The leftist media seems to have come out of its post-election denial phase and is getting back to what it does best: work as the PR wing of the Democrats. In that capacity, Job #1 is always to convince you that Republicans are the scary creatures that live under your bed, just waiting for the opportunity to take all Americans back to the 18th century.
Which brings us to this Politico headline:
The piece pretty much reads like a NARAL press release so I’m not going to quote any of it here. Its entire purpose is to let everyone know about a whole bunch of things that might happen.
None of which will make abortion illegal.
Since they like to call themselves “pro-choice,” let’s play along with that. The changes in state law that get the pro-aborts in a tizzy always have to do with shortening the time frame in which an abortion is legal. The NARAL types won’t be satisfied until retroactive abortion is available until age five, so any restriction is unacceptable to them.
The high drama in Texas that made Wendy Davis a celebrity involved making clinics safer, which shouldn’t offend anyone after the Kermit Gosnell trial. However, the same media people who have been taking up residence in Ferguson, MO, for weeks to let us know about one grand jury decision were adamant in their refusal to cover the Gosnell trial because it was a “local story.” As a result, the general public isn’t moved by the need to keep an eye on these ghouls.
When they aren’t wailing about the time period or clinic regulations, the pro-abortion lobbyists are in classic leftist mode and demanding that taxpayers foot the bill for everything.
Even if this “wave” of time period, clinic oversight or restrictive taxpayer funding laws happens, women in America will still have the choice to have an abortion. The laws just won’t make it as easy.
Decisions about such grave matters that have lifelong consequences shouldn’t be easy.
The real scary people out there are the ones who want them to be.
A white, middle-aged gunman, in what appears to be a politically motivated anti-government attack linked to immigration, fired more than a hundred rounds at buildings in downtown Austin early Friday and tried to set fire to the Mexican consulate before he died of a gunshot wound.
The Austin police chief offered this:
“If you look at the targets, it doesn’t take a genius (to suggest) that that is the potential,” Acevedo said.
“I would venture that political rhetoric might have fed into some of this, but that is speculation on my part,” he added.
Look, even if this turns out to be the first time the MSM was correct about one of these things (I remain skeptical), the USA Today headline was irresponsible given the fact that Chief Acevedo used a host of qualifying words when offering his opinion.
It’s important after all of the nationwide Ferguson protests this week that media get the “only right-wingers are violent” false narrative back on track, however. Look for this shooter to become the only news in America for several days on the off chance the police chief’s speculation proves to be true.
National Guard troops and police aimed to head off a third night of violence on Wednesday in Ferguson, Missouri, as more than 400 people have been arrested in the St. Louis suburb and around the United States in unrest after a white policeman was cleared in the killing of an unarmed black teenager.
There have been protests in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta and other cities decrying Monday’s grand jury decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the Aug. 9 shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in a case that has touched off a debate about race relations in the United States.
I wondered on Twitter last night whether these “spontaneous” protests were being organized by SEIU, the Teamsters or the Department of Justice (my money is on SEIU, with gentle nudging from DOJ). Whenever you see them show up with pre-printed signs, you know they’ve got handlers.
This has gotten so serious that some committed activists put down their lattes and braved the frigid 68 degree weather in San Diego. They found out quickly that blocking La Jolla women from facial appointments they booked a month ago wasn’t a wise move.
As we head into night three, LAPD is back on citywide tactical alert.
In a high-profile speech on Tuesday dissecting Democrats’ losses in this month’s midterm elections, Charles Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, listed “a cascade of issues” botched by the White House, starting with Obama’s push for healthcare reforms soon after he took office in 2009.
Later on Tuesday, the White House took the unusual step of publicly pledging to veto a deal on tax breaks that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid was trying to hammer out with Republicans in the House of Representatives.
“There is clearly a lot of unhappiness and a lot of mistrust that exists between the president and his congressional party,” said Ross Baker, political scientist at Rutgers University.
President Obama has done next to nothing to endear himself even to his own party. This family squabble could get a lot worse before it improves, if it ever gets better at all. Chuck Schumer is no shrinking violet, and if he thought it important to distance himself from the president almost two years before he is up for reelection, it’s likely that these two aren’t going to have a beer summit any time soon.
An open, protracted feud could play into Hillary’s hands, making it easier for her to put some space between her and Obama’s policies without seeming like a spiteful ex-employee.
Even if that’s all she really is.
Mitt Romney, the Republican Party’s unsuccessful presidential nominee in 2012, leads the field for the 2016 election among Republican voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.
The former Massachusetts governor would have a slight edge over potential Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by 45 percent to 44 percent in a general election, the poll found.
Among possible Republican candidates, Romney’s 19 percent put him ahead of former Florida governor Jeb Bush with 11 percent, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Ben Carson each with 8 percent each, and U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky with 6 percent.
I have no doubt that this is an accurate reflection of the preferences of the fourteen octogenarians who still have land lines and are so lonely they answer them. I’m in communication with politically involved Republicans every day, however, and I haven’t met one person who is salivating for a Romney reboot.
That’s probably because it’s the worst idea ever.
Her Madameship will spend plenty of time distancing herself from President Obama, as will the eventual Democratic nominee, Elizabeth Warren. That means the “Romney was right, Obama was wrong” mantra that fuels what speculation there is about him has a shelf life. By July of 2016, Obama’s support network will consist of Michelle, Sasha, Malia and six MSNBC interns. In the short attention span politics era, the one thing Romney has going for him won’t be going that strong. As we found out in 2012, he won’t be making the case for himself well.
After all, he may have been right about everything, but he was right back then too and couldn’t manage to communicate that to the voters. He hasn’t been getting any campaign practice since then so he’s still an awful candidate.
