If there is one thing that is always true about President Obama, it is that nothing is ever his fault. Hence his workmanlike performance at a press conference in Dallas yesterday, designed to shift the blame for the current border crisis away from himself and on to Republicans in Congress. Obama's border blame game is premised on five big lies all detailed below.
1. The current crisis is being caused by violence in Central America.
"I think that the challenge we have that has really caused a spike is the significant security challenges in these Central American countries themselves," Obama said yesterday. And it is undeniably true that Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are very violent countries.
But the current wave of violence in all three of these countries peaked in 2009 and has been declining since. Asylum requests from those countries to surrounding countries has risen since 2009, but that doesn't explain why a rising tide of migrants since 2009 suddenly turned into a tsunami just this year.
The reality is that word has gotten back to Central America about the very real facts on the ground here in the United States. The truth, not rumors, of the matter is that migrants from Central America simply are not being sent home.
Yes, a 2008 law signed by President Bush is partly to blame. But so are a series of memos written by Obama's DHS making it a matter of policy not to even apprehend, let alone deport, non-violent illegal immigrants.
It is the combination of the 2008 law requiring Border Patrol agents turn migrants from countries-other-than-Mexico over to Health and Human Services, combined with Obama's refusal to enforce interior immigration laws (this includes but is not limited to DACA), that has created the reality that people from Central America are being released deep into the United States with permisos.
2. Most of the children crossing the border now will be sent home.
"While we intend to do the right thing by these children, their parents need to know that this is an incredibly dangerous situation and it is unlikely that their children will be able to stay," Obama said yesterday, echoing a line his administration has been pushing since the crisis began.
This also is just plain false. Just ask the Center for American Progress' Marshall Fitz who told PBS Monday:
"All of the reporting that has been done so far by international independent agencies, not the Border Patrol, show that somewhere upwards of 58%-60% of the kids are entitled to some form of protection. And we are seeing that. Many of these kids are being granted either asylum or special immigration juvenile protection, or they are getting other visas. So the facts are these kids are eligible for status because they are fleeing traumatic situations in their own countries or they are being trafficked along the way."
One immigration attorney even told Fox News Latino, "The numbers that are eligible are really high... 80 or 90 percent would qualify for some type of relief."
3. The Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill would have prevented the crisis.
Yesterday Obama claimed, "The Senate passed a common-sense, bipartisan bill more than a year ago. It would have strengthened the border, added an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents. It would have strengthened our backlogged immigration courts. It would have put us in a stronger position to deal with this surge and, in fact, prevent it."
Considering that Obama couldn't build a single website for his signature domestic accomplishment in over three years, it is laughable to claim his administration could have beefed up immigration courts in less than a years time to the level necessary to process the current wave of migrants.
And Obama himself even said earlier in the same press conference, border security is not the problem. The current wave of migrants are not sneaking across the border, they are surrendering to Border Patrol agents.
The only way to prevent the current crisis would have been to repeal the 2008 Trafficking Act. And nothing in the Schumer-Rubio bill did that.
4. Obama's supplemental will solve the current crisis.
"There’s a very simple question here," Obama said yesterday, "and that is Congress just needs to pass the supplemental."
But nothing in the supplemental Obama submitted Tuesday would solve the problem. The current crisis is a policy crisis, not a resource crisis. Giving $1.8 billion to HHS to help migrants in the United States will only encourage more migrants to come.
Until the 2008 Trafficking Act is repealed throwing more money at the border would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.
5. We can solve the current crisis with out repealing the 2008 Trafficking Act
"I indicated to him that part of what we’re looking in the supplemental is some flexibility in terms of being able to preserve the due process rights of individuals who come in, but also to make sure that we’re sending a strong signal that they can’t simply show up at the border and automatically assume that they’re going to be absorbed."
Obama is in a hard place. He knows the 2008 Trafficking Act must be repealed, but he has faced heavy pushback from his base against repealing it. He could, of course, just simply use the same executive enforcement powers he used to create DACA to also simply ignore the 2008 Trafficking Act, but his base would never allow that.
He desperately needs political cover from Republicans to fix the problem. But Senate Democrats are never going to agree to just repeal the 2008 Trafficking Act. They are going to demand a larger amnesty closer to the Schumer-Rubio bill in return.
