PJ Tatler

The PJ Tatler

Should Christians Arm Themselves?

Sunday, October 4th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

In the wake of the latest instance of an evil man opening fire upon helpless, unarmed people — in which Christians were singled out for instant death — the lieutenant governor of Tennessee has an idea:

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey said in a Facebook posting Friday that “fellow Christians” should consider getting a handgun carry permit after the mass shooting in Oregon. Survivors told authorities the gunman demanded at least some of the victims state their religion before shooting them at a community college.

In his posting, Ramsey, also the Tennessee state Senate speaker, called recent U.S. mass shootings “truly troubling.” “I would encourage my fellow Christians who are serious about their faith to think about getting a handgun carry permit,” Ramsey wrote. “I have always believed that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise.”

As the saying goes, God helps those who help themselves.

Do Civilians with Guns Ever Stop Mass Shootings?


Read bullet | 21 Comments »

Chick-fil-A Arrives in New York, Gays, Animal-Rights Nuts Hardest Hit

Sunday, October 4th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

Can you imagine this happening even ten years ago? This is the pace of “social change” in the seventh year of the reign of the Emperor Hussein:

A highly adored and highly controversial fast food chain satisfied cravings and ruffled a few feathers Saturday with the grand opening of its first official Manhattan outpost. Chick-Fil-A, the massively popular Southern staple owned by a conservative Christian family known for their anti-gay marriage views, hatched a 5,000-square-foot store in Herald Square to mixed reviews from fervent devotees and activists.

“This is the best chicken in the world, in my opinion.” said Dana Kelly, 25, after devouring an original chicken sandwich with waffle fries. “It was completely worth it. It’s like nothing else.” Thousands of hungry, and soggy, fast food fanatics braved the bad weather to get a taste of the chain’s signature sandwiches. A few hundred even camped out overnight. Hours after the doors opened, a 20-minute-long line still stretched down W. 37th St. from the front doors on Sixth Ave.

But not everyone outside the new sandwich shop Saturday was there for a taste of chicken. “I was very shocked by the amount of people lining up to support this company,” said Lila Trenkova, a founder of Collectively Free, an animal and gay rights activist group. “I think that it’s ignorance rather than people actually not caring.” Trenkova and about two dozen others staged a demonstration outside the three-story behemoth to protest Chick-Fil-A’s history as a conservative-owned chicken palace.

Ha ha ha. But please note how the dying New York Daily News characterized the chain: “known for their anti-gay marriage views.” In fact, the views of the religiously conservative owners are “pro-traditional marriage.” But these days, to be on the same side of the issue that President Obama was until about five minutes ago is construed as “hate.”

The 10 Best Fast Food Restaurants

Read bullet | 53 Comments »

Trump: Middle East Would Be More Stable if Saddam, Gaddafi Were Still in Power

Sunday, October 4th, 2015 - by Rick Moran

Donald Trump flashed his non-interventionist foreign policy credentials on Sunday, staking out a firm position against establishment candidates who favor a more active role for the U.S. military in the Middle East.

On Meet the Press, Trump said that the Middle East would be a more stable place today if the dictators Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi were still in power.

Trump mentioned the countries in comparison to current efforts to drive Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power.

“You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there, it’s a mess,” Trump said on NBC.

“If you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there, it’s a mess. It’s going to be the same thing” in Syria, he said.

Asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd if the Middle East would be more stable with Gaddafi and Saddam in power, Trump replied, “Of course it would be.”

Trump, who leads the field of Republicans seeking the presidency in the November 2016 election in public opinion polls, has said he supports Russian efforts to fight Islamic State militants, even though Russia has backed Assad.

Trump said last week Assad might be replaced by someone worse if he were ousted.

Trump’s statement is one legitimate argument about “stability” in the Middle East — an ill-defined concept in a turbulent region. One can also make the argument that Hussein and Gaddafi were destabilizing influences in the Middle East by themselves and the difference between them being in power or out of power is the body count. They were murdering plenty of their own people while they were in power and Saddam threatened his neighbors, so the notion that “stability” would have been served if they remained is seductive but hardly probative.

Both arguments are academic. Arguing counterfactual outcomes to history is an exercise in futility. No one knows what would have happened if we didn’t fight a war with either Libya or Iraq. One or both leaders could have been assassinated. They might have been overthrown. The ingredients for civil war were present in both countries, making arguments of the type made by Trump interesting, but impossible to prove.

More to the point, Trump’s arguments go against the grain of Republican orthodoxy. In fact, Trump sounds positively Rand Paulian in his argument for non-intervention. Is this really the temper of Republican voters?

Perhaps not a majority of Republicans, but the American people are far warier of committing the military to adventures — especially in the Middle East. In this way, Trump has accurately taken the temperature of the voters and will no doubt benefit from the contrast with interventionist Republicans like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush.

Read bullet | 46 Comments »

Chaffetz Running for Speaker of the House, Says He Can Unite Caucus

Sunday, October 4th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

The race for speaker of the House got a shakeup today as the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced he will run for the post being vacated by retiring John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was critical of presumed front-runner Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) comments linking the Benghazi investigation to Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.

“I am running for Speaker of the House of Representatives because I want to lead the way on tackling the toughest issues facing the United States of America,” Chaffetz said in a statement this morning.

“The American people have entrusted Republicans with the largest majority since the 1920’s, but with that majority comes a responsibility to get the job done that we were elected to do,” he added. “I came to Congress to help fix problems, and as Speaker I will fight every day to make that happen. I look forward to sharing my vision for the Speakership with my colleagues and the American people.”

Chaffetz, 48, was first elected in 2008, giving him two fewer years of congressional experience than McCarthy. He slept on a cot in his office when he came to the Hill to convey a message of fiscal responsibility.

“I’m very supportive of Kevin McCarthy, but those statements are just absolutely inappropriate, they should be withdrawn, Mr. McCarthy should apologize,” Chaffetz slammed McCarthy last week on MSNBC. “I just — I think it was absolutely wrong. It’s not — once upon a time it was myself and Trey Gowdy that were working on the Benghazi effort. It’s grown and expanded because we want to get to truth.”

“But to suggest that there was any sort of political motivation is absolutely — it’s not fair to Mr. Gowdy, it’s not fair to myself. And most importantly it’s not fair to those four families who lost those loved ones. That’s not why we’re doing this.”

McCarthy did backtrack his comments, telling Fox, “I did not imply in any way that that work is political, of course it is not. Look at the way they have carried themselves out.”

Chaffetz told Fox News Sunday this morning that his support for McCarthy dissipated because “things have changed and there’s really a math problem.”

“You need 218 votes on the floor of the House. There’s 246 Republicans that will vote, but there are nearly 50 people and a growing number that will not and cannot vote for Kevin McCarthy as the speaker on the floor. He’s going to fall short of the 218 votes on the floor of House,” Chaffetz said.

He stressed that McCarthy has majority of the conference support to win the closed-door secret ballot on Thursday. “But in many ways it doesn’t matter because the real vote is when you call that name out in front of everybody on the floor of the House.”

“But I just don’t believe that the nominee, if it’s Kevin McCarthy can actually get to 218,” Chaffetz continued. “That’s why I’ve offer myself as a candidate to try to bridge that divide. I think those 50-plus people find I’m a fair, even-balanced person, that I can bridge that divide between — there are more centrist members and some of the more far right-wing members. That’s why I’ve entered this race.”

Over the summer, Chaffetz stripped Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the insurgency against Boehner, of his Oversight subcommittee chairmanship as punishment for defying House leadership on fast-track trade authority.

“I think I learned from that lesson. That you’re not going to do things by cutting people off at the knees. I think I was a good leader and that I listened for an hour and 40 minds with my committee and reconsidered that decision,” he said this morning.

“We’ve got to win the argument and make case, not just knock people over the head if they don’t what we want to do. So, it’s a lesson learned. I think I’m better for it, and I think Mark is better for it, and we’re certainly good friends on this day.”

Chaffetz also responded to critics who charged he spent more time at the Planned Parenthood hearing talking about the organization’s finances with not enough questions about body-parts trafficking.

“We don’t have all the videos yet, but I do think it’s legitimate for a not-for-profit organization to question how they spend money. Exorbitant salaries, first class travel, charter airplane, they’re sending money overseas. These are not things that a not-for-profit needs,” he said.

“$127 million more in revenues than expenses and they want more federal money? I think we can tackle it both on trafficking in fetal body parts, but also about the finances.”

The only other name in the ring for speaker of the House is Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), who unsuccessfully challenged Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) earlier this year and received the support of 11 colleagues.

The full House vote will be at the end of this month.

Read bullet | Comments »

Confusion Surrounding U.S. Attack on Kunduz Hospital Run by Aid Group

Sunday, October 4th, 2015 - by Rick Moran

There are conflicting reports about a tragic incident in Kunduz, Afghanistan, where a hospital run by the medical charity Doctors Without Borders was bombed early Saturday morning.

The Afghan government claims that there were Taliban fighters in the hospital firing on their troops. DWB says the facility had been secured earlier in the evening and there was no way any of the Taliban could have used the hospital for cover.

Then there’s this NBC News video that appears to show automatic weapons in the windows of the burned-out hospital.

Twelve Doctors Without Borders staff along with seven patients, including three children, were killed after an apparent U.S. airstrike hit the international charity’s hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz.

Another 37 others were injured in the strike: 19 staff members, including five in critical condition, and 18 patients and caretakers, according to Jason Cone, the executive director for Doctors Without Borders in the U.S. The organization didn’t comment on the identities of the victims, but said all international staffers were alive and accounted for.

Coalition spokesman Col. Brian Tribus confirmed that a U.S. airstrike conducted at around 2:15 a.m. local time on Saturday (5:45 p.m. ET Friday) “may have caused collateral damage to a nearby health facility.” The incident was being investigated, he added.

Tribus said the bombing was targeting “individuals threatening the force.” The U.S. Embassy later described it as a “tragic incident.”

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said in a statement that U.S. forces, Afghan Security Force and Taliban fighters have all been active in the area surrounding the hospital, and “we are still trying to determine exactly what happened.”

Doctors Without Borders wants an independent inquiry into the tragedy:

“(The bombing) constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law,” said Doctors Without Borders, which is known internationally as Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF.

The bombardments continued even after U.S. and Afghan military officials were notified the hospital was being attacked, the charity said.

The White House released a statement from President Barack Obama offering condolences to the charity from Americans.

“The Department of Defense has launched a full investigation, and we will await the results of that inquiry before making a definitive judgment as to the circumstances of this tragedy,” the President said. “I … expect a full accounting of the facts and circumstances.”

But Christopher Stokes, MSF’s general director, told CNN that an independent inquiry was needed.

“We need an investigation that’s as independent and as transparent as possible, and we don’t only want the findings to be shared, we want — as well — to be able to read the full report,” he said.

“(T)he results of this investigation are I think important for us but also for the ability of humanitarian actors to continue working and provide lifesaving assistance in Afghanistan.”

The NATO mission in Afghanistan issued a statement saying it had directed a “preliminary multinational investigation known as a Casualty Assessment Team.”

“We anticipate having the results of this initial assessment in a matter of days. Additionally, the U.S. military has opened a formal investigation, headed by a General Officer, to conduct a thorough and comprehensive inquiry,” it said.

Does anyone think the U.S. deliberately targeted a hospital regardless of whether the Taliban was present or not? Apparently, the UN Human Rights chief is entertaining that notion:

“This deeply shocking event should be promptly, thoroughly and independently investigated and the results should be made public,” he said, according to a U.N. statement issued Saturday. “The seriousness of the incident is underlined by the fact that, if established as deliberate in a court of law, an airstrike on a hospital may amount to a war crime.”

Meanwhile, in Syria, Russia is, indeed, deliberately targeting civilians, using unguided ordnance (“dumb bombs”) on urban centers guaranteed to inflict maximum casualties on innocents. And in Yemen, the Saudis recently broke up a wedding party by dropping a few bombs on the festivities, killing at least 131 civilians.

The outrage directed at Russia and the Saudis has been pretty much pro-forma to this point, highlighting the appalling double standard when it comes to blaming America when unintended civilian casualties occur.

Read bullet | 12 Comments »

Hillary Believes Gays Booted From Military Should Receive Honorable Discharges

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 - by Rick Moran

Hillary Clinton proposed on Saturday that the military records of gays, lesbians, and transgenders who were kicked out of the military be amended to show they received honorable discharges.

This is a major bone tossed to one of the most important Democratic Party constituencies — an indication that Clinton believes her support of gay rights gives her a leg up on her challengers for the nomination.

Washington Post:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is over, but that doesn’t change the fact that more than 14,000 men and women were forced out of the military for being gay, some long before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell even existed,” Clinton said, referring to the 1993 law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve in the military if they did not reveal their sexual orientation.

“They were given less than honorable discharges,” Hillary Clinton said. “I can’t think of a better way to thank those men and women for their service than by upgrading their service records.”

Addressing the influential gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, Clinton thanked gay rights activists for their strong support over her political career and was frank about her own change of heart about gay marriage.

“You helped changed a lot of minds, including mine,” Clinton said to applause. “I personally am very grateful for that.”

Politically active gay and lesbian people are an important constituency for Democrats, in no small measure because of strong financial support for Democratic candidates. Clinton has held several lucrative fundraising parties at the homes of gay supporters this year.

She pledged Saturday to build on the Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing marriage equality, and got in a few digs at Republicans for opposing the expansion of gay rights and legal protections.

“I see the injustices and the dangers you and your families still face, and I am running for president to end them once and for all,” she said to cheers and chants of “Hill-a-ry, Hill-a-ry.”

Someone better versed in military history might be able to come up with a similar case, but I’ve never heard of such retroactive relief for personnel who were clearly in violation of the military code at the time of their discharge. I’m sure there have been individual cases over the years where, after appeal, the status of a discharge was reversed, but an entire class of people?

How far back would the retroactive relief be effective? And what of gay soldiers and sailors who may have committed other transgressions? Rather than issuing blanket honorable discharges, perhaps a process could be created for individual reviews based on the new rules in the code of conduct. That would be fairer to those serving today.

Read bullet | 23 Comments »

New Education Secretary a Big Supporter of Common Core

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 - by Rick Moran

John King, former education commissioner for the state of New York, has been tapped by President Obama to head up the Department of Education.  King replaces Arne Duncan, who is resigning to go back to Chicago.

King was incredibly unpopular in New York for pushing Common Core on school districts.  He even enraged the teachers’  unions, who called for his resignation.  Instead, Obama is going to impose this radical on the rest of the country.


The fall of 2013 was arguably the most difficult period of King’s three-and-a-half year tenure as education commissioner in New York, where, as the state’s first black and first Latino schools chief, he led the implementation of the Common Core standards, controversial state exams aligned to the more difficult material, and teacher performance evaluations based partially on the tests.

After the Oct. 10, 2013, assembly devolved into chaos, King canceled (and subsequently rescheduled under pressure) the rest of his planned statewide tour, accusing “special interests” of co-opting the raucous crowd.

Teachers’ unions, parent groups and some state lawmakers called for King’s resignation. The state’s powerful teachers’ union later held a no-confidence vote to make official their feelings about him. A parent-led and union-boosted testing boycott movement began under his leadership, and subsequently exploded.

Throughout the public unrest and political jockeying, King remained staunchly committed to the Common Core and related reforms. With an even temper and soft, academic speaking style, he framed education reform as a civil rights issuearguing that raising standards and holding teachers and schools accountable for students’ performance are the only ways to heal an educational system that fails so many children — particularly poor black and Latino boys.

King, 40, is a Brooklyn native who had a difficult childhood and went on to earn degrees from Harvard, Yale and Columbia universities. He later founded a national charter school chain before becoming New York’s youngest schools chief.

He left the New York State education department at the end of last year — to the undisguised delight of his critics — for a federal role. Since January, he has served as a senior adviser to U.S. education secretary Arne Duncan, who the president announced on Friday will be stepping down. King plans to serve for the remainder of the president’s second term.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that the president would name this polarizing radical to run the Department of Education.  Viewing education through a racial lens is in keeping with the president’s worldview about the rest of the United States, so King should fit in comfortably with the rest of Obama’s cabinet.

We can expect a greater push by the federal government to impose Common Cores standards on all school districts.  Resistance will not be tolerated, as parent groups and even teachers’ unions will be shunted aside in order to nationalize education.

The transformation of America continues, with our schools now in the crosshairs.

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Someone is Lying: Trump vs. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 - by Rick Moran

A “he said, they said” controversy has erupted over what the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce says was a scheduled campaign event by Donald Trump to appear at a candidate forum this coming Thursday.

The USHCC says Trump has backed out of the event. Trump says he never agreed to appear. Meanwhile, the two sides trade accusations about lying and being double crossed.

Just the thing to improve The Donald’s relations with Hispanics.

The USHCC promoted the event, sold tickets to it, and even told Politico two days ago how they were going to ambush Trump during the Q&A:

“We’re not going to go easy on him. A lot of people think it’s just going to be this positive thing,” said the group’s communications director, Ammar Campa-Najjar, who went on to share some choice words about the businessman, his ideas and his candidacy. They included “sad,” “absurd” and “broken.”

“I’ve been tight-lipped for a while, but I’ve got to speak up now,” said Campa-Najjar. “It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad that this man is leading in the polls and that this is his idea for a fiscally responsible, fair and feasible plan for dealing with immigrants.”

Citing its $400 billion price tag, Campa-Najjar said Trump’s immigration plan is a fiscal loser. He added, “The deporting thing is so absurd that no one can get behind it and he needs to explain how that’s going to work.”

Campa-Najjar also dismissed the Trump campaign’s claims that Trump already enjoys support among many Hispanics and his belief that he will win over many others.

“When we talk to them, they give the impression they’re doing so well with Hispanics: ‘Oh Hispanics love me,’ and I think that’s, at best, out of touch with reality,” he said.

But Trump told CNN he had no knowledge of the invite:

“I never agreed to do an event. This is the first time I’m hearing about this. I mean, I never agreed,” the Republican presidential front-runner said in a phone interview. “He wanted me to do an event because he probably can’t sell tickets without me. Why would anybody do an event when he’s a negative person?”

Trump added that he plans to be in Las Vegas on Oct. 8 for a campaign rally.

But the Hispanic Chamber is accusing Trump of abruptly pulling out of the event because of concerns that he might be criticized.

“Clearly, the decision to withdraw from the Q&A was motivated out of fear,” said Javier Palomarez, the CEO of the Hispanic Chamber. “This further disqualifies him as a serious candidate in the eyes of the Hispanic community.”

The clash with the Hispanic Chamber comes as the Hispanic community continues to express discomfort and outrage at some of Trump’s statements about immigration. At the launch of his White House campaign, Trump touched off a firestorm by remarking that some Mexicans entering the country illegally are “rapists” and “criminals.” Hispanic leaders have called on the candidate to alter his tone.

Palomarez met with Trump on Sept. 1 at Trump Tower in New York. The two discussed politically sensitive issues like immigration reform and the Republican presidential front-runner’s rhetoric about the Hispanic community. Trump’s heated rhetoric about immigration and Hispanics has drawn wide condemnation for being harsh and racially charged.

And it was at that meeting that Palomarez says Trump personally committed to participate in the Q&A forum this month. In the room when the agreement was made were Hope Hicks, Trump’s campaign spokeswoman, and Michael Cohen, an adviser and attorney for Trump, according to Palomarez.

The Hispanic Chamber had no intention of playing fair with Trump and were going to try to humiliate him — a real “Chief Brody slap” moment. No doubt, Trump advisors read that Politico article and realized what they were in for and tried to change the rules  of the Q&A session with the USHCC:

USHCC spokesman Ammar Campa-Najjar said Friday Trump withdrew his participation in the session that has featured three other presidential candidates from both parties and will host a fourth on Tuesday, because Trump was concerned he would be “put on trial” and was unwilling to abide by terms and conditions of the candidate series.

Michael Cohen, an attorney and adviser to Trump, was not immediately available for comment when contacted by NBC News.

In a statement, the chamber said it refused to change the format of the Q&A session, show favoritism, exclude any issues or topics or “grant immunity from objective scrutiny of his policies.”

The chamber said Trump would not have been treated differently than other candidates that have done the sessions or spoken to the chamber’s members.

I call bullcrap on that. Of course Trump was going to be treated differently. They were angling to pull him down and Trump, who might have realized this before he committed to the event, is now in damage control trying to put out the fire.

Then there’s the little matter of his lies to CNN. “This is the first time I’m hearing about this. I mean, I never agreed,” is about as brazen a lie as Obama has ever told. The fact is, the USHCC would not have been promoting the event so heavily unless they believed they had an ironclad commitment from Trump to appear. To claim otherwise is embarrassing.


Read bullet | 26 Comments »

Missing: Why Did El Faro Sail Into Hurricane Joaquin?

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 - by J. Christian Adams

El Faro, a cargo ship out of Jacksonville, Florida, with 33 crew remains missing near the Bahamas. The 735-foot ship set sail on Tuesday bound for Puerto Rico.

Course data show that the missing ship continued to maintain a heading straight into the intensifying storm even as the National Hurricane Center was providing updates throughout September 30 regarding the storm’s course and intensifying strength.

The ship continued to sail straight toward Hurricane Joaquin as the storm strengthened into Category Four status.  Early Thursday morning, the Coast Guard received an emergency alert from El Faro, known as an EPIRB.  An EPIRB is a device which can activate through contact with the water or manually.  At the imminent loss of a vessel, sailors know that activation of the EPIRB is essential to allow for rescue.

Prior to the loss of contact, the ship also radioed a distress call that propulsion had been lost, the ship had taken on water, and it suffered from a 15-degree list.

Wave heights generated by Joaquin reached 45 feet in some portions of the storm.

A ship which loses propulsion loses the ability to point its bow into the waves.  A ship without propulsion is likely to take waves broadside, eventually risking being suddenly capsized.

El Faro. (Marinetraffic.com)

El Faro. (Marinetraffic.com)

At the time the El Faro left Jacksonville, Joaquin was a much weaker storm and most models forecasted the storm to sweep off to the north or east.  But by Wednesday, Joaquin was turning into a monster and refusing to move north or east, contrary to models.

Yet the El Faro continued to sail directly at the storm, heading 150 degrees late at night on Wednesday, September 30.  Why?


El Faro’s track. (Marinetraffic.com)

Read bullet | 44 Comments »

Brit Defense Secretary: Only 5% of Russian Air Strikes in Syria Target Islamic State

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 - by Rick Moran

Despite Russian claims to the contrary, it appears that about 95% of their missions are being directed against US backed rebels, not ISIS.

Britain’s defense secretary Michael Fallon told the Sun newspaper that the Russians were killing civilians to prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad, using “dumb bombs” to target CIA-backed rebels.


Only one in 20 Russian air strikes in Syria are aimed at Islamic State targets, Britain’s defense secretary said on Saturday, warning that Vladimir Putin was instead killing civilians to shore up President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia bombed Syria for a third straight day on Friday, mainly hitting areas held by rival insurgent groups rather than the Islamic State fighters it said it was targeting, and drawing an angry response from the West.

In an interview with the Sun newspaper, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said the vast majority of Russian air strikes were not aimed at the militant group at all.

“Our evidence indicates they are dropping unguided munitions in civilian areas, killing civilians, and they are dropping them against the Free Syrian forces fighting Assad,” he said. “He’s shoring up Assad and perpetuating the suffering.”

Prime Minister David Cameron has said he sees a strong case for conducting British air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, but he wants to make sure he has enough support in parliament to gain approval.

He lost a parliamentary vote on the use of force in Syria in 2013. Consequently, British bombing so far has only targeted Islamic State in neighboring Iraq.

Fallon said Putin’s actions complicated the situation in Syria, but the British government had made progress in persuading lawmakers from the opposition Labour party to back strikes in Syria. It would be morally wrong not to do so, he said.

“We can’t leave it to French, Australian and American aircraft to keep our own British streets safe,” he said.

Putin doesn’t give a fig about civilian casualties, nor world outrage at the deaths of innocents. This seems pretty clear by his use of “drop ‘em and forget ‘em” dumb bombs. Killing rebels and their families is the only thing that matters.

President Obama says that Russia’s foray into Syria is a sign of “weakness” and that Russia will slip into the Syrian “quagmire.” Does he really believe that if he says it, that makes it so? Obama is slipping into a fantasty land where he is projecting his own weakness on to President Putin. Meanwhile, the Russian president continues to give the US president the finger while destroying CIA backed militias that have carried the fight to President Assad in the last six months. Putin is targeting the rebel’s most effective fighters, while readying Iranian and Hezb’allah ground forces to engage them. With air power that the rebels can’t match or defend against, the ground forces should make pretty short work of Assad’s most effective enemies.

Read bullet | Comments »

Still Strong Support for Gun Rights in Oregon Town Rocked by College Shooting

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Debra Heine

The politically conservative community in Southern Oregon’s timber country where a gunman killed nine innocent college students this week has long supported gun rights, and that hasn’t changed in the wake of the massacre.

Their voices were drowned out yesterday by President Barack Obama, who never lets a gun-related crisis go to waste, and thus immediately jumped on his soapbox to shame the nation and push for more gun-control laws. But the residents of Roseburg, Oregon, are steadfast in their support for gun rights.

Following the Umpqua Commnity College shooting, the county’s top law enforcement officer told CNN that his position on gun control has not changed.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin is in fact an outspoken opponent of gun-control laws.

Via kctv5.com:

He spoke out against state and federal gun control legislation last year, telling a legislative committee that mandating background checks for private, person-to-person gun sales would not prevent criminals from getting firearms.

Hanlin also sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden in 2013, after a shooter killed 20 children and six adults at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school. Hanlin said he and his deputies would refuse to enforce new gun-control restrictions “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.”

The community, where people like to hunt deer, elk and bear, echoes his push to protect gun rights.

“I carry to protect myself – the exact same reason this happened,” said Casey Runyan, referring to the Thursday’s shooting. Runyan carries a Glock 29 pistol everywhere he goes.

“All my friends agree with me. That’s the only kind of friends I have,” said Runyan, a disabled Marine Corps veteran.

Retired U.S. Army nurse Donice “Maggie Rose” Smith, who also hosts a talk show on Internet radio, said she and her husband, a retired Army captain, chose Douglas County for their retirement because of a low crime rate and strong local support for First and Second Amendment rights.

J.C. Smith said barring people from carrying guns on campus made it particularly vulnerable to a “lone wolf” attack.

“With current world events, (armed people) would keep the ground safer,” he said.

Umpqua Community College Interim President Rita Cavin said of the shooting, ”This is an anomaly and a tragedy.”

Hopefully, she is reconsidering the school’s policy of no guns on campus and no armed security presence.

YouTube Preview Image


Obama: ‘All Kinds of Crackpot Conspiracy Theories’ About Gun-Control Efforts

Read bullet | 28 Comments »

Obama: ‘All Kinds of Crackpot Conspiracy Theories’ About Gun-Control Efforts

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

President Obama today lashed out at “crackpot conspiracy theories” saying that he wants more gun control to “stay in power forever or something” or take all Americans’ weapons.

At a press conference to announce the resignation of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Obama was asked about comments from Jeb Bush on the community college massacre in Roseburg, Ore.

Fielding questions at a South Carolina event today, Bush said of calls for more gun control, “We’re in a difficult time in our country and I don’t think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everyone else. It’s very sad to see. But I resist the notion — and I had this challenge as governor — because we had — look, stuff happens, there’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

Bush defended his comments later, saying, “No, it wasn’t a mistake. I said exactly what I said. Why would you explain to me what I said wrong? Things happen all the time — things — is that better?”

Asked about those comments at his press conference, Obama replied, “I don’t even think I have to react to that one.”

“I think the American people should hear that and make their own judgments based on the fact that every couple of months, we have a mass shooting. And in terms of — and — and they can decide whether they consider that ‘stuff happening,’” Obama continued.

The president said he’s asked his team “to scrub what kinds of authorities do we have to enforce the laws that we have in place more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

“Are there additional actions that we can take that might prevent even a handful of these tragic deaths from taking place? But, as I said last night, this will not change until the politics changes and the behavior of elected officials changes,” Obama said. “And so the main thing I’m going to do is I’m going to talk about this on a regular basis. And I will politicize it, because our inaction is a political decision that we are making.”

GOPs went after Obama today for politicizing the tragedy — something he admitted hours after the shooting that he was doing to bring legislative attention to gun control measures. ”Obviously, there are those who are going to be calling for gun control,” Ben Carson told radio host Hugh Hewitt. “Obviously, that’s not the issue. The issue is the mentality of these people.”

“What I worry about is when we get to the point were we say we need to have every gun registered, we have to know where the people are, and where their guns are, that’s very dangerous,” Carson said. “And that I wouldn’t agree with at all.”

Obama charged that politicians aren’t passing more gun laws “because of politics.”

“It’s because interest groups fund campaigns, feed people fear, and in fairness, it’s not just in the Republican Party, although the Republican Party is just uniformly opposed to all gun safety laws,” he said. “And unless we change that political dynamic, we’re not going to be able to make a — a big dent in this problem. For example, you’ll hear people talk about, ‘the problem’s not guns, it’s mental illness.’”

The focus on mental health and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, though, is actually one of the bipartisan areas of agreement on guns where legislators could agree on potential solutions to spot and stop such shooters.

But Obama argued that “it is true that the majority of these mass shooters are angry young men, but there are hundreds of millions of angry young men around the world. Tens of millions of angry young men, and most of them don’t shoot.”

“It doesn’t help us just to identify — and — and the majority of people who have mental illnesses are not shooters. So — so we can’t sort through and identify ahead of time who might take actions like this. The only thing we can do is make sure that they can’t have an entire arsenal when something snaps in them,” he said.

“And if we’re going to do something about that, the politics has to change. The politics has to change. And the people who are troubled by this have to be as intense and as organized and as adamant about this issue as folks on the other side, who are absolutists and think that any gun safety measures are somehow an assault on freedom or communistic, or a plot by me to take over and stay in power forever or something. I mean, there are all kinds of crackpot conspiracy theories that float around there. Some of which, by the way, are ratified by elected officials in the other party, on occasion.”

Obama added that people in favor of more gun control are going to have to be a “single-issue voter because that’s what is happening on the other side.”

“We’re not going to stop all violence. Violence exists around the world, sadly,” he said. “Part of original sin, but our homicide — our homicide rates are just a lot higher than other places that, by the way, have the same levels of violence. It’s just you can’t kill as many people when you don’t have easy access to these kinds of weapons.”

Read bullet | 36 Comments »

Homeowner Fined for Flying American Flag

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Rick Moran


Looks like Barack Obama truly has transformed America.

Chestnut Place is a condo community of about 60 homeowners in the quiet town of Murray, Utah. Apparently, a couple of members of the homeowners’ association got “tired” of looking at all the American flags being flown by residents so they decided to do something about it.

The made a rule banning the flying of the American flag.

Fox 13:

“After the last board meeting, we were leaving and two members of the board and a resident said they were tired of looking at the flag,” said Jo Ann Dugay, who is one of the five board members on the Home Owners Association. “They said ‘is this flag row?’ And that something needed to be done about it.”

Something was: last week those living in the community were warned to take down the flags.

“I’m not taking it down, that’s one thing I won’t do.” said Erin Worthen, one of the residents asked to remove it.

As a result, she was fined $75 and given a notice, which states:

“All exterior decorations must be removed within 10 days following the holiday… Please remove your flag from the common area (Utah Community Association Act. 57-8a-219)”

Worthen said she was shocked at the language on the notice.

“That is not a holiday decoration,” she points out. “People have died for that, it is not a holiday decoration.”

The President of the Home Owners Association was steadfast in her decision to enforce the fine Thursday. She said she was tired of seeing flags, not just the American flag, flying up and down the street all day and night, and 365 days of the year.

“Flags are flown on holiday events,” said Lyn Steinbergen, President of the HOA. “All we are trying to do is regulate when the flag goes up, and when it comes down.”

Homeowners were hoping to address the stipulations at an HOA meeting scheduled for Thursday night, but with the room already full, and the meeting set to take place, board members canceled at the last second.

“The board wasn’t here tonight,” said a lawyer for the HOA. He says one board member was missing and that’s why they canceled the meeting.

But home owners felt the HOA was simply skirting the issue.

“I have a legal right to fly my American Flag, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it,” yelled a frustrated Worthen.

She said she was fined for the flag as well, and had scheduled to talk about it on the meeting agenda. She believes the board is simply trying to avoid addressing the situation, and believes the HOA President is mostly to blame.

“Because she is not getting her way, she’s going to shut it down,” Worthen said.

The cowardly wretches on the board couldn’t face the wrath of the people. Well, the story has gone viral and I will be surprised if they’re on that board next week.

Read bullet | 46 Comments »

The Cinematic Travesty of the Century

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Rick Moran


John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson of Powerline have penned a superior piece in Weekly Standard that revisits the Rathergate story. The reason for the retelling of an 11-year-old incident? On October 16, the Robert Redford-Cate Blanchett vehicle Truth — an incredibly dishonest and disgusting take on Rathergate — will be released to the general public. And judging by many reviews, most of the media appear to have forgotten the specific elements of the story.

Hinderaker and Johnson rely heavily on the report issued by a panel created by CBS News headed up by former attorney general Richard Thornburgh and former AP head Louis Boccardi to perform an autopsy on the story that started it all.

And that story, which aired on September 8, 2004, destroyed the reputation of CBS News and empowered a generation of bloggers and online pundits who proved beyond doubt that the memos supposedly showing that President George Bush received preferential treatment to get a posting to the Texas Air National Guard were laughably — and amateurishly — bogus.

Reading the Hinderaker-Johnson article was like taking a trip down memory lane. The story ignited my own blogging career, as well as the career of many, many others.

Who can forget the Freeper “Buckhead” who was the first to note the proportional spacing of the memos, proving they were not created on a 1970s typewriter, but rather a modern IBM word processor? And of course, there is one of them most famous New York Times headlines in history describing the memos: “Memos on Bush are fake but accurate, typist says.”

The Hinderaker-Johnson article is necessary because of idiotic reviewers like Scott Mendelson. Writing in Forbes, Mendelson shows a shocking lack of curiosity about Rathergate and simply spouts the old, liberal narrative.

The 60 Minutes II report that aired in September of 2004 regarding the nature of President George W. Bush’s tenure in the Texas Air National Guard was probably accurate. That’s what I felt back in 2004; that’s what at least a few journalists and pundits (including a new-to-me Keith Olbermann) were willing to come out and say at the time. And that’s the moral crux of Truth, one which I happen to agree with, which documents the botched reporting that led to the story itself being ignored via a wave of controversy regarding unverifiable documents. The film makes a grand and significant point of how modern journalism has begun obsessing on the minutia or unrelated gossip at the expense of the big picture.

The documents were not “unverifiable.” They were fake. They were totally made up. And the “big picture” is that a national news network made a conscious decision to intervene in a presidential election in a partisan manner. So that “minutia” and “unrelated gossip” exposed the effort for the whole world to see.

The Mendelson review reflects present-day reality about Rathergate: Liberals are still trying to push the narrative that Bush received special treatment because he was rich and someone else went to Vietnam instead of him.

Johnson-Hinderaker destroy that myth among many others. Here are some choice excerpts from the article:

The documents on which the story was based supposedly came from the “personal file” of Jerry Killian, Bush’s commander in the TexANG, who had been dead for 20 years. But where did CBS News get them? Mapes testified that she and her team had been given six documents by Bill Burkett, but where had Burkett obtained them?

The report notes that Burkett gave three explanations, whose implausibility increased in each successive version. He told one intermediary that the documents mysteriously materialized in the mail. He then told Mapes that the documents were provided to him by one George Conn, but that Conn would never admit to being the source. Mapes made virtually no attempt to contact Conn or to confirm this story, which Burkett later admitted was false. That was the state of Mapes’s knowledge when the story aired on September 8.

* * * * * * *

And the tale is bovine, in a tall tale sort of way. Mapes still pretends to believe Burkett. Drawing on the sense God gave them, the Thornburgh-Boccardi panel did not. Killian’s family, as it happens, said such files of his as Burkett purported to pass along never existed. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report drily observes: “It does not appear, based on information available to the Panel, that [Mrs. Killian] was asked whether her husband had personal files, used a typewriter or had a secretary.”

The Thornburgh-Boccardi report also notes that Mapes had learned in the course of her reporting that no influence was used to get President Bush into the TexANG. There was no line of aspiring pilots waiting to fly the difficult and dangerous F-102 in 1968. No pull was needed to secure Bush a spot to train as a pilot.

* * * * * * *

The Rathergate memos had obviously been created recently on Microsoft Word rather than three decades earlier on a typewriter. But their content also revealed them to be fake. In a memo dated August 18, 1973, bearing the colorful subject “CYA,” Killian had supposedly documented Staudt pressuring Hodges and Hodges pressuring Killian to “sugarcoat” the evaluation of Bush. Staudt, however, had retired on March 1, 1972. Staudt was not on the scene or in a position to pressure anyone in the TexANG to do anything.

CBS portrayed Bush joining the TexANG to evade service in Vietnam, yet Mapes had been told by Killian’s son that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam and was turned down because he didn’t have enough flying time. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report also quotes one of Killian’s authentic evaluations of Bush: “Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.” Contrary to the tenor of the fabricated memos, this is what Killian really thought of Bush.

Historical dramas are always suspect because the genre does not lend itself to factual retellings of events. History, as it happens, is usually pretty boring so Hollywood spices up historical recreations by adding characters, sub-plots, and, wherever possible, a romantic interest.

Read bullet | 23 Comments »

Kerry Suggests Peace Process Could ‘Eliminate’ Murders of West Bank Israelis

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

Standing next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the day after a West Bank couple was murdered in front of their four kids, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that the peace process being pushed by the administration could end all of these slayings.

Rabbi Eitam Henkin and his wife Naama, both in their 30s, were driving with their family when a car containing at least two Palestinian gunmen pulled up and shot the couple to death. Their children, ranging from 4 months to 9 years old, were in the backseat, uninjured.

“Palestinian terrorists murdered yesterday a young mother and father leaving four little orphans. A gunman brutally murdered nine innocent Americans,” Netanyahu said before his meeting with Kerry in New York today, referencing the community college massacre in Roseburg, Ore. “I appreciated your strong statement of condemnation. I have to say that I have yet to hear any condemnation from President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.”

“Worse, I heard senior officials from his Fatah movement praise this action. They say this is the way to go. No, it’s not the way to go. The way to go for any conceivable arrangement is to fight terrorism and to make sure that terrorism reaps no rewards.”

A group linked to Fatah claimed it was behind the murders, while Hamas said “this operation was in response to the crimes of the Zionists.”

Kerry said that “our hearts go out to the families of the Israelis who have been lost, but our hearts also go out to the people in Oregon too, where we’ve had our own violence in our country.”

“So that’s really what brings me here today to talk to you about is the violence — too much, particularly in your part of the world. And you know this because you live with it every single day,” Kerry continued. “So we have a lot to talk about. I think there are ways to cooperate to take constructive steps that can address this over the long term, which is something we have worked on together and that we need to work on.”

“So we’re sharing with you the grief that Israel feels today,” he added. “I hope we can share also the efforts going forward that can reduce and maybe ultimately one day even eliminate any families having to go through these kinds of losses.”

Netanayhu then jumped back in, stressing that “any path forward requires one thing: you have to fight terror.”

“And the terrorists are there; the fanaticism, the zealotry is there; and we have no choice but to fight them,” the prime minister said. “But when we hear incitement that — worse, when we hear praise for the terrorists from our supposed peace partners, we say cut that out, start fighting terrorism. If you won’t, we will. But that’s the call that the international community must place on the Palestinian Authority.”

“But I want to make it clear: we’re going to fight these terrorists, and we’re going to fight them in ways that they will understand makes terrorism not worth its actions and not garner any rewards.”

Both Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power ditched Netanyahu’s Thursday speech to the UN General Assembly. The State Department hasn’t yet commented on the circumstances behind the snub.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Joint Tsk-Tsk Issued to Russia as White House Official Argues Putin Is Bombing Out of Position of Weakness

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

The United States joined with France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom for a joint rebuke of Russia for its bombing campaign in Syria.

“We express our deep concern with regard to the Russian military build-up in Syria and especially ‎the attacks by the Russian Air Force on Hama, Homs and Idlib which led to civilian casualties and did not target Da’esh,” the statement says. “These military actions constitute a further escalation and will only fuel more extremism and radicalization. We call on the Russian Federation to immediately cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians and to focus its efforts on fighting ISIL.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov insisted Thursday that Russia is only targeting terrorist groups, but other nations have said they’re lumping secular opposition to Bashar Assad’s regime into that category.

“If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it’s a terrorist, right?” Lavrov told reporters at the United Nations.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who this week blasted the Obama administration for letting Syria get to this point, said at the Washington Ideas Forum today that “everybody knows that that is Free Syrian Army in a very vital area in that part of Syria” struck by Russia, Homs — “and that was about the first target.”

“My friends, it’s amazing when you think about it because if Putin had wanted to deceive us, he might’ve bombed some other targets first. First day of bombing after the military attache in Baghdad informed us an hour before the bombing started,” McCain said. “And now that you’ve seen the pictures and apparently a number of people were killed including seven children in this bombing attack by Russia, I mean, it’s a blatant, in your face move.”

“And then of course, just as he said there are no Russian troops in Crimea, they’re saying no, we were only attacking ISIS.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman said “the only way you can interpret this” is as “testimony to the lack of concern that Russia has about America’s reaction to their actions.”

“And there are plenty of ISIS targets,” McCain added. “But they picked the one place where Free Syrian Army enclave was, and a pretty successful one, one that’s been doing rather well in the fight against Bashar Assad.”

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told the forum that “what we are really seeing is an escalation of what Russia was already doing in providing military support to Assad.”

“I mean, one way to think about this is, and you know everybody is looking at Putin as if this is some offensive maneuver. Again, they have had bases in Syria for a very long time. This is their principal client state in the Arab world. It’s been collapsing. He’s trying to prop it up. I think that’s hardly someone who is in a strong position,” Rhodes argued.

“That’s, by the way, the same thing he’s facing in Ukraine. They had a client in Yanukovich. That collapsed out of the hollow rot of corruption. Now they are trying to grab a piece of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are rejecting them. So this is not someone who was operating from a position of strength. This is someone who is seeing, again, two of his principal partners in the world in a lot of trouble.”

Read bullet | 13 Comments »

6 Airmen, 5 Contractors Killed in C-130 Crash; Taliban Claim They Brought It Down

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

Six U.S. airmen and five civilian contractors were killed when a C-130 transport plane crashed in Nangarhar province.

The Pentagon said the cause of the Jalalabad crash, which happened shortly after midnight local time according to Afghan news sources, is under investigation.

“While we are still trying to determine exactly what happened, this is a reminder of the risks that our men and women face serving their country in remote places all over the world,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in a statement. “Let us not forget the importance of their service, and the critical mission they died supporting. My thoughts and prayers are with their families during this difficult time.”
“I also want to express my condolences to the families of the Afghans killed in this tragedy. We remain committed with our coalition partners to helping the people of Afghanistan build a secure and peaceful country.”

The Taliban claim they shot it down.

“At least 15 invaders of the US-Nato troop were killed when Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate shot down one of the enemy transporting military personnel late yesterday night in eastern Afghanistan,” the Taliban posted on their website.

“Our mujahideen have shot down a four-engine US aircraft in Jalalabad,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid tweeted. “Based on credible information 15 invading forces and a number of puppet troops were killed.”

The Taliban have previously attacked the Jalalabad airport, killing five in a ground battle in December 2012.

Though they’re renowned for making wild claims about military successes, the Taliban have recently toned down their faux boasting a little bit as social media and effective local media in Afghanistan have called out their claims.

President Obama, who is holding a press conference later this afternoon to announce the resignation of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, issued a brief statement on the crash.

“In addition to the Americans we mourn, we also are saddened that Afghan civilians lost their lives in this incident,” Obama said. “As we mark this terrible loss of life, we are reminded of the sacrifice brave Americans and our Afghan partners make each and every day in the name of freedom and security. Their willingness to serve so selflessly will not be forgotten.”

Read bullet | Comments »

Hillary: Alabama ‘a Blast from the Jim Crow Past’ by Shutting Driver’s License Locations

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

Hillary Clinton alleged that Alabama has summoned “a blast from the Jim Crow past” by closing driver’s license offices around the state for budgetary reasons.

The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency announced in August that while they maintain 75 driver’s license districts and field offices across the state, “budget allocations do not cover costs and we operate with an $8.2 million deficit.”

Thirty-one satellite field offices that were open part-time closed on Thursday. On Jan. 1, all district offices across the state are scheduled to close leaving a dozen offices open statewide.

Alabama passed a voter ID law in 2011 that went into effect last year and requires government-issued identification such as a driver’s licenses or a free state photo ID card, or two poll officials to vouch for the identity of the voter.

Columnist John Archibald of AL.com charged that “every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed,” which “might as well just send an invitation to the Justice Department.”

The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, though, said the 31 field offices owned by counties, not the state, that were de-staffed accounted for less than five percent of state driver’s license transactions, a total of fewer than 2,000 transactions in 2014.

Clinton issued a statement today to “strongly oppose” the office closures, “especially in counties that have a significant majority of African Americans.”

“Just a few years ago, Alabama passed a law requiring citizens to have a photo ID to vote. Now they’re shutting down places where people get those photo IDs. This is only going to make it harder for people to vote. It’s a blast from the Jim Crow past,” she said.

“We’re better than this. We should be encouraging more Americans to vote, not making voting harder.”

Clinton renewed her push for automatic voter registration of all Americans when they turn 18, “and a new national standard of at least 20 days of early in-person voting in every state.”

“African Americans fought for the right to vote in the face of unthinkable hatred. They stood up and were beaten down, marched and were turned back. Some were even killed. But in the end, the forces of justice overcame,” she said. “Alabama should do the right thing. It should reverse this decision. And it should start protecting the franchise for every single voter, no matter the color of their skin.”

Read bullet | Comments »

Hero Army Vet Chris Mintz Shot Seven Times While Charging Oregon Shooter

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Debra Heine

chris mintz

There is at least one story of heroism to come out of the Oregon massacre yesterday.

A 30-year-old Army vet was shot at least five times while charging at the gunman in an effort to protect his classmates. Chris Mintz, from North Carolina, is expected to recover from his wounds after spending most of Thursday in surgery.

According to Fox 8, when the gunman tried to enter Mintz’s class, Mintz told the students in his classroom to get to a safe place, then said to the shooter “you’re not getting by me”:

“At that point, the shooter shot him five times and the shooter moved on and apparently didn’t go in to that classroom,” Pastor Dennis Kreiss told People. ”I applaud the guy’s heroism. He may have saved the people in that classroom.”

