Making Ends Meet: Obama Lovin’ Millennials Turning to Pawn Shops, Payday Loans (Suck It Morons!)
Button in Toolbar to Toggle Playlist.NSA Scandal Sends Sales of George Orwell’s ’1984′ Soaring on Amazon
A complementary commercial winner-and-loser pair has emerged from the disclosure of the NSA’s domestic data dragnet, one that would surely bring a thin-lipped smile to the face of Eric Arthur Blair, the English Democratic Socialist who wrote as George Orwell: While Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), the defense contractor that employed leaker Edward Snowden, has seen its stock plummet since the revelation of its connection to the scandal, Amazon’s (AMZN) sales of “1984,” Orwell’s classic dystopian novel of surveillance and control, have skyrocketed.
The LA Times reports that sales of the book, which concerns a discontented propagandist working for the Ministry of Truth in a time of endless war, are up 5,771 percent as of Tuesday morning. From a sales rank of 12,507 in the days before The Guardian published top-secret government documents provided by Snowden, “1984″ has risen to crack Amazon’s top 200.
Rise in Female Breadwinners Means America Is a Loser
When women start doing what men have traditionally done, yours is a civilization of the setting sun. This is brought to mind when pondering a recent Pew Research Center study showing that women are now the primary or sole breadwinners in 40 percent of American households. You may have heard the story — it created quite a stir on Fox News, with Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (who became quite hysterical) taking exception to male colleagues’ warnings about the development’s sociological implications. But if these two ladies, and the other critics, had reacted rationally and not emotionally, they would realize what is obvious.
The rise in female breadwinners is a sign of a civilization in decline.
Let’s start by first examining the study. While the term “breadwinner” conjures up images of pleasingly plump paychecks, the real story here is the rise of poor single mothers.
Among the 40 percent of women in the breadwinner group, 63 percent are single mothers. This isn’t surprising, since the rate of single motherhood has risen from about 4 percent in the 1940s to 41 percent today (72 percent in the black community). So what kind of “bread” are we talking about? Writes Amy Langfield of CNBC, “The median income for a single mother who has never been married was $17,400 as of 2011.” And, obviously, having large numbers of single mothers, with essentially fatherless children, struggling to make ends meet isn’t good for the women, the children, or the society as a whole.
The picture looks better for the married 37 percent of the breadwinner group, but only by comparison. Twenty-nine percent of these women’s husbands are unemployed. Moreover, Pew describes these women as older, college-educated, and white. Translation: they’re the one-child wonders. These are often women who postpone childbirth in deference to careerism and then, perhaps after dropping a tidy sum at a fertility clinic, have their sole son or daughter. Why does this warrant mention? Because as the documentary Demographic Winter points out, this phenomenon is a significant contributing factor to the plummeting birth rates among Western peoples. Outside New Zealand, there isn’t one major European-descent group with a replacement-level birth rate. And for all you secular-feminist chauvinists so proud of your cultural hegemony, what do you think happens to values that cause people to erase themselves?
So why can’t the Megyn Kellys of the world perceive the rise in female breadwinners as the warning sign it is? Because their feminist dogma teaches that any female “gain” relative to men is positive, and any criticism of it is blind male chauvinism. These are the people who cheer girls’ “better” performance in schools even though this is largely attributable to boys’ worsening performance (and improved female test scores aren’t relevant, because the exams, like the boys, have been dumbed down). It’s a mindset that would consider it a good thing if women won every future marathon because men either lost their legs or stopped running.
And that is the point. If a warring nation must move a few divisions from the southern front to shore up the northern, it isn’t a victory for those divisions; it means the war effort is waning. And if the divisions’ generals view it as a personal victory because they’ll have the opportunity to distinguish themselves, they’re self-centered and ignorant.
New York Times editorial board says administration has ‘lost all credibility’
The New York Times editorial board, which twice endorsed President Obama and has championed many planks of his agenda, on Thursday turned on the president over the government’s mass collection of phone data — saying the administration has “lost all credibility.”
The grey lady’s editorial section lately has shown frustration with the administration’s civil liberties record. It has criticized the escalation of the lethal drone program, and it lashed out after the Justice Department acknowledged seizing reporters’ phone records last month.
The report that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from millions of Verizon subscribers appeared to be the last straw.
An editorial published late Thursday said the administration was using the “same platitude” it uses in every case of overreach — that “terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us.”
The editorial continued: “Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility.”
Colo. “gay discrimination” alleged over wedding cake store refusing service to a gay “marriage”
A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.
As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom.
“Religious freedom is a fundamental right in America and it’s something that we champion at the ACLU,” said Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the group in Colorado, which filed the complaint on behalf of the couple. “We are all entitled to our religious beliefs and we fight for that. But someone’s personal religious beliefs don’t justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public sphere.”
The attorney for Jack Phillips, one of the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, sees it differently.
“We don’t believe that this is a case about commerce. At its heart, this is a case about conscience,” said Nicolle Martin. She said the matter is important because it will serve as an example for future cases across the country as more gay couples gain legal recognitions for their relationships.
“It brings it to the forefront. I just don’t think that we should heighten one person’s beliefs over and above another person’s beliefs,” she said.
Democrats unable to produce a SINGLE witness from SOLE targeted liberal group for IRS hearing! (Video)
During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Tuesday, six witnesses were called to testify about their groups being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service.
The witnesses were from various conservative, Tea Party, pro-life, pro-marriage, and other patriotic groups.
Although the Democrats on the committee were given the opportunity to call up a witness from a liberal group targeted by the IRS, they declined, according to Ways and Means Chairman David Camp, R-Mich.
“I do want to note that the minority was given the opportunity to call up a witness but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity, by IRS activity, so that’s why there is no minority witness at the table today,” Camp explained during the hearing.
Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own.
This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance “rate shock.”
AP: Many Will Have Insurance Cancelled Due to ObamaCare
In a classic case of “now you tell me,” the Associated Press reports today that a whole swath of people who like their health insurance might be losing it. You see, ObamaCare requires all Americans get the equivalent of a Cadillac health plan. Millions of us don’t have Cadillac plans, which means that we are about to be in violation of government policy.
State insurance regulators say many people who buy their own health insurance could get surprises this fall: cancellation notices because their policies aren’t up to the basic standards of President Barack Obama’s overhaul.
These people, and some small businesses, will have to find replacement plans _ and that has some state officials worried about consumer confusion.
The changes don’t seem to square with one of the president’s promises: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”
Can you believe this is happening in America? The government is telling us what kind of health insurance coverage we have to purchase.
Boy Scout Exodus Has Begun!
Last week, the executive board of Boy Scouts of America voted to allow openly gay kids into their programs, thus compromising their long standing set of Christian morals and values. When I heard about their vote, it saddened me to see them succumb to the pressures of a debauched society.
In my report last week about their compromise, I predicted that a number of church sponsored Boy Scout programs would be ended the same way it happened in Canada when they allowed the gays to go camping with them. Well, it seems the exodus has begun.
Obama has lost the New York Times editorial board
Make no mistake: by criminalizing James Rosen of Fox News for asking government employees to give him information, the Obama administration is suppressing the ability of the press to do its job. It is so egregious that even the New York Times, normally sycophants for Obama, is alarmed. The editorial board today writes:
With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.
And the Times, a member/owner of Associated Press, detects a pattern:
The Rosen case follows other signs that the administration has gone overboard in its zeal to find and muzzle insiders. The Associated Press revealed last week that the government had secretly seized two months’ worth of records for telephones used by the agency’s staff, partly to determine the source of a leak about a report involving a foiled terrorist plot in Yemen. At least two other major leak investigations are continuing. Six current and former administration officials have been indicted under the old Espionage Act for leaking classified information to the press and public. In 2010, a federal judge in Maryland sentenced a leaker to 20 months in jail while admitting that he was “in the dark as to the kind of documents” involved in the leak or what impact they had on national security.
Many conservatives have moved beyond caring what the Times thinks or writes. But the newspaper acts as a pilot fish for the rests of the media, so its position on this move toward authoritarianism is highly significant.
France Now More Euroskeptic Than Britain
The Pew Research Center’s latest survey on Europeans’ attitudes toward EU politics and economics brings across one message loud and clear: Europeans are not happy. People from every major country report extreme dissatisfaction with the economy and their political leaders. Increasingly, they also share a sense that the European Union and economic integration were mistakes for their countries: only 45 percent now view the EU favorably, down from 60 percent in 2012.
The one notable exception is Germany, whose people remain the most optimistic about the European project. Despite Germans’ hand-wringing about their spendthrift neighbors, they gave the EU a 60 percent approval rating, with 54 percent believing that economic integration has strengthened their economy. This may have something to do with the fact that Germans think the EU offers the best chance for controlling reckless spending by their neighbors; Germany is the only country where support for giving Brussels more power is over 50 percent.
Democratic Senator Uses Okla. Tornado Deaths for Anti-GOP Rant Over Global Warming (Video)
While many Americans were tuned into news coverage of the massive damage from tornadoes ravaging the state of Oklahoma, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Whitehouse spent 15 minutes chastising GOP senators and justified his remarks by alluding to states that seek federal assistance in the wake of natural disasters.
