Roland Martin: If Jeremiah Wright fair game, so is Mormonism

Make no mistake. One of the reasons the liberal media wanted Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee was because of his religion. In this exchange, note CNN's Roland Martin. Aside from saying Republicans need to stay away from the Jeremiah Wright issue because it won't work (if that's true, why wouldn't Martin want Republicans to do it?), Martin says if Obama's religious history is fair game, so is Mitt Romney's.

Via MediaIte:

Confirmed: Jeremiah Wright outs Barack Obama as a Liar

Author Edward Klein is definitely in the center of a huge media spotlight over his book about Obama entitled, "The Amateur" but it's his audio recordings of Jeremiah Wright that seem to be sending the Axelrod and the gang into damage control mode.

Here is Klein on Hannity last night. During this interview, Wright essentially calls Obama a liar.

Via Fox Nation:

1984 Elizabeth Warren Cookbook: "Pow Wow Chow"

Elizabeth Warren, the self-beleaguered Democrat challenging Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, seems to be watching her American Indian claims coming back to bite her in a major way. Speaking of bites, the latest example comes in the form of her 1984 cookbook that has a rather insensitive (racist) title based on the standard set by the politically correct left wing.

Via the Boston Herald:

Elizabeth Warren was touting her claim of Cherokee heritage as early as 1984, according to a cookbook titled “Pow Wow Chow” edited by her cousin that includes Warren’s recipes for a savory crab omelet and spicy barbecued beans. 

The cookbook, edited by Warren’s cousin Candy Rowsey, is a compilation of “special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families,” according to the introduction in a copy obtained by the Herald. 

Warren, who has been under fire for claiming Indian lineage despite a lack of documentation, is identified as “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee” under each of five recipes she contributes in the cookbook, published in 1984 by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum located in Muskogee. Warren is not listed as an official member of the Cherokee tribe and she has been unable thus far to document her claim of any Native American heritage. 

She offered a recipe on herbed tomatoes, touting them as a “great accompaniment to a plain meat and potatoes meal!” She also included a crab with tomato mayonnaise dressing dish and a Mexican oatmeal soup that included oats, onions, tomatoes and chicken broth.

Let's see, using the standard of the left, Elizabeth Warren is now a racist American Indian impersonator who owes the Cherokees reparations for her great-great-great grandfather's role in rounding up Cherokees during the 'Trail of Tears' and she might now be on the hook for using her faux American Indian heritage to sell cookbooks under a the faulty premise that she is part Cherokee.

It might be time for her to quit while she's behind.

h/t WZ

Wow! Obama-appointed Judge blocks the NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by Barack Obama on New Year's Eve has been the source of quite a bit of alarm as it allows the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, without charge. It's one area where the Ron Pauliens are rightfully concerned.

Quite amazingly, an Obama-appointed judge in Manhattan has blocked the law until Congress clears up the gray areas. Also worthy of note is that one of the plaintiffs who sued Obama in this case is a very left wing writer, Christopher Hedges.

Via Bloomberg:

Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ - i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”

Another interesting aspect was that the government didn't put up any type of defense:

The plaintiffs claim Section 1021 is vague and can be read to authorize their detention based on speech and associations that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Hedges and two other plaintiffs testified in a hearing before Forrest in March, the judge said. A fourth plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration. The government put on no evidence, Forrest said.

The government doesn't appear to be either willing or able to adequately explain how the provision prevents average American citizens from being detained:

In her opinion, Forrest said the government declined to say that the activities of Hedges and the other defendants don’t fall under the provision. Forrest held a hearing in March at which government lawyers didn’t call any witnesses or present evidence, according to the judge. The government did cross- examine the plaintiffs who testified and submitted legal arguments.

Regardless of your ideology, the NDAA, as it is currently written, allows for the detention of political prisoners, which should never happen in the U.S. One way to help solve this problem would be to adequately identify the real enemies of America, which still has not been done.

h/t Drudge 

Was Biden's mad rant related to his gay marriage gaffe?

Barely more than a week after Joe Biden's gay marriage gaffe on Meet the Press, he came unhinged in Ohio and went on an incoherent rant, saying among other things, "they don't get us." You're right, Joe. If I'm in the "they" to which you refer, I don't get insane.

In any case, if Biden's gaffe was actually a gaffe and not an Alinsky-style distraction concocted by the likes of David Axelrod, this rant makes a bit more sense. Reports are that the administration was livid with Joe after he told David Gregory that he supports gay marriage because it forced Obama to come out in support of it too. The president has been dropping in the polls ever since, so it's quite possible that Biden is the object of increasing daily ire from the inner circle.

It's speculation, yes, but if Biden is getting beaten like a dog behind closed doors, lashing out at straw men in Youngstown, OH could be one way for him to deal with it.

Got any other ideas?

Via The Blaze: