Just one week after President Obama bragged about a mere 7.1 million Obamacare "enrollees" from the Rose Garden (after asking for a prime time television slot and being denied by all networks), a new poll from Rasmussen shows just 23 percent of Americans believe Obamacare is working.
Few voters consider the new national health care law a success, and most think repeal of the law is likely if Republicans take over Congress in November.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% of Likely U.S. Voters view Obamacare as a success so far. Twice as many (46%) describe the health care law as a failure. For 29%, it’s somewhere in between the two.
The House of Representatives has voted more than 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act and voters believe that if Republicans take the Senate in November, repeal of the legislation is likely. Further, repeal is supported by 44 percent of voters.
Given the problems with the new law, a plurality (44%) of voters still believes Congress and the president should repeal it and start over again. Nearly as many (39%) think they should go through the law piece by piece to improve it. Just 15% say they should leave the law as it is.
Support for leaving the law as is hasn’t changed since late last year. But 50% at that time favored repeal and starting over again, while 31% said Congress and the president should go through the law piece by piece to improve it.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care law will be repealed if Republicans win control of Congress in the November elections.
It may be shocking, but at least one Hollywood starlet is making sense. In an interview with Harper's Bazaar in the U.K., actress Kirsten Dunst promoted the importance of traditional gender roles. Unsurprisingly, her remarks have been accompanied with backlash from self-righteous feminists. Here were a few of Dunst's "controversial" comments:
“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued… We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking – it’s a valuable thing my mum created."
“And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armor. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work…"
These are honest and heartfelt statements, yet her critics are lining up to condemn her. Some are calling her "insufferable," others say she's "dumb," but all are pushing that same tired argument that comments like these work to take women back to the 1950s. On Twitter, one person even tweeted that Dunst should join the list of actresses who "should never be allowed to talk near young girls."
Maybe when these offended feminists are through with their immature name calling, they'll realize Dunst's perspective actually makes some sense. We should be celebrating the differences between men and women. If we are constantly striving for "equality," we miss the opportunity to truly embrace our femininity. Others are of the same mind. Just look at how people quickly acted to defend Ann Romney when in 2012 Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen accused her of "not working a day in her life." That insensitive comment inspired her very first tweet.
“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”
New research reveals an increase in the amount of women choosing to be stay-home moms. Three in 10 women are remaining home with their children, up 3 percent from 2008. I wonder if they consider it a "luxury" to cook, clean and care for their household as some feminists suggest.
Dunst's comments are a breath of fresh air in a culture that has brought us "war on women" propaganda from actresses like Scarlett Johannsen, who in 2012 appeared in a MoveOn.org video with Kerry Washington and Eva Longoria, suggesting Republicans were trying to "redefine rape." Speaking of Longoria, she also pushed men out of the picture in her sexist animated show on Hulu, "Mother Up," which more or less defined men as absent fathers and heartless misogynists.
At least one actress is not afraid to admit that sometimes fish need bicycles.
Former Vice President Cheney recently appeared at American University to give a speech to the student body. What came up most often was the former vice president’s support for enhanced interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists. Mr. Cheney was forced to defend these techniques saying, “The accusations are not true…Some people call it torture. It wasn’t torture.” He continued by stating that if he had to do it all over again, he would.
Following these statements last week, Senator Angus King (I-ME) appeared on MSNBC this past Sunday. His reaction was not so kind to the former vice president. He said,
“I was stunned to hear that quote from Vice President Cheney,” King explained. “If he doesn’t think that was torture, I would invite him anywhere in the United States to sit in a waterboard and go through what those people went through, one of them a hundred and plus-odd times.”
“That’s ridiculous to make that claim! This was torture by anybody’s definition,” he continued. “John McCain says it’s torture, and I think he’s in a better position to know this than Vice President Cheney. I was shocked to hear that statement that he just made.”
“And to say that it was carefully managed, and everybody knew what was going on, that’s absolutely nonsense.”
King concluded: “Sorry to be sort of wound up on this, but I couldn’t believe that quote from Vice President Cheney.”
A report completed by the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA misled the government and overstated the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques. Watch the clip of Senator King’s statements below. Perhaps threatening the former vice president is not the way to go about making your argument!
Few politicians are remembered more fondly by American conservatives today than the late Margaret Thatcher, who died one year ago, at the age of 87:
The grocer’s daughter from Grantham went on to serve as Great Britain’s first female prime minister for 11 and a half years, the 7th longest-serving prime minister in British political history. During her premiership, she oversaw the revival of the British economy, the end of the Cold War, and the reforging of the “Special Relationship” between Great Britain and the United States. Her quick wit and prowess in the political arena are the stuff of legend.
There is much to admire about Lady Thatcher. Her tenacity, her eloquence, and her courage under fire are only some of her more memorable qualities. But based on my own understanding of her life it was her convictions above all else -- and her refusal to jettison them -- that made her great. I believe she was successful because she stood on principle. How many U.S. politicians can say they do the same?
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is done being patient. There was a time when an Oval Office meeting with President Obama could buy their silence. But no longer.
On Friday April 4, the CHC sent a six-page letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson demanding that Obama use "all legal means available" to "suspend, delay, or dispense with the deportations of immigrants who would qualify for legal status and protection under S. 744."
At no point does the letter bother to call for new legislation or the passage of S.744. Instead, the CHC just demands that Obama enforce current law as if he had already signed S.744. The CHC believes Obama has the same legal authority to do this as he did to enact his June 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
And the CHC is correct: if DACA is legal, than it would also be legal for Obama to pretend S.744 was the law of the land as well. However, Obama and the CHC begin with a faulty premise: DACA is completely illegal.
Obama has only gotten away with his illegal DACA amnesty because of its limited scope. But the more people who benefit from Obama's illegal amnesties, the more likely someone will gain the standing to challenge them in court.
So why are amnesty advocates suddenly so willing to abandon legislation and go the executive route?
Just look at Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) reaction to an op-ed by Compete America Executive Director Scott Corley calling on House Republicans to pass the SKILLS Act, which would increase the number of H-1B visas the tech community so badly wants.
"I write to ask you to renew your commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform legislation and to pledge that you will not support stand-alone legislation to increase the H-1B visa cap,” Durbin wrote in a letter to the CEOs of Accenture, Amazon, Cisco, Deloitte, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Oracle.
"I am troubled by recent statements suggesting that some in the technology industry may shift their focus to passage of stand-alone legislation that would only resolve the industry's concerns," Durbin continued. "This 'divide and conquer' approach destroys the delicate political balance achieved in our bipartisan bill and calls into question the good faith of those who would sacrifice millions of lives for H-1B relief." (emphasis added)
So basically Durbin and the Democrats are now calling Google, Facebook, Amazon, et al murderers if they support standalone legislation that would allow more high-tech workers into the country.
But even if the House did pass a standalone H-1B bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would never allow a vote on it. So why bother with the murder accusations?
Because amnesty advocates know that there is a very real chance Reid will not be majority leader next year. And if Republicans control the Senate, then the odds of piecemeal immigration reform that does not include the same broad amnesty of S.744 goes up substantially.
That is why amnesty advocates are freaking out now. They know that if Democrats lose the Senate this November, they'll be cut out of the debate entirely.
Instead of letting their female candidates run on their records, Democrats are crying ‘sexism’ to silence all debate. In the April issue of Townhall Magazine, where this article originally appeared, S.E. Cupp explains how liberals are protecting their female candidates from a political process they should be able to survive.
Look out. The next two years are sure to be fraught with all sorts of GOP sexism meant to tank the campaigns of liberal political heroines like Hillary Clinton, Wendy Davis, and Sandra Fluke.
How do I know? Because liberals have said so.
Before Hillary has even announced her intentions for 2016, the war-on-women agitators are already overzealously predicting Republicans’ hostile, sexist, and downright rude treatment of her. It’s like they think they can will it into fruition.
The Daily Beast’s Sam Kleiner, for one, invoked some seriously Freudian projection when he accused RNC chair Reince Priebus of sexism for his promise to be “very aggressive” against Hillary. But not on issues like Monica Lewinsky or even reproductive rights. Rather, on Benghazi and Obamacare, you know, issues the president had to debate in 2012 and issues Hillary helped oversee. How dare he? What a terrible future sexist.
And in the wake of newly released documents from 1992 Clinton polling, liberals really didn’t appreciate that Hillary was referred to, not by Republicans but by their own polls, as “ruthless.” If Republicans repeat the charge in the future, well that’s sexist.
Newsday columnist Ellis Henican declared, “if gender were flipped, it would be very different.”
I don’t have to point out, but I will, that Republicans have been called all kinds of things, from “Hitler” to “Caribou Barbie.” But I can see how “ruthless” crosses the line of civility.
Mitt Romney recently argued that when it comes to Hillary’s candidacy, if she ends up running, Republicans should focus on her record and not Bill’s dalliances. It’s a nice thought, and one that might be worth considering if holding up our end of the bargain resulted in any reciprocal good will from the other side. But the Republican nominee will not be granted such niceties, that’s for sure.
Nor will Republicans be allowed to ask Hillary about, well, anything. The list of topics that appear to be off limits thus far: Benghazi, Bill, her health, Whitewater, Marc Rich, Vince Foster, driving, and anything before 2014.
The sexism dog whistles aren’t limited to the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. Apparently, Wendy Davis, running for governor in Texas, has also felt the vicious hand of Republican gender bias during her sudden rise to fame.
When reporters (not Republicans) discovered she’d altered significant facts in her autobiography, she fended off critics by hauling out the sexism trope:
“…I would expect people who are inclined to think negatively about me to pick on something like this. Do I think it’s reasonable? No. Do I think that I’m being held to a different standard than a man who would be in this exact same race with the exact same story might be? Yes.”
It would be funny if it weren’t so embarrassing. Does Davis really think we’ve all forgotten about all the probes into the personal lives of John McCain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and, for that matter, President Obama? Does she really think that stories she’s offered up as facts are above scrutiny because she’s a woman?
Then, of course, there’s Sandra Fluke, who decided not to run for Congress after all and instead to run for California State Senate. When the Daily Caller ran the headline “Fluke Goes for Plan B” and Breitbart.com ran “Sandra Fluke Aborts
Congressional Bid” Media Matters of course pounced on the rabid sexism...of puns. What, are we not allowed to mention the very things that made her a thing in the first place?
Liberals sure don’t seem to have much faith in these women. If they did they wouldn’t be so quick to protect them from a necessary political process that they should be able to survive. The rush to defend them against invisible sexism isn’t exactly confidence inspiring. In fact, it reeks of insecurity...get the vapors, she might faint!
Promising sexism that hasn’t even happened yet, or jumping on sexism that isn’t there doesn’t do these women any favors. In fact, it just makes them look like weak, incapable victims. But I know, I know...we’re the sexists. •
In a rare moment of bipartisanship in Washington last night, Republicans and Democrats voted against the approval of a visa for Hamid Aboutalebi, who has just been chosen by Iran as an ambassador to the United Nations. Aboutalebi is one of the radical extremists who held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days after seizing the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979. Aboutalebi needs the visa in order to conduct business at UN headquarters in New York City. The effort to block the visa was led by Texas Senator Ted Cruz and legislation introduced by the Senator prevents a situation like this from happening again.
The legislation, which passed unanimously, targets Hamid Aboutalebi, who has been named by the Iranian government to be its next ambassador to the world body.
According to Cruz, the legislation makes minor changes to existing law that would allow the administration to block visas for an ambassadorial pick if that person poses a national security risk.
“Under the existing statute, if the Taliban in Afghanistan had nominated Osama bin Laden to be its ambassador to the U.N.,” Cruz said, “we’d have to let him in, give him a visa and let him move to Manhattan. Now that’s obviously absurd.”
The Iranians are still waiting on an official denial of Aboutalebi's visa from the State Department.
While the national debate about gun control has simmered, anti-gun activists are hard at work behind the scenes to come up with new ways to push their agenda.
The most recent attempt comes from Attorney General Eric Holder, who is suggesting gun owners be tracked with smart gun bracelets tied to handguns. Naturally, he's doing it under the guise of "gun safety" and "common sense reforms." More from the Free Beacon:
Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday that gun tracking bracelets are something the Justice Department (DOJ) wants to “explore” as part of its gun control efforts.
When discussing gun violence prevention programs within the DOJ, Holder told a House appropriations subcommittee that his agency is looking into technological innovations.
The Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for “gun safety.”
Included in the proposal is $2 million for “Gun Safety Technology” grants, which would award prizes for technologies that are “proven to be reliable and effective.”
Funny how people like Holder are always concerned about tracking the guns of Americans, yet failed to track 2500 AK-47s and .50 caliber rifles that the Department of Justice sent to violent Mexican drug cartels between 2009 and 2010.
Allowing the government to use technology to regulate anything is a slippery slope, but especially when it comes to firearms and "safety." Not to mention, these kinds of reforms only punish the law abiding, not criminals looking to do harm. The Patriot Perspective explains:
Technological tricks are par for the course for anti-rights gun banning autocrats. Technology becomes a tool to ban things – just mandate a feature for “safety” (especially when it’s the antithesis of safe) and suddenly all the things they want to ban can be banned in the name of “safety”. Then soon enough the last thing wasn’t “safe” enough, and it can be banned, too.
On top of this new tactic, last month Senator Dianne Feinsten asked her fellow senators to sign a letter to President Obama urging him to ban imports of sporting rifles and ammunition from overseas.
Feinstein is calling on fellow Senators to sign a letter to President Obama asking him to issue an executive order banning the import of "assault or military weapons" and firearms not "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." The executive order would be enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
As a reminder, Attorney General Eric Holder is sill in contempt of Congress for his stonewalling and failure to cooperate with the Oversight Committee Investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. Further, lets not forget Holder is also the guy who said we should "brainwash" people against guns.
Update: Bob Owens over at Bearing Arms points out that Holder was referring to smart gun technology bracelets/watches that link up with firearms, not necessarily "gun tracking bracelets."
He was instead likely referring to “smart gun” technologies like the RFID technology used in the technological train-wreck that is the Armatix iP1 pistol/iW1 watch combination.
The Supreme Court announced earlier today which cases they won’t be taking on this upcoming session. They have declined to take on the challenge to the NSA’s bulk collection of information about telephone calls. A lower court decided on this case earlier, but the Supreme Court has decided to pass on reviewing that ruling.
Lower courts have ruled differently, one saying that the NSA program is most likely unconstitutional and a New York District Court ruled to uphold the program. It is not entirely surprising that the court has decided to pass on this case because it hasn’t gone through the extensive appeals process so many other cases have. Lawyers were hoping the importance of the issue would be enough to get the judges to consider the case.
The decision not to take a look at this case comes up as Congress is now beginning to debate legislative ways to end the NSA program. There are various options on the table right now. The White House has suggested the option of keeping the records in the hands of private phone companies, only accessible by government agents in case of emergency. Another option is to do away with the program, but make it easier for agents to obtain the information from private companies.
If Congress does not authorize reforms to the program by next June there will be a disastrous outcome, according to intelligence officials. This is a major issue, which perhaps one day, will make it to the Supreme Court. But for now, Congress and an appeals system are waiting for this case.
The notorious serial killer, cannibal, and necrophiliac Jeffrey Dahmer is known for raping, torturing, and dismembering his victims, the first of whom was a hitchhiker by the name of Steven Hicks. Dahmer brought Hicks to his parents’ home in Bath, Ohio, in 1978, where he proceeded to kill him with a blow to the head with a barbell. To get rid of the body, Dahmer cut it up, wrapped it up in garbage bags, and buried them in the woods behind his parents’ house. After a few years, Dahmer returned to the site, dug up the body, and “pounded the decomposing corpse with a sledgehammer and scattered the remains in the woods.”
PETA thinks this house, with its sordid history, is just the perfect location to open up a vegan restaurant named “Eat for Life—Home Cooking.” Yes, seriously—it’s up for sale, and they want to buy it.
“We’re always looking for ways to turn cruelty on its ugly head, so when we heard that serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer‘s childhood home had been put up for sale, we saw an opportunity to create good out of evil. Rather than remaining as a stark reminder of its dark past, the building can instead become the site of a celebration of culinary compassion,” PETA writes on its blog.
It gets better:
“Like Dahmer’s human victims, cows, pigs, and chickens are made of flesh and blood and fear for their lives when confronted by a man with a knife. They are also drugged and dragged, and their limbs are bound. Their struggles and screams are ignored as they are killed and cut up to be consumed. Their bones are thrown away like garbage.”
Is this just PETA actively looking for publicity? Maybe. But if they truly believe it’s OK to compare human victims of horrific murders to that of a pig’s death, there’s no rationalizing with them and it’s clear they have zero respect for human life. Heck, these are the same people that have compared the death of six billion broiler chickens in slaughterhouses to the death of six million Jews in concentration camps.
I highly doubt their dream for the house will come to fruition but if it does, rest assured, ‘Eat for Life’ will celebrate a grand opening and grand closing in the same week.
Obamaland: Where Cowboys are Villains and Race-Baiters, Gay Radicals and Marxists are Heroes | Doug Giles