“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”
Obama Scandals Bring MSNBC 7-Year Low While Fox News Rises
The scandals of the Obama administration seem to be hurting not just the White House but MSNBC as well while Fox News Channel scored its second-best week of the year. After double-digit gains during last year’s presidential election, May 13-17 saw the progressive-aligned “Lean Forward” news network hit new lows as the IRS scandal erupted and revelations that the Justice Department secretly obtained AP records became public. With 350,000 viewers on average and 94,000 among the adults 25-54 demo, MSNBC had its least-watched and lowest-rated total-day results of the year last week. That was also the lowest total-day demo result the network has had since the week of June 26-July 2, 2006,
Last week’s total day results were down 17% in viewers and 22% among the demo from the comparable May 14 to May 18 week of last year. In primetime, the numbers were even worse for MSNBC as a steady decline from the beginning of the year continued. The network had 570,000 total viewers and 159,000 in the demo from 8 PM to 11 PM from May 13 to May 17, 2013. That’s the lowest rated week of the year so far for MSNBC in terms of viewers and the third lowest of 2013 in the demo. The week of May 6 to May 12 was worst in the demo with 148,000 viewers when the network had 604,000 viewers on average. These latest results come as the news network’s recently launched and struggling All In With Chris Hayes hit a new viewership of 396,000 and its second lowest demo audience of just 88,000 on May 14. It also comes on the heels of MSNBC falling in April ratings from its second place ranking of the year before.
News Anchor Who Complained of IRS Harassment Now Barred From facebook & Interviews!
KMOV anchorman Larry Conners has been “advised” by KMOV’s parent
company Belo Corp. to not make statements, post on Facebook, or participate in interviews concerning a recent controversy over Facebook comments he made about the Internal Revenue Service.
Conners has hired St. Louis attorney Merle Silverstein. Silverstein issued a letter to media outlets claiming that the corporate order “is the only reason for his silence.”
Conners wrote Monday night that shortly after he interviewed President Obama and his wife in April of 2012, the IRS “started hammering” him.
“At the time, I dismissed the ‘co-incidence’, but now, I have concerns … after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members,” Conners wrote.
Visitor Counter
Recent Posts
- MADD Okay with Illegals wit… by The Instigator
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is refusing to fight to prevent the Senate “Gang of Eight” from allowing illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving from being granted legalized status, or amnesty.
When Judicial Watch asked a MADD spokesperson if they would stand up against provisions in the bill that allow illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving to get amnesty, and therefore keep driving on America’s roads, that spokesperson simply responded that MADD “doesn’t get involved in immigration matters.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News that MADD’s refusal to fight against convicted drunk drivers here is ludicrous. “We know already that Obama is releasing criminal illegal aliens onto the streets,” Fitton said in an email. “This new amnesty will further harm the public safety. In many states, a misdemeanor results in a citizen losing the right to vote. Yet under this amnesty bill, a ‘misdemeanor’ won’t stop an illegal alien from getting legal status and citizenship.”
As Watchdogwire’s Marinka Peschmann detailed in an early June article, there are provisions in the Gang of Eight bill that allow drunk driver illegal aliens to get amnesty.
“On page 608 drunk drivers are welcome too if they have only been busted three times before the Gang of Eight’s bill is enacted,” Peschmann wrote, before citing the specific section of the bill text.
- Will Boehner Lose His Speak… by The Instigator
John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he might lose his job as House speaker over immigration reform, but he insisted he will not bring a bill to the House floor that does not have majority support of both Republicans and Democrats.Following the Republican conference meeting on Tuesday, Boehner was asked: “Rep. Rohrabacher said that if you bring immigration reform to the floor without the support of the GOP conference you will lose your job (as speaker). Do you think that’s accurate?”“Maybe,” Boehner said after a long pause, to laughter from reporters.
“I think this immigration issue’s been kicked around in this town now for 15 years,” he said. “That’s why I said the day after the election it was time for Congress to do its work.”
Boehner said he is “increasingly concerned” that President Obama and Senate Democrats are shutting out Republican amendments to the Senate bill, which passed a cloture vote last week, 82-15. That clears the way for senators to vote on various amendments.
“I’m increasingly concerned that the White House and Senate Democrats would rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result,” Boehner said. “It was the president who said that he wanted a robust vote coming out of the Senate to help move this process along. And yet here’s the president and the Senate Democrats working to limit the number of Republican votes that this immigration bill is likely to get. I think that’s unfortunate.”
