As the Washington Free Beacon’s Ellison Barber noted before Independence Day, Hillary Clinton’s approval rating will continue to drop amongst Independents and Republicans. Well, you can add Democrats to that list (via Weekly Standard):
A new poll of the potential 2016 presidential field from Quinnipiac, conducted at the end of June, found support for Clinton among Democratic primary voters at 58 percent. That's an 11-point drop from an ABC News/Washington Post poll of the potential Democratic field—conducted in late May, before Hard Choices was released—that found 69 percent supported Clinton over any other possible Democrats
According to the Quinnipiac poll, the biggest beneficiary of Clinton's drop in support appears to be Elizabeth Warren, the first-term senator from Massachusetts and a favorite of progressive populists. Warren received 11 percent support, while Vice President Joe Biden has 9 percent. Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York received four percent, while governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland and former governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana each polled just one percent.
Now, Clinton still has a forty-seven-point lead over Warren. Still, the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, which is the liberal base, probably sees this as a positive development. But, over at Hot Air, Allahpundit remains skeptical of this supposed Warren candidacy:
The silliest thing about this is that, of the two of them [Warren and Hillary], Warren would be much more likely to run against Obama’s record than Hillary would. Hillary’s stuck with O’s foreign policy and, as a former cabinet member, can’t be too harsh in attacking him on domestic policy. Warren can attack him full force, though — that’s the whole reason the left’s eager for her to run. She can make the purist liberal critique of O’s centrist failures, starting with financial reform, that the Clintons can’t. For Obama to prefer Warren to Hillary, he’d have to be so disgusted at the meagerness of his own legacy that he’d want the next nominee to call him a failure rather than defend that legacy as a success worth building on. Ideologue though he is, does he strike you as the sort of guy whose ego would permit him to do that?
So, who could challenge Hillary if it isn't Warren?
Last week, Josh Kraushaar at National Journal outlined her flaws in being a bad campaigner and “tone-deaf” when it comes to discussing her financial security. But, he added that:
Her biggest asset is the fact that the entire Democratic Party infrastructure is behind her, seemingly resigned to her vulnerabilities but hopeful about her potential. Even progressives who are nervous about her Wall Street connections are merely hoping to nudge her leftward, and not aggressively challenge her with an actual candidate. With a lackluster Democratic bench, it's hard to find many alternatives even willing to throw their names out there.
Kraushaar also listed his top five Clinton challengers, saying that Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, and former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold could’ve mounted interesting challenges to the Clinton machine if they hadn’t already endorsed her at the outset of the Hillarymania.
He noted that Kaine’s down-to-earth personality and executive experience from being the former Governor of Virginia were two qualities that Hillary Clinton lacked. Senator McCaskill’s could’ve exploited Hillary’s less than tactful description of her wealth amidst tough economic times for many Americans, and highlight what progressives can’t stand about her: her corporate ties, pragmatic centrism, and “perceived disconnect from the middle class.” Kraushaar added that save for another Todd Akin 2018 run for the U.S. Senate, McCaskill’s days representing Missouri are numbered.
Then again, a lot can change in two years. That’s a lifetime in politics.
In 2004, there was this newly elected Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, who said he wasn’t ready to run for president.
You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people.
He now haunts our dreams.
In case you missed it, Townhall.com News Editor Katie Pavlich joined Hannity to discuss Hillary Clinton and the border crisis on Hannity last night. The show also aired the cover of her second book, Assault & Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women, which hits shelves today.
Pavlich had a more in-depth interview this morning on Fox & Friends, delving into the myths constructed by the left and exposing the truth on the real attack on American women by the Democratic Party. Check out the full interview here:
Assault & Flattery comes at a crucial moment in the national dialogue, as liberals ramp up their midterm candidates and presidential hopeful with continued rhetoric on anti-women conservatism. Katie’s latest work makes, not only women - but fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons - take a hard look at which party is really causing the most harm for political gain.
One word can make all the difference when it comes to definitions. Exhibit A: exchange the words “husband and wife” for a more inclusive term, and you have the phrase “I now pronounce you spouses.” In the state of California, they are paying special attention to keep their vernacular as progressive as possible.
Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill Monday to formally make marriage gender-neutral to reflect the state’s allowance of same-sex unions. According to Senate Bill 1306:
Under existing law, a reference to “husband” and “wife,” “spouses,” or “married persons,” or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case.
The bill would delete references to “husband” or “wife” in the Family Code and would instead refer to a “spouse,” and would make other related changes.
The current wording was set in place when 61 percent of California voters elected to define state recognized marriages as those between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 in 2008, decrying the restriction as unconstitutional.
