Americans For Prosperity Launches New Ad Offensive

Yesterday, Americans For Prosperity has launched their post-Independence Day offensive by running new ads in Arkansas and Louisiana. Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu are some of the most vulnerable Democrats running for re-election this year. It also doesn’t help that Romney won both their states by ten-plus points or more back in 2012.

This ad running in Louisiana features veterans voicing their disappointment and frustration over the Veterans Affairs (VA) catastrophe. They ask her if government health care can’t adequately help the needs for veterans, how can it work for the entire country with Obamacare.

The second ad, also targeting Sen. Landrieu, deals with the new EPA regulations that are projected to kill jobs and raise electrical costs in the Bayou State. It’s been met with less than enthusiastic support from business owners.

The last TV spot targets Sen. Mark Pryor, tying him to President Obama for voting with him 90% of the time, increasing health care costs due to Obamacare, and the national debt.

This will be one of the largest ad campaigns Americans For Prosperity has initiated in this 2014 midterm cycle, according to Alex Roarty of National Journal. Right now, this new media campaign is costing AFP $940,000 in Louisiana and $920,000 in Arkansas.

From AFP’s press release:

Americans for Prosperity is continuing to hold these senators accountable for their big-government records that hurt hard-working families who just want to secure a better future. People shouldn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck because government bureaucrats believe our energy or health care bills should be higher. They shouldn’t have to worry about the debts their children will owe because elected officials keep voting for more government overspending.

“When it comes to energy prices, Senator Landrieu’s clout has yet to slow the Obama administration’s assault on affordable energy. Louisiana’s energy industry is going to be disproportionately harmed by the EPA’s proposed regulations, killing good-paying jobs and raising energy bills.

“When it comes to health care, the unacceptable treatment for our veterans should serve raise alarm bells for the rest of us: government-run care is not the answer.

“Many Arkansans may see their friends or their loved ones reflected on their screens in our latest ad on Senator Pryor’s record. For the sake of their well-being, they need Senator Pryor to stop voting with President Obama to keep growing our debt and our government.”

November is coming.

Outrageous: Combat Troops to Receive Pink Slips While Deployed Overseas

Some members of the armed services, all of whom are currently deployed in war zones, will soon be notified by the Defense Department that they will be involuntarily discharged from the military at the end of their current tours. Why? “Budget cuts.” It’s as simple as that. Shockingly, too, hundreds of Army captains have already been handed the devastating news, according to the New York Post, and more officers are expected to get it, if they haven't already, soon enough.

For obvious reasons, this is an outrageous and heartless way to “thank” combat veterans:

What is astonishing is that the Defense Department thought it would be appropriate to notify deployed soldiers — men and women risking their lives daily in combat zones — that they’ll be laid off after their current deployment.

As one Army wife posted on, “On some level I knew the drawdowns were inevitable, but I guess I never expected to be simultaneously worried about a deployment to Afghanistan and a pink slip because my husband’s service is no longer needed.”

Awful. To put things in perspective, the government wasted some $100 billion last year alone on frivolous expenditures, and yet it can’t even wait long enough to lay off combat veterans until they’re out of harm’s way? The author describes the Defense Department’s handling of this situation as a “stunning act of callousness.” True. But I’d go a step further, and say its actions are a stunning act of cowardice. This is no way to treat American combat veterans.

And yet, as we’ve seen with the unfolding VA scandal, and now this, combat veterans are often forgotten and mistreated by the same government that purports to represent them. It’s not fair and it’s not right, and Congress should be doing everything in its power to ensure these men and women are taken care of after they retire. Right?

10 Places We Read 'Assault and Flattery' to Annoy Feminists

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

Townhall News Editor Katie Pavlich’s new book ‘"Assault and Flattery" exposes the Democrat Party’s manipulative tactics in trying to convince women Republicans are taking away their reproductive rights. In reality, Pavlich explains, it’s the Democrats who are waging a war on women by telling them to vote with their lady parts instead of their brains and trying to take limit their Second Amendment rights with cries of "gun control!" It’s the perfect book to annoy liberals. Here are just a few places we went around the nation’s capital reading "Assault and Flattery" to prickle some feminist feathers.

1. Planned Parenthood’s downtown clinic in D.C.

The most pro-abortion organization in the country was our first stop. These 10 truths I learned about the business last month will shock you.

 photo 798c3f71-2b57-404f-8695-75418260f74f_zps8bd0cacd.jpg

2. The White House.

The most “pro-woman” president in history? We think not.

 photo 2e251234-726b-43d5-af4b-a2d60cd441b6_zps31f7571f.jpg

3. At the National Organization for Women office.

Well, after putting Little Sisters of the Poor on their “Dirty 100” list and refusing to apologize for it, this one was a no-brainer.

 photo fd05a9e2-a0e1-4351-9943-419de6f759f1_zps587628b4.jpg

4. Next to this “sexist” metro ad.

No, feminists, this ad is not “sexist.” Girls like shoes. Deal with it.

 photo 08cafd2c-6998-4369-acf9-30cf9181a7a9_zps8dcbe569.jpg

5. The Health and Human Services building.

For trying to force Christian companies to provide abortifacients to their employees, the HHS was another obvious destination.

 photo 4496e0dc-a7c3-4bcd-8b2a-266b8846719a_zps1f856dfd.jpg

6. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) office.

Sen. Feinstein, keep trying to suppress our Second Amendment freedom, we’ll keep reading how firearms can often be a woman’s best friend.

 photo 8f573a99-6f99-4bb5-bbb3-f8706a0f42d2_zps2f369dc9.jpg

7. The Feminist Majority Foundation.

This liberal organization is doing its best to defend abortion clinics from the Supreme Court’s unanimous decisions to strike down buffer zones that would have kept pro-life activists 35 feet from clinic entrances. Pro-lifers still have their freedom to witness to girls with unplanned pregnancies, and we still have the freedom to read ‘Assault and Flattery’ wherever we choose.

 photo 9ec141dd-44d8-4e4c-ba9d-b21e8fb175fd_zps185ec9f8.jpg

8. Next to (discounted) copies of "Hard Choices."

It was certainly not a hard choice to pick up “Assault & Flattery" over Hillary’s overrated book.

 photo 7049c97e-b375-4040-b032-ebe2776bf875_zps1c2cc1a3.jpg

9. House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office.

After calling abortion “sacred ground” and winning a Planned Parenthood award, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives office had to be our next stop.

 photo a1fdb694-e00c-4eaa-881c-d3bc088432af_zpsf5b86534.jpg

10.The Democratic National Headquarters.

Dear Democratic Party, for trying to manipulate women into thinking Republicans are taking our “rights” away, you have been “Assault and Flattery” bombed.

 photo 6fbec778-b8fe-47be-9f1f-e1a4cfb7bd1b_zps29d0b8af.jpg

Want to be featured on Townhall? Pick up a copy of “Assault and Flattery” and tweet a picture of you reading it to @townhallcom. You could be featured on the site!

MRCTV's Dan Joseph Wants To Know If Immigration Groups Would Discourage Illegal Entry

Earlier this week, MRCTV’s Dan Joseph attended a protest hosted by immigration activist groups, specifically Casa De Maryland. Given the situation on the border, where undocumented minors are arriving to the United States in droves; do these activists discourage illegal immigration into the country?

Casa De Maryland’s Executive Director Gustavo Torres said they’re for comprehensive immigration reform. But, when Joseph pressed him to go record stating that he and his organization would discourage families from trying to enter the United States illegally, his staff initiated secondary protocol and whisked him away.

Soon afterwards, Dan Joseph found himself being subjected to the silent treatment by protest organizers, warning other participants not to speak with him.

Joseph wrote in a blog post for that:

Some lawmakers believe that the recent influx of unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America, is due to executive action that the president took in 2011, when he unilaterally granted amnesty to millions of young illegals currently in the United States.

Additionally, despite the activists [sic] claims that illegals are being deported at an alarming rate, statistics show that the number of illegal immigrant minors who have been deported is at an eight year low.

Slate: SCOTUS Term Ended Well, Unless You're A Woman

Of course, the liberal, and - Washington Post affiliated, site Slate had to continue lamenting the series of judicial losses they endured at the end of the Supreme Court’s term. The big three: Harris V. Quinn, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and McCullen v. Coakley gave conservative victories within the realm of First Amendment rights, albeit Quinn and Hobby Lobby being limited rulings. Nevertheless, Dahlia Lithwick said this current term was disastrous if you’re a woman, or something.

The last time anyone checked, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), or any law enforcement agency, wasn’t drafting plans to raid CVS, Rite Aid, and other drug stores to confiscate contraceptives. It’s not happening, nor will it ever happen.

First, it’s an insane theory. Second, that’s not what the Hobby Lobby case was about; it was about religious liberty and whether Hobby Lobby merited a religious exemption via the very bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Lithwick wrote:

In the majority opinions in all three, there is scant attention paid to real women, their daily lives, or their interests, and great mountainous wads of attention paid elsewhere. It’s almost as if the court chose not to see women this term, or at least not real women, with real challenges, and opted instead to offer extra protections to the delicate women of their imaginary worlds.

This fact has been proven empirically already, in a quick and dirty word count conducted by the Washington Post’s Emily Badger in the aftermath of Hobby Lobby. It seems that in the 49-page majority opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, the word women or woman appears a mere 13 times (excluding footnotes and URLs), whereas in the 35-page dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the word shows up 43 times.

Really? We’ve all known liberals love the cookie-cutter stratagems in their electoral strategy, but it’s now seeped into their legal analysis as well. Guy Benson and Christine Rousselle wrote that this ruling’s impact isn’t far-reaching in the slightest. It only is applicable to for-profit, “closely-held corporations.” In other words, companies where five people or fewer own 50% of the assets.

The injunction granted to Wheaton College, which said they’re against the contraception mandate, merely states that they might have a case. In other words, the Court said they’re waiting to see how this plays out.

The invisible women thesis continued in Lithwick’s Quinn review:

The same is true in Harris v. Quinn, where, as multiple court-watchers have already indicated, the majority opinion by Alito starts from the legal presumption that the (mostly poor and minority women) who care for the sick and elderly at home are simply different creatures from the firemen and teachers who are usually represented by public-sector unions. They are doing, as Robin Marty explains, “women’s work,” and they are doing it in the home. As a result, the court crafts a whole different category—“partial public employees”—to describe their jobs.

Well, if you read the opinion, Alito explains why they’re different:

PAs [personal assistant] are much different from public employees. Unlike full- fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment. Even the scope of collective bargaining on their behalf is sharply limited. Pp. 20–25.

He also mentioned that extending the Abood decision “would invite problems,” hence making Quinn a limited decisions and saving public sector unions from a complete gutting.

And, alas, we reach McCullen:

And the same is true in McCullen, as I suggested last week, when the case came down. In the court’s view there is something different about these abortion-seeking women, fundamentally fragile and uncertain, that makes the majority of the court especially inclined to accept the argument that they just need more information—helpfully provided by gentle “sidewalk counselors”—before they can fully appreciate the enormity of their decisions to terminate pregnancies. Reading the concurrences in McCullen, one can only imagine what Alito and Justice Antonin Scalia would think of an argument that holds that men entering a gun store to purchase an assault-style weapon would also benefit morally and psychologically from gentle sidewalk counselors warning them that they may be contributing to the end of a life or that they may come to regret their decisions. The implication that women need counseling and men need to be left alone to make bold, manly decisions is hard to escape after McCullen.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right; the right to an abortion is not. Second, this had nothing to do with viewing women as delicate creatures. It had to do with buffer zones that prevented pro-life Americans the right to protest on public sidewalks and streets where abortion clinics are located. That’s unconstitutional.

And, it’s funny how Litchwick doesn’t mention how this ruling was a unanimous 9-0 decision.

Charles Cooke at National Review penned a good piece about liberal illiteracy when it comes to the courts earlier this month:

The justices are jurists not doctors — they are nine appointed attorneys whose role in the American settlement is to provide legal answers to legal questions. Man or woman; straight or gay; handsome or ugly; Jew, Catholic, or protestant — the law must remain the law, regardless of in whose name its intricacies are decided. The alternative would be disastrous.

The Supreme Court is not a legislature; it is a court. The majority in the Hobby Lobby case didn’t rule “against contraception coverage” or women or atheists or employees; it ruled against the administration.

If you want to go further into the twisted arena of “war on women” politics, Katie Pavlich has a whole book on it.

Obama to Crowd: You Love Me BECAUSE I Loved You First

His Jesus complex must be built into the DNA.

"We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19)."

Wendy Davis Sells Merchandise for Babies on Campaign Website

Wendy Davis, current Democratic nominee for governor of Texas who rose to national fame after an 11-hour filibuster against a bill that would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks gestation, is now selling various baby outfits on her campaign website.

Since the start of her campaign, Davis has been furiously backpedaling away from her extreme views on abortion.

Davis is currently polling 12 percentage points below Republican Greg Abbott.

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

Why Leftists Have the “War on Women” Charge Exactly Backwards

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

Editor’s note: This piece contains language some readers might find offensive.

President Obama secured his re-election in 2012, in part, because he won over a growing and important demographic: unmarried women. Exit polls showed "67 percent" of single women supported his re-election campaign. Furthermore, after a string of Republican gaffes, Democrats were all-too-willing to mislead the public into thinking Republicans were waging a so-called “war on women” for political gain. Despite zero evidence that such a “war” even existed, let alone was being waged, this narrative nevertheless took hold. And Republicans suffered the consequences on Election Day.

Now, however, in her new book, “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women,” Katie Pavlich explains why this narrative is complete nonsense. In fact, she writes, Democrats and their enablers on the Left have been guilty of the exact same charges they invariably level at Republicans. Three notable examples from her introduction:

Consider the case of MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, who in 2013 said someone should punish Sarah Palin by, in effect, defecating in her mouth…Bashir’s comments were well-planned, typed into a teleprompter, and approved by an entire production team before being broadcast to his millions of few viewers. But the women of MSNBC, including feminist heroine Rachel Maddow, never uttered a word of criticism.

Sadly, even her daughter wasn’t off limits:

In June of 2009, sixty-two-year-old Late Night creep and serial adulterer David Letterman thought it would be hilarious to make a sex joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter. “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez,” Letterman joked. Palin went to that Yankee game with her daughter Willow, who was fourteen years old at the time.

And of course:

…Bachmann made an appearance on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon to promote her book. Unbeknownst Bachmann—whose many virtues do not include an extensive knowledge of popular music—the show’s band led by a rapper named Questlove played “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” when Bachmann was introduced and while she walked across the stage. The song includes the charming lyrics “slut trash can bitch.” Neither Fallon nor the band believed anyone would think the prank was inappropriate, because after all, everyone hates Michele Bachmann. Right?

Too often, attacks against conservative women go either ignored or unchallenged. The point of her book, then, is to expose both the hypocrisy of the Left, and explain why "feminism" itself isn't enabling or empowering women, but holding them back.

To learn more about these important issues, pick up a copy of Katie's book here.

Boehner on Obama: "When's He Going To Take Responsibility For Something?!"

"This is a problem of the President's own making. He's been president for five and a half years!"

How Republicans Should Fight Back in the War on Women News Editor and Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich has a new book out this week titled, "Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women."

"Assault and Flattery is a book about women," Katie writes, "but it’s for fathers, husbands, sons, and boyfriends, too."

To that end, I asked Katie how specifically what conservatives could learn from the book.

CC: You write in the book that Republicans need to fight back hard against the Democrats War on Women. What specifically should Republicans be doing/saying?

KP: It's simple. If Republicans want to win and promote a pro-women, pro-free markets, pro-growth, pro-opportunity agenda then they have to have to courage to play hardball in the same way Democrats do. The only difference is that the GOP doesn't need to lie, exaggerate or scare in order to win. Not addressing this issue isn't an option and leads to failure. Go on offense, state a position and defend it with the truth.

CC: Can you give me one specific example of where Republicans should go on offense?

KP: They should go on offense on every issue but specifically on the issue of contraception. I can't tell you how many women I spoke to during 2012 campaign who told me they voted for Obama over Romney because Romney would have "banned their birth control." That lie was repeatedly told by left but was only addressed by the right a handful of times. Bobby Jindal has some good ideas on the issue. Chris Christie's approach, stating his position and saying "take it or leave it," is another good way to handle it.

For more on how you can't help defeat the Democrats War on Women, be sure to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

Obama's Border Crisis Lies

If there is one thing that is always true about President Obama, it is that nothing is ever his fault. Hence his workmanlike performance at a press conference in Dallas yesterday, designed to shift the blame for the current border crisis away from himself and on to Republicans in Congress. Obama's border blame game is premised on five big lies all detailed below.

1. The current crisis is being caused by violence in Central America.
"I think that the challenge we have that has really caused a spike is the significant security challenges in these Central American countries themselves," Obama said yesterday. And it is undeniably true that Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are very violent countries.

But the current wave of violence in all three of these countries peaked in 2009 and has been declining since. Asylum requests from those countries to surrounding countries has risen since 2009, but that doesn't explain why a rising tide of migrants since 2009 suddenly turned into a tsunami just this year.

