The great Andrew Breitbart would have been 45 today. Here he is speaking at CPAC 2012.
My local bird cage liner, The Plain Dealer, reported today that a “source” told them that there is a telephone poll in the works that will ask Ohio voters about a hypothetical Democratic ticket pushing the former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich as a gubernatorial candidate.
The UFO-seeing, hot young ginger wife having former boy mayor of Cleveland, got booted out of Congress after redistricting pitted him against Ohio’s 9th district incumbent Marcy Kaptur in the 2012 Democratic primary.
From The Plain Dealer:
The Ohio Democratic Party is aligned behind Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald as its candidate against Republican Gov. John Kasich. Portune expressed interest in a primary challenge last month, after FitzGerald’s first running mate, State Sen. Eric Kearney of Cincinnati, dropped off the ticket due to his financial problems.
Kucinich, the former mayor of Cleveland who spends much of his time in Washington after losing his seat in a 2012 redistricting battle, earlier refuted speculation that he also might throw his hat in the ring. On Wednesday, his response was notably different.
“No comment,” Kucinich said by text message after being asked specifically about the poll and whether he was considering a run in the Democratic primary. Read More Here…
Being of Croatian decent, I’ve always felt an extra pang of embarrassment for the half Croatian, half Irish Kucinich. But I gotta say a Kucinich vs Kasich Governors race pitting two candidates of Croatian decent would be pretty cool, and probably pretty hillarious to watch as a political observer as well.
Throughout her failed 2008 presidential campaign, aides to Hillary Clinton, kept a detailed “hit list” of political enemies. The list was made up of people who had crossed her by endorsing Barack Obama, claim Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes in their new book “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.”
Here is a small snippet of a larger excerpt of the upcoming book posted at the Politico:
There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).
Yet even a 7 didn’t seem strong enough to quantify the betrayal of some onetime allies.
2016 Is sure going to be an interesting circus, I mean election.
In order to devote his time and efforts in mounting a third-party campaign for the US Senate seat currently occupied by Democrat Kay Hagen, a city councilman in Indian Trail, NC has resigned in a very novel way. By writing his resignation letter in the Klingon language.
“Folks don’t know what to think of me half the time,” said David Waddell, “I might as well have one last laugh” on the board.
Read more here…
I generally am not a fan of “reality TV,” I think the vast majority (99.9%) of the stuff is just pure & utter garbage. That being said Duck Dynasty is one of the few shows that I enjoy from time to time. I don’t go out of my way to seek it out, but if my ass is nestled firmly on my couch as I’m surfing through the channels and its there, its generally something that I stop on.
As far as the issue with the recent comments attributed to Phil Robertson, founder of Duck Commander and patriarch of the Robertson family clan, I’m not really outraged by A&E’s decision to “indefinitely suspend” him from the show as many of my brethren on the conservative side of the political spectrum are. While I did update my twitter avatar to a self portrait in Duck Dynasty beard photo with #STANDWITHPHIL written across it, I am more amused by the situation then outraged.
I mean come on, A&E signs up a folksy, outspoken and deeply Christian family to appear on a show on their network and then feign outrage when one of them gets all outspoken and Christian? I’m more upset that issues like the Fast & Furious scandal, Benghazi, the NSA spying and the Obama Administration using the IRS to attack political enemies have gotten nowhere near the outrage that Phil Robertson’s dismissal from A&E has gotten.
However, I understand why this story has drawn a larger amount of outcry then the other stories. There is a much smaller amount of people that pay active attention to the political events that go on in our world then there is that are tuned into issues of pop culture. So if the outrage from the suspension of Phil Robertson can be used to capture and engage those conservative-minded individuals who hold traditional American conservative values, but have not been vocal and active in expressing them — I say thank you A&E.
The reason that so many Americans love Duck Dynasty, the reason that the “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back On Duck Dynasty” & the “Stand With Phil Robertson” Facebook pages each got over 1 million likes in less then 24 hours, is because the Robertson family represents what is usually ignored, taken for granted and/or mocked by progressive elites — the traditional American family.
That being said, some people’s definition of “free speech” and what it really means are not exactly close in certain occasions of this debate.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment says that 1) the government cannot establish an official state religion, 2) the government can’t pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, 3) the government cannot pass laws abridging the speech of its citizens or calling its government out when they are being stupid. Not in any part of that does it state or even remotely imply that a private business is not allowed to disassociate from an individual or an entity that they do business with because of comments that said individual made.
Just as Phil Robertson has the God-given and US Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, A+E Networks and other private companies are also well within their rights to control what message gets associated with their business. So try as they might to huff and puff and complain, those voices out there who are saying that Phil Robertson’s First Amendment “rights” were violated by A&E, are just plain wrong.
That being said, despite the fact that A&E are well within their rights to terminate their association with Phil Robertson’s and his comments, the fans of Duck Dynasty are also well within their rights to be upset and even outraged at the treatment of the Duck Commander founder.
The free market is where these battles get fought. Don’t like what A&E did? Boycott them, boycott their sponsors, huff & puff and complain that they are a bunch of America-hating liberal idiots. Just don’t say that they violated Phil Robertson’s First Amendment Rights — because they didn’t.
So in conclusion while I #STANDWITHPHILL I also support A&E’s right to make business decisions — even if those business decisions, like getting rid of the duck that lays their golden eggs, is a fucking stupid one.
The next generation of the Bush family dynasty is getting ready to take the first step towards walking in the footsteps of his predecessors. This time its going to be different though, because this Bush is a conservative. Really, he promises.
George P. Bush, son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, grandson of 41st President H.W. Bush and nephew of 43rd President George W. Bush is running for the title of Texas Land Commissioner.
From the AP:
“On social questions, national defense, economic issues, I’m a strong conservative,” Bush told The Associated Press.
That kind of statement helps make him the latest – and perhaps one of the more unlikely – faces in the parade of Republicans marching even farther to the right in already fiercely conservative Texas.
As he takes baby steps away from the Bush legacy, George P. could struggle to convince the party’s far right that he’s really more conservative than either of his elders who have occupied the Oval Office.
“A Bush can’t be a true conservative,” said Morgan McComb, a North Texas tea party activist and organizer.
Bush insists that he’s up to the challenge, noting that he was an early supporter of tea party hero Sen. Ted Cruz, who after less than a year in the Senate has rocketed from relative political unknown to ruler of the Texas GOP.
“That’s something that we bring to the table that’s different,” Bush said. “We’re a mainstream conservative that appeals to all Republicans.”
James Bernsen, Cruz’s former campaign spokesman, said the Bushes “walk in certain circles, and some of those people might put their nose up at Ted sometimes, but George P. tries to cross that divide.”
“George recognizes that it’s a blessing and a curse to have that last name,” Bernsen said. “There’s a reason he’s not really being challenged on the ballot. But he also realizes there’s a lot of people who will be very skeptical of him.
I didn’t vote for P’s uncle in 2000, though I admittedly did “fall in line” post 9/11 and voted for W. in 2004. Bush’s 2000 campaign brand of “compassionate conservatism” which is just another way of masking love of big government programs, just did not appeal to me. George W. Bush is most definitely not the evil war-criminal that progressive nut-jobs make him out to be, he is a good guy whose Presidency was forever changed and will always be remembered in history because of the morning of September 11th 2001. He is not a conservative, neither is his father, brother or any other member of the family to have held political office.
Is George P. Bush going to be different? I don’t know, I hope so — but I probably doubt it. I would just hope that he’d pursue some other career path and let the family business no longer be politics. But that’s not going to happen. Time will tell if this Bush is going to be different, but looking at the families past, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Actor, author and former Richard Nixon speechwriter, Ben Stein is the latest pundit to point out the Obama regime’s criminal behavior. Stein recently told the Cavuto panel that if the administration were a bank they would be charged with criminal fraud for their repeated lies to the American public.
It’s funny how a couple years and a change in whose making the nominations from the Oval Office can change opinions.
The remarks below are Harry Reid in 2005, when the DNC held 48 seats in the Senate and they spent pretty much all of their time blocking President Bush’s nominees to federal courts:
Remarks as prepared for delivery:
Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a “procedural gimmick.”
The Websters dictionary defines “gimmick” as – – “an ingenious new scheme or angle.” No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new.
The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.
The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.
Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.
Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.
The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.
In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.”
In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate – and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.
Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.
– 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule.
– 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.
A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.
Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?
Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?”
“To cool it,” Jefferson replied.
To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.
It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.
And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.
Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.
In fact, my colleague from Georgia – Senator Isakson – recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government.
The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied… “no….we have the secret weapon called the ‘filibuster.’”
In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: “If there were ever a reason for optimism… it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.”
And he was right.
I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours.
There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.
In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy.
In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.
Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes.
Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed – – Civil Rights advocates met the burden.
And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option.
For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.
At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important.
He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay – as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.
But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.
Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House.
In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.
Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate.
If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.
Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary.
Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington.
From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people…
To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission…
To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power…
To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House…
Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.
America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.
For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”
It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.
Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.
They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.
They want to do away with the filibuster.
They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.
I doubt that’s true.
This past September the third annual Liberty Political Action Conference was held in Chantilly, Virginia. Among the speakers was Glen Jacobs, better known to fans of pro wrestling as the Devil’s favorite demon & the little brother of the Undertaker, Kane.
Here is his speech.
Not even in sin city are you free from the watchful eye of big brother.
From The Daily Mail:
Las Vegas is currently installing Intellistreet lights to their well-lit city. But Intellistreets are not just any street-lighting system.
The wireless, LED lighting, computer-operated lights are not only capable of illuminating streets, they can also play music, interact with pedestrians and are equipped with video screens, which can display police alerts, weather alerts and traffic information. The high tech lights can also stream live video of activity in the surrounding area.
But there’s one major concern.These new street lights, being rolled out with the aid of government funding, are also capable of recording video and audio.
Civil rights activist, Daphne Lee told NBC News 3 that she is worried about her freedom as an American citizen.
“This technology, you know is taking us to a place where, you know, you’ll essentially be monitored from the moment you leave your home till the moment you get home,” said Lee.
On Intellistreets website, inventor Ron Harwood explains that cameras for surveillance and recording devices can be installed in the light fixtures. But Las Vegas public works director, Jorge Servantes told News 3 that recording pedestrians is not in the cards in the immediate future.
Not going to use it to snoop on people? That’s a bet I would not be willing to take.
My favorite part comes in at 2:47
For more Click Here.