Any surprise that the scumbag who sold out his country and fellow soldiers during the Vietnam era would come out against religious freedom for Jews? Of course, given he is a part of the most anti-Semitic administration since the FDR years, why should we be surprised
The reason? It would get in the way of the Palestinian goal of getting an independent state. If opinion leaders were forced to acknowledge that said state would be an Islamo-Nazi tumor in the heart of Israel, there might be inconvenient questions asked.
Matt Seaton, staff editor for The New York Times opinion section, told a Twitter activist on Tuesday that the publication will not scrutinize Palestinian racism until Palestinians have a sovereign state of their own.
His comments were made in response to Tamar Sternthal, an analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) who sarcastically mocked Seaten after he posted a link to a Times column accusing Israel of racism.
She wrote, ďno kidding! @nytopinion hasnít devoted a piece to Israeli racism in a whole month!Ē to which Seaton replied: ďitís equal opportunity opinion over here; aim to give voice to all sides of a debate over time.Ē Sternthal then asked, ďSo we can expect two hit pieces in the next month about Palestinian racism?Ē
ďSure,Ē Seaton said, ďsoon as they have sovereign state to discriminate with. Meanwhile, expect piece from cabinet min. on why they wonít.Ē
Matt Seaton, staff editor for The New York Times opinion section, told a Twitter activist on Tuesday that the publication will not scrutinize Palestinian racism until Palestinians have a sovereign state of their own.
His comments were made in response to Tamar Sternthal, an analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) who sarcastically mocked Seaten after he posted a link to a Times column accusing Israel of racism.
She wrote, ďno kidding! @nytopinion hasnít devoted a piece to Israeli racism in a whole month!Ē to which Seaton replied: ďitís equal opportunity opinion over here; aim to give voice to all sides of a debate over time.Ē Sternthal then asked, ďSo we can expect two hit pieces in the next month about Palestinian racism?Ē
ďSure,Ē Seaton said, ďsoon as they have sovereign state to discriminate with. Meanwhile, expect piece from cabinet min. on why they wonít.Ē
A witness says Virgin Galacticís SpaceShipTwo exploded during a test flight over Californiaís Mojave Desert.
Photographer Ken Brown says the space tourism craft was released from the plane that carries it to high altitude, ignited its rocket motor and then exploded.
Brown says there is wreckage in the desert north of Mojave Air and Space Port.
The California Highway Patrol says there is one fatality and one major injury.
SpaceShipTwo is typically flown by two pilots.
Virgin Galactic confirms the loss of the spaceship but has given no details.
Vote for her opponent so she can return home to Washington, DC and never set foot in such a hateful place as Louisiana.
Senator Mary Landrieu said Thursday she thinks one of the reasons she is losing her campaign for re-election is that the state that voted her into office is sexist. Landrieu also said that President Obama is unpopular in her state because of his race.
Speaking with NBCís Chuck Todd, Landrieu said, ďIíll be very, very honest with you. The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans.Ē
Pointing to herself Landrieu continued, ďItís not always been a good place for women to present ourselves. Itís more of a conservative place.Ē
These letters are reason enough to vote against the Party of Obama.
Democrats are telling voters that they had better head to the polls ó or else.
The New York State Democratic Committee is bullying people into voting next week with intimidating letters warning that it can easily find out which slackers fail to cast a ballot next Tuesday.
ďWho you vote for is your secret. But whether or not you vote is public record,Ē the letter says.
ďWe will be reviewing voting records . . . to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014.Ē
It ends with a line better suited to a mob movie than a major political party: ďIf you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.Ē
You made this stupid statement in a campaign speech Thursday.
"We have to win. We have to be able to send a national message with Andrew Cuomo. And the thing is: Everything we believe in ó everything we believe in ó they hate. They don't disagree ó they hate! They think if you didn't come from Europe 30 years ago, you didn't even make it. Some of them believe that slavery isn't over and they and think they won the Civil War!" Rangel shouted.
2) Did you sleep through the administrations of Reagan and both Bushes? Thereís where you found hate. Heck, we know that one prominent liberal even colluded with the Soviets to beat Reagan, and Democrats regularly called for the murder of George W. Bush. That constitutes hate, not our policy disagreements with Obama.
3) Republicans support LEGAL immigration Ė including increasing the current level of legal immigration. What we donít support is flagrant disregard of American law via an immigration amnesty.
4) Republicans do believe slavery was over. We defeated it 150 years ago, and even amended the constitution over Democrat objections to ensure that the scourge of human bondage will never return to our shores. Your party then spent the next century trying to keep it in place via
5) As noted in item #4, we DID win the Civil War. Your party Ė the party of slavery, secession, segregation, Jim Crow and the Klan Ė lost that war.
Of course, what can we expect from a corrupt buffoon like Charlie?
Fanfare, everyone!It?s time to present this week's statuette of shame, The Golden Weasel!!
Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they?ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week's nominees were all slime-worthy,but in the end the winner by a nose was....
CNN 'News Anchor' Carol Costello!!
Nice Deb :Although CNN News Anchor Carol Costello shouldn't have a job after her disturbing antics, last week, she does deserve to be considered for the esteemed title of Weasel of the Week in my humble opinion.
In the shocking segment, Costello could barely contain her glee over hearing new audio of Bristol Palin describing her assault at a party in Alaska a few weeks ago. In fact, Costello called it "quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we?ve ever come across.?
Costello then proceeded to describe the ?massive brawl? and before playing the audio she told her viewers ?so sit back and enjoy.?
What you were asked to ?sit back and enjoy? was the sound of a tearful and near hysterical Bristol Palin describing to the police the physical assault she had just experienced.
Despite overwhelming approbation from fellow journalists and conservatives appalled by her hypocrisy, Costello has thus far resisted offering an apology on the air for gloating over Bristol Palin's distress, instead opting to offer a weak and weaselly apology to Politico.
People that hate Sarah Palin so much ought to be in jail. There is no place in America for such hate by proxy.
Yes, this weeks' honors went to Carol Costello, who yet again proved that the real war on women is being carried on by the Left, and that women who have left the Left's Plantation and think for themselves are fair game for pretty much anything, no matter how vile.We all know that if it was Wendy Davis, Debby BlabberMouth Schultz or Rachel Maddow getting assaulted, you know Carol Costello's jowls would have been quivering in outrage and she'd be yowling like an outraged alley cat.
Actually, considering CNN's ratings, I'm kinda surprised so many people noticed anything this 53-year-old partisan hack was doing, even in morning prime time. But they did. As a matter of fact, there's even a #firecarolcostello hash tag on Twitter, and a CNN Should Fire Carol Costello Facebook page.Apparently a lot of people found Carol Costello's disgusting schadenfreude over the assault on Bristol Palin nauseating, although her network doesn't seem to since they haven't forced her to make an on air apology - yet.
Not only that,but other instances of Ms. Costello's particular brand of hypocrisy have come to light..like her on-air attack on ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith, who she shrieked should be fired or be suspended for comments he made about the Ray Rice controversy after he apologized for them on the air.
It's the caro Costellos of the world who make awarding the statuette of shame such a gratifying experience.
Well, we have the Golden Weasel all ready to add to the other souvenirs Carol Costello has undoubtedly collected over her career. However, at the express request of Sarah Palin, we sent the Weasel to the Governor so that she could have the pleasure of personally awarding it to Ms. Costello. From what Mama Grizzly said, if I understood her correctly, she wants to make a point of 'giving it to her good' in person and is willing to come down to New York to spend some private time with Ms. Costello to 'let her have it'.
Seemed like the right thing to do to me..
And BTW, when I happened to catch a clip of Governor Palin on FOX this week with Stuart Varney she sounded great, hasn't lost any of the old fire and hinted at running for office again...
Well, there it is!
Check back next Tuesday to see who next week's nominees for Weasel of the Week are!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher?s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It?s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won?t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.
Looks like it to me.
Don't think so? Insert "Black", "Hispanic", "Jewish", or "Gay" in those titles and tell me if you would find them to be innocuous. If your answer is no, then you have to consider these to be equally racist -- or confess yourself to be a racist.
Michelle Obama inserted herself into the lunch choices of every American public school student in the name of fighting obesity and promoting health. Why didn't she start with her own kidsí school?
While Michelle Obamaís skimpy school lunch mandates have been widely rejected by students and schools, the elite private school attended by both Obama daughters will be serving chicken wings and potato chips on Wednesday.
Sidwell Friends is the elite private school with a $36,264 tuition per child where President Obama sent his daughters instead of Cardozo high school, a government-run school in Washington, D.C.
After Wednesdayís chicken wings, on Thursday Obamaís daughters can get a Cuban sandwich. Pasco County Schools in Florida had to eliminate Cuban sandwiches because they violated Michelle Obamaís lunch standards.
Next week, students at Sidwell Friends can enjoy Philly Cheese Steaks; and they will have meatball submarines the following week. Veterans Day is not a holiday at Sidwell Friends, and beef nachos are on the menu. Nachos, wings, chips and cheesesteaks Ė lunch fare most American kids can only dream about now.
Guess the Obama girls are headed towards the same wide-load sign their mama needs while public school kids will eat this.
Thanks Michelle Obama I'm going to be so full after this $2.30 lunch pic.twitter.com/l7JV6Jb35i— Ciarra (@Lawsonmonster) April 25, 2014
And if the kids complain?
No, not her campaign for governor Ė she is only down by 20% in that one. I mean her effort to sell her self-serving memoir, which has failed even worse.
Wendy Davisí book is having a tough time of it. Despite enormous levels of media buzz, Nielsen BookScan numbers provided to Slate by a publishing source show only 4,317 copies of the memoir, called Forgetting to Be Afraid, have been sold since its Sept. 9 publication.
Nielsen BookScan doesnít include all book sales, notably sales at many independent retailers, so the actual number of copies sold is probably higher, although still likely below 6,000. As a point of comparison, Elizabeth Warrenís memoir, A Fighting Chance, sold more than 70,000 copies in its first few months on shelves. And David Limbaughís book Jesus on Trial, which was published the day before Davisí, has sold about 65,000 copies, including 6,778 just last week, according to BookScan.
Wow Ė I guess the effort to use her campaign and campaign funds to enrich herself though book sales didnít pay off.
In the 1970s, young people were liberal. In 1980 and 184, however, a generation of young people embraced Ronald Reagan and the GOP. After eight years of Barack Obama, could this be happening again?
A new Harvard Institute of Politics (IOP) poll of 18- to 29- year-olds finds a majority, 51%, who say they will ďdefinitely be votingĒ in the November midterm elections prefer a Republican-run Congress. Only 47% favor a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Thatís a significant shift from the 2010 midterm elections, when IOP found 55% preferred Democrat control and 43% prefer Republican control.
Among those most likely to vote, President Obamaís job approval rating is only 42, just above his lowest mark of 41%. Fifty-six percent disapprove.
And like the IOPís April results, Obamaís approval is underwater on every issue polled:
The Economy 36% Ė 60%
ObamaCare 37% Ė 59%
The Budget Deficit 31% Ė 65%
Foreign 35% -60%
Immigration 35% Ė 61%
Race Relations 47% Ė 49%
Obama is losing support among young Hispanics. Only 49% of young Hispanics now approve of Obamaís performance and 46% disapprove. Thatís the lowest rating among young Hispanics since the IOP began tracking the administration in 2009. Itís also a significant drop from the 60% found in April 2014 and a huge decline from the 81% found in November 2009.
And like the 27% in 2010, 26% of those under the age of 30 say that they will ďdefinitely be votingĒ in the fall. Worse for Democrats, traditional Republican constituencies seem to be showing more enthusiasm than Democrat ones for participating in the upcoming midterm elections and are statistically more likely to say they will ďdefinitely be voting.Ē
That figure for Hispanic voters is important. For one, it mirrors what I see among my students on both the high school and college levels Ė there is a strong distaste for Obama. If that translates over to support for Republicans this year and in 2016, we could see something akin to the Reagan Revolution all over again powered by a significant portion of the youth and the Hispanic population.
After all, he is the only Attorney General in US history to ever be held in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a duly issued subpoena. Until he is willing to disclose what is legally required to be disclosed, he has no business telling others not to disclose information.
Attorney General Eric Holder again lashed out at sources revealing details from the Ferguson, Mo., grand jury reviewing the case of Michael Brownís death, instructing them to simply ďshut up.Ē
Holder was interviewed Wednesday in Washington by MSNBCís Jonathan Capehart, who asked him about reports that Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson will resign from office.
The attorney general reacted with annoyance. ďI think that somebody, these leakers, have made the determination that theyíre trying to somehow shape public opinion about this case,Ē he said. ĒIt is inconsistent with the way in which we conduct investigations, and especially grand-jury investigations which are supposed to be secret.Ē
ďI said Iím exasperated ó itís a nice way of saying Iím mad,Ē he continued. ďThatís just not how things should be done with people in law enforcement.Ē
ďWhoever the sources of the leaks are need to shut up,Ē the attorney general said.
Remember Ė Holder went to Ferguson to shape public opinion and stoke the flames of racial tension for the political gain of his incompetent boss. How dare he attack others for trying to shape public opinion by disclosing that the narrative he and other race hustlers have been pushing is a thin tissue of lies!
It is a victory -- but fails to address the real problem with the subpoenas.
The City of Houston will withdraw its controversial subpoenas of five pastors tied to a lawsuit over the city's equal rights ordinance, Mayor Annise Parker announced at a news conference Wednesday.
The announcement came amid a national firestorm about the subpoenas, which have prompted outrage among Christian conservatives. Parker said two meetings yesterday, one with local pastors and another with national clergy, persuaded her to pull the subpoenas altogether.
"The goal of the subpoenas is to defend against the lawsuit and not to provoke a public debate," Parker said.
She is ordering the subpoenas removed for the sake of Houston, not because the request were in any way illegal or intended to intrude on religious liberties, Parker said.
Frankly, the request for sermons (many of which were posted online or available for purchase from the churches) was not the biggest problem. For that matter, the request for materials directly related to the petition process were not outrageous. The problem was that the subpoenas went far beyond that and included demands for church teachings about homosexuality and private communications about public figures Ė and, even more troubling, private pastoral communication that touched on issues. For example, the demand for all letters and emails about homosexuality would have included an email to a pastor from a parent who discovered that their child was gay and seeking spiritual counseling about how best to be a loving parent and a faithful Christian. Such matters are clearly not of public concern, but would have been put in the public record by the discovery process.
Parker clearly realized that she was going to get slapped down in the court of law, just as she did in the court of public opinion. Too bad that she had thought she could get away with this in the first place.
New orders for manufactured durable goods in September decreased $3.2 billion or 1.3 percent to $241.6 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. This decrease, down two consecutive months, followed an 18.3 percent August decrease. Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 0.2 percent. Excluding defense, new orders decreased 1.5 percent.
Transportation equipment, also down two consecutive months, led the decrease, $2.8 billion or 3.7 percent to $73.4 billion.
* * *
Nondefense new orders for capital goods in September decreased $4.6 billion or 5.4 percent to $82.0 billion. Shipments increased $0.4 billion or 0.5 percent to $80.2 billion. Unfilled orders increased $1.8 billion or 0.2 percent to $733.3 billion. Inventories increased $1.1 billion or 0.6 percent to $184.9 billion.
That recovery we were supposedly having? Looks like a mirage.
Yesterday I wrote about Chicago pastor Corey Booker and the theft at his church in response to his endorsement of the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Illinois. Others have gone further and noted that something more needs to be done than offering an expression of outrage. We need to make Pastor Booker and his church whole after our mutual political opponents have attacked him for the crime of RWB Ė ďRepublican While BlackĒ.
New Beginnings Church of Chicago is trying to purchase property near their sanctuary in order to open a community center for the neighborhood. Project Hood needs to raise $450,000 in order to reach their goal Ė a goal that suffered a setback when money dedicated to the Project Hood was stolen in retaliation for Pastor Bookerís political activity. In order to help them out, click here, and be sure to earmark your offering to Project Hood in the drop-down box. And letís not merely make up what was stolen Ė estimated at $8,000 -- letís help them raise all the money needed for Project Hood in a single outpouring of support.
A half century ago tonight, the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign had Ronald Reagan, then an actor, give a speech that rallied the troops in what was then a doomed cause. The speech Reagan gave offered a vision of America that moved millions.
Two years later, in 1966, Reagan would be elected Governor of California. Two years after that he would be a favorite son candidate for President. In 1976, in the wake of the disaster that was Watergate, Reagan would mount a challenge to President Gerald Ford and nearly win the Republican nomination. In 1980, Reagan would succeed in winning the Republican nomination and defeat President Jimmy Carter in the general election. What followed were eight of the brightest years of the last half century for this country Ė years that changed the political dialogue in America. Ask any American, Republican or Democrat, who has lived through the last half century who the two greatest presidents of that period has been, and he or she will undoubtedly include Reagan on the list because of the accomplishments of those eight years.
The fact that in our overly-sensitive and easily offended age that such stirring rhetoric is so rare is a partial indictment of where our politics has failed. While issues come and go, there are fundamental questions of Americaís future and place in the world that need to be addressed in overarching terms. Thatís what Reaganís ďThe SpeechĒ was all about. We need leaders who will speak in such terms again.
As we stand on the brink of a midterm election that could be a watershed for American, can the GOP find a new Ronald Reagan to articulate our vision and lead us in the direction of freedom and prosperity?
An attack on state Senate candidate Mark Miloscia uses an anti-Catholic caricature to accuse him of representing ďthe people of the VaticanĒ instead of ďthe people of Federal Way.Ē
The image, on an anonymous website attacking Federal Way Republican Miloscia, circulated Friday on Twitter and drew a prompt rebuke from Milosciaís opponent, Shari Song.
* * *
The cartoonish picture shows Miloscia in a papal crown holding a cross on a string of rosary beads and a suitcase with a Confederate flag. It dubs him ďMississippi Mark,Ē an apparent reference to his birthplace where he lived as a small child before his family moved to New York. Another post on the website compares ďPope MarkĒ with Pope Francis in an attempt to cast Milosciaís views as extreme by modern-day papal standards.
Miloscia is a conservative Catholic from Federal Way who opposes abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the death penalty. Formerly a Democratic state representative, he lobbied for local Catholic dioceses before switching parties this year and running for the Senate.
Yes, Democrat Shari Song says she "does not condone" this sort of bigotry -- but interestingly enough, she does not condemn and denounce it. Moreover, her spokesperson indicates that the campaign knows who the perpetrator of this bigotry is, but will not publicly disclose who the bigot is. Song has even gone so far as to say ďI donít believe they are anti-Catholic or intended it in that way.Ē
You can bet that Democrats would be demanding scalps if the situation were reversed and a Republican were protecting someone disseminating anything even remotely like this. And you can be even more sure that it would be a major national scandal if a Republican candidate went out of his/her way to defend the bigot and insist that their bigotry is not bigotry, despite their having drawn on the nation's long and shameful history of tolerating such bigotry.
But then again, we should not be surprised. After all, the Democrats booed God at their last convention -- attacking and insulting the God-fearing is right up their alley. And given that anti-Catholicism was part of the stock-in-trade of the Democrat Party's paramilitary terrorist wing, the KKK, we should not be surprised that anti-Catholicism finds fertile soil in that party today.
I think this one says all that needs to be said.
Corey Brooks, a South Side pastor featured in an ad endorsing Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, says heís moved his family from his home while police investigate an overnight burglary of his church, as well as threatening derogatory phone calls he received which claim heíll be beaten for being Raunerís ďpuppet.Ē
On Saturday, Brooks rushed to the New Beginnings Church of Chicago after a maintenance employee found the churchís back doors shattered and an estimated $8,000 stolen from a glass charity box, meant to build a community center across from the church.
Police say they were notified of the burglary at 6620 S. King Dr. about 8:30 a.m. on Saturday.
ďThe death threats seem to be related to Bruce Rauner,Ē Brooks said at the church Saturday. ďThey say his name as well as mine and most of the references were in response to me in support of him. So itís really derogatory, real racial, a lot of homophobic words. Itís real life threatening.Ē
Brooks said he received the five phone calls on Friday. He recorded one of them, and provided it to police. In that call, which was played for the Sun-Times, a manís voice is disguised via a high-pitched filter. He is heard calling Brooks a ďtoken nóĖ.Ē
ďWe on you boy, we on you. And you ainít got nobody that can stop us, nobody. Who you go [to] the deacons? They canít stop us. We going to beat your fat aĖ in front of your mama congregation Sunday. Yeah we going to steal the sheep of the hypocrite. Youís a hypocrite we going to beat your fat aĖ in front of your own congregation. Who you got thatÖfó we going to beat their aĖ too. They canít protect you. You sell out you Uncle Tom aĖ nóĖ. You token. You a puppet for Bruce Rauner you puppet nóĖ aĖ. Pó- aĖ nóĖ,Ē the voice says on the recording.
Back in the day, Democrats used to threaten and lynch blacks who did not know their place and voted Republican. Today, Democrats threaten to lynch blacks who do not know their place and vote Republican. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Shouldn't Eric Holder and the Civil Rights Division of the Obama Department Of Just-Us be litigating this fee charged by one government agency that must be paid before another government agency will count someoneís vote?
BOULDER, Colo. - Wait! Before you mail your ballot, make sure it has the right postage.
Boulder County says voters planning to mail in their ballots this election might come up 1 cent short on postage.
Voter instructions for returning ballots say the cost of postage for a two-sheet ballot in the secrecy sleeve will cost 69 cents, including 49 cents for a stamp plus another 20 cents for an additional ounce.
However, in January the U.S. Postal Service raised the cost of an additional ounce to 21 cents, which means postage for a two-sheet ballot and secrecy sleeve would actually cost 70 cents.
According to the Boulder Daily Camera, voters can rest assured their ballots will be delivered with no problem after Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office spokeswoman Mircalla Wozniak said they're covered.
However, it's a good reminder that all voters need to check their ballots. In most cases in Colorado, one postage stamp will not cover the cost and your ballot must be at election headquarters by 7p.m. on November 4 or your votes will not be counted.
And since Colorado now does mail-in ballots for all, it would certainly appear that this is a REAL poll tax under the logic set forth by the Left in the Voter ID cases. But since this was a law passed by Democrats with the intent of boosting Democrat votes, it gets a pass.
Well, I've gotten a bit behind, so here come four weeks of Watcher's Council results!
li>Sixth place with 1/3 vote ĖNice Deb Ė Amnesty Begins: Regime Prepares For Millions of New Immigrant IDs
But Senator Patrick Leahy does sort of reflect my POV on the notion of having another African-American president.
TAVIS SMILEY: Those who are pushing for these tough ID laws, there are those who cherish their right to vote, in part because, including the Supreme Court, I might add. Whose argument seems to be that in the era of the first African-American president, these voter ID laws, these laws in the Voting Rights Act specifically, are no longer necessary. We afterall, have an African-American president. How then does one make the argument that we still have to have these laws that carve out special privileges and special protections of African-Americans when they're done enough to elect a black president.
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-Vermont): Well I was and am a strong supporter of Barack Obama, he's one of 44 presidents. 43 White, 1 African-American. We've got to do more about that. But I also know that it is not just the president, it is the legislatures, the governors, the members of Congress. Because there are those who never want to have another African-American president, and that would be another very, very bad thing for this country.
Leahy and Smiley are absolutely correct about my point of view Ė it is my profound hope and prayer that we never have another African-American president. Having lived under an African-American president for the last six years, I can tell you that I believe it has been destructive to this country to have an African-American president.
Which is not to say that I have an objection to electing a president who happens to be an African-American.
And for those of you who are confused, let me spell it out. Barack Obama was elected because of the color of his skin rather than the content of his character or his competence. As a result, he has been a disaster for this country. On the other hand, the election of a president who is of good character and high competence and who happens to be of African-American descent (or a Latino or an Asian-American or a woman) would be great thing in my book. The thing that matters is the essential qualifications of our president, not the accidents of race, ethnicity, or gender. Thus Iíll back Bobby Jindal, Tim Scott or Susana Martinez on the GOP ticket in 2016 without a secondís hesitation while rejecting a white guy like Donald Trump out of hand.
Which leads us back to the offensive comments of Pat Leahy and Tavis Smiley. So many of us opposed to Barack Obama are opposed to him because he is a narcissist hose policies are fundamentally wrong for America. He lacked the experience, knowledge, and temperament to do the job of President effectively. His election had much more to do with his skin color than anything else, and his supporters have used that fact to tar opponents as racist at every turn, creating division instead of unity. So no, I donít want an African-American president Ė or a Hispanic President or a Woman President. I just want a president, and the demographic details donít matter. Because unlike the Democrats, we in the GOP donít judge someone by the ďcontent of their colorĒ.
Gotta love the way in which "pro-woman" Democrats engage in a War on Women (especially minority women like Gov. Nikki Haley) when they fail to do and say what they are told to by the Left.
Democrat Vincent Sheheen of South Carolina referred to his Republican opponent, sitting governor Nikki Haley, as a "whore" in an apparent slip of the tongue during a recent campaign rally.
"We are going to escort whore out the door," said Sheheen at a Thursday night event in Florence.
Sorry -- we won't let that "slip of the tongue" excuse slide. It would be a scandal if a Republican called a Democrat candidate a whore in the same circumstances, so we must insist that Sheheen be held to the same standard.
Exposing the ugliness and emptiness of the progressive vision wonít be enough to advance our cause. We also need to tell our story Ė we need to demonstrate, in word and in deed, the virtues and the humanity of our vision.
We will fail if we continue to limit ourselves to opposing government dependency. We must also celebrate the dignity of our interdependence with each other, and embrace the responsibilities that are indivisible from our freedoms.
It will always be our duty to reject the intolerance, conformity, and coercion of hyperactive government. But we must do more. We must also bear witness to the true diversity Ė of thought and of character Ė that naturally flourish when individuals, families, and communities are free to live in accordance with their convictions and the dictates of their conscience.
We donít need to give up our support for investing in physical and financial capital. But we must also insist that the most important investments we make as a nation will be in human and social capital.
Thereís another part of the speech that speaks to me as well Ė a part that eviscerates the false dichotomy that ďprogressivesĒ present as they demand that we submit to regressive policies and programs that make us less and less free.
The conservative vision of American society begins from a very simple observation: in the real world. . . we are not isolated individuals and weíre not wards of the state.
Indeed, our lives are lived Ė and made meaningful Ė in the space between these two extremities... as husbands and wives; parents and children; teachers and students; neighbors and neighborhoods; volunteers and congregations; bosses and employees; businesses and customers; clubs, teams, and associations.
We are, in a word, citizens... who deliberate, participate, self-govern, and consent to be governed by our fellow citizens.
It is in this vital space between the isolated individual and the impersonal Ė often oppressive Ė state where lives intersect, relationships are formed, knowledge is shared, opportunity is created, and happiness is pursued.
It is in this space where Americans have always come together, in the free-market economy and voluntary civil society, to meet each otherís needs, improve each otherís lives, and overcome common challenges.
You know Ė this sort of reminds me of what the president during my college years used to say. Will this generation be as turned on to conservative principles by Mike Lee and those like him as my generation was by Ronald Reagan? I hope so Ė after all, Mike Lee is the guy who earlier this year called upon Republicans to stop talking about Ronald Reagan and start acting like him instead. Thatís a vision and a mission statement I can buy into.
But the New York Post does do this interesting feature on one, contrasting her reception by the press with the reception received by a prominent (and floundering) female gubernatorial candidate.
This is a tale of two women politicians.
One is a Republican running in ďblueĒ New York. Her name is Elise Stefanik, a Harvard alum who served in the Bush White House and now works for her familyís upstate plywood business.
If elected ó and the latest poll has her 8 points up ó the 30-year-old will make history as the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
The other is Democrat Wendy Davis.
Davis too boasts a Harvard degree, from the law school. Back in June 2013, she was heralded as the voice of American women when she tried ó and failed ó to stop her fellow Texas legislators from passing a law restricting abortion after 20 weeks. Now sheís running for governor, where the latest poll has her down 13 points.
Guess whoís the national sensation?
Of course, Stefanik doesnít have the ďrightĒ positions on the issues to get Davis-like media adulation. In other words, Stefanik has positions that are on the Right and are viewed as right by American voters after six years of Obamunist failure.
And she isnít alone.
[T]he Stefanik story has been all but ignored outside of local and conservative media because she doesnít fit the preferred profile: a socially liberal Democrat, preferably with a dovish foreign policy.
Sheís far from alone here, given the large supply of accomplished Republican women running this year ó mostly against men.
Thereís Jodi Ernst, a colonel in the National Guard who served in Iraq and is up slightly in a very tight Senate race in Iowa.
Or Mia Love, a black Mormon running for Congress in Utah, who is up by 9 points.
Or Barbara Comstock, an attractive, unabashed conservative and working mom who leads in her highly watched Virginia race for an open House seat.
Or Marilinda Garcia, a young, Harvard-educated, conservative Latina who is slightly behind Democrat Ann Kuster in their New Hampshire House race.
In other words, the GOP is a party that is promoting women Ė real women Ė with realistic chances of victory based upon their common sense platforms. That certainly contrasts with the likes of Wendy Davis, whose campaign can be summed up with the slogan ďVote for Wendy Ė she may be a serial liar who is out of step with Texas, but at she does have pink running shoes and a vagina.Ē
And for the record, Iíd be thrilled to vote for any one of these Republican women. Not because of their genitalia Ė because of they are highly qualified and correct on the issues.
Of course, thatís what happens to groups that give 90% support to one party year after year after year Ė they get marginalized and taken for granted by the party they support. After all, why work for votes you are guaranteed?
Black votersí disappointment with President Barack Obama, who they so eagerly embraced for so many years, could be costly on Election Day to Democrats, who badly need a big African-American turnout to win Senate and gubernatorial races in key states.
Instead, many African-Americans see an unemployment rate well above the national average, continuing problems with crime in many neighborhoods, and a president more interested in trying to help other voting blocs that didnít give him such unwavering support.
He talks about same-sex marriage in a nod to the gay and lesbian community. He discusses immigration and its benefits, an issue particularly important to the Latino community. He fights for equal pay, a vital issue to the women Democrats so avidly court.
The black community, which gave Obama support like no other group, too often doesnít see the investment paying off.
Of course he is focused on those other groups. Gays could swing to more libertarian Republicans. Hispanics are not a lock for the Democrats Ė look at the Texas gubernatorial election to see that. Women can and do vote Republican. But blacks Ė they just walk in and vote Democrat no matter how badly the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and the Klan have screwed them over the years. No wonder the Democrats Ė especially black Democrats like Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus Ė play them for fools year after year after year. Doing so doesnít hurt their electoral bottom line.
Is black discontent with Obama and the Democrats going to impact results at the polls? Probably. But will they vote for Republicans or just stay home? If they do the latter, then it is unlikely that things will change in terms of how the Democrats deal with the black vote. On the other hand, if they do the former it may be that both parties will begin to treat them as a voter group that is in play and finally begin giving a serious focus on the needs of African-Americans.
It is at least one of the two -- and probably both.
Hidalgo County, in Texasís Rio Grande Valley, is staunch Democratic turf ó but notice anyone missing from this Democratic party mailer just sent out to Precinct 4 voters?
All politics may be local, but the absence of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis is, well, conspicuous. Here is the partyís explanation, per the local Monitor:ďBecause of the large number of candidates, both statewide and countywide, we were just unable to fit all candidates while still focusing on our local candidates,Ē county Democratic Chair Ric Godinez wrote in an email. ďFor example, to highlight Gaitan (who runs only in Precinct 4) we had to sacrifice space for one of the statewides. Because Battleground Texas was pushing Sen. Davis primarily with plenty of literature, we felt we could get more coverage and bang for our buck for the entire Democratic Ticket (you will notice even in this piece, as in all our pieces, we are encouraging voters to make a straight party vote) while focusing on our local candidates in that precinct.Ē
Now I want you to notice something about the candidates endorsed on that slate card. Every last one of them is Hispanic. The only statewide candidates shown are the two Latinas Ė Leticia Van de Putte and Gina Benavides. Apparently Hidalgo County Democrats believe that if you arenít Hispanic, you arenít worth campaigning for.
Couer díAlene City Attorney confirms: conservative Christian ministersí wedding chapel business must provide same-sex marriage ceremonies
The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: ďif they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.Ē
Whatís more, it is time for Christians Ė and all people of faith Ė to stand up and resist efforts to force them to operate their businesses in a way contrary to their religious beliefs, and to refuse to pay any fine assessed as a massive show of civil disobedience.
Simply put Ė they cannot jail us all.
David French offers a great analysis of the problem with this situation over at National Review Onlineís ďThe CornerĒ blog.
Chris Matthews reacts to Democratic Senate candidates Michelle Nunn (D-GA) and Mark Begich (D-AK), an incumbent, dodging the question if they voted for Obama.
"That's the way people walk past guys who are trying to get a buck or a quarter from somebody," Matthews said describing the candidates ignoring the question from a tracker.
"It's like Obama has Ebola," Matthews said on Monday's broadcast of Hardball on MSNBC. "I wasn't near him! I didn't touch him!"
I donít think that is a fair comparison. Obama is not being treated like he has Ebola.
No, he IS electoral Ebola.
But since this is an ďexpert witnessĒ hired by the civil rights division f the Obama/Holder Department of ďJust UsĒ, it is OK for him to talk down the black population of the United States.
An expert witness hired by Eric Holderís Department of Justice testified that North Carolina election law requirements have an adverse impact on black voters because they are less ďsophisticatedĒ than white voters and therefore have more difficulty figuring out how to register to vote. Christian Adams has the details.
The requirements that the DOJís witness found blacks less able than whites to comply with are (1) registering to vote before the day of the election and (2) voting in the precinct where one lives. Since one neednít be at all ďsophisticatedĒ to comply with either requirement, the DOJís witness, who was paid with our tax dollars, must have little regard for African-Americans.
Asked whether terminating the ability to register to vote on the day that someone casts a ballot impacts blacks disproportionately, the DOJís witness, Charles Stewart, testified in court that it does. He reasoned that (1) people who register at the last minute ďtend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairsĒ and (2) ďpeople who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans.Ē
Got that Ė black people are less sophisticated, less educated, and less attuned to public affairs. Our nationís first black attorney general, working for our first black president, tells us so. Could that explain why blacks are the only group of Americans who overwhelmingly back Obama?
The Democratic Partyís top super PAC disclosed more than $9.2 million in September contributions on Monday, listing a whoís who of wealthy liberal donors, many associated with the secretive Democracy Alliance donor network.
New York City businessman Ian Cummingówho ďwas awarded the largest bonus for any CEO of a publicly traded company in New YorkĒ in 2012, according to Crainísóand a company called HFNWA LLC donated $1 million each.
It is not entirely clear what that company does, but it appears to be affiliated with Franklin Haney, a Democratic mega-donor who was accused of campaign finance violations in the 1990s.
DreamWorks CEO and 3D advocate Jeffrey Katzenberg and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull director Steven Spielberg each gave $250,000 to the Super PAC last month.
Big-name Democratic donors also chipped in: billionaire financier George Soros and real estate mogul Herb Sandler, who pioneered an investment model dubbed the ďthe Typhoid Mary of the mortgage industry,Ē gave $500,000 each.
Senate Majority PAC is one of 180 groups supported by the Democracy Alliance, and DA partners came through in a big way last month.
Contributions from those partners included $500,000 from Amy Goldman Fowler, $100,000 from Wayne Jordan, $95,000 from David Bonderman, and $12,500 from Lisa Blue Baron.
The super PAC also reported a $750,000 contribution from venture capitalist John Doerr, who has financed the campaigns of numerous Democrats and sat on federal panels advising the disbursement of green energy subsidies, some of which supported companies in which his venture capital firm had invested.
Oh those dirty, dirty Dems!
Admitting his confidence in Cook County ballot integrity is shaken, State Representative Candidate Jim Moynihan (R-56), was shocked today when he tried to cast a vote for himself and the voting machine cast it for his opponent instead.
ďWhile early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today, I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,Ē said Moynihan. ďYou could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.Ē
While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidateís party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race. It is unknown if the machine in question (#008958) has been removed from service or is still in operation.
Iím sure that there will be no scrutiny from the state or federal governments. After all, they both believe that everybody has a right to vote Democrat, whether they want to or not.
Attorney General Eric Holder said that his biggest failure during his time as head of the Justice Department was failing to pass expanded gun control laws and criticized former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for his negative characterizations of the president during an interview aired on Mondayís broadcast of ďThe LeadĒ on CNN. ďI think the inability to pass reasonable gun safety laws after the Newtown massacre is, for me, something that I take personally as a failure, and something that I think we as a society should take as a failureĒ he stated when asked what he considered his greatest failure.
Seems pretty clear that the guy in charge of protecting civil rights thinks that the failure to pass laws restricting and eliminating civil rights is his biggest failure. Maybe that explains why he doesnít view his failure to turn over subpoenaed documents to Congress to be a failure, and why he doesnít consider his failure to investigate and prosecute the crimes of IRS to be a shortcoming.
Wow Ė just wow.
I didn't believe that Wendy Davis could go lower than her attack on Greg Abbott's use of a wheelchair. However, Abortion Barbie has gone even lower. No wonder that Texans are rejecting her in record numbers when she makes attacks on Greg Abbott, his wife and marriage.
Greg Abbott won't say whether he'd defend an interracial marriage banótroubling but not surprising from someone who defends a "poll tax."— Wendy Davis (@WendyDavisTexas) October 20, 2014
Of course, the reality is that Abbott did answer the question -- just not to the satisfaction of the liberal editors of the liberal rag who were bound and determine to endorse the liberal candidate even though she is woefully underqualified for the job and unethical to boot.
ďRight now, if there was a ban on interracial marriage, thatís already been ruled unconstitutional,Ē he told the paper. ďAnd all I can do is deal with the issues that are before me Ö The job of an attorney general is to represent and defend in court the laws of their client, which is the state Legislature, unless and until a court strikes it down.Ē
Such laws are unambiguously unconstitutional. As Abbott noted later on, he made a conscious choice to do no more than note that fact and move on because such laws were definitively ruled unconstitutional long ago -- in fact, around the time that Abbott started elementary school. It is an absurd "gotcha" hypothetical and he simply wouldn't play the game. Good for him. He wants to talk about real issues.
And let's not forget who Greg Abbott is married to. She will be the first Latina first lady in the history of Texas -- something that Abbott has highlighted in his campaign, including in this add featuring his mother-in-law, who stood as his godmother when he converted to Catholicism.
But Wendy Davis, down by 15 points in the polls, is desperate enough to insinuate that her opponent is a racist. Personally, I find that more despicable than actually making the charge. It demonstrates her lack of integrity.
I look forward to the state of Texas giving Wendy what she deserves on November 4.
I wrote on the subject on Friday, and now commentator and author John Fund writes that he also thinks that early voting is not a positive thing.
Fund even raises the point I do about voters lacking all information when they vote.
Consider, for instance, that Ross Perot suffered his meltdown on 60 Minutes, in which he accused Republicans of disrupting his daughterís wedding, only nine days before the 1992 Election Day. That same year, only four days before Election Day, Caspar Weinberger and other figures in the Iran-Contra scandal who were close to President George H. W. Bush were indicted. The John Huang campaign-fundraising scandal accelerated in the days just prior to the 1996 election; and, according to Bill Clinton, it cost his party control of the House that year. In the incredibly close 2000 election, Al Gore had a last-minute surge in support, fueled in part by negative reaction to George W. Bushís 1976 DUI arrest, which hit the media five days before Election Day. Karl Rove says the incident cost his boss the popular vote and at least one state. Luckily for Bush, many voters had already voted, locking in their preference before the DUI story came to their attention. There was no way they could change their vote.
He also notes that early voting and other non-traditional voting systems (universal mail-in ballots, among others) serve as an incumbent protection program.
How is early voting changing our campaigns? They are increasing their costs and difficulty. Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist and adviser to gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist, says of early voting: ďClearly it changes the whole way we campaign. It used to be you would build a whole campaign around Election Day.Ē Richard Smolka, an American University academic who published a newsletter for election officials for 40 years until his death last year, mourned the fact that early voting had made campaigns more costly and more complicated. Smolka cogently identified one of the main reasons so many state legislatures have approved early voting: ďItís incumbency protection,Ē he said. ďIt takes more money and more organization to deal with a longer voting period. It exacerbates their advantages.Ē
Such concerns are echoed by Christian Adams, a former Justice Department official. ďIncumbents and Washington insiders love early voting because they already have the money and staff to monitor the integrity of the voting process,Ē he told the Washington Times. ďThey know that challengers and local candidates canít afford it.Ē
Want honest elections -- require that most voters turn out in person on election day.
In other words, fully informed elections with minimal fraud require that we go back to the tradition of making voting on something other than election day the exception rather than the rule.
As Marine One thundered overhead, about to land on the White House lawn and take Obama to a series of political fund-raisers, I asked him if, like William Howard Taft, he entertained thoughts of serving as a judge later in his career. ďWhen I got out of law school, I chose not to clerk,Ē he said. ďPartly because I was an older student, but partly because I donít think I have the temperament to sit in a chamber and write opinions.Ē But he sounded tempted by the idea.
ďI love the law, intellectually,Ē Obama went on. ďI love nutting out these problems, wrestling with these arguments. I love teaching. I miss the classroom and engaging with students. But I think being a Justice is a little bit too monastic for me. Particularly after having spent six years and what will be eight years in this bubble, I think I need to get outside a little bit more.Ē
While I find Obamaís demurral to be fascinating, I still think the reasons I gave in my earlier post are a better explanation of why we wonít see Justice Ė or Chief Justice Ė Barack Hussein Obama.
First, Obama is a polarizing figure who will be unable to make it through the confirmation process unless there is a Democrat in the White House and Democrat-controlled Senate. Heck, I dont know that even a Democrat-controlled Senate will be sufficient to get a confirmation done without invoking a harsh level of party discipline not seen since the days of Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson and a willingness to invoke the nuclear option to clear away the filibuster.
Second, Obamas record of public service is much more sparse than that of William Howard Taft. Taft had been a successful Cabinet member and territorial governor prior to his time in the White House as well as a respected federal judge. Obama, on the other hand, has a much less substantial resume and lacks the legal credentials both in terms of teaching, academic scholarship and legal practice that have come to be expected of a Supreme Court justice today. I dont know that (absent his years in the Oval Office) he would be recognized as qualified for a seat on a Circuit Court or even a District Court.
Third, there is the small matter that Obama is no longer even licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States. Obama does not currently have an active law license, having changed his registration to inactive when he began his presidential run in 2007 and to retired after his election as president. While he might go back and pay a decades worth of registration fees after his time in office expires, I find that unlikely and I doubt sincerely that an individual not eligible to practice law is going to be deemed qualified for the highest court in the land.
I think that is a much more realistic assessment than Obamaís own answer that he would not want to limit himself to the role of a mere Supreme Court Justice.
It shows that things are not looking good in the midterm elections.
And since people are walking out on Obama speeches, things look bad.
President Barack Obama made a rare appearance on the campaign trail on Sunday with a rally to support the Democratic candidate for governor in Maryland, but early departures of crowd members while he spoke underscored his continuing unpopularity.
With approval levels hovering around record lows, Obama has spent most of his campaign-related efforts this year raising money for struggling Democrats, who risk losing control of the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 4 midterm election.
* * *
A steady stream of people walked out of the auditorium while he spoke, however, and a heckler interrupted his remarks.
No wonder Democrat candidates are avoiding him like he's an Ebola patient.
Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to $1,000 in daily fines, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, two ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur díAlene.
ďRight now they are at risk of being prosecuted,Ē attorney Jeremy Tedesco told me. ďThe threat of enforcement is more than just credible.Ē
The wedding chapel is registered as a ďreligious corporationĒ limited to performing ďone-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.Ē
However, the chapel is also a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with the local nondiscrimination ordinance.
That ordinance, passed in 2013, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.
City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review in May that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel likely would be required to follow the ordinance.
ďI would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,Ē he said.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is on the case -- and noting that this case underscores the threat that gay marriage and non-discrimination ordinances that include homosexuality are to religious freedom.
Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money. The particular Coeur díAlene ordinance might not apply there, since it covers only ďplace[s],Ē and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any ďestablishment,Ē and if a wedding photography service is an ďestablishmentĒ then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.
That leads me to wonder as well if a church that allows non-members to marry in its building might also be subject to such laws. After all, during my wife's time as a pastor she officiated at the marriages of couples who were not members of the congregation but who wanted a church wedding. Would this be sufficient to make the church a "public accommodation" -- or to allow government to force her (or a future pastor) to perform gay weddings? [As an aside, the denomination in which she served today permits gay marriages, though ministers have discretion as to whether or not to perform them and congregations have the discretion to refuse to allow them to be performed in their church.]
But at its core, this raises two questions:
Back in 2002, my wife and I got season tickets for the Houston Texans. Given her mobility issues, we were assigned seats in the southeast corner of the stadium, section 541. That changed our lives in ways we did not realize at the time.
You see, a couple of seats down was a fellow in a wheelchair -- not uncommon in the handicapped-accessible row, I know. David made a point of introducing himself and with his buoyant, enthusiastic personality he became a friend. Over the last dozen years, as Paula has dealt with various medical issues, surgeries, and decreased mobility, David was a great source of support. He suggested doctors, offered us questions we should ask her doctors, suggested equipment we might want to try to improve her quality of life, and invited us to events sponsored by a group he runs in Galveston, Turning Point Gulf Coast.
We got a surprise this morning when we opened up the newspaper and found David's face smiling back at us.
David Gaston has been around boats all his life.
"Anything that floats interests me," he says.
Today, the 55-year-old is the Adaptive Waterfront Coordinator for the Sea Scout Base Galveston, a state-of-the-art sailing complex that opened this month. At the end October, the base will host the U.S. Disabled Championships; a fitting project to work on for Gaston, who is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair.
Gaston was injured in a motorcycle accident just three weeks shy of his 21st birthday. Although some aspects of his life are now drastically different, his penchant for the sea has remained constant.
* * *
Right around his graduation from Texas State Technical College Waco in 1986, Gaston caught wind of a potential job opportunity with Paraplegics On Independent Nature Trips, called POINT, which has headquarters in Dallas. He had modified a custom three-wheel Harley Davidson and rode it nearly 100 miles to the interview. The following year, the group held the first-ever adaptive regatta.
"I met with the director of Moody Gardens, Sherry Kerwin, in 1989 about creating the Inaugural Adaptive Sports Festival," Gaston says. Shortly after, POINT changed its name to Turning Point to include anyone with a disability.
"I was the first one to create my own private chapter, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, called Turning Point Gulf Coast."
Last month, the organization celebrated the 25th anniversary of the festival.
As I've said -- David is a friend and a hero. I'm glad to see him get a little bit of the recognition he deserves.
And if you are looking for a place to send some of the dollars you give to charity, I'd like to encourage you to look at Turning Point Gulf Coast as an option -- they do good work.
Proving once again that Wendy Davis and her doomed campaign for governor for Texas are fundamentally tone-deaf.
For a contribution of $20, you can own a ďWendy Davis for GovernorĒ onesie. The onesie is available on Wendy Davisís campaign store.
The description of the onesie states: ďLet everyone know that youíre raising the next generation of Texas Democrats with this Wendy Davis onesie. Union made in the USA.Ē
You can also choose a size for the appropriate age from 3-6 month year-old, 6-12 months, 12-18 months and 18-24 months.
Wendy Davis was propelled into the national spotlight by filibustering for 11 hours against a bill restricting abortion access.
Now let's not forget that Wendy and her merry band of Moloch-worshipers are all about making sure that a lot of Texas children don't make it out of the womb in order to wear this or any other onesie -- and that Davis herself eventually confessed to aborting a child. I wonder if those things have anything to do with the lack of "newborn" as one of the sizing options?
On one level, this is a victory.
Mayor Annise Parker on Friday followed through on her pledge to narrow the scope of subpoenas sent to local pastors who led opposition to the city's equal rights ordinance earlier this year.
Though the subpoena's new wording removes any mention of "sermons" ó a reference that created a firestorm among Christian conservative groups and politicians, including Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused Parker of trying "to silence the church" ó the mayor acknowledged the new subpoenas do not explicitly preclude sermons from being produced.
"We don't need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners," Parker said. "We don't want their sermons, we want the instructions on the petition process. That's always what we wanted and, again, they knew that's what we wanted because that's the subject of the lawsuit."
Opponents took advantage of the broad original language, Parker said, to deliberately misinterpret the city's intent and spur what City Attorney David Feldman called a "media circus."
Letís look at that, shall we?
When Mayor Parker declares that those non-parties to the case who received subpoenas that demanded "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession," how exactly were they to know that all you wanted was instructions on the petition process? After all, these non-parties were ordered to produce so much more than that. Under this subpoena, a sermon on one of the many biblical passages condemning homosexuality was required. Indeed, a PowerPoint presentation to a teen group on sexual morality that was approved by the pastor would also be subject to compulsory discovery. So, too, would be a speech delivered by the pastor in his personal capacity that endorsed or opposed the mayorís reelection. There were other provisions of the subpoena requiring the production of emails, letters, and other communications on these same topics, meaning that pastoral communication with a member of the congregation might also be subject to disclosure. Frankly, the least offensive part of these overly broad subpoenas was the compulsory production of sermon texts and recordings, given that those are often downloadable from the churchís website.
Even now, the subpoenas are overly broad by the mayorís own admission.
Though the subpoenas still cover speeches or presentations related to HERO, Parker stressed the filing was "not about HERO, it's about the petitions."
Sorry, Mayor Parker, but if it is only about the petitions, then you donít need to gather materials that discuss the ordinance itself. That you are doing so indicates your intention to open churches and pastors up to harassment over their opposition to the ordinance Ė and that is simply intolerable. If you donít go back and narrow the subpoena further, then it is clear that the original subpoena was not in error and your actions now are simply an effort at damage control after having been caught. And unfortunately, you are still lying to the people of Houston -- and the rest of the United States -- about what this has all been about.
On the other hand, you've managed to take a referendum that I thought would hurt Republican chances this fall if it appeared on the ballot and turn it into a GOTV tool that will bring conservatives and Republicans to the polls in droves.
In the crucial weeks leading up to the midterm elections, the broadcast networks were obsessed with scandals, but not any of the Obama administration controversies that might influence how voters behave on Election Day. No, despite revelations in the Benghazi, IRS, Veterans Administration and Secret Service prostitution scandals it was the NFL domestic abuse scandals that captured the attention of the Big Three (ABC, NBC, CBS) networks.
Since September 4 (the start of the NFL regular season) through October 15 the networks, on their evening and morning shows, devoted a total of 171 (NBC 71, CBS 55, ABC 45) stories or briefs to five NFL players (Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Jonathan Dwyer, Ray McDonald, Greg Hardy) embroiled in domestic abuse cases. Number of stories on Obama scandals over that same time period? Just three. And while no one would dispute the seriousness of the charges underlying the NFL cases, the question has to be asked doesnít the state of the body politic deserve at least the same amount of coverage as the state of the NFL?
Letís be honest Ė while there is no defense for the activities of these five players, theirs are the sort of offenses that are police blotter fodder for ordinary citizens. On the other hand, the high crimes and misdemeanors (and incompetence) of Barack Obama and his subordinates should be the lead story on every newscast. Unfortunately, our national priorities are a mess and so the media focuses on misbehaving jocks rather than misbehaving public officials. America deserves better Ė and Americans should demand better Ė for the good of the Republic.
All summed up in one neat little package (which is not a reference to the ďpackageĒ that the victim of these protests lacks despite claiming to be a man).
A student who was born female felt perfectly comfortable identifying as a man at Wellesley College ó until people said he shouldnít be class diversity officer because he is now a white male.
Timothy Boatwright was born a girl, and checked off the ďfemaleĒ box when applying to the Massachusetts all-womenís school, according to an article in the New York Times. But when he got there, he introduced himself as a ďmasculine-of-center genderqueerĒ person named ďTimothyĒ (the name he picked for himself) and asked them to use male pronouns when referring to him.
And, by all accounts, Boatwright felt welcome on campus ó until the day he announced that he wanted to run for the schoolís office of multicultural affairs coordinator, whose job is to promote a ďculture of diversityĒ on campus.
But some students thought that allowing Boatwright to have the position would just perpetuate patriarchy. They were so opposed, in fact, that when the other three candidates (all women of color) dropped out, they started an anonymous Facebook campaign encouraging people not to vote at all to keep him from winning the position.
ďI thought heíd do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there,Ē the student behind the so-called ďCampaign to AbstainĒ said.
When it comes right down to it, the contemporary Left uses terms that may at one time truly been part of a movement to end racism and sexism to justify engaging in racially and sexually discriminatory conduct.
A couple of years back, a black politician in Louisiana made a video explaining why he left the Democrat Party and became a Republican. I really knew nothing about him, but by coincidence had a colleague at school who was from Louisiana and who had the same last name and so asked if they were family. It turned out that they are cousins and my colleague had plenty to say about him Ė and by the time we were done talking I had become an admirer of Elbert Guillory.
I canít even begin to excerpt this article from National Review in a way that does it justice Ė but I will share this with you:
Guilloryís personal investment in the [Opelousas] area derives from his belief that his story is the story of his family and his town emerging from the Civil War and gradually overcoming the racism and segregation of the 20th century. ďI am the gumbo of Louisiana,Ē he says, referring to his African, Cherokee, and French heritage. And he takes pride in how his family helped shape Opelousas. His grandfather helped found two churches, including the Black Academy at Mt. Olive Baptist Church. Later, his father started a small school where black men in town could learn a trade.
Guillory still lives on the property that his grandparents purchased from their former masters after the Civil War ó next door to the Big House, where the descendants of those former slave owners also live. ďWe still serve this family,Ē Guillory says. ďWe do their law stuff, now, we donít do their horses.Ē
This isnít just a story about politics. It is a story about good people who are committed to improving their community and their country, and who isnít afraid to step on some toes along the way. Frankly, I think we could use a few more Elbert Guillorys in both parties.
By my count, the Obama administration has secured 526 months of prison time for national security leakers, versus only 24 months total jail time for everyone else since the American Revolution. It's important and telling to note that the bulk of that time is the 35 years in Fort Leavenworth handed down to Chelsea Manning.
Then again, since this is the Obama Administration it is likely that the reason for such harsh punishments is that the leakers are all racists Ė and anyone who objects to these sentences is probably racist, too, and deserves some jail time for their hateful utterances against their unicorn-riding Lord and Savior.
And as an aside Ė Hube is getting married tomorrow. Hereís all my best wishes to him and his lovely bride, along with my observation that he is clearly getting the better end of the deal. May God grant the happy couple many years of joy together.
Oh, thatís right Ė black on white violence is normal and acceptable. White on black violence is unusual and so must be highlighted in order to keep the racial grievance fires burning.
A black Baltimore bus driver organized a mob of 20 black people to assault a white family of three on her bus, which they did with gusto and pepper spray. All the while, the other black passengers hooted and hollered in encouragement.
All while the bus driver waited for the beating to finish so the attackers could get back on the bus. With her thanks.
The bus company didnít give a darn. And it took Baltimore police two months before they even investigated it.
If you want to reread that another ten times, go ahead. Iíll wait.
More details from WBAL TV that somehow escaped the attention of the Baltimore Sun. (Which means either this happens all the time and is not newsworthy. Or the paper has an embargo on news about large scale black mob violence. Or both.)
Not only did the driver encourage the violence, she actually called for the mob of thugs that did the assault. Whereís Jesse Jackson? Whereís Al Sharpton? Whereís all the ratings-driven news-harpies from the cable shows doing highly concerned, highly inflammatory reports?
Oh, thatís right Ė this sort of incident doesnít matter because they donít fit the politically correct narrative needed to keep certain demographic sub-groups voting Democrat.
Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP support for tax breaks that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.
The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.
Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.
Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.
In other words, the GOP is the party of the hard working American middle class. Democrats are the party of the rich and of those the rich need to keep poor in order to win elections.
Here in Texas, millions of mail-in ballots are in the hands of Texas voters Ė often for no reason other than the age of the voter. On Monday, early voting starts. Before November 4, millions of Texans will have cast their ballot Ė and in some counties, the total number of votes cast in the days and weeks before the election will approach the number cast on that day. Thatís a trend nationwide.
Midterm elections are less than three weeks away, yet more than 904,000 Americans already have cast their ballots, with almost 60 percent of those early votes in Florida, according to data compiled by The Associated Press from election officials in 11 states. Those numbers are climbing daily as more states begin their advance voting periods and more voters return mail-in ballots ahead of Nov. 4. Early voting doesnít predict electoral outcomes, but both major parties emphasized the opportunity in recentelections as they try to lock in core supporters. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia allow some form of advance voting other than traditional absentee voting requiring an excuse.
Now I understand the desire to lock those votes in early, but doing so creates a problem. Things can change in the weeks prior to an election. Crises can occur that test the mettle of an officeholder. Candidates can die or become engulfed in scandal. And these things can change peopleís view of a candidate Ė consider the 2000 presidential election in which the revelation of a long-hidden drunk driving conviction shifted enough votes Al Goreís way to create the electoral fiasco that engulfed the country for weeks thereafter. But the number of votes already cast by early voters secured the election for George W. Bush Ė despite the fact that many of those voters might have voted differently if they had the same information as their fellow citizens who voted on Election Day. A partially informed segment of the electorate determined the outcome of the election. And that happens year after year.
Am I against absentee ballots? Not at all Ė those who are ill, travelling, or on military deployment need to be afforded the opportunity to vote. But for the average American, early voting is a convenience that allows them to opt out of fully participating in the electoral process with their fellow citizens. Is it truly of such great benefit to the body politic that it should continue at the expense of diluting the practice of communal voting on one Election Day?
After all, if the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means anything, it obviously means that a government official has no place declaring in his official capacity what is or is not the theologically correct interpretation of a faithís religious texts or teachings.
Secretary of State John Kerry said ISIS is ďdead wrongĒ in its justification of slavery that appeared in the latest issue of its English-language magazine.
The Dabiq issue describes how Yazidi women and children were ďdivided according to the Sharīíah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operationsĒ and analyzes how ďone of the signs of the Hour is the increased conquests and bringing in of slaves from the lands of kufr.Ē
ďOne should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffār and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharīíah that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Quríān and the narrations of the Prophet (sallallāhu Ďalayhi wa sallam), and thereby apostatizing from Islam,Ē the article states.
ďFinally, a number of contemporary scholars have mentioned that the desertion of slavery had led to an increase in fāhishah (adultery, fornication, etc.), because the sharíī alternative to marriage is not available, so a man who cannot afford marriage to a free woman finds himself surrounded by temptation towards sin. In addition, many Muslim families who have hired maids to work at their homes, face the fitnah of prohibited khalwah (seclusion) and resultant zinā occurring between the man and the maid, whereas if she were his concubine, this relationship would be legal.Ē
Kerryís statement late this evening said ďno one needed a reminder of ISILís depravity and evil, but now we have the latest example.Ē
ďISIL now proudly takes credit for the abduction, enslavement, rape, forced marriage, and sale of several thousand Yezidi and other minority women and girlsósome as young as 12 years old. Just as despicably, ISIL rationalizes its abhorrent treatment of these women and girls by claiming it is somehow sanctioned by religion. Wrong. Dead wrong,Ē he said.
ďISIL does not represent Islam and Islam does not condone or honor such depravity. In fact, these actions are a reminder that ISIL is an enemy of Islam.
Letís set aside for a moment the question of whether or not Islam condones slavery, especially considering that Islamic tradition has always allowed for slavery and the practice has continued in the Islamic world up to and including the past decade. That really isnít my point. Instead letís focus on the fact that we have a US Secretary of State declaring that, as a matter of government policy, Islam does not condone slavery. Since when does the US government get to decide what is the correct doctrine in any faith or declare that some sect within a larger religious faith group is wrong in its teachings? Should we allow such declarations, given that they could well lead to declarations that opposition to certain government programs or policies is contrary to the Gospel and therefore not consistent with the teachings of the Christian faith Ė even if those who hold to the positions opposed to those promoted by the government have centuries of Christian theology on their side. Frankly, that is dangerous, un-American, and unconstitutional.
Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis appeared on MSNBC Tuesday, refusing to apologize for a recent ad that snidely referred to her opponentís disability.
But Davis went further than that, choosing a rather unfortunate metaphor in response to host Andrea Mitchellís questions about the criticism over the ad.
ď[Greg Abbott] received millions of dollars in a settlement, and since then, in his entire public service career, he has been working to kick that ladder down and deny that same opportunity for justice to other people,Ē Davis said.
ďKick down the ladderĒ? Really Wendy? You didnít see anything wrong with that turn of phrase?
Indeed, the tactics the desperate Democrat is using in this race cannot even be reasonably described as ďgutterĒ Ė they are below the gutter.
But then again, consider how Davis made it in life Ė her deadbeat dad set her up with a wealthy donor to his theater group in return for a donation, and she made the most of that relationship by having him pay her way through college and law school before dumping him and leaving her kids behind. Sheís since sold her votes on the Fort Worth City Council and in the Texas State Senate in the same way, making money for both herself and her clients. Her ethical standards just don't rise much above gutter level to begin with.
HARVARD LAW PROFESSORS go after Harvardís new sex Kangaroo Courts.
Sex kangaroos? Is nothing sacred?
And then I realized it wasn't what I thought.
Of course, I noted this several years ago.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a motion in a Texas court to stop an attempt by the city of Houston to subpoena sermons and other communications belonging to several area pastors in a lawsuit in which the pastors are not even involved.
City officials are upset over a voter lawsuit filed after the city council rejected valid petitions to repeal a law that allows members of the opposite sex into each otherís restrooms. ADF attorneys say the city is illegitimately demanding that the pastors, who are not party to the lawsuit, turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city.
ďCity council members are supposed to be public servants, not ĎBig Brotherí overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,Ē said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. ďIn this case, they have embarked upon a witch-hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.Ē
ďThe cityís subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,Ē said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. ďThe city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions. Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment.Ē
Now consider this for just a moment. It isnít just the writings and speeches of those who are parties to the lawsuit that have been subpoenaed. The city is going after the papers and sermons of pastors who are not part of the suit but who may have expressed an opinion on the wisdom and propriety of the proposed city ordinance the mayor and her policies, or even about homosexuality generally. Apparently Mayor Parker wants to silence the Christian opposition Ė but she would no doubt be outraged if there were an attempt to subpoena all writings and speeches of every prominent gay man or lesbian woman in the city regarding the ordinance without regard to their involvement in the lawsuit. That amounts to liberal fascists using the jackboot of big government to oppress the citizenry.
Of particular note is that the lawsuit in question is in regards to the standard used by the city to determine the validity of signatures on petition pages and the unprecedented intervention of the city attorney to throw out signatures after they had been determined to be valid by the city secretary. What the contents of a sermon or a letter by someone not a party to the suit and uninvolved in the certification decision would have to do with the subject of the lawsuit is mystifying Ė unless it is merely an effort to intimidate Christians who believe that they have the right to take their place in the public square like other citizens. Apparently Houstonís lesbian mayor considers it an essential right that one be allowed to let oneís freak flag fly, even on private property and against the will of the proprietor of a business Ė but to the preaching of the Gospel and its relevance to contemporary issues is something that must be suppressed at all costs.
Iíll be honest Ė I donít agree with my districtís hard line on social media which threatens disciplinary action for anything it finds inappropriate on the internet. To listen to some district administrators, becoming employed in education requires us to surrender all First Amendment rights Ė something the Supreme Court has stated is not true in any number of cases, including Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
And if we donít shed those rights at school, we clearly have them off school grounds and on our own time.
But if we make statements in connection with our employment that do cause a problem, I agree that something can and should be done. Which is why Iím glad that a neighboring school district has taken action over something one of its coaches put on Facebook.
A history teacher who is also the head coach of the freshman football team at Goose Creek Memorial High School in Baytown is on paid leave because of a Facebook rant administrators say he posted.
The post was made by Scott Griffin and it bragged about Memorial beating its rival Lee High School 40-6 on Oct. 6. It used profanity and said, 'youíre the worst team in town.'
Parents contacted Local 2, outraged by what they read and said it was bad sportsmanship, especially coming from a coach.
Parents also showed Local 2 a drawing that appeared on the white board in the schoolís field house. It showed some Patriots, which is Memorialís mascot, shooting and killing Ganders, which is Leeís mascot. It's unclear who put the drawing there but parents said it's taking the rivalry too far.
The board was full of threatening words and even said, ďDig up the Ganders that are already dead and kill them again.Ē Parents feel itís taking the rivalry too far.
The problem, of course, is that he publicly disparaged the students of another school in his district in a publicly available Facebook post connected to an account that identifies his employer and his position as a coach. Whatís more, his words were quite clearly intended to be coming from him in his position as a coach after he allowed his team to run up the score against the other school. The words on the white board might be over the top ďfire Ďem upĒ motivational stuff before the game that might be justified on such grounds Ė the mocking of the kids on the opposing team after the game clearly was not.
Frankly, I donít know that this is the sort of person who should be in a coaching position. That said, Iíve heard that this individual is a pretty good teacher in the classroom. Iím hoping that his district relieves him of his coaching duties Ė but that they donít remove him from the classroom. Good teachers with a passion for their subject are hard to find.
For example, instead of studying Ebola, the National Institutes of Health were studying the propensity of lesbians to be fat.
Then there was the money for a study on wives who calm down quickly.
And the Centers for Disease Control spent its budget on gun violence studies on order of the President as part of his agenda to curtail the second amendment.
The CDC also spent its money to survey what bus riders thought of HIV videos.
Hey, and letís not forget all the money the CDC spent to convince people to stop smoking and now we need tobacco to manufacture the drug to fight Ebola. Classic.
Maybe if they had done the important research on Ebola instead of on these peripheral health issues, the budget cuts would not have mattered.
Life, work, and a bout with allergies have left me not in a blogging mood. Therefore I give you a little something to make you smile.
When you are utterly unqualified for the office you seek, have no accomplishments other than blathering away while wearing pink tennis shoes, hold political positions that are rejected by most voters, and are congenitally unable to put forth a coherent case for your election, of course you have to go negative in every campaign ad. But Texas Democrat Wendy Davis has reached a new low in her floundering campaign for governor -- she has attacked Greg Abbott, her Republican opponent, because he was paralyzed in an accident as a young man.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis is using Republican opponent Greg Abbottís disability against him in a new TV ad, accusing the attorney general of repeatedly siding against victims like himself.
The Abbott campaign was swift to condemn the 30-second spot, which opens with a reference to the 1984 accident that left him partially paralyzed.
ďA tree fell on Greg Abbott,Ē a narrator says over an image of an empty wheelchair. ĒHe sued and got millions. Since then, heís spent his career working against other victims.Ē
Let's be clear about the three cases the Davis ad highlights -- and how she misrepresents Abbott's position in each of them.
As for Abbott's own award nearly two decades before the passage of tort reform by Texas voters, the money he receives are actual damages for his injuries and the cost of his healthcare, NOT punitive damages. Such an award would still be permitted under Texas tort reform laws.
Abbott has responded with a level of dignity and decencyy that Davis has refused to show during her doomed campaign against him.
The 30-second ad, which the Davis campaign said Friday would start running across the state, drew a swift rebuke from Abbott's campaign, which called it "disgusting" and "desperate."
"It's offensive ... It shows the tenor of the campaign," Abbott said during an exclusive interview with the San Antonio Express- News. "If you look at my ads, I focused on what I'm going to be doing as governor, and my opponent spends all her time in ads attacking me, as I'm attacking the challenges that fellow Texans deal with."
Abbott, the state attorney general, lost the use of his legs after his spine was crushed when a tree fell on him while jogging in 1984.
"It's her choice if she wants to attack a guy in a wheelchair. I don't think it's going to sell too well," Abbott added.
It isn't unexpected that Davis acolytes are celebrating this ad as "The Greg Abbott ad weíve been waiting for." After all, the scum who are working for Battleground Texas have been mocking Abbott's disability since early in the campaign and local left-wing bloggers here in Houston who have been backing Davis have had a great time yukking it up over the accident for over a year. Remember -- these are guys who consider any criticism of Obama from the right to be racist and any criticism of Davis from Republicans to be sexist -- but fail to recognize that their own attacks on Abbott over his disability are fundamentally bigoted -- just like this ad.
Now let's consider how Davis has campaigned. Her campaign ads have almost all been negative attacks on Abbott because she has little in the way of accomplishment in her own time in office to qualify her to be governor, has a record of unethical activity to enrich herself and her donors via her votes on city council and in the state senate, has lied about her biography in an attempt to deceive the voters of Texas, and has positions on the issues that are out of step with most Texans. Indeed, the only thing more fake than the claims in a Wendy Davis campaign ad are her hair color and her breast implants.
The nice thing is that Davis is being attacked from all sides over this ad. Of course conservative sites like Hot Air, National Review Online and Weasel Zippers attack Davis over this one, But they aren't alone. Libertarian blogger Doug Mataconis, who finds the ad despicable, notes that even those from the Left are troubled.
The ad is obviously being condemned on the right, but the Davis campaign is also being criticized from the left by people who are otherwise inclined to support the campaign. Mother Joneís Ben Dreyfuss, for example, calls the ad ďoffensive and nasty,Ē and says that it shouldnít exist. Additionally, as Aaron Blake notes, this kind of ad is the kind of desperation move that one sees from a campaign that is losing and losing badly. In Davisís case, she has trailed Abbott by double digits in polling for months now, and the RealClearPolitics Average currently gives Abbott an 11.3 point average in the race. In other words, Davis is going to lose this race. Itís too bad she couldnít lose with dignity.
I've got some things I would like to say about Davis in light of this ad, things that I've refrained from saying because I don't want to lower myself to the level of Davis and her supporters. Instead I'll just settle for putting up this graphic from January.
I think that says all that needs to be said about Davis and the degree to which she deserves to be taken seriously by anyone. Now come on, fellow Texans -- go out and vote for Greg Abbott.
UPDATE: Noah over at Texpate -- a Davis supporter -- clearly explains what is wrong with the ad.
In 1984, when Abbott was 26 and studying for the bar exam, a tree fell on him in a freak accident. He was running around his neighborhood following a storm. The accident left him permanently paralyzed from the waist down; it also prompted him to sue both the homeowner and the landscaping company responsible for maintaining the structural integrity of the tree in question. He won about $10 Million off of that lawsuit. Later, Abbott heralded tort reform that capped punitive damages in lawsuits and brought about big changes that made suits harder for victims. Longtime readers of my opinions will be familiar with my skepticism of so-called tort reform, but thatís not really at issue here.
Accordingly, this narrative, that Abbott rightly received justice after he was wronged but then pulled up the ladder behind him to prevent others from doing the same, is somewhat compelling. It is edgy but it makes a valid point. Considering how Abbott has used his wheelchair to benefit himself in his ads, it appears it is fair game to bring it up in a respectful manner on a relevant point.
All that being said, the ad does not talk about tort reform. Instead, the 30-second spot ó filled with ominous narration and music ó broadly connects the accident/lawsuit with some of Abbottís actions in the past, none of which related to tort reform.
Please note -- Noah thinks that there is a legitimate point to be made about Abbott receiving the settlement and his position on tort reform. I disagree, given that Abbott's settlement is entirely for economic damages rather than non-economic and punitive damages. But I at least respect his position because he gives the matter a reasoned intellectual approach rather than the "mock the cripple" approach taken by Davis and so many of her supporters. I give him props for that.
In the wake of his once again being permitted to address a college graduation, one conservative site raised the question of whether or not President Obama would pardon cop-killing scum-bag Mumia Abu-Jamal.
I mention ďCVĒ and ďObama administrationĒ in the same sentence for a reason. As I read it, Abu-Jamalís commencement address is the latest entry in a rťsumť he has been compiling with one purpose in mind: to convince a president one day to grant him a pardon. Recall that Abu-Jumal was initially sentenced to death but managed, after intense lobbying, to get his sentence commuted to life in prison without parole. Only a presidential pardon can get him out. Obama is his last and only chance.
Furthermore, Obama could use the Abu-Jumal pardon as a sort of one-upmanship should Hillary Clinton be elected in 2016. Recall that on his last day in office, Bill Clinton pardoned indicted businessman Marc Rich, who reportedly had donated more than $1 million to the Democratic Party, including $100,000 to Hillary Clintonís Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton Library. Obama would be able to argue moral superiority: he was being charitable where Clinton had been venal. Abu-Jumal, arguably rehabilitated as a published author of world renown, would make valuable contributions to society as a free man Ė unlike the (alleged) crook Clinton pardoned. The Clintons would squirm at the unflattering comparison but would have to lump it. Score one for Obama.
The revenge factor would come into play if a Republican is elected president in 2016. Obamaís deep animosity toward the GOP, bordering on hatred, is well-known. The president has blamed Republicans for his many failures, at home and abroad, so often that it has become a broken record and something of a joke. The Abu-Jumal pardon would be one last act of defiance and contempt for the GOP by President ďPen-and-Phone.Ē Besides, Obama wouldnít need to worry about the judgment of history if he went through with it. The army of sycophants clamoring to compose glowing narratives of his presidency would cover for him with a portrayal of the pardon as Ė you guessed it Ė an act of Christian charity by a forgiving president. Score one more for Obama.
The answer is simple -- no, Obama will not make such a pardon. He lacks the constitutional power to grant a pardon for a state offense -- which is something that this lawless president's Department of Justice explicitly acknowledges.
2. Federal convictions only
Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those adjudicated in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President's pardon power extends to convictions adjudicated in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense. Accordingly, if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit this petition. Instead, you should contact the Governor or other appropriate authorities of the state where you reside or where the conviction occurred (such as the state board of pardons and paroles) to determine whether any relief is available to you under state law. If you have a federal conviction, information about the conviction may be obtained from the clerk of the federal court where you were convicted.
Until and unless a Pennsylvania governor issues a pardon, Mumia will stay exactly where he is -- behind bars for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
In Travis County, it is a crime for the governor to exercise his constitutional power to veto an appropriation. It apparently is not a crime for the special prosecutor handling that case to over-bill the taxpayers for his time.
Travis County Attorney David Escamilla has decided thereís not enough evidence to pursue a criminal complaint alleging the special prosecutor handling the indictment against Gov. Rick Perry is over-charging taxpayers for his services.
Houston attorney David Rushing last month filed the complaint against prosecutor Michael McCrum, accusing him of billing the county more than three times whatís allowed. McCrum initially made $300 an hour, a rate he volunteered to reduce by $50 after recruiting a co-counsel last month.
So remember Ė in Travis County, it isnít a crime when Democrats do it no matter what the law says.
A New York Times reporter recently observed that President Obama appears to hate the press. In recent days there have been reports of reporters being ordered not to talk to attendees at an event at which Michelle Obama spoke, and of the exclusion of a reporter from a Mary Burke campaign event in Wisconsin because her staff objected to the conservative publication in question. But those pale in comparison to what happened to online journalist Jason Mattera when he asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a couple of questions his bodyguard deemed insufficiently deferential.
One of Harry Reidís bodyguards accosted a conservative journalist for asking a few basic questions about the Senate Majority Leaderís wealth.
Jason Mattera, author of the explosive new book CRAPITALISM: Liberals Who Make Millions Swiping Your Tax Dollars, recently caught up with Reid and asked him, ďHow did you become so rich working in government?Ē The senator refused to answer.
Mattera, who publishes Daily Surge, followed up. ďHow does someone on a government salary most of their career accumulate your type of wealth?Ē Still, there was no answer from Reid.
Suddenly, one of the Majority Leaderís bodyguards intervened. ďAre you press?Ē he asked, before shoving Mattera and then pinning him against a wall.
ďWhat are you doing holding me up like that?Ē Mattera asked the bodyguard.
After the author identified himself as a member of the press, the bodyguard retorted, ďI donít care if youíre press or not.Ē The man refused to give Mattera his name
Remember Ė Jefferson considered a free press to be essential to the preservation of liberty. That the Democrats are so incredibly hostile to press freedom should tell every American something.
H/T Hot Air