Raising the debt ceiling doesn't increase the nation's debt, Pres. Obama declared in a speech today.
In a speech at the Business Roundtable headquarters in Washington, D.C., Obama dismissed concerns about raising the debt ceiling by noting that it'd been done so many times in the past:
"Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you've already racked up, Congress. It's a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved."
Obama went on to suggest that "the average person" mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt:
"It's always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we're running up our debt, so people don't like to vote on it, and, typically, there's some gamesmanship in terms of making the President's party shoulder the burden of raising the -- taking the vote."
But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt?
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over#sthash.j5xH0VuJ.dpuf
Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume concisely captured one source of GOP panic over the weekend, on Fox News Sunday:
So it would seem, as pundits -- again, of both parties -- agree that President Obama and the Democrats not only would accept, but actually would welcome a so-called government shutdown -- hoping to ride the public's anticipated anger all the way to a takeover of the House in 2014:
Personally, I think the pundit doth protest too much -- certainly, some establishment Republicans, such as David Brooks, would love to see Republicans lose the House in order to stick it to the Tea Party, and "save" the GOP from Tea Party champions such as Ted Cruz, whom Brooks obviously holds in contempt (emphasis mine):
Well, this may surprise you, Mr. Brooks, but some legislation should be obstructed. And if I may digress, I wonder if anyone besides me was disgusted by Brooks's reference to Cruz as "the senator from Canada through Texas."
And who knew that the reason one runs for Congress is "to create coalitions" and "make alliances"?
But the major problem with Brooks and his ilk is less what he says than that legislators -- Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, McConnell -- listen to them, recoiling from critical New York Times and Washington Post editorials as if they were printed on kryptonite.
Or to put it another way, the problem with establishment Republicans is that they care what establishment Democrats think of them. Which, in turn, causes them to waste enormous amounts of time and effort "creating coalitions" and "making alliances" with Democrats instead of doing what they should be doing: standing -- and strategizing -- with their fellow Republicans.
I would suggest that time spent trying to sway the 43 House Republicans, who, so far, show no sign of surrendering -- which is exactly how voting with Boehner, Cantor, et al. would be read -- would be better spent working with them to develop a strategy to deal with the Democrats' tactics if a "government shutdown" does indeed occur. These tactics will be easy to predict -- and to counter.
First, there so far has been only one government shutdown, the one that occurred in 1995. One thus wonders how the notion that Republicans will be blamed for a future shutdown, regardless of who actually is responsible, becomes an "axiom" based on a single example.
The "axiom" becomes even more puzzling when one notes important differences between the 1995 shutdown and a potential 2013 shutdown. In the '95 shutdown, congressional Republicans fought for a budget that cut funding in numerous areas, to "reduce spending" and "make government smaller."
The current controversy could not be more different. In 1995, Republicans were pushing to cut spending and to spread the cuts among numerous programs and departments, each with a constituency that would be affected by the cuts. In 2013, Republicans are promising not to cut most, many, or even some departments, but to fund every department, every program, except ObamaCare, a single program that most Americans oppose and which, because it has yet fully to take effect, has no dependent constituency.
The arena in which the battle of ideas will be fought has also changed. In 1995, the so-called mainstream media (MSM) still dominated news coverage. But today, we have the internet, independent bloggers, and last, but certainly not least, Fox News, while Newsweek Magazine, publisher of the infamous "Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" cover, is no longer around. Not to minimize the MSM's still formidable power to influence public opinion, but Republicans will not have nearly the problem getting their message out in 2013 that they had in 1995.
Nor were there polls showing overwhelming opposition to raising the debt ceiling, even if it means shutting the government down. And in 1995, who could have imagined that (emphasis mine) "55 percent of Americans say they do not support raising the debt ceiling even if it causes the U.S. to default on its debt"?
And finally, there is President Obama himself. Beyond Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan, MSNBC talking heads, and a few other usual suspects, we are well past the point where anyone, at least in America, takes Obama seriously or listens to him.
Putting all of the above together, the strategy should be obvious: when President Obama demagogues Republicans for "shutting down the government," Republicans should tell the pundits and the public, at every opportunity, that their CR does, in fact, fund the entire federal government, except ObamaCare.
If Obama threatens to default on the federal debt, the House should immediately pass and send to the Senate a bill appropriating the funds to pay the debt and no more. And if the Senate refuses to pass it or the president refuses to sign it, Republicans should demand that Harry Reid and/or Barack Obama explain why. If the president lays off, say, thousands of postal workers, the House should immediately appropriate the funds to hire them back, and if the Senate refuses...well, you get the idea. Whatever Obama threatens to "shut down," immediately appropriate the funds to prevent the "shutdown." Except ObamaCare.
And finally, establishment Republicans need to ask themselves this question: if their worst nightmare happens and the federal government does indeed shut down, do they really expect the shutdown to continue all the way until Election Day, November 4, 2014, more than a year from now? I predict two months -- three, tops -- before someone blinks.
What do you say we let the Democrats blink this time?
Why a Defund-ObamaCare Strategy Would Succeed
We are less than one and a half weeks from the Showdown at the CR (Continuing Resolution) Corral, and establishment politicians, of both parties, are panicking. The latest turn of the screw came last week, when opposition from 43 apparently non-establishment Republicans forced Speaker Boehner to cancel a vote on a CR because that CR would have continued to fund Obamacare.Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume concisely captured one source of GOP panic over the weekend, on Fox News Sunday:
[T]he axiom in Washington that when the government shuts down, it doesn't matter who causes it, Republicans get blamed, is still in effect. This is a very risky proposition.
So it would seem, as pundits -- again, of both parties -- agree that President Obama and the Democrats not only would accept, but actually would welcome a so-called government shutdown -- hoping to ride the public's anticipated anger all the way to a takeover of the House in 2014:
I think [President Obama's] gamble is to take back the House in 2014, which is why I think he may want a shutdown, [Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul] Gigot said on ABC's This Week panel. Because that's the way he can blame it on the Republicans, blame any economic fallout on the House Republicans, and say, 'You've got to give me the majority for the next two years.'
Personally, I think the pundit doth protest too much -- certainly, some establishment Republicans, such as David Brooks, would love to see Republicans lose the House in order to stick it to the Tea Party, and "save" the GOP from Tea Party champions such as Ted Cruz, whom Brooks obviously holds in contempt (emphasis mine):
And Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas, is basically not a legislator in the normal sense, doesn't have an idea that he's going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances, and he is going to pass a lot of legislation. He's going in more as a media protest person.
And a lot of the House Republicans are in the same mode. They're not normal members of Congress. They're not legislators. They want to stop things. And so they're just being -- they just want to obstruct.
Well, this may surprise you, Mr. Brooks, but some legislation should be obstructed. And if I may digress, I wonder if anyone besides me was disgusted by Brooks's reference to Cruz as "the senator from Canada through Texas."
And who knew that the reason one runs for Congress is "to create coalitions" and "make alliances"?
But the major problem with Brooks and his ilk is less what he says than that legislators -- Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, McConnell -- listen to them, recoiling from critical New York Times and Washington Post editorials as if they were printed on kryptonite.
Or to put it another way, the problem with establishment Republicans is that they care what establishment Democrats think of them. Which, in turn, causes them to waste enormous amounts of time and effort "creating coalitions" and "making alliances" with Democrats instead of doing what they should be doing: standing -- and strategizing -- with their fellow Republicans.
I would suggest that time spent trying to sway the 43 House Republicans, who, so far, show no sign of surrendering -- which is exactly how voting with Boehner, Cantor, et al. would be read -- would be better spent working with them to develop a strategy to deal with the Democrats' tactics if a "government shutdown" does indeed occur. These tactics will be easy to predict -- and to counter.
First, there so far has been only one government shutdown, the one that occurred in 1995. One thus wonders how the notion that Republicans will be blamed for a future shutdown, regardless of who actually is responsible, becomes an "axiom" based on a single example.
The "axiom" becomes even more puzzling when one notes important differences between the 1995 shutdown and a potential 2013 shutdown. In the '95 shutdown, congressional Republicans fought for a budget that cut funding in numerous areas, to "reduce spending" and "make government smaller."
The current controversy could not be more different. In 1995, Republicans were pushing to cut spending and to spread the cuts among numerous programs and departments, each with a constituency that would be affected by the cuts. In 2013, Republicans are promising not to cut most, many, or even some departments, but to fund every department, every program, except ObamaCare, a single program that most Americans oppose and which, because it has yet fully to take effect, has no dependent constituency.
The arena in which the battle of ideas will be fought has also changed. In 1995, the so-called mainstream media (MSM) still dominated news coverage. But today, we have the internet, independent bloggers, and last, but certainly not least, Fox News, while Newsweek Magazine, publisher of the infamous "Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" cover, is no longer around. Not to minimize the MSM's still formidable power to influence public opinion, but Republicans will not have nearly the problem getting their message out in 2013 that they had in 1995.
Nor were there polls showing overwhelming opposition to raising the debt ceiling, even if it means shutting the government down. And in 1995, who could have imagined that (emphasis mine) "55 percent of Americans say they do not support raising the debt ceiling even if it causes the U.S. to default on its debt"?
And finally, there is President Obama himself. Beyond Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan, MSNBC talking heads, and a few other usual suspects, we are well past the point where anyone, at least in America, takes Obama seriously or listens to him.
Putting all of the above together, the strategy should be obvious: when President Obama demagogues Republicans for "shutting down the government," Republicans should tell the pundits and the public, at every opportunity, that their CR does, in fact, fund the entire federal government, except ObamaCare.
If Obama threatens to default on the federal debt, the House should immediately pass and send to the Senate a bill appropriating the funds to pay the debt and no more. And if the Senate refuses to pass it or the president refuses to sign it, Republicans should demand that Harry Reid and/or Barack Obama explain why. If the president lays off, say, thousands of postal workers, the House should immediately appropriate the funds to hire them back, and if the Senate refuses...well, you get the idea. Whatever Obama threatens to "shut down," immediately appropriate the funds to prevent the "shutdown." Except ObamaCare.
And finally, establishment Republicans need to ask themselves this question: if their worst nightmare happens and the federal government does indeed shut down, do they really expect the shutdown to continue all the way until Election Day, November 4, 2014, more than a year from now? I predict two months -- three, tops -- before someone blinks.
What do you say we let the Democrats blink this time?
PK'S NOTE: I believe this is only temporary.
Romance Gone Sour: Behind the media’s anti-Obama backlash
By Howard Kurtz
It is official: The mainstream media have turned on Barack Obama.
Look no further than yesterday’s piece in Politico, headlined “What’s Wrong with President Obama?”
Okay, there was also an accompanying piece on what’s right with President Obama, but it’s the first one that captured the Beltway zeitgeist.
The big-name columnists who are pummeling the president are the same liberals who have mainly defended him in the past.
It’s not just one issue either. They are exasperated by what they see as his passive leadership style.
Conservative commentators, for their part, are firmly in "we told you so" mode.
To read these missives from the left, you don’t get the sense that Obama is merely going through a rough patch. The clear implication is that his second term is unraveling, and there’s not much hope of recovery.
The straight news accounts are also painting a presidency in peril, often dumping on his White House staff and comparing them unfavorably to the Rahm and Axe team of Obama’s first term.
Politicians go through these cycles and often recover. Remember when Obama blew the first debate against Mitt Romney and some critics said his campaign was doomed?
But the erosion of his media base, at a time when many liberal politicians are opposing him, is a troubling sign for the president. Even George W. Bush had a conservative cheerleading squad at the nadir of his popularity. Obama, not so much.
Let’s start with the Politico piece by John Harris, the site’s editor, and Todd Purdum.
“Washington is awash in brutal critiques of the Obama leadership style,” they write. “The president’s harried, serial about-faces on Syria, coupled with the collapse of Larry Summers's candidacy for chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, have combined to highlight some enduring limitations of Obama’s approach to decision-making, public persuasion and political management. Across the capital, anxious friends and chortling enemies alike are asking: What’s wrong with Obama?”
There is a bow toward “Washington’s impatient pack-of-wolves phenomenon,” that’s the press and political class baring its fangs, but that doesn’t soften the blow.
Maureen Dowd tees off on the president for going ahead with an economic speech bashing Republicans on Monday, even as the Navy Yard was in crisis after the mass shooting there.
“The man who connected so electrically and facilely in 2008, causing Americans to overlook his thin résumé, cannot seem to connect anymore,’ she writes. “With a shrinking circle of trust inside the White House, Obama is having trouble establishing trust outside with once reliable factions: grass-roots Democrats and liberals in Congress.”
When Obama defended his Syria policy to George Stephanopoulos by saying that Washington likes to grade on style points, it ticked off Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus.
“Style points? Seriously? Style points? That’s what President Obama thinks the criticism of his zigzag Syria policy amounts to?” she writes. “As presidential spin, this is insulting. As presidential conviction — if this is what he really believes — it’s scary.”
Is the president stung by such criticism?
Here’s a tidbit from MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe in his new book “The Message,” about Obama’s reaction to critical editorials in the New York Times.
“After each negative editorial, the president would summon his communications team to discuss the critical coverage,” Wolffe says. “It was a deeply unpleasant experience for his staff, who bore the brunt of the presidential outbursts.”
Obama called Andy Rosenthal, the Times’ editorial page editor, to complain, but only after aides scrambled to find his number.
That’s a far cry from 2007 and 2008, when much of the media was swooning over Obama. But then, governing is harder than campaigning, and no honeymoon lasts five years.
Is all this criticism a bit over the top? I’ll give the last word to Politico’s counter-story.
“Perhaps Barack Obama can comfort himself with the reality that his current travails are both more complicated in their causes and less dire in their consequences than they are being portrayed in the Washington echo chamber.”
Crazier Than Liberals
By Ann CoulterThere's been another mass shooting by a crazy person, and liberals still refuse to consider institutionalizing the dangerous mentally ill.
The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.
Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama's NSA is way better than we thought!)
But Alexis couldn't be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as "victims," and once you're a victim, all that matters is that you not be "stigmatized."
But here's the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn't even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman "Billie Boggs" how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren't institutionalized.
Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them "common sense" crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?
That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.
But liberals won't allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals' genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.
Liberals won't even agree to take the most basic steps to prevent psychotics from purchasing guns -- yes, GUNS! -- because to allow the release of mental health information would be "stigmatizing." We're not talking about anorexic girls here. We just need shrinks to tell us if potential gun purchasers are paranoid schizophrenics.
The disastrous consequences of the deinstitutionalization movement is described in E. Fuller Torrey's book, The Insanity Offense: How America's Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens.
Torrey's book reads like a compendium of America's most heinous murders since the early '70s -- all of which could have been stopped with involuntary commitment laws, and none of which could have been stopped even with a complete gun ban.
Here are a few:
-- "Mary Maloney had decapitated her infant daughter and year-old son. Her husband had tried to have her psychiatrically hospitalized prior to the crime, but she had not met the (legal) criteria for dangerousness."
-- "Charles Soper had killed his wife, three children, and himself two weeks after being discharged from Camarillo State Hospital because he failed to qualify as 'imminently dangerous.'"
-- "In April 1973 ... Edmund Kemper (who had been released from a mental hospital a few years earlier when the deinstitutionalization act became law) had been arrested after he bludgeoned his mother to death, then strangled her friend who came to visit. Kemper was also charged with the murders of six female hitchhikers."
Kemper had originally been institutionalized after murdering his grandparents at age 15 because "he tired of their company."
In 1972 and 1973, paranoid schizophrenic Herb Mullin went on a killing spree in California that left 13 dead, including a 72-year-old World War I veteran, a college coed, four teenaged campers and a mother with her two little boys, murdered as they played with marbles.
Mullin killed his victims with a baseball bat, knives, his fists, as well as with guns. How's your "high-capacity" magazine ban going to stop that, Democrats? How would piling on yet more gun control laws have helped the priest whom Herb Mullin beat, kicked and stabbed to death?
What about the elderly boarders that Dorothea Puente -- diagnosed with schizophrenia -- poisoned and buried in her backyard?
What additional gun restrictions would have helped the group of bicyclists Linda Scates intentionally drove her car into because voices were telling her to "kill the demons"?
In the decades since the deinstitutionalization movement began, more and more people kept being killed as a result of that movement -- including the deinstitutionalized themselves. According to Torrey, between 1970 and 2004, the mentally ill were responsible for at least 4,700 murders in California.
Increasing government spending on mental health programs is not going to stop the mentally ill from committing murder. Like liberals, these are people too sick even to know they need help. As Herschel Hardin, whose son was schizophrenic, wrote in the Vancouver Sun: "If you think you are Jesus Christ or an avenging angel, you are not likely to agree that you need to go to the hospital."
Liberals will pretend to have missed the news that the Washington Navy Yard shooter was a paranoid schizophrenic. They refuse to acknowledge that the mass murder problem -- as well as the homeless problem -- only began after crazy people were thrown out of institutions in the 1970s. They tell us crapping in your pants on a New York City sidewalk is a "civil right." They say that haranguing passersby on the street about your persecution by various movie stars is a form of "free speech."
Only after a mass murder committed by a psychotic with a firearm do liberals spring to life and suggest a solution: Take away everyone's guns.
Taking guns away from the mentally stable only makes us less safe: Even psychotics know enough to keep choosing "Gun-Free Zones" for their mass murders. If Americans are serious about preventing massacres like the ones at the Washington Navy Yard, Newtown, Tucson, Aurora and Virginia Tech, it's time to review our civil commitment laws.
After this latest shooting, will the left finally let us do something about the dangerously mentally ill?
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/09/18/crazier-than-liberals-n1704041/page/full
Starbucks and Guns
By Neal BoortzLet’s be clear: I’m not a real Starbucks fan in the first place. The coffee is horribly expensive and, frankly, you can get a better cup for a quarter of the price at a Quick Trip. Interestingly enough, even McDonald’s has stepped up their coffee quality lately. Dunkin’ Donuts is good also, but I prefer to sweeten my own coffee, thank you, so don’t ask me how many Sweet ‘n Lows I want.
Another thing …. I stopped going to Starbucks when they came out and openly supported Obama for a second term. I guess it goes with the territory … Seattle and all that … but I prefer not to support businesses that actively participate in the destruction of our country … and supporting Obama fits that bill. That’s why Boortz appearances have been rare around such places as Starbucks, Costco, Kohl’s, and Atlanta Falcon Football games. (Can you believe Falcons owner Arthur Blank throwing a fundraiser for Obama?)
Now … the big coffee news yesterday was the CEO of Starbucks sending a letter – and Tweets – to Starbucks customers asking them not to bring weapons into Starbucks even if they happen to have a valid concealed carry permit. Fine … that’s his privilege. To be perfectly honest, though, it was the gun owners themselves that goaded him into this. It seems that some Starbucks locations have been targeted by permit holders to flaunt their weapons. They would gather at a particular Starbucks with their pistols visible in holsters – and sometimes carrying rifles.
Stupid.
Frankly, I find it hard to fault the Starbucks CEO for his actions. Some customers are just not going to be comfortable with a bunch of show-offs brandishing their guns in a coffee shop.
Yes … I have a permit to carry a weapon. And yes … I have received some pretty extensive training in the use of that weapon (An Uselton 1911) and appropriate safety measures. And yes … I do carry that weapon—CONCEALED—when I think the situation warrants it … and that means pretty much everywhere I go in Atlanta. The key word, though, is “concealed.” I believe that to flaunt your weapon is to invite trouble. I don’t need some thug deciding to test just how tough I am. If you walk through life in a fighting pose with your fists balled up and ready to strike, someone, someday, somewhere, is going to want to test your mettle. I can think of only one time where I wanted it to be clear that I was armed … and that was gassing up in Atlanta at a station that, shall we say, was not in one of Atlanta’s finest neighborhoods. One guy at another pump looked at me, looked down at my holster, and then gave me a big thumbs up. “Smart move,” he said. “Especially here.” If the clerk inside is behind a bulletproof barrier … well, there’s your clue.
But guess what? Starbucks is not an inherently dangerous place --- unless you spill a latte on Big Al and the Boys, that is. There is nothing to be gained by a group of Second Amendment defenders marching into a Starbucks with guns on their hips and scaring the poor, weak, trembling Democrats sipping grande somethingorothers. If the armed self-defense advocates had kept their guns in their pants there never would have been a problem.
Now … the other side.
Starbucks was a unique situation. They had been targeted by people I guess we can call “demonstrators” who wanted to display their weapons. Almost all of the permit holders that I know --- and you would be surprised to know who some of them are --- would never do that. The statistics clearly show that people with carry permits are some of the least likely, if not THE least likely people to ever use a gun in the commission of a crime. The very fact that these people obtained a permit to carry the firearm shows that they are and consider themselves to be law-abiding. Now I’m not going to say it hasn’t happened, but I cannot remember ONE single instance where a person with a concealed weapons permit walked into any retail establishment anywhere, pulled the gun out and robbed the joint … or shot an innocent person during the commission of a crime.
Let me share two stories of gunplay in restaurants.
First, Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. This happened in 1991. A man names George Hennard crashed his truck through a window of the cafeteria and began shooting. He shot about 50 people, and killed 23. He had to pause and reload a few times. There was not one person in that restaurant with a gun that could have made an attempt to stop the massacre. One patron, Suzanna Hupp, was having lunch with her parents. She left her gun in the car because Texas did not, at that time, allow concealed carry. She sat there in a booth while Hennard shot and killed both of her parents. Her gun was 100 feet away. As a result of this massacre the Texas legislature passed a concealed carry law that was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.
Now, the second restaurant. This time it’s a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Alabama. It’s December of 1991, just a few months after the Luby’s shooting in Texas. Two robbers entered the restaurant with stolen pistols. Note, please, that they did not have permits, did not buy the guns legally, and didn’t give a damn about magazine capacity. The two thugs rounded up 20 Shoney’s customers and herded them to the back of the store and started robbing the place. Thomas Perry was in that restaurant at that time with a .45 caliber pistol. He had a valid concealed carry permit. He hid under a table while the others were being shoved into the back of the restaurant. One of the robbers noticed Perry and pulled his gun on him. Perry immediately put five bullets into the robber, killing him instantly. The second robber shot at and grazed Terry. He fired back and critically wounded the robber. Threat over. Customers freed. One bad guy dead, the other wounded, and not one innocent person hurt. Why? Because Terry had a concealed weapon and Shoney’s had not asked him not to bring it into the restaurant.
Now I have a simple question for Starbucks CEO Schultz. If you were sitting in one of your coffee shops sipping your overpriced cup of burnt coffee, and a thug walked in with a gun and started robbing the customers – you included – at gunpoint, would you sit there and pray that nobody else in your shop has a gun and knows how to use it?
I would truly love to hear your answer to that.
http://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2013/09/19/starbucks-and-guns-n1704058/page/full
Starbucks’ CEO Doesn’t Fear Guns. He Fears Liberals
The big brew-haha* this morning revolves around the decision of Starbucks’ CEO to politely ask gunowners not to wear their six-shooters in his coffee shops. Wrote Howard Schultz:
I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas. …
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone.Schultz cites pressure from outside activist groups as one of the reasons for making this extremely polite, extremely non-binding request of potential customers. What’s interesting to me is that it’s obvious Schultz has no fear of guns (nor should he; when’s the last time there was a mass-shooting at a Starbucks perpetrated by someone with an open-carry permit?). No. He fears the left. And he doesn’t fear the right.
These are all sensible positions for him to take.
Look, here are the facts of life, my conservative friends: We don’t do the politicized life particularly well. We don’t make our decisions about where to buy our coffee based on who Howard Schultz donates to in election campaigns or what sort of policy they have toward guns or how they accumulate their fair trade coffee beans. We care about taste, expense, and convenience.
The left, however, does the politicized life exceptionally well. They mount campaigns to pressure corporations to get what they want. They organize boycotts. They direct their complaints to gatekeepers who share their views and can influence policy. They blacklist artists with whom they disagree and pressure corporations to do the same. They control the levers of the media to add additional pressure from newspapers and television networks.
So there will be a lot of fulmination on social media from those on the right about rights and guns and the Constitution, and then a little less the next day, and a little less the day after that, until finally you forgot why you were mad at Starbucks and you stop tweeting and facebooking and kvetching and start buying pumpkin spice lattes by the bucketful and, in a moment of clarity, you’ll think about how silly it was for you to give up Starbucks in the name of something that literally never impacted you in the first place because you don’t have an open-carry permit.
The right is wired different than the left. It’s a healthier wiring, one that leads to far more enjoyment in life and far less heartache.
But it’s a wiring that leaves you particularly poorly equipped to wage these kinds of fights. It’s why you lose. It’s why you’re losing the culture. It’s why Howard Schultz doesn’t fear you.
It’s why Howard Schultz will never fear you.
*GET IT?
http://freebeacon.com/blog/starbucks-ceo-doesnt-fear-guns-he-fears-liberals/
Sanity on Food Stamps
The House GOP fights to restore the work requirement.
House Republicans are on the cusp of passing food-stamps legislation that would enact significant cuts to the program and revive requirements that able-bodied adults also work if they receive food stamps for the long term.“What we pushed for in the food-stamp bill was to put real work requirements in place,” says Representative Steve Scalise (R., La.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
“Most Americans get that there is a need for a safety net in our country, and we support that safety net,” Scalise adds. “But we also feel strongly that if somebody’s able to work, they ought to be working and not getting food stamps on the taxpayer benefits, and turning down jobs, and yet the current law encourages that.”
Food-stamp costs have soared during President Barack Obama’s time in office. In 2008, 28 million people received SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits and it cost $38 billion. Fast forward five years, and the numbers look rather different: Forty-seven million people currently receive food stamps — which means that about one out of seven Americans are relying on the program — and in fiscal year 2012, the government spent $75 billion on these benefits. The House Republicans’ legislation would ax $40 billion from the program’s spending over ten years.
Since the recession, work requirements for able-bodied adults aged 18 to 50, who don’t have children and who are receiving food stamps for more than three months out of a three-year period, have mostly fallen by the wayside. Thanks to the stimulus package, the standards were waived for 2009–10, and since then, virtually all states have continued to waive the requirement.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 1.7 million adults would lose SNAP benefits if the House’s bill became law. Unemployment rates remain high in many states, so the House’s bill would allow the work requirements to be satisfied by doing community-service work, such as removing trash from roadways and serving in soup kitchens.
The legislation, which is expected to go up for a vote today, is being pushed particularly by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.). “These programs aren’t designed to be permanent and have grown well beyond their safety-net purpose,” says Cantor spokesman Megan Whittemore. “We need a targeted, effective program that works, since hard-working middle-class families are footing the bill.”
“Through job training or workfare we can help people build the skills and experience they need to become self-sufficient in the future,” Whittemore adds.
The bill would also end the practice under which people are automatically considered eligible for SNAP when they are eligible for other government programs that assist low-income individuals. A significant number of people who are eligible for other assistance programs actually make more than the income requirements for SNAP. House Republicans wouldn’t change the income requirements for SNAP, but would enforce them more rigorously. According to the CBO, this will affect about 2.1 million Americans.
Criticism from the left, unsurprisingly, has been harsh: “Cutting food stamps is a dereliction of our moral duty,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) at a press conference yesterday, flanked by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), according to the Connecticut Mirror.
Meanwhile, House Republicans — who earlier this year had pushed for a bill that would have cut SNAP by $20 billion over ten years, half the cut proposed in the current bill — are taking the long view.
“We’re not going to get the perfect bill signed into law,” Scalise says, “but we know we can improve the policy dramatically from where it is today.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358907/sanity-food-stamps-katrina-trinko
Republicans Put Forward Obamacare Replacement
Bill tackles tax treatment and portability of health insurance
The plan, put forward by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), stands as a rebuke to Democrats who have said that Republicans have put forward no alternative to Obamacare. The RSC plan is the second plan put forward by Republicans this year, as Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.) introduced a plan earlier this year.
“The American Health Care Reform Act” begins by completely repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, and replacing it with a series of changes to the tax code and other health insurance regulations.
“The RSC’s American Health Care Reform Act is a common-sense bill that will lower costs using conservative, free-market solutions which give American families more choices without the unworkable mandates and billions in taxes included in President Obama’s health care law,” said RSC chairman Steve Scalise (R., La.) in a statement.
Rep. Phil Roe (R., Tenn.), a doctor and a lead congressman on the RSC’s plan, blamed President Obama for not including any conservative ideas in his signature domestic policy achievement.
“Unfortunately, during the Obamacare debate, no one asked me or any of the other Republican doctors what we thought despite requesting several meetings with the president because I saw this train wreck coming,” Roe said in the RSC’s statement.
The bill begins by eliminating the bias in the tax code toward employer-provided health care. Employer-provided insurance will no longer be tax-free, and the RSC plan replaces it with a tax deduction for individuals and families that have health insurance. This shift makes the tax code treat insurance provided through work and bought on the individual market the same.
The bill also sharply expands access to Health Savings Accounts, which some commentators say reduces the cost of health care by making consumers more aware of their expenses.
The bill attacks the problem of individuals with pre-existing conditions in a couple of ways. It modifies existing law to make it easier for people to maintain insurance coverage. If they continuously carry insurance, they are legally protected against rate increases because of a preexisting condition.
The bill also expands access to high-risk pools in states. High-risk pools are subsidized insurance pools with a capped premium to prevent costs from rising.
The RSC’s plan tries to increase competition in the insurance market by allowing people to buy insurance from different states. People can currently only buy insurance in the state in which they live.
Obamacare tries to use competition to drive down prices by setting up state-based “exchanges” where people can buy insurance. However, some states are complaining that the exchanges are not facilitating competition since only a few insurance providers are offering plans on the exchanges. Only two companies are offering plans on the exchange in Kansas, for example.
The bill also reforms legal liability laws in an attempt to drive down the cost of medical malpractice insurance, which contributes to the cost of health care.
The RSC’s reform plan does not significantly address Medicare, which some experts have said is an essential area to reform since it makes up such a large part of the health care economy in America.
Merrill Matthews, a health policy expert at the Institute for Policy Innovation, said some parts of the bill are a good idea, while others will not have much of an impact.
Matthews described the protections for people with pre-existing conditions as “good ideas.”
“The actual health insurance market has been heading [toward the expansion of HSAs] for years,” Matthews said. “So the proposal might give it a push, but it’s heading in the right direction now.”
However, Matthews predicted that tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines were, while good ideas, not likely to impact the cost of healthcare.
http://freebeacon.com/republicans-put-forward-obamacare-replacement/
Obama administration: No worries about cyber security on exchanges
This
is very reassuring from the Obama administration. If you are the victim
of fraud or ID theft on an insurance exchange website, the
administration has been kind enough to supply a toll free number you can call to report it.
Of course, they aren't doing much to prevent it from happening in the first place. But at least you'll have the peace of mind that comes with knowing the government is going to get right on your case and catch the criminal responsible - maybe.
VOA:
The final report on security of the websites is due tomorrow and it is expected that the report will say that all is well and that the exchanges can open on time. But that's really a hope and a prayer. No one knows the real vulnerabilities of these systems and with so many points in the process that can expose a user's private information to hacking, anyone using the websites to purchase insurance and receive a subsidy is taking a risk.
Of course, they aren't doing much to prevent it from happening in the first place. But at least you'll have the peace of mind that comes with knowing the government is going to get right on your case and catch the criminal responsible - maybe.
VOA:
The Obama administration will announce measures to reassure Americans about the privacy and security of the information they submit when they sign up for insurance under President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, officials said on Wednesday.Don't you feel reassured?
The administration plans to promote a toll-free telephone number to report fraud or attempted identity theft under the law, and expects to launch measures such as an online identification-verification system to keep taxpayer-funded subsidies from going to criminals, officials said.
Online health insurance exchanges, a key means to enroll an estimated 7 million uninsured Americans for next year, are to open across the country on October 1, and the administration is scrambling to surmount political and operational obstacles to get them running on time. People have until March to sign up for coverage next year.
Technology experts have cited the risk of fraud and abuse as factors that could complicate or delay the implementation of the exchanges, and opponents of the law have seized on those worries.
Attorney General Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Federal Trade Commission chairwoman Edith Ramirez and other federal and state officials were to discuss the privacy and security issues at a White House meeting on Wednesday, officials said.
That will be followed by events this week at the Justice Department and at the Federal Trade Commission aimed at reassuring Americans that their personal information will be safe and to publicize ways to report criminal activity, they said.
The final report on security of the websites is due tomorrow and it is expected that the report will say that all is well and that the exchanges can open on time. But that's really a hope and a prayer. No one knows the real vulnerabilities of these systems and with so many points in the process that can expose a user's private information to hacking, anyone using the websites to purchase insurance and receive a subsidy is taking a risk.
IRS spied on tea party after granting tax-exempt status
Acting director says he is troubled by Lerner
Republicans investigating the IRS targeting scandal said Wednesday that the agency continued to conduct secret surveillance on tea party groups even after approving them for tax-exempt status.Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel said he shut down the monitoring program after he found out about it, and said he has halted all audits of tax-exempt organizations based on political activity as he tries to get a handle on the embattled agency.
Mr. Werfel, who was tapped four months ago to clean up the Internal Revenue Service after the targeting came to light, also told Congress he is troubled by emails
sent by Lois G. Lerner,
the woman at the center of the targeting scandal, that raise questions
about her behavior. He said he has asked internal investigators to
follow up on those emails.“There are certain documents that raise questions, and when I looked at them I thought they raised questions,” Mr. Werfel said. “The ones that I thought raised questions I provided directly to [the inspector general], and I also provided them to the accountability review board within the IRS, which is set up to review this matter to see what actions may warrant personnel action or discipline.”
In one of those emails Ms. Lerner wrote that dealing with tea party applications was “very dangerous,” and in another she seemed to indicate that she was looking for ways to deny the charitable organization label to groups without having to accuse them of political activity.
In both cases, Mr. Werfel said, it wasn’t fully clear what Ms. Lerner was intending, which is why he asked for the reviews.
Several congressional committees also are investigating the IRS, and the House
Ways and Means Committee
said scrutiny has expanded to the surveillance program, in which dozens
of organizations — most of them conservative-leaning — were monitored
even after they were approved.“Four months after Lois Lerner’s apology for targeting, there are many questions that are still outstanding. And frankly, we still don’t have all the answers that we need,” said Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee.
In May, the IRS acknowledged subjecting conservative groups to intrusive scrutiny and delaying applications for far too long before approving them. Some applications are still awaiting approval after three years.
The newly revealed surveillance, however, applied to applications that had been approved, but where the IRS apparently wanted to determine whether the groups strayed too far into political activity to keep their tax-exempt status.
Mr. Werfel quibbled with calling the continued “surveillance” and said he didn’t see any evidence that groups on the list for scrutiny was improperly influenced by any IRS employees
.But he said the program was troubling enough that he shut it down two weeks ago.
After months of investigating, Republicans have found no evidence that IRS officials were ordered to give special scrutiny to tea party applications for tax-exempt status, though a report this week shows that agency employees were well aware of top White House
and Democratic lawmakers’ concerns over the groups’ participation in the political process.Democrats said Republicans are erring by continuing to pursue a political angle to the scandal.
“My friends on the other side of the aisle continue to frame this issue as a partisan one as only affecting conservative groups,” said Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat. “Time and time again, the facts have shown that both Republican-leaning and Democrat-leaning groups were singled out during the application process.”
The numbers show, however, that more conservative groups were subject to scrutiny, both in initial applications and in the ongoing surveillance program.
Investigators said they still have to look through hundreds of thousands of pages of email
and documents, though at this point Ms. Lerner, who ran the exempt organizations division, remains a chief focus of the inquiries.She is on paid administrative leave but has not resigned. Her attorney didn’t return a message seeking comment on the latest questions.
Ms. Lerner declined to testify to Congress this year, citing her right against self-incrimination, though she did give a brief statement declaring her innocence.
Some congressional Republicans said that statement amounts to a waiver of her Fifth Amendment rights and want to call her back and compel her to testify.
On Wednesday, members of the subcommittee peppered Mr. Werfel with questions about Ms. Lerner.
Rep. Tom Reed, New York Republican, said Ms. Lerner has few friends left on Capitol Hill and prodded Mr. Werfel for answers about her emails, which some Republicans say show clear bias against tea party groups that sought tax-exempt status.
Mr. Werfel said he has not had any recent conversations with Ms. Lerner and did not know what Ms. Lerner meant in some of the more controversial emails — though they did concern him enough that he flagged them for the inspector general.
Mr. Reed lashed out at Mr. Werfel after he refused to say whether he asked Ms. Lerner to resign. “I will hold you accountable!” Mr. Reed shouted.
Mr. Werfel said that he would consult with his staff and his legal counsel about privacy laws and get back to Mr. Reed with an answer if possible.
Another Obama 'smart diplomacy' belly-flop
They are laughing at Barack Obama
and the United States down in Brazil, but with no mirth. Brazilian
President Dilma Rousseff has just delivered a diplomatic slap in the
face. Dave Boyer of the Washington Times reports:
No doubt to his surprise, Barack Obama is finding out that just being his wonderful, brilliant self does not lead to diplomatic triumphs. Nor does simply not being George W. Bush mean that the foreign relations of the United States run smoothly. Smooth talking the Brazilian president turns out to be ineffective. The White House may claim that the decision was mutual, but Brazil's most influential newspaper says otherwise:
The vast and growing gap between what Obama promised and what he has delivered would be hilarious, were it not for the fact that America's prosperity and power are diminishing with every day he remains in office.
In an unprecedented snub to President Obama, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has canceled her official state visit to the White House scheduled for next month, angered by revelations of U.S. spying on her and on major Brazilian state institutions.
The White House released a statement Tuesday saying that both presidents "agreed to postpone" Ms. Rousseff's visit, scheduled for Oct. 23. But it is the Brazilian leader who is incensed about the National Security Agency's surveillance of her and her top aides and a Brazilian energy company.
The two presidents spoke by phone for 20 minutes Monday night, but Mr. Obama's explanations to Ms. Rousseff about the spying were not enough to prevent her from canceling the trip.
No doubt to his surprise, Barack Obama is finding out that just being his wonderful, brilliant self does not lead to diplomatic triumphs. Nor does simply not being George W. Bush mean that the foreign relations of the United States run smoothly. Smooth talking the Brazilian president turns out to be ineffective. The White House may claim that the decision was mutual, but Brazil's most influential newspaper says otherwise:
The Brazilian newspaper O Globo said Mr. Obama failed in an attempt to "salvage" the state visit. The White House portrayed it as a mutual decision.
The vast and growing gap between what Obama promised and what he has delivered would be hilarious, were it not for the fact that America's prosperity and power are diminishing with every day he remains in office.
Hearing: Al Qaeda Threat Has ‘Metastasized’
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula growing in strength
The Yemeni-based terrorist group was behind the unsuccessful underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009, the attempted Times Square bombing in 2010, and a plot to smuggle bombs in printer cartridges on cargo planes.
The group gets its strength from its myriad local connections, though it is still bent on attacking the United States, attempting an upgraded version of an underwear bomb to take down an American flight in May 2012.
“This is probably a very bad analogy, but they’re kind of the Kevin Bacon of al Qaeda,” said Frank J. Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, referencing the concept of six degrees of separation.
“There’s a lot of utility infielders that are being swapped between, among, and across these various organizations,” Cilluffo said. “They’re fellow travelers, both operationally and ideologically.”
“They’ve connected with a lot of different organizations,” he said. “So I think we’ve got to stop thinking about it in a traditional hierarchical approach.”
“It is the most dangerous organization,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for the Center for American Progress. “It is a hybrid form, in that it has both local goals and the goal of attacking the United States and international targets.”
Katherine Zimmerman, a senior analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, testified that the hierarchical strategy to kill core leaders of al Qaeda has been ineffective in dismantling the network.
“This is no longer George Bush’s al Qaeda,” she said. “But we’re still fighting with George Bush’s tactics.”
Her recent report documents how al Qaeda’s interwoven structure has allowed it to adapt and thrive with local groups operating on the grassroots level. According to Zimmerman, America cannot achieve victory against al Qaeda without a change in strategy.
Contrary to claims made during the election campaign by President Barack Obama that al Qaeda has been “decimated,” the consensus at the hearing was that al Qaeda is resurgent. Cilluffo said the terrorism threat has “metastasized” in recent years.
“Unfortunately, in many ways, the al Qaeda network is stronger today than it was before 9/11 because it has footholds in so many locations,” said Chairman Peter King (R., N.Y.).
“It comes in various shapes, sizes, flavors, and forms,” Cilluffo said, referencing al Qaeda in Iraq, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Ansar al-Dine in Mali, and al-Shabaab in Somalia. “You’re talking about huge swaths of territory and land.”
“I think that anyone who thinks that since the death of Osama bin Laden—yes, he may be dead—but the witch lives on,” he said.
Turmoil in the Middle East out of the Arab Spring has led to members of different al Qaeda groups meeting each other on the battlefield, translating into stronger connections and a greater threat.
“They’re meeting one another in Syria today, or whether it was Iraq, whether it was Yemen, or whether it was Somalia, or whether it was Mali, or whether it’s—you name the Jihadi hot spot of the moment,” said Cilluffo.
Zimmerman warned that current unrest in Syria, Egypt, and Tunisia could threaten American homeland security in the long run.
“They create conditions on the ground that let extremism thrive in a way that we haven’t seen before,” she said. “And that will in the next few decades come back to the U.S.”
She said AQAP is reminiscent to what Osama bin Laden was doing in the 1990s, building up local groups who share the idea of radical Islam.
“When you look at that, it is very concerning to see a group pushing its message and pushing its capabilities abroad,” Zimmerman said.
The group argued for a change in strategy to counter al Qaeda, but emphasized that that does not necessarily mean more military engagements for the United States.
“Though we may be war weary, al Qaeda is still attempting to attack the United States,” Zimmerman said. “The strategy to counter it doesn’t need to be solely based on a military strategy.”
“What we’re trying to say is no more nation building and going in with boots on the ground,” Katulis said. “All of us are saying that.”
He stressed building institutions and stronger governments so countries in the region can combat the threats themselves.
“We can start to counter al Qaeda by countering issues in governance, in human rights,” Zimmerman said. “On the softer side, where there’s much broader appeal for the American people.”
http://freebeacon.com/hearing-al-qaeda-threat-has-metastasized/
Justice Dept. Lawyer Karla Dobinski’s Misconduct Sends Cops to Prison
Certainly perjury doesn’t do it. Neither does using a government credit card to book airfare for romantic liaisons with a Miami girlfriend — that just gets you a nice buyout. Want to use civil rights laws to protect only black victims of discrimination? Ho hum. The culture of lawlessness is so pervasive at the Civil Rights Division that a former Voting Section chief felt comfortable telephoning current DOJ employees and suggesting they turn over confidential memos … because they were worth cash (see page 145).
Now we learn that that an attorney in the infamous and lawless Civil Rights Division was engaging in clandestine blogging at a major newspaper in order to help convict New Orleans police officers in a matter to which she was assigned. Enter Karla Dobinski, DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyer by day and secret blogger by night. Dobinski was posting in the comments at newspaper sites and anonymously polluting the atmosphere about cases against New Orleans police officers on which she was working.
Karla Dobinski
Dobinski’s misconduct was so egregious that United States District Court Judge Kurt Englehardt vacated the convictions of five New Orleans police officers convicted of using excessive force in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
From NOLA:
Karla Dobinski, trial attorney in the department’s Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C., posted comments on NOLA.com under the name “Dipsos,” U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt said in his order, which cited “grotesque” prosecutorial misconduct as a reason to grant a new trial.
Dobinski wasn’t any old attorney working on the prosecution of the New Orleans police officers: she was a supervisor, and the head of the “taint team.” The taint team is charged with ensuring that prosecutors do not use any information obtained by a police department internal affairs unit in a criminal prosecution. Because cooperation with an internal affairs unit is mandatory for cops, statements made in those interviews may not be used in any criminal prosecution of a police officer. The head of the taint team is charged with ensuring the police officers receive a fair trial by keeping all information from the internal affairs unit out of the hands of the criminal prosecutors and away from the trial.The judge called Dobinski’s posts a “wanton reckless course of action.”
Dobinski is also a highly paid deputy chief in the Criminal Section. In other words, she is a supervisor. Nevertheless, Dobinski used the Times-Picayune website to post anonymous comments about the trial and to discuss the evidence in the case. Per NOLA:
Dobinski under oath testified that she followed progress of the trial on The Times-Picayune and NOLA.com because “the prosecution team was busy and there was not a good flow of information back about the trial events.” Englehardt was not satisfied with that response, saying she had other avenues to keep up with the trial. And she was urging others to keep posting comments on NOLA.com, especially when they had pro-prosecutor opinions, the judge said. ”In short, it is difficult to accept the story that an experienced trial attorney … would embark upon such a wanton reckless course of action, involving herself with two highly-opinionated trial observers, simply to obtain ‘a good flow of information back about the trial events.’”
He says less than 65 days before the jury got the case against Bowen and the others, Dobinski “personally fanned the flames of those burning to see him convicted.“Two other DOJ lawyers, both based in New Orleans, were fired for similar blogging at the Times-Picayune website in news stories covering the matter.
But Dobinski reported to work on Wednesday at her office on the fifth floor at 601 D Street N.W. in Washington, D.C .
Dobinski still earns $155,500 per year.
Has she faced scorn, ridicule or ostracism from her lawyer co-workers at the Justice Department?
Of course not. This is Eric Holder’s Justice Department.
Every other Justice Department lawyer who blogged about their New Orleans case has been fired, except Dobinski.
Why not?
Dobinski, unlike the other fired lawyers, is an activist.
She has long been involved in numerous lesbian and LGBT causes. In 2002, DOJ Pride — the internal association of gay Justice Department employees — held an awards ceremony. Dobinski won the James R. Douglas Award for her activism. For good measure, Dobinski also snagged the Gerald R. Roemer Community Service Award.
DOJ employees with her history of activism enjoy a sort of immunity that non-activists and non-leftists do not enjoy. It’s just another day in the fundamental transformation of America.
But Dobinski’s left-wing activism shouldn’t protect her from the disciplinary committee at the District of Columbia Bar.
I verified today that she has been admitted to practice in the District since Feb. 14, 1985. If the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility didn’t report her to the bar — and it’s likely they didn’t – citizens can.
A government which permits federal employees to abuse power, lie, steal, and ultimately to send citizens to jail based on lawyer misconduct is a government which has betrayed its founding rooted in law. Whether it is Karla Dobinski or Eric Holder, a new breed of highly paid lawyer holds power. They seem immune to consequences for misconduct, and those in Congress with the power to respond under the Constitution seem flummoxed by this new breed of technocrat gangster.
The consequences for the rule of law, and for their victims — like the five New Orleans police officers — are frightening.
http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/09/18/doj-lawyer-karla-dobinskis-misconduct-sends-police-officers-to-prison/?singlepage=true
Teaching for Change Slams the Constitution
Left-wing group belittles Founding Fathers, thinks Constitution is too 'partisan'
The email, which was sent on behalf of the Zinn Education Project (ZEP), quoted a 2012 Huffington Post article written by ZEP co-director Bill Bigelow. The article criticized Pearson-Prentice Hall textbooks for publishing a quote by Daniel Webster that called the constitution a “compass” for the nation.
“This kind of on-bended-knee Constitution worship has long been a staple of our country’s social studies curricula,” Bigelow wrote.
“Students deserve a more critical and nuanced exploration of the Constitution—one that is alert to the race and class issues at the heart of our governing document.”
The email included links to several Zinn Education Project publications and lesson plans. One of these lesson plans outlined a Constitutional Convention role playing game that is supposed to give students the “chance to see the partisan nature of the actual document produced in 1787.”
“Instead of including only the bankers, lawyers, merchants, and plantation owners who attended the actual Constitutional Convention, the activity also invites poor farmers, workers, and enslaved African Americans,” the website said.
http://freebeacon.com/teach-for-change-slams-the-constitution/
Fourth graders taught about ‘pimps’ and ‘mobstaz’ in Louisiana
Fourth grade students in Vermilion Parish, La. were given a homework assignment that included words like “Po Pimp” and “mobstaz,” but school officials said the worksheet was age appropriate based on an education website affiliated with Common Core education standards.
“I try to instill values in my son,” parent Brittney Badeaux told Fox News. “My goal is for him to ultimately to become a great man, a family man, a well-rounded man. And now my son wants to know what a pimp is.”
Badeaux was helping her 9-year-old son with his homework when she heard him say the words “Po Pimp” and “mobstaz.”
“I couldn’t believe it at first – hearing him read it to me,” she told Fox News. “So I looked at the paper and read the entire article. It was filled with Ebonics.”
Superintendent Puyau stressed that Vermilion Parish teachers review the content distributed to students and it’s consistently in alignment with Common Core standards.
But it also included a paragraph about “Twista” – a rapper with the group Speedknot Mobstaz who performs a single titled, “Po-Pimp.”
“It was really inappropriate for my child,” Badeaux said. “He doesn’t’ know what a pimp or mobster is.”
She also took issue with the school sending home a worksheet that intentionally misspelled words.
“I try to teach him morals and respect and to speak correctly,” she said. “It’s hard for a fourth grader to understand Ebonics when you’re trying to teach him how to spell and write correctly.”
Vermilion Parish School Superintendent Jerome Puyau told Fox News the “po-pimp” assignment was aligned to a fourth grade English Language Arts standard for Common Core.
“Out of context, this word is inappropriate,” Puyau said. “However, within the Common Core standards, they do want us to discuss real world texts.”
The Common Core State Standards
initiative is a plan devised by the nation’s governors and backed by
the Obama administration to set a uniform standard for grades K-12. In
practice, it will ensure that every child in the nation reaches the same
level of learning. So far, 45 states have agreed to use Common Core –
including Louisiana.“The Common Core curriculum, like it or not – we have to make our students successful,” the superintendent said. “We know that in New York proficiency in state testing was very low. We foresee that our students will not be successful unless with align everything to the common core standards.”
And that’s why fourth graders were learning about pimps and mobstaz.
“We want them to read real world texts,” he said. “We know they will go into a department store and see an album with that language on it. We know that will happen. But is that something they should be reading in the schools?”
Puyau conceded the actual paragraph in the assignment was not appropriate for 9-year-olds – even though Common Core-affiliated education site said it was.
“We are going to edit and audit everything that comes through,” he said. “In southwest Louisiana we do have high morals. We’re going to utilize everything that we have to ensure our parents that what they are reading is appropriate to grade level.”
Puyau said he takes full responsibility as the superintendent for what happened – but stressed that according to the Common Core standards – the material was age appropriate.
He said there is even more material out there that would cause parents to raise eyebrows and Badeaux said she heard something similar from her son’s teacher.
“The teacher told me this was the best of the worst of the curriculum that was provided to her,” she said. “We’re not even two months into school. What are they trying to teach him?”
Regardless, the superintendent said the pimp lesson provides a teachable moment for parents and teachers.
“These teachable moments are great to have,” he said.
But try telling that to the mom who had to explain what a pimp is to her 9-year-old son.
“My son doesn’t know what pimps and mobstaz are!” wrote concerned mother Brittney Badeaux in an email to Hot 107.9′s DJ Digital. “I don’t condone ebonics at his young age.”
“I try to teach my son respect and morals,” Badeaux said. “My goal everyday (sic) is for him to become better for tomorrow and ultimately grow into a great man!”
Vermilion Parish School Superintendent Jerome Puyau said the worksheet is in accordance with Common Core standards adopted by Louisiana.
“Part of the Common Core is what they call ‘real-world text,’” Puyau explained. “What are our students reading?”
“Are these students going to see this on the shelves in our department stores?” he continued. “And the answer is yes. If you search it, the first thing that comes up is the actual song [“Po Pimp”]. This is real-world.”
Puyau said the worksheet was pulled from an education website that aligns itself with Common Core standards.
“The Twist” was controversial in the 50s, Puyau noted, and even the Harry Potter books once raised controversy in his district when a librarian wouldn’t stock the series because of its focus on witchcraft.
The album “Kamikaze,” also mentioned under the rapper’s description, refers to suicide pilots, Puyau said, but this word is taught in history classes.
Badeaux also raised concerns about a similar text exercise that included a detailed description of how a machine gun works. But Puyau stressed that Vermilion Parish teachers review the content distributed to students, and it’s consistently in alignment with Common Core standards.
“We want to make sure that our students have an understanding and teaching of real-world life experiences through words, but there are teachable moments for parents, and there are teachable moments for us as educators.”
New York librarian fired after defending child who dominated reading contest
A librarian in upstate New York believes she was fired over
comments she made in support of a student who dominated a reading
competition for five consecutive years, The Post Star reported.
In August, Lita Casey, who worked at the Hudson Falls Free Library for 28 years, called the library's plan to change the rules of "Dig Into Reading" to hurt 9-year-old Tyler Weaver's chances of winning next year's prize "ridiculous," the report said.
The library director at the time, who no longer works there, appeared to criticize the boy and said he "hogs" the contest and ought to "step aside."
"Other kids quit [the reading contest] because they can't keep it up," she told the paper in August.
Casey, for her part, called the rule change "ridiculous."
"My feeling is you work, you get it. That's just the way it is in anything. My granddaughter started working on track in grade school and ended up being a national champ. Should she have backed off and said, 'No, somebody else should win?' I told her (the director), but she said it's not a contest, it's the reading club and everybody should get a chance," Casey said at the time, according to the paper.
Casey told the Post Star that she couldn't believe she was fired and asked a library board member why she was fired, and was told the board would not give a reason.
“I worked there for 28 years without a complaint,” she said. “I have to believe it was related to the whole reading controversy.”
In August, Lita Casey, who worked at the Hudson Falls Free Library for 28 years, called the library's plan to change the rules of "Dig Into Reading" to hurt 9-year-old Tyler Weaver's chances of winning next year's prize "ridiculous," the report said.
The library director at the time, who no longer works there, appeared to criticize the boy and said he "hogs" the contest and ought to "step aside."
"Other kids quit [the reading contest] because they can't keep it up," she told the paper in August.
Casey, for her part, called the rule change "ridiculous."
"My feeling is you work, you get it. That's just the way it is in anything. My granddaughter started working on track in grade school and ended up being a national champ. Should she have backed off and said, 'No, somebody else should win?' I told her (the director), but she said it's not a contest, it's the reading club and everybody should get a chance," Casey said at the time, according to the paper.
Casey told the Post Star that she couldn't believe she was fired and asked a library board member why she was fired, and was told the board would not give a reason.
“I worked there for 28 years without a complaint,” she said. “I have to believe it was related to the whole reading controversy.”
Not all mass shootings are equal in the eyes of the media or the public
We’ve moved on, apparently. Barely 48 hours after a gunman murdered 12 people and injured others in another U.S. bloodbath, the national news media had other things on their minds.On Fox News, the midday panel discussed something called “the Hiccup Girl trial.” Yahoo.com’s lead story was about the early retirement of an NFL player (also big on Yahoo: “Forget Pumpkin Pie! Say Hello to Your New Favorite Pumpkin Dessert”). MSNBC had the jump on a “brain-eating amoeba” affecting someone, somewhere in Louisiana. CNN, struggling for decency and dignity, coupled coverage of the shooting’s aftermath with live updates about the safe return of an abducted 14-year-old girl in Georgia.
This was a day after Britney Spears appeared on “Good Morning America” to announce her new Las Vegas show. “Only on GMA!,” the promo bragged.
No one announced a telethon for the victims of the Washington shootings or broke out ribbons of any color. Major League Baseball briefly considered playing a game a few blocks from where the bodies lay. No problem: The Nationals played a doubleheader Tuesday, instead.
The desire to get back to something else, to distract, is surely understandable; the news from the Navy Yard was grim. But the national news media’s quickly fading interest suggests there was something ordinary and familiar, almost banal, about Monday’s body count.
It’s not just that we’ve seen this before, even though we have: There were 78 mass public shootings in the United States between 1983 and 2012, according to a Congressional Research Service study, which toted up 547 dead and 476 injured people from this mayhem.
But not all senseless, horrendous crimes are equal in the national consciousness. It’s as though the events of Monday morning, after the first breathless reports, failed to jog the media’s central nervous system and, by extension, the public’s, into a sustained response.
The relative non-reaction might be explained by what Monday’s tragedy was not. It wasn’t Tucson, with its six dead and its now-famous survivor, former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. It wasn’t Aurora, Colo., with its ordinary, anyone-could-have-been-there locale, a movie theater. It wasn’t Nickel Mines, Pa., with the horror of dead Amish schoolchildren. Nor was it Columbine, Colo., or Virginia Tech, with so many promising young lives cut short, nor Fort Hood nor Boston, with the specter of terrorism.
And it wasn’t Newtown, Conn., with its monstrous slaughter of small children and the adults who had taught and protected them.
The cynical truth is that the Navy Yard murders — we’ve yet to agree on the shorthand name for this event — had neither the kinds of victims nor the story that sustains media interest and public revulsion.
Those who study crime can tell you what excites and interests the public, which is not just about titillation. Outrage is important. Sustained public interest stirs the outcry for change. The Navy Yard murders had only one of these dimensions: They occurred in the District, in the midst of the national media, making them instantly visible.
Beyond that, ennui.
The event took place in a seemingly secure but otherwise obscure government building, blandly known as Building 197, in a city filled with better-known locales. The victims were mostly government employees, not the soldiers or sailors or law enforcement officers we reflexively memorialize as heroes. And they were mostly middle-aged people, not the children, teenagers or young adults whose deaths create greater spasm of shock.
Some of the mystery of the crime — if there’s any “mystery” in the shattered logic of a deranged mind — died with the alleged shooter, Aaron Alexis. He will have no perp walk, no long and agonizing court trial. He appears not to have been an ideologue or a terrorist. He was a young man with demons and guns; we have seen his kind before, in Jared Loughner, James Holmes, John Hinckley and other infamous shooters.
He was also African American, and this apparently matters, says eminent criminologist James Alan Fox. “It’s not nice to say it, but white America tends to be more intrigued about the minds and motives of white murderers,” said Fox, who is a professor at Northeastern University. “There have been black [mass shooters], but it’s hard to remember who they are. The D.C. sniper is an exception.”
Fox, who has been studying mass murder since the early 1980s, sees a dismaying jadedness in our national response to such spectacular acts of inhumanity. Even as overall gun violence has fallen precipitously, what shakes the national scales has graduated, higher and higher, he says. “When four people were killed [in a shooting], it was always covered” nationally, he said. “Of course now, four people doesn’t get covered. It doesn’t rate.”
So, even the news of 12 dead people fights for airtime with Britney Spears and the Hiccup Girl.
Move along. Not much to see here. Except your country, circa 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/not-all-mass-shootings-are-equal-in-the-eyes-of-the-media-and-the-public/2013/09/18/967ba254-207e-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html?hpid=z14
Media Lose Interest in Navy Murders Due to Lack of Anti-Gun Narrative
In Thursday's Washington Post, Paul Farhi laments the fact that the mainstream media has already decided to drop the Navy Yard massacre and focus on other things like the "Hiccup Girl Trial" and Britney Spears. Farhi blames many things, including (naturally) racism, but is not at all interested in exploring the real reason for the indifference of his media colleagues: The fact is that the media is never interested in stories that don't offer them political upside.Had an AR-15 actually been used in this week's terrible Navy Yard murders, there is no question that the massacre would still be leading the national conversation as the media pushed to ban "assault weapons." Had the shooter bought any one of his weapons at a gun show where no background check was performed, the media would be overdosing on this story with a renewed push to expand background checks. Had the shooter been a white, Christian, Tea Partier, the media would be delivering the news with glassy eyes and their pants around their ankles.
What kept previous mass-shootings alive in the national media conversation was the anti-gun Narrative our objective, unbiased, not-at-all liberal media collectively exploited -- especially in the wake of Sandy Hook.
What kept the Tucson murders alive was not the fact that a congresswoman was involved, but that the media cynically and dishonestly found a way to collectively blame Sarah Palin for the murders.
Unless events overcome, when it comes to what drives our media narrative, it is always stories that push a left-wing agenda -- that offer political upside. This week's shooting was committed by a black, Buddhist Obama supporter who used the Vice President's weapon of choice -- a shotgun. So, naturally, the media has lost interest.
Hundreds of children are gunned down in Chicago every year. But the media doesn't care about black children being murdered by mostly black people in a city that is supposed to be a liberal utopia and passed some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Why? Because there is no political upside in telling that story.
This philosophy holds true for many things, not just guns.
Yesterday we learned that 180,000 mostly working poor employees of Walgreens will lose their health insurance due to the cost of ObamaCare. The media doesn't care about "those" working poor because protecting ObamaCare is more important.
No left-wing political upside, no media coverage.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/19/media-loses-interest-in-navy-shooting-anti-gun-narrative
Washington & Wall Street: Bernanke Signals Economy Not Recovering
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”Claude Raines to Humphrey Bogart “Casablanca”
For the past several weeks, financial professionals have listened to a procession of economists predicting that the Federal Reserve would start to end its extraordinary, $85 billion per month in purchases of government and mortgage bonds. Known as “quantitative easing,” the Fed’s bond buying is a Keynesian inspired expedient supposed to boost job growth and consumer income, but has largely failed to deliver in either case.
But Wall Street’s hopes were dashed yesterday. “Fed officials kept the central bank's $85 billion-per-month bond-buying program in place, saying they wanted to see more evidence the economy can sustain improvement before scaling back,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
Back in August, Brian Wesbury of First Trust Advisors, a usually sober conservative among Wall Street economists, predicted confidently that the Fed would begin “tapering” the central banks purchase of bonds in September. But Wesbury, who worked on Capitol Hill before turning to Wall Street, is hardly alone.
"The good news for investors," said BlackRock chief investment strategist Russ Koesterich, "is that at this point (tapering) is probably well reflected in the market. It's going to be a very gradual, light, tapering. I'll define that somewhere between ten and fifteen billion dollars."
Koesterich went on to tell Yahoo Finance that he is looking for confirmation from the Fed that we are in a "gradually improving" economic environment. It's the kind of climate that can withstand higher interest rates, he opined, and the kind of market he thinks favors equities over bonds.
But of course both Wesbury, Koesterich and dozens of other economists were completely (and very publicly) wrong about the Fed’s intentions and the nature of the “economic recovery.” The notion of “tapering” is a sort of hallucination commonly experienced by practicing economists, especially the variety that believe in “soft landings” and other types of neo-Keynesian nonsense. The tapering mirage is part of a larger delusion prevalent on Wall Street that the Federal Open Market Committee alone can engineer an economic rebound.
The first thing to say is that the Fed’s decision is no surprise. Anybody who understands the true concerns of Chairman Bernanke and the FOMC knows that a slack job market and flat to down consumer income are the drivers of policy. The Census Bureau just reported that median household income in the United States in 2012 was $51,017, not statistically different in real terms from the 2011 median of $51,100. This followed two consecutive annual declines.
As we’ve noted in this space, the Fed’s past inflationary policies have brought us to this sad end, but nobody in Washington wants to hear that right now. After decades of accommodating reckless federal deficits with progressively lower interest rates, the FOMC has essentially painted itself into a corner. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke talks about the need to keep rates low to boost employment, yet his policies are feeding inflation, the steady increase in prices that makes it more and more difficult for private employers to hire workers. The Fed’s QE policy penalizes savers and employers, while feeding tens of billions of dollars in subsidies each year to debtors.
The problem with the Fed’s policies is that they are killing jobs in order to avoid falling prices, the ancient fear of deflation that is a legacy from the 1930s. “The American economy has shed 347,000 jobs over the past two months, roughly comparable with the rate of loss seen during the Great Recession,” writes Ambrose Evans Pritchard in The Telegraph of London. “It is remarkable that the US Federal Reserve should even have been thinking of phasing out life-support in such circumstances.” He continues:
“The shock decision on Wednesday night to
put off tapering bond purchases is a recognition of what should have
been obvious. Rising mortgage costs and the ‘tightening of financial
conditions’ could slow growth, it said. Indeed. The net loss of jobs
over the summer months has been entirely among men, mostly aged 25 to 54
and university educated. The cohort aged over 55 has been growing, so
this is not happening because baby boomers are retiring early and happy
to grow cantaloupes in Arkansas, or to play golf at Torrey Pines.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/19/Washington-Wall-Street-Bernanke-Signals-Economy-Not-Recovering
No comments:
Post a Comment