Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen. -George Orwell

Sunday, March 31, 2013


Lord, the resurrection of Your Son has given us new life and renewed hope. Help us to live as new people in pursuit of the Christian ideal. Grant us wisdom to know what we must do, the will to want to do it, the courage to undertake it, the perseverance to continue to do it, and the strength to complete it. Amen!

Friday, March 29, 2013


One week ago, Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia signed into law the Student Group Protection Act, an important piece of legislation spearheaded by state senator Mark ObenshainIf the last name sounds familiar it's because he is the brother of Kate Obenshain, an author, blogger, speaker and regular guest on Fox News.  The new law guarantees freedom of association for religious and ideological belief-based student organizations and protects the right of those campus groups to choose leaders who share those beliefs. 
"FIRE commends Governor McDonnell, Senator Obenshain, and all of the Virginia Delegates and Senators who worked to pass the Act," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "College campuses have long hosted religious and ideological student groups of all types so that students would have the opportunity to be part of a group that satisfies their faith, their passion, or their politics. Guaranteeing those groups the right to hold their leaders to belief-based standards is a vital part of ensuring that a pluralistic and diverse culture can exist on campus."

The law will prevent Virginia's public colleges and universities from adopting so-called "all-comers" policies that require student groups to accept all students as members and leaders, regardless of whether or not they agree with the group's mission, and even if they are only there to undermine or even destroy the group. Most infamously, an all-comers policy now enforced at Vanderbilt University (with exceptions for fraternities and sororities) led to the forced departure from campus of no fewer than 13 religious groups.

Regarding the law's passage, Senator Obenshain remarked, "By ensuring that organizations continue to be able to define themselves by their own particular views, goals, and affiliations, my legislation will ensure that a diversity of viewpoints will continue to have expression on campuses across Virginia."

Thursday, March 28, 2013


When Democrats Swore They Would Never Back Gay Marriage
Jon Allen follows HuffPost's intriguing advocacy journalism by quoting the few Democrats who haven't endorsed gay marriage yet. (HuffPost's been straight-up shaming them, naming the senators who have yet to flip and explaining that "the arc of history is moving in the direction of marriage equality.) He finds only two senators up in 2014 who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. That's incredible. It was also predicted by conservatives nearly 10 years ago.

Above, you'll find a short video composed of the floor speeches some top Democrats made about SSM. At the time, Republicans wanted to block gay marriage in Massachusetts by amending the constitution with an official marriage definition. Democrats argued against that, but they didn't argue in favor of gay marriage. They argued that DOMA made such an amendment unnecessary. They assured people like Rick Santorum that the slippery slope case for gay marriage was bogus.

The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. "Why couldn't they just wait a year?" he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!
The lesson to be learned here is that whenever Democrats scoff at the idea of a slippery slope you can safely assume that they are either deliberately lying about their true agenda or they are too naive to be taken seriously.  Either way, they cannot be trusted.  The question to be answered going forward is whether or not this sudden rush to embrace homosexual marriage by the Democrats represents a shift to the Left for which they need to pay a political price next year and in 2016 or if this represents the Overton Window of public opinion shifting from radical to popular.  I think it's a bit of both.

On the issues of homosexual marriage (and gun control) there is no question that moderate Democrats are being purged, either in primaries or by leaving them to fend for themselves in states that voted for Romney last year.  The party that booed God at its convention last September is adopting positions that were still politically dangerous for them as recently as 2008.  Obama's "evolution" on the issue of homosexual marriage and subsequent victory in November has eased the way.

On the other hand, while I think that the polling we are being spoon-fed by the media is questionable, there is no doubt that public opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage has shifted in its favor.  This is why winning the culture is so important.  This is an issue that has found its way into the mainstream through the culture, primarily via Hollywood and academia.  It's also a triumph of messaging. The focus has been on "equality" and "civil rights" and "fairness."  Who can be against those things, right?

The focus of the dialogue must be changed to more accurately reflect the Left's agenda here: The continuing assault on our First Amendment rights.  The issue of homosexual marriage is a useful way to create a hammer with which to hit Americans over the head by classifying any opposition to the radical LGBT agenda as "bigotry."  It is not a coincidence that our inalienable rights to freedom of speech and religion as well as our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are under constant attack these days.  The slippery slope is real.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013


Johnson Senate Exit Puts Control, Bank Chairman In Play
U.S. Senator Tim Johnson's announcement that he'll retire after the 2014 election just made the Democrats' job of holding their Senate majority a lot tougher.