It was Mintz son’s sixth birthday, and that was all he could think of as he lay wounded: “It’s my son’s birthday, it’s my son’s birthday,” he was heard saying:

When word of Mintz’s heroism reached his kin in his native North Carolina, his cousin Derek Bourgeois was hardly surprised.

“It sounds like something he would do,” Bourgeois said.

Bourgeois was somewhat amazed that a guy who survived a combat deployment without serious injury had come so close to being killed in a small Oregon town not unlike the one in North Carolina where they grew up together.
“I was told he went after the shooter,” Bourgeois told the Daily Mail. “There was no way he was going to stand around and watch something this horrific happen,” he said:

According to his family, both of his legs are broken and he will have to learn to walk again.

Mintz’s aunt Sheila Brown told NBC News that “he tried to protect some people”.

“We were told he did heroic things to protect some people,” she said.

“He was on the wrestling team and and he’s done cage-fighting so it does not surprise me that he would act heroically.”

Mintz’s cousin Ariana Earnhardt told Fox 8:

His vital signs are OK. He’s going to have to learn to walk again, but he walked away with his life and that’s more than so many other people did.

Read bullet | 30 Comments »

Congressman Proposes Gun Licenses, Like Driver’s Licenses

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

The former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said one “common sense” gun regulation that should be enacted is the need for a gun license for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm.

“We know that if you have a universal criminal background check to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people, you will reduce gun deaths. We know that,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is running for the Senate seat to be vacated by retiring Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), told MSNBC.

“We know that the state of Connecticut passed a law that also says you that should have a permit to purchase a weapon just like you need to get a license to drive a car. You should get a license before you can go purchase a weapon,” he added.

Van Hollen cited a Johns Hopkins study “showing that in the state of Connecticut the number of deaths from gun violence went down by 40 percent” after that law was passed. “Maryland just adopted a similar law two years ago and the results will be coming. I just spent yesterday in Maryland with our Maryland attorney general, Brian Frosh, calling upon other states to adopt these laws,” he said.

“And I’ve introduced legislation to incentivize other states to do it because those states that are passing these common sense gun laws are seeing reductions in deaths but they’re also vulnerable to the negligence of other states who are not taking these common sense measures.”

Van Hollen argued that because of this spillover, federal legislation is needed and not just state laws.

“So we need to act on a state level but we also need to act on a congressional level, and it’s just scandalous and shameful that in the House of Representatives, we’ve never even had a vote on common sense gun legislation, never a vote on universal criminal background check legislation, never a vote on the legislation that I and so many others have introduced,” he said.

“Give us a vote. And you know, Mr. Speaker, one thing he might be able to do before he leaves at the end of October is let democracy work. Let the American people watch Congress, vote to decide whether or not they want to take these common sense measures that help save lives, just as the president said,” Van Hollen continued. “…If this were a disease, if this were a virus that was killing tens of thousands of Americans, we would have the scientists at the national institutes of health, we would have the folks across the country at the CDC, we would have all hands on deck. And yet we have this epidemic that’s killing Americans and nothing’s being done.”

Read bullet | 11 Comments »

WATCH: Pelosi Snaps at Reporter for Asking If Unborn Babies are Human Beings

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) snapped at a reporter yesterday for asking her a question on abortion at her weekly presser.

“Funding for Planned Parenthood — is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?” asked Sam Dorman, a CNS News reporter who was seated in the front row.

“Why don’t you take your ideological questions — I — I don’t have –” Pelosi began.

“If it’s not a human being, what species is it?” the reporter interjected.

“Now listen, I want to say something to you. I don’t know who you are and you’re welcome to be here, freedom of this press. I am a devout practicing Catholic, a mother of five children. When my baby was born, my fifth child, my oldest child was six years old,” Pelosi said.

“I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect, and I do not intend to respond to your questions, which have no basis in what public policy is, that we do here.”

Since Pope Francis visited Capitol Hill last week, Pelosi has been name-dropping the pontiff often except on the issue of abortion.

“House voted to keep Government open; that’s good news, that’s good news. What’s not good news is that 151 Republicans voted to shut down government. 151, shut down Government, 91. Over 60 percent of the Republicans went that way,” she began her press conference. “It’s really very — it’s — so, as we go forward, hoping to be inspired by His Holiness, Pope Francis, who told us to work together for the good of people, to do so with transparency — no, openness was his word, and pragmatism.”

Pelosi told MSNBC after the pope’s address that “we all support the sanctity of life.”

When asked about Pope Francis’ shot at same-sex marriage in his speech — “Fundamental relations are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family” — Pelosi said she showed the pope a photo of her family before the address.

“All 20 of us, my husband and I, our five children, our grandchildren, and he blessed the photo. It was for the 50th anniversary of our marriage. It was so thrilling for me,” she said. “So when he was talking about that, I was really thinking of my on family and the fact that he was in some ways inscrutable. He said what he needed to say.”

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Is It Time for Common-Sense Gun Legislation?

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Liz Sheld

Yesterday, a crazed lunatic went to a community college in Oregon, where he killed nine people and wounded at least 20 before he was shot dead.  President Obama hustled to call a press conference, in one of the fastest responses I’ve ever seen from him, to turn this into political spectacle before we had much, if any, information about what happened.

“And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation,” said the president. The president went on to idealize Australia and England, countries that virtually ban firearm ownership entirely, so I don’t think Obama really wants any kind of actual reform — I think he wants to ban guns.

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it,” said Obama.

But let’s talk about this “common-sense gun legislation.”  What does that actually look like?

We hear this from the gun-control groups, we hear this from politicians, we hear this from President Obama — but we never hear what “common-sense” gun reform actually includes.

Does it include background checks? You can’t buy a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer without having a background check. You cannot purchase a firearm if you are a felon or if you are adjudicated as mentally ill. What additional criteria need to be included in federal background checks? In August of this year, 1.5 million background checks were conducted on firearms purchasers, a record. So what “common-sense additions” can we include in the background checks that aren’t there already? Should we include misdemeanor convictions? Misdemeanor charges? As far as mental illness is concerned, should we include anyone suspected of mental illness? In therapy? On anti-depressants? Strange postings on social media? Just strange in general? Will we set up a hotline to report these suspected individuals?

How about mandatory waiting periods? Should we force people to wait a set amount of time before they can take possession of a purchased firearm? Nothing stops a murderous lunatic from simply waiting out the time period and going along his murderous business, whether he waits five days, ten days or a month.

Read bullet | 51 Comments »

Our Long National Nightmare…

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Michael Walsh
YouTube Preview Image

It’s bad enough that President Obama, now in his seventh year as a ferocious war-maker, was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Now we get this news:

Growing speculation that John Kerry will receive a Nobel Peace Prize for finalizing the Iranian nuclear deal is generating renewed criticism of his close relationship with the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, a key public face for the theocratic regime who is rumored to be a probable co-recipient with Kerry.

Rumors have been circulating for months that Kerry and Zarif will be co-selected for the prize. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a leading Swedish think-tank, recommended in July that the two be selected for the Nobel in 2016. Lawmakers and Washington insiders who have worked for years on the Iran portfolio have reacted with shock to the rumors, telling the Washington Free Beacon in multiple interviews that both Kerry and Zarif are unfit to receive the prize.

he Nobel Prize speculation comes after months of reports describing warmth and comfort between the American and Iranian teams that sealed the final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The growing rumors have reignited criticism among insiders of Kerry’s coziness with top Iranian officials and of the deal more specifically.

A Peace Prize for the Winter Soldier would be a final slap in the face to what remains of the old, honorable America. I warned anyone who would listen that the second term would turn out to be hell on earth, and there’s still more than a year to go. God Save the United States of America.

Read bullet | 29 Comments »

Father of Shooting Victim Confirms: Oregon Gunman Targeted Christians

Friday, October 2nd, 2015 - by Debra Heine

The early reports have been confirmed. The gunman singled out Christians for slaughter during his rampage at Umpqua Community College yesterday which left ten people dead and seven more wounded.

A Twitter user named @bodhilooney posted the following information Thursday afternoon:

the shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.

The father of a wounded student confirmed that account to CNN Thursday evening in describing what his daughter Anastasia Boylan said before she went into spinal surgery. Boylan told her family that the professor in her classroom was shot point-blank, after which an initial spray of bullets hit some students and everyone in the classroom dropped to the ground.

Then, the gunman ordered only the Christians to get up:

“And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,’” Boylan’s father said. “And he kept going down the line doing this to people.”

The father was bewildered by the fact that the gunman was able to reload his handgun in between the shootings. Distraught, he asked: “How does he have that much time?”

Additional information about the shooter is still unreliable at this time.

Hillary: Battle ‘Absolutist Theology About the Second Amendment Being Sacrosanct’

Read bullet | 62 Comments »

Hillary: Battle ‘Absolutist Theology About the Second Amendment Being Sacrosanct’

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

Hillary Clinton called for a “national movement” to take on the National Rifle Association, as “my husband beat them, and he got an assault weapons ban which lasted for ten years and did have a positive effect.”

Campaigning in New England, Clinton told Boston ABC affiliate WCVB she’s “just sick of” news like the community college massacre in Roseburg, Ore. Ten were killed by a 26-year-old gunman who was also killed.

“And I feel an absolute urgency for this country to start being sensible about keeping guns away from people who should not have them. I’m going to be pushing this issue,” Clinton vowed. “Universal background checks, a long enough waiting period so that people can’t sneak in under the deadline because the full investigation wasn’t completed. I would like us to be absolutely determined, as I am, to try to do something about this.”

Touting her husband’s assault-weapons fight against the NRA, Clinton added that
“when gun control issues are put on national or put on state or local ballots for referendum, they pass in many instances.”

“So we’re going to go at this from the top down, namely go back to the Congress, go back to try and put together a sensible, bipartisan position that was supported before in the Senate to get to universal background checks,” she said. “But we’re also going to go from the bottom up.”

“I’m going to make this a voting issue, because what the NRA does in their single-minded, absolutist theology about the Second Amendment being sacrosanct, when we know that every constitutional right and amendment can be tailored in an appropriate way without breaching the Constitution, but what they do is to so intimidate and scare legislators because they make it into a single issue for voting. I’m going to try to do everything I can as president to raise up an equally large and vocal group that is going to prove to be a counterbalance.”

Clinton says she’s “going to tell legislators, do not be afraid.”

“Stand up to these people because a majority of the population and a majority of gun owners agree that there should be universal background checks,” she said. “And the NRA has stood in the way.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has taken heat on the campaign trail for his past votes in support of gun rights yet defended his stances as appropriate for the culture of his home state, said this evening that “the shouting at each other must end; the hard work of developing good policy must begin.”

“We need a comprehensive approach. We need sensible gun-control legislation which prevents guns from being used by people who should not have them. We must greatly expand and improve our mental health capabilities so individuals and families can get the psychological help then need when they need it,” Sanders said. “We also have to tone down the incredibly high level of gratuitous violence which permeates our media.”

Read bullet | 65 Comments »

Obama on Oregon Shooting: ‘This Is Something We Should Politicize’

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

A visibly irritated President Obama appeared in the White House briefing room this evening to declare after a gunman killed 10 at a community college in Oregon that “it cannot be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.”

The 26-year-old male shooter, now identified as Chris Harper Mercer, reportedly brought four guns onto the scene, including three handguns.

He discussed his plans in a chat room the evening before, where some advised him not to go through with it but many egged him on. He called it the “beta uprising” — going after guys he thought acted “alpha” superior to him and girls who turned him down. Some trying to discourage him said he’d “make us white people look bad” or make it “harder for us gun owners.”

The News-Review in Roseburg, Ore., citing a student whose teacher was shot in the head, said “the shooter was asking people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing away.” A person on Twitter who said her grandmother was in a room with the shooter said victims were asked if they were Christian: “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.”

“As I said just a few months ago and a few months before that, and I’ve said each time we’ve seen one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough,” Obama said, adding that words do “nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America next week or a couple of months from now.”

“We don’t know yet why this individual did what he did and it’s fair to say that anybody who does this has a sickness in their minds, regardless of what they think their motivations may be. But we are not the only country on Earth that has people with mental illnesses or want to do harm to other people. We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months,” he said.

“…Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine. My response here, at this podium, ends up being routine. The conversation in the aftermath of it; we’ve become numb to this. ”

Obama added that “what’s become routine of course is the response of those who oppose any kind of common sense gun legislation.”

“Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. ‘We need more guns,’ they’ll argue. ‘Fewer gun safety laws!’ Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country; they know that’s not true. We know because of the polling, that says a majority of Americans think we should be changing these laws, including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners,” he continued.

“There is a gun for roughly every man, woman and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, argue that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence. We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours. Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

The president went on to lament that “what’s also routine is somebody, somewhere will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”

Obama asked news organizations to list side-by-side tallies of the number of Americans killed by terrorism and the number killed by domestic gun violence.

“And yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?” he said.

“This is a political choice that we make — to allow this to happen every few months in America. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When American are killed in floods and hurricanes we work to make communities safer… the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon?”

Obama said the American people should think of “how we get our government to change these laws.”

“When you decide to vote for somebody,” he advised, make a “determination on whether this continuing cause of death for innocent people should be a relevant factor in your decision.”

“I would particularly ask America’s gun owners… think about whether your views are being represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for you,” Obama added in a jab at the National Rifle Association.

“And each time this happens I’m gonna bring this up. Each time this happens I am going to say that we can actually do something about it, but we’re gonna have to change our laws. And this is not something I can do by myself,” he concluded. “I hope and pray that I don’t have to come out again during my tenure as president… but based on my experience as president I can’t guarantee that. And that’s terrible to say.”

This story was updated at 9:20 p.m. EST with the identity of the shooter.

Hillary: Battle ‘Absolutist Theology About the Second Amendment Being Sacrosanct’

Read bullet | 65 Comments »

In Desperate Last Grasp for Relevance, O’Malley Calls for Overturn of Citizens United

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

America yawns.

Martin O’Malley called Thursday for public financing of congressional campaigns and strengthening the Federal Election Commission to help fight abuses.

Mr. O’Malley unveiled the campaign finance reform plan on a day when many campaigns put out their totals of money raised for the quarter.

Other elements of Mr. O’Malley’s plan include tougher disclosure rules for campaigns and, as he has said in the past, overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that helped pave the way for the current big-money era in political finance.

“This week marks the end of another campaign fund-raising quarter. I’m not naïve: Campaign resources are important,” Mr. O’Malley said. “But the staggering figures required to run for the highest office in the land aren’t as much a sign of muscle as they are an indication just how broken our democracy is.”

Poor little Marty, he so desperately wanted to be the shiny progressive alternative to Mrs. Bill. Instead, the progs have opted for an old VW hippie van of a socialist candidate. One who can raise money with the greatest of ease, by the way.

As we mentioned here last week, the whole “Citizens United will allow Super PACs to buy elections” scare could be permanently filed under “Nonsense” with the early exits of Rick Perry and Scott Walker from the GOP race. Both were awash in Super PAC money but couldn’t connect with voters and, as a result, didn’t have any hard cash in their wallets for day-to-day campaign expenses.

O’Malley wants to stake out some territory left of Hillary Clinton that Bernie Sanders hasn’t yet, so he’s released a plan on an issue that even lefties aren’t talking about right now.

Go home, Marty, your elders are embarrassing you.

Read bullet | Comments »

White House Pitches ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control as News of Oregon Shooting Breaks

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

With a community college shooting unfolding today in Oregon — current reports put the death toll as high as 13, with more than 20 wounded — the White House was quick to remind reporters that “sensible steps” should be taken “to protect our communities from gun violence.”

No information has been released about the shooter other than his age — 20 — and reports that he apparently warned of the shooting on social media (and got advice from others). The shooter was killed.

“There are some common sense steps — things like closing the gun show loophole and others — that have strong bipartisan support across the country. According to some polling data, there’s even a majority of Republicans that support closing the gun show loophole,” Earnest told reporters in the daily briefing as the news was breaking, reiterating administration talking points on gun control.

“We have not yet seen that kind of strong bipartisan support across the country translate into legislative support in the United States Congress that’s sufficient to pass legislation that would, again, implement these kinds of common sense solutions.”

However, Earnest said, “there’s no piece of legislation that can be passed into law by the Congress that would prevent every single incident of gun violence.”

The campus at which today’s massacre occurred, Umpqua Community College, had tough gun restrictions. Sheriff’s officials said they had no armed security guards on campus.

“But there are some common sense things that we can do, and I think the vast majority of the American people — the vast majority of the American people share the president’s view in wondering why Congress wouldn’t take those kinds of common sense steps,” Earnest continued.

“And it’s — the president’s been quite candid about how this is and has been a source of frustration for him. It has not at all been lowered on the priority scale. But at the same time, the president is quite realistic that we’ll need to see a fundamental change in terms of the way the American people communicate this priority to Congress before we’ll see a different outcome in the legislative process.”

Oregon’s senators did not include gun-control advocacy in their devastated reactions to the shooting.

“I am absolutely heartbroken by today’s news,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said. “I have been in touch with local officials to express my deepest condolences and offer my assistance in any way possible and I will continue to monitor this tragedy and its response.”

“Oregonians everywhere want Roseburg to know we’re praying for them,” tweeted Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Roseburg’s congressman, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), stressed that “once we know more about what happened today, I plan to work with my colleagues in Congress to find ways to prevent tragedies such as these.”

“Today’s shooting in Roseburg is a heartbreaking tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families,” DeFazio said. “I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Roseburg’s first responders for their work in responding to the event.”

Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) already had a press conference scheduled for tomorrow to introduce new gun-control legislation that would block gun sales until background checks are complete.

Currently, gun retailers can move forward with the sale if law enforcement background checks are still pending after three days. Some businesses already block “default sales,” including Walmart. Senate Dems have been lobbying other retailers, Cabela’s, EZ Pawn, and Bass Pro Shops, to voluntarily follow suit.

Read bullet | 24 Comments »

Did McCarthy’s Benghazi Committee Comments Doom His Candidacy for Speaker?

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Rick Moran

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, a leading candidate to replace John Boehner as speaker of the House, may have severely damaged his candidacy when he said yesterday that the Benghazi committee had severely damaged Hillary Clinton:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” McCarthy said on Fox News. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought.”

This was a pure gaffe — an inadvertent blurting out of the truth. But some Republicans are saying it calls into question McCarthy’s ability to act as spokesman for the party.

Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said McCarthy should apologize, saying the California Republican made an “absolutely inappropriate statement.”

Speaker John Boehner, who is set to retire at the end of the month, sought to provide cover for McCarthy on Thursday. In a statement, he denied that the committee has anything to do with politics.

“This investigation has never been about former Secretary of State Clinton and never will be,” Boehner said.

RELATED: Boehner defends Benghazi panel

Privately, Republicans were outraged by the remarks, saying the House majority leader had given Democrats unfounded ammunition to argue that the committee’s investigation is squarely being driven by politics. Republicans on the committee had tried for months to keep the focus of the inquiry on the administration’s handling of the attacks, avoiding getting into the ins and outs of the various aspects on the email stories.

But in one fell swoop, McCarthy undercut their strategy.

RELATED: Democrats seize on McCarthy’s Benghazi comments

“I might have said it differently,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, told CNN. “Any ancillary political activity that comes out of it is, in fact, not the goal of the committee and is not what the committee is seeking to do.”

Added Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, “I totally disagree with those comments.” Asked if they could jeopardize his bid for speaker, the conservative Amash said: “I think it should be a concern.”

McCarthy’s comments come at a pivotal moment for the 50-year-old Republican. He is now the leading candidate to replace Boehner during next week’s leadership elections, giving him a major platform to drive the national conversation and shape the agenda for the GOP. And McCarthy’s Benghazi comments could reinforce the impression among some of his critics that his gaffe-prone nature could hurt the party headed into 2016.

Rep. Chris Stewart, a supporter of McCarthy’s who did not see the leader’s remarks, said that the California Republican may need to be cognizant that his comments now are going to be heavily scrutinized.

“Being a majority leader is different than being the speaker,” Stewart said. “There is a bigger microscope.”

McCarthy was the obvious choice to move up the ladder. He still may be if he can limit the damage.

But the Democrats are smelling blood and may demand McCarthy’s scalp as a price for keeping the Benghazi committee up and running. Democrats on the committee could simply walk away and refuse to participate any more. This would pretty much mean the end of the committee and the end of the Benghazi probe.

There is no other candidate who stands out, although it is believed that the two top candidates for majority leader — Reps. Scalise and Price — would probably be interested in the speakership if McCarthy drops out. And then, the scramble begins as some members who may have withdrawn their name from consideration for a leadership position might reconsider if the deck is shuffled.

The election is expected to take place during a GOP conference on October 8.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Obama Confident in Secret Service in Wake of Targeting Chaffetz

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

Of course he is.

President Barack Obama has not lost confidence in leadership of the U.S. Secret Service despite an investigation that revealed 45 employees accessed the personal information of a lawmaker investigating a string of security lapses, the White House said on Thursday.

This latest in the “string of security lapses” really wasn’t that at all though, however. It was blatant, authoritarian targeting, something that this administration has been known for. The White House isn’t likely to be too upset with orders that more than likely originated in the White House.

The next president is going to have quite a mess to clean up when he or she arrives in January, 2017. There are only a few who have the temerity to undo the stink that The Idiot King is going to leave behind, none of them Democrats.

If what’s been done isn’t undone, the stink will become permanent and we could be looking at an America that’s “Soviet Lite”.

Read bullet | Comments »

Rush Limbaugh Praises Ted Cruz: ‘Among Our Candidates Most Anti-Liberal’

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Michael van der Galien

Earlier today we reported that Mark Levin had high praise for Ted Cruz on his radio show yesterday. “The Great One,” as he’s nicknamed, said Ted is by far “the most consistently conservative candidate running.” He then blasted Mitch McConnell and Cruz’s rival for the Republican nomination, Rand Paul, for working against the senator from Texas.

Levin isn’t the only popular conservative radio talker who sang Cruz’s praises yesterday: Rush Limbaugh did the same. When a caller asked him who “the most anti-liberal candidate” running was, the radio show host couldn’t have been more clear.

Who – among our candidates – is the most is most anti-liberal? Is the most opposed to liberalism as part of its existence, policy and everything else? And there’s one clear answer. Put your hand up if you know who it is.

Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is the answer to your question, Roberto. If you’re looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented towards stopping it and thwarting it, and defeating it – it’s Ted Cruz.

Like Levin, Limbaugh didn’t go so far as to actually endorse Cruz, but both conservative talkers are obviously impressed by the junior senator from Texas and his no holds barred attitude.

Read bullet | 24 Comments »

Local Live Stream From Oregon Community College Shooting

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

There are varying reports on the number of dead and injured, so it’s best not to speculate. Here is the link to the local news live stream:


Read bullet | 6 Comments »

Netanyahu Slams UN for ‘Deafening Silence’ on Iranian Threats to Wipe Out Israel

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Debra Heine

In his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chided the world body for its Israel-bashing and its silence about Iran’s constant threats to destroy Israel.

To emphasize his point, he stopped talking for 40 seconds, resulting in an uncomfortable silence:

YouTube Preview Image

Netanyahu said the nuclear deal “will not turn the rapacious tiger into a kitten.” He added: “You must have learned … when bad behavior is rewarded, it only gets worse.” 

That line drew a smattering of applause from the General Assembly — but not from the U.S. delegation, which sat stone-faced:

YouTube Preview Image

Below, some more passages from the speech:

“The greatest danger facing our world is the coupling of militant Islam with nuclear weapons,” he said. The deal with Iran could be “the marriage certificate of this unholy union,” he added.

“Perhaps you’d be more reluctant to celebrate,” if the deal threatened your neighborhood, Netanyahu said, adding that Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missiles being built were meant for the U.S. and Europe. “For raining down mass destruction, anytime, anywhere.”

No one should doubt Israel’s determination to defend itself against those who threaten it with destruction, he warned.

“Your plan to destroy Israel will fail,” he said, addressing the rulers of Iran. No force on earth will threaten Israel’s future. We will do whatever it takes to defend our state and our people, he added.

“Here’s a novel idea. Instead of continuing the shameful routine of bashing Israel, stand with Israel. Israel stands with you.”

UN-imposed solutions or encouragement of Palestinian rejectionism will not bring peace, he said. “The UN should finally rid itself of the obsessive bashing of Israel.”

He called on the UN to stand with Israel in the fight against fanaticism, saying that Israel was at the frontlines in the fight against barbarism. “Israel is defending you.”

Read bullet | 28 Comments »

Jason Chaffetz Responds to DHS and Secret Service Apologies: ‘Ain’t Good Enough’

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Debra Heine

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) blasted the U.S. Secret Service for leaking “unflattering information” about his prior job application to the agency in an attempt to embarrass and intimidate him. The information appeared in an article the Daily Beast last April, raising eyebrows on Capitol Hill.

As PJ Media’s Michael Walsh reported, a subsequent investigation released Wednesday by the DHS inspector general found that Ed Lowery, a top official in the agency, a few days before the article appeared, had encouraged the snooping in an office email, saying that “some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out. Just to be fair.”

“It’s a little bit scary. The Secret Service diving into my background as a sitting member of Congress?” said Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room. “It’s not about me, but it is about: What are they doing over there? These people are trusted with guns by the president for goodness’ sake.”

Chaffetz said both the directors of DHS and the Secret Service had called him to apologize.

“That ain’t good enough,” he said. “I worry that if they’re doing this to me, they’re doing it to who knows how many other people.”

YouTube Preview Image

Rep Chaffetz issued the this statement following the release of the DHS watchdog report:

“Certain lines should never be crossed. The unauthorized access and distribution of my personal information crossed that line. It was a tactic designed to intimidate and embarrass me and frankly, it is intimidating. It’s scary to think about all the possible dangers in having your personal information exposed. The work of the committee, however, will continue. I remain undeterred in conducting proper and rigorous oversight.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) issued the following statement: 

“This report confirms that earlier this year a high-ranking Secret Service official encouraged the dissemination of personal information of Representative Jason Chaffetz and over 40 Secret Service agents improperly accessed and disseminated this information, in violation of federal law. No one, whether they are a Member of Congress or a private citizen, should have their private information violated in this manner. This incident is precisely why Americans do not trust the federal government with their personal information.

“The actions by these Secret Service employees are in clear violation of the Privacy Act and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson must hold all necessary personnel accountable.

“Unfortunately, this is the latest in a series of scandals and failures on the part of the Secret Service in recent years. The House Judiciary Committee will continue conducting aggressive oversight of the Secret Service in an effort to improve its operations and ensure accountability at all levels of the agency.”

So far, there’s no word on what they actually intend to do about it.

Read bullet | 5 Comments »

Carly: Planned Parenthood Activists Threw Condoms, Asked ‘Why Do You Hate Women?’

Thursday, October 1st, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said pro-Planned Parenthood activists showed up at a recent event to throw condoms at her “and several of the activists were dressed up like birth control dispensers.”

Fiorina has been under attack from abortion-rights activists since her forceful comments in the last primary debate about undercover videos detailing the harvesting of body parts from abortion for research.

“It’s terrible to see a woman, the only woman running for president, attack Planned Parenthood that helps so many millions of women. It’s a sad day, but it’s the way it is. Not all women are going to fight for women. Carly Fiorina does not. She fights for herself, and she’ll say almost anything to get elected,” said her former Senate election rival, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

Last night on Fox, Fiorina said the condom-throwing is “all part of their act to try and convince people that this debate we’re having about butchering babies is actually about birth control or women’s health.”

“It’s, of course, no such thing. It’s about butchering babies for body parts,” she said. “But nevertheless, they’re throwing condoms, hoping it will make a difference. I think the American people are smarter than that. And I will not be silent on this issue.”

Fiorina added that to say it’s “sexist to go after Planned Parenthood’s lies is pretty rich.”

“And in fact, when you mentioned those protesters who were throwing condoms at me — this woman said to me from among the protesters — I’m willing to sit down and talk to anyone — she said, why do you hate women? And at the time, I was surrounded by women of all ages,” she continued.

“It is part of the game they play. When Barbara Boxer says, well, you know, she doesn’t support women, this is part and parcel of Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric.”

Fiorina stressed that “Planned Parenthood has not, will not, cannot deny that this is happening because it is.”

“And if they care so much about women’s health, why is it that Democrats will not agree to use taxpayer funding to support pregnancy centers all around this country?” she added.

Read bullet | 15 Comments »