Thursday, May 28, 2015

Millennials Weighed Down By Student Loan Debt.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Millennials Weighed Down By Student Loan Debt.
U.S. Census Bureau data shows that the number of 25- to 34-year-olds living in their parents’ homes jumped 17.5% from 2007-2010. This is similar to Pew Research, which found that 57% of 18- to 24-year-olds lived with their parents in 2012. By way of comparison, in 1960, three out of four women and two out of three men had finished school, left home, were financially independent, had married and had children by age 30.
Meanwhile, the number of 30-year-olds who own their own homes is now roughly equal to those who live with their parents–a sharp contrast to 2003, when a 30-year-old American was twice as likely to own a home as he or she was to live with parents, according to the New York Federal Reserve (24). There’s also a clear correlation between growth in student debt and the rate at which adult offspring live with their parents. For every $10,000 increase in a state’s student debt per graduate, there’s a corresponding 2.9 percentage-point rise in 25-year-olds living with parents (25).
All of this comes as the dollar amount of student loans outstanding in the U.S. has tripled in the past decade, reaching a record $1.2 trillion last year. (See “Growing U.S. Student Debt Could Have Long-Term Credit Implications,” published Aug. 26, 2014.) In fact, student debt was the only type of household borrowing that continued to grow during the recent recession and recovery.
Ouch.

Rand Paul Reveals His True Colors and Destroys Himself

It’s not often a man you believe one of the few worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, if that award were even halfway honest, reaches out to you on Twitter, but that is what happened to me Wednesday evening when the courageous Dr. Zuhdi Jasser posted the following:

 

Rand Paul Reveals His True Colors and Destroys Himself

by Roger L Simon


The link is to an Associated Press article headlined “Rand Paul Says GOP Hawks ‘Created’ ISIS.” Dr. Jasser had obviously read my posting of Tuesday, “Jeb Should Withdraw to Save the Country from Hillary.” He wanted me to do the same for Rand. (In fairness to Jeb, my earlier post was meant to prod him to an altruistic, patriotic act.  In the case of Rand, it would be because he had, as Bobby Jindal is quoted as saying by the AP, disqualified himself.)
Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.
The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP’s foreign policy hawks “created these people.” That assertion led potential 2016 rival Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s governor, to say Paul was unqualified to be president.
The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized one-third of Iraq and Syria and in recent days made gains in central Iraq.
“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” Paul said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He continued: “They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved – they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it.”
Alas Rand (I had higher hopes for him), like father Ron, has a mega-chauvanistic view of the world.  The USA is so big and strong it causes everything, including, at one point, 9-11, and now ISIS, if you can believe that. Never mind that the Islamic State is just another avatar of Islamic imperialism’s desire for a world caliphate that has been going on for centuries, long before our country was in existence — the Battle of Tours (732), the Siege of Vienna (1683) and on and on. The violence has been there forever, too.  As any literate person knows, it’s in the Koran and the Hadith.  Beheadings were part of Mohammed’s game plan. It’s what he did and what he called for. This was not invented by a cabal of neocons in Chevy Chase, Maryland, in 2003.
And of course ISIS is part of a straight line that goes from the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in Egypt in 1928, long before the current crop of Republicans were even alive) to Al Qaeda via Zawahiri and on into the modern age with ISIS, all working from the same ideological playbook, as are Boko Haram, Hamas, al Shabab, al Nusra, etc., etc.
Rand, again like father Ron, is essentially racist in blaming this on America and not recognizing other cultures have belief systems to which they truly adhere and that those belief systems may be dangerous, even evil.  America did not evolve Islamist ideology anymore than it did Nazism, but the Islamists have the potential to wreak just as much havoc if they are not stopped.   I don’t blame Dr. Jasser for being upset. I’d be furious.  People like him, at immense personal risk, have been working for the necessary reform of Islam every waking moment of their lives.
Ironically, Rand is overtly or covertly the ally of Barack Obama, who does not take the Islamists’ ideology seriously either, because to POTUS all things are America’s fault.  (Maybe Rand should go on an apology tour of his own.)  Interestingly, just now, it is being reported that 29 more Christians have been hacked to death in Nigeria.  Was that our fault too?  Well, yes, if we continue to do nothing about it.  With a Rand Paul in the White House, it’s almost certain that we won’t.  I’m with Bobby Jindal on this one. I’ve lost it with Rand.  Too bad.  He has some interesting ideas for domestic policy.  But with the Middle East going nuclear, he’d be too much of a risk.


Read more: http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/05/28/rand-reveals-his-true-colors-and-destroys-himself/#ixzz3bRlA0cZb

Lawlessness: Fueled by this president's anti-police policies and race-baiting rhetoric

May 26, 2015
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted with permission from Investor's Business Daily


Lawlessness: Fueled by this president's anti-police policies and race-baiting rhetoric, thugs are attacking cops and terrorizing major cities. Horrible violence is breaking out all over. We are witnessing a national crime wave.
Law enforcement expects to see an escalation in criminal activity over the summer. Already we've seen a disturbing trend in May, including:
• The deadliest month Baltimore has seen in more than 15 years, with almost 30 shootings and nine deaths just over the holiday weekend. That makes well over 100 murders this year, compared with 71 at this time last year, the fastest the city has reached 100 homicides since 2007.
• Any time Baltimore officers respond to calls on the city's west side, scene of the Freddie Gray riots, as many as 50 people threaten them, Police Chief Anthony Batts says. "We have to send out multiple units just to do basic police work," he said. "It makes it very difficult to follow up on violence that takes place there."
• In Melbourne, Fla., likewise, police have reported mobs surrounding and striking cops trying to handcuff suspects in two separate cases in the past two weeks.
• A similar spike in violence was reported in Chicago, where 12 people were killed and at least 44 — including a 4-year-old girl — wounded in mostly gang-related shootings over the Memorial Day weekend.
• In Manhattan, 16 people have been murdered this year, a 45% jump over the same period last year, while the number of shooting victims nearly doubled, from 33 to 61. That doesn't include a rash of Central Park muggings, subway assaults and vandalism.
• In the nation's capital, the so-called "D.C. Mansion Murders" have gripped the city, which is suffering a similar surge in homicides.
V In Omaha, Neb., a white female police officer was shot and killed by a black gang member as she tried to serve him a felony arrest warrant.
• A New Orleans housing authority cop, also white, was gunned down as he sat in his patrol car — the first on-duty death in the department's history.
• In Rio Rancho, N.M., another white police officer was gunned down after pulling over a gang member during a traffic stop — the first officer shot and killed in the line of duty in the department's 34-year history.
Victims can blame the crime surge on politicians who give criminals "space" to break the law. Who order cops to stop "stop and frisks." Who tie their hands while giving thugs license to loot and kill.
Called "racists," officers' morale is in the sewer. Cops fear for their safety and worry about being unfairly accused of using excessive force against black criminals.
New York's liberal mayor is even calling for "amnesty" for criminals with outstanding warrants, on recommendation from President Obama's police reform task force, which also urges police to "de-escalate and retreat" when trying to arrest violent offenders.
Obama, meanwhile, has unilaterally disarmed local police by banning military-style antiriot gear.
This is a recipe for the national crime wave we predicted in January 2009. Then, we editorialized that "Obama may have to deal with a crime wave the likes of which we haven't seen in decades," thanks to his soft-on-crime urban policies.
Regrettably, crime was an issue left undebated during the last two presidential races. It should move front and center this campaign.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

FIFTH CIRCUIT DENIES STAY OF THE INJUNCTION AGAINST OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

FIFTH CIRCUIT DENIES STAY OF THE INJUNCTION AGAINST OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the Obama administration’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction against implementation of its Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) pending appeal. The Court also declined to narrow the injunction’s scope. As readers will recall, Judge Hanen issued the injunction on the view that the government is likely to lose the lawsuit challenging DAPA
The Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion because it concluded that “the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction.” The decision was 2-1, with the Republican appointed judges voting to affirm and the Obama appointed judge voting to reverse.
The opinions are here. The majority, per Judge Smith, undertakes a long, persuasive slog through the factors that apply when a party seeks to stay an injunction pending appeal. As such, there is no single “money quote.”
The majority’s discussion of “prosecutorial discretion” — the basis upon which Team Obama purports to justify granting amnesty and eligibility for benefits to millions of illegal immigrants — is illuminating, though. Here is what Judge Smith had to say about this issue:
Some features of DAPA are similar to prosecutorial discretion: DAPA amounts to the Secretary’s decision—at least temporarily— not to enforce the immigration laws as to a class of what he deems to be low-priority aliens.
If that were all DAPA involved, we would have a different case. DAPA’s version of deferred action, however, is more than nonenforcement: It is the affirmative act of conferring “lawful presence” on a class of unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that new designation triggers eligibility for federal and state benefits that would not otherwise be available.
“[A]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’” Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification. Regardless of whether the Secretary has the authority to offer
those incentives for participation in DAPA, his doing so is not shielded from judicial review as an act of prosecutorial discretion.67 And as shown above, neither the preliminary injunction nor compliance with the APA requires the Secretary to prosecute deportable aliens or change his enforcement priorities.
This logic seems unassailable. Unless you’re a partisan, I don’t see how you reject it.
The Justice Department is said to be “reviewing its options.” They include attempting to get the full Fifth Circuit to reconsider the panel’s ruling.
Both the State of Texas and the Obama administration have signaled their willingness to take the case to the Supreme Court. That Court would be unlikely to decide it until 2016 — a presidential election year.
Another option would be simply to wait for a full hearing of the government’s appeal of the district court’s underlying decision, which is scheduled for July. Jonathan Adler points out, however, that this appeal will be heard by same panel rendered today’s decision, which provides “a fairly good indication of how the court is likely to rule.”
I’m not personally up-to-date with the Fifth Circuit anymore, but it is said to a be pretty conservative court. Thus, Adler believes the Obama administration might well proceed directly to the Supreme Court.
We will probably have more to say about today’s decision, including perhaps the dissent.


THE LAW PROFESSSOR HAS BEEN SCHOOLED:  WSJ’s editorial about the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to reverse the preliminary injunction halting the President’s unilateral immigration legislation executive action:
America’s most powerful former law professor is getting a re-education in the Constitution, and on present course President Obama might flunk out. Witness Tuesday’s federal appeals-court rebuke of his 2014 immigration order, including language that suggests the Administration will also lose on the legal and policy merits. . . .
The Administration claims it is merely allowing immigration officers to apply routine “prosecutorial discretion” on a case by case basis not to deport illegals. But the court noted that if this were true “we would expect to find an explicit delegation of authority” to implement the Obama rule—“a program that makes 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, work authorization, and associated benefits—but no such provision exists.” (Our emphasis.)
In summary, said the court, “the United States has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.” . . .
Mr. Obama could have avoided this mess if he had recalled his law classes on the separation of powers. That’s where he should have learned that the federal government can’t run roughshod over states and that the courts are an independent branch of government that can call out a President for breaking the law.
Yep–he would have failed my constitutional law class if he had tried to justify such sweeping authority to categorically rewrite existing law and confer benefits Congress never provided as “prosecutorial discretion.”  It’s almost as though the Fifth Circuit has been reading my House Judiciary testimony on the topic.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

An Obama Crime Wave Spreads Across America

An Obama Crime Wave Spreads Across America

Baltimore police attempt to enforce a curfew on April 28, 2015. AP
Baltimore police attempt to enforce a curfew on April 28, 2015. AP View Enlarged Image
Lawlessness: Fueled by this president's anti-police policies and race-baiting rhetoric, thugs are attacking cops and terrorizing major cities. Horrible violence is breaking out all over. We are witnessing a national crime wave.
Law enforcement expects to see an escalation in criminal activity over the summer. Already we've seen a disturbing trend in May, including:
• The deadliest month Baltimore has seen in more than 15 years, with almost 30 shootings and nine deaths just over the holiday weekend. That makes well over 100 murders this year, compared with 71 at this time last year, the fastest the city has reached 100 homicides since 2007.
• Any time Baltimore officers respond to calls on the city's west side, scene of the Freddie Gray riots, as many as 50 people threaten them, Police Chief Anthony Batts says. "We have to send out multiple units just to do basic police work," he said. "It makes it very difficult to follow up on violence that takes place there."
• In Melbourne, Fla., likewise, police have reported mobs surrounding and striking cops trying to handcuff suspects in two separate cases in the past two weeks.
• A similar spike in violence was reported in Chicago, where 12 people were killed and at least 44 — including a 4-year-old girl — wounded in mostly gang-related shootings over the Memorial Day weekend.
• In Manhattan, 16 people have been murdered this year, a 45% jump over the same period last year, while the number of shooting victims nearly doubled, from 33 to 61. That doesn't include a rash of Central Park muggings, subway assaults and vandalism.
• In the nation's capital, the so-called "D.C. Mansion Murders" have gripped the city, which is suffering a similar surge in homicides.
V In Omaha, Neb., a white female police officer was shot and killed by a black gang member as she tried to serve him a felony arrest warrant.
• A New Orleans housing authority cop, also white, was gunned down as he sat in his patrol car — the first on-duty death in the department's history.
• In Rio Rancho, N.M., another white police officer was gunned down after pulling over a gang member during a traffic stop — the first officer shot and killed in the line of duty in the department's 34-year history.
Victims can blame the crime surge on politicians who give criminals "space" to break the law. Who order cops to stop "stop and frisks." Who tie their hands while giving thugs license to loot and kill.
Called "racists," officers' morale is in the sewer. Cops fear for their safety and worry about being unfairly accused of using excessive force against black criminals.
New York's liberal mayor is even calling for "amnesty" for criminals with outstanding warrants, on recommendation from President Obama's police reform task force, which also urges police to "de-escalate and retreat" when trying to arrest violent offenders.
Obama, meanwhile, has unilaterally disarmed local police by banning military-style antiriot gear.
This is a recipe for the national crime wave we predicted in January 2009. Then, we editorialized that "Obama may have to deal with a crime wave the likes of which we haven't seen in decades," thanks to his soft-on-crime urban policies.
Regrettably, crime was an issue left undebated during the last two presidential races. It should move front and center this campaign.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052615-754269-an-obama-crime-wave-spreads-across-america.htm#ixzz3bI2LBa4G
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HITS LIBERALS AGAIN

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HITS LIBERALS AGAIN

We’ve noted here many times the economic illiteracy of the minimum wage, and even the media are picking up on the perverse effects the $15 minimum wage is having on low-margin businesses such as San Francisco comics shops or fast food restaurants installing touch screens to replace counter clerks (and how long before we have robotic burger flippers?), but this won’t deter liberals.
When I explain to students the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the case where the Supreme Court rightly struck down Washington DC’s minimum wage, it is easy to get students to realize that the standard line about this case—that it is an example of an ideological Court in thrall to some cartoonish laissez faire doctrine of unlimited individual liberty—is completely wrong. For one thing, the minimum wage only applied to women, in occupations such as operating a hotel elevator that were not in any way hazardous to their health or safety, thus failing the “police power” test that upheld many other kinds of labor regulations going back into the 19th century. The effect of having a minimum wage for women but not for men was obvious—it resulted in the loss of employment opportunities for women, since you could hire a man for the same job at half the cost. (It is amusing, by the way, to watch liberals and especially feminist legal scholars strain to attack a ruling that upheld women’s equality in the workplace. The contortions are fantastic and hilarious.) This is no more than a price-fixing law, the Court ruled. (For more from the opinion, see below.*)
This is all a long preface to a story in today’s New York Times about how—surprise, surprise!—politically-mandated “family friendly” policies are backfiring everywhere, and reducing wages and employment opportunities for women:
In Chile, a law requires employers to provide working mothers with child care. One result? Women are paid less.
In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all women — even those who are not mothers.
Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.
Family-friendly policies can help parents balance jobs and responsibilities at home, and go a long way toward making it possible for women with children to remain in the work force. But these policies often have unintended consequences.
Heck, a “conservative jurist” from the 1920s could have told you this. More:
Unlike many countries, the United States has few federal policies for working parents. One is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which provides workers at companies of a certain size with 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
Women are 5 percent more likely to remain employed but 8 percent less likely to get promotions than they were before it became law, according to an unpublished new study by Mallika Thomas, who will be an assistant professor of economics at Cornell University. She attributed this partly to companies that don’t take a chance on investing in the careers of women who might leave. “The problem ends up being that all women, even those who do not anticipate having children or cutting back in hours, may be penalized,” she said.
I’m sure liberals will follow the evidence here. Settled science, and all that.
* More from Justice George Sutherland’s majority opinion in Adkins:
But the ancient inequality of the sexes, otherwise than physical, as suggested in the Muller case has continued “with diminishing intensity.” In view of the great—not to say revolutionary—changes which have taken place since that utterance, in the contractual, political and civil status of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point. In this aspect of the matter, while the physical differences must be recognized in appropriate cases, and legislation fixing hours or conditions of work may properly take them into account, we cannot accept the doctrine that women of mature age, sui juris, require or may be subjected to restrictions upon their liberty of contract which could not lawfully be imposed in the case of men under similar circumstances. To do so would be to ignore all the implications to be drawn from the present day trend of legislation, as well as that of common thought and usage, by which woman is accorded emancipation from the old doctrine that she must be given special protection or be subjected to special restraint in her contractual and civil relationships. In passing, it may be noted that the instant statute applies in the case of a woman employer contracting with a woman employee as it does when the former is a man.
Gosh, sounds almost like someone from NOW wrote this. Moreover, this reminds me of a lesson students also take to: it actually pays to read complete Supreme Court opinions, rather than swallowing the gross mischaracterizations that appear in superficial liberal textbooks.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Obama, Clinton Want To Enforce 'Correct' Thinking In America

Obama, Clinton Want To Enforce 'Correct' Thinking In America
 
Friday 20, 2015
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted with permission from Investor's Business Daily


What happens when the public does not wish to live out the utopian dreams of its elite leaders? Usually, the answer for those leaders is to seek more coercion and less liberty to force people to think progressively.
Here at home, President Obama came into power in 2009 with a Democratic Congress, a sympathetic press and allies in Hollywood, academia, unions and philanthropic and activist foundations.
Yet all that support was not sufficient to ensure "correct" public attitudes about Obama's agenda on health care, entitlements, taxes, guns, abortion and cultural issues.
In the 2010 midterm elections, the Democrats forfeited their majority in the House. In the 2014 midterms, they lost their Senate majority and also lost ground in state legislatures and with governorships across the country. Since early 2013, Obama's approval rating has been consistently below 50%.
How, then, do politically correct planners force the people to think and act properly when they push back?
Extra-legal executive orders can help a president bypass supposed troglodytes in Congress and among the public.
Obama granted blanket amnesties, proposed rules that would lead to the closure of many coal plants and arbitrarily chose which health or labor statutes should be enforced and at what times.
A filmmaker was even jailed on a trumped-up probation charge after making a video about Islam that was deemed unhelpful to the official administration Benghazi narrative. The IRS hounded nonprofit groups considered insufficiently progressive.
In a recent rant about conservative Fox News — which has a fraction of the combined audience of the liberal networks ABC, CBS and NBC — Obama warned that the media are going to have change the very way they report news.
Presumably, Obama believes that Fox tricks the unknowing masses into thinking wrong thoughts, especially about the relationship between the poor and government assistance.
As Obama put it: "We're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people's impressions of what it's like to struggle in this [economy looks like."
Given the First Amendment, how can the president "change" the media? Should the Federal Communications Commission pick and choose acceptable news outlets in the same manner that Lois Lerner ran her exempt-organizations division at the IRS? Who would judge whether the media had changed to meet Obama's notion of correctness?
Hillary Clinton is worried that too many people have incorrect thoughts about feminist issues. For those who oppose abortion, Clinton believes that these supposedly wrong thoughts must be policed. "Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases," she warned, "have to be changed."
How, in a free society, does Clinton plan to alter the way religion and culture work? What power would she need to rid us of these "deep-seated" but unhelpful "codes and beliefs"?
Clinton recently declared that if elected president, she would pick Supreme Court nominees by the litmus test of demanding that they oppose the Citizens United ruling. She is apparently still furious at the high court's 2010 decision that dismantled federal election rules restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofit organizations.
Citizens United, remember, was a conservative nonprofit group that produced an unflattering movie about Clinton. The Federal Election Commission went to court to prevent the film from airing on TV before the 2008 Democratic primaries. In other words, Clinton wishes to judge the qualifications of future Supreme Court nominees on whether they agree a nonprofit organization had no right to be critical of her in a documentary at election time.
If Clinton is really worried about the role of big money in politics, she would have done better to have insisted that the Clinton Foundation did not solicit donations from foreign governments while she was the secretary of state.
She might have ensured that her family's foundation distributed 90% of its expenditures -- instead of a reported 10% — directly to the charities it claimed to help, especially given that it has raised close to $2 billion.
Clinton might also have blasted former presidents seeking hefty lecture fees and family foundation donations from wealthy entrepreneurs who hope to buy access and influence from either a sitting secretary of state, a former president — or a future president.
Or, Clinton herself might have cut back on lucrative speaking fees, often paid by wealthy corporations seeking influence. Bill and Hillary Clinton have pulled in $30 million in lecture cash in just the last 16 months. Mysteriously, the closer Clinton got to announcing her bid for the presidency, the more frequent and the more lucrative the Clinton duo's lecturing became.
When news organizations, judges or Americans in general do not think or speak in the correct fashion, then elite progressives believe they must do whatever is necessary to silence them — while making themselves exempt from their own agendas.

Mark Styne on King Barack: "This Guy is Bonkers!"

Send

Obama Surrender Brought Iraq Collapse - CK

May 21, 2015
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted with permission from Investor's Business Dail

Ramadi falls. The Iraqi army flees. The great 60-nation anti-Islamic State coalition so grandly proclaimed by the Obama administration is nowhere to be seen.
Instead, it's the defense minister of Iran who flies into Baghdad, an unsubtle demonstration of who's in charge — while the U.S. air campaign proves futile and America's alleged strategy for combating the Islamic State is in freefall.
It gets worse. The Gulf States' top leaders, betrayed and bitter, ostentatiously boycott President Obama's failed Camp David summit. "We were America's best friend in the Arab world for 50 years," laments Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief.
Note: "were," not "are."
We are scraping bottom. Following six years of Obama's steady and determined withdrawal from the Middle East, America's standing in the region has collapsed.
And yet the question incessantly asked of the various presidential candidates is not about that. It's a retrospective hypothetical: Would you have invaded Iraq in 2003 if you had known then what we know now?
First, the question is not just a hypothetical, but an inherently impossible hypothetical. It contradicts itself.
Had we known there were no weapons of mass destruction, the very question would not have arisen. The premise of the war — the basis for going to the United Nations, to the Congress and, indeed, to the nation — was Iraq's possession of WMD in violation of the central condition for the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War.
No WMD, no hypothetical to answer in the first place.
Second, the "if you knew then" question implicitly locates the origin and cause of the current disasters in 2003. As if the fall of Ramadi was predetermined then, as if the author of the current regional collapse is George W. Bush.
This is nonsense. The fact is that by the end of Bush's tenure, the war had been won. You can argue that the price of that victory was too high. Fine. We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory.
Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama's. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, "We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people." This was, said the president, a "moment of success."
Which Obama proceeded to fully squander.
With the 2012 election approaching, he chose to liquidate our military presence in Iraq. We didn't just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases.
We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean.
And, most relevant to the fall of Ramadi, we abandoned the vast intelligence network we had so painstakingly constructed in Anbar province, without which our current patchwork operations there are largely blind and correspondingly feeble.
The current collapse was not predetermined in 2003 but in 2011. Isn't that what should be asked of Hillary Clinton? We know you think the invasion of 2003 was a mistake. But what about the abandonment of 2011? Was that not a mistake?
Mme. Secretary: When you arrived at State, al-Qaida in Iraq had been crushed and expelled from Anbar. The Iraqi government had from Basra to Sadr City fought and defeated the radical, Iranian-proxy Shiite militias. Yet today these militias are back, once again dominating Baghdad.
On your watch, we gave up our position as the dominant influence over a "sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq" — forfeiting that position gratuitously to Iran. Was that not a mistake? And where were you when it was made?
Iraq is now a battlefield between the Sunni jihadists of the Islamic State and the Shiite jihadists of Iran's Islamic Republic. There is no viable center. We abandoned it. The Obama administration's unilateral pullout created a vacuum for the entry of the worst of the worst.
And the damage was self-inflicted. The situation in Iraq, says David Petraeus, "is tragic foremost because it didn't have to turn out this way. The hard-earned progress of the surge was sustained for over three years."
Do the math. That's 2009 through 2011, the first three Obama years. And then came the unraveling. When? The last U.S. troops left Iraq on Dec. 18, 2011.
Want to do retrospective hypotheticals? Start there.

Obama tells the military global warming is imminent security threat

May 21, 2015
ANDREW MALCOLM
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted with permission from Investor's Business Daily
Finally, President Obama addressed what he sees as the nation's worst security threat, just days after the fall of Ramadi to ISIS and North Korea's declaration that it has miniaturized a nuclear warhead to fit on an ICBM capable of reaching the United States.
In a speech to graduates at the Coast Guard Academy, Obama said, yes, yes, terrorism is a grave danger. But there's another one. "We cannot, and we must not, ignore a peril that can affect generations," the commander-in-chief declared ominously.
That threat? Global warming.
"Cadets," Obama intoned, "the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of your service. You’ve been drawn to water -— like the poet who wrote, 'the heart of the great ocean sends a thrilling pulse through me.' You know the beauty of the sea, but you also know its unforgiving power."
Obama acknowledged there remain "some folks" who deny the controversial phenomenon he's been touting. He didn't mention some other folks who think POTUS chose the prominent military commencement address to talk global warming merely to mollify the dominant left of his party angered last week by his granting a giant oil company permission for deep-water drilling in the Arctic.
That's the kind of thing a Chicago politician would do to make peace among the city's feuding factions. (Scroll down for C-SPAN video of Obama's complete remarks or read the full text over here.)
So, Obama patiently explained the situation to the new college graduates. "The science is indisputable. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon dioxide, which traps heat. And the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been in 800,000 years," said Obama, who's been around for 53 of those years.
"I’m here today," Obama added, "to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act -- and we need to act now."
The commander-in-chief got no argument about planetary overheating from the graduates in their stiff-collared dress uniforms seated hatless in bright noontime sunshine for his 32-minute lecture.
Obama painted an extremely ominous portrait colored by global warming. He blamed climate change for the Nigerian drought that spawned Boko Haram terrorists, as well as the Syrian civil war.
He predicted rising water levels would soon see the world plagued by masses of climate refugees, worse storms and wildfires and food shortages, stressing national economies globally.

The president claimed that rising water imminently threatens thousands of miles of U.S. roads, railroads and power plants, as well as Coast Guard stations.
"Politicians who say they care about military readiness," the president added pointedly, "ought to care about this."
He also warned that rising sea levels could in the next 85 years cost the U.S. about $200 billion for relocations. Which is only 20% of the $1 trillion in ineffective stimulus spending that Obama wasted five years ago. Another reason to cut carbon dioxide emissions, he said, is, "I’ve committed the United States to leading the world on this challenge."
Obama said whenever and wherever he meets world leaders, it's not terrorism, trade, war or nuclear weapons he wants to discuss. The president said he always puts climate change at the top of his agenda. Somehow, all this climate change talk reminded the president the other day what a good athlete he is.
But don't worry. The president did not waste an entire Wednesday on global warming. While in Connecticut, Obama also squeezed in time to milk about $1 million from 30 Democrat diners at a Stamford fundraiser.
RELATED: 

TRIGGER-HAPPY GENERATION

THE TRIGGER-HAPPY GENERATION:  Peggy Noonan’s new column in the Wall Street Journal documents the sad legacy of progressive censorship in the name of political correctness:
Well, here are some questions and a few thoughts for all those who have been declaring at all the universities, and on social media, that their feelings have been hurt in the world and that the world had just better straighten up.
Why are you so fixated on the idea of personal safety, by which you apparently mean not having uncomfortable or unhappy thoughts and feelings? Is there any chance this preoccupation is unworthy of you? Please say yes.
There is no such thing as safety. That is asking too much of life. You can’t expect those around you to constantly accommodate your need for safety. That is asking too much of people.
Life gives you potentials for freedom, creativity, achievement, love, all sorts of beautiful things, but none of us are “safe.” And you are especially not safe in an atmosphere of true freedom. People will say and do things that are wrong, stupid, unkind, meant to injure. They’ll bring up subjects you find upsetting. It’s uncomfortable. But isn’t that the price we pay for freedom of speech?
You can ask for courtesy, sensitivity and dignity. You can show others those things, too, as a way of encouraging them. But if you constantly feel anxious and frightened by what you encounter in life, are we sure that means the world must reorder itself? Might it mean you need a lot of therapy?
Yeah, I shudder to think what kind of President this generation could potentially produce. There are still many good, intelligent, and strong young people within our universities. The question is:  Will they find a way to lead, and fight back against this progressive, PC censorship nonsense, or will they allow themselves to be silenced?

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Ferguson Protestors Were Paid To Do So By Liberal Organize Missouri’

‘It Sure Looks Like Some Ferguson Protestors Were Paid To Do So By Liberal Organize Missouri’
Posted By Ed Driscoll On May 19, 2015 @ 4:24 pm In Liberal Fascism,OhThat Liberal Media!,Radical Chic,Uncategorized | 43 Comments
“Remember the protests (and riots) in Ferguson last summer? It looks like at least some of the protestors were told they would be paid to show up and now they’re upset the checks haven’t arrived yet,” Katie Pavlich writes at Townhall. “Weaselzippers has the full story and the screen shots showing “protestors” using the Twitter hashtag #cutthecheck in response to non-payment. Based on tweets, Organize Missouri is responsible for issuing payments:”
On May 14, protesters, upset with not being paid their promised checks for protesting, protested outside MORE, Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment, an ACORN organization which had received funding through George Soros to fund the protests.
To understand how we got here, it’s worth flashing back a few decades. In 1970, Tom Wolfe’s publishers packaged his classic lengthy New York magazine “Radical Chic” article, on Leonard Bernstein allowing the Black Panthers to fundraise in his opulent Park Ave. duplex, as a double-feature with his lesser-known article “Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers,” which captured seething leftist protests on the other end of the wealth spectrum in San Francisco. While it lacks the star power of “Radical Chic,” “Mau-Mauing” offers several key insights into what made the Great Society years and their aftermath hell for millions of Americans, and possibly the first appearance in print of the phrase “community organizing,” our current president’s erstwhile former occupation:
It was a truly adventurous and experimental approach [Johnson-era bureaucrats] had. Instead of handing out alms, which never seemed to change anything, they would encourage the people in the ghettos to organize. They would help them become powerful enough to force the Establishment to give them what they needed. From the beginning the poverty program was aimed at helping ghetto people rise up against their oppressors. It was a scene in which the federal government came into the ghetto and said, “Here is some money and some field advisors. Now you organize your own pressure groups.” It was no accident that Huey Newton and Bobby Seale drew up the ten-point program of the Black Panther Party one night in the offices of the North Oakland Poverty Center.
To sell the poverty program, its backers had to give it the protective coloration of “jobs” and “education,” the Job Corps and Operation Head Start, things like that, things the country as a whole could accept. “Jobs” and “education” were things everybody could agree on. They were part of the free-enterprise ethic. They weren’t uncomfortable subjects like racism and the class structure—and giving the poor the money and the tools to fight City Hall. But from the first that was what the lion’s share of the poverty budget went into. It went into “community organizing,” which was the bureaucratic term for “power to the people,” the term for finding the real leaders of the ghetto and helping them organize the poor.
And how could they find out the identity of these leaders of the people? Simple. In their righteous wrath they would rise up and confront you. It was a beautiful piece of circular reasoning. The real leaders of the ghetto will rise up and confront you … Therefore, when somebody rises up in the ghetto and confronts you, then you know he’s a leader of the people. So the poverty program not only encouraged mau-mauing it, it practically demanded it. Subconsciously, for administrators in the poverty establishment, public and private, confrontations became a ritual. That was the way the system worked. By 1968 it was standard operating procedure. To get a job in the post office, you filled out forms and took the civil-service exam. To get into the poverty scene, you did some mau-mauing. If you could make the flak catchers lose control of the muscles around their mouths, if you could bring fear into their faces, your application was approved.
And by 2014, Ferguson as a media event existed as pure kabuki for the network mini-cameras. (Never mind the innocent businesses looted and burned — the networks sure didn’t.) In August, NBC allowed Al Sharpton to jet out there to organize the protestors, which his network colleague Andrea Mitchell Orwellianly referred to as Sharpton being “on a peace mission.” The protestors which Sharpton had ginned up threw rocks as part of their “peace mission,” narrowly missing his network colleague Chris Hayes, who was on scene. Hayes took it all “unexpectedly” well — as  Larry O’Connor wrote at the Washington Free Beacon, “MSNBC Wouldn’t Be This Calm If Tea Party Protesters Threw Rocks at Their Hosts.” Camera crews working for MSNBC “endangered lives by shining its lights, spotlighting police officers in the crowd of Monday night’s violent racial protests,” the Daily Caller reported back then. CNN trotted out Spike Lee, last seen in 2012 attempting to publish the home address of George Zimmerman’s parents, who blurted on the air to Anderson Cooper, ”I just hope that things will really blow up if the people aren’t happy with the verdict of this upcoming trial.”
Lee got his wish, and then some, as we’ll explore right after the page break.
In November, the New York Times published Officer Darren Wilson’s home address. All of the television networks brought back stunning nighttime footage of the city being burned to the ground in a series of after-hours Nuremberg Rallies, to borrow a memorable phrase from the late Michael O’Donoghue, possibly to never recover economically, a protest that the Obama administration gave their tacit approval to. First noting all of the administration’s prior meddling in the affairs of local law enforcement to poison race relations, in the Daily Beast this past March, Ron Christie wrote that “the president has behaved horribly” during the events in Ferguson and their aftermath:
The circumstances under which [Michael] Brown lost his life are both heartbreaking and tragic—but not in the manner implied by the president. Rather than waiting for local authorities to complete their investigation, the president took sides—particularly with the “his family will never hold Michael in their arms again” line. The implication here is that a white police gunned down a young black man in a manner that was irresponsible and opaque.
The narrative thus set, Al Sharpton and the media descended upon Ferguson alongside outside agitators who marched with such slogans as “No Justice, No Peace” or “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.” More unrest would follow when the grand jury elected not to indict the officer for the tragic shooting. Riots and looting would ensue—with breathless coverage in the media and little from the President of the United States and the Attorney General to quell the violence.
“On November 25, Obama said that the ‘grand jury made a decision yesterday that upset a lot of people.” frequent PJM contributor Hans von Spakovsky wrote late last year, adding:
Eric Holder’s announcement that DOJ will soon release guidelines banning racial profiling again gives the false impression that what happened in Ferguson was the result of racial profiling. In any event, the Bush administration already banned racial and ethnic profiling in 2003 when the Civil Rights Division issued such guidance for all federal law enforcement officials. It said that “racial profiling is wrong and will not be tolerated.”
We should be more concerned about the violence, looting and arson in Ferguson, as well as the false narrative being pushed across the country that black Americans are routinely treated unfairly in the criminal justice system. The undermining of our faith in the criminal justice system by the president, the attorney general, and many others has long-term, negative consequences that will only deepen the racial divide.
And now we learn that a pro-Obama organization apparently paid for at least some of the protestors to swing into action. Call it a vast left-wing conspiracy, to coin a phrase.
But hey, give Mr. Obama and his allies credit — the left may be Potemkin Villages all the way down, but unlike Russia, they sure know how to dispose of them properly when they’re no longer needed.
Related: “DOJ Official: Slavery to Blame for Riots in Ferguson and Baltimore.” And the Crusades too — we mustn’t forget the Crusades. As Glenn Reynolds insta-quips in response, “So Hillary’s scandals are ancient history, but slavery is as fresh as today!”
Update: OK, it’s not the Crusades or Slavery, but it’s history that’s older than the aforementioned Great Society of the 1960s. Astonishingly, as Jack Coleman spotted today at NewsBusters, a University of California-Berkeley professor recently discussed with Terry Gross and the far left audience of NPR’s Fresh Air, “a largely ignored culprit in the creation of segregated urban ghettos that erupted in frequent violence during the ’60s — and as shown by riots in Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore over the last year, are at risk of going up in flames again.” Well, at least Ferguson and Baltimore, the flames were all too real, and as Coleman notes, “New Deal Policies Created Ghettos That Led to Riots.”
Read the whole thing; as Coleman writes, it’s “History that’s been forgotten — or that doesn’t get taught by left wingers who control the unions in public schools? A liberal in front of a classroom has a vested interest in making sure this history remains ignored — it perpetuates the myth that Republicans are solely to blame for racism in this country.”
Elsewhere: #BlackLivesMatters Protesters Protest Soros Group After Getting Stiffed,” Debra Heine writes at the PJ Tatler.