Media Hit Obama for Placing Fundraising Above World Crises

PresidentObamaFundRaising

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

 

obamaHRC

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 Barbwire.com.

“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 OneNewsNow.com website. 

U.S. Sen Durbin Threatens Radio Station

81717_4ddd91684aeaeaa318e3cbcd650327a3_2bbfe6bb9344e7ed8d4c078dfdbfbdeb

Written by IllinoisReview.com

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.

More HERE

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

130402_mark_kirk_ap

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.

‘Hard’ Choices about America’s Future

Written by Robert Knight

Hillary Clinton thinks it’s a “hard choice” to take a human life.

She wasn’t talking about soldiers facing combat, or what police do in showdowns with criminals. Or even what an armed homeowner might ponder for a split second during a break-in.

The former First Lady and former Secretary of State was talking about aborting unborn children, which she regards as merely a “choice,” albeit a “hard” one.

And why is it hard, if the baby is not – against all scientific evidence – a human being?

If the child is not a child, just protoplasm that just happens to be in a mother’s womb, what’s the big deal?

Hillary Clinton has had her thumb on the scale of death for unborn children so long that she probably cannot fathom how absurd her stance is. And given her keenly honed political instincts, which take into account the short attention span of the average American voter, she might well ask, “what, at this point, difference does it make?”

Right after the U.S. Supreme Court recovered a tiny bit of our decaying religious freedom last Monday by ruling that the Christian-owned Hobby Lobby craft store chain does not have to pay for abortion drugs for its employees, Clinton waxed grimly poetic at the uber-trendy Aspen Ideas Festival, where she pushed her memoir, “Hard Choices.”

As Gary Bauer has noted, Mrs. Clinton “managed to compare free contraception to honor killings and genital mutilation. Asked about the court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, Clinton said:

‘It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are unstable, anti-democratic and, frankly, prone to extremism, where women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people — men — to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but prop up rulers.’”

“This is a really bad slippery slope,” she also told interviewer Walter Isaacson, who presumably knows bad slippery slopes from good ones. Skiers pay a small fortune to traverse the latter when God endows Aspen with snow.

“It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely-held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means that the … corporation’s employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees,” Mrs. Clinton continued.

Well, the courts have long held that corporations are composed of individuals and therefore have constitutional rights. And although the ruling was limited to closely-held corporations, Mrs. Clinton might want to think more expansively. Her liberal friends at some major corporations have been pushing the quasi-religious culture of death since the 1970s.

Hapless employees have by association aided and abetted Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda as well as homosexual activism, both of which are anathema to devout Christians and Jews. A number of large corporations have been up to their ears selling hard-core, illegal pornography. The willful embrace of immorality is as clearly a decision with religious significance as is willful adherence to God-given natural law.

Mrs. Clinton has no problem with corporate, religious-inspired activity, providing it reflects the religious sensibilities of the priests of Baal or the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah.

What about the “bad slippery slope” of an America descending into decadence and moral anarchy? It’s a good bet that, like any thinking leftist, Mrs. Clinton welcomes it. The destruction of marriage and family makes people dependent on government and hence dependent on politicians like her.

Speaking of dependency, what are we to make of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants flooding over the Texas border, followed by planeloads of lawyers sent there by President Obama to ensure that they will not only remain in the United States but quickly become newly minted recipients of taxpayer largesse?

Call me paranoid, but it seems to me that someone, somewhere, has decided that America has had its run as the freest and most prosperous, grounded-in-law nation in history. It’s apparently high time to take us down a peg.

I don’t believe for a minute that President Obama is surprised by any of this, or that he is “in over his head” any more than Hillary Clinton is. Conservatives complain in vain about our ruling elites’ supposed ineptness.

What if, as with Hillary Clinton’s reverential Wellesley dissertation on Marxist community organizer Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama is a true believer of the Left who hates everything that makes America unique? What if he took to heart the leftist bromides from his Muslim father and step-father, his mother, his grandparents in Hawaii and his self-acknowledged mentor, communist writer Frank Marshall Davis?

What if he were schooled in radical politics by his friend, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, and came to believe that if he ever acquired the power to do so, he would show these spoiled Americans a thing or two?

What else rationally explains five and a half years of ripping apart the Constitution, economic and foreign policy disasters, the government takeover of health care, antipathy towards Israel, a slavish devotion to using government to further sexual anarchy, an open borders policy, and the criminal misuse of the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies to try to crush political opponents?

As bad as it has been, we may not have seen the worst.

Hillary Clinton said she found the Supreme Court’s moment of moral sanity the other day “deeply disturbing.”

It’s nothing she won’t fix pronto if she ever gets the chance.


This article was first published on the TownHall.com website.

 

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com