Scarborough Thanks MSNBC Boss for Booting Liberal Hosts

The morning after Al Sharpton was booted to the Sunday morning desert from his evening show, and not long after Ed Schultz and Alex Wagner were relieved of their hosting duties, Joe Scarborough has profusely thanked NBC News honcho Andrew Lack for making those changes. 

On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough was discussing stunning poll results in which the first word that came to voters' minds about Hillary was "liar."  Asked what was the worst thing said about him in such polling, Scarborough said "he works for MSNBC was always the worst." But Joe then added, his hands steepled in a gesture of gratefulness: "not any more though, cause things have changed. Thank you, Andy. Thank you very much." 

MARK HALPERIN: They asked an open question: what's the first word you think of when you're asked the name of a presidential candidate? The leading answer for Hillary Clinton was "liar." The leading answer for Trump was "arrogant." And the leading word for Jeb Bush, Bush. 

JOE SCARBOROUGH: That may be a problem. 

NICOLLE WALLACE: It may be, it may not be. I mean, Bush is also the last name of one of our most popular former presidents, Bush 41, his father. I think the Republican primary voters are well aware of that. I would rather be known as Bush than a liar. 

OE: Or arrogant. These are unprompted by the way. These questions, though, what happens is they ask in these polls, what. It's the part of these polls that always scared me the most because they were the most instructive. They're called verbates. 

WALLACE: Like a focus group.

JOE: What's the first thing you think of when you think of Joe Scarborough. And then you have to sit there and read the sentences, and you go oh, my God!

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: How did you do? What were some of the worst? 

JOE: He works for MSNBC. That was always the worst. Not any more, though, because things have changed. Thank you, Andy. That was the past, this is the now. Thank you, very much.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

Changing Stores For Trans-People Just Backfired BIG TIME On Target

This would normally seem like a social experiment that was conjured up in a liberal college classroom, but it is now an unfortunate reality and tragic sign of the times. Target has bowed down to a small minority of whiners who want to blur the line between boys and girls, making everyone and everything equal, so gender-confused people don’t get their feelings hurt. While they made a few people happy, the majority are not. Christians are fighting back and defending what is right, by responding en mass to Rev. Franklin Graham’s battle cry to believers.

Following Target’s recent announcement that they are “moving away from gender-based signs” in their children’s toy department, bedding, home decor, and more, the son of Rev. Billy Graham has come out with a request for all his fellow Christians and/or patriots to take action. Target’s progressive decision was way off target, as it was made in an effort to prevent guests or their families from feeling “frustrated or limited by the way things are presented,” the retailer’s official statement read in part. Now, the store will feel the frustration for that absurd decision.

Changes in stores are effective immediately and customers will start seeing them over the next few months, as liberalism reigns supreme in one of America’s favorite stores. At the bequest of Franklin Graham, he’s urging all who morally disagree with this ridiculous new corporate policy to boycott the stores.

The religious leader posted his strong position on the matter on Facebook, stating, “I think Target may be forgetting who has made their stores strong. It’s not gender-neutral people out there – it’s working American families, fathers and mothers with boys and girls they love.”

Then he delved right into God’s word on the issue, noting that in the Book of Matthew that God created just two clearly different genders, male and female. There is no in between or combination of the two — you’re either one or the other, and it’s okay for a sign to state that in a store.

Target has stuck it to their most dedicated customers to appease a group that doesn’t frequent the suburban stores the way families do. For that, Graham is urging every Christian to call the store and complain about their un-American policy, the Political Insider reported.

His request didn’t go unnoticed. Over 100,000 Americans “liked” Graham’s post, and many will respond to the retailer as the Reverend suggested they do. No company should be given our hard-earned money, made in a country built on Christian values, when they represent ideas that we strongly disagree with. That is like feeding the hand that flips you off.

