Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Author: Bryan Jacoutot

Profile photo

Bryan Jacoutot

Bryan is a Georgia attorney practicing law since 2014. He primarily litigates federal and state election law cases on behalf of local and state governments, as well as individual candidate campaigns.

He received his Juris Doctorate from Georgia State University where he also earned a certification in health law from the University's distinguished Center for Law, Health and Society. Bryan earned his undergraduate degree in History from Auburn University.

Follow Bryan on Twitter: @BryanJacoutot

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 12, 2014 48 Comments
Eleanor Clift, who is a “key member of the political team” at Newsweek and regularly appears the television program, The McLaughlin Group, declared last week that Ambassador Chris Stevens was not murdered in the September 11th terrorist attack in Benghazi.
I would like to point out Ambassador Stevens was not murdered. He died of smoke inhalation in the safe room in that CIA installation.
According to her bio, Clift has followed the Clinton family as a journalist since the early nineties, and it appears she may have grown a certain fondness for the former Secretary of State, as that is the only logical explanation for making such a outlandish statement on purpose. But Clift didn’t stop there. After being challenged by others on the panel, she spouted off the same lines that were spoon fed to the media in the immediate aftermath of the attack, that we all now know are completely untrue.
PAT BUCHANAN: It was a terrorist attack, Eleanor. He was murdered in a terrorist attack. CLIFT: It was an opportunistic terrorist attack that grew out of that video. BUCHANAN: The video had nothing to do with it. SUSAN FERRECHIO: She’s still talking about the video? CLIFT: There were demonstrations across the world. BUCHANAN: Not in Benghazi. There was no video related to it at all. CLIFT: It was still opportunistic… If we’re going to put people on trial we should put David Petraeus on trial, not Hillary Clinton.
So, if I follow Clift’s logic, Ambassador Stevens wasn't murdered in the Benghazi terror attack because the coordinated mortar bombardment he was seeking shelter from that night did not land a direct hit. Instead, maybe Clift thinks they were a series of warning shots, one of which accidentally created enough smoke to suffocate the late Ambassador? Contrary to Clift's intent -- which was to say the Benghazi investigations are overblown and redundant -- her outlandish and downright false statements demonstrate the critical need for the special committee on Benghazi. The Administration's misleading talking points, and the media's general refusal to even slightly scrutinize them in the lead up to the 2012 election, demand a full inquiry into the truth of the matter. Perhaps the this investigation will clear some things up for Clift, who seems incapable of absorbing the reality that this attack was not the result of a YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0eDDyQwOpk One final note: Clift also repeatedly characterized the attack as "opportunistic," which is essentially another way of saying it was spontaneous (like the protest about the video that never actually occurred).

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 11, 2014 40 Comments
The familiar sound of students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the morning before the beginning of the school day is a tradition worth keeping. For many children, it is one of the earliest ways in which they show appreciation and support for their country. Most students recite this pledge day in and day out and never think anything of it. Occasionally, however, students refuse. When a student refused to stand for or recite the pledge at one Texas high school, the school came down hard. From KHOU 11 News:
 Mason Michalec says he loves his country but just not the government. “I’m really tired of our government taking advantage of us,” said Michalec. “I don’t agree with the NSA spying on us. And I don’t agree with any of those Internet laws.” That's why he's taken a pledge of sorts to not say the Pledge of Allegiance with classmates. “I’ve basically said it from the time I was in kindergarten to earlier this year and that’s when I decided I was done saying it.”

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 06, 2014 8 Comments
We noted yesterday the Supreme Court's ruling in a case allowing for sectarian prayer at town council meetings. In a 5-4 decision, the court narrowly reversed a lower court ruling that prohibited the use of Christian-specific prayer on the grounds it "conveyed the message that [the town of] Greece was endorsing Christianity." Ultimately, the Supreme Court held legislative prayer in the context of an invocation prior to the conducting of regular legislative business did not violate the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. It did so by drawing on several cases form the past that essentially concluded the exact same thing, citing hundreds years of the existence of prayer in legislative bodies throughout the nation. More persuasive than this "tradition" argument, though possibly more constitutionally problematic in the long run, was the court's recognition of what would occur as a result of courts inquiring into the specific content of a prayer. [Emphasis Added]
To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the court that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact... Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.
Because the plaintiffs in this case only wanted the Christian-specific aspect of the prayer removed from the town council, the above line of reasoning was invoked to buoy the more basic "tradition" argument also employed by the majority. But what about a constitutional challenge seeking a ban of prayer altogether? That would alleviate the need to inquire into the content of the prayer, thus freeing courts and governments from entangling themselves in the process of picking and choosing deities and faiths to pray to.
Outside the courts, people are already gravitating towards this method of religious restriction in the public sphere. As reported by the Daily Caller, one East Carolina University Professor recently instructed his students specifically not to mention God in their graduation ceremony speeches.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 05, 2014 9 Comments
It seems North Korea has been spending a lot of time monitoring American news channels. After being singled out by a scathing United Nations report, which declared the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea to have committed human rights violations "without any parallel in the contemporary world," North Korea decided it needed to make its own Human Rights report. The report revealed an elementary understanding of hot topics in American news, and ultimately concluded, "[t]he U.S. is the world's worst human right abuser and tundra of a human being's rights to existence." Coming out of the nation whose leader (allegedly) recently executed an alleged counterrevolutionary conspirator by FLAMETHROWER, the North Korean human rights report was somehow deemed to be less than credible. Still, it is interesting to see a dictator use American events in an effort to bolster his credibility as a man of the people. In traditional dictatorial fashion, the report was critical of the second amendment:

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 03, 2014 47 Comments
Appearing on CNN's Crossfire, Congresswoman Barbara Lee advocated for raising the national minimum wage to $10.10/hour, arguing it would increase worker productivity and decrease turnover. After discussing the national minimum wage, Newt Gingrich asked the Congresswoman whether she'd support an even higher hike than that. Via The Daily Caller,
“Let me ask you this question, you’re a good advocate for this,” Gingrich asked Lee. “The mayor of Seattle is proposing that the minimum wage ought to go up to $15 an hour.” “Good for him,” Lee responded. “In California — more than likely, from what I remembered — a living wage where people could live and take care of their families and move toward achieving the American dream was about $25, $26 an hour.” “So would you support that as a minimum wage for California?” Gingrich asked. “Absolutely I would support it for California. I think the regional factors –” “And you don’t think that’d have an effect on unemployment?” Gingrich interrupted.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 01, 2014 34 Comments
For those of you who missed it, Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski ran a post on Tuesday detailing the racist remarks Congressman Bennie Thompson made while on the radio program, New Nation of Islam. Thompson represents Mississippi’s 2nd congressional district, and has done so since 1993. Thompson began his incoherent rant by saying that essentially any opposition to the President was racist.
“I’ve been in Washington. I saw three presidents now. I never saw George Bush treated like this. I never saw Bill Clinton treated like this with such disrespect,” Thompson said. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States — not the chief executive, but the commander-in-chief — that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”
So, despite lacking any indication that McConnell’s opposition to Obama is racially motivated, Thompson is comfortable coming to the conclusion because, if it is not, then he doesn’t know what is. When the only lens you view issues through is race, I suppose the logical result is that you see every unwanted occurrence in your life as racially motivated. The simple fact is, Thompson is outright wrong (is that racist, by the way?). President Bush was constantly disrespected. Kanye West famously said on live television during a Hurricane Katrina Relief drive, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Al Sharpton, whilst running for President in 2003, said Bush sounded less like a President and more like a “gang leader in south central LA” (boy, doesn’t that carry some racial overtones?). Actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo compared the Bush Administration to Hitler and the Nazis, calling it the “43rd Reich.” Actor Martin Sheen called him a “moron.” Actor Sean Penn called him a “traitor to human and American principles.”

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 30, 2014 39 Comments
Last night, comedian Louis C.K. was apparently very frustrated with the Common Core inspired homework his children were charged with doing. To vent his frustration, he took to Twitter to give the world a glimpse of what he and his children were dealing with.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 29, 2014 23 Comments
In Manila yesterday, Fox News' Ed Henry asked President Obama to explain the Obama doctrine. As Obama faces increasing criticism from all sides regarding the efficacy of his foreign policy, he first scoffed at the question responding, "Well Ed, I doubt I'll have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine." The President then proceeded to go into a long-winded explanation highlighting several foreign policy endeavors, including Ukraine and Syria. President Obama also took aim at his critics and, true to form, the policies of the Bush administration. [Emphasis Added]
Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question I think I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?
Despite insinuating that critics of his foreign policy are essentially war-mongers, the President had trouble finding examples where the criticism of his foreign policy centered on a lack of American boots on the ground.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 28, 2014 33 Comments
Yesterday, Chris Wallace featured two panelists to debate the outcome of a recent United States Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action and the use of race in the admissions process. The case upheld a Michigan voter referendum banning the use of race or gender based Affirmative Action programs in the public university admissions process, among other things. One panelist was a successful litigant from a prior Affirmative Action Supreme Court case, Jennifer Gratz. Gratz is also the CEO of XIV Foundation, an organization "dedicated to the principle that equal treatment is the essence of civil rights and that all people are entitled to civil rights." The other panelist was civil rights attorney, Shanta Driver. As I watched the debate unfold, one thing I could not help but notice was the use of the word "equality," in each opposing side's rationale for their position. Gratz, who advocated for upholding the Michigan referendum to end race preferences cited "equal treatment under law," regardless of race. Likewise Driver, advocated for the continuation of federally protected race preferences in the admissions, also citing the need for equality. In fact, Driver went so far as to compare this decision by the Supreme Court as a revival of Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court case that brought about the concept of "separate but equal" segregation.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 25, 2014 14 Comments
The anti-gun advocacy group created by Former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, just lost one of it's most high profile Republican members, Tom Ridge, the Daily Caller recently reported.
Former Republican Gov. Tom Ridge is stepping down from his position with Michael Bloomberg’s new anti-gun organization, The Daily Caller has learned. “When I signed on as an advisor to Everytown, I looked forward to a thoughtful and provocative discussion about the toll gun violence takes on Americans,” Ridge told The Daily Caller in a statement, through a spokesman. “After consultation with Everytown, I have decided that I am uncomfortable with their expected electoral work,” Ridge said. “Therefore, we have decided that we will pursue this issue in our separate spheres.” Bloomberg, hoping to add prominent Republicans to his gun control effort, had appointed Ridge to serve on the advisory board of his Everytown for Gun Safety umbrella organization. The New York Times reported last week that Bloomberg, the former liberal mayor of New York City, plans to spend about $50 million dollars to challenge the National Rifle Association.
While Ridge declined to go into detail about the "expected electoral work" Everytown has in store, it's a safe bet there won't be much room for "thoughtful discussion" on gun violence. Take a look at their most recent ad, in which survivors and family members of gun victims attack statements made by NRA leadership. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6YZg9JTykA What do you think? Is it meant to appeal to your thoughts, or to your emotions? For their part, the NRA has released an ad responding directly to Bloomberg's $50 Million promise. The ad, featured below, highlights the power of small contributions from its individual supporters.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 25, 2014 29 Comments
As part of the historical tour one makes through the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York City, a brief video will be shown describing the group that carried out the deadliest single foreign attack on the homeland in United States history. Apparently, relating the impetus behind the attack to the religion of Islam has rubbed at least one interfaith group of observers the wrong way. From the NY Times:
The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, from video clips in foreign-accented English translations. The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has over the last few weeks suddenly become a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims... “The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 23, 2014 12 Comments
Terri Lynn Land is running for the United States Senate in Michigan, a seat occupied for nearly 40 years by retiring Democrat, Carl Levin. Land's opponent is Democrat Congressman Gary Peters, who has apparently defaulted to the Democratic party's standard playbook, by accusing his female Republican opponent of waging a "war on women." It is a strategy Democrats have employed for several election cycles and, despite the absurdity of the claim, it has enjoyed its share of success. That said, Terri Lynn Land may have found the antidote to the tired anthem in her latest ad, entitled "Really?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc_AAje-4l0 The ad has gained a good deal of traction in the national media since it was released.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 22, 2014 22 Comments
On the most recent airing of the CNN Sunday talk show, Reliable Sources, former CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkinson, revealed a rather stunning accusation about the far left online news organization, Media Matters.
Media Matters, as my understanding, is a far left blog group that I think holds itself out to be sort of an independent watchdog group. And yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. They used to work with me on stories and tried to help me produce my stories… And I was certainly friendly with them as anybody, good information can come from any source. But when I persisted with Fast and Furious and some of the green energy stories I was doing, I clearly at some point became a target… [Emphasis Added]
Of course, anyone who has read Media Matters would scoff at the idea that it is a politically “independent” media watchdog group. Given the obvious leanings of the organization, the revelation that Media Matters is actually assisting, in some manner, in producing content for one of the “Big 3” (ABC, NBC, CBS) network news programs carries significant implications. Most notably, these three networks are still viewed by many in the public as the place to get your least politically slanted news. For many Americans, the brief 30-minute or hour long nightly news program from these networks is the only news they get all day. In the immediate wake of Attikson's Sunday appearance, Media Matters elected only to respond to the assertion by Attkinson that she had been targeted by the organization:

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 19, 2014 9 Comments
Last week, a bill led by Ted Cruz unanimously passed the House and Senate, and recently came to the President’s desk for signature.
Cruz quickly and quietly worked to unveil a proposal in recent days that would ban Iran's recently appointed ambassador to the United Nations from entering the United States. He spent last weekend negotiating with New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the third-ranking Senate Democrat and a vocal critic of the Iranian government. Over the course of those conversations, the senators agreed to tweak Cruz's bill to make it amenable to Democrats, who on Monday night passed the bill unanimously and without debate. These days, getting a bill passed by either chamber is enough of an accomplishment for most lawmakers. But Cruz quickly identified a House sponsor, Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, who took up the cause and convinced House GOP leaders to bypass the committee process and allow for a quick vote. The measure passed unanimously on Thursday without debate as House lawmakers left town for a two-week recess.
President Obama, who felt the bill was outside the constitutional authority of Congress to enact, has signed the bill into law but signaled in a “signing statement” he will not enforce it in situations he deems improper.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 18, 2014 26 Comments
As the 2014 midterms approach, a new conservative political action committee (PAC) has just formed with an eye toward electing more black conservative candidates to public office. Noting, "the lock that liberals have held on the black vote is slowly but surely breaking," the PAC’s homepage states,
The Black Conservative Fund is committed to helping fund and elect black conservatives who are dedicated to spreading the message of true limited government and traditional values across our great land.
The PAC, which declares itself as, “first and foremost a CONSERVATIVE political action committee” [Emphasis Original], will be spending time during the lead-up to the 2014 midterms and beyond helping to “elect black conservatives at every level of government.” First, from a conceptual standpoint, I feel the formation of the PAC is one that is absolutely necessary if the conservative movement is to expand into areas where it has traditionally had far too little political presence. If you are one who thinks the conservative movement is doing fine among black voters, consider that Barack Obama was elected in 2008 receiving 96% of the black vote, and was then promptly reelected in 2012 with 94% of the black vote. The results conservatives have achieved over the years in black communities at the national level are nowhere near where they ought to be, and Black Conservatives Fund (BCF) aims to chip away at the problem.
Accessibility by WAH