===
Sanctuary cities a threat to Demwits? (See 1 below.)
===
Palestinian terrorist killed after intensive search. (See 2 below.)
===
The attacks on Hilarious by Republicans were criticized as being a witch hunt.
Bernie said he was tired of listening to her alleged transgressions and the Demwits applauded.
Now the Demwits may be forced to admit she broke laws and they will probably defend her by using her own words: "What difference does it make?" (See 3 and 3a below.)
Bernie said he was tired of listening to her alleged transgressions and the Demwits applauded.
Now the Demwits may be forced to admit she broke laws and they will probably defend her by using her own words: "What difference does it make?" (See 3 and 3a below.)
===
Demwits always claim conservatives have no solutions and even if they do they are based on taking all entitlements away from those in need.
Ryan and a cohort have placed emphasis where it needs to be - on education, responsibility and jobs.
Demwits continue to campaign on the premise those in need are entitled to anything they need because to deny them would be heartless.
Demwits have done a great job of selling their "heartless" argument which has not worked after spending trillions so their solution is spend more. (See 4 below.)
===
Finally, I believe this is so "right on" it deserves being re-posted. (See 5 below.)
===
Semper Fi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANrUaN5PJEE
Demwits always claim conservatives have no solutions and even if they do they are based on taking all entitlements away from those in need.
Ryan and a cohort have placed emphasis where it needs to be - on education, responsibility and jobs.
Demwits continue to campaign on the premise those in need are entitled to anything they need because to deny them would be heartless.
Demwits have done a great job of selling their "heartless" argument which has not worked after spending trillions so their solution is spend more. (See 4 below.)
===
Finally, I believe this is so "right on" it deserves being re-posted. (See 5 below.)
===
Semper Fi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANrUaN5PJEE
===
Dick
=======================================================
1)
Why Sanctuary Cities Threaten Dems
In his last month in office and apparently no longer in thrall to party activists and special interests, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter did the right thing. In May 2014, to the applause of influential Hispanic activist groups, the Democrat ended all cooperation with federal immigration authorities and instituted one of the most aggressive “sanctuary city” policies in the country. Claiming that Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) had been “overly aggressive” in requesting that that city keep in its custody illegal immigrants who would otherwise be released from jail pending trial, Nutter had signed an order ending Philadelphia’ compliance with such requests. But in December, with weeks to go before his two-term reign on Broad Street ended, Nutter did the right thing and rescinded this particular form of sanctuary city madness. But on his first day in office, his successor Jim Kenney signed an order reinstituting the measure.
From now on, Philadelphia law enforcement officials are officially barred from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Kenney says he will listen to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson when he comes to the City of Brotherly Love to beg him to rescind the rule, but unless he’s convinced that “immigration stakeholders” (i.e. advocates for illegal immigrants being granted complete impunity from law enforcement officials) believe they “have input into the process,” police in the city where the American republic began will treat the feds like a foreign power. From now on, even those illegals that are charged with murder, rape, robbery, domestic violence, illegal possession of a firearm, or involvement in terrorism won’t be held for ICE by the city and might, if they can somehow make bail, be free as birds with the feds none the wiser.
That tragic incident sparked national outrage about sanctuary cities and prompted Congressional Republicans to attempt to pass “Kate’s Law,” which would have imposed a mandatory minimum jail sentence on deported felons who return to the U.S. and would end federal law enforcement funding to cities that have sanctuary city rules. But the bill died in the Senate due to Democratic opposition. At the time, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid referred to Kate’s Law as just “another attack on the immigrant community” by the GOP.
President Obama justified his decision to grant effective amnesty to up to five million illegal immigrants by saying that Congressional Republicans had shirked their duty by refusing to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package. But his move, which has been put on hold by successful court challenges, as well as sanctuary city measures such as the one now back in force in Philadelphia, illustrates the complete breakdown in trust that Democrats are willing to support the rule of law in this country.
Since their poor performance among minority voters in the 2012 election, Republicans have been chided for their refusal to budge on their opposition to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans want some sort of rational resolution to the impasse on immigration and understand that rhetoric about deporting 11 million illegals is as unrealistic as promises that Mexico will pay for a wall along the Rio Grande. There is also some truth to analyses that assert a tough stand on immigration more or less guarantees that the growing numbers of Hispanic voters are becoming as wedded to the Democrats as African-Americans. But as troubling as that development should be for the GOP, it remains to be seen whether Obama’s successors will truly be able to remain a national party if Democrats become wedded to irrational sanctuary city rules such as the one in Philadelphia.
Democrats have lost ground throughout the country on the local, state, and Congressional levels during Barack Obama’s seven years in office. They retain control only in those deep blue areas like Philadelphia, where liberals and minority voters predominate. That gives them a built-in advantage in the Electoral College, but one that is vulnerable to even slight shifts in large swing states. Put simply, Democrats can hold the presidency if they nominate hugely popular candidates like Obama that can turn out minority voters in record numbers or ones that can appeal to independents like Bill Clinton. But barring the unlikely emergence of another Obama, they cannot prevail as a sanctuary city party.
Though the media and political elites scoff at the popularity of anti-illegal immigration rhetoric heard in the GOP presidential race, Democrats should worry about what happened this week in Philadelphia. What makes political sense for a mayor seeking minority support in a one-party town as complacently corrupt and insensible to the need for reform as Philadelphia is not smart policy for a political party that is losing the political center. Anger about sanctuary cities isn’t just a Fox News stunt. It presents a clear and present danger to Democratic hopes for retaining the White House or ever winning back control of Congress.
=========================================================
2)
Israeli Special Forces Kill Tel Aviv Pub Gunman in Wadi Ara Shootout
Bar shooter Israel terror Tel Aviv killer
The Wadi Ara man who opened fire and killed two young men at a Tel Aviv pub last Friday was shot dead by security forces in an exchange of fire on Friday night, Israeli police officials said.
Nashat Milhem, 29, was killed by Yamam special police forces and Shin Bet agents in a gun battle outside a residential building in the northern Israeli town of Arara.
Milhem’s death followed days of heightened security and tension and varied reports on the killer’s whereabouts, including reports he had fled to the West Bank.
Police launched a “major operation” in the Sharon region of Israel’s coastal plain and in the Wadi Ara district of Umm el-Fahm. Additionally, police and the Shin Bet boosted their presence throughout Tel Aviv in the days following the attack, and there was a major search in the northern neighborhood of Ramat Aviv.
In addition to the two dead, Milhem also wounded eight others in the attack at an outdoor pub in Tel Aviv on Dizengoff Street last Friday. He allegedly killed another taxi cab driver during his escape.
Security remained heightened in Tel Aviv until Thursday. Israeli intelligence received information that Milhem had fled to the North sometime over the last few days, but most of the details surrounding the manhunt remained under a gag order as the investigation continued. The residential building in which he chose to hide may have been a family property, according to reports. Milhem’s father was also apparently still in police custody.
The Prime Minister’s Office released a statement on Friday thanking the police, special forces and Shin Bet for their service in the last week since Milhem carried out the attack.
========================================================================================
3) As HotAir notes, a story emerged today that could be a potential bombshell in the investigation into Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. A direct order from Hillary to send a classified email via unsecured channels:
Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.
That should be game, set, and match, yes?
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand. Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary’s claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.
How bad is this? At Townhall, Guy Benson notes:
Where to begin? Let's start with the least serious revelation, and work our way up: (1) Hillary evinced surprise that a State Department underling had used his personal account to send an official email. How rich. Yes, the State Department had explicitly instructed employees to follow the rules and only use secure means to disseminate official information. State sanctioned at least one top diplomat for disregarding those rules. Mrs. Clinton may have been especially "surprised" at Godfrey's actions because they came after she'd been issued a dire warning that foreign entities were aggressively targeting State Department officials' personal, unsecure email accounts. But lest you need reminding, Hillary Clinton exclusively used such accounts to conduct all of her official business -- via an improper, unsecure, private server -- before and after this urgent red flag was brought to her attention.
(2) "Clinton...has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account." This assertion has been disproven by the more than 1,000 classified emails discovered on her private server, including 66 additions from this batch alone. Her myriad excuses for this have been debunked piece by piece.
(3) Her final justification -- which is legally irrelevant, as Hillary herself has personally attested -- is that none of the sensitive material that she wrongfully transmitted through her unsecure server was "marked classified" at the time. Again, this is meaningless, especially when it comes to highly secret material that she was obligated to recognize and protect as soon as it was produced. But the email chain referenced above includes an instruction from Hillary Clinton to a State Department aide (who now works on her campaign) to strip classified information -- it remains redacted to this day -- of its classified markings ["identifying heading"] and "send nonsecure.
If this is as bad as it looks, Democrats may find themselves voting for an open socialist in Bernie Sanders for president. You know, that guy who said "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about" Hillary's emails.
3a)
===
4)
On Saturday a majority of the Republican presidential field will meet to discuss fighting poverty at a forum in Columbia, S.C., hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation. The two of us will serve as moderators.