The reality is that word has gotten back to Central America about the very real facts on the ground here in the United States. The truth, not rumors, of the matter is that migrants from Central America simply are not being sent home.

Yes, a 2008 law signed by President Bush is partly to blame. But so are a series of memos written by Obama's DHS making it a matter of policy not to even apprehend, let alone deport, non-violent illegal immigrants.

It is the combination of the 2008 law requiring Border Patrol agents turn migrants from countries-other-than-Mexico over to Health and Human Services, combined with Obama's refusal to enforce interior immigration laws (this includes but is not limited to DACA), that has created the reality that people from Central America are being released deep into the United States with permisos.

It is Obama's selective enforcement of immigration law (to the letter on the 2008 Trafficking Act, but ignoring 8 USC sec 1227 entirely) that has created the current crisis.

2. Most of the children crossing the border now will be sent home.
"While we intend to do the right thing by these children, their parents need to know that this is an incredibly dangerous situation and it is unlikely that their children will be able to stay," Obama said yesterday, echoing a line his administration has been pushing since the crisis began.

This also is just plain false. Just ask the Center for American Progress' Marshall Fitz who told PBS Monday:

"All of the reporting that has been done so far by international independent agencies, not the Border Patrol, show that somewhere upwards of 58%-60% of the kids are entitled to some form of protection. And we are seeing that. Many of these kids are being granted either asylum or special immigration juvenile protection, or they are getting other visas. So the facts are these kids are eligible for status because they are fleeing traumatic situations in their own countries or they are being trafficked along the way."

One immigration attorney even told Fox News Latino, "The numbers that are eligible are really high... 80 or 90 percent would qualify for some type of relief."

3. The Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill would have prevented the crisis.
Yesterday Obama claimed, "The Senate passed a common-sense, bipartisan bill more than a year ago. It would have strengthened the border, added an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents. It would have strengthened our backlogged immigration courts. It would have put us in a stronger position to deal with this surge and, in fact, prevent it."

Considering that Obama couldn't build a single website for his signature domestic accomplishment in over three years, it is laughable to claim his administration could have beefed up immigration courts in less than a years time to the level necessary to process the current wave of migrants.

And Obama himself even said earlier in the same press conference, border security is not the problem. The current wave of migrants are not sneaking across the border, they are surrendering to Border Patrol agents.

The only way to prevent the current crisis would have been to repeal the 2008 Trafficking Act. And nothing in the Schumer-Rubio bill did that.

4. Obama's supplemental will solve the current crisis.
"There’s a very simple question here," Obama said yesterday, "and that is Congress just needs to pass the supplemental."

But nothing in the supplemental Obama submitted Tuesday would solve the problem. The current crisis is a policy crisis, not a resource crisis. Giving $1.8 billion to HHS to help migrants in the United States will only encourage more migrants to come.

Until the 2008 Trafficking Act is repealed throwing more money at the border would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

5. We can solve the current crisis with out repealing the 2008 Trafficking Act
"I indicated to him that part of what we’re looking in the supplemental is some flexibility in terms of being able to preserve the due process rights of individuals who come in, but also to make sure that we’re sending a strong signal that they can’t simply show up at the border and automatically assume that they’re going to be absorbed."

Obama is in a hard place. He knows the 2008 Trafficking Act must be repealed, but he has faced heavy pushback from his base against repealing it. He could, of course, just simply use the same executive enforcement powers he used to create DACA to also simply ignore the 2008 Trafficking Act, but his base would never allow that.

He desperately needs political cover from Republicans to fix the problem. But Senate Democrats are never going to agree to just repeal the 2008 Trafficking Act. They are going to demand a larger amnesty closer to the Schumer-Rubio bill in return.

Republicans can't play this game. They can't let Democrats create a border crisis and then demand Republicans accept policy concessions in return for agreeing to clean their own mess. The House should pass a simple repeal of the 2008 Trafficking Act and say they will consider Obama's supplemental request after he starts enforcing the pre-2008 border procedures.

Judicial Watch in Court Today Over "Lost" IRS Emails

IRS counsel will face government watchdog group Judicial Watch in court today and will be required to explain the "loss" of former IRS official Lois Lerner's emails in front of a judge.

Judicial Watch has been pursuing information about IRS targeting of tea party groups since last year. Despite current lawsuits against the agency, IRS officials failed to disclose why, when and how emails were lost to the court and to Judicial Watch attorneys.

"These emails could be critical to getting to the bottom of the IRS scandal where Tea Party and other conservative group applications were illegally delayed by the IRS," the group released in a statement. "In addition, Lois Lerner had communicated with Department of Justice officials to see if it was possible to prosecute these groups."

The hearing will take place at U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. at 11 a.m.

Watch: Is There A "War on Women"?

Townhall's Sarah Jean Seman went to Capitol Hill to find out more about the so-called "War on Women."

Be sure to check out Katie Pavlich's newest book "Assault and Flattery" here.

Global Warmist, Heal Thyself

Editor's Note: This column originally appeared in the July issue of Townhall Magazine.

The global warming fear mongers are at it again.

But twice recently they’ve been caught in the act. Not only are they lying, they’re so desperate that they’re starting to look ridiculous.

“Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year—twice as much as when it was last surveyed,” reports the U.K.’s University of Leeds. “A team of scientists from the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, led by researchers at the University of Leeds, have produced the first complete assessment of Antarctic ice sheet elevation change.”

Like you, I’m suspicious of any group of scientists that live in a “kingdom” that can’t even practice general dentistry correctly.

Or health care.
Or, apparently, math.
The press release goes on to say that the ice melt could contribute to an increase in “global sea levels by 0.45 millimetres each year alone.”

That figure is really not that impressive, especially when you understand that it means about a 2 inch rise over 100 years.