Californians again attempted to ban same-sex marriage by approving Proposition 8 by 52 percent. This too, was challenged via the court system and overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court level in the 2013 case Hollingsworth v. Perry.
Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who authored the Senate Bill, tweeted:
The Gov signed SB 1306, updating our marriage laws to recognize the historic court decisions allowing same-sex couples to marry in CA.— Mark Leno (@MarkLeno) July 7, 2014
Words are, without doubt, one of the key tools used to shape thought. This alteration in the state law is the next step to easing gay unions into cultural acceptance.
Hope and Change has given way to something new entirely. Call this the “new normal,” I guess. CNS News reports that in 2011, the percentage of Americans on welfare hit its apex (23.1 percent), according to an up-to-date Department of Health and Human Services report released this year. Regrettably, we don’t have any data for subsequent years, but my hunch is that welfare rolls have been soaring to new heights ever since:
More startlingly, the number of children under the age of five who are on welfare is unconscionably high:
One wonders if this might have something to do with it:
At any rate, the total number of Americans on welfare has practically doubled since 2000. One therefore cannot solely blame the president for the increases we’re now seeing in government aid and dependency. Nevertheless, we now live in a country where nearly one-fourth of all Americans require some form of welfare to make ends meet and feed their families. The situation is even more dire for young children.
And yet, at current enrollment rates, one wonders how much longer we can sustain these government programs. After all, with less people working and more people collecting, sooner or later the well is bound to dry up.
Have you ever noticed that the political left doesn’t really have much zeal for Israel? I mean, our own Secretary of State said Israel risked becoming an “apartheid state” if there was a failure to reach a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. That’s a very poor choice of words. Secretary Kerry eventually apologized, but why has Israel become such a target for vitriol and hate?
While our own Katie Pavlich’s new book, which undercuts the Democrats’ disingenuous “war on women” narrative, hit the shelves today ( You should buy a copy right now!); you should probably pick up Joshua Muravchik’s Making David Into Goliath: How The World Turned Against Israel as well.
In 2003, a EU opinion poll showed that 60% of Europeans view Israel as the world’s most dangerous country.
Across the United States, there are calls to boycott Israel. Recently, there was a push to have an academic boycott, which was rejected by a multitude of American colleges and universities. Nevertheless, “Israel Apartheid Week” reared its ugly head again last February. Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection always has good coverage of the anti-Israel insanity permeating through American academia.
But, what are the highlights of Muravchik’s book? He shows:
With tensions mounting between Israel and Hamas, expect Israeli criticism in the coming days.
The president will travel to Texas tomorrow to fundraise for Democrats. But, because of the humanitarian crisis and rising health care concerns, the timing of his trip is far from impeccable. For his part, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has sent numerous entreaties to the president in recent weeks urging him to see for himself the perilous situation on the border. He won’t. He did, however, invite Perry to greet him at the airport upon his arrival, an invitation the governor promptly rejected (via the WSJ):
“I appreciate the offer to greet you at Austin-Bergstrom Airport, but a quick handshake on the tarmac will not allow for a thoughtful discussion regarding the humanitarian and national security crises enveloping the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter to the president Monday. “I would instead offer to meet with you at any time during your visit to Texas for a substantive meeting to discuss this critical issue.”
Interestingly, the president seems to have granted his request -- although the details are still up in the air:
Aides to President Obama and frequent antagonist Texas Gov. Rick Perry are talking about a possible meeting on border problems when Obama visits the Lone Star State later this week.
As Perry said he wants "a substantive meeting" rather than a "quick handshake" at the airport, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett sent the governor a letter late Monday saying "the president would welcome a meeting with you" while he is in Texas on Wednesday and Thursday.
"In addition, he (Obama) asked me to invite you to join him for a meeting to discuss the situation on the border with faith leaders and local elected officials in Dallas on Wednesday," Jarrett wrote to Perry, a Republican.
This might seem like progress, but again, the president still refuses to visit the border, although perhaps for good reason. National Journal explains why the White House finds itself in a sort of “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” situation. Indeed, at least from a political standpoint, President Obama might even be better off just ignoring this crisis altogether:
If Obama goes, his presence there would give both liberal and conservative critics further ammunition as they argue Obama's policies are to blame for the influx. It might even make it more difficult for Obama to marshal public support for any executive actions he may soon take to reform current federal immigration rules. At the same time, being seen at a detention facility among children that face deportation could make him appear uncaring.
But not going makes the president look like he's avoiding something that is increasingly being called a crisis.
In the meantime, children are flooding over the US Southern border in record numbers, while both resources and personnel are being depleted, thus making it easier for drug traffickers to carry illicit substances across the border. Some of the "children" coming across the border, too, are certified thugs. In other words, this is a full-blown catastrophe -- and one that doesn’t appear to be getting resolved anytime soon, either.
Fourth of July has come and gone, but as Americans across the country celebrated with their families, David Atkins, the Democratic Party Chairman in Ventura County, California, decided to go on a rampage against Republicans on Twitter.
Now, there will always be liberal trolls on Twitter – and it’s best to just ignore them. But, this case is slightly different as Ventura County rests within California’s 26th Congressional District, which is a toss-up race this cycle. Democratic Congresswoman Julia Brownley is currently representing it.
So, what exactly did this guy say? Apparently, he’s waiting for old, white Republican voters to die, insinuated that conservative men have small genitalia, and that they can’t compete in the bedroom or in a debate. Oh, and Republicans are racist, or something.
So, he’s a typical liberal from California. These remarks are to be expected.
The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (NRCC) has called on Rep. Brownley to condemn these remarks, but she’s remained silent on this issue so far.
NRCC Digital Press Secreatary Andrew Clark told Townhall.com that “David Atkins’ racist, demagogic tweets, and Julia Brownley’s silence, are already indicative enough of what kind of political dialogue the Ventura County Democrats agree with…the fact that a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would weigh in to defend his comments is even more revealing of how desperate national Democrats are this year.”
We’ll see if Brownley does put some distance between herself and Mr. Atkins, but I doubt it.
An internal Border Patrol executive summary obtained by Townhall confirms that at least 16 unaccompanied illegal minors (those under the age of 18, according to U.S. government policy), are members of the brutal El Salvadorian street gang Mara Salvatrucha—or MS-13.
Gang members left graffiti on the walls of the Nogales Border Patrol processing center, which suggested they had ties to the organization.
"Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) and Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs), assigned to The Nogales Placement Center (NPC), discovered that 16 unaccompanied alien children (13 El Salvadoran males, two Guatelmalan males and one Honduran male) currently being held at the NPC are members of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). The MS-13 gang members admitted to their gang associations following a discovery of graffiti at the NPC. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) were notified," the summary states. "Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) were notified."
The FBI describes MS-13 activity as "perpetuating violence—from assaults to homicides, using firearms, machetes, or blunt objects—to intimidate rival gangs, law enforcement, and the general public. They often target middle and high school students for recruitment. And they form tenuous alliances...and sometimes vicious rivalries...with other criminal groups, depending on their needs at the time."
It was reported earlier that these MS-13 gang members, some of whom have admitted to murder and torture in their home countries, are being held for placement inside the United States.
"But remember, this is a 'humanitarian crisis.' They are just kids," a source working in the Nogales processing center said in frustrated and sarcastic tone. "They are MS-13 gang members. They've done everything from torture to murder. They act as teenage 'enforcers.'"
Border Patrol agents working in Arizona, California and Texas continue to be overwhelmed as thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America flood into the United States illegally. As a result, thousands of Border Patrol agents have been pulled off of patrolling the border and into processing facilities where they are making meals, changing bed sheets and babysitting.
"We have all of these juveniles so they're pulling agents out of the field to come in and babysit them basically," a source said last month. "They're cancelling some of our specialty details for our crews who go out and work the mountains, calling them back in and telling them they have to work the processing center because there are so many people in there."
The following photos obtained by Townhall and dated July 3 and 6, were taken 30 miles north of the border in Southeastern Arizona. They show professional, organized and skilled drug smugglers wearing packs of drugs weighing 50 pounds each. These men use scouts to map our their trails and travel routes. They are considered dangerous and are operating without impunity as agents continue to be overwhelmed with paper work in warehouses.
“It’s my honor to announce Cleveland as the Site Selection Committee’s recommendation to host the 2016 Republican National Convention,” said Mickelsen. “Cleveland is a phenomenal city, and I can’t think of a better place to showcase our party and our nominee in 2016. This committee was tasked with difficult decisions and was presented with several strong options to host our convention. I’m confident Cleveland is the right pick for our next national convention. Cleveland has demonstrated they have the commitment, energy, and terrific facilities to help us deliver a history-making Republican convention.
Cleveland's win was considered to be somewhat of an upset, as many figured that Dallas would be a no-brainer for the GOP convention.
NOT HAPPY: RNC picks Cleveland over Dallas for 2016 convention!— Ben Ferguson Show (@benfergusonshow) July 8, 2014
@GOP NOOOoooooo seriously. Cleveland over Dallas. What. Are. You. Thinking?— Caleb Bonham (@CalebBonham) July 8, 2014
The Republicans have not won the state that hosted the convention since 1992. The 2012 RNC was in Tampa, Fla., and was marred by severe weather issues.
This post has been updated.