[VIDEO] Ed Schultz: ‘Why Give Obama Fast Track Authority On Trade Deal? Because He’s African-American?’

NEW POLL:  55% OPPOED TO FAST TRACK!!!

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz continued his critique of President Barack Obama’s push for Fast Track Authority on trade Friday by invoking the president’s race as he looks to push through a deal against Democratic opposition.

In his opening monologue, Schultz wondered why Democrats should “give the president fast track authority,” before going on to invoke Obama’s ethnicity into the debate

“Why give the president fast track authority? Because he’s African-American? I don’t think so,” Schultz said. “I don’t care if the president’s Asian, African-American, from Nigeria, if he’s a fat white guy from Minnesota, it doesn’t matter.”

ED SCHULTZ: The bottom line in all of this is that we have a track record of trade agreements that have gutted American jobs. In fact, we have seen the Chinese cheat when it comes to trade agreements. We have seen them dump stuff on our market. And the trade agreements aren’t set up where we can recoil fast enough and straighten things out. By that time, the jobs are lost down the road. So this is more of the same.

So why give the president fast track authority? Because he’s African-American? I don’t think so. I don’t care if the president’s Asian, African-American, from Nigeria, if he’s a fat white guy from Minnesota, it doesn’t matter. The fact is, this is a bad deal for America. And no one’s telling the truth exactly what is in this. And why do we have to have a trade deal with Brunei? Sharia law. Really? That’s going to make our economy better? No. This is a Wall Street deal. This is a corporate deal. It’s not for the betterment of raising wages in this country.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

Democrats' Vanishing Future

May 21, 2015 One of the most underappreciated stories in recent years is the deterioration of the Democratic bench under President Obama's tenure in office. The party has become much more ideologically homogenous, losing most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections. By one new catch-all measure, a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler, Democrats are in their worst position since 1928. That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democratic presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.

But less attention has been paid to how the shrinking number of Democratic officeholders in the House and in statewide offices is affecting the party's Senate races. It's awfully unusual to see how dependent Democrats are in relying on former losing candidates as their standard-bearers in 2016. Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, Indiana's Baron Hill, and Ohio's Ted Strickland all ran underwhelming campaigns in losing office in 2010—and are looking to return to politics six years later. Party officials are courting former Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina to make a comeback bid, despite mediocre favorability ratings and the fact that she lost a race just months ago that most had expected her to win. All told, more than half of the Democrats' Senate challengers in 2016 are comeback candidates.

On one hand, most of these candidates are the best choices Democrats have. Feingold and Strickland are running ahead of GOP Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman in recent polls. Hill and Hagan boast proven crossover appeal in GOP-leaning states that would be challenging pickups. Their presence in the race gives the party a fighting chance to retake the Senate.

(RELATED: What's Next In the House Benghazi Committee's Hillary Clinton Investigation)

But look more closely, and the reliance on former failures is a direct result of the party having no one else to turn to. If the brand-name challengers didn't run, the roster of up-and-coming prospects in the respective states is short. They're also facing an ominous historical reality that only two defeated senators have successfully returned to the upper chamber in the last six decades. As political analyst Stu Rothenberg put it, they're asking "voters to rehire them for a job from which they were fired." Senate Democrats are relying on these repeat candidates for the exact same reason that Democrats are comfortable with anointing Hillary Clinton for their presidential nomination: There aren't any better alternatives.

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading....

Clinton campaign aims for style, substance points amid scrutiny

In the weeks since she formally, finally announced her campaign for the presidency in April, Hillary Clinton has sought to score points for style and substance.

Style, to convince Democratic voters that she won't run like an incumbent who views the primaries as a mere formality — a complaint about her 2008 presidential campaign. Substance, to signal her liberal bona fides to Democrats who long for the bank-bashing Sen. Elizabeth Warren to get into the presidential nominating contest.

So Clinton took a road trip halfway across the U.S. from New York to Iowa in a van nicknamed Scooby Doo and stopped to grab a bite at a Chipotle in Ohio. She met with small groups of voters for "roundtable discussions" in which she nodded and listened — much as she did when she began running for the Senate in 2000, breaking ground as the first first lady to run for office.

USA TODAY

Hillary Clinton goes unnoticed in Ohio Chipotle

Early reviews say Clinton has achieved what she set out to do when she launched her campaign on April 12. However, as she looks ahead to the next phase of her presidential bid and tries to continue to avoid the missteps that cost her in 2008, she will be challenged to put forward a clear rationale for her candidacy while dueling with scrutiny from press she has largely kept at bay.

Via: USA Today
Continue Reading....

Dem House candidate: Without immigration reform, where will we get our landscapers and maids?

In a genuine gaffe (accidentally telling the truth), Florida Democratic congressional candidate Alex Sink revealed the class system at the heart of so-called “immigration reform.” TheWashington Free Beacon reports:

Florida Democratic congressional candidate Alex Sink said immigration reform was important at a Tuesday debate because, without it, it would be difficult for employers to find people to cleanhotel rooms and do landscaping.

“Immigration reform is important in our country,” she said. “We have a lot of employers over on the beaches that rely upon workers and especially in this high-growth environment, where are you going to get people to work to clean our hotel rooms or do our landscaping? We don’t need to put those employers in a position of hiring undocumented and illegal workers.”

Evidently Ms. Sink believes that there is no unemployment among American citizens in her disctrict. Or maybe she believes that unemployed Americans would rather receive unemployment benefits, section 8 housing subsidies, food stamps EBT cards, Earned Income Tax credits, and the other range of freebies available in our welfare statesafety net hammock. She should really explain why Americans can’t do those jobs, in her opinion.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Rep. Smith Challenges Government Over Giving $364 Million to Liberal Group

Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have be paid to a liberal journalism group, and the agencies responsible don’t seem to want to talk about it. But some in Congress aren’t afraid of the issue. Rep Lamar Smith, R-Texas, addressed the issue on the floor of the House of Representatives on Jan. 13, asking his fellow members of Congress why taxpayers were “subsidizing a liberal news outlet.”

Internews is a liberal journalism nonprofit that has gotten more than $364 million from the U.S. government in the past 10 years, as well as $1.7 million from liberal billionaire George Soros.  It has also founded three liberal journalism outfits: Link TV, the Earth Journalism Network and Climate Commons.

(video after break)

“Mr. Speaker, since 2002, over $362 million dollars in government grants have gone to fund a liberal news organization by the name of Internews,” Rep. Smith said.

“The Business and Media Institute describes Internews as a liberal journalism nonprofit and states that not only does it push a liberal agenda but it also has helped create at least three other liberal organizations. 

“Why are taxpayers’ dollars subsidizing a liberal news outlet? This is a misuse of the public’s money. People need unbiased information so that they can form their own opinions and make educated decisions.

“One of the greatest challenges a democratic America faces today is a biased media.  It is inexcusable and irresponsible for the federal government to give any of the American taxpayers’ dollars to a liberal media organization.”

Rep. Smith earlier told the Business and Media Institute that such funding was “inexcusable and irresponsible.”

The amount of government funding going to Internews is staggering. In 2011 alone, it received $52,350,784 in government grants, according to its 990 tax forms. This makes up 92.4 percent of the $56,644,153 in total reported revenue for that year. And 2011 wasn’t unusual. According to the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, “all but $1.6 million of the $26.7 million in revenue it [Internews] reported in 2004 came from the federal government.” 

Via: Newsbusters.org

Continue Reading....

NY Post: Obama Embraces Cruz?

Maybe Ted Cruz and Barack Obama are not as far apart on ObamaCare as we thought.

 

Before the government shut down, the Texas senator and his Republican allies in the House were denounced as extremists for wanting ObamaCare repealed in exchange for keeping the government going. Yet now it’s the president and his Democratic allies who want to delay, indefinitely, key parts of this law.

If the Democrats get their way, we have to wonder: What’s the difference between repealing the law and not implementing it?

In July, the administration put off the employer mandate for a year. A few weeks ago, the president said insurance companies could hold off canceling their old policies. And now he’s pushed back next year’s enrollment period so that it will run from November 15, 2014, to January 15, 2015. Not only does this extend the time on the back end, it conveniently moves the start date until after the mid-term elections.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

[CARTOON] A Democratic Thanksgiving

Via: California Political Review

CA VETERAN DENIED REINSTATEMENT ON CITY COMMISSION AFTER DEPLOYMENT

In a rather fishy development, Captain Michael Merino, a member of the city of Orange’s five-member planning commission and a registered Republican, was denied the chance for reinstatement on Tuesday after the Navel reservist took a two-year leave of absence when he was deployed to serve at Guantanamo Bay. The Democratic mayor of Orange, Tita Smith, is refusing to nominate Merino for the now-vacant post. Merino also served in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  

Councilman Denis Bilodeau, also a Republican, is calling for the City Council to bring up the subject for consideration on Tuesday November 26th, with local veterans groups expected to attend.

Merino served on the Orange Planning Commission from 2006 through 2011.

Smith said Merino’s term expired during his deployment and because he had been on the panel more than five years, a new person was needed to replace him.

Bilodeau stated, “I am heartbroken that Capt. Merino answered his call of duty, and we are not honoring that by giving him his position back.”

Merino has asserted that he thought his job on the commission would be protected by federal regulations covering military personnel, but smith said the federal provisions do not cover the jobs on the commission.

Merino, who had run twice for city council, was disillusioned, saying, “I am disappointed by the council’s actions. I have no intention of running for council again. I don’t understand the politics behind this decision.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

“Kentucky Obamacare success” is an Obama-generated lie

Google the words ‘Kentucky Obamacare’ and the word ‘success’ will come up by default. It’s a lie pushed first by President Obama on October 2nd and has been propelled by the MSM since, but today we have the real numbers.

Obama, who won 679K votes in Kentucky last year, said the following on the 2nd day of the Shutdown:

In Kentucky alone — this is a state where — I didn’t win Kentucky. So I know they weren’t doing it for me.  In Kentucky, nearly 11,000 people applied for new insurance plans in the first two days — just in one state, Kentucky.

A week later, Bussinessweek wrote:

By Monday [October 7th] afternoon, 6,946 families had enrolled in plans through Kynect and the website had handled 3.1 million page views, according to the governor’s office. Soon after the launch, Beshear was talking to CNN’s Sanjay Gupta and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, making the [Democratic] red-state Governor a visible public face of Obamacare.

So 6,946 families signed up the first week, Mr. Governor? Hmmm. As per the Federal Government, only 5,586 plans were selected as of November 2nd!

It turns out those rosy numbers were mostly Medicaid, which is NOT part of the sign-up target for Obamcare. 28,676 people signed up for Medicaid in KY as of the latest filing, but it’s not something that the lying President or Dem Governor told you at the time.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

House Democrats Pull Pages From the Rahm Playbook

Democrats have taken a few pages from Rahm Emanuel’s playbook in hopes of boosting their difficult quest to win the House majority in 2014.

The Chicago mayor served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, when his party beat long odds to win the majority for the first time in more than a decade. This cycle, Democrats face a similarly tough challenge: picking up seats in 17 districts on a map drawn to give the GOP an advantage.

To accomplish this, DCCC ChairmanSteve Israel has sought to emulate his former mentor with relentless recruitment, an incessant focus on messaging and Emanuel’s aggressive style — minus a few four-letter expletives.

The two Democrats have a lot in common. Former aides note their shared religion, gregarious public personas, all-in approach to wooing candidates and their soundbite-driven quests to drive messaging.

Israel served as one of Emanuel’s recruitment lieutenants in 2006, along with Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who ran the DCCC in 2008 and 2010. Israel and Emanuel met recently in Chicago and speak regularly by phone, the New York Democrat confirmed in a Tuesday interview with CQ Roll Call.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading.....

Democrat Bill Would Let Obama Increase Debt Limit; Congress Wouldn't Need to Vote

(CNSNews.com) - Democratic senators have introduced legislation that would grant President Barack Obama, and subsequent presidents, the authority to increase the legal limit on the federal government's debt unless Congress subsequently voted to disapprove the increase.

The bill would effectively take elected members of Congress off the hook for approving an increase in the debt. If the president certified that he was going to increase the debt limit, Congress could simply let him do it without taking a vote--and putting members on the record.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to borrow money. It says: "Congress shall have power ... to borrow money on the credit of the United States."

Sens. Chuck  Schumer (D-N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have introduced the Pay Our Bills Act, which would “permanently allow Congress to disapprove debt ceiling increases, instead of approving them.”

“When our debt comes within $100 billion of the debt limit, the president can send Congress a certification that the debt limit needs to be increased by a certain amount. Then Congress has 15 days to vote on a resolution of disapproval, just like we’re doing here in a few hours. This would allow Congress to fully debate and vote on the debt limit. A majority vote would carry in the House and Senate,” said Boxer in a press conference on Tuesday.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading......

Pelosi: People getting their insurance cancelled for their own good

Another day, another slew of Democratic talking points on the disaster that is Obamacare. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sought to soothe the hurt feelings of people who were bumped off their insurance plans because of the law by making the startling claim that it's for their own good.

The Hill:

"While you might like your old plan, what you're going to get under the new plan is that [it does] not discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions, does not deny you a key benefit like ... maternal, mental health or prescription drug coverage and cannot drop you when you are sick," Pelosi said during a press conference in the Capitol. 

"These are part of the 'patients' bill of rights,' which is a vast improvement over other plans."

Pelosi said the sharp rise in medical costs, combined with the transient nature of the individual insurance market, would eventually have forced people out of their individual plans - ObamaCare or none.

"No matter what people say about whether they like their plan or not, their plan was not going to be their plan," she said. "Everybody's premiums were going up."

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

How Mich. Rebuts Redistricting/Polarization Claims

Dave Weigel wrote a brief post on gerrymandering last Friday in response to my piece on the same topic. He used Michigan as an example of how Republicans were able to use redistricting to enhance their standing in the House, particularly by shoring up vulnerable members, thereby contributing to extremism.

