Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Congrats, Bronies, You’ve Made Hasbro Profitable

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

The Fox Business story about Hasbro’s turn of fortunes uses gender-normative terminology that, after a tween stared down McDonald’s over its scandalous Happy Meals toys, is no longer politically correct.

Toymaker Hasbro Inc. on Monday said it swung to a profit from a year-ago loss, boosted by strong sales in its girls toys category. Hasbro reported a first-quarter profit of $32.1 billion, or 24 cents a share, versus a loss of $6.7 billion, or 5 cents a share, in the same period a year earlier. (emphasis added, offense unintended)

We can’t call them “girls toys” anymore, for two reasons. In the case of My Little Pony toys, even though they’re intended for girls age 8 and under, adult men are actually buying them and watching the TV show. I wish I was kidding, but I am not. Bronies are a thing, as Ronan Farrow helpfully reported in-depth for MSNBC not long ago.

The second reason that we cannot call girls toys girls toys is because of the courage and forward thinking of Antonia Ayres-Brown. The teen slatepitched McDonald’s out of using gender-normative terminology to describe the toys it puts in its Happy Meals.

In the fall of 2008, when I was 11 years old, I wrote to the CEO of McDonald’s and asked him to change the way his stores sold Happy Meals. I expressed my frustration that McDonald’s always asked if my family preferred a “girl toy” or a “boy toy” when we ordered a Happy Meal at the drive-through. My letter asked if it would be legal for McDonald’s “to ask at a job interview whether someone wanted a man’s job or a woman’s job?”

A few weeks later, I received a short response from a McDonald’s customer satisfaction representative claiming that McDonald’s doesn’t train their employees to ask whether Happy Meal customers want boys’ or girls’ toys, and my experiences were not the norm.

This response was unsatisfying, so I began visiting more than a dozen local McDonald’s locations with my father to collect data. Ultimately, we brought a complaint to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities against McDonald’s for discriminating on the basis of sex. Despite our evidence showing that, in our test, McDonald’s employees described the toys in gendered terms more than 79 percent of the time, the commission dismissed our allegations as “absurd” and solely for the purposes of “titilation [sic] and sociological experimentation.” All in all, this was a pretty humiliating defeat.

She goes on, and on, and on, from there. Seriously. She and her parents whittled off years of their lives pushing McDonald’s into a position where it is not allowed to speak clearly about an obvious and harmless thing.

The ending of it all is that McDonald’s will now confuse the life out of anyone who asks for the boys toy or the girls toy, until they go away angry that they ever bothered to order the Happy Meal.

Next, one supposes that Ayres-Brown will demand that McDonald’s create Happy Meal toys for each of Facebook’s 50 gender options.

That could take a while.

Read bullet | Comments »

Biden to Ukrainians: ‘Thank You for Making Me Feel Relevant Again’

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

Vice President Joe Biden introduced himself at a meeting with Ukrainian legislators in Kiev today as someone who has “someone who has held high public office in my country for now 40 years.”

Biden became the junior senator from Delaware in 1973.

“For 36 years I sat in our legislature, and I used to actually have this seat in our — I was the chairman of our committee.  Thank you for making me feel relevant again, back in a legislative body,” he told the Rada, adding that he’d signed the guest book at his hotel “Ukraine united, Joe Biden.”

“Just because I’ve been around, literally met every major leader in the world in the last 40 years, I don’t — I want you to know I do not underestimate the incredible pressure you all are under.  I do not underestimate the challenge that you all face. And I do not underestimate the frustration you must feel when someone like me comes along and says this is a great opportunity for you. As my mother would say, but for the honor, I’d just as soon as pass the opportunity,” he quipped.

“…I hope none of you have to appear in the first edition of the ‘Profiles in Courage in Ukraine,’ but my expectation is some of you are going to have to make some really difficult, difficult personal decisions,” he added, referencing JFK’s book.

Biden told the lawmakers that there’s “an expression in English, it says, an expert is anyone from out of town with a briefcase.”

“Well, I don’t have a briefcase, and I’m not an expert. But I have an opinion, and I speak for the president of the United States, and he shares the same opinion. And that is that this is a second opportunity to make good on the original promise made by the Orange Revolution. This is a genuine opportunity to get right what is always difficult to do the first time when coming out from under the oppression or control of another power,” he said.

“…I have an expression I use as I’ve gone around the world through my career is you never tell another man or woman what’s in their interest. They know their interest better than you know their interest. And so I want you to know that we are not suggesting we have the answers for you, but we’re merely suggesting that we stand ready to stand with you in every endeavor that you undertake to generate the united prosperous and coherent Ukraine you’re all fighting for.”

The veep told the Ukrainians to “imagine where you’d be today if you were able to tell Russia: Keep your gas.”

“…And you may have different traditions. It’s not quite the same, but we understand different traditions in our country — not as deeply as you do, but we are the most heterogeneous democracy in the world. We’re soon going to get the point where over 50 percent of the United States of America is made up of people of non-European stock; the majority of the American people are not of European origin in 2020. We understand. We have millions of Muslims. We have hundreds — but it’s not quite the same. We’re not up against a border. We’re not sitting against a border of another powerful nation.”

Read bullet | 11 Comments »

Congressman Slams NYT for Piece Linking Veterans and White Supremacy

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

A congressional Marine vet slammed a New York Times op-ed for linking veterans and white supremacy, saying “if we target specific groups like Muslims as opposed to veterans, the outcry across this country would be outrageous.”

Kathleen Belew, a postdoctoral fellow in history at Northwestern University who is working on a book on Vietnam veterans and the radical right, wrote that Overland Park Jewish center shooter Frazier Glenn Miller killed three people as “a soldier of the white power movement: a groundswell that united Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other fringe elements after the Vietnam War, crested with the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, and remains a diminished but potent threat today.”

“Vietnam veterans forged the first links between Klansmen and Nazis since World War II. They were central in leading Klan and neo-Nazi groups past the anti-civil rights backlash of the 1960s and toward paramilitary violence. The white power movement they forged had strongholds not only in the South, but also in the Pacific Northwest, Colorado, California and Pennsylvania,” Belew continued. “Its members carried weapons like those they had used in Vietnam, and used boot-camp rhetoric to frame their pursuit of domestic enemies. They condoned violence against innocent people and, eventually, the state itself.”

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) asked on Fox “how can someone that is apparently so well-educated be so darn ignorant?”

“This is one of the most outrageous, and ignorant things I’ve ever seen written. Even for the New York Times, which nothing, you know, surprises me with what they write, but this — you shouldn’t even be able allowed to use this under your bird cage. It is disgraceful. It is shameful. And I’ll tell you what, if Ms. Belew has such a problem with our veterans, maybe she should live in a country that doesn’t provide the security and the liberty and the freedom that each and every one of our veterans provide, each and everyday. And maybe that’s what she should do,” said Grimm, a veteran of operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Belew’s piece argued “it would be irresponsible to overlook the high rates of combat trauma among the 2.4 million Americans who have served in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the full impact of which has not yet materialized. Veterans of those conflicts represent just 10 percent of those getting mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs, where the overwhelming majority of those in treatment are still Vietnam veterans.”

Grimm said that considering there was a draft in the Vietnam war, it’s possible “that we drafted one or two that were hate martyrs.”

In the Marine Corps he knew, the congressman added, “the last thing we wanna be is hate martyrs because the — when I was trained with blacks, Latins, everything you can ever imagine, and we put our faith and our lives in each other’s hands. We developed such a respect for each other, there is no hatred at least in the Marine Corps I served in.”

Grimm said if Belew had written an article saying Muslims needed greater scrutiny, “the left, you know, the far left would be putting together marches and they would be out protesting everywhere you can imagine but because it’s our men and women in uniform, the New York Times can get away with it. And it’s again — it’s shameful.”

He added that such attitudes would serve to “dissuade” veterans suffering from PTSD and other conditions “from seeking the treatment that they need.”

Read bullet | 22 Comments »

This Is An Actual, Serious CNN Headline

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

It’s nice to see that the Clinton News Network has taken a break from Ancient Aliens Meets Flight 370 to cover Justin Bieber and the urgent stories of our day.


Read bullet | Comments »

The Shameful Hypocrisy of the Modern Green Movement

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Pierre-Guy Veer

There are two types of green movements. The first one, embodied by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, sees nature and humans as a whole and thereby believes there can be constructive solutions to problems like pollution. The second believes that humans are a cancer destroying the planet and a radical shift in consumer behavior is needed lest we’re doomed.

This latter breed of green has been back in the news again, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s fifth report released last week. Using this climate “Bible,” green fanatics will undoubtedly look at the splinter in “deniers’” eyes while forgetting the planks in their own.

Green fanatics often dismiss “deniers” like Christopher Monkton, a prominent British politician, since he is not a qualified climatologist. But if such is a science degree is a prerequisite for commenting on global warming, why is Al Gore and David Suzuki such respected scholars on the matter? In fact, at least one-third of IPCC  members have no hard science schooling whatsoever. Why are they considered more qualified to comment on climate policy than Monkton, an actual politician?

Furthermore, if the person speaking is indeed an expert like climatologist Robert Bailing, who “denies” global warming, he will be belittled because he received funding from Big Oil. While some scientists have indeed been paid by “deniers,” climate change fanatics conveniently forget that the WWF, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have also all received money from companies like Shell Oil and BP. Green energy companies also lobby much harder than Big Oil. As a result, solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources receive immensely more taxpayer subsidies per megawatt than fossil fuels.

For all the vitriol climate fanatics spew at so-called “deniers,” they themselves have a serious denial problem. Greenies like Al Gore often downplay the Climategate scandal in which very compromising emails from climate scientists were leaked suggesting data manipulation. Gore himself has called the scandal “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

But, would Climategate really get the pass that it did in the media if it were an analogous scandal in another industry? Imagine for a moment that Climategate was actually Pharmagate, where a hacker or whistleblower extracted tons of information from Big Pharma. Let’s say he discovered that scientists exchanged emails that asked for information inconsistent with their theories be deleted, acknowledged that their theories are false so a “trick” must be used to “hide the decline.”

Now, imagine that investigations are initiated to shine the light on this scandal. One is conducted by a university that has an employee sunk deep in the scandal. He is completely cleared, and the university claims to have looked at all sides of the debate while completely forgetting about another scientist who found severe flaws in his colleague’s theories.

Another one is financed by an institution also sunk deep in the scandal, and the investigating panel is headed by people favoring the accused scientists. A last investigation,  headed by a country’s national legislature, states that the information was stolen without proof, meets no dissenting scientist and was favoring the scientists by ignoring their questionable actions.

Had such a scenario happened, the media would have cried foul with reason because the investigation were riddled with conflicts of interest and completely lacked objectivity. Yet, Climategate matched the exact same facts.

As you can see, modern greens get their color from their blatant hypocrisy. They are free to take Big Oil money, they are free to lobby for taxpayer dollars and they are free to lie about their data. Fortunately, interest in their cause is constantly waning in public opinion despite recent resurgence of interest in the media, pointing to a coming triumph of reason in environmental policy.

Pierre-Guy Veer is a Young Voices Advocate and researcher based out of Washington, D.C.

Read bullet | Comments »

Kerry: ‘It was easier’ During the Cold War

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Easier to get things wrong, I guess, whines the secretary of state.

Secretary of State John Kerry attested Tuesday to the massively complex challenges Washington faces in Ukraine, Russia, Iran and the Middle East, declaring “it was easier” during the Cold War.

In a candid moment during a State Department speech, the top US diplomat said changing global power dynamics made a quaint memory of the early East-West stalemate, when American children would “crouch under our desks at school and practice” safety steps for a possible nuclear attack.

“During the Cold War… it was easier than it is today — simpler is maybe a way to put it,” Kerry told aid and development experts.

“The choices were less varied, less complicated, more stark, more clear: Communism, democracy, West, East, the Iron Curtain.”

If it was so much easier during the Cold War, why did Kerry, Ted Kennedy and so many other Democrats get so much wrong? Kerry supported the 1980s  nuclear freeze movement, which was Soviet-funded in the West and aimed to disarm the free world of our nuclear deterrent. Ted Kennedy was working with the Soviets behind Reagan’s back, according to his KGB files. Numerous Democrats actually believed that Ronald Reagan was more of a threat to the world than any Soviet premier.

For his part, Kerry even got the war he fought in wrong. Vietnam was about containing international communism. He made it about smearing his fellow soldiers, with all that “Jenghis Ghan” stuff. When America abandoned Vietnam, as Kerry wanted, the communists went on a rampage and killed hundreds of thousands over the next several years.

Read bullet | 7 Comments »

GOP Candidate Comes Up with Fantastic One-Word Response to Dems’ ‘War on Women’ Nonsense

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Terri Lynn Land is running for US Senate in Michigan. She has a one-word response for her Democrat opponent and his “war on women” schtick.

This is perfect. I don’t know anything about Land on the issues yet, but based on this ad, I like her and I suspect most viewers will too. She comes off as charming, yet no-nonsense at the same time. Land’s response taps right into how real people actually talk about the absurd, and it leaves the Democrats nowhere to go. Land is set to “Really?” them every time they claim “war on women” or any other ridiculous accusation that Democrats tend to toss out.

Read bullet | 16 Comments »

Professor Tells Students to Hate Republicans

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Prof. Brent Terry teaches Introduction to Creative Writing at Eastern Connecticut State University. In a lecture Monday morning, he said that Republicans are “racist, misogynistic, money-grubbing people” who want to turn the clock back and keep blacks and Latinos from voting. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery while the Democrats started a civil war to preserve slavery, but ESCU’s history department probably doesn’t teach that. He also said that if the Republicans win the Senate this fall, America will be a “very, very different kind of country” in which colleges will start closing up.

Campus Reform reports that the audio was captured by a student, who wishes to remain anonymous. ESCU has released a statement saying “Our faculty has academic freedom to conduct their classes in whatever way they choose, this is not a university matter.”

Just another day in academia.

Read bullet | 33 Comments »

Obama Sends Strongest Signal Yet that He Expects Democrats to Lose the Senate

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

If Democrats lose the Senate this fall, Barack Obama loses the lynchpin of his lawlessness. The Senate in Harry Reid’s grubby hands has killed Obamacare repeal bills by the bushel and keeps every possibility of holding Obama accountable at bay. But the Senate in GOP hands can, and likely will, open a slew of investigations that have been locked in the House or stymied outright up to now. For Obama, facing a House Oversight Committee investigation into the IRS scandal is one thing. Facing investigations in both the House and Senate, and the probability of select committees investigating various things, with John McCain and a newly empowered Ted Cruz and Mike Lee baying at him, is another thing entirely.

The Senate can impeach.* I don’t expect that to actually happen, but the threat alone is bracing. As long as Harry Reid controlled the Senate, there was no threat at all.

Now, with polls showing the Democrats’ Senate majority in major trouble, Barack Obama is lawyering up.

President Obama on Monday said he has selected W. Neil Eggleston to become chief counsel, adding the expertise of a veteran attorney who was involved in some of the most heated legal battles of the Clinton administration.

Eggleston, a white-collar defender who is now at Kirkland & Ellis, will replace departing White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler in mid-May.

“Neil brings extraordinary expertise, credentials, and experience, to our team,” Obama said in a statement. “He has a passion for public service, is renowned for his conscientiousness and foresight, and I look forward to working closely with him in the coming years.”

And, he helped defend scandal-scarred Bill Clinton.

Obama’s departing counsel may also find herself under investigation.

When an IRS audit found that the tax collection agency had been targeting conservative political groups, it was Ruemmler’s decision not to tell the president about the findings, in an attempt to shield Obama from charges he interfered in the investigation.

She also advised the president to resist congressional demands to release draft talking points following last year’s attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, infuriating congressional Republicans.

*Some quibbling in comments over this sentence. The House files charges and conducts impeachment trials, but the Senate votes whether to convict or not. If the Senate convicts, removal from office is automatic. So it’s the Senate that is essentially the jury and does the removing. I don’t see any of this happening during Obama’s last two years in office, but the fact has been that Reid’s control of the Senate has allowed Obama to get away with an awful lot.

Read bullet | 26 Comments »

Unearthed Footage Shows Progressive Hero Calling for Ban: ‘No More Babies!’

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Margaret Sanger, called Margaret Slee in this clip as Slee was her second husband’s name, was founder and first president of Planned Parenthood. Sanger is such an icon on the left today that Planned Parenthood has named an award in her honor, and both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have both been awarded it.

The clip is from 1947, just two years after World War II ravaged civilization. The timing is therefore interesting. The world was certainly not overpopulated, not after the Soviet famine, not after the Nazis and the Holocaust.

In the 1947 interview, eugenicist Sanger called for a full ban on all childbearing in the developing world for 10 years.

YouTube Preview Image

The clip is among a collection of 85,000 recently uploaded to YouTube by British Pathé.

When Hillary Clinton proudly accepted the Margaret Sanger Award a few year ago, she said: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision, when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”

Pelosi accepted her Margaret Sanger Award in 2014.

h/t Daily Caller

Read bullet | 30 Comments »

Wendy Davis Campaign Morphs Into Clown Show

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

What do you do if you’re falling behind and you’re wrong about, well, everything? If you’re Wendy Davis, you hire a castoff from Harry Reid’s house of lies and you just lie about whatever comes up.

The example is in today’s Dallas Morning News, via editorial writer Rodger Jones.

Fact No. 1: Texas public school districts that offer Pre-K already assess them for effectiveness.
Fact No. 2: The Davis campaign has been ridiculing the idea of assessing Pre-K kids, calling it “standardized testing for four-year-olds” and imposition of “Baby STAAR” tests.
Fact No. 3: The Davis campaign has been mum on whether she would ban Pre-K assessments that districts now administer.

Just this afternoon, the campaign put out an email that starts with this headline: “DAVIS CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN RESPONDS TO DMN EDITOR RODGER JONES”

Never mind that I’m not editor of the DMN, or an editor of any kind. The release continued this way:

FORT WORTH – Wendy Davis campaign communications director Zac Petkanas responded to editorial board editor Rodger Jones’ defense of Greg Abbott’s plan to impose standardized testing onto four year olds.

“Greg Abbott’s so-called education plan does something that Texas currently does not do: impose a top down mandate tying additional state resources for pre-K classrooms with how well four year olds do on standardized test assessments.

“Under Abbott’s plan, school districts with pre-K students who don’t meet the mark have their resources slashed.

“To say that this currently takes place in Texas today is just plain wrong.”

I’m saying one simple thing: Pre-K assessments happen today, a reality that may have caught the Davis campaign by surprise as they set out to criticize the very idea of making sure tax money is used properly.

This is aside from any comparison of the Abbott and Davis Pre-K plans. This is a reality check for the Davis folks. A sample of what they put out last week:

“Four-year-olds should be coloring with crayons, not filling in bubbles with No. 2 pencils,” Davis told a crowd of about 80 people at the Texas State Teachers Association.

It’s a distortion for effect, and they know it.

It’s cute, how Wendy Davis and Zac Petkanas think they can just make up whatever reality they want.

Read bullet | 13 Comments »

EXCLUSIVE: How One Brave Woman and Her Group of Patriots Took a Corrupt Border Sheriff Down

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

For nearly two years I’ve worked with a source who I couldn’t identify, but who deserved a great deal of credit and applause. This person is a business owner, a mom, an investigator, and as it turns out a courageous fighter for honest government.

Faced with a corrupt sheriff in a Texas border county across the Rio Grande from a drug war, she patiently gathered up evidence of corruption and crime. Despite credible threats to herself and her family, she persevered — and the sheriff is now among more than a dozen who have or soon will stand trial.

Meet her here.

Read bullet | Comments »

VIDEO — Uniformed Police Officer Caught Tripping Students Rushing to Field to Celebrate a State Championship

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

From KTBC-TV in the people’s republic of Austin.

Rohan Gupta, a student at Vandegrift High School, posted the video to YouTube. The Vandegrift girls soccer won their first state championship beating Wile 1-0.

As the clock hit zero, students jumped out of the stands and on to the field. Over the loud speakers the announcer can be heard telling the crowd to stay of the field.

Watch the lower right side of your screen at about 8-seconds into the video to see the officer apparently trip one young man, who ends up limping off the field. The officer  tries to trip a second person, then grabs another.

YouTube Preview Image

It looks like assault to me.

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Dem Congressman Says Obamacare’s ‘Worst Is Yet to Come’

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Massachusetts Rep. Steve Lynch (D) voted for Obamacare, but he told the Boston Herald that “the worst is yet to come” from Obamacare. Lynch noted that the “Cadillac tax” will, for the first time in American history, impose a tax on health insurance, and that it will be a massive tax.

Lynch believes that Obamacare will cost the Democrats seats in the House this year, and will also probably cost them the Senate. He told the Herald that things will “hit the fan” when many of Obamacare’s elements are implemented. They have been postponed, he said, because they are the law’s “most unpalatable” provisions.

Specifically, he said “Any individual with an individual health care plan that exceeds $10,200 is in a ‘Cadillac plan’ situation. They’re gonna have to pay that employer, if they provide that and many do today, never mind in 2018, will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount over the…maximum established by the Affordable Care Act. So that’s a huge tax.”

But, he says that repealing the law is “impossible” because so many Americans are already dependent on it.

Which was the plan all along, of course — make more Americans dependent on government as a means of yoking them to it.

YouTube Preview Image

h/t NRO


Read bullet | 6 Comments »

Bored with Stonewalling Republicans, Obama White House Now Stonewalling Democrats on the Keystone

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

During today’s White House press briefing, ABC’s Jon Karl asked spokesman Jay Carney to react to Democrats who have stated their anger over the Obama administration’s most recent delay in the Keystone Pipeline. The Obama administration announced that delay on Friday — Good Friday — one of its many misuses of holidays. Vulnerable Democrat senators like Mary Landrieu (LA) say they are “appalled” by the decision.

Rather than own up to the decision and its political nature, Carney pawned the decision off onto the State Department. Watch the video.

Read bullet | Comments »

Clue for Bloomberg’s New Anti-Gun Group: This Is Not What Happens When a Bullet is Fired

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

Mike Bloomberg’s latest anti-gun group,, debuted over the weekend with this graphic.



The graphic depicts a cartoon bullet flying, shell casing and all, like a rocket out of a cartoon gun barrel.

Suffice it to say that when a bullet is fired, the depiction above is not what actually happens.

Bloomberg has pledged to spend $50 million on gun control efforts, despite the fact that the Second Amendment is settled law. He might be wise to invest in high-speed photography, or in an artist who actually knows the first thing about firearms.

Read bullet | 21 Comments »

N.Y. Archbishop Dolan Particularly Admires One Possible GOP Contender

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, put in a good word for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on Sunday’s Face the Nation and said he’d be a good presidential candidate.

Dolan also quipped that Pope Francis could throw his hat in the ring, noting the Argentinian pontiff (who polls far better than President Obama) “has really ignited the imagination of the world.”

“And, for once, finally, it’s almost like people are saying, wow, there’s reason to cheer. There’s reason to hope. There’s a good guy. The good guys are winning in the church. People want the church to succeed. People want religion and faith and spirituality to work,” he said. “People in general are on the side of virtue and goodness and everything that’s noble and decent in the human person. And when you see somebody like Pope Francis that can tap into that and just seems to emanate that and call forth — call that forth from everybody, people kind of take a second look at religion and say, wow, maybe belief is worth it.”

Dolan cautioned the media, though, against interpreting Francis’ reforms as changing the structure of the Church. “Christianity, like Judaism, is a revealed religion. It’s an inherited religion. We believe that God has told us certain things about himself and ourselves. And we can’t tamper with that,” he said. “Now, we can kind of redirect the way we teach it or express it. And, boy, this pope is doing that on steroids. But to the substance of it, can’t, can’t, can’t.”

One example, the cardinal stressed, is gay marriage.

“I believe we can’t camper tamper with that. Would I do things to protect the civil rights of those who are unable to live up to that? You bet I would, whether that became insurance, whether that became housing, whatever,” he said. “Do I believe that society could be affected negatively if we tamper with the definition of marriage? Yes. And that’s just not as man of faith. That’s just as, I would like to think, a loyal American, that if we tamper with that essential of human relationships, marriage, we’re sooner or later going to come to regret it.”

He also tipped his hat to Hobby Lobby: “I think they are just true Americans. They’re saying, look, the genius of America is that religious convictions affect the way we act. America is at her strongest, at her best when people can bring everything into the public square, including their moral, ethical, spiritual and religious convictions. And the government should never force us to do anything that is contrary to those deepest held convictions. That they’re fighting for that, willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court, boy, they sure have my admiration.”

Dolan said Bush, who unlike his Methodist brother George W. is Catholic, will be helping the archdiocese promote Catholic schools.

“I like Jeb Bush a lot. Whether I would be for him as a presidential candidate or not, I don’t know personally. But I sure admire him. And I especially appreciate the priority he gives to education and immigration, by the way,” Dolan said. “I found him remarkably innovative… He said, darn it, let’s see what works. We can’t do business as usual. We got to help our public schools. We know that they are terribly flawed. What can we do improve them?”

“And he experimented. And he went out on a limb. And a lot of things — and things began to click in Florida to — such that he’s rightly proud of this progress that he made in education. And, if you don’t mind me blowing our own horn here, he says one of the best things going is Catholic education.”

When asked if he would like to see Bush run for president, the cardinal replied, “Yes, I think he — I sure think he’d bring something, yes. He’d be good.”

Read bullet | 27 Comments »

Retired Justice Stevens Proposes Adding Five Words to Second Amendment

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told ABC that his decision to step down “was not made for any political reason whatsoever,” but it’s natural for justices to think about who might fill their shoes.

The 94-year-old judge’s retirement in 2010 allowed President Obama to pick another liberal for the court, Justice Elena Kagan.

Stevens is out with a book proposing six amendments to the Constitution, including altering the Second Amendment to say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, when serving in the militia, shall not be infringed.”

“I think every one of my proposals is a moderate proposal,” the justice said. “…I think that’s what should be the rule that it should be legislatures rather than judges who draw the line what is permissible.”

He said the new wording is “what was intended, because there was a fear among the original farmers that the federal government would be so strong that they might destroy the state militias. The amendment would merely prevent arguments being made that Congress doesn’t have the power to do what they think is in the best public interest.”

Under the amendment, Stevens acknowledged, Congress could ban individual gun ownership.

Another proposed amendment would ban gerrymandering with the intention of preserving political power.

“Well, it’s subjective, but it’s easily recognizable if you look at the shapes of the districts that gerrymandering produces. It doesn’t take a genius to say that there’s something fishy with these particular districts,” he said.

Stevens said he “really” believes they will eventually pass.

“Well, perhaps today there might be no chance for certainly the second amendment proposal. But the difficulty of the process shouldn’t foreclose an attempt,” he said.

Read bullet | 29 Comments »

Reid Admits that His Koch Attacks Are All for Show

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

The Senate’s majority leader admits that he’s Alinskying American citizens for fun and political profit.

Reid had a little Q&A with the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The paper confronted him about why he wants the DISCLOSE Act passed, and why he spends so much time attacking the Koch brothers (and so little time doing anything good for the country).

Reid’s lack of shame is remarkable.

• In response to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010, Reid called for a renewed push to pass the DISCLOSE Act, a law that would have forced all political organizations to report their donors. When I said the act would simply require reporting of the contributions, but not stop the flood of political money, Reid disagreed, and said it would especially stop those whose donations are shielded by law now.

“The DISCLOSE Act would stop a lot of money,” he said. “Those people that go with the secret money, they do it because they don’t want anybody to know they’re giving the money.”

Ironically enough, that answer seems to admit one of the primary arguments against full disclosure laws, which is that they would have a chilling effect on free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court, in several decisions, has acknowledged that chilling effect, but said laws such as the DISCLOSE Act impose a lighter burden on the First Amendment than laws that limit political contributions or spending.

That fear has been realized by the IRS’ conduct.

• Reid refused to back away from his criticism of the Koch brothers, oil billionaires who have funded a sprawling network of political groups, including Americans for Prosperity and groups focusing on veterans and seniors. “They’re trying to buy America,” Reid said. “I think having America for sale is not good.”

But he has no criticism at all for convicted felon George Soros, who has poured far more money into “buying America” than the Koch brothers have.

But a New York Times story published last month about the strategy puts a decidedly different spin on it. “Democrats say the strategy of spotlighting the Koch brothers’ activities is politically shrewd,” the story says. “The majority leader [Reid] was particularly struck by a presentation during a recent Senate Democratic retreat, which emphasized that one of the best ways to draw an effective contrast is to pick a villain, one of his aides said. And by scolding the Koch brothers, Mr. Reid is trying to draw them out, both to raise their public profile, and also to help rally the Democratic base. The approach stems, in part, from Democratic-funded research showing that many voters believe the political system is rigged in favor of the super rich.”

After I read that passage, Reid replied simply, “So?”

I pressed: “This is a political strategy, isn’t it, as well as a fundraising strategy? The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been raising money like gangbusters after you’ve been talking about the Koch brothers and as you said, you’ve given America the villain that they need to identify with as you struggle with your Democrats to overcome the objections to Obamacare and try to remain the majority.”

Again, Reid’s reply: “So?”

Reid admits in all that, that the DISCLOSE Act is as political as his attacks on the Koch brothers. There is no great principle motivating him, other than raw power. He only wants that law passed to scare conservative money out of the political process.

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama Attends Easter Service at Church of Former DNC Adviser

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

President Obama spent Saturday golfing before the first family made an appearance at a DC Baptist church on Easter.

Obama’s golf partners at Andrews Air Force Base were White House trip director Marvin Nicholson, Walter Nicholson and Joe Paulsen for about four hours on the green.

At 10 a.m.  the next morning, the Obamas left the White House for northwest D.C.’s 19th Street Baptist Church. The pastor there, Rev. Derrick Harkins, has been helping the administration promote Obamacare. He also used to be a faith adviser to the Democratic National Committee. “Rev. Harkins is a national leader in the faith community with strong and diverse ties to the African-American church, evangelicals and the progressive faith community,” the DNC said at the time of his 2011 appointment. “Outreach to people of all faiths is a key priority and trademark of President Obama, and Harkins is the right leader to continue the Democratic Party’s engagement of the faith community.”

The Obamas went to St. John’s Episcopal Church the previous Easter and have not joined any particular congregation since coming to Washington.

They sat in a second-row reserved pew in an otherwise packed church, according to the White House pool report, with a row of Secret Service behind them.

Harkins told congregants to greet their neighbors and welcome the president. “Obama high-fived a baby boy, hugged and kissed women, and Michelle blew kisses from inside their pew,” said the report.

“Isn’t our first family gracious?” the pastor said.

Obama “dropped a white paper or envelope into the silver contribution plate as ushers distributed them through the pews” and soon after “an older gentleman stood up from his seat some distance from the president and raised his arm and yelled, ‘God Bless President Obama!’ The worshippers applauded loudly. The president smiled.”

Harkins’ prayer asked God to give Obama “every measure of encouragement” and “wisdom,” and “tend to his spirit” under the weight of criticism, to which the crowd eagerly replied with yells of “yes”.

The sermon “talked about supporting people ‘living in the shadows and the margins,” including ‘LGBT’ people,” continued the pool report. “…The president listened attentively from his seat, with his chin propped on his left hand at times, and his fingers entwined together as the sermon shifted toward a rousing finale. He joined in applause at the end.”

On the route from the church back to the White House, a group held a “stop deportations” sign along the street.


Read bullet | Comments »

Snowden Reportedly Dismayed to Learn that He Now Looks Like Vlad Putin’s Toy

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Bryan Preston

In which the NSA leaker does damage control from the neo-USSR.

NSA leaker Edward Snowden instantly regretted asking Russian President Vladimir Putin a softball question on live television about the Kremlin’s mass surveillance effort, two sources close to the leaker tell The Daily Beast.

“It certainly didn’t go as he would’ve hoped,” one of these sources said. “I don’t think there’s any shame in saying that he made an error in judgment.”

“He basically viewed the question as his first foray into criticizing Russia. He was genuinely surprised that in reasonable corridors it was seen as the opposite,” added Ben Wizner, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who serves as one of Snowden’s closest advisers.

According to Wizner and others, Snowden hadn’t realized how much last week’s Q&A—with Putin blithely assuring Snowden that Moscow had no such eavesdropping programs—would appear to be a Kremlin propaganda victory to Western eyes. And so the leaker quickly decided to write an op-ed for the Guardian to explain his actions and to all but label Putin a liar for his televised response.

It isn’t just Snowden’s public softball game with Putin that has raised suspicions of him. Snowden is suspect because, first, he chose to run to Hong Kong and then to Russia after he leaked the NSA’s surveillance programs to a leftwing journalist.

Following that, he had nothing to say about Russia’s mass surveillance of journalists and presumably athletes and visitors during the Socchi Olympics.

Following that, Snowden appeared at SXSW via video conference from Russia. During that talk, he again had nothing to say about Russia’s surveillance programs, its suspected assassinations of journalists, its recent clampdown on the last of Russia’s free press, nothing.

Everything about that SXSW talk carried bad optics. Snowden spoke from Russia shortly after Putin had invaded and taken Crimea. Snowden had nothing to say about that. Snowden assailed US domestic spying policies — fair enough — but from Russia at a time when his very appearance made the US appear impotent against Russia, and when Russian forces are menacing Ukraine and the stability of Europe.

Neither of Snowden’s two 2014 appearances can possibly have happened without Kremlin approval.

Ever since Snowden landed in Moscow under the watchful eye of the Russian surveillance state, he’s been represented in Russia by a man deeply connected to the Kremlin in addition to his American counsel. It’s one of many reasons why critics have accused the leaker of being a Putin patsy. That criticism has been accompanied by a whisper campaign from both the American and Russian governments alleging that Snowden was under the thumb of Putin’s intelligence services, a claim Snowden and his camp have strongly denied.

He can deny it all he wants. The fact is, the Russian government knows where he is and has total control over whether it extends his asylum in August or not. Russia could have shut down Snowden’s SXSW talk, but didn’t, because it presented the images that Putin wanted presented. Russia could have shut off Snowden’s direct question to Putin, but again, it didn’t, because it provided invaluable domestic and international propaganda for the Putin regime.

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

‘Our Youngest Hostage’

Monday, April 21st, 2014 - by Raymond Ibrahim


According to Sham Times and other Arabic websites, jihadi social media networks posted the above picture of a child sitting on the ground while surrounded by armed men pointing their rifles at him.  The caption appearing with the picture, purportedly posted by a supporter of the Free Syrian Army, is “Our youngest hostage from among the hostile sects of Kessab.”

Kessab is a predominantly Christian Armenian village in Syria near the Turkish border.  Earlier it was invaded by jihadis, who terrorized, pillaged churches, and prompted some 2000 residents to flee.  Initial reports had stated that about a dozen families remained as hostages.

Since the picture appeared on Arabic social media, many have expressed shock and outrage, condemning the Syrian “rebels,” while others cast doubt on the authenticity of the picture.

Of course, those wondering what the jihadis have to gain from taking such a picture and making it public would do well to remember that these are the same people who decapitate people and wave their severed and bloodied heads in front of cameras while smiling; these are the same people who literally eat their victims on camera.

Surely “teasing” an infidel toddler — a subhuman — with their rifles and sharing it with their sadistic comrades via the Internet for a “laugh” should not be too surprising?

At any rate, the fact remains: the “Free Syrian Army,” along with other “rebel” groups operating in Syria, are guilty of countless barbaric crimes against humanity — including against women and children.

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

China Will Become the Most Christian Nation in the World in 15 Years

Sunday, April 20th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

China? The boom in Christian conversions has tracked the booming economy as people seek meaning in their lives that neither Communism or capitalism can provide.

The Telegraph:

Officially, the People’s Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.

Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao’s death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world’s number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.

“By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.

“It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change.”

China’s Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre’s Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.

By 2030, China’s total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.

“Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this,” Prof Yang said. “It’s ironic – they didn’t. They actually failed completely.”

Interesting to see how the growing embrace of Christianity changes China. Would the government crack down if Christians begin to demonstrate a little too much independence? I think it a certainty. A totalitarian regime only tolerates religion if it is channeled to support it. The Greek Orthodox church and the Soviet Union, or the Catholic Church and Franco — both instances of the state using the church to keep the faithful in line.

The Communist government may eventually find Christians more troublesome than other dissenters and look to limit the growth of the Church even more. But Christianity has proven itself incredibly resilient in China and any move to stifle its growth may have the opposite effect and lead to an increase in converts.