3a)
Rumor Mill: Hillary Facing Criminal Indictment, Obama 2016 Surprise in the Works
Photo courtesy AP Images.
Opinions on Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016 come in two forms with not much in between: "It ain't happening" and "Hillary's got it locked in." We may soon find out which one of those prognostications is right.
Washington insiders are saying that the evidence in the FBI's investigation into Clinton's "unique email arrangement" has reached "critical mass." The American Spectator's R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. joins former prosecutor Joe DiGenova in predicting that a decision to indict is coming soon.
The charges will consist of some of the following:
1. Improper disclosure or retention of classified information.2. Destruction of government records.3. Lying to federal agents.4. Lying under oath.5. Obstruction of justice.There are those who have told me that the FBI has been engaged in a ruse. And that the Bureau will report it has come across nothing criminal. Then the whole imbroglio is expected to blow over.But such cynics are in the minority. Most sources have told me the investigation is genuine, serious, and all but completed. One told me that it was completed two months ago. The Bureau has put together a case that as one source put it “is locked up. It is solid.”In the past, as FBI agent I.C. Smith wrote in his book Inside: A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies, and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI, the Clintons have benefited from a few corrupt agents, usually in Arkansas. But that was years ago, and in Arkansas. This is the FBI in Washington, at the top where there are plenty of utterly professional law enforcement officials. They believe truth matters and so does the pursuit of justice. “They have been building a case that is unassailable,” one source told me. “It is beyond the case against Petraeus.… It is about the violation of federal statutes.”
An indicted Hillary may try to brazen her way to the finish line, but she could be too damaged by scandal to get elected (even by an unscrupulous Democratic electorate). But if she doesn't make it to the finish line, that leaves the race wide open for all sorts of Democrat chicanery.
Author Richard F. Miniter writes at the American Thinker that President Barack Obama may be "planning a huge surprise for the 2016 election."
So here’s a prediction: if Clinton gets indicted, Michelle Obama gets the Obama team’s nod for the nomination.
Can Barack and Michelle pull such a thing off? No, but the point is that they will think they can. Remember the confidence, one might even say arrogant confidence, with which they flew off to Copenhagen in order to get the Olympics for Chicago and how flummoxed they were when the IOC gave them the back of their hand? Remember how confident he was that his eighty-something speeches around the country would produce a groundswell of public opinion in favor of Obamacare? How certain he was his Cairo apology would have the Middle East running to learn at his knee? How certain she was of sainthood for insisting upon “healthy” school lunches? Indeed, just look at how both he and Michelle drip sticky condescension on any of the lesser minds who disagree with them.
A more likely scenario would have Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, with perhaps Michelle Obama as the VP nominee. (Biden recently told reporters that he regrets his decision to drop out of the race and admits to having second thoughts.) Other possibilities for the number two spot include Senator Elizabeth Warren and former governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick.
4)
A Republican Cure for Liberal Failures on Poverty
Trillions of federal dollars have been spent, to little effect. Let’s focus on jobs, education and opportunity.
On Saturday a majority of the Republican presidential field will meet to discuss fighting poverty at a forum in Columbia, S.C., hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation. The two of us will serve as moderators.
The high level of candidate interest indicates that our party is not willing to concede this issue to the Democrats. We expect the candidates will have their differences, but that’s only because they have ideas, which is more than the other party is offering. What these Republicans share is a much-needed insight: The ticket out of poverty is a quality education and a good paycheck.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/IKON IMAGES
President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964. Since then politicians have won votes by creating new federal programs, without bothering to check whether they work—because in the political market the currency is promises, not results. The federal government now runs more than 80 different antipoverty programs at a cost of about $750 billion a year. Yet 46 million Americans are poor today, and the poverty rate has barely budged: from 19% in 1965 to 14.8% in 2014. If you were raised poor, you’re as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago.
The left says these programs prevent extreme deprivation, and that’s true. But the federal government is not only putting a floor under people’s feet; it is gluing their feet to it. Many programs are means-tested, so as you make more money you lose aid. People often use several programs at the same time, so the benefits drop-off is as subtle as a ski-jump.
Say you’re a single mother with one child. You’re making the minimum wage, and you’re on food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance and the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you take a job that pays $3 more, you’ll keep only 10 cents of every extra dollar you make, after tax hikes and benefit cuts. In other words, taking a better-paying job is a high-risk, low-reward proposition.
This is a problem that demands a solution, but it is only one dynamic policy makers must confront. And we see Saturday’s forum as our party’s chance to stop carping from the cheap seats and to get into the driver’s seat. By offering real solutions, Republicans can define the proper role of the federal government in the 21st century and show the country what a true opportunity agenda looks like.
Here’s what we believe: By limiting itself, government can actually expand opportunity when it gets out of the way and paves the road to collaboration—whether it’s between students and teachers, job seekers and employers, or people in need and people who can help. It is through that free, personal exchange that people learn the skills they need to succeed.
And there’s no exchange more important than education. Everyone knows the difference a good teacher can make. That’s why one of the authors here, Sen. Scott, has introducedlegislation that would give parents more control over their children’s education. It would redirect federal funding to the parents of students with disabilities, military families or low-income families in Washington, D.C., so they could use that money to send their children to the school of their choice—public, private or charter.
Perhaps the greatest education of all occurs on the job. That’s why many Republicans have called for strengthening the work requirement in antipoverty programs and supporting low-income workers by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. That first job is the first rung on the ladder of opportunity.
Both of us have seen firsthand the good work being done in our communities—from the Goodwill in Greenville, S.C., to Catholic Charities in Janesville, Wis., to the House of Help City of Hope in Washington, D.C. The federal government treats these groups as little more than social workers with street cred.
But they’re much more than that; they’re social entrepreneurs. Precisely because they have credibility, they can get through to people others can’t. The federal government should assist the people and communities leading these efforts, not elbow them out of the way. Along these lines, the other author here, House Speaker Ryan, has proposed giving states and communities flexibility to try different solutions.
We need to take the focus in Washington off intentions and put it on results. Along those lines, Speaker Ryan has introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) to create a commission on evidence-based policy. The federal government already collects a lot of data on its poverty-fighting efforts, but it doesn’t use it to evaluate progress. The commission would be charged with finding a way to make use of this data and report back to Congress.
Education, work, community, accountability: These conservative principles will help people learn the skills they need to earn higher pay. And as more people jump back into the workforce, the economy will grow for everyone. We look forward to hearing the GOP presidential candidates’ ideas for fighting poverty on Saturday, but one message is already clear: Democrats want to take care of the poor; Republicans want to empower them.
Mr. Ryan, a Republican, is a representative from Wisconsin and House speaker. Mr. Scott, a Republican, is a senator from South Carolina.
5)
America is racist, so illegals can enter unchecked. America is racist, destroy her free markets, send billions to nonwhite people as “warmist” reparations for her ill-gotten success. America is racist, empower and enrich her enemies like Iran. Barack Obama and his ilk experience zero cognitive dissonance regarding the contradictory beliefs 'America is about freedom' and 'America is racist'. They never believed that America or her Constitution are about freedom. They believe the incurably evil and racist America must be eliminated for the good of the world.
Obama is destroying America overtly and covertly. By promoting policies which are normalizing harmful drugs, undermining the natural family, and generally promoting moral chaos he slyly increases the number of subdissonant Americans, people too ill or distracted to care. He has brainwashed or bought off virtually the entire government including the Republican establishment. A noble people who years ago would have resolved dissonance by believing in America's goodness and standing firm against tyranny no longer do.
5)
Why People Can't Face the Truth about Obama
The psychological processes which prevent people from facing facts when the unthinkable has become obvious can be explained by the models of social psychology called cognitive dissonance theory.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress and discomfort caused when important beliefs, attitudes or values, called cognitions, are inconsistent, conflicting or contradictory to each other. In the 1950s the psychologist Leon Festinger theorized that the mind spontaneously, continuously reduces cognitive dissonance to enable goal-directed functioning in a paradoxical, inconsistent, deceptive world. Festinger's discovery founded a rich tradition of research which has demonstrated how the mind resolves contradictions. It provides a powerful way to understand why people can't face what President Obama is doing to America.
Research has demonstrated countless times that cognitions do not have to be true to create dissonance, they just have to be believed. Barack Obama was elected to reduce the dissonance between the beliefs 'America is the land of the free', and the falsehoods 'America is still racist' and 'President Obama will go a long way to solving the problem of racism.' Because 'America is racist” is false, its corollaries are equally false. 'We must elect a black Democrat -- not black Republican -- because Republicans don't emphasize America is racist. Obama is fabulous, no need to know much about him, or whether he can lead the nation. He will make us feel better about ourselves'.
The antecedents of Barack Obama's hatred of America are now well understood. Obama was groomed from the womb to abhor this white majority, predominantly Christian free enterprise Republic. From his expatriate, capitalism-hating mother, from his alcoholic Communist father and his perv Communist mentor, detesting America was in his mother's milk and the blood in his veins. But it was the murderous Bill Ayers who recognized in Obama a destructive potential greater than a million bombs cooked up in basements. Ayers concocted the poison cocktail called Barack Obama that everybody wanted to drink, but nobody wanted to taste first.
America is Barack Obama's prey. He is tearing America apart and feeding the pieces of her life to his foreign and domestic fellow travelers. He is not transforming the nation but terminating it. Even the most transformational administrations haven't enabled the murder of Americans by declared enemies, weakened the national defense, mocked the concerns, and dimmed the hopes of average Americans as this president has. Even the highly transformational Franklin Roosevelt did not return Nazi generals to the enemy during the war as Obama did in the Bergdahl swap. Roosevelt did not entertain and enrich Nazi bigwigs as Obama has the Muslim Brotherhood. Imagine Roosevelt facilitating German atom bomb research and enriching the Axis powers as Obama has in the Iran deal. No president has erased the nation's borders at land and sea as Obama in advertising inducements for an invasion from around the world. No president in American history has aided enemies, undermined the economy and derided the American people as the current commander-in-chief.
The immensity of Obama's disloyalty is key to why people cannot face the truth about him.
If the Obama election were going to reduce the dissonance he would have started his administration thusly: “As I have said, we are one nation, going forward together. Mine will be the first truly color-blind administration in American history. Every appointment I make will be based solely on qualifications and proven competence without reference to race.” Of course, this is the opposite of what Obama did. He fine-combed through America searching for scraps of racism. He strengthened the lie that America is a racist nation as cover for his destruction. Amongst innumerable examples: Attorney General Holder introduced the Obama administration by implying the white majority are all racists, built a DOJ whose foremost concern is racism, carried forward by Loretta Lynch, who just said a street strewn with American corpses murdered by Jihadi terrorists is a “wonderful” opportunity to fight racism.
America is racist, so illegals can enter unchecked. America is racist, destroy her free markets, send billions to nonwhite people as “warmist” reparations for her ill-gotten success. America is racist, empower and enrich her enemies like Iran. Barack Obama and his ilk experience zero cognitive dissonance regarding the contradictory beliefs 'America is about freedom' and 'America is racist'. They never believed that America or her Constitution are about freedom. They believe the incurably evil and racist America must be eliminated for the good of the world.
Before the mass denial of Obama's hatred is explained by dissonance theory, let's mention subdissonant Americans. Subdissonant Americans have no discomfort whether America is about freedom or racism because they are too intellectually limited, dumbed-down, or drugged out to care. If asked “Why does the sun shine?” a six-year-old will answer, “That is what the sun is 'post to do.” This is termed the moral explanation of concrete thinking. Based on IQ distribution, approximately 15% of the population do not think beyond the moral explanation, and do not recognize a president who isn't doing what he is supposed to do. Other subdissonant groups are those too ill educated or addicted to care about freedom or racism.
Festinger's induced-compliance paradigm of dissonance theory explains why black Americans may be the last group to face Obama's destructiveness -- because his policies have hurt them the most. In a famous experiment, people were instructed to lie to others and say a boring task was interesting. The induced-compliance paradigm found that people paid only $1 to lie convinced themselves they were telling the truth more than people paid $20 to tell the same lie! This counterintuitive effect has been replicated many times. People who received minimal external motivation for managing dissonance -- those paid the least -- produced stronger internal justifications to deny their actual experience. The underpaid believed their own lies better than those paid twenty times more. The overpaid say, “I'm in it for the money, period.” This is why many very wealthy people slug the colada in Obama's banana republic while the poorest blacks continue to justify the president, even as they get poorer.
Obama is destroying America overtly and covertly. By promoting policies which are normalizing harmful drugs, undermining the natural family, and generally promoting moral chaos he slyly increases the number of subdissonant Americans, people too ill or distracted to care. He has brainwashed or bought off virtually the entire government including the Republican establishment. A noble people who years ago would have resolved dissonance by believing in America's goodness and standing firm against tyranny no longer do.
The social psychologist Elliot Aronson advanced cognitive dissonance theory, further explaining why people can't face Obama's hatred and destruction. Aronson's self-concept model theorized the central purpose of dissonance reduction is to preserve positive self-image (I am a good person) and self-justification (I was right all along). Because so many Americans now have been convinced we are a racist nation, to maintain a positive self-image people cannot face the truth about Obama.
The loss of opportunities and the diminishing of hopes which Obama's policies have inflicted create a monumental need for self-justification among his supporters. “The president shows us America is still racist. We were right all along.” They have let go the truth that America is about freedom. No one knows how many still stand upon that truth, how many care, or if there are enough big lies left to elect Hillary.
================================================================================
================================================================================
