The Shrill is Gone! Who’s Got Next in the Demokratik Party?


Written by Luke Hamilton

It is never too early to start planning the completion of a communist coup. We are only midway through Dear Leader’s second term, but the Demokrat primary for the 2016 Presidential election is beginning to take shape. It almost seems as if the party has already abdicated this year’s mid-term election and is instead marshalling forces for the next major election season. It wouldn’t be the worst strategy, given the fact that the prognosis is dire for Demokrats this year. Even Chris Mathews has lost the thrill up his leg, predicting on his show this week that the Republicans will take back the Senate.

At one point, it seemed virtually predetermined that Shrillary would be the 2016 Demokratik Presidential candidate. So it’s surprising that recently she has looked more ready for a knockout than the Oval Office. It’s hard to tell with her pantsuits, but those legs look rubbery and her corner has got to be concerned. Her political blunders over the past several weeks seem to confirm the fact that the political acumen in that family resides exclusively in Bubba. For someone with such extensive experience with the limelight and televised interviews, it is hard to believe that she misspoke so badly by claiming poverty after Bill left office. She has since tried to fall back on relativism and insist that she and Bill aren’t broke but they’re also not like some of those people who are “truly well off”.

Riiiight, because the rest of us have made $100m over the past 20 years.

This struggle to associate herself with the middle class is failing miserably and it is not a fight she can win; much like the one she’s been fighting to distance herself from Benghazi. This Just-Folks populism she’s slathering upon herself reeks of artifice and pandering. She has always appealed to the limousine liberal and the progressive corporatist and she should know better than to think she could shed her skin that easily.

That being said, Shrillary carries a political heft which cannot be ignored. The Clinton machine has a network which verges on legendary and can probably call in favors from cronies around the world. Despite the breathless hagiographies written of her political prowess, Shrillary’s greatest political asset is still Bill, both for his eye-popping paychecks and for his diplomatic wizardry. Even this far removed from office, Bill can still make or break a candidate with his support or his ridicule. I firmly believe that he could’ve taken out Barack if he had been allowed to drop gloves in ’08. Someone must’ve given him the order to ‘stand down’. I suppose it could’ve been his wife, as she seems fond of issuing that order.

But hold the phone! There appears to be a new snout in the pigpen. The whisper campaign is gaining a full head of steam to draft U.S. Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcohontas” Warren into the race for President. According to Edward Klein, the author of Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas, the President has tasked Valerie Jarrett with the job of convincing Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. It is hard to know if Klein’s sources are accurate, but it is logical to think that Obama is involved in this effort. Primarily because Obama is incessantly distracted from doing his actual job by anything and everything.

This project would allow him to avoid geopolitical crises like the Islamification of Iraq, unknown numbers of people (with unknown identities!) pouring over our borders, ongoing attacks faced by our allies Ukraine & Israel, and an American economy more fragile than the sanity of Ed Schultz. Also, it’s logical to think that Obama would be interested in convincing Warren to run for President because playing Kingmaker to the next progressive socialist in the White House would scratch his egomaniacal itch and cement his name as the first of a new generation of Marxist “forefathers” who fundamentally transformed the United States into poverty-stricken irrelevancy.

A Chicago Machine Marxist is an unfortunate accident, a Chicago Machine Marxist followed by an East Coast Socialist Egghead is a contiguous communist coup with long-ranging repercussions.

Senator Warren has made no secret of her ambition to gain a larger slice of Farmer Jones’ pie. She represents a vocal, growing wing of the Demokratik party which is unabashedly socialist. Over the last few months, she has made at least 7 appearances to generate support for struggling Demokratik candidates. During those appearances, her adoring fans have been treated to plenty of her trademark rabble rousing about the evil banks, blame-worthy corporations, and how the system is “rigged” against ordinary Americans. I don’t disagree that the system is rigged to benefit certain people, but I do disagree that the answer is to create more system.

What would a Warren Presidency mean for the country? Like Obama, she’s a hardcore socialist progressive, but there is a subtle difference. Obama seems to feel the need to explain his redistributive policies, almost apologetically at times. Warren is unashamed of her avarice. Her boilerplate stump speech seems to suggest that she would be able to tap into the populist anger which Clinton is so desperately trying to access; anger at the capitalist cronies who have benefitted from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies. But unlike libertarian Conservatives, who share her anger at crony capitalism, her only solution seems to be the vilification of success and the exponential growth of central authority. In many ways, a Warren presidency would complete the transformation begun on Barack’s watch, which explains why Jarrett is helping measure lawn-space for Elizabeth’s presidential teepee.

