Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘No doubt’ sexism played a role in 2016 election


H/T Politico.

Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsburg is as ignorant as she is ugly.

Just think this crazy bint is on the Supreme Court until she croaks.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told PBS and CBS host Charlie Rose that “we came pretty close” to electing a female president last year and that such progress is a “hopeful sign.” | Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has “no doubt” that sexism played a role in Democrat Hillary Clinton’s surprise loss in last year’s presidential election, but she remains encouraged by the progress women have made entering worlds once dominated by men.

“I have no doubt that it did,” Ginsburg said when asked by PBS and CBS host Charlie Rose if sexism had affected the 2016 race. The Supreme Court justice’s interview aired Tuesday night at New York’s 92nd Street Y that aired on CBS Wednesday morning.

Ginsburg told Rose that “we came pretty close” to electing a female president last year and that such progress is a “hopeful sign.”

“The more women out there doing things … women come in all sizes and shapes,” Ginsburg said. “To see the entrance of women into places where they were not there before is a hopeful sign.”

The Supreme Court justice, among the court’s reliably liberal members, was critical of President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, calling him a “faker” and telling an interviewer that “I don’t even want to contemplate” the idea of him being elected. She later walked back those statements, calling them “ill-advised.”


FBI recommends no charges against Clinton in email probe 

Leave a comment

I dare anyone to tell me the fix wasn’t in when “Don” Bill Clinton of the Clinton Crime Family and Loretta Lynch met.

Their meeting just sealed the deal.

But Comey scolds Clinton and her aides for ‘extremely careless’ handling of highly classified information.

Source: FBI recommends no charges against Clinton in email probe – POLITICO

Cruz: Senate Should Block Obama’s Nominees Until He Rescinds Amnesty


This is from Town Hall.

If Obama wants a fight the GOP needs to step up and give him a fight.

Fight him with very constitutional means available, including impeachment.


As President Obama prepares to announce the overhaul of U.S. immigration law through executive fiat tonight in a prime-time address, Republicans are trying to come up with ways to either stop him or to push back against the move.

Last night on The Kelly File, Republican Ted Cruz called this a “moment of testing,” said we are witnessing a constitutional crisis and suggested the Senate block all of President Obama’s nominations, except for those crucial to national security, until he rescinds his executive order.

“We are are witnessing is a constitutional crisis, what President Obama is doing is he’s defying the law, he’s defying the constitution,” Cruz said. “If the President goes forward with this, if he goes forward with unilaterally defying the Congress elected by the people, defying the American voters, then it is incumbent on Republicans in Congress to use every single constitutional tool we have to defend the rule of lawthis is a moment of testing and I am hopeful we will see Republicans in Congress stand up and side with the people against a lawless President.”

“The President is behaving in an unprecedented way. There is not in recent times any parallel for a President repudiated by the voters standing up and essentially telling the voters, ‘go jump in a lake,’ he’s going to force his power,” Cruz continued. “The new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should stand up and say, ‘If you disregard the constitution, if you disregard the law, if you issue this executive amnesty, the new Congress for the next two years will not confirm a single nomination, judicial or executive other than vital national security positions until you end this illegal amnesty.’ Now that’s a big and dramatic step, it’s never been done before in Congress but the framers put in place checks and balances and the confirmation power is a tremendously potent authority given to the Senate. The Senate majority leader has the unilateral ability to stand up and say, ‘If you defy Congress, if you defy the American people none one of your nominees will get confirmed.’..We [also] need to use the power of the purse.”


Cruz also pushed back on rumors of a government shutdown reminded viewers that the only person pushing for a shutdown is President Obama.

Yesterday in an op-ed published in POLITICO, Cruz reminded the country that the President is not a monarch and therefore we shouldn’t allow him to rule like one.

“When the president embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on Congress to wield the constitutional power it has to stop it,” Cruz wrote. “Congress, representing the voice of the people, should use every tool available to prevent the president from subverting the rule of law.”

President Obama will make his announcement at 8 pm eastern from the White House. Townhall will have full coverage of his remarks.×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

McCain: Cruz ‘Crossed Line’ by Mocking GOP Presidential Losers

Leave a comment

This is from NewsMax.

Hey John Ted Cruz did not in any way shape fashion or form speak ill of Bob Dole’s service record.

Which is truly amazing and speaks for itself.

But what Ted Cruz is saying that Dole,McCain and Romney only paid lip service to Conservatism.

All of you are French Republicans willing to surrender when you are confronted by the media.

You want to be loved by the media so your spine becomes jelly, and you revert to being gutless Moderates.

A day after Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz suggested former GOP presidential candidates Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney “don’t stand for principle,” McCain shot back Friday, saying the fiery conservative had “crossed a line” and should apologize to war hero Dole.

“He can say what he wants to about me and he can say anything he wants to about Mitt,” the senator from Arizona said on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”

“But when he throws Bob Dole in there, I wonder if he thinks that Bob Dole stood for principle on that hilltop in Italy, when he was so gravely wounded and left part of his body there fighting for our country?”

Story continues below video.


Cruz, in a speech Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, told the crowd the three losing presidential candidates should have stood up for their views.

“All of us remember President Dole, President McCain, and President Romney, “ Cruz said facetiously.

“All of those those are good men, those are decent men — but when you don’t stand and draw a clear distinction, when you don’t stand for principle, Democrats celebrate,” he said.

McCain suggested Cruz took a cheap shot at Dole.

“Bob Dole is such a man of honor and integrity and principle,” he told Mitchell. “I hope that Ted Cruz will apologize to Bob Dole because that’s, that has crossed a line that, to me, is — leaves the realm of politics and discourse that we should have in America.”

“I said [to Cruz] if you want to, you know, say things that are critical of me and Mitt Romney, that’s fine. My beloved Bob Dole, as you know, is not in the best of health, and he doesn’t need that in the twilight of his years.”

Dole was gravely wounded just two weeks before the end of the WWII after taking enemy fire in his right shoulder and back. He lost a kidney, use of his right arm and most of the feeling in his left arm.

The 90-year-old former Kansas lawmaker defended himself after the interview, Politico reports, hammering Cruz for not doing his homework.

“Cruz should check my voting record before making comments,” he said in a statement. “I was one of President Reagan’s strongest supporters, and my record is that of a traditional Republican conservative.”

A spokeswoman for Cruz called McCain’s critique a “distraction,” according to Politico.

“As he noted in his speech, the senator greatly respects these men, particularly the heroic military service of Sens. Dole and McCain,” spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said.

“Suggesting anything otherwise is just an unnecessary distraction. He will not hesitate to talk about substantive matters of conservative principle that are important to bringing Republicans to victory – even if others may disagree.”

Fellow conservative and former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum sided with the defiant Cruz, saying the recent GOP standard-bearers simply weren’t conservative enough.

“How did it work for the Republicans nominating moderate candidates in the last two presidential elections?” Santorum said during his speech Friday at CPAC, the Washington Post reports.

“They put forth candidates who keep apologizing for the principles that they say they believe in, and then they lose.”

Santorum came in behind Romney in the 2012 GOP presidential primary, and is a potential candidate in the 2016 run for the White House.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

ATTENTION WHORE: Gabby Giffords’ Husband Says Their PAC Has Raised $11Mil To Elect Gun-Grabbing Dems In Midterms

1 Comment

This is from the Politico.

While the story is from the Politico I kept the Clash Daily title.



Gabby Giffords and Paul Kelly are both attention whores.

Giffords and her husband got the spotlight when Mark worked

for NASA and she was in Congress.

They had a greater stay in the spotlight after Gabby was shot.

Now with their anti gun political action committee they

want more time in the spotlight.


Gun control advocate Mark Kelly says his political action committee is looking ahead to 2014 races, and has the cash on hand to back its agenda.

Kelly, the husband of former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, said on WAMU’s “Diane Rehm Show” Thursday that the PAC the couple founded, Americans for Responsible Solutions, has raised more than $11 million. The money will be going into congressional races to act as a counterweight against heavy hitters on the pro-gun side like the National Rifle Association, he said.

“We’re going to look at House and Senate races and we’re going to make sure people who took a tough stance on a tough vote have what they need and we’re going to help them stay in office,” Kelly said. “We are becoming a significant force in this debate; we’ve raised $11 million.”

Asked by Rehm whether the group would name the candidates it plans to support, Kelly demurred, saying they would take a different approach than the NRA.

“We’re not going to follow the lead of the gun lobby,” Kelly said. “It will be obvious who we want [to] stay in Congress.”

Kelly, a former astronaut, said he and his wife take a different approach to gun control than many groups because they support Americans’ right to own firearms.

“We’re gun owners,” Kelly said. “Gabby’s from Arizona, I was in the military. We feel strongly that people should have the right to own a gun.”

“Those rights should not extend to criminals, abusers or the seriously mentally ill,” he added.

Kelly also commented on his wife’s recovery process from the shooting that gravely injured her three years ago.

“For Gabby, moving ahead is really important,” he said.

Giffords went skydiving on the anniversary of the shooting Wednesday, something Kelly said was important for her to get back to.

Read more:


Manchin sees gun control passage still ‘difficult’ in 2014

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

The voters of West Viriginia need to fire this ass hat.

But are they too happily sucking on the handout teat of big 


Look  at how long sheets Byrd was a Senator.

To the good people of West Virginia I am sorry if my above

 comment offends you.

I know your blameless you have not been on the big

government handout teat.



Sen. Joe Manchin says rounding up the votes to pass a bill creating background checks for gun purchases next year is going to be “difficult.”

While saying he’s “hopeful” that some would change their minds, the West Virginia Democrat acknowledged there are Democrats who opposed the bill creating background checks for gun purchases.

“Hopefully, they would maybe reconsider,” Manchin said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s going to be difficult to get the extra votes that we need. I’m going to be honest with you.”

Manchin, a gun owner who had a top rating from the National Rifle Association, negotiated a background check bill with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut. But the measure stalled in the Senate in April when it failed to get the needed 60 votes to advance.

Manchin said gun owners didn’t oppose background checks in theory but were concerned that government wouldn’t stop with checks.

“What we found out is that people couldn’t trust government that they would stop there,” he said.

Giffords Creates New Gun Control PAC

Leave a comment

This is from NewsMax.

Gabby The Media Whore is trying for fifteen more minutes

of fame.

I am sorry she was shot but she can not blame all gun owners

for the actions of one loon.

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona has created a political action committee to back candidates no matter what their party affiliation as long as they support tougher gun control measures.

The Arizona Democrat has transferred the almost $300,000 balance from her dormant congressional campaign account to the Rights and Responsibilities PAC, Politico reported Friday.

Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia are expected to be among the first beneficiaries of her PAC money. The two senators coauthored the bipartisan gun control bill that would have expanded background checks to all commercial gun sales. The measure failed in the Senate earlier this year.

Giffords gave money to Manchin’s re-election campaign out of her congressional funds a few months ago. She also donated money to two other senators who supported the Manchin-Toomey measure — Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Giffords became a victim of gun violence in January 2011 when she was shot in the head outside of a supermarket in Tucson, Ariz., where she was meeting with constituents.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

States seek to nullify Obama efforts

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

We need to show Obama and his goons they can not run

rough shod over The Constitution and the states.

Infuriated by what they see as the long arm of Washington reaching into their business, states are increasingly telling the feds: Keep out!

Bills that would negate a variety of federal laws have popped up this year in the vast majority of states – with the amount of anti-federal legislation sharply on the rise during the Obama administration, according to experts.

The “nullification” trend in recent years has largely focused on three areas: gun control; health care; and national standards for driver’s licenses. It’s touched off fierce fights within the states, and between the states and the feds, as well as raising questions and court battles about whether any of it is legal.

In at least 37 states legislation has been introduced that in some way guts federal gun regulations, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The bills were signed into law this spring in two states, Kansas and Alaska, and in two more lawmakers hope to override a governor’s veto. Twenty states since 2010 have passed laws that either opt out of or challenge mandatory parts of Obamacare, the National Conference of State Legislatures says. And half the states have OK’d measures aimed knocking back the Real ID Act of 2005, which dictates Washington’s requirements for issuing driver’s licenses.

“Rosa Parks is the beacon of light: If you say no to something, you can change the world,” Michael Boldin, the Founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, which favors states’ rights, told POLITICO.

“Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be, ‘We, the people?’” he added. “Over the past few years you’ve seen this growing…People are getting sick and tired of federal power.”

In fact, the state-level anger at the nation’s capital has reached such a fever pitch that many of the bills do not even address specific federal laws, but rather amount to what is in effect “preemptive” nullification, wiping out, for instance, any federal law that may exist in the future that the states determine violates gun rights. The flurry of such efforts was spurred by fear on the part of states that in the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., that Congress would pass restrictive gun control legislation.

Supporters of nullification say it’s the best tool they have to try to beat back an intrusive federal government that they say is more and more trampling on the rights of states.

But critics respond that the flood of legislation to override the feds is folly that won’t stand up in court and amounts to a transparent display of the political and personal distaste for President Barack Obama. And in some cases, the moves in the states has provoked an administration counter-offensive: Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas after it passed the “Second Amendment Protection Act” threatening legal action if necessary to enforce federal laws.

Even some conservatives – certainly no lovers of the Obama administration – warn that the states are going down the wrong path with nullification, distracted by a what lawmakers think is a silver-bullet solution, but that likely won’t stand up in the courts, when in fact there are much better (and legal) ways for the states to resist.

While most states have wrapped their legislative sessions for the year, the fight on these bills is taking only a brief pause. In Missouri, for example, lawmakers are preparing for a veto session in September, where supporters of a gun measure that would eviscerate any future congressional attempts to regulate gun ownership are planning to attempt to override the governor’s veto. The nullification battle has also spilled over into the courts, with more challenges and rulings expected during the year.

In Kansas, state Rep. John Rubin sponsored successful legislation that dictates that federal gun laws do not apply to firearms and accessories made in Kansas and that never leave its borders, and makes it a felony for any federal agent to enforce those laws within the state.

The Republican lawmaker told POLITICO his bill is about states’ rights – not gun rights.

“The federal government doesn’t have the authority to do a lot of what it’s trying to do these days, from regulating guns within state borders, as my bill deals with, or telling us what kinds of light bulbs to put in our lamps,” Rubin said.

He noted a rise in the number nullification bills.

“I think we have the Obama administration to thank for that.” Rubin said. “The more federal overreach in Obamacare and elsewhere, the more [the administration] chooses to act in ways we believe are unconstitutional, the more we’re going to push back. I would encourage any state to assert to the strongest possible extent against the Obama administration, or any federal administration, rights clearly reserved to the states.”

But opponents of sweeping nullification measures paint them as misguided, often politically motivated, and likely unconstitutional attempts to zero out reasonable and well-intended federal initiatives.

And that’s not just coming from the left. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues that nullification is not the answer to states’ concerns.

“There are a rising number of people who are frustrated with what Washington is doing, which is a perfectly legitimate and, in my opinion, correct view of, ‘How do we push back?’” Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies for Heritage, told POLITICO. “Unfortunately, there’s a minority in that group that thinks nullification is the answer, by which they mean good old-fashioned, South Carolina, John C. Calhoun nullification. That’s deeply mistaken and unfortunate.”

Spalding said states’ better options include legal challenges, not funding federal laws, or even refusing to enforce them – but not overruling federal laws with state ones.

“Ironically, the people who say they are trying to defend the constitution are doing something to undermine it,” he added. “This is sort of a Hail Mary pass. These are in most cases state legislators who are very frustrated. They’re figuring out how to stop these things, how to turn the course of the nation, in my opinion for good reason, and they’re being told the Supreme Court just upheld [Obamacare], this guy has been reelected, what can we do? And someone comes around and says, ah, you can nullify law.”

Another nullification opponent, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said it’s prepared to fight the recent crop of state gun bills in the courts.

“They are outrageous,” said Brady Center legal director Jon Lowy. “It’s disturbing that there are [state] legislators who are so willing to violate the [U.S.] Constitution but also that they have so little concern for public safety. They [nullification measures] would greatly threaten public safety if they weren’t so patently unconstitutional, so we expect that courts will rather quickly wipe them off the books.”

Robert A. Levy, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, told POLITICO that the wave of nullification bids is the result of a “highly polarized” political atmosphere in the country.

“Wen you get that polarization you’re going to get these sort of radical proposals,” he said. “So you’re seeing an increase in these sorts of things. A state, or a city, for that matter can refuse to enforce a federal law and even refuse to expend any money to help the feds enforce any law, but that doesn’t mean that they can stop the feds from enforcing their own laws.”

Looking ahead, the next skirmish over nullification will likely be in the Midwest this fall. Missouri lawmakers are gearing up for a contentious September veto session, with opponents of the state’s gun nullification bill hoping to keep it off the books and proponents saying they have enough votes to override the governor’s veto.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Doug Funderburk, predicted a bipartisan override, and said the law was needed to push back against the long arm of the federal government encroaching on Americans’ rights.

“It’s time for the states to assert their authority … as the parent in the relationship with the federal government, to take back that role,” Funderburk said.

On the other side, state Rep. Jill Schupp, a vocal opponent of the bill, said, “If we overturn the governor’s veto, I think what we’re saying is Missouri is its own sort of Wild West state. When extremists get involved and put forward legislation like this, it makes all of us come to a grinding halt in terms of reasoned discussion. To make a move that precludes us from having reasoned gun legislation and is an attempt to nullify federal law certainly makes us look like a laughingstock on this issue.”

Read more:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: ‘You’ll never secure’ border

1 Comment

This is from The Politico.

Sheriff Joe is spot on with his comments.

He is also correct on how to secure the border.

The half wits in Washington are clueless.



Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio scoffed at lawmakers’ attempts at showing that the border could be secured, saying that it would never happen – at least not without enforcing some immigration laws.

“[Undocumented immigrants] are very, very innovative. You’ll never secure the border,” Arpaio said on Fox News on Monday. “To say you’re not going to enforce the illegal immigration laws in the interior and blame it on the border, that’s just a copout.”


The sheriff, who has served Arizona in this post for 20 years, said that lawmakers were more concerned with giving undocumented immigrants amnesty, rather than persecuting them under the law.


Arpaio suggested that if the nation’s leaders were serious about securing the border, working with Mexico would be the best bet.

“Use the Mexican army, the federal police, work together and get it done,” he said. “We should send the border patrol or some military over there to help the President of Mexico to work together and get the job done, if you’re really serious about it.”
Read more:


Jeff Duncan questions IRS rifle usage

1 Comment

This is from The Politico.

I agree with Rep .Jeff Duncan(R-S.C.) “Why does the IRS need

to be training with AR-15‘s?’

Do the intend on using the average citizen as a target?


Rep. Jeff Duncan wants to know why IRS law enforcement agents are training with AR-15 rifles.

As chairman of the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee, Duncan (R-S.C.) toured a federal law enforcement facility in late May and noticed agents training with the semi-automatic weapons at a firing range. They identified themselves as IRS, he said.


“When I left there, it’s been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability,” Duncan told POLITICO. “Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?”

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

While Duncan acknowledges that the IRS has an enforcement division, he questions if that level of firepower is appropriate when they could coordinate operations with other agencies, like the FBI, especially in a time of austerity.

“I think Americans raise eyebrows when you tell them that IRS agents are training with a type of weapon that has stand-off capability. It’s not like they’re carrying a sidearm and they knock on someone’s door and say, ‘You’re evading your taxes,’” Duncan said.

Given the increased scrutiny amid the agency’s targeting of political groups and excessive spending, Duncan said, he intends to seek answers from the IRS.

“We’ll ask the questions and hopefully they can justify it. And if not, we’ll bring them in front of the committee for a hearing and ask the questions on the record,” he said.

In a statement, the IRS defended the training.

“As law enforcement officials, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents are equipped similarly to other federal, state and local law enforcement organizations. Special Agents receive training on the appropriate and safe use of assigned weapons. IRS Criminal Investigation has internal controls and oversight in place to ensure all law enforcement tools, including weapons are used appropriately,” the IRS said.

(PHOTOS: 8 key players in IRS scandal story)

The agency included a link to its enforcement website, where annual reports show IRS investigations and convictions of crimes ranging from offshore bank accounts, to Medicare fraud, to money laundering and drug trafficking operations.

Read more:


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: