Crazy Dems

Another Republican Claim Proven Right — Census Bureau

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is yet another “lie” supposedly made by the right. Remember the Lie of the Year where Mitt Romney said Jeep was gonna go to China? Proven right, and the Lie of the Year was pwned! How bout’ Sarah Palin being eviscerated for her “death panel” comments? Again, the Right (Sarah Palin and others) were proven right! How bout the REAL Lie of the Year? Obama was shown to be THE Lie of the Year… and it stuck!

Now another Republican position was proven right. This comes via Black and Conservative (Derrick Wilburn). Bravo to Media’ite for posting this!

In 2009, in the earliest weeks of President Barack Obama‘s administration, the White House made the controversial decision to take the unprecedented step of moving the Census Bureau from control of the commerce secretary over to the White House ahead of the decennial 2010 census.

Conservatives sounded alarm bells. “It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political,” said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) of then White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“Requiring the Census director to report directly to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a shamefully transparent attempt by your administration to politicize the Census Bureau and manipulate the 2010 Census,” read a letter addressed to Obama authored by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC)….

[….]

….Policy analysts and columnists, who are not reflexively friendly to conservative causes, called the debasement of a formerly neutral agency to achieve a political end “insane” and “inexcusable.”….

[….]

According to a report in The New York Times, the Census Bureau has been directed to change the wording of its questions relating to health care coverage so that they can no longer be checked against the past three decades of data. According to the nonpartisan analysts and census officials The Times spoke with, this change will make it nearly impossible to accurately assess the effects of the Affordable Care Act has had on the number of Americans who have health insurance.

The changes will, however, likely have the effect of showing a reduction in the number of uninsured. This will not be the result of the effects of the law. Rather, according to the Census Bureau’s chief of the health statistics branch, the drop in uninsured is only going to be due to “the questions and how they are asked.”…

[….]

…And, thus, another crazy conservative conspiracy theory is proven to not be so crazy after all.

So this is how it looks:

  • Republicans warned you couldn’t keep your health care. Dems said you could keep it.
  • Republicans warned illegal aliens would be insured thru Obama-care. Dems said NO WAY JOSE!
  • Republicans warned about death panels. Dems said we were conspiracy nuts!
  • Republicans said the Obama admin was gonna sell (and move) Jeep to China. Dems said, yeah right.
  • Republicans said the Obama admin would politicise the Census. Dems said yur crazy!
  • Republicans said Putin was gonna take Ukraine. Dems said the 80’s called.
  • Republicans said the ACA (Obama-care) would kill jobs. Dems said it would create 400,000 immediately.

Um, when is America gonna wake up?

The “Gay Gestapo” Needs to Be Routed, Liberty Demands It!

Published by Papa Giorgio

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ Last Line, Animal Farm, George Orwell. (h/t, GayPatriot)

This comes way of a h/t by a friend, and is Robert George (via First Things), and was originally linked by Denny Burk:

Mozilla has now made its employment policy clear.

  • No Catholics need apply.
  • Or Evangelical Christians.
  • Or Eastern Orthodox.
  • Or Orthodox Jews.
  • Or Mormons.
  • Or Muslims.

Unless, that is, you are the “right kind” of Catholic, Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox Christian, observant Jew, Mormon, or Muslim, namely, the kind who believes your religious or philosophical tradition is wrong about the nature of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the view now dominant among secular elites is correct. In that case, Mozilla will consider you morally worthy to work for them. Or maybe you can work for them even if you do happen to believe (or should I say “believe”) your faith’s teaching—so long as you keep your mouth shut about it: “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

You are disqualified from employment, however, if you reveal your alleged “bigotry” and “cause pain” by stating your convictions. And you are certainly disqualified if you do anything to advance the historic understanding of marriage as a conjugal union in the public square.

[….]

You can bet it’s not just Mozilla. Now that the bullies have Eich’s head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer. They will pressure them to refuse employment to those who decline to conform their views to the new orthodoxy. And you can also bet that it won’t end with same-sex marriage. Next, it will be support for the pro-life cause that will be treated as moral turpitude in the same way that support for marriage is treated. Do you believe in protecting unborn babies from being slain in the womb? Why, then: “You are a misogynist. You are a hater of women. You are a bigot. We can’t have a person like you working for our company.” And there will be other political and moral issues, too, that will be treated as litmus tests for eligibility for employment. The defenestration of Eich by people at Mozilla for dissenting from the new orthodoxy on marriage is just the beginning.

Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, observant Jews… and others had better stand together and face down the bullies, and they had better do it now, or else they will be resigning themselves and their families to a very unhappy status in this society. A very unhappy status indeed. When tactics of intimidation succeed, their success ensures that they will be used more and more often in more and more contexts to serve more and more causes. And standing up to intimidation will become more and more difficult. And more and more costly. And more and more dangerous.

…read more…

As I see it, those who are on the right who are religious better also become familiar with those who are conservatively libertarian who happen to be gay ~ like the people at gaypatriot.net. In other words, Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, observant Jews, and the like shouldn’t be all whom we should join hands with. There are gay men and women who want the Constitutional Republic to succeed, UNLIKE their counter-parts on the left (a majority of leftists in fact). And to my friends who are of the right-leaning/homosexual persuasion, do not dismiss resources like What Is Marriage?, or people who may have a religious worldview that considers the full approval from society on same-sex relations immoral. We fall into the Reagan line of demarcation when he said, “somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.”

To wit I will post again a paragraph written by Gay Patriot I loved, and that gets to the bottom of the matter… and it is this: don’t be so myopic to see this as an attack of gays, see it as the rotten fruit which infects all conservatively minded views of society, theology, liberty, and what constitutes happiness ~ e.g., LEFTISM.

Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.

My compatriots who are conservatively minded will hear–for instance–Tammy Bruce (above) mention she is FOR gay-marriage… and they simply dismiss her (some will). What she means when she states such a thing and what Andrew Sullivan means are two VERY different things. The former wants the people, state-by-state to be persuaded enough that this is the right step for society in their state/country. She rejects the abuses by judges to usurp the will of the people.

The latter wants it effectively shoved down our throat while acting surprised that the progressive establishment he has supported during his career has — gasp — tyrannical tendencies. (One need only view history and see that pretty much any totalitarian movement in the 20th century have been leftists.) Yesterday, Dennis Prager had some great commentary that builds on this these somewhat:

Some compatriots in the fight for liberty… not totalitarian equality:

Newest attack on freedom: Gay Mafia Targets Oregon Grocer Over Anti-Gay Marriage Facebook Statements

“When I Give A Damn, I’ll Let You Know” ~ Stephen A. Smith

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via The Blaze:

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith on Friday defended Kobe Bryant’s recent remarks on the Trayvon Martin case — and openly admitted his stance would “upset” a lot of black people.

Bryant recently told The New Yorker that he wasn’t entirely comfortable with the way several Miami Heat players wore hoodies in support of Martin following the shooting. He said he doesn’t react emotionally just because a certain case involves an African-American. Instead, he explained, people should relax and wait for all the facts to come out before rushing to judgement.

As TV host Arsenio Hall pointed out during his interview with Smith, the comments sent “black Twitter” into a frenzy. Bryant later said he felt Martin was “wronged” and justice wasn’t served.

“You can’t turn around and assume or think that people from other races are gonna ever to be fair to you if you aren’t willing to exercise fairness yourself. Lay back, listen to the facts, and then accord justice where it should be served,” Smith said, explaining Bryant’s comments. “Me personally, I definitely think [Bryant] was right on point with that.”

“I know a lot of black people are going to be upset about that,” he added. “Like I’ve told you, when I give a damn, I’ll let you know.”

Referencing the infamous Tawana Brawley case, Hall admitted he “went hook, line, and sinker with an opinion” before all the facts came out.

“You have to understand, when you make the mistake of jumping to emotional conclusions and being factually incorrect, your cachet diminishes,” Smith agreed. “As a result, once you make that mistake, you don’t get to come back from that.”

And let’s talk about the narrative (here and here) Stephen Smith and Kobe Bryant are speaking about:

I found this story very interesting. This is via Moonbattery, and is a truncated versions of these two posts:

Here is Moonbat’s post:

We know that Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system on the night he tried to kill George Zimmerman, and had been suspended from school for using marijuana. Some believe he was a drug dealer. You might assume his famous mission to acquire Skittles candies and Arizona iced tea (actually watermelon juice, but the media is only good at narratives, not factual details) was a classic example of a pothead with the munchies. Here’s another theory…. (links above)

The “Sage from South Central” dismantles myth of the “angelic kid” other wise known as Trayvon Martin. Couple this with Bill Whittle’s destruction of the media myth (http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls)… and you have a recipe for truth to come out. See also my blog post on the matter: http://tinyurl.com/knp3sxd

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/

New Orwellian Attack Makes the Word “Homosexual” a Slur

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gay Patriot writes about how the Left fights the BIG battles facing our nation: over spending, foreign policy pressures, terrorism, freedom, etc. Hahahahaha… just joking:

As noted before, on the right, we worry about actual issues: regulation-fueled economic decline, corruption in Government, the erosion of individual liberty, the unsustainable fiscal path of the national Government.

On the left, they worry about vocabulary.

In part, this is a mark of desperation, David Brock and his merry band of Soros-paid nutjobs desperate for anything they can fling against the one news outlet that airs opposition views to leftist hegemony. There is no real racism, sexism, or homophobia on the right. So the left, in its desperation to remain peeved and aggrieved, must constantly lower the bar and change the rules. Hence, they declare that a previously inoffensive word is now offensive, so they can have their self-righteous tantrums about it. Also, note the new phenomenon of the “micro-aggression,” defined as a behavior that would not bother a normal person, but sends a politically correct leftist into paroxysms of outrage.

Read More ~ Good stuff V-to-the-K! I loved the “micro-aggression” addition.

Another Example of Progressive Ideals Ending in Disaster!

Published by Papa Giorgio

An interesting post (@HotAir) caught my attention in regards to birth-control, and the dangers associated with them. Again, the Left has a vision which it thinks will increase choices made in the utopian dreams envisioned of a perfect society. But what leftism fails to do which conservatism does is ask three questions:

1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?

Here is the article:

…First it was former Winter Olympics hopeful and former Townhall.com intern Megan Henry — sidelined due to use of the intrauterine device NuVaRing — whose joining of a class-action lawsuit against NuVaRing parent company Merck Pharmaceuticals made news across the country.

Then there was a 10,000-word essay from Vanity Fair, which asked “why, despite evidence of serious risk, a potentially lethal contraceptive remains on the market.” And Ricki Lake’s documentary on hormonal contraception and “the unexposed side effects of these powerful medications” is getting backlash from writers at Jezebel.com and Slate.

Registered nurse and pro-life activist Jill Stanek told me this exposure is no surprise, delayed though it is:

“In 2005, the World Health Organization classified the morning-after pill as a Class 1 carcinogen — as dangerous as cigarette smoke and asbestos,” Stanek said. “With all of the studies showing links between oral contraception and greater chances of glaucoma, heart risk and breast-cancer risk, it’s amazing any women use them. And the NuvaRing lawsuit shows how dangerous hormonal contraception is.”

“The American people are belatedly finding out from the mainstream media just how far we’ve gone off the path of proper care of the bodies of women,” stated Stanek. She said media attention to the issue, as well prominent political attention to issues like the HHS contraception mandate, has created “a perfect storm for greater knowledge by women about why they should use better wisdom and responsibility in their sexual practices.”

[….]

Obviously, women won’t stop using birth control overnight — and their male sex partners aren’t likely to ask them to stop — but it’s important that young women receive all of the facts surrounding the use of contraception. This is especially true as the HHS mandate forces coverage of products with literally deadly potential.

(read it all)

Democratic Money Grubbing Hypocrites Kowtowing to Billionaires

Published by Papa Giorgio

This bugs me to no end, I will post at the end of this a oft posted comparison to progressive billionaires versus more conservative billionaires and the impact this money has for-or-against our freedoms.

Michael Medved shows how Democrats and rational libertarians (the Koch Brothers) diverge on the issues most important to voters. Not to mention the hypocrisy of the left in all this. So much so that Washington Post’s Dana Milbank said:

✂ “Democrats’ climate-change filibuster is nothing but a lot of hot air”…. “This may be the first time in history that a group of senators filibustered themselves.”

The Washington Examiner’s Zack Colman points out some of the hypocrisy when he writes,

✂ “While Reid has grown more boisterous when it comes to the Koch brothers, Republicans have shot back that Democratic-aligned outsiders are starting to play the big money game as well. They have pointed to Tom Steyer, the billionaire former hedge fund manager, who has pledged to spend $100 million through his NextGen Climate PAC on climate and environmental issues ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.”

Powerline goes on to explain the reason behind a bunch of old, outdated politicians doing an all-nighter:

…Tom Steyer, a billionaire who has made a great deal of money on government-subsidized “green” energy projects, has become one of the Democratic Party’s most important donors. On February 18, he hosted a fundraiser at his home that netted $400,000. Harry Reid and six other Senators attended, along with Al Gore and a number of rich environmentalists. At that meeting, plans for last night’s talk-a-thon were already being laid.

The connection is simple: Steyer has pledged to contribute $50 million and raise another $50 million to help Democrats in the 2014 elections. The catch is that they have to emphasize global warming as an issue:

✦ Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Political Action, plans to spend at least $50 million of the former hedge-fund manager’s money, plus another $50 million raised from other donors. The group will refuse to spend money on behalf of Democrats who oppose climate regulation, but will not spend money against them either, according to Chris Lehane, a Steyer consultant.

So the Democrats are trying to walk a narrow line. They need to make noise about global warming to keep the cash flowing from Tom Steyer and other deep-pocketed environmental activists (some of whom, of course, are also “green” energy cronies)….

Plus, the comparison to these leftist radicals shrinking human freedom (growing government) versus allowing the proverbial us to make more choices in the individual sense (smaller government) is legend:

…First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want. It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own. Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines. Which agency would do the best job? Hmmmm … I know! How about TSA? With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.

Don’t want to own a gun? Hey, no worries. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates. The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all. Isn’t choice great? Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own. Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway. Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t. Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership….

…read more…

This is why people fear government, to answer John’s question.

Back to the excellent NewsBusters response to “Krystal Ball” on MSNBC:

Honestly, how does this woman have a job in a news division?

Oh. That’s right. MSNBC isn’t a news organization. How could I have forgotten?

Saying Republicans don’t want young people to buy health insurance is preposterous.

What conservatives don’t want is the government to force young people to purchase something that morbidity tables show will likely have absolutely no benefit for them until the distant future so that others who likely will benefit much sooner can get it either for free or far more cheaply.

Irrespective of what Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts foolishly ruled last year, this is neither Constitutional nor ethical.

As for these young people dying if ObamaCare is not enacted, that asininely assumes that people won’t have the money to pay for their care if they get sick or won’t purchase health insurance when they reach an age when they believe they need it.

For example, Ball mentioned prenatal care and tetanus shots. As a person that owns an insurance agency, I certainly would be telling a client looking to have children to purchase health insurance.

As for Pap smears, the Mayo Clinic recommends women over 21 do them every two to three years.

The cost varies state by state. In New York City, you can get one for as little as $150.

As such, a woman in that city doing it even once every two years would save thousands of dollars paying for it herself rather than buying health insurance.

As for cholesterol tests, these are now available online for as little as $40.

…read more…

This great, short, update comes via The Lonely Conservative:

The short answer to the question posed above is “Not even close.” It’s not the Koch Brothers or ALEC. Nope. The biggest spender in the dark money game is the Tides Foundation. Oh and by the way, Tides is a big liberal group.

Whenever “ALEC” and “dark money” are mentioned in the media, however, there ought to be a third name given at least equal attention – the Tides Foundation. That’s because Tides, the San Francisco-based funder of virtually every liberal activist group in existence since the mid-1970s, pioneered the concept of providing a cut-out for donors who don’t wish to be associated in public with a particular cause. It is instructive to compare the funding totals for Tides and ALEC.

A search of non-profit grant databases reveals 139 grants worth a total of $5.6 million to ALEC since 1998. By comparison, Tides is the Mega-Goliath of dark money cash flows. Tides received 1,976 grants worth a total of $451 million during the same period, or nearly 100 times as much money as ALEC. But even that’s not the whole story with Tides, which unlike ALEC, has divided and multiplied over the years. Add to the Tides Foundation total the directly linked Tides Center’s 465 grants with a combined worth of $62 million, and the total is well over half a billion dollars. (Read More)

So there.

READ MORE

Rep. Gowdy’s Floor Speech In Favor Of ENFORCE The Law Act

Published by Papa Giorgio

This first video is another wonderful Trey Gowdy anthem. Click his name in the “TAGS” to see other “music to your ears” speeches:

Video description: Rep. Gowdy’s floor speech in favor of H.R. 4138 the ENFORCE the Law Act.

And this is a recent Jonathan Turley statement before Congress (do the same, check out Turley in the “TAGS”):

Video description:

Via The Blaze ~ I did turn the volume up from the original file… so prep your volume control.

A constitutional law expert warned Congress during a hearing Wednesday that America has reached a “constitutional tipping point” under the watch of President Barack Obama.

Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of continued executive overreach.

“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” Turley said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”

“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” he added….

White House Starts War on Disclosure of Pay Privacy

Published by Papa Giorgio

I deal with this “disparity” in full here.

The first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, but five years later, the White House is still talking about the gender wage-gap.

At a White House briefing on Wednesday, Betsey Stevenson, one of President Obama’s economic advisers, said female employees need to know how much their male colleagues earn, so they can tell if they’re being paid equally.

(read it all)

Now Democrats Want Control Over the Calendar

Published by Papa Giorgio

First Democrats want control over weather (see below), their fight against global warming is all the rave. Then they wanted to control nature more by blurring the lines of gender. Now they want to rewrite the calendar.

The above tweet comes from Gateway Pundit, and shows — apparently — the type of thinking from the top. Here’s what is said about it at GP:

Tara McGuinness is the Obama White House Senior Communications Advisor. Her Twitter profile says she’s “all health care all the time.”

Today McGuinness responded to Aaron Blake at the Washington Post when he asked her why there were fewer people signed up for Obamacare in February than January. Well, because… “there are fewer days in January than February.”

Obviously she made a simple mistake. But in the world of the blogosphere, it is one that will live on… and on… and on. I just wish that the Democrats made similar silly mistakes instead of wanting to spend trillions of dollars to control weather by a fraction of a degree, regulating businesses out of the economy through eco-fascist ideology, and controlling the certificates of birth nature intended. Sick!

The “Hulk” (Mark Ruffalo) Repeats a Liberal Mantra

Published by Papa Giorgio

This comes via The Blaze:

Representing “The O’Reilly Factor,” correspondent Jesse Watters attended the annual Sundance Film Festival to talk some politics and see if any celebrities would admit they are disappointed with President Barack Obama’s job performance.

Actress Marisa Tomei walked away when Watters asked her about Obama, saying “yuck” to the simple question. Meanwhile, actor Philip Seymour Hoffman “abruptly ended his smoke break” when he saw him approaching….

The Right Scoop quickly adds to the HULK confrontation:

  • Jesse Watters went to Sundance Film Festival and spoke to a few actors and actresses about Obama and politics. When he got to Mark Ruffalo, who played the Hulk in Avengers, he brought Benghazi up and this liberal buffoon had the audacity to blame Republicans for Benghazi because he said they cut funding for security – even though we know that is absolutely false based on congressional testimony. Which is why we call him a buffoon.

A while ago, Breitbart put up this exchange in Congress about this very issue:

The Daily Caller makes the point that i will follow up on with an example from the Bush days about veterans benefits:

…“Since gaining the majority in 2011, House Republicans have voted to reduce embassy security funding by approximately half a billion dollars below the amounts requested by the Obama Administration,” the memo reads. “Although the Senate has been able to restore a small portion of these funds, the final appropriations enacted by Congress in the previous two Fiscal Years have been far below the amounts requested by the Administration for embassy security, and far below the levels enacted in Fiscal Year 2010, the last year Democrats controlled the House.”

What Cummings and the Democratic Oversight Committee staff are referring to is the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the programs – $567.5 million less than the Obama administration’s request.

Cummings and the Democratic staff memo don’t mention that Democrats made those cuts into embassy security funding possible.

This explains why Charlene Lamb…

Who Is This Charlene Lamb?

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.

That would seem to be the end of the story.

(The Daily Beast)

…the woman responding “no” in the video above, said “no”. A tactic used often in politics is to say somethig is “cut” that is merely a decrease IN ACTUAL increases in spending. From the Bush days we heard Democrats harping that Bush “cut” veterans benefits, when they have increased every year till then:

(Only in politics can an increase in a budget be considered a negative.) And this budget graph (below) likewise supports that the State Department got all the monies needed for their security, via Heritage (h/t, Publius1787):

….It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.

…read more…