Supreme Court Upholds Wisconsin Voter-ID Law

Reuters.com:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to Wisconsin's Republican-backed law requiring voters to present photo identification to cast a ballot, a measure Democrats contend is aimed at keeping their supporters from voting.

The justices declined to hear an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law. The ACLU said it then filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court to try to keep the law from taking effect immediately.

Republican Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said the law cannot be implemented for the state's April 7 election because absentee ballots are already in the hands of voters but would be in place for future elections. "This decision is final," Schimel said.

Voter identification laws have been passed in a number of Republican-governed states over Democratic objections. Republicans say voter ID laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. Wisconsin's measure, blocked by the Supreme Court last year, was backed by Governor Scott Walker, a potential 2012 Republican presidential contender.

Democrats say voter fraud is rare and the rules are intended to deter voters including the poor, minorities and college students from voting, groups that are less likely to possess the necessary forms of identification but are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

The law would require voters to present one of a handful of forms of photo ID such as a Wisconsin driver's license, a passport, a military ID or an ID card from a Wisconsin university or college.

In October, the high court temporarily blocked the Wisconsin law. It did not explain its reasoning, but it was most likely because the statute was being implemented so close to the November election, which could have caused confusion and disruption.

Gee, making sure only U.S. citizens get to vote, how dare they!

RELATED: Surprise: SCOTUS upholds Wisconsin voter-ID law

Far-Left, Uber-Liberal Magazine Rolling Stone Lied About UVA Rapes On Campus

Mediaite.com:

The Charlottesville, Virginia PD held a press conference this afternoon essentially refuting every aspect of the Rolling Stone report on allegations of a gang rape by a student referred to as Jackie.

Rolling Stone, of course, now infamously retracted its story after some serious holes were discovered in the story. They issued several apologies, while the university was particularly angry with the media for how it covered the alleged assault.

Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Longo said in their investigation they found many inconsistencies in several details about the case. He said Jackie was not cooperative for the police, and after the Rolling Stone report came out, she did not provide them with a statement.

He said they concluded there was no evidence a gang rape took place and no evidence there was a frat party the night Jackie had claimed.

However, Longo made it clear that the case is merely suspended, not closed, and encouraged anyone with concrete information about this case (or in any case when there’s a rape involved) to approach the police right away.

Run by a formerly heterosexual-turned gay, rich and powerful liberal in Jann Wenner, Rolling Stone is nothing but a demonic, conservative-hating rag with a gay agenda that fronts as a music publication. A hex on anyone who takes their politics/diatribes seriously, much less for truth.

RELATED:  Fox Host Goes Off on Rolling Stone Reporter: ‘Left-Wing Assassin’ with Agenda

Stephen A. Smith: Black Americans Should Stop Viewing GOP as ‘The Enemy’

Mediaite.com:

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith got a lot of attention this week for saying that black Americans should vote Republican at least once to show that both parties have to work for the black vote, instead of Republicans dismissing it and Democrats taking it for granted.

He further elaborated on CNN earlier today, telling Michael Smerconish how Democrats have successfully convinced black people the GOP is completely against their interests, and as a result, “A vast majority of black Americans look at the Republican Party as the enemy.” This means, to Smith, Democrats “have a liense to take us for granted.”

Smith pointed out that both parties work like hell on fixing immigration because whichever party can do that gets more Hispanic support, but no one’s fighting like that for the black vote.

Smerconish challenged him a bit on the idea of voting in the best interests of the black community, asking if it would be okay for him to vote based on “what’s in the best interests of the white community.”

RELATED:  Stephen A. Smith, Eugene Robinson: 'Equality doesn't exist'

Race Card Liberal Dick Durbin Voted Against Condoleezza Rice and Janice Brown

FOXNews.com:

Let's all go "Off the Record" for a minute. Last night, right here when I spoke to you "Off the Record," I was annoyed with Senator Dick Durbin for his deliberate injection of racism into the Loretta Lynch nomination. 

Senator Durbin used inflammatory rhetoric, racially-charged terms in a dog and pony show on the Senate floor. He was covertly - or overtly - accusing the Republicans of racism, saying they were putting nominee Lynch at "the back of the bus."

Let me repeat: Racism is real. Very painful, like all forms of bigotry are, but it's disgraceful and likewise painful when United States senator, Senator Durbin, deliberately plays the race card - mean and cruel, really nasty. Here are two factoids for you tonight. In 2005 Senator Durbin voted against Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman on the United States Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. No Republican accused Senator Durbin for being racist for voting against her.

Also in 2005, Senator Durbin voted against Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American woman secretary of state, and again, no Republican called Senator Durbin a racist for voting against her.

So, maybe Senator Durbin should take a moment for personal reflection and first thing Friday apologize to his Republican colleagues. That's my "Off the Record" comment tonight.

RELATED: Mika: Dick Durbin Was 'Not Race Baiting' With 'Back of the Bus' Attack

What The Right Is Getting Wrong About "Black Lives Matter"

NewsRadio1067.com:

Imagine you are black.

Imagine you’re black, you’re an American, you love your country and you’re not particularly political.

Maybe you vote in presidential years, you probably felt proud when President Obama took office, but you’re not a hard-core Democrat or liberal. You’re an American who happens to be black.

You see a news story about an unarmed guy getting shot by a cop. The guy is black and the cop is white. Part of you says “I wonder if this is racist” but part says “Hey, I’m no dummy—there’s a crime problem in my community. I’m going to keep an open mind.”

A few weeks later there’s another shooting with the same elements: Unarmed black guy, white cop. Within five days, there are THREE such cases, part of a string of these stories. In Atlanta, a police officer kills a black, unarmed, naked Air Force veteran. Unarmed…and NAKED? Where did the cop think he was hiding a weapon?

Once again, you’re an American and you get that cops have a tough job and that the black crime rate is a problem. But c’mob—even Martin Luther King, Jr would be struggling to show a charitable spirit at this point. It looks to you like there’s at least evidence—some would say overwhelming evidence--of a problem with the way your fellow black men are treated by police.

But being an open-minded, “consider-all-sides” sort, you decide to check out conservative, Republican media for their take on the story: Talk radio, Fox News, the blogs. And here is what you find:

THE COPS DID NOTHING WRONG! THE PROBLEM IS BLACK PEOPLE COMMITTING CRIME!! EVERY ONE OF THESE DEAD PEOPLE GOT WHAT THEY DESERVED!

If you think I’m exaggerating….

Conservatives—forget your statistics for a moment. Set aside your pro-cop bias for just a moment, no matter how justified.  Just ask yourself how you would feel if you were a black American watching “conservative America” response to the deaths of unarmed citizens—CITIZENS— at the hands of law enforcement. 

Is there any “I see your point,” or “yes, this is disturbing?” Or is it a non-stop screed agains the current state of black America? Is it “Hey, we’re small-government conservatives and we’re worried anytime citizens suffer at the hands of government,” or is it “Either do what the government tells you do, or you’re gonna get shot!?” 

Imagine you’re a black American listening to the same conservatives who never seem to shut up about fearing tyranny and the overreach of government and “pry it from my cold, dead fingers” but who suddenly embrace government agents literally killing unarmed citizens—when those citizens are black.  How would you feel? How should you feel?

I happen to think there’s a real problem with law enforcement in America. From the militarization of police forces to unnecessary (and sometimes deadly) no-knock raids to the use of  cops as revenue creators for court systems.  I also believe that black males get treated by cops in ways that none of my fellow Tea Partiers would put up with for a minute.

You may completely disagree with me on that issue. And that’s fine. But have you thought about what conservatives sound like to black Americans when they refer to unarmed black citizens killed by government agents as “rabid animals,” etc? 

At best, it sounds like conservatives could care less how many black people die at the hands of cops. At the worst, it sounds like conservatives are cheering the cops on.

Even if you honestly believe that the police should always be trusted and that they never misbehave (an astonishingly non-conservative attitude, by the way), surely you can see why black citizens of good will would have legitimate concerns. And surely you can see how callous many conservatives must sound as they offer their rabid, foamy-mouthed defense of the police and/or attacks on the protesters. Can’t you?

Why can’t—let me re-phrase that—why WOULDN’T small-government conservatives be leading the movement to discuss law enforcement reform? Why wouldn’t we be at least as full-throated in our criticism of bad cops as we are in our cheers for the many good ones?

If I were a black American listening objectively observing my conservative neighbors, I'd assume that they don’t give a damn about me.

My question for conservatives is how are we going to prove this is wrong?

Assuming that it is.

RELATED:  Why Was an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Tracking a Black Lives Matter Protest?

Facebook Kills "Feeling Fat" Emotion After Online Petition

Townhall.com:

Since April 2013, after consuming a large meal or several slices of birthday cake, one could announce this accomplishment on Facebook in a status accompanied with a smiling emoji sporting a double chin labeled "fat." That is no more, following a Change.org petition that garnered over 16,000 signatures requesting that Facebook remove this option as "fat is not a feeling."

From the petition:

When Facebook users set their status to “feeling fat,” they are making fun of people who consider themselves to be overweight, which can include many people with eating disorders. That is not ok. Join me in asking Facebook to remove the “fat” emoji from their status options.
Fat is not a feeling. Fat is a natural part of our bodies, no matter their weight. And all bodies deserve to be respected and cared for.

Facebook is the most popular social networking site in the world right now. With 890 million users each day, it has the power to influence how we talk to each other about our bodies. I dream that one day the platform will actively encourage body positivity and self-esteem among its users, but for now, all I ask is that it stop endorsing self-destructive thoughts through seemingly harmless emojis.

Other questionable "feeling" choices in Facebook's drop-down menu include "sarcastic," "meh," and "blah."

While someone can no longer say they're "feeling fat," fret not: the smiling emoji with a double-chin remains as the icon for "feeling stuffed," which replaced "fat." A person can also say they are "feeling full" on their statuses--which is accompanied by a regular smiling emoj sans double chin.

Personally, I don't see what the fuss was about, and this is another example of political correctness at its finest. Emojis don't cause eating disorders. That's oversimplifying a very complicated problem. While a person doesn't have to be stick thin to be healthy or beautiful, it's still not a good practice to petition websites to submit to your every demand.

RELATED:  Outrage, sympathy after teacher forced to delete Facebook page with anti-gay posts

Hillary Clinton Should Not Run for President… And the Reasons Why Are Plentiful

Mediaite.com:

Hillary Clinton should not run for president. 

That was the basic premise of Ron Fournier‘s National Journal column earlier this week that caused more then a few ripples in the Potomac. And after observing the former First Lady-Senator-Secretary of State going back to last summer, there appears to be one thing that’s certain: 

Ron is right. 

Before we continue–if this is even possible for some–take whichever side you’re rooting for, whether it’s Team Red or Team Blue, and put it aside. Then look at the past nine months since Mrs. Clinton’s book tour began and ask yourself this: 

Is she capable of running a crisp, focused, energetic, inspiring campaign? Because say what you will about the sitting president–but outside of that first debate against Mitt Romney in 2012–the man knows how to run a crisp, focused, energetic, inspiring campaign. Two decisive electoral victories in are Exhibit A and B. 

Now apply those four words to Hillary: Was she crisp on the aforementioned Dead Broke book tour? Do reckless missteps such as conducting all State Department business on a private email account illustrate focus? Can she energize crowds on the stump? And if you’re a progressive or left-of-center independent, does she really inspire you with her ideas, her worldview? 

The most important question: Do you believe she wants to be president to make the country a better place? Or does she simply want to finally break that glass ceiling by being America’s first female president?

When talking to those who would never vote Republican, the lyrics slightly change but the song remains the same: “I’m not crazy about Hillary. She’s too hawkish/tied to Wall Street/reminds me of the female Frank Underwood whose only goal is power…but I’d take her over any Republican out there right now and besides, she’s the only Democrat who can win.” 
 
But as Mitt Romney learned, the anti-vote isn’t a path to victory. Or in this case, simply not being a Republican will not suffice in carrying the only four states that really matter in 2016, where the margin for error is impossibly small: Ohio, Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire. Mr. Romney lost those four states by about 330,000 votes. If the number went the other way, the GOP challenger would have still lost the popular vote by more than three million votes but still won the presidency. 

So while Hillary holds a two-point lead over her closest GOP challenger right now (Jeb Bush, according to a Quinnapiac Poll taken before the email story exploded), one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that she always polls higher when she’s under the radar and away from a microphone. Unlike her husband, she’s barely an average public speaker. The words feel forced, the delivery neatly packaged but largely tedious.  

RELATED: Hillary in Nixon's shadow

Planet Fitness Revokes Woman's Membership After Transgender Complaint

RELATED: At Planet Fitness, Don’t Complain About Transgender ‘Women’ in the Locker Room

Detroit Judge Orders Man To Support Kids That Aren’t His

RELATED: Judge ‘Outraged’ at Innocent Man, Orders Him to Pay $30,000 in Support for Child That Isn’t His

My Gender Is 'Fill In The Blank'

Townhall.com:

Now that Time Magazine has told us that transgender is the new black, I’m going to say something politically incorrect: Your gender is not whatever you think it is. Put another way, there is no such thing as, “My gender is ‘fill in the blank.’”

Unfortunately, Facebook didn’t get the memo, and so, according to AP’s Martha Mendoza, “Facebook users who don't fit any of the 58 gender identity options offered by the social media giant are now being given a rather big 59th option: fill in the blank.” (Yes, I know this sounds crazy, but it’s true.)

One year ago, I reported on Facebook’s new policy which offered American users 50 ways to describe their gender, including up to 10 different descriptions simultaneously. 

Unknown to me, that number somehow increased to 58, as noted in the most recent report. But 58 “gender identity options” were obviously not enough. Some people needed another option, one they could quite literally make up themselves.

As Mendoza explains, “Facebook software engineer Ari Chivukula, who identifies as transgender and was part of the team that made the free-form option, thinks the change will lead to more widespread acceptance of people who don't identify themselves as a man or woman.”

Come again? By allowing people to describe their gender however they imagine it to be, this will lead to “more widespread acceptance” for them? And you can be a human being without having to identify “as a man or woman”?

In the vast majority of cases here, we’re not talking about someone with a serious, biological or chromosomal issue, because of which their gender identity is debatable. 

We’re talking about people who are biologically male or female but are convinced in their minds that they are something other than their biological sex – either the opposite of their biological sex (and so, a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa) or some other variation (no fixed gender; alternating genders; multiple genders; no gender).

Now Facebook is making room for that option: My gender is “fill in the blank,” and so the sky is literally the limit.

But lest you think Facebook is introducing some cutting-edge innovation, they are actually late to the party. 

RELATED:  PICTURE EXCLUSIVE: Bruce Jenner seen talking on his phone while driving for the second time since fatal car accident