But what’s really impressive about the figure is that it’s just not true.

From climate website Watts Up With That?:

Sanity Check:

From Climatesanity: Conversion factors for ice and water mass and volume

If one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) is spread evenly over the entire 361 million square kilometers, the thickness of the new layer of water will be given by:

1km3 /361x106km2 =2.78x10-6 meters = 2.78 microns.

Or, in terms of gigatonnes:

1Gt x (1km3/Gt) /361x106km2 = 2.78 x 10-6 meters = 2.78 microns / Gt

That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans!

From the press release, we are seeing about 159 billion tons/year of ice convert- ed to meltwater (unless it sublimates), so the effect on sea level would be 159/1000 or 0.159 x 3 millionths of a meter, or 0.477 millionths of meter of sea level rise per year from this.

I’ll leave it to the highly trained scientist at the University of Leeds to convert the millionths of a meter into inches for you. But it’s my strong recommendation you not allow them to do your taxes.

But hold on there, pardners, we’re not done yet.

We can at least agree, as we’ve been told for years, that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man, right? I mean, that’s indisputable.

Then why are the scientists so eager to hide their data?

“The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming,” reports the Daily Caller.

It seems a blogger has gotten ahold of the primary data used in the research, and the data suggests that far from having a consensus that global warming is entirely manmade, scientists are still skeptical.

This is not the first time that critics have questioned the results of that study. A catalog of studies in a report pub- lished by Science & Education shows that a little more than one quarter of 1 percent of all studies conclude that glob- al warming is entirely man-made, says the Daily Caller.

“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed,” says statistician Dr. William Briggs in a press release accompanying the report. “That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

And here’s what I know about people who lie: they are liars.

Some people lie for profit, some people lie for power, and some people just lie for the fun of it. I suspect in the global warming crowd there’s a small group of people who are liars, with the large admixture of people who are just believers.

But among believers in history, even Thomas had doubts.

It is up to the faithful, the believers, the ideologues, to cast out the liars.

The people who should be offended by these ploys, stratagems, and sophistications are those who believe deeply in the science of global warming.

But until they cast out the liars, their faith counts for nothing.

After all, it is just another lie. •

John Ransom is the editor of

Obama Refuses to Visit Border; Claims "Not Interested In Photo Ops"

In a press conference in Dallas on Wednesday, President Obama responded to critics who noted he was refusing to visit the border in a time of crisis. "This isn't theater," the President said, before going further and saying "I'm not interested in photo ops."

"Not interested in photo ops." Really, President Barack Obama said that.

Needless to say, commentators noted the absolute absurdity of that statement - it would be hilarious if the crisis weren't so serious.

A hashtag was spawned on Twitter as people noted the obsession that this White House has seemed to have with photo ops:

Many of those photos are instantly recognizable for the craven politicking that President Obama has engaged in, time and again, with regard to "photo ops."

The Obama White House, as has been noted, is absolutely obsessed with the management of its own image. They've gone to extraordinary lengths, including banning independent photographers from the White House, in order to control President Obama's portrayal in the media. Dylan Byers noted that even the mainstream media has become tired of the lockdown:

The White House Correspondents Association and several leading media outlets have sent a letter to the White House protesting its policy of banning photographers from covering the president at certain events.

"As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government," the WHCA board wrote in the letter delivered to the White House press office.

Fed Report: Unemployment Benefits May Prolong Unemployment

It's not exactly a landmark finding, as other studies have shown the same thing, but a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has provided another datapoint: extended unemployment benefits tend to actually increase unemployment relative to the baseline.

The authors of the report, Maria Canon and Yang Liu, write:

In summary, we find that the extension of unemployment benefits affected the labor market status of long-term unemployed workers in late 2013. Without extended UI benefits, these unemployed workers would have been more likely to be employed, more likely to exit the labor force, and on average 1.9 percent less likely to remain unemployed in the following period. In short, our simulated early termination of the EUC program lowered the unemployment rate by 3 to 5 basis points, suggesting that the December 2013 expiration of the EUC program might have slightly lowered the unemployment rate in early 2014.

The amount that the authors found that the emergency long-term unemployment benefits artificially propped up the unemployment rate was relatively small. For example, they found that the likelihood of someone to move from unemployment to employment in the absence of the emergency benefits was only 1.2 to 2.1% higher. Every little helps, however, and it's certainly a counterpoint to those who argue that unemployment benefits have had no effect on unemployment.

Hat tip: Victoria Stilwell

Question: Is President Obama the “Most anti-Woman President Ever”?

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

It’s a claim that New York Times bestselling author Katie Pavlich makes in her brand new book, “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women,” and one that many readers may vehemently disagree with. After all, as she herself asks, is it really fair to say President Obama is more misogynistic than, say, Presidents Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton?

Well, in short, the answer is ‘yes.’ From Chapter 8:

Folks, hear me out.

For starters, Woodrow Wilson never pretended to be the president of American women. Kennedy and Clinton did not rely single-handedly on the women’s vote to cling to office or craft almost all of their policies to manipulate women into thinking they were on the verge of being handcuffed to their kitchen sinks and forced to churn out baby after baby without access to birth control. That’s what Barack Obama wants every woman to think. That he is the only thing stopping a Republican steamrolling of women’s rights that starts with stealing their condoms and ends in a national campaign to get women out of the workforce and into the home.

I’ll spell it out plainly as I can: Obama is the worst president for women because he has systemically lied to them. He has brazenly campaigned as their champion, even as he seeks to make them wards of the state, forever dependent on government largesse in the form of food stamps and free birth control. He’s claimed to work for their best interests, and yet screwed them at every opportunity. (Unlike with Kennedy and Clinton, that word is not to be taken literally.) Even Mitt Romney has figured it out. As he told me, “If there has been an administration which has been hard on women, it’s this one.” In the Obama worldview, women aren’t human beings capable of charting their own destiny at home or the workplace just as men are, they are dependents in desperate need of government handouts and abortions.

So I say again. Barack Obama is the most anti-women president in American history. Still sounds shocking, doesn’t it?

Of course it does. But Pavlich goes even further, dedicating an entire chapter in her book to defending the charge, providing both anecdotal and empirical evidence to back her claims. From the “testosterone-fueled boys club” of the White House (that, incidentally, still pays women less than men!) to the deliberate targeting and persecution of women tea party activists by the IRS, the Obama administration has an awful track record when it comes to "women’s issues."

So, my friends, to better understand how the Left -- i.e., not conservatives -- are waging a “War on Women,’ pick up a copy of her book today. You'll be glad you did.

It Seems Abortion Is The Liberal Glue That Binds

Has abortion become the glue that holds liberals together? What is it about this horrific act that never ceases to energize the progressive left?

Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, who’s now the Democratic candidate for governor, became a darling of the left with her filibuster on a bill that sought to ban abortion twenty weeks into a pregnancy.

Now, we have the Democratic candidate for Nevada Lieutenant Governor Lucy Flores being described as “the left’s new hero,” according to left-wing site Salon. What did she do to garner such praise from liberals and feminists? Well, she had an abortion because she decided she was too young to be a mother (Via MSNBC):

“I had six other sisters … all of them became pregnant in their teens – all of them,” Flores said. “One of them was 14 years old when she got pregnant with twins.”

Then, with a nervous laugh, Flores told her colleagues something she had never admitted to anyone.

“Since I’m sharing so much this session, I might as well keep going,” she said. “I always said that I was the only one who didn’t have kids in their teenage years. That’s because at 16, I got an abortion.”

Her eyes welled up and her voice caught as she described how she had convinced her father to pay the $200 cost for the procedure. She didn’t want to end up like her sisters, Flores told him.

“I don’t regret it,” she said. “I don’t regret it because I am here making a difference, at least in my mind, for many other young ladies and letting them know that there are options and they can do things to not be in the situation I was in, but to prevent.”

She was sixteen. I get it, teenagers make mistakes; we’ve all been at this juncture in our lives. But, that doesn’t mean that liberals should be celebrating those mistakes, either.

Katie McDonough of Salon added:

When any woman shares her abortion story, she creates space for others to do the same. That in and of itself is a tremendously powerful and generous act. And when women like Flores — or California Rep. Jackie Speier, who disclosed her own abortion experience in 2011 — share stories publicly and in the very places that policies governing reproductive healthcare are crafted and voted on, they change the political landscape. They humanize the issue, and position themselves as experts on the policies that have personally impacted their lives — and the lives of millions of other women. There’s real power in that.

Abortion should be humanized? This is coming from the same site that posted a piece called "so what if abortion ends life," which was a haphazard defense of abortion and putting life on a graduated scale.

And, it’s not just people who are pro-life that are troubled by this trend. Some members of the media, namely ABC News’ Cokie Roberts, were troubled by how “over the top” the 2012 Democratic National Convention was on the issue of abortion.

I think this Democratic convention was really over the top in terms of abortion…every single speaker talked about abortion — and, you know, at some point, you start to alienate people. Thirty percent of Democrats are pro-life.

As for laws banning abortion twenty weeks into a pregnancy, almost everyone supports that, including 60% of women.

It’s doubtful that Ms. Flores admission to an abortion during her high school days will have a detrimental impact. It was in high school, and even conservatives know that digging up dirt from those days is a bit of an overreach. They’ve also been the targets of such hijinks. Does anyone remember the Washington Post’s story alleging that Mitt Romney cut some hair off a gay kid in high school?

Shouldn’t it be disturbing that one of the benchmarks in becoming a hero to the American left is having an abortion, or promoting policies that emphatically support it?

I’ll just leave it to Katie Pavlich, who explains how liberals manipulate this issue in her new book.

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

NFL Players Condemn Abortion in Newly-Unearthed 1992 Video

In one of the more unusual sports stories of the day, a video from 1992 depicts various members of the Washington Redskins and the Buffalo Bills discussing the evils of abortion was unearthed today and published on the sports site SBNation.

While this video is more than 20 years old, the message conveyed is still the same today. Abortion is the taking of a human life that cannot be undone. Kudos to these athletes for speaking out about a cause they believe in.

Dem Rep: Seeing Photos of Obama "Drinking Beer" in Denver Totally "Floored Me"

By now, I'm sure you've seen photos of President Obama playing pool and drinking beer in Denver last night. Understandably, they give off the distinct impression that he doesn’t care -- or at least doesn't mind giving off the impression that he doesn’t care -- about the rapidly deteriorating situation at the US southern border. How else to explain photos such as these?

Democrats, meanwhile, are lamenting the president’s absence and blithe indifference to this crisis as much as anyone. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), for example, has already been admonished by the White House to tone down his criticisms of the president over immigration-related and border security issues. But apparently such warnings are -- and will continue to go -- unheeded. The photos were a bridge too far.

That’s why in an interview today on MSNBC he blasted the president for saying he’s “too busy” to visit the border when, of course, everybody knows that’s a bald-faced lie:

Calls will only grow louder for President Obama to pay Border Patrol agents and humanitarian workers alike a visit. And, while it may be politically expedient for him not to, he may no longer have a choice.

Have You Met...Rep. John Kline (R-MN)

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July issue of Townhall Magazine.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) once had the responsibility of flying presidents to their destinations as a pilot for Marine One. Now, this aviator-turned-congressman is guiding constituents in a different capacity. He tells Townhall Magazine how he went from navigating the skies to drafting legislation:

“I was going to college, in 1965, when the Vietnam War was cranking out. I was intent on serving at some point and I also was intent on graduating college. So, I combined my intention to serve and my intention to go to college by joining the naval ROTC program at Rice University.”

While Kline was a student at Rice, the Navy had a program called Flight Indoctrination Program. It paid for him to go to a local flight school and get a local private pilot’s license.

“I did that and found out I liked to fly. So, it wasn’t too difficult to make the decision to go into the Marines once I was commissioned.”

His passion for aviation led him to join Marine Helicopter Squadron One, most known for being the home of Marine One.

“It was a great experience. I was one of about 50 pilots in that squadron. It was a great adventure. I got to travel to places in the world like Panama and Egypt, providing Marine One service for Jimmy Carter. It was a big responsibility, but really fun, flying with a lot of really good pilots.”

While he was in the squadron, he was head of an office called White House Liaison Office, working with the White House on providing Marine One wherever the president was needed and coordinating trips. He joined the squadron as captain and left it as a major. Soon, his credentials led him to another honorable post, working as a personal military aide to Presidents Carter and Reagan.

“It’s not something I expected to do when I completed my four years with Marine One. I thought it was time to get back to day-to-day flying, Marine Corps missions and living in tents and things like that, but it was suggested to me that the White House needed another military aide. ... The aide obviously travels with the president everywhere he goes, carrying the football. Jimmy Carter lost, Ronald Reagan won. Reagan’s transition team asked me to stay on. I stayed there until the summer of 1982 so I had the great honor.”

Kline considers it a breach of trust to reveal personal anecdotes about the First Family. One thing he was not coy about, however, was who he believes left the country in better shape.

“I think Reagan was the best president. Carter was very immersed in details, a very smart man, read a lot, knew the particulars of a lot of policy, but he didn’t have the ability President Reagan had to look ahead and keep the ship of state on the course. President Reagan knew what the long term goal was: it was to bring back a healthy economy, take on all the issues that had driven our economy into the tank, high inflation and all those things, and defeat the Evil Empire.”

Just like his dive into aviation, Kline’s advocacy for education was an unexpected but welcome career move. He ran for Congress, he says, out of concern for what was happening to the Armed Forces. He fulfilled that duty, becoming a member of the Armed Forces committee. But, he soon took on another role.

“I got to Congress and was put on the education committee. I got involved in a couple of big issues: pension protection act, modernizing system and became fairly knowledgeable about some issues. There was an opening to be the ranking member five years ago. I looked at the makeup of the committee and thought I could do a good job.”

His peers agreed, selecting him as ranking member, and then as chairman. In this role, he introduced the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act, a bill he is “very excited” about.

“We want to give parents more options, choices, so that their kids have a chance to succeed, in a climate where traditional public schools just aren’t doing the job,” Kline explains. “We want those good schools to be able to be replicated and to expand. That’s at the heart of what our bill does.”

Like Reagan, Kline may not like to accept credit, but for strengthening our military and providing families with better education options, he certainly deserves some. •

Pavlich Talks 'Assault and Flattery': "There Certainly is a War on Women and it’s Being Waged by the Left"

Townhall News Editor Katie Pavlich’s new book “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women,” is already rising through the ranks on the Amazon bestseller list (get your copy now!) I asked my colleague a few questions about her research process for her latest project and how it’s actually Democrats, not Republicans, who are hurting women with their baseless rhetoric and backward policies.

1. Is there a “war on women?” If so, who’s waging it?

There certainly is a war on women and it’s being waged by the left, and I’m not talking about contraception or abortion. For decades far left policies have made women more dependent on government rather than independent and empowered, ultimately limiting economic opportunity. Liberals have a bad habit of accusing their opponents of what they are actually doing and the war on women is no exception.

2. How did you choose the title?

The definition of flattering is “excessive and insincere praise, especially that given to further one's own interests.” That’s the Democratic Party’s approach to women every campaign cycle. It’s the perfect word to describe their tactics. They offer up compliments and promises that are only broken as soon as the polling booths close. I chose assault in reference to the many literal assaults from liberal men against women. Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are just two of them, there are many of them detailed in my book.

3. Democrats claim Republicans are waging a war on women, but isn’t this hypocritical considering how poorly Democrats treat Republican women?

It’s extraordinarily hypocritical, which is a big part of why I wrote the book. Democrats claim to support all women, but in reality they crucify, vilify and destroy women who dare offer a different point of view. Democrats want women to fall in line and when they don’t, there’s no sign of chivalry or basic respect.

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

4. You bravely attended the NOW convention last year while doing research for Assault and Flattery. Was anything revealed about the liberal feminist movement that you didn’t know before? Can you share a few of the most egregious things you heard?

When I attended the NOW conference in Chicago I was shocked not by what the women were saying, but by the materials I found for sale and being promoted at the conference. They were selling Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Education for Socialists and a whole slew of other Marx based material. It was eye opening and gave me a substantial amount of research, information and new insights for the book.

5. What is the irony of referring to President Barack Obama as the most pro-woman president in history?

If Barack Obama is the most pro-woman president in history, then why does he seek to make women completely dependent on the government? Obama propagated one of the left’s most damaging and egregious offenses against women by promoting the false idea that reliance on government is empowering. He repeatedly lied to women about bogus contraception bans in order to get reelected.

6. Is Hobby Lobby v. Burwell an ideal example of the Democrats’ trying to control and define the “women’s rights” debate?

Absolutely, but they’re doing it dishonestly which isn’t surprising. The so-called “women’s rights” advocates who are trying to destroy Hobby Lobby are interested in one thing and that’s government control. Before Obamacare and before the Supreme Court ruled on Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, Hobby Lobby offered its employees 16 different forms of contraception and will continue to do so after the ruling. Listening to the women of NOW you’d think contraception is banned forever and that bosses are taking it away from women in boardrooms everywhere. They aren’t and never will.

7. What is the most empowering message for women in regards to self-defense? How does the Democratic Party get this message wrong?

Before women had the right to vote, they had the right to own a firearm. There is nothing that puts men and women on an equal playing field like the ability for women to defend themselves with a firearm. It’s an atrocity that Democrats continue to push for more gun control laws that only put women into more vulnerable, more dependent and more dangerous situations against violent attackers by limiting their Second Amendment rights and options for self-defense.

8. How can Republicans debunk the misconceptions that they’re harming “women’s rights” and convince women they belong to the wrong political party?

Republicans have lost on this issue because they’ve failed to address the issue quickly and forcefully. When Hillary Clinton goes on television to claim bosses can take away contraception, it’s the job of Republicans to call her a liar and to set the record straight. It’s also important for Republicans to remind women of who fought for their right to vote and who fought against it. Republicans were supporters of the women’s suffrage movement. Democrats were not.

9. Why is it important that men read this book as well?

Although this is a book about women, it’s a book for women, men, dads, husbands, brothers and boyfriends. If you really believe women should be independent, including independent of government, this book serves as a tool to help influence, debate and set the record straight about the Democratic Party.

10. What do you hope to accomplish with this book?

There are a number of things I hope to accomplish with the book on a range of different topics that are outlined in my chapters. The bottom line is, Democrats have controlled the debate on this issue for far too long. My goal with this book is to expose liberal lies in hopes women will realize that Democrats may tell them they have their best interests at heart, but in the end they’re just skilled in flattery.

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

Facebook Removes Teen's Hunting Pictures; Keeps Up Page Advocating for Her Murder

Texas Tech student and aspiring TV host Kendall Jones has been under fire as of late for her posts on Facebook with various big game animals she has hunted. Facebook removed those photos yesterday, claiming that they violated the site's community standards. Something apparently does not violate those community standards, however, is a page advocating for the murder of Kendall Jones.

Jones legally hunted all of the animals she is pictured with--she is not a poacher.

It's fine to have an opinion that hunting is bad or cruel, but it certainly is not okay to advocate for the murder of another human being. Facebook's policy is hypocritical. One of the images on the "Kill Kendall Jones" page is a cartoon of a lion standing over Jones' dead body--if that's not "glorifying violence," then what is?

Five Marxist Books I Found at NOW's National Conference in Chicago

Typically people think about the National Organization for Women as a women's rights group. It isn't. NOW is a front group for the promotion of socialist and Marxist policies in America and I have proof.

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

Last year I attended the annual NOW National Conference in Chicago (didn't go to this year's conference, I probably would have been kicked out anyway). Here's a sampling of the material I found while I was there and a short excerpt from my new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women.

Marxist teaching is not a tiny fringe part of the modern, militant feminists' agenda. It is its centerpiece.
From the time of Karl Marx through the 1960s and up until today, the progressive women's rights movement has hardly been about women's rights at all but instead about a transformation of American society and the transfer of wealth through government force. Women's rights have simply acted as a veil to distract away from the true intentions of progressive activists.
Socialist literature sold at the annual NOW conference declares the family system as the origin of female oppression and lays out half a dozen fundamental "errors" of the family.
"Closely intertwined with the origins and character of women's oppression is the question of the family. The resolution reaffirms that the family system is an indispensable pillar of class rule. It is the historical mechanism for institutionalizing the social inequality that accompanies the rise of private property and perpetuating class divisions from one generation to the next," the Education for Socialists says. "Because the family system is indispensable to the structuring of social inequality, the economic dependence of women and their oppression within the family system is likewise indispensable to class rule."
Further, this material states Marxists are "the only ones who have answers to the very fundamental questions posed by the feminist movement," and that the answers must be perpetuated through women's liberation literature.

1. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

2. Education for Socialists: Women's Liberation and the Line March of the Working Class and the Communist Continuity and the Fight for Women's Liberation

3. On the 100th Anniversary of the First General Strike in the U.S.: Marx and the First International

4. Marx & Freedom by Raya Dunayevskaya

5. Rosa Luxemburg, Women's Liberation, and Marx Philosophy of Revolution by Raya Dunayevskaya

These were just the five books I decided to purchase (strangely enough they weren't free, people actually wanted money for them, which I found ironic), there were many more with the same Marxist theme available. To learn about my full experience at NOW and to see what else I found, you'll have to head over to Amazon to purchase the full story.

RELATED: Don't forget to order Katie Pavlich's new book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women from Amazon today.

Sigh: Senate Dems Introduce Bill to Override Hobby Lobby Decision

The Supreme Court had spoken. Hobby Lobby could keep its religious freedom. But, now Senate Democrats are trying to reverse this ruling with a new act that would override an employer exemption from the controversial HHS mandate. LifeNews explains what this could mean for Christian companies:

Now, Senate Democrats want to change the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a way that would force companies to pay for birth control, contraception and those abortion-causing drugs.

Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), both abortion advocates, are behind the new legislation and they said, “The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act would ban employers from refusing to provide health coverage — including contraceptive coverage — guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law.”

It’s no surprise who’s already lending her support to the bill:

"With this bill, Congress can begin to fix the damage done by the Supreme Court's decision to allow for-profit corporations to deny their employees birth control coverage. The Supreme Court last week opened the door to a wide range of discrimination and denial of services. This bill would help close the door for denying contraception before more corporations can walk through it," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Planned Parenthood seems to ignore the fact that a majority of Americans agreed with the Court’s decision last week. 51 percent of respondents in a Rasmussen Reports survey said employers should not be required to provide insurance with this type of coverage.

But, that’s not going to stop these Democratic senators, who are determined to override the Hobby Lobby decision in the name of “women’s rights.”

Anyone who puts their name to this legislation doesn’t deserve to keep their seat this fall. Hopefully voters will err on the side of religious freedom.