So, will you put your money where your beliefs are, by not spending it at a store that goes directly against what is moral and right? As much as I love Target, they missed the mark on this one, and I will shop for my traditional family, created by a man and a woman, somewhere else.

Via: Mad World News

Continue Reading....

Are liberal city centers dying off politically?

It’s a given in American politics that urban centers are essentially Democrat strongholds. There is no point in Republicans or conservatives competing there because you’re simply not going to gain any votes or find any agreement on key policy points. This can be attributed to both economic and demographic factors. The low income urban communities are predominantly composed of minority voters and they stand with the Democrats in numbers which are too daunting to contemplate. The majority of the wealthy tend toward the limosene liberal crowd who can afford destructive taxes and have the leisure time available to dictate proper life choices to others no matter how they live their own lives. (Be sure to take a limo or a private jet to your next climate change conference.)

But is this changing? Joel Kotkin at Real Clear Politics looks at the numbers and finds that while urban population centers are still large, they are not growing in relation to the exurbs and rural areas, and they’re also not turning out to vote in the same numbers as they did in the heyday of the Democrats.

This urban economy has created many of the most unequal places  in the country. At the top are the rich and super-affluent who have rediscovered the blessings of urbanity, followed by a large cadre of young and middle-aged professionals, many of them childless. Often ignored, except after sensationalized police shootings, is a vast impoverished class that has become ever-more concentrated in particular neighborhoods. During the first decade of the current millennium, neighborhoods with entrenchedurban poverty actually grew, increasing in numbers from 1,100 to 3,100. In population, they grew from 2 million to 4 million.Some 80 percent of all population growth in American cities, since 2000, notes demographerWendell Cox, came from these poorer people, many of them recent immigrants.

Such social imbalances are not, as is the favored term among the trendy, sustainable. We appear to be creating the conditions for a new wave of violent crime on a scale not seen since the early 1990s. Along with poverty,public disorderliness, gang activity, homelessness and homicides are on the rise in many American core cities, including Baltimore,  Milwaukee, Los Angeles and New York. Racial tensions, particularly with the police, have worsened. So even as left-leaning politicians try to rein in police, recent IRS data in Chicago reveals, the middle class appears to once again be leaving for suburban and other locales.

When Democrats begin looking at these types of numbers in a serious fashion they must be asking a question which conservatives have been pondering for some time. Who has been running things in the cities for decades now? The Democrats. And how’s that working out for you? Crime rates in the cities have been – and remain – epic. You can try to blame vast social conflict on the police if you like, but the fact is that the police go where the crime is. The social infrastructure in so many large cities has simply collapsed and it’s all taken place on the watch of the liberal Democrats who rule the roost. They whip up their voters into a frenzy every election cycle, warning of the dangers of the Republicans who hold no power over their lives, but it is under their leadership that you saw the current mess develop.

On the upper end of the scale, particularly in places like New York City, there is a jarring contrast which is hard for the Democrat base to ignore. How do you talk about income inequality and the evils of the fat cats when it’s those same fat cats financing the election of the same Democrats over and over again? Isn’t there a bit of a disconnect there?

Looking at the numbers in that article I have have to wonder if Barack Obama – by virtue of being able to generate racial empathy – might be the last Democrat who will turn out large numbers of voters in the cities. What does Hillary have to offer them which is any different than the policies which have seen New York’s murder rate skyrocket once again and Baltimore going up in flames?

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading....

We Are No Longer A Democracy

Recently, in an interview with Thom Hartmann, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said regarding 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president.”  Huffington Post goes on to explain that the decisions were rendered by “five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

According to liberal left commentators, experts, political minds, and the Huffington Post, the two rulings “enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns.”

The Huff Post article then goes on to explain that in politics, there are only two choices.  Either, we are an aristocracy (oligarchy) where the richest citizen’s desires are reflected in governmental actions, or we are a democracy where the leaders represent the public at large.

