Chris Christie Speech @ Iowa Freedom Summit

RELATED: Chris Christie tackles his problem with conservative voters

Justice Anthony Kennedy To Decide on Gay Marriage In April

TheDailyBeast.com:

The other shoe has dropped for same-sex marriage.

The first hit the floor last November, when the Sixth Circuit upheld the “traditional marriage” restrictions in four states, thus creating a split among the federal circuits.

This was exactly what was not present a month earlier, when the Supreme Court let stand lower courts’ rulings on the same issue. Back then, Justice Ginsberg said, “there is no need to rush.”

But once the Sixth Circuit diverged from the opinions of the 4^th, 7^th, 9^th, and 10^th, such a need arose—if not to rush, then at least to decide the matter, perhaps once and for all.

That need was answered today, as the Supreme Court agreed to take up four cases (now consolidated into one) challenging state marriage bans. Oral argument will be in April and May, and the decision likely rendered in June.

For now, let the tea-leaf-reading begin.

On the one hand, same sex marriage has been described as “inevitable” by many august legal pundits (including this one). It is legal in 35 states plus the District of Columbia, with nine more states in the appeals process, and four now at the Supreme Court Bar. That’s just about everywhere.

Heck, even conservatives have grudgingly come around.  Several of the recent judicial opinions upholding marriage equality have been written by conservative judges.

Republicans including George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Laura Bush are on board. Even Christian Right poster boy Kirk Cameron said Christians should blame themselves, not others, for the “decay” in marriage—an analysis borne out by economic data.

On the other hand, there are several signs that indicate this may turn into yet another partisan battle, with Justice Kennedy deciding once again.

First, Justice Thomas said in an official statement that he would’ve liked the Court to take up the marriage cases last fall. “For reasons that escape me,” he said, “we have not done so.” No matter how inevitable same-sex marriage may seem, ultimately the decision will come down to these nine judges.

Second, the Court has bifurcated the current appeal into two distinct questions: first, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and second, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

These are legitimately distinct legal questions. Yet if we are looking for signs and portents, the fact that the Court has so clearly teased them apart indicates that it might rule one way on the former question, another way on the latter. That kind of “split the baby” reasoning would be of a piece with the current court’s judicial conservatism—especially that of Justice Kennedy himself.

Third, and most importantly, the actual holding in Windsor—the case that invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act and got the ball rolling on same sex marriage—was actually far more narrowly written than the way it has been construed by lower courts. Although the precise connection between the two arguments of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was not entirely clear—indeed, Justice Scalia called it “argle bargle”—the fact is that federalism (and the traditional role of the states in defining the ambit of marriage) had as much to do with the result as did the Fourteenth Amendment.

Subsequent judicial opinions have largely ignored this point, focusing instead on Justice Kennedy’s holding that there was no rational basis for DOMA’s discriminatory measures. And if there’s no rational basis for DOMA, there’s no rational basis for state laws either.

To be sure, the Sixth Circuit, now under review, provided not one but a half dozen such bases. And here are those bases: Allowing the democratic process to proceed, that state marriage laws are not a federal question at all, constitutional originalism, natural law, multiple motivations for anti-gay laws, gay people are not a ‘discrete and insular’ class, and that the meaning of marriage only evolves when the majority says it does.

But with concerns of federalism cutting the other way—that is, in favor of allowing state definitions to stand—perhaps a more important question is whether that’s the right standard of review at all.

I mean, let's be honest...it's really going to come down to what one guy thinks. 

RELATED: The Supreme Court’s possible gay marriage gift to the GOP in 2016

Nate Silver: Chris Christie Is Too Moderate To Win GOP Nomination

Townhall.com:

For all you Christie detractors, you will probably enjoy the news from pollster/data cruncher Nate Silver, who suggested that the New Jersey Republican is too moderate to win the GOP nomination. Jeb Bush is more conservative than Christie, and Silver is skeptical that Mr. Christie could be successful in the invisible primary; “a tumultuous time of speechmaking, fundraising, coalition-building and constant travel, as they seek to boost their name recognition, stand out from the field, and secure the GOP nomination once the voting begins,” according to the Columbia Journalism Review. 

Which GOP Candidate is right for you? Take the quiz!
With other big names, like Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush mulling presidential runs of their own, it seems hard for Christie to stand out. He survived the insanely ludicrous media circus over the so-called “bridgegate,” but his national approval ratings have dipped; he’s pretty much where every other possible GOP candidate is in the polls concerning a theoretical head-to-head match-up with Clinton. 

While Silver mentions that Christie isn’t totally damaged goods, he also noted that the governor’s dip in his favorability ratings undercuts the electability narrative he could use to sell to voters, who might otherwise reject him for his moderate stripes (via FiveThirtyEight):

Christie, however, ranks to the left of Bush by the statistical systems that measure candidate ideology. 

Indeed, Christie takes moderate positions on the very issues where Bush notoriously deviates from the party base — such as immigration and education — along with others where Bush lands in the GOP mainstream, like on gun control. (Christie has a C grade from the National Rifle Association.) Any voter who opposes Bush for ideological reasons probably won’t find a lot to like in Christie either.

He probably lacks the discipline to win the “invisible primary.” The candidates who survive the early stage of the invisible primary tend to be those who avoid making news when they don’t need to. Donors and other influential Republicans won’t want to nominate a candidate who will risk blowing a general election because of a gaffe or scandal that hits at the wrong time.

Christie’s transgressions against Republican orthodoxy and tendency to make the wrong kind of news can amplify one another. If Christie were seen as a staunch conservative, Republicans might be more inclined to rally around him and critique the “liberal media” for persecuting him. But Christie has not always been a team player for the GOP. His speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention seemed to go out of its way to avoid praising Romney. And Christie’s embrace of President Obama as the two toured seaside communities hit hard by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 also rankled many in the GOP.

RELATED:  The cost of Chris Christie's devotion to Dallas

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

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

Mike Huckabee: I’ll Leave GOP Over Gay Marriage Issue

Townhall.com:

To former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, faith absolutely trumps politics, so much so that he has no reservations about casting off the R beside his name if the GOP abandons its opposition to same-sex marriage. 

“If the Republicans want to lose guys like me — and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people — go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and why you’re at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either,” Huckabee said on the American Family Association’s radio show this week during a discussion on gay marriage. 

“Because at that point, you lose me,” he continued. “I’m gone. I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”

Huckabee’s comments came after the Supreme Court announced earlier this week that they will not take up gay marriage, thereby clearing the way for same-sex marriages in Wisconsin, Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, and Indiana. This, of course, provides an opportunity for some GOP candidates who wish to avoid the issue to do just that:

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday clearing the way for same-sex marriages in five states may benefit an unlikely group: Republican lawmakers who can’t wait to stop talking about gay marriage, an issue that is increasingly becoming a drag for the party.

Advisors to multiple likely 2016 candidates told TIME after the news broke that they are hopeful that swift action by the Supreme Court will provide them cover. “We don’t have to agree with the decision, but as long as we’re not against it we should be okay,” said one aide to a 2016 contender who declined to be named to speak candidly on the sensitive topic. “The base, meanwhile, will focus its anger on the Court, and not on us.”

“I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans who have abdicated on this issue when, if they continue this direction they guarantee they’re gonna lose every election in the future,” Huckabee said. “Guarantee it.”

“And I don’t understand why they want to lose,” he continued. “Because a lot of Republicans, particularly in the establishment and those who live on either the left coast or those who live up in the bubbles of New York and Washington, are convinced that if we don’t capitulate on the same sex marriage issue and if we don’t raise the white flag of surrender, and just accept it as inevitable, we’ll be losers.”

“I tell you,” he said. “It’s the absolute opposite of that.”

Taking a social conservative stand, how rare is that these days?

RELATED:  Supreme Court gives green light to Idaho gay marriages

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

Charles Krauthammer: Obama's Criticism of House Immigration Bill 'Ridiculous'

FOXNews.com:

Charles Krauthammer said Friday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that President Obama's criticism of the House over its failure to pass an immigration bill was "ridiculous," as he was mocking Republican lawmakers for something Democrats are also guilty of. 

Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said that if Obama is going to criticize the House for passing a border crisis bill they know the president will veto, he also has to criticize Senate Democrats when they pass legislation the House won't accept. 

"Is that a criterion that would determine what a House or Senate is going to do, whether the other guys are going to accept it? It's ridiculous," he said. 

Krauthammer suggested that the best course for both the Senate and the House would be to pursue a combination of amnesty and enforcement.

"Of the 11 million, ultimately, I would say, we're going to have to give them residence here, in a generous rate.  We're not going to deport them," he said. "But I think we're going to have to promise the American people...this is the last 11 million. I guarantee you that if Americans believed that there will be enforcement, and this is the last cohort of illegals to be legalized, you would get 80 percent support for that duel approach."

RELATED:  House passes two Republican measures in response to surge of child migrants

The "Heartland" Canard: Smearing Republicans On Immigration

NationalReview.com:

The heartlessness and nativist pandering that have broken America’s immigration system must give way to providing proper food, clothing, shelter and medical care to the Central American children streaming into the country.” So pronounced the editors of the New York Daily News. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne echoed the theme in his “Bordering on Heartless” column, noting that Glenn Beck has “come under fierce attack” for his proposal to bring food, water, teddy bears, and soccer balls to the children stuck at the border. “It’s one more sign,” Dionne writes, “of how the crisis at our border has brought out the very worst in our political system and a degree of plain nastiness that we should not be proud of as a nation.”

Charges of Republican or conservative heartlessness about the children flooding the border have been common. Some journalists seemingly cannot type the word “Republican” without the modifier “heartless.” But where is the evidence of this supposed callousness and why is it any greater among Republicans than Democrats?

The flag-waving protesters who confronted buses of children in Murietta, Calif., were unseemly. Whatever the merits of arguments over illegal immigration, children are clearly helpless pawns in the drama and should not be subjected to protests about actions over which they have no control.

But other than the protesters in Murietta — and no one has polled them to discover their political views, though it’s likely that they’re conservatives — by what standard are Republicans held to be heartless while Democrats are not?

Is it by arguing that the new illegal migrants be denied legal status? Jeh Johnson, the Obama administration’s secretary of Homeland Security, said just that. “Those who cross borders today illegally, including children, are not eligible for an earned path to citizenship.”

One can make a case that those Democrats who virtually invited a flood of underage migrants to our shores are more culpable for the humanitarian emergency than those who simply reacted once it was underway. The president’s unilateral granting of legal status to the children of illegal immigrants together with the 2008 law providing special treatment for children thought to be victims of trafficking sent a signal that was received and then amplified throughout Central America. The Department of Homeland Security seemed to know in advance that the deluge was coming: In January of 2014, it advertised for contractors to help with the “resettlement” of up to 65,000 underage migrants. Texas governor Rick Perry says that he warned the administration about the influx but got the impression that “they weren’t that interested.”

Or perhaps the president anticipated the flood but miscalculated its political effects, just as he misjudged the way the Bowe Bergdahl swap would be received. He may have thought that thousands of children crossing our borders would pressure Congress to pass the kind of immigration reform he favors. When it turned out differently, he resorted to partisan sniping. No crisis will “go to waste” — including those he creates himself.

This president engages in schoolyard taunts, calling Republican budget proposals, for example, a “meanwich” and a “stinkburger.” It’s hard to be a leader of all the people when you never rise above partisan hackery.

E. J. Dionne, like the president, thinks Republicans are cruel, but as he acknowledged, unless you are prepared to permit unlimited immigration, you must make “agonizing choices about whom to let in and whom to turn away.” Yes, the circumstances from which these unaccompanied children fled are terrible. But so are the home situations for many of the 4.5 million people worldwide currently waiting, legally, for visas to enter the United States. And while Central America is poor, corrupt, and crime-ridden, it cannot be the case that those conditions alone guarantee entry into the U.S. Most countries on earth meet those criteria.

Second to the human suffering, the most dismaying aspect of this border situation is that — unlike, say, the mortgage-finance issue — it’s a relatively straightforward problem. Congress could repeal the Wilberforce Act and provide funding for housing, feeding, and deporting the children who’ve crossed the border in the past several months. Private organizations could contribute time and money toward making the children comfortable and arranging for their safe return. The president could state unequivocally (with special messages targeted at Central America) that illegal migrants who arrive at our borders will be treated humanely but deported.

This won’t happen not because Republicans are meanies, but because the president’s unremitting partisanship and small-mindedness have left him unable to do even the easy things.

RELATED:  D’Souza: Obama Wants Border Chaos, Can ‘Prey’ on the American People’s Guilt

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/6/14

Boehner: Why We Must Now Sue The President

States Look To Gun Seizure Law After Mass Killings

Grand Dragon Al Sharpton and MSNBC's Black Klux Klan 

Will Megyn Kelly Help Bring Ayers To Justice? 

Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3%

Sheriffs Refusing to Put Hold On Immigrant Inmates for Feds

Video: Cop Repeatedly Beats Woman in the Head

Author: Machines Will Take Over, Humans Will be Cyborgs by 2100

Ten Reasons Women Are Losing While Gays Keep Winning

Newspaper Apologizes For 2008 Obama Endorsement

First Lady Bucks GOP On School Lunch Rules

Obama’s Irresponsible Taunt: President Increasingly Willing To Go At It Alone

Rep. Lenar Whitney Proves That Global Warming Is A Hoax

Mediaite.com:

Republican congressional candidate and Louisiana state representative Lenar Whitney put out an ad just a few days ago really going off on global warming, accusing liberals (and Al Gore in particular) of perpetuating a hoax. She declares, “A specter is haunting America. It is perhaps the greatest deception in the history of mankind.”

Whitney claims the earth has gotten colder every year for the past few years and went after the Obama administration for claiming the opposite. She points to the decrease in global storms and the infamous “Climategate” case to dismiss global warming as a huge hoax.

She says that pushing the global warming “ruse” has had a “devastating effect” on America, and the U.S. push to do something about it is all about giving the executive branch more power and giving liberals the gift of regulating every aspect of American life.

RELATED: To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

Politiks As Usual: In The News 6/29/14

Supreme Court Narrows Obama’s Recess-Appointment Power

Same Sex Marriage: Big Government Power Grab

Appeals Court Orders Atheists to Justify Lawsuit Against 9/11 Cross

Reince Priebus: People Tired of the Clintons' Show

Give It Back! Students Ask Selfish Hillary to Return $225K Speaking Fee

Al Gore Denounced in Australian Press as Money Hungry 'Ferengi' for Suspicious Mining Magnate Alliance

Pastors Rise Up To Challenge Same-sex Bathrooms

MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry: GOP Wants To 'Humble' 'Uppity' Obama

Soros Offered Ex-Girlfriend $6.9 Million Settlement

Egos And Infighting: The GOP’s Biggest Opponent In November

John Boehner Announces Plans To Sue Barack Obama

CBSNews.com:

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced Wednesday that he's pushing the House of Representatives to sue President Obama "in an effort to compel the president to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country." 

He did not say which specific laws the suit will say the president has not enforced, although he wrote in a letter addressed to his House colleagues that Mr. Obama has "run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators" on issues ranging from health care, to energy, to foreign policy and education.

"On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce - at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him," Boehner said. 

He warned that allowing the pattern to continue unchecked " shifts the balance of power decisively and dangerously in favor of the presidency, giving the president king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators." 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that the president had taken action consistent with this executive authority because of Republican opposition. Now, he said, they have "shifted their opposition into a higher gear."  

RELATED: Obama: Boehner Wants to Sue Me for ‘Doing My Job’

IRS Has 'Lost' Two Years of Lois Lerner's Emails

Townhall.com:

According to the House Ways and Means Committee, the IRS has "lost" two years of emails belonging to former head of tax exempt organizations Lois Lerner. The IRS doesn't have a record of her emails to outside groups or government agencies from January 2009 through April 2011, conveniently encompassing some of the same time when tea party groups were being targeted for extra scrutiny and possible criminal prosecution. The IRS says the loss of emails is due to a "computer crash" and claims emails from or to Lerner from the White House, Democratic members of Congress, the Treasury Department, FEC and Department of Justice cannot be located. They do however have emails belonging to Lerner that she sent to other IRS employees. 

“The fact that I am just learning about this, over a year into the investigation, is completely unacceptable and now calls into question the credibility of the IRS’s response to Congressional inquiries. There needs to be an immediate investigation and forensic audit by Department of Justice as well as the Inspector General," Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp said in a statement. “Just a short time ago, Commissioner Koskinen promised to produce all Lerner documents. It appears now that was an empty promise. Frankly, these are the critical years of the targeting of conservative groups that could explain who knew what when, and what, if any, coordination there was between agencies. Instead, because of this loss of documents, we are conveniently left to believe that Lois Lerner acted alone. This failure of the IRS requires the White House, which promised to get to the bottom of this, to do an Administration-wide search and production of any emails to or from Lois Lerner. The Administration has repeatedly referred us back to the IRS for production of materials. It is clear that is wholly insufficient when it comes to determining the full scope of the violation of taxpayer rights.” 

Emails belonging to Lerner that were not "lost" have shown that she was in contact with Democratic members of Congress and the Department of Justice about prosecuting tea party groups. Just this week, emails surfaced showing Lerner sent confidential tax information belonging to conservative groups to the FBI for investigation just before the 2010 midterm elections. 

According to Camp, this is the first time the IRS has disclosed the loss of emails since the investigation into IRS targeting of conservatives started more than a year ago. 

UPDATE: Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa responds:

“Isn’t it convenient for the Obama Administration that the IRS now says it has suddenly realized it lost Lois Lerner’s emails requested by Congress and promised by Commissioner John Koskinen? Do they really expect the American people to believe that, after having withheld these emails for a year, they're just now realizing the most critical time period is missing? Congressional oversight has revealed that the IRS has –potentially illegally– shared confidential taxpayer information with the FBI and lost crucial email records even as the agency continues to withhold information by not fully complying with the Committee’s subpoena. Left to the IRS’ own preferences, the White House would still be retelling the lie that this was all about mismanagement confined to a local office. The supposed loss of Lerner’s emails further blows a hole in the credibility of claims that the IRS is complying with Congressional requests and their repeated assurances that they’re working to get to the truth. If there wasn't nefarious conduct that went much higher than Lois Lerner in the IRS targeting scandal, why are they playing these games?"

RELATED:  IRS Sent FBI Database on Nonprofit Groups in 2010, GOP Lawmakers Say

"Establishment" GOP Takes Tougher Stance Towards Tea Party

When it comes to winning the job on dividing and conquering Republicans, liberals must laugh till they sleep:

That 2014 has been the year that the establishment struck back — preparing and financing its candidates with a new determination and focus — is evident in its success.

That may prove to have been the easy part. Republicans on both sides of the internal divide are now looking at the impact the primary season will have on politics and governance as the party seeks to build on its House majority and take control of the Senate this year and win back the White House in 2016.

Emboldened by their success, establishment Republicans are using tough language about the party’s more conservative groups. They are suggesting that the federal government shutdown last fall — led by hard-liners like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas — and this year’s primary results have staggered the organizations claiming the Tea Party mantle.

“This is a bunch of out-of-state political gunslingers who have crowned themselves as the leaders of Tea Party Republicanism and are raising money in the name of a more conservative party and spending it all attacking Republicans,” former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi said in an interview at the meeting here.

“If in 2016 we don’t have these people raising millions of Republican dollars and using it to attack Republicans, then we’ll be stronger against the Democrats for president and for keeping the House and for hopefully keeping the Senate,” said Mr. Barbour, who was one of the few speakers at the meeting to urge party unity.

The most significant effect of the party turnabout could take place well before 2016, though. If Republicans now in office conclude that Tea Party pressure is no longer a political threat, they may be more willing to face down the right on issues like an overhaul of immigration laws.

“If the threats are toothless, then the scorecards are meaningless,” said Mr. Barbour, referring to the closely watched voter guides issued by many conservative groups.

Scott Reed, a political strategist for the newly aggressive U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that such ratings now amount to “hollow threats” and that the success of the party’s mainstream wing would give Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio some room to maneuver in the House.

“If Speaker Boehner increases his margins, he’ll have a more manageable caucus, and governing will be back front and center,” Mr. Reed said.

RELATED: Dr. Ben Carson Has Some Advice for Conservatives: ‘We Can Be Purists and Never Get Into Office, or We Can Be Pragmatic’