Election 2016: Jeb Bush: I’m ‘thinking about’ 2016 run
Well, it’s a crucial election year and the last one of Obama’s final term in office where he and his party still feel they have a significant amount ‘left to accomplish.’ So what better way (for them) to try to play on the emotions of voters than to do what the left does best? Trot out the tired, stale race card:
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) said on Sunday that “to a significant extent” there are parts of the Republican base that are motivated by racism.
In response to a question on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Israel declared that “not all” Republican lawmakers are racist.
“To a significant extent the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate,” he added.
Israel’s charge followed comments from Attorney General Eric Holder last week that he believes he wasn’t treated respectfully by lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, in part, because of racism.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week also said she believes “race has something to do” with Republicans’ reluctance to address immigration reform.
Other Democrats will seize on the “elements” part of Israel’s remarks to try and note that he didn’t mean “everyone” in the Republican party here, but don’t fall for it. This is a classic modern-day Democrat tactic when they’re boxed into a corner (metaphorically speaking) and desperate to win: Throw the race card on the table, make it look like they’re not smearing an entire party, but leave it up in the air to revisit the issue by declaring at a later time the hidden “racist intent” behind any and all opposition to whatever proposal the President (and/or his party) puts on the table. And in effect pretty much leaving them in the driver’s seat to determine who and what qualifies as a “racist” under their “race-meter.” This from a party that believes there are only a few reasons why anyone would dare oppose them: racism/sexism/bigotry/classism.
It’s sad, sick, pathetic – shutuppery at its worst. Let’s hope voters see right through it in November.
**Posted by Phineas
With the recent announcement of more than seven million sign-ups for Obamacare, the administration and its supporters have been running around shouting “Success! SUCCESS!!”, as if an enrollment figure means that the implementation of the law itself, with its myriad problems (for example) (1), will be just a matter of working “the bugs” out.
Nevertheless, seven million was the administration’s goal, and they met it. So, how does one explain this victory? How did they do it?
Senator Ted Cruz is ready with the answer:
(1) For lots more, check out my Obamacare archives.
via Dan Mitchell
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
Got a lot on my plate this weekend but wanted to send a quick note to let you know there will likely be some changes soon which may allow me more time to blog than I’ve had in the last couple of years. I’ve really struggled over that time to balance personal responsibilities with my number one passions – political/pop culture writing both here and on social media, and found that with my schedule the way it is that social media sites like Twitter and Facebook allowed for more “real time” information sharing than the blog.
In the coming weeks and months I am going to make a concerted effort to push more content on the blog, because as much as I love social media, oftentimes 140 characters to use to write with just isn’t enough space.
Because eventually I’d like to turn writing into my livelihood, I need the funds to write, to keep the blog going, to pay for hosting, design and re-design efforts, and everyday expenses. Plus, I’d like to also start paying my awesome co-blogger! I’ve had a PayPal account for years that I’ve rarely made appeals to contribute to, but now I am.
In addition to the PayPal account, I’ve also generated a “Go Fund Me” account (both links are now posted in the upper right side column on this page), and have set a goal there of $5,000. This will be an ongoing effort, but my goal is to have this money raised in a month’s time. If you support this blog and know others who do, please contribute via the PayPal or Go Fund Me links and make sure to share them on your Twitter and Facebook pages. I really appreciate the support already given but more is always encouraged and very much appreciated. Thank you!
A Democratic Alabama state representative is under fire for a racially charged challenge he made last month that has backfired big time. TheBlaze reported that during a legislative session discussion on abortion rights, Rep. Alvin Holmes speculated his Republican counterparts would be in favor of abortion if black men impregnated their daughters. Rep. [Holmes] then offered to pay $100,000 cash to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black children in Alabama.
Well, the representative is now being asked to put his money where his mouth is after a Facebook group entitled Faces of Families in Alabama began posting photos of multi-racial families in the state. The Facebook page has already garnered more than 7,000 ‘likes,’ and on Wednesday, the group gathered on the steps of the State House to demonstrate just how many multi-racial, adoptive families reside in Alabama.
The Daily Mail has pictures of some of the beautiful families that were in attendance at the Wednesday rally. Time to put up or shut up on your offer, Rep. Holmes. But he won’t, and here’s his “official” reason why. In shorter terms, he’s a shameless race-baiting welcher.
Holmes, you may recall, also sneered on the floor of the Alabama state House a couple of months ago that he didn’t like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because Thomas is “married to a white woman.” Guy sounds like a real winner, eh? Now just imagine for five seconds Holmes was a Republican …
**Posted by Phineas
There’s an interesting and frightening interview posted to Business Insider today with Yeonmi Park, a woman who escaped from North Korea with her family as a teenager, but needed years to get over the brainwashing she endured there. An indoctrination so intense, she believed the late Kim Jong Il could read her mind:
Yeonmi Park grew up in North Korea, under the watchful eye of then-leader Kim Jong-il.
Though she escaped with her family when she was 15, it took her years to get over the intense brainwashing she experienced. In a recent interview with Australian public broadcasting channel SBS, Park went into unbelievable detail about growing up in the totalitarian state.
Growing up in North Korea, according to Park, was like “living in hell.” She describes constant power outages, no transportation, and watching classmates and friends disappear without a trace. While that may be unsurprising, the most interesting part of Park’s experience is her admission that she believed Kim Jong-il to be “a god” who could literally read her mind.
“I had to be careful of my thoughts because I believed Kim Jong-il could read my mind. Every couple of days someone would disappear,” Park said.
Ms. Park’s story is part of a larger program on mind-control shown by SBS, the Australian public broadcaster. The whole show is worth watching.
In an article at SBS, she tells more of her own story:
I lived in North Korea for the first 15 years of my life, believing Kim Jong-il was a God. I never doubted it because I didn’t know anything else. I could not even imagine life outside of the regime.
It was like living in hell. There were constant power outages, so everything was dark. There was no transportation – everyone had to walk everywhere. It was very dirty and no one could eat anything.
It was not the right conditions for human life, but you couldn’t think about it, let alone complain about it. Even though you were suffering, you had to worship the regime every day.
I had to be careful of my thoughts because I believed Kim Jong-il could read my mind. Every couple of days someone would disappear. A classmate’s mother was punished in a public execution that I was made to attend. I had no choice – there were spies in the neighbourhood.
George Orwell’s 1984 depicts the UK after an atomic war and a Socialist revolution. Big Brother is a de facto god to the people: his every word the undeniable truth, no matter how it contradicted what he might have said just the day before. Your innermost thoughts known to him, and he held the power to make you willing to accept your own death and the deaths of those close to you as just. His Animal Farm is a parable of a just revolution hijacked by an anti-democratic cadre, who maintain power by turning the other animals against each other and all into slaves. Both are taught as works of fiction, but Yeonmi Park’s story reminds us that they were more like docu-dramas and that the story hasn’t come to an end.
It reminds me of a saying of John Adams:
“It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power”
Our second president was right, but left something out: it’s not just that Mankind is too morally weak for any one person to hold absolute power, but there is also the weakness that makes us willing to surrender our responsibilities as citizens and entrust a small group of people or a single person with unlimited power. It is dangerous because, eventually and inevitably, that power will fall into the hands of evil men.
And then what is to stop them from proclaiming themselves gods?
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
The Hill reports this morning that former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has officially declared he’s running in the New Hampshire Senate race to try and defeat incumbent Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and that he will crank up his campaign up by stirring up memories of his miracle winning campaign in Massachusetts from 2010:
New Hampshire Senate candidate Scott Brown is launching his first ad in the race on Monday, a positive spot that touts his listening tour across the state in his iconic truck.
“Scott Brown has almost 300,000 miles on this truck,” a narrator says in the ad, over a shot of Brown driving his truck on a snowy road.
Over clips of Brown interacting with New Hampshirites during his listening tour, the narrator continues: “People want an America that leads again. A health care system that works for New Hampshire. And more good jobs. Isn’t it time someone took their side?”
“Go get em, Scott,” an unknown man adds, to close the spot. It will start running Monday on WMUR, according to the Boston Globe, which first reported news of the ad.
On Thursday, the former Massachusetts senator officially launched his bid in New Hampshire against incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D).
Though he’s facing three other Republicans in the primary, he’s heavily favored to win the nomination. Republicans see him as their best shot to take down Shaheen, whom they believe to be vulnerable because of ObamaCare’s unpopularity in the state.
Beyond the “listening tour”, I admit I haven’t been paying much attention to what Scott Brown has been up to in the months leading up to him announcing his candidacy , so I’m curious to find out what people in both MA and NH in particular think about what Brown is doing. Will the “carpetbagger” accusations stick? Polls show he’s got some ground to make up in New Hampshire amongst its residents, assuming he makes it beyond the primary. He has a few months to do so, as the primary there is September 9th.
It should be noted – again – for the record, that Brown is not a rock-ribbed conservative and never campaigned as such, not during the Massachusetts primary campaign and not now. So in the event that he wins, people shouldn’t mistakenly expect to get the type of Republican they would in, say, South Carolina or Texas. All the same, I’d still prefer to see him in the US Senate than Shaheen – who is still completely unapologetic over her vote for Obamacare.
For now, put this race on your political radar … and stay tuned.
CBS News’ Major Garrett reports tonight that the embattled Health and Human Services Secretary will announce her resignation Friday:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will announce her resignation tomorrow, senior administration officials confirm.
— Major Garrett (@MajorCBS) April 10, 2014
Not seeing any write-ups on any of the news sites as to specifics other than this AP blip, but let me be the first to say “don’t let the door hit ya on the way out, Madame Secretary.” Another Obama administration corruptocrat exits stage left. Let’s hope Holder is next (although I’m not holding my breath).
Update – 7:05 PM: Best response so far to the news, via Ben Shapiro:
Sebelius resigns. Which means that as a future lobbyist, she'll meet much more often with the President.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) April 10, 2014
**Posted by Phineas
And even freedom of thought.
Writing at National Review Online, Dr. Hanson reviews recent incidents of people being hounded for their political opinions or scientific skepticism –among others, Brendan Eich at Mozilla; Dr. Richard Tol for not towing the party line on global warming; antisemitism at a major university that only draws a slap on the wrist; and let’s add Brandeis University’s disgusting insult to Ayaan Hirsi Ali– and then argues that the president has enabled or encouraged this behavior both actively and passively. (And I do believe Hanson is right.)
After all that, VDH offers this about how civil liberties will die in America:
All of that them/us rhetoric has given a top-down green light to radical thought police to harass anyone who is open-minded about man-caused global warming, or believes that gay marriage needs more debate, or that supporting Israel is a legitimate cause, or that breaking federal immigration law is still a crime and therefore “illegal.”
Our civil liberties will not be lost to crude fascists in jackboots. More likely, the death of free speech will be the work of the new medieval Torquemadas who claim they destroyed freedom of expression for the sake of “equality” and “fairness” and “saving the planet.”
And either the irony is lost on them, or they don’t give a damn.
UPDATE: And just like that, another example — the progessive, tolerant, open-minded mob has gone after Dropbox for adding Condoleezza Rice to their board of directors. Can we call them “racists,” yet? (h/t Stephen Kruiser)
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
**Posted by Phineas
Sometimes I wonder if Kim Jong Un, a reputed heavy drinker, doesn’t sit around late at night nursing a bottle of scotch and fantasizing about the various outré ways he can whack people who have ticked him off:
A senior North Korean official has been executed with a flamethrower after Kim Jong-un branded him an ‘enemy of the state’, it has been claimed.
O Sang-hon is said to have been brutally killed for his close ties to the communist leader’s uncle Jang Song-taek, who was himself publicly tried and executed in December after being found guilty of corruption and ‘counter revolutionary’ activities.
Mr O is thought to be the latest of 11 senior Workers Party figures to have been executed this year over their links to Mr Jang, with South Korean media reporting that Kim Jong-un has plans to execute or imprison hundreds more of his supporters and extended family members.
Mr O had been Mr Jang’s deputy at North Korea’s ministry of public security, and his execution by flamethrower took place after being found guilty of helping his boss turn the state department into a personal security division and hide corruption, South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported.
The ministry of public security has since been closed, with all 11 of the most senior officials said to have been either executed or sent to one of Kim Jong-un’s concentration camps in a second wave of vengeance following conviction of Mr Jang.
I’m not so sure a life sentence in in the North Korean gulag is much better than death, in fact I’m certain it’s in many ways worse, but execution by flamethrower? Mind you, that’s after we’ve had reports of execution by mortar and by being thrown to the dogs.
Use of a flamethrower brings a whole new meaning to “firing squad.”
Take this news with the usual caveats about “if it’s true,” but, regardless of its verity and in spite of its egregiousness, Kim’s savage, quixotic tyranny is a “teachable moment” for advocates for advocates of limited government, because it shows quite clearly the dangers posed when government is not restrained and its powers are not carefully limited. And when the Rule of Man replaces the Rule of Law, no one’s life, rights, or property is safe.
No need for flamethrowers to prove it: just ask the Sacketts of Idaho.
PS: I fully expect Kim to up his game — the next execution just has to be by tac-nuke.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
The Hill reports that another one of Obama’s budgets has gone down in flames in the US House:
The House on Wednesday handily rejected a GOP budget alternative based on President Obama’s 2015 spending blueprint.
It was defeated 2-413, following a pattern seen in recent years in House votes to overwhelmingly reject Obama’s budget proposals. Today’s vote is just slightly better than the unanimous vote against Obama’s budget in 2012.
The two “yes” votes came from Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Jim Moran (D-Va.), who is retiring.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) offered a budget alternative based on Obama’s budget plan as a substitute amendment to the House GOP budget. Mulvaney made this move as a way to force Democrats to go on the record about the president’s spending plans.
But Democrats have refused to play along, and have derided these GOP-sponsored options as a political tactic. Earlier in the day, House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) urged fellow Democrats in a “Dear Colleague” letter to vote against the Mulvaney amendment, calling it a “political stunt.”
Van Hollen also argued that Mulvaney’s amendment did not truly represent the president’s budget, and complained that the GOP had only allotted 20 minutes of debate, split evenly between each side.
“I thought we didn’t even want to take up thousand-plus page bills. And yet now, supposedly, we’re going to debate and vote on something that is over 2,000 pages,” Van Hollen said.
An Obama administration official agreed with House Democrats that the GOP substitute was not an accurate reflection of Obama’s budget plan.
“The Administration would welcome votes on the actual provisions of President’s Budget,” said Office of Management and Budget spokesman Steve Posner. “That is not what this amendment represents, and a vote for or against this amendment is not a vote for or against the President’s policies.”
But Republicans rejected these complaints, and defended the idea of consider Obama’s latest proposal as a way to let the House consider all budget options.
“Any time the president of the United States takes the time to produce a budget, it merits a debate,” Mulvaney said. “I think it’s a valid discussion we should have every year.”
It should be noted that while Obama’s budget only got two votes, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget will be up for a vote today and is likely to get many more votes – including a few from vulnerable House Democrats – proving that, when all is said and done, the real “stinkburger” budget will be … Obama’s.