Obama

by

News/Politics 3-25-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

1. At least 14 people have died in a mudslide in Washington state. Many more are still missing.

From Seattle/CBSLocal  “The search for survivors of a deadly Washington state mudslide grew Monday to include scores of people who were still unaccounted for as the death toll from the wall of trees, rocks and debris that swept through a rural community rose to at least 14.

In the struggle to find loved ones, family members and neighbors used chain saws and their bare hands to dig through wreckage that was tangled by the mud into broken piles.

Authorities said they were looking for more than 100 people who had not been heard from since the disaster about 55 miles northeast of Seattle. They predicted that the number of missing would decline as more people are found safe. But the startling initial length of the list added to the anxieties two days after a mile-wide layer of soft earth crashed onto a cluster of homes at the bottom of a river valley.”

_______________________________________

2. The failed results of this administration’s “smart” diplomacy. Failed state, failed diplomacy. We should never have gotten involved.

From HotAir  “An anniversary passed this week that went almost completely unremarked — and for good reason. March 17th marked the three-year anniversary of the UN Security Council resolution imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to stop the Moammar Qaddafi regime from attacking rebel-held Benghazi and Ajdabiya, and the three-year anniversary on the 19th of the NATO war on Libya. French, British, and American planes began bombarding the Qaddafi regime, an air war that would continue for months — while Barack Obama refused to request Congressional approval for it. Later, Obama would claim that Libya represented the smart model of Western intervention.

If so, why did these anniversaries pass unremarked? The Associated Press report on the status of Libya today gives a very good answer, although it is not written as such. Libya has become a failed state, where the government’s writ doesn’t run outside of its capital, and not even everywhere within that. Not only is it a dangerous place, but it is a danger to the surrounding nations in north Africa too:

Libya, where hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless, is awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking. The arms free-for-all fuels not only Libya’s instability but also stokes conflicts around the region as guns are smuggled through the country’s wide-open borders to militants fighting in insurgencies and wars stretching from Syria to West Africa.

The lack of control is at times stunning. Last month, militia fighters stole a planeload of weapons sent by Russia for Libya’s military when it stopped to refuel at Tripoli International Airport on route to a base in the south. The fighters surrounded the plane on the tarmac and looted the shipment of automatic weapons and ammunition, Hashim Bishr, an official with a Tripoli security body under the Interior Ministry, told The Associated Press.”

And as the author notes later, the Obama admin relied on the same type of groups for security in Benghazi, and in Egypt as well.

__________________________________________

3. Democrats are now using the tactic of disparaging military service to help win elections. Rather cowardly, not to mention ungrateful of them, if you ask me.

Also from HotAir  “In case you were wondering precisely how desperate Senate Democrats are getting as they watch the poll numbers shift and the pages of the calendar fall away toward November, the answer would appear to be, “a lot.” You can argue the relative merits of policy and legislation all day long and nobody will bat an eye, but who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to criticize your opponent for serving their country in the military? Well, two examples come to mind from recent weeks. The first was Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) going after Tom Cotton.

There’s a disgusting pattern emerging of Democrats attacking Republican candidates’ records of service to the nation. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) recently complained that Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), his general election opponent, has a “sense of entitlement” because of his military service.

“There’s a lot of people in the Senate that didn’t serve in the military,” Pryor, who never served and is the son of a politician, told NBC News. “I think it’s part of this sense of entitlement that he gives off is that almost as like ‘I served my country, therefore elect me to the Senate.’ That’s not how it works in Arkansas.”

A “sense of entitlement” for mentioning your service record? That takes some serious chutzpah. It had the Morning Joe crew shaking their heads in disbelief.”

___________________________________________

4. Remember the old days when college campuses were the place to engage in debate, and all points of view were heard and considered, that whole free exchange of ideas thing?

Yeah, good times….. Nowadays you might get assaulted by a professor for not towing the liberal line.

From TheCollegeFix  “The University of California-Santa Barbara professor who allegedly assaulted a pro-life student on campus has been charged with criminal battery.

The College Fix reported on March 12 that department of feminist studies professor Mireille Miller-Young, whose research emphasis is black studies, pornography, and sex work, had been caught on camera assaulting a 16-year-old student, Thrin Short.

Miller-Young led a small mob that approached a group of pro-life demonstrators who were holding signs. The mob chanted “tear down the sign.” Miller-Young then grabbed one of the signs and stormed off with it, eventually engaging in a physical altercation with 16-year-old Short, one of the pro-life demonstrators, when Short tried to retrieve the stolen sign.

The confrontation took place in the university’s designated “free speech area.” 

The irony is strong with this one….

__________________________________________

5. The DoJ is trying to convince the Supreme Court that preventing an embryo in the womb from implanting is not abortion.

From CNSNews  “The U.S. Justice Department is telling the Supreme Court that killing a human embryo by preventing the embryo from implanting in his or her mother’s uterus is not an “abortion” and, thus, drugs that kill embryos this way are not “abortion-inducing” drugs.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The crux of the administration’s argument in this case is that when Christians form a corporation they give up the right to freely exercise their religion–n.b. live according to their Christian beliefs—in the way they run their business.

It is in the context of this case, that the administration is making its argument that killing an embryo seeking to implant in his or her mother’s womb is not an abortion.”

__________________________________________

6. This one is just disgusting. Talk about inhumane.

From TheTelegraph/UK  “The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.”

_________________________________

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.

For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.

For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.

For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.

For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99

also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.

For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99

I also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.

For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99

But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.

In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?

Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.

As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99

But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.

In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?

Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.

As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99

But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.

In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?

Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.

As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99

But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.

In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?

Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.

As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99

by

News/Politics 3-24-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

1. Is there any branch of government that isn’t spying on us? Sheesh. 😦

From TheWashingtonExaminer  “A parking ticket, traffic citation or involvement in a minor fender-bender are enough to get a person’s name and other personal information logged into a massive, obscure federal database run by the U.S. military.

The Law Enforcement Information Exchange, or LinX, has already amassed 506.3 million law enforcement records ranging from criminal histories and arrest reports to field information cards filled out by cops on the beat even when no crime has occurred.

LinX is a national information-sharing hub for federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. It is run by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, raising concerns among some military law experts that putting such detailed data about ordinary citizens in the hands of military officials crosses the line that generally prohibits the armed forces from conducting civilian law enforcement operations.”

________________________________________

2. This one is an update on the story from the other day of Pennsylvania’s Democrat AG dropping an investigation with video and audio recording of other Democrats taking bribes. She responded first by saying it was racist, and now she has lawyered up.

From HotAir  “The decision of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane to drop the investigation and potential prosecution of Philadelphia Democrats who were recorded accepting cash, money orders, or jewelry certainly seems suspicious. According to news reports, investigators collected over 400 hours of audio and video of five Democrats, including four state lawmakers, before Kane, also a Democrat, secretly killed the investigation last fall. When confronted with this troubling story by the Philadelphia Inquirer, Kane cited racism and mismanagement in the investigation, but the detailed descriptions of the recordings certainly seem to indicate that the payments were made.

Kane’s reaction to reports about her decision went from bad to worse. At first, she complained that white men were attacking her:”

“That was a pretty astounding escalation. It is not out of line to wonder why a state’s attorney general would drop an investigation which is said to have obtained detailed recordings of lawmakers taking bribes. The decision to dismiss the investigation under seal combined with Kane’s accusation that it was tainted by racism certainly is newsworthy and gives rise to an inference that, although we may not know exactly what went on here, something unusual did. That’s ordinarily a reason to give something more examination, not less.

But Kane, apparently frustrated by continuing scrutiny of her decision, has now escalated further, hiring counsel and suggesting that if the Inquirer continues to pursue the story, she would start suing people!“

________________________________________

3. This guy has a point. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

From CNSNews  “President Barack Obama’s policies “have become  progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization,” Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican, said in a  recent interview.”

“In an interview first published in Polish in Polonia Christiana magazine and republished exclusively in English at LifeSite News, Cardinal Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis, was asked about  President Obama’s policies towards Christian civilization and if there  are any “Catholic reactions against this policy? If yes, what are they,  [or] if not, why?” “

“Cardinal Burke, who heads the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court  at the Vatican, said: “It is true that the policies of the president of  the United States of America have become progressively more hostile  toward Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized  man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.””

________________________________________

4. Has the existence of the so-called “low information voter” been confirmed?

From AllenBWest  “I’ve often pondered the question, “are Americans deep thinkers or just soundbite grabbers?” We now have quantitative proof.

As reported by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post, a new study by the Media Insight Project, an initiative of the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute confirms the existence of the “low information voter.”

According to the study, 41 percent of Americans report that they watched, read, or heard any in-depth news stories, beyond the headlines, in the prior week.

However this means around 60 percent (six in 10) acknowledge they’ve done nothing more than read news headlines in the past week. Are you part of the 60 percent? Will you admit to being a low information voter? I do sometimes read comments posted to certain stories and realize some commenting have never read the entire piece — or at least lack basic skills in comprehension.”

Here’s the piece from the WashingtonPost.

________________________________________

5. Last one from me for today. A new study confirms that dumping more money into public education has not improved it in any state that’s tried it.

From HotAir  “So many progressive “solutions” to public policy problems simply involve dumping money into a hole. Education is no different. From teachers’ unions to New York Times pundits, the answer is always “more money.”  Conservatives doubt that solution – that just dumping money into the education system doesn’t actually improve student outcomes. This isn’t a new argument, but a new study out from the Cato Institute [pdf] finds that not a single state was able to improve their education outcomes by increasing the amount of taxpayer money they spent on education.

Author Andrew J. Coulson writes:

Not only have dramatic spending increases been unaccompanied by improvements in performance, the same is true of the occasional spending declines experienced by some states. At one time or another over the past four decades, Alaska, California, Florida, and New York all experienced multi-year periods over which real spending fell substantially (20 percent or more of their 1972 expenditure levels). And yet, none of these states experienced noticeable declines in adjusted SAT scores—either contemporaneously or lagged by a few years. Indeed, their score trends seem entirely disconnected from their rising and falling levels of spending.”

________________________________________

by

News/Politics 3-21-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

Open thread, with a few from me to start off.

1. The White House and other opponents of Voter ID will not be pleased with this.

From HotAir  “Under the oh so august leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, the Obama administration has been doing their very best to thwart various states in their individual endeavors to implement voter ID laws. In this latest iteration of that ongoing battle, the Federal Election Assistance Commission has so far refused to help state officials in Kansas and Arizona change federal election registration forms to include proof of citizenship. Both states have new voter-ID measures that require new voters to provide a birth certificate, passport, or other documentation to prove their citizenship, while the federal registration form only requires that new voters sign a statement declaring that they are citizens. On Wednesday, a federal judge basically told the Obama administration to stop deliberately getting in the states’ way on this one, via the LA Times:

A federal judge has ruled that Kansas and Arizona should be allowed to require voters to provide evidence of U.S. citizenship, in a case closely watched by both sides dealing with the question of voter eligibility.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren in Wichita, Kan., ruled that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission had no legal authority to deny requests from the two states to add the citizenship requirement. In the ruling, released Wednesday, he ordered the commission to revise the national form immediately. …

“This is a huge victory for the states of Kansas and Arizona,” Kobach said in a prepared statement emailed to reporters. “They have successfully protected our sovereign right to set and enforce the qualifications for registering to vote. We have now paved the way for all 50 states to protect their voter rolls and ensure that only U.S. citizens can vote.”

________________________________________

2. A lot of the damage this administration will inflict on the US will come long after it’s gone. But some of the judicial appointments are starting to join the party.

From JudicialWatch  “A Homeland Security initiative to put fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border could discriminate against minorities, according to an Obama-appointed federal judge who’s ruled that the congressionally-approved project may have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”

This of course means that protecting the porous—and increasingly violent—southern border is politically incorrect. At least that’s what the public college professor at the center of the case is working to prove and this month she got help from a sympathetic federal judge. Denise Gilman, a clinical professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Texas-Austin, is researching the “human rights impact” of erecting a barrier to protect the U.S. from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and other serious threats.

A 2006 federal law orders the construction of fencing or a wall along the most vulnerable portions of the nearly 2,000-mile southern border. This includes reinforced fencing along 700 miles of the southwest border with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determining the exact spots. Professor Gilman wants the identities of the landowners in the planned construction site to shed light on the impact the fencing will have on indigenous, minority and low-income communities. The feds refused to provide the information, asserting that it’s private.”

“This is simply the latest controversy to strike the border fence project since Congress approved it to protect national security and curb an illegal immigration and drug-trafficking crisis. In the last few years the mayors of several Texas border towns have blocked federal access to areas where the fence is scheduled to be built, an Indian tribe tried to block the barrier in the Arizona desert by claiming the feds were intruding on tribal land and a group of government scientists claimed the fencing would threaten the black bear population.”

________________________________________

3. The fight between the CIA and Senate continues. Reid’s on the right side for a change.

From TheWashingtonPost  “Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has escalated congressional concerns with alleged interference by the CIA in a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation by asking the Senate’s top law enforcement official to review computers used by committee staffers to investigate the agency’s controversial interrogation program.

Reid’s request comes as aides say he has grown convinced that the CIA overstepped its authority by attempting to interfere in the committee’s investigation into the interrogation program, the results of which may be released in the coming weeks. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who leads the intelligence panel, first publicly accused the CIA of interfering in her investigation during a dramatic Senate floor speech last week.

Reid sent a letter to CIA Director John O. Brennan late Wednesday stating that he has asked the Senate Sergeant at Arms to review the computers used by committee investigators and asked that he grant proper security clearances and access to the computers. As part of the committee probe, the CIA set up a secret facility in Northern Virginia with computers where investigators were promised unfettered access to millions of documents describing the interrogation program.”

_________________________________________

4. But Harry ain’t gonna like this one. 🙂

Also from HotAir  “How do you go from a warmly embraced team, which despite an undefeated record and a No. 1 seed is still viewed as a charming Cinderella most would like to see live up to the hype, to a hated, evil juggernaut program?

Probably like this, from an interview with the head coach of the Wichita State Shockers Gregg Marshall:

Carchia: Which living person do you most admire? Marshall: Charles Koch. He’s a Wichitan who owns the second-largest privately owned company, Koch Industries. He and his brother [David] are tied for the fourth-richest man in America, and he’s done it with great integrity and commitment to the community. He’s incredibly brilliant.“

😯 🙂

_________________________________________

by

News/Politics 3-20-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

1. Democrats paid bribed to oppose voter ID laws in their state? 🙄 Say it isn’t so….

And don’t think for a minute this is the only state it’s happened in.

I’m sure Holder will be all over this, like he was with Bob McConnell, a Republican indicted for allegations of the same thing. Yep, any minute now….

From PJMedia  “Pennsylvania Democrats were caught on surveillance tape reportedly accepting cash bribes in return for opposing voter ID in the Pennsylvania legislature. Gifts of Tiffany’s jewelry were also given to Democrat legislators from Philadelphia, reportedly in exchange for “NO” votes on a Pennsylvania voter ID bill that passed in 2012. Despite this evidence, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has not charged any officials. Kane is a Democrat.

Kane’s excuse for her inaction? Racism: some of the legislators caught on tape accepting bribes were black Democrats from Philadelphia. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Those who favored the sting believe Kane killed a solid investigation, led by experienced prosecutor Frank G. Fina, that had ensnared several public officials and had the potential to capture more. They said they were outraged at Kane’s allegation that race had played a role in the case.

Before Kane ended the investigation, sources familiar with the inquiry said, prosecutors amassed 400 hours of audio and videotape that documented at least four city Democrats taking payments in cash or money orders, and in one case a $2,000 Tiffany bracelet.”

Disgusting. As a state resident I’m ashamed that these people are still sitting in positions of authority. They should be indicted and impeached.

________________________________________

2. Looks like ObamaCare’s gonna need another illegal re-write, and another insurer bailout to keep them quiet.

From TheHill  “Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past. “The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year.”

She’s fibbin’ and she knows it.

________________________________________

3. The CBO director says it’s time for some painful choices, and the sooner the better.

From CNSNews  “The United States faces “fundamental fiscal challenges” stemming from the growth in spending for Social Security and major health care programs,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told a gathering in Washington on Tuesday.

The rising cost of those programs leaves Americans with “unpleasant” choices to make, but the sooner they’re made, the better, he said: 

“So we have a choice as a society to either scale back those programs relative to what is promised under current law; or to raise tax revenue above its historical average to pay for the expansion of those programs; or to cut back on all other spending even more sharply than we already are,” Elmendorf said.”

“Elmendorf said Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare will be much more expensive relative to GDP in future years because health care costs are rising, subsidized health insurance is expanding, and the population is aging: “There will be a third more people receiving Social Security Medicare benefits a decade from now than there are today,” he noted.”

________________________________________

4. So they’re saying that even though federal and state law says it’s illegal to discriminate based on religion, that they can because it’s only Christians they’re excluding?

Giving special consideration to some religions while excluding others is discrimination. It’s nothing more than a religious version of affirmative action.

From EAGNews  ” The teachers union contract in Ferndale Public Schools in Oakland County gives “special consideration” to applicants that are of “the non-Christian faith.”

Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment and public services on the basis of religion. The state constitution says it, “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” And the Federal Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion.”

“Should there be two (2) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications for the position and one (1) or more of these applicants with equal qualifications is a current employee, the current employee with the greatest seniority shall be assigned. Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith. However, in all appointments to vacant positions, the Board’s decision shall be final.

Earlier in the contract is a “no discrimination clause” that states no employee can be discriminated against based on their religion.”

Liberals love non-discrimination laws and push for them for just about every group. Shouldn’t they take care to follow their own rules?

________________________________________

5. Biden says the US will respond to any Russian aggression. Eventually. No really, he’s totally serious.

But it will already be over by the time they type up their next strongly worded reprimand.

From YahooNews  “Ukraine’s government said Wednesday it has begun drawing up plans to pull its troops from Crimea, where Russia is steadily taking formal control as its armed forces seize military installations across the disputed peninsula.

In a warning to Moscow, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden declared the United States will respond to any aggression against its NATO allies, which include neighbors to Russia.

Standing side by side with a pair of Baltic leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania, Biden said the U.S. was “absolutely committed” to defending its allies, adding that President Barack Obama plans to seek concrete commitments from NATO members to ensure the alliance can safeguard its collective security.

“Russia cannot escape the fact that the world is changing and rejecting outright their behavior,” Biden said, after meeting in Vilnius with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite and Latvian President Andris Berzins.”

And you and the President can’t escape the fact that it just changed because of Russia, and that they continue to reject your attempts to stop them. You’re a day late and a dollar short Joe.

_________________________________________

by

News/Politics 3-19-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

1. The chances of this ending peacefully are getting slimmer.

________________________________________

2. Mitt might not like to say he told you so, but yeah, he did. And he was mocked for it.

From HotAir  “Mitt Romney doesn’t, not explicitly anyway. However, the context of this op-ed from Barack Obama’s 2012 opponent could not be clearer. After Obama and Democrats ridiculed his worldview in that campaign, calling it a relic of the 1980s, Romney warns that what America and the West need now is leadership that anticipates events and sees the world realistically so as to seize opportunities when they arise:

Why, across the world, are America’s hands so tied?

A large part of the answer is our leader’s terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, “a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.”

“When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion. …”

_____________________________________

3. Here’s an update to the international control of the internet story. And once again as Mitt said, the Obama admin misses the obvious when it comes to Russia.

From National Journal  “The Commerce Department announced Friday that it will give the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an international nonprofit group, control over the database of names and addresses that allows computers around the world to connect to each other.

Administration officials say U.S. authority over the Internet address system was always intended to be temporary and that ultimate power should rest with the “global Internet community.”                                    

But some fear that the Obama administration is opening the door to an Internet takeover by Russia, China, or other countries that are eager to censor speech and limit the flow of ideas.”

“Castro argued that the world “could be faced with a splintered Internet that would stifle innovation, commerce, and the free flow and diversity of ideas that are bedrock tenets of world’s biggest economic engine.”

_________________________________________

4. Here’s yet another way Obama buys off the insurance industry to keep quiet about his illegal changes to the law.

From TheDailyCaller   “Republican Tennessee Rep. Diane Black says that the Obama administration’s most recent Obamacare rule change will result in insurance companies keeping more profits while paying less for customers’ health care needs.

“I am writing to express my concern with the proposed rule change released on Friday, March 14th that would allow insurance companies to keep an additional two percent of premiums for purposes other than medical care…your department is now proposing to increase the amount of money that insurance companies will be allowed to retain for profit,” Black wrote in a letter Tuesday to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, which was obtained by The Daily Caller.

HHS’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quietly introduced the new rule Friday, which relieves insurance companies of some of the damage about to be levied on them by Obamacare-related administrative costs.”

________________________________________

5. Lowering costs and reducing premiums? No. And it never will.

Also from TheDailyCaller  “Health insurance premiums have risen more after Obamacare than the average premium increases over the eight years before it became law, according to the private health exchange eHealthInsurance.

The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39 percent since February 2013, eHealth reports. Without a subsidy, the average individual premium is now $274 a month. Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56 percent over the same period — average premiums are now $663 per family, over $426 last year.

Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years.”

It seems the president’s promises always come with an expiration date.

________________________________________

6. Yesterday I linked a story about the Obama admin’s horrible record when it comes to transparency. Here’s how they do it. And yet another example of how this admin ignores and re-writes laws it doesn’t like.

Seeking FOIA documents? Everything gets edited by the White House first.

From TheWashingtonExaminer  “It’s Sunshine Week, so perhaps some enterprising White House reporter will ask press secretary Jay Carney why President Obama rewrote the Freedom of Information Act without telling the rest of America.

The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved “White House equities.”

That phrase is nowhere to be found in the FOIA, yet the Obama White House effectively amended the law to create a new exception to justify keeping public documents locked away from the public.

“FOIA is designed to inform the public on government behavior; White House equities allow the government to withhold information from the media, and therefore the public, by having media requests forwarded for review. This not only politicizes federal agencies, it impairs fundamental First Amendment liberties,” Cause of Action explains in its report.”

________________________________

7. More intolerance from the tolerant left. So much for the free exchange of ideas concept huh?

From TheCollegeFix  “An upcoming conference organized by Stanford University’s Anscombe Society called “Communicating Values: Marriage, Family & the Media” has been dubbed “hate speech” by the college’s graduate-level student government, which refused to allow any of its student fee-funded budget to support the event.”

“They voiced a litany of complaints over why they believed the event should not be funded – as well as why it should not even take place on campus at all, comments met with strong support by most on the dais, who echoed similar sentiments.”

How can you reason with such unreasonable people?

________________________________________

 

by

News/Politics 3-18-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

1. Most transparent ever? No.

From TheAP  “The Obama administration has a way to go to fulfill its promises from Day 1 to become the most transparent administration in history.

More often than ever, the administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, cited more legal exceptions it said justified withholding materials and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.”

“The government’s own figures from 99 federal agencies covering six years show that halfway through its second term, the administration has made few meaningful improvements in the way it releases records. In category after category – except for reducing numbers of old requests and a slight increase in how often it waived copying fees – the government’s efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office.

In a year of intense public interest over the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, the government cited national security to withhold information a record 8,496 times – a 57 percent increase over a year earlier and more than double Obama’s first year, when it cited that reason 3,658 times. The Defense Department, including the NSA, and the CIA accounted for nearly all those. The Agriculture Department’s Farm Service Agency cited national security six times, the Environmental Protection Agency did twice and the National Park Service once.”

_________________________________________

2. More on a story from the other day, and a back door way to push thru an international tax?

From Politico  “The Obama administration’s decision to relinquish oversight over the group that manages the Internet’s architecture has raised an early red flag with Republicans, who blast the move as a threat to free speech.”

“The United States has always played a leading role in overseeing the management of .com and other domain names, but the administration announced Friday night that it will give up its oversight when the current contract expires in fall 2015. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, last month proposed establishing “a clear timeline” for globalizing ICANN and the duties it performs under the U.S. contract.”

““While I certainly agree our nation must stridently review our procedures regarding surveillance in light of the NSA controversy, to put ourselves in a situation where censorship-laden governments like China or Russia could take a firm hold on the Internet itself is truly a scary thought,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said. “I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee and with the Commerce Department on this, because — to be blunt — the ‘global internet community’ this would empower has no First Amendment.””

“Congress needs to prevent the Obama administration from giving away U.S. control over the Internet to any international body,” Americans for Limited Government said in a statement. “Perhaps this latest egregious action by the Obama administration in their quest to deconstruct the United States will finally wake Congress up to their power of the purse responsibility as a co-equal partner in government.”

________________________________________

3. Thoughts?

From Stars and Stripes  “The Marine Corps will open new combat jobs to women, allow women to volunteer for combat specialty training previously closed to them and create a co-ed experimental task force to evaluate how female Marines perform as part of a ground combat unit, Marine officials said.

The task force will be made up of about 460 Marines, and about one quarter will be women, said Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman. The task force will look like a small battalion landing team with attachments such as artillery, tanks and amphibious assault vehicles — similar to the ground combat portion of a Marine Expeditionary Unit, but about half the size.

The Camp Lejeune, N.C.-based unit will replicate the predeployment training cycle that other ground combat units go through, and will help the Marine Corps evaluate whether women are capable of doing the jobs and physically demanding tasks inherent in the training, Krebs said.”

_________________________________________

4. Affordable Care Act? No, not really.

From TheWashingtonExaminer   “Americans buying health insurance outside the new Obamacare exchanges are being forced to swallow premiums up to 56 percent higher than before the health law took effect because insurers have jumped the cost to cover all the added features of the new Affordable Care Act.

According to a cost report from eHealthInsurance, a nationwide online private insurance exchange, families are paying an average of $663 a month and singles $274 a month, far more than before Obamacare kicked in. What’s more, to save money, most buyers are choosing the lowest level of coverage, the so-called “bronze” plans.”

“Premiums are increasing primarily because of the new required provisions for 2014 Affordable Care Act compliant plans, including guaranteed issue, essential health benefits, modified community rating and minimum actuarial values,” said Brian Mast, spokesman for eHealthInsurance. “It is also likely that health insurance companies expected additional risk in the risk pool, because people with pre-existing conditions could no longer be denied coverage, and may have priced their plans higher to accommodate for this risk,” said Mast.

His firm’s price index also gives an average age for singles buying plans, and the results are worrying for insurers and the Obama administration. That’s because the average age is 36, older than the administration had hoped for.”

_________________________________________

by

News/Politics 3-17-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

Open thread.

1. Remember folks, as always, vote fraud is a myth.

________________________________________

2. This will embolden Russia for sure.

From MSNNews  “Final results of the referendum in Crimea show that 97 percent of voters have supported leaving Ukraine to join Russia, the head of the referendum election commission said Monday.

Mikhail Malyshev told a televised news conference that the final tally from Sunday’s vote was 96.8 percent in favor of splitting from Ukraine. He also said that the commission has not registered a single complaint about the vote.

The referendum was widely condemned by Western leaders who were planning to discuss economic sanctions to punish Russia on Monday. Ukraine’s new government in Kiev called the referendum a “circus” directed at gunpoint by Moscow.

________________________________________

3. Some interesting immigration stats.

From CNSNews  “was  less than the approximately 12.5 million people whom the Bureau of Labor  Statistics estimated were unemployed in the United States in the  average month of 2012.

However, it exceeds the approximately 11.46 million people  whom BLS says were unemployed in the average month of 2013. “

“If Pew’s estimate that there were 11.7 million illegal aliens in the  United States as of March 2012 is accurate–and if that population has  not begun to decline again as Pew estimated it did during 2007-2009  recession—then there would have been more illegal aliens in the United  States in 2013 than people who were unemployed.”

_________________________________________

4. President Obama is doing his best to increase the number of illegal aliens in the US.

From TheDailyCaller  “President Barack Obama may further reduce the small percentage of illegal immigrants who are sent home each year, say advocates for immigrants and would-be immigrants.

Obama “has charged his Secretary of Homeland Security… to reduce where they can the levels of deportation,” Janet Murguia, president of the major Latino ethnic lobby group, the National Council of la Raza.

“Our hope and expectation is with that [policy change] would come some reduction in the level of deportations,” she told reporters gathered outside the White House Friday evening.

The reduction could be as high as 50 percent, depending on how much Obama is willing to change agency rules, Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, told The Daily Caller.”

Once again, the president ignore or re-writes laws he doesn’t like.

________________________________________

5. And once again the president cuts benefits for our fighting men and women, while protecting unionized civilian workers.

From InvestorBusinessDaily  “The administration plans to cut the military pensions of those who served  their country while giving public employees a break by exempting their ObamaCare  subsidies from sequestration.

On the heels of announcing that Army troop levels will be cut below pre-World  War II levels, the Military Times has reported that the Obama administration is  planning to reduce military pension costs by 10% by converting part of their  retirement to 401(k)-like defined-contribution plans from defined-benefit  plans.

What makes this interesting is that it affects military retirees and members  of the military who are non-union and therefore can’t strike or engage in  collective bargaining. Public-sector union employees will retain their  defined-benefit plans.

So, those who defend this country will be cut while those who feed at the  public trough and whose union dues provide a ready supply of campaign cash will  not.”

________________________________________

6. Democrats lead by Harry Reid have been attacking the Koch Bros. non-stop lately. As you’d expect, they’re not above lying to try and score points with the low info voters.

From TheWashingtonPost  “The pro-GOP group Americans for Prosperity has relentlessly attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), so the pro-Democratic group Senate Majority PAC has made AFP’s main backers, the Koch brothers, the subject of a new attack ad. This is all part of a larger Democratic strategy of tying GOP candidates to the conservative billionaires, as witnessed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s near-daily attacks on them.

A number of the claims in the ad we have covered before, such as the hyperbolic charge that Republicans want to “end Medicare.” The so-called Social Security cuts stem in part from changing the formula for indexing benefits to inflation — something also supported by President Obama. And AFP did not oppose hurricane relief; it opposed a version that it believed was fiscally irresponsible. (Moreover, this mostly had to do with money for Hurricane Sandy, which didn’t even come close to Louisiana.)

For the purpose of this fact check, we will examine the claim that the Koch brothers have an agenda of protecting “tax cuts for companies that ship our jobs overseas.” That’s a new one.”

“Upon examination, this claim crumbles into dust. The ad not only mischaracterizes an ordinary tax deduction as a special “tax cut” but then it falsely asserts that “protecting” this tax break is part of the Koch agenda. It turns out this claim is based on a tenuous link to an organization that never even took a position on the legislation in question.”

The fact checkers give them 4 Pinocchios.

_________________________________________

by

News/Politics 3-15-14

What’s interesting in the news this weekend?

Open thread, as always.

Here’s a few from me.

1. Sure, what could possibly go wrong?

From TheWaPo  “U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.

Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash last year to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.

The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.

“We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan,” Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement.”

_________________________________________

2. More bi-partisan shenanigans from our elected officials. And of course, the DoJ refuses to pursue the matter.

From TheWashingtonTimes  “FBI agents working alongside Utah state prosecutors in a wide-ranging corruption investigation have uncovered accusations of wrongdoing by two of the U.S. Senate’s most prominent figures — Majority Leader Harry Reid and rising Republican Sen. Mike Lee — but the Justice Department has thwarted their bid to launch a full federal investigation.

The probe, conducted by one Republican and one Democratic state prosecutor in Utah, has received accusations from an indicted businessman and political donor, interviewed other witnesses and gathered preliminary evidence such as financial records, Congressional Record statements and photographs that corroborate some aspects of the accusations, officials have told The Washington Times and ABC News.

But the Justice Department’s public integrity section — which normally handles corruption cases involving elected figures — rejected FBI agents’ bid to use a federal grand jury and subpoenas to determine whether the accusations are true and whether any federal crimes were committed by state and federal officials.”

________________________________________

3. Benghazi, and the investigation that was never investigated.

From FoxNews  “American personnel on the ground in Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack are outraged after learning that the CIA’s inspector general never conducted an investigation into what happened — despite two CIA workers being killed in the attack and despite at least two complaints being filed by CIA employees.”

