— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) April 7, 2015
Right-o, because women aren’t students, veterans, etc …. #derp
— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) April 7, 2015
Right-o, because women aren’t students, veterans, etc …. #derp
As we near the final few weeks of one of the most hotly contested Senate races in the US – right here in North Carolina, social media messaging becomes more and more crucial for candidates as they continue their quest to win over undecided/unaffiliated voters in order to cross the finish line first in November. In the case of incumbent Senator Kay Hagan, the vast majority of the time that “messaging” boils down to falsehoods, half-truths, personal attacks on character, and grossly taking her opponent – GOP nominee and NC House Speaker Thom Tillis – grossly out of context.
Today, she managed to combine several of her typical tactics into standard anti-Tillis tweets – except this time she inadvertently slammed … herself and her fellow NC Democrats.
As of this writing, here are the two tweets:
— Kay Hagan (@kayhagan) September 30, 2014
— Kay Hagan (@kayhagan) September 30, 2014
Here’s the “write-up” on her campaign website:
GREENSBORO – Speaker Thom Tillis’ dangerous education agenda slashed $500 million from public education in order to give tax cuts for the wealthy, so it unfortunately comes as no surprise that a new report ranks North Carolina as the worst state for teachers. Those education cuts have put the squeeze on teachers who are dealing with larger class sizes, fewer teaching assistants and outdated supplies that have left them dipping into their own pockets to stock their classrooms.
From the Greensboro News & Record:
Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, North Carolina ranks as the worst state for teachers, according to a new ranking by WalletHub.
The personal finance website analyzed data along 18 categories to come to its rankings.
The metrics it looked at included looks at states’ median starting salaries, unemployment rates and teacher job openings, among other factors.
Read the rest of the article HERE.
But what Hagan doesn’t tell you – perhaps intentionally, or perhaps it was out of sheer ignorance (my vote is for the latter) – are these pesky little details, as reported by Charlotte-based news outlet WCNC (bolded emphasis added by me):
The company looked at things like starting salary, per pupil spending and the 10-year change in teacher salaries from 2003-04 to 2013-14.
“The NC rank was affected mostly by the level of salaries that teachers have in NC and related indicators (starting salary, salaries increase over the last decade etc.),” Raz Daraban, communications manager for WalletHub said via email. “Other factors that had a negative impact were the low annual state and local expenditures for K-12 public schools per student and the best schools ranking.”
The analysis did not take into account the teacher raises that were approved this summer by state lawmakers.
What does all that mean? Well, a number of important things:
1) The ranking was “mostly affected” by salaries and their increase “over the last decade” – which, as NC education guru Terry Stoops notes means SEVEN of the TEN years of the report, the NC state legislature (known here as the General Assembly) was controlled by … Democrats, including then-state Senator Kay Hagan:
The “survey” is a series of rankings developed by Richie Bernardo, who is a financial writer at WalletHub.com and appears to be a nice young man. In fact, one wonders why the reporter did not ask Mr. Bernardo to comment on the ranking. After all, he did ask three liberals – State Superintendent June Atkinson, Progress NC’s Gerrick Brenner, and N.C. Association of Educators president Rodney Ellis – to use the survey as a platform to bash state legislators and Republicans. To respond to their charges, he interviewed one person – Tom Murry, a Republican representative from Wake County. To add insult to injury, the reporter repeatedly misspelled Rep. Murry’s last name.
I will not get into too much detail about the arbitrariness of the methodology or the sources used. (For an excellent overview of both, read this article from the Daily Haymaker.) The survey itself examined changes in per-pupil spending and teacher pay over ten years. Republicans have been in charge of the legislature for four years but most of the data sets used by Mr. [Richie] Bernard[o] lag by at least one year. As a result, it represents three years of legislative control by Republicans and seven years of control by Democrats. Given that fact, an honest liberal would have observed that Republicans and Democrats share the blame in stunting school funding growth.
But honesty, among other virtues, is usually in short supply during election season.
2) As pointed out above in the WCNC piece (and what should have been obvious, considering the years they reviewed), WalletHub’s analysis didn’t include the 7% increase in teacher pay raises that were passed by the GOP-led NC General Assembly over the summer. Keep in mind, too, that some of the statistics for the report were compiled with information provided by the National Education Association – hardly a non-partisan organization. So exactly how much weight should be given to its “findings” in the scheme of things?
FULL WEIGHT, according to the Hagan campaign – and their faithful supporters on social media, who have also been dutifully passing along links to articles about the report and doing just as Hagan did, blame Tillis reflexively rather than carefully read and analyze the articles and report linked. But since we’re supposed to take this report as the “gospel truth according to Kay and Co,”, we’ll run with the stats in it – just for the sake of argument. You know, argue on their terms.
Not surprising that Senator Hagan and her campaign team apparently didn’t read the fine print on what’s been published by mainstream outlets about this report, when you consider that the most disastrous legislation that passed in modern history – Obamacare – wasn’t read in full by most Democrats who voted for it, either.
Including Senator Hagan who, ironically, brags of helping craft the bill that eventually forced nearly 475,000 North Carolinians off of health insurance plans they liked – in spite of Hagan’s some 24 promises to the contrary.
As they say, some things never change …
When all else fails for Democrats, the “VICTIM” card must be played! Via The Hill’s Briefing Room blog:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is calling the attack during the immigration debate on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “sexist.”
On MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” late Monday, Schakowsky was asked to react to Rep. Tom Marino’s (R-Pa.) comments toward Pelosi in which he suggested she bore some of the blame for the border crisis.
“I would say that it’s sexist and that it was patronizing. ‘Do the research, Madam Leader.’ And he got exactly what he deserved. And then for him to claim, ‘I was the tough guy. I’m a street fighter.’ Really? On the floor of the House?” she said.
Before the House passed the new version of the GOP border bill on Friday, Marino broke floor protocol and called out Pelosi directly.
“I did the research on it,” he said. “You might want to try it. You might want to try it, Madam Leader.”
Um, correction. Marino didn’t “break floor protocol” – it was Pelosi who did so by leaving her side of the aisle and marching over to his to confront him, as the video clearly shows. That’s why he said to her, “I did the research,” etc.
Continuing from The Hill’s report:
“And talking to her in that condescending way. I’m really offended. And I was proud of her for marching over,” Schakowsky said.
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was on the House floor at the time, said Pelosi walked across the aisle to Marino and said, “You’re insignificant.”
“You know, you’re not supposed to direct comments personally, and he did just that. He deserved what he got and shouldn’t be proud of it,” Schakowsky added.
If Schakowsky had ANY shame whatsoever, which she doesn’t, she’d either not comment on this at all or at the very least say both sides got heated. I know there’s no way in hell she’d actually admit the truth, which is that Pelosi got WAY out of line in her Friday chase-down of Marino. Escalating disagreement personally like what she did simply isn’t done on the House floor, shouldn’t be done.
You wanna know what the infuriating thing is about Schakowsky’s bull sh*t comments on Pelosi’s meltdown?
1) That she’s trying to have her cake and eat it, too, on the “sexism” card. Marino was “sexist” for defending what he was saying and not backing down from her, but he’d have also been “sexist” had he been the one who walked across the aisle and confronted her. Don’t you just love how liberals enjoy having it both ways?
2) Schakowsky is knowingly lying about the instigator of the “personal” attack. Marino called out the other side of the aisle for not doing much of anything on immigration when they had control for the first two years of Obama’s presidency. Pelosi came over to him and tried to “correct” him and then went personal by calling him “insignificant.” Again, imagine the howls of outrage from “feminists” had he said and done the same to her? Furthermore, why is Marino “insignificant” to Pelosi? I would love to hear an answer to that one.
3) Schakowsky is doing exactly what “feminists” of yesteryear deplored – in effect, being the opposite of a true feminist – by giving Pelosi the fainting couch treatment, suggesting any disagreement with female political leaders in positions of power by men are, by default, outrageous and sexist and therefore any response the “attacked” woman decides is “appropriate” and should not be questioned nor criticized. Or …., you got it, sexism!
4) I think of all the legitimate claims of sexism in this country from years past and current, where women have actually been real victims of sexually hostile environments, and then I read Schakowsky’s completely watered down definition of it and it makes me sick. As usual, the left dumbs down words to the point they have no real meaning anymore except what they decide it is at the time – for political advantage, of course.
Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee argued Wednesday the Republican effort to sue President Obama is nothing but a veiled attempt to impeach him — something Democrats never did to President George W. Bush:
I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job. A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.
Except former Rep. Dennis Kucinich did actually introduce a bill to impeach Bush in 2008 — and Jackson Lee actually was a co-sponsor to the legislation.
Here’s the text of H. Res. 1258: “Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.” You can see who all the co-sponsors were here. Rep. Jackson Lee was indeed one of them.
Facts are pesky little things, aren’t they?
Update – 10:16 AM:
Sheila Jackson Lee's office tells me she "misspoke" when she said Dems never tried to impeach Bush. (She co-sponsored the impeachment bill.)
— Chris Moody (@moody) July 31, 2014
“Misspoke”? That was the whole purpose of her rant! You can’t make this stuff up. LOL.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest angered a lot of journalists at today’s press briefing over his comments regarding the anonymous sources of a story he was questioned on. Via The Hill:
Complaints from White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Monday about anonymous news sources prompted a testy exchange with reporters who noted that administration officials regularly demand anonymity.
Earnest was asked about a Washington Post report charging that the administration ignored predictions last year from the Department of Homeland Security about the surge of unaccompanied minors who have flooded across the border in recent months.
ut the spokesman looked to challenge the report by arguing it was “based entirely on anonymous sources.” Earnest also offered a broader critique on the use of anonymous sourcing in a bid to challenge the credibility of the story.
“In the course of reporting, I think it’s important, based on my own personal view, for those kinds of quotes and those kinds of stories to be given greater weight than just anonymous sources,” Earnest said. “So, what that means is, if you have anonymous sources at the White House who are telling you something, and you’re gonna say to them — that anonymous source — ‘Look, I’m willing to give your side of the story a little less weight right now, because you’re telling me this anonymously.’ “
That prompted complaints from reporters who noted that the White House routinely insists on anonymity when unveiling new efforts.
“Would you guys commit then, when you have situations like today’s call, which is people specifically picked by the White House to roll out a policy of the White House, would you commit to have those people speak on the record?” asked Associated Press White House correspondent Julie Pace. “Because there doesn’t seem to be a reason to put them on background.”
“What I will commit to is a case-by-case evaluation of the background or the ground rules of each of these kinds of calls and a commitment to an open dialogue with you about the ground rules that will serve your interests and the White House interests the best,” Earnest said.
Make sure to click on the link above from The Hill to read how some Washington Post journos responded on Twitter to a particularly ridiculous criticism Earnest leveled at them about not sending anyone to the briefing to “defend themselves” on their border story published today. It goes without saying that the write-up wasn’t exactly flattering to the administration, and for that – of course – journalists must be punished. It’s the Chicago-on-the-Potomac way.
As always with this White House, it’s do as I say – not as I do. “Transparency” you can believe in, and all that …
Considering the depth of ignorance on display here, it’s astonishing how high this woman has risen in power in Congress over the last couple of decades. Then again, maybe not, considering how Democrats think and operate:
Americans should live in fear of the Supreme Court, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday.
Hammering a pair of recent rulings related to birth control access, the House minority leader suggested the conservative-leaning court is stealing women’s freedoms when it comes to making healthcare choices.
“We should be afraid of this court. That five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not. … It is so stunning,” Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol.
Pelosi said last week’s Supreme Court ruling that the birth control mandate under President Obama’s healthcare reform law is a violation of religious freedom was particularly egregious.
“That court decision was a frightening one,” she said. “That five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It’s not her boss’s business. His business is whatever his business is. But it’s not what contraception she uses.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again in hopes it will sink in with the clueless: By forcing your boss to pay for healthcare options that go against his or her religious conscience, you ARE putting them in the middle of your healthcare decisions. Furthermore, you’ve told them that their religious rights should be laid at the feet of the state simply because you want something that you think shouldn’t have to pay for. Not only that, but in the case of Hobby Lobby, it already offers – and continues to offer – healthcare coverage for sixteen types pf birth control. It wanted nothing to do, however, with abortifacients, which was the issue at the heart of their case against the Obama administration.
But we’ve rehashed that again and again. What I want to address is the sexism, yes, outright sexism Pelosi – and other female Democrat politicos and so-called “woman’s rights activists” on the left who’ve uttered similar remarks – has blatantly exhibited here, and how this disturbing double standard has unfortunately become “acceptable” over the years because too few have dared to question it and/or call it out. Her implication here is that if we’d just had a Supreme Court full of women, they’ve have never ruled this way. To Pelosi, there’s no way the five (male) justices who ruled the way they did in the Hobby Lobby case could have done so for any other reason other than they hate women or, at the very least, want to see them relegated back to being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Keep in mind that Pelosi has offered no legal basis for her disagreement with the high court’s decision, so we’re left to assume that not only does she believe the “five guys” are misogynists, but also that she’s in favor of women on the court ruling based on feelings rather than the law. And here you thought, by the standards that Democrats themselves have set, that it was wrong to believe women make judgment calls based purely on their emotions.
Lastly, I want you to imagine for a second that we did have a majority female Supreme Court, and how high the level of outrage would be nationwide if anyone on the right condemned a case ruling based solely on the sex of the justices who ruled for or against it. We’d be at Code Red on the outrage meter, and understandably so. That we’re not when it comes to “reverse sexism” just shows how successful feminists on the left have been over the years at demonizing men and demagoguing and dumbing down the debate over women’s rights issues – and issues that go beyond women’s rights but are nevertheless hijacked by “feminists” for their own warped agendas. That needs to change.
Losing it in more ways than one. Via ABC News:
Senate Democrats said they plan to unveil legislation in the coming weeks in response to the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in the Hobby Lobby contraception case.
“This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, and we’re going to do something about it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill today. “People are going to have to walk down here and vote, and if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think it’s — they’re going to have — be treated unfavorably come November with the elections.”
Reid said the Senate needed to do something to “ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.”
Look, I know liberals view Justice Thomas as “black in color only” – meaning they think he’s only black on the surface (meaning he’s a “sellout to his people” or whatever) but the least the despicable Majority Leader of the United States Senate could do as a show of basic, common decency is to pretend in public that’s not what he thinks. Sheesh.
Can you imagine?? Talk about an epic fail:
ACTON (CBS) – “He was steadfast. He took care of us, all of these years.”
Suzanne Chase of Acton was talking about her husband, Doug, a Vietnam veteran who was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2011.
In 2012, she tried to move his medical care to the Veterans Affairs hospital in Bedford.
“It was so difficult for him to take the ambulance ride into Boston, we wanted to be closer.”
They waited about four months and never heard anything. Then Douglas Chase died in August 2012.
But two weeks ago, he got a letter, from the VA in Bedford, saying he could now call to make an appointment to see a primary care doctor.
“It was addressed to my husband and I opened it,” said Suzanne Chase. “I was in complete disbelief.”
She says the VA had to know her husband was dead because she applied for funeral benefits two years ago and was denied.
The reason for the denial: Her husband was never treated at a VA hospital.
“It is absurd,” said Chase. “It made me angry because I just don’t think our veterans should be treated this way.”
She wrote a letter to the Bedford VA two weeks ago, but once again, no response.
“I am hoping if other people speak out, they can improve the system, so no one else dies waiting for an appointment.”
Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive has been recycled, making it likely the lost emails of the lightening rod in the tea party targeting controversy will never be found, according to multiple sources.
“We’ve been informed that the hard drive has been thrown away,” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a brief hallway interview.
Two additional sources told POLITICO the same late Wednesday, citing IRS officials.
It may just be standard government procedure, but the revelation is significant because some lawmakers and observers thought there was a way that tech experts could revive Lerner’s emails after they were washed away in a computer crash in the summer of 2011. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), for example, subpoenaed her damaged hard drive earlier this week, when he asked for “all hard drives, external drives, thumb drives and computers” and “all electronic communication devices the IRS issued to Lois G. Lerner.”
“IT experts have weighed in and said yes — we can get those” emails, said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) earlier Wednesday.
The latest news suggests such professionals may never get the chance to try again — and the IRS has even said its criminal investigators who specialize in rebuilding hard drives to recover hidden information from criminals were unable to restore the data back in 2011. But this is only likely to further enrage Republicans, who are fuming over the matter and suspect Washington officials drove the selective scrutiny.
Issa’s office issued a statement tonight saying, “If the IRS truly got rid of evidence in a way that violated the Federal Records Act and ensured the FBI never got a crack at recovering files from an official claiming a Fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination, this is proof their whole line about ‘losing’ e-mails in the targeting scandal was just one more attempted deception. Old and useless binders of information are still stored and maintained on federal agency shelves; official records, like the e-mails of a prominent official, don’t just disappear without a trace unless that was the intention.”
Best Tweet response to this news I’ve seen so far:
BREAKING: the IRS has recycled the hard drive containing Lois Lerner’s emails and turned it into a presidential golf club. – @Gunservatively
You can choose to laugh, cry, mock, or scream at the depth of corruption on display here. For the moment, I choose mockery.
There will be hearings on this issue Friday and Monday where IRS Commissioner John Koskinen will testify. Stay tuned.
Explanations provided by the Internal Revenue Service for how it lost two years of former employee Lois Lerner’s emails are “entirely reasonable,” the White House said on Monday.
“You’ve never heard of a computer crashing before?” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters traveling with the president aboard Air Force One.
But the White House dismissed Republican complaints as conspiratorial.
“I think it’s entirely reasonable, because it’s the truth and it’s a fact, and speculation otherwise I think is indicative of the kinds of conspiracies that are propagated around this story. And they’re propagated in a way that has left people with a very mistaken impression about what exactly occurred,” Earnest said.
“The far-fetched skepticism expressed by some Republican members of Congress I think is not at all surprising and not particularly believable,” Earnest added.
A reminder, again, of what one DOJ attorney told Power Line’s Scott Johnson about server back-ups:
I’m a DOJ lawyer, so you obviously cannot use my name or any identifying information. But the idea that a “hard drive crash” somehow destroyed all of Ms. Lerner’s intra-government email correspondence during the period in question [2009-2011] is laughable. Government email servers are backed up every night. So if she actually had a hard drive fail, her emails would be recoverable from the backup. If the backup was somehow also compromised, then we are talking about a conspiracy.
Well, it’s no secret that the President of the United States thinks skepticism of government is a bad thing (but only when he’s President), but at the same time apparently the White House thinks everyone should just swallow whole without question the “entirely reasonable” excuses they’re giving as to why two years worth of key IRS emails – you know, the emails that just happen to be the ones between top Democrats, the WH, Treasury, DOJ, etc – simply vanished. I’m sorry, but when you’re government wants you to stop being skeptical – especially on the issue of phony “computer crashes”, and to stop questioning what they do, we have a serious problem – starting with the corruptocrat sitting in the Oval Office.
Furthermore, when not even most of the reliable in the mainstream media are buying your excuses, you know there’s a big problem not just with your story, but your credibility as well. Mr. Earnest may be carrying on in the great tradition of Obama press secretaries infamously lying through their respective teeth (like Jay Carney and Robert Fibbs, er, Gibbs) but about the only people who believe him at this point are the Obama faithful who would declare his innocence even if he were literally holding the smoking gun, and most of the commentators at MSNBC. But I repeat myself.