Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

February 2015

Posted by Amy Miller on February 26, 2015 4 Comments
Whether you're tea party, libertarian, establishment, or something in between, chances are you've heard about the Conservative Political Action Conference. CPAC serves as a rallying point for activists, a networking event for up and comers, and most importantly, a springboard for our deep bench of potential 2016 presidential candidates. Every year, conservatives who exist "in the bubble" of the news cycle have the same debate---is CPAC still relevant? We can argue about the ins and outs of panels and parties all day long, but if you're looking for a way to get our most high-profile faces in one place, CPAC is your best bet. If you're curious about what our field of candidates has to say about controversial issues like immigration, the war on terror, and government transparency, check out the live stream embedded below. Have a question about something you hear? Post a comment on the Tip Line and we'll do our best to do some digging and find some answers. Happy CPAC, everyone! Watch the live stream below the fold:

Posted by Amy Miller on February 26, 2015 5 Comments
Infiltrators come in all shapes and sizes. As someone who has taken a camera into a hostile environment for the specific purpose of generating viral content, I can tell you that at pretty much any conservative event you attend, you're going to run into at least one lefty with an agenda. It's almost impossible to prevent---when you open up your conference to the paying public, you're welcoming the public to attend. The Conservative Political Action Conference isn't just a 3-day sprint for conservative activists; it's chum in the water for liberals looking for a scoop. Those who attend aren't there to learn, or even to laugh---they're there to catch you doing something stupid. More from the Huffington Post:
Roaming the halls of CPAC on Thursday were five members of the group, American Bridge. They were wearing attendee badges, meaning they paid for the privilege of being there. And they were wielding cameras, five in all. “We have done CPAC before,” said Jesse Lehrich, the group’s deputy communications director. “But not to this extent.” Lehrich, who appeared dressed in an outfit that one would imagine fits a conservative conference -- a patriotic splash of blue jacket, red tie and lighter shirt -- said that the goal was to find a viral moment. He assumed that it would come from one of the side panels, when the cameras were off and some of the less polished speakers would appear. “The panels off the main stage tend to be the stuff that other people don't see,” he said.
It's the "less polished" (read: untrained and most likely less famous) speakers that usually bear the brunt of a liberal assault. Most progressives already know that when they listen to someone like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson speak, they're going to hear something they'll disagree with. They might even hear something they think is crazy; but that's pretty much old news because it's something their audience is already expecting. Disagreement doesn't earn clicks---the unexpected does.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 26, 2015 21 Comments
About a year ago, the biggest political headache Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber faced was explaining why there wasn't a single enrollee in Covered Oregon ,after spending over $300 Million on the state health insurance exchange. This year, however, Kitzhaber is Oregon's former chief executive after resigning in response to reports indicating his finacee, Clivia Lynne Hayes, advised the governor and state employees on energy policy while getting paid by a group advocating on the issue. In the wake of that resignation, officials have started digging into Kitzhaber's other advisors...including the self-designated "Princess of Darkness", who was tasked with fixing Covered Oregon.
...Kitzhaber handed oversight of the Cover Oregon mess to a secretive campaign consultant who liked to call herself the Princess of Darkness. By her own admission, Patricia McCaig knew virtually nothing about health care reform or the reasons Cover Oregon had crashed. Her primary mission was not to save a beleaguered state program but to get Kitzhaber re-elected. Emails that Kitzhaber’s office tried to delete from state computers show McCaig was effectively in charge of all decision making for Cover Oregon beginning in February 2014.

Posted by New Neo on February 26, 2015 16 Comments
From the headline of this AP article, "Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape," the casual reader would be hard-pressed to tell whether the deal was good, bad, or indifferent for the US. The article goes on to offer the usual quotes alternating between those who laud the potential agreement and those who criticize it, and closes on a note of optimism about the talks and sympathy for Iran:
Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association said that with the IAEA's additional monitoring, the deal taking shape leaves "more than enough time to detect and disrupt any effort to pursue nuclear weapons in the future." In exchange, Iran wants relief from sanctions crippling its economy and the U.S. is talking about phasing in such measures.
Contrast that with this piece by David Horovitz in The Times of Israel. He observes that, although the Obama administration has been engaged in denying Israeli rumors of what might be in the agreement and accusing Israel of "misrepresenting the specifics for narrow political ends," the pending agreement that the AP article describes not only contains many of the things Israel had been complaining about, but is even worse than was previously thought. According to Israel’s "most respected Middle East affairs analyst," Ehud Ya’ari, the deal would be likely to have some catastrophic consequences:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 25, 2015 2 Comments
In late January 2015, Steven Salaita filed a federal lawsuit against the Trustees of the University of Illinois and certain of its senior officers, alleging that they violated Salaita's contractual and First Amendment rights. The lawsuit concerns the Trustees refusal to approve a contingent offer of tenured employment after Salaita's bizarre Twitter behavior and hateful, unhinged tweets. Those tweets led to accusations of anti-Semitism, something Salaita vigorously disputes. The Trustees now have filed a motion to dismiss the case, embedded below. I will add discussion and analysis later.

Posted by Andrew Branca on February 25, 2015 22 Comments
The Press of Atlantic City reports that gun charges brought against a retired NJ school teacher in possession of a flintlock pistol have been dropped. (h/t @LyndaCohen) Cumberland County prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae announced that she will use prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute Gordon Van Gilder. She offered no further comment on the matter. The charge carried a potential 10-year jail sentence for the 72-year-old collector. We previously wrote about Van Gilder's collision with New Jersey's insane gun laws here: VIDEO: Retired Teacher Faces 10 Years for Flintlock Possession. Van Gilder was represented by well-known gun rights attorney Evan Nappen, who also represented Philadelphia nurse and mother of two small children, Shaneen Allen, who NJ prosecutors attempted to hit with NJ's multi-year mandatory minimum for gun possession.  Allen mistakenly believed that her Pennsylvania concealed carry permit would be valid in NJ, and admitted to possessing a handgun when she was pulled over during a routine traffic stop. It seems any time that the light of day shines on New Jersey's insane, and insanely unconstitutional, gun laws, the pols responsible for enforcing them scatter like roaches. Good for Mr. Van Gilder.  I trust he'll make good on his promise to re-locate outside of New Jersey at the earliest opportunity.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 25, 2015 21 Comments
Democrats are running on overdrive in an attempt to derail Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming address to Congress. What started as an attempted Democrat caucus boycott has morphed into a halfhearted-if-vocal D minority boycott bolstered by efforts from the White House to temper enthusiasm for what is sure to be an indictment of the Administration's current policy toward Iran. Now, Secretary of State John Kerry has lashed out against Netanyahu's opposition to a proposed deal between the U.S. and Iran about Iran's budding and controversial nuclear program. Via Talking Points Memo:
"Israel is safer today with the added time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the nuclear program than they were before we got that agreement, which by the way the prime minister opposed," Kerry said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "He was wrong." Kerry was later asked to address Netanyahu's criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel. "The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush," Kerry replied. "We all know what happened with that decision." The secretary of state again pointed out that while Netanyahu opposed the interim deal reached with Iran in 2013, that accord froze the country's nuclear program. He warned that the prime minister shouldn't make another premature judgment about the nuclear talks going forward. "We won't take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to the state of Israel, but [Netanyahu] may have a judgment that just may not be correct here," Kerry said.
Expected diplomatic bluster from a man who is nothing if not consistent in his willingness to downplay the dangers of a fully nuclear Iran. The only problem? Kerry also supported the invasion of Iraq even as he criticized Bush's handling of the occupation:

Posted by David Gerstman on February 25, 2015 8 Comments
At a Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry took aim at critics of the Obama administration's posture towards Iran:
World powers grouped under the so-called P5+1 “had made inroads” since reaching an interim deal with Iran in November 2013 on reining in its suspect nuclear program, Kerry said. “We’ve gained unprecedented insight into it,” Kerry told the Senate appropriations committee at the start of two days of intense congressional foreign policy budget hearings. ... Taking aim at critics, such as official Israel, that are opposed to the agreement, Kerry said they did not “know what the deal is.” “I caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce. Since 2013, we have been testing whether or we can achieve that goal diplomatically — I don’t know yet,” Kerry insisted.
Testing? 15 months after the P5+1 nations agreed to the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), the administration is still "testing?" Here's one thing we know. The JPOA (.pdf) required this:
A Joint Commission of E3/EU+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise, with the IAEA responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures. The Joint Commission will work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 25, 2015 14 Comments
Last night, a Texas jury returned a guilty verdict against Eddie Ray Routh for the 2013 murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Routh's insanity defense was rejected, and he is set to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Soon after the verdict was announced, Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos interviewed members of the jury and gave them the opportunity to explain their reasoning for the guilty verdict, and the rejection of Routh's insanity plea. More from Mediaite:
“We all had our strong feelings,” one juror said. Another indicated there was no disagreement from the start of deliberations. As for whether Routh was “faking” his insanity, one female juror told George Stephanopoulos that “evidence shows there was a definite pattern there when it came to his earlier convictions before the trial… [which was that] he would get intoxicated, get in trouble, and the police would show up, and he’d say, ‘I’m a veteran, I have PTSD.’” “Bottom line: You were convinced that he knew the difference between right and wrong when he pull those triggers?” Stephanopoulos asked. “Without a doubt,” a few said aloud. “He knew the consequences.”
Stephanopoulos went on to ask the inevitable question: Did you see 'American Sniper?' Did it affect your decision? I'm glad he did, because it gave the jurors an opportunity to offer their perspective on a conversation that has been swirling around their heads since they entered the jury box.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 25, 2015 26 Comments
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that pits the concept of religious accommodation against company dress codes and hiring practices. Just writing it out makes it sound depressing, doesn't it? The facts don't make things much better. Back in 2008, Samantha Elauf, an observant Muslim, applied and was interviewed for a job at teen-friendly retailer Abercrombie & Fitch. She impressed the hiring manager, but when the time came to make a decision, the manager decided not to hire Samantha because she had concerns about whether or not Samantha would insist on wearing her headscarf to work. This would have been a violation of Abercrombie's "Look Policy," which dictates that employees conform to a strict set of style guidelines that specifically prohibit head coverings and black clothing. After Samantha failed to get the job, a friend of hers already employed with the retailer asked the hiring manager for her reasons, and the manager indicated that the headscarf played a part in her decision. Welcome to the Supreme Court, Abercrombie. Enjoy your stay. The EEOC sued on Elauf's behalf on grounds of religious discrimination, and down came a $20,000 award in favor of her case. The 10th circuit overturned the decision, saying that because Elauf never asked for an accommodation, the company wasn't liable for not offering one; the Court was uncomfortable holding employers to a standard that would require them to ask about a religious exemption they may not know an employee needs.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 25, 2015 52 Comments
Researchers now claim global warming predictions are greatly exaggerated. (This is not surprising to those of us climate change skeptics.) What is shocking is that the findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and are now actually being covered by some media. The UK Daily Mail has a review of the study:
Since 1990, scientists have used complex models to predict how climate change and manmade greenhouse emissions will affect the world. But a team of experts - including an astrophysicist, statistician, and geography professor – has claimed these models ‘very greatly exaggerate’ the effects of global warming. Using a simpler, solar-based model, the researchers arrived at figures that are more than half those previously predicted. The paper, ‘Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model’, was written by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware David Legates, and statistician Dr Matt Briggs. It has been peer reviewed and is published in the journal Science Bulletin.
Interestingly, one of the scientists who authored the paper has a connection to Cornell. Dr. Matt Briggs, who has a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics from that university, has been the focus of a lot of heat from global warming advocates. He explained the smear campaign to Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Sunday.

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 25, 2015 25 Comments
Tax season approaches and the Obamacare bill is finally coming due. Sarah Ferris of The Hill has some bad news for people who have been receiving Obamacare subsidies:
H&R Block: Majority of ObamaCare customers paying back subsidy A majority of ObamaCare customers, 52 percent, are being forced to pay back some of their subsidies during this year’s tax season, according to new data from H&R Block. Customers are paying back an average of $530, which has caused a 17 percent drop in the average return so far this spring, according to the analysis by the tax services giant. The Obama administration had warned that people could end up paying back some of their subsidies because many were relying on previous years’ income when applying for the tax breaks. H&R Block has predicted that “most filers” would owe some of their subsidies back to the federal government because they were relying on 2012 income. The new data, which was released Tuesday, only represents about six weeks of tax filings. Still, it could pose a significant challenge for the administration as it faces an already tough tax season.
Remember when Obamacare supporters insisted it wasn't a tax? Good times. Remember when Obama repeatedly claimed Obamacare would save families $2,500 per year?

Posted by Amy Miller on February 24, 2015 8 Comments
A Stephenville, Texas jury has found Eddie Ray Routh guilty of the 2013 murders of "American Sniper" Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield. Routh was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. ABC News has the details:
The judge instructed the jury of 10 women and two men that they were to consider three possible decisions: guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. State prosecutors have made it clear that they would not be seeking the death penalty in the case, and while the sentence for murder is life in prison, Routh's sentence officially will come at a later court hearing. Routh pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and his attorneys have argued that the former Marine had mental disorders and was in the grips of psychosis when he fatally shot Kyle and Littlefield during a trip to a gun range on Feb. 2, 2013. During the 9-day trial, the prosecution and the defense have presented dueling testimony from mental health experts about whether Routh was insane when he committed the murders. Under Texas law, even if a person was suffering from a mental illness, they can be found guilty as long as they understood that what they did was wrong.
This will be an emotional night for Chris's and Chad's families. We'll be praying for them. Twitter reacts:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 24, 2015 10 Comments
After ISIS butchered Egyptian Coptics, members of the terror group threatened Rome and Pope Francis. Subsequently, ISIS unleashed a Twitter campaign: #We_Are_Coming_O_Rome. The Italians counter-attacked with a great deal of humor.
For the government in Italy, the prospect of IS-inspired attacks was cause for real concern. Indeed, the Italian foreign minister said last week that Rome would weigh participating in any military intervention to keep Islamic State forces from advancing in Libya. But while some in Italy fear the risk that terrorists, mingled among boatloads of migrants, could reach Italy from Libya, others have greeted the prospect with humor. They exploited the #We_Are_Coming_O_Rome Twitter hashtag to offer mock travel advice to IS operatives, including warnings about Rome’s terrible traffic congestion and restaurant recommendations.
They promised ISIS entertainment:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 24, 2015 27 Comments
Yesterday the U.S. government filed an Emergency motion to stay the U.S. District Court's temporary injunction putting Obama's immigration executive action on hold. In its Emergency Motion, the Feds threatened that if U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen did not grant the stay by the close of business on Wednesday, February 25, the Feds would seek an emergency stay from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff States argued that that was too short of a time for them to respond, considering the Feds took a week to bring the Emergency motion. Judge Hanen just ruled that the States had until Monday, March 2, to respond. (Order below). [Update: Changed to March 3 - see Amended Order below.] Will the Feds now run to the Appeals Court? Or wait until Judge Hanen rules next week? Normally, a litigant has to request relief from the trial court first.  I'm not sure, as I write, whether a modest delay in the trial court would cause the 5th Circuit to refuse to hear an emergency motion until the trial court rules. As of this writing, there has been no stay motion filed in the 5th Circuit according to the electronic docket.)
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH