.
What’s your fare thee well message for Senator Reid? Leave it here, in the comment section.
European media report that German authorities have found “importance evidence” in Andreas Lubitz’s home. Lubitz was the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9595, which he purposefully crashed in the French Alps.
Although the German police don’t want to share any details at this moment, they say that the evidence explains why he committed this horrendous mass murder.
In the meantime, it has become clear that Lubitz had serious psychological issues. He was hospitalized in a mental hospital back in 2009. When he was 27 years old, Lubitz apparently suffered from regular panic attacks. He was still being treated by a psychiatrist and had to pass “special psychological tests” by his employer. He received his last treatment only weeks before he purposefully flew the plane into the ground, thereby killing himself and all other 149 people on board.
Our social media manager asked our followers on Facebook whether they are better off today than before Barack Obama took office and, more precisely, passed Obamacare. Their answers leave little room for doubt about the negative effects of this president’s horrendous policies:
Ah well, Mary’s probably the exception to the rule, isn’t she! After all, Obamacare was supposed to help Americans. It’d improve their health care, without it hurting their jobs. Yup!
So is there nobody who’s willing to defend Obamacare? Well, there’s this one guy who has to admit that nothing has actually improved, but hey, it may one day!
So how about you? Are you better off because of Obamacare, or do you agree with 99% of our Facebook followers who say that Obamacare has been “a disaster” for the country and for themselves? Let us know, here in the comment section and on Facebook!
On yesterday’s episode of The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck clashed with each other about Beck’s statement that he no longer supports the Republican Party. It was an interesting debate, although O’Reilly didn’t appear to grasp Beck’s point about defunding the Republican leadership and supporting individual candidates instead:
Beck’s point is well-taken. Why fund the Republican Party itself if you only support certain conservative candidates — and those candidates are being attacked by their own party’s leaders?
Increasingly, voters try to find candidates they support, not a specific party. Parties played a major role in organizing campaigns on every level (local, state, federal) in the past, but that’s increasingly less the case nowadays. Also, when you donate your hard-earned dollars to a party rather than to an individual, part of your donation ends up helping candidates you don’t support or even actively hurting the ones you do.
Both the Democratic Party and the GOP are “big tents” now, with people who often have conflicting views. See how Elizabeth Warren Democrats think compared to Hillary supporters, or how Cruz supporters think compared to Mitch McConnell and his ilk. They often have opposing — not complementary — goals.
Political parties are outdated, so why not stop supporting them?
The newly announced Republican presidential candidate told CNN’s Dana Bash on Tuesday that he will sign up for health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act — a law he has been on a crusade to kill.
It’s a deeply ironic development for the Texas conservative firebrand, who vaulted to fame during his few years in the Senate in large part by denouncing President Barack Obama’s landmark health care law. He led an effort to defund the law that contributed to the 2013 government shutdown.
“Deeply ironic?” Please explain how, dear liberal hacks at CNN. He explains that he believes in obeying the law even when he disagrees with it. That’s not “ironic,” that’s a man living by his beliefs.
Besides, unlike some in Congress — who exempted themselves from Obama’s horrendous health plan despite having voted for it — he shows that he’s actually willing to live a life similar to that of most Americans. He fights to ease their burden of a horrendous health plan — but as long as they have to live with it, so will he.
It’s not that difficult to comprehend, but CNN’s leftist propagandists are having none of it. It’s way too much fun to “freeze” Cruz, “isolate” him, and “polarize” him. Just like Saul Alinsky taught.
On his radio show yesterday, Mark Levin criticized his “friends from Fox News” for secretly supporting Jeb Bush and attacking real conservative candidates like Ted Cruz:
As you all know I’m a huge fan of the Fox News channel. Particularly certain hosts. But I have to wonder: if Ronald Reagan was running in 1976 starting in ’75 against Gerald Ford, how most of the people at Fox would treat him. Because to my great dismay – as I was preparing for the program, I had my favorite cable network on – and a number of the people were trashing Ted Cruz. Not enough experience, he’s too young, too conservative, needs a bigger tent, he’s down in the polls… These people are neophytes. Neophytes. They’ve never fought in Republican primaries for conservative candidates. They don’t even take the time to learn the history of this country or the Republican Party. And I am convinced that if Reagan were alive today and Gerald Ford were live today, and we were doing a rerun of 1975-1976, Reagan would be trashed all over our favorite cable channel.
The question isn’t whether Reagan would be supported by conservatives today – he most assuredly would – the question is whether he’d be supported by several people on our favorite cable channel. And the answer is no.
Levin added that those people probably support Jeb Bush.
The question is, of course: is he right? Well, he followed his criticism up with these Facebook updates:
So, yes, every single thing Levin said yesterday is correct. Fox News does indeed oppose Cruz — and any other real conservative candidate like him. The reason is that Fox isn’t conservative, but corporatist. They support candidates who are pro-amnesty (because it supposedly means cheap labor for businesses) and pro-corporate welfare. Cruz isn’t, Jeb is. So it’s a no-brainer for them.
A good question:
— Chuck Woolery (@chuckwoolery) March 24, 2015
Chuck Woolery was quickly answered:
It’s sad, but all of those answers are right. Believing in the system and rights promoted by the Constitution is now “extreme.” The worst part? We not only have the Obama administration and their lapdogs in the media to thank for that, but establishment Republicans as well.
The Internet Goes Berserk: Why People’s Heads Are Exploding Over Ted Cruz’s Speech Announcing His Candidacy
There’s something interesting going on online. Just go to Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ and search for “Ted Cruz,” “#TedCruz2016″ or “Ted Cruz candidate.” Do you notice something?
That’s right, people’s heads are truly exploding.
Many conservative activists are celebrating Cruz’s official announcement that he’ll run for president. They believe he’s just what they and the rest of America need: a principled, small-government conservative who sticks to his guns no matter what.
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 23, 2015
Popular radio talk show host Mark “The Great One” Levin’s also impressed:
Ted Cruz’s terrific speech today – must watch! http://t.co/mdTbmWzHz8
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 23, 2015
One conservative hero praises another: this tweet basically says it all.
And there’s more – much more:
— Joel C. Rosenberg (@JoelCRosenberg) March 23, 2015
Cruz truly touched a chord with conservative voters:
Listening 2 Ted Cruz speak (w/o a TelePrompter) at Liberty University about God, Our Constitution & his Love of America is so refreshing!
— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) March 23, 2015
See also this tweet:
— Barbara W (@sassybarbara12) March 23, 2015
And this one:
— Zep (@mightyones1968) March 23, 2015
Twitter also seems to be hit by all kinds of (pro-Cruz) memes, most of them focusing on his status as an outsider and rebel:
Those memes aren’t only extremely popular on Twitter, but also on Facebook, where pro-Cruz groups are exploding; they’re literally adding hundreds if not thousands of people today, who are all happy to show their support for Cruz:
Glenn Beck’s followers on Facebook are also thrilled, both with Cruz’s speech and his candidacy:
Meanwhile, progressives have a slightly different take on Cruz’s upcoming announcement. They go all in, some by making jokes at his expense:
— Chelsea Anarchy (@chelseasuddon) March 23, 2015
Note that they’re not explaining why his political views are wrong — they just attack him personally:
#TedCruz for president is the best joke of the year
— Bassem Masri (@bassem_masri) March 23, 2015
There are also those who are going all-out birther on Cruz:
— Ofay Mayo (@blunted215) March 23, 2015
In fact, birtherism is more popular than ever:
i can’t wait to see republicans try to explain throwing support behind canadian ted cruz yet demanding to see obama’s birth certificate.
— crissle (@crissles) March 23, 2015
Some even pull out the racist and birther cards at the same time:
— Danny Zuker (@DannyZuker) March 22, 2015
See this one, too:
Donald Trump: “Wait, Ted Cruz isn’t white? Maybe I want to see that birth certificate…” pic.twitter.com/S1OJdWskWr
— teresa lo (@teresalo_tweets) March 23, 2015
It’s the same on Facebook:
CNN’s followers are extremely dismissive and even aggressive:
The last ones (but I could go on and on):
Now, it’s perfectly clear why conservative Twitter and Facebook users are so happy. They rightfully believe that he’s one of them and that he could very well be Ronald Reagan’s real successor.
But why are leftists’ heads exploding as well? I’ve got no doubt I know the answer: they fear him. Tremendously even. He is everything they oppose: a true, small-government conservative. And that’s not all; he’s also articulate, has a spine, and is highly educated. On top of all that, he’s one of the few Republican politicians who are able to energize the conservative base. That’s the same group of voters who stayed home in 2012 and 2008, thereby handing the presidency to Obama.
That’s why they’ve started to ridicule and humiliate him, and they’ll undoubtedly continue doing so in the days, weeks and months ahead. It comes straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
So, what do you think? Why are progressives responding so aggressively to Ted Cruz’s announcement? Am I right, do they fear him? Another question: what do you think of Cruz? Many conservative icons have already endorsed him (Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck among others). Are you as excited as they are?
“(Not So) Happy Anniversary, Obamacare!,” writes Ron Fournier for National Journal. He continues: “White House lies sold it. Republican lies soiled it. Most Americans don’t like it.”
On the fifth anniversary of Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act stands as an ugly reflection of today’s political culture: partisan, short-sighted, and flawed.
You’d think that he would then go on to blast it for being the mess it is. But no. Ron adds the following:
—[A]nd yet, better than the alternatives.
Better than the alternative whats exactly? Better than HillaryCare? Perhaps, I don’t know. Both plans were severely flawed and should, therefore, never have been passed. This is government, we’re talking about. It’s serious business. If a plan is “short-sighted and flawed” Congress shouldn’t approve it. End of debate.
Having said all that, I’m still pretty happy with this anniversary. The reason? Nothing has done more to educate Americans about the perils of a federal government run by progressives. They now realize – and no, I’m not just talking about conservatives, but about moderates and even some liberals as well – that big, wasteful programs cause more problems than they solve.
And that’s not all. On top of all that ObamaCare has caused conservatives to finally unite and rally around the flag. In both 2012 and 2014, they were more passionate than ever before; more involved than in a long, long time (at least since the Reagan years). Chances are that’ll spill over into the presidential elections, perhaps enabling a true small-government conservative to win the Republican nomination and the presidency itself.
So yes, let’s wish ObamaCare a happy anniversary. It’s the best thing that happened to promote good governance in decades.
Well, at least Senators Ted Cruz and James Lankford are going to try:
With only three weeks remaining for Congress to overturn two Washington, D.C., laws that violate the religious freedom of Catholic schools and colleges—as well as other religious and pro-life organizations—Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and James Lankford of Oklahoma have done the “right thing” by introducing joint resolutions this week, said The Cardinal Newman Society’s Bob Laird.
Senator Cruz comments:
“The D.C. Council is attempting to force religious institutions to provide services, make employment decisions, or participate in activities that directly violate their faith. No government entity should be able to coerce organizations—whether they be non-profits or religious schools—into funding abortion services or promoting gender policy that is contrary to the organization’s fundamental mission.”
The freedom of religion is at the very core of individual liberty and, therefore, of America’s system. Many believe that the freedom of speech was the foundation, but that’s not true: the acknowledgement of that natural right grew out of the freedom of religion (reading tip: Thomas Hobbes). That’s why it’s so important that the Catholic Church — supported by Cruz and Lankford — wins this battle. You can’t preserve liberty in general when you abolish the freedom of religion, as dictators very well know. Why do you think Mao Zedong and old Joe Stalin declared war on religious institutions shortly after they seized power?
The result of D.C.’s plans will be catastrophic. This is how tyranny starts — by tearing apart the right of citizens to practice their beliefs. Let’s hope that a miracle happens and the Church triumphs. If she doesn’t, I fear not only for her and D.C., but for America in its entirety.
A warning about this video: the images are truly horrific. I chose to share the video with you nonetheless, because it’s of the importance that everyone understands what we’re up against in the War on Radical Islam.
Radical Islam is bigger than ISIS. We talk about that barbaric organization all the time, but – as this video proves – ISIS was only able to create their Caliphate From Hell because many Muslims in the Middle East share their views.
This war can’t be won by military means alone. We need to make it a theological and cultural battle too.
When radio show host Mark Levin appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox news earlier this week, he blasted the Obama administration for being anti-Semitic to its core.
“Mr. Holder, Mr. Obama, let’s have a national discussion about the anti-Semitism that reeks from your administration,” Levin said. Hannity then asked Levin whether he believes that Obama is personally a Jew hater. Levin: “Yes, I do.”
The question is: is he right? The current administration is clearly anti-Israel. Obama’s henchmen worked against Netanyahu, and the president himself vilifies Israel whenever he can. However, Obama’s supporters will argue that you can oppose Israel, while loving Jews! Yes! Truly! “There are even some orthodox Jews who oppose the existence of the Jewish state,” you can hear them say.
Nice try. Sadly, as Levin explained on his radio show yesterday, it isn’t convincing: “If you’re anti-American you’re typically anti-Israel, and if you’re anti-Israel you’re typically anti-Semitic… because they stand for the same thing.” There are some exceptions, but this president isn’t one of them. There is no other way to explain why he’s insulting the thoroughly democratic Netanyahu, while opening up negotiations with the oppressive, dictatorial, homosexuals-murdering thugs in Tehran at the same time.
I’m not going to beat around the bush on this one: Obama hates Jews. It’s that simple.
As I explained last week, Republicans need to nominate a warrior if they want to defeat Hillary Clinton next year. The biggest possible mistake they can make is to nominate someone who tries to appease his critics; in short, someone without a spine.
Although Governor Scott Walker made a name for himself standing up to the unions in Wisconsin, it’s now clear that he is too weak-willed to represent the GOP during 2016′s presidential election:
Veteran Republican strategist Liz Mair told The Associated Press that she was leaving Walker’s team just a day after she had been tapped to lead his online communication efforts, citing the distraction created by a series of recent Twitter posts about Iowa’s presidential caucuses.
“The tone of some of my tweets concerning Iowa was at odds with that which Gov. Walker has always encouraged in political discourse,” Mair said in a statement announcing her immediate resignation. “I wish Gov. Walker and his team all the best.”
My colleague Stephen Kruiser put it perfectly yesterday: “Hush [Iowa] and enjoy your awful mandates.” That’s exactly what Walker should’ve said. Mair is an experienced and talented strategist, and he should’ve stood by her no matter what.
Instead, he apparently finds it more important to be liked by everybody (good luck with that, Scott! Guess what: you’re going to be hated by some anyway, and no, not just by Democrats) than to stick to principle, hoping it’ll deliver him a handful of extra votes.
No, no, no. This is not what Republicans need. They need someone with a spine, not a candidate who throws his own people under the bus when it’s convenient.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is one of the men I admire most. When he recently appeared on Glenn Beck’s show he showed, once again, why that’s so:
Courageous Islamic reformers like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser are the reason why I’m convinced that the war on Radical Islam will be won… eventually. Yes, we can bomb ISIS and similar radical organizations back to the Stone Age, but that won’t actually make the problem go away permanently because Islamism has become part of Islamic cultures. It’s an ideological and cultural battle; you can only win such a war with opposing ideas, not just with bombs.
Jasser has an alternative vision for what Islam can and should be, and understands how to sell his ideas to fellow Muslims. The best part? His interpretation of Islam is loving, caring, compassionate, thoroughly modern and inspiring. His enemies only have hate and death to work with. As history has shown, in the end, liberty, freedom and love always win, especially when the forces for good use media and education to reach as many people as possible. The only bad news is that it may take several decades before Radical Islam is finally destroyed.
Do you agree that Islam can be reformed or have you given up hope for the world’s second largest religion?
Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch has had enough of Republicans who claim that the U.S. has a problem at its Southern border. See this tweet of his:
Republicans talking immigration nonsense on strengthening the border while no net inflow from Mexico for long time. Get real!
— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) March 15, 2015
Sadly for Murdoch, columnist Michelle Malkin saw his tweet and decided to react to it with a little something called “facts.”
Indeed, nothing to see here, Rupert! Nothing’s going on. Nope. Just a few, I don’t know, drug lords dominating the Southern border and attacking a mayor. What else is new? Yawn!
What’s that? The Texas Department of Public Safety says there should be thousands of cameras added to the border because masses of people secretly cross it? Ha-ha! That’s nothing!
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 16, 2015
Some innocent Americans are kidnapped and beaten up, but hey, to Murdoch that isn’t something worthy of being talked about. Of course not! Illegal immigrants provide Big Business with cheap labor, so who cares?
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 16, 2015
And no, Malkin wasn’t finished yet. See her Twitter stream for more messages to Murdoch. Her conclusion:
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 16, 2015
It’s clear where I stand, but what do you think about Murdoch’s tweet? Do you believe he’s right? Are border hawks exaggerating the problem? Or is Michelle Malkin right, and should something be done to actually close the border for once?
What a joke.
OBAMA: Two things. One is ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion which is an example of unintended consequences — which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.
I never saw such a classless American president. He knows perfectly well that President George W. Bush won’t defend himself, because he — unlike Obama — does have a sense of decorum. So Obama quickly tries to put the blame for his own failures on Bush.
This isn’t about left versus right, but about being a gentleman rather than a boor. It’s clear which one Obama is.
Of course he isn’t just rude, he’s also lying. George W. Bush made some tragic mistakes, but ISIS’ rise is all on Obama. He was informed about the group’s potential a full year before it started its reign of terror, yet did nothing.
Speaking in South Carolina yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz (who made what amounts to an unofficial announcement on Glenn Beck’s show on Friday that he’ll run for president) made clear that he, unlike the current administration, does understand that radical Islam poses a significant threat to the United States… and the rest of the world.
“Radical Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States today,” Cruz said. He went on to explain how evil Al Qaeda and ISIS are, but focused especially on Iran: “The trunk of the poisonous tree” of Islamic terror.
The facts of the matter are these: Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, it sponsors terrorists worldwide, and actually has an annual holiday called “Death to America Day.” This regime isn’t only evil, it’s powerful on top of that, with its influence reaching far and wide in Syria and Iraq. And what do Obama and Kerry do? They negotiate directly with the crazy Ayatollah and his minions, and even provide them with economic relief.
If Iran goes nuclear it will pose a mortal threat not only to Israel, but to America as well. How can we get that through this administration’s thick skull?
File this under: “You’ve got to be kidding me!”
Back in the 1970s, Black Panther Herman Bell killed not one, but two police officers. He should’ve received the death penalty for those horrendous crimes, but he got off lightly; he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, which is why he now has the opportunity to ask for his release because he’s supposedly a “changed man.”
His ultimate proof? He plays the flute.
That’s right: he learned how to play a musical instrument. Isn’t that fantastic?
*Insert deep, long sigh.*
I’d be laughing out loud if it wasn’t so serious. As PJ Media’s own J. Christian Adams explains in the video above, this “ageing hippy terrorist” may actually get his way because he’s imprisoned in New York (where, as we all know, “anything is possible”) and because Attorney General Eric Holder is ridiculously sensitive to such appeals.
Popular radio show host Glenn Beck warned the NRA yesterday that he’ll cancel his membership if Grover Norquist is reelected to its board. The reason? The anti-tax activist has ties to Islamonazis, the Muslim Brotherhood in particular.
Norquist’s ties with radical Muslims have been well documented. He has been working with and for them for years. The NRA, meanwhile, is a profoundly conservative organization that plays a vital role in shaping America’s future. It’s completely irresponsible for an extremist-sympathizer to be part of that great organization… or any conservative group for that matter.
Glenn Beck is right. Either Norquist has to go or, and it pains my heart to say it, the NRA has to be punished for doing business with him.
What do you think? Is Beck exaggerating or is Norquist indeed in bed with Islamonazis who are hell-bent on destroying America from within? And will you cancel your membership to the NRA if he stays on?
Shocking: You’ll Never Guess How Much ‘Dead Broke’ Bill Clinton Received in Post-Presidency Benefits
Remember Hillary Clinton saying she and Bill were “not only dead broke, but in debt” when they left the White House?