Media Hit Obama for Placing Fundraising Above World Crises


Written by Don Irvine

Despite increasing criticism from the mainstream media over how President Barack Obama has responded to the downed Malaysian plane and the latest conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the White House remains defiant, arguing that his response has been appropriate.

Rather than issue a statement immediately after Malaysian flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian separatists while flying over Ukraine, Obama continued on with his planned events, which included grabbing a cheeseburger at The Charcoal Pit in Delaware and fundraisers in New York.

When asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl if this was, in hindsight, a mistake, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that it wasn’t. He said that they wouldn’t have hesitated to make a change to the President’s schedule, if necessary, in order for him to attend to an urgent priority and fulfill his responsibilities as Commander in Chief.

Last week, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri told The New York Times Michael Shearer that “It is rarely a good idea to return to the White House just for show, when the situation can be handled responsibly from the road.” She said that abrupt changes to the President’s schedule can unduly alarm the public or create a false sense of crisis.

The National Journal’s Ron Fournier, however, isn’t convinced by the White House ‘s explanation:

First, the phrase ‘just for show’ is indicative of the Obama White House conceit that their guy is above politics. The fact is, all presidents do things just for show, because the office is inherently political, and one of the levers of power can be found in the public theater. … The hypocrisy is staggering. How is playing pool and drinking beer with the governor of Colorado not ‘just for show?’ Obama and his team consistently respond to criticism by dismissing the media’s focus on ‘optics,’ even as they craft and control the President’s image more aggressively than perhaps any previous White House.

Second, while Palmieri is correct that gutting a presidential schedule is rarely a good idea, there are times when it is. You could make an argument that Thursday was one such time, when the Gaza Strip erupted with violence and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s allies shot a passenger plane from the sky. A president can bring calm and clarity to a confusing situation, or he can add to public anxiety.

Fournier is right. With Obama’s approval ratings in the tank, he had a golden opportunity to provide some reassurance and show some true leadership. But instead, he blew it by placing politics above everything else, only reinforcing the belief that he is increasingly out of touch. 

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

‘Imperialist President’ at it Again



Written by Charlie Butts

An expert on constitutional law says it’s apparent Barack Obama hasn’t learned his lesson from a recent Supreme Court decision.

On Monday President Obama issued an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide special protections for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender people in the workplace. The order essentially implements the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for federal contractors – legislation that Congress has failed to pass.

Matt Barber is vice president of Liberty Counsel Action and founder of

“Here we have this president acting and ruling as the imperialist president – circumventing Congress, circumventing the separation of powers in order to force his radical, leftist agenda on the rest of America – and targeting and discriminating specifically against Christian companies in order to do so,” he tells OneNewsNow.

Barber argues the president isn’t heeding the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision last month that permits business owners of faith to operate their business on the basis of the their faith. He says with this latest executive order, the president is doing exactly what the ruling forbids.

“[He's] telling Christian companies that they have to leave their biblical beliefs at the workplace door and that … under penalty of law and if they want to have any kind of contract or work with the federal government, that they must hire people who embrace a value system that is counter-biblical,” he explains.

The executive order contains no religious exemption, which means Christian ministries contracting with the government will have to comply.

The co-founder of another legal group stated yesterday that he predicts implementation of the executive order will be challenged in court on the basis that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – the law on which the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision hinged.

This article was originally posted at the website. 

U.S. Sen Durbin Threatens Radio Station


Written by

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is not happy with a radio ad (HERE) that focuses on the wage gap between men and women working on his Senate staff. So unhappy in fact, that he is threatening legal action against a Quincy, Illinois radio station airing the spot.

Quincy radio station WTAD 930AM, which is owned by STARadio and Quincy Journal, has been running the ad for a week. According to Quincy Journal reporter Bob Gough, STARadio was contacted by someone representing Sen. Durbin. Gough writes:

“WTAD received an email and phone call from a firm representing Senator Durbin earlier in the week,” said STARadio VP/GM Mike Moyers. “A letter attached to the email implied that the commercial being aired by Americas PAC contained false information and that WTAD would be liable should we continue to air it. Sources provided by Americas PAC were checked and proved to be in line, so the commercial in question is still on the air.”

Threats were anticipated by Americas PAC back in April when they announced they would be running $310,000 in ads against the Durbin.

“I fully anticipate Americas PAC, and myself personally, to be attacked by the full force of the Federal Government and given the full Al Salvi/Tea Party treatment,” Tom Donelson, Chairman of Americas PAC said. “I expect to be audited by the IRS, to have my tax returns leaked to the media, to be investigated by multiple government agencies and be raided late at night.”

Explaining the radio ad causing Durbin the heartburn, Donelson said:

“Dick Durbin likes to talk about the Republican war on women, but how can he talk of a war on women when he doesn’t even pay his female staffers the same as the men?”

Analysis of Senate Staff payroll found that in 2012 Durbin “paid men $13,063 more, a difference of 23 percent,” or about 77 cents for every dollar earned by his male staffers.

In 2014, a follow-up report by the Free Beacon found that Durbin was still paying his female staff less than his maile staff. “The average female salary is $11,505 lower than the average male salary in Durbin’s office,” the paper reported.


U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (RINO) Votes Against Religious Liberty


Radical Proposal Falls Just Four Votes Short of 60 Needed to Proceed

Written by David E. Smith and Laurie Higgins

Despite receiving hundreds of emails, faxes and phone calls from his constituents, Mark Kirk, the junior U.S. Senator (R) from Illinois, failed to uphold religious liberty and freedom of conscience.  Instead, Sen. Kirk voted with the Democrats in favor of radical legislation that would undo the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)–the very law that the Court used to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.  U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO) were the chief sponsors of this ominous legislation.

Republican U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Susan Collins from Maine also joined the Democrats in voting to overturn RFRA .

In the end, the so-called “Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act” was defeated 56-43 on a procedural vote.  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who voted against the bill so that he can revive it later, said the Senate would vote again on the issue before year’s end.”

This is not the first time that Sen. Kirk has acted against the interest of people of faith.  Late last year he confirmed the concerns of many conservatives when he abruptly canceled his hosting of a symposium by The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society (based in Rockford) at the Senate’s Dirksen Building after hearing complaints from gay and pro-gay rights groups.  The reservation was set months in advance.

Sen. Kirk’s record on life issues is also reprehensible. He supports the  freedom  of women to kill their preborn babies. He supports experimenting on human embryos. He supports federal subsidization of Planned Parenthood.

He opposes bans on partial-birth abortions. He opposes laws that make it a crime to harm a preborn baby during the commission of another crime. He opposes bans on interstate transport of minors seeking abortions. He opposes government funding of health care providers that don’t provide abortion information.

And when it comes to pro-homosexual/pro-homosexual legislation, Sen. Kirk is equally immoderate. He voted with Democrats in the U.S. Senate to pass the onerous Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which if passed in the U.S. House would prevent employers from taking into account the volitional and public sexual choices of potential employees. Sen. Kirk seeks to prohibit employers from choosing not to hire cross-dressers.

Sen. Kirk was a co-sponsor of the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” which in reality is a law that addresses not acts but thoughts.

In his desire to allow those who affirm a homosexual identity to serve openly in the military, Sen. Kirk voted in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Sen. Kirk co-sponsored the “Safe Schools Improvement Act,” another deceptively named, homosexuality-affirming bill that hijacks bullying prevention in order to expose other people’s children to Leftist beliefs about homosexuality.

The anti-life, anti-natural marriage, anti-religious liberty so-called “Republican” Mark Kirk must be challenged in the next primary in 2016. It is not merely his morally vacuous votes that justify his ouster. While in office, he is disseminating his ideas among his colleagues in the halls of power. He and other Republicans devoid of a moral compass on the essential issues of life and sexuality are polluting the only party that is capable of promoting legislation that will sustain this country.

Sen. Kirk is not good for the Republican Caucus in the U.S. Senate, he not good for the Illinois Republican Party and he is certainly not good for millions of conservative people of faith.

Despite what feckless socially “moderate” Republicans claim, abortion, same-sex faux-marriage, homosexuality, and gender confusion are neither peripheral to the health of a nation nor subordinate to fiscal issues in importance. These issues are central, and candidates who don’t understand that should be rejected no matter what other skills and knowledge they possess.

Don’t settle for the morally stunted candidate. Next time someone says, “Well, you can’t expect a candidate to be perfect. Just hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil,” tell them you will. Tell them you’ll support the candidate that may be wrong on the fiscal issues but is right on the most  important issues–the issues on which the existence of a society depends.

Take ACTION: Please contact Senator Kirk to express your opposition to his vote for religious discrimination.  His Washington D.C. office phone number is (202) 224-2854.

You can also send a message to Sen. Kirk’s office via the IFI take action system.  Click HERE to send him an email or a fax.

U.S. Senator Blumenthal’s Butchery Bill

Written by the Editors of National Review Online

Democrats hold one thing — and one thing only — sacred, and that is abortion. Our diplomats may be murdered abroad, the rule of law may be grossly violated at home, the First Amendment may be written off as just another roadblock on the freeway to utopia, but abortion will always have for them a uniquely holy status — even if that means employing unholy methods to facilitate it. Thus U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut has introduced a bill, cosponsored by a majority of Senate Democrats, that would purport to strip states of their ability to impose even the most basic of health and safety regulations on the grisly procedure, a bill that David French has rightly suggested should be titled the Kermit Gosnell Enabling Act of 2014.

Readers will recall, though they will not enjoy it, the details of Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s case, the transcript of which reads like the screenplay for a Rob Zombie horror flick: the illegal abortions; the newborns who survived botched abortion attempts only to have their spinal cords severed with scissors; the obscenely unhygienic conditions, with free-ranging cats using the clinic as an open-air litter box; the dead patient and subsequent manslaughter conviction; and, finally, the murder convictions. The Gosnell gore-fest was a direct consequence of the elevation of abortion to divine office: Neither the local authorities in Democrat-dominated Philadelphia nor the Democrat-dominated statewide bureaucracies in Pennsylvania were much inclined to exercise basic oversight of abortion clinics. Even after a woman died under Dr. Gosnell’s knife, there was little interest in investigating his practice: It took allegations of illegal prescription-drug use and the piqued interest of the DEA to put Gosnell on the radar.

Senator Blumenthal proposes to apply the Philadelphia model to the nation at large. Under his bill, states would have effectively no power even to ensure that abortions are performed by licensed physicians — surely the most minimal standard of medical responsibility that there is. Laws covering grisly late-term abortions would be forcibly overturned and fetal viability would be redefined according to the subjective whim of the abortionist. While the Democrats are bemoaning a fictitious war on women, their bill would provide federal protection to sex-selective abortions — the barbaric practice under which generations of girls have been decimated in such backward jurisdictions as China and Azerbaijan, a practice The Economist describes as “gendercide.” Laws restricting taxpayer funding of abortion would be overturned. Laws protecting the consciences of physicians who choose not to perform abortions would be overturned.

Not that the Democrats are much interested in such niceties, but there is little or nothing in the law or the Constitution that could be construed to empower the federal government to set aside, wholesale, state regulation of physicians and their work. The states license physicians and hospitals, and they have broad power over their standards and conduct. Even if one accepts the 1973 abortion decisions as fixed and eternal law handed down from on high, there is nothing in Roe v. Wade or its companion cases that establishes a constitutional preemption of state health and safety laws.

Senator Blumenthal’s bill requires that abortion not be subject to any restriction that is not also applicable to “comparable” medical procedures, but there is in fact no such thing as a comparable procedure, something recognized by the Supreme Court, which describes the act as “unique” and “inherently different” from other surgeries. And, of course, it is: Abortion is in almost no instance a therapeutic procedure — its usual motive is simply the termination of an inconvenient human life.

Morally literate people, including those who generally support abortion rights, understand that abortion is fundamentally unlike anything else doctors are commonly called upon to do, and that it is morally significant in a way a tonsillectomy is not. People of good will may disagree to some extent about the moral significance of what is maturing in a woman’s womb — but it is not an ingrown toenail, and all the Senate proclamations in the world will not change that fact.

By their fruits you shall know them: Senate Democrats have just recently blocked efforts to get to the bottom of the IRS political-persecution scandal and to hold VA officials accountable for the horrific treatment of American veterans — ho-hum issues for Senator Blumenthal and his colleagues. But if Texas decides that abortions performed within its borders must be carried out by a licensed physician in a proper surgical facility, then Democrats are on the march. Abortion is, to say the least, ugly. Democrats’ ghoulish enthusiasm for it is almost as ugly.

Modified by Matthew