There’s something about the Democrats that just gets Chris Christie feeling warm and fuzzy. First, it was his bromance with Obama that got people talking.
Now it’s his supposed rival, Hillary Clinton. Christie joined Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union where Clinton was also a guest. And when the two saw each other on set, this happened:
Of course they hugged. pic.twitter.com/zmsULfwN70
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) February 8, 2016
I’m not sure that’s going to be great for his campaign.
Chris Christie: the experienced Democrat schmoozer.
Three Australian men have paid to avoid jail time for raping a 17-year-old girl. Yes, really. Apparently that is a thing that allows people to get off the hook for
This weekend saw yet another lesson showing why Americans often don't—and often shouldn't—call 911 to deal with a mental health crisis. A young transgender man with Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism) was a brief viral hit over the summer over a video show how his emotional support dog assisted him when he was having a meltdown and hurting himself.
The man, Kayden Clarke, 24, (referred to in some stories as Danielle Jacobs—Clarke had just recently begun his transition apparently) is now dead, shot by police who been called to his home in Mesa, Arizona, by people who were concerned about a possible suicide attempt. He had apparently sent out some emails asking for somebody to take care of Clarke's dog should something happen to him.
According to police, a team of officers showed up to Clarke's place, where they found him threatening to harm himself with a knife. According to police, Clarke approached an officer with a knife and "extended it out." The officers "felt threatened" and opened fire, killing him.
The police officers were not wearing body cameras, so we have no way of determining whether or not the officers' perception of Clark's behavior was accurate. According to police, one officer went to get a beanbag gun while another officer attempted to de-escalate the situation. But obviously that didn't happen.
Worthy of note: Only a fifth of Mesa police have completed crisis intervention training to learn how to de-escalate situations with mentally ill or otherwise disabled individuals. But also of note: one of the officers on the scene had completed this training, according to the Phoenix New Times.
The police said they were not aware of Clarke's mental health history, though apparently police were called to the home for a similar possible suicide attempt two years ago. A police spokesman said, "All we knew is that [Clarke] was trying to commit suicide."
It's important to think about incidents like this whenever an obviously mentally ill person causes harm to others and people ask, "Why didn't anybody do anything about his behavior before?" In addition to the fact that there's no real reliable way to predict whether a generally non-violent person with mental health issues is an actual threat to others, we keep seeing situations where people call 911 to assist in a crisis, and this is what happens. This is far from the first time Reason has made note of how police responses to fears of suicide ended in violence or death, and it probably won't be the last. The police are training citizens not to call for help in an emergency related to mental health issues. Certainly several residents in Mesa have just learned this lesson.
Last night’s Doritos Super Bowl commercial has the abortion industry absolutely losing its mind.
The commercial shows a baby in an ultrasound.
Take a look:
NARAL – the abortion industry’s top lobbyists – immediately took to Twitter in outrage, fuming, “#NotBuyingIt – that @Doritos ad using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses . . . .” That “anti-choice tactic of humanizing fetuses” is called an ultrasound, which shows a baby human inside the womb.
— NARAL (@NARAL) February 8, 2016
Yet this wasn’t the only commercial big abortion was flipping out about last night.
The NFL released a series of ads during the big game on that premise that “Data suggest 9 months after a Super bowl victory, winning cities see a rise in births.” They are known as Super Bowl Babies.
NARAL again couldn’t stand the idea of babies actually being born, tweeting: “Super Bowl Babies? Use protection, sports fans.”
Super Bowl Babies? Use protection, sports fans. #MediaWeLike
— NARAL ProChoice Ohio (@ProChoiceOH) February 7, 2016
(which was retweeted by @NARAL)
The abortion industry was actually going out of its mind about these fun Super Bowl commercials because they promoted the simple idea that life is precious and should be celebrated. I guess an idea can be a dangerous thing.
The post This Super Bowl Commercial is Making the Abortion Industry Lose Its Mind appeared first on RedState.
Remember Valerie Plame? The Washington political class went bananas about whether whoever in the Bush administration disclosed her job with the CIA had committed treason. The scandal was alternatively called "Plamegate" and even "Treasongate." Since then, in the last decade, a number of government officials and contractors have gone to jail for mishandling classified information, especially under the Obama administration.
Not so for Hillary Clinton, yet. A. Barton Hinkle writes:
Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement acknowledging that "negligent handling" of classified information "could cause irreparable injury to the United States." Confronted about that the other day, she dodged the question: "You can't get information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system, no matter what that system is."
Actually, you can. And she might have. There is evidence her aides might have copied material from the secure Secret Internet Protocol Router Network and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications systems and pasted it into emails to her. "Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," Clinton ordered a staffer at one point.
The very best that can be said of Clinton's behavior, which she claims was driven by personal convenience, is that it constitutes grotesque negligence.
The shows bracketing Megyn Kelly’s show on Fox News are The O’Reilly Factor at 8 p.m. and Sean Hannity‘s program at 10 p.m. She made it clear on Colbert’s show
Just in: Rand Paul's New Hampshire state chairman Sen. Avard has endorsed Ted Cruz's campaign, he tells a crowd here pic.twitter.com/fOGnGlRjhi
— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) February 8, 2016
While Cruz is not 100% in alignment with the positions of Rand Paul, now that Paul is out of the race, his supporters will find more to like in Cruz than in any of the other GOP candidates. This endorsement will not be a game changer in New Hampshire. Before he dropped out, Paul was polling at ~3%. If some significant number of those voters do show up to vote for Ted Cruz, they will improve his position:
If, as I think likely though I may very well be wearing a clown nose tomorrow night, Rubio finishes ahead of Trump, Cruz could very well slide into second on the strength of the Paul voters. Or if, as I think unlikely, Rubio was really hurt by the Saturday debate, even a smallish bloc of Paul voters could move him into second place. If this endorsement becomes indicative of a trend, it will be significant in later states as Paul polled ~5% nationwide before dropping out.
note: yes, I know that is actually Steve King in the image.
The post BREAKING. Rand Paul’s New Hampshire Campaign Chair Endorses Ted Cruz appeared first on RedState.
"It is not in my nature to be pessimistic, but it is impossible not to be pessimistic about immigration reform." So says Clint Bolick, the veteran libertarian lawyer, pro-immigration advocate, and newly appointed justice of the Arizona Supreme Court.
In an exclusive interview with Reason, Bolick took aim at the GOP's increasingly hostile anti-immigration stance. For Bolick, who in 2013 co-authored (with Jeb Bush) the pro-immigration manifesto Immigration Wars, the recent rise of conservatism nativism has been deeply discouraging.
"The current Republican campaign has been a reflection of a very disturbing nativist trend," Bolick told Reason. "One of the things that has especially disturbed me is, as we report in the book—which was published only three years ago, so things have really moved in a bad direction really quickly—mainstream Republican opinion at that time and consistently before that time was pro-immigration. The typical Republican strongly supported border security, but also strongly supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and other, I would say, mainstream or moderate reforms. For the first time in well over a decade, polls this year show Republican sentiment growing far more nativist than ever before. It is impossible to get systemic immigration reform without bipartisan consensus. And when you see someone like Paul Ryan really duck-and-cover on the immigration issue you know that the pendulum has swung in the wrong direction."
Click here to read Reason's full interview with Clint Bolick, libertarian lawyer turned Arizona Supreme Court justice.
Ick. Just gross. This woman is having a cyst drained on the left side of her chest. She must have major infection issues. The cyst is red, inflamed and looks
Hillary Clinton looks close to actually losing the Iowa caucuses as more and more irregularities are aired and it seems all but certain that Bernie Sanders is going to mop the floor with her in New Hampshire. Young women are rejecting her. And her national lead in the poll is going down faster than a White House intern:
Bill Clinton has been laying low (with all that implies) for a few weeks since Trump did the nation a valuable service by bringing up his history as a sexual predator. Now he thinks the heat is off and he sees Hillary circling the electoral drain and facing indictment, so he’s going on the attack against Bernie Sanders.
But Mr. Clinton’s most pointed remarks may have been when he took aim at Sanders supporters who, he said, use misogynistic language in attacking Mrs. Clinton. He told the story of a female “progressive” blogger who defended Mrs. Clinton online through a pseudonym because, he said, the vitriol from Mr. Sanders’s backers was so unrelenting.
“She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat.” Mr. Clinton, growing more demonstrative, added that the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called “unbelievable personal attacks” for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton.
In a demonstration of how engrossed he is in this campaign, Mr. Clinton recited the names of the regional newspapers that are backing his wife’s campaign and, in a rarity, mentioned Mr. Sanders by name.
“Bernie took what they said was good about him and put it in his own endorsements,” said Mr. Clinton, fuming that Mr. Sanders used complimentary language from a Nashua Telegraph endorsement of Mrs. Clinton in his own campaign appeals.
Then, reflecting the fury among Clinton campaign advisers over what they see as the kinds of behavior Mr. Sanders gets away with, Mr. Clinton noted that the senator’s campaign had used the image of an American Legion officer in New Hampshire without his permission.
“If you point it out, it just shows how tied you are to the establishment,” he said.
This is only going to get uglier. I’m stocking up on popcorn.
The post Bill Clinton Unloads On Bernie Sanders And His Supporters appeared first on RedState.
The first thing Peyton Manning did after winning the Superbowl on Sunday was to thank God. He’s a Christian and a man of faith. He has won Superbowls with both
So we now have two tracking polls in New Hampshire. ARG is also running a tracker (one that adores John Kasich, for some reason), but today I’m going to draw our attention back to the UMass tracker. It’s showing movement for the second tier of candidates that’s different from before.
Different in a way that’s bad news for Donald Trump.
You see, the plurality winner gets the delegates of everyone who doesn’t hit 10% in the primary, and the plurality winner is very likely to be Donald Trump. So when most polling putting everyone other than Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz under 10, then Trump was set to clean up in delegates.
But look at the UMass tracker for February 7:
- Donald Trump 34
- Marco Rubio 13
- Ted Cruz 13
- John Kasich 10
- Jeb Bush 10
With five candidates over 10, this would allocate 80% of the delegates according to the vote, meaning the plurality winner would only get a bonus 20% from the third tier of candidates. That’s a drain on what Trump was possibly expecting to get in the state.
You can’t win the nomination unless you can win a majority of the delegates. There’s no such thing as a ‘spoiler’ effect, because you can’t win with just a plurality of delegates. Whoever stands up and thanks everyone in Cleveland will be the one who can put together that majority. One state at a time.
The post The UMass tracking poll of New Hampshire is bad news for Donald Trump appeared first on RedState.
I think I may gag. I watched Beyonce’s new video released for the Superbowl halftime show in honor of Black Lives Matter. It is the raunchiest, most vile, racist piece
According to Philip Haney, former employee and whistleblower of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while employed at the DHS, he was ordered to scrub the records of Muslims with ties to terror. Haney wrote, in an article at The Hill, that following the 2009 underwear bomber plot, “President Obama threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to “connect the dots. This was not a failure to collect intelligence, it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”
Haney went on to say:
“Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material—the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.
After leaving my 15 year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.”
In early November 2009, Haney was ordered by his superiors at the DHS to delete or revise several hundred records of individuals tied to designated terrorist groups. These records are housed in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), a federal database. Haney describes these records as being, “the basis for any ability to ‘connect dots.’”
“Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database,” he said.
Haney reflected on the fact that, as he scrubbed away at all this data relevant to preventing terror attacks, “it was going to be vastly more difficult to ‘connect the dots’ in the future—especially before an attack occurs.” Further, “as the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit ‘honor killing’ perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015),” Haney wrote.
The Obama administration has an extensive history of scrubbing, modifying and censoring in relation to Islamic terror:
- In 2012, the DHS released “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” which implied that people with the following viewpoints are potential terrorists: opposition to abortion, opposition to illegal immigration, support of small government, opposition to gun control and concerns over the loss of American sovereignty.
- “Similarly, a 2009 report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center labeled those who have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin as suspicious individuals. It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with ‘radical’ ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion, and federal taxes.”
- PJ Media pointed out that unmentioned in the report was the 1994 shooting of 16-year-old Jewish student Ari Halberstam by Rashid Baz. Halberstam died and other murders were attempted on the Brooklyn Bridge. Baz was up front about the fact that he shot Halberstam because he was Jewish.
- Also left out of the report was the 2002 shooting at the El Al (Israel’s national airline) ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Hesham Mohamed Hadayet killed two and wounded four others. Hadayet was later determined, by the FBI and DOJ, to be an Egyptian terrorist who wanted to be a Muslim martyr.
- A decorated Army officer who was a war college instructor was fired in 2012 because of his teachings on radical Islam. A four-star general’s rejection of Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley for consideration for command of a combat battalion was the beginning of the end of Dooley’s promising Army career. He was decorated for valor in Iraq and received excellent evaluations
- Dooley’s troubles began when “fifty-seven Muslim organizations signed a letter to the Department of Defense demanding that training materials offensive to them be purged and instructors disciplined. Eventually the letter was passed to General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This was shortly followed by a Defense Department press release condemning the course material being taught as not ‘simply objectionable’ but ‘inflammable.’ Later on General Dempsey would say that the course’s content was ‘totally objectionable’ and ‘against our values.’”
- And, many of the 57 Muslim organizations that signed the letter are listed in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum.
- Another indicator of the Obama administration’s efforts to thwart progress against the jihad was the cancellation of an anti-terrorism conference scheduled for August 10-12 in 2011 which was to be hosted by the CIA’s Threat Management Unit.
- That cancellation was followed, in September 2011, by several articles written by WIRED Magazine’s Spencer Ackerman. The articles claimed that counter-terrorism trainers and materials used by the FBI were promoting “Islamophobia.”
- “While a number of claims made by Ackerman in his series of articles were later found to be manifestly false, inside U.S. government agencies individuals targeted by Ackerman’s articles were prohibited from speaking publicly in defense of themselves and their work and ‘The Purge’ continued apace.”
- “One of the architects of the new DHS guidelines was Mohamed Elibiary, who served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, was appointed in October 2010 by Secretary Janet Napolitano to the Homeland Security Advisory Council and is now a senior fellow for the agency, who has publicly admitted to his role in developing the DHS guidelines. Unsurprisingly, he was a regular source for WIRED’s Spencer Ackerman.”
- Elibiary is well-known for speaking at Islamist events, a public statement embracing jihadist ideologues from the Muslim Brotherhood and declaring America “an Islamic country,”
- Some of the same organizations that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties affiliated itself with had been identified by the DOJ as fronts for international terrorist organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007 and 2008. This would include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
- “At the time these guidelines were published, the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Majid, was serving on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.”
According to an article at The Blaze, written in 2014 by Patrick Poole, “In what some experts have termed a hostile “political warfare campaign” driven by an alliance between the administration, Islamic organizations and cooperating media figures, analysts and subject matter experts were blacklisted, and books and training materials were purged from official counter-terrorism training programs government-wide. This ‘purge’ has contributed to clues being missed by the FBI in major terrorism cases, including last year’s bombing of the Boston Marathon…”
So, a decision was made to purge all federal government training materials of anything deemed biased, initiate mandatory re-training program for FBI agents and disciple educators and other government employees who taught using “biased” materials.
In December 2011, the White House issued the “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” It mandated the use of local partners–Islamic organizations, including those cited by the DOJ as providing support to foreign terrorist organizations.
Hence, all national security and law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local level have had to consult these groups and coordinate with “local partners” as a matter of policy.
The post Scrubbed, Whitewashed & Censored: The DHS’s Dangerous History of Enabling Islamic Terror appeared first on RedState.
Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Speeches Are Probably Boring. That’s Why It’s So Telling That She Won’t Release Them.
The first time a reporter asked Hillary Clinton whether she would release the transcripts to her speeches to Goldman Sachs, for which she recieved a total of $675,000 she just laughed. The idea was silly, absurd, a joke — and not even worth considering.
At Thursday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Clinton was asked again whether she would release the speeches, with moderator Chuck Todd relaying a question that had been sent in, and then expanding the question, asking Clinton whether she would release the transcripts to every one of her paid speeches.
Clinton didn’t laugh this time. Instead, she said she didn’t know the status of the transcripts, but would “look into it.” And then she took off on a response arguing, essentially, were beside the point, transitioning by saying, “My view on this is look at my record.”
Perhaps I’m missing something, but aren’t Clinton’s many paid speeches part of, well, her record? After all, Clinton has said that they came to her for her wisdom as a former principal in the Obama administration, that they valued her insight and her experience as major player in world affairs, meaning that they were clearly linked to her public service.
"I did go on the speaking circuit," she said at the debate. "I spoke to heart doctors, I spoke to the American Camping Association, I spoke to auto dealers, and yes, I spoke to firms on Wall Street. They wanted me to talk about the world, what my experience had been as secretary of state." One attendee at a Goldman session confirmed to The New York Times that Clinton’s speech was basically a “tour of the world” in which she discussed trouble-spot countries like China, Russia, and Iran, as well as political dysfunction in Washington, D.C.
My guess is that Clinton’s speeches were probably pretty anodyne, filled with versions of the same sorts of insights she’s shared in interviews with journalists and at public events many times. While I have never attended a Goldman Sachs event or a paid Hillary Clinton speech, I’ve occasionally gone to dinners and gatherings in Washington, D.C. featuring remarks by some powerful person or another, and almost invariably their remarks are not particularly newsworthy.
The speaker flatters the room, talks about whatever it is they’re working on or concerned about at the moment, and, usually, relates it to something in the news. These events tend not to contain startling revelations, and generally speaking they’re not particularly newsworthy, at least in terms of new or surprising announcements or details. The opposite, in fact, is true: Paid speeches to big groups often seem designed not to make news. (There are better forums for that.) So I doubt that Clinton’s Goldman remarks started with a tribute to big banks and an invocation to salute the Wall Street-Washington conspiracy.
The all-but-required flattery portion might be a little trouble for Clinton, I suppose, since she’s now trying to pose as tough on Wall Street. (“No one will regulate Wall Street more strictly than her,” is a typical spokesman statement on the matter.) But the actual political content of her words is, if anything, likely to be pretty bland.
And that’s why Clinton’s unwillingness to release the transcripts is so strange, and so revealing. As with Clinton’s emails, the issue is not the content in question so much as the way she has handled it, and her knee-jerk resistance to transparency.
Indeed, Clinton seems to have built that resistance into her speech contracts, several of which, as Buzzfeed reports, give Clinton sole rights to all reprints, reuse, and transcripts, making the speeches hers and hers alone to release, or hide. It's as if an effort was made to make sure that no one else could ever reproduce the transcripts without her permission. Again, there’s a similarity here to her emails, where she made the decision to host all of her State Department email communications on a private, homebrew server that the Clintons fully controlled, one that she initially said she would not turn over for inspection.
The story here isn’t that Clinton went to Wall Street and was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to go easy on financial regulation. It’s that when asked to share almost-certainly-bland remarks already made to dozens of people, she tries to avoid doing so, and turns out to have taken steps long ago to ensure that no one else could so without her permission.
That essential instinct for secrecy and information control appears to have guided her during her time as Secretary of State, and in her lucrative speech-giving as a private citizen. You can see the same instinct at work, as well, in the Clinton Foundation’s lack of follow-through on an explicit agreement with the Obama administration to disclose all of its donors, and the Foundation’s misleading excuses when asked about its failures to disclose.
This pattern of resistance to transparency has followed Hillary Clinton for years, in her work for the government, in her foundation’s philanthropic work, and in her private business. There is every reason that it would follow her into the White House too.