As it turns out, the speech by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t the communication to Congress that got the Obama administration most upset. Today’s Wall Street Journal reveals in a report from Adam Entous that Israel’s intelligence service had penetrated the talks with Iran, both through human intelligence and signals intelligence. That allowed Israel to make an international case against the emerging deal in an attempt to derail Barack Obama’s desperate desire to reach a rapprochement with Tehran.
And even that didn’t generate the most ire in the White House. No, that came when Israel had the temerity and the nerve to inform a group considered by the Obama administration as a dangerous gathering of subversives … right down Pennsylvania Avenue from the West Wing….
European governments, especially France, helped Israel get the details about Obama’s anti-Israel Iran treacheries. Obama did not want congress to know and Israel told congress so Israel is the bad guy???
“People feel personally sold out,” a senior administration official said. “That’s where the Israelis really better be careful because a lot of these people will not only be around for this administration but possibly the next one as well.”
As many know by now, yesterday at the Obama Dimocratic convention there was at least a strong minority, but to our ears a strong majority, which did not want the word “God” restored to the platform. The same numbers did not want the Obama Dimocratic platform to mention that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or that Hamas is a terrorist organization which should be at least shunned, or that Israel’s borders are no longer the 1967 borders (something Barack Obama has already demanded Israel accept). [snip]
It was clear that many Obama supporters were content to leave out a reference to God in the platform and most importantly stab Israel in the back. [snip]
Barack Obama, according to Jim Vandehei, personally demanded the anti-Israel attacks be included in his platform. Mitt Romney could have used Obama’s platform changes to great effect in Florida. Mitt Romney could have targeted warnings about Obama’s anti-Israel hatred to every American that supports Israel. But Romney only commented briefly about Obama’s anti-Israel convention and then the issue disappeared into a campaign binder somewhere.
The Barack Obama authored attack on Israel at his very own convention is not the first time, nor the last time, Obama has attacked Israel. A few days after the anti-Israel attacks authored by Barack Obama we wondered “Anyone seen Mitt Romney?”
It’s September 11, 2012. The date has a certain resonance for Americans. For Obama it’s “Hate Israel Day.”
In Egypt the American Embassy was attacked, the stars and stripes torn down. The flag of Al-Qaeda, the killers of Americans on 9/11, was raised in Old Glory’s stead.
It’s imperative that Mitt Romney make sure that Americans know what happened at the DNC when it comes to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the softening towards HAMAS, and the borders of Israel. Mitt Romney has a new hammer to pound on these important issues.
Mitt Romney must declare in a most public way that Barack Obama must be forced to change his mind and be forced to be “present” and not his usual “not present”. Mitt Romney must demand that Barack Obama stop his campaign of hate against Israel and meet with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Mitt Romney must declare in a most public way that Barack Obama clear his schedule and meet with Benyamin Netanyahu at this crucial time. Mitt Romney should immediately declare that he is willing to meet with Netanyahu on September 25 or on a mutually convenient date this month. [snip]
Cruz: Imagine a President Who Stands Unapologetically With Israel
Yeah, just imagine.
Ted Cruz received a standing ovation at the world’s largest Christian university today, Liberty University, when he asked the students to imagine, instead of a president who “boycotts Prime Minister Netanyahu,” one who “stands unapologetically with the nation Israel.”
I say as a Jew, thank God Israel has conservative Christian allies. Because if it had to rely on the liberals most of my fellow Jews associate themselves with, Israel would be sunk.
That Israel was a massive applause line for Cruz is a sure sign Republicans will make support for the Jewish state a central theme of their primary campaigns, and of the upcoming contest with a Democratic candidate.
Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.
Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.
Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama realizes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.
Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists. [snip]
For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.
His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions. [snip]
Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries. [snip]
Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.
They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they’d better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.
Ted Cruz is probably not going to win the Republican nomination. But Ted Cruz already is a winner because of his support of Israel and because he will force support for Israel to one of the top issues in 2016.
A federal judge threatened Thursday to sanction the Justice Department if he finds that government lawyers misled him about the rollout of President Obama’s plan to shield up to 5 million people from deportation.
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, visibly annoyed, confronted a U.S. deputy assistant attorney general over previous government assurances on the timing of the program.
He asked why he shouldn’t grant a discovery request for internal federal immigration documents — a request filed Thursday by 26 states that are suing over Obama’s executive actions on immigration. [snip]
At a one-hour hearing in Brownsville, Hanen gave the Justice Department 48 hours to file a motion in response. He said he would then rule promptly on whether to require the government to produce documents concerning applications under Obama’s deferred action program. [snip]
Hanen’s barbed comments left little doubt that he sympathized with lawyers for the 26 states, who said they suffered “irreparable harm” when federal officials granted more than 100,000 applications for deferred action after Obama announced the program Nov. 20. He said government lawyers had assured him that “nothing was happening” regarding the applications.
The outcome of the hearing further delayed the administration’s attempts to resolve the court case and proceed with the immigration program during his last two years in office. The program, one of the president’s signature initiatives, is opposed by Republicans, who control legislatures in most of the 26 states suing, led by Texas.
Hanen said Justice Department lawyers had assured him at a previous hearing that the administration had not begun implementing the deferred-action plan, designed to protect qualified immigrants from deportation for three years.
“Like the judge, the states thought nothing was happening,” Hanen said with exasperation. “Like an idiot, I believed that.” [snip]
Hartnett said lawyers immediately notified the court when they realized “we may have inadvertently caused confusion.” Hanen corrected her, asking, “So you waited three weeks to tell me you were doing it?” [snip]
But the judge appeared unconvinced, saying the three-year reprieves were covered by the lawsuit.
When Hanen asked Hartnett whether American taxpayers would ultimately pay for any sanctions imposed on the Justice Department, she offered a noncommittal response.
“Answer my question,” the judge demanded.
“Ultimately, yes,” Hartnett responded.
Angela Colmenero, a lawyer for Texas and 25 other states, said she understood “that this is a big, complex federal program.” But she said the states needed to rely on “additional documents and not just the words” of Justice Department lawyers. [snip]
“The plaintiffs were more than surprised by this disclosure,” she said. [snip]
Hanen asked Hartnett bluntly whether Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or other senior officials could be trusted on the immigration plan.
“I can trust what Secretary Johnson says … what President Obama says?” the judge asked.
“Yes, your honor, of course,” Hartnett replied.
The Fifth Circuit will not intervene if Judge Hanen orders expedited discovery for plaintiffs regarding Obama’s Justice Department lies. The Fifth Circuit will not want to overrule Judge Hanen if they believe the government lied and further discovery reveals the lies. The case will persist until Obama is out of office. Time is against Obama on this “signature” issue.
