Barack Obama’s bullying of “Coretta.” #pray4coretta

Alternative title: "Barry bullied a girl. And he liked it."

(via @adambaldwin) Scare quotes deliberate: for all I know, ‘Coretta’ is a composite of three or four African-American girls that President Barack Obama bullied as a kid.

“I’m not her boyfriend!” I shouted. I ran up to Coretta and gave her a slight shove; she staggered back and looked up at me, but still said nothing. “Leave me alone!” I shouted again. And suddenly Coretta was running, faster and faster, until she disappeared from sight. Appreciative laughs rose around me. Then the bell rang, and the teachers appeared to round us back to class.

No wonder Barack Obama underpays women who work for him. He’s been carefully taught to treat ‘em that way.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Oh, I’m sorry: was that unfair? Let me keep repeating this: the Left will not win a “Whose candidate is weirder?” contest. Also: Obama staffers need to read their candidate’s own books before they try to pass scary stories about Romney to the mainstream press. Because while Barack Obama may have meant that passage to be about how racism (“Coretta’s” description was perhaps slightly… stereotypical) informed his upbringing, it reads just as easily as being an account of How I Learned To Push Women Around And Never Suffer The Consequences.

View the original article here

Mitt Romney Finds A Problem-Solver

“What I’m hearing from folks around the country is: ‘Game on, we’re in, we will do whatever is necessary to elect Mitt Romney now because Obama has shown where he really stands,’” Brown said.

(HT: Politico.com)

A lot of Social Conservatives looked askance at Mitt Romney’s relatively easy victory in this year’s GOP Primary race. I endorsed Rick Santorumin the GOP Primary myself. Then conceded to reality and decided to suck it up. Thus, I refrain from whinging over various primary season butt-hurts and support my party’s inevitable nominee.

Then yesterday happened – now it’s time to commit even for the Mitt! At least that’s what some recent polling suggests is now happening in the GOP.

What’s funny is that Mitt really didn’t have to do much to earn this burst of enthusiasm. He just had to stand by his record as a moderately Republican Governor of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This made him look like an absolute Rock of Gibraltar athwart Barack Obama’s shameless, gutless and toothless pander to the homosexual community concerning same sex marriage. This in advance of a Big Hollywood fundraiser. Way to sell yourself and not in a good way.

So much for President Gutsy Call. Roger Stone blogs on behalf of Libertarian Presidential Candidate and Turncoat Former Republican, Gary Johnson. However, he describes Barack Obama’s gutlessness to a tee.

Once Gay Americans are through celebrating President Barack Obama’s “personal” support of Gay marriage equality, they will learn that Obama’s “evolution” changes nothing…This comes on the heels of an cynical Obama campaign pirouette where Team Obama trotted out first Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then Vice President “Crazy” Joe Biden to say they support gay marriage and imply that the President would too–after the election. Now, incredibly, Obama says Gay marriage is a state issue.

This benefits Mitt Romney who displayed a quiet, yet firm stick-to-itiveness on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney fought homosexual marriage all the way to the State Supreme Court as a governor and has decided not to veer from that stance on the issue.

“My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.”

Mitt Romney did nothing more than remain Mitt Romney. Barack Obama herded disaffected social conservatives in Mr. Romney’s direction like the Tail-End Charlie on a cattle drive. Then, Mr. Obama ran away from his own panderation to his base after pocketing the checks and hob-knobbing with George Clooney. Thus, this becomes more than just a debate on same-sex marriage. It becomes a discussion of who these two men are and how each is faring with their respective party base.

Barack Obama is the unprincipled flip-flop artist that everyone accuses Mitt Romney of being. Mitt Romney hasn’t had to move an inch. Barack Obama sold out to his base and quite literally sang for his supper in the Palatial Clooney Mansion, amongst the pampered 1%. The GOP Base may not totally agree with Mitt Romney, but at least they no longer have to ask themselves how he is different than Barack Obama. Barack Obama’s pathetic moral cowardice has offered Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign a contribution-in-kind.

View the original article here

Potemkin Federalism And The Modern Campaign Straddle

We Call This Federalism Instead of Open Cowardice

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

(HT: Yahoo News)

I’m thinking President Obama regrets two of his decisions right about now. He wishes he wasn’t about to hold the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC and he’d rather have Opus The Penguin as a Veep right now instead of Huey “The Kingfish” Biden. As our Commander-In-Chief leans forward, gasps for breath and removes the 9” piece of steaming cutlery Mr. Biden recently sheathed between two of his vertebrae, he attempts to find a new and unique way to straddle the contentious issue of homosexual marriage.

Presidential Candidate Obama needs to stay on both sides of any controversial issue. As an Illinois State Legislator, he could always vote present. As United States President, he gets no such option – except that he kind of does. He can rediscover the magical principal of Federalism. He personally claims to favor homosexual marriage, but doesn’t want to shove his values down anyone’s throat. If only he could try that gambit out on energy policy and health care. This is far from the most egregious stunt I’ve seen out of Obama Presidency to date.

Had President Obama delivered this response in a vacuum filled only by moderately liberal suburbanites it would be an unquestionably logical decision. He doesn’t have any such vacuum to orate in and his teleprompter would probably fail if he tried. He gets the base of the Democratic Party to speak with instead, and they consider Federalism only slightly less insidious than Radon Gas in the basement. John Cook of Gawker explains liberal heartburn over President Obama’s “Present vote” on homosexual marriage.

He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn’t believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?…. before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery.

> (HT:Gawker)

Mitt Romney meanwhile suggested that he had permanently retired Flip The Romney Dolphin. He chose his side on the issue years ago as Massachusetts Governor and won’t evolve.

Obama’s likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage, and fought his state’s highest court when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, when Romney was governor. Romney said on the campaign trail Monday that he continues to oppose gay marriage. ‘My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.’

All of this seems like a perfect opportunity for Barack Obama to reaffirm his status as President Gutsy Call. He could take the bit in his teeth. He could demand openness and liberalization. He could make those damn, dirty Tea Partiers evolve. Except for one little nit to pick…..

The DNC will re-coronate Barack I in Charlotte, NC this summer. North Carolina just passed a ban on homosexual marriage by a 61-39 margin. And not only that, President Obama is going against a key element in The Democratic Party’s base if he openly supports homosexual marriage. Time Magazine (after their obligatory cheap-shot against North Carolinians for voting against leftist preferences on homosexual marriage) explains why Barack Obama won’t be making a very gutsy call here.

The constituency calculus makes this choice politically risky for Obama. Black voters, who were critical to Obama’s ‘08 victory, are strongly against marriage equality. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found 55% of blacks oppose gay marriage and 42% support it, which is almost the opposite of white voters—53% support and 43% oppose.

So there you have it. Federalism rises from the grave. It’s easier than leadership and more conducive to longer careers in politics than making principled decisions one way or the other. Now we just need to start devolving some of DC’s power, along with all the controversy and blame.

View the original article here

Vote Roundup from CJS Appropriations Bill

On Tuesday, we noted that there would be many important spending cutting amendment offered on the floor to the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill (H.R. 5326).  Well, a number of conservatives offered amendments to cut or eliminate wasteful, harmful, and unconstitutional programs.  Most notably, we focused on Mike Pompeo’s amendment to eliminate the stimulus program – Economic Development Administration.   The House defeated most of them, and in doing so, turned away about $4 billion more in spending cuts.  See how many of them were supported by your member of Congress.  Remember that those who are unwilling to eliminate these relatively small programs and agencies are not likely to have the guts to enact entitlement reform.

On Wednesday, Senator Thune told Politico:  “It’s the environment we’re living in right now. There are lots of folks who are watching every member’s voting records; you’re not only going to be attacked by your opponent on the Democrat side, but there are obviously Republicans out there who may not like when you’ve been around a few years and you got a lot of votes.”

Thune is correct.  We are spotlighting voting records, and it is clearly working.  Although most of the spending cut amendment failed this week, most of them garnered support from more than half the conference.

Here are the results from some of the key amendments:

Pompeo Amendment to abolish the Economic Development Administration [roll call #207]Broun amendment that would cut 3% from salaries and expenses accounts covered in the bill and direct $874.6 million to the bill’s spending reduction account. [Roll call #203]McClintock amendment that would cut $277.8 million from wasteful and protectionist programs in the International Trade Administration.  [Roll call #204]Scalise amendment that would reduce funding for Economic Development Administration salaries and expenses by $7.5 million and also reduce funding for the Commerce Department’s management account by $10.7 million. The amendment would direct $18.2 million to the spending reduction account. [roll call #206]Quayle amendment that would cut $21 million provided for industrial technology services at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [roll call #208]Harris amendment that would cut $542,000 from global warming programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [roll call #209] PassedBroun amendment that cut $15 million  for expenses associated with the restoration of Pacific salmon populations [roll call #211]Grimm amendment that would increase funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program by $126 million.  This is another federal intrusion into law enforcement that has not shown successful results.  [roll call #214] PassedFlake amendment that would cut $1.2 billion from the National Science Foundation. [roll call #217]Scott, R-Ga., amendment to abolish Legal Services Corp.[roll call #219]Broun amendment that would cut 12.2% from the entire bill. [roll call #222]

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

View the original article here

Morning Briefing for May 11, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing
May 11, 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

So yesterday morning the Washington Post runs a story detailing what kind of a jerk Mitt Romney was in high school. This is a surprise, right? A high school kid being a jerk. This has never ever happened before. Why, you might well ask, would the Washington Post devote valuable time and space to writing about this event? And why, you might well follow up, is this worth posting about when everyone should be talking about the environment?

The answer is easy. It builds a meme and it translates Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage from a liability into a perceived strength.

[Editorial Note: The Washington Post, overnight, changed the story without noting any changes to the story]

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The serious problem of bullying in junior high and high school has received some overdue attention lately. Lee Hirsch’s documentary Bully is in theaters and highly recommended.

But don’t think that bullying in academic settings is exclusively a phenomenon of adolescence. Adults also bully adults. That’s what is happening now at Emory University in Atlanta.

You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

But in the hands of academic bullies, if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications — well, everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Let me present to you the amazing amount of scrutiny that apparently needs to go into a Barack Obama campaign ad, just to understand what it actually means.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

I wanted to bring to your attention a short report released by The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions (full disclosure: I am the president) focused on state spending burdens and their connection, or lack thereof, to economic growth.

Adam Schwiebert, The Diehl Family Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, put together a short policy brief that uses a measurement know as “state spending burden” – comparing combined state and local government spending as a percentage of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – to look at the connection between spending and growth. The resulting chart, shown below, highlights that Ohio has a higher level of spending than growth states like Texas, South Dakota and Colorado.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

In the past week, I’ve been called a bigot, a hater, had people wish I died, and had people wish Christians had died, been rounded up and killed, or experienced their own personal holocaust.

All this came from proponents of gay marriage. The media won’t cover most of this. The media sees most stories as victims versus victimizers and those who support gay marriage are the victims. They get the positive media coverage.

In reality, though, throughout this week I’ve seen a number of Christians engaged in as much hate filled rhetoric as gay marriage proponents, including the pastor in North Carolina who encouraged parents to beat up their gay acting sons.

As a Christian, I cannot support gay marriage, nor can I accept practicing homosexuality as anything but a sin. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians out there who seem convinced they aren’t sinners. In fact, we are all sinners and as I have matured in my faith, I have a harder and harder time understanding how so many Christians can be so tolerant of so much sin, but treat homosexuality as some sin set apart from all other sins making it a worse sin than, for example, adultery.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

View the original article here

State Spending Not The Path to Growth

I wanted to bring to your attention a short report released by The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions (full disclosure: I am the president) focused on state spending burdens and their connection, or lack thereof, to economic growth.

Adam Schwiebert, The Diehl Family Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, put together a short policy brief that uses a measurement know as “state spending burden” – comparing combined state and local government spending as a percentage of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – to look at the connection between spending and growth.  The resulting chart, shown below, highlights that Ohio has a higher level of spending than growth states like Texas, South Dakota and Colorado.

For what Paul Harvey would have called the “rest of the story” keep reading.

You can probably guess where this is headed: States that spend heavily, such as Ohio and Michigan, have not witnessed the strong economic growth that lower spending states have experienced.

Allow me to quote rather extensively from the report:

Spending burdens rise for two reasons: Either the private-sector economy decreases relative to government spending or government spending exceeds private sector growth. Both are true for Ohio.

Over the past two decades, government spending in Ohio has grown far faster than private sector growth. From 1990 to 2009, Ohio state spending outpaced inflation by 41 percent. During that same time, per capita income growth in Ohio averaged only 3.4 percent, tying for 6th lowest in the nation. The end result was a spending burden that grew from 20.74 percent of Ohio’s private-sector economy in 1992 to 26.30 percent in 2009.

Ohio is not alone. Michigan spent heavily over the past two decades and achieved underwhelming economic results. Like Ohio, its spending burden exceeded the national average and reached nearly 27 percent of its private-sector economy by 2009. When government spending grows faster than its tax base, it becomes more burdensome to job creation and only further stifles economic growth.

Other states have followed a different, more prosperous course. Texas, South Dakota, and Colorado are three states that have done a far better job at limiting government spending to the growth rate of the private sector. As a result, the spending burdens for each of these states is at or below 20 percent of their private-sector economies. Despite these restrained spending levels, economic growth has flourished in these states over the past two decades. Per capita income growth averaged 4.0, 4.6, and 4.0 percent in Texas, South Dakota and Colorado, respectively, from 1992 to 2009—far outpacing the anemic growth of Ohio and Michigan.

Chart?  Chart:

The takeaway?  More spending does not equal more growth.  Ohio and Michigan have spent more and yet seen less economic growth and prosperity.  Growth states in contrast have been able to restrain spending and reap the rewards.

This is particular worth highlighting because just as the economy is showing signs of life the calls for more spending are growing in the states.  But states like Ohio and Michigan simply can’t afford to return to the status quo of run away government spending and economic stagnation.

Instead, they must lead the way by relentlessly pursuing structural reforms and holding fast to fiscal discipline.  Only by keeping government limited and focused on its core components can states give the private sector the space it needs to grow and for communities to thrive.

View the original article here

What the Mainstream Media Isn’t Reporting About Solyndra

Promoted from the diaries.

After just a short time in Congress, I find myself more keenly aware of the research and reporting failures of the modern mainstream media.  If a story gets more depth and attention than the typical 10 second sound bite, I admit, I’m surprised.  Solyndra is no different.

There are a number of facts surrounding the Solyndra story that don’t seem to be getting any attention.  A significant part of the public outrage regarding the bankrupt company isn’t centered on their failed business model or external factors; it’s the millions of taxpayer dollars that the Obama Administration lost on Solyndra after the business was doomed.

After Solyndra defaulted and they knew Solyndra was in real financial trouble, Secretary Steven Chu’s Department of Energy (DOE) staff made a decision by December 10, 2010, to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money so more private capital could be injected into Solyndra.  Subordination means that outside private investors are given superiority over taxpayers in the event of bankruptcy.  At that point, $440 million of the $535 million loan guarantee already had been pumped into the company.

By law Secretary Chu wasn’t allowed to subordinate the taxpayers’ money.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically states that the loan guarantee “shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.”  It was the clear intention of Congress that taxpayers should be reimbursed first.

For a company that had already been declared in default and had a collapsed business model because the Chinese were selling their solar panels for less, one might question the sanity of private investors who gambled on Solyndra in December of 2010.  Were they after Solyndra’s intellectual property (IP) rights?  As a private investor and the dominant financier, could Argonaut’s support of President Obama have helped them secure Solyndra’s IP assets?

By December of 2010, these private investors were placed in first position to get the choice parts of the business – intellectual property, including proprietary information, processes, and patents – when Solyndra went under.  To be fair, I’d guess that these assets likely aren’t worth billions, but one could certainly speculate they’re at least worth $75 million, which legally belonged to the taxpayers.

Without question, $170 million – at the very least – was wasted.  If DOE had simply let Solyndra fail in December 2010, taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for $95 million of the loan guarantee that had yet to be dispersed in addition to the $75 million that was subordinated.

Why isn’t the mainstream media asking questions like these?  What other questions aren’t being asked?  To me, the Solyndra scandal is worthy of some good, old-fashioned investigative reporting.  Where are Bernstein and Woodward?  Is there no budding Mike Wallace?  I will continue to try to get to the bottom of this scandal.  Will the media join me?

Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, Virginia Republican, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

View the original article here