Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

February 2015

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 06, 2015 23 Comments
'Heartbreaking' doesn't do this story justice. Ruzan Badalyan gave birth to a baby boy with down syndrome. She then gave her husband an ultimatum -- he must choose her or the child. Samuel Forrest chose his son. ABC News reports:
"This pediatrician walks out of the room with a little bundle -- that was Leo," Forrest said. "She had his face covered up and hospital authorities wouldn't let me see him or my wife. When the doctor came out, he said 'there’s a real problem with your son.' Forrest followed doctors and nurses into a room where he'd finally get to meet his baby. "When I walked into the room they all turned to me and said 'Leo has Down syndrome," he told ABC News. "I had a few moments of shock." After the news had sunk in, Forrest held Leo for the very first time. "They took me in see him and I looked at this guy and I said, he's beautiful -- he's perfect and I'm absolutely keeping him." Soon Forrest walked into his wife's hospital room with Leo in his arms. Her reaction was unlike one he ever expected.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2015 27 Comments
The Southern Poverty Law Center ceased long ago to be a neutral source of information. As we have documented over the past years, SPLC has used the credibility it earned decades ago fighting the Klan to turn itself not only into a huge money-raising machine, but also to poison the political process: SPLC's "Extremist" watch lists are particularly notorious, and in some cases blatantly political.   Most of the people on the list are on it without much controversy, including Klan and neo-Nazi figures.  But several critics of political Islam are on the list, as was Rand Paul in 2011 (accused of Electoral Extremism). Landing on SPLC's Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense.  The Family Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters. Yesterday I noticed a name I was surprised to see on the list: Ben Carson, listed as "anti-LGBT."

Posted by Amy Miller on February 06, 2015 5 Comments
Brace yourself for what could become #IRSscandal...3.0? 4.0? 10.0? I've lost track. A new report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration shows that the IRS rehired hundreds of problem employees over the course of three years. According to the report, four of those employees left the IRS after having serious performance problems---and were hired back to their exact same jobs. Hundreds others were rehired even though their records reflected less-serious problems. Via WaPo:
Among the four workers who returned to their previous positions, two were “failing critical job elements at the time they had separated from their prior employment with the IRS,” according to a report on the audit, released Thursday. The review raises questions about whether federal hiring standards are strict enough. Twenty percent of the 50 randomly selected rehires with prior problems at the IRS were involved in new conduct and performance issues after they returned to the agency, according to the report. TIGTA determined that the IRS followed federal hiring guidelines, which require checking for prior criminal activity or use of illegal drugs. But IRS officials told auditors that they barely consider prior conduct and performance issues while determining which applicants are best qualified for a job. Roughly 10 percent of the 73,000 employees that the IRS hired between October 2009 and September 2013 previously worked at the agency. TIGTA said that “most rehired employees do not have performance or conduct issues associated with prior IRS employment.”
Well, at least they aren't doing drugs, right?

Posted by Amy Miller on February 06, 2015 5 Comments
The CIA is investigating claims that American hostage Kayla Jean Mueller was killed during Jordanian airstrikes in Syria. Mueller, an American aid worker, was taken by ISIS a year and a half ago, and is believed to be the last American held hostage by the group. Via the New York Times:
An Islamic State message published by the SITE Intelligence Group, which tracks jihadist activity, said the American woman was killed when the building where she was being held in the Raqqa area collapsed in an airstrike. “The failed Jordanian aircraft killed an American female hostage,” said the message. “No mujahid was injured in the bombardment, and all praise is due to Allah.” Mujahid means fighter. The group said the woman was killed by “fire of the shells dropped on the site.” There was no immediate way to verify the claim by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. But it identified the hostage by name, Kayla Jean Mueller, for the first time, and gave her Arizona address, apparently to add credibility to its message.
As was stated by the Times, this report is not confirmed. Department of Defense officials told NBC News that "U.S. military and military intelligence have no information to confirm ISIS' claim, and the State Department said it could not confirm reports of the death 'in any way'":

