Democrats Get a Taste of Obama’s Arrogance

From Jonah Goldberg of National Review:

(What's) lost on Milbank is the fact that this is precisely how Obama treats everyone who disagrees with him. When Obama — who ran for office touting his ability to work with Republicans and vowing to cure the partisan dysfunction in Washington — treated Republicans in a far ruder and shabbier way, Milbank celebrated

.......................

 

Republicans, in Obama’s view, are always dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with their knee-jerk responses.

.......................

 

Again, this was all quintessential Obama then, and it’s quintessential Obama now. All that has changed is that he’s doing the exact same thing to Democrats, and it’s making them sad. Specifically, he’s accused Senator Elizabeth Warren of not having her facts straight. He says she’s just a politician following her partisan self-interest.

.......................

 

But here’s the hilarious part: Liberals can’t take it.

.......................

 

The great irony is that when Republicans complain about Obama’s haughtiness and arrogance, liberals accuse them of being racist.

The problem with liberals, it blow right by them. Since he's on their side, so he's being obnoxious.

Washington Free Beacon Broke Stephanopoulos Clinton Foundation Story

From Jack Shafer at Politico:

A worthy side-note to the Stephanopoulos expose is contained in its genesis. The story appears to have originated at the Washington Free Beacon, which asked ABC News for comment about the Stephanopoulos contributions last night. The next thing the Free Beacon knew, Politico had broken the story this morning. Free Beacon writer Andrew Stiles and site editor Matthew Continetti accused Stephanopoulos’ office and ABC of shipping the scoop to Politico. I sent email to ABC News seeking clarification on this point and did not hear back. I also asked Byers about the origin of his scoop to which he responded, “I’m not going to be able to talk about matters related to sourcing.”  

If ABC News shopped the scoop, as the Beaconites claim, it wouldn’t be the first time that a news organization has been so preempted. Government and business play this retaliatory game all the time when journalists surprise them with a request for comment. What’s unbecoming is that a news organization might engage in this practice. 

Come to think of it, that’s precisely the type of thing you can imagine the Stephanopoulos-era Clinton administration doing without compunction.

it nice to see that Politico giving credit, where credit is due.

Third Class Temperament

From Mona Charen at Ricochet:

Like cult members awaking to find their leader swigging gin and squirreling money into a Swiss bank account, liberals are rubbing their eyes in disbelief at President Obama’s behavior. The figure they worshipped so fervently and for so long is now revealed to be a “sexist”
.................. 

The president has been displaying the same condescension to world leaders, senate majority leaders, house speakers, and everyone else since first taking office. It was always “John” and “Harry” and “Hillary” – never Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, or Secretary Clinton. It was “Angela” and “David,” not Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Cameron. Can’t wait to see whether, when the Pope visits in September, the president refers to him as “Jorge.” There was one exception to this rule – Obama was at pains to refer to Iran’s Ali Khameini, who has never been elected to anything, as “Supreme Leader.” 

..................... 

So welcome to our world, liberals. Now that your eyes are opened, take a look at the completely unjust, snide, and dishonest way Obama talked about Republicans at the Georgetown University panel on poverty a few days ago.......................... 

Mr. Obama flays the rich the way a compass points north, often bizarrely unaware of how he’s embarrassing himself. Regarding the bifurcation of society, he lamented that “those who are doing better and better — more skilled, more educated, luckier, having greater advantages — are withdrawing from sort of the commons — kids start going to private schools; kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks.” This from a graduate of the Ponahou School who sends his daughters to Sidwell Friends. 

During the discussion, Mr. Obama disparaged John Boehner’s and Mitch McConnell’s interest in helping the poor. So it’s worth recalling that one of Obama’s first acts as president was to seek to defund the District of Columbia’s Opportunity Scholarship fund. When the Democrats controlled Congress, he succeeded. But someone who cared waited for a chance, and when Republicans gained control of the House and the Congress was in a tense budget showdown with the White House, John Boehner personally saw to it that the program was revived. 

So who is judging whom when it comes to the poor?

South Carolina School Folds On Flag Ban When Student Shows Up With Squad Of Veterans

From the Daily Caller:

Protesters lined the street in front of a South Carolina school Thursday morning after administrators had forced a student at the school to remove an American flag from his truck the previous day.

A few simple questions.

Why?

Who could be offended?

Are you a communist? A sympathizer?

Do you remember the Constitution?  You are supposed to be teaching about it.

Sit At The Back

From Tim Blair:

Alabama, 1955:

Rosa Parks, a 42-year-old African American woman who worked as a seamstress, boarded this Montgomery City bus to go home from work. On this bus on that day, Rosa Parks initiated a new era in the American quest for freedom and equality.
She sat near the middle of the bus, just behind the 10 seats reserved for whites. Soon all of the seats in the bus were filled. When a white man entered the bus, the driver (following the standard practice of segregation) insisted that all four blacks sitting just behind the white section give up their seats so that the man could sit there.

Australia, 2015:

Women were segregated and asked to sit at the back of a lecture by the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir at a Muslim students group at the University of Western Sydney last night.
At the event in Parramatta, men and women were asked to sit apart. The Daily Telegraph attended the talk – and this reporter sat with the women before being politely told “brothers to the front” and “sisters” to the back.
The women were ushered through a door marked “sisters” at the rear of the hall, while the “brothers” entered through another door and were told to take their place in “the front five rows”.

Alabama, 1955:

Mrs. Parks, who was an active member of the local NAACP, quietly refused to give up her seat.
It took someone with the courage and character of Rosa Parks to strike with lightning. And it required the commitment of the entire African American community to fan the flames ignited by that lightning into the fires of the civil rights revolution.

Australia, 2015: white leftists and feminists remain completely and shamefully silent about the treatment of Muslim women. Had they been on that Alabama bus 60 years ago, they would have looked away.

Muslims are the ONLY group that the Progressives will NOT attack for slights.

ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos Donated $75,000 (updated) to Clinton Foundation

From the Washington Free Beacon:

Stephanopoulos, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, confirmed the donation to POLITICO’s Dylan Byers after the Free Beacon contacted ABC News for comment. The host acknowledged making two donations of $25,000 between 2013 and 2014. Stephanopoulos issued a statement apologizing for failing to disclose the donation.

"I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they're doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply," Stephanopolous said. "I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize."

So George Stephi makes it abundantly clear that Schweizer worked for President Bush for 4 months, but fails to mention that he used to WORK FOR THE CLINTONS and DONATED $75,000 to their Foundation.

No bias, right?

Updated: Looks like the amount is $75,000 after the records were checked back for 3 years, not just 2.  What are they gonna find when they look back 4 or more years?

What’s Driving the Kafkaesque Crackdown on ‘Free-Range Parenting’?

From George Will at National Review:

Today’s saturating media tug children beyond childhood prematurely, but not to maturity. Children are cosseted by intensive parenting that encourages passivity and dependency, and stunts their abilities to improvise, adapt, and weigh risks. Mark Hemingway, writing at the Federalist, asks: “You know what it’s called when kids make mistakes without adult supervision and have to wrestle with the resulting consequences? Growing up.”

Increased knowledge of early-childhood development has produced increased belief in a “science” of child rearing. This has increased intolerance of parenting that deviates from norms that are as changeable as most intellectual fads.

By extension, the sole purpose of redefining parenting is to INCREASE dependency on government.

The Left’s Contract with America

From National Review:

A who’s who of the American Left has just unveiled their version of a Contract with America. This new Progressive Agenda is the brainchild of New York mayor Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, along with such liberal luminaries as Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and former Vermont governor and DNC chairman Howard Dean, various union bosses, and celebrities Susan Sarandon and Steve Buscemi. But for all the glitter associated with its big-name signers, the manifesto is devoid of new ideas and, if ever enacted, could be counted on to plunge millions of Americans into poverty.

This is all being done to pull Hillary to the Left, not to improve the lives to all americans.

Triggers and Triggering

From Ace of Spades:

Lately, there has been some kind of social movement in the direction of taking no responsibility whatsoever for one's emotions: a total hand off, and it's done openly and without a hint of recognition an individual might actually be responsible for his or her own feelings. It seems people have come to accept this is the new normal.

The movement appears to be attached to latest iteration of feminism, third-wave feminism, and it has worked its way from college campuses into popular culture. The constant refrain from those who have no responsibility for their feelings is "trigger" and "triggering." Triggering is when someone does or says something that "causes" another's negative emotions, and a trigger is a particular word or act that "causes" negative emotions. And apparently anything can be a trigger. Christina Hoff Sommers recently triggered many people simply by making a speech at Oberlin College, for example. Those who had no responsibility for their emotions were forced to create "safe rooms" where they could seek reassurance from others who had no responsibility for their emotions.

Ed Dricoll at PJ Media write further about this issue with his aptly named article,"Trigger Warning! College Kids Will Soon Discover ‘The Adult World Is Not One Big, Extra-Cushy Couch’."

Well yes, when you make the cossetted boomer generation look like rugged individualists

Ouch!

Rush - Businesses Forced to Support SSM Should Cite Fear of Offending Muslims

From Breitbart:

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh suggested that businesses who are sued for not providing services for same-sex marriage should say that they cannot do so because of fear of offending and provoking Muslims on Monday.

Brilliant ! ! ! !

Instead of businesses trying the defend themselves on the basis of the Constitution, use fear to justify their position.  The way the Drive-By Media has reacted to the attack in Garland, Texas ...... It would put them in a bind.