Boehner said Republicans will hold a special conference meeting on July 10 to discuss immigration reform in the House.
- Supreme Court leaves door o… by The Instigator
7-2 decision practically invites Arizona to try again using proper administrative procedure.
Most of what you have heard in the media about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is incomplete to the point of misleading.
It is true that the Court held that Arizona’s Proposition 200 (passed in 2004) requiring documentary proof of citizenship was invalid as contrary to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requirement that states “accept and use” the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voter registration form which merely requires that a registrant affirm citizenship.
But, this ruling essentially was procedural.
The Court held if Arizona wanted to require additional documentary proof of citizenship it needed to follow the administrative procedures under the NVRA to obtain approval to alter the instructions to the federal form. In fact, in 2005 Arizona had requested such approval, the EAC split 2-2, but Arizona failed to appeal. The Court held that nothing prevented Arizona from requesting approval again, and appealing if denied. The Court practically invited Arizona to try again.
- Was Justice Roberts Intimid… by The Instigator
After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.
On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.
Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication. Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.
First, the senator claimed “the opinion was written in a way to suggest he switched his vote,” and that the dissenting opinion reads like it was originally written as the majority. He added that several news outlets reported that Roberts did change his vote, based on insider information.
Not only that, he said, but the court performed an unusual feat of “legal gymnastics” in upholding the legislation, particularly with regard to whether the fines incurred are or are not taxes. They had to re-write sections of the the bill not once, but twice.
- Vile Rubio Helps Kill Amend… by The Instigator
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said late Tuesday that he supports securing the United States border with Mexico with a double-tiered fence but voted against an amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill that would have required exactly that.
Rubio and his fellow Gang of Eight Republicans helped the Democrats kill an amendment from Sen. John Thune (R-SD) that would have required the double-tiered fence be built, as current law requires, before amnesty was granted to America’s at least 11 million illegal immigrants. The only other Republican to vote against the amendment was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
“I support Senator Thune’s efforts to require completion of double layered border fencing,” Rubio said in a statement after voting against the amendment. “Properly deployed, these fences have proven highly effective in limiting illegal crossings. That is why the current bill requires $1.5 billion be spent specifically on a border fence plan.”
- Obama thwarted: ‘No i… by The Instigator
President Obama’s nonstop fundraising for congressional Democrats is building a huge campaign war chest for next fall, but there is little hope that his party will win back control of the House and make Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaker again, according to an exhaustive new analysis.
But the report from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics also shows that Obama may suffer the fewest losses of House seats for a second-term president since Ronald Reagan in 1986, itself a big victory.
“While it would be foolish to rule out any outcome, there is no indication at this point that the Republican House majority is in jeopardy,” said Kyle Kondik, the House analyst on Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball team.
His report suggest that the Republicans will boost their numbers by five seats in 2014. The average loss by the president’s party in the sixth year of an administration since 1946 is 21 seats. Dwight D. Eisenhower lost a high of 48 in 1958, Reagan lost five in 1986, and Bill Clinton picked up 5 in 1998.
- NSA discloses in secret Cap… by The Instigator
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”
If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.” Owens said he couldn’t comment on what assurances from the Obama administration Nadler was referring to, and said Nadler was unavailable for an interview. (CNET had contacted Nadler for comment on Friday.)
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, being able to listen to phone calls would mean the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.
- Why Do Republicans Support … by The Instigator
RUSH: Hold it just a second. I’m serious. I don’t understand. There’s gotta be something I’m missing. The question is real: Why do all of these Republicans — you know the names — why are they supporting something that’s gonna eliminate their party? Why are they supporting something that’s going to render them an ineffective minority for as far as the eye can see? If they want to be Democrats, quit the Republican Party and join the Democrat Party. Why do they want — it’s almost as though — well, I can’t answer it. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So why are the Republicans so eager to render themselves a permanent minority status by agreeing to amnesty, immigration reform, which is gonna result in millions more instant new Democrats, against which the Republicans will be hopelessly uncompetitive. Why would they do it? You want to take a stab? Snerdley says they see that they’re gonna be permanently defeated anyway by a rising Hispanic population if they don’t do this. It’s what they fear. Maybe.
There’s a theory, there’s an answer to the question that you know and I know, and it revolves around their hatred — too strong a word — the Republican Party is embarrassed of its base. How many times have I sat here and reminded you of this? The Republican Party, I’ve told you stories. I’ll repeat one. Hamptons, 1992, 1993. My first ever trip to the Hamptons, a dinner party at the home of a famous American, Republican. After dinner, out on the deck, a guy comes up to me — a name you’d know. Not gonna tell you who — punches me with his finger in the chest, “What are you gonna do about the Christians?”