Upon hearing such a thing being perpetrated by the liberal left Democrats, the political minds that reside right-of-center react, attacking what Carter, or Huff Post, had to say, without fully understanding that the premise is wrong in the first place.  While fighting on the liberal left’s terms, the “right-wingers” make fools of themselves trying defend plutocratic activities and damning what the Democrats consider to be the “will of the people.”

Via Canada Free Press

Continue Reading.....

[OPINION] Carr: You might be a liberal if ... you’re delusional

MOONBAT-MANIA: Secretary of State John F. Kerry attempted to avoid Massachusetts taxes on his yacht by mooring it in Rhode Island.

You may be a liberal if you believe that allowing working people to keep a few more of the dollars they earned themselves is a “boondoggle” and a “gimmick.”

You may be a Massachusetts liberal if you think that the annual sales tax holiday weekend “diverts” money from “education,” by which you mean teachers unions, and from “the MBTA,” by which you mean handouts for T hacks who retired with full pensions at age 41.

By this definition of diversion, every time you drive past a bank and don’t rob it, you have “diverted” the money inside by not stealing it from its rightful owners.

The annual sales tax weekend in Massachusetts was approved by the Legislature last week, but not without some more absurd rhetoric from the hackerama. The solons’ gripe is that not grabbing that extra $25 million from taxpayers to give to non-taxpayers is “throwing it out the window.”

Remember, this is the state that two years ago admitted to annually handing out at least $1.8 billion in welfare to illegal aliens. That of course is money well spent, because it’s for non-working, non-English-speaking non-citizens. What could possibly be fairer than that?

The website American Thinker recently ran a piece headlined, “You May Be a Liberal if….” The point was that moonbat rhetoric is increasingly diverging from reality. I think after this week I can make a few additions to their list.

You may be a liberal if you want to string up the dentist who shot Cecil the Lion, but you think the ghouls at Planned Parenthood all deserve Profiles in Courage awards.

You may be a liberal if you feel you have to apologize for saying “All Lives Matter.”

You may be a liberal if you oppose funding charter schools for inner-city kids even as you send your own children to private schools.

You may be a liberal if you support higher taxes but have directed the trustees of your own trust fund to buy only municipal bonds — tax-free munis, that is.

You may be a liberal if you want to ban Christmas trees from the public square as you simultaneously demand prayer rooms for the new Muslim “refugees” in public schools.

You may be a liberal if you dismiss the coldest, snowiest winter on record as “weather,” but truly believe that two days with temperatures over 90 degrees represent “climate change.”

You may be a liberal if you believe that felons and illegal aliens should be allowed to vote, but not the military.

You may be a liberal if you believe in confiscating legally registered guns from law-abiding citizens, but agree with Barack Obama and Eric Holder that existing federal firearms laws should never, ever be used against inner-city gang-bangers who are actually committing crimes with illegal weapons.

You may be a liberal if you support Obamacare for everyone else, but are outraged when it’s suggested that you yourself might have to eventually give up your own gold-plated health insurance.

You may be a liberal if you believe that George Stephanopoulos and Brian Williams are “journalists.”

You may be a liberal if you support open borders, but live in a gated community.

You may be a liberal if you didn’t care when John Kerry’s second wife’s first husband’s trust fund bought him a $7.5-million yacht, after which he evaded paying Mass. sales taxes or town excise taxes on it, but when Sen. Marco Rubio spent $80,000 on a fishing boat, that was an “extravagant purchase” of a “luxury speedboat,” as the New York Times fulminated.

You may be a liberal if whenever some nut shoots up a movie theater, you automatically believe some lying liberal media outlet like ABC News or the Daily Beast when they falsely report that the perp was a member of the Tea Party.

You may be a liberal if you haven’t attended a candlelight vigil against war and those genocidal CIA drones of George W. Bush since Jan. 20, 2009.

You may be a liberal if you think it’s a front-page hate crime for a cop to defend himself against a charging thug, but when an unemployed drug-dealing Mexican burglar guns down three Native Americans in cold blood on an Indian reservation in Montana — nothing to see here folks, move along.

You may be a liberal if you think John Kerry deserves a Nobel Peace Prize of his own, just like Yasser Arafat and Barack Obama, for giving the mullahs $150 billion to develop their own nuclear weapons.

You most assuredly are a Massachusetts liberal if, after bloviating about how unfair it is to give bitter clingers a sales-tax holiday, you now plan to spend the weekend of Aug. 15-16 shopping till you drop, instead of driving to New Hampshire to beat the sales tax the way you do the other 51 weekends of the year.

Listen to Howie 3-7 p.m. every weekday on AM 680 WRKO.

Via: Boston Herald

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Ben Carson: ‘I Used to Be a Flaming Liberal’

I had the chance to speak with Dr. Ben Carson recently about the Planned Parenthood scandal, his views on America’s growing debt and something I’ve always wanted to ask a brain surgeon…how do you explain the liberal brain?

You can watch the full video or jump to specific topics via the time codes below:

0:05 – Carson discusses how he hopes the current scandal surrounding Planned Parenthood will cause the black community to explore the organization’s history.

1:02 – As a doctor, Carson is well-known for his views opposing Obamacare, but I asked him what he believes are the other most pressing issues facing the country.

1:56 – How does Carson, a neurosurgeon, explain the liberal brain? He begins his answer by explaining he used to have one.

3:39 – Carson explains that most of what he talks about are not really “Republican” or “Democrat” things, but instead are American things—and he goes on to explain his view on American exceptionalism.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] CBS This Morning Presses De Blasio from Left on Uber, Economy

Liberal New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio sat down for a friendly interview on Thursday’s CBS This Morning and the three hosts repeatedly pushed him from the left on a variety of issues ranging from his fight with Uber to his relationship with Pope Francis on climate change and income inequality

.  The majority of the interview focused on de Blasio’s ongoing fight with ride sharing company Uber, and his efforts to regulate it like taxis and CBS’s Charlie Rose complained ”it seems like Uber whenever it's challenged simply gets its way in the end.”

After the New York major whined that Uber was allegedly contributing to congestion and pollution throughout the city which, in his view, demanded the city regulate the company, Norah O’Donnell wondered “why did you cave?” and allow Uber to expand.

Later in the segment, Rose touted de Blasio’s recent meeting with Pope Francis where the two discussed climate change and rather than press his guest on the liberal views the two share the CBS host merely asked de Blasio to “ [t]ell us about” the meeting. 

After de Blasio called Pope Francis the “strongest moral voice in the world” Rose eagerly wondered “what is his impact on climate change?” and gave the New York City mayor another opportunity to tout his liberal views.Rose then pointed out how the pope “raised questions about income inequality...And, in fact, about capitalism per se.” 

Nowhere in the segment did Rose or his CBS co-hosts bother to press de Blasio on his liberal views regarding climate change or “income inequality” and whether not his solutions would damage the economy. Instead, Rose wondered how the mayor could push Hillary Clinton far enough to the left in order to earn his endorsement: 

So what does Hillary Clinton have to do to convince you to support her because that’s been one of the issue you say you’re waiting and seeing?  

De Blasio stressed the need for liberal cities to provide mandatory paid sick leave and an raise their minimum wages which Rose found the perfect time to ask yet another lefty question: “Will there be $15 minimum wage in New York?”

The New York mayor argued that he was “working toward” a $15 minimum wage which prompted Norah O’Donnell to wonder “why not endorse Bernie Sanders?” 

In the past, CBS This Morning has done its best to help tout the liberal agenda of de Blasio. During an appearance on May 20, the three hosts gave him an unchallenged platform as Charlie Rose declared him one of the “leaders of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” 

Via: CBS This Morning

Continue Reading....

Left Uses Bullying Tactics to Shut Down Opposition

“End of discussion!” is what those on the political left yell in your face when they know they are losing an argument. It is also the name of a compelling new book by Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson with the revealing subtitle of “How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).”

While it is true that attempts to marginalize political opponents isn’t the exclusive domain of progressives, in the last couple of decades it is the political left which has perfected these tactics to an art form.  Perhaps it is because these latest efforts reflect a full manifestation of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  An important strategy from this famous anarchist is to avoid at all costs an honest debate over whether socialist policies actually work.

And it’s not just conservatives who are sounding the alarm.  Bill Maher, the left of center host of his own show on HBO has said that liberals are too easily offended and that an overly politically correct society actually breeds more hostility between the parties.  Jerry Seinfeld, lifelong Democratic and famous comic, has said that he doesn’t play college campuses anymore because students have been brainwashed into being offended at almost anything.

While political correctness is a national problem, it is much worse in California.  Indeed, for all the alleged “openness” of the California lifestyle, here are the three things about which you cannot possibly have a rational discussion with a liberal:  Global warming, immigration and traditional marriage.

Let’s just look at global warming.  How many times have you heard Al Gore, President Obama, Jerry Brown or Tom Steyer say “the debate is over?”  As I have advised college students on both the right and left numerous times, when someone says “the debate is over” that usually means the debate is just beginning. While there is substantial evidence (mostly based on computer modeling) that man’s activities might have an impact on the earth’s climate, there are simply too many ancillary questions and unknowns for anyone to say the “debate is over.”  Shockingly, even noted environmentalists including a co-founder of Greenpeace and Bjorn Lomberg, former head of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, have been savaged by the global warming alarmists for suggesting that the hype might be overstated.

On immigration, if one dares to raise the very legitimate issues of the costs to taxpayers that flow from unregulated immigration you are immediately branded as a racist.  Despite being far more open to legal immigration than others in America, I have personally felt the wrath of this unfounded accusation.

The progressives are not interested in hearing anything that deviates one iota from their rigid orthodoxy.  And they don’t want others to hear any contrary message either.  Somalian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited to speak at Brandies University because she dared speak out against Islamic extremism.  These are prime examples of the “heckler’s veto” even before a speech begins.  Other luminaries “disinvited” from commencement speeches due to left leaning pressure include International Monetary Fund Director Christine LaGarge and Condoleezza Rice.

And our final California example of shutting off debate is an embarrassing incident in the California Capitol when Rodger Hernandez, Chairman of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee would not even allow the Republican Vice Chair, Matthew Harper speak on one of the most contentious and dangerous bills emanating from the California Legislature – Senate Bill 3, a huge increase in the state’s minimum wage.  Hernandez even went so far as to order the Sergeant at Arms to take away Harpers’ microphone.  Talk about “end of discussion!”

So how should we respond to this wave of political correctness run amok and efforts to limit debate?  First, realize it won’t be easy as the main stream media is rarely on our side.  Second, it is entirely fair to call out these tactics for what they are and challenge our adversaries to debate the issues honestly.  Third, appeal to the desire for truth.  Scripture tells us veritas vos liberabit — the truth will set you free. Or, as Andrew Breitbart said, “The truth isn’t mean. The truth is the truth.”

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-rootstaxpayerorganization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights. Originally posted on HJTA.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Obama's Definition of 'Justice' Describes His Liberal Agenda

President Barack Obama speaks at the NAACP's 106th national convention at the Philadelphia Convention Center, on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(

CNSNews.com) - "Justice is not only the absence of oppression, it is the presence of opportunity," President Obama told an NAACP gathering in Philadelphia on Tuesday.

In a speech focusing on crime and punishment, the president spent a few paragraphs defining justice as the embodiment of his liberal agenda:

"What the marchers on Washington knew, what the marchers in Selma knew, what folks like Julian Bond knew, what the marchers in this room still know, is that justice is not only the absence of oppression, it is the presence of opportunity. Justice is giving every child a shot at a great education no matter what zip code they're born into. Justice is giving everyone willing to work hard the chance at a good job with good wages, no matter what their name is, what their skin color is, where they live.

"Fifty years after the Voting Rights Act, justice is protecting that right for every American. Justice is living up to the common creed that says, I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper. Justice is making sure every young person knows they are special and they are important and that their lives matter -- not because they heard it in a hashtag, but because of the love they feel every single day -- not just love from their parents, not just love from their neighborhood, but love from police, love from politicians. Love from somebody who lives on the other side of the country, but says, that young person is still important to me. That's what justice is.

"And in the American tradition and in the immigrant tradition of remaking ourselves, in the Christian tradition that says none of us is without sin and all of us need redemption, justice and redemption go hand in hand."

Taking his points one by one, Obama advocates universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year old in America, and he repeated that in his speech on Tuesday.

As for goods jobs with good wages," the president is leading the push for a higher minimum wage; and he said on Tuesday that "continuing...subtle, bigotry" may explain why the unemployment rate for blacks is much higher than that for whites.

Fifty years after passage of the Voting Rights Act, Obama and other Democrats insist that requiring people to show identification at polling places violates their "voting rights."

To help more young people feel the love, Obama in 2014 launched an initiative called "My Brother's Keeper," aimed at "helping more of our young people stay on track."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/27/remarks-president-my-brothers-keeper-initiative

And in the wake of the race riots in Ferguson, President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended changes in the way police interact with the communities they patrol. Obama has endorsed the recommendation that police officers work with children, taking time to read to them in schools, for example.

In his speech on Tuesday, President Obama said the nation's criminal justice system "isn't as smart as it should be. It's not keeping us as safe as it should be. It is not as fair as it should be. Mass incarceration makes our country worse off, and we need to do something about it."

He wants to end mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, putting more of them back in the community: "We should pass a sentencing reform bill through Congress this year," he said.)

He wants to improve prison conditions for inmates, ending overcrowding, gang activity, rape, and the "overuse" of solitary confinement. He also wants to boost job-training programs for inmates: "Let's reward prisoners with reduced sentences if they complete programs that make them less likely to commit a repeat offense," Obama said.

He also wants voting rights restored to felons who have served their sentences, and he said employers should "ban the box" asking job candidates about their past convictions.

Obama will highlight his prison-reform agenda when he becomes the first sitting president to visit a federal prison on Thursday.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Liberal Boston Mayor Says Trump Is Not Welcome

Boston’s liberal mayor Martin Walsh told the Boston Herald on Monday that he would do everything he could to block a Trump hotel or real estate project in Boston because of Republican Donald Trump’s remarks regarding illegal immigrants during his presidential campaign announcement last month.

“I didn’t criticize him; I just don’t agree with him at all,” Walsh said to the Herald. “I think his comments are inappropriate. And if he wanted to build a hotel here, he’d have to make some apologies to people in this country.”

Yet this morning Walsh tweeted “we are committed to retaining our talent and by working together to create a thriving innovative #Boston” in regards to an event coming to Boston.

Trump has received widespread condemnation from many on the left and some on the right for his remarks.

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us [sic]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said in his campaign kickoff speech.

Trump has remained firm in his immigration views, asking for an apology from the media because of the escape of drug lord ‘El Chapo’ from a Mexico Prison over the weekend. Trump believes that the escape validates his remarks.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

EXCLUSIVE: FORAMERICA’S BRENT BOZELL: CONGRESS AN ‘UNHOLY MESS,’ MOST REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY DEMOCRATS

Every conservative who cares about the unholy mess known as Congress should visit conservativereview.com (CR) and examine the “Liberty Score.” Every liberal who wonders how conservatives view their elected leaders should examine it as well.

The “Liberty Score” is refreshingly (and painfully) honest, as opposed to other scorecards that have been known to be compromised. It separates the wheat from the chaff and the frauds from the champions. It tells you who the real conservative heroes are, who comes close, and who doesn’t deserve to be in the same sentence with that word.

It also blows the whistle on the charlatans who campaign for re-election as red-hot conservatives, having deceived their constituency by covering up a voting record that is anything but; after being rewarded with another term, they cynically proceed to betray voters yet again by returning to their liberal ways.

The voting analysis here is no meatball surgery. You cannot be more comprehensive than when you analyze 6,382 votes, selecting the top 50 for incumbents over a six-year period.

Let’s look at the Republicans in the Senate. “Liberty Score” tells you everything you need to know about the GOP majority – and what to expect from a body that almost universally champions itself as “conservative.” But the scores, pulled in June 2015, tell a different tale.

Start with the “A” grades, those with voting records between 90% and 100%. There is only one Republican – Sen. Mike  Lee of Utah – who registers a perfect 100%. (Two others, Ben  Sasse and David  Perdue, also score perfectly, but they are brand-new and have cast only a handful of major votes.) There are only two other Republicans in the entire body who receive an “A” — Cruz (96%) and Paul (93%).

Three veterans and two rookies. That’s it for the conservative GOP “A” team.

Surely, then, the lengthy list of “B” grade conservatives will at least alleviate concerns, correct?

There are only four Republicans who merit a “B.” Tim  Scott (88%) is the best, followed by Marco  Rubio at a surprisingly weak 81%, Jeff  Sessions at an equally head-scratching 80% and Jim  Risch, also at 80%.

For me, that’s it. No one below this grade can qualify as a conservative. So there are seven veteran conservatives and two rookies – period.

The remaining are moderates or liberals. Their records do not lie. They do.

We drop to the “C”s and there are no fewer than 10 Republicans here. Some are real surprises: Jim  Inhofe (79%), James  Lankford (75%), and rookies Joni  Ernst and Tom  Cotton (both also at a worrisome 75%). The rest long ago deserted their conservative bona fides (Chuck  Grassley, David  Vitter, Mike  Crapo) or never had them to begin with (Bill  Cassidy, Dan  Sullivan, Steve  Daines).

Now to the charlatans—those who will tell the media, their constituents and their friends what committed conservatives they are and then do the opposite, over and over, when it comes time to vote.

They are the ones who despise the idea of the “Liberty Score.” It is the flashlight that found them cowering in the corner and has exposed them for all to see. These incumbents do not deserve re-election. They should be primaried and thrown out of Washington.

First, the seven who have compiled horrific “D” scores.

Jerry  Moran (64%) and Richard  Shelby (66%) are perhaps the ones who least claim conservative allegiances, so give them that. Mike  Enzi (66%) has done a terrific job pulling the wool over the eyes of conservative Wyoming voters. John  Cornyn (61%) has betrayed conservatives so many times I’m surprised they even let him return to Texas.

Then there are the two shockers. I wish they weren’t here because they are such monumental disappointments. Conservatives expected them not only to vote right but also to lead conservatives in the Senate. They excited the conservative movement when they arrived in Washington. Happy days were here again.

Ron  Johnson at 69% must stop calling himself a conservative.

Pat  Toomey is the man who brought the Club for Growth to national prominence as the one group that vowed not just to support only conservative Republicans, but also to aggressively challenge impostors. Sadly, the Club needs to consider challenging its former boss.  At 64%, Toomey is a conservative in name only.

Finally, to the GOP disgraces, the men and women who may as well be Democrats, except Democrats are more intellectually honest.

In the “F” category you’ll find the rogues. Every single one, with the possible exception of Thom  Tillis (50%) and Mike  Rounds (25%), both freshmen, needs to go.

Deb  Fischer (58%) and Jeff  Flake (40%) owe their elections to the Tea Party. Theirs was blatant false advertising.

Some have been here so long, utterly violating the spirit of the Founders, they’ve long forgotten – or stopped caring about – what their constituents want. John  McCain has been in Congress 32 years, Pat  Roberts 34 years, Orrin  Hatch 38 years, and Thad  Cochran 43 years. That is truly obnoxious. Their conservative voting records – 45%, 57%, 54%, and 33% respectively – are even worse.

Then there are the blatant hypocrites, those who so predictably and cynically wrap themselves with the conservative flag when facing the voters only to laugh and rip it to shreds the moment they succeed at what can be described only as a political con.

We know who we’re talking about. It’s the same story, one election cycle after the next. It’s Hatch and McCain. It’s Richard  Burr (51%). It’s Dan  Coats (49%). It’s Lindsey  Graham (49%). It’s Johnny  Isakson (42%). It’s Roy  Blunt (39%). It’s Roger  Wicker (32%).

The rest – Portman, Heller, Thune, Corker, Boozman, Ayotte, Kirk, Hoeven, Gardner, Rounds, Capito, Alexander, Murkowski, Collins – might as well be Democrats. Someone tell me of a single conservative cause any one of them has ever championed in the United States Senate.

To put things in their proper perspective: There are eight Republicans whose voting records are, at best, only 15 points higher than Bernie  Sanders (14%), the body’s only Socialist.

And there are more Republicans with an “F” rating – 28 of them — than all other gradescombined.

And leading this charge? Mitch  McConnell (54%). The Republican Majority Leader ranks an “F.”

How many times do you think these scoundrels have promised to defund Obamacare, stop executive amnesty, cut the size of government, balance the budget, secure the border, cut taxes, end the funding of Planned Parenthood, PBS, the NEA and God knows what else, honor the Constitution, rebuild our national defenses, end abortion, restore prayer in school, and blah, blah, blah. How many TV ads? Radio ads? Speeches? Press releases? Facebook and Twitter posts?

It is fashionable to say that these Republicans have surrendered their conservative principles. Not so. As the record – not the rhetoric, the record – shows, the overwhelming majority aren’t conservatives, and many were never conservatives.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Differences Between Left and Right: Part I

Most Americans hold either liberal or conservative positions on most matters. In many instances, however, they would be hard pressed to explain their position or the position they oppose.

But if you can't explain both sides, how do you know you're right?

At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.

I grew up in a liberal world -- New York, Jewish and Ivy League graduate school. I was an 8-year-old when President Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election against the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson. I knew nothing about politics and had little interest in the subject. But I well recall knowing -- knowing, not merely believing -- that Democrats were "for the little guy" and Republicans were "for the rich guys."

I voted Democrat through Jimmy Carter's election in 1976. He was the last Democrat for which I voted.

Obviously, I underwent an intellectual change. And it wasn't easy. Becoming a Republican was emotionally and psychologically like converting to another religion.

In fact, when I first voted Republican I felt as if I had abandoned the Jewish people. To be a Jew meant being a Democrat. It was that simple. It was -- and remains -- that fundamental to many American Jews' identity.

Therefore, it took a lot of thought to undergo this conversion. I had to understand both liberalism and conservatism. Indeed, I have spent a lifetime in a quest to do so.

The fruit of that quest will appear in a series of columns explaining the differences between left and right.

I hope it will benefit conservatives in better understanding why they are conservative, and enable liberals to understand why someone who deeply cares about the "little guy" holds conservative -- or what today are labeled as conservative -- views.

Difference No. 1: Is Man Basically Good?

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading.....

NY GOV. CUOMO: PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN, PRO-MARRIAGE CONSERVATIVES 'HAVE NO PLACE IN THE STATE'

On Friday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D), who has been widely discussed as a possible 2016 presidential candidate,told Susan Arbetter of The Capitol Pressroom that “extreme conservatives” should leave the state. He said that “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” have “no place in the state of New York.”

He began by ripping into the Tea Party without naming it:

You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

He then added:

You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....