Netanyahu and Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat are once again chasing each other as headlines. Netanyahu enjoyed a spectacular election victory yesterday and tomorrow there is an immigration lawsuit court hearing in Texas. The last time we wrote about the lawsuit against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat was the day before Netanyahu spoke to the American Congress.
Thus far our predictions and prognostications from 2014 about this lawsuit have been right on target. Hang on to your girdles, fasten your bonnets extra tight, there have been plenty of shocking developments in the lawsuit against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat for us to discuss (which we will after a brief history of the lawsuit thus far).
Then Bingo. A lawsuit was filed by 17 states. We ruminated on the decisions that led to the lawsuit and why a lawsuit was the way to go because Republicans in Congress would not be able to get the job done. On January 15 a hearing before Judge Hanen was held. We, along with just about everyone else expected Judge Hanen to rule on behalf of the plaintiff states. But, we’ll revise one prediction we made in that article. Now we doubt the 5th Circuit will overturn Judge Hanen’s decision. Why do we reverse that prediction? “Unleash The Kraken”!!!
Judge Hanen is the Kraken. The Kraken has been released!
We thought Judge Hanen would side with the now grown to 26 plaintiff states and we along with many were correct in this easy prediction. But we also thought the Fifth Circuit would reverse Judge Hanen on appeal. We understood the Fifth Circuit was the most conservative district in the nation. But we still thought they would reverse and allow the plaintiffs a quick appeal to the Supreme Court well before the 2016 elections were in full swing and Obama could use that opportunity to attack the Supreme Court – which is what he did on ObamaCare and which Chief Justice John Roberts was terrified of. We figured the Supreme Court will eventually squash Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. But now we think things are much rougher for Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. Why? We did not foresee, could not imagine, the astonishing developments that took place in Judge Kraken’s Hanen’s courtroom.
Once both sides filed their briefs in mid January Judge Hanen withdrew to his chambers. Judge Hanen as promised, did not issue a ruling until after January. Judge Hanen worked on his ruling privately and without hurry. Then Judge Hanen struck on February 17.
As Bibi Netanyahu prepared his speech to Congress, Obama thugs plotted an attack against Judge Hanen’s Preliminary Injunction. Obama’s thugs struck exactly one week after Judge Hanen’s ruling was released. On Monday, January 26, Obama’s lawyers demanded Judge Hanen rule by Wednesday on a Motion they had filed that very same Monday. It was a short notice threat against the judge.
We documented the play by play, brief by brief, sword by sword. Obama’s lawyers threatened Judge Hanen they would file a motion with the Fifth Circuit to remove Hanen’s Preliminary Injunction on Wednesday, two days hence, if Judge Hanen did not himself lift the stay. The 26 plaintiff states asked Judge Hanen for a week to reply to Obama’s thug lawyers. Thrust. Counter-thrust. Then the Judge himself spoke thunderously: Judge Hanen allowed the 26 plaintiff states a full week to file their response to the Obama lawyers. It was Judge Hanen punching Obama thugs in the face. This is what we wrote (predictions included):
Obama tried to thug Judge Hanen. For Obama “thug” is the default play. Judge Hanen knows how to deal with thugs. Contra the claims by Politico, the judge in his order blocked the appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
If Obama lawyers try to ignore the judge’s order and go the the Fifth Circuit. It is our belief that the Fifth Circuit will tell them to wait until Judge Hanen does what he will do. The Fifth Circuit can easily note that the Obama lawyers waited a full week to file their “emergency” so it can’t be such an “emergency”. The Fifth Circuit can note that it is fair to the plaintiffs to give them the same time as Obama lawyers. So wait until Judge Hanen is good and ready.
Judge Hanen? We won’t be surprised if Judge Hanen schedules a hearing in days or weeks to come after Plaintiffs file their motion next Tuesday. Judge Hanen can wait and we believe the Fifth Circuit will wait too. We’ll find out next Tuesday.
Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! We were correct on all points. Judge Hanen will be deliberate and will hold as many hearings as necessary. Judge Hanen will not be thugged. Obama’s lawyers did not file with the Fifth Circuit as threatened and the plaintiff states filed their response.
That’s the story thus far. That’s the sum of our coverage. Now, THE SHOCKING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE OBAMA ILLEGAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DIKTAT LAWSUIT AS WE PREPARE TO WATCH THE KRAKEN RELEASED:
Obama’s thug lawyers prepared for a Sauron style two pronged counterattack against Judge Hanen. First they would issue a new threat, a new deadline against the Judge’s Preliminary Injunction. This was to be followed up with a for-real-this-time filing in the Fifth Circuit to overturn Judge Hanen’s Preliminary Injunction. Second, get a gaggle of states to file a ridiculous brief saying the most ridiculous things to back them up. That was the plan. But the truth is their enemy.
As they prepared the counterattack it turned out that they had been lying to Judge Hanen all along. You shouldn’t lie to a federal judge in a federal court. You might as well kick a Kraken. The Kraken is gonna stomp on your ass. And that is what has happened.
Bear with us as we document the Obama thug lawyer counterattack. First the new threat and the new deadline, as reported by Politico:
Feds press judge to rule by Monday on immigration order stay
The Obama administration has set a new deadline, of sorts, for a federal judge to halt his order blocking President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
In a court filing Wednesday evening, Justice Department lawyers handling the case told U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen that if he doesn’t rule on their stay motion by the end of the day Monday, the federal government could seek to bypass him by seeking a stay directly from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Absent a ruling by close of business on Monday, March 9, 2015, Defendants may seek relief from the Court of Appeals in order to protect their interests,” the DOJ lawyers wrote in their new submission (posted here).
Hanen could be tempted to think that the federal government is crying wolf, since back on Feb. 23, the Justice Department leveled a similar threat to proceed to the 5th Circuit if he didn’t rule on the stay by Feb. 25.
Hanen didn’t rule by then and, in fact, made clear that he’d wouldn’t be ruling until the middle of this week at the earliest. The government’s milestone came and went, with no drive to the 5th Circuit. [snip]
Some legal experts view the stay effort as a longshot, but activists fear that Obama’s immigration actions could lose momentum if they’re on hold for months or longer while an appeal plays out. [snip]
In addition to asking Hanen to stay his ruling pending appeal, the administration asked him, alternatively, to narrow its scope to the State of Texas. Justice Department lawyers said the evidence presented to Hanen was limited to Texas, but lawyers for the states said at least a couple of other states also submitted proof of harm from the Obama executive actions.
The Obama administration has filed an appeal of Hanen’s ruling, but such appeals take an average of nine months to be resolved in the 5th Circuit, which is based in New Orleans. There has not yet been a move by either side in the case to expedite the pending appeal.
So the new red line in the sand set by the Obama thugs was Monday, March 9. On March 9 itself, Obama prostitute Greg Sargent reported the next moves by Obama’s thugs:
In the next few days, approximately a dozen states will call on an appeals court to lift an injunction — imposed by a conservative Texas judge — on President Obama’s executive actions shielding millions from deportation, arguing that they support those actions and see them as being in their economic interest, I’m told.
The move could precipitate an argument among the states over Obama’s policies, and will raise a question: If some states have successfully gotten the courts to block Obama’s actions nationwide, what should happen if other states want those actions to proceed? The bid by these states also could make it more likely that the courts lift the injunction and allow his deportation relief to move forward, at least in some states, while the legal battle over them plays out. [snip]
Thus, the latter states will argue that, at a minimum, the 5th Circuit should lift the injunction for them, because they stand to suffer economic harm if the injunction proceeds. They will also argue that Texas is the only state that has demonstrated it will suffer harm, so the injunction nationwide — and on them — is inappropriate. [snip]
In other words, if Texas can halt Obama’s actions on the basis of strong feelings about prospective harm, then other states can now petition to reverse Hanen’s injunction on the basis of economic research that his injunction harms them.
When President Obama announced his sweeping unilateral executive action on immigration last November, administration officials stressed that the new edict would not take effect immediately. [snip]
The administration’s schedule shaped the schedule of those challenging the president’s action. On Feb. 16, federal judge Andrew Hanen issued an order stopping the program, noting in his opinion that “the DHS’ website provides February 18, 2015 as the date it will begin accepting applications under DACA’s new criteria, and mid-to-late May for DAPA applications.” Hanen barred the administration from implementing “any and all aspects or phases of the expansions (including any and all changes)” to DACA and also “any and all aspects or phases” of DAPA.
So everyone involved knew the score. Changes to DACA, which had been scheduled to start Feb. 18, were on hold. DAPA was also on hold. And everyone assumed those dates to be accurate. But now, the administration is telling a different story.
In a “Defendants’ Advisory” filed with Hanen’s court late Tuesday, the Justice Department notified the judge that it has already implemented significant parts of the Expanded DACA program, and indeed that it has already granted expanded DACA protections and work permits to “approximately 100,000″ people.
In the advisory, which began by claiming the administration has followed Hanen’s order to temporarily stop the implementation of the program, Justice Department lawyers added this:
Out of an abundance of caution, however, Defendants wish to bring one issue to the Court’s attention. Specifically, between November 24, 2014 and the issuance of the Court’s Order, USCIS granted three-year periods of deferred action to approximately 100,000 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 DACA guidelines (and were otherwise determined to warrant such relief), including the issuance of three-year Employment Authorization Documents for those 2012 DACA recipients who were eligible for renewal. These pre-injunction grants of three-year periods of deferred action to those already eligible for 2012 DACA were consistent with the terms of the November Guidance…Defendants nevertheless recognize that their identification of February 18, 2015, as the date by which USCIS planned to accept requests for deferred action under the new and expanded DACA eligibility guidelines, and their identification of March 4, 2015, as the earliest date by which USCIS would make final decisions on such expanded DACA requests, may have led to confusion about when USCIS had begun providing three-year terms of deferred action to individuals already eligible for deferred action under 2012 DACA.
Led to confusion? That’s an understatement. It also led to the conclusion that the administration has misled not only Judge Hanen but everyone in the United States about the president’s immigration action. [snip]
Despite all the administration talk about a three-month period to begin the new policy, Johnson simply declared the DACA changes effective last November 24. On the basis of his memo, administration officials gave expanded DACA protections to those 100,000 people — a breakneck pace, apparently pursued to get as many changes in place before legal challenges could catch up.
Yet in court, administration lawyers claimed that Obama’s changes wouldn’t take effect until Feb. 18. In a motion filed Jan. 14, the Justice Department asked for a two week extension of the deadline to file a brief. “Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the two-week extension sought in this Motion,” the administration argued, “because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not intend to entertain requests for deferred action under the challenged policy until February 18, 2015, and even after it starts accepting requests, it will not be in a position to make any final decisions on those requests at least until March 4, 2015.” Even as the government lawyers wrote those words, the administration was racing to grant immediate extended status to as many illegal immigrants as possible.
The day after filing the motion, Jan. 15, Justice Department lawyer Kathleen Hartnett appeared in Hanen’s court to emphasize that there was no problem delaying things for a while because the administration wasn’t implementing the president’s changes.
“In that [motion] we reiterated that no applications for the revised DACA — this is not even DAPA — revised DACA would be accepted until the 18th of February,” Hartnett told the judge, “and that no action would be taken on any of those applications until March the 4th.”
A moment later, just to be sure, Hanen said to Hartnett, “But as far as you know, nothing is going to happen in the next three weeks?”
“No, your honor,” Hartnett said.
“OK,” Hanen answered. “On either?”
“In terms of accepting applications or granting any up-or-down applications,” Hartnett said.
“OK,” said Hanen.
“For revised DACA, just to be totally clear,” Hartnett said.
Hartnett did not mention the 100,000 illegal immigrants to whom the administration had already rushed to grant longer protections and work permits under the president’s order.
In its fess-up advisory to the court Tuesday night, Justice Department lawyers said the administration has now stopped granting three-year deferred status to anyone — even though it maintains it had the authority to do so all along. But the Justice Department said it will not undo what it has already done for the 100,000 illegal immigrants already covered.
Obama’s thug lawyers lied to Judge Hanen in Judge Hanen’s court. Obama’s thug lawyers lied to Judge Hanen in a filed brief as well.
The government’s lawyers essentially admitted that they were disclosing this fact because it was contrary to what they had previously told the court. That has led to a motion by the State of Texas to be allowed to conduct discovery to find out what happened. Here is Texas’s brief in support of that motion. It is damning:
The lies told by Obama’s lawyers delayed and prevented actions the plaintiffs could have taken to block Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats. Obama’s lawyers lied to plaintiffs’ lawyers. Obama’s lawyers also kicked the Kraken. The Kraken is not happy.
Was it smart of Obama’s lawyers to kick the Kraken in light of the fact that they want the Kraken to rule in their favor or at the very least to issue a ruling, any ruling, so they can move the case forward? Uh, no. You don’t kick the Kraken in the Kraken cave when you want something from the Kraken.
A federal judge signaled Monday that he has no plans to act soon on the Obama Administration’s request to stay an order blocking President Barack Obama’s latest round of executive actions on immigration.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen said in an order issued Monday afternoon that he views as serious claims that federal government lawyers may have misled the court about the implementation of new immigration policies the president ordered in November.
The group of 26 states whose lawsuit persuaded Hanen to block the Obama immigration actions recently filed a motion calling the federal disclosure “surprising” and asserting that Justice Department lawyers had assured the court that no action would be taken to implement Obama’s new policies until mid-February.
Obama’s moves announced in November expanded eligibility for the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program and initiated a new program for illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. However, there was a third part to Obama’s new actions: he extended the “deferred action” period protecting certain immigrants from deportation from two years to three, and authorized the issuance of three-year work permits as well.
Hanen, who sits in Brownsville, Texas, said Monday that he wants a more complete explanation of what happened.
“Due to the seriousness of the matters discussed therein, the Court will not rule on any other pending motions until it is clear that these matters, if true, do not impact the pending matters or any rulings previously made by this Court,” Hanen wrote. He set a hearing on the matter for March 19 and ordered that Justice Department lawyers “be prepared to fully explain to this Court all of the matters addressed in and circumstances surrounding” the notice the feds sent the judge last week. [snip]
Hanen’s decision appears to indicate that he won’t be meeting a deadline of sorts the Justice Department set last week, warning it could move to an appeals court to block Hanen’s original injunction if he didn’t act on a stay request by the close of business Monday.
Whatever slim chance Obama had of getting a ruling from Judge Hanen or the Fifth Circuit just went up in a puff of Kraken smoke.
Judge Hanen will now, as we predicted from the very beginning, commence a series of hearings and discovery proceedings that will last into forever or until Obama is gone from the White House.
The Fifth Circuit? Obama’s lawyers have asked the Fifth Circuit to rule on their motion by March 26. The plaintiff states have until March 23 to respond.
Whatever chance of the Fifth Circuit taking up the appeal filed by Obama’s lawyers is gone. The Fifth Circuit will now wait until Hell freezes over and the Kraken has done his job to completion before they even think about thinking about thinking about even considering to consider the appeal from Obama’s lawyer on Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat.
Judge’s new order makes it harder for Obama to restart immigration moves
After President Obama in November announced plans to shelter millions of people from the threat of deportation, immigration officials wasted no time in carrying them out.
Thousands of young people who had applied for two-year reprieves from deportation instead were given three years free from the threat of being kicked out of the country. About 100,000 applications were approved before last month, when U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Texas ordered a freeze on Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Now, the administration’s disclosure that it approved those applications has added yet another complication, and potentially weeks of more delays, to its attempts to restart the ambitious immigration initiatives. Hanen said in a filing this week that he wanted Justice Department lawyers to “fully explain” why they didn’t mention the three-year permits before last week.
He set a hearing for March 19. [snip]
“It’s vital that we get to the bottom of the recent actions by the Obama administration, and this hearing will be key in obtaining the truth about what appears on its face to be the administration’s clear misrepresentation of the facts in this case,” said Cynthia Meyer, deputy press secretary for the Texas attorney general’s office. [snip]
The current wrangling is over what Justice Department lawyers told the judge during recent hearings as scheduling matters were discussed. In January, lawyers said nothing would be happening before Feb. 18.
Last week, government lawyers, “in an abundance of caution,” disclosed to Hanen that they had been granting the three-year permits since November to DACA applicants who qualified under the 2012 rules. The talk of the Feb. 18 date “may have led to confusion,” said the brief signed by six Justice Department lawyers.
Lawyers for Texas and the other states said the actions were “difficult to square” with the lawyers’ earlier statements in the case.
For the administration, the bottom line of the dispute may mean more problems in moving the case through the courts — and more trouble in getting the immigration program in place before Obama leaves office.
The Israeli elections took a dramatic turn in the early morning hours on Wednesday as official tallies from nearly all precincts indicate that Likud has opened up a significant lead over Zionist Union, a far cry from the virtual dead heat that television exit polls had reported Tuesday evening.
With nearly 95 percent of precincts reporting before dawn on Wednesday, the Likud has emerged as the clear, undisputed victor in the elections.
4:44 A.M. With 99.5 percent of the ballots counted, Likud is increasing its lead with 29 Knesset seats, compared to the Zionist Union’s 24.
That’s our Bibi boy! More Irish in him than the Cheekbone Charlatan, the Cherokee “one drop” from the Codfish State has Native American blood in her. Yup, Bibi should get dual citizenship from the Emerald Isle now that the Blarney Stone kissed him. But if Bibi is the winner, who is the boob?:
Bibi wins big
As Netanyahu seems set to return to power, his relations with the Obama White House appear to reach a new low. [snip]
“Sure loser: Obama,” tweeted Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, a major Netanyahu booster.
In particular, defending a nuclear deal with Iran would have been easier for Obama absent the protests of Netanyahu, who has warned Congress that Obama is striving for “a very bad deal” with Iran. Herzog also questioned the pending deal with Iran, but in more muted tones.
Obama thought he could bypass the American congress and instead have his “executive to executive” agreement passed by the Security Council at the United Nations. Without Netanyahu to protest Obama would have had the UN lift sanctions against his pals in Iran and thereby be able to ignore the Constitution and the American congress would have been unable to stop Obama as they watched the world-wide sanctions against Iran lifted and Israel eventually obliterated.
Netanyahu’s reelection (a record fourth term) as Prime Minister of Israel has just thrown Obama’s plots into the crapper.
The polls close there at 4 p.m. ET. Here’s your thread for following results, which should be updated regularly at the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, the New York Times, the BBC, and, well, pretty much every other major western news outlet with a decent international section.
Israeli voters have spoken. We’ll find out soon what they said. A Channel 2 exit poll has it Likud (Bibi) 28, Zionist Union (Herzog) 27. Channel 10 and Channel 1 have it at 27 for both. If Likud loses expect a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Obama’s legacy will be Armageddon.
Livni forgoes rotating premiership with Herzog
Zionist Union’s No. 2 drops bombshell 12 hours before election; Netanyahu, Herzog accuse each other of ‘panicking’
The Zionist Union’s Tzipi Livni announced Monday evening that she would give up the rotation of the premiership with the slate’s leader, Isaac Herzog, an agreement the two made months ago when her Hatnua party merged with his Labor Party. [snip]
The bombshell came 12 hours before polling stations were set to open, in an apparent last-ditch effort to garner additional votes. [snip]
In a response to the announcement, Netanyahu told Channel 2 that the decision reflected the Zionist Union’s “panic” — an accusation echoed by Herzog, who in turn said Netanyahu was the one “panicking.”
Netanyahu told the TV station that the move proved two things: “One, that they’re lying. Either they lied earlier [when they announced the rotation], or they’re lying now. And the second thing is that they can’t deal with any pressure. They can’t deal with the pressure of the polls, how will they be able to deal with international pressure?” [snip]
On Sunday, Haaretz reported that during a Zionist Union campaign meeting, Livni said she was willing to forgo the rotation. But strategist Reuven Adler opined that such a move, announced so close to the election, would be detrimental.
Two hours before the announcement, Herzog emphatically denied that the two were set to cancel the rotation agreement. “There was no discussion about [whether to cancel the rotation] in the past week. It’s not on the agenda, period. The partnership between Livni and me brought us to [where we are] today. It is an important partnership,” Herzog told Army Radio.
“It’s not on the agenda, period.” Sounds like an Obama “period”. Watch out Israel!
We’re not experts on Israeli politics but this appears to be good for Netanyahu and bad for Herzog. “Two hours before the announcement…” Hmm.
Obama’s gonna need a bigger bus as number of opponents grows.
Benyamin Netanyahu is under threat by Barack Obama. The stories seep out daily. Obama used American government resources to destroy Netanyahu’s election chances. Obama operatives are in Israel to mobilize against Netanyahu and defeat him.
Opinion polls released in Israel today show the left-wing “Zionist Union” party (a combination of the venerable Labor party and Tzipi Livni’s group) holding a 3-4 seat lead over the right-wing Likud party. However, the total size of the right and left wing blocs in the Knesset would be equal. Thus the nature of the government that will be formed will ultimately depend on the center-right, brand-new Kulanu party, and the two mainstay haredi parties.
Add to the multi-party complications the ban on published polls close before an election – so we are somewhat flying blind – those Friday 13 polls are the last that will be published. Netanyahu might win or lose or win/lose or lose/win:
The results echoed surveys released earlier Friday — the final day that opinion polls could legally be published before Tuesday’s election — which both predicted a win for the Zionist Union.
But Israel’s complex electoral system, where many parties are vying for power, means the task of forming a new government does not automatically fall to the winning candidate or list.
Israel’s new premier will be the one who can build a coalition commanding a majority of at least 61 seats in the 120-strong Knesset.
That task will be all the harder as there are at least 11 party lists to reckon with from across the political spectrum as well as ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties.
Under the proportional system, voters choose party lists rather than individual candidates, with seats distributed according to the percentage of the vote received.
Analysts believe the next three days will be crucial, as 20 percent of voters have said they are undecided.
Netanyahu has run a campaign focused squarely on security issues, arguing that only he is capable of protecting Israel from an Iranian nuclear threat and warning that security will be at risk in case of victory for his rivals, the centre-left Zionist Union.
But on the street, voters appeared more concerned by the increasingly unmanageable cost of living and the Jewish state’s housing crisis.
With the last opinion polls showing a consistent erosion in support for his rightwing Likud, Netanyahu on Sunday launched a last-ditch charm offensive to lure the support of centre-right Kulanu.
Barack Obama might score a Chicago style St. Valentine’s Day style massacre hit against Netanyahu on St. Patrick’s Day. But there is another….
Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, who talks to Netanyahu ‘a lot,’ says his country is in danger of collapse
CAIRO Since the army took power from Mohamed Morsi in 2013 with popular support, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi says he’s been fighting to keep the forces of anarchy at bay. On the eve of a large investment conference this weekend, he invited The Washington Post’s Lally Weymouth to the massive white presidential palace for a conversation about Egypt’s problematic relationship with Washington, how to defeat the Islamic State, and his fears and hopes for his country. Edited excerpts follow.
Sissi: Do you remember the last time we met [in August 2013], what I said?
Yes, you said you felt the U.S. had turned its back on Egypt. What is your opinion today?
I believe we have a miscommunication. It seems we can’t convey our voice in as clear a fashion as it should be. However, the dangers surrounding this region are clear, and I believe the United States is following closely how terrorism is threatening [it].
What do you think the U.S. should do?
Support Egypt, support the popular will of the Egyptians.
Do you mean the U.S. should stand by you?
Sissi reflects the popular will of Egyptians.
In 2013, President Obama withheld F-16s and other arms until Egypt moves toward a “sustainable, inclusive and nonviolent transition to democracy.” Your reaction?
I just want to ask, who is resorting to violence here in Egypt? Those who did not want to participate constructively in the path to democracy in the wake of the 30th June [when the Sissi-led army ousted Morsi].
You mean the Muslim Brotherhood?
[Nods.] They chose confrontation with the state. Have you seen the state of Egypt taking actions against anyone in Sinai except those who carry arms, threaten and kill members of the military and police and even innocent civilians? We are facing violence inside Sinai and on our western border with Libya and even within parts of [this] country. There is no security in Libya to prevent the flow of weapons and foreign fighters who come into Egypt and threaten our national security. Who is bombing electric grids, putting explosives at the bus and train stations? Who is killing civilians in the streets?
What is the answer?
Do you mean extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood?
The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of extreme ideology. They are the godfather of all terrorist organizations. They spread it all over the world.
Are they the godfather of ISIS?
All extremists derive from one pool. This extreme mind-set is nurtured by religious rhetoric that needs to be reformed.
You made a speech on that subject on Jan. 1.
It was the truth. Religious rhetoric is a problem. It has certain ideas that just promote confused thoughts about religion when adopted by people. People resort to violence when they adopt these wrong religious ideas.
We praised Al-Sisi’s January 1 speech and suggested Congress invite him to speak. The Congress invited Netanyahu instead. Al-Sisi’s voice still needs to be heard in the halls of Congress.
Barack Obama wants to punish American ally Egypt with economic and military sanctions yet wants to lift sanctions against American enemy Iran. Obama protects the murderous Muslim Brotherhood and attacks American ally Al-Sisi.
Al-Sisi is sending a strong message in barely veiled language which does nothing to hide contempt for Barack Obama and support for Netanyahu and Israel:
You feel there is a vacuum of U.S. leadership?
I didn’t say that.
But do you feel that way?
Egypt has a population of 90 million. If this country fails, the whole region will slide into a cycle of anarchy that will represent a grave danger to all countries in this region, including Israel, and would extend to Europe.
How do you see the threat from Iran? Do you agree they should not have a nuclear weapon?
We understand that President Obama is engaged in a lot of actions in order to tackle this issue. We should give him time. . . . Meanwhile, we have to understand the Israeli concern.
We have been honoring the peace treaty with Israel since the day it was signed. . . . One example that reflects the magnitude of trust and confidence between the two parties is that the [treaty] does not allow Egyptian troops in the middle and eastern sections of the Sinai — the area that overlooks the joint border. But the Israelis said it was fine to have Egyptian troops in those areas. This means the hostile mood and skepticism have diminished with peace with Israel. This can happen with the other Arab countries and Israel if a two-state solution is reached.
You speak to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a lot?
Israel’s voters should know that Barack Obama hates Netanyahu and Al-Sisi and is for all appearances by his actions in love with the Muslim Brotherhood and those who hate Israel. Obama’s treacheries against Israel and for Iran multiply daily. Netanyahu and Al-Sisi know of Obama’s treacheries against Israel and Egypt and on behalf of Iran. Obama’s treacheries are such that even Obama Dimocrats are prepared to fight Obama.
Al-Sisi of Egypt is on a campaign to reelect Netanyahu. The Washington Post interview is one in a series of public pronouncements and interviews to discuss security issues in the Middle East and to warn of the danger. Al-Sisi knows Netanyahu’s message to Israel’s voters is about security. Al-Sisi is trying to help elect Netanyahu. Will Israel’s voters listen?
A huge thug bully by the name of Michael Brown was justifiably shot by a police officer on August 9, 2014. That police officer, Darren Wilson, was vilified by Big Media and was so persecuted he was forced to resign from his job. Barack Obama and Eric Holder stoked hatred against the police officer. Barack Obama and Eric Holder beatified the thug.
Public officials, many in the Congressional Black Caucus, took up the phony cry of the thug’s defenders and exclaimed the lie “hands up, don’t shoot.” It was all a lie. It was all a phony race-baiting lie. Barack Obama and Eric Holder helped perpetuate the lie.
All across America idiots took up the thug’s banner. The Grammy Awards further propagandized the phony “hands up, don’t shoot” lie. Football players at football games turned the thug bully Michael Brown into a black community hero. But Michael Brown was a thug and a bully and a criminal.
For months after the justified death of thug Michael Brown, Barack Obama and Eric Holder continued to race-bait. The Department of Justice under Eric Holder investigated the police officers who protected the community. The thugs and criminals were aided and abetted by Barack Obama and Eric Holder. Finally the whole stinking Obama/Holder lie was exposed as even the investigators of the Department of Justice came to the obvious conclusions:
The encounter between Wilson and Brown took place over an approximately two-minute period of time at about noon on August 9, 2014. Wilson was on duty and driving his department-issued Chevy Tahoe SUV westbound on Canfield Drive in Ferguson, Missouri when he saw Brown and his friend, Witness 101, walking eastbound in the middle of the street. Brown and Witness 101 had just come from Ferguson Market and Liquor (“Ferguson Market”), a nearby convenience store, where, at approximately 11:53 a.m., Brown stole several packages of cigarillos. As captured on the store’s surveillance video, when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. As a result, an FPD dispatch call went out over the police radio for a “stealing in progress.” The dispatch recordings and Wilson’s radio transmissions establish that Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101.
As Wilson drove toward Brown and Witness 101, he told the two men to walk on the sidewalk. According to Wilson’s statement to prosecutors and investigators, he suspected that Brown and Witness 101 were involved in the incident at Ferguson Market based on the descriptions he heard on the radio and the cigarillos in Brown’s hands. Wilson then called for backup, stating, “Put me on Canfield with two and send me another car.” Wilson backed up his SUV and parked at an angle, blocking most of both lanes of traffic, and stopping Brown and Witness 101 from walking any further. Wilson attempted to open the driver’s door of the SUV to exit his vehicle, but as he swung it open, the door came into contact with Brown’s body and either rebounded closed or Brown pushed it closed.
Wilson and other witnesses stated that Brown then reached into the SUV through the open driver’s window and punched and grabbed Wilson. This is corroborated by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm. While there are other individuals who stated that Wilson reached out of the SUV and grabbed Brown by the neck, prosecutors could not credit their accounts because they were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence, as detailed throughout this report.
Wilson told prosecutors and investigators that he responded to Brown reaching into the SUV and punching him by withdrawing his gun because he could not access less lethal weapons while seated inside the SUV. Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand. Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. According to three autopsies, Brown sustained a close range gunshot wound to the fleshy portion of his right hand at the base of his right thumb. Soot from the muzzle of the gun found embedded in the tissue of this wound coupled with indicia of thermal change from the heat of the muzzle indicate that Brown’s hand was within inches of the muzzle of Wilson’s gun when it was fired. The location of the recovered bullet in the side panel of the driver’s door, just above Wilson’s lap, also corroborates Wilson’s account of the struggle over the gun and when the gun was fired, as do witness accounts that Wilson fired at least one shot from inside the SUV.
Although no eyewitnesses directly corroborate Wilson’s account of Brown’s attempt to gain control of the gun, there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s account of what occurred inside the SUV. Some witnesses claim that Brown’s arms were never inside the SUV. However, as discussed later in this report, those witness accounts could not be relied upon in a prosecution because credible witness accounts and physical and forensic evidence, i.e. Brown’s DNA inside the SUV and on Wilson’s shirt collar and the bullet trajectory and close-range gunshot wound to Brown’s hand, establish that Brown’s arms and/or torso were inside the SUV.
After the initial shooting in side the SUV, the evidence establishes that Brown ran eastbound on Canfield Drive and Wilson chased after him. The autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back. The autopsy results alone do not indicate the direction Brown was facing when he received two wounds to his right arm, given the mobility of the arm. However, as detailed later in this report, there are no witness accounts that could be relied upon in a prosecution to prove that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away. Witnesses who say so cannot be relied upon in a prosecution because they have given accounts that are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence or are significantly inconsistent with their own prior statements made throughout the investigation.
Brown ran at least 180 feet away from the SUV, as verified by the location of bloodstains on the roadway, which DNA analysis confirms was Brown’s blood. Brown then turned around and came back toward Wilson, falling to his death approximately 21.6 feet west of the blood in the roadway. Those witness accounts stating that Brown never moved back toward Wilson could not be relied upon in a prosecution because their accounts cannot be reconciled with the DNA bloodstain evidence and other credible witness accounts.
As detailed throughout this report, several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway, as Brown continued to move toward Wilson, Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground. Wilson stated that he feared Brown would again assault him because of Brown’s conduct at the SUV and because as Brown moved toward him, Wilson saw Brown reach his right hand under his t-shirt into what appeared to be his waistband. There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson’s stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety.
Ballistics analysis indicates that Wilson fired a total of 12 shots, two from the SUV and ten on the roadway. Witness accounts and an audio recording indicate that when Wilson and Brown were on the roadway, Wilson fired three gunshot volleys, pausing in between each one. According to the autopsy results, Wilson shot and hit Brown as few as six or as many as eight times, including the gunshot to Brown’s hand. Brown fell to the ground dead as a result of a gunshot to the apex of his head. With the exception of the first shot to Brown’s hand, all of the shots that struck Brown were fired from a distance of more than two feet. As documented by crime scene photographs, Brown fell to the ground with his left, uninjured hand balled up by his waistband, and his right, injured hand palm up by his side. Witness accounts and cellular phone video prove that Wilson did not touch Brown’s body after he fired the final shot and Brown fell to the ground.
Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.
While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,” moving in “slowmotion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.
It wasn’t individuals that Holder called “racist” it was an entire department. The evidence consisted of emails with jokes such as “President Obama would not be president for very long because “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” The joke of that joke is that it reads as if it was sent and read by Obama supporters and donors from Hollywood.
After the emails were uncovered, the Ferguson Police Department either fired or began investigations of the officers who sent and received the offending emails. The police chief of the department resigned as well as five others including one judge who simply thought it was not worth all the threats to his life to continue to do his job.
Sorry: The Justice report doesn’t prove disparate treatment, let alone discrimination.
In fact, it looks more like something ginned up to distract from the embarrassing fact that Justice (in another report released the same day) wound up fully validating the findings of the Ferguson grand jury.
Racism is serious, and those engaging in it should be shamed — but we should have real evidence before accusing others of it. And every one of the Justice report’s main claims of evidence of discrimination falls short.
Starting with the primary numerical claim. The report notes on Page 4: “Ferguson’s law-enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African-Americans.
“Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African-Americans account for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations, and 93 percent of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67 percent of Ferguson’s population.”
Those statistics don’t prove racism, because blacks don’t commit traffic offenses at the same rate as other population groups.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2011 Police-Public Contact Survey indicates that, nationwide, blacks were 31 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over for a traffic stop.
Ferguson is a black-majority town. If its blacks were pulled over at the same rate as blacks nationally, they’d account for 87.5 percent of traffic stops.
In other words, the numbers actually suggest that Ferguson police may be slightly less likely to pull over black drivers than are their national counterparts. They certainly don’t show that Ferguson is a hotbed of racism.
Critics may assert that that “31 percent more likely” figure simply shows that racism is endemic to police forces nationwide.
Hmm: The survey also reveals that men are 42 percent more likely than women to be pulled over for traffic stops. Should we conclude that police are biased against men, or that men drive more recklessly?
In fact, blacks die in car accidents at a rate about twice their share of car owners.
A 2006 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study found that black drivers who were killed in accidents have the highest rate of past convictions for speeding and for other moving violations. This suggests that there are a lot of unsafe black drivers, not racism.
The Justice report on Ferguson continues, “African-Americans are at least 50 percent more likely to have their cases lead to an arrest warrant, and accounted for 92 percent of cases in which an arrest warrant was issued by the Ferguson Municipal Court in 2013.”
Again, this pretends that a mere difference is evidence of discrimination.
But the report’s statistic doesn’t even look at whether people pay their fine or appear in court — something that makes a big difference in whether to issue a warrant.
Could it be that blacks are more likely to face particularly serious charges?
Since Justice has gone through the case files, it could easily have answered the questions. Perhaps it didn’t like the answers. (Unfortunately, no national data are available for comparison.)
Another major complaint in the Justice report: “Most strikingly, the court issues municipal arrest warrants not on the basis of public-safety needs, but rather as a routine response to missed court appearances and required fine payments.”
If you think that this is unique to Ferguson, try not paying your next speeding ticket.
As for the anecdotal evidence Justice offers to bring home this complaint, well, here’s an anecdote from Washington, DC — a town with a black mayor and black-majority city council.
Megan Johnson, a black DC woman, recently failed to pay 10 parking tickets within the allotted 30 days. The city doubled her fines from $500 to $1,000, then booted, towed and sold her car — and charged her $700 for towing and impounding it.
DC sold the car at auction for $500 and won’t even credit that amount to what she owes. It’s now attaching her tax refunds.
Justice’s Ferguson anecdotes no more prove racism than Megan Johnson’s experience proves the DC government is racist.
Finally, for “direct evidence of racial bias,” the report describes seven emails from Ferguson police officers from 2008 to 2011 that Justice describes as offensive to blacks, women, Muslims, President Obama and his wife, and possibly people of mixed race.
But this begs some big questions: Did only one or two of the 53 officers send the emails? Did the objectionable emails end in 2011 because those officers no longer worked for the department or were told to stop?
The Justice Department’s report reads as a prosecutor’s brief, not an unbiased attempt to get at the truth, with evidence carefully selected and portrayed in the strongest possible light.
Differences don’t necessarily imply racism, but the Obama Justice Department doesn’t seem to care.
As anyone watching the elections in Chicago knows, Rahm Emmanuel is in great trouble due to the many red light cameras Emmanuel has installed on city streets. Is Chicago and the Chicago Democratic Party a hotbed of racism as is the District of Columbia if we look at the crime statistics and those trapped by red light cameras? Are red light cameras “racist”?:
Also last week, the Justice Department, with much fanfare, announced that the Ferguson police department for which Darren Wilson used to work is guilty of racist policing and, indeed, is extracting money from African-American through its law enforcement practices. Relying on this claim, Eric Holder attempted to defend the violent and lawless response of Ferguson residents to the justified shooting of Michael Brown, characterizing it as an understandable reaction to the “highly toxic environment” created by the Ferguson police over the years.
For leftists like Holder, violence and lawlessness by African-Americans are never the fault of the perpetrators.
But what about the merits of the DOJ’s report condemning the Ferguson PD? [snip]
The Justice Department finds that Blacks make up 67 percent of the population of Ferguson, but 76 percent of those with outstanding arrest warrants. Most outstanding arrest warrants stem from (a) a violation such as speeding or a parking ticket and (b) a failure to appear in court and/or pay the ticket.
There is no basis for inferring racism from the disparity between African-American representation in the general population compared to African-American representation in the population of those with outstanding arrest warrants. The disparity might be explained by Black over-representation among (a) violators of traffic and parking laws and/or (b) those who fail to appear in court or pay their fines.
With respect to speeding, DOJ found that Blacks in Ferguson represent 72 percent of those detected speeding through radar or laser verification methods. Thus, it appears that Blacks are, in fact, more likely than Whites to speed in Ferguson.
Are radars or red light cameras racist? We doubt it even as we don’t doubt that some police officers might be racist. Eric Holder and the Department of Justice certainly had the resources to produce a well researched report that produced facts and conclusions from those facts that could not be disputed. Instead Holder served up a report of innuendo by the use of statistical non sequiturs.
Eric Holder and Barack Obama have produced a culture of justification for thugs to feel justified in their thuggery. Thugs become heroes. Real heroes are vilified.
“The illegal alien dreamer that murdered my son only served four months of an eight month sentence for assault with a deadly weapon and battery on a police officer,” Shaw said. “He was released from the county jail the day before he executed my son. Why was this violent illegal alien allowed to walk the streets of America instead of being deported?”
“Do black lives really matter or does it matter only if you are shot by a white person or a white policeman?” he added, before alluding to the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ saying that became popular following the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Mo. “My son was shot in the head by an illegal alien gang banger while he lay on his back with his hands up. he still shot him through his hand into his head and killed him.”
Because of Barack Obama and Eric Holder the police officers who protect the community are shot, as in Ferguson, and sometimes killed as in New York City.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder have blood on their hands.
A good place to start if you are on a traitor hunt is Obama policies. Obama policies appear to be designed to provide sufficient time and sufficient cover for Jarrett’s country of descent to acquire nuclear weapons and missiles equipped with nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy Israel and achieve hegemony over the Middle East.
Recently, 47 Republican senators concerned about Obama’s treacherous policies on Iran sent a letter to Iran. These Republican senators are rationally concerned about Barack Obama’s attempts to circumvent congress and the constitutional requirement that congress approve all treaties between this nation and foreign powers.
This letter has led to charges on Twitter and some of the nation’s Big Media publications that the 47 Republicans exercising their rights and prerogatives are #47Traitors. Even Hillary yesterday threw some red meat to the ravenous dogs of Big Media with an ill-advised condemnation of the 47 courageous and correct Republican letter writing senators.
The Republican soon-to-be-majority in the U.S. Senate along with their fortified army in the House of Representatives must make it their top priority to defeat this Barack Obama fifth column move to assure that Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
Republicans in the House and Senate should move to defund any and all activities in the State Department, White House, Pentagon, in any and all agencies that plot to negotiate with Iran in any way without notification to the American Congress and approval by the Congress.
Barack Obama would threaten to veto, then veto, any such law passed by Congress. But we believe that even prominent Obama Dimocrats such as Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Robert Menendez would bolster Republicans and vote to override an Obama veto. Robert Menendez seeks to stop the threat to American security of a nuclear Iran:
Vindictive Charges Against Menendez Stink Of Chicago Politics
Politics: Sen. Bob Menendez has wallowed in New Jersey’s Democratic political swamp for years. So it’s peculiar for the Justice Department to ready corruption charges right after he dissents with Obama’s policies.
Just who do these people think they are fooling?
As word leaked of coming corruption charges against Menendez — supposedly for using his Senate office to advance the business interests of a Democratic donor in exchange for gifts — the mind turns to the same sort of allegations against Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, New York Democrats Charles Rangel and Charles Schumer, and the husband of House Democratic Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
None of those political animals is facing charges, nor do they have any fear of it.
Why? Because, it seems, they toe the party line. [snip]
The one Democrat who dared stand up to President Obama on his atrocious cave-in deal with Iran, as well as his no-preconditions diplomatic relations with Cuba and his abuse of Israel, suddenly faces corruption charges.
Washington insiders say that the plan against Menendez is to get him removed as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where, knowing foreign policy, he has had no choice but to oppose the president’s policies that run counter to U.S. interests — even as the president fantasizes about getting another Nobel Peace prize or a Nixon-In-China place in history.
Muscling a critic like this smacks of Stalin-style show trials, where offenders suddenly fall from favor to become nonpersons. It smacks of Argentina’s Medici-politics of silencing its president’s prosecutor.
And going after Menendez is little more than dirty Chicago-style politics that’s so obvious to everyone it stinks.
Menendez is finding out that Obama’s initials are not “B.O.” for nothing. Obama stinks. Obama policies stink. So we applaud those who stand up forthrightly to oppose stinky Obama’s treacherous policies.
The critical role of Congress in the adoption of international agreements was clearly laid out by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution. And it’s a principle upon which Democrats and Republicans have largely agreed.
In fact, then-Sen. Joe Biden once reflected on this very topic, writing that “the president and the Senate are partners in the process by which the United States enters into, and adheres to, international obligations.”
It’s not often I agree with former senator and now Vice President Biden, but his words here are clear. The Senate must approve any deal President Obama negotiates with Iran by a two-thirds majority vote.
Anything less will not be considered a binding agreement when President Obama’s term expires in two years. This is true of any agreement, but in particular with the nuclear deal President Obama intends to strike with Iran.
Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the Obama administration has so far completely bypassed Congress in its negotiations with Iran.
The administration cares little about what will win congressional approval — only complete nuclear disarmament — and more about just reaching some sort of deal.
Regrettably, it appears the deal President Obama is negotiating with Iran will not be a good one. In fact, if reports are correct, it will be a bad one that will ultimately allow Iran to continue its nuclear program and ultimately develop a nuclear weapon.
That is why this week, I, along with 46 of my fellow senators, wrote Iranian leaders to inform them of the role Congress plays in approving their agreement. Our goal is simple: to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Barack Obama wants to circumvent the Constitution. These Republican senators want to obey the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Today, these Republican senators might have won.
Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding
Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding, we might never have learned from Secretary of State John Kerry that “we are not negotiating a legally binding plan.” Oh, really? [snip]
What then do the Iranians think they are getting? No wonder the White House threw a fit. Cotton, as he did in an op-ed today, is reminding everyone of a simple fact: The deal goes away when Obama leaves office. [snip]
This has several ramifications. First, it becomes the main issue for the 2016 campaign. Every candidate will have to signal whether they will walk away from any deal. George W. Bush walked away from the nonbinding deal with North Korea, and the next president can do the same with regard to a faulty Iran deal. Do Democrats want to run defending an Iran deal with a 1- year sunset? Good grief. Not even Bill Clinton could do that. Over 80 percent of Americans oppose just such a deal.
Second, the Iranians cannot be sure they are getting more than a couple of years of sanctions relief; that may be all they want and enough to break the back of sanctions in Europe and elsewhere. But without Congress — just like Cotton said — they don’t get rid of sanctions.
Third, Congress should rethink its strategy. If it wants to leave the bulk of sanctions in place, it need do nothing more. If it wants to increase sanctions, as the Menendez-Kirk legislation envisions, lawmakers need to make certain they have enough votes to override a veto. And as for an up-or-down vote, Congress can certainly deliver a sense-of-Congress resolution — which is not subject to a veto — but it can simply hang tight, see what happens in 2016 and refuse to abandon sanctions.
This is a pretty huge deal and should cause some serious rethinking about what the administration is doing. If all it can promise is, in effect, disruption of the sanctions regime during the lame-duck president’s remaining time in office, his conduct may undercut future presidents’ leverage. Is this just about getting a piece of paper as a legacy and leaving others to deal with the mess? It sure looks that way.
Obama wants a trip to Iran to sign an agreement. Valerie Jarrett can’t wait to visit home.
[edited: Kerry testimony video at link http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=washingtonexaminer&videoId=28706898
The Botox must have Kerry befuddled. Kerry thinks that an “executive-to-executive agreement” somehow will lift sanctions on Iran even though only Congress can lift the Iran sanctions. Here’s Kerry under the influence of Botox:
“When it says that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time is flat wrong. You don’t have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country,” Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which does not include Senator Tom Cotton, the Republican from Arkansas who wrote the letter.
The Obama administration won’t submit any deal limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions to Congress for approval because it won’t be legally binding, Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday.
“We’ve been clear from the beginning we’re not negotiating a legally binding plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. [snip]
As he spoke, committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who did not sign the letter but is a sponsor of legislation to require approval of any deal, cut him off.
Corker later noted that as a senator, Kerry had demanded congressional approval of a proposed agreement with Iraq on the status of U.S. troops there.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."