Browse By


Obamacare causing healthcare costs to skyrocket in 2015

Barack Obama promised, “We’re going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.”

The Afordable Care Act seems to be having the exact opposite effect. As state after state is reporting that its citizens will be receiving increased premiums, thanks to the bill infamously known as Obamacare.

Here’s what’s going on in Florida.

Floridians who buy health insurance on the individual market for next year will face an average increase of 13.2 percent in their monthly premiums, according to rate proposals unveiled Monday by the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation.

The rate proposals affect all Affordable Care Act-compliant health plans on the individual market, whether they’re sold through the federally-run exchange or not. Small and large group health plans typically offered by employers were not included in the data released by the state.

The NY Fed promises the same. With the added bonus of lost jobs.

Many businesses said Obamacare is jacking up their employee health coverage costs, and they expect it to do so even more next year, two new surveys of businesses by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have found.

As a result, consumers in the areas covered by the bank could be paying more next year—and some workers at the firms might need to look for a new job, the surveys found.

In Oklahoma, the news is similar.

As health insurance costs continue to rise nationally, hundreds of thousands of state employees are on notice that they will see an increase, as well.

Oklahoma’s state plan covers about 292,000 employees and their families. That includes state workers, teachers and some local government employees, said John Estus, spokesman for the Office of Management and Enterprise Services.

In addition to higher premiums, companies will be implementing higher co-pays and deductibles to offset the increase costs of Obamacare.

Large employers plan to cope with increasing healthcare costs by shifting part of the expense to workers next year, according to a small new survey.

The companies will rely on higher co-pays and deductibles to pass along some of the burden of their expected 6.5 percent average increase in costs, they said.

As the fall approaches, and premiums are set (and then billed to customers), we will see pretty much the same headlines across the country. Just in time for the 2014 elections.

Meanwhile the journolist sheep are singing from the same sheet today, peddling some stats that claim Obamacare is no longer an important issue.

Ad spending is not the only metric that suggests Obamacare is fading as an issue. For months, GOP candidates for Senate have quietly moderated their rhetoric on the health law.

Wishful thinking.

And right on cue, the GOP Research release a report on the high costs of Obamacare. Even though Republicans are supposedly no longer making it an issue.

And Crossroads releases an ad in Colorado hitting Udall on his Obamacare vote. Even though it’s supposedly no longer an issue.

Crossroads GPS is up once again with another ad attacking Sen. Mark Udall for his Obamacare vote. According to the most recent Quinnipiac poll, Coloradans still oppose Obamacare 57%-40%, this is pretty much a no-brainer. Especially when one considers that without Mark Udall voting for Obamacare, we would not now have it in its current form.

What about the polls… If Obamacare is no longer a hot political issue, the polls must be turning around in favor of Obamacare, right? Um. Wrong.
Poll: Obamacare ‘More Unpopular Than Ever’

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest poll on public opinion of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, has found the law is more unpopular with Americans than ever before. Kaiser found in its July survey that 53 percent of Americans say they have an unfavorable opinion of the law, with just 37 percent saying they have a favorable opinion. That’s among the lowest favorability rating Obamacare has ever received, and it’s the highest unfavorability rating since Kaiser first began its monthly poll of Obamacare in April 2010.

So what do we make of the reality of the news (Obamacare increases) against the spin from the media? Simple. The media is corrupt.

Perry Presser

UPDATED: Liberal media very angry Rick Perry is defending himself

UPDATE 1PM: Perry releases powerful video explaining the history of the “witch hunt,” titled: Setting the Record Straight

On Friday evening, the leftwing media was in its glory, running headlines like “Governor Rick Perry Indicted.” It kicked off (what was expected to be) a grand weekend for the corrupt liberal media.

But then something funny happened in the midst of the media doing its touchdown dance. Governor Perry came out swinging on Saturday.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) held a fiery press conference Saturday afternoon to sharply criticize the “outrageous” grand jury indictment against him.

“We don’t settle political differences with indictments in this country,” Perry told reporters at the Texas State Capitol in Austin. “It is outrageous that some would use partisan political theatrics to rip away at the very fabric of our state’s constitution. This indictment amounts to nothing more than an abuse of power and I cannot and will not allow that to happen.”

And then he did the same thing Sunday on FOX News.

Perry told “Fox News Sunday” that he would make the same decision again, as he has said repeatedly. And he urged Americans to look at a video of the prosecutor, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, being arrested and jailed for driving while intoxicated.

“The highest-ranking prosecutor in Travis County was stopped for driving while drunk almost three times over the legal limit,” the Republican governor said. “She was abusing law officials. She had to be restrained.”

Even WaPo’s token righty Jennifer Rubin, a critic of Governor Perry in 2012, was impressed.

Moreover, Perry went on offense quickly. He appeared on Saturday to condemn the indictment, looking defiant and in command. On Fox News Sunday he followed up with a solid performance, decrying this as another example of the rule of law being trampled. He declared, “I had lost confidence in her, the public had lost confidence in her and I did what every governor has done for decades, which is make a decision on whether or not it was the proper use of state money to go to that agency and I vetoed it. I stood up for the rule of law in the state of Texas. If I had to do it again I would make exactly the same decision.”

Rather than play the victim as too many conservatives do when treated unfairly by the media or opponents, Perry is rising to the occasion.

Perry even starting playing the liberal game of using quotes from political opponents as cover. This really lit them up.

Here’s snark from MSNBC.

Perry wanted to make sure Fox viewers knew about his liberal defenders, mentioning Axelrod and Dershowitz twice, while also taking time to thank Republicans who have defended him, like Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

Business Insider with the very fair and balanced headline of:
Rick Perry Wants Everyone To Know That David Axelrod Defended Him

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), nobody’s idea of a liberal politician, wants everyone to know about the left-leaning observers who have rushed to his defense after he was indicted last Friday.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Perry was asked whether he takes the indictment against him seriously. Perry insisted he did but quickly pointed to the arguments made by former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz as a good reason for why the public should dismiss the allegations.

“I certainly take everything I do seriously — the rule of law in particular, I take seriously. Let me just share with you: David Axelrod said this was a very ‘sketchy’ indictment. Professor Dershowitz who is not exactly my cheerleader, said that it was outrageous,” Perry said, according to video posted by Mediaite. “So I think across the board you’re seeing people weigh in and reflecting that this is way outside of the norm.”

On Monday, Perry’s legal team held a press conference (Think the screening of the Drunk DA ticked off media, a bit?).

Then Perry made an appearance on the Sean Hannity Radio Show, after his legal team’s press conference.

Huffington Post had just about enough.

Here’s the snark-dripping headline:
Rick Perry Uses Media To Defend Himself As Lawyers Say They Won’t Try Case In The Press

WASHINGTON — Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) took to the airwaves on Monday afternoon to defend himself against allegations of abuse of power, while his lawyers told reporters they would not try his case in the press.

Appearing on Sean Hannity’s radio program while his defense lawyers held a press conference at a hotel in Austin, Texas, Perry repeated his previous suggestions that an indictment brought against him by a grand jury on Friday was politically motivated.

This clearly upset Colin Campbell of Business Insider (How dare Perry go full court press?)

Rick Perry

These liberals have criticized the Rick Perry indictment

How outrageous was the indictment of Governor Rick Perry (for a line item veto)? So bad that some of America’s most prominent liberals have gone on record, criticizing the work of special prosecutor Mike McCrum.

Here’s a little roundup.

The biggest surprise early on was David Axelrod (although I have my suspicions for the motive).

Alan Dershowitz, the famous liberal Harvard Law Professor called it “unAmerican.”

Liberal law professor, and one of America’s most prominent legal authorities, Jonathan Turley, called it “very troubling.”

Democrat Lanny Davis, a prominent legal expert, and Clinton ally, strongly denounced the indictment.

Former Clinton and Obama alumnus Jonathan Prince summed it like this: “It seems nuts.” (Has he seen this?)

Numbers cruncher Larry Sabato of UV Politics called it a “bad precedent.”

Longtime Democrat Pollster Doug Schoen says the indictment is an “abuse of power.”

Democrat Joe Trippi, alum of the 2004 Howard Dean campaign, and now a FOX News analyst, called the indictment “beyond the pale.”

Even the liberal media is concerned.

Ari Melber of MSNBC, a legal analyst, calls the case “very weak.”

Matt Yglesias of tweets that it “doesn’t make sense.”

Liberal reporter Jonathan Chait of the New York Mag penned an extremely critical article, calling the indictment “outrageously unfair.”

Ben White of Politico says the indictment seems perverse.

Mark Halperin of Bloomberg Politics stated on Morning Joe that it was the “stupidest thing” he’s ever seen in politics.

Ian Millhiser of Think Progress check in with a surprise.

The very liberal Daily Beast, and Olivia Nuzzi, wonder what the heck just happened.

mike mccrum court

7 media myths to make Special Prosecutor Mike McCrum appear non political

The self-anointed “nationally recognized” fighter of corruption. Who moonlights as the lead defense attorney for Mikal Watts, Texas Democrat darling, accused of filing claims on behalf of dead people from the BP oil spill fund.

First, who is Mike McCrum? Well let’s go right to the source. McCrum calls himself “nationally recognized.” A term usually found on the bios of people who aren’t usually “nationally recognized.” But McCrum may have been prophetic with this description. Because after his “sketchy,” “unAmerican” indictment of Rick Perry, you could say that Mike McCrum is very much “nationally recognized” now. And not for the best of reasons.

Here’s the humble Mike McCrum in his own words, from his website’s home page.

Michael McCrum is a nationally recognized trial and appellate attorney who is known for his successful representation of business executives, public officials, physicians, attorneys, law enforcement officers and everyday people in high-profile and high-stake matters.

Mike McCrum graduated from Southwest Texas State University in 1978 with a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice. After graduating from college, McCrum became a police officer and worked for Dallas police department in the early 1980s. He then entered law school at St Mary’s University, and graduated with a juris doctorate (i.e. law degree) in 1985. McCrum started his legal career by working for a couple of San Antonio law firms, seemingly specializing in commercial litigation. In late 1989, McCrum joined the US Attorney’s Office in San Antonio and stayed there for about 11 years. In the early 2000s, at about the close of the Clinton term, McCrum left the US Attorney’s Office, and went into private practice in San Antonio. He was nearly appointed to the position of US Attorney by President Barrack Obama, but the nomination was held up, and McCrum withdrew his name. He is now back working in private practice.

Okay. Now let’s get to the myths being peddled by the leftwing Texas (and American) media to make it appear that Mike McCrum is a non partisan fighter of corruption.

Myth 1: McCrum was hired by the George H.W. Bush administration in 1989 to work in the US Attorney’s Office.
Mike McCrum worked as an Assistant US Attorney from 1989 to 2000 (from George Bush, the senior, through Bill Clinton). He was not appointed by George H.W. Bush. An Assistant US Attorney is simply a prosecutor who works in the US Attorney’s office. To be hired as a Assistant US Attorney, one simply fills out an application and then goes through a standard hiring process. You are not confirmed by Congress, nor does the POTUS have any input with the hire. This talking point is false.

Myth 2: Mike McCrum was chosen by the two Republican Texas US Senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, to become a US Attorney (Western Texas).
The US Attorney is a special appointment at the privilege of the POTUS (Barrack Obama). S/he works under the direction of the Attorney General (Eric Holder). The ultimate decision is that of the POTUS with consultation from the AG and legal counsel/committee. This is similar to a Supreme Court appointment. A Democrat POTUS, one as political as Obama, does not appoint Republican US Attorneys. Period. The Republican Senators, similar to that of a Supreme Court appointment debate, simply hope to get the most acceptable “liberal” appointment. This is why you see hold ups on appointments, from both sides. Democrats want committed activist liberals. Republicans seek more moderate liberals. And vice versa, when a Republican POTUS is in power. In this case, Cornyn and Hutchison were pushing for the most acceptable liberal attorney from a Democrat short list. The idea that a partisan AG like Eric Holder would allow a Republican, or even an independent with centrist leanings, to oversee one of the most important districts in the country is preposterous.

Myth 3: Travis County District Attorney Office had nothing to do with naming Mike McCrum. He was named as special prosecutor by a Republican Judge.
Yes. McCrum was named by Bert Richardson, a Republican judge. But this is simply a case of political semantics. The Travis County District Attorney’s Office ultimately calls the shots and used the Republican judge as a proxy. The idea that a Republican judge could somehow name a Republican or independent prosecutor (who could be sympathetic to Perry), in one of the most partisan and liberal districts in the country, is beyond indefensible. It’s laughable. Richardson was used to provide political cover to the Travis County District Attorney.

Myth 4: Mike McCrum is a hard to pin down, politically.
Name me the most important state in the country, politically? Yes. Texas! If the state of Texas goes blue, the political game, nationally, is over. And so you do not get nominated as the US Attorney to one of the most politically important districts in the country, by the most partisan and political POTUS in history, without being thoroughly investigated for your political leanings. Republican and independent prosecutors do not work for Eric Holder, the most partisan Attorney General in recent history.

Secondly, you do not defend the Texas Democrats #1 money man (and one of the most powerful Democrat trial attorneys in the country) in a multi-million dollar corruption lawsuit if you are not politically connected to Texas Democrats. Mikal C. Watts is one of the most partisan and well connected Democrats in the state of Texas. He is a partisan’s partisan. Watts would not hire a Republican-leaning defense attorney – especially when his entire fortune and future is on the line.


Here’s how the San Antonio Express News described Watts in a 2013 profile.

Mikal Watts is a courtroom pit bull, a superstar personal-injury attorney who has rubbed shoulders with shady characters and worked every angle of the legal system to build a colossal fortune.

At the same time, he’s a pious family man who faithfully attends Oak Hills Church and speaks of his casework as a kind of calling to compensate victims of corporate negligence.

He’s a sugar daddy for the Democratic Party, pouring more than $7 million into party coffers and hosting fundraisers for Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Julián Castro at his Dominion mansion.

Try this role switch. A special prosecutor indicts a star Democrat governor while working on behalf of a star Republican power broker. For example, what if a special prosecutor indicted Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, and also happened to be the lead defense lawyer for Karl Rove. You think the media would ho-hum it and say, “you know, this guy is really hard to pin down, politically?” Never happen.

Furthermore, a well connected Texas lawyer like Mike McCrum, who previously worked in government (US Attorney’s Office), oddly never worked in DC during the eight years of the Bush administration. From 2001-2008, Washington DC was littered with Texas-based Republican lawyers, in every agency and think tank. Not Mike McCrum. When the Clinton term was coming to a close, McCrum left the US Attorney’s Office and went into private practice, back in Texas – for the entire Bush presidency. When Bush retired back to Texas, McCrum was the pick of Barrack Obama and Democrats for the US Attorney slot . That right there is all you need to know about Mike McCrum’s political leanings.

Finally. Here is Mike McCrum on his personal blog where he raves about the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (a law which eventually became bipartisan, but one which was wildly promoted (for years) by leftwing activists). McCrum even includes commentary on the low approval ratings of Congress (i.e. Republicans), and never mentions the low approval numbers of Obama.

In today’s world, where approval ratings of Congress are alarmingly low, we grow less and less hopeful that our government can effectively function. Every now and then, however, we see a glimmer of light that offers some positive indication of a job well done. The United States Sentencing Commission recently published a data report on the results of Congress’ Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The data is interesting.

Recall that Congress initially created in 1986 a widely disparate 100:1 sentencing structure between crack and powder cocaine on the view that crack was a more dangerous and harmful drug. In decades after, extensive research by the United States Sentencing Commission and other experts debunked Congress’ initial theory by finding that the differences between the effects of the two drugs were grossly exaggerated. Research conclusively proved that the sentencing disparity was unwarranted and effectively created an unconstitutionally discriminate sentencing scheme. Simply put, the data proved there was no reasonable basis to punish one man more harshly than another for the same type of conduct.

After more than fifteen years of attempted legislation to fix the wrong, Congress ultimately passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The Act brought fairness and equality into our sentencing structure by increasing the quantities of crack cocaine that trigger the five and ten-year mandatory minimum sentences, and eliminating the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine. The Act was signed into law by President Obama on August 3, 2010, and later retroactively implemented by the Sentencing Commission through sentencing guideline amendment.

The data report recently published by the Commission sets out in detail how the 2010 Act impacted previously-sentenced defendants. It breaks down statistics by state, federal judicial circuit, divisions within each circuit, year of original sentence, criminal history categories, demographics by race, ethnicity, citizenship, gender and age, as well as other categories. In sum, nearly 6,600 defendants received, on average, a 29-month reduction in their sentences as a result of retroactive, new guidelines. Corroborating the suspicion that the previous sentencing structure was largely discriminatory, more than 85% of those entitled to a reduction were black persons.

Myth 5: Mike McCrum has integrity. Ask anyone.
He may in fact. But a person who defends Mikal Watts (see above), a Texas Democrat trial attorney, who is being sued by BP for filing fake claims relative the oil spill fund is suspect in my book. But that’s me. Some of Watts bogus claims included dead people.

Here’s the NY Times with the news on Mikal Watts

BP on Tuesday accused a Texas lawyer of fraudulently driving up its settlement costs in the 2010 Gulf Coast oil spill by claiming to represent tens of thousands of clients who turned out to be “phantoms.”

Mr. Watts ultimately filed just 648 individual crew claims through the seafood fund, BP said, and just eight have been found eligible for payment. That means, the company said, that “98 percent of the Watts claimants never even filed a claim” with the program, and “96 percent of the claims that he did file have been denied.”

Mr. Watts has since filed 43,976 claims under a separate compensation program intended to address claims that had been excluded from the settlement agreement. In examining those claims, the company said it found that 40 percent of the claims used Social Security numbers that belonged to someone other than the person supposedly making the claim; 13 percent gave incomplete numbers or obvious fakes such as 000-00-0001. Five percent of the numbers belonged to dead people. “The inference of fraud is overwhelming,” the company stated in its complaint.

Mikal Watts, a darling of Texas (and national) Democrats, is accused of trying to rip off millions of dollars for his own greed, at the expense of the truly needy.

Mike McCrum calls Mikal Watts an “honorable man.”

Furthermore, Mike McCrum was in hot water just this year, and was charged with contempt for telling a witness to “get lost for a while.”

One of San Antonio’s best-known defense attorneys was accused by the Bexar County district attorney’s office this week of instructing a subpoenaed witness to “get lost for awhile” to avoid testifying in his client’s intoxication manslaughter trial.

Prosecutors filed a motion Tuesday for a finding of contempt against former federal prosecutor Mike McCrum related to his alleged instructions to Melanie Little, a witness in the October trial of Taylor Rae Rosenbusch.

If a judge agrees with the allegations, which McCrum’s own lawyers vehemently deny, he potentially could face up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.

Attorneys Mark Stevens and Patrick Hancock, who will represent their colleague at a hearing scheduled next week, described the assertions in a written statement as “personal, vindictive and untrue.”

“There are serious questions about whether that office has political motivations as well,” the attorneys said.

McCrum has served as lead attorney on some of San Antonio’s highest-profile cases.

His clients have included former NFL star-turned-drug trafficker Sam Hurd; Dr. Calvin Day, whose conviction for sexual assault of a patient was thrown out after McCrum filed a request for new trial accusing the DA’s office of political chicanery; fellow lawyer Mikal Watts, a Democratic Party stalwart who has hosted President Barack Obama at his home; and Mark Gudanowski, the former driver for District Attorney Susan Reed accused – and acquitted – of illegally selling Southwest Airlines vouchers.

Myth 6: Mike McCrum would never politicize an indictment.
Any attorney who goes to a grand jury in liberal Travis County with the motive of indicting a sitting Republican governor over a line item veto (knowing the sentence carries 99 years) is nothing but a political hack. So save me the “he’s above board” platitudes. When a Democrat partisan like David Axelrod calls it “sketchy,” and liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz calls it “unAmerican” and the “criminalization of party differences,” you are outed as nothing but a political hit-man.

Myth 7: Mike McCrum didn’t indict Rick Perry. A grand jury did. So it is not political.
There is a saying, “you can indict a ham sandwich,” because it’s pretty much true. Inside a grand jury hearing was McCrum, his evidence, his witnesses, and 12 Travis County Court-selected (i.e. liberal) jury members. There is no defense argument. No objection to McCrum’s narrative. Nothing. It’s all one-sided.

After the indictment was handed down, McCrum said, “The grand jury’s spoken that at least there’s probable cause to believe that he committed two crimes, two felony crimes.”

Here’s a clue for the Democrat stenographers in the media. In a grand jury setting, it is McCrum’s job to lead the grand jury and to convince them to proceed with an indictment. He’s is the chief salesman for the indictment. Not some innocent bystander, taking directions from the grand jury. And selling a Rick Perry indictment to a leftwing jury in Austin is like selling twinkies at a weight watchers meeting. It’s not a tough sell.

The American Spectator calls it a “lynching.” And writes that the narrative of the grand jury being non political is absurd.

We may imagine if we like that a grand jury in one of America’s most liberal counties concluded, without bias or rancor, that one of America’s best-known conservative politicians illegally vetoed funding for that same county’s “public integrity” unit, presided over by a DA convicted of drunk driving. It was illegal for the governor to use his legal power? That seems essentially the narrative the jury bought from McCrum.

And remember. This is the same “non political” Travis County Court grand jury that took all of 30 minutes not to indict Democrat Travis County District Attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg, for abuse of power. This despite her disgraceful and inexcusable actions on video, even threatening jail staff, saying, “Y’all are going to be in jail, not me.”

Finally, why isn’t more done to deal with bias in grand jury selection? Because the legal theory is that a grand jury only agrees to prosecute the charges, so even if a grand jury is a little biased, the defendant still has the opportunity to prove their innocence in a trial. Except, it’s a different story if you are a sitting governor and a leading presidential candidate. In this case, the indictment alone is a win for the Democrat smear merchants. Their allies in the media compliantly run headlines like “Republican Governor Perry indicted” – while burying the lede. The damage is done. The waters are forever muddied. And the Democrats move on to their next target. Just over the past 4-5 years they have sued, and/or harassed through litigation, almost every leading GOP governor, beginning with Sarah Palin (who was forced to resign due to the legal costs) right up to Rick Perry.

Bottomline: Mike McCrum is most certainly a liberal partisan hack. Travis County is a banana republic inside the great state of Texas. And the liberal establishment media is corrupt to the core.

Charlie Crist

Charlie Crist outraged that Charlie Crist 2006 is attacking Charlie Crist 2014

Charlie Crist (way back) in 2010: I am about as conservative as you can get.” -YouTube Video

This was first reported by the Tampa Bay Times, picked up by the Drudge Report.

Voters across Florida heard a mysterious robo call over the weekend that seemed to aimed at attacking likely Democratic gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist.

“It had someone who sounded like Charlie Crist, saying, ‘… I stand for traditional marriage, I’m prolife, I’m against amnesty for illegal immigrants,’” said one caller on our voice mail. “That seemed clearly like fraud.”

The excuse from the Crist campaign? This recording is that of a 50 year old Charlie Crist, way, way back in 2006. Almost 8 years ago.

“Republicans are so desperate they’re not even bothering to cover their tracks: they’re targeting Democratic primary voters with a robocall that’s nearly a decade old, hoping to fool them into thinking it’s new,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.

Sources: Tampa Bay Times | Drudge Report | YouTube

First here is the voice mail from Charlie Crist 2006 smearing Charlie Crist 2014.

And here is Charlie Crist 2010, four years later, once again attacking Charlie Crist 2014: “I Think it’s important for people to know who is the true conservative in this race. And it’s Charlie Crist. I am a Jeb Bush Republican.”

Twitter was all over it.

Additional coverage and analysis…
Biz Pac Review: Fla. Dems go nuts! Robo-call of Charlie Crist ‘smearing’ himself in his own words is brilliant
CNN: Conservative group uses Charlie Crist to attack Charlie Crist
Huffington Post: Human Charlie Crist Attacked By Robo-Charlie Crist In Clever Bit Of Political Chicanery

Obama Golf Vineyard

Obama on Ferguson: Calm down… Now watch this putt.

President Barack Obama made a brief detour to the Edgartown School just before 1 pm where he made a brief statement on Iraq and Ferguson, Missouri before heading to the exclusive Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown Thursday afternoon.-Martha's Vineyard Times

  • Actually takes detour on way to course to make speech.
  • Asks for “calm” in Ferguson.
  • Then heads straight to the golf course.

President Obama went straight from a press briefing to the putting greens on Thursday. Shortly after making remarks on the situation in northern Iraq and the escalating tensions in Ferguson, Mo., Obama headed to the Vineyard Golf Club, according to a White House press pool report. Obama is in the middle of a two-week summer vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

The commander in chief has been a regular on the golf course and has hit the links nearly every day since arriving in the ritzy enclave on Saturday.
Read it at The Hill

Twitter, of course, was full of snark…

Additional coverage and analysis…
PJ Media: After a Quick Statement on Iraq and Ferguson, It’s Back to Golf for Obama
Twitchy: Phew! ‘Gray, gaunt and tired’ Obama still has plenty of energy for golf Fun Fact: It Took Obama Only 7 Minutes To Get On Golf Course After Giving Remarks On Ferguson And Iraq


Politico upset that GOP is making amnesty and border security a campaign issue

Republicans grappling with the surge of Central American migrants entering the country this year have lined up behind a common goal: ratcheting up security along the Southern border.
-Wall Street Journal

  • Politico says that focusing on border security will hurt GOP in 2016.
  • Liberal media well aware that border security polls well.
  • But cites it as a “risky midterm strategy.”
  • Asks Team Obama’s Jim Messina for opinion on strategy.

The ‘amnesty’ card: GOP launches 2014 border war
So much for that fresh start with Latino voters.

In a dramatic departure from their determination only months ago to win a second look from that rapidly-growing community, national Republicans have embarked on a sustained campaign to make the immigration crisis a central issue in 2014 and exhort voters to punish the White House for failing to lock down the U.S.-Mexico border.

Public and private polling shows border control creeping up the list of concerns among conservative voters and independents, and the GOP is responding accordingly. Republican candidates are lacing into the Obama administration and its congressional allies for supporting “amnesty” and casting them as unable to secure the southern border.

Three major Republican Senate hopefuls – Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Scott Brown of New Hampshire and Terri Lynn Land of Michigan – are airing commercials blasting their Democratic opponents for supporting “amnesty” and attacking “lawlessness” and “chaos” on the border. Other candidates are expected to join them.

Many prominent Republicans, from House Speaker John Boehner to billionaire super-donor Sheldon Adelson, still support immigration reform in word. But with the 2014 election squarely in sight, the party has spun away from a national quest to reintroduce itself to Latinos and planted itself squarely on the turf of the midterm campaign — where individual races are playing out in largely conservative territory in the Deep South and Mountain West states with fewer Latino voters.
Read it at Politico

The Twitter reaction from the left base and media says it all. They know the border security kills Democrats in 2014…

A reminder from Andrew Malcolm…

Additional coverage and analysis…
Rolling Stone: The GOP’s Fake Border War
Wall St Journal: GOP Ads Go On Attack Over Border
Forbes: On The Border, The GOP Is Outraged At The Wrong Thing

david brock media matters

Media Matters’ David Brock takes over “non-partisan, nonprofit” ethics watchdog group

This is bad news for anyone who cares about transparency and accountability in government. Politico's Ken Vogel reports Thursday that Citizens for Responsibilty and Ethics in Washington has been taken over by conservative attack dog-turned-Democratic lapdog David Brock and will likely become part of his partisan operation. -Washingtom Examiner

  • Media Matters now runs “non partisan” ethics watchdog group.
  • MMFA also launching a legal fund to attack and sue Republicans.
  • Business model centered around bullying, threats and intimidation.

In a major power play that aligns liberal muscle more fully behind the Democratic Party — and Hillary Clinton — the self-described right-wing hitman-turned-Clinton enforcer David Brock is taking over a leading watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Brock was elected chairman of the group’s board last week after laying out a multifaceted expansion intended to turn the group into a more muscular — and likely partisan — attack dog, according to sources familiar with the move.

“CREW gives us some potentially powerful tools in the tool box,” said Brock, who founded his flagship organization Media Matters in 2004. “We have been in the accountability for 10 years very successfully. It is kind of a one-stop-shop now.”

And Brock’s army will be supplemented still further by the formation of a new overtly partisan watchdog group called The American Democracy Legal Fund, which is already preparing complaints against high-profile Republicans, including Michigan GOP Senate candidate Terry Lynn Land. That group will be run by Brad Woodhouse, the president of American Bridge.
Read it at Politico

Both the left and right on Twitter note the troubling news…

Additional coverage and analysis…
Washington Examiner: Ethics watchdog to become Democratic lapdog: report
The Hill: Media Matters founder joins watchdog CREW
Huffington Post: Media Matters Acquiring CREW… Will It Survive DOJ Antitrust?


Milbank: America has lost optimism; But it’s not Obama’s fault

Certainly, some of the dark outlook has to do with the slow recovery. And there’s justification for the pessimism: Millennials are, by some measures, the first generation in U.S. history to see a decline in living standards.

It is the very essence of the American Dream: an irrepressible confidence that our children will live better than we do.

And now it is gone.

It has been slipping for some time, really, but a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this month put an exclamation point on Americans’ lost optimism.

When asked if “life for our children’s generation will be better than it has been for us,” fully 76 percent said they do not have such confidence. Only 21 percent did. That was the worst ever recorded in the poll; in 2001, 49 percent were confident and 43 percent not.

In a narrow sense, this is good news for President Obama because it means the problem is not of his making but the result of two decades of scorched-earth politics. That’s bad news for the rest of us, though, because the problem is larger than any leader’s ability to bring hope and change.
Read it at The Washington Post

On Twitter, Milbank’s spin was noticed…

Commenters at The Washington Post also note the attempt to cover for Obama…

Predictably, Milbank finds a way to extract Obama from responsibility for our current circumstances, and in the process, reinforcing the validity of Obama’s bizarre trait of looking at all issues as though he were a dispassionate observer instead of President of the United States. Some of these trends undoubtedly have their roots in administrations that preceded him. But with his peculiar “leadership” style that has stoked divisiveness and his self-centered arrogance and unwillingness to work with people with whom he disagrees, Obama has taken a bad situation and made it infinitely worse. No wonder optimism is now in such short supply.
Read this comment and more at The Washington Post

Leave it to Milbank to wildly contort his narrative to try and absolve Obama from blame. Holy cow, Obama has jackknifed the USA and the world in six swift years. The pessimism has two separate origins. The left is pessimistic because their messiah is imploding along with his signature failure, obamacare, and the full delamination of the liberal progressive ideology. The right has been pessimistic because they knew Obama’s agenda was going to savage our constitution, kill jobs, wreck lives, and put us over our heads in debt.
Read this comment and more at The Washington Post

sylvester stallone guns

Gun-Slinging ‘Expendables’ Star Stallone is Radically Anti-Gun

It’s important to set the tone in an action film during the first few minutes. The Expendables 2’s tone is set with a suicide rescue mission that consist of the crew caravanning into a town and riddling every building with bullets, Jet Li’s pots and pans beatdown, firing high powered weapons from a zip line, about 10 sniper kill shots, a boat chase/shootout, and an exploding dock -the body count ends somewhere between 200-300.The Expendables 2’s tone is set with a suicide rescue mission that consist of the crew caravanning into a town and riddling every building with bullets. The Expendables 2 is paced like a first person shooter game for the entire 102 minutes. -Expendables 2 Review, Seattle PI

  • Action star has made millions glorifying guns.
  • Has called for complete repeal of 2nd amendment.
  • Wants door to door confiscation.

Rambo Hates Guns: How Sylvester Stallone Became the Most Anti-Gun Celeb in Hollywood
The latest Expendables flick was never destined to garner much love from film critics. “You need The Expendables 3 like you need a kick in the crotch,” wrote Variety’s Justin Chang. Regardless, the movie will no doubt satisfy fans of the kind of ’80s action vehicles in which large objects explode and nameless henchmen are heroically gunned down.

But here’s a thing to keep in mind whenever a new Stallone guns-guts-and-glory fest comes out: Sylvester Stallone is the most anti-gun person working in Hollywood today (really).

“It has to be stopped, and someone really has to go on the line, a certain dauntless political figure, and say, ‘It’s ending, it’s over, all bets are off, it’s not 200 years ago, we don’t need [the Second Amendment] anymore, and the rest of the world doesn’t have it,’” Stallone told Access Hollywood in 1998. “Why should we?”

“Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have,” added Stallone. “It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages [in America].”
Read it at The Daily Beast

  • Star who wants America’s guns confiscated, has his own concealed carry permit.
  • Concealed carry guns include Browning Hi Power, Glock and Beretta.

The Hypocrisy of Sylvester Stallone
How can someone that has made millions of dollars in films that glorify gun violence and killing, movies such as First Blood, Rambo, Cobra, and Judge Dredd just to name a few, be so hypocritical on the issue of the Second Amendment and gun ownership rights. Can someone that is so clearly supporting the Brady Bunch and has called for door-to-door gun confiscations actually own guns himself and have a CCW permit? Not to mention the special treatment he would have received in order to get a CCW permit in a county where it is nearly impossible to get one. I was encouraged by members of my gun forum community to try to obtain a copy of Stallone’s CCW application through the California Public Records Act.
Read more on this at Rifle Gear Blog

  • Willis calls gun control slippery slope.
  • Stallone on the nanny state side.

Action Stars Sly And Willis Face Off On Guns In Real Life
Two of Hollywood’s most famous on-screen gun toters — Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone — are on very different sides of the debate over gun violence following the Newtown, Conn. school massacre. Stallone, who blasted everything that moved in the Rambo movies, favors new gun control laws including a ban on so-called assault weapons. Willis, who sees to it that many die extremely hard in the Die Hard flicks, says that any new legislation on guns is a slippery slope leading to an eventual hard death for the Bill of Rights.
Read it at Talking Point Memo

On Twitter, the anti gun Brady group is touting Stallone’s “commonsense” anti gun stance – totally unaware of the almost-satirical hypocrisy (Stallone blazing away with machine gun)…

Additional coverage and analysis…
Guns & Ammo: 8 Surprising Anti-Gun Celebrities
Capitalism Institute: Sylvester Stallone Supports Door-to-Door Confiscation of Guns
Clash Daily: It’s Official: Stallone’s a Hypocritical Idiot on Gun Control