Liberal CNN Host Kyra Phillips Tries To Lead Allen West 'Into A Rabbit Hole' With Questions About Gay Marriage

First, great job as usual by Congressman West, keeping his cool while refusing to be baited into a social issue that means little to most Americans, but plenty to the lamestream media. Second, if Phillips had done her research she would've easily known that West is a master at taking on leftwing "journalists" who attempt to use their stage as a pulpit for pushing the radical liberal agenda. Third, the idea that in a struggling economy with rising gas prices and unemployment at 8.2%, most Americans are pulling their hairs in the kitchen stewing over gay marriage is really just laughable, esp. when you watch Phillips raise her voice to West for daring to call her liberal propaganda what it is: utter BS:

CNN Anchor Kyra Phillips hosted Rep. Allen West (R-FL) where he weighed in on the rumors that he is on a short list for vice president, the Trayvon Martin killing and President Obama’s health care law in the Supreme Court. The illuminating interview became heated when Phillips asked West to weigh in on gay marriage rights, at which point West accused Phillips of leading him down a “rabbit hole.”


“Gay marriage – a big issue. Do you think that is something the federal government should make a decision on,” asked Phillips.


“I think that when you look at who is issuing out marriage certificates, I think it’s a state’s issue,” West replied. “But I think right now there are a lot of people that try to take you down a rabbit hole to discuss things that really aren’t that important. The United States of America is $15.6 trillion in debt…”


“Wait, are you saying that is not important,” Phillips interrupted incredulously.


West responded, “I think if you poll the American people, Kyra, I don’t think they’re going to bring up gay marriage as one of their top concerns.” West went on to discuss what he believes is the top issue facing the nation – jobs and the economy.


Phillips agreed, but swiftly returned to the issue of gay marriage rights. “Gay marriage is a very big issue. I mean, you were military. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is no longer…”


West interrupted, “gay marriage is not as big as the gas prices. The gas prices from when President Obama came into office was $1.84. Gas prices are now over $3 dollars…”


Phillips and West engaged in some cross talk while West attempted to stay on the topic of the economy and Phillips sought to maneuver back to gay marriage. “I think the best thing that you can do to help me and help out America: let’s stay focused on the things that are critical to the American people right now, and not try to create some type of situation where you try to take me down into a rabbit hole,” said West.


“No, no, no, no, no – I’m not trying to do that,” responded Phillips.


“Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah – you are,” replied West.

RELATED: CNN's Phillips Argues with Rep. West: 'Are You Saying Gay Marriage Is Not Important?'

Romney's Perfect VP Pick: Mike Huckabee?

Having long been a fan of Huckabee I'm mad at myself for not thinking of this earlier. After all, as a former governor Huckabee has the executive experience, he's a great orator who'd easily beat Biden in a debate, he's likeable, definitely appealing to the Christian right and even the Tea Party crowd. Plus, I agree with Ann Coulter when she said that picking Marco Rubio would just be "pandering to Hispanics" and while Paul Ryan could certainly be a great VP, he's too young and lacks the experience. The Huckster, if he accepted the offer, could take Romney over the top:

It is very likely that Mitt Romney will become the GOP nominee and while he’s done it without courting evangelicals he’s going to need them in the fall to pull off a General Election victory. A standard turnout by evangelicals will not do the trick, not with a veteran, well-oiled Obama campaign machine ready to go. He’s going to need a game changing Vice-Presidential pick to energize evangelicals. Who might that be? Mike Huckabee would most definitely be the guy to seal the deal. He's probably the one guy who could truly get evangelicals off the couch who are skeptical of Romney.


Think about it for a moment. While the two were rivals in 2008, time heals all wounds right? Huckabee would help Romney immensely with the evangelical vote, the tea party vote and those white middle class voters. It could be a perfect fit not to mention that Huckabee has great interpersonal communication skills, something Romney lacks. He also would fit the criteria of someone who could step in and be president. Plus, the national media has vetted him already so that takes away any surprises and new narratives about someone new to the national stage. And while the VP is traditionally put in the role of attack dog, Huckabee has a knack for attacking yet not looking vicious when he does it. It’s an artful skill that he clearly learned in the Deep South where you might criticize someone but it goes down gently (“That dress just doesn’t look good on you, bless your heart!”). You can make the argument that Huckabee is making a lot of money and is enjoying his role as a media personality. All of that is true but if Romney came calling it would be pretty hard to turn down a VP offer.


Political observers always talk about how elections are won in the middle with Independent voters. Huckabee can appeal to these voters but his true value will be to energize evangelicals. You can bet without a shadow of a doubt that a Huckabee VP pick would do wonders for Romney with the evangelical base. The Romney campaign would be ignorant at best and politically suicidal at worst to think that evangelicals are just going to show up and vote for Romney in the fall because they have nowhere else to go. Many of them will do so but they might not bring a friend and certainly won’t organize with full abandon. That’s a problem for Romney in an election that will probably be very close. Huckabee could seal the deal like no other politician in the country.

RELATED: Romney wins Wisconsin, Maryland, and D.C. (+video)

Van Jones Says Even If Obama Were Gay Blacks Would Vote For Him

HuffPo.com:

Former White House adviser Van Jones thinks President Obama has already locked up the support of black voters ahead of the 2012 elections, regardless of his views on gay marriage.


"I think if President Obama came out as gay he wouldn't -- President Obama is not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does," Jones quipped Monday on MSNBC, responding to a question from host Alex Wagner about a potential loss of support among African Americans if Obama came out in favor of marriage equality.


"I don't understand this particular strategy," Jones continued. "Certainly, our numbers are a little bit more -- because we're more religious as a community -- a little bit softer on some of this stuff, but it's not a hardcore issue for that many African Americans. In fact, I don't even understand the argument that gay marriage is a threat to marriage."


Wagner then suggested that Obama "is, of course, in support of gay marriage," but couldn't express this belief publicly because of some sort of political pressure or calculation.

For once, Van Jones is right. With the majority of Black Americans voting Democrat because they are afraid to leave the dependency-induced, white-run, morally-bankrupt, social liberal plantation, black liberals would still be so proud of having a half-black President that the majority will pull the lever for him come November no matter what happens and that includes being gay.

Barack Obama Threatens Supreme Court

Conservatives have long known that Barack Obama is a severe narcissist, with an ego so huge that it'd make Beyonce blush. But the nerve to threaten the 9 justices within the Supreme Court if they don't declare Obamacare constitutional? Unbelievable, but only if you haven't been paying attention to Barry's head get bigger and bigger since he surprisingly won the presidential election in 2008. After all this this isn't the first time The One has tried to intimidate SCOTUS and it probably won't be the last:

There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.


“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”


To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.


That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.


And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”


Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”


But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.


I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.


Worse, the president’s critique, and in particular the reference to “unelected” judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench.

RELATED: GOP senator accuses Obama of threatening the Supreme Court

Octomom Nadya Suleman Poses Nude, Goes On Welfare

Reuters.com:

Will the reasons to send Octomom death threats never end? The latest sting of controversy comes courtesy of the latest Octomom welfare scandal.


Nadya "Octomom" Suleman has applied for and been approved to receive food assistance benefits from the state of California. Her act has drawn the ire of the Internet in the form of mass death threats, the New York Daily News reports.


The mother of 14 (14!) is scheduled to get $2,000 per month in public assistance. The funds will be transferred directly into a debit card and may only be used to buy food.


The death threats came fast and furious after news broke of Suleman's latest activities.


"Die b--h. I'm not working for your f--ing kids," one commenter wrote on TMZ.


You can probably guess the content and form of most of the threats. They usually have the words "die," "I hope you," and various colorful expletives.


Suleman has responded that the anger should be directed towards those abusing public assistance and not her, TMZ reports.


The infamous Octomom says she only intends to receive the benefits for a month or two at the most.


This news is especially shocking (or not) since Suleman has stated publicly that she never wanted to go on public assistance. But she claims she was "becoming totally destitute," which forced her to seek government help.


And for those of you worried about Suleman's spending habits, under California law the single mom's account will be monitored to ensure she only uses her benefits to purchase food. No one wants her to get more in vitro.


Suleman could also face strict punishment if she strays from the spending restrictions.


In California, food stamp fraud can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on whether the benefits received are over $950 a month. Since Suleman is getting $2,000, fraud in her case could be a felony offense and possibly land her up to 3 years in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both.

Liberal California, already burdened by huge debt, rampant liberal terrorism, morally bankrupt Hollyweird and a war on children, now gets to pay for the freak show that is Nadya Suleman and her 14 kids. Only in Obama's America folks.

RELATED: Octomom Nadya Suleman Reveals How Much She Made for Posing Nude

Politiks As Usual: 4/2/12

Top Obama Campaign Donor Accused Of Fraud

Obama Doubling Down On His Leftist Radicalism

Chris Christie: I'd Be Much More Ready in 2016

Liberals Prepare To Vilify The Supreme Court If They Don't Get Their Way

The Crusade Against Faith

Goal of Al Gore’s Current TV? ‘Compete with MSNBC from the Left’

ABC Not Sure Whether Death Threats In Trayvon Martin Aftermath 'Going Too Far'

Judge Tosses Blog Suit Against Huff Post

Mitt Romney Scores Endorsement From Paul Ryan

Keith Olbermann Complained To Current That Car Service Drivers ‘Smelled, Talked To Him’

Sarah Palin To Co-host 'Today' Show As Ratings Battle Heats Up

If The Health Law Falls, What's Next?

Why You Played Lottery Despite Odds