Banner ad

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Cruising the Web

Hillary has to worry about more than future coin flips. Philip Klein detects some worrisome signs for Hillary Clinton. She has to worry about younger voters. But the real problem for her is that people just don't trust her.
Among those who said that "honest and trustworthy" was the candidate quality that mattered to them most, Sanders won 83 percent to 10 percent. As Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state continues to produce new revelations, the fact that she's viewed this way among a Democratic electorate is not a good sign.

James Taranto points out that Hillary's supporters are definitely more willing to paint her squeaker of a win in Iowa based on winning coin tosses as a victory than they were to characterize George W. Bush's squeaker of a win in Florida in 2000.
Among known tosses, then, Mrs. Clinton has a net gain of five delegate equivalents, more than double her lead of 1.8. Maybe there are unreported Sanders tosses that even things out, but at any rate the designation of one or the other candidate as the “winner” comes down to pure randomness.

Which won’t stop Mrs. Clinton’s supporters from insisting their woman won. Last night Peggy Noonan tweeted: “I’m sorry but a 50-50 race on Democratic side is not, if she wins, a Hillary win. This is a draw. The fight continues. No HRC validation.” Which prompted this response from Democratic strategist Donna Brazile: “Let’s not set new rules in the middle of the game. A win is a win. They will fight this out next week and beyond.”

Donna Brazile was not saying “a win is a win” in Florida in 2000, when George W. Bush really did have more votes than her man.

Jonathan Last finds a silver lining for Hillary despite her awful showing Monday night.
It's the ugliest, least decisive win imaginable. Clinton seems—at least as of this writing—to have beaten Bernie Sanders by a very, very small margin, essentially by leaning into the tape. This is bad news for all sorts of reasons: She shouldn't be struggling just to hit 50 percent; she and Sanders take away basically the same number of delegates; and when you looked at their victory rallies, Clinton was shrill and robotic—it was a terribly delivered speech—while Sanders was his usual fiery self. And all the energy was with Sanders people.

But on the other hand, it was (probably!) a win. His campaign is such a longshot that to even have a chance to win the nomination, he needs to run the table in winnable states. And not only did she win, but she won with the sort of high turnout that was supposed to guarantee a Sanders victory. Unless something (like an indictment) unsettles the race, you can now see a path forward where Clinton has ups-and-down—she won't run the table—but in the end should be positioned to secure the nomination.
As William McGurn points out, Hillary will face a lot of problems being the advocate of continuing Obama's legacy as the middle class feels the bite of the economy.
In a nation whose electorate is growing more diverse, the thinking goes, the White House is increasingly moving out of Republican reach.

It doesn’t look that way to Ed Goeas, who runs the Republican strategy firm the Tarrance Group and was advising Scott Walker’s presidential campaign until the Wisconsin governor withdrew from the race. Recently Mr. Goeas carried out a survey for the Ripon Society zeroing in on voters who describe themselves as middle class, which works out to 70% of the electorate. The survey confirmed they are unhappy—but it finds they are specifically unhappy with President Obama and a federal government that does not provide them value for their tax dollars.

Mr. Goeas puts it this way: “The middle class believes the rich get the benefits, the poor get the programs and they get stuck with the bill.”

Which points to Mrs. Clinton’s dilemma.

Only 26% of middle-class Americans, according to this survey, believe their children will enjoy a better quality of life than they do, and this has soured them on the direction President Obama has taken the country. At the same time, Mr. Obama remains highly popular with the Democratic coalition that elected him. Mrs. Clinton’s pickle is that the agenda that works well with the Obama coalition turns off the middle class.

Shop Amazon - Top Valentine's Day Gifts

Kindle Deals up to 80% off

Shop Amazon - Best Selling Products - Updated Every Hour

Ian Tuttle chortles at how far Hillary has come from what was thought just last year would be her experience this year as she would go from victory to victory to an ultimate coronation at the Democratic convention.
For the last three years, the entire work of the Democratic party has been to ensure the smooth, graceful ascension of Hillary Clinton to the presidency. It’s “her turn.” Toward this end, the party machine has trudged, unenthusiastically but inexorably, grinding down every obstacle in its path by force of sheer inertia. Those obstacles included viable primary challengers: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo.

Yet, over that same period, the Democratic coalition has fractured and the center of gravity has moved decidedly leftward, thanks largely to a younger generation of liberals animated by the impulses of the Occupy movement rather than the Vietnam protest movement. The Clinton-style rapprochement with free markets is noxious to young Democrats. They want to skin some fat cats. Bernie Sanders might not be the most compelling candidate, but he’s been hating the rich since Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.


Michael Barone notes
that a lot of those new caucusgoers who came out Monday in Iowa were actually evangelicals and that is what helped Cruz.
It was widely speculated that Donald Trump would bring new people into the caucuses, and he apparently did. The entrance poll showed he carried first-time caucusgoers. But it was also widely speculated that bringing new people in would reduce the percentage of evangelical Protestants among caucusgoers. In 2012 that percentage was 57 percent, the highest in any Republican primary or caucus outside the South that year. But this speculation was wrong. Evangelical Protestants clocked in at 64 percent of turnout in the entrance poll. This tends to substantiate the claims of Ted Cruz and his campaign that he could increase turnout among conservatives, particularly religious conservatives.
That turnout among evangelicals is one of the reasons that the pollsters got the result wrong.
The pre-election polls greatly underestimated the evangelical vote. Only 47 percent of voters were self-identified evangelicals in the final Des Moines Register poll. The final Monmouth University poll had evangelicals at 55 percent of the electorate. The Quinnipiac survey out Monday morning was comprised of 39 percent white evangelicals (a minor distinction, given the racial homogeny of the Iowa GOP caucus universe).

We'll see how the Cruz team can do in a state like New Hampshire that doesn't have as many evangelicals.

The Washington Post has an interesting tick-tock of Trump's campaign in Iowa and why Cruz defeated him.

Ted Cruz had another victory this week when the Illinois Board of Education confirmed his citizenship to allow him to appear on their primary ballot.
The GOP senator has had his presidential bid challenged in recent months by Iowa GOP runner-up Donald Trump, who claimed Cruz's Canadian birthplace disqualifies him from being president. Two Illinois objectors, Lawrence Joyce and Williams Graham, also agreed that Cruz's citizenship did not meet guidelines in the Article II of the Constitution. But the board of elections disagreed and cleared Cruz's name for the March 15 primary.

"The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth," the board said, explaining Cruz met the criteria because he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth."

....A ballot commission in New Hampshire also ruled in favor of Cruz in January, but the language in Monday's decision by the Illinois board took a stronger tone than the previous ruling, warning other skeptics, "Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary."
But that won't stop Trump and his supporters from jeering at Cruz's birth in Canada.

Byron York highlights how Iowans just didn't like that Trump skipped the debate and some of the other things he did.
In the days leading up to the voting , when I talked to voters on the fence between candidates — people who could possibly be persuaded to support Trump — one thing became clear: everybody watched the debate. It was the only debate held in Iowa, and it took place in the final days of the campaign, when voters who had been reluctant to pay attention months earlier had finally become interested and involved. They all tuned in. And Trump wasn't there.

"That was the one thing that I thought was a clear mistake," Republican blogger Craig Robinson, a former political director of the state GOP, said in a phone conversation Monday afternoon. With that one decision, Trump undermined a lot of the work he had done in the previous months.

The debate decision showed that Trump's political instincts could be wrong. But the caucus loss could point to even more serious problems ahead for Trump.

A lot of people like Trump and agree with what he has to say. They cheer him on. But as the time to vote approaches, they apply a seriousness test, a test of whether they would trust him in a position of grave responsibility. The difference between Trump's high pre-caucus polls and his underwhelming support in the actual caucus could indicate that voters who had supported him for months beforehand began to develop doubts as the time neared to actually cast a ballot. Would it be safe and smart to vote for this guy?

Just as fundamentally, Trump's Iowa loss could cast doubt on his unconventional tactics in other states. Trump's strategy is based on a big bet: that because voters are tired of conventional politicians, then they will also be resistant to conventional political appeals. Iowa proved just the opposite. Ted Cruz won a smashing victory by doing things the old-fashioned way, visiting all of Iowa's 99 counties, pressing the flesh in gatherings of 100, 150 people, and tailoring his pitch to appeal to concerned evangelicals. That — plus a highly sophisticated data operation — won the day for Cruz. Trump tried something different, and it didn't work.

Trump also said a few things that might have crossed a line with Iowans. One was the "how stupid are the people of Iowa" line from a few months ago that was featured in a recent Cruz attack ad. The other was the late-in-the-campaign statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters. At a Rubio rally in Sioux City a few days before the caucuses, I met a man named Gary Swanson who told me he once seriously considered supporting Trump — until he heard the shooting quote.

"He makes the statement that he's so popular that he could shoot a person on Fifth Avenue without losing a vote. Well, he just lost two right here when he said that," Swanson said, pointing to a friend who had accompanied him to the Rubio event.

Erick Erickson appreciates Sarah Palin for her ham-handed endorsement of Donald Trump.
First Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump at a time she had negative 11% favorables with the GOP.

Then she missed the first event of the day following her endorsement.

Then she blamed her son being involved in a domestic incident on Barack Obama’s treatment of veterans, turning off a lot of veterans in the process by suggesting those who came back from overseas were no longer able to control themselves and were not culpable for their actions.

Then she went to a Trump rally the day of the election with tons of undecided voters and started attacking Congressman Steve King, one of the most popular politicians in Iowa.

It was really an amazing spectacle. Sarah Palin then turning on Ted Cruz pretty rapidly and attacking him as unlikable, etc. was almost as pathetic as Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum showing up at Trump’s rally.

Sarah Palin did a huge favor for both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. She should really be thanked for leading the carnival barker wing of the party to Donald Trump.
And now Trump is going back to the well for the endorsement for a former star of the tea-party who has since become a loser as he gains the backing of Scott Brown. In the endorsement sweepstakes, Rubio beat out Trump with winning Senator Tim Scott's endorsement.
'
I'm not the only one who was picturing a new Green Acres remake of a reality show for Trump's exclamation that he might come back to Iowa and buy a gun. Taranto writes,
David Burge (who calls himself “Iowahawk,” though he lives in Texas) tweeted: “Trump says he wants to buy a farm in Iowa; wife says ‘New Yorlk is vere a vant to stay.’ ”

Is a reality-show remake of “Green Acres” such a crazy idea? Trump has the Eastern European wife, and Mike Huckabee, another candidate with TV experience, could audition for the part of Mr. Haney—though if Rubio wins the nomination, Ted Cruz might be an even better fit.

New Deals Every Day for Home and Kitchen

Best Deals in Auto Parts

Sales and Deals in Beauty and Grooming

Donald Trump is back to his normal bombastic approach to policy making.
And the crowd roared when he cursed as he pledged to aggressively target Islamic State terrorists. "If we are attacked, somebody attacks us, wouldn't you rather have Trump as president if we're attacked?" he asked. "We'll beat the [expletive] out of them."
Just like Cruz saying in his approach to ISIS is to see if sand can glow in the dark and that we'll carpet bomb them to oblivion. It sure sounds like Cruz was saying he would drop nuclear weapons on ISIS, but let's just give him the benefit of the doubt that he was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. I know that these make nice lines at political rallies, but this plays into a self-deception that many Americans have that we can defeat Islamic insurgents just by using more bombs. Sure, there is a place for targeted bombing, but ISIS is smart enough to hide among captive, civilian populations. Such simplistic demagoguery is really abhorrent. If either became president, they would have to deal with the heightened expectations from Americans that we could easily destroy ISIS simply by dropping bombs on them.

Well, we knew that this was going to happen.
The uniformed leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said on Tuesday that they believe women should sign up for the draft now that the combat ban has been lifted.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley both said women should be required to sign up with the selective service in case the country ever needs to implement a draft.
IF they don't go ahead and change the policy to spread the registration requirement to women, the courts will do it for them.

This is not a good sign.
Two witnesses scheduled to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee Wednesday about the lead water crisis in Flint, Mich., will not be attending, including the emergency manager in charge of the city in 2014 when the water supply was changed.

Darnell Earley was the emergency manager in charge of Flint when the city switched from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Company to the Flint River in April 2014. Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, said Earley will not be coming to Congress Wednesday to face the committee.

"We won't hear from the governor, any of the emergency managers he appointed in Flint, or anyone else from the state who was involved in making decisions that led to this crisis," Cummings said.

THe WSJ points out that the Obama administration can't hope to engineer a "moonshot" in the fight to cure cancer is Democrats are going to support policies to retard research. But it seems that they can't stop themselves from their love of demagoguing companies that make money.
The latest offender is Maura Healey, who is threatening to sue Gilead Sciences for having all but cured Hepatitis C. The Democratic Attorney General of Massachusetts claims the prices of the drug maker’s medicines Sovaldi and Harvoni “may constitute an unfair trade practice in violation of Massachusetts law.”

Ms. Healey never cites a specific Massachusetts statute in her sternly worded Jan. 22 letter, and she later suggests that Gilead is violating consumer protection laws, so the legal risks are probably nonexistent. The intimidation tactic is more notable for its political and moral illogic.

The AG is careful to praise innovation, which she calls “incredibly important,” and she says companies that develop breakthrough treatments “should be generously rewarded.” But she adds that “especially in a case like this one where the breakthrough drug cures, a balance must be struck that allows the drug to achieve its intended purpose: the effective treatment—and achievable eradication—of a life-threatening infectious disease” (emphasis hers). Instead, “taxpayers across the country have been footing the bill for Gilead’s record profits.”

In other words, if Gilead had merely created another incremental treatment, no one would have cared: As recently as 2012, before Sovaldi, Hep C was a life sentence to take debilitating but ineffective immune-weakening drugs that didn’t prevent liver failure and premature death. But because Gilead’s medicine can cure the condition for 97% of patients, Ms. Healey says it deserves political harassment.
After last year's hack of the Office of Personnel Management, it would be nice if we could have more confidence in the government protecting personal records, but alas, no.
The education department doesn’t hold nuclear launch codes. But its vast data trove on student-loan borrowers and their parents—and the nearly $100 billion it disburses in new loans every year—are reason enough to want the bureaucrats to prevent digital intrusions. Mr. Chaffetz says the bureaucracy now holds, among other things, 139 million Social Security numbers in its digital files.

The stakes go well beyond personal privacy. Federal student loans outstanding exceed $1 trillion, and Team Obama is trying to forgive those debts. It would add injury to injury if cyber-fraudsters were able to pile on for a taxpayer plundering. A Tuesday oversight hearing will explore the department’s failure to protect its information from cyber-attack, as well as the conduct of its chief information officer.

Department of Education Inspector General Kathleen Tighe reported in November that her team has been “finding the same deficiencies over and over again” regarding information security. Since 2009 independent auditors “have found persistent IT control deficiencies in key financial systems,” she said.

The 2015 internal audit of information security revealed more problems, including an “inability to detect unauthorized devices connecting to the network.” The IG also flagged “key weaknesses” in “internal intrusion detection and prevention of system penetrations.” Specifically, her team was “able to gain full access to the Department’s network and our access went undetected” by both the contractor overseeing the system and the department’s information office.

Deals in Jewelry

Featured Deals in Sports and Fitness

Today’s Deals at Amazon

The news keeps getting worse and worse for Jeb Bush. Guy Benson writes.
The outcome was a catastrophe for Jeb World. The Bush campaign and its allies spent roughly $15 million in Iowa alone, significantly more than any other candidate's campaign and supporters, in either party. Those millions were primarily directed toward boosting the former Florida governor and attacking Marco Rubio. In the end, Jeb finished with a paltry three percent of the vote in Iowa, and Rubio surged in a major way. A comprehensive failure. And then there's this. Oof:

Buzzfeed reports that donors are really shifting from Bush to Rubio.
Approximately 119 previous Jeb Bush donors gave to Marco Rubio for the first time in December.
That’s part of an accelerating trend over the last few months as Bush’s candidacy slowly tanked during the fall, according to a BuzzFeed News data analysis of the most recent campaign finance reports.

Best-selling Vitamins

Coupons for Vitamins and Dietary Supplements

70% Off Clothing, Jewelry, Shoes, Watches, and More

It sounds like Rush Limbaugh is moving away from how he's supported Trump for months. He even expressed his support for Marco Rubio.
Remember that Limbaugh lives in Florida and has had a front seat to observe Rubio over the years. He went on to say,
I'm gonna tell you something, folks. I'm a lone wolf on this, but I know everybody is assuming that Marco Rubio is the chosen establishment candidate and they're doing so on the basis that Rubio has experienced the Gang of Eight and amnesty and so forth, but Marco Rubio I really like. I like Ted Cruz. There are any number of people in this campaign, two or three people, if they win, I'd be happy.

But it doesn't matter because the establishment does have their candidate, and it looks like it is going to be Rubio. And, as such, Rubio is gonna end up becoming an enemy of several Republican -- or many perhaps potential Republican -- voters. I just remember the days that Marco Rubio was in the state of Florida, local politics, state politics, and then going national. He was considered, perhaps, one of the greatest potential heirs to Ronald Reagan, and now he's being derided as a sellout member of the establishment.

I thought his speech last night... He was the first to get out there. He hustled to get out there. As such, it made him look like the winner. He had energy. I thought it was a great speech that Rubio gave last night. It was energetic. I'm not choosing sides on anything here, folks. Nothing's changed in that regard. Simple observations I share with you as the program unfolds. I just find it stunning
Wow. Could the Rubio ask for anything better than to have Rush Limbaugh say the Floridian is a "legitimate, full-throated conservative"? And then he criticized Trump for not being a conservative and that's why Iowans didn't think that Trump "shares their values."
In a Republican primary, you do not win if you’re going to sound like a liberal Democrat criticizing Ted Cruz. And it wasn’t just health care. How many of you remember (I pointed this out when it happened) Mr. Trump pointing out that you can’t do anything if you can’t make deals, can’t cooperate? Part of his criticism of Ted Cruz is he’s hated; nobody likes him. Trump said, “I can do deals with Harry Reid and Pelosi. I know these people. I like these people. Schumer? I can do deals.” No, no, no, no! We don’t want to do any more deals with these people. We want to beat those people. There are many things that harm Mr. Trump, but not showing up at the debate is not one of them.
It cracks me up that Limbaugh seems to just be noticing that Trump is not a conservative.

Health and Personal Care Coupons

Shop Amazon Fashion - Men's Running Shoes

Shop Amazon Gift Cards. Any Occasion. No Expiration.

Donald Trump demonstrated
once again that he doesn't have the knowledge to be commander in chief.
In Donald Trump’s last speech on the eve of the Iowa Caucus, he talked about winning, Sarah Palin, China and 2,300 up-armored Humvees stolen by the Islamic State when the group overran the Iraqi city of Mosul in 2014.

“I talk about it all the time: 2,300 brand new up-armored Humvees, I talk about it all the time…the best in the world,” Trump said. “Armor plated, top, bottom, all over, if a bomb goes off our wounded warriors–instead of losing their legs, their arms, worse, they’re okay. They go for a little ride upward and they come down.”
Anyone who follows the news at all or cares about veterans as Trump pretends to would know that this is terribly wrong.
There are a number of things wrong with Trump’s statement. It’s true that sometimes when vehicles hit buried explosives that fail to detonate or partially explode, there’s little more than a bump and a lot of smoke. But regardless of how well armored your vehicle is, IED detonations that don’t kill or mutilate the vehicles’ occupants can blow eardrums, cause traumatic brain injures or eject people.

Up-armored Humvees are also some of the poorer vehicles for combating buried explosives. In 2007 they were largely replaced by MRAPs or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles because the Humvees were being destroyed en-mass on the roads of Iraq. Humvees, like the Willys Jeeps of old were meant to be general purpose vehicles–trucks that could ferry troops to and fro on the battlefield with little protection. When the insurgency in Iraq spread the vehicles were given armor kits to increase their longevity in environments fraught with ambushes and roadside bombs. The kits made the vehicles extremely heavy and unwieldy and were quickly defeated by an a highly adaptive enemy.

MRAPs and their V-shaped hulls, were designed specifically to hit roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Even still, Iraqi and Afghan insurgents managed to build explosives that flipped MRAPs over—often ejecting the service member in the turret—or were so strong that even if the vehicle survived, the concussion from the shockwave would collapse the occupant’s organs.

According to a Washington Post database 2,500 troops have been killed by IEDs since 2001.

To Trump, the loss of the U.S.-turned-Iraqi vehicles to the Islamic was part of anecdote shared by a friend’s son, meant to illustrate how the United States is giving weapons to allies who then surrender the equipment to the United States’ enemies. But in doing so, he managed to trivialize the thousands of U.S. troops killed and maimed by IEDs and mine blasts in the last 15 years of conflict.
That is why Trump is being slammed on Twitter by veterans who suffered terrible injuries from IEDs.

IJR profiles one Iraq War veteran, J.R. Salzman who was outraged by Trump's claims since he was injured riding in a Humvee when it was injured by a special IED designed to penetrate armored Humvees.




Salzman and other veterans are outraged by Trump's ignorant comments. They feel that Trump's blithe remarks are hurting the efforts of veterans to raise awareness of the problems that they are facing.
In a telephone interview with Independent Journal Review, Jones said that his biggest problem with what Trump said was how it minimized the seriousness of the injuries that are caused by IEDs, specifically the traumatic brain injuries (TBIs).

Jones, who is the Chief Operating Officer of the Boot Campaign, a non-profit organization that provides support to veterans and their families, told the Independent Journal Review that he felt like Trump’s comments “set us back ten years,” undermining the work that he and so many other veterans and veterans’ advocates had done to push the Veterans Administration and the medical community to understand TBI, the seriousness of it, how to treat it, and that it is something that veterans can overcome.

“Right now today, the biggest issue that plagues veterans is the idea that suicide is an option,” said Jones. A 2012 report by the VA found that an average of 22 veterans commit suicide every day. More than 138,000 veterans had been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from 2000 through June 5, 2015. During that same period, there were more than 327,000 incidents of TBI.

“One of the leading causes [of veteran suicides] is so many guys coming back with traumatic brain injuries, and they don’t understand why they’re not themselves anymore,” said Jones. “Someone who is running for president has to understand veterans enough not to simplify or overgeneralize this issue.”

President Obama has chosen to visit a mosque to day to show a contrast to what he regards as hateful rhetoric coming from some Republican candidates and others. What is distressing is the choice of mosque that he chose to visit. Steve Emerson and Pete Hoekstra point out that his selection of the Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB) mosque had to be thoroughly vetted so the administration must not care about what such a vetting would have revealed.
Perhaps we are being overly generous, but his national security team must have spent considerable time and energy reviewing its leadership, relationships and history prior to the announcement over the weekend.

In the process of due diligence, they should have learned that ISB leaders financially and ideologically support radical Islamist terrorists and hate homosexuals. It is a controversial choice of venue for a roundtable focused on tolerance, rejecting bigotry and celebrating religious freedom.

If the White House truly believes that the ISB represents the acceptable mainstream practice of Islam in America, it suggests a much larger issue with radicalism in the U.S.

In 2014, two ISB officials — President Muhammad Jameel and General Secretary Abid Husain — joined with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a news conference where they denounced Israeli for committing "genocide in the name of self-defense" in Gaza, when it was in fact the murderous Hamas terror organization launching rockets at Israel from heavily populated civilian areas.

CAIR was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which resulted in the largest terrorist money-laundering conviction in U.S. history. The FBI terminated its formal relationship with CAIR in 2008 over its ongoing status as a front for Hamas.

Why would Obama confer legitimacy on a mosque that joins forces with a terrorist front group? Would he visit a church that welcomed the KKK as a political partner?

Mohamad Adam el-Sheikh, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and lmam of the ISB for 18 years, endorsed Palestinian suicide bombings in a 2004 Washington Post interview. El-Sheikh also served as regional representative for the Islamic African Relief Agency — which the U.S. Treasury Department shut down for funding Osama bin Laden and other terrorists — while serving as ISB Imam and director.

Soon after Sept. 11, 2001, the ISB hosted American-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose inflammatory sermons are among the most effective online recruiting tools for jihad.

Does Obama condone advocating violence against the Jewish people? Does he think that it presents less of a complication than "Islamophobia," a fabricated term designed to portray murderous Islamist extremists as victims and to silence their critics?

The president famously "evolved" on the issue of same-sex marriage during his 2012 re-election campaign. Did he now evolve to where he can accept resident ISB scholar Yaseen Shaikh's 2013 description of homosexuality as a psychological disorder?

Does Obama even believe that radical Islam is a problem?

Dan Wetzel, who has done excellent reporting on how weak the NFL's case was in deflategate, reports that the NFL destroyed the data they collected in the past season on the air pressure in footballs.
Roger Goodell sure did get upset when Tom Brady destroyed his cell phone last year during the deflate-gate saga, an implication the quarterback was hiding something.

The NFL commissioner returned the favor on Tuesday when he announced the league did not keep any of the data on air pressure of footballs that officials were required to log and submit to the league office during the 2015 season.

Evidence? What evidence?

Now the New England Patriots are no longer able to point to specific, NFL-generated data that proves Ideal Gas Law, not human tampering, caused its footballs to lose air pressure in the 2014 AFC championship game.

That study was supposed to be the franchise's best chance to introduce new information that might allow the return of the 2016 first- and fourth-round draft picks, plus $1 million, the league docked it for deflate-gate.
But the NFL destroyed the data so now the Patriots and scientists can't use the results to demonstrate that what happened to their balls that prompted the Deflategate scandal. If the Ideal Gas Law had worked as scientists had predicted, there would have been data from the checks that the NFL was performing throughout the 2015 season which would have refuted the idea that the Patriots did something untoward to get the low numbers measured back in the Colts playoff game last year. And don't be naive about the NFL's motives in destroying the data they had carefully collected. Such behavior is part and parcel of how they have acted throughout the whole story.
Consider the original "Brady destroyed his cell phone" story – conveniently leaked via "league sources" to scream through the news cycle. It turned out Ted Wells, who headed the NFL's investigation, told Brady that he didn't need to hand over the phone. Brady's mistake was trusting Wells.
It didn't matter. When something that wasn't needed was destroyed, the league used it as proof of guilt, both in Goodell's findings and the court of public opinion.

Now that something that was needed was "lost," hey, it's no big deal.

As recently as October, with the new pressure measuring system under way, Goodell was asked at a formal news conference when and how the NFL data would be released publicly.

"I don't know," he said, with zero insinuation that the league wasn't keeping the information.

The NFL, in a follow-up inquiry from Yahoo Sports, stated a week later, "we simply haven't focused yet on how the information will be distributed."

Apparently it was distributed into an incinerator.

Confused? Try being Roger Goodell, who has seen deflate-gate become an albatross. The NFL hasn't looked good in this since the release of Wells' report in May 2015. It was then the public was able to comb over the findings away from the frenzy of false media reports.

What emerged were endless inconsistencies, absurd reaches in logic, failures of scientific methods and proof of an over-the-top misinformation campaign. And then there are the clown-show rationalizations like this one.

Day by day, drip-by-drip, the case has fallen apart, be it in federal court, a lecture hall at MIT or in the commonsense-rooted laughter that greeted Goodell's acknowledgement on Tuesday.

What remains is this most likely scenario: that NFL officials, completely unaware of Ideal Gas Law, believed that any New England football that measured below the minimum of 12.5 psi in the AFC title game was proof of orchestrated tampering. Anything in the 11s was proof of a massive conspiracy. In fact it was all a natural act.

Ignorant of science and overwhelmed by confirmation bias, the NFL embarked on an effort to nail the Patriots. Then, via leaks to favored reporters who were as prejudicial as they were false, the league found itself too far out on the limb to climb back as facts came in and theories fell apart.

All it could do is point to random text exchanges and nicknames, and hope the public was too naïve to question it, too scientifically ignorant to comprehend it or too bored to still care.

Well, there were also those howls about destroyed evidence, because we know destroyed evidence is something that Roger Goodell's NFL must absolutely take a stand against. The NFL just can't tolerate that type of behavior.
I still hear and see people referring to how guilty Brady must have been to have destroyed his phone. Goodell used the destroyed phone as a reason for the harsher penalty against Brady. And the whole story was bogus, prompted by deceptive reporting from the NFL.

16 comments:

tfhr said...

Betsy,

We have to win the election before we can put someone in office that wants to fight-to-win the war against radical Islam. The electorate needs to be convinced that new leadership is committed to defeating ISIS, among others.

I don't think you would expect a candidate to base a speech on the intricacies of counter-insurgency warfare in order to prove a commitment to leading a nation at war. Yet the sniping over Cruz' rhetoric would suggest that our national leaders must be steeped in tactical experience and the laws of land warfare. Most Presidents listen to their trained counsel when reviewing and approving strategy. I have no idea what Obama has been doing but here we are.

Now I could sit through hours long explorations of FM-3-24, in fact I have, but as good as it is, it's not a stump speech for the voting public.

Here it is at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual/dp/0226841510

Or the pdf can be found here:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf


It is the most up to date reference in use by our Armed Forces but it is a reference and while our military has the reputation for creating some of the most thorough and comprehensive doctrine, leaders are still given the latitude to apply what works and to adapt where needed. Always think of that when reading through an FM. It's also why we can publish products like these for public view.

Discussions about ROEs (Rules of Engagement) are not to be had in public or among those that are not cleared. There maybe exceptions available on Hillary's server, but the point is this: to fight a winning war, the military cannot have it's hands tied by politicians that have no intention of winning. For example, you don't pour troops into a war zone with the public announcement that the commitment behind them is limited by an expiration date. Tipping an enemy to your limits gives that enemy an upper hand, weak ROEs create seams to exploit, and publicly announcing what is on the table and what is off, in terms of tactics that might be employed gives great advantage to an enemy that is as adaptive as ISIS, the Taliban, and Iran. We do not tell Russia or China when, where or even how we will fight them and we do not publicly tell them what we will not do. (It turns out we've got Snowden and Hillary for much of that but I digress)

In the end, a politician has to convince the public that victory is the paramount goal and that it is achievable. A speech that isn't clear about commitment is just testing the waters or sitting on a fence. If it shows or sews doubt, it's just another seam to exploit by the enemy at a strategic level. While the politicians battle each other with words that are easier to shape than "is", the forces of radical Islam wait and watch and hope for more of what they've been flourishing on since 2009.

Timothy said...

So, what do your students think about drafting girls? They'll be draft age before they realize.

mark said...

I haven't heard anyone suggest "that our national leaders must be steeped in tactical experience." But to defend a candidate who is promoting a policy that is criminal, immoral and counterproductive is absurd.

Several well-respected military leaders, including Gerenal McFarland and Robert Gates, have felt compelled to call the strategies of Cruz and Trumpet un-American and akin to the thinking of 5th graders. Perhaps you now regret having defending them.

All of the candidates are responsible for what they say. Twice now, Cruz has talked about nuclear devices. Thanks God Cruz is pro-life. Can't imagine how many children he'd be willing to kill if he didn't respect the sanctity of life.

tfhr said...

mark the socialist,

So you're saying that FDR and Truman were "criminal, immoral, and counterproductive". Glad you're finally on the record.

Now, are you a socialist or not. Let's have some more truth, since you're in the mood.

As for the rest of your drivel:

MacFarland works for the President. What do you want him to say? How about, "My boss is screwing troops with his White House ROEs and his lack of resolve is costing us this war. But gee, I wish he'd let some more terrorists out of GITMO while we're still fighting them."

As for Gates, I respect him, but has anyone asked about the targeting or employment of this tactic that so offends you? Consider this: targeting deployed ISIS forces in the field, on the move, or in contact with "coalition" forces is perfectly legitimate and should be done on a far greater basis that we currently see. If using cluster munitions or larger amounts of "iron" bombs is best suited to destroy exposed ISIS forces, then why wouldn't you? If the commander on the ground determines that precision weapons are better suited or selects a mix of both, who the hell are Gates or you to know better? I'm pretty sure Gates would say the same.

Why you assume Cruz means wasting ordinance in a way that would be counter-productive as the only definition of "carpet-bombing" possible is beyond me but I've never claimed to understand the complete depths of your ignorance.

What's left...oh yeah...it's for the children you say. All from the man that approves of squeezing campaign dollars out of the bodies of aborted babies. Millions of babies = millions of dollars for leftist causes. That's SOP. But how do you do the arithmetic on the thousands of Yazhidi babies that have been slaughtered by ISIS or the generations that have been lost with their mothers? You ignore it all because you don't care about any of them, just your wretched politics.

Glad FDR and Truman didn't think like you.

tfhr said...

Timothy,

Good question. I've been wondering with the other shoe would drop.

mark said...

who the hell are Gates or you to know better?

Now, I understand not taking my word for it, but 'who the hell is Gates'?
And you accuse Gen. McFarland of putting politics before what is good for the military or for our country.

Despite all your talk, you've been wrong about almost every issue, usually because you put politics above common sense and decency.

And now the self-proclaimed military expert is denigrating actual military experts. Truly you are a disgrace.

tfhr said...

And you're an idiot. If a commander on the ground wants to "carpet-bomb" ISIS troops in the open, enroute, or in contact with our troops, neither Gates or LTG MacFarland would disagree.

Mark the socialist, if you even bothered to check what you were talking about you'd get the III Corps commander's name spelled correctly. I'll cut you some slack on the rank because you're close enough though you've shortened it to an incorrect rank and in a way that suggests USAF, not the USA.

There is no excusing your inability to understand that a former cabinet secretary does not and should not have any say whatsoever on the employment of forces and weapons on the battlefield.

You're insistence that Cruz' rhetoric also included specific targeting is some sort of grotesque overreach - a desperate one - on your part to smear a man that is willing to fight to win against a savage subhuman force that murders and rapes women and children, sells them into slavery, and is doing so despite Obama's proclamation that they are the JV team.

If serving in the United States Army for over twenty years makes me an "expert", so be it, but I don't run around saying such a thing. I do have the actual experience and enough common sense to know the difference between someone that is willing to let the troops fight to win and someone that is willing to send them into battle,for short term political cover, without any commitment to victory. You support Obama, who is doing the latter, and for that you should be very ashamed.

mark said...

Oh, crumpet. After accusing Gen. MacFarland of putting politics above the military and our country, you're upset about my careless misspelling.

It's very clear: Several highly respected military leaders have criticized the policies of Cruz and Trump as un-American, juvenile and counter-productive. You chose to defend them.

Grotesque overreach? C'mon now. Have you forgotten your comments about using body parts to make furniture, accusations of raping children, etc. etc. etc?

Ron Fichtner said...

Krauthammer asserts Cruz is a "principled conservative." Betsy faithfully stenographs it. If CK read his own paper he'd learn that Cruz dirty-tricked Iowa caucus goers by his capaign telling them Carson was dropping out and they should switch their votes to him.. Of course CK wouldn't have learned it hanging out on Fox. Or just maybe that's the behavior expected of principled conservatives.

tfhr said...

mark the socialist,

The point is that you cannot get the simple details correct. Not spelling, not rank, probably not even the simple understanding that the President's appointed commander of the CJTF is not going to publicly say something that is counter to the Comander-in-Chief's party line. All basic stuff but apparently beyond you, so I'm not sure why you think you even have a clue about something more complex like targeting, weapons, or tactics. Why would you? More importantly, you back the guy that is not interested in defeating the forces of radical Islam. Obama cannot even bring himself to say "radical Islam".

Now back to MacFarlandTake a look at this link:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-04-30-ramadi-colonel_N.htm

When LTG MacFarland was a commander on the ground, a brigade commander in Iraq (so that would make him colonel, properly abbreviated in the US Army as COL but in the USAF as Col.) - he did some things that were only possible because he had the initiative to adapt and was granted the leeway to do so. People that think like you would deny leaders on the battlefield this most important quality.

Given your last comment, do I need to remind you of the horrors of rape and slaughter at the hands of ISIS? Do you know how many children they have raped, tortured, and murdered? Do you care? You must not given your remarks about me bringing up this holocaust.

Finally we're back to you not being able to get past words to see actions or in the case of Obama, lack thereof. I can say things that easily upset you but when someone is actually spilling blood, ripping apart babies or slaughtering their mothers, turning them into slaves, etc. You're so upset that I lay it at your feet for your support of policies that create these conditions but the actual horrors, you could care less. Yet it's bales of Kleenex for mark the socialists when someone is so impolite as to point out his coziness with the abortion-campaign finance industry but not a tear when Yazidhis are being slaughtered. Christians in Syria are being exterminated but what really upsets you is when I criticize you for your lack of humanity. Why aren't you upset, actually angry, at Obama for failing to take effective action against ISIS? You're not and I cannot think of a rational reason why. Is it because the victims of ISIS and the abortion industry mostly don't look like you? I know you don't care what they think or even that they want to live the lives they were given - not to have them stolen by abortion clinic butchers or ISIS savages, but how do you live with that?

Instead you save your criticism for Cruz for indicating that he wants to destroy ISIS. He's the bad guy in this mix - in your wild socialist eyes - but not because of what you imagine he would do but because he will not abandon the defenseless, something the left has been making bank on and building the only "capital" it knows, political capital.

mark said...

crumpet,
You've gone from defending the Cruz and Trump strategies by 1. claiming it was done in the past by FDR and Truman, 2. it's just "campaign rhetoric" that we shouldn't take seriously, 3. Gates doesn't understand the implications of what he said, 4. MacFarland is putting politics over our country. Next up: The kitchen sink.

Perhaps you can name another military expert (excluding yourself, of course) who will defend carpet-bombing and targeting children of suspected terrorists.

Until then, I think I'll stick with the statements of Scales, Gates and MacFarland.










Emy Watson said...

Moving out of state away from family?
Out of state moving

tfhr said...

mark the socialist,

You didn't read the article about MacFarland did you? Of course not.

1. It's no "claim" that during WWII, under the leadership of FDR and Truman, American forces used carpet-bombing tactics against enemy troops and also in the targeting of both industrial and population centers. It's a fact. How you make that leap that Cruz would target civilians from any comment he has made is based solely on your need to deflect from Obama's abandonment of defenseless victims of ISIS.

2. Rhetoric is just that until it is put into action or do you have something on Cruz that we don't know about? Perhaps you think he's already launched an airstrike? I do believe Cruz when he says he's going to fight to win but shouldn't it be that way? Why do you support Obama when he doesn't want to win?

3. Gates isn't the commander on the ground and if he were, he wouldn't want someone in Washington telling him not to destroy the enemy. If you want to read more on what Gates thinks about what Obama has done in Syria, read this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/3/obama-military-strategy-blasted-by-robert-gates-le/?page=all

4. MacFarland follows orders and doesn't talk about his boss publicly. Ask GEN McChrystal how that works.

What exactly do you think "carpet-bombing" is, mark the socialist? If the USAF caught hundreds of ISIS vehicles on a road in Syria, carrying supplies, weapons, and troops, do you think it would be a bad idea to crater the road from first vehicle to the last? I would hope not. You'd try to kill as many ISIS personnel and destroy as much equipment as possible. That might mean using cluster-bombs or just plain old iron bombs in mass, but that would be "carpet-bombing" and according to you, that would be "un-American, juvenile and counter-productive." I guess you'd just let them go so they could continue murdering, raping, and enslaving. That's pretty much what's been happening with Obama.

I guess you think because some targets are best attacked by smart weapons - something with precision guidance - that all must be but it's not practical from the standpoint of effectiveness or economy. Firing a precision guided munition that costs a half million dollars at a Toyota with three guys in it isn't going to do the job. Not all of our "coalition" partners even have the ability to use precision weapons, so I guess you have to tell them to stay at home.

In the end it all comes back to this: Obama has failed to lead the fight against ISIS and hundreds of thousands are suffering for it, so you have make up crap about Cruz. If you think you have to vote for someone that isn't Cruz, that's fine for you, but to make him out to be a source of possible suffering that is somehow greater than that caused by Obama's failure to fight ISIS, that's just desperate deflection.

mark said...

Keep grasping, crumpet.
Military experts have unequivocally condemned the policies that Cruz and Trump have proposed. You are defending rhetoric that Gates said would "embarrass a middle schooler."

“People are out there making threats and promises that are totally unrealistic, totally unattainable. Either they really believe what they’re saying or they’re cynical and opportunistic and, in a way, you hope it’s the latter, because God forbid they actually believe some of the things that they’re saying.”


I have no expectation that you'll admit you are wrong. It's just another disgrace to go with an already impressive list of insane claims and accusations.





tfhr said...

mark the socialist,

"Policies", you say? Maybe that's your problem - you can't tell a speech from a policy. We've seen Obama's policies fail and we've seen the human cost borne by innocent women and children, abandoned to ISIS by Obama.

Here's what Gates says about Obama's actual policy when it comes to fighting radical Islam:

“Given [Obama's] campaign rhetoric about Afghanistan, I think I myself, our commanders, and our troops had expected more commitment to the cause and more passion for it from him.”

Obama doesn't care. He left Libya in ruins. He abandoned Iraq. He backed off of his "red line" with Syria (as if!) and he's done as little as possible with regard to ISIS.

Gates and Panetta both say that Obama's fecklessness has created a vacuum for ISIS and Russia to fill.
http://www.businessinsider.com/leon-panetta-obama-criticism-syria-isis-2014-10

Even Jimmy Carter couldn't resist:
“First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” Carter said.

But Carter didn’t stop there, launching into a broader critique of Obama’s foreign policy.

“President Obama, it’s been hard to figure out exactly what his policy is. It changes from time to time,” the former president said. “He’s been delayed. Sometimes he draws red lines in the sand on the Mideast and then when the time comes, he doesn’t go through with it.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jimmy-carter-obama-isis

When Jimmy Carter says you're policy is messed up, you know you've really done it.

I get that you're OK with all of ISIS' savagery, otherwise you'd stop defending Obama. I'd like to see something done and it's going to take commitment from a leader that wants to win. I pick Cruz and you stick with the status quo, which at this point is Obama's policy of deliberate neglect.

mark said...

As you know, crumpet, I've been critical of several of Obama's decisions. To say that I'm "OK" with ISIS' savagery is just another disgraceful lie, especially coming from someone who joked about ISIS beheading U.S. citizens.

Obama's failures are no excuse for your utter incompetence. But I get it: the war hero/military intelligence expert has been exposed (once again) as a fraud. That's not just from a dope like me, but from actual military-intelligence experts.
It seems you can't help but put politics before common sense and integrity, whether it's declaring OBL dead (years before Obama had him killed), calling people child rapists without a shred of evidence, and now this.