UNLV students to Hillary: Your $225,000 speaking fee is “outrageous”

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rahm Emanuel

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton embraces Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel during an appearance to promote her new book, Wednesday, June 11, 2014, in Chicago. (AP Photo/Stacy Thacker)

The fallout from La Clinton’s bizarre “dead broke” comments continues – via The Hill:

Hillary Clinton is in hot water over a $225,000 speaking fee she will reportedly receive for an upcoming appearance at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

UNLV students are demanding Clinton to return what they see as an “outrageous” speaking fee for an October event and have criticized the school for paying her so much money at a time when tuition is scheduled to spike by 17 percent over the next four years. 

“We really appreciate anybody who would come to raise money for the university,” UNLV student body president Elias Benjelloun told a Nevada television station. “But anybody who’s being paid $225,000 to come speak, we think that’s a little bit outrageous. And we’d like Secretary Clinton, respectfully, to gracefully return to the university or the foundation.”

Benjelloun said the potential 2016 presidential contender should donate her fee to the university.


Republicans have spread a video of student leaders slamming the university’s decision, hoping to paint Clinton as out of touch with working families, much the same way as Democrats attacked Mitt Romney for being too rich in the 2012 presidential campaign.

It’s not often we see liberals hoisted by their own petards, so to speak, and I have to admit that I’m immensely enjoying the Clintons’ decades-old class warfare arguments being turned against them at a critical time in the run-up to the former Sec. of State’s expected (expected by me) announcement at another run for President.  

For better or worse, Democrats have “set the standard” upon which the so-called “rich” should be judged going back many years, and Mrs. Clinton right now is on the receiving end of the negative backlash of a ridiculous, divisive (not to mention double) standard she and her party have held Republicans to since they’ve been active in politics, one which is now being used as a criticism against … her. It is to laugh.  

QOTD: On the many times #SCOTUS has ruled unanimously against the Obama admin


Obama arrogance

John Fund on the Obama administration’s bad track record with respect to the Supreme Court’s many unanimous rulings against them (via):

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).

The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.

So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”

Disturbing, but true. Make sure to read the whole thing.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: Let’s videotape all gun sales in our city

Rahm Emanuel

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel

When the stench of fascism is in the air, you know Chicago mayor and former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel can’t be too far away:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced a proposal Wednesday that would require all gun sales in the city to be videotaped, as part of a plan to allow gun stores back in Chicago under very tight restrictions.

The measure, which would also ban gun stores near schools and parks, was introduced Wednesday at a city council meeting without discussion. It was then referred to the council’s Public Safety Committee.

A vote on the proposal has not been scheduled.

The move comes in response to a January federal court ruling that deemed Chicago’s longtime ban on gun stores unconstitutional. The court gave the city six months to approve store restrictions while lifting the ban, setting a deadline of July 14 for the new plan.

The Democratic mayor’s plan, which is likely to be controversial, would aim to significantly limit any gun dealer who wishes to operate in the city. Emanuel’s proposal would also require a 72-hour waiting period for purchasing handguns and a 24-hour waiting period for rifles and shotguns.

Dealers would then be able to sell only one handgun per month, per buyer. Store records would also be subject to quarterly audits.

And here’s your quote of the day – on the same topic:

On Tuesday, Emanuel told a downtown hotel ballroom full of police officers that the new rules are “a smart, tough and enforceable way to prevent illegal guns in the city of Chicago.”

“Now that we’re required to allow gun sales within the city limits, we do it in a way that does not undermine our public safety goals,” said Emanuel, speaking at the police department’s annual awards ceremony.

How long has he been mayor of the murder capital of America again? “Safety goals” under the leadership of of Mayor Emanuel will likely always fall short because, like a typical elected liberal Democrat, he believes the “solution” to gun violence – which is the major driving force behind the crime problem in Chicago –  is to keep innocent, law-abiding people who simply want to protect themselves disarmed while the thugs who mean to do them harm obtain guns in whatever way they can – legal or not.

Infuriating.  But, sadly, the cycle continues.

Transparency watch: NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio frequently closes events to the press

Obama and de Blasio

Birds of a feather…
Image via Reuters/Larry Downing

Via the Associated Press:

From the first moments of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration, when he initially declared his midnight swearing-in off limits to the media, he has established a record of frequently conducting public business in private, with dozens of events closed to the press.

In nearly five months in office, de Blasio barred the media from 53 events and limited access to 30 more, an Associated Press analysis of de Blasio’s schedule shows. On a handful of days, his entire schedule was off limits. All told, more than 20 percent of his listed events were closed to the media.

Events in which reporters were notified of their existence but prevented from attending ranged from meetings with government figures such as the mayor of Seattle and Israel’s minister of foreign affairs to sit-downs with the NBA commissioner, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Russian band Pussy Riot.

Often, the mayor’s photographer later published images from those so-called private meetings, meaning that an official image of the event is the only one that exists.

It’s a tactic President Barack Obama has also used while restricting access to events in the White House and around the world. Several news organizations, including the AP, refuse to distribute such handout images from Obama or de Blasio.

De Blasio, a populist Democrat who campaigned with promises of an open administration, said in a news conference in Brooklyn on Tuesday that he “believes deeply in transparency” and that his administration could do better.

LOL. Something else he has in common with our celebrity President: Do as I say, but not as I do. Talk is cheap, Mayor.  Too bad the political promises he makes to his big money donors and diehard liberal base are not.

House GOP to pass “#Obamacare replacement bill” before August recess?



Interesting development – via The Hill:

House conservatives will press their leaders this week to move on an ObamaCare replacement bill before the August recess.

But it’s unclear if there are enough votes to pass it.

According to several GOP lawmakers, members of the conservative-leaning Republican Study Committee (RSC) plan to wear lapel pins to the weekly conference meeting that state, “HR 3121, There’s a Better Way” as a sign of support for moving a bill that is co-sponsored by 130 House Republicans.

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) the lead sponsor of H.R. 3121, the “American Health Care Reform Act of 2013,” told The Hill that RSC members will “all wear little pins to conference [this] week … to push our leadership to bring this bill up or [another] bill up.”

The Tennessee doctor said the GOP has two months to move an alternative to the House floor before lawmakers head back to their districts for the month-long recess. Roe noted that several alternatives have been offered by his colleagues, including fellow physician Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.).

House GOP members agree on about 80 percent of what should be in a repeal-and-replace bill, Roe said, adding there has been some disagreement on tax provisions.

The Roe measure, strongly backed by RSC Chairman Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), would fully repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with an expansion of health savings accounts, medical liability reform and the elimination of restrictions on purchasing insurance across state lines.

But time is of the essence.


Some Republicans are wary of tackling such a controversial issue so close to the election. They also point out that offering a bill would give Democrats political ammunition that could be used in campaign ads this fall.

Proponents of an ObamaCare replacement measure counter that President Obama has repeatedly mocked Republican leaders for not keeping their promise to come up with an alternative.

Whatever Republicans put forward, Democrats won’t support it. That means GOP leaders will have to keep defections under 20 in order to get 218 votes. That won’t be easy.

The article goes on to note that there are some Republicans in the House who are not on board with a replacement bill of any kind and who only want to repeal Obamacare entirely, while there are others who believe any attempt to repeal at this point would be futile since many of the bill’s components are already in effect.

Whatever the case may be, even if the House does pass repeal and replace legislation before they recess in July it will be DOA in the US Senate where wacko bird Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be sure to put the brakes on it rapid fire.  So passage of any such bill on the House side would have to be considered largely symbolic – but perhaps necessary nevertheless for those Republicans in key House districts across the country whose citizens and respective economies have been hit particularly hard by the passage and implementation of the so-called “Affordable Care Act.”

Stay tuned.

North Korea: all men must now wear Kim Jong Un’s hairstyle?


**Posted by Phineas

Bah! You call that a "haircut?"

Bah! You call that a “haircut?”

When you’re the boy god-king of the world’s largest prison camp masquerading as a nation, you can get away with weird, petty stuff like this:

If you are a man in North Korea, we sincerely hope you have a round face. It’s the shape that will work with your new haircut.

That new haircut is reportedly called the “Dear Leader Kim Jong Un,” modeled after—you guessed it—North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s impenetrable block of black hair atop his chubby cheeks. The style reportedly became a state-mandated guideline about two weeks ago, though experts familiar with the country have said there’s no evidence a new hairstyle rule has gone into effect.

According to the article, this isn’t something new for North Korea: Kim’s father, the late, demented Kim Jong Il, launched a state campaign against long hair on the grounds that it sucked the nutrients from one’s brain.


Anyway, a TV campaign was launched and “journalists” would go to people’s homes to confront them about their overly lengthy locks. This being North Korea, I suppose they were lucky not to be shot or fed to the dogs.

Back to Kim III, and regardless of whether this is true, it’s another illustration of why limited, constitutional government is best; when there are no limits to the powers of the rulers, there are also no limits to what they will do the the ruled. North Korea is just the extreme example that clarifies the point.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Bogus attacks on Paul Ryan provide disturbing window into liberal groupthink

Rep. Paul Ryan

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Commentary’s Peter Wehner provides a thought-provoking must-read/call to arms against the bogus and despicable attacks Rep. Paul Ryan and others like him trying to tackle the poverty issue routinely receive from Democrat movers and shakers who would rather demagogue the issue for political gain than work together towards resolving it (hat tip):

And now, as Jonathan Tobin has written, comes the latest attempted mugging of Ryan, this time for what he said on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” program last week. When discussing his forthcoming effort to combat poverty, the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate said this:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

The left immediately attacked. Some, like Representative Barbara Lee, accused Ryan of mounting a “thinly veiled racial attack”–one that “cannot be tolerated.” Others, likeNew York Times columnist Paul Krugman, wrote that Ryan’s words amounted to a “racial dog whistle.”

These charges, and there are plenty of others like them, are grotesquely false. I have known Ryan since he was a colleague at Empower America in the 1990s. One of the reasons he was so close to both Bennett and Jack Kemp is because Ryan had a deep concern for those living in the shadows of society, including in America’s inner cities. He also believes Republicans have not focused enough on the problems plaguing the underclass. Both help explain his latest effort to offer conservative solutions to rising poverty.


Why are some liberals doing this? For one thing, they are intellectually exhausted. They know they cannot win the debate on the merits, and so they resort to ad hominemattacks. It is what some on the left instantaneously resort to. Mr. Krugman is a prime example of this. He is a man who seems to gain energy from nursing his political hatreds and takes delight in degrading political commentary. (The latter isn’t an easy achievement.)

But as Jonathan points out, there’s something more fundamental going on here. Liberals who have complicity in the problems plaguing America’s inner cities are attempting to make an honest conversation about poverty impossible. They are signaling that they intend to try to take out Republicans who want to address some of the root causes, the behavioral causes, of poverty.

The danger here is two-fold. One is that by promiscuously invoking racism when it doesn’t apply, they are draining the term of real meaning. Many people already have stopped, and many more will stop, paying attention when the term is so carelessly bandied about.

The other is that some on the left not only aren’t focusing on the institutions, policies, and individuals who are responsible for exacerbating poverty; they are actually building a protective wall around them. For them the villain isn’t, say, the ruinous public school systems in Chicago, Detroit, and D.C. that are destroying the lives and future of hundreds of thousands of kids; it’s Paul Ryan, who among other things supports school choice for inner-city parents. This is what large parts of liberalism have been reduced to: the praetorian guard of corrupt, poverty-creating institutions and organizations.

I’ve said many times before that if we were to have a true, honest, candid discussion about poverty in America – and people really woke up and started to listen and take notice – the liberal monopoly on so-called “victim” and “minority” groups would slowly unravel and then they’d really have to try and fight hard not only to explain their long-term complicity in continuing to (deliberately) support policies that keep Americans down and oftentimes dependent on government but also why they have reflexively tried to stifle the debate by throwing out the race/class card in response to every legitimate, good faith attempt by Republicans to join the discussion to try and help find solutions.

Liberals don’t want this debate.   At all. Period. Especially not in an election year where many vulnerable incumbents in key states across the country are on the ropes.  What this issue needs more than anything is sunlight by way of open dialogue and an all hands on deck approach to tackling the various problems that contribute to poverty.   Until that happens, the problem will remain and and no one wins.  This needs to change, and the sooner the better.

Quote of the Day: Jonah Goldberg on the left’s definition of “diversity”

Jonah Goldberg

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg.

It’s getting bad out there, folks:

Cancel the philosophy courses, people. Oh, and we’re going to be shuttering the political science, religion, and pre-law departments too. We’ll keep some of the English and history folks on for a while longer, but they should probably keep their résumés handy.

Because, you see, they are of no use anymore. We have the answers to the big questions, so why keep pretending there’s anything left to discuss?

At least that’s where Erin Ching, a student at Swarthmore College, seems to be coming down. Her school invited a famous left-wing Princeton professor, Cornel West, and a famous right-wing Princeton professor, Robert George, to have a debate. The two men are friends, and by all accounts they had an utterly civil exchange of ideas. But that only made the whole thing even more outrageous.

“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” Ching told the Daily Gazette, the school’s newspaper. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

Swarthmore must be so proud.

Over at Harvard, another young lady has similar views. Harvard Crimson editorial writer Sandra Y. L. Korn recently called for getting rid of academic freedom in favor of something called “academic justice.”

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” Korn asks.

Goldberg goes on to add more examples of this fascistic train of thought, and finishes with this:

More pernicious, however, is that they believe the question of justice is a settled matter. We know what justice is, so why let serious people debate it anymore? The millennia-old dialogue between Aristotle, Plato, St. Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Rawls, Rorty, Hayek et al.? Shut it down, people. Or at least if the conversation heads in a direction where the Korns, Chings, and Streisands smell “oppression” — as defined solely by the Left — then it must not be “put up with.” Diversity demands that diversity of opinion not be tolerated anymore.


I’ve noted here and elsewhere numerous times (and have included examples) about how modern liberals are some of the most intolerant, closed-minded people you will ever come across – in spite of popular myth (as routinely and eagerly perpetuated by their allies in the mainstream press) to the contrary.   And as Goldberg pointed out, some of the worst of it comes from our institutions of “higher learning” – you know, the places you’re supposed to go to learn how to think outside of the box?  And once they graduate, they move on to bigger and better attempts at shutting down debate by declaring any attempts you make at preserving your right to speak out, think differently,observe your religious beliefs, and hold on to more of the money you earn as the equivalent to “racism, homophobia, sexism”, etc – as we’re seeing play out in states like Kansas and right here in NC.

In a nutshell: “diversity” to the left is not diversity at all. Was having a bit of a discussion with a friend here in NC about this, and her comment to me was that unfortunately this type of thing will never change – and in fact appears to be getting worse, but as I told her, that doesn’t mean we should ever stop raising hell about it.  You know what they say about sunlight …

WH: Min. wage hike wouldn’t lead to up to 1 mil job losses like CBO predicts

Obama confused

Math easily confuses this administration.

Via the Washington Free Beacon:

A top White House economist says that President Obama’s minimum wage increase will have “zero effect” on employment, despite a CBO report that the proposed hike would likely eliminate 500,000 jobs.

“Our view is that zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment,” Council of Economic Advisers chairman Jason Furman said on a conference call with reporters shortly after the report came out.

Furman said the CBO was out-of-step with the White House’s views on the proposed 40 percent hike, though he praised the report for highlighting wage boosts that will accompany the hike.

“Sometimes you have respectful disagreement among economists,” he said of the parts of the study that did not confirm White House rhetoric about the $10.10 wage.

The CBO report found that the wage hike leave up to 1 million workers unemployed, and that the vast majority of benefits would go to middle class earners rather than those living below the poverty line.

“The $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers,” the CBO said. “As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.”

Waiting – just waiting – for anyone in the administration, or a Congressional Democrat, to spin this the same way they did a week and a half ago when another CBO report provided troubling numbers on future employment in the US as a result of the eventual full implementation of Obamacare. National Review’s Jonah Goldberg wrote at the time:

The Congressional Budget Office issued a politically explosive report this week, finding that Obamacare will reduce the number of hours Americans work by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs. This is different from killing 2.5 million jobs, Obamacare defenders are quick to insist. This will be a shortfall on the supply, not demand, side. In other words, people with health insurance will opt not to work in certain circumstances if they know they won’t lose their coverage.

Democrats insist this is a boon. Indeed, many are talking about it as an act of liberation (which reminds me of an eleven-year-old headline from theOnion: “IBM Emancipates 8,000 Wage Slaves”).

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says the CBO report vindicates Obamacare, because “this was one of the goals: to give people life, a healthy life, liberty to pursue their happiness. And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.” […]

Right. “Job-locked.” How dare you be obligated to have to work for a living to pay your bills and be a responsible adult. You follow YOUR passions, while the rest of us go to work to pay for them!  Those of us who haven’t lost our jobs once the minimum wage is raised, that is …

(Hat tip: Memeorandum)

Related: From PJ Tatler – WH: Employers Can Prevent Job Losses After Minimum Wage Hike by ‘Accepting Lower Profit Margins’

“Serious cuts” coming from SeaTac, WA biz as $15/hr min wage set to take effect

Minimum wage protest

Why not make it $20? $25? $30? #AskALiberal

Shocking! Via Fox News:

As talk builds on Capitol Hill over hiking the federal minimum wage, one city in Washington state is poised to set the highest rate in the nation.

On Jan. 1, an estimated 1,600 hotel and transportation workers in SeaTac, Wash., will see their pay jump to $15 an hour, a 60 percent increase from the state’s $9.32 minimum wage. 

While many workers look forward to the higher pay, employers are looking for ways to absorb the big increase in labor costs. Some plan on eliminating jobs. 

“We’re going to be looking at making some serious cuts,” said Cedarbrook Lodge General Manager Scott Ostrander. “We’re going to be looking at reducing employee hours, reducing benefits and eliminating some positions.” 

That’s in the short term. Eventually, those jobs and more are expected to return as the Cedarbrook Lodge looks to build an addition to the hotel. The plan is to increase revenue to offset the higher labor costs.

But not every employer is being so ambitious. One has told a trade group it is going to close one of its two restaurants, eliminating 200 jobs. 

The plan has also caused Han Kim — who runs Hotel Concepts, a company that owns and manages 11 hotels in Washington state — to shelve plans to build a hotel in SeaTac. The company already has three hotels in SeaTac, and Kim and a business partner were looking to build a fourth on land they own.

“Uncertainty is bad for business, and right now we’re right in that area so we’re just putting everything on hold,” Kim said.


The owner of Dollar Rental Cars told Fox News she’ll outsource some functions, change schedules and cut some staff in response to the new policy.

And guess what? Job cut backs, losses, and a halt in business expansion won’t be the only thing hitting SeaTac, WA if the minimum wage hike goes through: The prices of goods and services will also go up, which means tourists will spend less because they can’t afford the price jump the businesses had to implement in order to pay their staffs.

Talk about dumb!

This, btw, is all part of a new nationwide strategy on the part of Democrats who are trying to do their best to distract and deflect from a hellacious 2013 year for them thanks to Obamacare:

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party  leaders, bruised by months of attacks on the new health care program, have found an issue they believe can lift their fortunes both locally and nationally in 2014: an increase in the minimum wage.

The effort to take advantage of growing populism among voters in both parties is being coordinated by officials from the White House, labor unions and liberal advocacy groups.

In a series of strategy meetings and conference calls among them in recent weeks, they have focused on two levels: an effort to raise the federal minimum wage, which will be pushed by President Obama and congressional leaders, and a campaign to place state-level minimum wage proposals on the ballot in states with hotly contested congressional races.

With polls showing widespread support for an increase in the $7.25-per-hour federal minimum wage among both Republican and Democratic voters, top Democrats see not only a wedge issue that they hope will place Republican candidates in a difficult position, but also a tool with which to enlarge the electorate in a nonpresidential election, when turnout among minorities and youths typically drops off.

“It puts Republicans on the wrong side of an important value issue when it comes to fairness,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s senior adviser. “You can make a very strong case that this will be a helpful issue for Democrats in 2014. But the goal here is to actually get it done. That’s why the president put it on the agenda.”

Top Republicans assert that a wage increase would dampen the economic recovery and indicated after Mr. Obama mentioned the issue in his State of the Union speech this year that they had no intention of bringing a minimum-wage increase to a vote in the House, which they control.

“Why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?” Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said.

Indeed why?

What we’re seeing here – as usual – are Democrats (who are also cranking up this rhetoric here in North Carolina) resorting to desperate attempts at vote-buying. They did it with “free” healthcare, “free” birth control, “forgiveness” of student loans, a vast expansion of the welfare state, and now this.  This party is flat out of ideas – has been for a long time, in fact – and now has few other options on the table left but to promise you “free” stuff,  higher pay (which would have to come out of someone ELSE’S pocket – surprise!) , and “protection” from the very people who have the money to spend to start up a business or expand one. You know, the people who provide employment opportunities – which this country so desperately needs right now?  It’s never occurred to these dum dums that you earn higher pay based on the type of job you have, the skill level it requires, how productive and efficient you are at it, etc.  Then again, it shouldn’t shock anyone that this bunch believes you shouldn’t have to work harder to earn more money – that instead it should just be given to you via the force of government.

Just how do Republicans effectively combat naked liberal appeals to the “gimme generation”?