Tag Archives: Rush Limbaugh

Exposed: White House Threatens Reporters Who Dare To Challenge Him


Liberal reporters are finally coming forward to reveal the White House’s threatening behavior towards journalists who dare to question him.

It started with veteran journalist Bob Woodard (of Watergate fame) making these statements:

The Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on “Morning Joe” today, saying he’s exhibiting a “kind of madness I haven’t seen in a long time” for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?'” Woodward said.

“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need?'” Or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ … because of some budget document?”

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

“Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. ‘I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,'” Woodward said.

Read more at Business Insider

It wasn’t long before the White House responded with threats:

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

Read more at Business Insider

Sadly, the leftist media are more inclined to eat their own than allow their Obamessiah to be criticized, and the quickly tried to smear Woodward – the man who helped bring down Nixon – as an overly sensitive, attention-seeking has-been who didn’t know a real threat from an innocent misunderstanding:

This is an incredible case of the White House attempting to bully the most iconic reporter of the 20th century – the reporter who, along with Carl Bernstein, took down a president of the United States. So you might expect the rest of the media to stand with Woodward. You’d be wrong. They’re too busy spending time playing defense for the White House.

It began with Politico itself, which downplayed the entire incident, even as it acknowledged that Woodward’s “play-by-play is basically spot on” with regard to reporting the sequestration. “White House officials are certainly within their rights to yell at any journalist, including Bob Woodward,” said official Obama buddies Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Allen and VandeHei merely suggested that the battle with Woodward was “a major distraction at a pivotal moment for the president.” They added, “Watching and now having interviewed Woodward, it is easy to see why White House officials get worked about him.” Poor Obama, having to deal with such issues.

Next, the White House went to its favorite outlet, Buzzfeed, and their favorite BenSmithing reporter, Ben Smith, to leak the source of the Woodward “regret” email. It’s clear why they did it – Smith spun the entire incident for the White House.  […]

The gall of this is astounding. All of these reporters combined might equal one tenth a Bob Woodward in the journalistic pantheon; the notion that their treatment at the hands of press flacks in any way reflects the general or appropriate treatment of someone like Woodward is absurd on its face. But the junior varsity is all too happy to gang tackle a reportorial Hall of Famer on behalf of their beloved President.

Imagine if one of George W. Bush’s deputees had dealt with Woodward this way. The left would have gone insane. Now they just call up the White House for a pat on the head and a nice scoop in return.

[…]  That madness has now infected the mainstream media. They’re too busy defending President Obama to defend the American people – or even their fellow members of the press – from Obama’s thug White House.

Read more at Breitbart

Despite the Leftist media attempt to minimize the damage for Obama and destroy one of their own, the released e-mails confirm Woodward’s claim.  Now other renowned liberal journalists are stepping forward to confirm that they, too, have received similar treatment from this White House:

Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, told Washington, D.C.’s WMAL this morning that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked. Davis, a centrist Democrat, is sometimes critical of the Obama administration’s policies.

Davis was speaking with Breitbart News editor Larry O’Connor, who co-hosts a morning show on WMAL. Davis said he had never spoken publicly about the threats before, but they seemed relevant after the White House told legendary reporter Bob Woodward that he would “regret” insisting that the White House had come up with the idea of the budget sequester, which President Barack Obama is now urging Congress urgently to revoke.

Read more at Breibart

Ace of Spades reports:

Now National Journal reporter Ron Fournier — whom I believe to be a liberal in good standing with his paperwork in order — drops this tidbit:

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.

I wrote back:

“I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record — publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.” I haven’t heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship.

Given that Woodward is now being called old and brokedown by David Pflouffe, and the Juicebox Mafia has picked up the “senile” message they’re putting out there… I would in fact say efforts are being made to insure Woodward “regrets” having correctly reported Obama’s ownership of the sequester.

Let’s hope more liberal reporters recognize the threat to their profession, rally around him and speak up.

Former Clinton aide, columnist joins Woodward in claiming White House threat

Gene Sperling Revealed as White House Official in Woodward ‘Threat’

Sen. Reid to the Press: ‘You Guys Have an Obligation to Report’ that Democrats Are Right

CBS reporter: White House, DOJ Reps ‘Screamed’ and ‘Cussed’ at Her Over ‘Fast and Furious’ Scandal

Media: Actually, This White House Threatens Us All The Time

White House notches up war on ‘unfavorable press’

Obama White House Bans Newspaper For Printing a Mitt Romney Op Ed

White House bans reporter from press pool for daring to record video on cell phone

Transparency: Reporter at Biden Fundraiser Forced to Stay in Closet

White House bans press from filming BP oil spill areas in the Gulf

White House Tries To Ban Fox News From Press Pool

Obama Attacks Fox News, Limbaugh For Holding Republicans Accountable When They Cave To Leftist Agenda

Obama To Press: You’re Not Biased Enough – Here’s How To Report My Propaganda

Exposed: Media Matters Collaborated With Obama White House and News Organizations, Made Enemies List Of ‘Preliminary Targets’

Memo to love-struck media: Obama’s not that into you

Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama

Obama Attacks Fox News, Limbaugh For Holding Republicans Accountable When They Cave To Leftist Agenda


Demonize and blame.   That’s all this president knows how to do.   Nothing is ever his fault, and his political opponents are mortal enemies who must be attacked, marginalized, and destroyed.

This is a sick, SICK man.

Brett LoGiurato reports at Business Insider:

In a sit-down interview with The New Republic released today, President Barack Obama cast blame on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for shaping compromise as a “dirty word.”

[…]  Obama said the same thing happens with the far left — but that “left-leaning media outlets” are more willing to accept compromise.

Read more at Business Insider

Lying is a natural to him as breathing.  Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters points out:

Really? “Left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word?”

Which ones?

Do the folks at MSNBC want Obama to compromise with Republicans? Or the people at the New York Times?

How about CBS News where its political director recently advocated Obama destroy the Republican Party in his second term.

No, there’s no push for compromise from the liberal media.

As for Reid and Pelosi, they’ve done everything but try to work with Republicans since they took over both chambers of Congress in 2007.

In fact, their first budget attained not one single Republican vote in the Senate or the House. Ditto 2009’s stimulus bill and 2010’s healthcare reform.

The same is true for Obama himself who days after his first inauguration told Republican leaders interested in assisting in the crafting of stimulus legislation, “I won.”

It’s truly laughable that a Democratic President of the United States would be blaming members of the media for his inability to reach across the aisle and convince members of the opposition to work with him.

Ronald Reagan had a far more hostile media and seemed capable of doing it. Ditto George W. Bush during his first term.

But Obama can’t, and that’s Fox News and Limbaugh’s fault?

Read more at Newsbusters

It’s the solution that Obama proposes that is truly frightening.  From Ben Shapiro:

But what of his Republican opposition? That opposition, said Obama, has to be forced to embrace his positions:

And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don’t think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.

How, exactly, will Obama achieve changing that incentive structure, exactly? Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are a free press. But according to Obama, that media must apparently be curbed. The media on the left, however, need not be curbed, because “more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.”

This is nothing new from a thuggish administration that has vocally derided Rush Limbaugh repeatedly, pushed secondary boycotts of Limbaugh through its extragovernmental allies, and targeted Fox News as illegitimate for daring to question The One’s agenda. But with Obama’s re-election, he obviously feels that his cross-hairs can be safely placed on his media opposition.

Read more at Breitbart

Kirsten Powers explains at Fox News:

There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.

[…]   Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!

The president seems more comfortable talking to “real journalists” such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama’s reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, “The Kid Who Made Obama President.” You can’t make this stuff up.

This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.

Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

[…]  Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.

Read more at Fox News

President worried that media just isn’t liberal enough

Greta Van Susteren Calls Out Obama For His “One Sided” Slam At Fox, Says Democratic Leadership Intimidating Some Democrats From Going On Fox

Krauthammer: FOX News “Ought To Be Proud Of The Fact That We Annoy” Obama So Much

Your Guide To Understanding the Obamamedia for the Next Four Years

How The Media Helped Obama Win

Obama To Press: You’re Not Biased Enough – Here’s How To Report My Propaganda

Exposed: Media Matters Collaborated With Obama White House and News Organizations, Made Enemies List Of ‘Preliminary Targets’

Soros Gives Media Matters $1 Million to Fight Fox News

White House E-Mails Reveal Agenda to Deny Fox News Access to Obama Administration

Obama Calls Fox News ‘Destructive’, MSNBC ‘Invaluable’

Democrats Told To Stay Off Fox News

White House Tries To Ban Fox News From Press Pool

Obama’s war on Fox and half the country

Taxpayers subsidizing Soros’ war on Fox News

Obama launches his own ‘Ministry of Truth’ 2.0

Memo to love-struck media: Obama’s not that into you

Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama

Liberals Move To Emasculate Football


Wow.  I’m not a Rush Limbaugh fan, but he called this one months ago.

Tony Lee reports at Breitbart:

President Barack Obama said if he had a son, he would have to think “long and hard” before he let him play football and suggested he–along with other football fans–watches football against his conscience.

“I’m a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” Obama said.

In an interview with the left-of-center New Republic, Obama said football will “probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence” and that may allow fans to not have to “examine our consciences quite as much” while watching the game.

“And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence,” Obama said. “In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.”

Read more at Breitbart

News flash to liberals: there is NO SUCH THING as a “risk free” life.   Professional athletes understand the risks they’re taking, and it’s their right to take those risks. This is NONE of the government’s business!

If liberals want to live their lives cocooned in bubble wrap with no sharp objects, be my guest – in your own homes!

The rest of us understand that if you spend your life trying to protect yourself from every possible risk, you will never truly live.

David L. Goetsch explains “Why Liberals Hate Football“:

We can still remember the pep talks our coaches gave us every August before beginning the torture of two-a-day pre-season practice sessions in Florida’s stifling heat and humidity.  Those pep talks, paraphrased, always went something like this:

Boys, football is just like life.  There are no free rides.  On the football field you get only what you earn.  Nobody makes the team because he or anyone else thinks he deserves it.  I don’t care who you are or who your daddy is.  If you want to play on this team, you’d better give me a 110 percent effort on the field and off.  On my team you have to re-earn your starting position everyday.

This brings us to why liberals hate football.  They hate it precisely for the reasons revealed in our paraphrased pep talk: football is not an egalitarian enterprise.  It is 100 percent merit-based.  Football rewards hard work, perseverance, performance, and the will to win.  It is a game where there are no entitlements, no handouts for slackers, and no hand wringing about hurting the feelings of those who don’t measure up.  Football honors winners, regardless of race, cultural heritage, socio-economic status, or worldview.  Further, it gives losers opportunities to learn that life can be hard and, at times, unfair—valuable lessons for young people.

Liberals know better than to attack football for being merit-based.  Consequently, they label it a “barbaric” and “violent” sport.  In fact, they can become downright overwrought in their righteous indignation when quoting statistics about injuries such as concussions.  How ironic that people who support the wholesale murder of unborn babies would show so much emotion over the comparatively small number of concussions that occur in football.  Do you ever wonder if liberals are, themselves, suffering from a collective moral concussion. At least football players are given helmets and shoulder pads for protection, which is more than liberals are willing to give innocent unborn babies.

Read more at Patriot Update

Here’s a fair question: why is Obama more concerned with the safety of football players than with our brave troops who defend our freedom?   For years, he’s been forcing men and women on the front lines to fight with politically correct combat restrictions that tie one hand behind their backs in the face of a merciless enemy.   More casualties have occurred in Afghanistan in four years under Obama than during the entire Bush administration.

Where are the calls to make our TROOPS more safe?

Obama: ‘If I Had a Son, I’d Have to Think Long and Hard Before I Let Him Play Football’

Limbaugh: The End of Football Fast Approaches

Liberals Will Use Chiefs’ Linebacker Double Murder To Come After Football And Guns

What’s the Limit on Congress’s Power to Tax?

If you think the abuses done in the name of the expansion of the Commerce Clause were bad, just wait until you see what congress tries to do with the new taxing powers it’s been granted in the recent Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

The door has been opened for a MASSIVE expansion of government, funded by the unlimited power to confiscate your private property and wages at whim.   Americans are now officially tax slaves to the insatiable budget demands of thousands of unconstitutional federal agencies, programs and departments.

Julia Shaw writes at the Heritage Foundation:

The Supreme Court on Thursday introduced lawmakers to a new Obamacare.

The justices held that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to force you to buy health insurance, even though that’s what lawmakers and the President thought they were doing when they passed the law. Instead, the Court held that Congress may and did impose a mandate as part of its taxing power, even though that’s what policymakers insisted they weren’t doing.

That could put an entirely different spin on the mandate since, to put it mildly, taxes have been a big deal in American history.

The American Revolution began as a tax revolt. The issue wasn’t the amount of the taxes; it was the process by which they were levied. Specifically, the colonists objected to “taxation without representation”—Parliament levied taxes without the consent of representatives in the colonists’ local legislatures.

When drafting the Constitution, the Framers sought to rectify this issue. They gave Congress the power to levy indirect taxes and direct taxes.

The Framers did not want states, interests, or industries to use the national legislature to burden other states, interests, or industries unjustly. Therefore, the Constitution creates certain limitations on indirect taxes and direct taxes: Indirect taxes are subject to the Uniformity Clause, and direct taxes are subject to apportionment.

Indirect taxes were meant to fund the national government in ordinary circumstances. These included “Duties, Imposts, and Excises”—generally, taxes on articles of consumption. If Congress raised rates too high, then people would not purchase the taxed goods, and revenue would decrease.

Direct taxes did not have the built-in protections characteristic of indirect taxes. Direct taxes were imposed directly on individuals, who cannot shift their liability to others. To guard against abuse, direct taxes must be apportioned. The 16th Amendment empowered Congress to lay direct taxes on income without being apportioned.

For more information on Congress’s taxing power, check out ConstitutionOnline.com.

Mark Steyn: A lie makes Obamacare legal

This unconstitutional expansion of congress’ taxation powers via judicial activism is worse than the expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond all constitutional recognition, and lays the groundwork for all sorts of abuses at the expense of our liberties.

To cut off this destructive taxing power at the root, MUST repeal the 16th Amendment, and Ezra Dulis suggests another safeguard:

This can and will be used to justify endless bureaucratic absurdity–a video game tax, a swimming-without-water-wings tax, a microwave tax, a bad-shoe-insole tax, a ban on white bread tax–whatever Uncle Sam can think of. Thanks to the avarice of politicians, it has always been probable. Now, thanks to the Court, it is entirely possible.

Electoral victory and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will not be enough to end this push toward government control of healthcare. Even if the bill is repealed and replaced, the electoral winds need only change for a single Congress to pass the legislation again, citing this SCOTUS precedent. Inevitably, the agencies required to enforce the act or a variant of it will become too firmly entwined to citizens’ lives for a lasting solution through the U.S. code or executive order.

To gain ground in the fight against civic illiteracy on this scale, it will take nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to–and I cannot believe this phrase must be written–prohibit the federal government from taxing mere human existence.

Read more at Breitbart

Obamacare, the Constitution, and the Taxing Power

Dangerous Precedent: Supreme Court Says Congress Can Tax For Any Reason

Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito Dissent: ‘We Cannot Rewrite the Statute to Be What It Is Not’

Justice Robert’s Decision Was Judicial Activism, Legislating From The Bench

[adrotate group=”10″]

Supreme Court Rules Mandate Is A Tax, Obamacare Constitutional

Limbaugh: The IRS Has Just Become Obama’s Domestic Army

View on YouTube

This makes the 2012 the only opportunity we have left to reverse this leviathan before it becomes permanently entrenched and our liberties are lost.

Take back the White House, take back the Senate, take a larger majority in Congress, and REPEAL IT NOW!

Neil Munro reports at the Daily Caller:

Obama’s health care reform law has been upheld, as a tax, in a 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four-vote bloc of progressive judges to uphold the sweeping law, after reinterpreting it as a tax-related law.

The majority opinion, authored by Roberts, said the federal government does not have the constitutional power to compel “individuals to become active in commerce… [so] the individual mandate cannot be sustained.”

But in a stunning move, Roberts reinterpreted the law, allowing it to stand, because he said the federal government has the constitutional authority to tax people — even though the law’s advocates originally denied it was a tax while pushing for its approval in 2010.

Read more at the Daily Caller

Ed Morrissey observes at Hot Air:

After months and months of focusing on Anthony Kennedy as the weak link in the conservative chain at the Supreme Court, it turns out that Chief Justice John Roberts was the one the Right needed to fear.  With the more centrist Kennedy dissenting, Roberts signed off on the individual mandate in ObamaCare, not as part of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, or even the ludicrous reference to the “Good and Welfare Clause” from some Democrats, but from the more mundane and substantial power to tax.  The opinion actually ruled that the mandate violatesthe Commerce Clause, but as a tax that no longer matters.

It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried.  Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies.  For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the money paid by taxpayers would go directly to government [see update II].  The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing.  It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified.

Nevertheless, this is the law of the land.  We can now look forward to taxes levied by the auto industry for not having bought a new car in the last seven years, the liquor industry for buying too few bottles of wine to maintain your health, and by the agricultural industry for not buying that damned broccoli after all. We might even have Obama attempt to impose a tax for not buying enough contraception; we can call that the Trojan tax.

Read more at Hot Air

Senator Rand Paul issued this statement:

Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.

Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.

And that’s exactly what we intend to do!

Flashback 2009: Obama Says Mandate Is Not A Tax

The Dream Is Over: SCOTUS Says You’re No Longer Free

Did Roberts Give In To Obama’s Bullying?

The Nationalization of Your Body: Health Care Is The Ultimate Game Changer Of The Relationship Between The Individual And Government

Who Owns Your Body? Under Obamacare, not you.

Repeal It Now!

Romney: defeat Obama to repeal “Obamacare”

The Supreme Court Forces Us To Deal Within the Political System

[adrotate group=”10″]

Dangerous Precedent: Supreme Court Says Congress Can Tax For Any Reason

The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” ~ Chief Justice John Marshall

Ben Shapiro warns at Breitbart:

[U]nder the Roberts decision, Congress can levy a tax for virtually any reason. As Chief Justice Roberts himself acknowledges in the opinion:

There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.

Roberts rejects that argument. He argues that:

(1)  “the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity” (as support for this proposition, he idiotically quotes Benjamin Franklin’s famous injunction that nothing is certain but death and taxes, which is apropos of nothing);

(2)  “Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits” (although he declines to name those limits).

In short, Congress can tax you if you do nothing; Congress can tax you to influence your conduct; Congress can tax you and tax you and tax you. What kind of tax isn’t allowed under the Constitution? Roberts has to reach all the way back to a 1936 case, United States v. Butler, in which a tax on processors of farm products, proceeds to be paid to farmers. The Court in that case stated that the Act was “a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.”

Read more at Breitbart

J.E. Dyer warns at Hot Air:

This is an open invitation to “tax” via whatever mandate sounds good to you.  What sort of unequal-before-the-law mandate wouldnot fit this definition of a tax?  Congress can do anything it wants, by the logic of this decision, with the judicial precedent set that levying mandates equals using the power to tax.

Let’s mandate that every adult in America with an income over $80,000 a year has to buy a Chevy Volt or pay a fine.  Make it a 5-year recurring requirement, with the vehicle selected according to the preferences of environmentalists and unions.  Use the IRS to gather the necessary data and enforce the requirement.  It’s just a tax – why not?

Why can’t Congress tell us the size of house we are allowed to buy, require us to buy it, and fine us if we don’t?  Congress would just be taxing us by doing this.  Why can’t Congress mandate that we pay for two weeks of vacation at the tourist hotspots approved by Congress, and fine us if we don’t?  Why can’t Congress order us to pay for college and fine us if we don’t?  Buy furniture, buy certain types or brands of food, use a certain minimum amount of electricity or natural gas; get tattoos, buy a minimum amount of clothing each year – or buy only a maximum amount of clothing, and use only a maximum amount of electricity or natural gas – why can’t Congress require any or all of these things via a Tax-Mandate?

This is a very serious question.  If nothing in the US Constitution or legal precedent can be held to stop Congress from levying an unequally applied health-insurance purchase mandate, then what could stop Congress from levying any other unequally applied purchase mandate?  The same things that would stop a lawn-care or makeup purchase mandate should have knocked down the health-insurance purchase mandate.

Read more at Hot Air

Senator Mitch McConnell points out that Obamacare never would have passed if Democrats had been honest about the fact that it was a major tax increase.

Brent Bozell from Newsbusters remarks, “the incredible irony here is that in upholding Obamacare, Roberts et. al. have formally also declared Obama to be a monumental liar.”

Geoffrey P.Hunt points out at American Thinker that “The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy“:

The Supreme Court, ruling substance over form in denying the mandate as a commodity purchase but accepting it as a tax, is now beyond reproach given the 16th Amendment.

This interpretation is a splash of acid in the face for limited government libertarians. If any activity mandated by Congress accompanied by a money transaction can be construed as a tax, despite its commerce clause proscriptions, there is no limit to the power of the federal government over our lives.

Repeal of ObamaCare would fix the immediate horrifying consequences of this Supreme Court ruling. Yet what are the odds of both a Senate takeover by Republicans and a Romney victory? Even so, permanent damage has been inflicted on this nation. Any future Congress with enough votes to override vetoes or with a like-minded president can now force US citizens to purchase anything at any time, under the guise of a tax. Congress has an unlimited power to confiscate resources-any and all– from us by simply calling it a tax.

Which is why conservatives can never compromise on their political exhortations for limited taxation. There are now no restraints on how Congress may hook up vacuum hoses to our wallets, our assets, our future earnings, and prospects for life and liberty.

Read more at American Thinker 

Ezra Dulis recommends at Breitbart:

Electoral victory and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will not be enough to end this push toward government control of healthcare. Even if the bill is repealed and replaced, the electoral winds need only change for a single Congress to pass the legislation again, citing this SCOTUS precedent. Inevitably, the agencies required to enforce the act or a variant of it will become too firmly entwined to citizens’ lives for a lasting solution through the U.S. code or executive order.

To gain ground in the fight against civic illiteracy on this scale, it will take nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to–and I cannot believe this phrase must be written–prohibit the federal government from taxing mere human existence.

Read more at Breitbart

Palin — Beyond Death Panels: ObamaCare Officially Largest Tax Hike in History

How The Power To Tax Destroys

We Are Not Locking You Up for Disobedience; We Are Locking You Up for Failing to Pay the Tax on Disobedience

Supreme Court Rules Mandate Is A Tax, Obamacare Constitutional

Why the 16th Amendment Should Be Repealed

The Income Tax and Government Spending

[adrotate group=”10″]

Media’s ‘War on women’ Claim Isn’t Fooling Everybody

Obama’s War On Women

View on YouTube

Oddly enough, most women actually believe in protecting their unalienable rights like religious freedom from the tyranny of a government that tries to redefine women’s “liberation” as dependence on the Nanny State for their birth control.

Kevin Leininger of The News-Sentinel writes:

If Republicans really are waging a “war on women,” as Democrats and the media keep insisting, that must have been the fifth column I saw in Courthouse Green on Friday.

The crowd organizers estimated at about 350 – more than half of it female – clearly didn’t know or care that evil, conservative, religious men in high places are conspiring to take away their free birth-control pills. And so the “Stand up for Religious Freedom rally,” one of 138 nationwide, was highlighted by women holding signs and giving speeches that proved once again they just can’t understand that President Obama just wants to protect them – not undermine the principles they hold most dear or the Constitution he has sworn to defend.

Chief quislette was Patty Becker, community relations director for Redeemer Radio, the Catholic station at 1450 AM, who seems to have badly misidentified the enemy.

Women love freedom of choice, she said. But the federal government’s mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception to their employees gives women of faith no choice but to support “anti-life activities that violate their most deeply held beliefs.”

Women love virtue, she insisted, but feel a sense of sham that a vocal minority of “sexual anarchists” is trying to subvert the Christian tradition still shared and cherished by a majority of Americans.

Women love their creator, she confessed. But that most definitely isn’t the federal government – the same government founded on the self-evident principle that rights are gifts from God, not entitlements from Washington.

Such talk is, of course, heresy to those who insist that women (or minorities, or members of any other demographic group) must all think in precisely the same way – an elitist attitude that insults the very people the would-be benefactors claim to value.

The women in the park on Friday insist on thinking for themselves, and understand that if denying free contraception to a student at an expensive Catholic law school constitutes a war on women, they’ll gladly fight for the other side.

That cannot be good news for our embattled president, who this very week blamed Republicans for his investment of $500 million in a bankrupt solar panel firm and took credit for supporting an oil pipeline he has steadfastly opposed. By overreaching on his health-care mandate, he has managed to alienate even some of Obamacare’s original supports, which included many Catholic bishops.

And yet, there was Father Jason Freiburger, vice chancellor of the Fort Wayne-South bend Diocese, giving an invocation that compared Obama to the Old Testament’s Egyptian Pharaoh: leaders who put themselves in the place of God.

Read more at The News-Sentinel

Wag The Co-ed: Contraception Distraction Is No Fluke, Reveals Obama’s Desperation

Obama’s Approval Rating With Women Voters Sinks One Month Into Contraception Mandate Fiasco

Obama, Dems Attack Limbaugh, Refuse To Condemn Sexual Slurs Against Conservative Women

Conservative Women Call On Obama To Return Misogynist Comedian’s $1M Campaign Contribution

The War On Conservative Women And Minorities

[adrotate group=”22″]

Conservative Women Call On Obama To Return Misogynist Comedian’s $1M Campaign Contribution

Bill Maher, one of the most notorious misogynists on the Left, donated $1 million to Obama’s SuperPAC and has been invited by the Democrats to  host a fundraiser for the president.

Maher’s sexism and hatred against conservative and Republican women are legendary, from calling Sarah Palin the c-word to making jokes about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator.

ShePAC has put together a damning collection of Maher and other Democrats’ most notorious sexist remarks in comparison to Obama’s hypocritically lofty rhetoric.

View on YouTube

Obama said about his daughters:

“I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.”

Unless you’re a conservative woman. Then you’re fair game, and the president will gladly associate with your attacker.

That’s why Concerned Women For America is calling for Obama to return Bill Maher’s money to prove that he truly believes ALL women, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, deserve to be treated with respect.

ShePAC Fights Back: First Casualties, Misogynist Maher and Opportunist Obama

The left’s respect for women: a look back

Obama, Dems Attack Limbaugh, Refuse To Condemn Sexual Slurs Against Conservative Women

Limbaugh’s Comment is Tame Compared To Leftist Vitriol Against Conservative Women

The War On Conservative Women And Minorities

[adrotate group=”22″]

Obama, Dems Attack Limbaugh, Refuse To Condemn Sexual Slurs Against Conservative Women

Female Democratic Lawmakers Refuse to Condemn Bill Maher’s Comments About Palin

View on YouTube

Obama hasn’t held a press conference in months, but he decided to hold one on Super Tuesday so he can make birth and Limbaugh’s comments the center of media attention. Can you say “red herring?”

If Obama and the Democrats were TRULY concerned about sexist slurs against women, why won’t they defend women on BOTH sides of the aisle, regardless of party?

Neil Munro writes at The Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama today declined to criticize his supporters’ sexually themed insults of female GOP politicians, including recent comments from comedian Bill Maher and a band called The Roots.

The Daily Caller asked the president about those insults during an afternoon press conference, his first of 2012.

“Should Bill Maher apologize for what he said about Republicans?” TheDC asked. “Should The Roots apologize [for] what they said about Bachmann?”

The off-the-cuff question, which was noticeably absent from the official White House transcript, came just after Obama criticized radio talker Rush Limbaugh for insulting Democratic activist and law student Sandra Fluke.   […]

Limbaugh, who called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” apologized Mar. 3 for the insult after some of his advertisers withdrew their support.

Obama, however, declined to condemn TV comedian Bill Maher for calling former Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a “c*nt” during a live show in Dallas.

Maher told his television audience that he could use that language because “I don’t have sponsors — I’m on HBO.”

Last week, Maher announced he was donating $1 million to a super PAC supporting Obama’s re-election campaign.

Obama also declined Tuesday to criticize The Roots for playing a song called “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” when Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann walked on the stage during a “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” taping in November.

The band did not sing the widely known lyrics, which include the words “You’re nothing but a little lyin’ ass bitch … slut trash can bitch.”

The Roots played at an Obama Fundraiser last week.

Read more at The Daily Caller

During his press conference, Obama made the ironic claim:

“The reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things that I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about — even ones that I may not agree with,” he said at the White House Tuesday.

“I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens,” Obama added.

Really?  Then why did the President refer to Tea Partiers as “tea baggers” for being good citizens?

Sally Zelikovsky at American Thinker asks, “Hey Mr. President. Where’s my phone call?

In his press conference today, President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke because he thought about his daughters and wanted them to be able to take on issues as they grow up, as private citizens, and to engage in civil discourse without being attacked.  He wanted Fluke’s parents to be as proud of her for speaking out as he would be of his daughters.

Great.  So where is my phone call?  I’m a daughter and a mother, but I didn’t get one phone call  when I was called a mobster, a terrorist, a nazi, a tea bagger, a homophobe and a racist.  Where was the President when conservatives started protesting the bailouts, stimulus, jobs bill and ObamaCare and had their integrity and intellect attacked on every level?  Where was the phone call to Sarah Palin for being called a MILF or to Laura Ingraham for being called a slut?

Just admit, Mr. President, that there is a double standard and, in an uncharacteristic act of good faith to the people of this country, make a statement about it and call off the attack dogs.  Better yet, return contributions you have received from  those who humiliated countless mothers and daughters, fathers and sons who have been involved with the tea party movment.  You might not want to judge Rush Limbaugh but your silence in regard to invectives hurled by Democrats and liberals at conservatives demonstrates your complicity in passing judgment on the rest of us as racist, homophobic, tea bagging neanderthals.  I’m waiting.

Sarah Palin observed on her Facebook page:

Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone’s daughter, why doesn’t his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist [Bill Maher]?

The White House official website, funded with YOUR tax dollars, features a petition against Rush Limbaugh.  Since when does the president have a right to use taxpayer funded resources to attack private citizens?  (Can you imagine if Bush had allowed the White House website to be used like this against one of his critics?)

Rush has even begun receiving death threats as a result of this coordinated campaign against him.

David Limbaugh observes:

What is a much bigger story is that the left’s primary interest here is not in protecting Fluke — in my humble opinion. Liberals are attempting to exploit this as another opportunity to destroy Rush through a calculated, organized Saul Alinsky-type community organizing campaign to pressure and intimidate his advertisers into discontinuing their sponsorship of his show.  […]

We are in a war for the survival of the nation as we know it — as the greatest, freest, strongest, most prosperous nation in history. This is why we fight. When we step over the line, we apologize for having done so. But we do not apologize for the causes we are fighting for, and we must redouble our efforts to stay in this battle with all that is in us.

That’s the REAL story that Obama and the Democrats are hoping to distract voters from.

Video: Pelosi Refuses To Condem Bill Maher’s Comments About Sarah Palin

Liberal Radio Host Rants: “Repossess” Conservative Women’s Ovaries, “Cut ‘Em Off”

Limbaugh’s Comment is Tame Compared To Leftist Vitriol Against Conservative Women

The Left Calls For Limbaugh’s Job… But What About Maher, Schultz, and Sharpton?

Laura Ingraham: When I Was Called ‘Slut’ Barbara Walters ‘Just Laughed’: Laura Ingraham Slams ‘The View’ on Double Standard

Media Matters Project 2012: Attack Limbaugh

Axelrod Slams Romney For Limbaugh While Planning To Go On Vocal Misogynist Maher’s Show

Democrats sign Bill Maher for fundraiser as Obama urges civility

[adrotate group=”8″]

The War On Conservative Women And Minorities

Every conservative woman knows that she is automatically considered a traitor to her sex by the Left.   If she dares to form her own opinions and publicly speak against the leftist agenda, she knows that the backlash will be severe, just like black conservatives and gay conservatives who dare to step away from the ideological line the Left insists on drawing for them.

From hate mail to character assassination, those of us who are conservative members of so-called “minority groups” (though we consider ourselves American before anything else) can expect to be doubly punished for disproving the liberal mantra that the Republican party is for old, rich, bigoted white men.

But the true bigotry is on the Left.  Nowhere else will you witness such disgusting examples of racism, misogyny and homophobia as from Leftists intent on punishing women, minorities and gays who dare to think for themselves.  And don’t expect any apologies from the president or sympathy from the media.  As far as they’re concerned, you’re a traitor and deserve whatever you get.   It’s not YOU or YOUR family Obama was concerned about when he blithely invoked his daughters by claiming:

I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.

God help them if they “speak their mind” in a conservative way.  I’m sure Deneen Borelli’s parents wanted the same freedom and respect for their daughter, but discovered pretty quickly that Obama’s deceptively lofty ideals don’t apply to black conservative women, as Borelli explains in her new book, “Backlash.”  You won’t hear Obama offer her a sympathetic phone call, either.  Those are reserved for women who toe the ideological line.

Michelle Malkin writes:

I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonizethe entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.

We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.

At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation’s Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughtersand all women that they shouldn’t be “attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.” After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility. Too late, pal.

The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.

If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.

Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”

Read more at Michelle Malkin

The left’s respect for women: a look back

Limbaugh’s Comment is Tame Compared To Leftist Vitriol Against Conservative Women

How Democrats Are Using Women As Pawns

[adrotate group=”22″]

Limbaugh’s Comment is Tame Compared To Leftist Vitriol Against Conservative Women

Rush offered an apology for comparing radical activist Sandra Fluke to a “slut” because she demanded that taxpayers subsidize her $3000 birth control habit, and – classy gal that she is – the radical feminist bitterly refused to accept it.  She’s got the propaganda press wrapped around her finger right now, and like the well-trained activist that she is, knows how to strategically milk this staged “controversy” for all it’s worth.

She’s luckier than most women who’ve been publicly called “slut” and worse by the Alinskyite smear machine.   Most Conservatives women have been called every name in the book, yet are never offered an apology from their attackers or sympathy from the media, much less receive concerned phone calls from the president.   Cruel rape fantasies, vulgar epithets, sexist “humor”, and death wishes are routinely how the Left and media attack and degrade conservative women. Still we wait for apologies, demands for “civility,” and sympathetic phone calls from the president. Anyone? Anyone?

Brent Bozell observes at Fox News:

Just how sensitive are liberals to the plight of women, anyway?

Let’s see how they react when one of their own savages women in ways Limbaugh would never dream of doing.

Everyone remembers Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show.

MSNBC suspended him for a week, but none of Schultz’s advertisers dropped his show under media pressure. There was no pressure. Some of the same sponsors now pulling out of Rush’s show still support Schultz.

What Schultz said is nothing compared to his colleagues.

Fellow talk show host Mike Malloy hoped Sarah Palin “drives herself into madness” and insisted Michele Bachmann is an “evil bitch from Hell” who would have gladly supervised the Holocaust.

Montel Williams rooted on Air America for Bachmann to slit her own wrist or throat.

Randi Rhodes insisted that teenage boys weren’t safe from Palin’s advances if they stayed over at her house. There’s no news coverage or “war on women” narrative when the mud-covered women are conservatives.

Maybe these hosts aren’t prominent enough?

Then consider the case study of Bill Maher, who’s welcomed all over TV news shows.

A year ago on his HBO show, he called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat.”

He followed up days later in a Dallas stand-up routine by calling Palin the C-word.

Last July on HBO, he said Palin was “a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos.”

Last September on his show, Maher said Palin would have sex with Rick Perry if he was black.

Maher bragged on his show Friday critics can’t touch him because “I don’t have sponsors.” But that doesn’t mean he should be coddled, either, and yet he’s regularly honored across the media as a special guest, be it news networks or entertainment shows.

Days after he called Palin the T-word, he appeared with then-CNN host Eliot Spitzer, where Spitzer concluded, “Your show is brilliant. I love watching it.”

On Sunday, Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz huffed on “Meet the Press” that “I don’t know any woman in America that thinks that being called a slut is funny.” But two months ago, she accepted an invitation to sit on the set with the man who called Palin a “c—.”

President Obama placed a tender phone call to Sandra Fluke Friday to express sympathy for Limbaugh’s harsh words. He never called Ingraham, or Palin. But his super PAC did cash that $1 million check from Maher.

Some outrage is so, so….targeted.att

Limbaugh has been singled out and condemned across the national media – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today.

How many of these outlets have condemned Bill Maher with equal vigor for his attacks on Palin?  […]

The Left honors their own pundits as “brilliant” for verbally assaulting women, then circulates petitions calling for advertisers to drop the Limbaugh show because his “anti-woman tirades are appalling.”

To the Left, this is simply an opportunity to put their attacks on religious liberty in a feminist frame, and an opportunity to try and shut down Limbaugh. It is all about censorship and hypocrisy.

Read more at Fox News

A fellow patriot “momma grizzly” has a good reminder for those of us in the battle: “Toughened skin should not result in hardened hearts“:

Toughened skin should not cause conservative women to develop hardened hearts, though. The challenge remains for us all to resist attacks while staying focused on the final prize – the passing onto our next generation the exceptional inheritance of freedom and liberty we owe to our forefathers. It is our duty to press on, and resist the desire to whine. We’re in a battle of ideas and philosophy, and we’ll fight until we can fight no more.

The left’s respect for women: a look back

Media: What Unconstitutional Mandate? Pay For Our Birth Control Or You’re ‘Sexist’!

Kirsten Powers on Rush and Sandra Fluke: Where’s the outrage at misogynistic liberal men?

Limbaugh, Fluke, ‘War on Women’ and the Travesty of Cravenly Caving to Lies of the Left

How Democrats Are Using Women As Pawns

Defend Rush – petition, sponsors

Please Contact Advertisers That Dumped Limbaugh, Tell Them How YOU Feel

[adrotate group=”8″]

Media: What Unconstitutional Mandate? Pay For Our Birth Control Or You’re ‘Sexist’!

The media obsession with birth control and hand wringing about “women’s health” is a red herring to distract Americans from the REAL issue: ANY mandate is an unconstitutional abuse of federal power, and this is a SERIOUS, DANGEROUS POWER GRAB by the Obama administration, and a direct assault on individual liberty and the constitution.  The government has NO right to force ANY citizen or group to provide, purchase or sell a product or service against their will. PERIOD. THAT’S THE STORY THE MEDIA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO HEAR.

Hence the hysterical media theater over the “testimony” of Sandra Flukes and conservative criticism of her flawed argument.

Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old former president of the Law Students for Reproductive Justice - a liberal political activist who chose to attend an extremely conservative Jesuit university with strong, traditional Catholic values.   Why, one has to wonder?   Is it so she could use her influence to undercut everything they stand for?  That’s exactly the purpose, according to Jammie Wearing Fools:

“In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.”

Barbara Curtis observes at MommyLife:

The fact is – as Dick Morris was first to insist – the Left has concluded that abortion is no longer a winning issue (that’s right – as we keep having all the babies and those babies grow up loving the idea of family – the ground is shifting), so they threw contraception into the issue. The idea is to create the myth that Republicans hate contraception, hate women, and are out to enslave us all.

So Obama throws down the gauntlet – like the tyrannical kings we once fled – to demand that Catholic institutions provide free contraceptives to employees and students.

Congress holds hearings on whether this is a violation of First Amendment rights and a self-identified 23-year-old coed wants to testify. She has no professional standing of any kind, so she is refused.

Nancy Pelosi then stages a hearing for the Propaganda Press – it looks just like a real hearing and the PP swarm all over it – where this “co-ed claims that she is going broke paying 1000/year for contraception and that most other Georgetown coeds are in the same boat. (I still would like to know how many lattes, iPhones, DVDs, eye shadows these hot-to-trot coeds are able to afford.)

Unless you are a pod person, it doesn’t take much to figure out that we are being duped. Essentially Obama is demanding another entitlement – free contraception/abortion/sterilization – and he is imposing his own morality on that of the Catholic Church – an institution far older than the United States of America or any other political system.

With the help of a staged “hearing” hosted by Nanci Pelosi, Fluke talked openly about her sex life for an adoring media audience and shared a sob story about how oppressed she is because she needs $3000 a year worth of contraception every year and the big bad Catholics who run the school don’t want to pay for her…*ahem*…”extra curricular activities.”  Exactly how many condoms can you buy for $3000?   And how is it that she can afford a $23,000 a year tuition at Georgetown Law but can’t afford to take responsibility for her own sex life?

Craig Bannister calculates at CNS News:

At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year…Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years.

[M]aybe these female law students could cut back on some other expenses to make room for more birth control in their budgets, instead of making us pick up the tab. With classes and studying and all that sex, who’s got time for cable?

And, let’s not forget about these deadbeat boyfriends (or random hook-ups?) who are having sex 2.74 times a day. If Fluke’s going to ask the government to force anyone to foot the bill for her friends’ birth control, shouldn’t it be these guys?

All of this seems to suggest at least two important conclusions:

  1. If these women want to have sex, we shouldn’t be forced to pay for it, and
  2. If these co-eds really are this guy crazy, I should’ve gone to law school

MRC decided to test Fluke’s claims that contraception was not accessible near Georgetown University and that even married couples couldn’t afford to buy them.  The result is a scathing moment of hilarity:

View at MRC.tv

Lloyd Marcus remarks at American Thinker:

We taxpayers are minding our own business. We are, for the most part, passively ignoring America’s cultural rot.

But our passivity is not enough for the Democrats. They demand that we pay for behaviors which are in conflict with the principles, values and faith of many Americans.

Ms Fluke, Americans do not care how many out-of-wedlock sexual encounters you may have. But, when you go before Congress in an attempt to demonize us for not subsidizing your activities, you are infringing on our freedom; forcing your values down our throats.

You guys on the left are always the aggressors. When we say “no”, your media machine attempts to portray us as the aggressive bad guys.

Also, am I weird or old-fashioned for thinking it a bit shameful for a woman to go before congressional committee to basically say, I sleep around a lot and demand that taxpayers pay for my birth-control?

The NBC coverage on this last night made me want to puke.  They kept framing the debate as being about “women’s health” and “contraception,” not unconstitutional mandates and violations of 1st Amendment religious freedoms.   They implied that the all-male panel representing multiple religious groups at the real congressional hearing was sexist because they were testifying about “women’s health” (they weren’t – they were testifying about religious freedom), and portrayed Fluke as a victim of sexism because Rush Limbaugh referred to her as a “slut” on his radio program.

The only input in the news story from a conservative viewpoint was a video clip of Mona Charen replying to a question about Limbaugh’s remarks, saying “he could have worded it better.”  Knowing Mona, I’m sure she could care less about Limbaugh and had a lot more to say about the mandate itself, the ridiculous claims about the “threat” to women’s health and the real threat to constitutional liberties, but NBC wouldn’t want to air those comments.   That would shatter the narrative they’re trying to build that the GOP is a white man’s party that hates women.   They’d rather restrict a conservative woman’s input on the debate solely to observations on another conservative’s “controversial” take.

The only women who are allowed to voice an opinion on the debate itself are liberals, since only liberal women truly represent the “woman’s viewpoint,” in the media’s eyes.  Conservative women are considered traitors to their sex and their insights on the issue are irrelevant.

The scandalously biased and unprofessional coverage of this story should lay to rest any remaining doubt that the mainstream media has officially become the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.  The media is clearly covering for one of the most audacious and dangerous executive power grabs in history.

The Left is obsessed with establishing legal precedents for their unconstitutional agenda.  If the Obamacare Mandate is allowed to stand, it will set a precedent for government to unconstitutionally force citizens to engage in commerce: to dictate what citizens must buy and sell, and at what price, and how, and to whom.  With such powers, there is literally nothing the government can’t force you to do, and no unalienable right that cannot be trampled.

Obama is so sympathetic to the woman who created dramatic media theater to draw attention away from this reality that he personally called her up to thank her and told her that her parents should be proud.

The parents of murdered border agent Brian Terry, who was killed by a gun that Obama’s Justice Department deliberately smuggled into the hands of drug cartels, still have never received a phone call from the President.  Guess we can see where Obama’s priorities lie.

The Fluke Charade: A Middle-Age Child’s Nutty Demand

Who Is Sandra Fluke? Media lies, Obama calls

Slut-Gate: Obama’s Orchestrated, Left-Wing Campaign Plan

Georgetown Woman:  Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me

Not The Onion: Georgetown Coeds Need to Have Sex 1,000 Times a Year, and the Taxpayers Need to Pay for Their Contraception

Does Reproductive Freedom Imply a Right to Free Birth Control?

NBC Brings on Sandra Fluke to Blast Limbaugh, The Right’s ‘Deafening Silence’ Denouncing Him

Chris Matthews: Rush Limbaugh Could Be the Next Don Imus in the Wake of ‘Sluts’ Comment

Lawrence O’Donnell: Let’s Take a Look at a Graphic of Rush Limbaugh’s Sex Life!

[adrotate group=”22″]

Republicans Launch Massive Offensive Against Newt Gingrich, Conservatives Fight Back

I don’t think Gingrich is the ideal candidate, but this is seriously out of control.

Mark Levin weighs in on the Alinsky-style GOP onslaught against Newt Gingrich:

View on YouTube

This is getting ugly.  The Romney campaign has pulled out all the stops to attack Gingrich in Florida, and many Republicans and conservative pundits have piled on with Alinsky-style tactics borrowed from the Left’s playbook.

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit calls it “Shock & Maul”:

In case you haven’t noticed – the Republican establishment and east coast Mittwits have declared war on torchbearer Newt Gingrich.
Dammit Republicans… Do what you’re told! Get in line and back the RINO!

Ann Coulter loses her conservative street cred by pushing Reagan-basher Mitt Romney, ofRomneycare fame, as the true conservative in the GOP race while bombing Newt.
Really Ann?… Really?

The Politico is tracking the war on Newt.

Newt Gingrich better hope voters who lapped up his delicious hits on the “elite media” and liberals don’t read the Drudge Report this morning.

Or the National Review. Or the American Spectator. Or Ann Coulter.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72000.html#ixzz1kbOpaqZv
If they do, Gingrich comes off looking like a dangerous, anti-Reagan, Clintonian fraud.

It’s as if the conservative media over the past 24 hours decided Gingrich is for real, and they need to come clean about the man they really know before it’s too late. This is just a sampling of what’s hitting Newt:

• The overnight Drudge Report banner: “Insider: Gingrich repeatedly Insulted Reagan.” The headline linked to a devastating takedown by Elliott Abrams in the National Review, who wrote, among other things, that Gingrich had a long record of criticizing and undermining Reagan’s most transformative policies.

Read more at Gateway Pundit

Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh both hit back against the smear campaign:

Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement lambasting Mitt Romney and his supporters for claims that Romney’s Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich was a strong critic of President Reagan.

Reagan says such claims are false.

Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday radio broadcast to say “This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out here in Florida.”

Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh added that Newt has always been a conservative from his early days in national talk radio in the 1980s.

“He was perhaps the premier defender of Ronald Reagan,” Limbaugh said.

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission said he opposed my father in the 1980s claiming he was an ‘independent,’ and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.

Read more at Newsmax

Sarah Palin, in a statement on Facebook, referred to the perpetrators as “Cannibals in GOP Establishment“:

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary.

Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.)

To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.  Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

Read more on Facebook

Rush: Romney Camp Behind Anti-Gingrich Stories

Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin Take Sides

Newt Surge Proves Voters Want Candidates Who Unapologetically Promote And Defend Conservative Principles

Newt: Obama is a Saul Alinsky Radical, And Nobody In The Media Wants To Cover It

[adrotate block=”4″]

Limbaugh: Unlike ‘Occupy,’ Tea Party Has Staying Power

View at CNS News

Grant M. Dahl reports at CNS News:

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh stated on his show that the media is trying to portray the Tea Party as a fading movement and that Occupy Wall Street is being pumped up as its replacement when, in fact, the Tea Party is the lasting movement.

“The November midterm elections in 2010 showed us what is possible for the Tea Party: A landslide election, down ballot to the point that it affected state-wide structure. It wasn’t just a big sweep for Republicans in Washington. Republicans swept Democrats out everywhere on the ballot, even down to town councils in some places.” said Limbaugh.

“It was massive. Now the establishment types and the media want everybody to forget that. That’s why there is so much attempt, so many attempts now to say that the Tea Party, it don’t even exist anymore. Tea Party is frustrated; it’s Occupy Wall Street, that’s the big money-mover now!”

Indeed, Tea Party organizations are already at work for the 2012 elections, putting forward candidates for Republican congressional nominations in Indiana, Texas, Ohio and many other states.

In contrast, all the Occupy Wall Street movement has done to date is have protestors camp out in certain cities and throw out slogans and demands.

Limbaugh went on to say that, “The circumstances that led to that landslide defeat for Democrats in 2010 have not changed. There is no reason for the Tea Party to have dissipated. There is no reason for the Tea Party to have lost energy and they haven’t, but every effort is being made to make people think so. That the Tea Party was a one-election-wonder and now they are back to their mom and pop stores and they had their one little fling with politics and now its over and the Tea Party doesn’t exist. That’s wishful thinking, but it isn’t the case; and so the days of Conservative Republicans settling are over.”

“The 2010 midterms were a direct rejection of big Washington, big government, big liberal, big Democrat, what have you,” added Limbaugh.

Occupy Wall Street Is No Tea Party

Tea Party is Nothing Like Leftist ‘Occupiers’

Victoria Taft: Some Differences Between Tea Party and Occupy

Occupy Wall Street protesters are the extremists, not the tea party

[adrotate group=”10″]

Media Watchdog Condemns Death Wishes Against Conservatives from Liberals in the Media

NewsBusters Publisher Bozell Condemns Death Wishes Against Conservatives from Liberals in the Media
By Brent Bozell

The so-called ‘news’ media have zero currency in this debate because we have documented the Left using hateful, vicious language far worse than any conservative. Their attacks on conservatives are untrue and utterly hypocritical. If they really cared about the effects of political rhetoric, they would have gone after any number of those left-wingers who have directly incited violence – starting with the man with the world’s biggest audience: President Obama. After all, he did say, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

But that would be a ridiculous charge. And besides, the media aren’t really concerned about violent rhetoric. This is part of a much more insidious and calculated campaign to criminalize conservative thought.

Next they will ramp up support to regulate free speech on radio airwaves and the like. They want to illegalize opposition to liberal thought and are willing to accuse, indict and prosecute anyone who stands in the way of that Socialist goal.

Here are some lowlights of the left-wing media’s death wishes:

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2009 fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp”

■ Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-”
Host Bill Maher: “You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-”
O’Rourke: “-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs….”
Maher: “You mean the OxyContin that he was on?…Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.

■ MSNBC’s Amy Robach in 2006 mildly wondered if “Death of a President” movie depicting the imagined assassination of President Bush was “poor taste or, as some say, thought-provoking?”

■ On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”

■ Also on his radio show, in 2010, Schultz shouted: “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

■ Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

■ Writing on the Huffington Post in 2007, radio host Charles Karel Bouley mocked: “I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”

■ “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.” — Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ Host Tina Gulland: “I don’t think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?”
NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “Not me. I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Exchange on the July 8, 1995 Inside Washington, after Helms said the government spends too much on AIDS.

â–  “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

For more examples and additional information, see MRC’s recent report: “While Media Indict Conservative Speech, Left’s Lunacy Is Ignored”

Read more at NewsBusters

What About Barack Obama’s “Caustic” Political Rhetoric?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Toxic rhetoric: Twitter users want Sarah Palin dead, media yawns

Media Didn’t Care About Protest Signs Threatening Bush

Stones, Glass Houses, Etc.: Documenting Liberal Media’s Use of ‘Violent Rhetoric’

Dear MSM..Before You Go Reporting How Racist and Crazy Tea Party Protesters Are…A little reminder from just a few short years ago