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 06, 2015 21 Comments
In my last post on the continuing measles outbreak, I encouraged Americans to consider vaccinations. Imagine my surprise upon discovering that, as the co-founder of a San Diego Tea Party group, I am also labeled one of the dreaded #antivaxxers! Well, then I personally would like to welcome an iconic Democrat, Robert T. Kennedy, to the ranks of the Tea Party! While some "Tea Party" people don't choose to vaccinate themselves or their children, a look at the states where non-medical exemptions from vaccinations are an option shows that many of them went for Obama in the last election. The Obama Administration must be worried that the lack of immunization for childhood diseases is going to blossom into a major healthcare PR crisis of Ebola-like proportions, because its friends in the mainstream media are now smearing those who don't vaccinate with that vile term, "Tea Party." How, then, can these mainstream publishers explain the preponderance of progressive non-takers?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2015 12 Comments
It all is proceeding as planned. A nuke deal with Iran, with the quid pro quo of assisting Iran's expansion into a regional power, is working its way forward. For that, Iran gets to keep most of its nuclear program, because it likes it. There are two things standing in the way: (1) Congress, and (2) Bibi Netanyahu's persuasive powers. The Obama administration needs to get rid of both, and it has seized on the opportunity of John Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu to speak before Congress as the tool to accomplish that mission. The White House spun a false tale through anonymous administration comments to reporters, that the invitation was a breach of protocol and that the White House was blindsided. Separately, the White House has been attacking the Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer as the supposed mastermind. In fact, Boehner came up with the idea, approached the Ambassador, conveyed that Boehner would notify the White House of the invitation (which he did), and Netanyahu did not accept until after the White House was notified. The false narrative spread by Obama's operatives has the goal of pulling Democrats away from opposing a nuke deal and attending Netanyahu's speech, by forcing a false choice of Obama or Netanyahu. The third choice -- what is best for America in keeping nukes out of the hands of a regime that still calls us the Great Satan and chants Death unto U.S. -- is not on the table. Obama puts his own cult of personality before anything. I don't believe that he's sincerely offended; he's just not going to let a manufactured crisis go to waste. Interesting thing is, the Editorial Board of The Washington Post pretty much shares Netanyahu's concerns about an impending bad deal, and stands against Obama's attempt to shut Congress out of the process, The emerging Iran nuclear deal raises major concerns:

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 06, 2015 57 Comments
At the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, President Obama equated the horrific acts carried out by ISIS to the Christian Crusades. Nedra Pickler of AP News reported:
Obama condemns those who seek to 'hijack religion' President Barack Obama on Thursday condemned those who seek to use religion as a rationale for carrying out violence around the world, declaring that "no god condones terror." "We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends," Obama said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. He singled out the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, calling the militants a "death cult," as well as those responsible for last month's terror attacks in Paris and deadly assault on a school in Pakistan... Obama had a more non-denominational message for the audience that also included prominent leaders of non-Christian faiths. The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to "hijack religion for their own murderous ends." "Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. "So it is not unique to one group or one religion," Obama said. "There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."
Charles Krauthammer reacted on Special Report. Video via National Review:

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 12 Comments
Say hello to the FCC's newly-dubbed "New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet". From The Hill:
Tom Wheeler, head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), announced Wednesday that he will be circulating to his colleagues the “strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC,” made up of “enforceable, bright-line rules.” The proposal will ban Internet service providers such as Comcast or Verizon from blocking or slowing access to content online. It will also ban “fast lane” deals that speed up online services, and extend the rules to cellphones and tablets for the first time. “My proposal assures the rights of Internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission,” Wheeler wrote in an op-ed in Wired. The decision by Wheeler is a reversal from last year, when he was pursuing a plan that critics warned could lead to a “two-tiered Internet,” with some companies cutting deals to operate in the “fast lanes.”
This is a different result than many anticipated; Wheeler had been working for months on a compromise solution that would have maintained "light touch" regulations on internet providers, in sharp contrast with the agenda President Obama backed. The White House threw its full support behind the regulations that were announced today, and ginned up support for them though months of secretive meetings with online activists, startups, and telecomm companies. In a piece for the New Republic, David Dayen explains how liberal activists achieved a serious coup on the issue of Net Neutrality. You should read the whole thing, but this is perhaps the most relevant snippet:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 05, 2015 47 Comments
Manterruptions. If not for TIME magazine, I'd have gone along my merry way, ignorant to the fact that manterruptions exist. No, it's not a fun, colloquial expression used by youngsters these days. The author is quite serious about the trials and tribulations forged by manterruptions. What's a manterruption, you ask? According to TIME, a manterruption is, "unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man." But if you're sensitive to gender specific phrases, "talk-blocking" is manterruptions gender-neutral synonym. Cited Example: When Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift as she was accepting her award for best female music video in 2009 saying, "Imma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time." In all fairness though, Kayne tends to live in his own Kayne planet where the sun and the moon rise and fall at his bidding; so I'm not sure that's the best example as it's an outlier, but since that's the one TIME provided, we'll roll with it. According to TIME, manterruptions are a workplace epidemic, and another tool of the patriarchy to keep women down.
“When a woman speaks in a professional setting, she walks a tightrope. Either she’s barely heard or she’s judged as too aggressive. When a man says virtually the same thing, heads nod in appreciation for his fine idea.” And the result? Women hold back. That, or we relinquish credit altogether. Our ideas get co-opted (bro-opted), re-appropriated (bro-propriated?) — or they simply fizzle out. We shut down, become less creative, less engaged. We revert into ourselves, wondering if it’s actually our fault. Enter spiral of self-doubt.
In modern "feminist" rantings, there are almost always two common threads:

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 4 Comments
Obstruction from the left? Must be a day ending in -y. For the third time in a row, Senate Democrats have blocked floor debate on a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security after February 27. The problem? The piece of legislation Republicans are trying to pass contains provisions blocking Obama's 2012 and 2014 amnesty plans from being implemented. Senate Republicans have pushed multiple times for a vote on the controversial House bill, highlighting their commitment both to keeping DHS funded, and preventing executive amnesty from becoming reality. Via CNN:
One reason for the multiple votes is so Senate GOP leaders can showcase for House Republicans that despite their efforts to pass the House bill, it can't get enough Democratic votes to pass in the Senate as long as it carries the immigration provisions. That might force House Republicans to rethink their position on immigration and decide to take that fight up later. "Part of coming to a solution is going to be showing that we're doing our best to fight for the House position," said Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican told reporters on Wednesday after the second vote. It remains unclear how House and Senate Republican leaders will reach a solution that can meet the differing political needs of each chamber. Multiple House Republican members told CNN the focus now is to increase the pressure on the Senate to figure out a way to pass the measure.
Important point: Reid's caucus didn't just vote against this bill---they blocked it from even coming to the floor to be discussed. When it comes to immigration, Democrats don't want to talk about it unless they can guarantee a winning message they can splash across the top of their fundraising e-mails. This makes sense, considering former immigration officials have now come out to blast the amnesty plans as a death sentence for agencies tasked with making sure things run smoothly. Who wouldn't want to force the focus on a radical Republican agenda, as opposed to the impending implosion of progressive immigration policy? This isn't just about getting a vote on a bill; it's about making any progress at all on funding DHS, and rolling back Obama's executive amnesty:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 05, 2015 23 Comments
From Politico, Dan Rather backs Brian Williams:
Brian Williams is "an honest, decent man, an excellent reporter and anchor--and a brave one," veteran newsman Dan Rather told POLITICO on Thursday. Rather's note of support comes after the revelation that Williams falsely claimed to have been aboard a helicopter that was shot down during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Williams admitted Wednesday that he was on a different helicopter, and apologized to viewers and crew members of the 159th Aviation Regiment. Like Williams, Rather has been the subject of public controversy. In 2004, he was forced to retract a report on George W. Bush's National Guard service after the authenticity of his source documents were called into question. Rather retired from CBS News the following year, ending a 24-year run as anchor of the Evening News. He now anchors "Dan Rather Reports" on the cable channel AXS.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 8 Comments
The 2016 race is already barreling forward on the right, with candidates from every point on the conservative-libertarian political spectrum throwing elbows and pressing forward to gain the attention of both the media, and primary voters in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Space in the spotlight is at a premium---the media is still trying to figure out how they're going to differentiate and play these characters against each other. For Democrats, though, the eventual race for the White House is on hold as top strategists attempt to answer a question that many activists on the left refuse to stop asking: where's Hillary? It's odd to ask this question about a woman who hasn't left the spotlight since her husband entered the Oval Office. For many on the left, she's The Idea Whose Time Has Come©. For Conservatives, she's the Long National Nightmare© that refuses to go away. For strategists and campaign hacks, she's a precious commodity---that they have no idea how to handle. Via CNN, a few days ago:
Some Clinton loyalists worry that as the increasingly crowded Republican race heats up, the attacks on her could begin to stick without an apparatus in place to answer them. The liberal superPAC American Bridge has been countering Republican attacks on Clinton's behalf but many Democrats think it's no substitute for a campaign messaging operation. "They're doing terrific research," said one, "but they don't know what her specific policy agenda is going to be. She should get in and start putting together a substantive policy agenda so the attacks that are going to begin to come from every single Republican who is jumping in to the race can be answered." The Democratic National Committee is beginning to take on a larger role in an effort to protect Clinton and the party brand but many Democrats are concerned even that won't be enough. Other supporters want Clinton to lay low as the Republican field heats up, convinced Clinton will avoid some fire if she's undeclared and GOP candidates will take aim at each other instead.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 05, 2015 36 Comments
In the months leading up to the first Supreme Court Obamacare decision, there was a concerted media and Democratic effort to portray the legitimacy of the Court, and particularly the legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts, as dependent on the outcome. The argument went that holding Obamacare's mandate to be unconstitutional would be such a huge interference in the political process that the Court would lose its supposed role as neutral referee and become a political player. Because as we all know, that has never happened before (/sarc), see, Roe v. Wade, etc. This pressure reportedly caused Roberts to change his vote, and to join with the for liberal members of the Court in finding the mandate justified under Congress' taxing power. Now the media pressure is mounting on Obamacare II, the subsidy case the Court accepted this term. The issue is whether the statutory language of Obamacare permits subsidies (the only way Obamacare policies are affordable for most) on the federal exchange set up when most states refused. This issue of statutory interpretation is not exceptional legally, except that the political stakes are so high. If the statute is read not to permit the subsidies, Obamacare likely crumbles of its own weight. Enter Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court and judicial reporter for The NY Times, with scare mongering about the legitimacy of the Court, The Supreme Court at Stake: Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 05, 2015 8 Comments
When San Diego's talk station KOGO AM600 announced they were going to chat about obnoxious Super Bowl ads, they asked listeners to call in with the ones they wanted to discuss. Instead, I sent a producer I knew my piece, I am apologizing #LikeAGirl for Super Bowl Ads’ #WarOnMen. As a result, their independent-minded host, Bob "Sully" Sullivan, invited me to chat with him about the commercials, as well as my work at both Legal Insurrection and College Insurrection related to the challenges men face today. Here's a video with the exchange:

Posted by New Neo on February 04, 2015 11 Comments
Ever wonder whether Obama's policy towards Iran represents something coherent, or just naive incompetence? Here's an excellent article by Michael Doran in Mosaic that fleshes out the details of a theory about Obama's approach to Iran. It doesn't take the most extreme stance of all---which would be the "Obama is a secret Iranian sympathizer" theory---but the piece's premise is credible, and it is well worth taking the time to read in its entirety. It's a bit difficult to summarize, but the article makes several points. The first two are that much of Obama's approach focuses on his deep contempt for Bush and his powerful desire to differentiate himself, as well as Obama's general penchant for secrecy. But there's much more:
During the Bush years, an elaborate myth had developed according to which the mullahs in Tehran had themselves reached out in friendship to Washington, offering a “grand bargain”: a deal on everything from regional security to nuclear weapons. The swaggering Bush, however, had slapped away the outstretched Iranian hand, squandering the opportunity of a lifetime... Obama based his policy of outreach to Tehran on two key assumptions of the grand-bargain myth: that Tehran and Washington were natural allies, and that Washington itself was the primary cause of the enmity between the two. If only the United States were to adopt a less belligerent posture, so the thinking went, Iran would reciprocate. In his very first television interview from the White House, Obama announced his desire to talk to the Iranians, to see “where there are potential avenues for progress.” Echoing his inaugural address, he said, “[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, ignored the president’s invitation...
Because, of course, the entire thing was a myth.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH