Global Warming: Al Gore’s Gold Mine

BizPacReview.com:

Hope springs eternal that some of America’s political blowhards will ease into the sunset, crushed into silence by life’s relentless realities. But there is no such luck when it comes to Al Gore and his climate mafia. Gore’s sizable bank account must be running low, because he is trying to crank up his propaganda machine again to tap into the “green pork bonanza.”

Gore made hundreds of millions of dollars from the hoopla surrounding his 2006 film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and resulting financial ventures. The bonanza happened in spite of the fact that a judge in London’s highest court ruled the documentary was “one-sided,” not an impartial analysis and clearly “a political film.”

The movie was based on a 1998 paper by Michael Mann, who “reported” sharp rises in global temperatures and argued that immediate global action must be taken to prevent uncontrollable temperature rises. But the real inconvenient truth is that the Mann paper was based on sloppy research. It has since been contradicted, and its projections have not materialized. In fact, there has “been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures” in the 16 years since the paper was written, the United Kingdom’s national weather office said. Global temperatures crested in 1998. Even the United Nations has finally admitted that such temperatures have not risen in the past 16 years.

Gore’s apocalyptic predictions were false, and his credibility has been shredded among objective observers. Today, polar ice caps are larger. Polar bear populations have increased. The West Antarctic ice sheet’s reduction was caused by sub-glacial volcanic magma. Americans have noticed that winters are getting colder.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have joined the climate mafia, calling climate change “the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction” and insisting global warming is now “settled science, a scientific consensus.” Really? Well, I invite readers to ask true scientists whether they respect consensus thinking. Science is all about evidence, not consensus. In fact, science doesn’t respect consensus or majority views. Data, evidence and observations, not projections, are what convince true scientists whether a theory is wrong or right.

Global warming has been Gore’s gold mine. He has spent the past 15 years mining for profits and huckstering for carbon credits, and he’s made a killing. After all, he needed a lot of money to pay the electric bills for his 20-room Tennessee mansion’s annual 221,000 kilowatt-hours, more than 20 times the national average, according to ABC News.

Now, I don’t begrudge a man making money. But what’s wrong with Gore’s campaign is that, under the guise of protecting the Earth, Gore’s propaganda juggernaut has spread an agenda of hysteria and alarm based on poor science. He declares as fact that humans are the primary cause of global warming. He denies that natural phenomena causes most climate change. And yet, the Earth’s climate changes all the time. On average, the Earth experiences a warming cycle approximately every 1,500 years, and it has gone through dozens of what scientists call “little Ice Ages.”

Gore and other leftists have profited over the years by creating Chicken Little, sky-is-falling scenarios as a way to expand government and “solve the problem” they manufactured. How convenient for Gore to use alarmist propaganda, falsified charts and a hoax to create a problem. Gore and other leftists invented most of the manmade global warming “crisis,” empowering leftists all over the world to expand government’s reach and blame “greedy” corporations so they can be taxed to pay the global warming tab and so that all the liberals can “take care” of all the helpless corporate victims before life on Earth is destroyed.

Gore is not just wrong; he’s dangerous. His views are perilous because, as he engages in profiteering, he influences the U.S. government to take radical actions that severely impact America’s economy and the lives of millions of its citizens. Gore is a very clever man as he rakes in the money, but he has put himself into one hell of an ethical conflict of interest.

RELATED:  Al Gore Leaves People's Climate March in Chevy Suburban SUV

Far-Left Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg: Citizens United Was The Current Supreme Court's Worst Ruling

HuffPo.com:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her extreme regret over several of the current Court's rulings in a wide-ranging interview published in The New Republic Sunday evening, including their rejecting the commerce clause of President Barack Obama's health care law, and issuing a huge blow to the Voting Rights Act in their Shelby County v. Holder decision.

But the first Supreme Court ruling Ginsburg would send to the guillotine would be the Court's decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, giving corporations and unions the green light to give and spend unlimited sums of money on independent political activity. "If there was one decision I would overrule," Ginsburg told The New Republic, it would be Citizens United.

"I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be," she said.

Ginsburg said that the Court, in CItizens United as well as in the case of Shelby County, "should have respected the legislative judgment."

"Legislators know much more about elections than the Court does. ... I think members of the legislature, people who have to run for office, know the connection between money and influence on what laws get passed."

According to Ginsburg, things may have played out differently had Justice Sandra Day O'Connor not retired so soon. She told The New Republic that O'Connor would have sided with the minority on Citizens United, Shelby County, as well as the Court's Hobby Lobby ruling.

"I think she must be concerned about some of the court’s rulings, those that veer away from opinions she wrote," Ginsburg said.

This woman is nothing but a fraud. A leftist extremist. It's a wonder conservatives don't call her out more for what a predictable justice she is. And hell if she cares, as in her rapid senility, she could care less what people think of her rigid ideology what with every decision she makes coming down to which side conservatives are on

RELATED: Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Explains Why She Won’t Retire

Social Conservatives Launch ‘Unprecedented’ Campaign Against Pro-Marriage Equality Republicans

BuzzFeed.com:

Conservative activists are launching “an unprecedented campaign” against three Republican candidates — two of whom are out gay men — because of their support for marriage equality and abortion.

The National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council Action, and CitizenLink “will mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots” for Republican House candidates Carl DeMaio in California and Richard Tisei in Massachusetts and Republican Senate candidate Monica Wehby in Oregon, according to a letter sent to Republican congressional and campaign leaders on Thursday.

“We cannot in good conscience urge our members and fellow citizens to support candidates like DeMaio, Tisei or Wehby,” the presidents of the three groups write. “They are wrong on critical, foundational issues of importance to the American people. Worse, as occupants of high office they will secure a platform in the media to advance their flawed ideology and serve as terrible role models for young people who will inevitably be encouraged to emulate them.”

DeMaio and Tisei are the only out LGBT federal candidates from the Republican Party to be appearing on the ballot this fall.

“The Republican Party platform is a ‘statement of who we are and what we believe.’ Thus, the platform supports the truth of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and recognizes the sanctity and dignity of human life,” NOM President Brian S. Brown said in a statement. 

Brown called it “extremely disappointing” to see candidates supported “who reject the party’s principled positions on these and other core issues.” 

Of the effort to urge people to oppose DeMaio, Tisei, and Wehby, he said, “We cannot sit by when people calling themselves Republicans seek high office while espousing positions that are antithetical to the overwhelming majority of Republicans.”

The letter was sent to House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Greg Walden, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Jerry Moran, and others in Republican congressional leadership.

In it, the three conservative groups also warned that it is a “grave error” for the party to be supporting “candidates who do not hold core Republican beliefs and, in fact, are working to actively alienate the Republican base.”

If it means anything, that no-good traitor and RINO John McCain is going around endorsing Wehby.

RELATED:  GOP Senate Candidate Monica Wehby Runs Pro-Gay Marriage Ad

Uber Rich Man Leonardo DiCaprio With Yachts and Planes Lectures World About Global Warming

Townhall.com:

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is a very rich man. His net worth sits at $220 million, which naturally means he owns many expensive things that require a lot of oil to enjoy. For example, here he is on his yacht.

Over the weekend, a march to stop climate change was held in New York City. DiCaprio took the time to leave his multi-million dollar Manhattan apartment and walked in solidarity with the crowd full of hipsters wearing their petroleum based shoes. He took selfies with marchers on their earth destroying iPhones. 

Luckily, the United Nations held a Climate Change Summit this week and DiCaprio was given a speaking slot. He is also a newly minted UN "messenger of peace." DiCaprio took advantage of the opportunity by lecturing the rest of the world about how to use less energy (through government force of course because changing individual, personal choices when it comes to energy consumption is just too hard apparently). 

When he was finished at the podium, there's no doubt DiCaprio left the stage to get into an SUV, which of course took him back to his private jet so he could start his next yachting vacation. 

"As an actor I pretend for a living. I play fictitious characters often solving fictitious problems," DiCaprio said in a suit that cost thousands of dollars. "I stand before you not as an expert, but as a concerned citizen, one of the 400,000 people who marched in the streets of New York on Sunday and the billions of others around the world who want to solve our climate crisis." 

Yes, DiCaprio is a concerned citizen just like the rest of us... 

"To be clear, this is not about just telling people to change their light bulbs or to buy a hybrid car, this disaster has grown beyond the choices that individuals make. This is now about our industries and our governments around the world taking decisive and large scale action," he continued. "This isn't hysteria. This is fact." 

As always with these people, less energy for thee but not for me. If DiCaprio wants really change, he should start with himself and lead by example. That isn't hysteria, it's a fact. 

RELATED:  Critics Slam Climate Change Protesters for Leaving Trash at NYC March

Pew Poll: More and More Americans Think Barack Obama Is Hostile To Religion

HotAir.com:

This seems counterintuitive in an environment where many secularists believe that “separation of church and state” is a quote from the Constitution, but Pew’s results make sense when considering the broader context of American public life. In the same survey that found the general public split on whether businesses should be forced to participate in same-sex marriages, Pew also finds that Americans want more faith-based input on political matters:

Nearly three-quarters of the public (72%) now thinks religion is losing influence in American life, up 5 percentage points from 2010 to the highest level in Pew Research polling over the past decade. And most people who say religion’s influence is waning see this as a bad thing.

Perhaps as a consequence, a growing share of the American public wants religion to play a role in U.S. politics. The share of Americans who say churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social and political issues is up 6 points since the 2010 midterm elections (from 43% to 49%). The share who say there has been “too little” expression of religious faith and prayer from political leaders is up modestly over the same period (from 37% to 41%). And a growing minority of Americans (32%) think churches should endorse candidates for political office, though most continue to oppose such direct involvement by churches in electoral politics.

This is being driven by those of religious faith, of course:

The findings reflect a widening divide between religiously affiliated Americans and the rising share of the population that is not affiliated with any religion (sometimes called the “nones”). The public’s appetite for religious influence in politics is increasing in part because those who continue to identify with a religion (e.g., Protestants, Catholics and others) have become significantly more supportive of churches and other houses of worship speaking out about political issues and political leaders talking more often about religion. The “nones” are much more likely to oppose the intermingling of religion and politics.

Overall, though, Pew finds that 56% of Americans think the waning influence of religion on politics is a problem rather than a solution, with only 12% believing it to be a good development. That assessment hits above 60% in almost every demographic in the Pew data. The difference between voters of faith and the others is especially stark on this point. A narrow plurality of unaffiliated Americans (the “nones”) mildly endorse this trend, 34/30. No other demo in the poll has double digits in the “good thing” category. The weakest demo other than the nones is Hispanic Catholics, where it gets a 9/50. Nor is it limited to the traditional conservative demos, either. White evangelicals predictably give it a 2/77, but black Protestants massively disapprove of the trend too, 5/65.

RELATED:  Why is religion losing influence in America?

‘We Don’t Give a Sh*t’: San Francisco Chinese Restaurant Owner Gets Fed Up with Picky (i.e. Liberal) Eaters

Mediaite.com:

A San Francisco restaurant owner has had it with picky eaters. This week, James Chu, the owner of Chinese restaurant SO, set up a sign letting these picky eaters know they temporarily closed because of their bitching.

Chu said he’s getting tired of people complaining about MSG in the food or the fact that they don’t have gluten-free options. The tipping point from him was an argument with a customer who refused to pay because he just wasn’t absolutely satisfied with the food. 

San Francisco is decidedly liberal so anyone paying attention knows what's really going on here.

RELATED: S.F.'s plastic-bag ban clears last legal hurdle

AZ Sheriff: Barack Obama Flat-Out Lying About Releasing Criminal Illegal Immigrants

Breitbart.com:

Friday on "Newsmax TV's "MidPoint," Pinal Co., AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu said President Barack Obama has flat out "lied" to the American public because not only is he not doing anything to secure the border, he is releasing dangerous criminal illegals over and over again.

Babeu first gave the example of a Mexican drug cartel member who his officers have arrested 17 times and then said of Obama and former White House spokesman Jay Carney, "You have to drag these people into the light of day and show them for who they are," with FOIA requests to prove they are releasing illegal criminal immigrants back into the public.

RELATED: Poll: More Hispanics name immigration as top problem

Media Apathetic on Abuse Charges Against Soccer Star Hope Solo

Mediaite.com:

For those who know Peterson and Rice, the follow-up question is as follows: 

“Who is Hope Solo?” 

After getting a few lame jokes that she’s the daughter of Harrison Ford‘s Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars reboot, perhaps four in ten will have a general idea of her existence (that was the number arrived at in my private survey). For those who don’t, Ms. Solo is the starting goalie for the U.S. national soccer team and has amazingly held this position since Bill Clinton was president (2000). Along the way, she’s won two gold medals and has recorded the most shutouts in U.S. women’s soccer history. She can add some distance to that record when the U.S. hosts Mexico in Rochester tonight. 

Solo is also a 33-year-old woman charged with two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence in the assault of her sister and teenage nephew. The Washington native has pleaded not guilty. Her trial is set to begin in two months. But unlike Rice and Peterson–who both absolutely deserve to be nowhere near a football field right now–Solo continues to play. 

Here’s the way USA Today described the moment she broke the U.S. women’s shutout record on September 13 in Sandy, Utah:

In the waning moments of the U.S. women’s rout of Mexico, the crowd behind Hope Solo’s goal began chanting her name. They knew she was on the verge of making history. With the 8-0 U.S. victory, Solo, playing while facing domestic violence charges in Washington, collected her record 72nd shutout with the national team.

“The best part about it is the best is yet to come,” she told cheering fans when the milestone was announced at Rio Tinto Stadium on Saturday night.

So while the star goalkeeper plays again tonight under the media radar, cable news and ESPN continue their soapbox sermons on the evil NFL, where if you weren’t paying attention, would conclude is the only organization in the country to employ characters like Peterson or Rice. The fact is that domestic and child abuse are epidemics in this country. If it takes two major athletes from America’s most popular sport to bring more attention to it, that’s only a good thing. But to pretend domestic and child abuse is a one-way street in terms of gender is another example of media twisting a narrative to satisfy the ends to the means. 

Is Solo guilty? Only three people–the ones directly involved–know that. But what if Solo played not for the U.S. women’s soccer team, but the National Football League as, say… a kicker (think of Kathy Ireland as a college kicker in the 1991 flick Necessary Roughness). Does she really get a free pass via being ignored? 

Does U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati avoid calls for his termination by almost every pundit in the country? Here’s what he had to say when a reporter–one of very few–actually asked a question about his decision to allow Solo to play recently: 

“We looked at all the facts that we had in front of us, we talked to Hope, and are going to wait until the legal proceedings come to a conclusion before we take any action, if it’s needed.” 

Adrian Peterson also has legal proceedings upcoming. No conclusion has been made in a court of law (the court of public opinion proving more powerful in the meantime).

RELATED: MSNBC Panel Erupts When Roland Martin Asks: Double Standard on Female Abuse Charges?

Miley Cyrus Under Fire for Desecrating Mexican Flag… with Her Butt

Mediaite.com:

Mexican authorities are investigating Miley Cyrus after the always-controversial singer performed in front of thousands in Monterrey, Mexico Tuesday night and at one point during the show had dancers pretend to whip her comically-large prosthetic butt with tiny Mexican flags. 

According to a report from Fusion’s Mexico City correspondent Manuel Rueda, the incident has been “widely covered” by local press and may have actually violated a law that protects “national emblems, the flag and the national anthem.”

He explains:

The 35-page law protecting national symbols regulates the proper use of Mexico’s flag in schools, public buildings, and during government ceremonies, but does not exactly include any clause specific to butt-flogging.

Article 52 does, however, say that acts which show “disrespect for the flag and national symbols, will be punished according to their seriousness and the condition of the person who commits them.”

According to the law, disrespecting the flag can be punishable with fines up to 250 minimum wages, or 36 hours in jail. And if the infraction is committed for commercial purposes, the crime can be punished with a fine of up to 1,000 minimum [daily] wages — or roughly $5,200.

Previously, Rueda reports, Mexican pop star Paulina Rubio was “fined $4,000 for appearing in a Spanish magazine with a Mexican flag draped around her naked body.”

At least one Mexican lawmaker has spoken out against Cyrus’ act. 

“They are hitting her with the flag, or cleaning her backside. It’s a lack of respect,” Francisco Trevino Cabello, of the conservative National Action Party, said of the incident. “The interior ministry must sanction the singer Miley Cyrus for desecrating the flag.”

When you're a Godless, morally bankrupt, socially liberal dunce who gets celebrated day in and day out by the lamestream press like Miley Cyrus does, pulling a stunt like this shouldn't surprise anyone. And one can only imagine the genuine outrage that'd ensue if a foreign artist did something disgusting like this to the American flag. But Miley Cyrus doesn't care about any of that, because besides being sacrilegious and a horrible role model, she has no real talent and not only depends on shock value to pay her bills, but to keep her name in the conversation.

RELATED: Miley Cyrus Date Barely Makes Court Appearance

Charles Krauthammer: Barack Obama Is a Narcissist ‘Surrounded by Sycophants’

Mediaite.com:

Columnist Charles Krauthammer joined radio host Hugh Hewitt today to diagnose what he believes the problem is with President Obama: he’s a narcissist who surrounds himself with yes-men. He said, “Obama is clearly a narcissist in the non-scientific use of the word. He is so self-involved, you see it from his rise.”

Krauthammer argued that Obama views himself “in very world historical terms” which makes him amateurish. He also picked up on the repeated usage of first-person pronouns in the president’s announcement of Osama bin Laden‘s death, “as if he’d pulled the trigger.”

Hewitt asked whether outside pressure from people like David Petraeus is moving Obama at all. Krauthammer doubted it, because, he said, Obama “lives in a cocoon surrounded by sycophants”:

There’s not anyone of independent stature around him. There was in the first term, because he needed them to prop him up. But now that he entered a second term, he’s the master of the universe, so there’s nobody around him. He is impervious to outside advice, real advice that he takes.

RELATED:  Obama knows he can't really 'defeat' ISIS. Americans need to wake up to that reality, too.

Is Polygamy Next in the Redefinition of Marriage?

HotAir.com:

That question applies in the US — and possibly in some surprising places elsewhere. Let’s start in the US, where the march of court opinion has moved steadily over the last decade from the inherent right to sexual privacy and choice in Lawrence v Texas to the mandate for government recognition of partnership choices in the emergence of same-sex marriage as an equal-treatment issue. During the latter period of that arc, opponents of SSM warned that the same arguments deployed in that effort could be made to force recognition of polygamist relationships as marriages too, which SSM advocates hotly denied. Now that the courts have made a near-sweep on same-sex marriage, Sally Kohn wonders why polygamy should be any different:

Back in the early days of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement’s push for marriage equality, this slippery slope to polygamy was pragmatically taboo. After all, arguments about gay marriage leading to polygamy were lobbed almost entirely with the purpose of derailing the gay rights agenda. And there was also something inherently offensive about making the connection, along the same lines of suggesting that gay marriage would lead to people marrying goats. …

[P]olygamy, as it generally is practiced in the United States, is a predominantly heterosexual enterprise—like heterosexuality (or the male ideal of heterosexuality) on steroids. After all, while the percentage of married women who have affairs has risen in recent decades, married men still do most of the cheating. Conservatives concerned about the high rate of divorce in America should stop blaming gay marriage but instead heterosexual infidelity—a prime culprit in 55 percent of divorces.

If couples want to bring cheating out of the deceitful shadows and instead incorporate it openly into their relationship—plus have more hands on deck for kids and more earners in the household in a tough economy—who are we to judge?  

Kohn argues that the push toward polygamy doesn’t come directly from same-sex marriage, but “a general opening up of options,” which is true on one level, but somewhat dishonest. The “opening up of options” springs from disconnecting marriage from its traditional definition of one man, one woman relationships. That was what “open[ed] up the options,” from which springs any number of definitions — which has the effect of making marriage essentially meaningless, except as a revenue source for local governments. That is, in fact, what opponents of SSM argued all along, as Kohn concedes.

RELATED:  'Sister Wives' Star Wins Case Against Polygamy Ban

Tavis Smiley: ‘Black People Lost Ground’ During Obama’s Presidency

Mediaite.com:

Tavis Smiley has written a new book on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but on HuffPost Live today, he also weighed in on the current state of black America under President Obama. And while Smiley had no interest in “demonizing” Obama, he did say that black people have to start demanding more of the president because as a whole, African-Americans have not fared well economically in the past few years.

Smiley said that black people, frankly, have “been at the back of the bus” when it comes to petitioning the president. He noted while the Hispanic community and other demographics and interest groups have made demands of the president (not all of which have come to fruition), the black community has made no demands of Obama.

And to Smiley, that’s a problem because of the serious problems facing the black community under Obama:

“I don’t celebrate this. I don’t say it as a way of demonizing the president or casting an aspersion on him––but the data is going to indicate… that black people lost ground in every single leading economic category during the Obama years.”

And for telling the truth about Black American life under Barack Obama, Tavis Smiley has pretty much been ostracized by the black community. But hey, truth hurts.

RELATED:  How Much Worse Off are Blacks Under Obama?

Ann Coulter: Get Angry About Amnesty Now!

Townhall.com:

President Obama now says he will wait until after the November elections to implement an "executive amnesty" for 11 million illegal aliens, so as not to hurt Democrats' chances this year.

Instead of waiting to be enraged in December, voters, could you please be enraged now? Once the holiday season kicks off, you'll be too busy going to parties and Christmas shopping to notice that you're suddenly living in Mexico.

Getting Obama to postpone a rancid idea isn't something to celebrate. Yay! We did it! We forced him to delay doing something the country doesn't want for SIX WEEKS! Every Republican candidate better be jamming Obama's threat down the throats of their Democratic opponents.

Obama is claiming to have the powers of a dictator. Amnesty was considered by Congress, but -- here's the important thing: It didn't pass. It only passed the Senate, with the votes of all Democrats and 14 not-bright Republicans. After that, widespread public revulsion prevented Marco Rubio's amnesty bill from even being considered in the House.

But according to Obama, the only reason illegals haven't already been given amnesty is that Congress is not "doing its job."

What does Obama imagine Congress' "job" is? Being his errand boys? Their job is to represent their districts. I promise you, House members are doing a better job representing their districts than at least a dozen senators are at representing their states -- or than Obama is doing representing the country. It's called the "People's House" for a reason.

Noticeably, every Republican senator running for re-election this year claims to oppose amnesty -- even the ones who voted for it. (Let's hope they remember how unpopular mass immigration is when it's time to vote, not just when they're running.)

Obama's base isn't even looking for representation. We could have a 1929-level stock market crash, Obama could commit a murder on the White House lawn -- and they would still support the first minority president!

But Obama says he can do whatever he wants on immigration because it's "a serious issue and Congress chooses to do nothing."

If bills became law provided only the Senate and president agreed, the Nicaraguan Contras would have been funded out of the U.S. Treasury, Reagan would have gotten his MX missiles in 1982 and the Soviet Union would have fallen five years sooner, school busing would have been eliminated without waiting for the courts to act a decade later, and most of George W. Bush's tax cuts would have been made permanent. In all those cases, a president wanted to do something -- and the Senate agreed! But the House said no, so it never happened.

Obama can't ignore the House and make amnesty happen either. That's why he's talking about an "executive amnesty," which sounds like the top-tier donation category at one of the 4 million fundraisers Obama has held since becoming president, where the dinner starts at $25,000 per couple and you might bump into Jay-Z in the men's room. Actually, it just means Obama publicly, openly, officially stops enforcing immigration law.

Except in his own mind, Obama can't make illegals legal. But he can direct the entire immigration apparatus of the federal government to act as if amnesty has passed. The theory is that once they've been treated as if they're legal for a few years, it's a fait accompli, and no future president will resume enforcement of the law.

Although consistent with historical practice, it's not where the country is at all. This election is our first referendum on amnesty.

Not only do we have Obama's promise that he'll refuse to execute the law -- it's not as if he took some kind of oath, after all -- but there's good reason to believe him: After this election, he's got nothing to lose. Democrats will have two years to sign up 30 million illegal immigrants for Social Security benefits, food stamps and voting cards.

There is no more important political issue than this: Republicans must take the Senate this year.

You know how much you've been enjoying the courts overturning state referendums prohibiting gay marriage? Get ready for a lot more of your hard-won political victories to be nullified by the courts if Republicans don't take a Senate majority.

Remember how the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare on a 5-4 vote? Obama could have a shot at replacing another Supreme Court justice in the next two years. As a senator, he voted against both of Bush's nominees, so he can't very well complain if Republicans reject his loony-bird nominees.

Have you heard about the federal judge conspiring with Attorney General Eric Holder and the ACLU to bring deported illegal aliens back from Mexico? Yes, he's bringing them back. That judge, John A. Kronstadt, can't be impeached unless Republicans take the Senate.

With Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, Congress should just keep passing bills and sending them to the White House -- or whatever golf course Obama's on, busily not executing the law. If Obama vetoes their bills, Republicans can denounce him as a "do-nothing" president.

RELATED: Gov. Jerry Brown: Nearly 30% Of CA Kids Illegal Or 'Don't Speak English'

Chuck Todd: Barack Obama about to do Carter-like Damage to Democrats on Foreign Policy

HotAir.com:

There’s plenty of evidence to support Chuck Todd’s conclusion, and not just on foreign policy, either. The new host of Meet the Press told the Morning Joe panel today that the new NBC/WSJ polling on issues shows that Obama really may be the second coming of Jimmy Carter … and that’s bad news for the Democrats:

Earlier, I wrote about the latest in the series of cratering poll numbers for Barack Obama and how it would impact his ability to restore confidence in his leadership. The NBC/WSJ poll numbers have more interesting data on domestic issues, especially in the context of the upcoming midterms. Obama’s leadership and popularity have become a boat anchor on Democrats’ hopes to avoid a GOP wave this November, but those aren’t the only problems facing the President’s allies in the midterms.

First, the generic ballot question looks better for the GOP than it has since the last election, but only marginally. Republicans have a 45/43 lead, about the same as last month’s 44/43, and the numbers for both parties are within the narrow range we have seen in this series all year. That doesn’t take into account likely voters, though, only registered voters. This poll doesn’t have any explicit enthusiasm tests, and for some reason NBC/WSJ isn’t testing for voting likelihood on these questions, even though the midterms are less than two months away.

The big problem for Democrats is on the issues. Democrats have wide lead on their traditional issues, including environmentalism (+27, but the lowest since 1992), abortion (+15), and health care — which is only at +8, when it was a +36 in January 2008. Republicans lead on their traditional issues too, such as national defense (+38) and the federal deficit (+18), both highs for this series — but those issues are more relevant in polling. Even more relevant than those are the economy, for which Republicans have a +10 advantage. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats had a +13 advantage. On taxes, Republicans have a narrow edge at +4. On the issues that matter most to voters in this cycle — the economy, taxes, national security — Republicans are peaking while Democrats are fading.

RELATED: NBC’s Richard Engel Slams President Obama’s ISIS Speech: ‘Wildly Off-Base’

No One Is Born Gay

Townhall.com:

If there was reputable scientific evidence that some people were born homosexual, I would have no problem accepting this. After all, my theology tells me that as human beings, we are all created in God’s image and yet we are a fallen race, and so all of us carry aspects of that fallen nature to the core of our being, and that could theoretically include homosexuality.

But the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay. 

As stated by gay activist and history professor John D’Emilio, “‘Born gay’ is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

In other words, because the “born gay” idea has proved so useful, the fact that there’s virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It’s an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.

As noted years ago by gay scientist Simon LeVay, “There [was] a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.” 

Another liberal lie rooted in propaganda, deception and a choice to oppose God.

RELATED: Charlene Cothran - Gay Activist Finds Christ

Bruce Levenson Isn’t a Racist; He’s a Businessman

TIME.com:

Sure, there are assumptions he makes that are cringeworthy—but the questions about how to attract more white fans were entirely reasonable.

Well, the pitchforks are already sharpened and the torches lit anyway, so rather than let them go to waste, why not drag another so-called racist before the court of public opinion and see how much ratings-grabbing, head-shaking and race-shaming we can squeeze out of it? After all, the media got so much gleeful, hand-wringing mileage out of Don Sterling and Michael Brown.

The only problem is that Atlanta Hawks controlling owner Bruce Levenson is no Donald Sterling. Nor is his email racist. In fact, his worst crime is misguided white guilt.

I read Levenson’s email. Here’s what I concluded: Levenson is a businessman asking reasonable questions about how to put customers in seats. In the email, addressed to Hawks president Danny Ferry, Levenson wonders whether (according to his observations) the emphasis on hip-hop and gospel music and the fact that the cheerleaders are black, the bars are filled with 90% blacks, kiss cams focus on black fans and time-out contestants are always black has an effect on keeping away white fans.

Seems reasonable to ask those questions. If his arena was filled mostly with whites and he wanted to attract blacks, wouldn’t he be asking how they could de-emphasize white culture and bias toward white contestants and cheerleaders? Don’t you think every corporation in America that is trying to attract a more diverse customer base is discussing how to feature more blacks or Asians or Latinos in their TV ads?

Back when the original Law & Order first launched, there was a cast shake-up that added more women, reportedly in an effort to attract more female viewers. MTV shows like Finding Carter and Teen Wolf can’t get through an emotional scene without a pop song coming in to sing to the viewer what they should be feeling, because that’s what their demographic wants. Car companies hire specialized advertising agencies to create ads to appeal specifically to women, blacks and Latinos. That’s business.

Sure, there are a few assumptions he makes that make me cringe a little. For example: “My theory is that the black crowd scared away the whites and there are simply not enough affluent black fans to build a significant season ticket base.” On the other hand, I have no evidence that he’s wrong on either count. Even if he is, the question still needed to be raised, because racism is a realistic possibility as to why whites in Atlanta may not be coming.

To Levenson’s credit, in that same paragraph, he dismisses fans who complained about the arena’s site as code for racist fear that “there are too many blacks at the games.” He further decries the white perception that even though the percentage of blacks in attendance had lessened, they still feel it’s higher and therefore somehow threatening. His outrage seems authentic.

Businesspeople should have the right to wonder how to appeal to diverse groups in order to increase business. They should even be able to make minor insensitive gaffes if there is no obvious animosity or racist intent. This is a business email that is pretty harmless in terms of insulting anyone — and pretty fascinating in terms of seeing how the business of running a team really works.

The thing that makes me mad is that Levenson was too quick to rend his clothing and shout mea culpa. In his apology, he wrote, “By focusing on race, I also sent the unintentional and hurtful message that our white fans are more valuable than our black fans.” But that’s not the message in the email at all. If the seats had been filled, even if by all blacks, the email wouldn’t have been written. He wasn’t valuing white fans over blacks; he was trying to figure out a way to change what he thought was the white perception in Atlanta so he could sell more tickets. That’s his job.

RELATED:  Atlanta Hawks owner stepping aside over racially charged email

Illegal Immigration Activists Angry At Barack Obama For Delaying Reform Until After Midterm Elections

FOXNews.com:

Immigration-reform advocates expressed their objections Saturday to President Obama’s delaying executive action to fix U.S. immigration policy, including cries of  bitter disappointment and accusations that the president has caved to election-year politics.

“We are bitterly disappointed in the president,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the group America’s Voice. “The president and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people.”

In an interview taped for NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama rejected the charge that the delay was meant to protect Democratic candidates worried that his actions would hurt their prospects in tough Senate races.

However, Obama did concede that politics played a role, claiming that a partisan fight in July over how to address an influx of unaccompanied minors at the border had created the impression that there was an immigration crisis and thus a volatile climate for taking the measures he had promised to take.

"The truth of the matter is -- is that the politics did shift midsummer because of that problem," he said. "I want to spend some time, even as we're getting all our ducks in a row for the executive action, I also want to make sure that the public understands why we're doing this, why it's the right thing for the American people, why it's the right thing for the American economy."

However, the delay resulted in widespread reaction from across the country and the political spectrum.
Obama said June 30 that he would take matters into his own hands before the end of summer, amid the GOP-led House stalling reform legislation and thousands of unaccompanied Central American youths trying to illegally cross the southern U.S. border.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Arturo Rodriguez, United Farm Workers president. “He broke his promise to the millions of immigrants and Latinos who are looking for him to lead on this issue in the wake of Republicans’ dysfunction and obstruction.”

As the concept of coming in the right way becomes more and more lost on liberals, they just get more bold and bolder in their outright ruthlessness.

RELATED: Jorge Ramos Takes to Twitter to Slam Obama for Broken Promises on Immigration

Maine Mom Fights State Over No-Resuscitation Order

FoxNews.com:

Maine Gov. Paul LePage reversed state bureaucrats and vowed to defy a state Supreme Court court ruling if necessary to back a teen mom seeking to lift a "Do Not Resuscitate" order from her one-year-old baby, who was allegedly shaken into a coma but miraculously recovered.

The family of 1-year-old Aleah Peaslee, who was left in a coma and with possible brain damage last December after allegedly being abused by her 21-year-old father, signed a DNR order after being told her brain damage was severe. But when the tot unexpectedly regained consciousness not long after being placed in the arms of her mother, Virginia Trask, the family sought to rescind the order. State child welfare officials, who had taken temporary custody of the baby due to alleged abuse, refused, convincing an Augusta District Court judge that “neither parent can be counted on to be physically or emotionally available to make the necessary informed decision when needed.”

Now, Trask's legal team that includes advocacy groups is preparing for an appeal before nytthe Maine Supreme Judicial Court, with oral arguments set for Sept. 23. And they may not be able to lose, after LePage told FoxNews.com he will not allow state child welfare officials to usurp a parent’s rights regardless of what either court says.\

“This case is disturbing and is not reflective of my administration’s position that a parent who is the legal guardian of their child should have final say in medical decisions about life-sustaining treatment,” said LePage.

“The existing law violates the sanctity of parental rights, and I cannot support it. Unless a parent is deemed unfit and parental rights are severed, the state should not override a parent’s right to make medical decisions for their own child.”

RELATED:  Hey New York Times, Quit Offending Women by Calling Abortion “Miscarriage”

Federal Judge in Louisiana Rules State Has Right to Ban Same-Sex Marriages

WaPo.com:

A federal judge in Louisiana bucked a national trend and ruled Wednesday that the state has the right to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

The decision by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman is the first in which a federal district judge has upheld a state ban since the Supreme Court knocked down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013. 

“It would no doubt be celebrated to be in the company of the near-unanimity of the many other federal courts that have spoken to this pressing issue, if this court were confident in the belief that those cases provide a correct guide,” Feldman wrote. “Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of this court is but one studied decision among many.”

More than 20 federal courts have ruled in favor of advocates of same-sex marriage. Panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th and 4th circuits are the highest courts to strike down state bans, in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia. 

Both the winning and losing sides in those appellate cases have asked the Supreme Court to rule definitively on whether the U.S. Constitution extends the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples. The justices could make a decision on whether to accept the cases as early as this month.

Good for Feldman to not only correctly apply the Constitutions to this matter, but to defy Godless white liberals and now force King Anthony Kennedy to rule on "gay marriage" and put an end to the issue once and for all.

RELATED:  Federal judge: Louisiana’s law banning gay marriage is constitutional

S.E. Cupp: Telling Celebrities To Not Post Nude Pictures Online Is Not 'Victim Blaming' But Common Sense

NYDailyNews.com:

After stars like Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Ariana Grande were quite literally exposed on Sunday by hackers who found and then publicly posted hundreds of nude photos from iCloud, a pseudo-intellectual debate of sorts emerged (where else?) online over who is to blame for such an outrageous injustice.

This elaborate blame game shifts responsibility from an obvious fact: It just isn’t wise to keep nude photos of yourself on the cloud if you don’t want them made public.

No, I’m not excusing the hackers, who of course ought to pay for their crimes. Nor am I trying to stifle the right of women to express themselves sexually. I am simply stating what, to most of rational America, is already obvious.

To make this assertion, however, is a profound affront to the self-appointed defenders of things that don’t need defending.

Things like Hollywood celebrities, whose lawyers — believe me — are on top of this.

And things like privacy, which also already has its skilled protectors. Hacking into someone’s computer, stealing passwords and photos and then posting them (celebrity or not) is already very much illegal, as it should be.

Also things like feminism, which is invoked here for I’m not sure what reason, but presumably because the story involves women who are naked. And for some, that tenuous connection really is enough.

Yet these defenders of the well-defended are downright indignant that you would dare to suggest a simple solution, as if posing for nude pictures is not only the right of every celebrity (who looks as good as Kate Upton does) but nothing short of a feminist statement.

Megan Gibson of Time: “If your reaction to the hack attack on celebrities is to blame them for taking nude photos,” she threatens, “you’re pointing the finger at the wrong person.”

The right person, according to her? The hackers. As I mentioned, reasonable people have already decided that what the hackers did is illegal.

I’ve not read anywhere in the vast repository that is the Internet a single instance of the hackers being defended. So, thank you for correctly identifying the culprit that everyone else has already identified. 

The other group deserving of blame, she says? “A culture that nurtures this kind of misogynist attack.” And by “culture,” she means you, for suggesting celebrities be a little more careful when posing nude for photographs.

------------------------

The response to rational people like Gervais, in addition to accusing them of slut-shaming and victim-blaming, is to liken the photos to other everyday things we use and don’t want stolen.

“Make it harder for hackers to steal your credit card # by not owning a credit card #rickygervaislogic” wrote Professor Mary Anne Franks (@ma_franks) on Twitter.

Um, no. This is the flawed logic of people who can see victims in everything, and yet to whom common sense remains an invisible, elusive mythology.

For one, unless we are fugitives, we must use credit cards. We do not yet live in a world where we must take nude photos (though I’m sure we would if Lena Dunham had her way).

For another, owning things that are valuable, like flashy cars, expensive jewelry or photos of naked celebrities, does actually make you more susceptible to theft. This is not victim-blaming but a fact, and people who own these things know this.

Just as it is rational and reasonable to suggest protecting your credit cards and expensive things from fraud and theft, it is rational and reasonable to suggest the same of your nude photos.

Rational people actually do suggest you don’t use credit cards in places like Internet cafes or public Wi-Fi spaces where stealing them is easier, just as rational people like Gervais suggest you don’t keep nude photos on your computer, where stealing them is easier.

I’m very sorry we don’t live in a world where celebrity nude photos are unhackable. But until we have technology that is 100% impenetrable, doesn’t it only make sense to say that if you don’t want your nude photos stolen, don’t take nude photos with technology that makes their dissemination easy or store them on technology that can be hacked?

Apparently the truth is misogynistic.

Funny when radical feminist journalists point to lowlife hypocrites like Lena Durham for sage wisdom and advice. I don't often agree with S.E. Cupp, but she makes total sense here.

RELATED: The obligatory “celebrity nudes hacked” post

Sign Petition To Keep Murderer/Rapist Vanessa Coleman In Prison

Change.org:

On the evening of January 6, 2007, Christopher Newsom and his girlfriend Channon Christian made dinner plans and then were to go to a friend’s house to watch a movie. They would never be seen alive again. Now one of their killers is eligible for parole.

When Chris went to pick Channon up at a friend’s apartment complex, they were carjacked by multiple assailants. What followed was one of the most heinous, gruesome, and senseless crimes in Tennessee history. The couple were taken to a house in East Knoxville and held against their will where they were brutally tortured and raped for hours.

The details of their torture are so graphic and heartbreaking that I won’t go into much detail beyond this: After being tortured, Christopher Newsom was killed execution style by multiple gunshots before his attackers poured gasoline on his body and set him on fire. Channon Christian had bleach poured down her throat and on her body before being wrapped in plastic bags and placed in a garbage can in the kitchen of the house—all of this while she was still alive.  Her last minutes on earth were spent slowly suffocating in a garbage can.

The five people responsible for these heinous crimes are: Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Vanessa Coleman and Eric Boyd. Boyd was given 18 years and the others will likely remain behind bars for the rest of their lives but incredibly, Vanessa Coleman had her sentence reduced by a third after a retrial and is set to go before the Tennessee Board of Paroles in early December, 2014. 

Vanessa Coleman went into prison with a 35 year sentence. However, due to prison overcrowding she has to serve only 30% of her sentence before being eligible for a parole hearing. In addition to her sentence being effectively reduced by 70% she has been accumulating additional time toward an early release, up to a possible 192 days per year for good behavior.

During the course of Coleman's trial evidence was presented from her diary entry dated 3 days after the murder. For her part in the torture, rape, and murders she wrote: “I’ve had one HELL OF AN ADVENTURE since I’ve been in the big TN. It’s a crazy world these days! But I love the fun adventures and lessons that I’ve learned. Its going to be a long interesting year! Ha! Ha!”

Please sign this petition and help the families of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian keep Vanessa Coleman, Offender #473393 in prison for as long as possible.

The race hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Eric Holder and Marc Lamont Hill, et al, who don't believe in personal responsibility and believe that due to racism black people should always get free passes when they commit crimes, will surely want to see Vanessa Coleman freed, but you can make a difference so that doesn't happen anytime soon by signing the petition.

RELATED: Vanessa Coleman's parole hearing rescheduled