Before responding, I think it’s important to note up front, as Weigel does, that this isn’t really a black-and-white issue, a fact that is easily glossed over. People run along a continuum of opinion regarding how much redistricting contributed to the GOP’s House majority and to polarization. We might place Tom Friedman at one pole, as he seemingly laid our increasingly divided nation at the feet of redistricting, Citizens United, and Fox News. At the other end are those political scientists who find little to no effect from redistricting. In the middle are people like Weigel, Charlie Cook, and myself, who think redistricting played a role, but who disagree -- sometimes strongly -- on the extent to which it mattered and how much other factors contributed.

From my point of view, redistricting helped Republicans gain between five and 10 seats that they wouldn’t have otherwise won, by shifting the median district rightward. But even this is more a function of polarization than a cause of it.

Weigel’s Michigan example is actually instructive in showing the limits of what redistricting contributes to polarization. At first blush, it looks like a classic case of a horrendously gerrymandered state. Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 16.4 percentage points there, more than twice his national average. Mitt Romney ran a much stronger race four years later, but the president still managed to win by a healthy 9.4 points. Yet under the Republican-drawn maps, the president ran better than his statewide 2008 showing in only five districts (of 14), and ran ahead of his national showing in just six. Romney carried nine of these districts outright.

As Weigel writes:

It’s not like gerrymandering created Justin Amash. It shored up Tim Walberg. Who's Tim Walberg? He was a Club for Growth-backed candidate who primaried a moderate Republican in 2006, lost in the 2008 Democratic wave, came back in 2010, and benefited when the new GOP legislature drew a map that packed Democrats in Detroit and Flint-centric districts, shoring him up to make no news but provide reliable "no" votes on anything that did not delay or defund Obamacare.

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading....

Unions may win Obamacare fix in budget deal

Divisions among conservative Republicans may leave the GOP unable to block Democrats from including an Obamacare fix that labor unions have demanded in a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling.

Labor groups want to delay a reinsurance fee they say would raisehealth care costs for their members.

Republicans are generally opposed to a carve-out for unions, who are among Obama’s staunchest supporters and helped push through Obamacare. But because many conservatives also see the reinsurance fee as a tax, Republicans are in a difficult position. Many suggest they’ll accept the concession to unions, but want other changes in the health care law.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Senate conservatives would find it difficult to swallow any budget deal this week that includes a specific tweak to Obamacare benefitting unions without also delaying the requirement on all individuals to purchase insurance or face a fine.

“That would be a real overreach on the part of Democrats,” Grassley told the Washington Examiner Monday afternoon.

Grassley was quick to say that he is not part of the small group of Senate Republicans consulting with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, in his negotiations with Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

But based on conversations he's had with like-minded conservative Republicans, Grassley predicted any deal that created another Obamacare carve-out without lifting the individual mandate could spark a revolt from the right.

He said that “a senator that has holds on every Obama administration official” could try to filibuster a bill allowing the concession to unions.

Grassley’s colleagues said they believed he was referring to either Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, or Mike Lee, R-Utah, who have led the charge to delay or defund Obamacare in a government funding bill.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....

California Enacts Law Allowing Nurses to Perform Some Abortions

California's Democratic governor signed a law on Wednesday that will allow nurses and midwives to perform some abortions, a move aimed at increasing access to the procedure even as other states are tightening the rules.

Under the law, the most populous U.S. state would allow nurse-practitioners, nurse-midwives and physician assistants to perform a procedure known as aspiration, which uses suction to dislodge an embryo from the uterine wall during the first few weeks of pregnancy.

Four other states - Oregon, Montana, Vermont and New Hampshire - already allow non-physicians to perform early stage abortions, but California is the first to codify the practice into law.

"Timely access to reproductive health services is critical to women's health," the bill's author, California state Assemblywoman Toni Atkins said in a statement after Governor Jerry Brown announced the signing of the law.

The intent of the law, said Atkins' spokeswoman, Dale Kelly Bankhead, is to expand access to abortion in areas of the state where there are no providers.

"In more than half of the counties in California there is no abortion provider," Bankhead said. "Women have to travel long distances to access these services."

California Assemblyman Brian Jones, the Republican caucus leader, said he was disappointed in the governor, calling the new law "dangerous for women."

"It's truly disheartening and disingenuous that Governor Brown and legislative Democrats created a law to lower the standard of care for the women under the guise of creating access," Jones said.

The measure, the progress of which has been closely followed by activists on both sides of the abortion debate, comes as a handful of states, primarily in the country's South and middle, have passed or enacted laws restricting abortion

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading.....