Category: democratic party


Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

The Fix

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South

By Amber Phillips December 30 at 10:20 AM

Kentucky Democrats have a problem. They just lost the governor’s mansion last month and now there’s a very real chance that their control of the state House is slipping away. That’s significant not just in Kentucky but nationally too; if Democrats lose control of the Kentucky state House, they will control a total of zero legislative chamber in the entire south.

The latest bad news for Kentucky Democrats came this week when Democratic state Rep. Jim Gooch switched parties, the second Democrat to turn Republican since the GOP’s gains in November. Gooch follows his colleague, Rep. Denny Butler as party switchers; two Democratic state representatives have resigned to accept appointments from Kentucky’s new Republican governor, Matt Bevin.

That means when the state legislature convenes in January, there will be 50 Democrats and 46 Republicans in the House — with four vacancies to fill in special elections that could well go to Republicans.

In short, Kentucky is no longer Democrats’ last stronghold of electoral hope in the south. It’s now better described as one of the last states to realign with America’s decades-old north-south political reality: Republicans rule down South; Democrats up North.

The signs this was coming have been around for a while now, notes University of Louisville political science professor Jasmine Farrier. Even though Bill Clinton won the state twice, Mitt Romney won the state in the 2012 presidential election, and GOP candidates triumphed in the 2014 Senate election and the 2015 governor races — often by wide margins. Kentucky’s balance of power finally shifted in November’s statewide elections. Statewide offices, which until November were mostly held by Democrats, are now mostly held by Republicans. The GOP wave was led by Bevin, a businessman whose outside appeal and flare has been likened to GOP front-runner Donald Trump, came from behind to become only the second Republican to lead the state in four decades.

Kentucky’s House is now the lone holdout in a state that you could argue is no longer a holdout from the post- Civil Rights era political realignment. And it didn’t take long after November to watch Democrats’ control of the

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

House start to crumble as well.
“We used to be more of an outlier,” Farrier said. “Now we’re more normal.”

Inevitable realignment or not, there’s probably some blame for Democrats to go around. Farrier says she thinks all this should be a wake up call for the Democratic Party, which has struggled to bridge the urban-rural divide in heavily rural states like Kentucky and hasn’t really found a way to reach across the cultural divides that
separate former Southern Democrats with today’s Northern ones.

“What has the Democratic Party done for poor, conservative Evangelical white people?” Farrier said. “And the answer is not much. On God, guns and gays, poor, white Evangelical conservatives would say the Democratic Party walked away from them, and not the other way around.”

Democrats’ fading grip on Kentucky politics may be unique, but it probably didn’t help that Democrats are having trouble holding onto state offices across the country.

During President Obama’s tenure, Republicans clinched more and more control of statehouse and governor’s mansions to the point where The Fix’s Chris Cillizza writes they “an absolute stranglehold” on governor’s seats (64 percent).

After the November 2014 midterms, Republicans have control of an all-time high 68 of 98 state chambers.

Republicans say their dominance at the state level is a result of hard work. They’ve invested heavily in state legislative races this past decade as part of a strategy to control state chambers that will take on congressional redistricting in 2020. It certainly worked for them in 2010.

As a result of much of this, America is increasingly divided into two different countries that rarely touch each other, politically or geographically.

Yet another factor in Democrats’ struggles in the south: Obama’s unpopularity outside those East Coast Democratic enclaves. A Kentucky Democrat is no Massachusetts Democrat, and Obama isn’t particularly liked in some Kentucky Democratic circles.

In announcing his switch to the Republican Party, Rep. Gooch cited the president’s “radical agenda” on

Democrats are now in real danger of becoming extinct in the South – The Washington Post 12/31/15, 9:35 AM

environmental regulations and gun control as reason to leave.
The president is arguably in line with the rest of the Democratic Party on these issues, but for more conservative

Kentucky Democrats, it may have been a step too far.
“There is this hatred of the president,” Farrier said. “It is very real, and it’s hard to imagine that it will be easily

recoverable.”
One thing’s for certain: Democratic control of Kentucky won’t be easily recoverable, at least not until the next

major political realignment.

Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery

David Azerrad / December 28, 2015

One hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”

The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”

With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.

Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.

The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.

Race and the Constitution

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

A newly freed African American group of men and a few children posing by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va. Photo made after Richmond was taken by Union troops on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
A newly freed group of black men and a few children pose by a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Va., after Union troops took the city on April 3, 1865. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)

The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

Slavery and the Constitution

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”

Congress and the Slave Trade

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

(Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)
Before the Civil War, Frederick Douglass said that nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued. (Photo: Everett Collection/Newscom)

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.

Slavery in the Existing States

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.

 

THE UNBELIEVABLE STATEMENTS BY PUPLIC OFFICIALS
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 28, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

In this century, it seems that the number of unbelievable things said by high profile people has increased. First, after American forces quickly sped from Kuwait to Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq war, President George W. Bush said “Mission Accomplished.” I could not believe he did not realize that is what Saddam Hussein wanted us to do, because only then would we change from battle formation to smaller patrols more easily hit by RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and IEDs (improvised explosive devices). A few years later, I could not believe Congress passed Obamacare after Democratis House leader Nancy Pelosi said members of Congress should pass the legislation before seeing all that was in it!

During the current political campaign when Dr. Ben arson was rising in the polls, he spoke at radical Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network’s convention and said “Al Sharpton and I have the same goal, just different ideas on how to get there,” and in Dr. Carson’s book AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL on page 102 he said it is “the moral low road” to “deport many individuals (illegal aliens) who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families.” Csarly Fiorina, who also temporarily rose in the polls, had touted President Obama’s “Race to the Top” education program, and last August said “I’ve been very clear I don’t support deportation (of illegal aliens).” Conservative talk show gurus Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others have extolled the virtues of Sen. Ted Cruz, even though he has spoken positively about his Council on Foreign Relations member wife, Heidi, in her globalist book BUILDING A NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

The unbelievable statements of President Obama are too numerous to mention here, but the morning of the recent ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino, he declared: “ISIL is not going to pose an existential threat to us….Our homeland has never been more protected….” How could he say that shortly after the Russian airline was brought down by an ISIS improvised explosive device only perhaps the size of a soda can on board the plane? Can he guarantee that ISIS-inspired sleeper cells (like the couple in San Bernardino) cannot put soda cans filled with C-4 or other explosives on drones and from far away fly them into large crowds of people, perhaps during cities’ New Year’s Eve celebrations (e.g., at New York City’s Times Square)?

Perhaps the most egregious examples of unbelievable statements come from (Queen) Hillary Clinton herself. Remember when she claimed she was running from sniper fire when landing in Bosnia in 1996? This turned out to be completely false. Also remember when she repeatedly publicly said the Benghazi attack were spontaneously caused by an anti-Muslim video, even though she was privately telling others it was a previously planned terrorist attack. Well, her latest unbelievable claim is that ISIS is using a video of Donald Trump, saying he would temporarily ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States, as a recruitment tool. The problem is that when the media questioned the veracity of her claim, she could not produce any such video. Think about it. Hillary and her political twin President Obama have been claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and that jihad is simply an individual’s pursuit of spiritual betterment. They claim ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, even though they refer to ISIS as ISIL, the first letter of which stands for “Islamic.” They say ISIL is simply a group of thugs who are misrepresenting Islam.

All right, let’s see how this works. We are supposed to believe brutal ISIS members have recruited new members by bribing or threatening them or their families, perhaps saying something like “Join us or we will behead your mother and rape your sisters.” We are then supposed to believe that these peaceful prospective recruits reject these threats regardless of what ISIL does to their mothers and sisters, but then decide to join the ISIL thugs just because Donald Trump said he temporarily wants to halt Muslim immigration to the United States! Really?

But Trump does not get a pass on unbelievable statements either. One has to be careful when making blanket statements such as he wants to ban “all” Muslim immigrants. That would even include banning a one-year-old Muslim child from joining his grandparents in the United States after his Shiite parents were killed by ISIL Sunnis in Syria.
And religious leaders are not immune from making unbelievable remarks as well. According to a NATIONAL REPORT article posted about 6 months ago, Pope Francis in an hour-long speech told Vatican guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings therein, are just as valid as THE HOLY BIBLE. He also told them: “We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths.” He has even kissed the Koran, just as Pope John Paul II did, even though in Islamic teaching, Jesus is secondary to Mohamed!
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS’s Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available
Home

SOCIETYNEWS
Why Franklin Graham Is Leaving the GOP
Kelsey Harkness

Angry at Republicans for failing to defund Planned Parenthood in 2015, Franklin Graham announces he’s cutting ties with the GOP. (Photo: EPA/Nell Redmond/Newscom)
Less than one week after Congress passed a massive year-end spending bill that failed to strip Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars, evangelist Franklin Graham announced he is leaving the Republican Party.

“Shame on the Republicans and the Democrats for passing such a wasteful spending bill last week,” Graham wrote Monday on Facebook. “And to top it off, funding Planned Parenthood!”

Graham, CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said Republicans’ failure to defund Planned Parenthood is an “example” of why he is declaring himself an independent.

“This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself independent,” Graham wrote. “I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America.”

In declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham referenced a string of undercover videos that came out this year showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies. Graham compared the actions in those videos—which some claim were highly manipulated—to Nazi concentration camps.

“Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps!” he said.

The undercover videos, produced by the Center for Medical Progress, sparked calls by conservatives to defund Planned Parenthood of the more than $528 million it receives in taxpayer dollars. The majority of that money comes from federal reimbursements it receives through Medicaid contracts.

Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing, calling the videos “heavily edited” and “secretly recorded.”

Conservatives made stripping Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer dollars a top priority this congressional year yet failed to include any defund provisions in the year-end spending bill.

>>> Read More: How Your Senators Voted on the Government Spending Bill

Democrats praised the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending as a “good compromise,” highlighting the more than 150 conservative policy riders that they were able to “nix” from the final agreement.

“In addition to nixing more than 150 GOP riders, the final agreement will secure major progressive policy successes,” wrote Adam Jentleson, Minority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff, on Twitter.

After the spending bill passed, Planned Parenthood touted in a press release that the budget deal included “no new harmful policy riders on women’s health.”

At the end of his post declaring his separation from the Republican party, Graham called on Christians “across the country to pray about running for office where they can have an impact.”

Read Graham’s full Facebook post here:

‘If an abortion [provider] is complaining, the easiest thing to do is get the pro-life people to shut up,’ Matt Bowman, a lawyer defending carolers, says.

OUR ANNUAL YEAR
Year In Review
BEST OF 2015

Chicago Introduces New Citywide Gun-Sharing Stations
January 19, 2015

Chicago’s new QuikShot gun-share system is modeled on a similar program successfully introduced overseas in Caracas, Venezuela.
CHICAGO—Touting the program’s convenience and affordability, Chicago officials unveiled Monday the city’s new gun-sharing service, “QuikShot,” which allows individuals to check out a loaded firearm for short periods of time.

The municipal initiative, through which users can rent semiautomatic pistols, shotguns, rifles, and submachine guns at more than 250 self-service kiosks, has reportedly been designed to make firepower easily available to residents and tourists alike nearly everywhere within the city limits.

“QuikShot lets anyone with a credit card walk up to one of our street-side firearm stations, select a gun, and head out into the Windy City fully armed in just a few seconds,” program director Arvind Reynolds told reporters, noting that borrowers can either rent their weapon for increments of 30 minutes or withdraw it for a full 24 hours if they plan on using it throughout the day. “With QuikShot, you and your friends can each take a Beretta up to Wrigley Field, or you can head to an outdoor concert in Millennium Park with a concealed 9mm revolver, or you can simply take in the great view of the Magnificent Mile from the roof deck of the Hancock tower through a scoped sniper rifle. The possibilities are truly endless with QuikShot.”

“And if the guns at one station are all checked out, users only have to walk a block or two to the next one in order to find a loaded firearm,” he added. “So whether you’ve been planning an outing for a while or simply decided to head out in the spur of the moment, QuikShot has you covered.”

According to sources, after paying a small registration fee, QuikShot users may rent a firearm as often as they wish in neighborhoods ranging from Edgewater in the north, to the downtown Loop business district, to Hyde Park on the South Side, allowing them to brandish and discharge one or more rounds wherever they choose to in the city. Additionally, due to higher demand, Chicago officials said that multiple QuikShot kiosks would be opened around highly trafficked destinations, such as Navy Pier, the Art Institute, the Water Tower Place shopping center, and the Chicago Lakefront running and cycling paths.

Because the firearms are expected to see heavy use, Reynolds confirmed that repair crews would regularly monitor the city’s reholstering docks in order to clean and reload the weapons, as well as to replace guns that have jammed or misfired during operation, ensuring that borrowers aren’t inconvenienced by their gun malfunctioning at a crucial moment.

“It’s a great addition to the city—nothing beats being able to run out of my apartment and have a gun in my hands whenever I want.”
Users, however, are reportedly expected to provide their own protective Kevlar body armor, with program administrators adding that the city of Chicago is not liable for any injuries incurred due to use of its rentals.

“It’s a great addition to the city—nothing beats being able to run out of my apartment and have a gun in my hands whenever I want,” said Lincoln Park resident Keith Madsen, 32, noting that a QuikShot membership is much more economical than purchasing and maintaining his own extended magazine AR-15 assault rifle. “Even if I’m not necessarily planning on firing a gun on any given day, it’s always nice to know that I have the option if something comes up.”

Sources confirmed that the city is planning to expand the service in the months ahead by purchasing more guns, with the goal of increasing its publicly available arsenal to more than 65,000 weapons in anticipation of the hot summer months, when QuikShot usage is expected to reach its peak.

“QuikShot is so easy that I’m actually shooting a handgun way more often than I normally would,” said local resident Danny Taylor, who participated in a pilot trial of the program, as he deposited an empty .357 Magnum with the QuikShot logo imprinted on its grip at a Rogers Park reholstering station. “Whether I’m going to a house party or just to the liquor store, it’s nice to know that I can grab a piece, use it for as long as I want, and then drop it off without a lot of fuss.”

“In fact, I’m thinking about checking out one tomorrow morning before I head into the office,” he continued.

Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOJULY 23, 2015
Photo

Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event in West Columbia, S.C., on Thursday. Her email use while secretary of state has been an issue in the early part of her presidential run. Credit Travis Dove for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

Hillary Rodham Clinton visiting Greenville Technical College in South Carolina on Thursday.Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified DataJULY 24, 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington in January 2009, before she took office. In emails, aides asked if they could share her address with members of the Obama administration.New Trove of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Highlights Workaday Tasks at the State DepartmentJUNE 30, 2015
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department in Washington on Sept. 12, 2012, discussing the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.A Closer Look at Hillary Clinton’s Emails on BenghaziMAY 21, 2015
Who Is Running for President?JAN. 30, 2015
The initial revelation has been an issue in the early stages of her presidential campaign.
Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to new accusations involving the private email account she used when she was secretary of state. By Reuters on Publish Date July 24, 2015. Photo by Michael Appleton for The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »
The Justice Department has not decided if it will open an investigation, senior officials said. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign released a statement on Twitter on Friday morning. “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted,” it read.

At issue are thousands of pages of State Department emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private account. Mrs. Clinton has said she used the account because it was more convenient, but it also shielded her correspondence from congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests.

She faced sharp criticism after her use of the account became public, and subsequently said she would ask the State Department to release her emails.

The department is now reviewing some 55,000 pages of emails. A first batch of 3,000 pages was made public on June 30.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.

The memos were provided to The New York Times by a senior government official.

The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.

In March, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of information on her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

Continue reading the main story
First Draft Newsletter
Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday – Friday.
In May, the F.B.I. asked the State Department to classify a section of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that related to suspects who may have been arrested in connection with the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The information was not classified at the time Mrs. Clinton received it.

The revelations about how Mrs. Clinton handled her email have been an embarrassment for the State Department, which has been repeatedly criticized over its handling of documents related to Mrs. Clinton and her advisers.
On Monday, a federal judge sharply questioned State Department lawyers at a hearing in Washington about why they had not responded to Freedom of Information Act requests from The Associated Press, some of which were four years old.

“I want to find out what’s been going on over there — I should say, what’s not been going on over there,” said Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court, according to a transcript obtained by Politico. The judge said that “for reasons known only to itself,” the State Department “has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding.”

Two days later, lawmakers on the Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks said they planned to summon Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff to Capitol Hill to answer questions about why the department has not produced documents that the panel subpoenaed. That hearing is set for next Wednesday.

“The State Department has used every excuse to avoid complying with fundamental requests for documents,” said the chairman of the House committee, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina.

Mr. Gowdy said that while the committee has used an array of measures to try to get the State Department to hand over documents, the results have been the same. “Our committee is not in possession of all documents needed to do the work assigned to us,” he said.

The State Department has sought to delay the hearing, citing continuing efforts to brief members of Congress on the details of the nuclear accord with Iran. It is not clear why the State Department has struggled with the classification issues and document production. Republicans have said the department is trying to use those processes to protect Mrs. Clinton.
State Department officials say they simply do not have the resources or infrastructure to properly comply with all the requests. Since March, requests for documents have significantly increased.

Some State Department officials said they believe that many senior officials did not initially take the House committee seriously, which slowed document production and created an appearance of stonewalling.

State Department officials also said that Mr. Kerry is concerned about the toll the criticism has had on the department and has urged his deputies to comply with the requests quickly.

Correction: July 25, 2015
An article and a headline in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state misstated the nature of the request, using information from senior government officials. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton. An article about the latest developments is on Page A1.

Daily Digest
July 23, 2015 Print

THE FOUNDATION
“To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquillity would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 34 — 1788

TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Continuing Executive Advance on Immigration
The Obama administration continues its blitzkrieg on executive immigration reform. Sure, there’s that pocket of resistance, that suit brought by 26 states, but that’s not stopping Obama. “[T]he 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals guidelines remain in place,” Obama said in a White House statement. “There are also other important immigration executive actions that continue to move forward.” He goes onto list 11 ways he’s continuing to tweak the nation’s immigration enforcement, and the statement finishes by repeating the tired mantra that only Congress can fix immigration by passing “bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform.” Why doesn’t Obama just ask for a unicorn? He really doesn’t want reform; that’s why he’s so thoroughly poisoned the well. His department of Homeland Security proposed a rule that would expand the types of people who could stay in U.S. while waiting for legal status. Such a policy would undermine legal immigration, remove the penalties for illegal immigration and encourage fraud, says the Center for Immigration Studies. Obama’s executive actions come at a time when Congress is tackling some immigration reform by considering a bill that would curb sanctuary cities after that policy led to the death of Kathryn Steinle. Despite Congress’ unique role in deciding the nation’s immigration policies, a group of mayors from some of the nation’s biggest cities wrote to Congress supporting sanctuary city policies by making a home-rule argument — a bunch of leftists supporting the status quo, including how immigration is being handled politically.

Obama Stands by Planned Parenthood
Most Americans are some combination of outraged and sickened at the revelations that Planned Parenthood is selling babies’ body parts after successful abortions. Its doctors are on record talking about how to avoid crushing valuable organs and using a “less crunchy technique” in order to harvest organs while sipping wine and joking about wanting a Lamborghini. A thorough investigation and an end to taxpayer funding of the nation’s largest abortion mill is in order. So what does Barack Obama think? His press secretary, Josh Earnest, backed Planned Parenthood. “I haven’t spoken to the president about the actual videos. I have read the reports and I’m confident that he has, too, raising significant concerns about the way in which those videos were selectively edited to distort the — not just the words of the individual speaking but also the position of Planned Parenthood.” Earnest went on to offer some free PR for Planned Parenthood’s “highest ethical standards.” Perhaps he misheard — they’re selling baby parts. How is that remotely ethical? Unsurprisingly, Obama is more upset about the organization taking the videos than the abortionists selling baby livers. This is a man, after all, who has no problem with partial-birth abortion, and who wants unfettered access to abortion and abortion-inducing birth-control for all women — even mandating Catholic nuns carry insurance that covers it. So forgive us if we’re skeptical when Attorney General Loretta Lynch says the Justice Department is “going to review all the information and determine what steps, if any, to take at the appropriate time.” Note: That’s “what steps, if any.” Besides, perhaps she means DOJ will investigate the group taking the videos…

More Details Emerge From Chattanooga
2015-07-23-ff6de5dd_large.png
Details continue to come out about the terrorist attack in Chattanooga last week. One Navy officer and a Marine returned fire when a jihadi rammed through the gate and started shooting. According to Navy Times, “Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the support center’s commanding officer, used his personal firearm to engage” the assailant. Likewise, one of the slain Marines reportedly had a personal handgun that he used to return fire. But it wasn’t only those with guns who acted with bravery. According to reports, some of the fallen Marines essentially sacrificed themselves by drawing fire away from a larger group of Marines. “This could have been a lot worse,” an anonymous official said. “It could have been a horrible, horrible massacre — so much worse.”

It was bad enough. Remember the fallen: Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist, Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas J. Sullivan, Lance Cpl. Squire K. Wells, and Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith.

Finally, Ed Reinhold, the FBI’s special agent in charge in Knoxville, declared during a Wednesday news conference that the perpetrator was a “homegrown violent extremist” and that it was too early to determine whether he had been radicalized. “This is a complex, ongoing investigation, and we’re still in the early stages of piecing together exactly what happened and why,” Reinhold said. “The FBI has been working almost 400 leads, and has an estimated 250 personnel on the ground in the area, and hundreds more working across the country and around the world on this investigation.” We appreciate the deliberate and thorough investigation, but let’s call a spade a spade.

Maybe that failure is why it took Barack Obama five days to call for lowering the flag.
For four years, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno was in Iraq, spending more time in the theater than any other military leader. He was a key architect of the successful “surge” that gave Iraq a short-lived bout of stability and relative prosperity. And then Barack Obama came along.

Now weeks away from retirement after a nearly four-decade career, Odierno barely hides his disgust at the decline in Iraq since Obama withdrew American forces. In the debate before the 2011 withdrawal, Odierno requested a force of 30-35,000 troops be maintained in Iraq. Unfortunately, he was overruled by Obama’s narcissistic quest for political expediency in the 2012 campaign. He had promised to “end” (note: not win) the war, and Americans were generally war-weary. Never mind that Iraq was always envisioned as part of a Long War against Islamic extremism.

“It’s frustrating to watch” the rise of the Islamic State, lamented Odierno in his interview with Fox. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and we got [Iraq] to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, [and] politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.” He added, “If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe [the Islamic State’s rise] might have been prevented. I’ve always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out we lost that role. … I think it would have been good for us to stay.”

Odierno didn’t explicitly say so, but he strongly implied that Obama’s foolish withdrawal from Iraq is directly responsible for the rise of the Islamic State.

Aside from very occasional airstrikes against a handful of Islamic State-controlled targets and ground forays conducted by Iraqi troops under U.S. advisement (and with the assistance of Iranian-backed militia groups), Obama has largely abandoned the Iraqis to the wolves of the al-Baghdadi caliphate. In fact, some foreign-policy pundits are becoming convinced that life under the Islamic State may not be so bad if you keep your nose clean and don’t make the regime mad. They may not yet make the trains run on time, but they argue there’s far less corruption than you’d find under the Iraqi and Syrian governments.

It appears that Obama is trying to walk the thin line between not becoming too involved in the Middle East but not completely ceding to the Islamic State. It’s a set of actions reminiscent of his negotiations with Iran, where State Department negotiators managed to let Iran get away with rhetorical nuclear murder by their insistence that even a horrendous deal was better than no deal at all. Odierno supported the Iranian nuclear pact, but added in the Fox interview that Iran will continue to be an aggressor and instigator.

Meanwhile, Obama is reducing the size of the military, which Odierno warns means the U.S. will be unable to “deter conflict and prevent wars.” Shrinking the Army from 570,000 to 490,000 soldiers, for example, is a problem. “In my mind, we don’t have the ability to deter,” Odierno explained. “The reason we have a military is to deter conflict and prevent wars. And if people believe we are not big enough to respond, they miscalculate.”

Sometimes it’s hard to tell, but as close as we can figure this is the Obama Doctrine toward Islamic terrorists: Put off the day of reckoning until the next administration and hope the collateral damage is kept largely in that region. But when a U.S. city or Jerusalem become a smoking ruin from either an Iranian nuke or an Islamic State terror attack — never mind the increasing “lone wolf” attacks like the one in Chattanooga — we’ll see the bitter harvest of what Obama has sown by not seeing through the Long War.

 

OPINION IN BRIEF
Ken Blackwell: “On Oct. 21, 1994, President Bill Clinton announced a deal with North Korea aimed at ending its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. ‘This is a good deal for the United States,’ Clinton said. ‘North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.’ … Twenty one years later, from the exact spot in the White House, President Obama said, ‘Iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provided the basis for the international community’s efforts to apply pressure on Iran.’ … The result of the North Korean agreement became clear on Oct. 9, 2006, when North Korea took the world by surprise and conducted its first successful test of a nuclear weapon. … President Obama does not appear to know the history of nuclear proliferation. But that is no reason why the country as a whole should be destined to repeat it.”

SHORT CUTS
“In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.” —French writer Voltaire (1694-1778)

Upright: “[Hillary Clinton] still doesn’t have real opponents who are going to challenge her for the nomination in the end. But we have gotten to see her. And it turns out that the more you see her, the more her numbers go down. That’s the definition of a weak candidate.” —Charles Krauthammer

Alpha Jackass: “To some degree the Tea Party is an expression of frustration. They see a bunch of stuff going on that they don’t understand and they feel threatened by, and then they react.” —Barack Obama (No, what we understand is his constant violation of the Constitution.)

The BIG Lie: “By the time I leave here, I think we’re going to be able to say that government is working much better, much more efficiently, much more customer-friendly than when I came into office.” —Barack Obama (Conservatives targeted by the IRS and veterans left for dead by the VA beg to differ.)

“The White House [made] a special Twitter account to answer questions about the new nuclear agreement. Finally using Twitter for what it was designed for — explaining complex, international nuclear agreements involving several nations.” —Seth Meyers

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

HOW THE REPUBLICANS PLAN TO LOSE TO HILLARY

By Cliff Kincaid
July 17, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

A new survey from Univision, the pro-Mexico television network, demonstrates the utter folly of Republicans appealing to Hispanic voters. It finds that 68 percent have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton despite the scandals swirling around her. By contrast, only 36 percent have a favorable view of former Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish.

Bush “was the highest-rated of all the Republican candidates,” Univision reports, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a one-time proponent of amnesty for illegals, coming in second with only a 35 percent approval rate.

What the poll demonstrates is that Hispanics are basically owned by the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ power grab for the Latino vote has been successful. However, ultimately the Democratic Party’s success in the presidential election depends on convincing Republicans to fruitlessly continue to appeal to Hispanics, while abandoning the GOP voter base of whites, conservatives and Christians.

Overall, in terms of political party affiliation, 57 percent of Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and only 18 percent said they are Republicans. A total of 25 percent called themselves independent.

In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were satisfied with Barack Obama’s presidency after his six years in office. Clearly, most Hispanics have drunk the Kool-Aid. For them, it appears that federal benefits and legalization of border crossers are what matters. Most of them don’t bat an eye in regard to Obama’s lawless and traitorous conduct of domestic and foreign policy.

What the Republicans have left is to try to appeal to white, conservative and Christian voters. But that strategy, of course, runs the obvious risk of being depicted by the liberal media as racist. After all, whites are not supposed to have a “white identity,” as Jared Taylor’s book by that name describes.

Whites cannot have a racial identity, but Hispanics and blacks can. This is one aspect of political correctness. As communists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who are themselves white, put it in their book, it is a “race course against white supremacy.”

If Republicans pander to Hispanics, they will alienate their voter base, which has shown in their reaction to the Donald Trump candidacy that they want more—not less—action taken to control the border with Mexico. Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) calls the Trump supporters “crazies,” an indication that the GOP establishment would rather jettison these people than bring them into the Republican camp. Like McCain, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also attacked Trump, saying his remarks about criminal aliens are hurting the GOP. It’s amazing how a loser like Romney, who also threw in the towel on gay marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, continues to generate press. What he is saying is what the liberal media want to hear.

Of course, the political correctness which dominates the national dialogue and debate also means that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are likely to continue to demonize Trump, thereby alienating many whites. As a result, the Republicans will get less of the conservative and Christian vote, further diminishing their chances of winning the White House. It will be a replay of the losing campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Republicans have already alienated many Christian voters by giving up the fight for traditional marriage. They had planned to abandon border control as an issue until Trump and “El Chapo” got in the way.

Meanwhile, in another amazing turnaround, Republicans on Capitol Hill are backing Obama’s call for “sentencing reform,” a strategy that will empty the prisons and increase the crime rate, thereby alienating GOP voters in favor of law and order.

As this scenario plays out, Mrs. Clinton is coming across on the Democratic side looking like a moderate, by virtue of the fact that an open socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is running “to her left” for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton-Sanders show has all the earmarks of a carefully staged demonstration of the Marxist dialectic, an exercise designed to create the appearance of conflict in order to force even more radical change on the American people through Democratic Party rule.

Anybody who knows anything about Hillary, a student of Saul Alinsky, understands that her “moderation” is only a façade. Her thesis on Alinsky for Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight…” That is the Marxist strategy. It is the Alinsky version of the Marxist dialectic. It was also adopted by Obama, who was trained by Alinsky disciples working with the Catholic Church in Chicago.

In my column, “Study Marxism to Understand Hillary,” I noted that Barbara Olson had come to the conclusion while researching her book on Hillary that “she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism.” Olson noted, “In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…”

This means that Mrs. Clinton understands that the Sanders candidacy actually supports and does not undermine her own candidacy. It makes Hillary look like a moderate while she moves further to the left, a place she wants to be, in response to the left-wing Democratic base. Only the Marxist insiders seem to understand what is happening.

Some uninformed commentators refer to something called “Clintonism,” a supposed moderate brand of Democratic Party politics. If that ever existed, it applied to Bill Clinton and not Hillary.

The fact is that Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have associated with the same gang of communists and fellow travelers for many years. Sanders was an active collaborator with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace Council.

As for Hillary, Barbara Olson reported in her book Hell to Pay that Robert Borosage, who served as director of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of Clinton. Olson wrote that Mrs. Clinton operated in the “reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford,” who had been “committed Communists” and “Stalinists.” Olson said that Hillary worked for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby then-Governor Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue.

Olson described Hillary as a “budding Leninist” who understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. She wrote that “Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to—remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”

Researcher Carl Teichrib has provided me with a photo of a Hillary meeting with Cora Weiss from the May 2000 edition of “Peace Matters,” the newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace. Weiss, a major figure in the Institute for Policy Studies, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders. In the photo, Hillary is shown fawning over a Hague Appeal for Peace gold logo pin that Weiss is wearing.

Teichrib, editor of Forcing Change, recalls being an observer at the 1999 World Federalist Association (WFA) conference, held in association with the Hague Appeal for Peace, during which everyone in attendance was given an honorary membership into the WFA. In addition to collaborating with the pro-Hanoi Hague Appeal for Peace, the WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” Mrs. Clinton spoke to a WFA conference in a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a supporter of world government.

In the WFA booklet, “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is the Answer to Global Problems,” the group described how a “world federation,” a euphemism for world government, could be achieved by advancing “step by step toward global governance,” mostly by enhancing the power and authority of U.N. agencies.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts
Obama’s Iran deal continues this strategy by placing enormous power in the hands of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

At this stage in the campaign, even before the first Republican presidential debate, we can already see how the race is playing out. Hillary is counting on the Republicans nominating another loser with a losing strategy while she moves to the left and looks like a moderate.

Alinsky would be proud.

© 2015 Cliff Kincaid – All Rights Reserved

Obama and Rep. Mike McCaul Say You Could Be A “Violent Extremist”
CAIR countering violent extremism CVE Islamism Radical Islam Rep. Mike McCaul
George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 7/20/2015
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul

Who are these “violent extremists” President Obama and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, such as House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul of Texas, keep talking about?

Are they actually Islamists, such as Yemeni native Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez who killed the four Marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee? Or are they Americans who support the right-to-life movement, Fourth Amendment property rights, the Second Amendment and strict constitutional limits on the size and scope of the federal government?

If you are President Obama and Congressman McCaul you apparently believe either or both are equal threats to constitutional government and need to be “countered” with new legislation that passed out of McCaul’s Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote no less.

McCaul’s bill would create a “countering violent extremism” office at the Department of Homeland Security, but who or what would be “countered” is not just undefined, Obama administration policy would make defining it in terms most Americans would deem appropriate to the threat of Islamism almost impossible.

And that’s the way Democrats on McCaul’s Committee and Muslim apologists want it.

Seamus Hughes, who recently left Obama’s National Counterterrorism Center, and is now deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, “Islamist extremism is hardly the only form of extremism that poses a threat.” Non-Islamist extremism needs to be aggressively addressed too, Hughes told ABC News’ James Gordon Meek.

Of course Meek doesn’t really need Seamus Hughes to tell him that; the Left-leaning Mr. Meek used to work for McCaul’s committee and knows well the Committee for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamist front groups operating in America.

Their goal is to make our counter terrorism strategy not one of countering Islam ad Islamism, but countering anyone who objects to Obama administration policy.

These are the same guys at the Department of Homeland Security who classified returning veterans of the Middle East wars potential “rightwing violent extremists.”

Last year in the wake of President Obama’s speech about his belated plan to confront the national security threat posed by the rise of the Islamic State, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced a new program “to bring together community representatives, public safety officials and religious leaders to counter violent extremism.”

Except nowhere in the announcement could you find the words Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, jihadi or any other term that might give you the slightest idea who these violent extremists might be.

To be fair, Holder did mention ISIL, Syria, Iraq and the 13th anniversary of 9/11, but nowhere was any word used that directly associates these events with radical Islam or Muslim culture as the proximate cause of the need for the program.

What’s more Holder said that the Department of Justice “will along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country.”

It is exactly these “community representatives,” such as the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), that have demanded that the American government scrub any mention or use of the words Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, jihadi or any other association with Islam from Pentagon and law enforcement training programs as “Islamophobic.”

Back in 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued an “intelligence assessment”, really more of a political broadside, arguing that “rightwing extremism,” defined by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to include groups opposed to abortion and open immigration and infamously even returning veterans as among terrorist risks to the U.S.

The report was so outrageous that Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, then-chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was “dumbfounded” that such a report would be issued. Mr. Thompson stood tall in 2009, but might be changing his tune now as he seemed to (at least according to ABC News) lump together Islamism and “white supremacy extremism” as equal threats.

Interestingly, the language used in McCaul’s recent hearing on his “countering violent extremism” bill was strikingly similar to that used in Holder’s 2014 announcement and the 2009 report that said the federal government “will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months” to gather information on “rightwing extremist activity in the United States.”

And now House Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul, and the rest of the Republicans on the Committee have taken this bait, hook, line and sinker.

Something is bizarrely wrong in our government, as it is being run by President Obama and Chairman McCaul if returning vets and groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority and citizens who oppose abortion can be named as terrorists, but the words Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, jihadi cannot be used in a program to “counter violent extremism.”

President Obama and Congressman McCaul have all too willingly embraced a foolish, perhaps fatal, politically correct description of who the enemy is in this war radical Islamists have declared on us; and it is not returning American veterans of the wars to defend their country against Islamism.

We urge CHQ readers to call Mike McCaul, Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Republican Whip Steve Scalise and tell them you oppose H.R. 2899, McCaul’s bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize an Office for Countering Violent Extremism.

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36489
Daily Digest

Jul. 20, 2015

THE FOUNDATION

“We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our won Country’s Honor, all call upon us for vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions.” —George Washington, General Orders, 1776

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS

Chattanooga: Heroic Actions1

By Mark Alexander

The Leftmedia is still searching for a motive in the attack on military personnel here in Chattanooga last week — an Islamist assault we covered in “Obama: Happy Ramadan2.” First clue: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered four Marines and one Sailor on the last day of Ramadan. Second clue: The assailant blogged and texted about jihad3.

Thursday morning’s daily White House email4 — the day of the attack — was a message honoring Ramadan. Equally notable, Friday morning’s email made no mention of Thursday’s attack — it was a solicitation for DNC funds.

The attacks have generated a lot of national ranting about Muslims, but we caution that we should not marginalize all Muslims as suspect Islamists. That is precisely what Obama and his Leftists did after the recent murders in Charleston5 — marginalized all white Southerners interested in our heritage as racist and endeavored to remove any vestige of that heritage from public places, including National Military Parks6.

The actions of one do not reflect the beliefs of all, but clearly this assault was incited by Islamist hatred — and that should be the target of our outrage.

Additionally, there is little being said about the two reasons the casualty list was not much higher.

The media has largely ignored the fact that there were many other personnel at the Reserve Center that fateful morning. “Mike Battery” (Battery M, 3rd Battalion, 14th Regiment), had just completed annual training in California, and there were 22 Marines at the center cleaning and conditioning equipment, along with additional Navy staff.

The first reason that more were not murdered was explained by Marine spokesman Maj. Clark Carpenter: “There were heroic acts by our Marines on that day. They did exactly what we expect Marines to do. They got their Marines to safety. They took care of their Marines first, and then those Marine leaders went back into the fray to make sure that others were protected. They went back into the fight to try to stop him.”

Maj. Carpenter added that when the nation looked back on this incident, “It’s going to be a story of heroes, with both our Marines and our Sailors, and without question, the first responders from the police department.”

Indeed, the second reason there were not many more casualties is that as police arrived they engaged the assailant, which is to say those police officers diverted Abdulazeez’s fire away from the additional (unarmed) Marines and Navy personnel.

We grieve for the families of the five murdered Patriots: Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist (USMC), Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt (USMC), Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan (USMC), Lance Cpl. Squire Wells (USMC) and Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith (USN).

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Obama Acts to Head Off Crime Spree of … the Elderly?7

If there’s a singular purpose for Barack Obama and his cadres its limiting access to guns in as many ways as possible. The latest attempt is a push to prohibit Social Security recipients from owning firearms if they are judged mentally incompetent. First let’s stipulate that nobody wants people who are mentally incompetent owning or using guns without at least some restrictions. But the question is the standard used. The Social Security Administration has never before participated in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, but, if the SSA begins using the same standards as the Department of Veterans Affairs, at least four million beneficiaries could see their gun rights eliminated by a bureaucrat. We don’t want the government defining or deciding mental competence with standards that have nothing to do with crime. And especially not this administration. Indeed, given the Obama administration’s track record of disdain for American veterans — both through the bureaucratic shenanigans at the VA8 and in targeting veterans in DHS reports about extremism9 — it won’t be long before veterans are barred from owning firearms, or, conversely, their benefits are restricted if they’re gun owners. Indeed, many veterans have already been judged “incompetent” when that’s clearly not the case. Now prohibitions could extend to the average Social Security recipient. We’re forced to ask what problem Obama thinks he’s trying to solve. Our nation has not been under assault by senior citizens or veterans. It has been under attack from Islamic jihadists, and that’s the one thing Obama seems most reticent to address.

Trump on McCain: A Barb Too Far10

At the 2015 Family Leadership Summit Friday, reality TV star and billionaire extraordinaire Donald Trump continued to attempt to rend the Republican Party by launching an attack against Sen. John McCain. “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured,” Trump bloviated. “I like people that weren’t captured.” Trump is standing behind his comments, despite nearly the whole GOP field criticizing him11 for them. On Sunday, Trump doubled down, tweeting, “The Veterans Administration is in shambles and our veterans are suffering greatly. John McCain has done nothing to help them but talk.” Two different issues. McCain endured an ordeal that would break weaker men like Trump. What he did or did not do afterwards does not strip McCain from the title of “hero.”

Besides, while McCain12 was asking for more missions in Vietnam, Trump was weaseling out of the draft13. While McCain was experiencing debilitating torture as a prisoner of war, Trump caroused as a Manhattan playboy. When McCain returned, broken from the war, Trump was being hit with Fair Housing Act discrimination suit.

McCain responded14 brilliantly: “I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience in serving our country. … In the case of many of our veterans, when Mr. Trump said that he prefers to be with people who are not captured, well, the great honor of my life was to serve in the company of heroes. I’m not a hero. But those who were my senior ranking officers … those that have inspired us to do things that we otherwise wouldn’t have been capable of doing, those are the people that I think he owes an apology to.”

Obama ‘Recovery’ Slows Debt Reduction15

The White House has released a little-noticed but concerning bit of information on the economy and our nation’s debt. Known as the “Mid-Session Review,” the report16 “contains revised estimates of receipts, outlays, budget authority, and the budget deficit for fiscal years 2015 through 2025.” Barack Obama has long made a habit of boasting about reducing the deficit. (When reducing something, it helps to have quadrupled it first.) But The Wall Street Journal notes that the good times might not keep rolling17: “First, the good news: Short-term deficits are falling. The Obama administration now forecasts the annual deficit will reach $455 billion this year, down 22% from its forecast at the start of the year and around 6% below last year’s level. The level represents around 2.6% of the country’s total economic output, down from a forecast of 3.2% earlier this year. Moreover, the administration sees the deficit falling another 6% next year to $429 billion, or around 2.3% of gross domestic product. The bad news? Economic growth has continued to underperform expectations. And because the administration’s economists don’t see growth rebounding later to play catch up, the revenue that’s lost to lower growth isn’t going to be recouped in future periods.”

Whereas previous estimates were for 3% and higher economic growth, the new ones are in the 2% range. That’s the rub, isn’t it? Obama’s “stimulus,” regulations and tax hikes were supposed to lead us to the economic promised land. Instead, we got perpetual stagnation, and, compared to past recoveries, this one has no right to be called one.

 

OPINION IN BRIEF

Scott Powell: “The concern about sanctuary cities today should not focus only on the problem of alien criminals, exemplified by 8,145 offenders released from custody during just the last eight months. Sanctuary cities can also provide a safe haven for very bad actors intending to wreak mass havoc on America, such as Islamist terrorists and drug cartel kingpins. In addition to the need to plug the sanctuary city hole by enforcing existing federal law requiring local governments to cooperate with ICE, there are other gaps to fill. An important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was to tighten up the student-visa program after it was determined that the hijacker who flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had entered the U.S. on a student visa.”

SHORT CUTS

“Some people wonder all their lives if they’ve made a difference. The Marines don’t have that problem.” —The Gipper

Dezinformatsia: “Were guns a big part of activities — social or other activities? Did [Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez] hunt? Did he shoot? Was that just part of small-town Tennessee activity?” —NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, trying desperately to make guns and other conservative Southern culture a factor

Obama’s way or the highway: “If Congress says no to this deal, then there will be no restraints on Iran, there will be no sanctions left. … Our friends in this effort will desert us. We will be viewed as having killed the opportunity to stop [Iran] from having weapons. [Iran] will begin to enrich again, and the greater likelihood is what the president said the other day — you will have a war.” —Secretary of State John Kerry

But war’s not off the table, either: “One of the reasons this deal is a good one is that it does nothing to prevent the military option — the U.S. military option.” —Secretary of Defense Ash Carter

Demo-gogues: “We’ve got to do all we can over the next few months to make sure we elect Democrats who will fight for every single American at all stages of life.” —solicitation from Barack Obama to support entitlement programs, though clearly Obama does not support “every single American at all stages of life”

Heckled for getting it right: “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” —Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who was booed and heckled at the Netroots Nation conference for suggesting other lives matter too

“Obama entered the El Reno federal penitentiary in Oklahoma Thursday and spoke to the prisoners there. He urged lawmakers to eliminate mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. He was the first North American leader all week to be on the news for going into a prison.” —Argus Hamilton

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Links

http://patriotpost.us/articles/36487
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/36467
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/4051
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/16/statement-president-occasion-eid-ul-fitr
http://patriotpost.us/posts/35865
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36037
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36482
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/25991
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3101
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36486
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/18/trump-slams-mccain-for-being-captured-in-vietnam/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/20/what-donald-trump-was-up-to-while-john-mccain-was-suffering-as-a-prisoner-of-war/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/trump-draft-deferment?page=0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/john-mccain-responds-donald-trump-121354692.html
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36470
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/16msr.pdf
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/16/why-the-white-house-no-longer-projects-a-decline-in-debt/
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36485
http://patriotpost.us/articles/36481
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36469
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36462
http://patriotpost.us/posts/36460
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36480
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36479
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36473
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36474
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36471
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36476
http://patriotpost.us/opinion