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.

Obama's Amnesty Dilemma

President Obama will be in Texas today for a series of fundraisers but, despite warnings from fellow Democrats that he can't ignore the issue, he will not visit the Mexican border where a humanitarian crisis of his own making is unfolding.

Obama's reluctance to visit the border is completely understandable. The flood of migrants coming from Central America are only responding to the incentives created by Obama's selective enforcement of immigration laws. There is no misinformation campaign. The rumors are true.

Families who come to the border from countries other than Mexico are being helped across the border by U.S. immigration officials and then released, sometimes even transported, deep into the United States. Once they have been released with a piece of paper asking them to show up in court at a later date (a piece of paper the migrants are calling a permiso) these migrants are free to disappear without any threat of future deportation. It is the Obama administration's written policy not to track down non-violent illegal immigrants.

"If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it's just highly unlikely to happen," John Sandweg, Obama's former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, recently told The Los Angeles Times.

Amnesty activists are thrilled with this outcome. Obama's selective enforcement of immigration law has created a de facto open border.

The only problem for amnesty activists is that Obama is not processing the migrant wave fast enough. Hence the $3.7 billion Obama asked for yesterday to address the crisis. Almost half of this amount, $1.8 billion, will go not to stopping migrants from coming to the United States, but will go instead to the Department of Health and Human Services to help care for the migrants in the United States. Another $116 million of Obama's request will go to transporting migrants further into the United States. And while $879 million will go to "detention and removal of undocumented adults traveling with children" that money will also be spent on "expansion of alternatives to detention" aka releasing illegal immigrants into the United States with a permiso.

None of the money asked for by Obama would in anyway stop the migrant wave. Giving Obama $3.7 billion for immigration "enforcement" would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. This is a policy problem not a resources problem. And Obama's base won't let him fix the policy problem.

When Obama first floated the idea of extra funds for the current migrant crisis, he also asked Congress to change a 2008 law that directs immigration officials turn over migrants from countries over than Mexico to HHS for human trafficking processing.

But after fierce opposition from amnesty activists, Obama changed course and dropped the requested change in policy from his $3.7 billion wish list.

Now Obama is completely beholden to the amnesty activists that helped elect him. After Obama failed to pass immigration reform with a Democratic House in his first year in office, as he promised to do, Obama knew he needed to do something by himself. Hence his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program which unilaterally changed immigration law to match DREAM Act legislation which never passed Congress.

Obama has defended DACA as a completely legal extension of his inherent executive enforcement powers. But if DACA is legal, if Obama can create a brand new program out of thin air that grants work permits and drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, then he can also completely ignore all other immigration laws.

Amnesty activists know this. They know that once Obama announced DACA, the only limit to Obama's immigration powers are political. And they believe Americans are ready for open borders. Politico reports this morning (hat tip Greg Sargent):

Adding to the elevated hopes about what Obama will do is the feeling among Democratic strategists that immigration reform is a clear political winner: The people who will be opposed to reform or to the president taking action on his own are already likely prime Republican base voters. But voters whom Obama might be able to activate, both among immigrant communities and progressives overall who see this issue as a touchstone, are exactly the ones that Democrats are hoping will be there to counter a midterm year in which the map and historical trends favor GOP turnout.

In many competitive House districts and several of the Senate races that Democrats need to hold onto to have a chance of retaining the majority — Colorado and Iowa, and to a lesser extent, North Carolina and Arkansas — immigrant communities make up a significant bloc of votes. Done in a way that energizes Latinos and Asians, Obama’s taking the lead on immigration could prove a margin-making move for the midterms.

It is not clear, however, if Obama believes open borders will be the same hit with the American people that amnesty activists think it will be. Up till now Americans have voiced support for granting amnesty to those already in the country, but keeping out further waves if illegal immigrants.

But the current migrant crisis has exploded the amnesty lie. Americans are seeing first hand that amnesties only beget more amnesties. The only way for Obama to end the crisis is to start treating all migrants the way Mexican migrants are treated: by turning them away from the border.

But Obama's base won't let him do that.

So the crisis on the border will continue, more migrants will come to the United States, and Obama will continue to facilitate their entry into the country. Until there is a strong signal that Americans will not tolerate this politically, the status quo will not change.

Surprise: Colorado Democrat Won't Attend Fundraiser Obama is Hosting For Him

No doubt we saw this coming, but now it’s official: Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) will not appear at a campaign fundraiser back home headlined by the president today, according to the Associated Press. Duty calls, guys:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday will headline his first fundraiser for a Senate Democrat in danger of losing this fall — but the candidate, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, won't be by his side.

In a last minute switch, Udall's campaign says the senator plans to stay in Washington to vote on Obama's nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The decision is likely to spark new questions about the political risks for vulnerable Democrats in being linked with an increasingly unpopular president.

"Mark is grateful for the president's support, and had hoped to welcome him to Colorado in person, but his responsibilities to serve Colorado in the Senate come first," spokesman Chris Harris said.

His responsibilities as a United States Senator must take precedence, he affirms. But even before he decided to stay in Washington to fulfil his constitutional obligations as an elected official, he took calculated steps to ensure that he and the president wouldn’t be seen chumming it up together. The AP explains:

Udall had already been planning to limit his appearances with the president. The fundraiser is off limits to news cameras. And Udall's campaign announced earlier in the week that the senator would not attend the president's economic speech in Denver Wednesday morning, ensuring that there would be no photos of the two men together.

Meanwhile, his opponent, Cory Gardner, has been anticipating the fundraiser for quite some time, and using it to score political points. For example, the Gardner campaign released this statement two days ago about the president's impending visit:

Just months after Senator Udall refused to answer on national television whether or not he would campaign with President Obama (four times!), the president is headed to Denver. This morning, the White House announced that in addition to raising money for Senator Udall, President Obama will be giving a speech on the economy, though members of the public are prohibited from attending.

“Senator Udall has spent his entire campaign dividing Coloradans — he speaks nonstop about divisive social issues, spreading lies about his opponent in hopes that voters will forget about his failed record on the economy and healthcare,” said campaign spokesman Alex Siciliano. “News that President Obama will be speaking about the economy on Wednesday in Denver must have hit Senator Udall hard. He is now going to have to answer for his votes for the failed healthcare bill, higher taxes, and increased government spending. Senator Udall has been in elected office nearly two decades, but he still can’t explain to Coloradans what he’s accomplished for our state, why the economy is struggling, and his plan to create jobs.”

Polls show the race is exceedingly tight and expected to get even tighter. This explains why Udall doesn’t want to be seen with the president -- who, according to a freshly-released Quinnipiac University poll, only boasts a 38 percent approval rating in the Centennial State. However, in fairness to Sen. Udall, he’s not the only one avoiding the president when he visits. Other vulnerable Senate Democrats are doing the exact same thing:

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich has said he is "not really interested" in campaigning with Obama, and he reminds reporters that he won in 2008 while Obama was losing the state by 21 percentage points.

In North Carolina, a spokeswoman for Sen. Kay Hagan said no presidential visits were scheduled but added that "President Obama is welcome to come to North Carolina any time, including for our campaign." However, Hagan was absent when Obama visited Raleigh in January.

Obama has had occasional contact with vulnerable Democrats in their home states, but not for campaign purposes. In May, he spent several hours with Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor touring damage from a tornado that devastated swaths of the state. And in November, Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu got a ride from Washington to New Orleans with Obama on Air Force One, then skipped the event he had scheduled in her hometown.

At any rate, collecting donations from a fundraiser you won't attend seems like a pretty sweet gig, no? Hence why I wouldn't be surprised if other Senate Democrats soon begin adopting this strategy as well.

Oops: US Government Misallocated $100 Billion in 2013

At a time when federal agencies and state governments are being stretched much too thin (or so they claim), the US government reportedly sent oodles of taxpayer dollars to the wrong people last year, according to the Associated Press:

By its own estimate, the government made about $100 billion in payments last year to people who may not have been entitled to receive them — tax credits to families that didn't qualify, unemployment benefits to people who had jobs and medical payments for treatments that might not have been necessary.

Congressional investigators say the figure could be even higher.

That’s an absurd amount of money. But perhaps we should rejoice. After all, the amount of money the federal government gave away last year to those who didn’t deserve it pales in comparison to the amount they misallocated in 2010:

The amount of improper payments has steadily dropped since 2010, when it peaked at $121 billion.

The Obama administration has stepped up efforts to measure improper payments, identify the cause and develop plans to reduce them, said Beth Cobert, deputy director of the White House budget office. Agencies recovered more than $22 billion in overpayments last year.

"We have strengthened accountability and transparency, saving the American people money while improving the fiscal responsibility of federal programs," Cobert said in a statement ahead of Wednesday's hearing. "We are pleased with this progress, but know that we have more work to do in this area."

My hunch is that most Americans wouldn’t be “pleased” with this kind of “progress.” Nevertheless, some federal agencies are rather good about keeping their records straight, and limiting unwarranted claims. Others, not so much:

 photo apstudy_zps3347cb2b.png

Bear in mind, too, that these estimates are almost certainly on the low side:

…a new report by the Government Accountability Office questions the accuracy of agency estimates, suggesting that the real tally could be higher. The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress.

"The federal government is unable to determine the full extent to which improper payments occur and reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken to reduce them," Beryl H. Davis, director of financial management at the GAO, said in prepared testimony for Wednesday's hearing.

Ah, well, there’s always next year!

Corporatist Democrats Push For Ex-Im Reauthorization

Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington State yesterday urged House Speaker John Boehner to bring a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank to a vote in the House.

"We see no reason for members of either party to waver in their support" for the Ex-Im bank, the senators wrote.

Sens. Murray and Cantwell, of course, would have a difficult time seeing through the corporatist protectionism that helps their state at the expense of American consumers. Boeing Commercial Airplanes is headquartered in Washington State - and Boeing is one of the largest recipients of the protectionism that the Ex-Im Bank affords. In fact, Boeing's very creditworthiness as a company is at stake in the fight over Ex-Im.

Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are also major recipients of Boeing cash. Murray was the #1 recipient of Boeing campaign cash in the 2010 election cycle, raking in over $87,000 from the corporate giant for her Senate campaign. Cantwell was the top congressional recipient of Boeing money in 2012. Of course, if you peruse those lists of campaign recipients from Boeing, you'll find that taking money from Boeing isn't a partisan activity; the airline manufacturer has given about equally to both Democrats and Republicans.

As David Williams wrote for Townhall last year,

The Bank has been often been referred to as a reverse Robin Hood, distributing wealth to large companies that use their influence and lobbyists to secure favorable financial packages. This practice is not only unfair, but it is also a danger to our free market economy. The Bank effectively gives the U.S. government the power to intrude into free markets and unilaterally provide companies with monetary advantages over their competitors. This aids bad companies, such as Enron, and Solyndra, and often has damaging unintended consequences on healthy American employers.

Take, for example, Boeing, which receives the lion’s share of Ex-Im’s loans. This successful American company has been the benefactor of much of Ex-Im’s largesse, sometimes receiving more than $12 billion a year. And while this is fantastic for Boeing and its shareholders, these loans wreak havoc on the entire American airline industry and its workers.

So while those Democratic senators from Washington State push for Ex-Im reauthorization, remember that they're not exactly neutral observers watching out for what's best for the American people. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have a dog in this fight, and that dog's name is Boeing.

Obama to Fundraise in Texas Today, Won't Visit Child Crisis on the Border

President Obama is headed to Texas today where he will attend two fundraisers for Democrats but has no plans to visit the ongoing unaccompanied illegal immigration crisis, a crisis he created, on the southern border with Mexico.

Officials from the Democratic National Committee say that the president will attend fundraising events on July 9 and 10 in Austin. As first reported by The Hollywood Reporter, Texas filmmaker Robert Rodriguez will host the first event on July 9 at his Austin home.

Tickets for the Rodriguez-hosted fundraiser range from $5,000 to $32,400. Jessica Alba, Demi Lovato, Rosario Dawson and Danny Trejo are slated to make appearances at the event, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The president will stay overnight in Austin and appear at a July 10 fundraiser and roundtable discussion hosted by Aimee Boone Cunningham at her home. Cunningham serves as the assistant secretary of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Tickets for this event are $32,400.

Adding insult to injury, filmmaker Robert Rodriguez just happens to be a pro-illegal immigration advocate.

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.

Meanwhile it isn't just Republicans begging President Obama to visit the border, Democrats are calling for him to do so as well. Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar said earlier this week that the inhumane situation on the border could easily become President Obama's Katrina and that a visit is necessary for the president to truly understand how dire the situation really is.

“If he wants to do the fundraisers first and then after that stop by the border, it’s not too far away. I think it would be good for him to put a face to it, but, again, it looks like he’s dug in, not wanting to come, and not going by what the critics are saying.”

The President will meet with Texas Governor Rick Perry in Dallas while he's in the Lone Star State to talk about the ongoing crisis.

H/T Noah Rothman

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.

Megyn Kelly Takes on Former NOW President Over Attack on Little Sisters of the Poor

In case you missed it earlier this week, the National Organization for Women [NOW] put the Little Sisters of the Poor on their "Dirty 100" list. The list is a compilation of organizations and groups that have filed suit against the contraception mandate in Obamacare and claims the Little Sisters of the Poor is forcing their religion onto employees by objecting to the mandate on religious grounds.

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.

The Catholic nuns of The Little Sisters of the Poor dedicate their lives to helping the sick and people who are dying. From their website:

Continuing the work of Saint Jeanne Jugan, our MISSION is to offer the neediest elderly of every race and religion a home where they will be welcomed as Christ, cared for as family and accompanied with dignity until God calls them to himself.

Our VISION is to contribute to the Culture of Life by nurturing communities where each person is valued, the solidarity of the human family and the wisdom of age are celebrated, and the compassionate love of Christ is shared with all.??

REVERENCE for the sacredness of human life and for the uniqueness of ?each person, especially those who are poorest and/or weakest. This is ?reflected in care that is holistic and person-centered.

Last night on The Kelly File, Megyn Kelly took on former NOW President Patricia Ireland over their inclusion of the Little Sisters in their "Dirty 100" list. Ireland is the same woman who is clueless about the fact Hobby Lobby offers employees 16 different forms of contraception.

Here's a thought for Ms. Ireland, who argues the Little Sisters of the Poor should simply "opt-out." If women want contraception coverage, they have the option of opting out of jobs that do not provide what they are looking for.

The bottom line is NOW isn't interested in defending the rights of women, they're interested in defending big government policies. Last time I checked nuns were women too, but for some reason the National Organization for Women isn't interested in defending their right to freedom of religion, but is interested in defining women by the pills they take. It's a shame NOW supports the heavy hand of government forcing women to do things that are against their beliefs.

You can read more about NOW and their anti-woman, big government agenda in my new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women.

Thanks to RightSightings for the video.

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.

U.N. Pushes U.S. to Call Illegal Immigrants 'Refugees'

Tens of thousands of adults and unaccompanied minors continue to pour over our southern border as the United Nations presses the U.S. government to treat these illegal immigrants as “refugees.” With true refugee status, these immigrants would be eligible to seek asylum. Those granted asylum could then file a form to obtain permanent residence and could even petition to bring their entire family into the United States.

The Associated Press reports:

[The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] said it believes "the U.S. and Mexico should recognize that this is a refugee situation, which implies that they shouldn't be automatically sent to their home countries but rather receive international protection."

The U.N. defines a refugee as “someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.”

The large majority of immigrants are coming from the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They do not fit the typical definition of a refugee fleeing this type of violence.

AP explains:

Most of the people widely considered to be refugees by the international community are fleeing more traditional political or ethnic conflicts like those in Syria or the Sudan. Central Americans would be among the first modern migrants considered refugees because they are fleeing violence and extortion at the hands of criminal gangs.

Why would kind-hearted Americans object to helping refugees? It seems more un-American to resist an influx of "refugees" than it does "illegal immigrants." Despite this expanded definition, it's not just the innocent children who are coming into our country. There are minors admitting to the crimes of torture and murder who are also crossing the border.

Additionally, unvaccinated immigrants carrying scabies, swine flu, and even tuberculosis have been reported. While the Border Patrol agents have their hands full processing these people, organized drug smugglers are systematically carrying enormous amounts of illicit drugs into the country.

We need to realize that this issue is much greater than just semantics.

As Allahpundit noted earlier today, “Don’t fret much about the label, though. Most of these kids will never report to their immigration hearing once they’re released by the Border Patrol, so whatever you call them, they’re here to stay.

Sen. Cruz: It's Time To Investigate The Missisippi Primary

With Mississippi in turmoil over allegations of voter fraud after the Republican runoff, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said yesterday that an investigation should happen (via Politico):

The Texas Republican on Monday evening called the runoff contest “appalling” and said that allegations of voter fraud need to be investigated.

We’ve seen serious allegations of voter fraud,” Cruz said on “The Mark Levin Show.” “And I very much hope that no Republican was involved in voter fraud. But these allegations need to be vigorously investigated and anyone involved in criminal conduct should be prosecuted.”

Earlier in the program, Cruz criticized the Washington establishment for its meddling in the runoff: “What happened in Mississippi was appalling. Primaries are always rough and tumble, but the conduct of the Washington, D.C., machine in the Mississippi runoff was incredibly disappointing.”

The Mississippi Republican Party on Monday evening officially certified the incumbent Cochran as the winner of the June 24 runoff election by more than 7,667 votes. McDaniel, a tea party favorite who has attacked Cochran from the right in the contentious primary battle, vowed to challenge the results.

But, for now, Sen. Thad Cochran is in Washington D.C., where he apparently got lost on his way to lunch earlier this afternoon. According to the Hill, Sen. Cochran was speaking with them, when he got off the elevator on the wrong floor. He re-boarded and got off on the right floor, but turned away from the direction of the Republican lunch and stumbled into the Democratic one. He had a few words with Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor and didn’t seem to realize that he was in the wrong room until he was asked if he planned to eat with the Democrats.

For years, the GOP luncheon has been held in the same room, according to the Hill.

Hillary Clinton's Book Is Dethroned From The Bestseller List

So, a book that details the antipathy the Obama and Clinton families have for one another just bumped Hillary’s Hard Choices book from the top spot on the bestseller list. I’m sure Edward Klein, who wrote Blood Feud, is amused by this development.

Yet, should we be surprised that Hillary’s book was knocked off the throne? Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has been documenting the dismal sales of Clinton’s Hard Choices. It was only a matter of time before something more interesting took its place – and stories about palace intrigue can fill that void.

Although, right now Hillary should be considering the fallout from the time she spent as a young lawyer, where she defended a man who allegedly raped a twelve-year old girl. The Hillary Tapes, as they’re being called, even left a bad taste in the mouths of the crowd over at MSNBC, who called the recordings “disturbing.”

Noah Rothman wondered if this incident could revoke Hillary’s “advocate for women” card before the 2016 election.

I’ll let you decided if Hillary waged a one-woman war on this twelve-year old girl, who said that the former First Lady put her "through hell” over this ordeal.

And, speaking of the war on women, make sure you check out Katie Pavlich’s new book Assault and Flattery, which has a healthy portion dedicated to Slick Willy and the former Secretary of State.

H/T The Blaze

Hillary Clinton's Approval Rating Amongst Democrats Drops

As the Washington Free Beacon’s Ellison Barber noted before Independence Day, Hillary Clinton’s approval rating will continue to drop amongst Independents and Republicans. Well, you can add Democrats to that list (via Weekly Standard):

A new poll of the potential 2016 presidential field from Quinnipiac, conducted at the end of June, found support for Clinton among Democratic primary voters at 58 percent. That's an 11-point drop from an ABC News/Washington Post poll of the potential Democratic field—conducted in late May, before Hard Choices was released—that found 69 percent supported Clinton over any other possible Democrats

According to the Quinnipiac poll, the biggest beneficiary of Clinton's drop in support appears to be Elizabeth Warren, the first-term senator from Massachusetts and a favorite of progressive populists. Warren received 11 percent support, while Vice President Joe Biden has 9 percent. Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York received four percent, while governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland and former governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana each polled just one percent.

Now, Clinton still has a forty-seven-point lead over Warren. Still, the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, which is the liberal base, probably sees this as a positive development. But, over at Hot Air, Allahpundit remains skeptical of this supposed Warren candidacy:

The silliest thing about this is that, of the two of them [Warren and Hillary], Warren would be much more likely to run against Obama’s record than Hillary would. Hillary’s stuck with O’s foreign policy and, as a former cabinet member, can’t be too harsh in attacking him on domestic policy. Warren can attack him full force, though — that’s the whole reason the left’s eager for her to run. She can make the purist liberal critique of O’s centrist failures, starting with financial reform, that the Clintons can’t. For Obama to prefer Warren to Hillary, he’d have to be so disgusted at the meagerness of his own legacy that he’d want the next nominee to call him a failure rather than defend that legacy as a success worth building on. Ideologue though he is, does he strike you as the sort of guy whose ego would permit him to do that?

So, who could challenge Hillary if it isn't Warren?

Last week, Josh Kraushaar at National Journal outlined her flaws in being a bad campaigner and “tone-deaf” when it comes to discussing her financial security. But, he added that:

Her biggest asset is the fact that the entire Democratic Party infrastructure is behind her, seemingly resigned to her vulnerabilities but hopeful about her potential. Even progressives who are nervous about her Wall Street connections are merely hoping to nudge her leftward, and not aggressively challenge her with an actual candidate. With a lackluster Democratic bench, it's hard to find many alternatives even willing to throw their names out there.

Kraushaar also listed his top five Clinton challengers, saying that Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, and former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold could’ve mounted interesting challenges to the Clinton machine if they hadn’t already endorsed her at the outset of the Hillarymania.

He noted that Kaine’s down-to-earth personality and executive experience from being the former Governor of Virginia were two qualities that Hillary Clinton lacked. Senator McCaskill’s could’ve exploited Hillary’s less than tactful description of her wealth amidst tough economic times for many Americans, and highlight what progressives can’t stand about her: her corporate ties, pragmatic centrism, and “perceived disconnect from the middle class.” Kraushaar added that save for another Todd Akin 2018 run for the U.S. Senate, McCaskill’s days representing Missouri are numbered.

Then again, a lot can change in two years. That’s a lifetime in politics.

In 2004, there was this newly elected Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, who said he wasn’t ready to run for president.

You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people.

He now haunts our dreams.

Katie Pavlich Debunks "War on Women" in New Book "Assault and Flattery"

In case you missed it, News Editor Katie Pavlich joined Hannity to discuss Hillary Clinton and the border crisis on Hannity last night. The show also aired the cover of her second book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women, which hits shelves today.

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.

Pavlich had a more in-depth interview this morning on Fox & Friends, delving into the myths constructed by the left and exposing the truth on the real attack on American women by the Democratic Party. Check out the full interview here:

Assault & Flattery comes at a crucial moment in the national dialogue, as liberals ramp up their midterm candidates and presidential hopeful with continued rhetoric on anti-women conservatism. Katie’s latest work makes, not only women - but fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons - take a hard look at which party is really causing the most harm for political gain.

Order your copy of Assault & Flattery online today, or receive a FREE copy with your paid subscription to Townhall Magazine.

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.

California Removes 'Husband' and 'Wife' from California Marriage Law

One word can make all the difference when it comes to definitions. Exhibit A: exchange the words “husband and wife” for a more inclusive term, and you have the phrase “I now pronounce you spouses.” In the state of California, they are paying special attention to keep their vernacular as progressive as possible.

Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill Monday to formally make marriage gender-neutral to reflect the state’s allowance of same-sex unions. According to Senate Bill 1306:

Under existing law, a reference to “husband” and “wife,” “spouses,” or “married persons,” or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case.

The bill would delete references to “husband” or “wife” in the Family Code and would instead refer to a “spouse,” and would make other related changes.

The current wording was set in place when 61 percent of California voters elected to define state recognized marriages as those between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 in 2008, decrying the restriction as unconstitutional.

Californians again attempted to ban same-sex marriage by approving Proposition 8 by 52 percent. This too, was challenged via the court system and overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court level in the 2013 case Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who authored the Senate Bill, tweeted:

Words are, without doubt, one of the key tools used to shape thought. This alteration in the state law is the next step to easing gay unions into cultural acceptance.

Report: Welfare Rolls Have Never Been Higher

Hope and Change has given way to something new entirely. Call this the “new normal,” I guess. CNS News reports that in 2011, the percentage of Americans on welfare hit its apex (23.1 percent), according to an up-to-date Department of Health and Human Services report released this year. Regrettably, we don’t have any data for subsequent years, but my hunch is that welfare rolls have been soaring to new heights ever since:

 photo welfare1_zps6d92cd83.png

More startlingly, the number of children under the age of five who are on welfare is unconscionably high:

 photo welfare2_zps3ba3f537.png

One wonders if this might have something to do with it:

 photo welfare3_zps590e779b.png

At any rate, the total number of Americans on welfare has practically doubled since 2000. One therefore cannot solely blame the president for the increases we’re now seeing in government aid and dependency. Nevertheless, we now live in a country where nearly one-fourth of all Americans require some form of welfare to make ends meet and feed their families. The situation is even more dire for young children.

And yet, at current enrollment rates, one wonders how much longer we can sustain these government programs. After all, with less people working and more people collecting, sooner or later the well is bound to dry up.