Johnson, 66, the Senate banking committee chairman, is the second Democrat from a state won by Republican nominee Mitt Romney last year to say he won't seek re-election in 2014. The announcement today means his party must defend two open seats and support five other Democratic incumbents running for re- election in Republican-leaning states.

"I will be 68 years old at the end of this term, and it is time for me to say goodbye," Johnson said at a news conference in his home state of South Dakota.

In all, 21 Senate Democrats are running for re-election next year, compared with 14 Republicans. Only one Republican incumbent — three-term Senator Susan Collins of Maine — is seeking re-election in a state Romney lost. And, so far, Republicans must defend just two open seats, in Georgia and Nebraska, both of which Romney carried.

"The battle for the Senate will come down to Democrats' ability to hold seats in Republican-leaning states," said Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report, based in Washington. "A lot depends on how popular the president is" next year "because if people are dissatisfied, their option is to vote against the president's party."
The potential of a GOP takeover of the Senate in 2014 is stronger than it was in 2012, when the chances were good but the opportunities ultimately squandered.  The GOP must make the most of it's opportunities next year.  South Dakota should be an easy pickup and failure is not an option.

Sunday, March 24, 2013


Jamie Colby and Kimberly Guilfoyle
Rich Ferraro's title at GLAAD is VP of CommunicationsHe is the head of his department, for what that's worth.  I have some advice I would like to offer so that he can do a better job from now on.

Before you make an attempt to "communicate" you really should have a clue as to what is going on.  A good first step would be to communicate with the other departments of your own organization.  For instance, if Ferraro had taken the time to check with Marc Honaker over in Development about the guest list for their annual awards banquet (held last weekend) he would have saved himself quite a bit of humiliation this weekend.

Last Saturday night was the 24th Annual Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Media Awards banquet.  This was the gala affair that featured Madonna, dressed up as a Scout, presenting GLAAD's Vito Russo Award to Anderson Cooper.

Fox News anchors Kimberly Guilfoyle ("The Five") and Jamie Colby ("America’s News HQ") attended the event and posed for a picture. Seeing this picture from the event caused Rich Ferraro to throw a hissy.  He issued the following statement to Equality Matters, the LGBT arm of Media Matters for America: 
If Kimberly and Jamie expect to attend future GLAAD events, they will first need to sit down with us to discuss Fox News' embarrassing, biased and misinformed coverage of LGBT issues. The invitation is open. Fox News's track record on LGBT issues is abysmal, and it makes no sense to me why any LGBT people or allies would want to be a part of that.
Rich Ferraro
In addition to posting Ferraro's statement, Equality Matters did what everybody associated with MMFA does: obsess about the pure evil that is Fox News.  Of course, none of the thoughtcrimes they listed had anything to do with Guilfoyle or Colby.  But guilt by association is the bedrock of MMFA's strategy, as it is with most of the Left.  The implication was that Guilfoyle and Colby were little more than party crashers who had no business being there at allHow dare those huzzies crash our party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As intended, the statement made headlines.  And that's when Ferraro's embarrassment happened.  TVNewser had obtained an email from GLAAD director of creative development Marc Honaker urging a current FNC staffer to "ask [Roger] Ailes or Suzanne [Scott] to buy a table for FNC.Honaker, who once worked for Bill O'Reilly's show, said in the email that Colby and Guilfoyle had expressed an interest in attending the banquet, writing, "We'd love to have lots of FNCers!" Oops! Awkward...

Once this evidence hit the internet it wasn't long before Ferraro was forced to calm himself and issue another statement, this time to Huffington Post:
"My earlier statement was a reaction to FOX News' coverage of LGBT people and not any individual journalists. A GLAAD executive did invite Kimberly and Jamie to the GLAAD Media Awards, and we were happy to have them, with the belief that they signaled a change in the way Fox News would cover LGBT issues. But the next day, we had a flurry of reports that Fox News let anti-gay activist Tony Perkins make the false and dangerous claim on national television that 'evidence' shows that being gay is 'overwhelmingly negative to both the individual and society.'
It was not my intention to offend Kimberly or Jamie. Part of our work at GLAAD is to raise awareness and visibility of allies from all walks of life, particularly among the growing number of conservatives who support LGBT people, and we look forward to working with voices like Kimberly, Jamie, and any other allies at FOX News to accomplish that."
He mentioned Guilfoyle and Colby by name and yet he claims that he didn't intend to offend them... Umm, okay.  Well at least it's nice to know that they are now official friends and allies. 

Saturday, March 23, 2013


Talk about your first-world problems!  I saw this yesterday and had to check it out for myself.
In his online Slate article "You Say 'Best.' I Say No," Matthew J. X. Malady confesses to being so inundated by electronic communications that the standard polite closings like "Sincerely yours," "Cheers," and any version of "regards" ("Best regards," "Warm regards," etc.) have pushed him to a breaking point. "It's time," he believes, "to kill the email signoff." Such time-wasting niceties "are holdovers from a bygone era," and today, "the continued and consistent use of antiquated signoffs in email is impossible to justify." Emails, he says, have become more like text messages, "and no one in their right mind uses signoffs in text messages."

But Malady didn't stop there. Salutations are wasteful irritants as well: "Dear? Hi? Hey? Kill me now." These courtesies, he argues, must become casualties of the urgent need to "streamline" our lives.

He anticipated "protestations and bellyaching from the old guard" who might point out that these conventions make communication personal, polite, respectful; forgoing them would be  like hanging up abruptly to conclude a phone call. Malady counters such "sticks-in-the-mud" with the weak and inaccurate explanation that we only say goodbye on the phone to indicate when the call is about to end, whereas "with an email, you can see the conclusion." He preemptively raises other likely objections to his argument:

Shouldn't there be an exception for formal business communications, or for one’s first-ever correspondence with someone? Aren't signoffs kind of nice? Don't they make notes more personal? Without them, wouldn't e-mail become too detached and impersonal?

His reply? "Maybe. But, to be blunt: Tough." In other words, he doesn't dispute those points but simply insists that we forge ahead and sacrifice that human touch in order to "make things easier for everyone."
More on point, I think, is an article in the New York Times that deals with unnecessary, time-wasting questions.  It is true that there are loads of formerly common questions that now really shouldn't have to be asked.  And since the answers to these questions can be looked up by anybody who has a signal, having to answer somebody else's question can be annoying.  
Now, with Google and online maps at our fingertips, what was once normal can be seen as uncivilized — like asking someone for directions to a house, restaurant or office, when they can easily be found on Google Maps.
I once asked a friend something easily discovered on the Internet, and he responded with a link to, which stands for Let Me Google That For You.
In the age of the smartphone, there is no reason to ask once-acceptable questions: the weather forecast, a business phone number, a store's hours. But some people still do. And when you answer them, they respond with a thank-you e-mail.
For me, I think it depends on how close a relationship you have with someone.  Just like family members rarely stand on ceremony when communicating with each other, it's not necessary to engage in the niceties of "Hello" and "Regards" in an e-mail with someone you know well, even on those rare occasions when an e-mail is preferable to a text.  On the other hand, a little bit of civility in a hectic, often rude world is hardly a bad thing, even now, especially when communicating with people who are less familiar to you.

Ultimately, I believe that polite, well-meaning people always know how to convey that sense of civility, whatever the means of communication.  And assholes will be assholes no matter how gadget-savvy they are.  Everybody settle down!


So apparently The Onion is doing advertising for Ford these days.  Okay, maybe not.  But while this cringe-worthy ad campaign for the Ford Figo hatchback doesn't quite rise to the level of calling an adorable 9-year-old girl a "cunt" on Twitter, it certainly is just begging to be made an example of.
Three print ads of JWTIndia have surfaced onto the interweb and these ads revolve around the ample boot space of the Ford Figo.  To showcase the Figo’s boot space, JWTIndia has used former Italian prime minister Mr Silvio Berlusconi as a prop in an ad that shows a beaming Mr Berlusconi with skimpily clad women bounded and bundled into the Figo's boot. In another ad, American hotel heiress Paris Hilton is depicted in a similar situation with the women of the Kardashian family bundled into the Figo's spacious boot.  The third ad though, shows Michael Schumacher in the driver's seat with other F1 driver's like Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton stuffed into the Figo's boot. The ad campaign is titled "Leave your worries behind."

The visual references to kidnapping would probably be bad enough and weirdly inappropriate for a giant, respectable corporation like Ford.  But using this kind of imagery to target Indian consumers is particularly problematic due to a recent high-profile rape case that sparked a major controversy in India and has resulted in new legislation.

And now the inevitable apologies.  From Ford India:
"We deeply regret this incident and agree with our agency partners that it should have never happened. The posters are contrary to the standards of professionalism and decency within Ford and our agency partners. Together with our partners, we are reviewing approval and oversight processes to help ensure nothing like this ever happens again."
And JTW India:
We deeply regret the publishing of posters that were distasteful and contrary to the standards of professionalism and decency within WPP Group.

These were never intended for paid publication and should never have been created, let alone uploaded to the internet. This was the result of individuals acting without proper oversight and appropriate actions have been taken within the agency where they work to deal with the situation.
Of course, it's entirely possible that this apparent fiasco is actually a fiendishly clever ploy to cater to the male population of India on the assumption that the titillation factor, ultimately, will outweigh any backlashThe images are out there and apologies can't make them magically disappearIf the special feature of the Figo is its roomy "boot" then, for better or worse, it's been well and truly advertised.


On Friday at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) website, the Department of Education posted a quote of the day from a great hero of the Obama administration: Mao Zedong. "Our attitude towards ourselves should be 'to be satiable in learning' and towards others 'to be tireless in teaching.'"

Some people will undoubtedly shrug and say "so what?"  But what if it had been a Hitler quote?  I'm sure there must be a relevant pro-learning quote from Adolf Hitler somewhere.  But people would be justifiably outraged if our government were to post it on a site designed for children.  And yet to this day Mao still does not get the same well-deserved scorn that Hitler receives.  Under Mao, some 35,226,000 Chinese were murdered and another 38,000,000 were allowed to die of starvation and disease

The quote was removed after it went viralThen it was replaced by a Lincoln quote. Finally, the "Quote of the Day" feature vanished entirely.  Daren Briscoe, the acting press secretary for the Department of Education released a statement in which, no surprise, he manages to imply that it's really Bush's fault:
"The Kids' Zone website hosted by the National Center of Education Statistics earlier today featured a poorly chosen quote, intended to highlight the importance of teaching and learning, in the 'Quote of the Day' feature. This feature, which automatically generates one education-related quote per day from a database of quotes last updated in 2007, has been temporarily suspended pending a review of the database's contents."
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley also weighed in:
"The Department of Education should explain how a quote from Mao Zedong got on its Kids' Zone webpage as the promotional quote of the day. On the orders of Lenin, Stalin, and subsequent Soviet leaders, approximately 20 million people were killed, and an estimated 65 million people were killed by the Chinese Communist government, mostly under Mao Zedong. That makes him the most murderous dictator of the 20th century. As our society rightly does with Hitler, murderous tyrants like Stalin and Mao should be considered pariahs, their victims should be remembered, and their crimes should be taught to future generations so they never happen again." 
This is why it's important to stay vigilant and not let anonymous bureaucrats get away with something like this.  It was either the result of somebody's gross ignorance or, worse, a deliberate attempt to make Maoism acceptable for American children.  But hey, don't take my word for it.  Here's one of Obama's good friends and former communications director, Anita Dunn, not just quoting Mao but calling him one of her two favorite "political philosophers."

Wednesday, March 20, 2013


According to information the Tatler has obtained from the Battleground Texas kickoff meeting, the mechanics behind Organizing for Action's "people based" approach are at once simple and revolutionary. Bird's team has developed a five-point contact plan for identifying and courting low-information, low-frequency voters. These voters are average folks who pay little attention to politics and current events and have left no trail allowing either party to identify which party they're more likely to vote for. 

Bird's volunteers call these prospects and use a script to ascertain whether they are persuadable to the Democrats' point of view. Volunteers perform a "gut check" on the prospective voter, and these gut checks have proven to be accurate nearly 95% of the time. If the prospect is not identified as persuadable, then the volunteer files them away and does not call them again. 

But if the prospect appears to be persuadable, then the five-point plan comes into play. Volunteers will call the voter again, based on current events, to deliver information crafted to shape the prospect's beliefs. For instance, if a volunteer has identified a suburban Fort Worth mom as a persuadable Democratic voter based on social issues, Todd Akin's remarks on rape would have generated a second phone call. Richard Mourdock's comments would have generated a third. A fourth call may have focused on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, casting it as a service to women and casting opposition to it as a "war on women." The fifth call would have simply given the prospect information on where to vote. Job done. 

Someone who probably would not have voted at all has been processed over a few weeks into a likely Democratic voter. At the very least, they have become far less likely to vote for the party of Akin and Mourdock, who have been cast along with their party as villains. Obviously, none of the recent Democrats' remarks on rape that aired during Colorado's gun control debate would get any play at all in these calls. They are one-sided information streams, intended to create velocity on the way to creating a vote.

The simple part to this is that parties and campaigns have used phone banking for decades. But phone banking has not typically been used in this way, using follow-ups over a longer period of time, to turn an unidentified non-voter into a known quantity voter. Widespread and cheap VOIP phone technology and the Obama campaign's massive and highly organized volunteer army work together to make the five-point system affordable, and the tactic of making the political phone call a source of tailored information that amounts to a running commentary on the campaign over time makes it effective.

Bird's group used this system in 2012 in several swing states, capturing all of them. Democratic volunteers from Texas played critical roles; now Democratic volunteers from outside Texas will join in the effort to swing the Lone Star State.

Along with its emphasis on out-of-state events to manipulate voters in the state, BT intends to deceive Texas voters regarding what the Democrats actually want to do in Texas. Texas policy successes stand for themselves, but Democrats have consistently and relentlessly attacked them while holding up other, Democrat-controlled, states as models. Over the years, Texas Democrats have essentially parroted the national DNC message. If the national party was for ObamaCare, so was the state party. If the national party preferred California and Chicago governance over Texas governance, so did the state party. 

Texans tend to be pro-life and favor the Second Amendment; the Texas Democrats have consistently and loudly gone the other way on both. Bird's group intends to cater its message to Texas, so that the national Democrats' message does not scare off potential voters in traditionally conservative communities. 

The national Democratic platform of union power, high taxes, lavish government spending, weak national security, curtailed constitutional rights, and centralized government control does not play well in Texas. So the Battleground group intends to avoid explaining and detailing the Democrats' plans as much as possible. They're not jettisoning any of that. They just intend to hide it. Once elected to power, this Obama-centric group can be counted on to deliver Obama-style policies like those that are carving California hollow and turning Chicago into a war zone. 
And here are some useful items to help combat these Kool-aid peddlers:

The website is: Battleground Texas 

This organizing effort is aimed at and relies almost exclusively on the Hispanic community in Texas.  This is where the GOP must concentrate its outreach efforts.  There's no reason why the techniques outlined in the article can't be used by Republicans.  And, of course, the GOP has a massive headstart and a ready-made political infrastructure.  There is absolutely no excuse - none! - for the Texas GOP and the national organization to not come down on these clowns like a ton of bricks.  They want to turn the success story of Texas into a horror story like California.  What are you going to do about it?


This was the first appearance of Debbie Downer, played by Rachel Dratch. It aired on May 1, 2004 with guest host Lindsay Lohan. The sketch was listed at #99 as part of TV Land's "Top 100 Most Unexpected Moments in TV History."

David Bianculli of the New York Daily News wrote about it a few days later:
A very funny thing happened on last weekend's live telecast of "Saturday Night Live" - but it wasn't what you would expect.

Fact is, it wasn't even planned.

That's because during one skit, ironically titled "Debbie Downer," the entire cast fell victim to an infectious giggle fit.

This isn't a complaint, or even a criticism.

The studio audience responded with laughter, then applause and delighted hoots, as the repertory players and guest host Lindsay Lohan broke down, then fought their way to the end of the sketch.

It was lots of fun to watch on TV, too.

It was also rare. This sort of stuff doesn't happen on TV very often - not even on NBC's "Saturday Night Live."

In years past on this show, a few cast members have been known for making others laugh.

Prior to "SNL," the best place to find this sort of thing was on "The Carol Burnett Show," where Tim Conway knew Harvey Korman's comedic weak spots and hit them in almost every sketch. And back in the early days of television, when almost everything was live, "Colgate Comedy Hour" co-hosts Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis went off script with deliberate glee.

But in 28 years of watching "SNL," I don't think I've ever seen a laughing fit take hold the way it did Saturday.

The previous hour of that "SNL" was building, slowly but surely, to a giggle fit. Host Lohan giggled at the antics of the "SNL" rep company during her opening monologue, during a "Harry Potter" sketch built around her ample figure, and during a Billy-Joel-as-dangerous-Hamptons-driver sketch.

When "Debbie Downer" came around, there was no stopping it.
"You're enjoyin' your day, everything's goin' your way, when along comes Debbie Downer. Always there to tell you 'bout a new disease, a car accident, or killer bees. You beg her to spare you, 'Debbie, PLEASE!' but you can't stop Debbie DOWNER!"

Tuesday, March 19, 2013


I don't always pay attention to a Letterman interview but when I do it's because the Biebs just got bitch-slapped by his ex. Feel the burrrrrrrn!  

Bieber has had plenty to cry about lately: he turned 19 in London on what he called his "worst birthday," angered fans by showing up two hours late to perform at London's O2 Arena, fainted backstage during another show at the venue and got into a screaming match with paparazzi the next day. Then he canceled one of two shows in Lisbon, Portugal, reportedly over slow ticket sales.  Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark...


Critics of voter ID and other laws cracking down on voter fraud claim they're unnecessary because fraud is nonexistent. For instance, Brennan Center attorneys Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt claimed last year: "A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike."

That statement is as ludicrous as it is self-serving.  It would be much more accurate to say that voter fraud gets caught about as often as death by lightning strike.  Without voter ID, it's extremely difficult to catch the fraud since most of it occurs at the time of registration, not on election day.  By the time election day rolls around it's already too late.  As demonstrated below, one person can register under a variety of names.  Without ID there is no way to detect when that person shows up at various polling places and gives a name that is already on the rolls.  That's why the names of dead people and shut-ins are so useful to fraudsters.  

Last year in Florida, for instance, as many as 53,000 dead people were found still registered to vote. 

Yet not only do Democrats deny the existence of voter fraud but they claim that any attempt to maintain the integrity of the voting process amounts to "voter suppression."  They are fond of accusing Republicans of engaging in the same kinds of tactics perfected by Democrats in the Jim Crow South.  It's outrageous.  Voter fraud is the kind of anti-democracy criminality that has been a hallmark of Democrats (how ironic!) since the early 1800s.  So when it comes to contaminating the process, historically, it's the Dems who are guilty.

Meet Melowese Richardson, a Democrat poll worker in Cincinnati.  She practices voter fraud and she's been busted, along with a two other operatives.
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said he was pursuing charges against Russell Glassop, 75, Melowese Richardson, 59, and Sister Marguerite Kloos, 54.

A grand jury indicted Glassop and Kloos for one count of illegal voting each, a felony. Glassop and Kloos could face up to 18 months in prison if convicted.

The grand jury indicted Richardson on eight counts of illegal voting. If convicted, she faces up to 12 years in prison.

Deters said Glassop voted on behalf of his deceased wife in the 2012 presidential election. Glassop's wife requested an absentee ballot before her death but she died before the Hamilton County Board of Elections mailed out the ballots. Deters said Glassop cast an absentee ballot under his wife's name.

Kloos was accused of casting a ballot for another nun in the 2012 presidential election. Kloos's lawyer contacted Deters and said she would plead guilty and cooperate with the prosecutor's office.

Deters said Richardson was charged with eight counts of illegally voting after she cast ballots in various elections for her family members. One count charges her of voting twice in the 2012 presidential election. Deters also said Richardson has been a poll worker in Hamilton County since 1998.

There are three other cases of possible voter fraud still under investigation by the prosecutor's office, Deters said.

"This is not North Korea," Deters said in a statement announcing the indictments. "Elections are a serious business and the foundation of our democracy. In the scheme of things, individual votes may not seem important, but this could not be further from the truth. Every vote is important and every voter and candidate needs to have faith in our system. The charges today should let people know that we take this seriously."


Monday, March 18, 2013


Here is the problem: low-information voters [LIV] are a big chunk of the electorate, especially in the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party isn't free of them either. These are the voters who could not tell you if the national debt is $16 million or $16 trillion. They don’t know anything about the criticisms of how our government handled Benghazi. Ben Ghazi? Isn't he an actor? Fast & Furious is a movie, not a scandal. They know that gay marriage is a good thing because all their favorite actors and musicians think it is so cool! And "assault weapons" are those guns they see in movies, firing hundreds of rounds a minute.

I hope by now that you are beginning to get the picture of what defines an LIV: he or she does not read PJ Media or, for that matter, the Huffington Post or any political publication, left or right. The better-informed LIVs read Us or People. Most of an LIV’s knowledge of economics, politics, and history comes from watching movies, television shows, The Daily Show, and stuff that one of his leftist friends posts on Facebook. You know why President Obama won the election? He was doing local radio shows and The View. He was being promoted by rap musicians and actors.

I get very frustrated with the number of Republican congressmen unwilling to put up a serious fight against the Democrats. Yes, some of them really stand for nothing, and some of them have been corrupted by the knowledge that if they don't support amnesty for illegals, they won't get agribusiness support at the next election. But a lot of congressmen are facing this harsh reality: LIVs are a big part of the electorate, even in fairly safe Republican districts.

If you start saying things that are contrary to conventional wisdom (you know, like the fact that murder rates are less than half of what they were in 1980, and assault weapons are used in a tiny fraction of 1% of U.S. murders), you will quickly become a kook to the LIVs.

It is not at all surprising that when Republican congressmen have to choose between the 30% of voters who are grossly misinformed or the 5% of voters who can actually tell you what the Kelo decision found or how much deficits increased after Democrats took over Congress in 2006, many members of Congress have no choice but to go with the ignorant ones. They have us outnumbered.


Take, for example, the young comedian Steven Crowder. While serving as emcee on the Potomac Ballroom stage Saturday at CPAC, Crowder made a joke about actress (and, it is rumored, future Kentucky Senate candidate) Ashley Judd: "This just in, Ashley Judd just tweeted that purchasing Apple products is akin to rape — from her iPhone." Which is pretty doggone funny if you know that, as Alex Pappas of the Daily Caller reported, Judd has claimed that the purchasers of the iPhone and other Apple products are "financing mass rape" by using minerals mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Judd has a penchant for throwing around "rape" in her far-left political rants. She has compared coal-mining in Kentucky to rape and, also, to genocide in Rwanda. Judd's long history of such outrageous comments has Republicans laughing mirthfully at the prospect of the actress challenging Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky next year. But according to liberal journalists — whose cheerleading for Democrats is now so unapologetically blatant that it is taken for granted — the real outrage is that any Republican would criticize Judd’s lunatic utterances.

This is apparently why the Huffington Post decided to lie about Crowder's joke. "Steven Crowder, a Fox News contributor who hosted part of Saturday’s activities at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference, made a questionable remark about actress and possible Kentucky Senate candidate Ashley Judd," a post at the site described it, omitting both the factual context and the first part of the joke, quoting only Crowder's follow-on comment: "What is this obsession with Ashley Judd and rape? It's pretty unnerving."

By tagging Crowder as a "Fox News contributor," the writer of the HuffPo item signaled to liberal readers that the young comic is a hate-object. Evidently, the unnamed writer – the cowardly HuffPo liar didn't put a byline on this cheap smear-job – didn't trust his readers to have enough sense to decide whether or not Crowder's joke was "questionable." And, of course, there was the clever ju-jitsu reversal: The story is not about whether Ashley Judd's rhetoric was too over-the-top for a Senate candidate — Judd's own remarks aren't even quoted — but rather whether a comedian's joke about Judd is "questionable."

Sunday, March 17, 2013


This street performer, the Cowboy Statue, reminds me of the GOP.  The annoying asshole who gets knocked out reminds me of the Democrat proglodytes who are having such a wonderful time these days mocking us as they continue to bask in the glory of Obama's re-election.  Like the asshole in the video, they think they are being clever.  They think they can get away with it.  Sooner or later, however, the GOP, like the Cowboy Statue, will strike back.  Then it will be lights out for the progs!

Saturday, March 16, 2013


Only three weeks to go before the Mad Men Season 6 premier!  Here's a recap/teaser featuring show creator Matthew Weiner and Jon Hamm.

And here is another quick teaser featuring Jessica Pare and Rich Sommer.

And finally, here are a some promotional still shots of the members of the firm formerly known as Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Pryce.  With Lane's suicide, the name of the firm must change.  So will it be Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Campbell?  Or will they include newest partner Joan and make it Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Campbell, Harris?  Therese at Basket of Kisses examines the photos and makes some predictions for the season based on the fashion.

L-R: Bert Cooper, Pete Campbell, Joan Harris, Don Draper, Roger Sterling
L-R: Harry Crane, Stan Rizzo, Michael Ginsberg, Ken Cosgrove
Betty and Henry Francis