VIDEO: New Trailer for 24: Live Another Day



Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) makes his grand return this year in 24: Live Another Day. This time, he’s using his fugitive status to save the President of the United States from an assassination plot in England.

More from IGN:

Whereas the original eight seasons followed a “real time” 24-episode format, 24: Live Another Day has only 12 episodes and labels itself an “event,” which basically means “miniseries.” Each episode will still take place over the course of one hour.

Live Another Day was shot on location in London. Mary Lynn Rajskub and William Devane return as Chloe O’Brian and Secretary of State-turned-President James Heller, respectively. Newcomers include Yvonne Strahovski (Chuck, Dexter), Tate Donovan (Argo), Benjamin Bratt (Despicable Me 2) and Stephen Fry (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug) as British Prime Minister, Trevor Davies.

Stephen Curtis Chapman to perform at rally for Lindsey Graham opponent


The State

GOP U.S. Senate hopeful Richard Cash is throwing a “One Nation Under God Rally” for his birthday on March 31, and he’ll sing if he wants to. Cash booked five-time Grammy winner and Christian singer-songwriter Steven Curtis Chapman. The Easley businessman is one of six GOP challengers to GOP incumbent Graham in June’s primary.

Other primary opponents to Lindsey Graham are Lee Bright, Bill Connor, and Nancy Mace.

Democrat with GreenTech Automotive ties drops out of race against Tim Scott


Rick Wade, former Obama administration official and an executive at GreenTech Automotive, announced Thursday he is backing out of running as a Democrat for the U.S. Senate seat held by Tim Scott. Wade just announced in December.

Wade ran unsuccessfully for SC Secretary of State in 2002. He worked for Obama for America in both 2008 and 2012. Here’s his bio on the GreenTech site and a Human Events article about him.

John Lofton, Martin O’Malley, and Larry Hogan on the role of government


John Lofton conducted an interview of Governor Martin O’Malley on God, government, and the origin of law.

While you can tell O’Malley isn’t in agreement with Lofton on almost any issue, the interview with O’Malley lasts more than 20 minutes longer than the Lofton interview with Larry Hogan. O’Malley didn’t deride Lofton’s question and hang up on him like Hogan apparently did. (Lofton-Hogan audio here.)

Baltimore Police accused of roughing up media photographer


Baltimore Sun

A police officer forcibly escorted Baltimore Sun photo editor Chris Assaf away from the scene of a police-involved shooting on February 21. He had been taking pictures from outside the police lines, but an officer told him he had to move back further. Assaf protested, stating he was within his First Amendment rights to be where he was standing. Another officer then forced him to move. The Sun is posting all of Assaf’s images from the shooting scene as well as photos taken by Sun photographer Lloyd Fox, who witnessed and documented the incident.

Baltimore City police are investigating. This comes on the heels of video showing a Baltimore County officer pushing and shoving a videographer, which resulted in a county investigation.

Brinkley actually sent a campaign email about daylight saving time


Saturday afternoon, the campaign of David Brinkley actually sent an email about daylight saving time and reminding people to set their clocks ahead before they went to bed. I’m really glad Brinkley sent that message out or there might have been people missing out on that totally. I guess that means it can be assumed that he supports daylight saving time and wouldn’t vote to abolish it?

The font in the email is pretty embarrassing too. It’s a font called segoe print and it’s not too far removed from comic sans for bad fonts to use in professional looking documents.

Here’s the email:



The contact information at the bottom also included this cheesy graphic:



This is just the latest example of a bad email sent by a Maryland politician. You have to wonder what went through the head of whoever decided to send this message. What made it seem like a good idea? What other topics would have been better for an email that would actually serve the campaign well?

Review: Chick-Fil-A’s Fish Sandwich


As I wrote earlier this week, Chick-Fil-A now sells fish sandwiches during Lent, but unfortunately it hasn’t gone national yet. It is only available in a limited number of markets. Here in Baltimore this is the first year they’ve sold them.

The sandwich is about the same size as the classic chicken sandwich at CFA. The batter is about the same consistency as the chicken sandwich and it has a slightly spicy undertone to it (nothing that would keep anyone from eating it.) There is the pickle on the bottom bun just like on the chicken version.

It tastes very good. The one I had was very moist. You can get it as an entree or as part of a combo.

I would think maybe they might roll it out nationally by Lent in 2015 or 2016 depending on how this year goes.

Here’s a picture of the sandwich I ate:

photo 2

Seeing Red in the Darkness


Sunday, Joe Steffen went after Red Maryland. He accused them of running a protection racket in the way they were soliciting advertising for their radio shows. He also criticized them for Mark Newgent, a Red Maryland contributor, and Jackie Wellfonder, a Red Maryland Network host, doing consulting work. Additionally, Wellfonder’s and Red Maryland’s early support for Larry Hogan was mentioned.

From Steffen’s post:

In the end, candidates are going to do what candidates are going to do.  Well, if they have any brains, I can bet what they won’t do – fall for Red Maryland’s basic- and laughable - protection racket style of media.

Michael Swartz later weighed in on this matter:

So when did Red Maryland cross the point of derision? Was it the fawning over Larry Hogan, or maybe Greg Kline’s bid to become Maryland GOP Chair where he finished a distant third? Maybe self-promotion has gotten into the way of their original purpose, but all I know is that they (and their detractors) have become the sideshow sucking up all the oxygen in the room. Are we really that bored with the candidates we’re putting up – the ones who are working hard to get elected?

Respect takes a long time to earn, but can be gone in an instant. The Red Maryland crew continues to claim that #IntegrityMatters, but it’s apparent that a number of people question whether they have any left.

I had been staying out of it, but when a Red Maryland contributor took an ill-considered shot at me I did comment briefly and even defended Red Maryland from others who were attempting to pile on in wake of Steffen’s piece:

I think some of the reaction to that situation is being overblown by those who would say Red Maryland had been bought off by the umbrella industry if they accurately reported it was going to rain.

Red Maryland had remained silent all week and based on that I expected them to continue to ignore the issue.

However, this morning a post at Red Maryland took on Steffen:

Recently, Joe Steffen, a person some at Red Maryland once considered a friend, decided to go beyond his previous puerile criticisms of us and cross the line into out and out defamation.  In a recent post, Mr. Steffen stated, as a fact, that Red Maryland was engaged in a “paid protection racket” by offering access to our pages and radio shows not only to provide candidates with exposure but to provide paid advertising opportunities as well.  Mr. Steffen claimed, as a fact, that our true intention was to “intimidate or coerce payments for flattering words” from candidates throughout the State.
To say that this is false should be obvious to anyone familiar with our work, including Mr. Steffen.  Mr. Steffen knows full well that we are not a criminal syndicate looking to extort payments from Republican candidates.  Yet, he chose to publish such statements with full knowledge of their falsity in an attempt to discredit Red Maryland and to interfere with our relationships with the Baltimore Sun and others.  This was a tortious act and, as the extortion that Mr. Steffen alleges is a crime under Md. Ann. Code, Criminal Law Article, 3-701, is defamation per se under Maryland law.  Again, these statements were made with full knowledge for their falsity and with malice.
Red Maryland has worked since 2007 to be an outlet for news, opinion and information for Maryland Republicans and conservatives.  We are completely not for profit and are motivated solely by our passion to improve our state and advance the cause of conservatism.  We have provided access to our platform to scores of candidates throughout the years.  Many of these candidates would have little or no media exposure and certainly would not have had the access to a statewide audience of dedicated conservatives like that of our readers here at Red Maryland.  Our support for candidates has never been affected by our advertising or other business relationships. Red Maryland has given access to its pages to all candidates, even those we have criticized or chosen not to endorse.  There has never been any pay-to-play or quid pro quo at Red Maryland and, again, the statements and insinuations to the contrary are known to be false.

The Red Maryland response goes on to say:

We are proud of our outreach to candidates and the false claims that we have done it for profit or our own personal ends is not only injurious to us personally but the very candidates and causes we worked to serve these last seven years.  We take this very seriously and to all those who have published or republished these defamatory statements, know that we will take all appropriate actions and seek every available remedy.

As I said, I didn’t expect Red Maryland to respond and didn’t think it was necessarily the best idea for them to respond. My first gut-level reaction Friday morning when I read their response (that took place five days later) is that Steffen’s piece caused The Baltimore Sun to put pressure or Red Maryland to say or do something. I have no inside information on this, it’s just a hunch based on the delayed reaction.

This matter has the potential to exceed the nastiness in Mike Hough-David Brinkley senate primary.

Report: Impallaria’s HB 1513 DOA in House Rules?


Joe Steffen publishes an email the MD GOP Chair Diana Waterman sent earlier today about HB 1513:

Dear Executive Committee Members:

HB1513 was held in the Rules Committee today. It has to make it out of Rules before it can be heard and voted upon. So it’s looking good for us. Keep your fingers crossed and we’ll keep working!


Diana Waterman

Chairman, Maryland Republican Party

Waterman also told Steffen that:

“I’m not claiming victory until I know there is no possible way this can go anywhere but it looks good. And while Joe (Cluster) would have me take the credit, I can’t honestly say it was me.”

Stating that she “did contact the Republican members of the Rules committee and ask them to keep it in Rules, that it would be a hugely destructive force on the Party. But as I don’t know what happened in the committee and it’s not a totally dead issue yet,” Ms. Waterman adds, “I’m not doing a victory dance – just breathing a little easier…”

Steffen also reports since then he has heard the bill is dead. I have heard the same thing. Specifically, my sources tell me it is stuck in Rules and would have trouble getting out to a standing committee.

I also hear Impallaria is enraged at state party officials for their move to get this legislation killed.

Steffen also has an email from Wednesday (that confirms what I already reported) where Waterman told executive committee members:

I am vehemently opposed to it and am actively working to have it withdrawn. If I am unsuccessful in that effort, I will fight it vigorously. Although before fighting an all-out war over this, I would like to try to discuss the issue with the delegates first. Therefore I have not issued a statement yet. I would appreciate your support in my attempts to kill this bill first before issuing a “call to arms” in your counties.

I previously wrote about Impallaria’s spin in favor of the bill as well as reactions from Del. Kelly Schulz, Joe Steffen, and Michael Swartz.

Federal court strikes down MoCo anti-pregnancy center law


Click here to hear a soundbite from Matt Bowman of Alliance Defending Freedom

Alliance Defending Freedom via Life News:

A federal court issued a ruling Friday that strikes down the entirety of a Maryland county’s law that forced pro-life pregnancy counselors to advise women against using their services. The court’s permanent injunction prohibits the Montgomery County law from being enforced effective immediately.

The ruling is another positive sign in the nationwide battle against such ordinances. Other lawsuits are currently taking place in Baltimore, New York City, San Francisco, and Austin, Texas.

“Pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be punished by political allies of abortion sellers,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, co-counsel in the case. “The court rightly found no justification whatsoever for the government to force pro-life centers to speak a message designed to drive women away. The government cannot resort to coercing or shutting down someone else’s speech in violation of the First Amendment in order to achieve its political goals.”

The Montgomery County law forced “limited-service pregnancy centers” and individuals who have a “primary purpose” of offering information about pregnancy to post signage noting that a medical professional is not on staff and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed medical professional. The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn’t apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons.

The opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued in Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County explained that “the critical flaw for the County is the lack of any evidence that the practices of [the pregnancy care centers] are causing pregnant women to be misinformed which is negatively affecting their health,” adding that “when core First Amendment interests are implicated, mere intuition [of a problem] is not sufficient. Yet that is all the County has brought forth: intuition and suppositions.”

The opinion further explained that the only people who alleged a “misinformation problem” on the part of pregnancy care centers “were universally volunteers from a pro-choice organization sent to investigate [their] practices.” Despite those allegations, “there is no evidence that those women failed to get the medical services and counseling they desired or that the time spent at the [centers] was to the detriment of their health,” the court concluded.

The new permanent injunction, which blocks the entirety of the law, comes after appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ultimately resulted in affirming the original 2011 preliminary injunction, which blocked the law in part.

The text of the injunction

Centro Tepeyac Perm Injunction