Wait for it…(emphasis mine)
One month after hitting its highest level in seven years, consumer confidence unexpectedly retreated in November, a sign that consumers are less optimistic about the U.S. economy as the holiday shopping season begins, the Conference Board reported Tuesday.
An overall gauge of consumer confidence fell to 88.7 in November from 94.1 in October, the New York-based research group said.
The drop erased all of October’s gain and left the index at its lowest level since June.
Do the members of the media, especially financial reporters, not realize how pathetic they appear now when using the words “unexpected” or “unexpectedly” in their knee-jerk covering for the president? Leftists can growl all they want about the wonders Obama has done for the economy but, other than the stock market, it’s been a “two steps forward, one and a half back” affair for the last six years. It’s just sad to see them pretending otherwise.
Quick aside: if a lib gets in your face about how awesome “Obama’s stock market” is just ask them if this means they’re on board with allowing citizens to make private Social Security investments in it.
Shuts ‘em up every time.
The New York Times indicated today that it’s getting close to a round of forced layoffs of its journalists.
The newsroom-wide email sent Thursday morning, obtained by Mother Jones, details responses to employee questions about a scheduled buyout program from Janet Elder, a deputy executive editor at the company. The email states that, “the most frequently asked question is about scale and whether or not there will be enough buyouts to avoid layoffs. Given that the buyout window is still open, it’s hard to have an absolute answer to that question just yet. Early efforts to handicap the outcome regrettably point to having to do some layoffs.”
The real question here is this: if the New York Times can’t sustain its print ad revenue, what hope is there for smaller newspapers? Will local connections and news be enough to slow that inevitable demise?
Rather than forge a new direction with digital media, newspapers clung to an identity rooted firmly in the 1940s for far too long. By the time they did begin to embrace and develop online versions, they were already being lapped by many blogs. Many papers (including the Times) created online offerings that looked like the print version. These were generally ridiculous to look at and cumbersome to navigate, but they were determined to keep a foot cemented somewhere in the past.
In the Obama era, print journalism began digging its own grave at a faster pace by abandoning what few principles were left and becoming the PR arm of Team Lightbringer.
It is difficult to visualize the near future for newspapers. Will the people who have a fetish for feeling what they’re reading pay a premium to keep print in business? For the first time in years and in the midst of a moment of nostalgia, I purchased the Sunday Los Angeles Times last week. The entire paper was about as big as the classified section alone when I last subscribed to it about a dozen years ago. I ended up going online for more details about the two articles that interested me the most. Reading the sports section and seeing news that had been in front of me in real time the day before felt like taking a trip in a time machine.
Even though I am very much thrilled with the digital media era (I’m on my fourth Kindle), I will admit that I miss the Sunday paper reading ritual from days gone by.
At least I did until I got NFL Redzone.
CNN found and aired this footage of Louis Head, stepfather of Michael Brown, calling on those assembled in Ferguson, MO, last night to burn the town down.
The mother’s grief and rage are deep and understandable. But it’s difficult to see how Mr. Head’s comments constitute anything but a credible threat showing intention to perpetrate violence.
Nearly three dozen businesses in Ferguson would burn Monday night, many of them owned and operated by minorities who live in the community.
The fact that Ferguson, MO’s businesses played no role at all in the shooting of Michael Brown did not save them. Many were destroyed Monday night. Unknown rioters set fire to some, and either those same rioters or others fired upon the fire fighters who braved the violence to try putting the fires out. Some rioters looted stores and shops that were owned by minorities who live in the community.
The orgy of violence will leave Ferguson a “ghost town,” according to this bewildered resident. She says that she came out Monday night just to make sure that the rioters had not destroyed her place of work.
“I mean, this is crazy,” she said. “I mean, the business didn’t do anything. If they were going to do something, get the right people, if they have to do it.”
She added that the AutoZone, which is seen burning in the background, was where she purchased her auto parts.
CNN’s Sara Sidner asked the resident what she thinks will happen to the community now that so many businesses have burned.
“They’re not gonna rebuild,” she answered. “It’s just gonna be like a ghost town.”
According to KMOV-TV, most of the businesses that were destroyed in last night’s rioting were owned by minorities.
One of those businesses was a cake store, Cakes and More, owned by Natalie DuBose. DuBose sold cakes at flea markets while she saved up to open up her own store so she could feed her kids and succeed.
She did succeed, only to have the rioters destroy her business among the nearly three dozen businesses that were looted or burned or both.
— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) November 25, 2014
According to the grand jury in Ferguson, MO, 18-year-old Michael Brown lost his life on August 9, 2014 when he charged police Officer Darren Wilson.
Wilson had his gun drawn. When Brown charged the police officer, who was much smaller than he was, the officer feared for himself and fired.
But how did Brown get to that point?
Moments prior to the fatal shots, the grand jury found that Brown had had an altercation with Officer Wilson at* the back of the officer’s car. Brown went for the officer’s weapon. Wilson fired two shots at that point. Forensic evidence — gunpowder residue on Brown’s hand, a wound on Brown’s hand, Brown’s blood on the gun and in the car — says that there was a fight between the teenager and police officer. After the first shots, he fled, then turned back toward Wilson.
But how did things get to that point?
Moments before the altercation in the squad car, Officer Wilson had stopped Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, who were walking down the middle of the road and disrupting traffic. Wilson did not know what Brown and Johnson had done just prior to that, or why they were disrupting traffic.
Moments prior to that, Brown and Johnson had robbed a liquor store. They didn’t take cash, though. They stole less than $50 worth of Swisher Sweets cigars. Brown was supposedly heading off to college soon. Why did he risk everything for a petty robbery?
And why did he act like a thug and steal that specific type of cigar?
It turns out that Swisher Sweets cigars have a specific purpose to marijuana smokers. Some pot smokers take Swisher Sweets, which are among the cheapest cigars on the market, hollow them out, and fill them with pot. That disguises the pot as an ordinary cigar. Brown’s social media included strong hints that he used Swisher Sweets cigars in that way.
Stealing Swisher Sweets cigars doesn’t necessarily make Michael Brown a drug user. Social media posts suggesting that he was a drug user don’t make him a drug user. But the amount of THC, the chief active ingredient in marijuana, found in Brown’s autopsy does mean that he was a drug user. Just prior to the robbery of the convenience store, Brown had used so much pot that he could have had hallucinations, according to the autopsy. He may have been hallucinating when Officer Wilson confronted him in the middle of the street. We will never know.
How did Brown get to the point where he was a heavy pot user, at least once, and strong-arm robbed a liquor store to obtain cigars used to conceal drug use? And from whom was he concealing that drug use?
Answering those questions may finally get us to understand what happened to Michael Brown, and why. We need to rewind far past August 9, 2014, back as many as 18 years.
Did Brown’s parents know who his friends were? Did they know about his drug use? Did they know about his social media habit of pretending to be a gang banger? Was he one of those kids born into a “good family” that taught him well, only to reject those values? Was he taught any values at all?
After three months of deliberations, a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri voted not to indict police Officer Darren Wilson in the August 9 shooting death of Michael Brown.
Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced the grand jury’s decision Monday evening. As he made the announcement, thousands were assembled in Ferguson’s streets and threats of a return to riots and violence hung in the air.
The announcement was scheduled for 8 PM Central time, but the prosecutor was about 15 minutes late. During the waiting time, rumors swirled on cable news and social media that Officer Wilson would not be indicted.
In his lengthy statement, McCulloch noted that the grand jury and the federal investigators examined “all of the available evidence,” including witnesses, physical evidence from the scene, evidence from autopsies of Michael Brown, and all other relevant evidence. He also criticized the media for excessive speculation and sensationalism, despite the fact that he schedule the announcement to be in prime time, when it would surely attract massive media coverage, and after thousands had gathered in the city’s streets.
McColluch stated that he delivered his lengthy statement to ensure everyone that the grand jurors and the federal investigators had “examined every witness and every piece of evidence.” He noted that the grand jury deliberated for two days before reaching its decision.
“No probable cause exists to indict Officer Wilson,” McCulloch said. The grand jury had voted not to indict the police officer.
McCulloch then described the events of August 9, in which Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown.
While McCulloch continued to lay out the evidence that Brown had in fact attacked Officer Wilson, Brown’s family released a statement:
BROWN FAMILY STATEMENT pic.twitter.com/Ege18kpjBQ
— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) November 25, 2014
Update: Watch video of Prosecutor McCulloch’s statement.
Our latest contest photo and headline come to us from the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, who wrote at “The Fix” blog:
But, all of the reporting on the departure suggests that it was not really Hagel’s decision at all. And, judging from the body language and facial expressions on display at the announcement this morning, the reporting is right. Big time.
And to that I say, “Who needs a secretary of Defense anyway when we have such a strong commander in chief — winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?”
Caption-contest fans will find my declaration very comforting because we know a “Peace Through Strength” sign hangs in the Oval Office. (Shhhhh, Obama does not want you to know that he crossed out “Through Strength” with his famous “red line” using a Sharpie.)
For more on why Hagel “resigned” be sure to read Bridget Johnson’s report here at PJ Media. Here is my favorite line:
“You’ve always given it to me straight and for that I’ll always be grateful,” said Obama.
Now for more “straight” talk, click to the next page to find out the winners of our last contest, which posed the question:
“Is Our King Playing with a Full Deck?”
Another lost son, another call for justice
The day after Michael Brown was killed by a police officer, Syreeta Myers drove from her South City home to the northwest suburb of Ferguson. She marched on the street demanding justice for Brown’s death. She wanted to stand by his parents.
Two months later, Brown’s father was calling her. This time, it was Myers who was receiving support.
Like the Browns, she had lost a son.
VonDerrit Myers Jr. was 18, just like Michael Brown. He was a young black man killed by a white police officer.
“My issue is with crooked cops who won’t hesitate to kill a black man,” Syreeta Myers tells me on this dreary Sunday afternoon.
That kind of nuance permeates this little op-ed trial of law enforcement.
The tone in the past several months has become decidedly anti-law enforcement. From libertarians wailing about the militarization of police to minority groups basically saying all cops are cold-blooded killers just looking for opportunities to shoot young black men.
While there are certainly bad cops out there, this media savaging of the entire profession is a slippery slope that we probably shouldn’t head down. The reality is that the good far outnumber the bad, and all of them run the risk of getting killed every day at work.
In the Ferguson situation, the media almost seems desperate for violence to break out and have been doing everything they can to ratchet up the tension. It’s irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
If a riot breaks out on your street, who are you going to call? The cops or Don Lemon?
Iranian and Western diplomats said nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers will be extended until July 1, 2015.
The diplomats spoke in Vienna on the final day of the group’s self-imposed, year-long period to agree on a comprehensive deal to ensure Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful.
They said they will work toward a framework agreement by March 1, outlining progress made and identifying points still be to be resolved. A final deal would be reached by July 1.
Talks are expected to resume before the end of this year, though it was not clear when or where they would be held. This would be the second extension, after an original, six-month deadline expired in July.
Well, now we know why Chuck Hagel absolutely, positively had to conclude that his service to the country was finished this morning. The Easter Island Head in charge of State has been floundering on the diplomatic front so badly that Republicans might soon miss Hillary Clinton. Nothing says, “We want to thwart your nuclear ambitions,” like giving more time to the potentially dangerous party.
There is no real evidence that Kerry and our allies will get what we want from these negotiations, so the administration better appoint another Republican that they can fire next summer.
Departing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel may have sealed his exit in this interview with Charlie Rose last week. Rose conducted the interview at the Pentagon.
In the interview, Hagel made two key points that serve as accusations that President Barack Obama is mismanaging the United States military and the ISIS threat.
Rose asked Hagel to elaborate on comments that he made in a speech at the Reagan Library last weekend. In that speech, Hagel said that America’s military capability, while still the best in the world, is being threatened.
Hagel re-iterated that to Rose, but also left viewers to wonder about the direction that President Obama is taking the military.
“I am worried about it, I am concerned about it, Chairman Dempsey is, the chiefs are, every leader of this institution,” Hagel said, including Pentagon leadership but leaving both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s names out of his list of officials who are worried about the U.S. military’s declining capability. Hagel said that the Congress and the American people need to know what while the U.S. military remains the strongest, best trained and most motivated in the world, its lead is being threatened because of policies being implemented now.
Hagel went on to note that a good leader prepares their institution for future success, saying that “the main responsibility of any leader is to prepare your institution for the future. If you don’t do that, you’ve failed. I don’t care how good you are, how smart you are, any part of your job. If you don’t prepare your institution, you’ve failed.”
In the past couple of years, Hagel has warned that defense budget cuts implemented under President Obama were hurting readiness and capability. The “how smart you are” line may be a veiled shot at President Obama, who basks in a media image that he is a cerebral, professorial president.
In the same interview, Hagel also commented on the rise of ISIS and how it must be fought. Hagel charged that Obama’s handling of the ISIS threat is now indirectly assisting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
While President Obama has downplayed the ISIS threat, even calling the group “jayvee” as it rose to power, Hagel warned last week that it is a threat unlike any other we have ever faced.
“We’ve never seen an organization like ISIL that is so well-organized, so well-trained, so well-funded, so strategic, so brutal, so completely ruthless,” Hagel said. “We have never seen anything quite like that in one institution.
“And then they blend in ideology — which will eventually lose, we get that — and social media. The sophistication of their social media program is something that we’ve never seen before. You blend all of that together, that is an incredibly powerful new threat.”
Nicholas Kristof devoted precious New York Times space to the pleadings of one Christian Pakistani family to save their wife and mother from a death sentence:
Note: Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman, was sentenced to death for blasphemy against Islam in 2010. The year before, while picking fruit with Muslim women, she took a sip of water from the local well. She was immediately accused of making the water impure by the other workers, who told her that they could no longer use the well. According to her husband, Ashiq Masih, and others, men and women started beating her and accusing her of making derogatory remarks against the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a charge she denies. Asia is currently in prison waiting to be hanged after losing an appeal on Oct. 16. She has told her story in a memoir, Blasphemy: A Memoir: Sentenced to Death over a Cup of Water, written with French journalist Anne-Isabelle Tollet.
Below is an open letter by Ashiq addressed to the world community. (Madam Mayor refers to Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who has offered her support to Asia.)
Her husband writes, in part:
I live in hiding with my five children as near as possible to Asia. She needs us very much to help keep her alive, to bring her medicine and good food when she is sick.
After my wife had spent four long years in prison in terrible conditions, we were hoping that the High Court of Lahore would free my wife. She did not commit blasphemy, never. Since the court confirmed the death sentence on the 16th of October, we do not understand why our country, our beloved Pakistan, is so against us. Our family has always lived here in peace, and we never had any disturbance. We are Christians but we respect Islam. Our neighbors are Muslims and we have always lived well with them in our little village. But for some years now the situation in Pakistan has changed because of just a few people, and we are afraid. Today many of our Muslim friends cannot understand why the Pakistani justice system is making our family suffer so much.
We are now trying our best to present the final case to the Supreme Court before the 4th of December. But we are convinced that Asia will only be saved from being hanged if the venerable President Mammon Hussain grants her a pardon. No one should be killed for drinking a glass of water.
Breaking news today: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is leaving the Obama administration. The NY Times reports that Hagel is the first casualty from the Democrats’ massive defeat on Nov. 4.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is stepping down under pressure, the first cabinet-level casualty of the collapse of President Obama’s Democratic majority in the Senate and a beleaguered national security team that has struggled to stay ahead of an onslaught of global crises.
The president, who is expected to announce Mr. Hagel’s resignation in a Rose Garden appearance on Monday, made the decision to ask his defense secretary — the sole Republican on his national security team — to step down last Friday after a series of meetings over the past two weeks, senior administration officials said.
Hagel has “struggled to fit in” with Obama’s close circle of advisers, according to the Times, and initiated talks over his future in October.
Hagel’s departure will be announced in the White House Rose Garden this afternoon.
Hagel was the lone Republican left in Obama’s national security team. He got off to a disheartening start at Defense, in incoherent confirmation hearings. Hagel has presided over a sharp rise in the Islamic State threat, a threat that he and President Obama publicly saw very differently.
He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad. Mr. Hagel, facing reporters in his now-familiar role next to General Dempsey, called the Islamic State an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding, “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.” White House officials later said they viewed those comments as unhelpful, although the administration still appears to be struggling to define just how large is the threat posed by the Islamic State.
Possible replacements include former undersecretary of defense Michèle Flournoy, Democrat Sen. Jack Reed (RI), and former deputy defense secretary Ashton Carter, according to the Times.
IJReview picked up on one of the funniest SNL sketches in recent (a.k.a. post-original cast) history. It was a Schoolhouse Rock! parody that aired last night, mocking Obama’s latest immigration-related executive order and complete disregard for the constitutional process:
It starts out with the familiar boy climbing the steps of Capitol Hill and asking what kind of bill is on the Hill with him. The bill responds with a jingle that he is an “immigration bill” and that he hopes he can be passed into law someday.
Cue the President shoving the bill down the stairs before inviting his buddy, the cigarette smoking “executive order,” into the picture.
The boy exclaims in bewilderment that what the President is doing is unconstitutional, but the executive order just laughs at the boy’s belief that he still thinks that is how government works.
The sketch may be tongue-in-cheek payback on the part of NBC after being snubbed by the president, whose administration just so happened not to request air time from the Big 4 to announce his executive order plans in prime time. Dubbed “The Commander-in-Chief of MSNBC,” Obama has employed his “heckler’s veto” multiple times in the past, and Saturday Night Live sketches were far from immune. Last night’s humor is obviously a sampling of what can happen when Tina Fey no longer manages the Obama campaign from its 30 Rock location.
Despite the president’s latest appearance on Univision and Telemundo, the majority of Latino voters disagree with his executive order and rate amnesty low on their list of priorities:
By a margin of 56 percent to 40 percent, Hispanic voters oppose allowing illegal immigrants to obtain federal benefits, including Obamacare benefits, “while they are going through the legalization process and before the 90% goal is reached.”
When asked to choose which of four issues — the economy, immigration reform, education, or health care — is most important to them, registered Hispanic voters said immigration reform was their lowest priority. Just 31 percent ranked the issue first or second, compared with 62 percent for the economy, 57 percent for health care, and 45 percent for education. Non-registered voters, on the other hand, ranked immigration reform as their highest priority.
Apparently SNL did a better job of marketing to a new target demographic than the Big-O.
Watch the video on the next page.
We noted earlier that Boehner wasted no time in raining on Obama’s parade.
Well, it worked.
President Barack Obama defended his decision to bypass Congress and overhaul U.S. immigration policy on his own on Friday, saying he was forced to act because House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner would not let legislation come to a vote.
With many Americans skeptical of his decision to bypass Congress and impose an immigration overhaul unilaterally, Obama attempted to rally support for his move in a speech at a Las Vegas high school, saying illegal immigrants need a chance to come out of the shadows.
He engaged in a cross-country debate with Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, who accused Obama in Washington of sabotaging chances for bipartisan legislation and vowed to lead a fight to block his executive actions.
As a long-time Boehner detractor, it’s been a relief to write a couple of things praising him. It would be nice to see the Republicans take the victory handed to them by the American people and be as forceful as legally possible to slow down a president who is likely to become more unhinged as his celebrity in-chief days wind down. (Think of America as the Michael Douglas character in Fatal Attraction and President Obama as Glenn Close: HE WON’T BE IGNORED.)
In the past, Boehner has talked about common ground with the president on immigration reform. This toddler fit of Obama’s seems to have genuinely irritated him. If he remains irritated, the president’s executive exercises may not yield the results he wants.
Medical professionals and school staff missed multiple opportunities to help Adam Lanza with his severe emotional and psychiatric disorders before he burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, 2012, and shot dead 20 children and six educators, a Connecticut state review panel has concluded.
The Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate released a lengthy report Friday detailing Lanza’s troubled history and recommending systemic changes in the public health system to better identify and support children with multiple mental health challenges.
But the authors cautioned against drawing a direct line from Lanza’s mental illness — or the inadequate response to his needs — to the brutality at Sandy Hook. “Authors do not conclude that [these factors] add up to an inevitable arc leading to mass murder,” they write.
The “inevitable arc” statement is nonsensical. There will never be a way to look at a set of behavioral factors and claim that they will inevitably lead to a certain outcome. It’s a dodge. Yes, this is a guessing game but it is supposed to be a well-informed guessing game. If the information isn’t treated seriously enough to at least consider a tragic outcome then everyone has failed.
This kid was telegraphing some sort of meltdown for quite a long time and it was ignored. In many (most?) recent mass murders this has been the case. Mass murderers are sociopaths, and that’s not something you just wake up with one day. Somewhere after the fiftieth or sixtieth red flag, the professionals need to take serious note and whatever action they can, rather than just leave it up to subjective parental decisions and hope for the best.
“All year long I have warned the president that by … threatening action repeatedly on immigration, he was making it impossible to build the trust necessary to work together,” Boehner told reporters. “With this action, the president has chosen to deliberately sabotage any chance of … bipartisan reform that he claims to seek.”
Boehner didn’t need a to offer specific counter-proposal at this time. Legislation is, after all, more complicated than executive action. What he needed to do was point out that the president is subverting the process and getting things off to a bad start with the new Congress, which he did.
As the president goes forward with more petulant executive overreach, it will be interesting to see if Democrats are emboldened or annoyed by it.
Freed from the constraints of having to torture the English language to justify Barack Obama’s actions, Jay Carney wound up telling some truth last night.
The president’s former spokesman appeared on CNN, and host Anderson Cooper did something that’s really unfair. He played clips of Obama’s previous statements denouncing what Obama did last night regarding immigration, and asked Carney to respond directly to them.
That didn’t leave Carney much wiggle room, and he admitted that Obama has committed a flip flop on immigration.
COOPER: “I just want to play again the president’s past comments on this because there is a stark distinction between what he said tonight and what he had said in the past. Let’s just look at some of his commentary.”
OBAMA: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.
…I can’t do it by myself. We are going to have to change the laws in Congress.
…The notion that somehow by myself I can go and do these things, it any just not true.
…What I have said is that there is a path to get this done. That’s through Congress.
…I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”
COOPER: “So, I mean, other than his frustration, what has changed — constitution scholar. What changed to allow him to do this?”
CARNEY: “Here’s what I say. I think, If he could have the word back, the first clip where he talked about suspending deportations. That is literally what he is doing today. In, later — instances including when I was there he would speak carefully about what he could not do as president.”
Barack Obama has proven over and over again that he simply does not care and will not be bound by any of his previous statements. He does not care about lying, and cares even less when he is caught. Obama lied through his teeth when he promised that “If you like your healthcare/doctor, you can keep your healthcare/doctor.” He knew it was a lie at the time, and that his law would hurt the people he was lying to. But he lied anyway.
As the new Republican-controlled Congress and state governments grapple with Obama’s actions and consider what remedies they may deploy, it’s time to absorb one critical lesson. That lesson is: Never give the Democrats a nanometer, never mind an inch. The 1986 amnesty that President Reagan signed was controversial at the time, but it followed a true national debate on the matter and it depended on the Democrats following through on their obligation to increase border security. They reneged on that promise almost immediately. That fact is not finding its way into media reporting now. It ought to, because it explains much of the skepticism that many Americans have toward any alleged immigration reform now. Once bitten, twice shy, as the saying goes. In Obama’s case, it’s more than 30 times bitten, thanks to his unilateral re-writes of Obamacare for obviously political reasons.
But the 1986 amnesty law itself and the subsequent efforts to clean it up are being used, dishonestly and with malice in mind, to justify Obama’s action now. Republicans worked with Democrats on that law 28 years ago. The Democrats’ response ever since, and especially now, is to pocket what they gained, break their own promises, and give Republicans, American workers, and the rule of law a giant middle finger.
Utah has a unique history with firing squad executions. The state used gunmen to execute Gary Gilmore in 1977, the first inmate put to death after the Supreme Court lifted a five-year moratorium on capital punishment. For years, it’s been one of just two states to allow the method as an option for inmates. And now, state legislators are looking to make it the default practice if lethal injection drugs are unavailable.
On Wednesday, the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee voted 9-2 in approving legislation that would bring back firing squads in executions. The bill, which will likely head to the full legislature early next year, would mandate a court hearing prior to an execution, in which a judge would determine whether the state had sufficient drugs to carry out lethal injection. If the judge ruled that drugs were lacking, a firing squad would be mandated; according to the Salt Lake Tribune, State Rep. Paul Ray says the state currently doesn’t have them.
Who knew there was a lethal injection drug shortage? I blame Obamacare.
If there are any more glitches with lethal injection executions should that continue to be the default method. Firing squads may be messy, but their brutally quick efficiency is well documented.
Well, that’s mostly because Chuck Todd kept asking questions about it and NPR is reporting on Chuck Todd’s questions. Also, they polled some Hispanic voters (but not all voters).
Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker bristled at Todd’s repeated questions on immigration. “Scott’s tried. I’ve tried,” Jindal said. “I’d like to talk about energy. I’d like to talk about education.”
Walker maintains that while immigration may be important, it was not an issue that came up in his campaign or in many other states. Walker said of immigration, “If you went out on the campaign trail with us, none of us heard this issue in our races. And I dare say it probably wasn’t one of the top issues in most United States Senate or House races out there.”
If immigration didn’t rank as a top issue in most governors’ races, it does with a group that’s growing in importance in the U.S. — Hispanics. A recent Gallup poll shows immigration ranks as the second most important issue among Hispanics after the economy.
While this isn’t as ludicrous as the repeated questions about banning contraceptives that MSM hacks asked during the 2012 GOP primaries, it’s the same principle. Republican governors have a lot to crow about but Chuckie was determined to keep them focused on The Idiot King’s priorities. These governors know that what their constituents find important is quite often very different from what the press says said constituents find important.
That’s why they won.
Judicial Watch reports that the Obama administration has turned over about 42,000 pages of documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal. The administration was forced to turn the documents over to Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Judicial Watch is posting them on its web site. The administration turned them over on November 18, 2014.
One of the documents provides smoking gun proof that the Obama White House and the Eric Holder Justice Department colluded to get CBS News to block reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was one of the few mainstream media reporters who paid any attention to the deadly gun-running scandal.
In an email dated October 4, 2011, Attorney General Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, called Attkisson “out of control.” Schmaler told White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz that he intended to call CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer to get the network to stop Attkisson.
Schultz replied, “Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”
Schultz also told Schmaler that he was working with reporter Susan Davis, then at the National Journal, to target Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA). Issa led the House investigation into Fast and Furious. Davis now works at USA Today. In the email chain, Schultz tells Schmaler that he would provide Davis with “leaks.”
Davis wrote a critical piece on Issa a few weeks later.
Attkisson was later subjected to hacking of her computer by people who remain unknown, but who likely belong to a government agency. She and CBS parted ways earlier in 2014, and Attkisson has since said that the network blocked her reports from airing.
Flashback: In April 2014, Attkisson appeared on Fox with Bill O’Reilly. According to Attkisson, CBS “felt the story was over” long before she had gotten to the bottom of it, so the network stopped her. She tells O’Reilly that CBS ran “hot and cold” on her stories about Fast and Furious and Benghazi, and would switch from being supportive to acting like they did not want her to bring her stories on those topics anymore.
…by convincing a majority of Americans that it’s not the federal government’s duty to provide healthcare. Gallup finds that opinion has flipped since Obama’s first election to the presidency.
PRINCETON, N.J. — For the third consecutive year, a majority of Americans (52%) agree with the position that it is not the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all Americans have healthcare coverage. Prior to the start of Barack Obama’s presidency in 2009, a majority of Americans consistently took the opposite view.
The most recent data were collected in Gallup’s annual Health and Healthcare poll, conducted Nov. 6-9. Gallup first asked this question in 2000, when 59% of Americans said it was the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare. This sentiment peaked at 69% in 2006. Americans’ attitudes began to shift in the 2008 poll, conducted just after Obama was elected, and became evenly divided after Obama took office in 2009. During this time, Republicans and independents became more likely to say universal healthcare was not the government’s responsibility, most probably in reaction to Obama’s campaign promise that he was going to attempt to do just that. This non-government-involvement view became more pronounced in 2012 and has been the majority opinion in the U.S. over the past three years.
The Obama administration’s pattern of dishonesty has surely helped spur the switch. For the latest on that, Bloomberg reports that the administration fudged the most recent Obamacare enrollment numbers.
The Obama administration included as many as 400,000 dental plans in a number it reported for enrollments under the Affordable Care Act, an unpublicized detail that helped surpass a goal for 7 million sign-ups.
Without the dental plans, the federal government would have had 6.97 million people with medical insurance under the law known as Obamacare, investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform committee calculated, using data they obtained from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Federal officials said in September they had 7.3 million people enrolled in coverage through new government-run insurance exchanges. They didn’t distinguish between medical and dental plans, breaking from previous practice without notice.
It’s just lies and deceptions all the way down, from the “most transparent administration in American history.”
Sure, let’s go with that, Champ.
Shivering under up to 6 feet of snow in its hardest-hit sections, Buffalo, New York, could see another 3 feet Thursday.
If the forecast holds, that’s more than a year’s worth of snow in just three days. In a typical year, Buffalo’s snowfall totals about 7 feet, according to the National Weather Service.
The extreme conditions have led to tragedy in and around Buffalo. Eight people have died, including four who suffered cardiac issues while they shoveled snow and one who died in a car accident, Erie County officials reported. A man in his 60s had a heart attack while he tried to move a snow plow or a snow blower, Erie County deputy executive Richard Tobe said Thursday.
While Buffalo may be getting hit the hardest, this pre-Thanksgiving early winter delivery from Mother Nature continues in many parts of the country.
“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . . Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
–President Barack Obama, 7/25/11
Nearly half of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s expected plan to take executive action that would potentially allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay legally in the United States, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Forty-eight percent oppose Obama taking executive action on immigration — which could come as soon as later this week — while 38 percent support it; another 14 percent have no opinion or are unsure.
After his party’s historic losses, [Obama] refused to even acknowledge the thrashing. Instead, he said the real lesson from that day was that Americans want everyone in Washington to “work together.”
Yet behind the scenes, the president was busy directing his team of lawyers to find real or perceived loopholes in the law — even the Constitution — in order to wave his royal scepter and instantaneously turn as many as 12 million illegal aliens into America citizens. Already he had quietly ordered the federal government to stop deporting aliens and unilaterally allowed some 60,000 “unaccompanied minors” to enter the U.S.
So he never had any intention of “working together” with Republicans, who in six weeks will control both chambers of Congress. Instead, he set off to circumvent Congress by granting amnesty to millions. Throughout, he knew that he would be, as GOP leaders said, “poisoning the well” and “waving a red flag in front of a bull.”
University of Virginia law professor David Martin is a Democrat and a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform who served as principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration’s first two years.
“For Democrats, it’s a dangerous precedent,” he told me. “You’re opening the possibility for a Republican president to say, I’m not going to go forward with enforcement in a number of areas.”
Call it woman power, call it feminism, and you’d be right. Turns out that old story about the mother who is able to lift a car to save her trapped baby has a new application. Now we can tell the story of the Dutch mother, who goes only by the name “Monique,” who blew past the authorities and went straight into the heart of hell to rescue her daughter Aicha from the grip of Islamic terror.
“Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do,” the brave mother said. “This is what I think is right.”
At 18, Aicha converted to Islam and married a notorious Dutch jihadi named Omar Yilmaz, the Telegraph reports.
The young woman had fallen in love with the Islamic State militant and his lifestyle after seeing him interviewed on television. But as time passed, Aicha felt she had made a huge mistake.
“She wanted to go home, but could not leave Raqqa without help,” Monique said.
Authorities in the Netherlands urged the mom to stay home because it was too risky to try and get her back personally.
But once Aicha reached out to her mother last month for help, Monique decided to take off for Syria.
Donning a black burka to blend in, she made her way through Turkey and into the ISIS stronghold, where she met her daughter after coordinating a rendezvous through Facebook.
The pair crossed back over the Syrian border into Turkey, but since Aicha did not have a passport, she was promptly arrested along with her mother, according to the Telegraph.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Turkey is now mediating their return home and expects that the two will be back in the Netherlands within the week.
Okay Hollywood, where’s the movie deal? Better yet, let a counterculture conservative get their hands on the story and “let their right brain run free.” While Emma Watson trolls UN podiums and Beyonce flails around in front of flashy signs, Monique the Mom single-handedly changed the face of Western feminism in the way only a parent could. Not only did she dismiss every argument against motherhood with a wave of her hand, she bravely confronted what contemporary feminists seemingly cannot: The fact that radical Islam abuses women.
Obama speaks on immigration via Univision in 2012.
President Barack Obama will finally make public tomorrow night his plan to overhaul immigration. However, while his primetime speech will postpone part of Univision’s 15th annual Latin Grammys, it will not be covered by the Big 4.
…Although Obama’s speech will be seen on cable news siblings Fox News and MSNBC, Fox and NBC are not carrying it live on their broadcast networks; CNN will show it live. A CBS News division spokesperson says the network will also not be showing Obama’s approximately 15-minute address on Thursday night. (UPDATE, 2:34 PM: An ABC spokesman “ABC is not carrying the president’s address on the television network — it will be carried on all our ABC News digital platforms, including Apple TV, and radio.” Which means it is still Shondaland on ABC on Thursday.)
In the biz that’s called “target marketing.” In politics, it’s called playing to your demographic. In America, it’s called race-baiting.
Keep it classy, B.O.
The White House is exasperated with the major broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC — for skipping out on President Barack Obama’s Thursday primetime address on his executive actions on immigration.
“In 2006, Bush gave a 17 minute speech that was televised by all three networks that was about deploying 6000 national guard troops to the border. Obama is making a 10 minute speech that will have a vastly greater impact on the issue. And none of the networks are doing it. We can’t believe they were aggrieved that we announced this on Facebook,” a senior administration official told POLITICO.
When the president wants to make a primetime address, White House officials will reach out to the big networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS, to gauge whether they would consider running the speech live before putting in a formal request for airtime.
But on Wednesday morning, with plans underway for a Thursday night address on Obama’s plans to issue executive actions on some of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades, those feelers came back with a negative report. None of the major networks wanted to take time away from their primetime programming for Obama’s 8p.m. speech. So the administration did not send out a formal request to the networks and took to Facebook to publicize the speech with a special video message from Obama along with a link to the livestream.
It’s delicious to see that even the some of the lapdogs are weary of the Team Lightbringer shtick. President Obama is flexing his ego with this ill-advised move. The only transparency that this administration has ever been able to muster is that surrounding the president’s petulance when he lashes out.
For a man who only wanted the celebrity that goes with the presidency and none of the responsibility, it has to sting when he’s being ignored by the very people who put him in office.
It is easy to understand the networks’ decision. They’re not only bored with President Obama, they have to rest up to make Hillary Clinton seem likable for two years.
Find out ….
How “stupid,” to use Jonathan Gruber’s word for Obamacare supporters, are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
Both of them were among the most powerful people in America not too long ago. Pelosi was the first woman Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Reid is still the Senate Majority Leader, for now.
President Barack Obama’s handling of the office of the presidency has cost both Pelosi and Reid most of their power. After January, both will be the leaders of a rump, largely regional party that holds fewer seats now than at any other time since the Hoover administration. Sharper minds would notice that Obama is to blame. They might even reject his entreaties.
Yet the two partisan dullards are set to have dinner with Obama tonight, a dinner that Obama will conduct under the romantic lighting of watching the Constitution burn. The dinner comes on the eve of Obama’s unilateral and unprecedented amnesty executive order.
Obama has invited Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the leaders of the congressional Asian, Black and Hispanic caucuses, said the aides, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the plans.
No Republicans allowed, of course. Republicans hold the majority of power in the country thanks in part to Obama, but he has not summoned any of them into his presence.
Elizabeth Warren, in her first major public speech since being elevated to the Democratic leadership in the Senate, slammed Republicans on education, job creation and other economic policies, warning Wednesday that “the American Dream is slipping out of reach.”
“We must fight back with everything we have,” Warren told a gathering hosted by the Center for American Progress in Washington. “The game is rigged but we know how to fix it. We know what to do. We tested the Republican ideas and they failed. They failed spectacularly there’s no denying that fact.”
As a science fiction fan, I have always hoped that evidence of parallel dimensions would show up during my lifetime and it would appear that the Democrats have been giving it to me for the last couple of weeks. They don’t seem to understand just how overwhelming their defeat was in this last election and that it was a rejection of their ideas, which are the ones that have been tested in this universe.
Warren even managed to tie taxpayer spending on high speed rail to the American Dream, which couldn’t possibly have involved any sort of thought process.
There isn’t an American alive who wakes up hoping for a better life through direct or indirect taxation, that’s the “Progressive Dream” and only the fevered fringes of American politics are having it.
For those who think she isn’t running for 2016, this is pretty much boilerplate Democrat presidential rhetoric. There’s always a lot of “fight” and “dream” talk, as well as scary stories about what the Republicans are doing to the middle class. In the politically diseased minds of progressives, the middle class will get better if it spends a lot more on health care premiums and pays for high speed rail to get to the poor house.
Scratch the parallel dimension idea, maybe they’re merely concussed.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has moved quickly to offer Republicans a plan to fight President Obama’s unilateral immigration amnesty.
Writing for Politico, Cruz says that “the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American People. The Democrats suffered historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the President’s executive amnesty.” Sen. Cruz notes that “Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the President threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally.”
The question is, what can Congress do about it?
Cruz has an idea.
If the President announces executive amnesty, the new Senate Majority Leader who takes over in January should announce that the 114th Congress will not confirm a single nominee–executive or judicial–outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists.
This is a potent tool given to Congress by the Constitution explicitly to act as a check on executive power. It is a constitutional power of the Majority Leader alone, and it would serve as a significant deterrent to a lawless President.
Additionally, the new Congress should exercise the power of the purse by passing individual appropriations bills authorizing critical functions of government and attaching riders to strip the authority from the president to grant amnesty.
Sen. Cruz warns that Obama will threaten to shut the government down over any funding measures that Congress takes, but by working on the funding piecemeal, responsibility for any shutdowns would rest with the president.