Over the weekend in an interview with ABC's This Week, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested (again) some people are opponents of President Obama and himself because they are black.
"There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me, directed at the president,” Holder said. "You know, people talking about taking their country back. I can’t look into people’s hearts, look into people’s minds. But it seems to me that this president has been treated differently than others."
"There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus,” he added.
If Holder really believes it's just a "few" people who oppose him based on his skin color, then why does he continually make those "few" the focus? The Obama administration repeatedly uses the race argument to shut down debate about serious topics and controversies.
As a reminder, Holder said America was a nation full of cowards unwilling to talk about race during a speech back in 2009.
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on two US Sunday morning shows to staunchly defend his nation's aggressive response to rocket fire from Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Tensions have been running extremely high in the region since the June kidnapping and cold-blooded murder of three Israeli teenagers -- one of whom was a US citizen -- by Hamas-linked killers. A revenge killing of a Palestinian youth by Jewish perpetrators in early July was quickly and unequivocally condemned by Israel's leaders, who promised to prosecute the offenders. Since the initial abduction, Hamas has rained hundreds of rockets on Israel, setting off air raid sirens and sending civilians scrambling for shelter. No Israelis have been killed by the current round of shelling, thanks to the country's sophisticated 'Iron Dome' missile defense shield and its efficient bomb shelter protocols.
Israeli troops have responded with surgical attacks against Hamas targets -- including private homes and mosques, which the terrorists cynically use as staging grounds for launching attacks. A small force of IDF soldiers made a brief incursion into Gaza over the weekend; four troops were wounded on the mission, the purpose of which was to take out a rocket launching site. With many critics within the anti-Israel international community dishonestly and predictably casting Israel as the disproportionate aggressor, top Israeli officials are pushing back with a public relations offensive. The country's ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, appeared on CBS' Face the Nation yesterday, and acquitted himself impressively. If you don't have time to watch the entire clip, try to catch three short segments. First, the Israeli aerial footage of a military mission being called off for fear of civilian casualties (1:28), second, Derner's cell phone sounding a real-time air raid siren as a Hamas rocket sped toward an Israeli city -- live during the interview (3:00), and his utter destruction of a Palestinian spokesman's revisionist history earlier in the program:
"The Palestinian Ambassador sat in this chair right before I got on, and he said, 'the root cause of the problem is the [Israeli] occupation.' But those talking points are nine years old. Israel left Gaza. We withdrew all of our settlements from Gaza. We withdrew all of our military forces from Gaza. And since that time, we've had 9,000 rockets fired at Israel. It's unacceptable. We have to defend ourselves."
"I just want your viewers to imagine the United States being bombarded -- not in one city, or two cities -- but in every city between New York and Colorado. Maybe 20 percent of the United States would be exempt from this. Eighty percent of your citizens would have to be in bomb shelters, or ready to go into bomb shelters within a minute to a minute-and-a-half max. No country can accept that. We can't accept that, and we'll take the necessary action to stop it…Here's the difference between us: We're using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they're using their civilians to protect their missiles."
An excellent, and accurate, turn of phrase. Israel bends over backwards, often to the detriment of their own military missions' efficacy, to avoid civilian deaths. They drop leaflets warning people to leave homes and facilities targeted for destruction. They employ warning phone calls to the neighbors of IDF targets. They drop light, "door knock" shells on roofs, a precursor to more destructive strikes. Hamas deliberately uses schools, Mosques, hospitals and private homes to launch rockets, then screams bloody murder about Israel's "excesses" when they eliminate those locations. And far too much of the world plays along with the macabre theater. On the subject of human shields and Hamas' egregious tactics, Jake Tapper grilled a former PLO spokeswoman on CNN late last week. She assailed Israel throughout the interview, calling references to Palestinian terrorists' martyrdom culture "offensive," and dismissing accusations of Hamas' confirmed human shield tactics as "racist." Tapper would have none of it, throwing empirical evidence right back at her:
Note how this "moderate" Palestinian pundit toes the radical Hamas line every step of the way, claiming to be unaware of a recent televised appearance in which a Hamas spokesman urged Palestinians to embrace the practice of ignoring Israeli evacuation warnings in order to form a protective barrier around Hamas leaders. Watch for yourself the evidence that is so clear that even the UN can't deny it:
[Acting as human shields] "has proven effective against the occupation. Also, this policy reflects the character of our brave, courageous people. We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy in order to protect the Palestinian homes."
It's a ghoulish win/win for the terrorists: When Israel backs off, Hamas' munitions and leaders are protected. When civilians die, it's a priceless PR coup. The remains of the dead are paraded around by wailing Palestinians for the cameras, whipping up anti-Israel sentiment, and feeding the bankrupt moral equivalency narrative. I'll leave you with three thoughts: (1) It is the stated objective of Hamas to destroy the state of Israel, which the terror group's charter states has no right to exist. (2) Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by the US State Department. (3) Despite that fact, when Hamas and the PLO recently joined forces to form a unity government, the Obama administration chose to not only recognize that alliance, but continue to fund it with US tax dollars.
When President Obama ran for office way back in 2008, he infamously promised to have the "most transparent administration in history." Fast forward to 2014 and the opposite has happened. Not only does the administration heavily control the narrative of information going out to the press, the White House does everything possible to keep reporters from getting their hands on important information. Not to mention, the Department of Justice has heavily monitored reporters through phone and email monitoring.
Last week thirty eight journalism groups, including the Society for Professional Journalists, called on President Obama directly to "stop practices in federal agencies that prevent important information from getting to the public."
Regardless, newly minted White House spokesman Josh Earnest is still arguing the Obama administration has lived up to its promise of transparency.
President Obama is “absolutely” the most transparent president in history, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Sunday after the White House received a letter from signed by a dozen top journalists’ groups complaining about the administration’s policies toward the media.
“There are a number of steps that we've taken to give people greater insight into what's happening at the White House,” Earnest said in an interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”
The only transparent thing about the White House at this point are its bogus statements, which we can all see right through.
More than two thirds of Americans surveyed in a recent Rasmussen poll say that they believe election rules are "rigged" to ensure that incumbents are victorious.
Some 68 percent of respondents in the new Rasmussen survey say the high retention rate in Congress is because lawmakers are able to exploit favorable election rules, not because they do a good job representing their constituents.
And 48 percent of likely voters believe that American elections are not fair to voters — the highest percentage since 2004. By contrast, 39 percent of voters say elections are fair. Of the likely voters surveyed, 14 percent say they’re not sure.
The poll consisted of a survey of 1,000 likely voters who were asked a variety of questions about their perceptions of election fairness.
Since 2012, roughly nine out of 10 incumbents seeking election in the House and Senate were reelected. The presidency has even better odds--an incumbent has only been defeated four times in the last century.
A definite advantage that incumbents have over challengers is that oftentimes they do not have to campaign through a primary election. A primary exposes the flaws of all candidates--including the eventual party nominee. That, coupled with the name recognition of the incumbent, is a definite disadvantage for any challenger.
What reforms should happen to ensure a "fairer" election?
America’s oldest family owned and operated gun manufacturing company O.F. Mossberg & Sons, has its eye on Texas. The company was founded in Connecticut in 1919; however, after Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) passed one of the strictest gun-control legislations in the nation last April, Mossberg & Sons is looking to expand in a more gun-friendly state.
CEO Iver Mossberg told Forbes:
“Investing in Texas was an easy decision. It’s a state that is not only committed to economic growth but also honors and respects the Second Amendment and the firearm freedoms it guarantees for our customers.”
The gun company will still be headquartered in New Haven, however, all expansion will take place in Texas. Senior vice president of sales and marketing Tom Taylor explained:
“We’re moving all wood gun stock production to our Texas facility. More of our product lines—like our modern sporting rifles—might move to Texas in the future. Texas has been very good to us. Also, our gun sales have been so dynamic over the last number of years. We’ve outgrown our facilities. This major expansion will help us keep up with demand.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has encouraged and even recruited businesses to come to his state, where taxes are low and economic growth is rampant. Recently the car manufacturing company Toyota and the firearm accessories company Magpul Industries, decided to relocate to Texas from the states of California and Colorado. The Tax Foundation ranked Texas at eleven in the 2014 State Business Climate Index. Connecticut placed at almost the very bottom of the list at 42.
'Assault and Flattery' is Townhall News Editor Katie Pavlich's newly released second book. In 230 pages, Katie exposes the Democrats' manufactured "war on women" with personal anecdotes and well reported research. Here are ten of many reasons why it is worth choosing over Hillary Clinton's bulky memoir, "Hard Choices."
1. The covers.
Katie is staring you in the eye with purpose. Hillary is in outer space.
2. Katie’s has a clever title.
Hillary likes to claim that she is a champion of women’s rights:
“I have to admit it,” Hillary writes in Hard Choices of several instances of ‘mansplaining by foreign leaders, “I grew tired of watching otherwise thoughtful people just smile and nod when I brought up the concerns of women and girls.”
She didn’t mention the part where she once defended a man who raped a 12-year old girl.
In Katie’s own words:
4. Katie’s book wasn’t overtaken by a book criticizing her.
5. ‘Assault and Flattery’ isn’t filled with pictures of Katie schmoozing with our increasingly unpopular president.
6. Katie’s book can fit in a handbag. Hillary’s is 589 pages too long.
7. The back cover of Katie’s book isn’t plastered with 100 pictures of herself.
Wish I could say the same for Hillary.
8. Katie’s book makes the perfect cake decoration.
9. Reading Katie’s book is a really fun way to annoy feminists.
10. Katie’s book has received praise from conservative heroes like Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity, who refer to ‘Assault and Flattery’ as a “tour de force,” “fun” and “engaging.”
Meanwhile, Hillary’s book has been deemed a “newsless snore.”
Do yourself a favor and get the book that will keep you interested - and awake.
The conservative movement experienced considerable achievements throughout the course of the Supreme Court’s October 2013 – June 2014 term. An overview of five key decisions that championed religious freedom, First Amendment rights, and more:
Decided June 26, 2014
9 to 0
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Obama had overstepped constitutional authority by making high-level government appointments without consent of the Senate. The president claimed that his authority to appoint officials during this time was pursuant to the Recess Appointments Clause. The Court held that this clause allows the president to make appointments only if the Senate is unavailable. At this particular time, the Senate was not technically in recess and was actually holding pro forma sessions every three days.
Justice Stephen Breyer writing for the majority:
“Presidents have made recess appointments since the beginning of the Republic. Their frequency suggests that the Senate and President have recognized that recess appointments can be both necessary and appropriate in certain circumstances. We have not have not previously interpreted the [Recess] Clause, and, when doing so for the first time in more than 200 years, we must hesitate to upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government themselves have reached.”
Decided April 2, 2014
5 to 4
SCOTUS struck down a Watergate-era cap on individual campaign contributions in this First Amendment rights case. The limits on the total contributions a donor can give to candidates, political action committees, and party committees per election cycle was officially lifted. Echoing 2010’s “Citizens United” case, which overturned constraints on corporate campaign contributions, the Court’s more conservative members ruled in the majority.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. writing for the majority:
“Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.”
Decided May 5, 2014
5 to 4
Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that legislative prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, it was a surprise that Town of Greece v. Galloway was a slim 5 to 4 decision. In this similar case, the High Court once again held that legislative bodies such as city councils can begin their meetings with a prayer. It should be noted that the prayer can explicitly represent a particular faith and the town does not discriminate against minority religions.
Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority:
"The decision concluded that legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been understood as compatible with the Establishment Clause. As practiced by Congress since the framing of the Constitution, legislative prayer lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society."
Decided April 22, 2014
6 to 2
In this complicated ruling, SCOTUS decided that states are free to prohibit considerations of race and sex in university admission processes. It was ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when a state bars a college from discriminating and/or granting preferential treatment to students based on these factors.
Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority:
“‘The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception’...It is precisely this understanding – the correct understanding – of the federal Equal Protection Clause that the people of the State of Michigan have adopted for their own fundamental law. By adopting it, they did not simultaneously offend it.”
Decided June 30, 2014
5 to 4
An HHS mandate of the Affordable Care Act was struck down as the Supreme Court ruled in what was perhaps the most anticipated decision of this term. The case brought into question the religious rights of corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. It was decided that closely held for-profit businesses can not be forced to provide contraceptive coverage that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. writing for the majority:
“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply they will pay a very heavy price – as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $473 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.”
A soon-to-be-released Hollywood film (which I’ve vowed to see on opening night) will mercilessly and hilariously mock the “Supreme Leader” of North Korea. And, therefore, Kim Jong Un and his cronies are very, very upset.
How do I know this? Because his envoy to the United Nations penned a rather alarmist (and, dare I say, ridiculous) letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urging him to block the film's release, or else.
Or else what?
The North Korean Foreign Ministry had previously warned the U.S. of 'stern' and 'merciless' retaliation if it fails to block the release of the film, which is out on October 14.
Now, in a letter addressed to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, North Korea's UN envoy Ja Song-Nam says allowing the film to be made and seen constitutes 'the most undisguised sponsoring of terrorism as well as a war action.'
'The US authorities should take immediate and appropriate action to ban the production and distribution of the film, otherwise it will be fully responsible for encouraging and sponsoring terrorism,' the letter says.
North Korea asked that the letter be circulated as an official document to members of the UN General Assembly and Security Council for their consideration.
Terrorism? Ironically enough, the United Nations is the same deliberative body that found earlier this year that, among other things, the regime's "human rights violations" are so barbaric and so evil they are unparalleled in modern times:
"Systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed" by the leaders of North Korea against their own people, the U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights declared Monday in a report that goes on to accuse that nation's communist regime of "crimes against humanity."
According to U.N. investigators, "the gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world." They conclude, for example, that "hundreds of thousands of political prisoners have perished" in prison camps over the past five decades.
The High Commissioner's report calls on the U.N. Security Council to "refer the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court."
"The United Nations must ensure that those most responsible for the crimes against humanity committed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are held accountable," the report concludes.
As a result, the UN's first order of business should be dealing aggressively with this murderous regime, not placating it.
Let us hope, then, this letter goes unanswered.
On July 11, Stephen Gutowski of the Capitol City Project covered an anti-Israel rally, where he spotted man waving a Hezbollah flag.
They decided to ask him about it and got a rather disturbing response (via Capitol City Project):
When the Capitol City Project asked why he was carrying the flag the protester responded that “in 2006 Hezbollah did something which no other resistance group was able to do against Israel. And that was defeat an Israeli Zionist army”. “At this point the only Israel, unfortunately, is able to understand is armed resistance,” he continued.
“I don’t have a Hamas flag but I would’ve been waving a Hamas flag, Islamic Jihad flag” the man said. “Because these are people that, just like the IRA before them, just like the Russians against the Nazis, just like the Americans here in this country, it was armed resistance that gave them their freedom,” he contended.
He said that armed resistance is “just one aspect of achieving the freedom.” “BDS [Boycott, Disinvestment, and Sanctions] is also something that will be able to achieve that” the activist claimed.
So, I take it this guy isn’t a fan of Sodastream either.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July issue of Townhall Magazine.
After months of studying and cramming, most college students spend their summers going to the beach, taking road trips, or catching up on naps. But, for the young adults who take part in Crossroads Walk, vacations are dedicated to marching for unborn babies. James Nolan is the current president of Crossroads and he is ecstatic that the pro-life organization is entering its 20th year. He shared their backstory with Townhall Magazine.
“We started in 1995. Some students from Franciscan University in Steuben- ville, Ohio got together after St. John Paul II challenged the world to spread the gospel of life. They decided to take that call, literally. For some of them, that was their primary goal.”
Fifteen of those inspired young people started a walk from San Francisco to the nation’s capital. Now, 15 has become several hundred thousand, and one walk has expanded to three. Every May through August, participants lead pro-life pilgrimages from Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, passing through 36 states before all ending in Washington, D.C. Dozens of colleges throughout the country take part in these lifesaving events and Nolan estimates that each group covers about 10,000-15,000 miles. But, they don’t just do it for the exercise. On weekends, the groups pray and counsel in front of abortion clinics and speak at churches.
Nolan deems it important to combat the culture of death, which he says is becoming prevalent in Western society. But, he is still hopeful based on some promising statistics.
“One thing we like to say, is there’s a big increase in support for pro-life issues. Polls over the last few years are indicating that the majority of Americans are pro-life, over 50 per- cent. We’ve been seeing that trend. Now, we run into very little resistance. We have an overwhelming amount of support.”
Nolan insists this is significant, for his groups are “not shy” about where they stand on the abortion issue.
“If you see the t-shirts, they say in huge letters that cover your entire chest: ‘Pro-Life.’ People can see it from like a quarter of a mile away. It’s hard to miss.”
He then stressed what he considers Crossroads’ ultimate identity.
“We’re not an anti-abortion organization, we’re a pro-life organization. There’s a big distinction. Because if you’re pro- life, you’re for the culture of life, standing up for the value and dignity of each person without exceptions, from the beginning all the way until their actual death. We’re seeing the culture of death beginning to wane, but breathing its last heavy breath coming out more in the open as the desperation sets in.”
That’s where Crossroads comes in. Nolan explained how the organization is helping to bring more people into the pro-life movement.
“We’ve seen amazing conversions on the issue of life, some almost instantaneous. Especially because it’s young people, it’s very attractive. Even pro-choice people are intrigued, drawn in by it. After that, you see a change of mind, they’re able to look at the issue differently.”
He then shared a couple of moving examples to prove how these walks are working in action.
“We were walking in the middle of a desert and a vehicle drove out of nowhere in Nevada. No gas station in 50 miles either direction. The mother was taking her daughter to Los Angeles for an abortion. They saw us walking with the pro-life t-shirts. They pulled over and asked what we were doing. After a half hour discussion, they changed their mind.”
The Crossroads president revealed another encouraging testimony from someone who approached the pro-life walkers after a church service.
“He said the day before he had been driving a relative to get an abortion and saw us praying in front of [the] clinic. He said they couldn’t go in. They changed their mind and decided to go to the hospital and get an ultrasound. They found out she was pregnant with twins.”
Nolan assured Townhall that the pro-life efforts of Crossroads participants don’t end when the walks do.
“We have a lot of people we know, one of our former staff members adopted two or three Down syndrome babies, just to bring awareness to that and to protect these children, let people know that they’re wanted. A lot of former walkers move on to other pro-life efforts, such as in politics.”
The organization also conducts walks in Ireland, Australia, and Canada. So, you could say they are literally walking across the globe to save precious children from the horrors of abortion. Crossroads offers young people the opportunity to make much more of an impact than just spending their summers on the couch. Who needs to save energy when you can save lives? •