Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Nancy Pelosi Just Might Be Insane

The Democrats’ leader in the House, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, is either dishonest, drunk, or losing her mind.

Soopermexican caught this tweet from Pelosi, which he calls “brutal stupidity.”

 

As the multimillionaire Pelosi surely knows, individuals and corporations (which are artificial people under the law) can change their addresses and thereby change their tax burdens. It happens every day. I know that from personal experience. I moved from high-tax Maryland to low-tax Texas a few years back and gave myself a very nice raise and bought a bigger house than I’d had up north even though my salary at the time didn’t change much. Dollars go farther in Texas than they do in California, in part because Texas doesn’t tax its citizens violently and with prejudice. That’s why so many of Pelosi’s fellow Californians and their companies are fleeing her state for Texas. It happens every day.

So, brutal stupidity. Or she’s just lying to her low-information voter base. Or she’s drunk or has lost her mind and is raving crazy loony tunes nuts. You make the call.

We’re not done yet, though, as you’ll see on the next page.

Posted at 9:26 am on September 13th, 2014 by

Ohio State Sexual Assault Code About as Idiotic as it Gets

I thought that the recent passage in California of the “yes means yes” bill was extremely problematic — especially for males, who are basically at the mercy of women when it comes to initiating a sexual encounter. The temptation to engage in false accusations for purposes of revenge or pique will be great, and given the temper of the times, rather than an incident becoming a “he said, she said” issue, it is likely to be a “whatever she said goes as the truth” matter.

That California law defines consent as “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” And it covers each step of the sexual encounter — from kissing to petting, to intercourse. Madness.

But Ohio State has gone California one better. If you’re a Buckeye male, it’s not enough that you get “consent” for every sexual act. You have to agree with your partner on why you are having sex.

Have they gone bat guano crazy?

Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute writing at the Liberty Unyielding blog:

Ohio State applies an impractical “agreement” requirement to not just sex, but also to a much broader category of “touching” that is sexual (or perhaps romantic?) in nature. First, it states that “sexual assault is any form of non-consensual sexual activity. Sexual assault includes all unwanted sexual acts from intimidation to touching to various forms of penetration and rape.” Then, it states that “Consent is a knowing and voluntary verbal or non-verbal agreement between both parties to participate in each and every sexual act. . .Conduct will be considered “non-consensual” if no clear consent . . . is given. . . .Effective consent can be given by words or actions so long as the words or actions create a mutual understanding between both parties regarding the conditions of the sexual activity–ask, ‘do both of us understand and agree regarding the who, what, where, when, why, and how this sexual activity will take place?’”

(emphasis mine)

College students, barely out of their teenage years with little sexual experience, are now expected to glean “consent” by the actions and supposed intent of their partner. If you kiss a girl without permission, that is considered a sexual assault — even if the girl liked it.

Bader takes us through the practical consequences of the policy:

This “agreement” requirement is impractical, because unlike sex (where there is generally an implicit agreement among the participants before it can even happen, since sex is difficult to do without active cooperation), no one agrees in advance – verbally or non-verbally – to have someone touch them in a particular place while making out. No one ever says, “may I touch your breast” before doing it while making out. They may (and usually do) welcome (and enjoy) it after it occurs, but they don’t specifically “agree” to it in advance (indeed, they may have expected the touch to occur in a different place, even if they found it pleasant). The very process of making out is a gradual escalation of intimacy step by step, without constant discussion or an endless series of agreements. That may be impossible under Ohio State’s policy, not just because it requires “agreement” (rather than mere “acquiescence”) but also because it expresses hostility to the concept of “consent to one form of sexual activity” being a signal of receptiveness to other, slightly more intimate “forms of sexual activity.” But that’s exactly what happens in making out: when you acquiesce in one form of touching or other “sexual activity” long enough, that signals a likely willingness to engage in slightly more intimate forms of touching — although you are free to rebut that presumption of willingness at any time simply by saying “no” or physically conveying your unwillingness. Such fluid interaction is threatened by Ohio State’s definition, which states that that “Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other . . . sexual activity,” that there must be “agreement between both parties to participate in each and every sexual act,” that only “clear consent” counts, and that “Consent can never be assumed, even in the context of a relationship.”

With so much going on prior to intercourse, can a woman having a sexual encounter under these circumstances ever use the excuse that she and her partner got “carried away” and had unprotected sex leading to an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion? If you’re going to slow down the process of becoming intimate, what excuse do you have for not using a rubber? Or some other form of contraception?

That’s a side issue, to be sure. But Bader’s practical guide to sex at Ohio State (and other schools that will likely adopt similar policies) is a clear warning to males; know your partner well before even initiating a kiss. Is she mentally stable? Does she have relationship issues? If you’re only interested in a casual encounter, is she OK with that? A woman who discovers that her sexual partner from the night before was not interested in a long term relationship and only wanted to “hook up” for the night, is that grounds for charging him with sexual assault?

This may be the zenith of political correctness on college campuses. To take perhaps the most joyous, fulfilling act a human being can perform and turn it into a laborious, awkward, artificial, and dangerous encounter is the height of stupidity.

You have to wonder if the people who developed this policy ever had sex themselves.

Posted at 8:51 am on September 13th, 2014 by

Government Threatened Hostage Families with Prosecution if They Raised Ransom Money

I am of two minds about this story. Certainly, we can all relate to the desperation of the parents of Steve Sotloff and James Foley. They were willing to do anything to get their children back — as any of us would do in a similar situation. The fact that the government apparently threatened both families with prosection if they tried to raise ransom money seems harsh and arbitrary.

But the government is forced to think not only about present hostages, but any future hostage taking of Americans by the terrorists. It seems logical that paying ransom for hostages only encourages more hostage taking. Recall in Lebanon in the 1980s when the U.S. bartered arms for hostages only to see more hostages taken by the terrorists.

But there is more to this story. Specifically, White House lies about being in “constant contact” with the families of hostages. That’s not the story the families are telling. And the manner in which the message about potential prosection was delivered is more reminiscent of a threat delivered by a mafioso than a caring, compassionate government.

ABC News:

The mother of slain American journalist James Foley said she wasn’t necessarily surprised that the U.S. government threatened her family with prosecution should they raise money to pay her son’s ransom, but she was astounded by how such a devastating message was delivered.

“I was surprised there was so little compassion,” Diane Foley told ABC News today of the three separate warnings she said U.S. officials gave the family about the illegality of paying ransom to the terror group ISIS. “It just made me realize that these people talking to us had no idea what it was like to be the family of someone abducted… I’m sure [the U.S. official] didn’t mean it the way he said it, but we were between a rock and a hard place. We were told we could do nothing… meanwhile our son was being beaten and tortured every day.”

Earlier this week five current and former officials with direct knowledge of the Foley case confirmed the alleged threats were made.

“It was an utterly idiotic thing to do that came across as if [the U.S. official] had the compassion of an anvil,” said a former official who has advised the family.

[...]

At times, Diane Foley said the family “had to beg” the government for information on their son.

“We were an annoyance, it felt, at some level… They didn’t have time for us,” she said.

Today White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said that government officials were in constant contact with the Foley family and declined to comment on the alleged ransom warnings, telling reporters he’s “not going to be in a position to detail the kinds of conversations that took place so often between members of the administration and the Foley family.”

“It is a long standing policy of this administration, it was the policy of previous administrations that ransoms should not be paid to terrorist organizations,” Earnest said before referring more specific questions about the Foley’s situation to the Justice Department.

Secretary of State John Kerry today told reporters that he was “really taken aback [and] surprised” by Foley’s allegations. “I can tell you that I am totally unaware and would not condone anybody that I know of within the State Department making such statements,” Kerry said.

The family of Steve Sotloff, the other murdered American, was also threatened directly with prosecution at a White House meeting.

Sources close to the families say that at the time of the White House meeting the Sotloffs and Foleys — after receiving direct threats from IS — were exploring lining up donors who would help pay multimillion-dollar ransoms to free their sons. But after the meeting those efforts collapsed, one source said, because of concerns that “donors could expose themselves to prosecution.”

Although European hostages have been freed through ransom payments that have run into the millions of dollars, the Obama administration has taken a hard line against any such payments, viewing the transfer of cash as a violation of federal laws that forbid providing “material support” to a terrorist organization.

“They’ve been stricter than any administration on this,” said a former law enforcement official who has been working with the families of IS hostages.

Barfi said that within a few hours of the White House meeting, he was at a separate meeting with State Department officials. One of those officials repeatedly mentioned the “material support” law and made it “clear,” said Barfi, that criminal prosecutions could result if ransoms to the IS terrorists were paid.

Such explicit threats made to parents who “had to beg” to get any information about their children points to an administration that employed clod-hoppers as liaisons to the families. No doubt it was a tough job to inform the families of the law and the potential penalties that would have come with raising ransom money. But it’s obvious from statements made by both families that the administration blew it. The situation called for striking the right balance between showing compassion and imparting the matter-of-fact information about potential prosections. The White House chose people without tact or empathy to deliver their message and struck out.

Even though they’re right about the policy.

Posted at 6:39 am on September 13th, 2014 by

At Least One Indicted CA Democrat Won’t Be Getting Elected Again

Um…justice?

A California state senator convicted on eight felony counts of perjury and voter fraud was sentenced to 90 days in jail on Friday in one of three ethics scandals involving Democratic lawmakers in the most populous U.S. state.

Senator Roderick Wright of Los Angeles was convicted in January of lying about whether he lived in the district he sought to represent, the first in a string of criminal proceedings against three state senators this year that effectively cost Democrats their two-thirds majority in the California Senate.

“This is not what I call a victimless crime,” said Judge Kathleen Kennedy, who denied Wright’s request for a new trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.

She said Wright was no longer eligible to hold elective office in California.

It has been a rough year for California Democrats but you’d hardly know it if you kept to mainstream news sources. If three Republicans in a GOP controlled state had been indicted for voter fraud and/or public corruption the press would have nonstop, breathless “CULTURE OF CORRUPTION” coverage.

That’s good news about no being able to hold future elective office. At the moment, Wright is still employed, but leadership has asked him to step down.

Meanwhile, Richard Alarcon, the L.A. city councilman convicted of voter fraud and perjury (along with his wife-ah…family), has found a judge to buy him a little time.

Lastly, Leland Yee, who did pretty much everything but start his own al Qaeda cell, merely remains on suspension while the FBI investigates him.

Posted at 4:40 pm on September 12th, 2014 by

Dear Hillary: Press Is Now Telling Us What’s Awesome About Elizabeth Warren

But she’s not running or something.

Chances are, Elizabeth Warren has already answered your question.

The freshman Massachusetts Democratic senator has been everywhere the past few months, appearing on an impressive list of Sunday shows and cable news programs, chatting up late night talk show hosts and crisscrossing the country on a book tour to promote her latest biography, “A Fighting Chance.”

But if you thought the media blitz may have loosened up the popular liberal — famous on Capitol Hill for her strictly-on-message persona and her aversion to making small talk with the D.C. press corps — think again.

Drinking-game keywords for this piece are “discipline” and variations of “focus.” If you do a shot each time one comes up, you’ll be hammered before you’re through reading it.

There is no real reason for this post beyond giving some free PR to Fauxcahontas and subtly embarrassing Hillary Clinton by stepping away from the “inevitable” conversation. This is more of a love letter than a political opinion piece. Even when the writer brings up what could be considered a “negative,” the point is followed up by more praise.

Despite all of the “inevitable” chatter elsewhere, the Warren contingent among the Democrats grows stronger every day. She’s already far more well-known and liked than a certain senator from Illinois was this far out from the 2008 election, the last time Hillary Clinton was “inevitable.”

If the MSM shifts too much more of its affection away from Hillary, she’ll fall apart in a hurry. She’s just not very good under pressure.

Hard choices for the Democrats indeed.

More:  MSM Continues 6-Year Long Obsession with Supposedly ‘Irrelevant’ Sarah Palin

Posted at 4:20 pm on September 12th, 2014 by

MSM Continues 6-Year Long Obsession with Supposedly ‘Irrelevant’ Sarah Palin

The woman they love to hate.

It’s not the latest reality television show but real life for the Palin clan, at least according to reports from bloggers.

A vaguely worded police report is less specific about what actually happened at a weekend social gathering in Alaska.

The facts seem to go something like this: Members of the Palin family, including Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, attended a party Saturday night in Anchorage, where a large brawl broke out. It was also Todd Palin’s 50th birthday.
Anchorage police confirmed they “responded to a report of a verbal and physical altercation” near a home in Anchorage where a party was taking place.

I grew up in a small town, where Saturday night fights are more common than winter colds. Yet this story is everywhere today. This isn’t news, it’s a stalker-like obsession. My theory for why it continues is this: liberal women secretly wish they could be as attractive and feminine as Sarah Palin, while liberal men wish they could be as tough as she is.

It is rather enjoyable to watch the way she still haunts them.

Posted at 4:00 pm on September 12th, 2014 by

Wait, Now We ARE at War with ISIS?

The Obama administration spent Thursday (the 13th anniversary of 9-11, by the way) arguing that the United States is not at war with the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL.

The White House spokesman said it wasn’t a war. Secretary of State John Kerry and his spokeswomen at the department also said that it’s not a war. Kerry, for his part, called it…what was that again?

Right — it’s a “heightened level of counter terrorism operation.”

Clear?

Well, today, the White House and the Pentagon have finally come around. This thing we’re doing against ISIS is, in fact, a war. Take a look.

An old book that most people don’t pay much attention to these days says “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

Indeed.

Posted at 1:28 pm on September 12th, 2014 by

Foley’s Family ‘Appalled’ at Administration’s Handling of His Case

CNN interviewed Diane Foley, mother of American journalist James Foley. ISIS beheaded him and posted the video online on August 19.

Foley is calling the Obama administration out:

“I think our efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance” to the U.S. government, Diane Foley told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in an interview that aired Thursday. “It didn’t seem to be in (U.S.) strategic interest, if you will.”

Officials told Foley family members “not go to the media,” and that the “government would not exchange prisoners,” or carry out “military action” to try to rescue her son, according to Diane Foley.

As we now know, the Obama administration did exchange five hard-core Taliban for Bowe Bergdahl. The administration was aware that Bergdahl may have deserted his post in Afghanistan prior to his capture.

And as we now know, the Obama administration did attempt a rescue of Foley. That rescue failed, because President Obama dragged his feet before greenlighting the mission.

Diane Foley says that the administration threatened the family.

She added that the family was told many times that raising ransom “was illegal (and) we might be prosecuted.”

Diane Foley could become to Barack Obama what Cindy Sheehan was to George W. Bush — if the media decided to do that. But we all know that that’s not going to happen.

Posted at 12:07 pm on September 12th, 2014 by

America Can Heal Now: Chris Brown Weighs In on Ray Rice Situation

What we’ve all been waiting for.

On Thursday, CBS pulled the use of a Rihanna song from the opening of its Thursday Night Football game between the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers, avoiding starting the broadcast with the voice of someone who’s been the victim of domestic violence days after a shocking video surfaced of former Ravens running back Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee.

Many have pointed out that Rihanna’s involvement in the broadcast was an unfortunate choice in light of the scandal over the Rice incident and the NFL’s treatment thereof, which was the focus of most of the pre-game show. Now Chris Brown has linked his 2009 pre-Grammys Rihanna attack to the Ray Rice scandal.

On Thursday, MTV News’ Sway Calloway asked Brown, who was sentenced to five years of probation and one year of counseling after pleading guilty to assaulting Rihanna, what advice he had for Rice.

Brown, who has a history of violent behavior, said it’s all about anger management.

“I think it’s all about the choices you make. With me, I deal with a lot of anger issues from my past — not knowing how to express myself verbally but at the same time not knowing how to cope with my emotions and deal with them and understand what they were,” he said. “For me, dealing with my anger issues and understanding myself and the life I’ve been through, where I’m headed and where I want to be has helped me focus on what’s really important and not F up. For anybody who’s going through that situation or anybody who’s dealing with it — it’s all about the choices. Every situation is different but it’s all about the choices you make and how you control your anger.”

In the never-ending tale of people making stupid decisions during this Rice story, the executive who thought, “Hey-let’s see what Chris Brown thinks…” just jockeyed him or herself into the top ten.

Presumably, MTV was unable to get clearance for an in-cell interview with OJ Simpson to see what sage advice he had for Ray Rice.

Here’s an idea: let’s not give serial abusers a public forum to cover their you-know-whats.

Posted at 11:46 am on September 12th, 2014 by

VIDEO Montage: Even MSNBC and the Democrats Hate Obama’s ISIS Plan

Chris Matthews is skeptical. Tom Friedman wonders where the Chinese are.

And that’s just a start. Others in the mix include Chuck Todd, Ed Schultz, Tom Brokaw, and Jim McDermott.

For a mind-bender on a par with that Bill Maher clip we posted yesterday, some of the Democrats’ criticisms sound like some of ours — that the strategy that the president laid out is too wimpy, and is very unlikely to work.

Take a look.

h/t Grabien

Posted at 11:20 am on September 12th, 2014 by

Does Wendy Davis’ Book Tour Violate Campaign Finance Law?

On Thursday, the Greg Abbott campaign filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission. The complaint asks the Commission to look into state Sen. Davis’ (D) book tour, which she is running simultaneously with her campaign for governor against Abbott.

The complaint concerns a trip that Davis took to New York earlier this week, to launch her book. Her campaign paid for that trip, but Davis says the book was not launched now, timed to help her campaign.

Then why did her campaign pay for the trip? That’s what the TEC is being asked to look into.

Davis has dismissed the complaint as “frivolous.” Charges do tend to fly, and the TEC can find itself in the crosshairs, as elections draw near and we’re within two months of the Abbott-Davis showdown.

But do the charges have some merit? The Abbott campaign is forwarding comments by a trio of Texas election law specialists, which strongly suggests that the charge do have merit.

The first is from Tripp Davenport, a former TEC chairman. He says ”There’s definitely questions to be raised,” Davenport said. “The appearance of it, based upon what I know — I think there is some merit to it.” He even added that either Davis’ lawyers don’t know what they’re doing, or they let her “push the envelope,” knowing that any TEC action will not come until after the election.

The second is from another former TEC commissioner, Ross Fischer. He told reporter Karina Kling, “In Texas law you can’t use campaign funds and convert them to personal use.” He added that Davis may end up having to pay for the trip out of her own pocket.

The third is from election lawyer Roger Borgelt. He says that the violation is clear: “Given the facts and how things appear, with this trip being 95 percent about the book tour, I don’t know how it could be anything but a personal trip.” But her campaign picked up the bill.

The Davis campaign says that they were careful to follow the law, but the quotes above cast doubt on that. Davis, a Harvard-educated attorney herself, has already come under fire, and an FBI investigation, for other alleged ethical lapses.

Posted at 10:21 am on September 12th, 2014 by

Salafis Return to Egypt’s Mosques and Media

 

In a move that has many anti-Islamist Egyptians concerned, the government has again allowed the Salafis to return to preaching in mosques and on television.

They’re back

Salafis are Muslims who profess to follow as literally as possible the teachings and habits of Islam’s prophet and his companions.

Soon after the June 2013 revolution in Egypt, which saw the ousting (and subsequent imprisonment) of the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic supremacist groups—chief among them the Salafis—were banned from preaching.

The logic was that they were the primary actors responsible for inciting the nation’s more zealous Muslims to attack government targets, Coptic Christian churches, etc.

Accordingly, their access to mosques and other outlets were severely curtailed.

According to Nabil Zaki, the former spokesman for Assembly Party of Egypt, this new  move allowing the Salafis, particularly the Nour party, to make a comeback

is a major setback that will make it that much harder for the government to combat reactionary thinking—and this, after the Egyptian public had made great strides against such thinking….  Permitting the Salafi sheikhs to ascend to the pulpits again revives the bitter experiences of confronting this form of thinking, bringing us back to square one.

Zaki and others also warned that this decision coincides with parliamentarian elections, meaning that the Salafi clerics will again use their influence and religious rhetoric to sway voters towards a more “reactionary,” that is, Islamic, agenda.

Posted at 10:15 am on September 12th, 2014 by

Who’s Behind the Push to Give Illegal Aliens Driver’s Licenses…in Texas?

Earlier this week, the left-leaning Austin American-Statesman editorialized that it’s time that Texas establish driver’s licences for illegal aliens.

In the editorial, the paper calls for Texas to join the 11 states plus the District of Columbia in granting driver’s licenses to those who are in the state illegally. This issue cost California Gov. Gray Davis his job a few years back, in that Democratic state. It’s fair to say that it would be a very controversial move in Texas as the Republican-controlled legislature gets set for its 2015 session, and presumed Gov. Greg Abbott (R) presides over his first session. Presumed Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) would also be presiding over his first session, in the Texas Senate.

The Statesman avoids the politics and pitches a case for road safety.

While not everyone who drives without insurance is living in the U.S. illegally, allowing undocumented immigrants the option to drive legally would make Texas roads that much safer.

A bipartisan bill recognized that in 2013. HD 3206 would have allowed undocumented immigrants to drive legally in Texas and addressed concerns about voting, security and other rights reserved for legal residents.

Under that measure, undocumented immigrants living in Texas would have been issued a special “Texas resident driver’s permit” that looked different from a regular driver’s license. The permits wouldn’t have been used for any federal purposes, such as going through airport security. It would have allowed undocumented drivers, who are already on Texas roads, to drive legally and get quality auto insurance, a huge problem when you consider that currently more than 2.5 million, or 14.3 percent, of vehicles in Texas lack coverage. In Travis County, 120,125 vehicles (more than 13 percent) are not insured.

Not all of those uninsured cars belong to illegal aliens, of course, in Travis County or statewide.

HD 3206 did not fare well in the last legislative session. It got out of committee but died on the calendar. But its backers intend on bringing it forward again next year, even though the state legislature is likely to be even more Republican than the 2013 edition.

There is much to unpack in what the bill proposes, and the Statesman endorses.

The mere fact that the driver’s license for illegal aliens would look different from other state driver’s licenses and would not be used “for any federal purpose” means that the state will end up creating a database of all illegal alien drivers in the state, or at least of those who apply for this particular license. The federal government might become interested in that data, if it ever gets around to securing the border. Would the state of Texas refuse to provide that information to the federal government, if it is ever asked to?

It also means that any illegal alien holding such a license would still have a reason to flee the scene of an accident in many non-sanctuary jurisdictions. Police will recognize the license and might arrest the holder to process for deportation. The fact that it could not be used for “any federal purpose” is meant to assure Texans that they will not be used in voter registration. It also means that the license cannot be used as a form of ID for entering federal buildings, boarding aircraft or writing checks.

Illegal aliens will know all of this. They will also know that in order to obtain the special license, they will have to take a driver’s ed class. They will have to either fill out a special form identifying themselves as present in the country illegally, or they will have to check a box on a form that everyone fills out, that does the same thing. Along the way of getting this special license, they will have to identify themselves to government officials as breaking immigration law.

Or they could buy a fake license on the black market, as many have done for decades. Or they could take their chances and drive without a license at all, as many have done for decades.

The special new illegal alien license would also, according to the editorial, enable them to purchase car insurance to comply with state law. In that process, they will identify themselves to the insurers as illegal aliens. Insurers will be knowingly selling products to people who are breaking the law and who might pose flight risks. Besides that, illegal aliens can already purchase car insurance, if they choose to.

The Statesman gets into none of these weaknesses in the plan it supports. Neither do any of the plan’s persistent backers.

Posted at 9:31 am on September 12th, 2014 by

Jim McClain is the Name, Letting Famous Domestic Abusers Off While Prosecuting Moms Is His Game

New Jersey prosecutor Jim McClain deserves to have his name publicized from coast to coast. According to the DC Examiner, McClain is turning the power of the state against a law-abiding mom, 27-year-old Shaneen Allen, and he is trying to throw her in prison for more than three years.

Her crime?

The mother of two drove into New Jersey from Pennsylvania, where she lives and holds a concealed handgun carry permit for her family’s protection. She was stopped by police in New Jersey for a minor traffic offense, and voluntarily disclosed that she had a handgun in her glove compartment. She showed her concealed carry permit to the officer.

The officer arrested Allen, and she faces prison time for “unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.” They appear to be prosecuting her for having the gun accessible to the passenger compartment, and not in the trunk.

Allen was recommended for a pre-trial intervention program that would have allowed her to avoid jail time as a first-time offender. But no, Jim McClain rejected that idea. He is putting her through the ordeal of trial, and if convicted, she faces a minimum 3.5 years in prison.

Jim McClain doesn’t prosecute all first-time offenders equally. He is the same prosecutor who let former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice off the hook for domestic abuse, despite clear video evidence that Rice punched his then fiancee and knocked her out cold.

McClain blames the state’s domestic abuse law for the leniency on Rice. What’s his excuse in the Allen case? He could have been lenient with her but he chose not to be.

 

Posted at 8:35 am on September 12th, 2014 by

CIA: Islamic State Now Has About 31,500 Fighters

Drudge is fronting this major story from CNN. The thrust: ISIS is even bigger than previously believed.

A CIA assessment puts the number of ISIS fighters at possibly more than three times the previous estimates.

The terror group that calls itself the Islamic State “can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria,” a CIA spokesman told CNN on Thursday.

Analysts and U.S. officials initially estimated there were as many as 10,000 fighters, including those who were freed from prisons by ISIS, and Sunni loyalists who have joined the fight as the group advanced across Iraq.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity and additional intelligence,” the spokesman said.

To put that into some perspective, a division in the US military ranges from 10,000 to 18,000. So ISIS’ numbers equal a couple of US divisions, or a corps. With the proper combined arms strategy and decisive command, the US military could wipe ISIS off the battlefield fairly quickly.

That would require a decision to put those troops in the field to do the job, of course.

ISIS doesn’t respect any secular national boundaries, and it recruits globally. Its recruitment efforts are slick and apparently effective.

A simple way to assess the strategy that President Obama outlined Wednesday is to ask, will it kill ISIS fighters faster than the group is able to recruit new ones? So far, the answer is obviously no. Their numbers may be triple the previous estimate.

Since the president touted Yemen and Somalia as models of effective counterterrorism, have we been able to kill al Qaeda and al-Shabab recruits in those countries faster than the groups find new recruits?

It doesn’t seem likely, does it? We drone kill terrorist leaders in both countries with some regularity, but the groups survive, elevate new leaders, and go on holding territory and staging attacks — and recruiting new terrorists.

Posted at 7:16 am on September 12th, 2014 by

Beheading Infidels: How Allah ‘Heals the Hearts of Believers’

To understand why the Islamic State not only decapitates its “infidel” captives, but also mutilates and mocks their corpses—and all to sadistic laughter—one need only turn to the Koran and deeds of Islamic prophet Muhammad.

The Koran exhorts believers to “Fight them [those who oppose Islam], Allah will torment them with your hands, humiliate them, empower you over them, and heal the hearts of the believers, removing the rage from their hearts” (Koran 9:14-15).

As usual, to understand the significance of any Koran verse, one must turn to the sira andhadith—the biography and anecdotes of Muhammad, respectively—for context.

Thus we come to the following account concerning the slaughter of ‘Amr bin Hisham, a pagan Arab chieftain originally  known as “Abu Hakim” (Father of Wisdom) until Muhammad dubbed him “Abu Jahl” (Father of Stupidity) for his staunch opposition to Islam.

After ‘Amr was mortally wounded by a new convert to Islam during the Battle of Badr, Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, a close companion of Muhammad, saw the “infidel” chieftain collapsed on the ground.  So he went to him and started abusing him.  Among other things, Abdullah grabbed and pulled ‘Amr’s beard and stood in triumph on the dying man’s chest.

According to Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya (“The Beginning and the End”), Ibn Kathir’s authoritiative history of Islam, “After that, he [Abdullah] cut his [‘Amr’s] head off and bore it till he placed it between the hands of the Prophet. Thus did Allah heal the hearts of the believers with it.”

This, then, is the true significance of Koran 9:14-15: “Fight them, Allah will torment them with your hands [mortally wounding and eventually decapitating ‘Amr], humiliate them [pulling his beard], empower you over them [standing atop him], and heal the hearts of the believers, removing the rage from their hearts [at the sight of his decapitated head].”

The logic here is that, pious Muslims are so full of zeal for Allah’s cause that the only way their inflamed hearts can be at rest is to see those who oppose Allah and his prophet utterly crushed—humiliated, mutilated, decapitated.  Then the hearts of the believers can be at ease and “healed.”

This is surely one of the reasons behind the Islamic State’s dissemination of gory videos and pictures of its victims: the new “caliphate” is trying to heal the hearts of every believer inflamed for the cause of Allah.

If this sounds too farfetched, consider the following picture of a decapitated “infidel” from the Islamic State’s websites.  The Arabic caption to the left says “healing for hearts”—a clear reference to the aforementioned Koran verse… Click for images and to keep reading

Posted at 6:21 am on September 12th, 2014 by

VIDEO: Ted Cruz Argues Al Franken’s New Anti-Speech Amendment Would Criminalize SNL

franken

Taking the floor of the Senate to debate a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz laid out an ironic case. The amendment, which would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, has been championed by Democrat Senator Al Franken. The junior senator from Minnesota, who faces his first attempt at re-election this year, built his name working as a comic performer on Saturday Night Live. Yet, if Franken’s proposed constitutional amendment enabling arbitrary limitations upon corporate speech were to be ratified, SNL’s political satire – a staple of the program for decades – could potentially become illegal.

Cruz goes on to compare the proposed speech limitations to the banning of books, stating that “advocates of government power, statists, have long favored silencing the citizenry.” It shouldn’t surprise us then, Cruz argues, that “the party of government power over every aspect of our lives would take [that idea] to the final conclusion of giving government the power to silence political speech and to [effectively] ban books.”

Cruz strikes the right tone with his incisive remarks. Indeed, the intended effect of Franken’s proposed amendment is the restriction of both speech and association, sacred freedoms protected by the First Amendment. “Money isn’t speech,” the argument goes, a strawman which imagines that someone somewhere  thinks cash is literally a statement. Yet, the effect of restricting campaign spending is unquestionably restricting speech.

In his advocacy for the amendment, Senator Franken likes to wield anti-corporate rhetoric, as if corporations are alien invaders from another planet rather than the collective agency of several individuals exercising their rights as human beings. Like the “money isn’t speech” strawman, we constantly here some variation upon “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.” Yet, not one person anywhere has ever claimed that a corporation is a literal natural person. Instead, the claim of corporate personhood has always been that, as a product of voluntary contractual agreement between individuals with rights, corporations ought to be regarded as persons under the law. But hey, when you’re out to “ban books” as Cruz puts it, you’re probably not going to let little facts like that get in the way of an effective piece of fraudulent rhetoric.

Check out the video on the next page.

Posted at 2:43 am on September 12th, 2014 by

So, Just What Is Obama Doing Against ISIS? Whatever It Is, Don’t Mention the War!

Don’t call it a war, says Marie Harf at the State Department.

Don’t look for any definition of “victory,” says Josh Earnest at the White House.

It’s…whatever John Kerry means here.

Whatever it is, we’re losing potential coalition partners.

When did our foreign policy get lined up like a running Fawlty Towers gag?

YouTube Preview Image

Update: According to a “Senior Administration Official,” Saudia Arabia shares an “extensive border with Syria.”

ISIL has been I think a galvanizing threat around the Sunni partners in the region. They view it as an existential threat to them. Saudi Arabia has an extensive border with Syria. The Jordanians are experiencing a destabilizing impact of over a million refugees from the Syrian conflict, and are profoundly concerned that ISIL, who has stated that their ambitions are not confined to Iraq and Syria, but rather to expand to the broader region.

Maps disagree.

Saudi_Arabia_2003_CIA_map

Posted at 2:36 pm on September 11th, 2014 by

Drudge Report: PHOTOS CAPTURE OBAMA ‘HEAD OF HORNS’ from Last Night’s White House Speech

Credit: Drudge Report

Credit: Drudge Report

This post is not one of our usual caption contests, but I can not stop you from turning it into one.

Why no official contest? Honestly, this enlarged still image from President Obama’s ISIS speech last night with the White House drapes as a backdrop scares the heck out of me, that’s why.

Instead, I will just report what Drudge has posted on his site:

PHOTOS CAPTURE OBAMA ‘HEAD OF HORNS’…

That’s it. Enough said. Is it getting hot in here?

But wait, your temperature will rise too when you refer back to our last caption contest.

Remember the doctored ISIS video with Obama’s resemblance to “that guy” in the History Channel’s Bible miniseries?  (Cue The Twilight Zone music.)

Today, I was planning on posting all the winners from that contest (there were so many great ones), but now there is a mysterious knock at my door and some black helicopters have just landed on my lawn…..

Posted at 2:17 pm on September 11th, 2014 by

Syria Changes Tune on US Airstrikes Against IS: From No Way to ‘Call Me, Maybe?’

The Syrians had taken the stance that any US airstrike on IS on Syrian land would be an act of war against Syria.

But now, the Assad regime might consider itself a part of the anti-IS coalition.

[Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal] Mekdad openly expressed support for airstrikes on Syria — an option detailed by President Barack Obama in an overnight speech — by saying his administration has “no reservations whatsoever.”

But he said cited the need for logistical coordination with the U.S. before any airstrikes so “there should be no mistakes,” and said “it is a must” for Obama to call Assad.

He even suggested that Syria could join the US in a coalition against IS that includes Russia, China and Iran.

Mekkad doesn’t want the US working with the Free Syrian Army, though.

When it came down to international law, Mekdad was most concerned about Obama’s plan to arm rebel groups in Syria.

“Betting on other forces in Syria is a very big mistake,” he warned.

Posted at 2:03 pm on September 11th, 2014 by

Expose Government Waste, Win a Nice Chunk of Cash

Texas Public Policy Action has announced the Texas Government Waste Contest. The contest runs from September 3 through November 14, 2014.

“Even in Texas there is an incredible amount of wasteful spending, political favoritism, and crony capitalism.  This contest will help to expose waste and cronyism,” said TPPA Executive Director Nathanael Ferguson. “By creating a compendium of government waste we will arm taxpayers with the information they need to focus elected officials on solving problems and working to affect change.”

According to TPPA’s press release, contestants will submit their story of government waste in an essay or a original creative video. Entries should be submitted here: www.TexWaste.com. You can also find out more about the contest at that link.

Winners in each category will get $4,000 for first place, $2,000 for second and $1,000 for third.

All entries are limited to Texas, either state or local government.

Ahem.

Where’s my prize?

 

Posted at 1:48 pm on September 11th, 2014 by

Armed Services Chairman: ‘No Way Around It; American Boots Will Be Standing on Sand’

Warning that the ISIS threat is the same “if not worse” than the threat faced by America from al-Qaeda on Sept. 10, 2001, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) argued this morning that the “minimalist approach” outlined by President Obama would not work.

McKeon traveled last week through the Middle East, meeting with ministers and heads of state.

“I listened, and I asked questions. They gave me blunt answers and some hard truths,” he said. “Our allies are on the front lines of terrorism.There is a genuine sense among the leaders I talked with that America is disengaging from the region and concerns about American credibility, at a time when credibility counts.”

“Our relationships with these allies in the region are at a tipping point. What is also notable is that these allies are ready to bear the burden of the fight.  They know their very existence, and stability in the region, depends on defeating ISIL.”

The chairman said the strategy needs to be “one that pins ISIL down and knocks them out.”

“The president has said the threat is not imminent to the homeland. Well, exactly when does the threat become imminent? Why wait until it does?” McKeon said. “We must have a comprehensive strategy that stops any plot against US citizens or our interests now.”

A “go-slow strategy” just gives ISIS ”space to thrive and grow and blend with the population” as 500 foreign fighters a month come to join their ranks and the terror group rakes in $85 million a month from oil revenue alone.

“Soon all that will be left is a cowering population unable to resist the caliphate,” McKeon said. “…We have to get into those Sunni villages with Special Operations Forces to rebuild relationships. Because if the moderate Sunnis slip through our fingers, they’re gone – and with them, our chances for success. We have to reconnect the intelligence links and security forces’ capabilities that were lost when we left Iraq.”

He added that the strategy can’t focus on Iraq first and must encircle the caliphate. “Any strategy that allows ISIL to squirt out into Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey will only make the fight more difficult,” he said. “A coalition force, empowered by the Americans, could do just that. And once they are encircled and eliminated, we need that territory held by those friendlies. This is the only way to get this done and done right.”

Obama has “finally started” building that coalition, McKeon said.

“The Kurds, the Iraqis, the Turks, the Emeratis, and the Jordanians all have military capability. They all want to knock ISIL on its back. They need our help, they want our help, and we owe them our help,” he said. “Ignoring their pleas is a quick way to end up friendless with little, if any, U.S. influence left in the region. Let’s not forget that our allies around the world are watching and wondering if they can ever trust the U.S. again.”

“The president needs an A-team of diplomats and soldiers on the ground, ushering every player towards the same purpose – not just this week, but on a sustained basis…. We’re holding the starter pistol; the time to pull the trigger was yesterday.”

McKeon called it a “red herring” to assume that “boots on the ground” means a large occupying force. “In fact the best way to ensure that we never have to drop an entire maneuver Corps into Iraq is to be smart about using the right boots on the ground today,” he continued. “The president may not admit it, but he has already made this distinction. He has inserted Special Forces, trainers, advisors, and security forces. This is the right decision. But more can be done.”

“This will take troops. It will not take divisions. But there’s no way around it; American boots will be standing on sand. Americans will be shot at, and they will be shooting back. There’s simply no other way to do this.”

The chairman cautioned that “wars are not won by counterterrorism alone – the 1990s proved as much.”

“The president wants to use a light footprint now in hopes that he doesn’t need a heavy footprint later. This approach was not terribly successful in Libya, which has fallen into chaos. It has short-term benefits, though. It will be cheaper in blood and treasure –for now,” he said. “I want our coalition to go all-in now, so that we do not risk having to use enormously more blood and treasure later. I would much rather fight ISIL in Iraq and Syria today than fight them in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Kurdistan tomorrow. Fortune favors the bold.”

Posted at 1:21 pm on September 11th, 2014 by

Obama White House Refuses to Define Victory Over ISIS, Makes a Joke Out of It All

During today’s White House press briefing, a reporter asks spokesman Josh Earnest a simple question: “What does victory (over ISIS) look like here?”

Earnest turns the serious question into a joke: “I didn’t bring my Webster’s Dictionary with me.”

Har har.

YouTube Preview Image

Let’s briefly go over what we’ve learned recently.

The president does not believe that the Islamic State is Islamic.

The president claimed that national security is his highest priority, yet he has not secured the border and has no intention of doing so.

The president has replaced “Don’t do stupid sh*t,” his previous foreign policy guidestar, with “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” That’s hardly a new principle to American foreign policy, though it is evidently new to Barack Obama.

The president believes that Yemen and Somalia are models for effective counterterrorism against Islamic State. Terrorists freely operate in both countries, though they are subject to the occasional setback via US drone strike. Drone operations in both countries, using that term loosely, show no signs of actually destroying the terrorist groups operating in them.

The president who accused Bush of “going it alone” in Iraq refuses to consult Congress, and is going into his non-war versus Islamic State with a much smaller coalition than Bush had going into Iraq.

Among the coalition he has assembled is the Free Syrian Army, which is known to be in alliance with IS — the enemy.

The president, through his spokesman, has not even defined what victory over IS will look like.

Oh yeah, this is going to work out real well.

Posted at 1:13 pm on September 11th, 2014 by

Boehner Backs Obama on Training Syrian Opposition; Caucus Needs Time to Decide on Rest of Plan

Declaring “an F-16 is not a strategy,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) t0ld reporters at a press conference today that Republican leaders will “make a decision sometime next week on how we will proceed” with President Obama’s ISIS plans at the congressional level.

“I support the president’s plan to train and equip Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition. But I remain concerned that those measures could take years to fully implement, at a time when ISIL’s momentum and territorial gains must be halted and reversed immediately,” Boehner said of the “questions and concerns” that remain after last night’s speech.

“We stand ready to work with the president to put in place a plan that would destroy and defeat ISIL. Members are getting briefed as we speak on a range of options that the president is contemplating. Those briefings and consultations will continue,” he said.

Boehner said he believes “it’s in the institution of the Congress’ interest to speak on this question” of what intervention will look like.

“Now, normally in such a case, I’ve been through this a few times over the 24 years that I’ve been here, the president of the United States would request that support and would supply the wording of a resolution to authorize this force. And, at this point in time, we’ve not gotten that request and we’ve not seen that language,” the Speaker said.

“I think that we’re at the beginning stages of building of the kind of support that’s necessary from the nation to carry out this plan and to carry it out successfully.”

Boehner said “the only request that has come from the White House at this point” is the Title X authorization to train and equip Syrian rebels under the Defense Department instead of the CIA.

“I can tell you, in our conversations this morning, a lot of our members don’t feel like the — the campaign that was outlined last night will accomplish the mission that the president says, and that is to destroy ISIL,” he added. “And so frankly, a lot of our members think a lot more needs to be done than what was laid out last night.”

Congressional leaders went to the White House on Tuesday to discuss what the president would be asking for. Boehner said Obama made his “specific request to have the ability to train Syrian rebels” at that meeting.

“I wanted to make sure that members have ample time to have the conversation about this — started today — and it will continue,” he said.

“…Based on all the information that I’ve looked at, the Free Syrian Army has, by and large, been very well vetted by our intelligence officials. Today they’re in a fight against Assad, they’re in a fight against ISIL, and they’re in a fight against another al-Qaeda affiliate in eastern Syria. And  they’re about to get run over.”

The Speaker stressed that “airstrikes alone will not accomplish what we’re trying to accomplish.”

“And the president’s made clear that he doesn’t want U.S. boots on the ground. Well, somebody’s boots have to be on the ground,” Boehner said. “And so I do believe that what the president has asked for as the commander in chief is this authority to train these Syrian rebels, and frankly we ought to give the president what he’s asking for.”

Boehner was asked if Obama should have publicly taken any chance of troops off the table.

“Listen, we only have one commander in chief. He laid out his plan. I would never tell the enemy what I was willing to do or unwilling to do. But he is the commander in chief. He made that decision,” he replied. “At this point in time, it’s important we give the president what he’s asking for. And — and we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball. The issue here is about defeating a terrorist threat that is real and imminent.”

Posted at 11:16 am on September 11th, 2014 by

VIDEO: Bill Maher Defends Christians, Demolishes Charlie Rose on Islam

This video feels like it might have come from a parallel universe. Only, it’s not, it’s our universe, which 13 years after 9-11 still has not come to grips with the nature and origins of the people who attacked us.

Who are they? What motivates them? Why can they raise such incredible amounts of money and recruit fighters from all over the world? What ideas do they believe in? President Obama himself declared, last night, that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is not, in fact, Islamic. Obama says this at the same time he uses the group’s chosen name, which recognizes that their territorial aims are far greater than the huge territory that they currently hold.

Charlie Rose agrees with Obama on all that, even in the face of a barrage of facts put on the table by Bill Maher.

Rose plays the moral equivalency game at one point, suggesting that Christians are just as prone to violence as Muslims. Maher attempts to set him straight on that, too.

Show this video to your liberal friends. It will cause great confusion, hopefully leading to a breakthrough at some point. If it’s acceptable for Bill Maher to say the same things that Robert Spencer has been writing about on Jihad Watch (and PJ Media) for ages now, then just maybe an understanding of jihad can go mainstream.

Don’t miss the video on the next page.

Posted at 10:17 am on September 11th, 2014 by