After 5 1/2 bumpy years of controversial service, the besieged but bolstered attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned. But is this close friend and confidant of President Barack Obama's really stepping down for some benign reason at a critical time for our country, or is there a sinister and strategic plan behind it all?
Supreme Court
MSNBC Panelist In Response to ObamaCare Rulings: ‘Judicial Activism Ain't On the Side of the Liberals Anymore'
By Connor Williams | July 23, 2014 | 1:30 PM EDT
The MSNBC freak-out continued following the surprising split rulings regarding the federal ObamaCare health insurance exchanges. The 2-1 DC circuit court decision determined that, consistent with the text in the law, subsidies must come from state insurance exchanges as opposed to federal ones. The panel was appalled that the court could possibly come to such a conclusion, while at the same time they diminished the long-term impacts of the decision.
Towards the end of the segment on the July 22 edition of The Last Word, the Washington Post’s EJ Dionne insinuated – solely based on his negative opinion of the ruling – that it was actually conservatives who are the judicial activists: “If you wonder which side of politics judicial activism is on, it ain't on the side of the liberals anymore.” [MP3 audio here; video below]
Citing ‘Legitimacy of the Court,’ MSNBC's Melber Hopes John Roberts Rides to ObamaCare Rescue Yet Again
By Connor Williams | July 22, 2014 | 6:09 PM EDT
In the aftermath of a DC circuit court ruling today that would effectively end ObamaCare as we know it in the 36 states with federal exchanges, MSNBC's The Reid Report feared the worst, and attempted to rally the troops, so to speak. Host Joy Reid played the part, bringing on two guests who rejected the notion that this ruling would be accepted by the full appeals court panel or the Supreme Court.
One guest, co-host of The Cycle Ari Melber, played the “legitimacy of the court” card, hardly an uncommon practice when liberals feel they are on the short end of the judicial stick. He argued that Chief Justice John Roberts – the swing vote in upholding the ObamaCare individual mandate as a “tax” – would never let this happen: [MP3 audio here; video below]
By NB Staff | July 11, 2014 | 10:50 AM EDT
Nancy Pelosi's charge that five men on the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case are interfering with her choice of whether or not to use a diaphragm is a complete lie, a gross distortion of the case, Fox News's Megyn Kelly told viewers of her Thursday night program.
"I can't say it better than you just put it," Media Research Center founder and president Brent Bozell replied. "Everything Nancy Pelosi said" earlier in the day at that press conference about the Hobby Lobby ruling "was a flat-out, unambiguous, deliberate lie." "She said this at a press briefing," Bozell noted, and yet, the media have decided they are "not going to cover it" and by doing so have committing to "aiding and abetting a lie" to further the Democrats' partisan spin. (Video below)
.jpg?itok=eAA0HLM9)
By Katie Yoder | July 10, 2014 | 1:38 PM EDT
American women have plunged into a bottomless dungeon of servitude -- by the Supreme Court no less -- in the new ruling that Hobby Lobby can be exempted from paying for employees’ abortifacients. Or so the liberal media and "women's rights" activists claim.
But they won’t let that long night of barbarism descend without raising the alarm, and resisting in small, symbolic and deeply stupid ways. From the media comparing the craft-store chain to the Taliban and segregationists to even suggesting protesters “redecorate” stores, here are the 10 of the worst media reactions to Hobby Lobby:
By Laura Flint | July 7, 2014 | 5:30 PM EDT
Andrea Mitchell devoted three minutes of the July 7 edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports to assist Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards in promoting the abortion-clinic chain’s latest publicity gimmick.
What’s more, instead of inviting a conservative pundit on to rebut the guest or perhaps attempting an unbiased, tough-but-fair interview in the first place, Mitchell tag-teamed with Richards in denouncing the conservative wing of the Court – and logic would dictate, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer as well. [See video below. Click here for MP3 audio]
By Jack Coleman | July 3, 2014 | 7:16 PM EDT
Incoming! Clear the deck!
Oops, sorry ... yet another false alarm resulting from altogether too much loose talk about "war" where none exists. Liberals have so incessantly flogged the "war on women" meme that they have fully crossed the line into caricature, just as their kneejerk claims of racism heaved at anyone who dares disagree have rendered the word devoid of any meaning. (Audio after the jump)
By Tom Johnson | July 3, 2014 | 12:21 AM EDT
If you’re choosing one person who best represents America’s journalistic establishment, it’d be hard to top Steve Coll, a former Washington Post reporter and managing editor who’s now dean of Columbia University’s journalism school; a member of the Pulitzer Prize board; and a staff writer for the New Yorker.
On Wednesday, Coll posted a piece on the New Yorker’s website in which he argued that if the Supreme Court were to consistently apply the religious-freedom principle it endorsed in the Hobby Lobby case, it would have to allow an essentially Taliban-owned U.S. corporation to deny insurance coverage for polio vaccines for the children of its employees, since the Taliban believe that such vaccines, in Coll’s words, “violate God’s law.”
By Tom Johnson | July 1, 2014 | 9:19 PM EDT
Much of the left only kinda-sorta distinguishes between mainstream pro-lifers and the violent fringe responsible for acts such as the killing of George Tiller. Take Daily Kos writer Dante Atkins, who on Sunday acknowledged that a mere “aspect” of the pro-life movement resorts to terrorism, but a few lines later asserted that the “movement…publicly celebrated” Tiller’s murder. Atkins also claimed that “anti-abortion activists will continue to…skirt the fringes of legality in their efforts to make women feel unsafe in exercising their constitutional rights.”
These riffs on abortion were just the intro to Atkins’s climactic point: that conservatives should have to deal with a form of sidewalk counseling from (possibly armed) lefties, and not just outside abortion clinics, either. From Atkins’s post (emphasis added):
WashPost Bewails SCOTUS's 'Blow to Organized Labor,' Buries Viewpoint of Winning Party Deep in Story
By Ken Shepherd | July 1, 2014 | 6:42 PM EDT Reporting on the outcome of Harris v. Quinn on the front page of Tuesday's Washington Post, staff writers Jerry Markon and Robert Barnes buried the perspective of the successful party in the case, non-unionized home health care worker Pam Harris, in the 21st paragraph of the 29-paragraph article, "Ruling on union dues a blow to organized labor."
But right out of the gate, Markon and Barnes choreographed a melodrama pitting a narrow conservative majority on the Court versus the nation's labor unions and their valiant liberal defenders on the Court. An excerpt is reproduced below (emphasis mine):
MSNBC Contributor Michelle Bernard: Hobby Lobby Ruling Will Drive Women Voters Into Arms of Dems in 2016
By Ken Shepherd | June 30, 2014 | 9:35 PM EDT The Hobby Lobby ruling will be a blessing in disguise for Democrats, possibly this November but most certainly for 2016. That's the argument put forward by two MSNBC contributors on Hardball this evening, Washington Post columnist Melinda Henneberger and Michelle Bernard of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics, & Public Policy.
"I see this ruling as, definitely on the political front, being a good thing for the Democrats, because people are furious and thinking, I think it goes further than it does," Henneberger argued to guest host Steve Kornacki. Minutes later, Bernard saw a big problem for Republicans with women in 2016, if not 2014, insisting that Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" line and "corporate personhood" would be instrumental in locking down droves of female voters for Democrats in 2016:
By Cal Thomas | April 24, 2014 | 12:10 PM EDT
Honestly, unless you are a big government liberal, how many people think the federal government should have more power than it already exercises over its citizens?
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 94, thinks the Constitution needs at least six amendments in order to bring the country more in line with what he believes is good for us. He outlines them in his new book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution." It is a revealing look into liberal thinking and the ideological opposite of radio talk show host Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic." More about that in a moment.