December 9-18, 2015
Dec 09 09:22 The Democrats' ISIS denial Dec 09 11:01 Banning all Muslims? Dec 09 14:18 The GOP's Agenda Media Dec 10 09:26 Open letter to Rush: words have meaning Dec 11 00:41 San Bernardino's 'suspects'? Dec 12 18:23 Larry Kudlow's dramatic change Dec 13 19:20 Goodell's situational integrity Dec 14 02:02 Gutfeld's challenge to CW Dec 18 14:29 President Potter's empty words
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
The Democrats' ISIS denial
Josh Kraushaar's article highlights a subject Democrats would rather forget. At minimum, they wish national security would just go away.
Kraushaar hit it right when he wrote "The signs of a pres'id'ent in deni'al over the threat of ter'ror'ism keep pil'ing up. Obama be'latedly ad'dressed the pub'lic's fears in his Oval Of'fice ad'dress on Sunday even'ing, but he offered no new policies to deal with crisis. That it took four days for the pres'id'ent to un'equi'voc'ally call the San Bern'ardino at'tacks 'ter'ror'ism' un'der'scored how his own in'stincts are at odds with the Amer'ic'an pub'lic's."
Kraushaar is right when he opines "The de'cision to give a na'tion'ally tele'vised speech without out'lining a change of course sug'ges'ted that ad'min'is'tra'tion of'fi'cials were wor'ried about de'clin'ing poll numbers and that he was try'ing to lim'it the polit'ic'al dam'age." President Obama's highest priorities since taking office have been to transform America to fit his rigid ideology and to worry first about the political impact of his policies rather than the impact his policies have on individuals' and families' lives.
That's a major reason why Americans don't trust President Obama's national security policies. Another reason why people don't trust President Obama's national security policies is because he seems indifferent to national security most of the time. He's shown more emotion fighting Republicans than he's shown fighting ISIS. Still another reason why people don't trust President Obama's national security policies is because, in Kraushaar's words, "the pres'id'ent's as'sur'ances are be'ing con'tra'dicted by events around him."
Mouthing the same BS is getting old. The people get the impression that President Obama's lines remain the same, irrespective of what's happening. If a terrorist gets captures, President Obama is likely to say "our home'land has nev'er been more pro'tec'ted by more ef'fect'ive in'tel'li'gence and law-en'force'ment pro'fes'sion'als at every level than they are now." The truth is that President Obama said that hours after the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
Posted Wednesday, December 9, 2015 9:22 AM
No comments.
Banning all Muslims?
Daniel Greenfield's article provides a worthwhile teaching moment on what's constitutional and what isn't. Greenfield's article starts with him saying "Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter. During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency."
Later in the article, Greenfield wrote "Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump's proposal is far more legitimate than Carter's action." That's a non sequitur defense of Trump's bombastic statement. It's illegal to exclude people based on their religious beliefs.
Kimberly Guilfoyle explained , saying that "[we] are signatories to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are international laws and treaties that we are bound by. You can not ban people based on their religious beliefs."
Treaties that the president signs and that Congress approves in its advise and consent responsibilities are then treated as equal in legal strength as a US statute passed by Congress and signed by the president. Further, treaties that've been signed by the president, then ratified by Congress, can't be repealed by executive order. Just like repealing statutes, Congress has to pass a bill calling for repeal of the law.
The repeal isn't complete until the president signs the bill calling for withdrawing from the treaty.
Greenfield finishes by saying "Maybe the professional conservatives running around shrieking their heads off can calm down now long enough to have a rational conversation on the subject." I'd prefer Mr. Greenfield taking a closer look at the laws that apply to banning people based on their religious beliefs. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights says signatories can't deny people rights based on their religious beliefs. It doesn't say that the US can't ban people from specific nations, presumably because of the United States' right to defend itself.
Originally posted Wednesday, December 9, 2015, revised 10-Dec 9:04 AM
No comments.
The GOP's Agenda Media
Readers of LFR know that I've criticized the Agenda Media for almost 10 years. I especially criticized them when they didn't do their due diligence on then-Candidate Obama. What's happening now with GOP-leaning commentators is just as disgusting as what lefty pundits and reporters did in 2008. One of the biggest offenders this year is Andrea Tantaros, a co-host on Outnumbered.
Each time that Outnumbered talks about Trump, her eyes glaze over and she starts rattling off utter nonsense. Normally, I don't have much use for Media Matters but I appreciate them highlighting what Ms. Tantaros said during Tuesday's show. Particularly disgusting is Ms. Tantaros' statement that "He has been front runner despite these controversial comments. Republicans criticizing him but again they're saying to a problem "nope," even though he's coming up with a solution, even though they don't like it."
Tantaros said this about Trump's ban-all-Muslims diatribe. Calling Trump's childish diatribe a solution is insulting. The primary definition of solution is "the act of solving a problem, question, etc." Ms. Tantaros, how does Trump's diatribe solve the problem of stopping Middle Eastern terrorists entering the United States when it isn't enforceable?
Trump's statement barely qualifies as a coherent thought. (That's still debatable.) It certainly doesn't qualify as a solution. If Ms. Tantaros' blather wasn't enough, she continued with this exchange with Fox Business's Sandra Smith:
TANTAROS: But, Sandra, from a messaging perspective, again we see Trump, though he says something that is inflammatory perhaps, right? Discriminating based on religion, right?
SANDRA SMITH (HOST): It helps him in the polls.
TANTAROS: It helps him in the polls because it's a solution to a problem that no one will tackle.
I don't know if Ms. Tantaros is that stupid or that dishonest. Sen. Rubio, Mrs. Fiorina and Gov. Christie have stepped forward with plans to fix the problem. Their plans include no-fly zones so displaced Syrians don't leave the Middle East. Trump's blather is based on isolationism that doesn't attack the root cause of the problem.
If Ms. Tantaros can't figure that out, she shouldn't be on national TV.
Other repeat offenders are Charlie Gasparino and Eric Bolling. They sing Trump's praises constantly, too. Yesterday on The Five, Bolling praised Trump before mentioning that there were hundreds of people at his campaign rally. Greg Gutfeld interrupted, saying that you don't have to mention numbers if you're right, the point being that Bolling tried using numbers of supporters at a campaign event to prove Trump was right.
In 2008, tens of thousands of people showed up for President Obama's campaign events. We've suffered through 7 years of economic malaise and several years of apprehension about stopping terrorist attacks. Simply put, Bolling's argument is flimsy at best.
This trio's critical thinking abilities don't exist when it comes to Mr. Trump. Rather than turning this post into a rant, though, let's provide solutions to this trio of wayward souls.
Mentioning something in that day's news isn't a solution. Presenting a half-baked idea that's been modified several times in the following 24 hours isn't a proposal, either. Here's a hint to this clueless trio: if a candidate has to constantly modify what he said, it's safe to say that he didn't think things through.
Here's another hint: I'm not looking for a candidate that mentions a timely topic but doesn't provide a thoughtful solution. Any idiot can mention things. The United States is in terrible shape because we've got a president who hasn't provided a solution to the challenges facing this nation. We don't need another narcissist who doesn't think in terms of thoughtful, detailed solutions.
Finally, Trump's supporters say that he'd "get things done." I'd challenge that because it's impossible to solve problems when the candidate can't put a coherent sentence together, much less provide a solution.
Posted Wednesday, December 9, 2015 2:18 PM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 10-Dec-15 08:30 AM
We need to realize that we are in a point in history where ALL media has an agenda. We need to be able to see that and rely on ourselves to do our own research.
LL
Open letter to Rush: words have meaning
In Rush's attempt to defend Donald Trump's indefensible statements about banning Muslims from entering the country, he argued that Trump's 'policy' has historical precedent . Specifically, he said "Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president. 'Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.'"
Jimmy Carter did indeed use this law in 1980. It also doesn't have a thing to do with Trump's asinine statements because Trump didn't call for banning people from a specific nation. Mr. Trump called for banning Muslims from the US. That's illegal, according to Kimberly Guilfoyle, because we "are signatories to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights," which prohibits banning "people based on their religious beliefs."
Some people are scratching their heads, saying that whether you ban Iranians or whether you ban Muslims, the end result is the same. Actually, it isn't. It's permissible to ban people from specific countries based on the nation's national security situation. It would've been perfectly legitimate if President Bush had banned granting visas to people from Afghanistan right after 9/11 because he could make a substantive case that they posed a significant threat to the nation.
Indiscriminately banning all Muslims, whether they're from Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon or Jordan, isn't legal because we signed onto the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits that.
If you want to argue that we should get out of that Declaration, knock yourself out. I'm likely to agree with that. If we opted out of that Declaration, then Trump's ban would be legal. Until we opt out, though, Trump's hands would be tied.
As for Rush, he should practice what he preaches. He's constantly lecturing people that "words have meanings." Banning people based on their religious faith is prohibited. Banning people because they're from a specific country because they pose a national security risk is permissible.
Posted Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:26 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Dec-15 09:35 AM
People should read "United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights." It goes beyond the Bill of Rights, in ways that are helpful to our being a better nation within a better world.
Your citing it is laudatory, unless, of course, it is only to use it to throw a stone at Trump.
I like it all ways. Even when the U.S. exercises its veto power in political ways it exists, saying what it does. It is easily found online, at un.org
Try this, early in the thing:
"Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
"Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."
Gitmo - indefinite internment without habeas corpus?
Waterboarding? And there is more ... an interesting document frequently honored in the breach.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 11-Dec-15 06:25 PM
As one who listens to every word of Rush via podcast, I have to suggest you be careful of those who claim to be quoting Rush accurately and in context. He is letting Trump be Trump, far more fascinated how the press and both Parties' leadership don't get what's really going on. But I think the Trump quotes I hear everywhere have been pretty accurate.
And as John Hinderaker suggests, if Trump says this and Hillary says no way, Hillary goes down in flames next November.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Dec-15 01:00 PM
Trump won't be president. As Guy Benson highlights, Trump's favorable/unfavorable rating with Hispanics 9% favorable, 84% unfavorable. Trump's favorable/unfavorable rating with women is 29% favorable, 63% unfavorable. Those ratings add into one thing and one thing only: President-Elect Hillary Clinton. You can't win the election by losing women, who make up 53% of registered voters, by 25 points & losing Hispanics by a wider margin than Romney lost them by. Thinking otherwise is fantasy.
BTW, I got Rush's words from the transcript he sent out for that segment.
San Bernardino's 'suspects'?
The editors of the Mesabi Daily News didn't pull their punches with Al Franken in this editorial . First, a little background is in order. After the terrorists murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, MDN sent emails to Sen. Franken, Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Nolan.
Apparently, Sen. Franken's letter was the only letter that caught their attention. That's because Sen. Franken said "As the FBI and other law enforcement officials continue to investigate a crime where 14 innocent people lost their lives only days ago, there are still a lot of questions that need answers. There are now reports that one of the suspects pledged allegiance to ISIS, and I believe that this, and all other investigative leads, must be vigorously and fully pursued."
The editors didn't treat Sen. Franken gently, saying "Suspects? They were mass murderers who died in a shootout with law enforcement; and they had a pipe bomb factory in their garage. Crime? This was no Bonnie and Clyde bank robbery couple. Franken's response was so off base from the question, that another email was sent to his staff providing an opportunity to give a direct answer or at least call it terrorism."
Sen. Franken's response is predictable. He's trying to spin things so people won't notice that President Obama's policies failed to protect those employees from ISIS-inspired terrorists. You remember ISIS, right? They're the JV team. Wait. That's so 2014. They're "contained." That won't work. That's too Novemberish. They're the terrorists that didn't pose an "imminent threat" to the homeland.
Seriously, as upset as the editors have a right to be about Sen. Franken's response, it's important to maintain perspective. Sen. Franken is just the politician who's getting sent out to spin a mess. It's President Obama that created the mess by pretending that ISIS wasn't really a threat. The question now is whether ISIS will carry out another successful attack or not.
Posted Friday, December 11, 2015 12:41 AM
Comment 1 by john at 11-Dec-15 12:10 PM
about 15000 Americans are murdered each year
less than 50 are killed for political terrorism including christian terrorists like Dylan Roof The right wing of American politics is now like a propaganda arm of terrorism
stop it
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 13-Dec-15 02:13 PM
Well of course less than 50 are killed for political terrorism because this administration and the media refuse to call it terrorism and instead call it work place violence just like Benghazi was just a riot caused by a video no one saw.
Larry Kudlow's dramatic change
CNBC's Larry Kudlow has earned the reputation of being pro-immigration reform. That's why Mr. Kudlow's NRO op-ed is startling. Mr. Kudlow admits that we're at war with Islamic terrorists and that "there should be no immigration or visa waivers until the U.S. adopts a completely new system to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country." If that sounds like Trump's plan, it's because it's similar but it isn't the same.