We already knew that was a bunch of nonsense when she said that a year ago, but the story has just become even worse:
Former President Bill Clinton has received nearly $16 million in taxpayer funds since leaving the White House, covering everything from his pension to personnel to benefits — and renewing questions over how much taxpayers really should spend on ex-presidents who make millions after leaving office.
But hey, they truly were “dead broke” in 2001, folks! Really! Never mind that they perfectly well knew the government would make them millionaires, even if they wouldn’t do anything productive for the rest of their lives!
I’d like to blast the Clintons for their hypocrisy and lies, but instead I’ll just republish this 9-month-old video of Mark “The Great One” Levin doing exactly that … and in a much better way than I could ever hope to do. Can we now please put the lying, deceiving, spinning Clintons out to pasture?
If Republicans want to win the presidential elections next year, they’d better nominate a candidate who’s willing to take the fight to the criminal organization called the Democratic Party and their allies in the media.
Luckily, there are two candidates who are real warriors: Senator Ted Cruz and Governor Scott Walker.
The latter’s problem? He isn’t nearly charismatic enough to take on the Clintons in a national election — and yes, for now I’m going to assume Hillary will be the eventual Democratic nominee.
That’s why I support Ted Cruz for president. He’s as charismatic a warrior as they come. See, for instance, how he responded when attacked by Wolf Blitzer. The guy isn’t rattled easily and sticks to his guns, no matter what.
Another video in which Cruz proves he isn’t afraid of his critics and, what’s more, he’s simply better informed than they are:
One more gem:
Now, let’s go back in time: last year Glenn Beck slammed the media’s “blindfolded fear” of Ted Cruz, saying they’re “so terrified” of him that they’re trying to “destroy” him.
Compared to the way the media treats Cruz now, they were positively supportive a year ago when Beck unloaded on them. See for instance Salon’s headline “Ted Cruz: Freedom won’t survive unless we deny gay people theirs,” which is simply sickening. He isn’t anti-gay, he’s pro states’ rights. But hey, progressives can’t be bothered with that: attack, attack, attack. He’s dangerous! Search and destroy. The Huffington Post also weighs in by trying to portray him as a political opportunist who lies when he says he cares about the poor. Other candidates would immediately take a step back if attacked so unfairly, but Cruz knows how to defend himself: he turns it into a battle against crony capitalism, not against capitalism itself. Eat that, Democrats.
Because of his feisty demeanor, Cruz does well in both online and real-world polls. GlennBeck.com even ran an article two days ago explaining how and why he can win. That’s why the media fear him. He’s their version of the big bad wolf: a real conservative, articulate, well educated, with a very passionate base, who does well in the polls, who actually believes in small government, and who is — above all — a born fighter.
So progressies go in for the kill and hope they can preempt his campaign. They’ll fail at that precisely because he’ll fight back, but they have to try nonetheless.
Republicans, heed my words: nominate this man and you’ll win. Dismiss him at your own peril.
What do you think? Is Ted Cruz the right person for the job because he’s a real fighter, or should Republicans again nominate a wishy-washy candidate who tries to placate the media and Democrats?
EmailGate: First Lois Lerner, Then Hillary Clinton, Now Eric Holder. How Corrupt Is This Administration?
Although we all talk about Hillary’s EmailGate, we shouldn’t forget that this controversy actually started with Lois Lerner. When Republicans tried to find out whether the IRS had purposefully targeted conservative organizations, this former head of the Internal Revenue Service said her email had suddenly disappeared. Mark “The Great One” Levin debunked that excuse months ago:
In other words, there’s no way that Lerner’s hard drive suddenly crashed causing her to lose two years of emails. It’s just not possible.
And then came in Hillary, who, the Benghazi Select Committee says, didn’t hand over all her emails and who used a personal, rather than a government email address to conduct official business, everything related to the attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya, included. Again, important information is being hidden from the American people.
The mainstream media focus on Hillary, but she’s merely one of many in the Obama administration who play fast and loose with the rules. When running for office Obama promised his administration would be transparent, open and honest. Instead, it seems that the U.S. is now governed by an administration more corrupt than Nixon’s.
What do you think? Are these just innocent accidents or is the administration trying to hide something? Is this the most corrupt and secretive administration since President Nixon’s?