Read bullet | 7 Comments »

GOP Senate Candidates in Georgia Make Their Case

Sunday, April 20th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

Seven candidates vying for the Republican nomination for Senator shared the stage in Augusta, trying to separate themselves from the pack and polish their conservative credentials.

It was the sixth of seven scheduled debates, and turned out to be a fairly sedate affair, reports the Savannah Morning News:

In a debate here Saturday, most of the leading contenders jumped over one another to highlight their conservative credentials on issues from spending, environmental regulation and immigration to guns and abortion, even as they agreed the party must reach beyond its base if it wants to win more nationally.

Proposals ranged from scrapping the Environmental Protection Agency to repealing the constitutional amendment that allows an income tax.

The debate highlighted the eventual nominee’s challenge in the race, despite Georgia leaning to Republicans in recent federal elections. The May 20 primary electorate — and a likely July 22 runoff — will be decided by the state’s most conservative voters. Democrats want to frame the eventual GOP nominee as too extreme in a state where Obama got as much as 47 percent of the vote with little effort.

The winner will succeed retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss. Nationally, Republicans must gain six seats to regain control of the Senate, but that would be extremely difficult if they lose a Georgia seat they already have.

Rep. Paul Broun, a favorite of conservative activists, used his signature critique of “an out of control federal government” several times Saturday. In a discussion of Obama administration rules capping carbon emissions, he argued that “there’s no scientific consensus on man-made global warming.”

Phil Gingrey, another House member and a physician like Broun, said he doesn’t agree with the administration that “carbon dioxide is definitely a greenhouse gas.”

“You might say that a preponderance of scientists believe that CO2 is a greenhouse that contributes to global warming,” but then he quickly doubled-down on his critique.

Their congressional colleague, Jack Kingston, meanwhile, peppered his answers with references to his sterling ratings from groups such as the American Conservatives Union, National Rifle Association and National Right to Life. He also boasted of an endorsement won Friday from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has kept its promise to engage more directly in 2014 Republican primaries in an effort to subdue tea party influences.

Kingston’s recitations reflected his strategy to appeal both to archconservatives and establishment Republicans, without alienating either camp in the internal struggle that has gripped Republicans since Obama’s election.

Kingston sits in second in the most recent polls, trailing David Perdue and ahead of former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel. But with Kingston’s 15% of the vote, 19% for Perdue, and 13% for Handel, it seems certain that no candidate will receive the necessary 50% of the vote in the May 20 primary, which will force a July runoff between the top two vote getters.

Reps. Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey are within striking distance of second place, with 11% and 9% of the vote respectively. This should make the last month of the campaign very interesting.

Any of the top 5 candidates will do well against the expected Democratic nominee, Michelle Nunn, daughter of a Georgia political legend former Senator Sam Nunn. In head to head matchups with the top 5 GOP candidates, Nunn is within one or two points of all except Perdue who is ahead by 5.

Read bullet | Comments »

Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case on Tuesday

Sunday, April 20th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

Oral arguments for a case that could have far reaching effects on how people receive television programming will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. It’s the four major over the air TV networks vs. the upstart Aereo Corporation in a case that, depending on who you listen to, could either destroy over the air TV for the 60 million Americans who still get their signals via an antenna, or initiate a consumer paradise of options and choices on what to watch, when to watch it, and what to watch it on.

Is this a classic American business success story complete with heroes (media mogul Barry Diller), villains (huge media conglomerates), and plenty of drama (Supreme Court decides the fate of TV viewing)? Or is Diller & Co. a bunch of charlatans, raking in cash by pirating the work of others without paying for it?

Here’s the guts of the dispute:

Aereo subscribers can stream live broadcasts of TV channels on mobile devices using miniature antennas, each assigned to one subscriber. The service was launched in March 2012 in the New York area. The company has since expanded to about 10 cities and plans to enter several more.

The broadcasters claim the service violates their copyrights on the television programs and represents a threat to their ability to control subscription fees and generate advertising. Among those filing court papers in support of the broadcasts are the National Football League, Major League Baseball and various media companies, including Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.

CBS said in a statement on Friday that Aereo’s business model is “built on stealing the creative content of others.”

Aereo counters that its service does nothing more than provide users what they could obtain with a personal television antenna.”We believe that consumers have a right to use an antenna to access over-the-air television and to make personal recordings of those broadcasts,” Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia said in a statement.

Aereo has won every legal battle it’s been in, including an appeals court ruling late last year. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January.

But in a dissent from the majority, Justice Denny Chin offered a scathing observation about Aereo, saying Aereo’s platform is a “sham”:

Aereo uses a farm of time antennas, one for each subscriber, “but there is no technologically sound reason to use a multitude of tiny individual antennas rather than one central antenna,” Chin wrote. “[I]ndeed, the system is a Rube Goldberg-like contrivance, over-engineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law.”

Chin is referring to a precedent set in a 2009 case where Supreme Court decided it would be acceptable for Cablevision to store consumers’ DVR content at its own sites, instead of requiring customers to have their own DVRs.

The bottom line is that media companies believe Aereo is stealing content and they want it stopped.

The Hill:

The head of CBS has threatened to cut off its broadcast signal and switch to an Internet-based service if broadcasters lose their bid to get Aereo taken down.

Cable and satellite companies are also keeping track of the case. Those companies, which currently pay broadcasters millions to retransmit their content, could have the incentive to develop a system similar to Aereo’s to cut down on their fees.

Broadcasters are growing increasingly reliant on those retransmission fees, especially as more and more people watch TV on DVR and skip commercials, the other main moneymaker for the stations.

“This is aimed right at the heart of part of their business model, but part of the business that by the way supports local broadcasters and affiliates and also is likely to be increasingly important in the future,” said Mark Schultz, the co-director of academic programs at George Mason University’s Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property.

A broad ruling could also have repercussions for Google, Dropbox and other services that rely on the “cloud” for storing information.

Kanojia has said his company has no Plan B in case the high court rules against him. But a victory would likely lead to a rapid expansion beyond the 11 cities where it currently operates.

A win for Aereo could also spur action in Congress, where broadcasters have a number of allies who will be pressed to crack down on the service.

“If Aereo were to win, I think that Congress would be under some pressure to at least do some partial copyright reform and close the loophole,” DiCola said.

Some analysts believe the likeliest outcome is some kind of compromise ruling where Aereo is allowed to continue with its business but forced to pay something to broadcast companies. Few expect CBS to follow through on its threat to yank its channels, although there is a chance that all broadcast TV companies will cut back on content if, as expected, an Aereo win allows cable companies to stop paying transmission fees to the media giants.

Whatever SCOTUS rules is bound to have far reaching, and perhaps revolutionary effects on how we watch TV.

Read bullet | Comments »

Forget ‘You Can Keep Your Doctor’: Try Finding One First

Sunday, April 20th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

It’s called “Medical Homelessness” and its just the latest Obamacare SNAFU to make anyone who purchased a policy from or the state exchanges wonder about the sanity of lawmakers who voted for this monstrosity.

As was pointed out at the time Obamacare was passed, the United States currently has a shortage of primary care physicians — and it’s getting worse. By 2020, there will be 45,000 fewer primary care physicians than are needed — a problem exacerbated by the fact that most physicians do not accept Medicaid patients because of low reimbursement levels.

As Californians are discovering, thousands of doctors aren’t accepting any patients with an Obamacare policy.

KPIX reports:

While open enrollment for coverage under the Affordable Care Act is closed, many of the newly insured are finding they can’t find doctors, landing them into a state described as “medical homelessness.”

Rotacare, a free clinic for the uninsured in Mountain View, is dealing with the problem firsthand.

Mirella Nguyen works at the clinic said staffers dutifully helped uninsured clients sign up for Obamacare so they would no longer need the free clinic.

But months later, the clinic’s former patients are coming back to the clinic begging for help. “They’re coming back to us now and saying I can’t find a doctor, “said Nguyen.

Thinn Ong was thrilled to qualify for a subsidy on the health care exchange. She is paying $200 a month in premiums. But the single mother of two is asking, what for?

“Yeah, I sign it. I got it. But where’s my doctor? Who’s my doctor? I don’t know,” said a frustrated Ong.

Nguyen said the newly insured patients checked the physicians’ lists they were provided and were told they weren’t accepting new patients or they did not participate in the plan.

And Nguyen says – while the free clinic isn’t technically supposed to be treating former patents they signed up for insurance, they can’t in good faith turn them away.

Dr. Kevin Grumbach of UCSF called the phenomenon “medical homelessness,” where patients are caught adrift in a system woefully short of primary care doctors.

“Insurance coverage is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to assure that people get access to care when they need it,” Grumbach said.

Those who can’t find a doctor are supposed to lodge a complaint with state regulators, who have been denying the existence of a doctor shortage for months.

Meanwhile, the sick and insured can’t get appointments.

“What good is coverage if you can’t use it?” Nguyen said.

Ms. Nguyen has discovered the secret of Big Government. Obamacare is a Potemkin Village, all pretty and enticing on the outside, but look behind it and you find nothing except high deductibles, bad coverage, and bewildering requirements.

And it’s only going to get worse, says Kaiser:

There are various reasons for the shortages. Certainly a big contributor is the aging of the baby boomers, who may still love rock ‘n roll but increasingly need hearing aids to enjoy it. The growing medical needs of that large age group are creating a huge burden for the existing health care workforce. The retirement of many doctors in the boomer cohort is compounding the problem.

The federal government estimates the physician supply will increase by 7 percent in the next 10 years. But the number of Americans over 65 will grow by about 36 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Money also is a factor in the shortages. During the course of their careers, primary care physicians earn around $3 million less than their colleagues in specialty fields, which makes primary care a less appealing path for many medical students.

In mental health, the problem is that much of the work is in the public sector, where the pay is far less than it is for providers in other medical specialties, who tend to work in the private sector. As an example, according to the National Council for Behavioral Health, a registered nurse working in mental health earns $42,987 as compared to the national average for nurses of $66,530.
Valuing Work-Life Balance

But financial factors are not the leading reason that medical students are avoiding primary care, Mitchell said. In surveys of medical students conducted by AAMC, students valued “work-life balance” more than money when they were choosing their specialties. Because primary care often involves long hours and night and weekend calls, it is far less desirable to this generation of students.

“Half of the physicians in training are women,” Mitchell said. “You find more of them are looking for a career that might be compatible with part-time hours, that don’t involve being on call. Men are more engaged in child care today, and they have similar concerns as they consider their career choices.”

Even before Obamacare was implemented, the statistics were grim for the newly insured:

According to the Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency charged with improving access to health care, nearly 20 percent of Americans live in areas with an insufficient number of primary care doctors. Sixteen percent live in areas with too few dentists and a whopping 30 percent are in areas that are short of mental health providers. Under federal guidelines, there should be no more than 3,500 people for each primary care provider; no more than 5,000 people for each dental provider; and no more than 30,000 people for each mental health provider.

So even if you’re lucky enough to find a doctor that treats those with Obamacare policies, chances are good to excellent you will wait forever for routine exams and services.

Read bullet | 40 Comments »

Obama’s Evolving Policy Toward Russia Promises a New Cold War

Sunday, April 20th, 2014 - by Kim Zigfeld

Oh yes, they’re the great pretenders! Though seemingly at odds, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin have much more in common than it appears, both having become lost in a world of self-delusion.  Putin pretends he hasn’t alienated the entire civilized world with his barbaric aggression against smaller neighbors, and Obama pretends his failed policies haven’t been key in giving Putin the chance to do so.

A remarkable report in the New York Times reveals that Obama has now decided to “write off” America’s relationship with Russia and embark upon a new cold war, focusing on the time-honored principle of containment to guide it.

It states that the next U.S. ambassador to Russia will be John F. Tefft, who previously served as ambassador to Ukraine, Georgia and Lithuania and who served as deputy head of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in the 1990s under Bill Clinton.

The Times reports:

When the search began months ago, administration officials were leery of sending Mr. Tefft because of concern that his experience in former Soviet republics that have flouted Moscow’s influence would irritate Russia. Now, officials said, there is no reluctance to offend the Kremlin.

Indeed, Tefft was given the 2012 Diplomacy in Human Rights Award for his work in standing up to the pro-Russia Yanukovich regime before it was toppled this year, including lobbying hard for the release of Yanukovich’s leading political foe, Yulia Tymoshenko, from prison. He’s directly linked to the pro-West movement in Ukraine which has caused Putin to panic.  Tefft’s appointment is a direct poke in the eye of Putin, and there’s no mistaking it.

The Times calls this a “remarkable turnaround” for Obama. That’s putting it mildly.

What’s actually happened is that circumstances have forced Obama to admit that the foreign policy he has pursued for the last six years towards Russia, a policy of appeasement, has crashed and burned. John McCain warned from the start that pursuing such a policy would give Putin the chance to consolidate his power and move aggressively against his neighbors, and that is exactly what has happened. It’s one of the most spectacular foreign policy debacles in U.S. history.

Obama promised us that in return for appeasement we’d get a reliable nuclear arms treaty with Russia. What we actually got was shameless Soviet-style cheating and treaty violations.

Obama promised us that in exchange for appeasement we’d get Russian help reining in Iran. What we actually got was Russian opposition to U.S. interests, not just in Iran but throughout the Middle East, from Libya to Syria.

And on top of it all, we got Russian tanks in Ukraine.  As a headline in Stars and Stripes declared,  Obama wrapped up a “terrific, triumphant, all good, totally awesome year” and delivered it to Putin with a big red bow on top.

As Senator Bob Corker told the Times:

They’re playing us. We continue to watch what they’re doing and try to respond to that. But it seems that in doing so, we create a policy that’s always a day late and a dollar short.

Indeed, Putin is far out ahead of Obama in weaponizing information surrounding the barbaric aggression against Ukraine, and Obama has consistently failed to implement the type of economic sanctions that might prevent Putin from moving deeper into Ukraine.

Alexander Dugin, Putin’s Goebbels, recently declared  that

the territorial integrity of Armenia and Karabakh will not be guaranteed to the extent that Russia is a proportional power and naturally countries adjoining Russia can preserve their territorial integrity exclusively by maintaining good relations with Russia.

Vyacheslav Nikonov, a leader of Putin’s party of power in parliament, echoed  Dugin, directly threatening Ukraine:  “There are very few things the Ukrainian government can do now to keep their country together.”

Russia is, in other words, boldly threatening every neighbor, not just Ukraine, and is far from content with Crimea where Ukraine is concerned.

Read bullet | 37 Comments »

Western Lawmakers Gather to Discuss Reclaiming Federal Lands

Saturday, April 19th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

The meeting, held in Salt Lake City with 50 lawmakers from 9 states, was in the works long before Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the BLM last week. But it points to a growing movement out west that is advocating a return of extremely valuable, oil and mineral rich lands currently under federal management to state control.

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

“It’s simply time,” said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as “just a person who lives in the woods,” said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

“We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms,” Fielder said.

Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.

Heer’s a listing of the percentage of state land owned by the feds.

This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

Nevada 84.5%
Alaska 69.1%
Utah 57.4%
Oregon 53.1%
Idaho 50.2%
Arizona 48.1%
California 45.3%
Wyoming 42.3%
New Mexico 41.8%
Colorado 36.6%

Notable is that all these states are in the West (except Alaska, which strictly speaking is also a western state, albeit northwestern). Also notable is the contrast between the highest and the lowest percentages of federal land ownership. The US government owns a whopping 84.5% of Nevada, but only a puny 0.4% of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The lowest-percentage states are mainly in the East, but some are also in the Midwest and in the South:

Connecticut 0.4%
Rhode Island 0.4%
Iowa 0.8%
New York 0.8%
Maine 1.1%
Kansas 1.2%
Nebraska 1.4%
Alabama 1.6%
Ohio 1.7%
Illinois 1.8%

Even the 10th place is still below the two percent mark. One territory is not specified on the map: Washington D.C. It could be argued that this is the only main administrative division of US territory to be fully owned by the federal government. It could, but that would be wrong – and upsetting to those private citizens who own part of the nation’s capital in the form of their real estate. It would be more correct to state that the District of Columbia by default falls under the direct tutelage of the Federal Government.

Here are the primary federal land holders:

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Reclamation
Department of Agriculture
United States Forest Service
United States Department of Defense
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Tennessee Valley Authority

A short legislative historyof how the government came to own half of the western United States:

It is sort of an accident of history and because of the whims of Congress that the federal government controls all that land. In the mid-1800s, lawmakers passed laws encouraging settlers to colonize the West, with the idea of carving up the new U.S. territories into privately held parcels. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt, though, U.S. lawmakers started to conserve public lands for the public with the creation of the national parks.

In 1934, Congress created the U.S. Grazing Service to manage cattle and sheep grazing on public lands, and in 1946 the Grazing Service was combined with the General Land Office to create the BLM. In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, formally setting aside federal public lands for multiple public uses, including recreation, ranching, and mining. The BLM, Forest Service, and National Park Service have been juggling those competing interests ever since.

The argument isn’t over federal control and management of national parks, although some would argue national park land is far too expansive and includes land that could be put to better use than what is now. More controversial are “wilderness” areas on which little or no development at all is allowed — not even roads.

Clearly, the real beef is with the feds owning large swaths of land that, if managed properly, would yield a lot of revenue for states from the granting of oil and mineral rights. So what’s the problem? There’s a belief among some in Washington that the states would allow developers to run wild. This is ridiculous, as is the idea that states don’t have the competency to manage their own lands. Many western states have been managing lands the size of small countries. And perhaps more than bureaucrats in Washington, the people out west have a profound respect for the land — and for nature. It seems silly to think they would suddenly allow developers to rape the land, stripping it willy nilly.

As usual, this is about power and control. Land is wealth, and the question of whether that wealth should be in the hands of the states or Washington needs to be addressed.

Read bullet | Comments »

Liberal Bias in College Commencement Speakers? Surely, You Jest

Saturday, April 19th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

We’re shocked, shocked I tell you, that Democratic commencement speakers outnumber Republican speakers 2-1.

Washington Times:

In what critics describe as another example of liberal bias on campus, 56 Democratic officeholders, appointees and operatives are slated to speak this spring at university graduation ceremonies.

Only 26 Republicans are scheduled to deliver college commencement addresses, the study found.

“This proves how liberal our nation’s universities are. There is a severe bias against conservative viewpoints and an unwillingness to offer true diversity of thought,” said Caleb Bonham, editor-in-chief of Campus Reform, which pushes for greater conservative representation at universities.

Part of the discrepancy can be explained by having a Democrat in the White House. Cabinet officers tend to be popular graduation speakers, and 10 of the 16 secretaries are slated to speak at commencement ceremonies, including Secretary of State John Kerry at Yale University and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz at Dartmouth University.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden is scheduled to deliver the addresses at the University of South Carolina and the University of Delaware.

Past presidents are often sought-after speakers, but as Campus Reform points out, neither of the surviving two former Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — are slated to deliver addresses this year.

Meanwhile, President Clinton will speak at New York University’s Abu Dhabi campus, while his vice president, Al Gore, is scheduled to deliver remarks at Princeton University.

Democrats control the Senate by a margin of 53 to 45, but they outnumber Republican graduation speakers by more than 2 to 1. Of the 13 senators scheduled to give speeches, nine are Democrats and four are Republicans.

“Surprisingly, Senators Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) remain absent from all commencement ceremony lineups,” said the Campus Reform press release.

Republicans control the House, but Democratic representatives are considerably more popular on the graduation circuit, with eight Democrats and five Republicans now booked for speeches. As for governors, nine Democrats and six Republicans are slated to deliver remarks.

“While Republican governors outnumber Democrats 29 to 21 nationally, Democrats have managed to nearly double the number of Republican governors speaking on campus,” said the Campus Reform release.

Not mentioned are some Republican speakers every year who draw protests from campus liberals for one reason or another. Or who are booed. Or have some students stand and turn their backs on them. The hollow boasts about campuses glorifying diversity certainly doesn’t extend to diversity of opinions — which is far more important than counting the melanin content in the skin of students and faculty.

Read bullet | Comments »

The One Word Democrats May Not Utter During the Campaign

Saturday, April 19th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

And it’s not “Obamacare.”

As important as Obamacare is to the Republicans in the midterm elections, the economy still tops everyone’s list as the number one issue facing the country.

Some Democratic political consultants are advising candidates to avoid using the term “recovery” when describing the economy — for obvious reasons. This Fox News poll from January shows that 74% of Americans still think we’re in a recession. Any Democrat uttering the word “recovery” is likely to get a shoe thrown at them.

From the Associated Press:

Election-year memo to Democratic candidates: Don’t talk about the economic recovery. It’s a political loser.

So say Democratic strategists in a blunt declaration that such talk skips over “how much trouble people are in, and doesn’t convince them that policymakers really understand or are even focusing on the problems they continue to face.”

In addition, Stan Greenberg, James Carville and others wrote that in head-to-head polling tests the mere mention of the word “recovery” is trumped by a Republican assertion that the Obama administration has had six years to get the economy moving and its policies haven’t worked.

Coincidentally or not, Democrats have largely shelved the “R” word.

President Barack Obama’s only utterance of it in recent weeks was on April 8, and it was in the context of accusing Republicans of blocking progress on issues that “would help with the economic recovery and help us grow faster.”

Additionally, at a news conference on March 26 where they announced a campaign-season agenda, neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor most of the other five lawmakers present uttered the word “recovery.”

The strategic advice comes at a time Democrats are working to maximize turnout, particularly among women, for the fall elections, when they face a determined challenge from Republicans vying to add control of the Senate to their seemingly secure House majority.

Simultaneously, Democrats are struggling to respond effectively to persistent Republican attacks on the nation’s health care law.


In their memo for Democracy Corps and the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, the authors propose that to boost turnout among their target groups Democrats should back an economic agenda that “puts working women first,” and says that incomes are soaring only for CEOs and the top 1 percent of the country.

“As a start, Democrats should bury any mention of the recovery. That message was tested … and it lost to the Republican message championed by Karl Rove,” they wrote.

Of course, GOP candidates will have little trouble mentioning the “recovery” since for large numbers of Americans, it still hasn’t happened. With 8 million people working part-time who want and need full-time jobs, millions who have dropped out of the workforce altogether, and many millions more facing an uncertain future of reduced hours or even termination due to Obamacare, Republicans will have little trouble reminding people who’s been in charge for the last six years.

I don’t think this is a rational strategy. If Democrats can only talk about “income inequality” and the “war on women” as they relate to the economy, this is a losing proposition. Americans want jobs and economic growth. If the Democrats won’t talk about that, they deserve the shellacking they’re going to get.

Read bullet | 18 Comments »

How to Reduce Europe’s Energy Reliance on Russia

Saturday, April 19th, 2014 - by Kim Zigfeld

A Russian pundit recently argued that NATO should build a monument honoring the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin for reviving its potency. But even more eager to do so should be the U.S. coal and nuclear energy industries.  Benighted Republicans, however, are missing a golden opportunity to spearhead a drive on these issues, which face considerable opposition from the American President.

Writing in the Moscow Times, the brilliant and courageous Russian defense industry analyst Alexander Golts opines that Putin has “given NATO functionaries and military personnel plenty of work for what I am afraid might be a very long time to come.”  Golts notes that NATO had an “identity crisis” that Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine has instantly rectified.

Indeed, NATO’s Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, recently tweeted a brutal shot across Putin’s bow, stating: “Russians keep making stuff up.” Among other things, Vershbow openly accuses the Putin regime of lying about an alleged pledge not to expand NATO.  We haven’t seen this kind of fortitude and vigor from NATO in many a moon. And we have Mr. Putin to thank for it!

NATO is not the only one, of course, experiencing an “identity crisis.”  The coal and nuclear industries have one too. Due to alleged environmental risks, coal and nuclear power have been losing traction for some time, to such “cleaner” alternatives as natural gas, which Russia has in abundance.

But in light of Russian aggression in Ukraine, it’s pretty easy now to see that coal and nuclear power have many points in their favor. Unfortunately, this isn’t an area where NATO’s military resolve means much.  Political will is required to bring coal and nuclear power to the playing field in order to roll back Europe’s reliance on Russian oil.

In fact, energy analyst Joe Parson thinks that acquiring Ukraine’s vast eastern coal fields is an important reason why Putin is menacing his smaller neighbor.  Putin would kill two birds by doing so:  First he would significantly increase Ukraine’s dependence on Russian gas and oil, and second he would acquire stockpiles of coal that could be used to offset a Western effort to use coal as a bulwark against Russian oil and gas.

William B. Reed, founder and chairman of System Controls Inc., believes that coal and nuclear power could be “huge assets in demonstrating U.S. resolve to limit Russian ambitions.” He writes: “Coal can substitute for natural gas in electricity production, and it will continue to play a large and indispensable role in Europe under any scenario. Ramping up U.S. coal exports to Europe could make a real difference in countries like Poland, Hungary and Ukraine that are heavily dependent on Russian gas.”  The U.S. can do the same thing, he says, in regard to providing nuclear power.

What’s more, Reed argues, as the world’s leading producer of gas and oil the U.S. can help take up the slack in Europe should Russia seek to weaponize such resources.

But when we turn to the White House, we see that Barack Obama is once again a toxic presence. Not only has Obama shown no backbone at all in dealing with Putin’s initial wave of aggression in Ukraine, his administration’s hostility to coal and nuclear power place further roadblocks in the path of any opposition to further aggression by Putin.

This gives Republicans a brilliant opportunity to both support the coal and nuclear power industries and hit Obama with criticism that will bite, while simultaneously seizing the leadership role on opposition to Russian aggression.

But will they be able to see and act upon this opportunity?

Recent events don’t seem encouraging. Republicans have not done a good job calling Obama on the carpet for his feckless dithering on Ukraine.  He has made no military response, provided hardly any economic support, and imposed only the most limp-wristed of sanctions.  Worse still, he hasn’t even had the courage to engage in a real rhetorical battle with Putin, nor has he put much effort into galvanizing Europe.

But the Republican response has been disorganized, muted and not much more inspiring.   The GOP doesn’t appear to have a leading figure on the foreign policy front, even though the Russian analysis of John McCain, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney has been vindicated by recent events.

Republicans should be forcefully moving forward with specific plans to help the U.S. coal and nuclear industries become major players in the European pushback against Putin.  No thinking person can dispute that Europe must wean itself away from Russian gas and oil, or that Ukraine must be made energy independent of Russia as a matter of global priority.

Achieving this will dramatically curtail Putin’s power both directly and indirectly. Firstly he’ll no longer be able to directly threaten Ukraine and Europe with energy blackmail, and secondly he’ll see the price of oil and gas fall as demand is reduced, thereby significantly cutting into Russian budgetary revenues and reserves.  This will put massive pressure on him domestically, and he’ll be forced to turn inward, away from Europe and Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the income of American companies will rise, jobs will be created and tax revenues added to Washington’s coffers.  And at the same time, Republicans will gain significantly in credibility with voters.

It’s a win-win-win situation, in other words, and its time for Republican leaders to wake up and do their jobs.

Read bullet | 5 Comments »

Harry Reid: Yes, Protestors at Bundy Ranch Were ‘Domestic Terrorists’

Saturday, April 19th, 2014 - by Rick Moran

Senator Harry Reid has made a habit of saying stuff with no basis in fact and then repeating it, as if by sheer repetition the lie will become truth.

Remember his lie that “an anonymous source” told him Mitt Romney paid no income taxes for 10 years? Tax experts and fact checkers called this a load of codswallop. But Reid continued to make the charge on the Senate floor, thus assuring that the lie would have plenty of exposure.

Now comes Reid’s willfully exaggerated and hysterical claim that protestors on the Bundy Ranch were “domestic terrorists” – apparently because some of them were armed. No shots were fired.  The only violence occurred when the feds confronted peaceful, apparently unarmed protestors.

In for a penny, in for a pound, says Reid. The majority leader doubled down on his “domestic terrorist” smear on CNN:

In a blunt exchange that hit on a major American divide, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, stood by his comments that militia groups involved in a ranch standoff are “domestic terrorists,” while the state’s Republican senator, Dean Heller, replied that he considers them “patriots.”

The two men appeared Friday afternoon on KSNV’s “What’s Your Point?” question-and-answer show.

The first question went to Reid, about his comments that a few hundred people protesting and blocking federal action against rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists.”

“What did you mean by that?” co-host Amy Tarkanian asked.

“Just what I said,” Reid responded.

The Democrat later clarified that he was not talking about Bundy himself necessarily, but about outside individuals who traveled to the area in the recent days.


Bundy has continued grazing anyway, insisting he is within his rights. Last week the issue hit a new hot point when hundreds of self-described militia groups came to Bundy’s land to protest federal action and help him defend his grazing ability.

That’s who Reid described as “domestic terrorists”.

“600 people came armed, they had practiced, they had maneuvered… they set up snipers in strategic locations… they had automatic weapon,” the leading Democrat said Friday. “And they boasted about the fact they put women and children… so they would get hit first.”

“If there were ever an example of people who were domestic violent terrorist wannabes, these are the guys,” Reid concluded.

I’ll take the last lie first. There was no “violence,” so how could he describe the protestors as “violent”? And “violent terrorist wannabes” is a climb-down from calling the protestors out and out “domestic terrorists.” Harry is lying so much he can’t keep track of the untruths he’s uttered.

Were there 600 people who came armed? Um, no — not even close. No one knows how many “militia” members actually showed up. It certainly wasn’t 600. Many of the protestors appeared to be along these lines:

“This is a better education than being in school! I’m glad I brought you. I’m a good mom,” said Ilona Ence, a 49-year-old mother from St. George and Bundy relative who brought her four teenage kids to the ranch. “They’re learning about the Constitution.”

… Jack Faught, Bundy’s first cousin, drove his forest green 1929 Chevy truck from Mesquite loaded with water and Gatorade.

“It’s not about the cows,” he said. “It’s about the freedom to make our own choices close to home.”

Polo Parra, a 27-year-old tattoo artist from Las Vegas, even showed up with two of his friends to support the rancher. Dressed in baggy clothes and covered in tattoos, the group carried signs that read “TYRANNY IS ALIVE” and “WHERE’S THE JUSTICE?” in red spray-painted letters.

One of Parra’s friends, who would not share his name, had a pistol tucked in his waistband.

“I think it’s bull, and it really made me mad,” said Parra, who decided to make the trip when he heard about the violence that broke out on the ranch. “This isn’t about no turtles or cows.”

One ex-sheriff from Arizona told a reporter that the militias had been “strategizing” about putting women and children up front so they would become casualties in any confrontation. He’s the only person quoted saying that, and it is not even clear he was speaking for anyone but himself. For Reid (or anyone) to make that claim, you would have to believe that the militias were not only well-armed, but working closely together. Again, codswallop.

No doubt there were hotheads among the protestors. But the question must be asked of Reid and others — which came first? Armed militiamen or 200 armed federal agents surrounding the ranch? After Ruby Ridge and Waco, thoughts of a government willing to kill those with unconventional views are not farfetched or paranoid. The government obviously learned nothing from those confrontations and a repeat seemed possible at the Bundy Ranch.

The only violence that has occurred so far has been federal agents tasering Bundy’s son and protestors being pushed around. On the next page is a video of the incident. You tell me who the aggressor is here.

Read bullet | 68 Comments »

Obama’s Easter Sermon Calls on Americans to ‘Rededicate’ to ‘Universal Mission’

Saturday, April 19th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

President Obama used his weekly address to extend Easter and Passover wishes, expounding upon the time of year with “great meaning.”

He noted the week’s Seder held at the White House, at which he and Michelle Obama “joined Jewish families around the world in their retellings of the story of the Exodus and the victory of faith over oppression.”

“And this Sunday, Michelle, Malia, Sasha, and I will join our fellow Christians around the world in celebrating the Resurrection of Christ, the salvation he offered the world, and the hope that comes with the Easter season,” the president added.

It’s not known if the first family will attend church, as it isn’t on the president’s weekend schedule. He spontaneously attended a service in October, but skipped church on Christmas.

“These holy days have their roots in miracles that took place long ago. And yet, they still inspire us, guide us, and strengthen us today. They remind us of our responsibilities to God and, as God’s children, our responsibilities to one another,” Obama continued.

“For me, and for countless other Christians, Holy Week and Easter are times for reflection and renewal. We remember the grace of an awesome God, who loves us so deeply that He gave us his only Son, so that we might live through Him. We recall all that Jesus endured for us – the scorn of the crowds, the agony of the cross – all so that we might be forgiven our sins and granted everlasting life. And we recommit ourselves to following His example, to love and serve one another, particularly ‘the least of these’ among us, just as He loves every one of us.”

Obama called on Americans to join a “universal mission” this holiday.

“The common thread of humanity that connects us all – not just Christians and Jews, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs – is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. To remember, I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. Whatever your faith, believer or nonbeliever, there’s no better time to rededicate ourselves to that universal mission,” he said. “For me, Easter is a story of hope – a belief in a better day to come, just around the bend.”

On Monday, the White House hosts the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn, which under Obama has integrated the first lady’s Let’s Move! campaign. This year’s theme is “Hop into Healthy, Swing into Shape.” Most of the personalities appearing at the event are professional athletes; actor Jim Carrey will be reading stories to kids.

Republicans dedicated their weekly address to “Republican Enablers vs. Democrat Mandators.”

“Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina would allow federal dollars to follow a child with Down syndrome or another disability to the school the parents choose. Democrat mandators say, no—government knows best. Last year, Republican senators proposed legislation to give back to states control over whether teachers and schools are succeeding or failing. Democrat mandators proposed, in effect, a national school board,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

“Health care provides the most glaring difference between Republican enablers and Democrat mandators. Too often, Obamacare cancels the policy you want to keep and tells you what policy to buy, even if it costs more and restricts your choices of doctors and hospitals… Republicans want to enable and empower you. We want to be the iPhone party. We believe government ought to be a platform that gives you opportunity and freedom to create a happier, more prosperous, and safer life.”

Read bullet | 25 Comments »

Iowa Rep. King Hits at Facebook Founder Over Immigration Ad

Friday, April 18th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) slammed the founder of Facebook for going after him on immigration reform, saying the CEO just wants to pad his profits with more legalized workers.

The advocacy group co-founded by Mark Zuckerberg,, released an ad in Iowa featuring Alejandro Morales, who wants to serve in the Marine Corps but can’t because he entered the country illegally at 7 months old.

Morales stands gazing up at the Iwo Jima Memorial in the ad as the music swells. “I believe 100 percent what this country stands for. Let me earn it. Let me serve.”

Imposed over a shot of the memorial are quotes from King, including, “We’re not going to take your oath into the military, but we’re going to take your deposition and have a bus for you to Tijuana.”

Another ad states that instead of supporting the military, King “insults the brave soldiers who are immigrants and those who would proudly serve.”

“I am under attack by billionaire Mark Zuckerberg because I am one of the few who will stand up and tell the truth about amnesty,” King responded in a statement. “He wants amnesty because it would benefit his multi-billion dollar corporation, but I’m fighting to preserve the Rule of Law. Why would we reward people for breaking our laws? Rewarding law breakers produces more law breakers.”

“Our Nation’s military is full of dedicated men and women and to disrespect them by rewarding illegal aliens with citizenship is an insult,” King added. “I ask that everyone who agrees that illegal immigrants should not be rewarded for having broken the law stand with me.”

Read bullet | 17 Comments »

Obama Executive Order Makes Foreign Armies Eligible for DoD Medal

Friday, April 18th, 2014 - by Bridget Johnson

President Obama signed an executive order today extending eligibility for the third-highest Defense Department recognition to foreign armies.

“Executive Order 12019 of November 3, 1977 (Establishing the Defense Meritorious Service Medal), is amended by inserting, ‘or to any member of the armed forces of a friendly foreign nation,’ after ‘any member of the Armed Forces of the United States,’” said the short order.

Worn between the Purple Heart and Meritorious Service Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to military personnel “serving with or assigned to a number of joint activities including the Secretary of Defense, organizations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and headquarters of joint commands,” according to an Air Force fact sheet. “Other joint activities and specified commands such as military assistance advisory groups and joint missions; and jointly manned staffs within Allied Command Europe, Allied Command Atlantic, the NATO Military Committee, and military agencies associated with functions of the military or other joint activities as may be designated by the secretary are also included.”

The medal is awarded for “non-combat meritorious achievement or service that is incontestably exceptional and of magnitude that clearly places the individual above his peers while serving in one of the assignments for which the medal has been designated.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney did not address the order at today’s daily briefing, focusing instead on Obama’s trip to Tokyo next week.


Read bullet | 13 Comments »