Kudlow explains "Let me emphasize that my support for wartime immigration restrictions is not based on religion. I think Donald Trump made a big mistake here. Instead, I agree with this Rupert Murdoch tweet: 'Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.'"
That's the point I've made from the start. Let me outline the principles I'd use to prevent the next Paris or the next San Bernardino. First, I'd establish a tiered list of countries to accept refugees from. The first tier would be countries that we'd never accept refugees from. Basically, any nation whose government exists in name only would be on that list. Syria, Somalia, Mali, Libya and Yemen would be on that list.
I've nicknamed the second list the Procto list. Refugees from these countries would be given a full proctology examination. Each refugee would be given a full examination including everything up to the person's tonsils. Twice. I picture nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Greece on that list. It isn't that there are many Greek terrorists. It's that a bunch of ISIS terrorists stopped in Greece on their way to the west from Iraq and Syria. Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan are marginal allies but they're terrorist hotbeds, too.
I wrote this article to highlight the corruption within the Obama administration, especially in the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Tashfeen Malik, the terrorist bride, didn't "slip through the cracks" like the administration is spinning it. They all but rolled out the red carpet for her by shutting down a program that likely would've put her terrorist husband, Syed Farook, on the federal government's no-fly list because he attended a radicalized mosque.
FYI- That likely would've meant Malik's visa being rejected, too.
Larry Kudlow should be applauded for changing his very public stand. The late economist John Maynard Keynes was once asked why he'd changed his policy. His epic reply fits here:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Exactly right.
Posted Saturday, December 12, 2015 6:23 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Dec-15 10:33 AM
The female San Bernadino shooter was Saudi.
The 9/11 pilot trainees were Saudi.
Where, on your listing are the Saudis?
All that oil can blind some to the obvious.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-15 07:21 PM
Eric, my list wasn't comprehensive.
Goodell's situational integrity
I haven't kept it a secret that I don't respect NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. I've written negatively about him frequently, mostly with regards to his mishandling of the Adrian Peterson case. It's time for NFL owners to fire Goodell. If they don't fire him, they'll lose their credibility. It's time for them to put their big boy pants on.
Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com is reporting about Goodell's inaction earlier this season turning into a bigger deal now. Florio reported "During the Week Eight contest in Pittsburgh, Bengals linebacker Vontaze Burfict applied a hit to Steelers running back Le'Veon Bell that resulted in a season-ending knee injury. After the game, Steelers linebacker Vince Williams posted a tweet that Burfict and other Bengals players regarded as a death threat: ' I catch Vontaze on south beach im painting that boi on sight .'"
According to Florio, "It's possible the league didn't do anything about the threats because the league didn't want to turn a fairly small story into a big story." Florio is wrong in calling the initial story "a fairly small story." Physically threatening a player isn't insignificant, especially when the offending player refuses to apologize:
Williams later deleted the tweet and issued a statement in which he refused to apologize for his words but also said he ' shouldn't have taken these feelings to Twitter .'
Taking the threat to Twitter isn't the problem. Issuing death threats is the problem. Even if Williams wasn't serious, it's a serious matter. More importantly, Williams threat violates Goodell's Personal Conduct Policy:
Williams' behavior seems to constitute a violation of the plain terms of Personal Conduct Policy, which prohibits '[a]ctual or threatened physical violence against another person.'
Goodell hasn't hesitated in talking about "protecting the shield" on matters of personal and professional integrity. The fact that Goodell applies this policy arbitrarily and inconsistently speaks volumes about Goodell's penchant for situational integrity.
Posted Sunday, December 13, 2015 7:20 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Dec-15 07:13 AM
Sean Payton is still coaching. His defensive coordinator who established and managed the bounty pool with New Orleans back when they beat up two quarterbacks in a row in playoff games is presently coaching in the league.
Each should have been banned for life, as with fixing games with gamblers. Judge Landis imposed lifetime bans after the 1919 World Series was fixed. Well before millionaire jocks became a norm.
Tweets are stupid, but coaching evil should have been treated as unacceptable from the point of disclosure onward. It was not. That was the point of ouster from the garden for the NFL.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 17-Dec-15 07:16 PM
The NFL's slow but steady downward slide in multiple dimensions began when the Office of the Commissioner passed from proven football people to lawyers who think they're in the same league. It's a microcosm of American business today, where the CEO is less and less a great founding inventor, engineer, or sales professional. Instead, they have to be lawyers to cope with the government, and after a time, starting bribing the politicians that created all those regulations and taxes to win contracts or put their competitors at an often fatal disadvantage.
Comment 3 by eric z at 18-Dec-15 03:25 PM
Rex - You left out Goldman-Sachs as part of the NFL slide.
Gutfeld's challenge to CW
One of the things I like about Greg Gutfeld is that he thinks things through. That isn't to say that he's a policy wonk. It just means he thinks about things through the lens of a citizen. He doesn't think like a politician. Best of all, he doesn't think like a Democratic politician. The monologue he delivered to open Saturday night's show is an example of him not accepting the left's conventional wisdom, aka CW.
Gutfeld opened his show saying "Radical Islam is like your constantly drunk and abusive neighbor. They're always up to something. They soil your lawn. They try to mount your dog. And the threats -- it's like being stalked by a 7th century heckler. It's time to reverse this abusive relationship. Counter radical Islamism with radical Americanism. Our scary reply to these rejects. First, let's end the myth of the ISIS warrior. We see evidence of their cruelty but never of their prowess. They hit soft targets --the unarmed and scared --then they film it to soften up their next prey. These are not brave fighters, just bullies with machetes. What if they were truly challenged by the world's greatest warriors? And before you say that that's what ISIS wants, realize that that's just an excuse for inertia and putting off the inevitable. Does that make me a warmonger? Sure. But it also makes me a global survival monger, too. And to be clear, our military is fine with this. It's their life's work to eliminate evil. You don't feel guilty about the postman delivering your mail, then don't feel bad about a Marine delivering death."
Here's the video of Gutfeld's opening monologue:
After that monologue, the show shifted to the opening panel, which included Terry Schappert, a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces. Schappert said that ISIS aren't great fighters when pitted against fierce warriors, noting that the only armed forces they face were Iraqi soldiers who'd been abandoned by the Obama administration. Schappert then said that ISIS wouldn't be much of a fight if they faced "the violence that we'd like to visit upon them."
Schappert made 3 other important points. The first point he made was that ISIS would eventually return after getting humiliated. The next point he made was that ISIS would return with fewer members each time they returned. Finally, Schappert said that "Gitmo isn't ISIS's biggest recruiting tool. Winning is ISIS's biggest recruiting tool."
There's no doubt that ISIS is capable of killing people. They shouldn't be taken lightly like the Obama administration has taken them. Still, they aren't the battle-tested supermen that the media has made them out to be. I wrote this article to highlight how overrated some of these Middle Eastern warriors have been.
Just like it's easier to stay in shape than it is to get into shape, it's easier to keep terrorists down than it is to put down an insurgency after starting fresh.
Posted Monday, December 14, 2015 2:02 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Dec-15 06:59 AM
Project for a New American Century?
Rumsfeld, Cheney, warmed over leftovers?
President Potter's empty words
Earlier this week, SCSU President Potter sent an email to the SCSU campus community saying that SCSU is "a university that values equity, diversity and inclusivity." Former SCSU Aviation Professor Jeff Johnson is questioning that. More importantly, he's putting his money where his mouth is:
Click the picture to enlarge.
There's no doubt that President Potter talks a good game about equity, diversity and inclusivity. There's little doubt that comparing his statements with his actions gives people ample justification to question President Potter's integrity.
Especially disturbing is the fact that 5 students witnessed President Potter get in another student's face during a meeting. That doesn't reflect the priorities of "a university that values equity, diversity and inclusivity."
Originally posted Friday, December 18, 2015, revised 19-Dec 3:28 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Steckling at 18-Dec-15 08:57 PM
This is extremely upsetting and needs to be addressed by MnSCU. Potter has had more than the three strikes due him. He should have been called out long ago and ushered off the playing field and banned forever- Potter has done far more damage to SCSU and STC than Pete Rose did to baseball.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 19-Dec-15 12:10 AM
Well stated, Dave! It is beyond embarrassing that the St. Cloud Times and our local leaders have been silent on this mess. SCSU has lost millions of dollars and the current enrollment drop is above 25 percent. Both Potter and Chancellor Rosenstone need to go.
Comment 3 by Jethro at 19-Dec-15 12:15 AM
This letter from aviation student Logan Vold is a real eye opener after the 5 students met with President Potter. Lack of civility and class.
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=14712
Comment 4 by Nick at 19-Dec-15 12:21 PM
Why hasn't the City of St. Cloud sued St. Cloud State for lost airport revenues yet?