How Liberals a ruined College

From Kirsten Price at The Daily Beast:

For many Americans the term “speech code” sends shivers up the spine. Yet these noxious and un-American codes have become commonplace on college campuses across the United States. They are typically so broad that they could include literally anything and are subject to the interpretation of school administrators, who frequently fail to operate as honest brokers. In the hands of the illiberal left, the speech codes are weapons to silence anyone—professors, students, visiting speakers—who expresses a view that deviates from the left’s worldview or ideology.

College has now become an extension of K-12 indoctrination centers for liberal policies.

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment

From Eugene Volokh:

I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, "This isn't free speech, it's hate speech," or "When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?" But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. ...To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with "hate speech" in any conventionally used sense of the term.

This is something liberals need to understand. They love the Constitution as a living document and want to change it to reflect THEIR values. They don't understand the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority, something they will be in ceryt soon, hopefully for a very long time.

9 Attacks On Religion The Hypocritical Pamela Geller-Hating Media Love

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

In short, the media looked at the speech-clothes Pam Geller was wearing and concluded, “The bitch was begging for it.”

But let’s look at the media’s arguments against the cartoon contest, shall we:

Does CNN’s Alisyn Camerota really oppose “provocative” speech?

Does Fox News’s Martha MacCallum really oppose “insulting someone’s religion.”

Does NBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin really oppose “hate speech” against religion?

Does the LA Times really oppose “verbal attacks” against religion?

Does the San Francisco Examiner really oppose “igniting a culture war along religious lines?”

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point: almost all of the media is premising its Hate Campaign against Geller based on what they advertise as their own principled opposition to religious bigotry, offending the religious, and sensitivity towards others.

But they are hypocrites. All of them. Every single one of them.

Geller has responded to this criticism by accusing the media of enforcing Sharia Law, and she is correct.

And here are 9 pieces of incontrovertible evidence that prove Geller 100% correct.

1. The Book of Mormon
2. Dogma (1999)
3. Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)
4. Piss Christ
5. Monty Python’s Meaning of Life (1983)
6. Hunky Jesus & Foxy Mary
7. The Da Vinci Code franchise
8. The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
9. Priest (1994)

Boom, headshot!

Gabby Giffords Cheers Oregon House For Supporting Background Checks Her Attacker Passed

From AWR Hawkins at Breitbart's Big Government:

On Monday, Gabby Giffords cheered Oregon’s house for supporting SB 941 — a bill to require background checks for all gun sales, public or private. She did not mention that her attacker, Jared Loughner, passed a background check to acquire the gun he then used to attack her in 2011.
.....................
“Today, Oregon’s leaders did the responsible thing: they stood up to the gun lobby and stood up for a commonsense law that will make Oregonians safer.”

Giffords did not mention that Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Aaron Ybarra (Seattle Pacific University), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), and Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), all got their guns through background checks, too.
.....................
After passing background checks, these 15 people took a total of 103 innocent lives and injured many others, including Gabby Giffords. Yet Giffords is telling the people of Oregon that background checks are a way to reduce gun violence.

This only confirms that when Giffords was running for the House and showed herself as a supported of the 2nd Amendment, she was LYING!!!!! As most Liberals do.

Garland - A Liberal’s Worst Nightmare

From Cameron Gray at Ricochet: (Posted in it's entirety)

This past Sunday, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and its president, Pamela Geller, held a Muhammad art exhibit in a Garland, Texas community center. Two radical Islamists — Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi — drove up to the entrance, got out of their car, and started shooting, wounding a security guard before a Garland Police officer shot and killed them both. This is a terrible story for obvious reasons. In many ways, it’s an even worse story for liberals. Here are just a few examples of why.

The First Amendment: From efforts to stifle debates and cancel “American Sniper” on college campuses, to calling “thug” the new n-word, liberals are constantly trying to shut down and/or chill free speech. Every day, more words and ideas are offensive to them and, therefore, cannot be used. Cartoons and drawings of Muhammad are a grave insult to Muslims, so liberals feel that they should not be shown. Whereas many of us feel that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, even inflammatory speech, people like New York Times writer Rukmini Callimachi, take a very different view:

Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a "Muhammad drawing contest"?

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) May 4, 2015

After “Free speech aside,” the rest of her tweet is meaningless.

The Second Amendment: The vast majority of liberals do not like guns and would prefer more stringent gun control. Many would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms altogether. In “Guns: The Difference Between Garland And Paris,” Breitbart News writer AWR Hawkins wrote:

There was no prolonged, two-day pursuit of attackers, nor were there unarmed police officers dodging bullets on their bicycles. But there were plenty of guns in the hands of good guys who were keeping watch over the cartoon contest and who were charged with stopping any bad guys with guns who might show up.

In December 2012, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne Lapierre famously said “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” (Full disclosure: I work for NRA News). He was excoriated by the Left at the time, and many times since. Events like Garland continue to prove him correct.

School Security: Wayne LaPierre delivered that statement at a press conference after the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. He added:

“When it comes to our most beloved and vulnerable members of the American family – our children – we as a society leave them utterly defenseless,” LaPierre said, adding that [placing armed security at schools] will immediately make America’s schools safer.

Liberals tend to not want any armed presence on school grounds, be it by security or teachers. The Muhammad art exhibit was held on Garland school district property, and local police ended what could have been a mass slaughter of innocents. While the Garland, Texas officer was unarmed, in Argyle, Texas, they are armed:



If I had children, I would want them protected by people with guns on school grounds. This includes college campuses as well, something liberals are also currently fighting in states nationwide.

ISIS: President Obama infamously called them “The JV team.” A February “DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat,” which led to this from CNN:



Strangely, our federal government, as well as many liberals, have gone to great lengths to dissuade those (like me) who think ISIS is a real threat to our country. I contend that they are already here, and our open border does nothing to stem the flow of people who are bent on our destruction. Why does the Left seem so invested in trying to have us ignore this danger?

As I write this early on Tuesday morning, stories are just now coming out that ISIS has claimed responsibility for Garland. From FOX News:

The Islamic State terror group (ISIS) Tuesday issued a claim of responsibility for Sunday’s attack on a Texas cartoon contest featuring images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

The claim was made in an audio message on the group’s Al Bayan radio station, based in the Syria city of Raqqa, which ISIS has proclaimed to be the capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate. It is the first time ISIS has taken credit for an attack on U.S. soil, though it was not immediately clear whether the group’s claim was an opportunistic co-opting of a so-called “lone wolf” attack as its own.

The message described the shooting suspects as “two soldiers of the caliphate” and added “We tell America that what is coming is more bitter and harder and you will see from the soldiers of the Caliphate what harms you.”

Texas: Let’s be honest, liberals hate Texas (not you, Austin). It represents so many things they despise: Freedom, guns, oil, the defeat of Wendy Davis, and so on. To that point, and as the perfect way to end this article, the (as usual) wise words of Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett:

🇺🇸 I favor free speech, but ... 🇺🇸 I favor property rights, but ... 🇺🇸 I favor freedom of religion, but ... We had a good run, America!

— Justice Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) May 5, 2015

Well done !

Prosecutors protect themselves first

From Glenn Harlan Reynolds:

It's a big enough challenge when everybody plays things straight. But what about when you've got a prosecutor willing to lie? Then things are worse. And given that prosecutors often face no consequences for misconduct, it's not surprising that some are willing to lie about it.

That's what happened in the California case of The People v. Efrain Velasco-Palacios. In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."
What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it "ended abruptly." Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.

When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn't "outrageous," then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.

Harris's actions on this case alone should disqualify her from becoming the next Senator from California.

Meanwhile, Murray suffered no actual punishment for his wrongdoing. As a report in the New York Observer notes: "For reasons beyond comprehension, he still works for the District Attorney Lisa Green in Kern County, Calif." Murray does face the possibility of discipline from the California bar, but even disbarment would be a light punishment for knowingly producing a false document in a criminal proceeding.
.......................
 
Worse yet, prosecutors are also immune from civil suit, under a Supreme Court-created doctrine called "absolute immunity" that is one of the greatest, though least discussed, examples of judicial activism in history. So prosecutors won't punish prosecutors, and victims of prosecutors' wrongdoing can't even sue them for damages. 
.......................

In truth, I'm not terribly optimistic that we'll see any of these changes. Prosecutors are politically powerful, and neither judges nor legislators are interested in crossing swords with them in a big way. But until prosecutors are held accountable in the same way that the rest of us are, there will be no assurance that they're not breaking the law themselves. And that's no way to run a "justice" system.

What happened to Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax Case, is exceedingly rare.  One doesn't have look very far to find out about another case of prosecutorial abuse, John Chisolm in Wisconsin, Mike Feuer in Los Angeles, and Marilyn Mosby in Baltimore.

Lawsuit spells out 'nightmare' for California man accused without evidence

From Ashe Schow of The Washington Examiner:

"Nightmare." That's how Scott Hounsell, the former executive director of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, describes the ordeal he went through two years ago, and is still trying to recover from today.

"It was the most — the scariest, most devastating nightmare you could ever imagine ever going through ever," Hounsell added. "Because everything that you have and hold dear — my family, my career, everything — was threatened that it would be taken away from me."
......................

The arrest

On July 1, 2013, a Democratic former assemblyman named Mike Feuer became L.A. City Attorney. When the Los Angeles County District Attorney declined to press charges against Hounsell on July 30, Feuer seized the case. Officer Good contacted Hounsell again to find out his attorney's information. Members of the press began calling Hounsell, his family and his employer to discuss charges Hounsell wasn't even aware of yet.

The media circus that ensued — complete with news cameras camping outside his family home for days — made Hounsell believe this was in part motivated by political harassment. "The City originally wanted to take me into custody at my house, where the press was heading," he said. "When I showed up downtown to turn myself in, it sent everyone for a scramble, and they couldn't get cameras there in time."
......................
When the city attorney finally dropped the charges May 14 — nine months after Hounsell's arrest — the reason cited was "no victim" and "no forensics." The alleged victim had refused to testify, and there was still no evidence of any Facebook contact between Hounsell and Jane Doe.

The lawsuit

By then, Hounsell had obviously been forced to resign from the Republican Party of Los Angeles County. He had to take up odd jobs to support his family. His name was mud.

On Nov. 19, 2014, he sued the L.A. city attorney for defamation, false arrest, malicious prosecution and violation of his 14th Amendment rights. He sought $3.6 million for reputation management (including $24,879 per month for two years to clean up his Google search results), lost wages, career damage and $500,000 for emotional distress.

On April 9, 2015, Judge Margaret Morrow dismissed his claim based on prosecutors' arguments that they enjoy absolute immunity, but provided Hounsell with a leave to amend so that he can challenge whether immunity applies in this case.

"[T]he LACA enjoys absolute immunity for deciding to file charges against Hounsell, whether or not it adequately investigated the facts of the case, adequately determined the statutes under which it should file charges, or adequately reviewed and/or disclosed allegedly exculpatory evidence," Morrow wrote in her dismissal.

If that's the case, Hounsell told the Examiner, then "The most powerful job in this country then is prosecutor, because the Constitution doesn't apply to you."
......................
Hounsell and his attorney say that if the judge rules in the city's favor, it "will set a dangerous federal precedent that prosecutors can use their office for reasons to exact revenge and punishment upon political enemies." The city attorney, after all, knew for months that there were no Facebook messages, yet dragged out the case anyway.

This is another example of Liberals using "lawfare" against political enemies, similar to the Joe Dow investigations in Wisconsin.

Time to remove the "absolute immunity" prosecutors have and change it to "qualified immunity." If there is no thread of consequences,

Rachel Maddow - Oregonians Should Have to Pass Background Check Aurora Theater Gunman Passed

From AWR Hawkins at Breitbart's Big Journalism:

On May 4, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow made clear how hopeful she is that Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D) will sign Senate Bill 941 into law. SB 941 will make “almost all” Oregonians pass the same background check the Aurora Theater gunman passed to get his weapon.
.......................

Maddow said, “Brown has … [a] chance to sign major legislature into law that would make background checks mandatory for almost all private transfers of guns between unrelated owners.” A first violation of the background law would be a misdemeanor, but “a second violation would be a felony with a maximum penalty of a quarter million dollars and ten years in prison.”
........................

Maddow did not mention James Holmes, nor did she mention Jared Loughner–the man who attacked Gabby Giffords with a gun he got via a background check.

She also failed to mention that Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Aaron Ybarra (Seattle Pacific University), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), and Naveed Haq (Seattle) all passed background checks for their guns as well.

Why doesn't Mad-Cow (and all those other gun control proponents) even mention all of the mad shooters who DID past the background check?

CNN - Good Guys With Guns Ended Garland Attack In 15 Seconds

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

On May 3 Breitbart News reported that two gunmen approached the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, and began firing. Their attack was cut down by good guys with guns who were there to stop bad guys.

On May 4, CNN provided a timeframe for how long it took to end the attack–the whole thing lasted “15 seconds.”

That’s it–the attackers were dead 15 seconds after being engaged by heavily armed Garland PD.

Think about it–The two men approached the Culwell Center just as the “Mohammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” was scheduled to conclude and they began firing. Security guard Bruce Joiner was shot in the ankle with one of the initial bursts of gunfire–“he was later treated at a hospital and released.” Then, according to CNN, “Garland police, who were helping with security, fired back, killing both gunmen. The exchange lasted about 15 seconds.”

As has been stated for years, Wayne LaPierre, of the NRA,  has been saying the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

NYT Reporter - ‘Free Speech Aside,’ Why Would Anyone Hold a Conference Critical of Islam?

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

A New York Times reporter wants to know why on earth private citizens would organize a conference dedicated to a robust, free discussion of a critical issue facing the country.

By some sad alchemy, free speech, protected by the First Amendment, transforms into “hate speech” once a reporter decides it’s Double-Plus-Ungood.
.............................

As a Christian, Callimachi finds “Piss Christ” deeply offensive. Strangely, she restrained herself from trying to kill the so-called artist. Since all cultures are equal, this is a great mystery.

Since “Piss Christ” is a crucifix submerged in urine, it’s not as horrible as a cartoon, you see. “Mocking Christians is one thing,” as Callimachi says. You cross a line when you dare criticize Islam. (Viciously attacking Catholics is supported by the New York Times.)

So based in this reporters logic, if a religion, say Scientology, found The New York Times objectionable, it should cease publishing, out of respect for that religion, correct?

But wait, the 1st Amendment says the NYT can publish.

Another liberal reporter shows how hypocritical, biased, and intellectuall dishonest they are, again, as usual.

Guns - The Difference Between Garland And Paris

From AWR Hawkins at Breitbart's Big Government:

When armed terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo headquarters over Muhammad cartoons on January 7, unarmed police officers were forced to flee for their lives. When armed men attacked people gathered in Garland, Texas, on May 3 over Prophet Muhammad cartoons, armed police cut them down — and the Daily Mail reported that the body of one was left lying the street while police searched for explosives.

The difference between Garland and Paris can be summed up in one word: guns.

On January 7, CBS News relayed reports from Britain’s Telegraph newspaper that the first two officers to arrive “were apparently unarmed” and “fled after seeing gunmen armed with automatic weapons and possibly a grenade launcher.” The UK’s Independent reported that “three policemen arrived on bikes but had to leave because [the attackers] were armed.”

BBC reported the Paris gunmen killed 12 in their attack on Charlie Hebdo headquarters; that number includes 8 Charlie Hebdo “eight journalists, two police officers, a caretaker and a visitor.”

Moreover, the terrorists were able to continue their attack at different points in and around the city for the next 48 hours.

On January 19, Breitbart News reported that French police were demanding more guns as well as guns that were more powerful.  The Charlie Hebdo attack was very lopsided — in favor of the terrorists — because of policing and arms policies, and had revealed a very important point: Gun control was not working.

Of Course Democrats Deserve The Blame For What’s Happening In Baltimore

From the Federalist:

And if Democrats claim they are uniquely empathetic towards the poor and weak, that welfare programs can never be reformed only expanded, that perpetually pumping “investments” into cities is the only way to alleviate the hardship faced by citizens, it’s more than fair to gauge the effectiveness – not to mention the competence – of those allocating and overseeing those policies. Because Republicans may be horrible, but they aren’t running Baltimore.

But, watch, it will still be the fault of the white republicans for Baltimore's failure.

Bill Maher Owns Guns For Protection, But Others Have a “Sickness”

From Range365.com:

Bill Maher owns a gun, but told Playboy that people who “love guns” suffer from a sickness.

Another in a long line of gun owning, pro gun control, liberal hypocrites. (Jane Fonda, Carl Rowan, Rosie O'Donnell)

Riot-Plagued Baltimore Is a Catastrophe Entirely of the Democratic Party’s Own Making

From Kevin D. Williamson at National Review:

Yes, Baltimore seems to have some police problems. But let us be clear about whose fecklessness and dishonesty we are talking about here: No Republican, and certainly no conservative, has left so much as a thumbprint on the public institutions of Baltimore in a generation. Baltimore’s police department is, like Detroit’s economy and Atlanta’s schools, the product of the progressive wing of the Democratic party enabled in no small part by black identity politics. This is entirely a left-wing project, and a Democratic-party project. (Editor's emphasis)

The problems in Baltimore mirror the problem in many big city urban areas, they have been run exclusively by liberals for the last 50 years or so. Detroit, Atlanta, Cleveland, Philadelphia, et al. All of these cities have been run by democrats, mostly black democrats during the entire decent into urban blight. However, Republicans are some how to blame for the problems in these cities, even though they have no influence on policy.

John Chisholm Double Downs on Thuggery

From Ann Althouse:

"Is Milwaukee County DA interested in pursuing criminal libel prosecutions of his political critics?" Asks Eugene Volokh, noting that John Chisholm made a bit of a veiled threat toward Governor Scott Walker: "As to defamatory remarks, I strongly suspect the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin’s, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others." That came in response to Walker's saying that the John Doe investigation "was really about people trying to intimidate people," "They were looking for just about anything," and "it was largely a political witch hunt."

Time to impeach this clown, or file a bar complaint.

Wisconsin’s Shame - ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’

From David French of National Review:

Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?

This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform.

Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer. The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights.

The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers.

This is the new strategy of the left, lawfare. Long practiced by Scientology and terrorists, it's now part of the arsenal of liberals, who can't win at the ballot box.

Tweet of the Week

Guy who helped win war in Iraq to be prosecuted by man who lost it. #Petraeus

— Razor (@hale_razor) January 10, 2015

How to Fight the Campus Speech Police: Get a Good Lawyer

From Instapundit:

That’s what student Daniel Mael had to do after Brandeis charged him with ‘harassment’

Then, three months ago, almost a year since the original incident, Mr. Adams re-entered Mr. Mael’s life. Again he was summoned to the dean’s office without knowing the Oct. 8 meeting’s purpose. “I’m told that there are charges against me under bullying, harassment and religious discrimination,” Mr. Mael recalls. “And I’m told that I have to give a response—guilty or not guilty—ideally within 48 hours.” A guilty determination could have led to his suspension or expulsion from school. Since this was around the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Mr. Mael was given about a week to reply.

Crucially, Mr. Mael wasn’t allowed to keep a copy of the complaint. Dean Adams told him that this was routine “procedure,” Mr. Mael says. “How am I supposed to tell my parents that I’m being brought to court and by the way I don’t know what the charges are?” Mr. Mael recalls thinking. “This is antithetical to the values of our Constitution.”

In a panic after the meeting with Dean Adams, Mr. Mael consulted his friend Noah Pollak, of the Washington-based Emergency Committee for Israel, which retained the Covington & Burling law firm to act on his behalf. Yet when Mr. Mael’s lawyer initially corresponded with university counsel, he was informed that “parties involved in the conduct process are not permitted to engage legal counsel to act or speak on their behalf.”

Covington & Burling paid no heed. With the deadline approaching and still without a copy of the complaint, Mr. Mael opted to plead not guilty and request a full hearing before a jury of his fellow students.

Andrew Flagel, Brandeis’s senior vice president for students and enrollment, wouldn’t discuss the Mael case, citing federal privacy regulations, but said there is no university policy to advise students to curtail their speech online while a disciplinary case is pending. Mr. Flagel added that it is university practice not to provide the accused with a copy of a complaint but added that this is “one of the things we’ve been evolving.” Regarding the right to counsel, Mr. Flagel said: “This is not a legal proceeding, so your assumption that there is a right is not in evidence.”

By the end of October, Mr. Mael was finally provided a copy of the charges he would face. And Covington & Burling submitted to Brandies two lengthy legal memoranda blasting violations of Mr. Mael’s rights. One letter concluded: “We reserve all rights on behalf of Mr. Mael, including the right to assert claims for the reputational and other harms caused by the baseless allegations at the heart of this proceeding.” In other words: See you in court.

On Oct. 27 Dean Adams informed Mr. Mael via email that the “allegations against you will not be adjudicated through our Student Conduct Board. The accuser has withdrawn from the option to do so and therefore this case should be considered closed and without determination of fault or sanction. . . . Thank you for your cooperation.”

That’s good. But until you cost people jobs and reputations — that is, do the kind of damage to them that they’re perfectly happy meting out to others — you won’t bring this to a stop. You won’t see justice in this setting without a healthy measure of fear.

I thought college was supposed to be a place to challenge conventional thinking? I guess the challenge shall not apply to conventional LIBERAL thinking.

2014 in review -- The men strike back

From the "Community of the Wrongly Accused",

2014 was a watershed year -- it was the year it became apparent to a lot of folks with no personal stake in the issue that gender extremists have gone too far pushing their agendas on sexual assault. There is finally a mainstream backlash against rape culture hysteria. The rape culturalists are still winning, but for the first time, they have prominent opposition. ..............

The Backlash

The Rolling Stone debacle might have been a tipping point, because suddenly, the mainstream media discovered that an important college "rape" story was filled with holes -- this, combined with other blows to the rape culture meme, led more and more people to realize that the Rolling Stone debacle is symptomatic of a culture that has allowed gender extremists to dominate the public discourse on sexual assault.

Time to shame the Radical Feminists out of the mainstream.

The Unbearable Lightness of Feminism

Modern Feminism has evolved to the point that it has become a caricature of itself.

Read "The Unbearable Lightness of Feminism" By Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

A feminist looks like a professional activist wearing a $75 t-shirt made by slave labor while proclaiming that she is a feminist. It isn’t fighting for the rights of women that makes her a feminist. It’s the pricey fashion statement of someone who toots their own horn while exploiting less fortunate women.

The professional feminist is not there to help women, but to promote the agenda of the institutional left. She will turn campus rape into a political cause while criticizing every rape prevention measure, from a rape drug detecting nail polish to self-defense for women, for not dealing with rape culture. Stopping rape doesn’t interest her. Exploiting the abuse of women to fight a culture war does.

Her concerns are limited to causes affecting upper class young women and the overall political organizational needs of the left. That’s why she will veer erratically from inflating college rape statistics to arguing for illegal alien amnesty despite the high number of rapes committed by migrants.

But the women being raped generally won’t be found on an Ivy League campus.

It is no longer about equal pay for equal work. It's about advancing progressive ideas at the expense of men, mostly issues related to abortion, lesbian rights, and neutering men.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz -- "Harvard's policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense."

From the "Community of the Wrongly Accused",

It's a great quote, and it appears in this week's Time Magazine in a story about the letter published last week in the Boston Globe signed by 28 Harvard law professors voicing strong objections to the school's one-sided, feminist-inspired sexual misconduct policies.

But when Dershowitz continued and said that people accused of rape should have a full and fair opportunity to defend themselves, Time pooh-poohed it: "It's a noble idea, but . . . ."

The "but" included Time's observation that "a student disciplinary hearing is a civil matter, not a criminal one." This a frequent refrain from people who are willing to tolerate the academy's hostility to due process as the price of battling the sexual assault "epidemic." It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and Time ought to know better.

What Time and others who chant that line don't seem to understand is that in civil cases, the defendant is afforded all manner of evidentiary protections that colleges routinely deny young men accused of sex offenses.

I can't wait for a Harvard law student to sue his own school for violating his civil rights under Title IX.

Obama Crisis Management as told by Bobby Jindal

Stage 1 of Obama Crisis Management: Don’t worry, I got this.

— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) October 18, 2014

Stage 2 of Obama Crisis Management: I'm so mad.

— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) October 18, 2014

Stage 3 of Obama Crisis Management: More money will fix it.

— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) October 18, 2014

Stage 4 of Obama Crisis Management: Republicans are obstructing.

— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) October 18, 2014

BOOM!!!

After 30 Years Of Lies, NY Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”

From BearingArms.com

In a stunning op-ed released Friday, the NY Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.

Op-ed writer Lois Beckett also admitted that once the term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats had used to con an entire nation, nothing happened.

So, now that the newspaper of record has finally admitted, it lied and does the bidding of the Democrat party, will everyone just admit, the Media has a bias and is the PR department for the Democrat Party?

11 Ways You Know You Live In A Country Run By Idiots

From the Zero Hedge Blog:

3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

Read the whole thing

The Week in Pictures - Strategery Edition

From the guys are Powerline Blog:

Doing the ice bucket challenge before it was cool.

H.P. Lovecraft Meets Thomas Kinkaide

 

And finally, by popular request. . .

The Brutal Truth -- Feminists Are Here For Our Amusement.

From Brian Cates via Instapundit.

Is Chivalry Too Risky?

From Instapundit:

Chivalry was a system, in which the male behavior the writer favors was embedded. Demolishing the system and expecting the male behavior to remain is like knocking down the walls and expecting the roof to stay up.

Jason Riley -- "Let's not pretend" our morgues are full of black men because of cops

From Meet the Press, Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal make the most compelling argument about the racial strife in Missouri,

"Let's not pretend that our morgues and cemeteries are full of young black men because cops are shooting them.  The reality is that, it's because other black people are shooting them and we need to talk about black criminality."

Is it time to view the Obama administration as a criminal enterprise?

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner via Instapundit:

See a tree with 20 apples hanging on it and reasonable people conclude it's an apple tree. So is it a criminal conspiracy when 20 government employees illegally destroy important official emails?

If that seems like an extreme question, consider the steadily accumulating evidence about the Obama administration's modus operandi with potentially incriminating documents subpoenaed by Congress: A scandal erupts. Congressional hearings are held. Documents are requested and withheld. Subpoenas are issued. Contempt charges threatened. A few documents dribble out.

Then come the admissions that, oh by the way, emails required by multiple federal laws to be preserved have either been destroyed or "lost."

And the Drive-By-Media's response ..... crickets.

All one has to do is ask a simple question, "If George W. Bush was President, would these scandals be covered?"

Man teach obnoxious parent and child a lesson in manners

I heard about this story on the radio Thursday night on the commute home and have to admit it was a brilliant way to send a message to the mom. Unfortunately, she probably won't get it. Below is a copy of the original post from Reddit:

So a while ago I had decided to treat myself and go to Burger King. I hadn't had the greatest of days and I had a headache coming on. It was a very long line and I was at the end of it waiting patiently. When behind me comes this woman yapping on her cellphone with a little monster of a child. This kid was out of control, screaming, punching his mother throwing around a gameboy whenever something didn't go right in the game. The mother didn't seem to pay any attention to him and his continued yelling of 'I want a Fucking PIE'. After about 5 minutes of the line with these people behind me, I had gone from a headache to a full on migraine, but nothing was going to stop me from getting those burgers. I calmly turn and ask her nicely if she can please calm or quiet her child down. Immediately she gets up in my face telling me I can't tell her nothing about raising her child and to mind my own business. I nod and turn around, shes still yelling at the back of my head when the child cries out again how he wants a pie, the mother consoles him, calling him sweety and ensuring they'll get pies for lunch because she loves him so much. Things immediately go back to the they were and I wait another 5 minutes before getting to the front of the line. It turns out it was so slow because they had 1 trainee on cash during the lunch hour rush. All I can think of is how the people behind me ruined my splurge and gave me this headache. I then decide to ruin their day. I order every pie they have left in addition to my burgers. Turned out to be 23 pies in total, I take my order and walk towards the exit. Moments later I hear the woman yelling, what do you mean you don't have any pies left, who bought them all? I turn around and see the cashier pointing me out with the woman shooting me a death glare. I stand there and pull out a pie and slowly start eating eat as I stare back at her. She starts running towards me but can't get to me because of other lineups in the food court. I turn and slowly walk away.

I will try to remember this method in the future when dealing with obnoxious parents.