Remember, now, this my first trip there. I’m with these people for the first time in my life, and I’m really sizing it all up and wondering why I’m really there. I mean, these are very wealthy, powerful Republicans. This guy’s pounding me in the chest, “What are you gonna do about the Christians?” I said, “What are you talking about?” “Abortion! They’re killing us! Pro-lifers are killing us, and they listen to you.” Some of the same people have done the same thing to me on gun control. “You have got to tell these people to back off on guns. You’ve got to tell these pro-lifers to just quiet down.”
I’ve heard them say they get embarrassed going to Republican conventions with the pro-life crowd that’s also there. My first experience of that was in Houston in 1992. The pro-life contingent there was huge, and I remember the way I was treated by that group, making other Republicans nervous. The bottom line is that the Republican Party is embarrassed by its own base. The Republican Party is ashamed of its base. They accept the Democrat caricature of the Republican base. Southern, hayseed hicks, pro-lifers, pickup-truck-driving, gun-rack-in-the-back-window people, chewing tobacco and going to church and talking about God all the time.
But they really see ‘em as a bunch of zealots when it comes to abortion. And all these guys I’m talking about have wives who nag ‘em about it, don’t want any part of the pro-life crowd, embarrassed to be with them at the conventions. So the theory goes that this is a way to get rid of the Republican base. Supporting amnesty and having the Democrats win big-time elections after this is a way for the party to finally get rid of its base. Now, you say, “Well, replace it with what?”
Don’t ask me, but I’m guessing, I assume that some Republicans think that there’s a new group of people that would become their base. If they just got rid of these pro-lifers, if they just got rid of this religious crowd, if they just got rid of the Christians, if they just got rid of these gun nuts, the bitter clingers, as Obama calls ‘em. If the Republicans just got rid of those people, a lot more people would like Republicans, and maybe some of the people voting Democrat would then vote Republican, ’cause some of the people voting Democrat would love to vote Republican since they also don’t like the hicks and they also don’t like the hayseeds and the religious people.
There you have a possible theory. But even when you drill that down, when you drill deep down into that one, you still ask how in the world — the Republican base is 24 million votes. The Republicans aren’t gonna win anything without them. That was demonstrated in 2008. It was demonstrated in 2012. It was demonstrated in 1992, and it was demonstrated in 1996. You don’t win without them. So if they drive their current base away, what is the current base gonna do? Just sit there and not participate anymore?
How is voting for amnesty going to cause the base to leave the party? Isn’t it gonna maybe inspire the base to want to finally take it over? There will be some third-party advocates, but if that happens the Republicans are dead, double dead politically, if a third party forms. But it is believable and understandable that the Republican establishment and their consultants and all that really don’t like a lot of the base. They don’t like conservatives, be they Christians, be they pro-lifers, be they so-called gun nuts. They didn’t like Reagan, as you know.
RUSH: I suspect, ladies and gentlemen, the answer to my question, aside from the brilliant expose I just provided, the answer to my question is all about money. And so the answer to why would these people sit by and allow this party to become a permanent minority status and be insignificant and ineffective, to answer that question, find out how in that arrangement a bunch of people get rich, and you will get the answer to your question. And if you want, we’ll explore that next week. I’ll be more than happy to take a tour down that theory, see where it takes us.
- LINDSEY GRAHAM: Republicans… by The Instigator
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is bullish about the chances of an immigration reform bill passing the Senate — and he says Republicans need to pass it to avoid falling further into a “demographic death spiral” that could hurt their chances in the next two big election cycles.
“If we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.
“We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run, in my view.”
- Obama under pressure on gay… by The Instigator
With the Supreme Court only days away from major rulings on same-sex marriage, President Obama faces the prospect of having to make his own difficult decisions about the definition of wedlock.
Gay rights advocates are already pressing Obama to immediately broaden the federal government’s recognition of legally married same-sex couples if the court strikes down a ban on providing federal benefits to them.
The question for Obama turns on whether the federal government should extend full benefits to gay couples living in states that don’t recognize their marriages.
Obama would face rare, concrete decisions on the politically combustible question of same-sex marriage — an area he has largely left to the purview of courts and state legislatures.
Advocates have pressed the issue of benefits with White House aides in recent months, according to people familiar with the discussions. The advocates have pushed for a uniform standard that would make the most benefits available to legally married couples across the board. Officials have not signaled what Obama would do.
Not logged in
Welcome , today is Thursday, June 20, 2013