On Super Bowl Sunday, America was treated to the most expensive political commercial in history—brought to you by Chrysler—called “It's Halftime in America.” In a series of vapid non sequiturs, Clint Eastwood's gravelly voice pinned the promise of a city—no, a nation—to government dependency, claiming that “the people of Detroit” lost almost everything but because “we” pulled together and the “Motor City is fighting again”—punching, roaring, imbued with American grit—we survived. Or, some might argue, after screwing stakeholders, discarding legal contracts, rewarding failed business models (while punishing those who employ better ones) and sticking taxpayers with the unions' fat pension tab, America got a heaping spoonful of the Obama administration's economic policy. Either way, it's odd that we didn't hear much griping about “corporatism,” oligarchies and Citizens United, though a corporate-sponsored campaign spot laid out the president's re-election narrative rather nicely. Now, I have no beef with Chrysler's running a campaign ad, but the thing is that if Obama had his way, Republicans would have a good case for banning this kind of politicking. You know, for the good of democracy. You may remember that the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision centered around the ability of a corporation to air a documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. In her first case as solicitor general for the Obama administration, in fact, current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan went so far as to argue that the federal government should be empowered to ban books if Washington deems that they amount to “political electioneering.” Let's just say the spirit of Voltaire is not exactly soaring in Washington these days. You may also remember that when Ford ran a TV ad praising its innovative strategy of competing without taxpayer charity (a bit of a myth itself), the White House was reportedly incensed, viewing Ford's defense of free enterprise as an attack on the president. Needless to say, upsetting this administration is bad for business, and Ford pulled the ad. What about commercials? What about commercials produced by companies that benefited (in this case, a Bush bailout supported by Obama) from policies supported by this administration? What about “It's Halftime in America”? Well, cheers all around! White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Saving the (American) Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on.” (Eminem apparently read a script that was written by the same people who wrote the script that Eastwood read.) Obama's campaign architect, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?” Hmm. Not sure. David—if I may—maybe you could ask Clint or the agency that created the commercial, Wieden+Kennedy, because it is reportedly staffed by folks who have worked on Obama campaigns and Democratic causes for years. As for those super PACs—the main boogeyman of Citizens United— The Washington Examiner reminded me, the president once asked voters to “challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us (in) stopping it.” Join us? Let's start with Obama, who is going to have to challenge himself, as this week, his campaign asked top fundraisers to support his own super political action committee. Admittedly, brutes like me live under a preposterously antiquated notion. We believe that citizens should be free to support any candidate with as much money as they'd like—anonymously, if they desire. But if super PACs and corporate-sponsored politicking are really jeopardizing the very fabric of American life—Obama once claimed they were a “threat to democracy”—why would the president partake in this orgy of gruesome selfishness? It was reported that Obama had one of his internal “evolving conversations” on the issue, conversations that always seem to evolve into Obama's rationalizing whatever is best for Obama. Conversations that are educational. Because the next time the administration claims that more speech is threatening democracy—corporate speech, super PACs, Citizens United—what it really will mean is that more speech is threatening its second term. David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM Read more here: Obama’s Halftime Hypocrisy
Originally posted here:
Obama’s Halftime Hypocrisy
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has acted to reverse the democratic decision of the people of California to confine marriage to its traditional parameters of a man and a woman. In making this decision, the court decided that it could overturn the will of the people of California on the basis of what is known in legal circles as “the rational basis standard.” When evaluating the violation of fundamental rights, the court has often used a standard of “strict scrutiny” in cases involving racial or religious discrimination.
In today’s Morning Jolt Jim Geraghty observed, while implicitly dismissing former (involuntarily) Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper’s (D, PA) sudden getting religion over Obamacare for the cynical political move that it probably is, that the myth of the conservative Democratic Congressman was, well, a myth – and that he’s been saying that since 2010 . Well, I’ve been saying that, too – so I decided to look at all the examples of so-called conservative Democrats found in that article, and where they are now. The results were amazingly gratifying: Bart Gordon (forced to retire, 2010) Bobby Bright (removed, 2010) Dan Boren (cutting and running, 2012) Gene Taylor (removed, 2010) Heath Shuler (cutting and running, 2012) Joe Donnelly (switching out to lose Senate race, 2012) John Barrow (going out fighting [cruelly redistricted], 2012) S.H. Sandlin (removed, 2010) Walt Minnick (removed, 2010) In other words, it turns out that they really are a myth, now. It used to be that they were a myth because you couldn’t count on them to vote conservative when it counted; now they’re a myth because it’s getting harder and harder to find them in their supposed natural habitat. Which is a shame, but then nobody forced them to keep supporting a party leadership that pretty much hates everything that conservative Democrats supposedly stand for… Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Read the original here:
The self-correcting conservative Democratic liar problem.
In an interview with the Today show’s Matt Lauer recorded on Superbowl Sunday, President Obama said that “Our preferred solution (to the Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon) is diplomatic.” Although he also stated “we’re not taking any options off the table,” it’s hard to imagine the mullahs who rule Iran thinking that military action by the US has ever been on the table during this president’s administration. So it’s hard to believe that Obama thinks he is accomplishing anything of significance with his Monday order to freeze all financial assets (which are under American control) of the Iranian government or Iranian banks. A British attorney quoted in a Bloomberg News article on the policy shift said “It’s a declaration of economic warfare, to the extent that it’s not already been declared.” But do the mullahs actually care about “warfare” that doesn’t include weapons capable of destroying their uranium enrichment or missile production capabilities? Iran might rattle some sabres regarding disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but they probably won’t go far enough to start actual fighting because they know that as long as Obama feels like he’s doing something, or fooling people into believing he’s doing something, they can keep on working full-speed-ahead on a weapon intended to turn a major Israeli city into rubble. Furthermore, everybody talks about how much oil goes through that ocean passageway, but it must also be remembered that Iran is a large importer of gasoline. Thus interrupting shipping through the Strait would not be without major domestic economic and political consequences. The only reason they might pick a fight on the ocean is to rally internal support for their regime, creating the external enemy to blame for the nation’s problems. It’s a time-tested tactic, but one I doubt the mullahs will use. David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council, is also quoted by Bloomberg as saying that Obama’s move “should end any doubt about the president’s singular commitment to ensuring Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.” Actually, Harris has it exactly wrong. Obama’s move, while welcome, coming in the context of his reiteration that he wants and expects a diplomatic solution where it is increasingly obvious that none is possible, ends any doubt that the mullahs are laughing at the reign of Jimmy Carter II. The mullahs reaction will be “Obama just pulled the biggest weapon he’s actually willing to use. He is now toothless. We’ll pretend to be perturbed, but we feel little worse about this than Br’er Rabbit felt about being thrown into the briar patch.” Their view is all the more accurate given this president’s internationalist mindset, wanting to use the UN for every hard decision, now that we have seen Russia and China defend the indefensible Bashar al Assad, the murderous dictator of Syria. Barack Obama is out of his depth, and the world is a much more dangerous place for it. Israel is indeed, as Jed Babbin explained so well yesterday, sadly and perilously alone.
The rest is here:
Jimmy Carter II Plays into Iran’s Hands
Former Georgia Secretary of State and friend of RedState Karen Handel has resigned from the Komen foundation in the wake of the left-wing outcry over the future of the organization’s funding of Planned Parenthood. According to LifeNews , “ Komen initially decided in December to revise its grant-making process to funds grants to agencies that provide direct health services for women — which would eliminate Planned Parenthood since it does not do mammograms . After Planned Parenthood, Democratic members of Congress and the media pounced on Komen for its decision, Komen clarified that Planned Parenthood would still be allowed to submit grant requests but they may or may not be funded.” Handel’s letter of resignation is below. February 7, 2012 The Honorable Nancy Brinker CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure VIA EMAIL 5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75244 Dear Ambassador Brinker: Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world. As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz. We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward. I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants. What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly. Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission. Sincerely, Karen Handel
Excerpt from:
Karen Handel resigns from the Komen Foundation