“Asked why such a probe has not been launched, a CIA spokesman said: “CIA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) always reviews carefully every matter that is brought to its attention, and takes appropriate action based on a variety of factors.”

“But a CIA spokesman said the OIG has already “explained fully” to the agency’s congressional oversight committees “why it did not open an investigation into Benghazi-related issues.”

“That decision was based on a determination that the concerns raised fell under the purview of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, and that a separate OIG action could unnecessarily disrupt the FBI’s criminal investigation into the Benghazi attacks,” the spokesman said.”

_________________________________________

4. The best way to fight racism is with….. more racism? 🙄

From King5.com  “An attempt to fight racism at a community college may have backfired.

A group of employees at South Puget Sound Community College sent out an invitation to all 300 staffers.

The “Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color” encouraged employees to reply to the invitation to find out the confidential date and time of what was being called a “happy hour” to “build support and community” for people of color.

The invite made it clear white people were not invited.”

With a Hat Tip to Janice for pointing this one out.

_________________________________________

by

News/Politics 3-14-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

1. Trey Gowdy hammered the Obama admin from the House floor yesterday, in protest of the President refusing to enforce legally passed laws.

________________________________________

2. John Kerry has issued a warning and deadline to the Russians.

From TheWashingtonExaminer  “Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance.

Kerry will travel to London for a Friday meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ahead of a Sunday referendum vote in the Crimea region to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.

U.S. and European officials argue that Moscow is orchestrating the referendum and waging an intimidation campaign with thousands of Russian troops controlling the region. If Russian-backed lawmakers in Crimea go through with the Sunday referendum, Kerry said the U.S. and its European allies will not recognize it as legitimate under international law.”

_________________________________________

3. I don’t think the Russians are intimidated.

From TheNYTimes  “With a referendum on secession looming in Crimea, Russia massed troops and armored vehicles in at least three regions along Ukraine’s eastern border on Thursday, alarming the interim Ukraine government about a possible invasion and significantly escalating tensions in the crisis between the Kremlin and the West.

The announcement of the troop buildup by Russia’s Defense Ministry was met with an unusually sharp rebuke from Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who warned that the Russian government must abandon what she called the politics of the 19th and 20th centuries or face diplomatic and economic retaliation from a united Europe.”

_________________________________________

4. Why am I not surprised?

From TheWashingtonExaminer  “Make no mistake, there is always a deeper agenda whenever a seemingly innocent campaign pops up overnight.

On Sunday, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg launched a new campaign, known as ‘Ban Bossy,’ which would – as you can imagine – encourage people to ban the word “bossy.”

Is there some kind of epidemic of that word being used to keep girls from achieving? Many of the surveys cited by the Ban Bossy campaign are decades old, and a more recent survey by the Girl Scouts of America found that girls are more likely than boys to see themselves as a leader or have the desire to be a leader.

So, why start a national campaign? For starters, Sandberg is an ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.”

Astroturf sold as grassroots.

________________________________________

5. Looks like it’s gonna be your typical Democrat/Clinton campaign.

From TheAmericanSpectator  “Hillary Clinton has her own private NSA.

American Bridge PAC spent last week spying on the private conversations of attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).”

“American Bridge was founded by Clinton ally David Brock and is funded by longtime Clinton supporter and billionaire George Soros. American Bridge PAC president Brad Woodhouse boasted that the group’s “trackers” at CPAC had been “in the hallways capturing conversations and that kind of thing.” Meaning? Meaning Hillary’s American Bridge is about invading privacy. CPAC’s today, someone else’s tomorrow. Yours.

“The group has been transformed from an ordinary political action committee into the political version of the NSA, its staffers working out of a room littered with computer monitors that will flash the latest privacy invasion for dissemination.”

________________________________________

6. More illegal changes from the Obama admin, this time to the sequester deal, but for the benefit of ObamaCare.

From NationalJournal  “The Obama administration has decided that the sequester’s mandatory spending cuts no longer apply to part of Obamacare.

The health care law provides subsidies to help low-income people cover some of their out-of-pocket costs. Last year, the administration said those subsidies were taking a 7 percent cut because of the sequester, which imposed across-the-board reductions in federal spending.

But now, the White House has changed its mind. It removed the cost-sharing subsidies from its list of programs that are subject to the sequester, eliminating the 7 percent cut for 2015.                                            

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which noticed the change, said the reversal would likely restore about $560 million to the subsidies—and require $560 million in cuts to other programs to make up for it.”

_________________________________________

7. Sure. Why not? After all, they’ve seen the type of access, influence, and policy writing capabilities this has gained them with this administration. So why not put all the money in one big pile and see what it can buy ya’? I guess terrorist funding groups and sympathizers need lobbyists too nowadays. 🙄

From CNSNews  “Ten U.S. Islamic organizations have formed a new umbrella group to serve as a “representative voice” for  American Muslims, and one of their first tasks will be to carry out a  census of the community.

Other focus areas for the new U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations  (USCMO), according to speakers at the body’s launch in Washington on  Wednesday, include enhancing Muslim political engagement and participation in forthcoming elections, civil rights issues, combating  “Islamophobia” and having an impact on U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

Participating organizations include high-profile groups that have  been dogged by controversy, such as the Muslim American Society (MAS), founded by Muslim Brotherhood members, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which  was named by the Justice Department in 2007 as “unindicted  co-conspirators” in its case against the Holy Land Foundation in Texas,  subsequently found guilty of raising money for Hamas.”

““The new national council’s first priority will be to build on Muslim  citizenship rights by conducting a census of American Muslims to create  a database that will be used to enhance civic and political  participation in upcoming elections,” USCMO said in a statement.”

_________________________________________

8. And last for today, an interesting story. A judge in NJ has said fathers do not have the right to be present during the birth of their children. I could see why in some cases it might not be appropriate, but like with abortion, it’s not fair that the father has no say in the matter.

From Philadelphia/CBSLocal  “A New Jersey court decision makes it clear, it may take two to tango but not to give birth. “It’s well established under federal and state law that there is a privacy right when a woman’s in labor.”

Rutgers professor and family law expert Sally Goldfarb says a Passaic County judge made the right call last November in his decision, which was published this week, when he sided with pregnant woman that her ex-fiancee had no legal right to be in the delivery room.

“What this man was seeking to do was really interfere with the woman’s ability to exercise her own choices about giving birth in privacy and that to me falls outside of the rights that a father is legitimately entitled to.”

In the decision, believed to be the first of its kind, the father was also told he didn’t have a right to know when the baby was born.”

So never mind his rights to visitation? Is he supposed to wait until the child support papers show up and that can be like a birth announcement? Even if he can’t be present, he should have the right to be notified, and to visit the child in the hospital. Thoughts?

_________________________________________

by

News/Politics 3-13-14

What’s interesting in the news today?

Lots to talk about today.

1. Yesterday it was Hillary and a bunch of Democrats in DC with the questionable campaign donations. Today, it’s Obama, Menendez, and Rubio.

From TheNYTimes  “The donations kept pouring in: hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to President Obama and more than a dozen members of Congress, carefully routed through the families of two wealthy brothers in Florida.

They had good reason to be generous. The two men, Roberto and William Isaias, are fugitives from Ecuador, which has angrily pressed Washington to turn them over, to no avail. A year after their relatives gave $90,000 to help re-elect Mr. Obama, the administration rejected Ecuador’s extradition request for the men, fueling accusations that such donations were helping to keep the brothers and their families safely on American soil.

“The Isaias brothers fled to Miami not to live off their work, something just, but to buy themselves more mansions and Rolls-Royces and to finance American political campaigns,” President Rafael Correa of Ecuador told reporters last month. “That’s what has given them protection,” he added, an allegation the Obama administration and members of Congress reject.

The tug of war over the Isaias brothers, sentenced in an embezzlement case, is part of a broader battle between Ecuador and the White House over international fugitives, including two other men the Obama administration would like to get its hands on: Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor.”

________________________________________

2. Of course he would. He knows better than anyone how many they’re ignoring. It’s dereliction of duty.

From TheDailyCaller  “President Barack Obama would veto a GOP-drafted bill that would allow legislators to take agency officials to court if they don’t enforce laws, according to a White House statement.

The GOP is pushing the bill through the House because Obama has repeatedly declined to enforce laws he doesn’t like, say GOP legislators.

“President Obama has refused to enforce those parts of our nation’s immigration laws that are not to his political liking, has waived portions of our welfare laws, has stretched our environmental laws to accommodate his policy objectives, and has waived testing accountability provisions required under the ‘No Child Left Behind’ education law,” according to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House judiciary committee.”

There are several other instances as well.

________________________________________

3. The Obama admin has finally admitted their “record number of deportations” meme is a lie.

From TheWashingtonTimes  “Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.

But Republican critics have argued those deportation numbers are artificially inflated because more than half of those being deported were new arrivals, caught at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol. Previous administrations primarily counted only those caught in the interior of the U.S. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

_________________________________________

4. Here’s the most recent example of this administration ignoring laws it doesn’t like.

From TheWallStJournal  “ObamaCare’s implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.

This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn’t think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week.

That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether.”

Zero media attention? Not shocking.

_________________________________________

5. Ah yes………

The Sgt. Schultz defense. 🙄

From TheDailyCaller  “Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted Wednesday that Obamacare premiums will probably go up in 2015, that she does not know how many Obamacare customers have paid their premiums, and that she does not know how many Obamacare enrollees had insurance previously.

“I think premiums are likely to go up, but go up at a slower pace” than they did previously, Sebelius admitted at Wednesday’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

“I can’t tell you that, sir, because I don’t know that,” Sebelius said when asked by Georgia Rep. Tom Price how many Obamacare customers have paid their first premiums. Sebelius said she also does not know how many Obamacare customers previously had insurance plans that were canceled.”

________________________________________

6. It’s official. Politically, we have come full circle. 🙂

From TheHill  “A longtime House Democrat in electoral jeopardy this fall says he supported former President George W. Bush more than President Obama.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), first elected in 1976, is a top target of Republicans in a state where Obama has long been deeply unpopular. He is facing a state senator, Evan Jenkins, who switched to the GOP to challenge him, and the House Democratic campaign committee recently added him to its “Frontline” list of members that need the most help saving their seat in November.”

“I will support him when he’s good for West Virginia, and I will oppose him when he’s bad for West Virginia,” Rahall said. Asked if Obama had been good for West Virginia overall, he replied, “Probably not.” 

“I probably have supported George Bush more than I have Barack Obama,” Rahall said. “Am I going to switch parties because of that? No. I’m a Democrat, born a Democrat, am a Democrat and will die a Democrat.””

Bush

________________________________________

7. Here’s an update to the story of the NJ girl who thought her parents owed her the life she wanted.

From MSN   “The New Jersey honor student who sued to get her parents to support her after she moved out of their home has reunited with them, and the family is now asking for privacy.