text:
Two interesting takeaways from this piece. First, Shaw and Volokh both make an important point. Courts seem to be saying that banning high capacity magazines will do little to stop horrific shootings. Well, then what's the point. And Shaw's argument about the slippery slope is valid. If a ban on ammo capacity is constitutional, at what number of rounds does it become unconstitutional. 9? 7? 4? 1?
The anti-gun crowd knows this is a pointless ban. That's why you should fear it. They're not going to stop here.
Rush Limbaugh on his show this week made the case that the MSM, in its neverending quest for a Republican presidential candidate to moderate to win, was overstating Chris Christie's performance at CPAC. I respectfully disagree. Christie was that good and he really did wow conservatives. And the reception he got from them was really that overwhelming.
And no, he's not dead in the water. Some of the national talk show hosts, perhaps most notably Sean Hannity, are zeroing in on Scott Walker as someone they want to encourage into running in 2016, if not openly support him at this point. Nobody on the national talk scene is a Christie fan. The warm response he received is important because when "Bridge Gate" hit, conservatives weren't interested in defending him. Christie showed at CPAC that when he says the right things, he can still wow them.
Rush Limbaugh and others may choose to be in denial about this but moderate Chris Christie (and he is a moderate) shook them up at CPAC. Unless a smoking gun emerges that he knew in advance and was part of the planning of Bridge Gate, he's not going anywhere.
An 18-year-old New Jersey girl is making news this week for suing her parents.
Rachel Canning says her parents threw her out of the house two days before her 18th birthday last November. They haven't paid her tuition at a private Catholic high school since December 31st. Canning sued for $650 weekly child support, plus legal fees and future college tuition.
Canning's parents say their daughter chose to move out. They claim she was disrespectful to members of the family, wouldn't follow her curfew and refused to do assigned household chores. Her parents say they want Rachel to come home, but follow the rules.
A judge denied Canning's request on Tuesday for financial support and legal fees. However, he promised to revisit the issue of college tuition in a few months.
The girl's sense of entitlement is pretty staggering. She is disrespectful and disobedient, yet thinks her parents owe her more.
However, I have been most disgusted with the family helping Canning in her lawsuit.
Canning has been staying with a girlfriend and her family since moving out. The friend's father, John Inglesino, is an attorney and is paying for Canning's lawsuit against her parents.
Inglesino said he and his wife fear Canning will lose opportunities for college and a happy future without the financial support from her parents. Inglesino expressed concern that Canning's parents had not called or visited a single time in the four months she's been staying with them.
Canning's lawyer said the parents also had "not sent a penny to her or to her benefactors".
Wow, that takes a lot of nerve. You decide to take in someone else's spoiled 18-year-old daughter and expect her parents to help foot the bill? Forget that noise.
I cannot imagine putting myself between an 18-year-old girl and her family by offering to pay the costs of her lawsuit.
It would have been far more productive if Inglesino had gotten Rachel and her parents together in a neutral setting to try and reach an agreement. No lawsuit among families has ever brought people closer together. Lawsuits tend to have a very chilling effect on relationships, especially among family and friends.
If Inglesino and his wife are worried that Canning will lose opportunities, why don't they just step up and pay the freight? Let them pick up the cost of Rachel's college tuition. Let them support her for the next four years. Let them pay for her food and clothing.
In my view, the Inglesinos are total hypocrites. I hope they don't see Dollar One in repayment for the lawsuit.
I never expected my parents to pay for college for me. I took it upon myself to get college loans. I also joined the South Dakota National Guard to help defray educational and living expenses. My parents certainly offered help and support along the way as they could, but I'm the one who made it happen.
Its an absolute crime to tell Canning that she will lose opportunity if her parents don't support her.
If that's the case, let's just make her a government dependent right now. Because she'll never learn to make opportunities happen for herself as long as she's taking that kind of misguided advice.
Greg Belfrage (@belfrageshow) is heard 6am-9am on KELO 1320 AM and 107.9 FM in Sioux Falls, SD. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Soviet premier, er Russian President Putin asks for, and gets, from Parliament, permission to use the country's military in Ukraine. As the Hot Air piece points out, there are already 6,000 Russian troops in Ukraine. And then to claim the action is necessary because the Ukraine government is trying to retake the Interior Ministry building that is being held by Russian forces.
How long will the Obama administration to wish all of this away?
Spike Lee wants to know what's up with all the white folks moving into a black neighborhood . Actually, if you read the Time piece, you'll learn Lee is a racist who sounds like an idiot trying to defend his racist position. Read the piece, listen to the Anderson Cooper snippet and just try to tell me that if the racial roles weren't revised that Lee wouldn't be Klansman.
by Rick Manning
The Obama Administration has engaged in an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment which is accelerating as he expands the reach of government using regulatory powers well beyond their legal limitations.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland, one of our nation's foundational legal decisions, that the power to tax is necessarily the power to destroy. Rather than being warded off by this admonition, Obama's IRS is in the process of formalizing regulations that would eliminate the tax exempt status of social welfare groups that engage in political discussion. The net effect is to give the government the power to tax political speech, and destroy this basic right.
The Federal Communications Commission, not to be outdone, proposed to put "researchers" into newsrooms and editorial offices of media outlets with an agenda of using their coercive power over the broadcasting licenses of radio and television stations to push them toward covering certain content in a way pleasing to the government.
Although the study is now being "reviewed" after a firestorm of protest, there can be no doubt when its alternative is presented, as it will be, with this Administration's obsession with Rush Limbaugh, and their proven willingness to use government against their political opponents, stations broadcasting Rush may be first in line for special "researcher" attention.
On the business front, the Securities Exchange Commission, yes the SEC (not the scandal ridden college football conference) is engaged in rulemaking that would require publicly traded corporations to disclose donations to social welfare groups in an attempt to stop them from protecting their corporate interests against an avaricious government that has a constant knife to their throats.
The Labor Department and the National Labor Relations Board are seeking to tilt the scales toward Big Labor by forcing union elections as quickly as ten days after a union calls for them, and effectively denying a company advice on what can be legally said to their employees and how they can say it.
In Wisconsin, conservative supporters of Governor Scott Walker have had theirhomes raided by a local prosecutor who doubles as an ardent opponent of Walker's in a blatant legal attack on these citizens ability to participate in the political process. The simple fact that this Gestapo-like tactic can occur in a state that was the cradle of the original progressive movement which opened politics to public participation is particularly chilling.
The aforementioned FCC is also actively seeking to control content that Internet Service Providers allow to filter through to Internet users through benign sounding net neutrality rules. This extension of government power over Internet content, no matter the stated purpose, necessitates monitoring and bureaucratic judgment over whether ISP providers are complying — effectively giving government veto authority over this democratizing speech vehicle.
We know that Obama's Department of Justice has wiretapped AP reporters phones in an attempt to break constitutionally protected source confidentiality, and FoxNews reporter James Rosen is being prosecuted by this Administration for reporting national security news.
And Obama's Department of Homeland Security conducted an early morning raid of the home of a Washington Times reporter over alleged firearm violations. During the raid, they happened to confiscate the reports notes related to an investigative report dealing with malfeasance at the TSA. These notes included the names of her internal agency whistleblowers ending not only the reporting, but also most likely the careers of the whistleblowers involved.
Shocked by this list? It doesn't even include the NSA domestic spying or hate crimes legislation that put religious leaders in jeopardy for preaching Biblical truths, or congressional efforts to license who should be considered a journalist.
What is really shocking is that every news outlet in the nation isn't screaming at the top of their lungs decrying these varied, real and destructive attacks on the First Amendment. The fourth estate which has vigorously defended the speech rights of pornographers, flag burners and "artists" who the government paid to place a crucifix in urine are strangely missing in action when it comes to Obama's dismantling of the First Amendment.
Perhaps this lack of outrage is the most alarming part of this story, as it reveals either acquiescence to the disintegration of the First Amendment by those who have traditionally fought so hard to defend it, or an even more sinister desire to quiet those with whom they politically disagree.
Their motivation for silence is up for interpretation, but the relative silence itself is disquieting.
Rick Manning is vice president of public policy and communications for Americans for Limited Government. Republished with permission.
Do moviegoers prefer films with strong conservative and patriotic values?
The Christian movie reviewers at Movieguide.org say they do. The group just completed the annual survey they've been doing since 2003.
Movieguide says conservative values don't just play well in America, but overseas, as well.
Movies with conservative values and content made almost four times as much money as movies with liberal, leftist, or statist values and content, averaging $90.68 million per movie in 2013 versus only $23.94 million per movie for movies with liberal or leftist content and values.
The more conservative movies included "Iron Man 3," "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," "Man of Steel," "Turbo," "Monsters University," "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug," G.I. Joe: Retaliation," "Hating Breitbart," "42," "Lone Survivor," "Olympus Has Fallen," "Silver Circle," "Captain Phillips," "Parkland," "Somm," "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2," "Black Nativity," "The Christmas Candle," "Fast & Furious 6," "Despicable Me 2," "King's Faith," and "The Tower."
The more liberal and leftist movies included "The Wolverine," "White House Down," "Lee Daniels' The Butler," "The Wolf of Wall Street," "Inequality for All," "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom," "The Lone Ranger," "The Purge," "Spring Breakers," "August: Osage County," "Philomena," "The Fifth Estate," "After Tiller," "Kill Your Darlings," "Movie 43," "Blue Is the Warmest Color," "The Attack," "The Counselor," and "Elysium."
"Movies with more conservative values not only do better in the United States," said Dr. Ted Baehr, founder of Movieguide®, who presented highlights from Movieguide®'s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry at the 22nd Annual Faith & Values Awards Gala Feb. 7 at the Universal Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles. "They also do better overseas."
For example, 60% of the Top 10 Movies Overseas in 2013 had strong conservative values, but none of them had any strong liberal, leftist, or politically correct content or values.
Family movie reviews are available on the group's website: movieguide.org
Greg Belfrage (@belfrageshow) is heard 6am-9am on KELO 1320 AM and 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Regular listeners to my show know that I'm a fan of the Netflix original series "House of Cards." Based on a British series of the same name, it follows an unscrupulous (and rare for American TV, Democratic bad guy) Congressman Frank Underwood. Denied the cabinet position he was promised, the series chronicles Frank's effort to avenge that double cross. And his tactics include murder. It appears the shows producers are channeling Frank in dealing with the state of Maryland.
If the state doesn't grow the tax credits the producers have been getting, they'll come somewhere else. Yes, that sounds like Frank Underwood. But here's the real buried lead; liberal Hollywood producers understand the impact taxes have on commerce.
In essence, the producers want lower taxes and are willing to leave if they don't get them. When a manufacturer considers such a thing, liberals consider it shameful. Now, if the numbers are right, I think Maryland has gotten a pretty good ROI on the tax credits. But it's hysterical to see an industry run by liberals act very differently when the end of tax breaks impact them.
Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, the UAW is asking the National Labor Relations Board to investigate the Union's failed attempt to organize at a Chattanooga Volkswagen Plant. Their arguments that the comments of Corker and others tainted the vote is laughable. Management in Tennessee was actually in favor of the UAW and as such they had the run of the plant in advance of the vote whereas the opposition did not.
The UAW's problem is workers didn't buy the argument that the union was willing to work within the confines of German style "work councils," a collaborative effort between union and management to make the company more successful. Workers at the plant saw through that charade and believed the UAW would establish the same adversarial relationship with VW that it had with every other automaker where it was able to organize.
It's no secret the NLRB is basically a pro-union operation these days. But even at that, one hopes this ridiculous challenge wouldn't get very far.
It hasn't been a good month for Democrats in Washington.
Democrats are falling over themselves trying to refute recent reports from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Earlier this month, CBO said Obamacare would cost the equivalent of 2.5 million workers over the next decade.
However, Democrats insist that doesn't necessarily translate into a loss of jobs. It simply means that some workers may choose to leave the work force, they said.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to spin this to mean that Obamacare is creating entrepreneurs. He actually suggested people were leaving their jobs to find more opportunity as enterpreneurs.
I guess that's why the number of people on food stamps is skyrocketing.
The Congresssional Budget Office dealt another blow to Democrats this week. CBO said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost the U.S. economy 500,000 jobs.
Democrats are fiercely denying the claim.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the report "contradicts the consensus among hundreds of America's top economists, who predict that a wage hike would actually stimulate the economy, raise demand and job growth, and provide help in job creation."
This administration and its lackeys have unleashed one destructive policy after another on the country. The economy is still faltering, employers are still uncertain and CBO is now predicting the country will soon be hemmorraging hundreds of thousands more jobs.
CBO is standing by their report. And they should. They're right.
You cannot raise wages arbitararily as if business owners have limitless amounts of cash to spend. An increase in wages means businesses have less to pay other employees. They must either cut staff, reduce quality or raise prices.
Change comes with consequences. A forced increase in the minimum wage will cost jobs, just as many other policies of this administration have done.
Greg Belfrage (@belfrageshow) is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO 1320 AM and 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com.
Editorial cartoon by Wilham Warren for Americans for Limited Government. Published with permission.
It's hard to argue with Noah Rothman's thesis: imagine if the media was doing its job today as it did during Watergate. And there's nothing to ferret out here! Unlike Woodward and Bernstein, today's reporters have the lawlessness right in front of them and say and do nothing. And yes, these are impeachable offenses, in my non-professional opinion.
And that's where I part a bit, with Rothman. Yes, Republicans hands are tied as far as beginning impeachment proceedings. They don't hold the Senate, where a trial would take place, so acting on Articles of Impeachment in the House would be an exercise in futility.
But they can and should move beyond calling these actions lawless and calling them impeachable offenses. They can then point out that the media is now and Democrats in the Senate would protect the president if he was impeached. I feel that's what republicans should be saying right now.
I mostly agree with this piece. If you think a law is immoral or unjust, I agree with disobeying it. However, my caveat it you must be prepared to suffer the consequences. The alternative is a lawless society. As the author points out, anybody who disobeyed the Jim Crow laws of the South or orders to enforce them should be remembered as a hero. But unjust and immoral as those laws were, they were the law of the land and those who ignored them did so at their own peril. And suffering those consequences were part of what brought about change.
I think there is a difference between the draft dodger who was willing to go to prison and one who went to Canada. I defend neither, but one who is willing to suffer the consequences of their action is, to me, different from one who ran from them. And the examples offered in the piece are excellent as well. But understand that when you disobey a law because you feel it's a bad law, you need to be willing to take what comes with that.
"There is no Republican Party. I wish there were."
That's what vice-president Joe Biden told the House Democratic retreat today in Maryland.
"I wish there was one person you could sit across the table from and make a deal," Biden said.
I'm sure he does! You can thank heaven that conservatives are keeping Democrats from completely steamrolling over the many Republican moderates who usually seem bent on surrender.
Biden continued, "Look at the response of the State of the Union... what were there, three or four?"
He's right. The Republican Party is fractured and rifts appear to be growing worse. As a result, Republicans have been largely ineffective and marginalized.
Biden then said something you're not likely to hear from the Republican leadership. He encouraged Democrats to remain loyal to the party platform.
"Let's go out and make every single effort not just to defend, but to aggressively push our agenda," Biden said.
This is a key difference between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. Its where Democrats have Republicans beat stone cold. Unity.
Unity isn't going to be easy to achieve for Republicans. But its imperative for them unless they hope to be forever in the minority.
Greg Belfrage (@belfrageshow) is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM and 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com.
Mike Rowe voices a Walmart ad touting their recent commitment to reinvesting in American jobs. Simply outstanding:
Of course, as Hot Air points, out, no mention of the carnage of Communism, or the oppression. And no mention of the embarrassing infrastructure failures around Sochi for these games, or the security concerns. Absolute. Sellout.
This is interesting stuff. Jeopardy contestant Arthur Chu has given the venerable game show a shake by employing game theory in his play . I have to confess game theory has always been pretty heady stuff to me and I don't pretend to fully understand it. But essentially Chu is making decisions and taking risks that you usually don't see on Jeopardy.
Chu doesn't go down an entire category, he goes hunting for the Daily Doubles. I understand the risk and reward theory there and it's working for him. I'm still not understanding why the numbers say it makes sense to play for the tie though. In any event, it's interesting how someone with a new technique in any competitive event tends to create such a buzz.
It'll be interesting to see whether Chu becomes the "Fosbury Flop" of Jeopardy, revolutionizing the way its played.
Broadway Joe says he's had "brain-related issues from playing football. And on the face of it, he's right; the human body isn't designed to play football; that's what makes the game so remarkable to watch. Men who can throw a ball 50-60 yards downfield and hit a receiver right in the hands is an amazing feat to which we've become accustomed. So are fantastic catches we now rip receivers for not making. Most importantly, administering and absorbing blows equivalent to a slow speed auto crash is what humans were not designed to do.
But the argument for me is whether players were deceived as to the dangers of playing football. I think those dangers are pretty obvious. And as this piece points out, 85% of NFL players said they would choose to play in the Super Bowl if they had a concussion. Doesn't that belie the whole point of the lawsuit?
Apparently the liberal interpretations of some of Pope Francis' writing and statements have led the left to believe he's a full blown liberal first and a Catholic second. That any Pope would put any ideology before his faith is an insane thought, but we are talking about the American Left here. A Notre Dame professor argues that the Pope should reconsider his position on abortion. A particular twisted line of thought occurs when Professor Gary Gutting compares being forced to act as a dialysis machine for another human is the same as carrying a baby. In their mind a pregnancy is something always thrusted on a woman; she had no say in the matter. Given that moronic argument, it's probably not surprising that a professor at what is perhaps the most famous Catholic college in America believes the Pope could moderate his position on abortion.
Let me start by saying I'm not a Mike Huckabee fan. I had him on my show during the 2008 campaign and grilled him. I think he continues to try to shape his public persona to a form he considers most popular at any given moment. That said, I think Kathleen Parker is very hard on Huckabee here. For the most part I think Huckabee accurately characterized the liberal belief system that is "The War on Women." Her issue is him suggesting that liberals obsess with women's libidos. She argues neither side really does. I disagree.
Liberals believe abortion and contraception are the two most important issues to women in America in 2014. So yes, they are obsessed with the sexuality of American women and they believe its the issue that drives women to the polls and determines how they vote when they get there. I'm not sure why Parker is so uncomfortable with "libido." Perhaps she would have been more comfortable if he had just said sexuality. Either way, he's right.
That's the spin Gateway Pundit puts on this, and that certainly is correct. But there is more here than that. Cuomo's use of "anti-gay" is a caricature. You can oppose gay marriage without being "anti-gay." You can oppose the "hate crimes" philosophy without being "anti-gay." You can believe a photographer or a cake maker can, for religious purposes, not serve a gay wedding without being "anti-gay."
And if that isn't bad enough, he smears pro-lifers with this caricature.
The conservative website Hot Air this week featured two stories where the elderly used firearms to defend themselves, in their homes. And maybe two stories isn't a trend, but Jazz Shaw is certainly correct when he points out how vulnerable the elderly living in rural areas are. If you think response police response time in a medium-sized city is too slow to save you, imagine what it is for folks living in the sticks.
And the problem is compounded by the belief system that rural residents don't have to worry about home invasion robberies; that is a completely false notion. If someone is in their 70's or 80's and have never held a gun, the concept of protecting his or herself with a firearm might be to foreign to them to consider it now. But if it isn't, they should seriously consider making that move.
Aereo is a web-based service that provides local TV signals to customers at a very low cost. TV networks have argued that Aereo is violating copyright by re-transmitting their product without consent. Lower courts have sided with Aereo. It'll now go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Were Aereo to prevail with SCOTUS, it will dramatically change the broadcast industry.
An Aereo win would call into question the law that currently requires local TV stations to negotiate re-transmission rights with cable TV and satellite companies. It might also mean television networks would no longer see the need for affiliate terrestial television stations.
Rocking in Ohio, traveled around the state between September and December of last year, using games and demonstrations to inform children of how oil and natural gas pipelines. Environmentalists were outraged that children were learn about fossil fuels. Disney ultimately buckled to the pressure and pulled out. The Chairman of the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club felt this was exposing children to pro-fossil fuel propaganda.
First, if he's worried about children being exposed to propaganda he should visit a public schools sometime. Two, the world still runs on fossil fuels. Should it be controversial to teach kids that?
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates will soon be publishing his memoir. Excerpts were released this week by the Washington Post.
Gates is strongly critical of President Obama in the book. He blames the president for pulling the rug out from under him on defense spending. Gates also says Obama didn't tell him about the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" until the day before he announced it.
President Obama also failed to take ownership of the war in Afghanistan. Gates writes, "(Obama) "doesn't believe in his own strategy, and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him, it's all about getting out."
Gates says President Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton both admitted to him that they had opposed the Iraqi surge based purely on politics.
Surprised by any of these revelations? I'm certainly not.
Read more: Former U.S. Defense Secretary Gates criticizes Obama in memoir
Gates says he never doubted that President Obama supported our men and women serving in the military. However, he writes that Obama clearly distrusted his own military leaders and advisors.
"(George W.) Bush seemed to enjoy the company of the senior military; I think Obama considered time spent with generals and admirals an obligation," Gates writes.
Gates seems to save his harshest criticism for Vice-President Joe Biden. "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."
None of these revelations surprise me. Gates is only validating things that many political observers already believed to be true of Obama and his administration.
Frankly, I am a bit troubled by these kinds of political tell-all books. There's something unsettling about writing these kinds of scathing comments after you've left service.
It doesn't appear Gates was very vocal about sharing his objections and concerns with President Obama. The Post said Gates acknowledges in his book that he did not confront Obama over the White House's tight control over all aspects of national security policy.
If that's the case, it seems cowardly for Gates to raise his concerns now.
Gates' timing is also troublesome, since he waited until after the president's re-election to share his observations.
"Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War" will hit book stores next week.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
It would be fair to say this bid was doomed from the start. She is citing family health concerns as the reason for departing the race, but clearly this bid was the longest of long shots. If she thought the Cheney name was going to garner establishment support, she was wrong. In fact, what it brought was establishment scorn and a rally of support to the incumbent.
With two polls showing her trailing Enzi by wide margins, this departure isn't surprising, whatever the reason.
This is a big deal for Concealed Carry advocates. First, this is a major reversal. Second, Detroit's the type of city where lefties have long argued that more guns automatically means more problems. Craig's opinion on that changed after living in a state where residents could carry firearms to defend themselves.
What will likely come next is the kookification of Chief Craig. Other law enforcement administrators who have advocated concealed carry have been marginalized as kooks or hacks. I think that'll be a stretch this time, given his change of position on this.
Truthfully, I'm not surprised there is a gun club for the left leaning. That it's in the San Francisco area, yeah, that's unexpected. But there are a lot of liberals who hold their guns and gun rights dear. Liberal lawmakers never seem to want to believe that, but it always bites them in the backside when they try to impose draconian gun laws on the electorate.
Colorado is a perfect example. Democratic lawmakers who pushed through strict gun laws after the Aurora theater shooting found that out via the recall. And it's not just hunting; a lot of liberals believe in the right to own guns for self protection.
I think the depiction of the NRA in this piece is a caricature. But that not withstanding, I applaud a group of lefties who gather to celebrate gun ownership.
Truthfully, I'm not surprised there is a gun club for the left leaning. That it's in the San Francisco area, yeah, that's unexpected. But there are a lot of liberals who hold their guns and gun rights dear. Liberal lawmakers never seem to want to believe that, but it always bites them in the backside when they try to impose draconian gun laws on the electorate.
Colorado is a perfect example. Democratic lawmakers who pushed through strict gun laws after the Aurora theater shooting found that out via the recall. And it's not just hunting; a lot of liberals believe in the right to own guns for self protection.
I think the depiction of the NRA in this piece is a caricature. But that not withstanding, I applaud a group of lefties who gather to celebrate gun ownership.
Things get very busy around the holidays, so its entirely possible you may have missed the total surrender of A&E Networks last week.
A&E has been embroiled in controversy since suspending Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. The network placed Robertson on "indefinite hiatus" for stating his bibical view on homosexuality during an interview with GQ Magazine.
The backlash from fans was swift and immediate. One Facbook page, Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back On Duck Dynasty, gathered 1.7 million followers in a matter of hours.
Ratings following Robertson's suspension took an immediate hit, dropping 13 percent overall and 22 percent in the key 25-54 demographic.
The resulting pressure was enough to cause A&E Networks to fold. The network released the following statement last Friday:
As a global media content company, A+E Networks' core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people's home and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principles.
That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson. While Phil's comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the 'coarse language' he used and the mis-interpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would 'never incite or encourage hate.' We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.
But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family…a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.
So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.
We will also use this moment to launch a national public service campaign promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty. These PSAs will air across our entire portfolio.
I nearly laughed out loud at the hypocrisy of the network's response. A&E preaches sexual tolerance to the masses while the network practices the worst kind of religous intolerance.
A&E is still trying to position itself as a strong supporter of homosexuality. However, they threw homosexual advocacy groups under the bus as soon as the future of Duck Dynasty was threatened.
When push came to shove, A&E showed which god they most idolize...Money.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
An extremely effective ad from Americans for Prosperity in targeting democrats in swing districts. The understated tone of this spot is perfect.
This element has been missing from most of the discussion surrounding the Phil Robertson "Duck Dynasty" controversy; the fact that A&E likely knew what his belief systems were but had no problem employing him as long as they made millions. According to the LA Times, we now know this is true. If the network warned Robertson not to speak out, that means they knew of his belief system. So they had no problem profiting from Robertson as long as his beliefs were kept from the public eye.
It's only when Robertson spoke up that A&E acted. What complete and total hypocrisy. Imagine if we learned the Milwaukee Brewers knew outfielder Ryan Braun was using performing enhancing substances and then feigned outrage when the story broke. In fact, it's likely MLB suspected that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were both using during the 1997 home run battle that reignited interest in the sport. But they didn't care. Shortly after Commissioner Bud Selig decided it was time to "clean up baseball."
A&E can pretend to be as disappointed as they want in Robertson. What they're disappointed in is the fact their hypocrisy has been exposed.
A story that is much bigger than it may sound at first blush. The goal of this con game from the start, late last century, was to marginalize skeptics as "deniers." It's origin has been forgotten but the intent was to compare global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers. There hasn't been global warming, man caused or otherwise, for 15 years. The global warming crowd is growing increasingly frustrated with this reality and growing more desperate.
If they can't marginalize critics it appears they will silence them. Yes, it's Reddit. But others have either done or proposed the same thing. Global warming fascism is having a chilling effect on free speech.
I saw this all over Fox News on Friday, with the sound down and had no idea what it was. Part of me wishes I wouldn't have learned what "affluenza" is. Think about this; being a spoiled brat now makes you a victim. Just let that roll around. Because according to the judge hear, the "cure" for this isn't to face the consequences for your actions. Rather what's best is to let the souless creature instead get a cushy rehab center.
Young people whose parents let them get away with everything is hardly a new concept. What's new hear is considering such children victims! By this measure, spoiled rich kids should never be punished for acting like spoiled rich kids. instead they should be "treated." Does this make spoiling your kid child abuse?
ESPN found itself mired in controversy this week.
The sports network refused to air an ad for SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center during Saturday's NCAA Basketball game between Northern Iowa and Virginia Commonwealth University.
The reason? The ad was considered to be 'religious advocacy' because it mentioned "the birth of Jesus" and "God's healing". Cardinal Glennon was told those references would have to be removed in order for the commercial to air.
The Cardinal Glennon ad encourages viewers to send a "message of hope" to sick children at the hospital for Christmas.
Tree of Hope 2013: Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical CenterWord of ESPN's refusal spread quickly via conservative media outlets, most notably Breitbart News. Bill O'Reilly picked up the story Wednesday night as part of his annual coverage of the war on Christmas. The resulting criticism of ESPN was fierce. The network reversed its decision early Thursday morning, saying they would air the original commercial as requested.
Read more at ESPN.com: Information regarding ESPN's position on ad
There are those who will praise ESPN for reversing course. I'm not among them.
Doing the right thing under intense public pressure is hardly the same as doing the right thing of your own accord. I highly doubt the grinches at ESPN would have changed their minds if their decision had not been thrust into the national spotlight.
However, instead of getting angry at ESPN... I have decided to respond in a very different way.
I watched the ad for Cardinal Glennon and did as they asked. I visited GLENNON.ORG and wrote a message of hope for a sick child. When I was finished... I bowed my head and said a quiet prayer for them and their family.
I also offered a prayer for the hardened hearts over at ESPN.
You see, anger may have caused ESPN officials to change their minds. However, only Christ has the power to change their hearts.
Merry Christmas.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
No, really. We often don't agree with our friends at the ACLU, but it's hard not to like this piece.
Would you take a 'selfie' at a memorial service?
Probably not. My guess is that most of us would never dream of disrespecting the dead with such a trivial display during a time that should be filled with reverence. Especially if we knew the eyes of the world were upon us.
However, that didn't stop President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt from snapping a few selfies at Nelson Mandela's memorial service.
Photo credit: Daily Mail Facebook
The British media has skewered Cameron for his tactless display of self-indulgence. A Danish poll found that most in Denmark found the actions of their Prime Minister distasteful, although other reports suggest the Danes don't understand all the fuss.
Read more at Daily Mail: Mandela's final act of peace
The reaction from the White House was predictable. Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest blamed the media for the uproar. He said the media's focus on the selfie detracted from the importance of Nelson Mandela's legacy.
In reality, the three world leaders detracted from the event by focusing on themselves. And that's the point.
My distaste over the selfie has nothing to do with politics. It's a sad reminder that our culture has become completely narcissistic. We're constantly focusing on ourselves, even during moments when we should be focused on our honored dead.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
Well, I think his role at NASA requires him to be a rocket scientist. So now freedom from man-caused climate change is a constitutional right. A lawsuit to court order the mitigation of a phenomenon that stopped on its own 15 years ago! Do they not know we know that there has not been global warming in 15 years?
As this reality has made more people skeptical, the claims from the likes of Hansen have become more desperate. Here's there problem; the scary predictions of last century have not come to pass. But never mind that. We live in a "short attention span theater" type world. You can go ahead and issue more scary predictions. Except that isn't working. More and more people are realizing they've been had.
I give Hansen an "A" for chutzpah. He's sticking to the original script and not even trying to invoke the phony "pause" in global warming.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a primary architect of Obamacare, says you can keep your doctor... if you're willing to pay more.
Emanuel was a guest yesterday on Fox News Sunday. Host Chris Wallace grilled Emanuel over President Obama's promise that Americans could keep their doctor. Many Americans have lost both their current insurance and their doctor under the Affordable Care Act.
The exchange between Wallace and Emanuel is enlightening and exposes more of Obamacare's lies.
WALLACE: It's a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?
EMANUEL: Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain -- for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits.The issue isn't the selective networks. People keep saying, Oh, the problem is you're going to have a selective network--
WALLACE: Well, if you lose your doctor or lose your hospital--
EMANUEL: Let me just say something. People are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.
WALLACE: Which will mean your premiums will probably go up.
EMANUEL: They get that choice. That's a choice they always made.
WALLACE: Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words --
EMANUEL: No one guaranteed you that your premium wouldn't increase. Premiums have been going up.
WALLACE: The president guaranteed me I could keep my doctor.
EMANUEL: And if you want to, you can pay for it.
President Obama lied outright when he told Americans, "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." Millions of Americans have already lost their insurance coverage and millions more cancellations are expected.
Now we learn Obama was only telling half the story when he said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period."
It is amazing that so many Americans are willing to accept such blatant dishonesty from our leaders.
Republicans should keep up the heat on Obamacare. These lies and deceptions must not be allowed to stand.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
72 years later the date does indeed live in infamy. If you've never listened to FDR's war declaration speech, be sure to catch the whole thing.
For those who still think the Cruz strategy was a winner. Look, this is not an attempt to bash Ted Cruz. But those of us who felt the worst thing that could happen to Obamacare was for Americans to experience have been vindicated. Now, however, Republicans must follow through with a free market alternative.
Remember, it was just September when it looked like Democrats would ride a wave to victory in 2014. This can turn on a dime. Republicans need to seize the moment and develop a plan of their own.
This is a fairly interesting debate, but here's what strikes me; has anybody ever parlayed victimhood into a career the way Sandra Fluke has?
President Obama's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, has been among his harshest critics on Obamacare. In today's editorial they point out that the law's collateral damage isnot confined to the individual policy market. As is the case with Obamacare's other failings, the fact that employers may dump coverage and force employees to Obamacare's exchanges is hardly news, or at least shouldn't be.
But millions of employees breathing a sigh of relief that they get their coverage from their employers will be in for a rude awakening. It's important to remember that all of this was calculated and none of it was unexpected to the Affordable Care Act's architechts.
CBS News is streaming its coverage of the assassination of President Kennedy, all four days of it, to mark the 50th anniversary of that tragic moment in American History. I've watched a couple of hours total and have made some observations.
Much has been said and written over the years about the attempt to paint Kennedy's death as the result of right wing hate. I was stunned to see this addressed in the first day of coverage and equally stunned to see the way in which it was addressed. Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid somewhat angrily comment that it was far too early to jump to such a conclusion. Later, another anchor points out that "Fair Play for Cuba," a group to which Oswald belonged, sounded a lot more like a left wing group than a right wing group.
Some things haven't changed; an anchor refers to the suspect as "Lee Henry Oswald." Yes, mistakes during a breaking story happened 50 years ago.
Some things have changed; an anchor also refers to Federal Judge Sarah T. Hughes, who swore in Lyndon Johnson as President on Air Force One as "that lady federal judge." And when throwing the broadcast to other anchors, you often hear anchors say "Mr. Rather" or "Mr. Mudd" or "Mr. Cronkite."
Another thing that struck me was how quickly the coverage included the political ramifications of Kennedy's death on the 1964 presidential election. The pundit consensus was Kennedy's death increased Republican prospects. It looks like political predictions have always stunk too.
And finally, in this era of You Tube and cell phone cameras, it seems downright strange to see no video (film back then) of the shooting itself. That would have to wait until the Zapruder film was discovered. With citizen videographers today, there's little chance an event like this would be undocumented enough visually to have conspiracy theories that would last 50 years.
Note: an earlier edition of this post identified a specific anchor at two points. I believe that anchor was named incorrectly and am unsure of the anchor's name, so I have replaced the name with the generic "an anchor."
Senate Democrats essentially want to ban virtually all abortion regulations. I've argued that conservatives should focus on the 20 week plus abortion ban. Such bans are very strong in the polls right now, which make them good politics as well as good policy.
It's also fascinating that Democrats see this as winning strategy. Polls show a majority of Americans now identify as pro-life and as the Weekly Standard points out here, many of the measures they're going after are wildly popular. I can see wanting an Obamacare distraction, but this seems an odd choice.
"Those are your tire tracks on their cancelled policies." Great stuff. This also addresses how the lie was calculated to get Obamacare passed.
If you're not familiar with Leonard Pitts, allow me to introduce you. He is a very far left columnist for the Miami Herald. He's not the first liberal to concede that President Obama lied and he still manages to take a shot a Republicans. But this column is perhaps the most scathing indictment of Obama that I have seen from a loyal media sycophant, and Pitts is all of that. He's also somewhat delusional about the popularity of Obamacare and is either disingenuous or naive as to why the President lied about "you can keep it." And he also tacitly invokes the "all presidents do it" defense.
But even with those caveats, this piece is a radical departure for Pitts. There have been a few cracks in the Democratic wall in Congress, from those who have re-election to worry about next year, and even some who don't (Senator Dianne Feinstein). But the liberal media has been mostly reserved in its criticism, especially the liberal pundisphere. With his poll numbers plummeting and media friends beginning to abandon him, one can only wonder how many more Democrats will attempt to distance themselves from a badly wounded lame duck president.
You know things are bleak for President Obama when even Bill Clinton says Americans who like their current insurance should be able to keep it.
Clinton discussed the troubled federal healthcare rollout during an interview with www.ozy.com.
"So I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Clinton said.
Ouch. Watch more of the interview below.
Bill Clinton interview courtesy of www.ozy.com
The problem with Clinton's reaction is that people are losing their private insurance because that's exactly what Obamacare was designed to do.
The Affordable Healthcare Act is built on a single premise... subsidizing health care costs for the poor and sick by driving up premiums for the young and healthy. It's the same kind of wealth redistribution scheme we've seen from liberals time and again.
Obamacare is designed to drive people out of their private insurance and into the government exchange where they will be faced with higher premiums to subsidize the poor and uninsured.
President Obama lied when he said the average family would see a $2500 annual reduction in their premiums. It is simply impossible to reduce the cost of insurance when you're adding millions of uninsured to the risk pool, especially when young Americans would rather pay a fine than buy health insurance.
President Obama lied when he said Americans could keep their insurance, if they liked it. As I pointed out in a previous column, the president knew it was a lie even while he was saying it.
Obamacare simply cannot survive if Americans are allowed to keep their current private insurance.
And Bill Clinton knows it.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
Chuck Todd says yes,he really doesn't believe he lied with his "you can keep it" pledge. Here's the stunning part to me; Todd seems to be saying that President Obama believed they'd be able to keep that pledge. There is no way he believes that. That's why he had to lie. People being forced off those individual market health insurance policies is essential to the economics.
And if he thought people could keep the policies, why did he follow up the lie with another lie, claiming "we said you could keep it if it doesn't change." Nobody seems to have any video of that. What happen here seems pretty obvious to me; Obama knew this was a lie, of course. But he thought math played in his favor. "Only five percent" of policy holders are effected. Throw in family members on those plans and you're looking at 15 million people. And, he was so sure those 15 million would be so thankful for the new and improved coverage that they wouldn't complain about losing policies he said they could keep.
In other words, "I can lie about it because they won't care anyway; they'll love me for the new stuff they'll be getting." That's why he probably doesn't believe he was lying. In his mind, if nobody complained about it, it wasn't a lie. Guess, what; people are complaining.
This conversation starts with commentary on patriotic-themed football uniforms and ends with the Star Spangled Banner being called "a war anthem. " True, it was born in war and describes a battle. But the name "war anthem" suggests it's a battle cry or call to war. In that regard it falls short. It is, really, a freedom anthem; celebrating that the banner continued to fly over the land of the free; America was still the land of the free and the home of the brave because the flag was still there.
As for singing it at the start of sporting events; opposition to this has cut across ideological lines. Some consider it politicizing a sporting event, which I think is nonsense, unless you have political opposition to honoring your country. Some go the other way, and see it as cheapening the Anthem.
I have always seen it this way; in a few minutes, on the field of play, two opponents will meet and compete, fiercely. But before then, we all stand, honor our country and recognize that whether our team wins or loses, we're all Americans.
President Obama has finally been caught in an inescapable lie.
During the healthcare debate, Obama repeatedly promised Americans that they could keep their current insurance if they liked it.
However, during a speech last night to Organizing for Action, the president insisted he said no such thing.
"What we said was, you could keep it, if it hadn't changed since the law was passed," he said. "But if the insurance company changes it, then what we're saying is they've got to change it to a higher standard."
The president reminds me of the proverbial kid with cookie smeared all over his face and fingers, yet denies he was in the cookie jar.
There's plenty of video to document the president's lie. The most damning cut is the very first in the video below.
"We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period," said Obama in 2009. "If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."
That doesn't sound to me like he said "if the insurance company changes it, then you've got to change to a higher standard". In fact, there's no record of Obama making that statement until last night.
I remember another president who wagged his finger into the cameras and said, "I did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky". Right.
Its important to note that its not just critics of President Obama who believe he lied.
A Wall Street Journal report last weekend said when the president began making the promise in 2009, some White House aides took exception. They knew the statement was untrue, if not downright misleading.
A few in the mainstream media are even reporting that President Obama is lying. One example is today's piece by Ron Fournier, "Lying About Lies: Why Credibility Matters to Obama".
Fournier isn't a right wing blogger or member of the Tea Party. He's a former Associated Press reporter now writing for National Journal.
Fournier writes that the president is even lying about his lies.
But what else can you expect from a serial liar?
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
I'm old enough, barely, to remember Richard Nixon in office. That means I have recollections of eight U.S. Presidents in office. I don't think I could have ever imagined one of the old Big Three TV networks comparing the President of these United States to TV pitchmen . And I sure never could have imagined the story would be appropriate!
When ABC News compares the Leader of the Free World (sort of) to Wilford Brimley, is there any room left for downward movement? Does it get any lower for POTUS?
First, an irrelevant yet interesting, I think, question: did you ever think you'd see the GOP post an Al Jazeera video on its You Tube channel? Yes, times have changed. Getting past that tidbit, it's a great piece:
No small irony that the President would accuse his critics of being "grossly misleading." As a listener emailed me this week, what President Obama apparently meant is "if I like your plan, you can keep it." To suggest that being able to "shop around" is the same as keeping your plan is laughable on its face. And Mr. Obama explains, "because of the tax credits we're offering and, (continuing after a heckler is escorted out), and the competition between insurers, most people will be able to get better comprehensive coverage plans for the same price or even cheaper..." Most people, huh? And what about those who don't qualify for the subsidies that make it "cheaper" for others, what about them? "Grossly misleading, indeed."
Sean Hannity today made the case that she's dead woman walking. Politico makes the case that replacing her would be too problematic for team Obama to let her go. The Politico piece is probably right that Republicans would put Obamacare on trial with confirmation hearings for Sebelius' replacement.
I think the question is a green banana. If the ACA train wreck gets worse, it's hard to imagine President Obama not throwing someone overboard and the most obvious someone is Sebelius. He'll likely resist replacing her until the damage becomes so serious he feels he has no choice. But certainly the spectacle of Republicans grilling her would-be successor isn't something Obama will subject his administration to until he's convinced he's out of options. Even if they ultimately approve Obama's choice, Republicans will use the opportunity to lay bare what a disaster it is and sacking Sebelius would be proof that even Obama sees it that way.
If I had to guess, I'd guess she's staying. But that guess comes with not knowing how bad Obamageddon will get. And if Democrats start joining the chorus to fire her, fugget about it.
Via Weekly Standard. He forgot to say "order before Midnight tonight." I thought the whole idea of the website was to make it quick and easy. By the way he does say "call centers are up and running" and "you talk to real people." And he gave the 800 number.
And it appears fainting has returned to Obama events:
And for the
This piece by George Packer is downright bipolar. He concedes that Oswald was a Marxist. He then proceeds to argue that the climate of right-wing hate in Dallas provided the match that lit Oswald's fuse. It's not unfair to point out that Kennedy wasn't loved in Dallas, and yes, that's an understatement. But a legend has been growing over the years that somehow Oswald was driven by right-wing animosity toward President Kennedy.
Because somebody killed Kennedy in Dallas and because there was overt dislike of him by many in that city, somehow the city must get blamed. This nonsense has reached fever pitch as liberals like Packer try to draw a parallel to Dallas and JFK and the Tea Party and President Obama. Of course, the real reason for this fraud is the fact that Oswald was a leftist. Liberals want to wash away that stain by blaming Kennedy's death on the right. It's another reason the conspiracy theories survive half a century later (although I myself continue to be suspicious about Oswald having acted alone).
As the anniversary nears, this mantra will get more shrill, and it will likely be more often compared to the current political environment. The reality is there is no environment of hate in the Tea Party movement and more importantly, no such environment of hate was responsible for what happened 50 years ago.
Crisis has been averted! Last night Congress passed, and the president signed, a short term spending deal that will keep the government open through January. The government's borrowing authority has been extended through February.
That's right, kiddies! This government shutdown has been so much fun that we get to repeat the entire exercise in just a few short months!
Republicans held out until the 11th hour. What did they get from the deal? Almost nothing.
The deal has absolutely no provisions addressing unpopular parts of Obamacare, such as the medical device tax and the personal mandate. However, it will require income verification for those receiving subsidies under the Affordable Healthcare Act.
The bill also requires a bipartisan budget committee to outline a broader spending plan by mid-December.
Great, yet another committee of the 'Inside the Beltway' brain trust. Someone should call Irwin Allen, as I see another disaster in the making.
Conservatives are rightfully outraged. They've been sold out once again by Republican leadership and Senate Republicans.
One might rightly ask why Republicans opposed the Democrats in the first place. Why shut down the federal government and risk harming the country's credit rating if you have absolutely no intention of going to the mat? It makes absolutely no sense.
The Republicans in Congress remind me of our family dog, Sadie. All it takes is one harsh word from me for Sadie to drop to the floor, roll on to her back with paws in the air, and tuck her tail between her legs. We should have named her Senator McConnell.
Republicans come out of this deal...again...smelling like the skunk at a picnic. Just when you think they can't do any worse... Republicans manage to drive their approval and poll numbers down even further with barely a single thing to show for it.
Let's just hope Republicans don't repeat this embarrassing debacle again in a few months. There's absolutely no point in fighting without a change in GOP leadership.
Grassroots conservatives should set their sights on the mid-term elections. Its time to clean house by purging liberals from the party and replacing the existing leadership. No meaningful change will occur without it.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
So, will Tea Party Conservatives who hailed Cruz for his resilience now be disappointed that he won't fight one more time? He's voting no, but Senator Ron Johnson told me he expected to vote no. So, when it came to the zero hour, Cruz and Johnson behaved precisely the same way. So, hopelessly misguided conservatives who consider Johnson a traitor to the cause, how do the reconcile that when push comes to shove, he and Johnson are on the same page?
This conservative divide has been unhealthy for a couple of reasons. First, rock-ribbed conservatives such as Johnson have been unfairly characterized as RINO's. Cruz has been unfairly demonized by the Republican Establishment.
But more importantly, the roll out of Obamacare has been even more devastating than even the harshest critics (that includes me) imagined it would be. And it would have been a much bigger story if it hadn't been obscured by Republican infighting. As the can is kicked down the road, let's see what, if anything, conservatives have learned from this.
This is laugh-out-loud funny. The head of MSNBC wants to know how ratings for Megyn Kelly's new prime time show grew so much from its debut night Monday to Tuesday, walloping Rachel Maddow, that he wants the numbers investigated. I have a theory.
I know this seems hard to believe, but...It's very possible loyal Sean Hannity viewers had no clue of the Fox News lineup changes. And it's also possible they either are not familiar with Kelly or didn't get the concept of her having a show in prime time. I'll admit Tuesday was a heck of a spike, but she still settled in for the rest of the week comfortably ahead of Maddow.
And again, what we're talking about here is the 25-54 age cell, which is coveted by advertisers. Many wondered why Fox would tamper with what was a successful lineup. The answer is despite strong overall ratings their audience was creeping up out of that cell. Kelly was seen as a draw to the lower end of the 25-54 range, especially with men.
I suspected her show was going to be a good move by Fox. Still too early to say we know that already, but I think the odds are good that it will be proven successful. Here's the question liberal men don't want to answer; will they watch Megyn Kelly over Maddow?
This is a good interview by Stewart.
The war of words in Washington is escalating. The partial government shutdown is now entering its second week and shows no signs of ending soon.
Focus is now beginning to shift to the bigger fight over raising the country's borrowing authority.
Republicans want spending cuts. They're asking for reductions in spending on Social Security and Medicare. They also want a promise from Democrats to reform the tax code.
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been steadfast in their refusal to negotiate unless Republicans pass a clean continuing resolution and raise the debt ceiling.
A spokesperson for Obama said, "...the President is willing to negotiate with Republicans -- after the threat of government shutdown and default have been removed."
Senator Reid is also refusing to negotiate. "All we're asking is that government be reopened. Stop threatening a catastrophic default on the nation's bills," Reid said today.
In other words, "Give us what we want and then we'll talk." These guys are masters of the art of the empty promise.
Only an idiot would accept such a deal. It would be akin to a salesman saying he won't tell you the price of a car until after you've bought it. Good luck trying to negotiate the price after you've signed the contract.
Yet, that's exactly what the president expects from Republicans.
President Obama has racked up more than $6 trillion in additional debt since he took office. And we're supposed to believe that he plans to negotiate with Republicans to curb spending? I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Democrats are also resorting to the usual fear tactics in an effort to sway public opinion. The Treasury says the debt ceiling must be raised or it won't be able to pay all the nation's bills.
Don't believe it. Senator Tom Coburn told CBS This Morning that the claims of default simply aren't true.
"There is no such thing as a debt ceiling in this country because it's never been not increased, and that's why we're $17 trillion in debt and I would dispel the rumor that is going around that you hear on every newscast that we'll default. We won't. We'll continue to pay our interest and continue to redeem bonds and we'll issue new bonds to replace those. So it's not entirely accurate. What we need to do is have a discussion," Coburn said.
However, President Obama refuses to have a discussion. As usual, its his way or the highway.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
The House votes to give thousands of furloughed government workers back pay when the partial shutdown ends. Even though the Senate is expected to approve it and President Obama is expected to sign the measure, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uses it as a cudgel with which to bludgeon Republicans. Reid argues the vote shows Republicans don't want the shutdown to end. Well, if they approve this, doesn't that mean the same thing about them? I'm not sure why the workers should get this at all.
If a company shuts down temporarily, for whatever reason, how often to workers get back pay. Regardless of the circumstances, these workers will not have worked. By what logic should they get paid for work not done, even if it was due to circumstances beyond their control? Talk to employees of several media companies about being furloughed and what it means to them.
Reid's wrong; this vote doesn't mean Republicans want the shutdown to last. It means they don't want to be labeled as heartless Republicans whenever it does end. Republicans attempting to curry the favor of public employees could be the ultimate fool's errand.
Republicans have finally found a winning strategy in the ongoing showdown with Democrats over the government shutdown. Republicans have been passing bills to fund the Veteran's Administration, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies. Senate Democrats have criticized this "piecemeal" approach to funding government and refuse to vote on the bills.
The wheels started coming off when Senator Harry Reid was asked why Democrats won't approve funding for NIH, which includes medical trials for kids with cancer. Watch the question and Reid's reaction below...
"Why would we want to do that?" was Reid's cold-hearted response. Reid would rather play political games and shield Obamacare rather than fund cancer programs at NIH.
Senator Reid was right about one thing. The entire debate is indeed about Obamacare. That's what Republicans have been saying all along. They're willing to fully fund government with the single exception of Obamacare. But Democrats won't have it.
Reid has criticized Republicans for being "reckless and irresponsible". But what's reckless and irresponsible about refusing to fund a program that a majority of American's do not want and support?
Reid also asserts that Republicans have no right to pick and choose which functions of government they will fund. Of course they do! That's the very function of Congress. I think Reid lives on Bizarro World. Lawmakers are not required to fund programs they do not support. Its ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Republicans have finally found an effective way to illustrate who is truly responsible for the shutdown of the federal government. And despite what you're hearing from the mainstream media, it isn't the GOP.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
What makes this beautiful is he was inspired by an effort to create pro-Obamacare propaganda . It's all very, very good, but don't cheat yourself; be sure to listen for the very last shot. It's a gem.
I have been arguing for weeks that the only viable option for Republicans is to allow Obamacare to take effect and let it collapse. This would be painful for America, to say the least. But as Daniel Henninger argued in today's Wall Street Journal, killing the law doesn't kill the idea. Ultimately liberals will continue to push for it. Henninger (and I) argue that allowing it to happen, as damaging as it will be, will cure America of entitlement programs forever. This prompted a listener to email today with a very interesting prediction:
I'm going to say I was firmly on the defund bandwagon but I'm starting to drift over to Henninger's and your point of view. However, I'd like to make a prediction that Obamacare will not go into effect on 10/1. I believe Obama will make an executive order to show that publicly, yes, he's willing to actually work with Republicans and delay the individual mandate until1/1/15. However, the only true reason is he knows Obamacare is such a train wreck that he's going to eliminate the one position Republicans can run on to maintain the House and possibly win the Senate. Obama wins on both fronts. The media fawns even more over how great our dear leader is and Republicans have lose their main issue to run on.
I don't know if this is going to happen, but it's a heckuva prediction. We'll see.
House Republicans are pushing for an annual five percent reduction in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
If you listen to the mainstream media, you may think the sky is falling.
Deep Cuts in Food Stamp Program Could Impact Millions (PBS Newshour)
House Republicans Pass Deep Cuts in Food Stamps (New York Times)
Hating on Food Stamps (New York Times blog)
How the GOP food-stamp bill adds to state bureacracy (Washington Post blog)
Free to Be Hungry (New York Times blog)
Since when does a five percent reduction translate into "deep cuts"? The histrionics of the Left and their allies in the mainstream media are transparent and laughable.
If Democrats and the media elites truly care for the poor... why do they consistently advocate for socialist big government programs that destroy jobs, increase unemployment and keep the economy faltering? The Democrats crying the loudest are the ones most responsible for the country's abysmal job numbers.
Everyone knows SNAP is riddled with fraud and waste. We've seen the news stories and witnessed it ourselves in grocery and convenience stores. A five percent reduction will force more efficient use of the remaining $76 Billion that the government will spend on food stamps.
The battle over food stamps illustrates a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats want to provide for the minority through massive federal government programs that rely on the forced redistribution of wealth.
Republicans want the federal government out of the way so that more jobs will be created and citizens can prosper and care for themselves.
It's really just that simple.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
This is actually from earlier this month. I missed it back then and a listener sent it to me over the weekend. What's important to note here is that these service people are facing repercussions not for acting out against gays in any way, but simply holding a belief.
And this is where the comparison between the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's and the Gay Rights Movement falls flat. Blacks were discriminated against, deprived of opportunities, because of their skin color. You can believe homosexuality is a sin without discriminating against or mistreating gays. If Monk told Starnes something that is false, that's another matter. But regardless, the allegation that opposition to gay marriage at Lackland is one that needs to be addressed.
No, I'm not without sin when it comes to having to retract a story. But I'm going to cast a stone anyway. Newtown, Boston and now the D.C. Navy Yard. In each case the media went into hyperventilated "we have to be first" mode and made an egregious error. Each time they enter a period of self-loathing and say it won't happen next time. And then, it happens next time.
In this case, the falsely reported suspect had dropped their ID. I have a theory. The media still hasn't recognized that Twitter is really reporting when you identify your employer and report information. They think they understand that but there appears to be a psychological disconnect where they seem to believe "well, it's not like I reported it on TV." I am somewhat informed by experience on this. Until they learn this, there will always be a "next time."
President Obama meets with union leaders today in an effort to soften their criticism of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The AFL-CIO passed a resolution this week expressing their general support of Obamacare, but also fiercely condemning portions of the law. Union leaders say the costs of union-sponsored health plans have risen so quickly under Obamacare that workers and employers have been forced out of them.
Well, duh. That's exactly what conservatives and Republicans have been predicting since the beginning of the healthcare debate.
Lorretta Johnson of the American Federation of Teachers says many members have had their hours cut. Employers have kept them under the 30-hour week threshold they must work before ACA requires employers to provide health care coverage or pay a penalty.
Again, this is exactly the sort of thing many Republicans warned would happen if Obamacare was passed.
Unions were apparently counting on being shielded from the disastrous effects of the Affordable Care Act.
Today's meeting with President Obama is an indication the unions may get exactly what they want. There has been talk of union subsidies and exemptions from ACA. Such a deal would be an affront to everyone else who will be required to participate or face stiff fines.
Inexplicably, the AFL-CIO resolution also said that "the labor movement's ultimate health care goal is health care for everyone under a single-payer model".
If a single payer system in the AFL-CIO's ultimate goal...why all the fuss? Obamacare was designed to do exactly what its doing... drive employers out of health care so workers will be forced into a government insurance program.
If unions don't like the results, perhaps they should stop advocating for a single payer system and supporting the socialist Democrats who support it.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
In fact, Peggy Noonan accurately predicted in a blog yesterday what this speech would look and sound like. So her observation that the speech was pointless is an easy call. In fact Noonan does miss a key point here; the speech was entirely self-contradictory. He made (for him) an impassioned plea for action he would then announce isn't coming anytime soon. If you're not going to ask for authorization for military force anytime soon, why try to sell the American public on it now? Only to say we're instead going to take advantage of the diplomatic window that has been opened? Why?
His time would have been better spent trying to sell the American people on the notion that it's even remotely rational policy to trust Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad even a little bit. Or he could have trying to convince us that there's even a 1% reason to believe that in the end diplomacy will be used purely as a stall tactic by Assad. He was the salesman who made a pitch and then locked the product in a storage closet and then briefly flashes what he's really trying to sell.
It's likely President Obama feels inaction will be an easy sell to a war-weary nation. Probably. Until the time comes when we're still faced with Assad and his chemical weapons.
As I was preparing yesterday for this morning's radio show, I wasn't planning on spending much time discussing the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. As you know, Syria has been dominating the national conversation. I was fully prepared to spend most of this morning discussing President Obama's address to the nation last night.
However, something happened that changed my mind.
I read a story early this morning about a Wisconsin golf course offering a '$9.11' discount special. It deeply saddens me that any American would find this to be an appropriate way to commemorate the greatest terrorist attack in America's history. It's as if they are saying, "Hey, we know 3000 people died 12 years ago. Honor them with a great price on golf!"
Many are justifiably angry about the golf course promotion. However, I just find it to be incredibly callous and sad. It illustrates clearly how some have forgotten the events of 9/11.
Americans cannot and must not forget what happened that day. Too many civilians and soldiers gave their lives that day and in the years that followed. We have paid too high a price to ever forget.
In past years, I've braced myself against the onslaught of deep emotions evoked by memories of 9/11. As you can imagine, its difficult to host a radio show when you feel overwhelmed by sorrow and grief. I don't know why, but I didn't do that this year.
Perhaps, in the back of my mind, I thought I was over those feelings. However, as I played a brief montage this morning of news and audio clips from September 11, 2001...the sickening feelings of that day came rushing back with incredible force.
Despair. That's what I remember most from 9/11. A deep, sickening despair such as I have never known in my life.
Fear. On the faces of my wife, the faces of my young children. My own fear at what must surely lie ahead. War had been waged on our shores. Now we would have to take to the war to our enemies. I imagine Americans must have felt much the same on December 7, 1941 following the attack on Pearl Harbor. I looked at my 4-year old son and wept for the boys I knew were sure to lose their lives in the months ahead.
Violated. Someone had just broken into America's house and murdered thousands of civilians without notice. I felt a very personal sense of loss and violation.
End of Innocence. 9/11 was the day everything changed. I've never looked at the world in the same way since.
Those were the feelings of 9/11. However, there were many other feelings in the days and weeks that followed.
Anger. An overwhelming, powerful anger directed at those who would dare carry out such an atrocity.
Resolve. A commitment to confronting and defeating America's enemies, as well as any others who would threaten the safety and liberty of Americans.
Patriotism. I'm a veteran and have always had a very strong love of country. The events of 9/11 only deepened my love and appreciation for America the Beautiful. Flags were everywhere in the wake of the attacks.
Faith. My trust in God has never been stronger than it was in the weeks following 9/11. Churches saw record attendances.
Here we are...twelve years later. The churches are mostly empty. Many flags are gathering dust on shelves in the garage. America is more divided than ever. And golf courses are offering discount specials to commemorate a terrorist attack.
However, the tears are still spilling down my face. I view 9/11 much like the death of a loved one. You never get over it. You just learn to live with it.
And I won't forget. I'll never forget that dreadful day in September.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
I often use "Reader Supported News" articles as a way to present to my audience the flaws in the liberal argument on any given topic. This is different. This piece is from a liberal who is as suspicious of the Obama administration on Syria as he was the Bush administration on Iraq.I too, have wondered aloud why President Obama is so hawkish on Syria. Conventional wisdom has it that he recklessly drew his red line in the heat of a presidential campaign and realizing he put America's credibility on the line he knows he must honor his words of last year.
And all of that may be true. But Boardman makes an interesting case here; none of the major players in American government on this current crusade, Hagel, Kerry or President Obama have a track record of being champions against biological weapons. And Kerry and Hagel have been in the game a long time and have had the opportunity to establish their bona fides on this issue.
Liberals touted a litany of ulterior motives that President Bush allegedly had for wanting to go into Iraq. Michael Moore made a movie out of them. Boardman is the first liberal I've read that believes a democratic president is capable of lying the country into war. If Boardman is right and there is an ulterior motive, what is it?
It's hard to comprehend the war-mongering stance of the Obama administration when you consider the positions its key players took a decade ago when the war in question was one with Iraq.This 2004 Bush for President ad reminds of John Kerry, vintage 2004:
And Hot Air points out how different that sounds from Secretary of State Kerry.
Saddam used chemical weapons too, but that seemed irrelevant then. And use of these horrible weapons is nothing to dismiss lightly. But this "go it alone" attitude is exactly what Kerry railed against a decade ago. In fact, the Obama administration is far more on an island than was the Bush administration. And the key, unanswered question is: what is the objective of military action? What is the goal. How can you know you're on the right road if you don't know your destination?
President Obama's foreign policy was dealt a blow yesterday when the British parliament voted against military action in Syria.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, like Obama, had been threatening military reprisals against Syria's President Assad for his use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians. However, there was fierce opposition to military action in parliament.
"I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons," Cameron said. He has now ruled out any military action against Syria without parliamentary approval.
As a result, President Obama is acing the prospect of going it alone. There's little doubt that the president considers action necessary in order to save face. He all but threatened military strikes if Syria used chemical weapons. Its become necessary for Obama to act or he faces a serious loss of credibility with foreign nations.
However, there's another way out for the president.
Some members of Congress say President Obama should seek their approval before taking any military action against Syria. Some say an attack would be unconstitutional since there's no direct threat to national security. Others simply oppose the prospect of rushing into yet another conflict in the Middle East. But a growing number of members think the president should not act without their approval.
Since its likely that any vote to authorize military action against Syria would fail, President Obama would be well advised to follow their advice. It would let Obama off the hook in the eyes of the world community and allow him to avoid any appearance of weakness.
The president has clear authority to take military action without any input from Congress. However, those war powers were granted for emergencies, not to deal with rogue leaders and situations that have been brewing for many long months.
President Obama should follow the lead of Prime Minister Cameron. Let Congress and the American people debate and decide whether military action should be taken in Syria. If he doesn't, Obama will truly be going it alone.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM. Greg can be contacted at email@example.com. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
"Those," would be e-cigarettes. Gillespie's argue's that a move to ban e-cigs puts the lie to the entire anti-smoking movement. If it ever was mostly about public health it's now mostly about telling people how to live their lives. If there is no apparent health risk the user or those around him or her, why push for a ban? The answer would seem to be that it reminds them of cigarette smoking. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it reminds me of the idiotic zero tolerance on anything that reminds public schools of real guns.
And yes, this does save lives; it's safer to smoke e-cigs than actual cigarettes. But it's not about that anymore. It's about telling people what they can and can't do. Here's what I believe is the ulterior motive; smokers have been effectively turned into pariahs. The anti-smoking crowd can't tolerate something that looks like the thing they've all but banished. I suspect they fear that the re-normalizing of anything that looks like real smoking might re-normalize real cigarettes.
By this logic, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg shouldn't ban large sodas, he should ban the containers in which they're sold. After all, you don't want people getting used to seeing such large volumes of anything, even water! Liberals consider conservatives intrusive in their personal lives because of one issue; abortion. Yet they manage not to notice an entire raft of invasions into their lives by their own side.
There's been a barrage of media coverage this week following a rodeo at the Missouri State Fair.
If you missed it... although its hard to believe anyone in this country hasn't heard about it... a rodeo clown wearing an Obama mask and a broomstick up his pants has been criticized for disrespecting the president. The clown goofed around as an announcer asked if spectators wanted to see the president run down by a bull. The crowed cheered wildly.
Nearly all of the criticism has come from people who weren't there. There have been the usual cries of racism. Some compared the rodeo to a 'klan rally'. Others thought the rodeo went too far for threatening harm against the president. All were upset because the rodeo was disrespectful to the president.
Condemnation of the rodeo antics came swiftly from every quarter. The rodeo clown, Tuffy Gessling, has been banned for life from the Missouri State Fair. The president of the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association, the group hired to produce the rodeo, was forced to resign. The Missouri State Fair Commission is requiring sensitivity training for all officials and contractors that were involved in the incident.
Democrats are in shocked disbelief that anyone would publicly disrespect President Obama. Their partners in the mainstream media have obediently blown the incident completely out of proportion. The way the story has been told, you'd think someone actually fired a gun at the president.
Once again, it falls to me to do the media's job and put the matter in perspective for you.
This incident at the rodeo in Missouri was nothing more than red state Missourians expressing their dissatisfaction with an increasingly unpopular liberal president. These types of protests are nothing new to American politics.
George W. Bush was hung in effigy. In fact, presidents were routinely hung in effigy in the 18th and 19th centuries. George Washington was hung in effigy. Hanging in effigy has been a common form of political protest for hundreds of years. America's political leaders have been disrespected and mocked since the time of the colonists.
The irrational, hysterical over-reaction from Democrats and the leftist media has once again revealed their thin-skins. They are incapable of being mocked. They cannot tolerate dissent. If you dare to mock their leader, they paint you as a 'racist'. Their goal is to crush opposition and stifle criticism.
Political correctness has become the most powerful weapon in the liberal arsenal during Obama's presidency. Democrats yield the sword of political correctness eagerly and often. They do so because many people are afraid to be branded as 'racist'. Many would prefer to throw others, like a hapless rodeo clown, under the bus rather than be branded as racists.
Some listeners have told me that the president, the person as well as the office, deserves respect. I believe respect is earned. As a conservative Constitutionalist, I refuse to respect those who are trying to destroy individual liberty and undermine America's founding principles.
The incident at the Missouri State Fair was a spontaneous, non-violent political protest. We should celebrate the freedom we have to openly mock our leaders, not stifle it through self-serving indignation.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320/107.9.
I said previously the Preibus ultimatum to NBC and CNN was a bad idea, but I hadn't considered this . I thought it was a bad idea because it was pointless; even if the threat forced NBC and CNN to dump the projects, which it hasn't, they'd still be liberal hacks you couldn't trust in a debate. This brings up the inverse; just because the entertainment arm of News Corp. gets involved in a Hillary project doesn't mean the GOP can't trust Fox News.
Skip the the threats and choose venues that make sense.
San Diego Mayor Bob Filner is every feminist's worst nightmare. Scratch that; he is every WOMAN'S worst nightmare. Not only is he a pig, he tried to extort sex for favors. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is speaking in San Diego. Will she take time to repudiate Filner. Will her husband take back this 2012 endorsement?
Many observers (including me) believe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is considering a run for President in 2016. Every trip he takes to a key battleground state is gets the tea leaf readers all excited. His detractors back in his home state accuse him of being more worried about his future than Wisconsin's present. Well, Walker poured some fuel on the fire Friday when he said he wasn't involved with federal issues yet.
Walker's name remains pretty low on most polls right now, which means exactly nothing this early. If Walker is re-elected next year, we'll see what happens then. Especially if it's a blowout.
I don't know that we've ever seen a spectacle such as this one. As bizarre as it was that NYC voters appeared willing to overlook Wiener's raunchy tweets before last week, could they still now? Anthony Wiener seems to think so. It seems that all it takes to overcome any political scandal in 2013 is simply to have the chutzpah to stay in the race(having a wife with seemingly not a shred of self-respect seems to help too). Wiener telling the media that volunteers are still flocking to the campaign, trying to paint a positive face when his world is collapsing, reminds me of a classic movie scene:
Another juror in the George Zimmerman murder trial has gone public.
The Hispanic woman was identified as juror B29 during the trial. She felt Zimmerman was guilty, but says she couldn't convict him on the evidence.
Did you hear that? She wanted to convict Zimmerman, but said the evidence didn't support it. This woman should be applauded, as should the rest of the jury.
This is exactly how the American justice system is supposed to work. Jurors are supposed to weigh the evidence, not their feelings, when determining guilt or innocence of defendants.
This is a direct contradiction to what's been happening all over the country since Zimmerman's acquittal. There are far too many demanding an outcome based solely on their feelings.
One would think minorities would be the first to appreciate a justice system based on evidence instead of preconceptions of guilt and mob rule.
The juror said she feels as if she owes an apology to the parents of Trayvon Martin.
I understand her feelings, but they are misplaced. B29 fulfilled her duty as a juror in the finest tradition of the American justice system. She should hold her head up high.. mob be damned.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320/107.9.
The family George Zimmerman helped save from their SUV canceled a news conference because they're afraid to say anything nice about him.Think about that for a moment. A family who was helped by Zimmerman is afraid to praise him for it because they may be targeted for their words. At it's most basic level, that's terrorism. They are terrified to speak positively of Zimmerman for fear of reprisal. At the very least it's a protection racket.
It also shows the unsophisticated thinking of the haters of George Zimmerman, and by the way both the left and the right have been guilty of this at times. Zimmerman has been judged by half the country based on on moment in his life. Any evidence that Zimmerman is more than what that one moment makes him, this family fears, may be greeted with hatred and anger. Think about that.
The family George Zimmerman helped save from their SUV canceled a news conference because they're afraid to say anything nice about him.Think about that for a moment. A family who was helped by Zimmerman is afraid to praise him for it because they may be targeted for their words. At it's most basic level, that's terrorism. They are terrified to speak positively of Zimmerman for fear of reprisal. At the very least it's a protection racket.
It also shows the unsophisticated thinking of the haters of George Zimmerman, and by the way both the left and the right have been guilty of this at times. Zimmerman has been judged by half the country based on on moment in his life. Any evidence that Zimmerman is more than what that one moment makes him, this family fears, may be greeted with hatred and anger. Think about that.
Ah yes, it's all hysteria. The Times overlooks something here rather important, and I doubt it's an accident. Yes, news magazine cover subjects aren't chose on merit. They're chosen based on a news criteria/judgment. Rolling Stone's cover has often been a symbol of validation for music acts. It even inspired a song: "Cover of the Rolling Stone." When you made the cover of the "Stone" you had arrived. Rolling Stone can't pretend that isn't the case.
And more than a few people saw a resemblance to the photo chosen and an iconic shot of Jim Morrison. Yes, other publications used the same photo. No, it doesn't mean the same thing on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
It's been deeply troubling to watch the blind outrage over George Zimmerman's acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
Riots have been occurring for days. Now there's news of a white man in Wisconsin who was assaulted by three black teenagers. One of them reportedly shouted at the man, "This is for Trayvon Martin."
We've seen Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Trayvon's, explaining to CNN's Piers Morgan that Zimmerman didn't realize he wasn't being threatened. Trayvon was just giving Zimmerman a dose of "whoop ass".
The usual cast of race-baiters are also hard at work, trying to foment chaos and insurrection over the verdict for their own political or personal gain.
I've watched angry debate rage on social media for days. Those who have strong feelings about the verdict generally fall into two camps.
There are those who believe the prosecution didn't come close to meeting its burden of proving Zimmerman committed murder.
The rest are those who don't care about the evidence or what can be proven. They want a verdict that reflects what they believe happened on that terrible night.
Nowhere has the difference between the two camps been more clear than it was last night during "On the Record" with Greta Van Sustern. Van Sustern interviewed the family attorney for Trayvon Martin's family, Jasmine Rand.
Watch the five minute segment below. It's clear to see who is truly interested in law and justice and who desires to "engineer" outcomes to satisfy her own worldview.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320/107.9.
Absent federal blackmail over highway funds, I don't seen this attitude changing anytime soon. I've argued all along that the ultimate goal is .00, absolutely sobriety. In fact, I'd prefer absolute sobriety laws to .05; they would remove all doubt. At .05 driving even after a drink and certainly two, would be simply too risky. It is interesting that MADD and other groups aren't embracing this proposal.
Drunk driving is a serious societal problem in America; we should all be able to agree on that. What we can't seem to agree on are effective ways of fighting it without complete prohibition, and we know how that worked out. I continue to argue that the key is not going after the crowd that has a drink or two with dinner.
We need long prison terms for repeat offenders and much tougher penalties for those with very high alcohol levels in their blood when arrested for drunk driving(.20 should be a felony). I'm surprised and encouraged by some of the people and groups who think this is a bad idea.
As Peggy Noonan points out, it was 50 years ago this summer that the world was rocked by a British sex scandal. John Profumo, who was the British equivalent of our Secretary of Defense, was embroiled in an affair with a 19 year old woman who may or may not have been a prostitute. That would have been bad enough, but she was also involved with a Soviet spy. With a Cold War backdrop, this was no ordinary sex scandal. If Christine Keeler was pillow talking both ways, who knows what the Soviets got from Profumo?
But Noonan's point is how Profumo handled the fallout; he simply went away and buried himself in public service at the most basic level. He never would have considered attempting a political comeback. He knew what he had done was wrong. Does that mean he wasn't a decent man, because he had done something indecent? No. But he knew that it would define him publicly and that meant his public life was over. That was then, this is now. There is virtually nothing from which you can't come back. And it's not just Elliot Spitzer. It's Anthony Wiener. It's Mark Sanford (who proves this lack of shame cuts across political parties).
No, their transgressions don't mean they're bad people, just as Profumo's didn't mean he was a bad man (although Spitzer and Wiener certainly had those on their side who didn't much care for them before their respective scandals). You could argue this started with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The libs had no idea the door they were opening when they argued "his sex life doesn't matter." The Democratic establishment is apoplectic that Wiener could become Mayor of New York. They abandoned him. What do they do with him if he wins?
50 years ago political parties didn't even have to consider such a quandary; politicians had the decency to just fade away. Noonan points out that JFK had a keen interest in tracking the Profumo scandal. Any guesses why that may have been the case????
President Obama announced last week that the employer mandate in Obamacare will be delayed until January 2015. Under the mandate, certain employers must offer health insurance to their employees or face fines.
There's one big problem. The president has no legal authority to delay the mandate.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is among those critical of Obama. "The president doesn't have the authority to rewrite the law after Congress has passed it," Lee told Fox News' Greta Van Sustern. "The president has said he's not ready to implement the law. If he's not ready to implement it, we shouldn't fund it."
The Affordable Care Act clearly states that the employer mandate penalties take effect on January 1, 2014. There are no provisions in the law for the president or Treasury secretary to delay the fines.
This isn't the first time the president or his administration have exceeded their authority or broken the law in order to prop up Obamacare.
Michael F. Cannon at the Cato Institute has compiled a lengthy list of abuses by the administration. Among them...
Obamacare specifically forbids the administration from providing health insurance to members of Congress and their staffs through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. They have continued to do so in violation of federal law out of fear that Congress will reopen the statute.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius waived some mandates for select companies and unions that complained of rising insurance premiums. The law gives her no authority to issue the waivers.
Obamacare provides tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans on state-run insurance exchanges. However, many states have refused or failed to create the exchanges. The IRS announced it would extend these tax credits and subsidies to the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges even though they are legally prohibited from doing so.
And the list goes on.
And on.
Congress must not allow, and Americans should not accept, a president who consistently thumbs his nose at federal law, the separation of powers and the Constitution.
It is intolerable that the president and his administration make sweeping changes to federal law with absolutely no legitimate authority to do so. These end-runs around Congress cannot be allowed to continue.
Congress should defund Obamacare and do it today. Lawmakers must not let this latest usurpation of their authority stand.
Ideally, the House of Representatives would bring articles of impeachment against President Obama for these abuses. We all know that's not going to happen.
However, the House would be wise to use its oversight abilities to clog up the wheels of the administration. Start congressional inquiries and let the subpoenas start flying. Wrap the president and his cronies in so much red tape and bureaucracy that it brings the crushing wheels of this administration to a grinding halt.
It may be the only way to derail Obama's repeated attempts to declare himself America's first Imperial President.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320/107.9.
I have no idea what his ideology is. Besides this is Seattle; your choices are Extreme liberal, Liberal, and Pretending not to be Liberal. But this definitely gets your attention. And it's fairly well done. If I have any criticism it's that the Dos Equis ads have been heavily parodied. But as political ads go, it's definitely fresh.
But the real story here is how slanted this coverage is from the Wall Street Journal, given that it's considered to be a conservative paper. They provide the standard anti-gun line of how law enforcement is concerned; some agencies are, some aren't. And they also push the bogus meme that successful self defense with a gun is rare. This lie is exasperating on its own, but is made more so coming from the Journal.
Wisconsin has had more than a half dozen incidents of law abiding citizens defending themselves or others with guns since concealed carry came to the Badger State in November 2011. To my knowledge there have been no incidents of self defense with a legally concealed gun going awry. And they talk with John Lott, but his comments are presented in general terms about guns making people safer and don't debunk the myth presented earlier in the piece.
Wisconsin is a perfect laboratory example of how unsubstantiated these anti-gun carry arguments are. The Wall Street Journal may have a conservative editorial page, but with this in its news hole it might as well be the New York Times.
SIOUX FALLS, SD (KELO-AM) - Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has been engaged this week in all-out assault on the Gang of Eight's immigration reform bill.
Cruz gave a stirring speech on the Senate floor Monday night. He criticized members of both parties for their "mad rush to pass this bill".
During an interview on Fox News Channel's "Hannity" program, Cruz compared the bill to the Affordable Healthcare Act.
"It's much like ObamaCare. We're being told we got to pass it to figure out what's in it. And frankly, I don't think Republicans should be going along with Democrats in playing those kind of games," he said.
Cruz is right on the button. There's no rush to pass immigration reform. Congress isn't fighting any deadline, as they were during the debt ceiling debate. The haste is designed to keep members off balance and the public uninformed until its too late.
Cruz' arguments against the bill are intelligent and articulate. Conservatives are starving for this kind of bold, impassioned leadership.
According to the Washington Post, House Speaker John Boehner says he will only hold a vote on an immigration measure that enjoys support from a majority of Republicans.
We'll see. After the Farm Bill debacle in the House of Representatives, it appears to many that Boehner is simply flying by the seat of his pants.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM.
Whether it's the union-thug demanding a broke state for more money or the hipster petitioning to get that pesky God out of our Pledge of Allegiance, these free-thinking geniuses grab the media spotlight daily. It is in this cesspool of brilliance that the American college professor exists, equipped with such unsettling agenda even Engels would feel uneasy.
Our esteemed college intellectuals are to thank for bringing us such radical and pointless discourses as Amherst College's "Taking Marx Seriously: 'Should Marx Be Given Another Chance?'", and Occidental College's "Whiteness", where students dive into texts like The Abolition of Whiteness and White Trash. Occidental and Amherst College are not alone on their triumphant voyage into the dark side however, hundreds of colleges around the nation are proudly following the same degenerative path.
On their crusade to spread mental decay, colleges and universities are most recently adopting a program to serve as an ultra-radical mothership of academic study. This Death Star goes by the name of Social Justice. The goal of such discourses in the Social Justice program is to breed angry anti-American Americans completely unprepared for a capitalist society and, therefore, destined to hate it. This dark art is being hailed as the newest way to seek and destroy any constitutionalist standing in the way of "progress".
A most peculiar aspect of this movement is that such teachings of hate, victim exploitation, and leftist agenda are done in the name of impartiality. A general definition of social justice describes it as being concerned with equal justice in all aspects of society. Therefore wouldn't all aspects of society include everyone? How wrong you would be to assume such a circumstance.
You see, our college scholars have produced a standard for those who deserve justice regardless of the context and those who do not. Justice is only worth the academic's time when it is for the people they have categorized as worthy. The deprived mind of the social justice chaser will examine a person's economic class, sexuality, religion (hopefully lack thereof), political affiliation, and of course race before ever investigating what actually happened.
But why are institutions of higher learning arming themselves with this Social Justice superweapon? The simplest and most truthful answer is easy: power. Though social justice advocates will protest power when it has been earned deservedly (Occupy Wall Street for example), one need look no further than our education system to see their desperate grab for power at the expense of our most impressionable. The illegitimate indoctrination happening on college campuses swallows vulnerable students turning them into mindless drones serving only to empower the leftist's plan for domination.
How do we stop it? In order to save higher education from complete obliteration we must follow three steps: identify, inform, and act. In analyzing the beast, David was able to beat Goliath. In order to wipe away the social justice slime from our college campuses we must first identify the origins from which the ooze is seeping.
Next getting the word out about the dangers of this filth will be essential for the survival of our free world. It will be up to the individual to inquire and inform themselves on most things regarding historical social movements, but absolutely crucial in obtaining a sound mind.
Lastly, action is necessary. Not if, but when a college professor begins to uncontrollably assault American values by attacking our founding beliefs, it will be the left to the individual to speak out. The common liberal professor is no stranger to screaming at those who disagree with their ideology, so do not be alarmed when this inevitably happens.
Under the guise of equality, diversity and acceptance, social-justice programs are spreading mental bacteria rapidly into the minds of our most impressionable. By preying on students and condemning them to become agents of "progress", the social justice programs of colleges and universities turn would-be successful members of society into nothing more than hateful community organizers. To see a community organizer at work, look no further than our President's own quest for religious, political, economic, and racial division.
A majority of students can see what's happening to their education and already have taken action to stop it. Like Remington Reimer, a Texas Valedictorian, who had his mic shut off mid-speech when he deviated from the preapproved speech to mention God and his constitutional rights. One cannot watch the above video and not wonder where was Reimer's social justice? And the corruption continues.
SIOUX FALLS, SD (KELO-AM) - Recent revelations of the scope of the NSA's online and phone surveillance of Americans have been shocking. Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, says the NSA has the ability to intercept your emails, passwords, phone records and credit card information. He's also accusing the NSA of routinely lying to Congress about the scope of surveillance.
News of the NSA's domestic data gathering comes amid scandals involving the IRS and EPA. Both agencies are accused of releasing confidential information to left-leaning groups in violation of federal law. The IRS is facing additional accusations of targeting and stonewalling conservative groups that had applied for 501(c)4 status.
There have also been questions about the Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press phone records. There are allegations Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress when asked if the Justice Department was prosecuting reporters. At a minimum, the Justice Department appears to be engaged in intimidating the press and media.
I've been in such stunned disbelief of recent events that's its difficult to articulate my outrage. We're seeing a consistent and undeniable pattern of gross abuse of power in multiple agencies of the federal government.
Members of Congress appear ready to sweep everything under the rug.
The ranking Democrat on the committee leading the investigation of the IRS says the matter is closed. Representative Elijah Cummings told CNN's State of the Union, ""Based upon everything I've seen the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on, to be frank with you."
Cummings remind me of Lt. Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun. As a fireworks factory is exploding directly behind him, Drebin assures passerby, "Move on, nothing to see here!"
Meanwhile, Republican Representative Peter King is more interested in prosecuting whistleblowers than investigating abuses at the NSA. King told Fox News that Snowden's leaks had risked American lives.
King released a written statement saying, "If Edward Snowden did in fact leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date."
That's complete hogwash. Edward Snowden doesn't pose any threat to the safety, security or liberty of Americans. The only threat he poses are to those who abuse the trust that has been placed in them.
Rep. King believes Edward Snowden is an enemy of the state. However, Snowden is far more likely to be considered a patriot by many millions of Americans... including this one.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM.
SIOUX FALLS, SD - Lawmakers in Oregon have just passed a bill that would allow police to ticket smokers who have children under 18 years old in the car.
Opponents attacked the bill as being a nanny-state law.
Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) agreed. He supported the bill and said it would protect children, just as nannies do.
In the words of Dana Carvey's Church Lady, "Isn't that special?" Do you detect my sarcasm?
Personally, I hate smoking. Please note that I said "smoking", not "smokers". There's a difference.
Smokers are among those groups who may be jeered, hated, taxed and regulated without fear. Its politically correct to hate smokers. I've long referred to smokers as the "lepers of the 21st Century" because that's exactly how we treat them.
I do not smoke. I do not advocate smoking. I do not advocate smoking around children, especially in cars.
However, this law will do nothing to change the behavior of smoking. Nanny state laws like these accomplish nothing except to make supporters feel better about themselves. They wish to be seen as doing something, even if nothing positive ever results from their actions.
Let's think this law through to its conclusion. If lawmakers can prevent people from smoking in their cars with children present... what's to prevent them from outlawing smoking in homes where children are present? Answer: Nothing.
If lawmakers outlaw smoking in the home, what's to stop them from prohibiting other kinds of "undesirable" behaviors, such as drinking alcohol? Answer: Nothing.
Laws like these are nothing short of gross abuse of power.
The argument is that these laws are needed to protect the health of children. If that's true, then its only a matter of time before lawmakers prohibit snack foods and soda for obese children. Perhaps we should have paid state monitors at fast food restaurants to ticket those parents who purchase unhealthy foods for their kids. After all, its all in the name of public health.
Don't laugh. Its already starting. A number of states have already proposed higher soda taxes to discourage consumers, especially young people, from buying it. Higher taxes have also been proposed for fatty and unhealthy foods. It was reported last week that Obamacare encourages employers to charge smokers and the obese more money for their health insurance.
Liberty is under unceasing assault in this country. The federal government mandates that you purchase health insurance. State governments are busily passing smoking bans. Municipalities are even getting into the action by prohibiting trans-fats and limiting soda sizes. There's simply no end to the intrusion of every level of government into our personal choices.
I don't smoke, but I've opposed smoking bans for years. I've opposed higher cigarette taxes.
But I've listened to droves of callers over the years who have supported these ideas. The reason? "I don't smoke", they say. I shouldn't be surprised to hear such a selfish response from people living in a completely narcissistic culture.
Too many Americans don't understand that the death of liberty for some... means the eventual death of liberty for all.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM/107.9 FM.
Yes, I admit it; I couldn't help myself with the title of this post. If this isn't the most improbable comeback in modern politics, I'm not sure what is. First; I found it interesting that Huma is playing the "good wife" roll in taking part in the announcement video. Democrats heads have to be exploding over this. The man is a walking punchline; imagine if he is elected Mayor of New York? Where do we begin?
1) What will it say about the voters of New York if they elect a man who so desperately and obviously lied during the scandal? It's been said the reason Democrats attack Republicans when they don't live up to their own moral standards is because Republicans actually have standards. It's impossible to judge a Democrat because Democrats have no morality standards. Weiner winning would take this theory to the extreme. If his Twitter behavior doesn't preclude him from holding public office again, then are there really any scandals anymore?
2) What does is say about Huma Abedin that she is literally and figuratively standing with him? I suppose you can respect a spouse who forgives and tries to save a marriage, but wow?
3) Back to #1; how can anybody ever believe another word he says when he was so emphatic in his lies???
4) What precedent does this set for what does end a political career anymore? Richard Nixon winning the White House in 1968 is still the gold standard for the greatest political comeback of all time. But Nixon had no major scandals at the time (he survived one as the VP nominee in '52). Who would have ever thought Weiner could come back from this?
Parting thought; if he pulls this off, could he actually get his career back on track and have even higher aspirations than NYC Mayor? Stay tuned.
SIOUX FALLS, SD - Pay people to cook at home. That's the headline of a recent Kristin Wartman column at the New York Times.
Pay people to cook at home.
The headline was a blaring warning that I wasn't going to like what I was about to read. My blood pressure was already rising.
However, I consider myself to be a reasonable person. I am open to differing points of view. I forged bravely ahead into Wartman's column, fully knowing that a stroke would likely claim me at any moment.
Wartman's argument boiled down to a proposal... let's raise taxes on unhealthy foods, such as soda and junk food, so that parents can stay home to cook healthy meals for the kids. Oh, and she'd also like the government to fund education on cooking, meal planning and shopping for parents.
Instead of writing columns for the New York Times, Wartman should be penning letters to Santa. She's obviously living in fantasy land.
Wartman's scheme is wrong on so many levels. It would lead to higher taxes, more social engineering, more federal government power, less choice and less parental responsibility.
I'm so tired of the self-appointed nanny-state crowd involving themselves in the personal lifestyle decisions of Americans. The idea that parents should be subsidized so they can stay home and cook meals belongs in a George Orwell novel, not in the opinion pages of a major American newspaper. And certainly not on the floor of any legislative body in this country!
I have a fundamental disagreement with raising taxes on certain products simply to change the lifestyle behavior of consumers. Whether its cigarettes or fatty foods, taxes shouldn't be raised on products simply to discourage their use.
Do you think for one moment that those higher taxes would actually go where they are intended?
Ask the anti-smoking groups what happened to the tobacco settlement funds that were awarded to states. Those dollars were supposed to be spent on tobacco prevention and treatment programs. Instead, many states funneled them directly into their general budget fund.
There was a day in America when parents sacrificed so that mom could stay home with the kids and cook meals. Today we expect our more affluent neighbors to sacrifice on our behalf.
I'd laugh if it weren't so tragic.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM/107.9 FM.
SIOUX FALLS, SD - You know things are bad for the administration when the headline at left-leaning Politico.com says, "D.C. turns on Obama".
The Obama administration is facing intense criticism on multiple fronts. There are accusations his administration lied about what they knew regarding the attack on the Libyan consulate. The IRS is engulfed in a scandal involving the deliberate targeting of 501(c)4 applications by conservative groups. The Justice Department is defending its decision to seize the work and personal phone records of reporters at the Associated Press.
As bad as all that seems, its likely there is more scandal ahead.
In an exclusive interview this week with Breitbart.com, Senator Mitch McConnell McConnell (R-KY) blasted the Department of Health and Human Services for contacting private businesses that were critical of Obamacare and asking them to contribute money to sell the program to the American people. McConnell was fuming. "That's absolutely improper if not illegal. This administration will stop at nothing to get its way. It will do anything it can to silence its critics."
Senator John Thune (R-SD) echoes McConnell's concerns of the adminstration bullying its critics while helping its allies. Thune says the EPA was recently caught distributing the personal information of 80,000 farmers and ranchers to "left leaning, left wing environmental groups". Thune says the information was very confidential and included names, addresses and geographic coordinates of farms and ranches.
Thune told me, "Its just this culture of intimidating the people who are against you and trying to use the tactics of fear and bullying... and aiding the people who are your friends in a way, I think, that undermines the very fabric of our democracy."
Once again, President Obama and his highest officials shrug their shoulders and claim no knowledge of anything that happens on their watch. Alfred E. Neuman would show more concern.
Attorney General Eric Holder claims he knew absolutely nothing about the seizing of phone records at the Associated Press, even though federal law required him to sign off on it.
Meanwhile, the IRS initially blamed mid-level employees in Cincinnati for targeting conservative groups. That claim began falling apart almost as soon as it was made. The employees in the Cincinnati office now say they were following instructions from their bosses. We're also learning that as many as twelve IRS offices are involved. Ten of them are in Washington.
Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller was the first casualty of the scandal and resigned yesterday.
President Obama called the IRS actions "inexcusable". "Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it," Obama said.
"It should not matter what political stripe you're from. The fact of the matter is, the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity."
You have to wonder how President Obama can say such things without choking on his words.
This president has no integrity. He lacks character. We have seen it time and again. He has lied about Benghazi. He has lied about Obamacare.
Now we learn multiple agencies in the administration are engaged in harassing political opponents and releasing confidential information to allies on the Left.
McConnell says, "The Obama effort to shut up opponents isn't limited to the IRS. It applies to the FCC, SEC, FEC, HHS."
Translation? We've only seen the tip of the iceberg.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM/107.9 FM.
Milwaukee is among a number of cities where McDonalds was targeted. Walking of the job isn't a strike; it's walking off the job. McDonalds should feel free to fire anybody who takes part in this effort. If you don't like your working conditions find another job. I'm guess Micky D's would have no trouble replacing these workers.
I realize McDonald's doesn't want to risk the negative PR of firing those who walk off. But cowering to that fear allows this movement to grow. For those who are unaware, take a look at what happened to Palermos Pizza of Milwaukee. A friend of mine in the radio business has what he calls his wheelbarrow of manure principle(okay that's not exactly what he calls it). The point is as long as your talented enough and valuable enough to keep pushing your own wheelbarrow of manure(the pain in the butt you are to management) you're okay.
Could I get away with walking off the job for a day in protest? I'll tell you what; I'm pretty valuable to this company and I wouldn't risk it. If you flip burgers and ask me if I want fries with that for a living you better be pushing a very small wheelbarrow of manure.
SIOUX FALLS, SD - The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly this week to allow states to collect sales taxes on online purchases. Many states already require consumers to voluntarily pay sales taxes on their online purchases, but few comply with the law.
Its estimated the change will bring in an additional 12 billion dollars in revenue for state and local governments. Many local and state officials say this is money they are "losing". Few things infuriate me more than hearing politicians speak of our money as if it belongs to them and they are entitled to it.
Some claim online sales taxes are an issue of fairness. They say local brick and mortar retailers must collect the tax, so online retailers should have to do it, too. I don't accept that argument, since there's nothing stopping local retailers from expanding their businesses to include online sales.
However, let's follow the money trail. What is currently happening to that $12 billion in estimated uncollected tax?
The answer is easy... its being spent elsewhere. Its not sitting in a big savings account somewhere. The dollars consumers save by not paying online sales taxes are currently spent on other goods and services. I suspect many of those are local goods and services on which sales taxes are collected.
That's $12 billion dollars currently moving through the private sector helping to pay salaries and create jobs and opportunity. And the bright idea in the congressional brain trust is to take that $12 billion out of the economy and give it to government.
Admittedly, some of the $12 billion will be returned to local communities in the form of construction projects and associated salaries. But how much of that money will be consumed by government bureaucracy, inflated prices, waste and fraud? Those dollars should be left in the private sector and in the hands of consumers.
Thanks to conservative voices in the House, this increase in sales taxes may face a tough road ahead.
Georgia Republican Tom Graves said, "Call me a conservative, but I believe the right approach to tax fairness is to reduce rates — not force higher rates onto others."
Amen, brother.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM/107.9 FM.
NBA Center Jason Collins made history on Sunday by announcing he is gay. Collins is the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport.
The liberal sports media immediately went into giddy overdrive this week, endlessly praising Collins for his bravery and courage. Some sports writers went so far as to compare Collins to Jackie Robinson.
How much courage did it take for Collins to reveal his homosexuality when he knew the entire American media was ready to rally behind him? The sports media has been begging for months for a professional gay athlete to step forward and be recognized. They're still drooling in hopes that an NFL or NHL player will follow Collins' example. It hardly takes courage to come out when the political climate has never been more favorable to gays and homosexuals.
I am not an NBA fan. To be honest, I had never heard of Jason Collins prior to this week. I suspect his most notable contribution to the NBA will be his coming out announcement to Sports Illustrated.
However, I am an NFL fan. I've been reflecting on how I'd feel if one of my favorite NFL players made a similar announcement. I came to a very quick and easy conclusion, "Who cares?"
As a sports fan, my interest in any athlete centers on their ability, not their sexual preference. I want to know whether an athlete can score on the field. I have absolutely no interest in how they are scoring in the bedroom.
I am a Christian. Admittedly, I fall far short of Christ's teachings. I don't judge my brother for the splinter in his eye when I have a wooden beam in my own. I also respect the right of people to make their own lawful individual choices. I don't hate people simply because they are different from me.
But where is the respect for Americans who support traditional values and tire of having homosexuality constantly thrust into their faces? Those who dare speak up for Christian values, such as ESPN's Chris Broussard, are ridiculed, insulted, and branded as intolerant. Why must the media inject liberal politics into every facet of our lives, including sports?
The Collins' episode has shown once again that real intolerance always comes from the political Left and their lapdogs in the media. Liberals preach tolerance, but rarely show it to those who don't share their views. Liberals talk about equality, but are always the first ones to point out differences in color, gender and sexual preference. Every news story I read about Collins this week mentioned that he was black and homosexual.
Dictionary.com defines bigotry as, "Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." That sounds to me like the very definition of liberalism.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM/107.9 FM.
Sex scandal? What sex scandal? Clash is accused of sexual relations with underage boys, so there is some irony to his nomination:
In the Daytime Emmy nominations announced Wednesday, Clash was one of four contenders in the "performer in a children's series" category.
In fact, Clash has won 23 Emmys in the nearly three decades he's been providing the voice of Elmo. By the way, Clash left the show, allegedly voluntarily in June, saying the charges were a distraction. I'm sure they were

subset: commoncrawl