Not affiliated with any political party or organizations.

The Conservative Push

It's time to push back  

News & Commentary Post New Entry

Post your topics for discussion here. 

The Conservative Push is not affiliated with any political party or oganization. Views and opinions are not necessarily those of the owner's of TCP.

view:  full / summary

Obama racking up judicial losses as Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, union dues

Posted by Verbum Ultimum on July 2, 2014 at 11:45 AM Comments comments (0)


Obama racking up judicial losses as Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, union dues

  By Ben Wolfgang-The Washington Times Monday, June 30, 2014

Demonstrators embrace as they react to hearing the Supreme Court's decision on the Hobby Lobby case outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Obama's biggest White House 'fails'


24 PhotosObama's biggest White House 'fails'

Conservatives in Hollywood: Celebrities who lean right


30 PhotosConservatives in Hollywood: Celebrities who lean right

Supreme Court decides Hobby Lobby birth-control dispute





Supreme Court

Barack Obama

White House


President Obama suffered two final defeats in the Supreme Court on Monday, capping a 2013-2014 term in which the justices delivered several judicial hits to the White House while taking a firm stand against the unchecked power of the state.


The administration’s losses on Obamacare rules and compulsory union dues served as a rebuke on the Supreme Court’s final day after months of judicial decisions to rein in big government on issues such as snooping without a warrant, campaign finance restrictions and Mr. Obama’s recess appointment powers.


PHOTOS: Obama's biggest White House 'fails'

Just as damning was the way the court ruled in some of those cases. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. corralled unanimous votes on privacy and recess appointments — cases that dealt stinging defeats to Mr. Obama, himself a lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law.


In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.




Read more:

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter




Witness: No, the IRS Didn???t "Follow" the Law

Posted by Verbum Ultimum on June 24, 2014 at 5:50 PM Comments comments (0)

Witness: No, the IRS Didn’t "Follow" the Law

Daniel Doherty | Jun 24, 2014

A somewhat testy and revealing exchange happened today between Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and star witness David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), at today’s IRS hearing regarding the disappearance of Lois Lerner’s “missing” emails.


The House Republican asked if the IRS’s refusal to inform Mr. Ferriero's department immediately about the missing documents broke the Federal Records Act -- which, according to the witness's own sworn testimony, states that “when an agency becomes aware of an incident of unauthorized destruction, they must report the incident to us.” Ferriero, for his part, also testified that he learned about the "alleged unauthorized disposal [of emails]" in a letter from the Senate Committee on Finance, which was sent to NARA on June 13, 2014.


“Any agency is required to notify us when they realize they have a problem,” Ferriero claimed, reiterating what he had said in his opening statement.


Posted by Verbum Ultimum on June 24, 2014 at 5:15 PM Comments comments (2)



Hillary Clinton’s comments that’s she’s not “truly well off” aren’t just a problem for the obvious, surface reasons we’ve all been reminded of, or her earlier comments about being “broke” after leaving the White House. Here’s how the left-wing British Guardian newspaper rendered her remarks:

[W]ith her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”

Yes, it’s amusing to see Hillary claim she’s “not truly well off.” And the apparent allusion to Harry Reid’s slanderous comments about Mitt Romney not paying taxes can be duly noted and chalked up to Clinton’s character. But perhaps more disturbing is what this says about her view of how other people obtain wealth. It’s as if Hillary knows nothing about what happened during her husband’s presidency — a dot-com boom that saw many, many first-generation millionaires created before it finally ran its course.

The number of U.S. millionaires hit a new record earlier this year, but only a small share of them ever came into any significant amount of family money. This CATO op-ed from 2011 sums up some of the available data succinctly, but there are many, many studies with similar results:

Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn’t inherit their wealth; they earned it.

How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance. Roughly a third were entrepreneurs or managers of nonfinancial businesses. Nearly 16 percent were doctors or other medical professionals. Lawyers made up slightly more than 8 percent, and engineers, scientists and computer professionals another 6.6 percent.

Sports and entertainment figures — the folks flying in on their private jets to express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street — composed almost 2 percent.

Note that these are all (including the entertainers) categories of people who “have done it through dint of hard work.” Mitt Romney, who was never poor but gave away his inheritance and made his own fortune, falls into that category as well. And the information above only confirms what the research has been telling us since the 1990s — and even since the 1890s, a period for which Stanley Lebergott found that 84% of the rich were first-generation wealthy.

To some extent, this is not just true of millionaires but of billionaires as well. Sixty-nine percent of the people on the Forbes’ 400 list are self-made.

Worse still, Clinton’s view of wealth is something almost completely alien to the American experience of it. First, the idea that anyone judges the wealthy on the kind of taxes they pay is a bit odd. If you hate people with an eight-figure income, the fact that they made it with 60-minute speaking appearances (with fees are subject to the top marginal rate) as opposed to selling a risky dot-com stock that made bank is probably not a mitigating factor.

If the term “working class” seems like a strange one to most Americans, it’s because this country never had any significant aristocratic class that inherited all of its wealth, owned all the land and didn’t work. If you try to present an honest picture of America’s wealthy, you’re thinking mostly of super-busy people, workaholics even. Inventors, professionals (financial, legal, medical, etc.), and small-to-medium business owners, some of whom may have been successful enough to be bought out. These are people who can’t be paid enormous sums just to give speeches.

By the way: For the most part, these people are not rich because their spouse became president at one point. They’re not famous enough that they can walk into an auditorium for an hour and walk away with a fat check, and call that “work.”

That Clinton doesn’t get this — and thinks she and her husband are somehow unique for having “worked” for their money — is just baffling. It’s as if she understands she lives in modernity and the rest of America’s uber-wealthy — her peers — live in Medieval Europe.

- See more at:


Posted by Verbum Ultimum on June 24, 2014 at 5:10 PM Comments comments (0)


Monday night at a evening congressional hearing on the Internal Revenue Service claims that Lois Lerner's email's were lost due to a computer crash, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) confronted agency commissioner John Koskinen over whether he had contacted the FBI since he claimed he "can not say no crime was committed," and that Lerner had pleaded the Fifth Amendment "to avoid criminal prosecution."

Watch video here: