Sunday, January 31, 2016

Major Pro-Life Leaders Urge Iowa Voters to Choose Anyone but Trump

An impressive group of pro-life leaders has come out against Donald Trump's candidacy.  These are women for whom political policy and philosophy are primary. In other words they care about actual outcome not about political power.

They fault Donald Trump for being very positive appointing a judge to the Supreme Court who struck down a partial birth abortion ban in New Jersey (Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry). Trump has also spoken positively about pro-choice Senator Scott Brown as his VP choice. Further, they are "disgusted" with Donald Trump's treatment of individuals, including women like Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina and those he exploits in his strip club casino. I agree with them 100% and am now officially anti-Trump.

Marjorie Dannenfelser
Here's their statement
Dear Iowans, 
As pro-life women leaders from Iowa and across the nation, we urge Republican caucus-goers and voters to support anyone but Donald Trump. On the issue of defending unborn children and protecting women from the violence of abortion, Mr. Trump cannot be trusted and there is, thankfully, an abundance of alternative candidates with proven records of pro-life leadership whom pro-life voters can support. We have come to this conclusion after having listened patiently to numerous debates and news reports, but most importantly to Donald Trump’s own words. 
The next president will be responsible for as many as four nominations to the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump has given us only one indication about the type of judges he would appoint, and it does not bode well for those who would like to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade
Penny Nance
Mr. Trump has said his sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who struck down the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in New Jersey, would be a “phenomenal” choice for the court. Earlier this month, Mr. Trump also said he thought pro-choice Senator Scott Brown would make a “very good” Vice President. If one truly believes, as we do, that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life and is committed to the pro-life priorities of ending abortion after five months, and defunding the nation’s largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood, it would be a disaster to have a vice president who disagrees. 
Moreover, as women, we are disgusted by Mr. Trump’s treatment of individuals, women, in particular. He has impugned the dignity of women, most notably Megyn Kelly, he mocked and bullied Carly Fiorina, and has through the years made disparaging public comments to and about many women. Further, Mr. Trump has profited from the exploitation of women in his Atlantic City casino hotel which boasted of the first strip club casino in the country. 
Star Parker
America will only be a great nation when we have leaders of strong character who will defend both unborn children and the dignity of women. We cannot trust Donald Trump to do either. Therefore we urge our fellow citizens to support an alternative candidate. 
Jenifer Bowen, Executive Director, Iowa Right to Life 
Denise Bubeck, Member and Iowa Volunteer, Concerned Women for America 
Kendra Burger, Director of Educational Outreach, Iowa Right to Life
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List
Christine Hurley, Iowa Pro-life Activist
Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman, Concerned Women for America
Marilyn Musgrave, Fmr. Congresswoman, VP of Government Affairs, Susan B. Anthony List
Penny Nance, President and CEO, Concerned Women for America
Star Parker, Founder and President, Urbancure
Luana Stoltenberg, Iowa Leader, Operation Outcry
Disclaimer: Titles and affiliations are for identifications purposes only.
The money I would have sent to SarahPAC over the coming months is going to go to some of these organizations instead.

[Governor Palin, please listen to these women and defend babies in the womb and women from disparaging treatment such as you have received from the national media and liberals. Please don't follow in the steps of Rep. Bart Stupak who, to his later sorrow, believed President Obama's false promises.]

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Rubio Says Cruz Running a "Deceitful" Campaign But Is His Friend?

Senator Marco Rubio
According to the Washington Examiner, Senator Marco Rubio says Senator Ted Cruz is running a "deceitful" campaign, but is his friend. Rubio goes on to say he will be able to unite the party.
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — Florida Sen. Marco swung at Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Iowa on Saturday morning for running a "very deceitful campaign" ahead of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Rubio told the crowd he would unite the warring factions of the Republican Party and sought to strike a contrast between himself and Cruz.
"Look, this is the last minute of the campaign, this is where desperation kicks in," Rubio told the crowd gathered in northwestern Iowa. "Ted Cruz has been my friend and is. He's decided to run a very deceitful campaign at the end. Some of the things he's saying, people see through that."
A couple of things don't ring true.

Senator Ted Cruz
First, Ted Cruz is Marco Rubio's friend? And yet Rubio says Cruz is running a "deceitful" campaign. Not making wrong charges or even false charges. But is deceitful. Doesn't sound like what one says about a friend. If Rubio is good with being friends with people who do deceitful things, that's not a person with good judgment. Imagine his Supreme Court picks not to mention his top administration picks. But, hopefully the problem is that Rubio is poor at picking correct wording and really does mean wrong or false rather than deceitful.

And, of course, if Cruz is his friend, Rubio hasn't come to Cruz's defense in telling Donald Trump that he is in the Senate and he likes Cruz.

The whole "friend" thing seems to have gone up in smoke for both Rubio and Jeb Bush who used to be best buddies but now are attacking each other. One wonders if they know how to be friends.

Second, Rubio will unite the party saying this sort of thing about the guy who is currently in second place? Hmm. It will be interesting to see how he takes on the guy in first place.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Trump Draws About a Million More Viewers to CNN and MSNBC; Cruz, Et. Al., Draw about Ten Million More Viewers to FNC

Numbers are in for the GOP presidential debate without Trump vs. Trump alone show. 

FNC's (Fox News Channel) Trumpless debate garnered about 12.5 million viewers for candidates averaging totaling about 53% in the polls.

CNN and MSNBC got about 2.7 million viewers for the Trump-alone event (well, with Huckabee and Santorum from the undercard debate too).

So only about 18% of the cable viewing audience preferred to watch Trump alone--which is about half the 35% he is averaging in the polls. And that, of course, includes the regular CNN and MSNBC viewing audience (about 1.6 million from the previous week's numbers).
But Trump's rivals, like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, still reached a big audience -- more than 12 million people -- by debating, which suggests that there are some limits to Trump's power. 
Fox's Trump-less debate had 12.5 million viewers between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. 
By comparison, two of the cable channels that showed parts of Trump's fundraising event, CNN and MSNBC, had about 2.7 million viewers combined. A plethora of smaller outlets also televised and streamed Trump, but no further viewership data is available.
So, Trump drew about 1.1 million more viewers to CNN and MSNBC than they got the week before. While Cruz, et. al., drew about 10.1 million more viewers to FNC than Fox got the week before. Doesn't mirror the polls, but does seem to reflect where serious political people feel they may find substance.

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Is There a Moral Law?

I read C. S. Lewis' book that came out of these broadcast talks in college, and his insight and ability to explain complex truths in an easy way has changed my life for the better.

Unfortunately Donald Trump Is Probably Right

In Sioux City, Iowa, presidential candidate Donald Trump said:
“The people - my people - are so smart, and you know what else they say about my people? The polls! They say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters. OK? It’s like, incredible.”
That's why they won't be upset if he doesn't deport all the illegal immigrants or build the wall. They have bought into the persona of Donald J. Trump. It's also why Hillary Clinton's supporters aren't upset that she is under FBI investigation. Probably Trump's supporters would not blink if he were either.

Sad. Bill Buckley was right when he wrote about Donald Trump in 2000:
Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line. 
So what else can Trump offer us? Well to begin with, a self-financed campaign. Does it follow that all who finance their own campaigns are narcissists? At this writing Steve Forbes has spent $63 million in pursuit of the Republican nomination. Forbes is an evangelist, not an exhibitionist. In his long and sober private career, Steve Forbes never bought a casino, and if he had done so, he would not have called it Forbes’s Funhouse. His motivations are discernibly selfless. . . . 

Cutting Up Trees for Lumber

The text that accompanies this neat video can be found on the The New York Sun site.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Black Actors Matter--Where Are Tom Hanks and the Other "Progressive" Hollywood Whites When It Counts?

Update: I removed all mention of Hanks' son from the post. My first and total response should have been only compassion for the drug problems his son faces. I apologize to my readers and ask the Hanks family for forgiveness.


It's rich that all the supposedly racially sensitive Hollywood progressives couldn't find a single black person to nominate for an academy award in key categories this year and last year.

Where are the white progressive Hollywood leaders who acknowledge the underlying racism in Hollywood? How many of the privileged white Hollywood leaders are boycotting the Academy Awards in solidarity? Zero. Apparently only blacks care if blacks are overlooked in progressive Hollywood.

Tom Hanks should boycott as penance for being okay with a guy in blackface until conservatives pointed out how offensive it was eight years after the fact.

Actually, Hanks and the Hollywood movie industry probably aren't racist--just not too bright about making sure to appear politically correct at all times. But, of course, they never give the people they criticize any leeway. They're the first to point fingers and call other people out for being racist when most of the time it's just being on auto-pilot and not self-censoring every word and action.

Of course the Sony hack in 2014 showed there is racism and sexism in progressive Hollywood. So, maybe I'm being too kind in just considering the Oscar nominations as a politically correct problem.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Our Prayers Are with the Palin Family

Track Palin in happier times
We have lost a beloved young person in our family to suicide--about Track Palin's age (26). Track apparently punched his girlfriend and then threatened to kill himself earlier this week.

Our prayers are with Track and the Palin family as they love and support Track through the mental, emotional, spiritual and physical changes that he needs. Our hearts go out to the entire Palin family.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Jay Sekulow Talks to Pastor Saeed Abedini Released from Iranian Prison

Palin Endorses Trump

Update: Rush Limbaugh has an interesting alternative take on why Governor Palin is supporting Trump. Personal identification with his bad treatment from the press and GOP/conservative establishment is a big part of it.
[Palin] "I've already been clobbered. I've been clobbered by the people who are gonna clobber me today before. "And, like you all, I’m still standing. So those of us who’ve kind of gone through the ringer as Mr. Trump has, makes me respect you even more. That you’re here, and you’re putting your efforts, you’re putting reputations, you’re putting relationships on the line to do the right thing for this country. Because you are ready to make America great again."
. . .
[Rush]I think this explains why so many Tea Party supporters and other conservatives are drawn to Trump even if he doesn't, you know, broadcast or display a bunch of conservative credentials.  I mean, people have a bond and a connection here to people who are laughed at, made fun of, criticized, ripped to shreds and so forth just because of what they believe and who they are. 
Then Victor Davis Hanson, as always, is illuminating on why Trump appeals to common people.
Street fighter Trump has an uncanny ability to spot these apparent contradictions [Hillary Clinton's war on women strategy in light of Bill's past behavior]. Jeb Bush is a good person who really was “low-energy.” Trump’s unkind label stuck.
Politicians really do pander in shameless fashion to big-money donors. Who better than Trump to know that? He claims he used to lavish cash on lots of them.
Trump does not play by any political rules because he has always made up or bought his own rules. Such a wheeler-dealer is no more bothered by an anchorman’s raised brow than he was by a banker’s frown.
How does the establishment derail an out-of-control train for whom there are no gaffes, who has no fear of the New York Times, who offers no apologies for speaking what much of the country thinks — and who apparently needs neither money from Republicans nor politically correct approval from Democrats?

Sigh. I can understand some of the reasoning.

1. Trump has a level of polling that should make him the presumptive nominee. Nationally near 35% with his closest competitor Cruz at a little more than half that 19.3%. Cruz is intellectually much more capable but he doesn't have the votes or the charisma to attract and energize (as both Palin and Trump have).

2. Trump and Cruz are fighting over the same votes and likely to damage one another and conservative momentum (now at about 65% if Carson is included) rather than clarify differences.

3. Trump does have real world abilities that Cruz does not have. (My friend MaxRedline said in a recent comment: "There are actually a couple of things that Trump has going for him: he knows business, and he's not hobbled by political correctness.")

4. Trump is much more likely to pick up the Reagan Democrat demographic than Cruz.

 But . . .

5. Palin's speech was not one of her best. It was rambling and should have been cut by about half*--focusing on Trump's good points.

6. Cruz is a conservative with well thought out and consistent positions in almost all the major areas. Trump is not. But then Palin herself was originally a moderate conservative who was a reformer at heart. She wanted to clean up Alaska politics and risked her political career by going after corruption in her own party. It is her common sense that has informed her conservatism. And Trump may be made of the same stuff.

7. Cruz has fought in the trenches and taken the hits for fighting against the GOP establishment. They hate him, the media hates him, and of course the Left hates him. None of them were rabidly anti-Trump before Trump started spouting non-politically correct thoughts. They may have laughed at Trump but they didn't hate him. As a businessman he gave big donations and was a go along, get along kind of guy.

8. Among some of the non-political young (even would be conservative leaners) contempt for Trump is almost visceral, whereas Cruz is mostly off their radar. (On the other hand, the young are notorious for not showing up on election day.)

So, I think Palin was smart to come out now for Trump. This is probably the best timing for impact with the conservative, evangelical voting base in Iowa. But, she could have done it much better both for Trump's sake and her own reputation as a conservative stateswoman.

I personally still support Cruz and Carson and will vote for one of them if they are still on the ballot when the Oregon primary is held. The endorsement didn't sway me. But, I still love and admire Sarah Palin.

And I must say that Ted Cruz showed the most class by tweeting that he loves Sarah Palin no matter who she endorses. That's a man with good values, loyalty, gratitude and a wonderful humility. All are terrific character traits in a man who wants to lead the nation.

As for the national election, I continue to follow the Mark Levin orange juice can approach of having a very low threshold to get my vote.
I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. I told you before with Barack Obama, I would vote for an orange juice can over Barack Obama.
*start at about the 53 minute point

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen by Common Law and U.S. Statutory Law

Good analysis from John Eastman at National Review in terms of common law and U.S. statutory law.

First, on common law:
After the English civil wars of the mid 17th century and the return of a number of English subjects who had departed the realm during the wars, an Act of Parliament determined that all children who, during the period of the wars, “were born out of his majesty’s dominions, and whose fathers or mothers were natural-born subjects of this realm,” were themselves natural-born subjects. (The act was cited in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark that ruled that the children of non-citizen lawful permanent residents born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens.)
. . .
A bit further on, [William Blackstone] specifically recognizes that the children born abroad of natural-born English subjects are themselves natural-born subjects. And a few pages after that, he recited several acts of parliament that established the broad proposition that children born abroad to English subjects were themselves natural-born subjects “in allegiance to the king.”[emphasis added]
Then on U.S. statutory law:
The requirement in Article II that one be a “natural-born citizen” in order to be eligible for the presidency simply means that one be a citizen from birth, rather than subsequently becoming a citizen by later naturalization.
Moreover, this was the understanding of the clause given by the very first Congress in a bill passed in 1790 and signed into law by President George Washington: “Children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”[emphasis added]
H/T Mark Levin

Cringe. Jeffrey Lord Spouts Drivel?

Jeff Lord
Aagh! Jeffrey Lord, usually with such good sense, has a new book out: What America Needs: the Case for Trump.
In What America Needs, Lord makes a powerful case that Trump—often denigrated even by other Republicans as too outrageous for the White House—is actually exactly the president our country needs right now: one who will reverse the damages done during the Obama administration and do what it takes to make America great again.
True, I have not read it. But, I can't think of a case to make for Trump in solving the ticking time bomb of huge government expansion and regulation and astronomically expanding public entitlements.

I know some think that we can grow ourselves out of this economically. This idea is based on the four years of positive budget from the Clinton years. But, even that was a bit chimerical because the dollar has not been tied to any clear value standard since Nixon.

The main thing Trump has going for him is that the rest of the world is in worse condition than the U.S. But, then all the candidates, even Bernie Sanders, has that going for them.

I'm not dissing Trump. I follow the Mark Levin presidential voting philosophy. I'd vote for a can of orange juice over the Democratic candidate. So, in the general election I'm not picky.

But, I hope from conservative thinkers to hear something about the transition we have to make as a political society in what we expect of government and what we expect of ourselves. Maybe Lord makes that argument in What America Needs. But, I've not heard even bits and pieces of such an argument, and I'm cringing.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Pastor Saeed Abedini and Three Other Americans Freed By Iran

A video of Jay Sekulow talking about some of the details of the release can be viewed here.
Pastor Saeed Abedini
before being imprisoned
American Pastor Saeed Abedini has just been released from imprisonment in Iran.
For more than three years, Pastor Saeed – a U.S. citizen – has endured imprisonment in Iran.
We can now officially confirm that Pastor Saeed has been freed. In addition there are reports that 3 other Americans imprisoned in Iran have also been released.
News broke late last night that Pastor Saeed had been taken from his prison cell to Iran’s Central Intelligence agency. While the details are still coming in, we can confirm that this morning he was released.
Along with Jay and millions of other Christians, I want to publicly thank God for answering our prayers and turning the hearts of the Iranian rulers.

I posted a Christmas letter from Pastor Abedini in 2014 which mentions some of his hardships in prison and his reflections on the first Christmas and its hardships for Mary and Joseph along with God's purpose in sending His only begotten Son into the world.
Christmas means that God came so that He would enter your hearts today and transform your lives and to replace your pain with indescribable joy.
Christmas is the manifestation of the radiant brightness of the Glory of God in the birth of a child named Emmanuel, which means God is with us.
Christmas is the day that the heat of the life-giving fire of God’s love shone in the dark cold wintry frozen hearts and burst forth in this deadly wicked world.

Friday, January 15, 2016

Ted Cruz Apologizes to New Yorkers (for what they have to endure)

The clear statements of Gov. Andrew Cuomo that conservatives are "right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay" and "have no place in the state of New York, because that's not who New Yorkers are" and Mayor Bill de Blasio's declaration that pro-life "does not represent the views of the people of New York" clearly show that New York's political leaders see a huge divide between New York values and conservative values. Here's what the editors of the New York Post had to say:
But the prize for the most blatantly hypocritical response goes jointly to Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio.
Both men on Friday demanded Cruz apologize to the people of New York — with Cuomo accusing him of “demonizing” those he disagrees with and polarizing voters so as to “make it impossible to govern.”
Besides, he argued, what Cruz said is “not even true about New York: We have a significant Conservative Party and movement,” and Cuomo has to “deal with them every day.”
Hah! Two years ago, Cuomo himself denounced conservatives as “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay.”
“Extreme conservatives,” said the governor, “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
De Blasio was quick to say amen: “I agree with Gov. Cuomo’s remarks,” he said, adding that anyone who is pro-life “does not represent the views of the people of New York.”
That all sounds pretty much like what Ted Cruz was saying about “New York values” being at odds with conservative ones.
And declaring that people who think a certain way “have no place in the state of New York” sure sounds like rank “demonizing” to us. Not to mention that it goes way, way beyond anything Ted Cruz had to say.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Marco Rubio Was Not the Main Guy Behind Defunding Obamacare or Even an Important Player

In a post last month I passed on the word that Senator Marco Rubio was the key figure behind defunding Obamacare. Quoting the New York Times:
A little-noticed health care provision that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law.
Well, apparently they got it wrong. There's now a correction on the story:
Correction: January 15, 2016 An article on Dec. 10 about Marco Rubio’s efforts to undermine an element of the Affordable Care Act referred incorrectly to one element of the legislative history. While Mr. Rubio was the most prominent congressional opponent of the so-called risk corridor payments in the health law, and introduced measures to undermine them, other Republicans were ultimately responsible for inserting a provision into a 2014 spending bill that limited the payments. The error was repeated in a picture caption with the continuation of the article. [emphasis added]
Oops! The "other Republicans", unnamed by the Times, were "Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and then-Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.).  The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler:
But a House probe that year actually suggested claims would exceed payments. Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), then ranking member of the Budget Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, came up with a new strategy of attacking the legality of the payments. They also enlisted the help of then-Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who chaired the appropriations panel that funds the Department of Health and Human Services and the Labor Department.
The lawmakers questioned whether the payments were actually appropriated correctly — forcing the administration to make changes that ultimately allowed the lawmakers to checkmate the administration. In effect, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was forced to admit that the ACA did not automatically appropriate the funds, but it was subject to discretion of Congress. (A Government Accountability Office opinion requested by Sessions and Upton backed up much of the GOP contention.)
So, these guys are the real heroes. And the New York Times again has egg on its face for poor reporting and not making corrections until almost four weeks after the story had been corrected by good reporting.
A Sept. 30, 2014, legal opinion from the congressional Government Accountability Office validated part of the Sessions-Upton strategy. The analysis confirmed that the president's health law failed to provide specific authority for the risk corridor payments.
But there was a nuance. Under risk corridors, insurers whose medical claims costs are lower than expected in a given year pay in money to help insurers whose costs are high. GAO said those were "user fees" and the administration could still pay insurers through other health care accounts endowed with broad spending authority.
Those accounts could also be used to shift additional funding in case insurer payments into the program were insufficient.
Along with Kingston, Sessions and Upton sprang the trap, crafting a one-sentence budget provision that blocked the administration from covering any shortfalls.
No comment on what this says about Senator Rubio's credibility.

H/T Byron York

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

David Brooks on Ted Cruz and the Haley Case Is Either "deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant"

David Brooks - December 2015
James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal dismantles David Brooks' vicious criticism of Senator Ted Cruz in a recent column.

David Brooks takes some below the belt swings at Senator Ted Cruz in the column calling Cruz the purveyor of "pagan brutalism" because "[t]here is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy."

Brooks' Exhibit A is a legal case Cruz prosecuted against Michael Wayne Haley which made its way to the Supreme Court. Brooks quotes Justice Anthony Kennedy: “Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?” But, Brooks uses his own "pagan brutalism" in leaving out important evidence that vindicates Cruz who prevailed in the decision of the nation's highest court. Taranto:
The vote was 6-3, with Kennedy among the dissenters. The majority opinion was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and joined by, among others, Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Thomas, Souter,
Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, Stevens in 2005
If arguing against Haley’s legal position “reveals something interesting about Cruz’s character,” what does deciding against it reveal about the character of O’Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer and the others in the majority? 
Oh. Brooks conveniently leaves out that Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor have rarely been accused of "pagan brutalism" for their judicial opinions--except by David Brooks' own implication (not directly expressed because even New York Times readers would find it ludicrous).

Taranto says Brooks uses the Haley case, which does not deal with Haley's guilt or innocence but procedural matters, in a manner either "deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant". Brooks implies that Haley is innocent and was railroaded. But, the case hangs on a technicality. And the Supreme Court found that Haley would not be incarcerated while he pleaded his case on the technicality.
And because petitioner has assured us that it will not seek to reincarcerate respondent during the pendency of his ineffective assistance claim, Tr. of Oral Arg., at 52 ("[T]he state is willing to allow the ineffective assistance claim to be litigated before proceeding to reincarcerate [respondent]"), the negative consequences for respondent of our judgment to vacate and remand in this case are minimal.
Senator Ted Cruz 2016
Taranto ends his column with a notation that Brooks' use of this case does not bring into issue Ted Cruz's character.  It actually calls into question David Brooks' character.
Brooks means to denounce Cruz, not to vindicate Haley. Criticizing politicians, even denouncing them, is part of the job of an opinion columnist. But Brooks’s treatment of this case is either deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant. It may raise questions of character, but not Ted Cruz’s.
What a fall. Brooks goes from deciding if a candidate is presidential material by the crease of his pants to misrepresentation of a Supreme Court case and decision. Brooks was far superior morally as a fool than he is as false witness.

Update: Here's a more kindly view of David Brooks, who is trying to the kind of person people will feel comfortable confiding in--except Ted Cruz and the millions of Americans who want Cruz to be president.

Thursday, January 07, 2016

Palin Spoofs Tina Fey

Interesting that she included Sen. Lindsey Graham in the joke, and he was willing.

Palin has fun with some of her own jokes (the Big Gulp) in connecting them to Tina Fey's trade mark "[c]haracters with embarrassing addictions to junk food".

Mainly it shows how Palin likes to have fun along with her serious side. Hillary Clinton would kill for this kind of ability to connect and be fun.

It reminds how the media goons have done everything they can to personally destroy Palin who is bright, talented and funny. The press in their group think are shameful, disgusting people who rightly deserve their low confidence rating among the American people. Only Congress rates lower (8%). TV news ties with Big Business (21%) and newspapers (24%) tie organized labor's low and barely edge above the criminal justice system (23%).

H/T Conservatives for Palin

Tuesday, January 05, 2016

Some Strange Moves by Pro-Bush PAC and Rubio

Governor Jeb Bush
Interesting that the pro-Jeb Bush Right to Rise PAC accuses Donald Trump of trying to insult his way to the presidency, but shows Bush on his way to the presidency insulting Trump.
"And he gets his foreign policy experience from 'the shows'. . . . I don't know if that's Saturday morning or Sunday morning. Donald, you're not going to be insult your way to the presidency."
Then Marco Rubio says in attacking Ted Cruz that if ISIS had lobbyists they would have spent millions to pass the "anti-intelligence law" which Cruz voted for.
Senator Marco Rubio
"If ISIS had lobbyists in Washington, they would have spent millions to support the anti-intelligence law that was just passed with the help of some Republicans now running for president," Rubio said in foreign policy speech delivered Monday in Hooksett, New Hampshire.
The "anti-intelligence law" to which Rubio referred is the USA Freedom Act, passed in June 2015. It restricts the National Security Agency's collection of so-called metadata from Americans' phone records, a controversial part of the nation's post-9/11 anti-terrorist strategy. Rubio has said the Freedom Act "weakens U.S. national security by outlawing the very programs our intelligence community and the FBI have used to protect us time and time again."
Rubio's presidential site touting Trey Gowdy
But, as Byron York notes, lots of Republicans voted for that bill including Rep. Trey Gowdy who just endorsed Rubio and who Rubio is having speak at his campaign events. Are they all unwitting ISIS supporters?
Beyond going wildly over the top, has Rubio looked at who else voted for the USA Freedom Act? There are a lot of Republicans — conservatives whose support Rubio will need in this campaign — who acted, in Rubio's telling, in concert with those imaginary ISIS lobbyists. 
The bill passed by a vote of 67 to 32 in the Senate and 338 to 88 in the House.
 Sometimes political shots are not well aimed--even aimed at the candidate's own foot.

Monday, January 04, 2016

IRS Finally Makes 2015 Form 1040 Available, But No Instructions

only 1040 instructions available today
The IRS shows incompetence on top of political skullduggery. 

Between 2010 and 2012 the IRS targeted conservative groups for "extra scrutiny" simply because they had conservative sounding words in their names.
During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, [Lois Lerner] said in a conference call with reporters.
They constituted about one-quarter of the 300 groups who were flagged for additional analysis by employees of the IRS tax-exempt unit’s main office in Cincinnati.
The actual number of conservative groups targeted was north of 290.

Now the agency can't even get its major form instructions online in the year it has to be filed.

Form 1040 was finally posted two days before the end of 2015--December 29, 2015. But still no instructions. This is probably due to new Obamacare requirements.

This all makes tax reforms that would eliminate the need for the IRS much more attractive.