*VIDEOS* Rand Paul Verbally Bitchslaps Democrats Over Persecution Of Apple Executives

.

The difference between a hooker and a politician?

The hooker will at least let you screw her after she gets your money, politicians just screw you after TAKING your money!

I seem to remember some politicians promising us that newly legalized immigrants would not be able to receive welfare benefits. I must have been mistaken, seeing that a Senate panel just approved welfare payments for those they want to legalize. But on the bright side, if any of the formerly illegal aliens is convicted of drunk driving three times they can be deported. (Not that this administration would do so. They regularly ignore laws, or parts of laws, that don’t jibe with their agenda.)

The SenateJudiciary Committee voted Monday to allow illegal immigrants who get legal status to begin collecting tax-welfare payments, as the panel spent a fourth day working through amendments to the massive immigration bill and party-line splits began to emerge.

In one major change, the committee voted 17-1 to make a third drunken-driving conviction a deportable offense for the newly legalized immigrants if at least one of those offenses occurs after they are approved for legal status….

Overall, the committee continued to maintain the delicate balance struck by the “Gang of Eight” senators who negotiated the 867-page bill: Quick legal status for illegal immigrants, but delaying citizenship rights until after the administration spends more money on border security, puts in place a new electronic verification system to check workers’ status, and enacts an entry-exit system to check visas at airports and seaports.

In previous days’ action, two Republican members of the Gang of Eight — Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — joined with Democrats to block a series of GOP amendments to stiffen the bill’s security.

Any Republican that works with Democrats on this is a fool. The Democrats intend one thing. To get more Democratic voters into the nation. And what better way than to make government benefits available to these new immigrants. And while I know that these immigrants will not be able to vote, legally, I wonder something. If they do not have to show ID, because that would be RAAAAACIST, well, what is there to stop them from voting. And what is to stop Democrats from trying to grant them the right to vote? Patriotism? Yeah, that is a good one.

Lastly, anyone with any common sense knows that no immigration reform will ever work unless the border is secured FIRST! And we already know the Congress has no real interest in doing that. Any plan passed now will only further bloat our national debt, empower Democrats, and further weaken our national sovereignty. And if you disagree then you are a Tea Partier who wears fur and shows ID when you vote.

Senate Democrats Block Rand Paul’s Resolution Condemning The IRS

Senate Democrats Block Rand Paul’s Resolution Condemning The IRS – Red Alert Politics

Senate Democrats have decided that holding the Internal Revenue Service accountable is not a priority right now.

.
……….

On Tuesday the Democratic leadership in the chamber blocked a resolution by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to investigate the federal agency and fire all people responsible for improperly targeting conservative organizations.

“President Obama should terminate the individuals responsible for targeting and willfully discriminating against Tea Party groups and other conservative groups,” the resolution states.

His resolution also demanded an investigation “to determine if other entities in the administration of President Obama were involved in or were aware of the discrimination and did not take action to stop the actions of the Internal Revenue Service.”

The freshman senator asserted that he introduced the legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of the American people, and not to drive attention to the partisan nature of the scandal.

“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal,” Paul said in a statement. “It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power.”

“Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights,” he continued. “I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”

While Paul is personally a member of the Tea Party movement, he had previously acknowledged that he was offended by the IRS’s actions.

“I’m offended when any kind of government entity targets people for their political or religious beliefs,” Paul said at an Iowa GOP fundraiser, “so it’s, you know, particularly offensive, since I’m one of the groups they were targeting. They didn’t audit me personally, but, you know, government should never be used to bully people.”

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Leftards Caught On Tape: NJ Democrats Chatter About Guns, “Confiscate. Confiscate. Confiscate” (Video)

Caught On Tape: NJ Democrats On Guns, “Confiscate. Confiscate. Confiscate” (Video) – Gateway Pundit

Democrats are too afraid to admit it in public. But they want your guns.

…And they’ll admit it when they think the cameras are off.

New Jersey Democrats were caught on tape recently after a session on guns, “Confiscate. Confiscate. Confiscate!”

.

.
Guns Saves Lives has the transcript:

BREAKING: NJ State Senators Caught on Open Mic Saying They Need a Bill to CONFISCATE Guns.. You will need to turn speakers way up around the 0:15 mark to hear as they aren’t speaking directly into the mic. In the above vido we hear remarks by several NJ State Senators talking about guns after a session had ended.

We can assume they didn’t know the mic was still recording.

The discussion is as follows:

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

“They [gun owners] want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.”

“They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

“That’s the line they’ve developed.”

These same Democrats passed 22 gun control bills on Thursday.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Congressional Democrats: Climate Change Could Turn Women Into Hookers

Dem Resolution Warns Climate Change Could Push Women To ‘Transactional Sex’ – The Hill

Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.

.

The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.

“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.

Climate change could also add “workload and stresses” on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.

The chances for regional conflict also increase with climate change, the resolution says, because changing weather patterns could lead to migration and refugee crises. It said these sorts of potential conflicts over land will have a disproportionate impact on “the most vulnerable populations including women.”

More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt “marginalized” women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV. It also cites Hurricane Katrina as evidence of how climate change can affect women, noting that the storm displaced “over 83 percent of low-income, single mothers” in the region.

In a statement to The Hill, Lee said women are critically underrepresented in the development of climate change policy.

“My resolution will affirm the commitment to include and empower women in economic development planning and international climate change policies and practices,” she said. “This will help communities adapt to climate impacts, and embark on a path towards clean and sustainable development.”

The resolution calls on Congress to recognize the effects on women, and to use “gender-specific frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”

It says Congress recognizes the need for “balanced participation of men and women” in climate change adaption efforts, and that Congress will support women who are vulnerable to climate change.

Finally, it encourages the president to “integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs” related to climate change, and to ensure these policies “support women globally to prepare for, build resilience for, and adapt to climate change.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Senate Republicans Push Back Against Democrats Who Want To Exempt Themselves From ObamaCare

Republican Senators Reject Idea Of Lawmaker Exemption From Obamacare – Daily Caller

Republican senators pushed back on the idea that Congress ought to receive an exemption from the health-care exchanges required under Obamacare, after Politico reported Thursday that leaders from both parties had been involved in negotiations to do just that for aides and lawmakers.

.

The report says that lawmakers are concerned that if aides’ health insurance premiums are not subsidized by their employer, the federal government, they could see those costs skyrocket to levels they might not be able to pay. It is not clear if under Obamacare, the federal government would be able to do so.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina issued a terse an disapproving statement.

Obamacare is a train wreck. Congress shouldn’t be able to get out of Obamacare until everyone else does,” he said.

“I voted against imposing the new health-care law on America, but I don’t think Congress ought to be treated any differently than the rest of the country,” said Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee in a statement emailed to The Daily Caller.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a freshman Republican from Texas who has been adamant about the need to repeal the health-care law in full, wrote on Twitter that the whole country should be getting an exemption, not just Congress.

“Rather than exempt Congress from Obamacare, we ought to work on permanently exempting all of America w/ a #FullRepeal,” he tweeted Thursday morning.

Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia had a similar take.

“I am strongly opposed to any effort to exempt Congress from the ObamaCare exchanges. I have consistently called for the full repeal of ObamaCare, but as long as it is the law of the land, Congress must be subject to it,” he said in a statement.

“It’s encouraging to see that Democrats in Congress are having second thoughts about their health care law, now that its disastrous consequences are hitting close to home. I hope Democrats will now come to the table and work with us to spare all Americans from skyrocketing health insurance premiums and the rest of ObamaCare’s taxes and mandates,” he added.

“All Americans ought to be exempt from the onerous and costly provisions of Obamacare, not just a select few,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas in a statement emailed to TheDC. “The only way to remedy this is to repeal the bill in its entirety.”

Adam Jentleson, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, sent a number of tweets Thursday morning pushing back on the idea that lawmakers were trying to exempt themselves from Obamacare.

Jentleson tweeted a piece by Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein entitled “No, Congress isn’t trying to exempt itself from Obamacare” multiple times, writing in one tweet: “Before freaking out about a certain Politico story, please read.”

“[N]o one is discussing ‘exempting’ congressional staffers from Obamacare,” Klein wrote. “They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.”

Reid put out a statement Thursday flatly denying that there had been any such discussions.

“Senator Reid is committed to ensuring that all members of Congress and Congressional staff experience the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in exactly the same way as every other American,” said Jentleson in the statement. “He believes that this is the effect of the legislation as written, and that therefore no legislative fix is necessary. There are not now, have never been, nor will there ever be any discussions about exempting members of Congress or Congressional staff from Affordable Care Act provisions that apply to any employees of any other public or private employer offering health care.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday morning during a press conference that she had been “in close contact with Mr. [House Minority Whip Steny] Hoyer as he was in any of these conversations.” Politico reported that Hoyer was involved in the conversations.

Pelosi added that she did not, however, feel that different members of Congress and aides should be treated differently under Obamacare – a fact that was highlighted in the Politico story. Under the law, committee staffers would not be required to get health care through the exchanges, while staffers in lawmakers’ offices would.

“I think that whatever the outcome is, people have to be treated the same,” Pelosi said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Gun-Grabbing Democrats’ Latest Gambit: Mandatory Liability Insurance

Gun Grabbers’ Latest Gambit – Pajamas Media

On Tuesday, I came across the following at the Daily Caller: “A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.”

Gun purchasers without such insurance would face a fine of “as much as $10,000″ if the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” introduced in March by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and seven other Democratic congressmen were ever to become law.

.

The draft legislation prohibits the sale of a firearm unless “the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.” Said insurance policy must specifically cover “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” The plaintiffs’ bar will almost certainly begin to argue in court cases that if your gun was stolen and used in a crime, you’re now liable for the results of its use (you’re still its owner, even if you don’t possess it).

In preparing this column, I spoke with an insurance agent who represents one of the country’s leading property and casualty companies. He told me that a typical umbrella liability policy does not directly deal with gun-related matters, and that applications for such policies do not ask if the applicant or others in the household own a gun. That is to say, the policies Maloney envisions are currently very rare, though my contact did tell me that there are insurance companies which can customize a policy to a specific matter such as gun liability on a case by case basis.

So if you were an underwriter attempting to formulate a policy and pricing structure for an individual gun liability policy, what kinds of information would you need to protect your company from financially crippling losses and to appropriately price the risks involved? Here are just a few of the items I believe you would need to know:

* The applicant’s age and gender. Logically, one would expect that younger men would face higher premiums than older women.

* The criminal history of the applicant and others in their household. Obviously, the worse those histories are, the higher the premiums.

* The applicant’s driving record, as an indicator of his or her standard of care. Again, the worse it is, the higher the premium.

* Where the applicant lives. Living in a dangerous neighborhood would drive a higher premium.

* How many guns the applicant owns. More guns owned would mean higher premiums.

* What type of guns the applicant has. As is the case with cars, certain makes and models are more often involved in accidents and crimes than others.

* Last but certainly not least, the serial numbers of those guns, so that the insurance company can verify that a gun owned by the applicant really was involved in whatever incident generates a claim.

In other words, Maloney’s bill represents the beginning of a mandated national gun registry run (for now) by the insurance industry. (Several people have told that they they do not insure their guns under property policies because insurance companies – properly but nevertheless dangerously – insist on obtaining specific information about guns owned.)

As drafted, Maloney’s baloney only applies to post-passage purchases. As such, the de facto registration requirement and the cost of the insurance itself – an Illinois legislator estimated that such a policy would cost between $500 to $2,000 per year – will significantly deter new purchases, which is of course what the bill’s sponsors want. It’s likely that the volume of legally recorded purchases will decline significantly. Many citizens who legitimately need to protect themselves, either because of personal circumstances, the crime-infested neighborhoods in which they live, or both, won’t be able to arm themselves. Criminals will know that, and target their activities accordingly.

Anyone who believes that the bill’s sponsors and Democrats in Congress want to permanently limit the liability insurance requirement to new purchases hasn’t been paying attention for several decades. Especially if they get their way on Maloney’s measure, the liability mandate will come to be seen as a normal standard of care for all gun owners, and the pressure to apply it universally will grow. Already, a bill introduced but defeated in Illinois would have required all who carry concealed weapons to have insurance, while a proposal that didn’t make it into Connecticut’s recently passed draconian gun control law would have forced every firearm owner to have it.

My insurance company contact told me that for now they are prohibited by law from providing any detailed information they have about guns covered in property policies unless it is appropriately requested by law enforcement. That will surely change once the databases become sufficiently large. Gun-grabbers disguised as concerned neighbors will demand to know who owns guns in their neighborhood, and what guns they have. Politicians supposedly interested in crime prevention will also demand to go fishing to “clean up” high-crime neighborhoods. This will of course have the opposite effect, but they won’t care.

The next step is confiscation, a stated goal of more than a few leftist politicians, up to and including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

All of these measures violate the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens’ natural law right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. They also prove that, at least for the left, the Second Amendment to the Constitution means nothing. They – the unconstitutional laws and the radicals pushing them – must be stopped.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Latest Moonbat outburst- Women will be Beaten Because of GOP

That these nimrods spout such nonsense is bad. That a significant number of Americans believe them is far worse

Via CNS News:

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) said that if the sequester goes into effect, women who are victims of domestic violence will be “forced to stay in their homes with their abuser” at the “hands of the GOP.”

The automatic across-the-board cuts, known as the sequester, are set to take effect on Friday – a 1.2% reduction in increased federal spending in 2013, or about $44 billion out of $3.6 trillion.

“The harm is real,” Edwards said.  “230,000 victims will be calling crisis hotlines and those calls will go unanswered.  230,000 calls to crisis hotlines around the country.”

“So can you imagine that in the middle of the night a woman is being battered, she has her two children, she wants to get to safety, she places a phone call to a hotline and that line goes unanswered,” she said.  “That’s what sequestration means to victims of domestic violence.”

Of course, the sequestration is a reduction, a 1% reduction in spending INCREASES, that is not really a cut in spending at all. The Democrats are trying to scare all of us into panic mode. And, when the dire calamities they predict do not happen? It will not matter, the Democrats will just go on saying they DID happen because of those evil Republicans.

Poll: Who Poses The Greatest Threat To The United States Of America?

.

When Democrats say “by ANY means necessary”…..

They bloody well mean it!

The important thing to understand about the Democrat Party is that they have no moral or philosophical principles of any kind. The Democrat Party is about power for its own sake, and everything that Democrats claim to stand for is negotiable, subject to change if necessary to win elections. For example, if racism will win election for Democrats, then they will use racism to win elections:

Go read what the miscreants are up to now

 

Oh no, not MORE Offendeditis!

Yep, Michelle Malkin dared to make a video mocking Democrats, the media, and Michelle Obama. Of course, the Left now has the vapors!

Personally, I thought the Bob Menendez Dance was the best one. And Michelle Malkin is definitely a lot easier on the eyes, love that wig, than the FLOTUS!

 

Does the Left REALLY care about victims of gun violence? Or do they care about exploiting them?

Matt at Conservative Hideout lays it out very clearly. 

In yet another example of self defence using a firearm, a man used a gun to defend himself, and his toddler son from home invaders.  Yet, the national media chose to take a pass on covering it.

Funny how these stories NEVER make it to national news isn’t it? Media bias anyone? But Matt has more thoughts

My last post about guns and self-defense caused a big stink on some sites, where people took issue with the comment that the liberals would prefer people to be dead, as it is better for the narrative. Allow me to expand a bit: Democrats, liberals, regressives (whatever you want to call them) will not stop at taking ugly guns-they want them all.  So, at some point, their desire is to have a 100% disarmed populace.  When considering that, any example of the lawful use of firearms is detrimental to the confiscation narrative.  However, dead civilians, and especially dead children, are easily exploitable-they are convenient emotional justifications to ban guns.  However, if they ever did get all the guns, and only criminals had them, there would be even more dead children.  But, I would wager that those dead children would no longer be worth covering.  Dead children only have propaganda value in certain contexts

I hate to say it, but I believe Matt is correct. I have seen and heard too many Liberals dismiss self-defense, mock the very idea that self-defense is even possible, and even question if self-defense with a gun is moral. For the left, the only important thing is destroying the Constitution and replacing it with a Marxist Utopia. Anything that aids that cause is moral in their demented minds.

 

Democrats to rub our noses in illegal immigration during the SOTU speech

Good people can debate what to do about the 11 plus million illegals in this nation. But, as with most other issues, Liberals do not want to debate, they want their way, and they want to shove it in our faces. Five Democrats, including Michelle Obama, are bringing illegal aliens to the SOTU tonight. That shows how serious they are about enforcing any immigration law. Democrats see one thing when they look at illegal immigration. They see a voting block that they feel will cement their future electoral success. Who cares about laws, or sovereignty, or national security when there are voters to be brought in to keep Democrats in control?

Senator John McAmnesty said last month that we “can’t have 11 million people living in the shadows.” However, I wouldn’t necessarily define the State of the Union speech as “the shadows”:

A number of Democrats, including First Lady Michelle Obama, are bringing illegal immigrants as guests to the State of the Union on Tuesday.

But a spokeswoman with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency declined to comment to The Daily Caller on Tuesday about whether the agency approves of this occurring at the Capitol, where Obama is set to give his annual address on Tuesday night.

“I don’t have any comment for you on this,” Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said after TheDC inquired whether the agency was aware of this and whether it was possible the guests could be arrested.

At least five Democrats are bringing illegal immigrants to the State of the Union, according to reports.

 

Will Democrats Sell Your Political Opinions To Credit Card Companies?

Will Democrats Sell Your Political Opinions To Credit Card Companies? – Propublica

For years, state Democratic parties have been gathering information about individual voters’ political leanings. They have noted down the opinions voters shared with canvassers – which candidates they said they supported or their positions on policy issues.

……..

Now, the record of what people told Democratic volunteers may go up for sale – and not just to political groups. Democrats are looking into whether credit card companies, retailers like Target or other commercial interests may want to buy the information.

State Democratic party leaders formed the National Voter File Co-op in 2011 to sell their voter data to approved groups like the NAACP. The goal was to recoup some of the money local Democratic parties spent collecting and updating their local voter lists, which include voters of all parties.

Much of the data the co-op sells comes from the government and is already part of the public record – information such as voters’ names, addresses and party affiliation.

But local Democratic parties also have information about voters’ views and preferences collected over many campaign cycles. (We wrote about Minnesota’s data-collecting “Grandma Brigade” last month.) Some state Democratic parties have used this raw data to create sophisticated estimates of how likely any voter is to vote for a Democrat, support Barack Obama or have certain opinions, say, on abortion or gun control.

As the co-op moves into its second year of selling data in an already crowded marketplace, it’s looking for new potential clients – and companies who may use the data for commercial purposes, as opposed to political ones, are on the list.

“That’s one of our growth areas,” said Drew Brighton of TargetSmart Communications, which helps administer and market the Co-op’s data. “Over the next six months, we are going to go ahead and make the rounds with some corporate prospects.”

Brighton said retailers, for example, might be interested in figuring out if their customers are primarily Democrats or Republicans. “People want to know who shops in their stores,” he said.

Democrats involved with the co-op do not know what companies might be most interested in buying their voter data.

“What the co-op is doing is saying, ‘Look, there’s a wealth of information here, that could potentially benefit your corporation or your business interests,’” said Ken Martin, a member of the co-op’s board, and the chairman of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

“Everything is on the table, nothing’s off the table. It’s up to us to figure out what [data] there’s a market for, and whether there’s a comfort level among state parties for selling that information,” he said.

Each state Democratic Party will have the final say over whether to sell their voter information for commercial purposes. If state party leaders aren’t comfortable with selling proprietary data to a certain client, they can opt out.

Individual states have different laws about how their public voting records can be used. Many states mandate that public voter rolls can only be used for “political purposes,” and some states explicitly ban using voting records for “commercial purposes.” The co-op and its clients must abide by these rules.

But state political data laws do not apply to the information about voters that the party itself has gathered.

“Generally, information freely provided to the party by the voter, or data about who participated in a primary [that the party collects] is not subject to any prohibition on it being sold,” said Karl Sandstrom, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Elections Commission and an attorney for the co-op.

This means Democrats are free to sell the opinions voters give to campaign canvassers to credit card companies or marketing firms.

Whether they will choose to do this isn’t certain. Martin, the Minnesota Democratic chairman, said that party leaders will have to weigh the risks of any potential deal.

“Obviously, we know we could make money off our file, but it always comes back to the question of, at what cost?” Martin said.

He said he would evaluate commercial deals on a case-by-case basis.

“I’m not opposed to selling the data if it’s a corporation who shares our values and is going to do some good work with that data.”

Wal-Mart, for instance, would not make the cut, he said.

Whether corporations are interested in buying the co-op’s data remains to be seen. Wal-Mart did not respond to a request for comment about whether it would be interested in buying information about its customers’ political beliefs.

Consumer data companies like Experian already peddle information about individuals’ political beliefs and donation histories – and also link this information to their consumer habits. This November, Experian Simmons released a study breaking down the political leanings of shoppers at J. Crew, Lady Foot Locker, and more than 100 other major retailers.

But the fact that selling voters’ opinions to companies is even an option for Democrats is another example of how rapidly the data industry is evolving – and how little information individuals have about how their data is being shared.

In his “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights,” released last year, President Barack Obama argued that when companies collect personal data from consumers, they should only share it in ways consumers expect.

If a company decides it wants to share personal information in a new way, Obama suggested, it should notify the consumers who are affected and provide them with choices about how their data is used.

Although Obama pledged to work with Congress to make the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights into law, that hasn’t happened yet.

Joseph Turow, a privacy expert at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, said the possibility that Democrats might repurpose voters’ opinions for commercial marketing is problematic – particularly because they had collected that information through “a relationship of trust” with voters.

Both Democrats and Republicans have long traded information about voters’ opinions with outside political groups. Long-time Republican activists have created a new group, the Data Trust, to manage the Republican National Committee’s data and coordinate data exchanges between the RNC and conservative and issue advocacy groups.

Asked if the Republican Party sells the party’s proprietary data to retailers or credit card companies, RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowsi wrote, “Absolutely not – hasn’t happened in past and won’t in [the] future.”

The Obama campaign’s own closely guarded trove of voter information will be used to mobilize support for the president’s agenda through a new nonprofit advocacy group, Organizing for Action, led by top Obama aides.

It’s not clear what other groups may be given access to Obama’s voter data. Organizing for Action did not respond to a request for comment. Staffers have said that passing on the campaign’s voter information to an Obama-focused nonprofit reflects the wishes of the president’s supporters, although supporters were not asked directly about how the campaign should treat their data.

Sandstrom, the lawyer for the state Democratic parties’ National Voter File Co-op, said he doubted the co-op would actually end up selling voters’ opinions for commercial uses, calling it an “abstract concern.”

Democratic Party chairs were not eager to weigh in on the issue.

Last week, ProPublica contacted 11 Democratic state party chairs – some of them newly elected to their positions – about the National Voter File Co-op. Party chairs in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Nevada, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin declined or did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

New Hampshire Democratic chair Ray Buckley, who leads the Association of State Democratic Chairs, also declined to comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

N.Y. Assemblyman Exposes Real Gun Control Confiscation Agenda Of Democrats (Video)

N.Y. Assemblyman Exposes Real Gun Control Confiscation Agenda Of Democrats – Right Scoop

In this video, N.Y. Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin is asked to keep quiet a proposal by Democrats to confiscate guns:

.

.
On his Facebook page, McLaughlin went ahead and released the list:

“Here it is. This is the video where I was asked to keep the Democrat proposals for the N.Y. SAFE Act away from the public. This list was given to me by a colleague and it is not confidential.

This bill was an attack on the 2nd amendment and the Democrats clearly wanted to dismantle the work of the Founding Fathers. None of these amendments were included in the final bill thanks to us fighting back. I will not stand silent while these unpatriotic proposals are pathetically thrown at us a 11 o’clock at night:

1. Confiscation of “assault weapons”
2. Confiscation o ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons”

And people scoff at conservatives like Rush who have been saying for years that Democrats want to confiscate weapons.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

The Democratic Party defined?

A certain blogger, infamous for his love of bad beer, cool hats, driving Liberals crazy, and who likes to yell ROLL TIDE at inappropriate times, sums up the Democrats like this

The Filthy Rotten Party of Corruption, Treason, Fraud, Sodomy and Abortion

Now, personally, I would have left the whole sodomy thing out, what consenting adults do tends to be something I do not care about. Well, OK, I admit, Salma Hayek wrestling Alyssa Milano in baby oil MIGHT pique my interest, but that is beside the point. The real point is that as Stacy McCain writes, the problem is that there is a hate deficit between Democrats and Republicans

In a Twitter colloquy with Susan Cloud, producer of the Mark Davis radio show, I found myself compelled to explain and defend my previous criticisms of National Review. The problem, really, is that Republicans just don’t hate Democrats the way Democrats hate Republicans.

Most Republicans are born and raised Republicans, and are spiritually attuned to the sentiments of bourgeois respectability that are core values to the decent, honest people the GOP represents. By contrast, Democrats owe their power to the vilest dregs of humanity — corrupt union goons, Marxist academics, criminals, drug addicts, sexual perverts and race hustlers — who have no respect for the values of decent, honest people.

In politics, this represents a tremendous advantage to Democrats, who elect to high office vicious thieves like Charlie Rangel without any sense of embarrassment, and then applaud Rangel’s lies without shame. The Democrats are a gang of brazen criminals who have contempt for their victims — you, the respectable citizens who vote Republican.

Having been born and raised a Democrat, I was never taught to be embarrassed of my politics the way most Republican children seem to be taught. And these nice Republican types who grew up groveling and apologizing — “Please, Professor, don’t give me a bad grade for disagreeing with you!” — are the weak link in the chain, the essential cause of the Republican Party’s feebleness.

Nailed it! We are too nice, too timid, too afraid of causing offense. Of course, niceness is a virtue, but, many Republicans do take that too far. Our “leadership” seems to suffer from this timidity far more than the Conservative base does. what they do not get is this, the media, and the Left will label us extremists no matter what we say. So, we ought to accept that confidence, knowledge, and deeply held values expressed with conviction, and defended with passion are going to appeal to many Americans. I keep hearing Republicans ask how we can better deliver our message. the first step, I would think, is to BELIEVE in our message first, that tends to help the delivery greatly!

Dreaded and feared Fiscal cliff avoided?

Not doing too much blogging today, I am exhausted, but, I did see this at The Other McCain, where Stacy notes Obama and his fans are happy about higher taxes on the evil rich

Ace has examined the reported terms of the deal, which would raise taxes on those earning more than $400,000, if indeed it is a deal, but deal or no deal, President Obama refused to be distracted from his most important second-term priority, scapegoating Republicans:

Barack Obama held a last-minute press conference today to bash Republicans and gloat about his election victory. At one point in his speech he bragged about how he’s going to be able to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.
His supporters cheered — as if they earned it.

Of course those tax hikes will do nothing at all to address the deficit, but, Democrats love to play that class warfare game so there you are. The Democratic leadership gets to tell the suckers ah, Democratic base that they are making those rich bastards pay their “fair share” and the sheep, ah Democratic base love to see the rich punished. Amazingly the walking brain donors, ah Democratic base are convinced that other people making less money benefits them somehow. 

Here are more details on the proposed deal

Under the proposed accord being hammered out by Biden and McConnell, households earning less than $450,000 would largely escape higher income tax bills, though couples earning more than $300,000 a year and individuals earning more than $250,000 would lose part of the value of their exemptions and itemized deductions, under the terms of the emerging agreement.

Low-income households would also benefit from a five-year extension of credits for college tuition and the working poor first enacted as part of Obama’s stimulus package in 2009. And businesses would see a variety of popular tax breaks extended, including a credit for research and development.

The tax on inherited estates would rise from 35 percent to 40 percent, though Democrats agreed to keep in place the current exemption for estates worth up to $5 million. And nearly 30 million households would be protected from paying the costly alternative minimum tax for the first time — either on their 2012 tax returns or at any time in the future. The developing agreement calls for a permanent fix.

The two sides also appeared to have reached consensus on unemployment benefits, with Republicans acceding to Democratic demands to keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed for another year. Medicare payments would not be cut for doctors next year, and the cost of preserving those programs would not be offset with other spending cuts.

Especially galling to me is the Death Tax, or tax on inherited estates. Why should an heir pay 40% of property ALREADY taxed? This is yet another reason we need ONE, as in JUST one tax rate, for ALL income, period!

 

OK, so where will gun control lead?

I would argue that eventually, the Left wishes to ban all guns, then other instruments of “violence” like knives. Of course, they would not go after all knives first. No, they would treat that as they did with guns, Dianne Feinstein wants to have a new assault weapons ban”, because the first one was a complete flop, and Democrats LOVE to reintroduce failed policies, because that is being progressive or something. So, just as Democrats will start with guns that look mean, they would start with knives that look mean too.

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

Hmmm, in the UK they started with gun control, and now………….. Ultimately, they will run out of weapons to ban, so they will get around to criminalizing self-defense.

 

Does Stacy McCain mean the silence is weird, or the media is weird?

Or maybe he means the obvious, George Soros, and anything he touches is weird, and corrupt

The Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti observes how little attention was paid to the recent meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a left-wing fundraising network backed by billionaire George Soros:

More likely the media simply ignore data that complicate their preferred narrative. When it comes to the fraught relationship between money and politics, that narrative is as follows: Money in politics is corrupting only because rich businessmen trade campaign donations to Republicans for low taxes and fewer environmental regulations.

Continetti points out a little-noted development:

Earlier this year the Democracy Alliance scraped away groups that were not affixed like barnacles to the hull of the Democratic Party and left alone the groups that were.

The media is loath to dig in and actually investigate stories like this. If the question is why, just consider one word as the answer IDEOLOGY! Certainly the media has no qualms about looking into the connection between Republicans and rich people while totally ignoring all the rich Democrats. And make no mistake, the media bias factor IS a big advantage. Yes new media has made inroads, but the gap is still very significant. This, naturally explains why the left has always been eager to apply “fairness” to talk radio, and to marginalize blogs. they are not looking to compete, they are looking for one party, one ideology rule!

 

Nate Silver is the Rodney Dangerfield of Polling

He gets no respect from those Conservative bloggers, no respect I tell ya!

Stacey McCain continues to badger poor Nate Silver, who some think is THE big cheese among poll analysis. Nate, I think, has been built up past his abilities, as he continues to not see the obvious. As McCain puts it Nate Silver approaches a clue and almost gets it:

Nate Silver approaches a clue and almost gets it:

For Romney to Win, State Polls
Must Be Statistically Biased

Missed it by that much, as Maxwell Smart might say.

His headline summarizes exactly what Republican poll-mongers have been saying since September, as they see poll after poll with crazy oversamples of Democrats. As for example, the NBC/WSJ/Marist poll that has Obama winning Ohio by 6 points — SIX FREAKING POINTS!— about which Ed Morrissey says, “all you need to know is this: the D/R/I is 38/29/32.  In 2008, the exit polls showed a split of 39/31/30, and in 2010 36/37/28.”

Stop for a second and think about that: What this poll is telling us is that partisan ID has shifted 2 points toward Democrats since 2008, which was the best year for Democrats since LBJ won a landslide in ’64. Therefore, we must choose between two alternative explanations:

1. Obama is headed toward a world-historic victory based upon the remarkable popularity of the Democratic Party; or
2. The poll sample is fucked-up beyond all comprehension.

The issue, the problem with Nate Silver’s model is this, he is using polls that use bad sampling. Samples 2008 and 2010 are decidedly different, and frankly, the numbers from 2008 are likely outdated. A LOT has changed since 2008, not so much from 2010. The economy still stinks, the same issues that caused Democrats to lose badly two year ago remain, excitement levels about voting are still higher among Republicans than Democrats, and Romney continues to hold solid majorities among Independents. Yet, Nate Silver ignores all of that

UPDATE: Michael Flynn at Breitbart.com Friday:

This morning, because the sun rose in the East, Nate Silver again increased his odds of Obama winning reelection. Silver now estimates Obama’s chances of reelection at a precise 83.7%.

Not  83.6% mind you, not 83.8%, no 83.7%!