Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

November 2014

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 12, 2014 7 Comments

Bet they turned out to vote last week....

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on November 11, 2014 3 Comments
In a recent op-ed for the Daily Beast, Senator Rand Paul became the latest critic of what many see as a long history of Presidential abuse of power stretching back to Richard Nixon. In his piece, entitled "Obama's ISIS war is illegal," Paul made clear his view that the President’s action against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has eclipsed its legality — if there ever was any to begin with — because we have now crossed the 90-day provisional authorization for military force permitted by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. To be sure, it doesn't appear Paul is not advocating for the end of hostilities against the roundly condemned members of ISIS. Rather, he is merely asserting a simple but essential truth about our system of government: Process matters.
I believe the President must come to Congress to begin a war… It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended. Congress has a duty to act, one way or the other.
While it is true that we live in a time that exposes our nation to swift attacks on a grand scale, this reality does not justify the manner in which President Obama is circumventing the constitutional prerogative of Congress. Indeed, 90 days was ample time for the President to situate a small number of forces on the ground, carry out targeted airstrikes, and prepare a request to Congress to authorize military force. Yet no such request has been submitted. Obama is not the first President to engage in this realm of constitutionally questionable behavior, but the implications of his continued insistence on going it alone in nearly every aspect of his Presidency — foreign and domestic — threatens to undermine the very framework of the nation’s structure of governance.

Posted by David Gerstman on November 11, 2014 4 Comments
Two Israelis were killed yesterday in separate terror attacks by knife wielding assailants. Yesterday morning, a 20 year old soldier, Almog Shiloni, was stabbed in Tel Aviv. The Times of Israel reports:
Almog Shiloni, 20, of Modiin, died of multiple wounds to his stomach and chest, an official from the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer Hospital said. “After resuscitation efforts that began in the field and continued for hours in the hospital, the stabbing victim who arrived at the hospital earlier today was declared dead,” a spokesperson announced. When Shiloni was first brought into the hospital following the attack he had no pulse, although doctors were able to restart his heart.
His girlfriend, who was talking to him on the phone at the time, rushed to the scene when she heard a commotion and Almog didn't answer. When she arrived at the scene she saw "Almog lying in a pool of blood as emergency teams tried to resuscitate him." In the afternoon a 26 year old woman, Dalia Lemkus,  was stabbed to death and two others were wounded in a knife attack in Gush Etzion (the Etzion Bloc) by a terrorist who was shot and wounded by a security guard.
The stabber was shot by a guard on duty at the site, police said. Initial reports indicated he was killed, but later reports dispelled that claim. Magen David Adom said he was in serious condition. A 26-year-old man suffered light-moderate injuries, and a man in his 50s was lightly hurt in the incident. Their names were not released. Channel 2 reported that the older man was driving by the scene when he saw the attack in progress, then stopped his car and wrestled with the attacker before suffering an injury to his face.
Sherri Mandel, whose teenage son Kobi, was killed in 2001 during the so-called "Aqsa intifada," wrote a tribute to Lemkus, What the didn't tell you about Dalia, at The Times of Israel:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 11, 2014 18 Comments
PJ Media's Bill Whittle outlines his top five conservative principles in the latest edition of Afterburner. Whittle articulates the nexus of culture, politics, and American values succinctly on a regular basis. Seeing as Republicans just took control of the Senate, it's a good time to reflect on what we believe, why we believe it, and then proceed in a manner befitting that foundation. As Whittle says, "Conservatism kicks ass. You really should give it a try." Take a look:

Posted by Amy Miller on November 11, 2014 21 Comments
Bill Maher and his merry panelists experienced the mother of all pregnant pauses when a viewer's question directed at actress Lisa Kudrow baiting an anti-Republican reaction to the "war on women" fell flatter than a pancake on a cold skillet. Behold: "There's a Republican 'war on women?' Which part of being a woman?" Translation: why am I here right now? The recent reboot of Kudrow's hit TV show "The Comeback" has forced pundits to once again begin beating the dead "war on women" horse, but from Kudrow's perspective, jumping immediately to cries of "institutional sexism!" just doesn't make sense:
Kudrow told HuffPost Live's Ricky Camilleri on Tuesday that while she did feel audiences were uncomfortable with a humiliated woman on TV, she thinks the problem expands far beyond Hollywood. "I'm not sure I'd go as far as misogyny in the business, though, but a lot of people do see it that way. ... I think it's just the world. I don't think it's specific to this industry," Kudrow said. The actress recalled a conversation with her "Comeback" co-creator Michael Patrick King during the first season in which he expressed unhappiness that entertainment lacks a point of reference for every type of woman, especially a potentially unlikeable one. It wasn't until the series got the axe from HBO that Kudrow realized King had a point. "I thought, 'I don't know what you're talking about. It's a character. It's a great character.' I wasn't thinking in terms of a man or a woman. What does it matter? It's a great character," she said. "I didn't think it would matter, and then it slowly hit me: Oh, that may have been something there. That may have been what it was."
Whether you agree with Kudrow's perspective on the differing portrayals of men and women coming out of the entertainment industry, I think her reaction to Maher's question, coupled with this snippet, is representative of more women in America than the cheap punditry of outrage peddlers like Sandra Fluke.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 11, 2014 17 Comments
Rasmieh (Rasmea) Odeh was convicted on Monday by a jury in Detroit, after only 2 hours of deliberation, of unlawful procurement of naturalization. Odeh failed to reveal on her initial visa application and subsequent naturalization application that in 1969 she had been convicted of a terrorist bombing at a Super Sol supermarket, and served time in prison. Odeh served 10 years before being released by Israel as part of a prisoner release for a captured Israeli soldier in Lebanon. Her Israeli conviction was not just for the bombing. The pro-Rasmea propaganda campaign by anti-Israel Palestinian activists has been a textbook example of how anti-Israel propaganda works in the U.S. Odeh claims that her confession to involvement in the bombing was the result of her being sexually tortured in front of her father by Israeli soldiers, and even made to watch another prisoner being tortured to death. There is no way to verify or not her story. But there is evidence that Odeh was involved in the bombing apart from her confession. In this video, part of a pro-Palestinian Women in Struggle documentary, a woman identified as either her sister or "comrade"  talks about how Rasmea was involved in the bombing (watch the video here). National Review reports:
When Odeh was 21 years old, she was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist group and original member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which the U.S. has designated as a foreign terrorist organization, according to the indictment.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 11, 2014 2 Comments
In 1985, President Reagan gave his Veteran's Day Address at Arlington National Cemetery. With the Cold War a fresh threat, Reagan emphasized the importance of peace while insisting, "strength is a declaration that cannot be misunderstood. Strength is a condition that declares actions have consequences. Strength is a prudent warning to the belligerent that aggression need not go unanswered." There is never enough we can do for our veterans who willingly sacrifice so much. Their selflessness was not neglected by Reagan who told this story:
Sometime back I received in the name of our country the bodies of four marines who had died while on active duty. I said then that there is a special sadness that accompanies the death of a serviceman, for we're never quite good enough to them-not really; we can't be, because what they gave us is beyond our powers to repay. And so, when a serviceman dies, it's a tear in the fabric, a break in the whole, and all we can do is remember.
This Veteran's Day, we humbly offer our utmost gratitude to all who have fought to preserve the greatest country man has ever devised. While words hardly seem sufficient, we can offer this: we remember.

Posted by Andrew Branca on November 11, 2014 63 Comments
The blog Gateway Pundit is reporting that a self-described Pan-Africanist group has put out a $5,000 bounty on Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson. Darren Wilson $5k bounty #Ferguson Pan-Africanist #Ferguson Wilson is, of course, the police officer who decisively convinced the 292 pound adult black male Mike Brown to cease his violent attack upon the officer. Brown's death led to days of riots, looting, and arson, followed by months of ongoing violent and inflammatory protests.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 10, 2014 45 Comments
President Obama is once again threatening to enforce immigration reform through Executive Order. Obama threatened immigration "reform" (a term no one seems to be able to define exactly) via Executive Order this summer. As midterms drew closer and Democrats were getting hammered on the issue, he backed off the subject. As NPR reported, ""The reality the president has had to weigh is that we're in the midst of the political season," a White House official says, noting that Obama "believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects" for reform if he acted before November." In an interview with Face the Nation that was taped Friday, President Obama indicated, "I'm going to do what I need to do" concerning immigration reform. More concerning is that Obama seems to understand that his actions are easily remedied by Congressional action, which would also seem to indicate that he's aware Executive Action is not the proper procedure for what should be a legislative decision. Saying, "the minute they [the House] pass a bill that addresses the problems with immigration reform,  I will sign it and it supersedes whatever actions I take and I'm encouraging them to do so." Although he made no mention of what the "problems with immigration reform" might be.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 10, 2014 9 Comments
Even with the DSCC's withdrawal of their $1.8 million ad buy for Mary Landrieu, the bayou state continues to be inundated with campaign ads. Greg Giroux of Bloomberg Politics highlighted two ads. The first, an ad by Freedom Partners Action Fund. Funded by the Koch brothers, Freedom Partners takes aim at Landrieu's campaign contributions that have benefited the anti-energy crowd and worked against Louisiana's economic intersts: The second is an ad released Sunday by Landrieu's campaign. Giroux explains:
Landrieu introduced an ad Sunday that makes Cassidy look bumbling as it accuses him of voting to "cut Social Security benefits." It refers to Cassidy's vote in April for a budget blueprint by the Republican Study Committee, a group of anti-spending lawmakers, that would balance the budget in four years rather than the 10 called for under a proposal by Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. The RSC plan failed on a 133-291 vote.
Ironically, the ad that tries to portray Cassidy as "incoherent" is itself, incoherent. Take a look:

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 10, 2014 21 Comments
Veterans Day is tomorrow. It's a chance to honor and give thanks to people who have served in America's armed forces. Most Americans appreciate the sacrifice these people make when they volunteer to join the military, putting their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. The far left folks at Salon are not most people. They have a slightly (ahem) different interpretation of that sacrifice and that's why they published this piece by David Masciotra:
You don’t protect my freedom: Our childish insistence on calling soldiers heroes deadens real democracy Put a man in uniform, preferably a white man, give him a gun, and Americans will worship him. It is a particularly childish trait, of a childlike culture, that insists on anointing all active military members and police officers as “heroes.” The rhetorical sloppiness and intellectual shallowness of affixing such a reverent label to everyone in the military or law enforcement betrays a frightening cultural streak of nationalism, chauvinism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but it also makes honest and serious conversations necessary for the maintenance and enhancement of a fragile democracy nearly impossible. It has become impossible to go a week without reading a story about police brutality, abuse of power and misuse of authority. Michael Brown’s murder represents the tip of a body pile, and in just the past month, several videos have emerged of police assaulting people, including pregnant women, for reasons justifiable only to the insane. It is equally challenging for anyone reasonable, and not drowning in the syrup of patriotic sentimentality, to stop saluting, and look at the servicemen of the American military with criticism and skepticism.
Jazz Shaw of Hot Air notes that this isn't the first time we've seen this sentiment from our liberal friends:

Posted by Casey Breznick on November 10, 2014 17 Comments
California's 52nd district will keep its current representative in Congress for the next two years, as Republican Carl DeMaio failed to oust incumbent Democrat Scott Peters last Tuesday. The election results were not finalized until 72 hours after voting booths closed, and the final tally came down to 51.25% for Peters and 48.75% for DeMaio, with about 4,400 votes making the difference. Before all absentee ballots were counted, the election was called as a Republican victory, with some news outlets prematurely posting articles about DeMaio being the first openly gay Republican to run and win a congressional race. Alas, Peters did win, much to the dismay of many Republicans who admired DeMaio's potential as a "New Generation Republican." The DeMaio campaign was hit with a nasty October surprise in the form of sexual harassment allegations from former campaign staffer Todd Bosnich, who is also openly gay. This was followed by the re-emergence of similar claims from DeMaio's time on the San Diego City Council. DeMaio contended that Bosnich, fired for plagiarism, was merely seeking to exact revenge, and that he was responsible for the May break-in of the DeMaio campaign headquarters days before the primaries.  DeMaio further alleged that Bosnich was responsible for passing on internal campaign documents to the Peters campaign. The Peters campaign handed over the documents to the police, saying they received them anonymously.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 10, 2014 16 Comments
William A. Jacobson has covered this trial extensively. See:

She was found guilty immigration fraud by way of of unlawful procurement of naturalization this afternoon.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 10, 2014 16 Comments
Former Vermont Governor and "50 State Strategy" architect Howard Dean teetered on the edge of a meltdown during his Sunday interview on "Meet the Press," asking, "where the HELL is the Democratic party?!" Watch: The Democratic Party is licking its wounds, and for good reason---not even one of its top strategists understands the fundamental, underlying problem with the progressive message. Dean complains that "you [sic] got to stand for something if you want to win," but what do Democrats really stand for? Over the past six years, we've seen top Democrats work together to obfuscate the realities of Obamacare, promote social programs by exploiting fears of racism and disenfranchisement within minority communities, and block even bipartisan legislation from making it out of Congress alive.

Posted by David Gerstman on November 10, 2014 3 Comments
With the Senate flipping from Democratic control to Republican control, the question emerges whether the legislature, now in the hands of the opposition, will be able to rein in President Barack Obama in the event that he engineers a bad nuclear deal with Iran. In short, the Senate will almost certainly be more willing to stop a bad deal. The bad news is that it may be too late. As far as the deal itself, it is not considered a treaty and therefore not subject to Congressional approval. However, the sanctions bill passed by Congress allows the President to suspend (not permanently cancel) sanctions. A bill co-sponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) that would impose stronger sanctions on Iran, if the Islamic Republic would either "violate the interim agreement or walk away from the negotiations," was scuttled by the White House in January. Although there was bi-partisan support in the Senate for the bill, Obama prevailed on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to keep the bill from coming to a vote. Obama viewed the bill as a violation of the P5+1's commitment  in last year's Joint Plan of Actions (JPA) (.pdf) to "refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions." Since the Kirk-Menendez bill would only come into effect if Iran violated its commitments, Obama's concern seems baseless. With Reid no longer Majority Leader, the Kirk-Menendez bill should at least come to a vote, as incoming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in January, “We’re going to continue to press the majority leader to allow a vote on an issue that obviously enjoys the support of a very large bipartisan majority here in the Senate.”
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH