Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/5/13

Romney Accepts MSNBC Host's Apology

Hill Democrats, Republicans Set 2014 Agendas With Midterm Elections In Mind

Robin Roberts 'Comes Out.' Why Now?

Sarah Silverman's Insult Act Gets Old 
 
Oregon Mom Can't Afford Obamacare
 
George Will Welcomes Surge in Liberalism, Says It Will Force Turnaround
 
Obama Proposes Executive Orders For Backdoor Gun Confiscation
 
Candy Crowley: ‘Why Would I Become a Republican' If I'm Unemployed or on Minimum Wage?
 
CBS Trumpets 'Historic', 'Unprecedented' Move to Let Illegal Immigrant Practice Law
 
Type A Potheads Vs. The Stoned Masses
 
New Cancer Treatment Gives Patients Hope
 
HuffPo Writer: Leggero's Non-Apology for Pearl Harbor Joke 'Normal'
 
Report: Kim Jong Un’s Uncle Executed by Dogs

Politiks As Usual: In The News 11/10/13

 

Former Homeless Man Loses Benefits For Failing To Report $850 Found On Sidewalk

'Worse Than Hell' In Typhoon-Ravaged Philippines 

Christian Rocker Tops Tim Tebow As Christian Youth Leader 

An Open Letter To Pope Francis

George Will: Other Than Nixon ‘Has There Ever Been a Worse First Year of a Second Term?’

CBS Issues Benghazi Apology

Pew Poll: 60% Oppose Obama on Immigration Reform

Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word 

Unemployment Among Black Youth 393% Higher Than National Rate

Father of Bristol Palin's Son Seeking At Least Equal Custody

White Republican Wins Election By Convincing Voters He’s Black
 

3 Reasons Obamacare Hurts Low-Income College Students

Townhall.com:

Alejandra makes Obamacare sound great. Yet most of the liberal pundits and legislators speaking for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids in school have no idea what it’s like to be one. As a recent grad from that demographic, I have three reasons Obamacare hurts low-income college students: 

1. The Individual Mandate is Not Compatible with Financial Aid

Financial aid is based on the difference between an individual’s estimated family contribution (EFC) and cost of attendance (COA). However, the cost of health insurance is rarely considered part of COA. This means kids who have a very low EFC and can barely afford school have to pay insurance premiums thanks to the individual mandate.
Those who say the fee will not apply to struggling students are the most out-of-touch. Not only are scholarship grants over the COA considered taxable income, but the poorest often work while in school and make enough money to be slammed by the fee. The individual mandate was already implemented years ago at most public and private universities – it has already done damage to the most financially needy students.

2. Keeping Parents’ Plans Until Age 26 Hurts the Poor

Most Supporters claim Obamacare will increase competition among insurance companies to provide low-cost plans to the poor who were suffering before—a true bleeding-heart story. Yet the provision that children are covered by their parents’ plan until age 26 hurts the poor the most.
The worst off parents don’t have health insurance and will likely opt to pay the $95 fee. As a result, the rich kids will relax and have several years out of college to find a job with benefits while the poor kids (whom Obamacare claims to help the most) will be forced to sign up for whatever plans are left over before the higher $695 fee hits.

3. The Economic Fallout Makes College Less Valuable

For most wealthy families, college is a given. Poor families, however, often send their children to college with great sacrifice – even if the student earns a full ride there are difficulties: perhaps the student was expected to work in the family business, look after many siblings, or add to the household income. This is especially true for first-generation students. It is difficult, but it is also a time-honored part of the American Dream.
The American Dream is at stake. If Obamacare continues to cause employers to avoid hiring the 50th worker and cut back on employment hours, then the prospects for college graduates will only go from bleak to worse. A low-income student may weigh the odds and simply decide it’s not worth it anymore. 

RELATED:  George Will in Fox Debut: Obama is ‘Rather Enjoying’ Gov’t Shutdown

How Barack Obama Creates His Own Laws

WashingtonPost.com:

That was then. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence — for example, the amount of dope involved.

In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. “If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases” did that, said former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, “they could be charged with a felony.”

But such niceties must not stand in the way of an administration’s agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses — a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation.

Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs — under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off.
Which came just a month after the administration’s equally lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare: the employer mandate. 

Which followed hundreds of Obama­care waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to selected businesses, unions and other well-lobbied, very special interests.

Nor is this kind of rule-by-decree restricted to health care. In 2012, the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier. Obama himself had repeatedly said that the Constitution forbade him from enacting it without Congress. But with the fast approach of an election that could hinge on the Hispanic vote, Obama did exactly that. Unilaterally.

The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act. Or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health care premiums for $175,000-a-year members of Congress. Or even whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients — an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996. 

The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush’s so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reasons of mere policy — the reason for every Obama violation listed above. 

Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law?

RELATED:  Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s

Politiks As Usual In The News 5/13/13

Bullets Fly At Mother's Day Parade

Benghazi Whistle-blower a Democrat, Voted for Hillary and Obama Twice

How the Mormons Ensured Victory for Gay Marriage

Obama Suffering the '2nd-term Curse'?

Happy Mother's Day: Five Obamacare Taxes That Hurt Moms Most

Maureen Dowd: Obama's Benghazi Decisions 'Unworthy of Greatest Power on Earth'

George Will: If Bush Had IRS Going After Progressives 'We Would Have All Hell Breaking Loose'

Mark Sanford, Welcome Back to Washington

NBC Cancels 'The New Normal'

Melissa Harris Perry And Guests Translate Amanda Berry’s Decade Of Rape Into Agenda-Setting Narrative

Bill O’Reilly Tears Into Romney Critics: ‘Gifts’ Remark ‘Is A Stone-Cold Fact’

Mediaite.com:

On his show Monday night, Bill O’Reilly took on those criticizing Mitt Romney‘s remark about President Barack Obama winning the election based on the “gifts” he gave to key demographic groups. O’Reilly pointed to his own similar election night comments, and noted that there’s no reason for outrage because it’s simply the truth. 

Referring to Romney’s remark, made during a conference call with donors, O’Reilly said that’s basically what he himself said on election night. “It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing,” O’Reilly said that night. “It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.” 

And he, too, was criticized. But “that’s the truth,” he said, mentioning that 63 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year voted for Obama. “It is a stone-cold fact.” Those on the left “don’t want to consider the fact that entitlements buy votes,” O’Reilly said. 

But they’re not alone. Romney’s been getting heat from those on the right side of the spectrum as well. O’Reilly particularly pointed to George Will and Newt Gingrich. Romney’s failure is clear, he added: He couldn’t convince majority of Americans that he would look out for them. And what did lower-income Americans vote for? It’s not more debt, Middle East chaos, eight percent unemployment or government regulations. No, O’Reilly said, they “voted for the candidate who they thought was going to directly helm them financially.” Not every Obama voter, he noted, but many. 

RELATED: Jindal: Republicans need to stop saying ‘stupid things’

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/23/12

Community Remembers The Victims Of The Colorado Movie Massacre

Christian Movie Critic: Massacre Is Simply 'Evil' At Work

Why Is Brian Ross Still Working for ABC News?

Obama Donor: Stimulus Was Like a Hooker in Prison

Statue of Famed Penn St. Coach Paterno Taken Down

Chick-Fil-A Publicly Acknowledges It’s Conservative, Media Upset

George Will and Jennifer Rubin Demolish Time's Joe Klein on Gun Control Laws

Murdoch Quits British Newspaper Boards

(Homosexual) Misperception Clouds The Truth

Bloomberg: Obama ‘Has Spent The Last Three Years Trying To Avoid The Issue’ Of Gun Control

Romney To Walk Into The Lion’s Den; Plans Trip, Speeches Abroad

George Will Says Mitt Romney Should Pick Bobby Jindal As Running Mate

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hotair.com:

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, George Will made a succinct case for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as Mitt Romney’s best option for a running mate, and I’m going to go ahead and agree with him. It’s right around the beginning of the segment:

“My choice decided that he would rather be president of Purdue University, that is Mitch Daniels. [Rob] Portman and Pawlenty, they’re just fine. I prefer someone who brings a little more excitement. [Paul] Ryan would be good. The trouble is if you take Ryan out of the House, where he could in two years be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, so, by default and that’s not to disparage him, I would go with Bobby Jindal.”

If you haven’t yet picked up on it, I’m a pretty big Jindal fan. I think it’s a shame that the average voter seems to best know him for that calamity of a State of the Union response in 2009, because after having seen him speak in person and been on several conference calls with him, the man is actually a very compelling, candid, and clever speaker.


He’s relatively young, but Jindal’s already had a bunch of policy experience (most especially in health care, which is going to be a clutch issue for awhile yet), he handled the BP oil spill beautifully, he’s been taking on some of the education unions in Louisiana, and he’s been a highly vocal and effective critic of President Obama. He’s not too “vanilla,” he’s Southern, and I think he’d round out Romney’s ticket nicely.


And while there are several other VP-options I could definitely support, given the other possible candidates’ individual situations (I think Paul Ryan, for example, is extremely valuable staying in Congress for the time being), I have to go with Bobby Jindal all the way.


Just my vice presidential-two cents — and judging by last week’s reader poll, looks like plenty of you agree!

I have a ton of respect for George Will as I think he's the most intelligent, honest and articulate conservative pundit out there, but Jindal just doesn't be move me.  

RELATED: Bobby Jindal: Obama is running against Bush, and it’s only about eight years too late for that

George Will: The Party that Produced Four Bush Nominations in 20 years is Hardly “Extreme”

Jeb Bush seems like a smart guy and that makes it even harder to believe that he'd fall so easily for the MSM line of supposed extremism dominating the GOP:

Let’s play a game that we used to play in school, and lay out a series of data points to see if anyone can guess what they have in common.  Ready?  Here we go:

• Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney

What’s the answer?  As George Will insisted yesterday on ABC’s This Week, it sure isn’t extremism, despite what Jeb Bush thinks:

“Well, let’s look at the facts,” Will said. “Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has given its presidential nomination four times to the Bush family. Other times, to Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney — where’s the extremist in that lot? Now, Jeb Bush’s father is celebrated today for a statesman ship that consisted of breaking the promise to the American people of not raising taxes. He had a budget deal in 1990, Austan [Goolsbee] because this goes back to something you said earlier. In the budget deal it was said for every $2 of — every dollar of tax increase, would be $2 of spending cuts. The tax increases went into effect and spending increased.”

Will added that it is popular for observers to romanticize politicians like Reagan, along with conservative commentator William Buckley and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, after the fact.

“We’re going through this — we go through this all the time,” he continued. “About 20 years after a conservative leaves the scene or dies, he becomes acceptable. They said, ‘If only people were more like Ronald Reagan, that wonderful libertarian curmudgeon Barry Goldwater and that fine fellow Bill Buckley.’ I worked for Bill Buckley, voted for Barry Goldwater, knew Ronald Reagan and no one talked about him on the left that way at the time.”

For that matter, take a look at the main contenders in the Republican primary this year, once the voting started.  The race came down to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.  All of these men had good qualities and shortcomings, but none of them are known for their extremist bent, no matter what the hyperventilating media might have said at the time. All four represented the same mainstreams in Republican politics that existed when Reagan was President, and have ever since.


It seems especially churlish to hear this kind of complaint coming from former Governor Jeb Bush after watching his father and brother rack up more than half of the GOP’s presidential nominations in the last 30 years.  Will does a nice job with Bush’s hanging curve and knocks it out of the park.

RELATED: Jeb Bush urges Romney: change the tone on immigration

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/19/12

Poll: Gingrich Supporters Would Split Between…

Mitt Romney Projected Winner In Puerto Rico

Why We Defend Marriage

Drug Addict Rips 'Pathetic' 8-week Sentence

Gas Prices Up For 9th Straight Day

Robert Bales, Afghan Killing Suspect, Plagued By Money And Job Strife

Hollywood Promoting Women Behaving Badly

PHONY 2012: Fiction Trumps Fact in Many Media Reports

The Left’s Long-Time War on Women

Clooney Uses Star Power To Shine Light On Sudanese Atrocities

George Will: I Never Said The White House Wasn’t Winnable

George Will Quote of the Day!

"This is not about women’s health. This is about providing 300,000 abortions a year. Planned Parenthood cleverly cast this saying, ‘We are in the mammogram business.’ They’re not in the mammogram business — they are in the referral of mammograms. This showed two extraordinary things, George. First, the American left cares about ending wars and they care about poverty and they care about the environment, but they really care about — when they’re not perfunctory — is when you touch abortions. And historians will marvel that American liberalism in the first part of the 21^st century is defined as defense of abortion.”

- conservative pundit George Will on last week’s decision, and subsequent reversal, by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to take funding away from Planned Parenthood

Politiks As Usual: In The News 4/7/11

John McCain: Americans 'Don't Want Compromise' On Tax Revenue Hikes

Media Matters Under Scrutiny

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law 

Why The Left Hates Michele Bachmann, Right About Minimum Wage

49 Members Of House Call For Elena Kagan To Recuse Herself From Healthcare Cases

New York Democratic Senators Participate In Anti-Gay Bullying Video  

Judge To Mom: 'You Don't Spank Children'


George Will: Can Congress Require Obese People To Sign Up For Weight Watchers


Connecticut's 'Anti-Christie' Gov. Malloy Plans Worker Cuts


NAACP Chief Hazel Dukes' Talk Of 'Slave Masters' Defames Charter Schools, Minorities

Newt Gingrich Was For Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Before He Was Against It

TIME.com:

A couple of weeks ago, I spent a day following Newt Gingrich around New Hampshire. After a radio interview in Concord, Gingrich had a lunchtime Guinness at the Barley House in Concord with Thomas Wilhelmsen, the CEO of a local hospital who first met Gingrich in the mid-1990s. They lapsed into wonky talk about ObamaCare and health insurance premiums. “Every hospital administrator, like Tom here, will tell you it’s unsustainable, it can’t be done,” Gingrich said, explaining why he wants to repeal the law.


So, I asked if he would advocate replacing it with Paul Ryan’s plan.


The former speaker sang Ryan’s praises for being a “brave” “man of ideas,” like Gingrich himself.


“But would you have voted for Ryan’s plan?” I pressed.


“Sure,” Gingrich replied.


“Do you think it would actually save the health care system?”


“No, I think it’s the first step,” Gingrich said. “You need an entirely new set of solutions.”


So, I was surprised to see Gingrich on Meet the Press Sunday morning telling David Gregory that the Ryan plan was too bold.


MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.


REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the–I don’t want to–I’m against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.


How does one go from praising a plan as “the first step” to criticizing it as “too big a jump” and “radical change”?


Earlier in the interview, Gingrich was asked about the challenges to his candidacy. “I think it’s fair to say that I’m going to have–one of the tests on this campaign trail is going to be whether I have the discipline and the judgment to be President,” he said. “I think that’s a perfectly fair question.” He might want to start with a uniform position on Ryan’s budget.

There's just no way you can trust Newt Gingrich. If he's not contradicting himself on adultery, he's standing side-by-side with the likes of Nancy Pelosi supporting the global warming hoax and now he's out there going back on something he supported just two weeks ago. Frankly, I'm with George Will, Newt Gingrich just should not be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate.

George Will: State Of Union Addresses Try To “Stroke Every Erogenous Zone”

Mediaite.com:

Every week on ABC’s This Week viewers can always count on conservative commentator George Will to provide a unique perspective on current events, yet what many might find surprising is that he often delivers laugh out loud funny moments to thoughtful political discussions. This morning Will unleashed a humorous assault against the insignificance of the State of the Union address calling it an overrated and interminable speech, and that’s Will just warming up.


Will continued:


“Every President, regardless of party, tries to stroke every erogenous zone in the electorate, and it becomes a political pep rally . . . if it’s going to be a pep rally with the President’s supporters or whatever party standing up in braying approval and histrionic pouting on the part of the other, then it’s no place for the judiciary, it’s no place for the uniformed military, and it’s no place for non-adolescent legislators.”


Anytime someone can get serious journalist Christiane Amanpour to gasp “oh my goodness” you know the clip is worth watching. Panelists Donna Brazile, Paul Krugman and Matthew Dowd also join in the laughter, but then attempt to justify the significance of the speech and predict what President Obama might say. However, Will’s conclusion that the speech ultimately means nothing might potentially be more memorable than anything actually said by the President during the address.

George Will Definitively Declares Sarah Palin “Cannot Be Elected President”

It's what the Left can't stand to hear: a prominent conservative pundit openly spewing on the reality that Sarah Palin is unelectable:

We’re now less than two years away from the next presidential election, which means it’s time for 2012 presidential speculation to begin! The first This Week of the year kicked off the talk with some of the biggest names on the Republican side, and George Will seems to have found through the litany of names what he called “the President’s secret weapon”: Sarah Palin’s inability to be elected.


Asked by Jake Tapper (filling in for Christiane Amanpour) to evaluate the Republican landscape for November 2012, Will began by addressing the fact that Mike Huckabee had performed particularly well in the primaries in 2008– better than Mitt Romney– and then added this salacious tidbit of speculation:


“The President’s secret weapon may be the Republican nominating electorate… There is one person, high in the polls, Sarah Palin, who cannot be elected president because she cannot compete where elections are decided. In the collar counties outside Chicago, Montgomery County outside of Philadelphia– just can’t compete there.”


He went on give some predictions based on the fact that nominees, he explained, tend to win the majority of electoral votes in the Mississippi Valley– giving Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. John Thune, and the suddenly-popular Gov. Mitch Daniels a leg up in that area.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/25/10

Google Admits 'Street View' Cars Collected E-mails, Passwords

Obama Says He Should Have Advertised Policies Better

A Witch Hunt For Bigots Singes American Media

Media Single Out Gay-Bullying Link In Reporting Teen Suicides

Illegal Immigrants Canvass For Democrat Senator Patty Murray

Teen Decides Against Abortion, Thanks To Texting

Latinos Go Conservative

New Hampshire Newspaper Refuses Gay Marriage Notices

CBS Relays Dem Claims Of 'Dangerous' And 'Extreme' GOP

George Will: All This Anonymous Campaign Money Doesn't Matter

NYTimes: Democrats Backing Fake Tea Party Candidates

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/11/10

NY GOP Candidate Carl Paladino: Homosexuality Not 'Valid'

Desperate Obama Urges Crowd To Show Him The Energy Of '08

Karl Rove To Obama: How Dare You?

US Physics Professor: Global Warming Is The Most Successful Fraud....

NBC Flees From Lefty MSNBC Cable Network

Obama's Huge New Tax

Blogger Blames Christians For Gay Suicides

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals, Moderates & Republicans

Report: Democrats Planted NJ Tea Party House Candidate

George Will Exposes Paul Krugman Hypocrisy On Political Ads

Megyn Kelly Reports On Duke Sex List Story, Urges Females: "Don't Sleep Around"

Rick Santorum: ACLU Attacking Religious Hospitals

From Cronkite To Katrina: Why The MSM Keeps Getting It Wrong

George Will and Entire "This Week" Panel Smack Down Donna Brazile's Call For More Spending

Newsbusters.org:

An amazing thing happened on the set of ABC's "This Week" Sunday: a liberal tried to extol the benefits of President Obama's unrestrained federal spending only to get completely smacked down by the entire panel.


Host Christiane Amanpour began the Roundtable segment of the program by showing some of last week's horrendous economic numbers, and opened the debate about what can be done to improve the current condition.


When Democrat strategist Donna Brazile got her turn at the plate, she uttered the same nonsense Americans have been hearing from her ilk for approaching two years:

Congress is divided. They are afraid to put more money back into the system, although most Americans should know by now that the stimulus did create or save 2 million to 4 million jobs, averted the Great Depression 2.0, but Congress doesn't have the appetite to put more money into the system.

The other panelists - George Will, President of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass, "Nightly Business Report" host Susie Gharib, and even Amanpour - weren't buying it

George Will Calls NAACP Resolution 'Left-wing McCarthyism'

Obama at 43% approval. May lose House and Senate in November. They're desperate.

George Will: Obama Is An Expert At Selling Snake Oil

Newsbusters.org:

George Will on Sunday accused Barack Obama of being an expert at selling snake oil.

As the Roundtable segment of ABC's "This Week" began, host Jake Tapper asked Will if the President's claim Republicans "are peddling that same snake oil that they've been peddling now for years" will resonate with voters this November.

Will marvelously responded, "No, because he is an expert on snake oil." 

"This is the man who said, if we pass the $767 billion stimulus bill, which it turns out costs $862 billion, a $95 million oops, we would have unemployment at 8 percent and no higher, and it went higher," continued Will.

"This is the man who last week was out saying, 'I'm going to give $2 billion, about $2 billion, to two companies to create about 1,600 jobs.' That's $1.5 million per job. That is snake oil" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary: