Hey everyone, good news. According to President Obama it is true that the government is collecting metadata. It is also true that they can use that information to find out who you are, who you are calling, so on and so forth. But do not worry. They would never actually use that information because it would be totally illegal. Because "for the government, under the program right now, to do that it would be illegal. We would not be allowed to do that." And we all know the government is honest, trustworthy, and always - and I mean always - follows the law and tells the truth.

I mean, it's not like the IRS targeted conservatives for years, then lied about it, then tried to scapegoat "low level staffers" over it, then lied some more about it.

It's also not like the government completely hid the truth about a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 (a coincidence, I tell you!) by Al Qaida affiliated forces in order to blame a random "mob" upset about a YouTube video.

And it's not like President Obama continues to lie about who is to blame for the sequester taking place. Because, you know, he totally didn't either initially propose the program nor did he brag about the sequester during the 2012 campaign as part of his deficit reduction plan. Nope. None of that happened either. Wink, wink.

After all: They. Are. Government. If you can't trust them ("Read my lips" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman) who can you trust?

More Reading: The Incompatibility of Big Government and Privacy

Senator Marco Rubio has taken a fair amount of heat for his leadership in dealing with illegal immigration. In interviews, Rubio's immigration proposals sound quite agreeable. Yet the actual bill produced by the Senate follows the usual pattern of conservatives "compromising" with liberals: liberals get what they want right away while conservatives get far less of what they want and it is usually "down the road" or riddled with loop-holes. Unsurprisingly, Rubio's immigration plan follows this pattern and his sensible goals do not make much of an appearance in the original version of the Senate bill. But perhaps Rubio should be given some slack on the issue. There is some indication that Rubio is playing the long game and it might prove a necessary move. Before we declare Rubio's political future dead, perhaps conservatives should at least let the situation unfold.

Continue Reading: Should Conservatives Cut Rubio Some Slack on immigration Reform?

We recently analyzed Christie's 2016 chances and highlighted his combativeness with conservatives as a factor in his ability to get the nomination. But one thing is clear: voters like him overall. And they like him more than anyone else.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that Christie's multi-party popularity goes beyond his home state of New Jersey. Would his electability persuade conservatives to eventually jump on the Christie bandwagon? (And while Mitt Romney also ran on electability and broad support, Christie at least has the polling data to back the claim up. Here are some of the favorable/unfavorable ratings of Barack Obama and a handful of 2016 candidates, most popular first:

Chris Christie (R) 41-12 (+29)
Hillary Clinton (D) 49-31 (+18)
Barack Obama (D) 47-40 (+7)
Jeb Bush (R) 26-23 (+3)

While a chunk of voters still do not know who Christie is, that spread is rare in Republican land. Two conservative favorites - Ted Cruz and Scott Walker - were also tested but roughly 2/3 of voters did not know who either were.

Any time a politician says that something is not about politics, it usually is. Chris Christie has rapidly morphed into the typical politician conservatives once believed he wasn't. Yes, it's hard being a Republican in a liberal state. It's even harder being a conservative one. Christie holds mostly moderate social views, but does claim to be pro-life (so that is a rarity with GOP governors in blue states). He once claimed to be a fiscal conservative. But Christie doesn't really have to be worried about being labeled a conservative these days.

He already missed the mark on Sandy funding, when he blasted Republicans for not passing a "relief" bill loaded with special interest giveaways and unrelated goody projects. He then later asked for a "clean bill" that the conservatives had championed for. And with the passing of Democratic US Senator Frank Lautenberg (see: 2014 Democratic Seats up for Re-election) , he fails both the political courage and fiscal responsibility tests. On political courage, he was simply afraid of either 1) being on the same ballot as Cory Booker who will run for the Senate Seat or 2) afraid of naming a temporary officeholder in fear of angering "somebody." Inasmuch as Christie and Booker share much of the same base, I don't think he had much to risk by being on the same ballot.

But worse than that is the willingness of Christie to throw away about $25 million to hold a special election in the middle of October when an already scheduled election is slated for the first week of November. How many people would argue that those whopping 3 weeks is THAT crucial? This is the guy begging for federal dollars for Sandy relief and thinks that an unnecessary election is money well spent? His excuse - and that's what it is - is that the people deserve a voice. They "people" will be without an elected voice in June, July, August, September, and the first two weeks of October. They really couldn't wait a whopping 3 weeks? (And actually, Senate isn't even working that week. So, two weeks.)

The guy that even Ann Coulter was drooling over throughout 2012 is really making all of the wrong moves. The no-nonsense, tough guy isn't so no-nonsense or tough after all.