Bisexual Hollyweirdo Actress Angelina Jolie’s Daughter is “Gender Assigned” at 8 Years Old

PJMedia.com:

According to Refinery 29, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s oldest biological child, Shiloh, has decided to identify as a male at the tender age of 8. The painfully politically correct story attempts to paint a picture of the child, who now refers to herself as “John” although born a girl, as gender-confused at an early age:

Jolie told Vanity Fair in a 2010 interview that John has been exploring their identity since the age of three. ”She wants to be a boy,” Jolie said. “So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys’ everything. She thinks she’s one of the brothers.” 

Here’s the actual quote in context:

“She wants to be a boy. So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys’ everything. She thinks she’s one of the brothers. Shiloh, we feel, has Montenegro style. She dresses like a little dude. It’s how people dress there. She likes tracksuits, she likes [regular] suits. Shiloh’s hysterically funny, one of the goofiest, most playful people you’ll ever meet. Goofy and verbal, the early signs of a performer. I used to get dressed up in costumes and jump around,” the actress explains.

tylists at the time balked at Jolie’s attempt to coin the term “Montenegro style” stating, “she was trying to say something intellectual or funny, and it just sounded dumb.” Probably about as dumb as the Advocate grasping at straws via the stale tale of Shiloh Pitt, who apparently has been dressed in boyswear and given boyishly short haircuts by her parents since she was a toddler. Four years later, why wouldn’t an 8-year-old girl think she ought to be called “John”? If anything she’s aiming for a more defined gender identity than her parents have yet to give her, either through her name, her hair, or her clothing, let alone the gender-neutral pronouns being used to identify her in the media. As the Advocate explains:

Editor’s note: This article uses “they” as a gender-neutral, singular pronoun in an effort to respect the young Jolie-Pitt’s gender identity, whatever that may end up being. 

Children begin to develop a sense of gender roles mere months into life. Politically correct culture, largely influenced by contemporary feminism, instructs that gender roles are strictly the stuff of stereotypes. However, family and parenting influences, not cultural stereotypes, have the greatest impact in a child’s understanding of gender roles:

…gender role behaviors, in­cluding the toys children play with and activities, in which they engage, are in­fluenced by how youngsters are raised and what expectations are made of them. …Perhaps more than any other factor, the subtleties of every child’s relationship with his or her father and mother—and the attitudes of the parents toward each other and toward the child—will influence his or her gender-related behaviors.

For girls like Shiloh who express the desire to be a boy and prefer to be around other boys instead of girls:

These traits suggest a conflict or confusion about gender and relationship with peers of the same sex. The possible causes of these variations are spec­ulative and controversial. Research demonstrates a role for both biological factors and social learning in gender-identity confusion. Family and parenting influences also might contribute to gender confusion.

What pop culture presents as quick and easy evidence to demonstrate their trendy social theories regarding gender and stereotyping is really an example of incredibly poor parenting that leaves a young child in desperate need of structure confused about themselves and their role in the world.

But who’s going to have the guts to say Brangelina are bad parents?

RELATED:  Angelina Jolie’s daughter is “gender assigned” at 8 years old

Five Ways Barack Obama Can Mess with Republicans in 2015

Bloomberg.com:

President Barack Obama knows how to get under Republicans' skin (in so many ways, but in this case we're talking about going around Congress to get things done), and he ended 2014 with a bang: A climate deal with China. Executive action on immigration. A move to normalize relations with Cuba.

As he makes his New Year's resolutions, the liberated, second-term, post-midterm president's list may well include some new maneuvers to enrage the opposition party. Here are five ways he could do it again in 2015.

Keystone

You already know more than you ever thought you would about oil-sands crude, right? TransCanada Corp. wants to complete an $8 billion, 1,179-mile pipeline starting in the Canadian province of Alberta and running 830,000 barrels of oil per day through Nebraska into a network to refineries in Texas and Louisiana. While Obama cares about the Keystone XL project in the context of foreign policy and maintaining good relations with neighbor, ally and trading partner Canada, in 2012 he blocked it because of concerns in Nebraska and kicked it to the State Department for more study.

Now, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he wants to start the new Congress by taking up a bill by Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, to approve Keystone under congressional authority. Environmentalists and major Democratic donor Tom Steyer are fighting the project, saying it will worsen global warming and could trigger toxic spills. Republicans largely back the project, saying it can create jobs and reduce gas prices. Opponents say such benefits are greatly overstated or downright irrelevant, given how low gas prices have fallen lately.

Obama was coy throughout the midterms about which way he'll go, maintaining that it was in the State Department's hands and that he would weigh the pros and cons. But he doesn't want Congress to tell him what to do. And in recent weeks, he's hinted strongly that he's turned against Keystone XL. He told comedian Stephen Colbert that while it would be good for Canada, “it's not going to push down gas prices here in the United States,” and that any economic benefit must be weighed against contributing to the warming of the earth, “which could be disastrous.” In his year-end news conference, the president said that “it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.” Asked whether he was issuing a veto threat, he demurred. “I'll see what they do,” he said of Republicans in Congress. “We'll take that up in the new year.”

Campaign finance reform

So-called dark-money nonprofits, such as those affiliated with the Koch brothers, could find it much harder to muck around in elections. Under current practices, up to half of these groups' money can be spent on politics. Changes to the Internal Revenue Service regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations could shrink the percentage they can devote to election activities such as advertising. Overall, the aim would be to make it more difficult for any nonprofit group to engage in campaign politics; in practice, it would likely be perceived as a disproportionate handicap of conservative donor-backed organizations. These are among the reforms that the administration, regulatory groups or Congress could take on if so inclined (which Congress probably is not).

Climate change

Think power plants and methane.

Last year, Obama proposed power-plant standards Republicans oppose to reduce carbon dioxide by 26 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. The standards are set to be issued in June, and then states will have another year to adopt their own plans to carry the standards out. McConnell will make it a top priority to try to stop Obama, either by blocking funding to carry out the policy or by changing provisions of the Clean Air Act, said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council climate and clean air program. “It will be fought over by the Republicans all through the year,” he said. “There will be lots of lawsuits and so on. But the administration's very committed to this.”

RELATED:  Obama readies veto pen and the new paradigm of obstructionism

Jeb Bush Is Dismissing The GOP Base At His Own Peril

NationalJournal.com:

Six months after President Obama's 2008 landslide victory swept Democrats into power across the country, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor sat down at a suburban Washington pizzeria to talk policy. They spent that May weekend arguing that the GOP's best path back into power was to improve the party's battered image by advocating reforms for education, immigration, and the economy. Cantor saw the session as a rebranding exercise, offering mostly platitudes about having a conversation with the American people. Romney used the event as early preparation for his second presidential campaign, mostly sticking to talking points. But Jeb Bush came prepared with a slew of creative proposals to test out at the town hall, like charging lower tuition to students pursuing high-end degrees in engineering and science.

After the event ended, several reporters (myself included) chased after Bush to ask him the inevitable questions about his interest in running for president. He was visibly annoyed, lamenting that Washington reporters only ask about the political horse race and have no interest in policy.

With Bush's announcement Tuesday that he's forming an exploratory committee for president, he'll be testing the proposition that being a policy wonk sells politically. In discussing preparations for a run this week, Bush confidently declared he wouldn't pander to Republican voters, sticking to his principles on immigration and education reform. In principle, the argument is refreshing. In practice, however, it ignores political reality.
The organization that Cantor launched (the National Council for America) never got off the ground despite the hype. Republicans won back control of Congress simply by running against an unpopular president, not by offering a set of solutions to fix the country's struggling economy. Despite being House majority leader, Cantor lost his primary to an obscure opponent—in part because he overestimated the political reward of pitching lofty reforms and ignored the day-to-day dissatisfaction from his own constituents. In his second presidential campaign, Romney struggled to lock up the nomination against a deeply conservative field and was unable to capitalize on Obama's mediocre approval ratings.

Other Republicans have talked in high-minded fashion about selling conservative reforms to GOP voters, but found there wasn't much political benefit in doing so. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became famous for his tough talk against wasteful government and teachers unions in his first term, but has all but abandoned advocating new ideas since campaigning for reelection. Lately, the famously outspoken governor has avoided policy questions on immigration (despite traveling in Mexico!) and on the Senate report on the CIA's interrogation techniques. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has gotten little political traction promoting reforms on health care, energy, education, and national security, and he's careful to frame his ideas in opposition to Obama. Once a supporter of the Common Core educational standards that Jeb Bush champions, Jindal now compares them to Soviet central planning.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Jeb Bush acolyte who is mulling a presidential campaign of his own, learned firsthand the political risk in embracing change. By championing comprehensive immigration reform, Rubio alienated much of the conservative base and got sidetracked from other issues that could also broaden the party's appeal. Bush is an equally enthusiastic proponent of immigration reform, but unlike Rubio, he plans to continue pushing it in a GOP primary. Rubio responded this year by delivering a series of speeches centered on economic opportunity, but now Bush's planned candidacy puts a crimp in his path to the nomination.

Candidates want to be seen as having a detailed blueprint on how to get the country back on track, but it's those very details that lead to unintended consequences. Republican officials confidently promoted comprehensive immigration reform as a surefire way to improve the party's standing with Hispanics, but blowback from the base and resistance from the public tempered the enthusiasm. The political benefits of courting Hispanics was offset by the risk of alienating the GOP's base of working-class whites.

RELATED: Jeb Bush: I’m going to try to persuade Republican voters to back immigration reform

Federal Judge: Barack Obama's Immigration Move Unconstitutional

CNN.com:

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that President Barack Obama's move to halt deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants violates the Constitution -- but it's not clear that the ruling will have any immediate impact.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, became the first judge to rule on the legality of Obama's executive overhaul of immigration rules when he issued his unusual opinion in a criminal case.

The Justice Department shot back that the judge was "flatly wrong" and his ruling wouldn't halt the implementation of Obama's immigration policies.

The decision -- which came in a criminal case against Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who'd been deported before, returned to the United States and faced charges of unlawful re-entry after a drunk driving arrest -- was unexpected, and is unrelated to the legal challenge dozens of states have launched against Obama's move.

Prosecutors in the case argued that Obama's immigration policies were only meant to apply to civil proceedings, and don't have any impact on criminal proceedings like what Juarez-Escobar faced.

Still, Schwab said in his 38-page ruling that Juarez-Escobar could have benefited under Obama's action to halt deportations for some undocumented immigrants.

Obama's action violates the Constitution's separation of powers and its "take care clause," Schwab said.

He wrote that Obama's action "goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights."

The judge also quoted several of Obama's statements, asserting that, prior to issuing his executive action in November, the President personally considered such a move beyond his authority.

Schwab said Juarez-Escobar didn't fall within any of the priority categories Obama identified for deportation, so it's not clear that removing him from the country would be a priority -- potentially blurring the lines between civil and criminal proceedings.

The Justice Department blasted the opinion, with a spokesperson saying it was "unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order."

"No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court," the spokesperson said. "Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time."

RELATED:  Nearly half of U.S. states now suing President Obama over immigration order

YouGov Poll: Plurality of Americans Oppose Barack Obama’s Executive Order on Amnesty, 38/45

HotAir.com:

Interesting, and encouraging. Now convince me that either the White House or its friends in Congress really care. Immigration for them is about pleasing one particular demographic group long-term even if it ends up irritating other demographic groups short-term. They can probably tolerate a backlash among white working-class if it’s broad but ephemeral or durable but narrow, knowing that the gains they make among Latinos will offset those votes.

But what if the backlash is broad and durable?

This may be a nation of immigrants (and 82% of the public agree that it is), but the President’s plan for executive action on immigration clearly does not sit well with many Americans.  Democrats support the President’s decision to use an executive order to delay deportation proceedings for parents of U.S. citizens, but 51% of independents and 80% of Republicans oppose it.

Most independents and nearly all Republicans say the President should have waited for Congress to act on immigration – even though majorities think it is unlikely Congress will take action soon.

The President’s immigration actions has helped him at least with one group – one that was clearly disappointed in his previous activity on immigration – the country’s Hispanics.  Two in three Hispanics consistently have supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and approve of the plan President Obama put forth in his speech last week.

By more than two to one, they approve of the President’s executive order. 

Ten months ago, 55 percent of Americans favored a path to citizenship for illegals. As of last month, that number had dropped below majority support and landed at 47 percent. After the summer’s border crisis and O going rogue on executive amnesty, go figure that people would be more skittish about normalizing citizenship for lawbreakers any further.

In fact, there’s another political scenario for Democrats: What if the backlash to O’s order is short-lived … but so is the boost they’ve gotten for it from Latinos? Scrolling through the crosstabs, I was surprised by how equivocal some of the reactions to various immigration policies were among that group. For instance, when given a choice of letting illegals stay and apply for citizenship, stay but not be allowed to apply, and sending illegals home, just 51 percent of Latinos favored the first option. Another 20 percent favored the second and 29 percent favored the third, meaning that even among that demographic, the split on whether a path to citizenship should be offered is just 51/49.

RELATED:  White House: When Obama said he changed the law on immigration, he was speaking “colloquially”

Cornel West: ‘Ferguson Signifies the End of the Age of Barack Obama’

Mediaite.com:

Professor Cornel West appeared on CNN International this afternoon to give his take on Ferguson, and said right at the outset, “Ferguson signifies the end of the age of Obama. It’s a very sad end. We began with tremendous hope and we end with great despair.”

He went on to cite a “Jim Crow criminal justice system” that doesn’t seek justice for young black and brown people, and said adamantly there is both a race and a class war going on against that group in America right now.

CNNI anchor Hala Gorani asked West why he’s “so harsh” on the president over these issues when, she put forth, he’s launched initiatives to help young black men. West said that Obama chose a “Wall Street presidency” and a “drone presidency,” but never gave even “one speech that focuses on the Jim Crow criminal justice system that’s been targeting poor black and brown youth.”

Barack Obama, a man who as POTUS has gone out of his way time and time again to help the gays and illegal immigrants, while ignoring the base that continues to give him unwavering support (and assisted him the most to become Pres.)--Black people, will get a pass on the Ferguson verdict. And that's because black people in this country in this are too ignorant to understand the irony of electing a Godless, half-black, corny, narcissist, white-liberal ass kisser to be in charge on the deal that one day he might actually do them a favor one day. But instead, for black folks in America under the leadership of Obama, things have just gotten worse and worse...with no end in sight.

RELATED: Obama Disappoints the Black Community and the Country

Despite Highest Poverty Numbers in 50 Years, Barack Obama Okays Illegals to Compete for Jobs in U.S.

HotAir.com:

It simply doesn’t make sense in any sort of context that says the job of the President of the United States is to look after the welfare of the country’s citizens:

The official U.S. unemployment rate has indeed fallen steadily during the past few years, but the economic recovery has created the fewest jobs relative to the previous employment peak of any prior recovery. The labor-force participation rate recently touched a 36-year low of 62.7%. The number of Americans not in the labor force set a record high of 92.6 million in September. Part-time work and long-term unemployment are still well above levels from before the financial crisis.

Worse, middle-class incomes continue to fall during the recovery, losing even more ground than during the December 2007 to June 2009 recession. The number in poverty has also continued to soar, to about 50 million Americans. That is the highest level in the more than 50 years that the U.S. Census has been tracking poverty. Income inequality has risen more in the past few years than at any recent time.

The true indicator of the actual unemployment rate is the labor participation rate. It is at a 36 year low. The fudged numbers used by the US government hides the actual depth of joblessness problem. And, frankly, it’s a “buyers market” in the labor market. Lots of labor competition for few jobs. That’s one reason you don’t see incomes rising and you do see underemployed Americans.

So let’s introduce about 5 million illegal workers from other countries and enable them to compete in an already depressed labor market and while we’re at it, let’s agitate for a raise in the minimum wage.

Mind blown.  How do you square that sort of action with your oath of office if you’re the President of the United States?

RELATED:  Immigration amnesty will hurt Obama's most loyal supporters: African-Americans

Marquette University Teacher to Student: 'If You Don't Support Gay Marriage, Drop My Class'

FOXNews.com:

Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.

I reached out to the 20-year-old student at the center of this outrageous episode and the story he tells should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks religious schools are safe havens for open discourse.

The story was first reported on a blog run by a Marquette University professor and was picked up by the good folks over at The College Fix. 

The young man, who asked not to be identified, explained what happened when his ethics instructor, Cheryl Abbate, led a conversation in “Theory of Ethics” class about applying philosophical theories to modern political controversies. There were a list of issues on the board – gay rights, gun rights, and the death penalty.

“We had a discussion on all of them – except gay rights,” the student told me. “She erased that line from the board and said, ‘We all agree on this.’”

Well, as it so happened – the student did not agree with instructor Abbate.

So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation -- without her permission.

“Are you saying if I don’t agree with gays not being allowed to get married that I’m homophobic?” the student asked.

“I’m saying it would come off as a homophobic comment in this class,” the teacher replied.

“Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions,” the student said.

Abbate disagreed.

“There are some opinions that are not appropriate – that are harmful – such as racist opinions, sexist opinions,” she said. “And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”

RELATED:  ACLU argues gay marriages in Michigan should be legal

Top Barack Obama Advisor Al Sharpton Owes More than $4 Million in Taxes

Mediaite.com:

Al Sharpton owes millions in state and federal liens, according to a New York Times report out today about the activist and MSNBC host’s finances.

Sharpton owes more than $4.5 million and has “regularly sidestepped” his financial obligations, the report finds. His advocacy group National Action Network has not paid federal payroll taxes for years, and has “repeatedly failed” to pay money owed for travel and living arrangements.

The report tracks not just Sharpton’s financial history, but its relationship to Sharpton’s rise from outsider activist to influential insider. And it also notes that the revenue from Sharpton’s group has spiked in recent years, coming in from plenty of corporate sponsors.

The Times report even goes so far as to note that what Sharpton did is characterized by the Treasury inspector general as “‘abusive,’ or ‘potentially criminal’ if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful.’”

RELATED:  Al Sharpton ‘Fully’ Supports Bill de Blasio Aide’s Leave of Absence

Liberal New Jersey Judge Orders Parents To Pay Estranged 21-Year-Old Daughter's College Tuition

More ABC US news | ABC Health News

ABCNews.com:

A New Jersey woman has successfully sued her estranged parents to pay for her college tuition. 

A judge in Camden County, New Jersey, ruled that Caitlyn Ricci's biological parents will have to cough up $16,000 each year so Ricci, 21, can continue classes across the Delaware River at Temple University in Pennsylvania, ABC News station WPVI in Philadelphia reported. 

The parents' attorney is appealing the judge's decision, her mother, Maura McGarvey, told ABC News. She said she's shocked her own daughter would sue her. 

"Of course, it's not anything you ever imagine," she said between tears. "I feel like I tried very hard to raise my child right." 

Caitlyn’s attorney, Andrew Rochester, told ABC News that legal proceedings began toward the end of August 2013 "after two months of attempting to negotiate with the parents and their attorneys." 

The parents had already filed a motion to emancipate their daughter. 

Ricci's parents' marriage only lasted two-and-a-half years. Caitlyn lived with her mother but also saw her father, the couple said. 

"She comes from two loving families and she was given what she wanted when she was growing up," her father, Michael Ricci, told WPVI. 

McGarvey described her daughter as a rebellious teenager who left home and moved in with her grandparents in February because she didn't want to follow her mother's rules, putting stress on the family's relationship. She said the only time she has seen her daughter since she started at Temple University was in a courtroom.

Huge victory for spoiled brats everywhere and the liberal entitlement culture that deems personal responsibility a demon and handed Barack Obama s econd term as POTUS.

RELATED:  New Jersey judge orders parents to pay estranged 21-year-old daughter’s college tuition

Godless Homosexuals Angry at Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar for Removing Same-Sex Kisses From Personal Website

People.com:

Following their daughter Jessa's recent nuptials, during which she and husband Ben Seewald locked lips for the first time, later posting a steamy kissing photo to Instagram, Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar were feeling the love.

The 19 Kids and Counting parentals posted their own smooch pic to Facebook with the message "God designed marriage to be a loving, dynamic relationship between a husband and wife for a lifetime ... We challenge all married couples to take a happily married picture and post it here."

It seems they may have gotten more than they asked for as happily married same-sex couples also responded to the call, posting their own loving kiss pics.

But now one man claims the photo he posted of himself and his husband was taken down. "Oh no, I've been banned from the Duggar Family Official Facebook page!" wrote John Becker on his own Facebook page on Tuesday. 

"I posted this photo of Michael and me with the following comment: 'Happily married for nearly nine years; working hard for #MarriageEquality for all loving couples. It was getting lots of likes, but the Duggars must not have liked it very much – they pulled it down and blocked me from posting, liking, or commenting on the page altogether. How sad that they feel so threatened by other loving marriages."

TLC, the network that airs 19 Kids and Counting declined to comment on the matter, but following the alleged removals, the Duggars took to their page with Bible verses as well as the following message.

"We love these wise words from Rick Warren: 'Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.' "

And of course, the hellbound gays and their advocates in the morally bankrupt, liberal media pretend to be "shocked" and "outraged" that a Christian family would do such a thing. Can you imagine the same "outrage" for a noted atheist couple removing a Christian couple's display of loving God from their website? Probably not.

RELATED: The Duggars Defend Ben and Jessa, Other Married Couples Take to the Duggar's Facebook to Support Family

Colorado Springs High School Bans Students From Meeting Outside Class for Prayer and Fellowship

NationalReview.com:

Cheating. Bullying. Cybersexting. Hazing. Molestation. Suicide. Drug abuse. Murder. From scanning the headlines of the latest scandals in America’s schools, it’s quite clear that the problem is not that there’s too much God in students’ lives.

The problem is that there isn’t nearly enough of Him.

With the malfunction of moral seatbelts and the erosion of moral guardrails, too many kids have turned to a pantheon of false gods, crutches, and palliatives. They’re obsessed with Slender Man and Vampire Diaries. Alex from Target’s hair and Rihanna’s tattoos. Overpriced basketball sneakers and underdressed reality stars. Choking games and YouTube games. Gossip and hookups. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat.

It’s all about selfies over self-control, blurred lines over bright lines.

In a metastatic youth culture of soullessness and rootlessness, the idea of high-school teens voluntarily using their free time to pray and sing hymns is not just a breath of fresh air. It’s salvation.

But leave it to secularists run amok to punish faithful young followers of Christ.

Last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a religious-freedom lawsuit against Pine Creek High School here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. Chase Windebank, a senior at the District 20 school, had been convening an informal prayer group for the past three years “in a quiet area to sing Christian religious songs, pray, and to discuss issues of the day from a religious perspective.”

Windebank and his friends weren’t disrupting classroom time. They shared their Christian faith during an open period earned by high-achieving students. Other kids used the time to play on their phones, eat snacks, get fresh air outside, or schedule meetings for a wide variety of both official and unofficial school clubs.

A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshipers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty. For three years, the group encountered no problems, according to ADF’s complaint. But in late September, Windebank was summoned to the assistant principal’s office and ordered to stop praying because of “the separation of church and state.”

RELATED:  Is devout faith a blessing — or curse?

Feminist Woman Goes In On What's Wrong With The Catcalling Video! "It's Propaganda, Not Evidence Of A Crime Against Womankind"

RELATED: Hollaback responds to criticism of racial bias in street harassment video

Sean Hannity: Jon Stewart ‘Has His Head So Far Up Obama’s Ass’

Mediaite.com:

A new Jon Stewart interview out today includes the late night comic going off on Fox News. In particular, Stewart honed in on Sean Hannity as “probably the most loathsome dude over there.”

“That’s just pure cynicism, and it’s horrible,” Stewart said. “Everything is presented in as devious a manner as it could be possibly be presented.”

Well, Hannity fired back in a statement to Politico that mostly just highlighted how bad the economy is under President Obama. He refers to Obama as Stewart’s “beloved president,” and asks, “Do I even need to remind him about keeping our doctors, our health plans and saving money? And how is that healthcare website working out? Or Iraq, Isis, the ‘Russian reset’?”

And then Hannity went for the jugular:

“Jon’s problem is he has his head so far up Obama’s ass he cannot see clearly, he is obviously better suited to reading his joke writers material, and making his clapping seal audience happy.”

He also brings up how Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear featured Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam, who made comments many interpreted as support for a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie.

RELATED: Jon Stewart Whacks Bush As Inferior to Jimmy Carter, No Troublesome Facts Allowed

Latinos Aren't A "Cheap Date" for Democrats Anymore

TheDailyBeast.com:

Now that they’ve failed their midterms, Democrats are spinning the election losses and trying to convince themselves and everyone else that things are really not so bad. Meanwhile, privately, they’re thinking about 2016 and hoping it doesn’t get worse.

They must take comfort from the likelihood that they’ll likely have the formidable Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket, and she’ll be hard to beat. They expect to maintain the White House, and then, they tell themselves, everything will return to normal.

Part of what they mean by “normal” is that the Hispanic vote will return to their column, that last week’s result—when 36 percent of Hispanic votes went Republican, up from 27 percent in 2012—was an aberration that they can get beyond.

But is it really? Or is this something they should be worried about for the long term? Given the changing demographics of the voting population, it’s an important question that Democrats can’t afford to get wrong.

Hispanic voters made up just 8 percent of 2014 voters, according to the national exit poll. Keep in mind that Hispanics are the second-fastest growing ethnic group in America, after Asian-Americans, and that, every month, another 50,000 U.S. Hispanic teenagers turn 18 and thus become eligible to vote.

And yet the Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project estimates that the turnout rate for Hispanic voters was about what it was in the last midterm election, around 31 percent. And that means that, even as the number of potential Hispanic voters continues to climb, their participation rate in midterms has flat lined.

The only silver lining for those who would like to see more Hispanics vote is that they do tend to make a better showing in presidential election years. In 2012, when President Obama squared off against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Hispanics accounted for one in 10 voters. And since they gave more than 70 percent of their votes to Obama, it’s no exaggeration to say that Hispanics played a major role in reelecting the president just as they helped elect him the first time four years earlier.

Democrats got spoiled. And it appears that many of them were counting on this trend to continue this year. For the last several months, prominent Democrats have urged Hispanics to make their voices heard on Election Day. They just naturally assumed that Hispanics would show up in large numbers and cast an overwhelming majority of their votes for whatever Democratic candidate happened to be on the ballot.

In September, in Salt Lake City, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told a gathering of the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that the way to prod Republicans in Congress to finally tackle immigration reform was for Hispanics to vote. ”The real message that reaches Republicans is at the ballot box,” she said. “And that’s where they have to feel the impact.”

Just a few days before the election, Vice President Joe Biden told a Hispanic audience in Miami: “This is your election…This will be the election, if the community stands up, where we start to say, ‘The outcome of every future election in America will be fundamentally impacted upon by the Hispanic community.’”

There is no doubt that Hispanics had a big impact on the election, and that they made their voices heard. In fact, they shook up both political parties. And they did all that by doing two things they weren’t supposed to do. Many of them stayed home, and those who did vote didn’t just roll over and automatically pick the Democrat on the ballot.

Part of the problem was the quality of the Democratic candidates this time around. To call them mediocre, uninspiring, and stale would be overly generous. And bad candidates tend to make bad choices.

In some races—like that of Democrat Wendy Davis, who lost the Texas governor’s race to state Attorney General Gregg Abbott—the Democrat became known for ignoring Hispanic voters, and thus giving a Republican opponent the opportunity to fill the void with targeted, ethnic-specific advertisements in English and Spanish. Abbott took advantage of that opening and pulled down a hefty share of the Hispanic vote.

RELATED:  GOP gains traction among Hispanic voters with aggressive outreach campaigns

George W Bush: ‘No Regrets’ over Decision to Invade Iraq

Mediaite.com:

Former President George W Bush told Bob Schieffer Sunday morning that he had no regrets over the decision to invade Iraq. 

Bush was on to discuss his new book praising his father (and to honor Face The Nation’ss sixtieth anniversary). 43 insisted he did not invade Iraq to finish what his father started, and said he was surprised when Saddam Hussein called his bluff over the invasion, but didn’t regret the decision to go in.

“I think it was the right decision,” Bush said. “My regret is that a violent group of people has risen up again. This is al Qaeda plus. I put in the book that they need to be defeated. And I hope they are. I hope the strategy works.”

It's funny that idiot liberals think President Bush would ever say anything different about his decision to invade Iraq.Clearly, they never paid attention to the man's resolve.

RELATED: The war over President Obama’s new war in Iraq

The Democrats' Problem Is The White Voter

NJ.com:

Everyone’s got a favorite reason for the Democratic Party’s disaster last week: poor turnout of young and minority voters, over concentration on women’s issues, failure to trumpet up-beat economic news, a shameless abandonment of President Obama that played into Republican depiction of him as a liability.

Take your pick. My favorite is something overlooked and maybe more fundamental _ the growing alienation of white voters from the Democratic Party.

It gets lost sometimes by a media used to measuring elections as special interest contests (socio-economic stuff) but we’re are still an overwhelmingly white nation -- some 75 percent white if Hispanics who identify as white are included, over 65 percent even if only non-Hispanic whites are counted.

Democrats can’t win elections, presidential or mid-term, without a substantial black and Hispanic turnout. But it’s become clear they may not even prevail in mid-terms without a much larger share of the white vote.
And, if the loyalties of African-Americans and other minorities cool -- say after Obama leaves office -- the deficit with white voters could imperil Democrats even in presidential years, at least in the short run.

The white alienation from the Democratic Party is not new (remember Reagan Democrats?); its been losing white males for most of the last 40 years, making up that deficit with support from white women (especially singles) and minorities.

Last Tuesday, however, Democrats lost even white women in some key Senate races (Georgia and Colorado, for example) and got fewer than expected in the states they won. The party of women and the “little guy” suffered political hemophilia last week.

It hemorrhaged the once loyal working class white voters. Why? The decline of labor unions and the great urban Democratic machines is a partial explanation.

The hired-for-the day turnout organizations do a decent job, but they lack the personal, round-the-clock links with voters that labor and old Democratic machines boasted. They can’t call on that “throw one in for Barney” tie to the voter, especially when Barney, the local Democratic precinct worker, is also a drinking buddy or friend of the family.

But there’s something else, too -- a sense of fear and foreboding among middle-aged and older whites, especially men.

The America of their youth is vanishing. It even looks different; it’s browner. Often it doesn’t even speak English. And it fights political wars that no longer produce victory parades and the glory that accompanies them.

What they’re feeling is a toxic mix of nostalgia and more than a little hostility. Democrats must begin to acknowledge this and work to dispel these white fears and feelings if they’re to recover their election mojo.

RELATED:  The ‘War on Women’ Failure Is a Very Bad Omen for Democrats’ Future

Chris Hayes’ Sharyl Attkisson Interview Sums Up MSNBC’s Issues in One Question

Mediaite.com:

This is the tale of two journalists. 

One has won multiple Emmy awards going back to the turn of the century, including an investigative series titled, “Bush Administration’s Bait and Switch on TARP and the Bank Bailout.” Another report revealed fraud around multi-billion dollar Halliburton contracts in Iraq. Sharyl Attkisson also was one of the first journalists to fly combat missions over Kosovo. 

The other journalist is the former editor of The Nation magazine. He hasn’t won any Emmy awards and invariably finishes a distant third in his 8:00 p.m. MSNBC time slot in a three horse race. Chris Hayes hasn’t flown in any combat missions as a journalist, but was hit by a modest rock covering the Ferguson riots this past August. 

During the Obama administration, Attkisson — who reported for CBS News for over two decades — captured a prestigious Edward R. Murrow award for “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious,” and was dominated for an Emmy for “Green Energy Going Red” (which focused on the failure of government-financed Solyndra) and an Investigative Emmy nomination for “Benghazi: Dying for Security.” 

By contrast, Hayes once won something called the May Sydney Award for his 2012 piece that declared fossil fuel companies must surrender $10 trillion in unburned gas and oil reserves to avert global disaster. And that’s about it on the trophy shelf. 

So when juxtaposing the two careers in terms of experience and accomplishment, and after watching Hayes’ interview with Attkisson — which included the host asking his guest if she was angling for a job at Fox News — the only thought that comes mind is the following:

He has some balls asking that question. And no, that’s not meant as a compliment. Hayes questioning someone as decorated as Attkisson if she fabricated an allegation against the government (for hacking her computer) was somehow motivated because she needed to enhance already one of the most — if not the most — extensive resumes in investigative journalism would be like Arsenio Hall asking Johnny Carson if he knew how to effectively interview a guest. 

Cojones, indeed. Especially coming from the guy known in the industry for singlehanded sinking his network’s primetime lineup from his barely-watched 8:00 PM position. No sympathy for the host following his show, however, as more than a few MSNBC insiders concede the biggest push to put Hayes in the most important time slot on the network came from Rachel Maddow, the real decision-maker for “The Place for Politics” at 30 Rock. 

Know this: Attkisson could pretty much work anywhere she wants, and doesn’t need to fabricate any stories in order to enhance her LinkedIn profile. And when her new book hits shelves this Tuesday, it will be on the best-seller list. Guaranteed. Why? She has the credibility that comes from dogged reporting regardless of which party controls the White House. All the aforementioned awards during the Bush and Obama administration prove that. 

We’ve often explored why MSNBC struggles so mightily,particularly lately — a disturbing development considering an election was just held. Is the presentation outside of its morning show an echo chamber, which doesn’t make for compelling television? Yes. Is the decision to go almost all opinion — even during dayside — making it impossible to discern one program from another? Yes. 

But here’s one more point to consider: How high is the quality of the guests? Are those guests diverse from a political perspective? 

The answers are “not high at all” and “no”. Rarely does a big-name Republican outside of a periodic Rand Paul interview ever appear on the network. There’s only so many times David Corn (Mother Jones), Joan Walsh or Ezra Klein can be booked. For any GOP member, there’s simply no upside when the audience is small and the hosts are agenda-driven with blinders on. 

Hayes landed a rare big interview on his program Friday night. It could have been fair, tough, and the kind of deep-dive he once excelled at when hosting Up on weekend mornings. 

Instead, the host simply became the caricature his network has become when calling into question the career motives of a guest with a resume he can only dream of having. 

RELATED:  Sharyl Attkisson Dismisses Media Matters: ‘Paid, Left-Wing Blog’ [VIDEO]

Why The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth

RELATED: 5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die

Hollyweird Liberal Lena Dunham Comes Out As A Child Molester

TruthRevolt.com:

On Saturday, HBO’s Lena Dunham sent a “cease and desist” letter to TruthRevolt demanding that we remove an article we posted last Wednesday on sections of her book, Not That Kind of Girl. The letter threatened legal action if we did not both remove that article, as well as print a note, the suggested language of which read as follows:

We recently published a story stating that Ms. Dunham engaged in sexual conduct with her sister.  The story was false, and we deeply regret having printed it.  We apologize to Ms. Dunham, her sister, and their parents, for this false story.

We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a “false” story, even if she is a prominent actress and left-wing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book – and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like.

In particular, the letter from Ms. Dunham’s lawyers labeled as “false and defamatory” our claims that she “experiment[ed] sexually with her younger sister Grace,” “experimented with her six-year younger sister’s vagina,” and “use[d] her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet.” In her desire to curb First Amendment freedoms, Dunham’s attorneys threatened legal action seeking “millions of dollars; punitive damages which can be a multiple of up to ten times actual damages; and injunctive relief.”

We assume that both Ms. Dunham and her attorneys are capable of reading Ms. Dunham’s book, which contains the following direct excerpts:

“Do we all have uteruses?” I asked my mother when I was seven.

“Yes,” she told me. “We’re born with them, and with all our eggs, but they start out very small. And they aren’t ready to make babies until we’re older.”

I looked at my sister, now a slim, tough one-year-old, and at her tiny belly. I imagined her eggs inside her, like the sack of spider eggs in Charlotte’s Web, and her uterus, the size of a thimble.
“Does her vagina look like mine?”

“I guess so,” my mother said. “Just smaller.”

One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. “My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!”

My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.

And this:

As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.

And this:

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.

If Ms. Dunham says that our quotations from her book were “false,” or that our interpretation of those events was libelous under the law, then we look forward to asking her, in her deposition, about why they appeared in her book. We also look forward to asking her why she believes it is now appropriate for a 28-year-old woman to make light of opening her baby sister’s vagina, paying her with candies for prolonged kisses on the lips in the manner of a “sexual predator,” or masturbating in bed next to her prepubescent sister.

If Ms. Dunham says that our quotations from her book were “false,” then she should explain whether her statements in which she accused a young college Republican of rape were also false. We look forward to asking her about that in her deposition as well, given that she has reportedly refused to cooperate with Oberlin police to track down the alleged perpetrator, which leaves other young women at risk if her accusations are true.

It is worth noting that Truth Revolt was far from the only outlet to point out these troubling sections in Ms. Dunham’s book. National Review’s Kevin Williamson wrote of “Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace” – the article that first alerted us to Ms. Dunham’s disturbing writings. The Daily Caller’s Derek Hunter has written of Ms. Dunham’s “gleeful sexual abuse of her infant sister, Grace.”

After Truth Revolt’s report on Ms. Dunham’s book, Ms. Dunham took to Twitter with what she termed a “rage spiral,” terming accusations that “I molested my little sister isn’t just LOL – it’s really fucking upsetting and disgusting.” She added, “And by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid’s vagina, well, congrats to you.” No, congrats to you, Ms. Dunham – you’ve managed to lead a life so free of criticism that you find it “upsetting and disgusting” when some folks are offended that you “carefully spread open” your baby sister’s vagina, or paid her to kiss you on the mouth in the manner of a “sexual predator,” or masturbated in bed next to her as a teenager. In the real world, folks find such behavior upsetting and disgusting, not reporting on such behavior.

Bullies like Ms. Dunham may believe that firing off legal threats against those who exercise First Amendment rights is perfectly legitimate. But for a woman who proclaims to be an advocate for freedom of speech to attempt to shut down such speech based on her own apparent embarrassment at her own disclosures in her own book demonstrates the totalitarianism of those on the left – and those in the legal and media establishment who enable them.

RELATED: Concha: Lena Dunham’s Disturbing Passage Deserves All the Scorn It’s Getting

Noted Psychologist Abdullah Johnson Explains Why So Many Black Kids Are “Turning Gay”

BlackNews.com:

It’s not a new video. It was actually recorded and posted on YouTube about this time last year. But the video has resurfaced and is going viral again. Some love it, some hate it. In the video, Dr. Umar Abdullah Johnson, a nationally certified psychologist and child therapist, explains why so many Black kids are turning gay. 

During his discussion, Abdullah Johnson says that mothers actually “psychologically castrate” their sons and then wonder why they turn gay later on.

He also presents concerns and solutions towards ending ‘Fatherlessness’ and ‘Motherlessness’ – problems that affect communities of people of African descent. This is a focused section from a longer video in which the presenter deals with problems affecting children of African descent in American schools as well as he does questions and answers towards the information he presents.

RELATED: Yes, I Blame White Liberals

Former Weather Channel CEO John Coleman Goes off on CNN: ‘Hello, Everybody! There’s No Global Warming!’

Mediaite.com:

Former Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman made melted-iceberg waves recently when he denied the existence of climate change, to the point that the channel he helped found distanced itself from him. 

Coleman was defiant on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday morning, telling (or rather talking over) host Brian Stelter that his former network had become politicized.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down,” Coleman said. “I’m a skeptic about climate change, not a denier.”

“CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming that it is a consensus. Well there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote. Science is about facts. …It has been become a big political point of the Democratic Party and part of their platform, but the science is on my side.”

When Stelter tried to move on by saying it was unlikely they’d come to an agreement there, Coleman replied, “I know we’re not, because you wouldn’t allow it to happen on CNN. But I’m happy that I got on the air and got a chance to talk to your viewers. Hello, everybody! There is no global warming!”

Coleman was “terribly disappointed,” that his old network was on the climate change bandwagon. “The Weather Channel has bought into it,” he said. “But so has all the media. That’s no big surprise. 

“I created a channel to give people their weather, tell them what the weather is now and what it’s going to be. …to serve a real purpose. And that channel has become totally distorted.”

Current CEO David Kenny appeared afterward and reiterated the channel’s position that climate change is real.

RELATED: Climate Change Dangers Are 'Higher Than Ever': U.N. Report

Bristol Palin Rips Liberal Media Coverage of Family Brawl, Tells Her Side of Story

Mediaite.com:

So by now, you’ve all heard about that infamous Palin family brawl and maybe even listened to the audio of Bristol Palin telling the police what happened. Well, now Palin has written a lengthy blog post not only clearing up exactly what happened, but lashing out at the media for its coverage of her family.

ADVERTISEMENT

Palin says a friend got knocked out by some guy, whose mom pushed her little sister Willow when she got upset with him. Bristol went to confront her, but ran into some giant man who reportedly shouted, “You cunt! Get the fuck out of here, you slut!”

And according to Palin, he proceeded to start pushing her down to the ground. She hit him in self-defense, and describes the intense situation as “scary and infuriating.”

Palin then takes the opportunity to go after the media for latching onto rumors and random people as eyewitnesses. She thinks this is part of a broader pattern of how conservative women are treated:

Violence against women is never okay… Even if that violence occurs against conservative women. Imagine for a second the outrage that would happen if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pushed by some guy. Had she tried to defend herself, the liberal media would’ve held her up as some feminist hero.

But it wasn’t Chelsea.

It wasn’t Hillary.

It wasn’t someone they liked or someone they agreed with.

It was a conservative.

And once again, the hypocrisy of the media is laid bare.

RELATED: CNN’s Carol Costello Apologizes for Comments About Palin Brawl

Supreme Court Allows Texas to Go Ahead with Voter ID Law

Mediaite.com:

The Supreme Court today officially permitted the state of Texas to proceed with its controversial voter ID law for this November’s midterm elections. A majority of justices earlier today rejected a Department of Justice request to prohibit Texas from engaging in a practice it believed to be discriminatory.

A federal judge sided with the DOJ and struck down the law just last week, ruling that it “creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” He even compared it to the poll tax.

A federal appeals court overturned that ruling this Tuesday, and now the Supreme Court has weighed in and will allow Texas to proceed with the law in place.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent warning that the law “risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

RELATED:  Hard Evidence Supports the Need for Voter ID Laws

Report: Barack Obama Planning to Bring Ebola-infected Foreigners to US for Treatment

Townhall.com:

Despite mounting pressure from lawmakers and the public, President Obama on Saturday said that he would not cave on the issue of imposing travel bans on West African nations.

“We can’t just cut ourselves off from West Africa,” he said in his weekly radio address. “Trying to seal off an entire region of the world—if that were even possible, could actually make the situation worse.” 

If that were true, then why has nearly every African nation—plus a number of other countries (and airlines) around the world—imposed a ban or significant restrictions on the Ebola-stricken countries in West Africa? It’s simple: quarantines work. As Ann Coulter noted in her column this week, “It’s becoming increasingly clear that this is just another platform for Obama to demonstrate that we are citizens of the world.” 

Indeed. Our commander in chief has even sent thousands of U.S. troops with only four hours of training to West Africa to combat the virus. The safety and security of Americans has clearly taken a backseat to wellbeing of those overseas. 

And if all this weren’t enough, a conservative watchdog group is out with a shocking new report that claims the administration is looking to bring Ebola-infected foreigners to the U.S. for treatment. Yes, you read that correctly.

Judicial Watch has learned that the Obama administration is actively formulating plans to admit Ebola-infected non-U.S. citizens into the United States for treatment. Specifically, the goal of the administration is to bring Ebola patients into the United States for treatment within the first days of diagnosis.

It is unclear who would bear the high costs of transporting and treating non-citizen Ebola patients. The plans include special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.

One source tells us that the Obama administration is keeping this plan secret from Congress. The source is concerned that the proposal is illegal; endangers the public health and welfare; and should require the approval of Congress.

If this plan comes to fruition, the public outcry will be deafening. The fact that the cost of this would undoubtedly fall on the backs of taxpayers is one thing, the negligence it would show for the American people is quite another. 

RELATED: O’Reilly Rips ‘Pathetic Ideological Loons’ at MSNBC for Ebola ‘Racism’ Attacks

Jon Stewart Criticized Democrat Hypocrisy on Campaign Spending

CanadaFreePress.com:

Previously, we’ve discussed Obama’s belief that the GOP is the ‘party of billionaires.’  He made that proclamation while on his way to attend a $32,000.00-per-plate fundraiser at the home of a billionaire real estate mogul named - again, not a joke -“Rich Richman.” We’ve also talked about the desperate letters which ask people to give Obama five dollars so he can stave off impeachment.  ...And we’ve acknowledged his refusal to skip fundraisers in favor of actually doing his job because, as his administration puts it, schedule changes might “alarm the American people or create a false sense of crisis.”

Yet all across the country, Democrats are regularly outspending their Republican rivals as they desperately cling to control of the Senate, and the “beg letters” continue to pile up. All of this, while Obama and his allies run around moaning about how Republicans love fat cats and how there’s too much money in politics. The hypocrisy is painfully obvious.

Democrats love money in politics, as long as it’s their money in politics.

There’s nothing new about that, but it’s rare to see one of the faithful call them on their fearmongering cash-grab B.S. 

Enter left-wing icon Jon Stewart.  You may know him as the host of the Daily Show. ...Or possibly as the man NBC wanted to install as host of Meet the Press, before settling for non-comedian Chuck Todd:

Et tu, Jon Stewart?

RELATED: Ed Schultz Slams Party Apostate Jon Stewart for Criticizing Dems' Hypocrisy on Campaign Spending

New Poll Shows Barack Obama’s Approval Rating is at the Lowest Level of his Presidency

Politico.com:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is at the lowest level of his presidency, a new poll says.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday, 40 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance, the lowest score the poll has recorded since he took office. His rating is down 1 point from September.

The survey comes less than a month out from the November midterm elections. A large number of Democratic congressional and gubernatorial candidates on the campaign trail have been distancing themselves from the White House.

Among independent voters, Obama’s approval rating stands at 33 percent.

Forty-four percent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of economic issues, compared with 51 percent who disapprove, his lowest disapproval level in more than a year.

But the president’s approval rating on his handling of the conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has plunged in less than a month. Thirty-five percent of Americans approve of his handling of the threat from ISIL, the terrorist group that the U.S. has conducted airstrikes against in Iraq and Syria. His net negative 16-point rating on ISIL is down 22 points from the end of September, when 50 percent of Americans approved of his handling of ISIL.

RELATED: Surging Georgia Democratic Senate candidate afraid to be associated with toxic Obama

10-Year-Old Charged with Killing a 90-Year-Old Woman, Will Be Tried as Adult

Mediaite.com:

A ten-year-old boy has been charged with homicide after he confessed to killing a 90-year-old woman. And because minors cannot be given such charges, the boy is being tried as an adult.

Tristen Kurilla, according to police, was visiting his grandfather, when he got into some kind of dispute with 90-year-old Helen Novak. And then he attacked her, put a cane around her throat, and punched her throat a number of times.

Novak died, and Kurilla is being held in custody. He said he only meant to hurt the old woman, not to kill her. He will be charged as an adult.

He knew what he was doing and 99.9% of 10-year-olds don't kill people when they get upset. I say give this budding sociopath life in prison without parole.

RELATED: Why a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania can be tried for murder as an adult

Will Blacks in North Carolina, and Elsewhere, Continue to Buy the Liberal Line?

Townhall.com:

Republicans need to pick up six seats in November to gain control of the Senate. 

Consensus to date points to good prospects of this happening. 

But one state where the picture remains unclear for Republicans is North Carolina. Republican challenger, speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Thom Tillis, has failed to pull ahead of Democrat incumbent Senator Kay Hagan and average of latest polling shows him behind 3 to 4 points.

Mitt Romney won North Carolina in 2012 by three points. In the last ten presidential elections, Republicans prevailed in North Carolina eight times.

North Carolina is anything but a boilerplate blue state. And the Hagan-Tillis face-off is as pure liberal vs. conservative as you can get.

Tillis is an experienced legislator and solid conservative. 

So what’s the problem?

One issue is the volatile black vote. Not volatile as to their consistency to vote for Democrats but whether or not they show up to vote.

North Carolina, with a population that is 22 percent black, is a laboratory this November for whether the Republican challenger can successfully point to the dismal record of the Democrat incumbent regarding black progress and convince black voters that they should not vote for more of the same.

The big question in states like North Carolina, and with black voters nationwide, is how long will blacks continue to buy what they have been sold for years by liberals.

Hagan’s story line for black voters is the same as what liberals always tell blacks.

Don’t vote for the conservative because the conservative wants to cut government money. And don’t vote for the conservative because the conservative is “for rich people”, and “they’re racist”, and they, as Joe Biden said, “want to put you back in chains’.”

But will these voters really believe that the black poverty rate in North Carolina stands at 34 percent, versus 13 percent among whites, because taxes are not high enough or because government spending is not expansive enough? 

Or that the graduation rate of black males in North Carolina is, according the Schott Foundation, just 58 percent, because government is not spending enough on public schools?

Maybe blacks will finally grasp that government spending really benefits the political class and not the lower class.

RELATED: Lefty Rock Critic: Killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown Result of ‘Hatred’ for Obama