Republicans can't play this game. They can't let Democrats create a border crisis and then demand Republicans accept policy concessions in return for agreeing to clean their own mess. The House should pass a simple repeal of the 2008 Trafficking Act and say they will consider Obama's supplemental request after he starts enforcing the pre-2008 border procedures.
IRS counsel will face government watchdog group Judicial Watch in court today and will be required to explain the "loss" of former IRS official Lois Lerner's emails in front of a judge.
Judicial Watch has been pursuing information about IRS targeting of tea party groups since last year. Despite current lawsuits against the agency, IRS officials failed to disclose why, when and how emails were lost to the court and to Judicial Watch attorneys.
"These emails could be critical to getting to the bottom of the IRS scandal where Tea Party and other conservative group applications were illegally delayed by the IRS," the group released in a statement. "In addition, Lois Lerner had communicated with Department of Justice officials to see if it was possible to prosecute these groups."
The hearing will take place at U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. at 11 a.m.
Editor's Note: This column originally appeared in the July issue of Townhall Magazine.
The global warming fear mongers are at it again.
But twice recently they’ve been caught in the act. Not only are they lying, they’re so desperate that they’re starting to look ridiculous.
“Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year—twice as much as when it was last surveyed,” reports the U.K.’s University of Leeds. “A team of scientists from the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, led by researchers at the University of Leeds, have produced the first complete assessment of Antarctic ice sheet elevation change.”
Like you, I’m suspicious of any group of scientists that live in a “kingdom” that can’t even practice general dentistry correctly.
Or health care.
Or, apparently, math.
The press release goes on to say that the ice melt could contribute to an increase in “global sea levels by 0.45 millimetres each year alone.”
That figure is really not that impressive, especially when you understand that it means about a 2 inch rise over 100 years.
But what’s really impressive about the figure is that it’s just not true.
From climate website Watts Up With That?:
From Climatesanity: Conversion factors for ice and water mass and volume
If one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) is spread evenly over the entire 361 million square kilometers, the thickness of the new layer of water will be given by:
1km3 /361x106km2 =2.78x10-6 meters = 2.78 microns.
Or, in terms of gigatonnes:
1Gt x (1km3/Gt) /361x106km2 = 2.78 x 10-6 meters = 2.78 microns / Gt
That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans!
From the press release, we are seeing about 159 billion tons/year of ice convert- ed to meltwater (unless it sublimates), so the effect on sea level would be 159/1000 or 0.159 x 3 millionths of a meter, or 0.477 millionths of meter of sea level rise per year from this.
I’ll leave it to the highly trained scientist at the University of Leeds to convert the millionths of a meter into inches for you. But it’s my strong recommendation you not allow them to do your taxes.
But hold on there, pardners, we’re not done yet.
We can at least agree, as we’ve been told for years, that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man, right? I mean, that’s indisputable.
Then why are the scientists so eager to hide their data?
“The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming,” reports the Daily Caller.
It seems a blogger has gotten ahold of the primary data used in the research, and the data suggests that far from having a consensus that global warming is entirely manmade, scientists are still skeptical.
This is not the first time that critics have questioned the results of that study. A catalog of studies in a report pub- lished by Science & Education shows that a little more than one quarter of 1 percent of all studies conclude that glob- al warming is entirely man-made, says the Daily Caller.
“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed,” says statistician Dr. William Briggs in a press release accompanying the report. “That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”
And here’s what I know about people who lie: they are liars.
Some people lie for profit, some people lie for power, and some people just lie for the fun of it. I suspect in the global warming crowd there’s a small group of people who are liars, with the large admixture of people who are just believers.
But among believers in history, even Thomas had doubts.
It is up to the faithful, the believers, the ideologues, to cast out the liars.
The people who should be offended by these ploys, stratagems, and sophistications are those who believe deeply in the science of global warming.
But until they cast out the liars, their faith counts for nothing.
After all, it is just another lie. •
John Ransom is the editor of TownhallFinance.com
"Not interested in photo ops." Really, President Barack Obama said that.
Needless to say, commentators noted the absolute absurdity of that statement - it would be hilarious if the crisis weren't so serious.
A hashtag was spawned on Twitter as people noted the obsession that this White House has seemed to have with photo ops:
"I'm not interested in photo ops." pic.twitter.com/sLuMeXb8Uj— Josh Perry (@MrJoshPerry) July 9, 2014
"I'm not interested in photo ops." pic.twitter.com/Dne2RcIh7e— Josh Perry (@MrJoshPerry) July 9, 2014
"I'm not interested in photo ops..." - Obama pic.twitter.com/X1O7qmbhFu— John Sexton (@verumserum) July 9, 2014
Many of those photos are instantly recognizable for the craven politicking that President Obama has engaged in, time and again, with regard to "photo ops."
The Obama White House, as has been noted, is absolutely obsessed with the management of its own image. They've gone to extraordinary lengths, including banning independent photographers from the White House, in order to control President Obama's portrayal in the media. Dylan Byers noted that even the mainstream media has become tired of the lockdown:
The White House Correspondents Association and several leading media outlets have sent a letter to the White House protesting its policy of banning photographers from covering the president at certain events.
"As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government," the WHCA board wrote in the letter delivered to the White House press office.
The authors of the report, Maria Canon and Yang Liu, write:
In summary, we find that the extension of unemployment benefits affected the labor market status of long-term unemployed workers in late 2013. Without extended UI benefits, these unemployed workers would have been more likely to be employed, more likely to exit the labor force, and on average 1.9 percent less likely to remain unemployed in the following period. In short, our simulated early termination of the EUC program lowered the unemployment rate by 3 to 5 basis points, suggesting that the December 2013 expiration of the EUC program might have slightly lowered the unemployment rate in early 2014.
The amount that the authors found that the emergency long-term unemployment benefits artificially propped up the unemployment rate was relatively small. For example, they found that the likelihood of someone to move from unemployment to employment in the absence of the emergency benefits was only 1.2 to 2.1% higher. Every little helps, however, and it's certainly a counterpoint to those who argue that unemployment benefits have had no effect on unemployment.
Hat tip: Victoria Stilwell
It’s a claim that New York Times bestselling author Katie Pavlich makes in her brand new book, “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women,” and one that many readers may vehemently disagree with. After all, as she herself asks, is it really fair to say President Obama is more misogynistic than, say, Presidents Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton?
Well, in short, the answer is ‘yes.’ From Chapter 8:
Folks, hear me out.
For starters, Woodrow Wilson never pretended to be the president of American women. Kennedy and Clinton did not rely single-handedly on the women’s vote to cling to office or craft almost all of their policies to manipulate women into thinking they were on the verge of being handcuffed to their kitchen sinks and forced to churn out baby after baby without access to birth control. That’s what Barack Obama wants every woman to think. That he is the only thing stopping a Republican steamrolling of women’s rights that starts with stealing their condoms and ends in a national campaign to get women out of the workforce and into the home.
I’ll spell it out plainly as I can: Obama is the worst president for women because he has systemically lied to them. He has brazenly campaigned as their champion, even as he seeks to make them wards of the state, forever dependent on government largesse in the form of food stamps and free birth control. He’s claimed to work for their best interests, and yet screwed them at every opportunity. (Unlike with Kennedy and Clinton, that word is not to be taken literally.) Even Mitt Romney has figured it out. As he told me, “If there has been an administration which has been hard on women, it’s this one.” In the Obama worldview, women aren’t human beings capable of charting their own destiny at home or the workplace just as men are, they are dependents in desperate need of government handouts and abortions.
So I say again. Barack Obama is the most anti-women president in American history. Still sounds shocking, doesn’t it?
Of course it does. But Pavlich goes even further, dedicating an entire chapter in her book to defending the charge, providing both anecdotal and empirical evidence to back her claims. From the “testosterone-fueled boys club” of the White House (that, incidentally, still pays women less than men!) to the deliberate targeting and persecution of women tea party activists by the IRS, the Obama administration has an awful track record when it comes to "women’s issues."
So, my friends, to better understand how the Left -- i.e., not conservatives -- are waging a “War on Women,’ pick up a copy of her book today. You'll be glad you did.
Has abortion become the glue that holds liberals together? What is it about this horrific act that never ceases to energize the progressive left?
Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, who’s now the Democratic candidate for governor, became a darling of the left with her filibuster on a bill that sought to ban abortion twenty weeks into a pregnancy.
Now, we have the Democratic candidate for Nevada Lieutenant Governor Lucy Flores being described as “the left’s new hero,” according to left-wing site Salon. What did she do to garner such praise from liberals and feminists? Well, she had an abortion because she decided she was too young to be a mother (Via MSNBC):
“I had six other sisters … all of them became pregnant in their teens – all of them,” Flores said. “One of them was 14 years old when she got pregnant with twins.”She was sixteen. I get it, teenagers make mistakes; we’ve all been at this juncture in our lives. But, that doesn’t mean that liberals should be celebrating those mistakes, either.
Then, with a nervous laugh, Flores told her colleagues something she had never admitted to anyone.
“Since I’m sharing so much this session, I might as well keep going,” she said. “I always said that I was the only one who didn’t have kids in their teenage years. That’s because at 16, I got an abortion.”
Her eyes welled up and her voice caught as she described how she had convinced her father to pay the $200 cost for the procedure. She didn’t want to end up like her sisters, Flores told him.
“I don’t regret it,” she said. “I don’t regret it because I am here making a difference, at least in my mind, for many other young ladies and letting them know that there are options and they can do things to not be in the situation I was in, but to prevent.”
Katie McDonough of Salon added:
When any woman shares her abortion story, she creates space for others to do the same. That in and of itself is a tremendously powerful and generous act. And when women like Flores — or California Rep. Jackie Speier, who disclosed her own abortion experience in 2011 — share stories publicly and in the very places that policies governing reproductive healthcare are crafted and voted on, they change the political landscape. They humanize the issue, and position themselves as experts on the policies that have personally impacted their lives — and the lives of millions of other women. There’s real power in that.
Abortion should be humanized? This is coming from the same site that posted a piece called "so what if abortion ends life," which was a haphazard defense of abortion and putting life on a graduated scale.
And, it’s not just people who are pro-life that are troubled by this trend. Some members of the media, namely ABC News’ Cokie Roberts, were troubled by how “over the top” the 2012 Democratic National Convention was on the issue of abortion.
I think this Democratic convention was really over the top in terms of abortion…every single speaker talked about abortion — and, you know, at some point, you start to alienate people. Thirty percent of Democrats are pro-life.As for laws banning abortion twenty weeks into a pregnancy, almost everyone supports that, including 60% of women.
It’s doubtful that Ms. Flores admission to an abortion during her high school days will have a detrimental impact. It was in high school, and even conservatives know that digging up dirt from those days is a bit of an overreach. They’ve also been the targets of such hijinks. Does anyone remember the Washington Post’s story alleging that Mitt Romney cut some hair off a gay kid in high school?
Shouldn’t it be disturbing that one of the benchmarks in becoming a hero to the American left is having an abortion, or promoting policies that emphatically support it?
I’ll just leave it to Katie Pavlich, who explains how liberals manipulate this issue in her new book.
In one of the more unusual sports stories of the day, a video from 1992 depicts various members of the Washington Redskins and the Buffalo Bills discussing the evils of abortion was unearthed today and published on the sports site SBNation.
While this video is more than 20 years old, the message conveyed is still the same today. Abortion is the taking of a human life that cannot be undone. Kudos to these athletes for speaking out about a cause they believe in.
By now, I'm sure you've seen photos of President Obama playing pool and drinking beer in Denver last night. Understandably, they give off the distinct impression that he doesn’t care -- or at least doesn't mind giving off the impression that he doesn’t care -- about the rapidly deteriorating situation at the US southern border. How else to explain photos such as these?
Democrats, meanwhile, are lamenting the president’s absence and blithe indifference to this crisis as much as anyone. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), for example, has already been admonished by the White House to tone down his criticisms of the president over immigration-related and border security issues. But apparently such warnings are -- and will continue to go -- unheeded. The photos were a bridge too far.
That’s why in an interview today on MSNBC he blasted the president for saying he’s “too busy” to visit the border when, of course, everybody knows that’s a bald-faced lie:
Calls will only grow louder for President Obama to pay Border Patrol agents and humanitarian workers alike a visit. And, while it may be politically expedient for him not to, he may no longer have a choice.
Young Women Are Being Lied To By the Left; Fight Back With New Book “Assault and Flattery” | Scottie Hughes