A Show After the Show for Ferguson the Play's Final Closing Curtain

Conservative entertainment provacateur Phelim Mc Aleer held the World Premiere of his  2015 play "Ferguson the Play" in New York City . The drama depicts the shooting of Michael Brown by a greater St. Louis police officer  in 2014 which sparked several days of rioting. This ugly incident which galvanized the Black Lives Matter movement under the ersatz slogan "Hands up, don't shoot."  Mc Aleer wrote the play because he believed that the truth that it was a defensive shooting was not getting out because of media bias buying into a progressive activist agenda.

What made Ferguson the play notable is that playwright McAleer constructed the verbatum theater completely using the released transcript of the Ferguson Grand Jury.  McAleer and director Jerry Dixon worked with a multi-racial cast to put on the controversial courtroom drama  for a short run at the 30th Street Playhouse in Manhattan.

On the closing night, Cedric Benjamin commadeered the stage at the close to voice his displeasure as he thought that the play was unbalanced and biased.





Director Jerry Dixon shut down the rogue actor's rant, but the histrionic polemic spilled out into the street, with actor Benjamin accusing playwright Mc Aleer  of "white arrogance".  




Mc Aleer later praised the director for shutting down the unscripted lecture by a cast member.

It seems ironic that the actor invoked arrogance against the playwright, who raised over  $51,000 in a crowdfunding campaign to mount the production, when the actor could not just say his lines. Mc Aleer deliberately brought Ferguson the play to New York after the cast of Hamilton accosted attendee then Vice President Elect Mike Pence to defy the conceit that conservatives are not welcomed in the New York theater community.

On the first production, which was a stage reading in 2015, nine members of the Los Angeles cast walked off, with one actor claiming that he did not trust Mc Aleer's motives.  At least those thespians were professional enough to disassociate themselves with a theatrical vehicle with which they could not agree.

Ironically, Cedric Benjamin's grand gesture might prove to be counterproductive.  It has drawn more attention to a small production, thrusting it into the news.  Phelim Mc Aleer continues to fund raise over the controversy with an expressed purpose of continuing to perform Ferguson the Play in New York.   Mc Aleer took great consolation that one BLM attendee who attended the play and left shocked and mystified that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was a lie.

Pollster George Barna recently sought to understand why evangelical Christians supported Donald Trump, who seemed to contradict many of their mores.  A large part of the answer is that SAGE-cons (Spiritually Aware Governmentally Engaged) conservatives have great distrust in the mainstream (a.ka. lamestream) media because of biased reporting against Trump that they now use alternate media sources to avoid "fake news".  By banding together on core issues like rule of law,  Barna contends that this 11% sliver of of the American electorate voting for Donald Trump was "The Day Christians Change America" (2017).

The strength of SAGE-cons influencing America was shown more than for Election 2016.  The informal boycotts by football fans of the NFL as they tolerate players who Take A Knee during the National Anthem has severely cut into attendance along with television ratings and is influencing advertisers like Papa John's Pizza to pull back.  Such a motivated minority of SAGE-cons may well see Ferguson the Play as a chance to actuate their ideas and counter the "fake news" phenomenon in entertainment as well as cultural conceits.

America's New State Religion?

In the wake of the Obama Administration’s HHS Qualified Health Plan Mandate (a.k.a. the Contraception Mandate), mainline churches have to come to terms with a Federal government which narrowly construes the First Amendment Freedom of Religious Expression.

While the Obama Administration exempts parishes from these objectionable regulations, no such leeway is given to religiously affiliated organizations, like Catholic colleges, religious orders, Catholic Insurers etc.  from paying for abortions, sterilizations and abortifacients.  But such groups were given a year’s reprieve from complying. As New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan quipped that they were given an extra year to figure out how to violate their consciences.

President Obama claimed a work around which would force a farce that insurers would give away these services so religious organizations would not have to pay.  Of course, this is a ruse as insurers would simply raise their premiums to everyone to cover these free services.  But Obama’s announcement came on the same day that the Federal Register published the original rules unchanged, so the ameliorations were a rhetorical chimera.

This move by the Obama Administration has awakened a sleeping giant.  This summer, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops promoted the “Fortnight for Freedom”,  a coordinated nation-wide effort of prayer, fasting and educating American Catholics on the importance of preserving Americans’ First Amendment rights to the unfettered exercise of religious beliefs.

Some pastors have picked up this mantle to drive this crucial point home.  On the “Pastor’s Page of St. John the Evangelist of St. Paul (MN), Fr. George Welzbacher published this thought piece on the establishment of a nationwide first state religion–secular humanism.

It would seem that, for the first time in the history of our republic, we are witnessing here in the U.S.A. the establishment of a state religion, a religion so crafted as to delight the heart of a secularist, a religion with clearly defined dogmas, compliance with whose demands is to be enforced with all of the coercive powers at the disposal of the federal     government.  Here are the dogmas of this new faith. 

Dogma #1: A woman has the right, the unrestricted right, to make arrangements for the killing of her unborn child whenever such course of action is convenient.
Dogma #2: The chief purpose served by the institution of marriage is the securing of social recognition for romantic attraction, together with the panoply of benefits accruing to such recognition. The begetting of children, together with such subsequent upbringing as will equip them to contribute responsibly to the society in which they will spend their lives, can be dismissed as of  marginal importance. Thus every man, should this be his bent, has the right to marry another man, just as every woman, should she be so disposed, has the right to marry a woman. To suggest otherwise, to imply, for example, that a man's realigning of his reproductive powers to adapt to another man's digestive tract is in any way abnormal is to be guilty of a hate crime, in exculpation of which no appeal to the rights of conscience shall be allowed,  this being an intolerable crime, properly punishable with fines and/or imprisonment.
Dogma #3: The sovereign pontiff in this new state religion is the people's hero, Barack Hussein, now reigning gloriously in the White House.

Dogma #4: Enemy Number One of the new state religion is, by and large, the Christian faith and, with special intransigence, the Catholic Church. Measures must accordingly be taken to compel the recusant authorities of the Roman Catholic faith to genuflect at the new religion's altar. (Thus the new Health and Human Services mandate).

 All of this represents at least one way of looking at President Obama's arrogant trampling upon the First Amendment, not to mention his repudiation of God's Commandments.

If this is the case, I hope that I’m losing that religion come the first Tuesday in November.

h/t: Jerry Breen

Romney/Ryan–Vetting the Virtues of Veepstake Choices

[L] Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) and [R] former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)

As publicized through a smart phone application and announced on the U.S.S. Wisconsin in Norfolk, Virginia, presumptive Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney chose seven term Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) as his choice for a running mate.

John Garner Nance, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President during his first two terms (1933-1941) derided the second highest office in the land by opining: “The vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit.”  Perhaps Vice President Nance was jaundiced by simply being the duties of being the tie breaking vote in the Senate as its President and the back up in case of the incapacitation of the President.   In modern times, Vice Presidents are often tapped as the designated official American representative at foreign funerals.

If the office of Vice President can be so inconsequential, then why does the naming of a Presidential running mate matter.  Since Vice Presidential picks are often revealed just before the general election campaign, this acts as a vanguard of a Presidential nominee’s decision making.  Former Vice President Walter Mondale made a big show of his 1984 interviews before selecting Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY 9th) to be his Democrat running mate.  Then Vice President George H.W. Bush made a snap decision in naming then Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN) as his surprise pick in 1988.  Senator John McCain surprised nearly everyone by stealthily selecting first term Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK).

There can be several motives behind choosing a Presidential running mate.  Sometimes it is pure electoral math.  There was no love lost between then the 1960 Democrat nominee then Senator John Kennedy (D-MA) and the Senate Majority Leader then Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-TX) but the selection of LBJ guaranteed that the Democrats would take the big electoral prize of Texas by hook or by crook.  Arguably, one of the great virtues of Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA) choosing Senator Lloyd Benson (D-TX) was the secure large electoral prize of the Lone State state.  Of course, this strategy is only significant when it comes from populous states like California, Texas, Florida and New York and if the choice has statewide appeal (e.g. a governor or a senator).

Another impetus for selecting a Vice Presidential candidate is for party unity.  Kennedy/Johnson in 1960 placated wings  of the Democrat party as well as having geographical balance.  The same could be said of Senator John Kerry (D-MA) choosing then Senator John Edwards (D-NC), who was his leading primary opponent. Conservative candidate then Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) chose moderate primary opponent Rep. George H.W. Bush (R-TX 7th) in 1980 to unite the party.

A strategic calculus in the Veepstakes is to project a theme or to compliment weaknesses in a resume.  Then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) chose former Representative Dick Cheney (R-WY) as his running mate in 2000 because of his “gravitas” with his extensive Between-the-Beltways experience in Congress, White House Chief Staff and Defense Secretary.  The same could be said of the 1988 Lloyd Benson pick.  There were some concerns about an outsider like Reagan being a cowboy, so the choice of George H.W. Bush, who had been RNC Chair, CIA Director and Ambassador to China filled in the insider weaknesses as well as ameliorating anxiety over foreign policy experience.

Many wondered why then Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) selected Senator Al Gore, Jr. (D-TN) in 1992  as his Vice Presidential pick, since Tennessee is neither a by electoral prize nor could Gore, Jr.’s resume as a one term senator and one term congressman give significant insider experience”.  Mondale’s choice of Ferraro was almost certainly to make a statement for women by shattering the glass barrier.

But sometimes the bottom of the ticket is used to reinforce qualities with the marquee candidate.  Clinton/Gore projected an aura of a “new generation” as well as the “new South”.  It is speculated that George H.W. Bush chose Quayle to balance experience with youth.  A big virtue of McCain tapping Palin as a V.P. choice was to reinforce the “maverick” brand.

Occasionally, V.P. picks are meant as a contrast.  Vice President Al Gore wanted to separate himself from the scandal of the late Clinton Administration so the Democrat choice in 2000 was Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CN), who had voted for impeaching Clinton.

In some ways, it is dicey to choose a House member as a running mate.  This did not bode well for Senator Barry Goldwater’s choice in 1964 of Rep. William Miller (R-NY 42nd).  Mondale’s choice of little known Queens Congresswoman Ferraro did not carry the Empire State.  Senator Bob Dole’s choice of former Congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY 31st & 38th) did not make an impact, even though Kemp had experience as a HUD Secretary who wanted to Empower America.

As for Romney’s choice of Rep. Paul Ryan, this choice was somewhat bold in that Ryan was well known as a Republican who proposed a detailed plan to try to balance the budget.  While Wisconsin may be in play, it is not a huge electoral prize.  It demonstrates that Romney is choosing a running mate to govern.  The Obama campaign had been labeling proposed Medicare cuts in the budget as the Romney/Ryan budget plan, so Romney’s Veepstake choice embraces this issue.  Democrats had used a look alike of Paul Ryan dumping grandma off a cliff during  off-election campaigns, so Ryan’s image is already battle tested.

A virtue which Paul Ryan brings to the ticket is uniting the Republican party.  Some of the base has expressed concerns that Romney had not solidified his conservative credentials.  Rep. Ryan’s seriousness about the budget proposals makes him a darling of the Tea Party and should energize the base.  The choice of Paul Ryan may appeal to Independent voters who are serious about growing the economy.

An essential element of being a V.P. candidate is a willingness to be an attack dog to get the contrast campaigns without sullying the top of the ticket. Rep. Ryan was willing to go toe-to-toe challenging President Obama’s choices (and lack there of) in budget cutting.  So the Romney/Ryan ticket can double down on challenging incumbent Obama on not passing a budget in three years and projecting insipid economic growth for the foreseeable future. Vice President Joe Biden, our national treasure, will have a formidable opponent during the October 11th Vice Presidential debate.

At age 42, Ryan brings a youthful flair to the ticket while also offering substantive experience.  Ryan worked his way up from a non-privileged background so he may have appeal in other competitive Rust Belt states like Ohio and Michigan. Ryan's earnest efforts on balancing the budget might swing enough Granite State voters who care about economic integrity.   Ryan’s prowess on budget issues could concentrate campaign coverage on the economy rather than the slimey ad-hominem attacks on Romney by Obama 2012.  If elected, Ryan could be an interesting force twisting arms in the Senate, especially Cocktail Party Republicans, to pass real reforms.

Is Obamanomics More Like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Evel Knievel?

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a children’s fantasy story written by Ian Fleming later made into a 1968 movie about a junked race car which was transformed by an eccentric inventor into a magical automobile which could sprout wings when it hurled off a cliff.

Evel Knievel

Evel Knievel was a Montana born daredevil who gained national attention from the mid  1960s through the  1970s for his attempts to jump over objects like the fountain at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas on New Year’s Eve 1967, 13 buses at Wembley Stadium and the Snake River Canyon in Idaho.  While Kneival did have some successes in his stunt entertainment career, he also managed to break 433 bones during his career. 


Despite the near rocket power engine of the Skycycle X-2, the drouge parachute deployed early and the prevailing winds dragged it back south into the canyon short of the goal.  Having enough horsepower to make the leap  is not the only factor of success, as Knievel nearly managed to make the 1966 Caesar’s Palace jump and the 1975 Wembley jump but did landed hard and crashed. The problem with being a daredevil is once one engages in risky showmanship then that individual becomes practically uninsurable. 






Unfortunately, Obamanomics and petty partisan showmanship is threatening to thrown the American economy off the financial cliff.  President Obama has fully invested in class warfare by demanding that the rich pay their fair share and demands that Bush era tax rates expire for those making $250,000 or more a year.  The problem is that windfall from such a demogogic economic policy would only raise $40 Billion per annum, which would only fund the Federal government for eight days. Yet the Taxmaggedon  hikes would shrink the economy by 1.3% and cost 710,000.  This is foreseeable as small businesses would be walloped by these proposals.  It sounds compelling to stick it to millionaires (or those who make $250,000 per year), but many of those are S-Corporations, which are small businesses that combine personal and business income for tax reporting purposes.  Small businesses are the job generators in America.


Congressional Democrats has gotten into the high flying daredevil act on the economy.  To gain political leverage for Obama’s class envy policy of raising the rich’s taxes, Senate Democrats are willing to raise everyone’s taxes unless there is a tax hike for the rich.  Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) the prospective Chair of the Senate Banking committee in the 113th Congress, has declared that she will filibuster any lame duck session fix unless Democrats get their way.  This would mean that the Bush Tax rates would expire for everyone and taxes would go up across the board.


Of course, taxes for Obamacare will commence.  The .9% payroll tax on upper income tax payers and the 3.8% tax on “unearned income” will further erode any steam in America’s economic engine.

Super-Committee Protestors on Capitol Hill

Another impediment to economic growth from the District of Calamity is sequestration.  In order for President Obama to be given authority to raise the debt limit by $2.1 Trillion  in August 2011, Obama agreed to the bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2011.  Congress agreed to a $900 Billion spending cut and commissioned a Super-Committee to find another $1.5 Trillion in cuts.  Since the Super-Committee was stymied in reaching legislative agreements, a triggering mechanism will activate a series of automatic across the boards cuts split evenly between military and civilian spending.  A Chmura Economics and Analysis report indicates that a staggering 2.1 million jobs will be lost due to willy nilly sequestration. The reality of these cuts on the military side will mean that personnel rather than weapons in development will be slashed.  Lest this report be dismissed because the  Aerospaces Instustries Association sponsored report is looking after its own, the Economic Impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 notes that 48,059 jobs in healthcare, 98,953 in construction, 473,250 in manufacturing and 617,449 federal jobs are at risk. That will affect the well-to-do economy of federal workers between the beltways, but the prospective layoff notices may not be issued until after election day in November.  How convenient.


Considering that the $837 Billion of Porkulus stimulus spending of 2011 has done nothing to increase jobs vis-a-vis doing nothing, the combination of prevailing winds should further ground prospective economic growth.  We may not have to wait until New Years Eve 2013 to discover that our economy will not soar to Vulgaria like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. But without a parachute  and without significant economic propulsion, the American economy will likely crash after being pushed off the fiscal cliffs just like Evel Knievel on an unlucky jump.


h/t: Dave Grunlund

Grading Obamanomics on a Curve?

It seems quite remarkable that the Obama 2012 campaign effort has the temerity to argue for re-election with 8.2% unemployment, yet that is one of the few policy arrows in their quiver. Alas, Obama’s economic argument is far off the mark.

 To sway Congress to approve the $837 Billion Stimulus legislation, the Obama Administration vowed that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8.0%. Obviously that Obama promise was inoperative as the official unemployment rate hit 10.1% in the summer of 2009 and currently the U-3 number is 8.2%, but this does not include discouraged workers which is 14.9%

[L] Austan Goolsbee & President Barack Obama

Austan Goolsbee, the Obama Administration’s former Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, has tried to temper any criticism concerning Porkulus.by essentially blaming Bush and claiming that the problem was worse than anyone in the Obama Administration understood in February 2009.  Goolsbee points to the official CEA report from late 2009 which shows that June 2012 unemployment was predicted to be 8.2%, leading people to believe that everything is going according to plan.

The problem with pointing to this revised economic forecast is that the same report anticipated that stimulus spending would vault American economic growth to 4.3% in both 2011 and 2012.  Those rosy scenarios have not panned out and the American economy has significantly underperformed.  In 2011, the GDP grew by only 1.7%.  In the first quarter of 2012, economic growth “skyrocketed” to 1.9%.  Economic analyst anticipate that economic growth with be below 2% in the second quarter of 2012.  Oops.  How is it that Obamanomics can demand an over $800 Billion Keynsian spending spree, garner only half the growth that it promised yet have the same unemployment rate than if Porkulous was not approved?

Playing with the unemployment numbers had mainly been the domain of the Department of Labor.  On Thursday mornings, the DOL would release unemployment numbers which are not as robust as expected, which will be chalked up to holidays or bad weather.  Some weeks, numbers would hint at the right direction and the Lamestream Media along with minions of the White House will crow that the recovery is continuing.  The problem is that unemployment numbers seem to be routinely revised upwards a couple of weeks later, without any fanfare.

The other trick to minimizing employment rates is through workers dropped from the unemployment rolls.    As the ninety nine weeks of  unemployment benefits expire, the people are dropped off the U-3 unemployment rate and such discouraged workers become part of the underreported U-6 roll.  Dropping long term unemployment benefits has accelerated has been accelerated as economic conditions are not as dire in individual states.  So if state unemployment rates does not spike over 10% during a three year period, the long term unemployment benefit disappears.  Since January, over 400,00 people have lost several weeks of the extended unemployment benefits, particularly in key battleground states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and North Carolina.

Bill Clinton signing Welfare Reform, 1996

This inconvenient truth about unemployment benefits may have partly inspired the Obama Administration’s ukase which ignores President Bill Clinton’s landmark achievement in "changing welfare as we know it."  The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act required that welfare recipients to work two years after starting to receive assistance, but some states enacted additional requirements to gain wider latitude over the program.


The Obama Administration recently issued “an official policy directive” which HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to wave workfare requirements.  Unfortunately, such flexible authority in Welfare Reform is not authorized in the Public Law, but if the First Amendment did not stop Sebelius or the Obama Administration from threatening the free exercise of religion through the Contraception Mandate, why should the lack of authority in legislation slow them down?

Conservative Constitutional observers opine that it is likely that Obama’s workfare waiver will probably lose in court, adjudicating the infraction will take time and will not be concluded by the election.  If a couple of large “Blue” states, like California, New York and Illinois, avail themselves to the waiver, this regulatory legerdemain will have the serendipitous effect of tempering rising unemployment statistics through the election.

Instead of grading Obamanomics on a curve, maybe the electorate ought to offer a participation ribbon  and send someone “home” to Chicago.

h/t: AEI

Biden's Bluster Before the NAACP

Vice President Joe Biden at NAACP 2012 Convention  [Photo via AP]

Today, Vice President Joe Biden addressed the NAACP at their annual convention in Houston on behalf of his boss, President Barack Obama. Mr. Obama excused his absence at the NAACP convention due to a scheduling conflict, but CNN reports that aside from his normal closed door meetings and an interview with Charlie Rose, there is nothing else on the President’s schedule. But the Democrat Presidential candidate tried to redeem himself by a video greeting where Obama announced that “I stand on your shoulders.”

Vice President Biden strayed from his typical campaign speech to argue that Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote and not easier. Since Biden was in Texas, he could have consulted with Victoria Rose Rodriguez’s parents, as their daughter just testified that she could not get an official ID to vote as her parents could not drive her to the DMV.

To ingratiate himself to the audience, Biden claimed to be a lifetime member of the NAANCP (sic) and you go home with the one who brung you to the dance.  But what is a Biden public speech without some gaffes.



Still the substance of the speech is an unsubtle attempt to drive a racial wedge  between the black electorate and Republicans.  Presumptive Republican nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was painted as being stuck in the 1950s when there was a cold war and snubbing civil rights of minorities were countenanced.

The interesting part of the speech was a small throw away line.  Most will be amused to the shout out to “Mouse” in the Delaware delegation.  But what really caused ideological antennas to go up was the homage that Biden gave to meeting with the Reverend Wright and Mouse to desegregate the a couple of theaters.



 To be perfectly fair, this was likely to be a different Reverend Wright than Mr. Obama’s controversial pastor at Trinity United in Chicago, Illinois, but it was a tantalizing morsel.

There was somewhat of a mixed message from the optics of the speech. As the Vice President sought to conclude, he was booed.



 This seems to be because the crowd did not want him to stop. However, amazingly enough there was plenty of empty seats for our National Treasure's NAACP stand up routine. Organizers excused the sea of empty seats due to a torrential rain storm in Houston.  As for excuse, it calls to mind the bromide “Any port in a storm.”

Empty seats for VP Biden's 2012 NAACP speech   [photo via CBS News]

Admiring the Exposed Super-Egos in the DOJ Voter ID Case

Victoria Rose Rodriguez is an 18 year old from San Antonio who is worried that the Texas Voter ID law would disenfranchise her.  So the Eric Holder led Department of Justice used the Texas teen to testify in Washington DC courtroom as a poster child to nullify Texas’s efforts to prevent voter fraud by demanding state issued identification before going to the ballot box.

In March, the Department of Justice blocked implementation of this Texas Voter ID Law as a violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act.  A three judge panel in Washington, DC is adjudicating the case.  Ms. Rodriguez’s testimony came at the end of the second day of testimony and clearly was an attempt by the Department of Justice to put a sympathetic human face to their case.  Attorney General Holder notes that only 8% of whites lack ID cards but that the statistic skyrockets to 25% for minorities.

Ms. Rodriguez testified that she  has limited documentation, which includes a birth certificate, a student ID and a high school transcript.  Rodriguez is currently a registered voter but enforcement of the 2011 Texas Voter ID law would prevent her from voting.

Rodriguez testified that her parents were too busy to take her or her twin sister to get a voter ID card as her dad works all day and her mother is sole caretaker of her grandmother. Moreover, Rodriguez thinks that getting a driver’s license is untenable as her parents can not afford to add her to the family’s auto insurance policy.

Interesting that a legally recognized adult is so dependant on her parents to exercise her duties as a citizen. Sad that A.G. Holder holds Rodriguez’s example as part of his brief that a young voter is so dependent on her parents to go to the DMV to get an ID card in an urban environment.

Curious that a teen whose parents are too busy to take her to the DMV to get a state ID card (not necessarily a driver’s license) had the time to drive her for an estimated 24 hours one way  from San Antonio to the nation’s capital to testify.  Perhaps she flew to the District of Calamity. But if Ms. Rodriguez used an airline ticket, wouldn’t she had to have shown an approved government issued ID? If so, then why was she testifying?  Did the Department of Justice contract for private aviation for their poster child witness so that ID did not have to been shown.  Inquiring minds would like to know.

If anyone in the Lamestream Media would actually do their jobs and ask hard questions, they would have to come to terms with Ms. Rodriguez’s travel disparity that she was presumably able to fly by showing ID to Washington and testify that she would be disenfranchised by having to show valid official ID to exercise her sacred franchise as a citizen. This would expose the Texas teen as a useful idiot who traded her integrity to get a fleeting moment of fame while aiding a partisan policy which she supports. But instead of being responsible, the AP changed their story that Rodriguez’s parents were too busy to take her to that Rodriguez was unable to get the proper ID.

The Super-Ego is a Freudian concept that relates to the conscience.  Without needing to expose her ID, the ego becomes unleashed.  The Lamestream Media’s Super Ego is covered with yellow and  Rodriguez’s Super Ego seems to have no governor. Then again, is there any governor, like the rule of law,  in the Holder Justice Department?

Biden Gets a Clue or Two

L. -V.P. Joe Biden, R.- Jeopardy host Alex Trebek

Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a special Teen Tournament edition of Jeopardy! The Obama/Biden razzle dazzle extended to the venerable game show with Alex Trebek, where the second in line to the Presidency was reduced to giving video clues about automobiles to those too young to exercise their franchise.


 

 Since the topic was about automobiles, this was probably intended as being a subtle contribution to the Obama 2012 Re-Election Campaign as it emphasized one of the accomplishments of the Administration, which was "saving" G.M. and Chrysler from bankruptcy by structuring a bankruptcy which gave a significant interest of both companies to the United Autoworkers union and in Chrysler's case, also to a foreign company like Fiat at a taxpayer discount. It reminds viewers of the mantra which Biden introduced "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive." To again echo Biden: "It was a Big F***ing Deal."

 Pundits can be amazed that Biden actually had a clue for a short while. If only he would not give away clues so quickly. Biden's brash pronouncements on Meet the Press forced President Obama to stop his cynical charade of opposing same sex "marriage" too early, instead of just before the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte this September.

Composite Snickering

The Obama 2012 Re-Election effort launched a campaign to contrast how Americans lives would be different under a Romney Administration compared to Obama’s stated policies.  To illustrate this complete life cycle, Obama-istas proposed “The Life of Julia".

Alas, this campaign broke at the same time there was controversy concerning the use of composite characters in Obama’s first autobiography “Dreams From My Father.”  Fine print in  “Dreams From My Father”  does warn readers in fine print that some characters may be composites and time may be compressed, this is technique is highly unorthodox in auto-biographies, but hardly raises eyebrows in hagiographies.

Nevertheless, the inconvenient truth that the Obama campaign used a composite character to sell their message, much like the author of “Dreams From My Father”, it has inspired conservatives to have their own comedic comebacks with different framing.




It makes you wonder if Barack’s composite New York girlfriend was named “Julia” or something sounding similar.

It would be nice to be privy to hypothetical correspondences with Barack’s composite squeeze.  May they be as interesting as  “The Juliet Letters” by Elvis Costello and the Brodsky Quartet.



h/t: Misfit Politics

Skewering Santorum with a Polemic Political Parody

As Rick Santorum bowed out of the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, liberal feminists could not resist giving his conservative candidacy a final kick. The internet humor site Funny or Die hosted a video featuring Ashley Judd which skewered Santorum with an edgy parody "When to Abort a Candidacy".

The parody was well produced and the black humor certainly was sharp. Fox New's Bill O'Reilly thought that the skit comparing terminating a candidacy to an abortion would hurt Ashley Judd. The actress might be Missing (sic) some of the audience by pushing her politics in a polemic manner.




Some think that Ashley Judd would be insulated from offending an audience as she has been a well known liberal activist.  But one must wonder if Oprah Winfrey's downfall from the heights of her popularity was magnified by Oprah's entry into partisan politics by overtly supporting Barack Obama in 2008.  This loss of viewership has signficantly impacted her Oprah Winfrey Network's success.


What do you think?

Keeping Politically Curious on Public Broadcasting

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the ban on political advertising for public radio and television stations on a 2-1 vote.  But Judge Carlos Bea affirmed the ban on for profit companies advertizing goods and services.

The stated legal logic is:

Public issue and political advertisements pose no threat of ‘commercialization'..."Such advertisements do not encourage viewers to buy commercial goods and services. A ban on such advertising therefore cannot be narrowly tailored to serve the interest of preventing the 'commercialization' of broadcasting.

Be mindful that this is the Ninth Circuit, has a reputation of being the most overturned federal jurisdiction. But for this election cycle, prisoners of PBS might be praying for telethons rather than the onslaught of election ads.

In the abstract, this ruling may be a good thing for public broadcasters.  Conservatives have long felt that PBS and NPR slants markedly left in its coverage and sensibilities. It might be profitable for them to get paid for broadcasts.  But a close reading of the US Code indicates that public broadcast stations can not substantially relying on underwriting acknowledgments for funding their operations.



It might be interesting to learn how much underwriting spots cost, as it could be a cheap way for underdogs or even ideologically insurgent (read Republicans) to introduce their ideas to public broadcasting viewers. Of course, denial of political sponsors on public broadcasters could generate some earned media for campaigns as well as exposing the nearly translucent veil of impartiality by many public broadcasters.

While it is more of a political than an judicial issue, Minority Television Project v. FCC might spur a rethinking of the 1967 Public Broadcast Act in our information overload area and perhaps a retooling of the FCC itself by Congress. When there were only a few choices on the television dial, it made sense to have an alternative which supported niche programming.  Now cable, satellite, digital over-the-air multicasts and internet streaming offers an alluvia of choices for consumers.  In this changed media marketplace, it might make sense to rethink TV.

There are also some absurdities in Public Broadcasting.  It used to be that public broadcasters relied on the largess of wealthy individual underwriters (or their trusts) to sponsor favored programming like “Masterpiece Theater”.  Underwriting can now be done by corporations, but not to commercialize products.  So there tends to be warm fuzzy branding for the corporate sponsor, even with moving images-but no commercials (sic).  Really?

Public broadcasting is not a fledgling operation either.  Eighteen months ago, KCET in Los Angeles, one of the founding members of PBS in 1970, decided to become an independent public broadcaster because PBS wanted to charge $7 million a year for their West Coast flagship station’s broadcast rights, which was double the assessment of KOCE, This assessment comprised 5% of PBS overall budget.  The KCET executives may be ruing their decision to declare independence, as they had to sell their Hollywood Studios to the Church of Scientology for $45 million.  Alas, KCET’s new mixture of Al Jazeera English and BBC News has not helped, as contributions were down 41% in 2011.

When Juan Williams was unceremoniously fired by then NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, it was revealed that only 2% of National Public Radio’s budget came from federal earmarks.  If that's the case, then cutting Federal funding and allowing these public stations to establish alternate primary income streams should be simple.
Of course, this rosy budgetary situation for NPR greatly assisted from the $200 million endowment by the widow of McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc in 2003.  But NPR does not rest on it’s laurels for funding, as it was happy to accept $1.8 million from George Soros Open Society Foundation to hire 100 political reporters.  Public broadcasters have programming staples like “All Things Considered”, “and Morning Edition” on the radio and shows like “Sesame Street” and NOVA on PBS which could enhance bottom lines with merchandising agreements .  As it stands, the underwriting ads now are all but commercials.  The Minority Television Project case may facilitate a restructuring which allows stations to better support themselves and networks to underwrite their costly programming.

ESPN Self Censors The "Rise Up and Register" Campaign

NASCAR race car driver Blake Koch wanted to promote a campaign to educate fans on the importance of participating in U.S. elections.  Koch teamed up with the  “Rise Up and Register” campaign, but it seems that ESPN did rejected the ad supposedly due to the religious and partisan overtones.

See the cancelled ad for yourself:



Their mission statement notes “ Rise Up and Register firmly believes that increased electoral participation will yield tremendous benefit to our great nation at a time when our problems seem to mount daily.”

It is curious that ABC/Disney was so concerned about controversial overtones of the ad, as there were neither allusions to religion or Republicans.  The worst one could say about it is that it depicted an American flag.  Perhaps it would have been permitted if it showed the Obama Stars and Stripes.

Some believe that ESPN expunged the advertisement because of Blake Koch’s strongly expressed personal religious views.  Koch opined: “I didn’t think that my faith in Christ would have an impact on whether or not a sponsor could air a commercial or not.”  Maybe uber partisan progressives in programming thought that he might be related to the Koch Brothers.

The Lamestream Media has never had a problem pimping the “Rock the Vote” campaign, which was more than registering young people but RtV had the stated mission:

We use music, popular culture, new technologies and grassroots organizing to motivate and mobilize young people in our country to participate in every election, with the goal of seizing the power of the youth vote to create political and social change.

Viacom (the owner of MTV and CBS) has maintained a close relationship with Rock the Vote in its 22 year history, even though critics surmise that the RtV efforts are more than useless.  It is surprising that ABC/Disney would not want to burnish their civic image by encouraging American citizens to exercise their franchise, which many have died to defend.

One wonders what was the real rationale for not allowing Rise Up and Register’s advertisement of Koch’s car 41 campaign to be aired.  Are networks purporting to be prissy about allowing advertisements of controversial commercials?  Well, cigarette advertising is back on NASCAR on a limited basis.  And alcohol ads are allowed, albeit that Coors is an official NASCAR sponsor.  So does ESPN’s rejection of Rise Up and Register reflect the self-censorship for the values of Mad Men?  Could it be that the Mouse House spiked “Rise Up and Register” campaign ads as a back handed in kind contribution to the Oval Office incumbent, who would not benefit from motivated “bitter clingers to their God and their guns” which reflect NASCAR fans?

The Consequences of Court-Side Cheerleading for Obamacare

As the Obamacare cases are now being deliberated by the Supreme Court of the United States, it is worth considering judicial ethics and proper public policy.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan refused to recuse herself from hearing the Obamacare cases, even though she was President Obama's first Solicitor General and her office formulated Obama Administration’s legal defense of the legislation. During her confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee, then Solicitor General Kagan swore that she abide by federal recusal standards (28 USC 455(b)(3)) which requires recusal when  a person has “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”

Testimony during confirmation hearings suggested that Kagan was protected by an intellectual firewall which protected her from the case, as the DOJ anticipated Kagan's elevation to the High Court.  However, an e-mail exchange from  Kagan and Lawrence Tribe on the day the House passed Obamacare states  “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,”.  Participants claim that this was not relevant hangs on the thin reed of the ambiguous title of the email “Re: fingers and toes crossed today!”

In February, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) observed:  “Justice Kagan’s involvement in the preparation of the government’s defense of the health-care law began at least as early as January 2010, four months before her nomination and two months before the bill became law. That she would not follow the same course in the health-care case is dubious. These facts require recusal.”  Even liberal leaning George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley urged Kagan to recuse herself from hearing the case, but he extended the call for recusal to also include Associate Justice Clarence Thomas because of  Justice Thomas's wife, who involvement with Tea Party inspired activism.   But Chief Justice Roberts opined that the Supreme Court is not bound by the same ethical standards as lower courts.

It is curious as to what cases Justice Kagan recuses herself.  During her first term on the Highest Court in the land, Justice Kagan recused herself from 21 of 39 cases.  This term, Kagan readily absolved herself from hearing the Arizona SB 1070 Immigration Case, yet she obviously observed no compunctions against hearing the Obamacare cases.  It would be enlightening to understand what are  Kagan’s personal parameters for recusal.  Are they knowledge of details of the controversy, taking a side on a matter or how politically important is her vote?  Considering her juridical  leanings as well as history serving as the Solicitor General for the Obama Administration, it would not be surprising if she is just a SCOTUS Proxy for Presidential progressivism.

During the oral arguments on Obamacare, Kagan’s questions could be construed as more like cheerleading for Obamacare than an elevated appellate examination of the law.




But conduct during Supreme Court oral arguments is not always indicative of the Justice’s final vote.  Justice Thomas usually says nothing, but from his 1991 confirmation hearings and twenty years of opinions reveal an adherence to natural law.

In Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin notes that many who served on the nation’s High Court would not be considered legal luminaries.  And as 1987 Borking of Robert Bork showed, there is more to confirmation than being an outstanding legal intellect.

Since the Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of Kagan recusing herself from the Obamacare, the only Constitutional remedy is impeachment. But impeachment by the U.S. Senate is about as rare as rocking horse’s manure.  There might have been a campaign in the late 1950s and the 1960s to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Senate has never conducted a trial of a Supreme Court Justice.  So it is inconceivable that trying to impeach Kagan for bad conduct would be successful.

What is warranted is taking Constitutional duties seriously.  First, there is the Advice and Consent of the Senate.  Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court was approved by Congress in the summer of 2010 by a 63-37 margin.  Granted, Democrats held 60 seats at the time, but this was going into a Teanami election cycle which was devastating to Democrats.   Republicans should have held then Socitor General Kagan’s feet to the fire, rather than demur questions that basically deferred to the party in power.  Moreover, Kagan’s nomination as well as other court nominations should have been a major campaign issue.   Secondly, the Executive Branch must exert its authority before enacting constitutionally questionable laws.  There is a famous instance that President George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Act but he also issued a signing statement noting that he had serious constitutional concerns about limiting political advertising but that he would let the courts decide.  Thirdly, if the Supreme Court loses its authority as being an impartial admistrator of justice and more like a Judicial Super Legislature, we must learn to narrowly construe their rulings to corollary cases rather than as an expansive social vangard.

h/t: Eric Allie, Cagle Post

Obama’s Momentous “Hot Mike” Moment with Medvedev

Diplomacy is about uttering le mot juste in public and communicating frankly in private.

President Obama’s speech writing, protocol and foreign relations teams have not been “punching above their weight” in the awkward, empty words that are repeated to friendly small nations.  But sometimes the unscripted exchanges between international leaders can be much more meaningful.  After a 90 minute meeting between President Obama and the current Russian President Dmitri Medvedev (the puppet of incoming President Vladimir Putin), the leaders exchanged some small talk that was caught on a hot mike before the press availability.

During this sotto voce tête-à-tête, President Obama asked the Russians for space to deal with missile defense.  Medvedev indicated that he got the message about space.  Obama noted “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”  Intermediary Medvedev indicated that he would transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].  Some small talk!

When pressed about the hot mike comments, the deputy national security advisor for strategic communications Ben Rhodes opted to obfuscate. Rhodes stated on the record: “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.” .  In unattributed comments, Obama Administration officials:

This is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.

That being said, it does reveal a hubris from our elected Chief Executive and acknowledgment that he can do as his wants during a second term.

It seems unusual for the President of the United States to ask the powers that be of an international adversary for “space” until his re-election.  But then again, Barack Obama campaigned throughout the world for his election in 2008.  Who can forget the crowd of 200,000 Germans gathered in the Tiergarten in Berlin to hear the candidate of hope and change (and get free beer).   Then there was the photo op of Obama campaigning at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.


Mr. Obama asked for this space from the Russian Federation.  From the beginning of his term, the Obama Administration has been intent to push the “reset” button with the Kremlin.  Unfortunately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got the translation wrong and the gag gift actually said “Overcharge”.



Alas, these overtures have not yielded results in markedly improved foreign relations with Moscow, particularly evidenced in the Russian intransigence over tough sanctions over the Iranian atomic bomb efforts.

It might be worth remembering promises that candidate Barack Obama made about the military during the 2008 campaign.  Obama vowed to cut unproven missile defense systems, slowing the development of future combat systems , not weaponizing space, and striving to create a world without nuclear weapons.  Might Mr. Obama been speaking of something more concrete when he was sending a message through Medvedev.

When President Obama approved the 2012 Defense Authorization Act in January, he issued a signing statement (a device which he previously opposed under President George W. Bush) which objected to a provision aimed at protecting the US Standard Missile 3.  Section 1227 of the Defense Authorization prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.  In the signing statement, President Obama indicated that he would treat this provision as being “non-binding”.

Many expected the November elections to be a referendum on domestic issues.  But Mr. Obama’s Hot Mike moment with Medvedev is a stirring reminder that constitutional considerations and clear eyed appraisals of Obama’s international affair must be part of the picture.

h/t: ABCNews
h/t: Claremont Institute