Scott Walker: If I ran, I think we’d play anywhere — ‘other than maybe Florida’

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker suggested Tuesday that if he were to run for president, he could envision simply letting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio compete amongst themselves in the key state of Florida.

“If we get in as a candidate, we’re going to make a strong play in Iowa,” Mr. Walker said on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show. “The neat thing about being around the country is if we chose to get in, I don’t think there’s a state out there we wouldn’t play in. I mean, other than maybe Florida where Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are — listen, some of the polls [are] essentially tied, and they’re going to eat up a good amount of that financial advantage that Governor Bush is going to have.”

Mr. Walker was responding to a recorded comment from Mr. Bush that the former Florida governor “just [doesn’t] do straw polls.” Mr. Bush and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have indicated that they plan to skip August’s Iowa straw poll, which has traditionally served as an unofficial kick-off to the Republican presidential nominating contest.

Mr. Walker said he hasn’t made any such commitments that would be required of a candidate. Mr. Bush, though he is laying the groundwork for a White House bid, likewise has not officially declared his candidacy. Mr. Huckabee announced earlier this month that he was running for president and Mr. Rubio announced last month he was running.

Mr. Walker also pointed out that Florida Gov. Rick Scott spent around $100 million in his 2014 re-election campaign.

“There won’t be that much, but a good chunk of that’ll be going after the Florida primary, but short of that, I think our message — common sense conservative reform, if we were to get in this election — could play just about anywhere out there,” Mr. Walker said in the interview, which was first noted by Time. “And I think if we ultimately ended up being a candidate, we’d be focused on the caucus in Iowa and the primaries in places like New Hampshire and South Carolina on down the line.”

Via: Washington TImes

Continue Reading....

Bernie Sanders Condemns Existence of 23 Different Deodorant Brands While Children Go Hungry

Self-proclaimed socialist and progressive favorite Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) laments the idea that Americans can choose between “23 underarm spray deodorants” as children go hungry under President Obama’s economy.

“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country,” Sanders told John Harwood in an interview posted Tuesday.

Sanders will make his official campaign Democratic presidential announcement alongside the Ben and Jerry’s cofounders in Burlington on Tuesday.

Sanders said he would not condemn Hillary Clinton for bringing in millions of dollars in speaking fees but said it would be hard for her to separate fighting for the middle class and fighting against corporate interests. Sanders also said the Clintons have grown accustomed to a worldview that has led to them losing touch with the world around them.

Sanders has advocated for returning the personal income tax rate to 90 percent for top earners, as it was in the 1950s. He brushed off the comments from businesses that have called his “revolution” for the transfer of wealth from the top earners to the middle class, similar to Nazi Germany.

“These people are so greedy, they’re so out of touch with reality,” Sanders said. “You know what? Sorry, you’re all going to have to pay your fair share of taxes.”

The New York Times reported that Sanders is fine with reducing economic growth if it reduces income inequality.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

IRS hit by cyberattack, thousands of taxpayers’ information stolen

Thieves managed to steal information on more than 100,000 taxpayers from the IRS, Commissioner John Koskinen said Tuesday — though he insisted the breach didn’t affect most average taxpayers and the information they file in their annual returns.

Thousands of fraudulent returns were filed under the attack, and final details about the amount the criminals stole is not available, though Mr. Koskinen predicted it will be less than $50 million.

“This is not a security breach. Our basic information is secure,” Mr. Koskinen insisted in a call with reporters to discuss the theft, which he said came from online access by fraudsters, who he described as part of an organized crime syndicate.

The IRS is sending out notices to those they have determined were affected by the breach, and has opened a criminal investigation into the operation.

Mr. Koskinen said the fraudsters were exploiting a specific application, the Get Transcript program, to be able to dig up more information on taxpayers, including their full tax returns dating back five or more years.

The commissioner said they discovered the breach after noticing odd Internet activity from the tax filing season. They didn’t find the activity until the middle of this month, however, and have scrambled to get a handle on what happened.

Via: Washington TImes
Continue Reading....

Chinese State Media Warns Of ‘Inevitable’ War With US Photo

Despite stringent warnings from the United States not to proceed with an aggressive naval strategy, on Tuesday, China unveiled plans to build two lighthouses in the South China Sea.

At the same time, an oped published in the state-run Global Times stated that unless Washington backs down, conflict may be ‘inevitable.’

China’s State Council also issued a whitepaper saying that it will expand military capabilities in the region to include offensive measures, in addition to already existing defensive measures, Reuters reports.  China’s Second Artillery Corps intends to bolster its ability for nuclear counterattacks and long-range precision strikes.

Yet the paper also promised that “China will never seek hegemony or expansion.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

WARREN BUFFETT EXPLAINS HOW A $15 MINIMUM WAGE WOULD HURT WORKERS

As Fortune observes, Warren Buffett is one of the Left’s favorite billionaires, but he occasionally says things they don’t want to hear. At such times, liberals politely ignore him and wait for him to say something useful to their cause, at which point the fulsome praise resumes.

They prefer not to dwell on such hypocrisies as the energy Buffett devotes to lawfully avoiding the high taxes he philosophically supports, which is no surprise, because hypocrisy is the grease that keeps the gears of socialism turning. Aristocratic privilege is the enticement leftists have always offered to useful industrialists.

The Left isn’t going to like what Buffett had to say about the minimum wage in the Wall Street Journal last week. After reviewing the numbers for income inequality (growing, especially during the Obama years, although Buffett tactfully avoids pointing that out) and poverty (static, despite trillions of dollars spent in the War on Poverty), he blows a hole through liberal class-war boilerplate about the rich somehow getting richer off the backs of the poor:

No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America’s well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton and the like.

Buffett explains at length that specialization is both the source of our incredible national wealth, and the difficulty some people – and, more disturbingly, some families - encounter when trying to access it. In a pre-industrial age when most of the population could perform most of the available jobs, and failure to perform generally resulted in starvation, there wasn’t much “income inequality” until the wealthiest aristocrats and hereditary royalty were considered. Sociologists regard the evolution of an independent middle class as an important achievement, but it inevitably creates a larger, more distinct underclass as well. “Poverty” was not as compelling a subject when just about everyone was equally poor… and commoners had few opportunities to significantly improve their station.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

AMERICA ASKS: What would you ask Ann Coulter?

AMERICA ASKS: 

What would you ask 

Ann Coulter?

by AMERICA with Jorge Ramos | May 19, 2015 10:00 PM

The conservative commentator is back with a new book and she’s calling out Democrats, Republicans, the media, and well, Jorge Ramos.

In her first interview about “Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole,” Coulter will sit down with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos to talk about what is, and isn’t working when it comes to immigration.

But we want to hear from you. Comment below or tweet us YOUR question for Coulter @ThisIsAMERICA with the hashtag #AnnsAmerica.

Here’s a look-back at some of her more…memorable quotes:

“It would be a much better country if women did not vote” May 2003, The Guardian

“I’m more of a man than any liberal” July 2007, to Bill O’Reilly on John Edwards

“Young people are idiots” March 2014, AnnCoulter.com

“Foreigners shouldn’t be allowed on American television” June 2014, discussing the World Cup

“Today’s immigrants aren’t coming here to breathe free, they’re coming to live for free” May 2015, ‘Adios, America‘

The full interview airs Tuesday, May 26 at 10 pm EST on Fusion.

Via: Fusion

Continue Reading.....

Will Hillary Clinton Run Against Her Husband’s Welfare Legacy?

This story has been updated.

Almost 20 years ago, when Bill Clinton made good on his campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it,’’ some of his oldest friends were beside themselves. The plan, as originally conceived, had been to pump significantly more money into programs designed to move poor single mothers off of assistance and into jobs, which couldn’t be done on the cheap. Yes, Clinton had proposed a strict time limit on benefits, but he had also pledged to “make work pay.” As it turned out, only one of those two things happened.

On August 22, 1996, Clinton proudly signed a Republican bill that pushed recipients out of the program after five years and ended an entitlement in place since the New Deal. “In a sweeping reversal of Federal policy, the New York Times story on the event began, “President Clinton today ended six decades of guaranteed help to the nation's poorest children.”

The bill wasn’t the solo handiwork of then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who had proposed sending poor children to orphanages. Rather, a Democratic president with political capital to spare was freely approving what many in his party saw as a baldly punitive bill. And Hillary Clinton, who in this early phase of her campaign has made "the-deck-is-stacked" inequality a central focus, was fully in support.

Photographer: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

President Clinton meets with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott, and Representative Richard Gephardt in the White House in 1996.

Clinton's signing of the bill was a source of near-physical pain to someone like Peter Edelman, then Clinton’s assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, who as a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy had penned one of the earliest liberal critiques of welfare’s shortcomings, in 1967. RFK’s proposed antidote, however, had been a massive jobs program. Edelman had known Hillary Clinton since 1969, when he’d put her in touch with his wife, Marian Wright Edelman, who became her mentor and employer at the anti-poverty organization she'd just founded, the Children’s Defense Fund.

Via: Bloomberg.com

Continue Reading.,....

Disasters at Home and Abroad

From ISIS at Ramadi to riots at home, nothing is going right. “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”        – W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming” Things are starting to collapse, abroad and at home. We all sense it, even as we bicker over who caused it and why. ISIS took Ramadi last week. That city once was a Bastogne to the brave Americans who surged to save it in 2007 and 2008. ISIS, once known at the White House as the “Jayvees,” were certainly “on the run” — right into the middle of that strategically important city.

On a smaller scale, ISIS is doing to the surge cities of Iraq what Hitler did to his neighbors between 1939 and 1941, and what Putin is perhaps doing now on the periphery of Russia. In Ramadi, ISIS will soon do its accustomed thing of beheading and burning alive its captives, seeking some new macabre twist to sustain its Internet video audience. We in the West trample the First Amendment and jail a video maker for posting a supposedly insensitive film about Islam; in contrast, jihadists post snuff movies of burnings and beheadings to global audiences. We argue not about doing anything or saving anybody, but about whether it is inappropriate to call the macabre killers “jihadists.” When these seventh-century psychopaths tire of warring on people, they turn to attacking stones, seeking to ensure that there is not a vestige left of the Middle East’s once-glorious antiquities. I assume the ancient Sassanid and Roman imperial site at Palmyra will soon be looted and smashed.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

CNN Setting Itself Up to Struggle Mightily on the Political Front Until Election Day; Here’s Why

The 2016 election is still 532 days away. During that time, we’ll crown two Stanley Cup champions, two NBA champs, two World Series winners and a Super Bowl victor. In other words, the big day ain’t coming for a long, long time.

But if you’ve watched all of the cable news networks for the past two months, you’d think Americans are casting their ballots this November, not the following one. A total of eight candidates have already announced, with several obvious ones on the verge of doing so (including your eventual winner, John Kasich). And in absorbing all of the coverage of Fox, CNN and MSNBC lately, one thing is abundantly clear:

CNN is nowhere near where it needs to be if it wants to be competitive.

As noted a few times in this space, CNN is in a better place since Jeff Zucker took over. From a ratings perspective, the network has jumped from third to second place. Part of the reason (besides MSNBC’s implosion) is Zucker’s push for more taped programming in the form of documentaries such as The Sixties and programs like Morgan Spirlock’s Inside Man, Mike Rowe’s Somebody’s Gotta Do It, and Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown. Another part is his All-All-In philosophy on certain breaking news, when one story dominates the networks for days and even weeks (or months, as was the case with MH370). Agree with the moves or not, the overall sentiment here was Zucker had to do something bold other than try to compete with MSNBC and Fox on the political opinion front, and going the old HBO/MTV route (offering more original programming and less of the original content model) was the right call given the hand he was dealt.

“Those two channels (Fox and MSNBC) are covering political news. We’re covering politics and much more,” Zucker stated in his first year at CNN. “Our competition now is two political channels that have actually left most of the actual news coverage to the side,”

And that thinking is all well and good during non-election seasons. But now that we’re basically in one, the nation’s focus is on the theatre that are presidential campaigns. It also happens to be the most important election of our lifetime (no really, this time it’s actually true), thanks to the very real possibility that not one, not two, but three Supreme Court justices will need to be replaced. You want to know where the real power lies in government? Try the Federal Reserve and the highest court in the land, not necessarily in that order. Of course, breaking news will still exist and CNN will still see bumps during those moments, but the perpetual political conversation threatens to overshadow standard breaking news even more, putting the network in a tough position until November 8, 2016 finally comes around.

In looking at the changes Zucker has made, the most noteworthy (and important) place to look is primetime. Erin Burnett—the network’s most consistent performer–is rightly still at 7:00p EST.Anderson Cooper is still at 8, but lost his 10:00 PM AC360° Later panel show. Piers Morgan was relieved of his duties at 9 and has been replaced by a mix of CNN Special Report (Tuesday this week) and various taped programming (Bourdain, Bourdain, Rowe, and Bourdain are on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday this week, respectively). At 10, CNN Tonight is essentially the Don Lemon hour, where the focus seemingly is on the more sensational stuff mixed with debates around race issues.

So what do all of those shows and personalities have in common? They’re all generally apolitical. Burnett and Cooper have a reporter’s DNA first and their programs largely reflect more of anchors breaking down big stories than what is normally the modus operandi of opinion hosts (staking out positions on big and/or controversial stories of the day and discussing/debating them throughout the program). The aforementioned taped programs don’t explore American politics in any capacity. Lemon’s show occasionally veers into this space, but invariably from a social issue perspective. In other words, CNN primetime will never be confused with MSNBC prime (Matthews, Hayes, Maddow, O’Donnell) and Fox (Van Susteren, O’Reilly, Kelly, Hannity).

When looking at CNN’s overall weekday schedule, the only true political host in the bunch is Jake Tapper, who currently sits in not-so-friendly timeslot of 4:00p EST. The network once had Crossfire 2.0 at 6:30p, but the show was pre-empted so many times due to the All-All-In strategy that it couldnever build a following (the chemistry between the cast wasn’t exactly magic, either). Candy Crowleyis no longer with the network. Peter Hamby—a big up-and-coming talent—has mostly left for Snapchat (he’ll still be a CNN contributor, but his primary responsibilities and time will be with Snapchat). Jay Carney lasted about six minutes before running for the truly big money at Amazon.

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading.....

California Dreaming: Record $500 Million Tag on L.A. Home

One of the biggest homes in U.S. history is rising on a Los Angeles hilltop, and the developer hopes to sell it for a record $500 million.

Nile Niami, a film producer and speculative residential developer, is pouring concrete in L.A.’s Bel Air neighborhood for a compound with a 74,000-square-foot (6,900-square-meter) main residence and three smaller homes, according to city records. The project, which will take at least 20 more months to complete, will exceed 100,000 square feet,including a 5,000-square-foot master bedroom, a 30-car garage and a “Monaco-style casino,” Niami said.

“The house will have almost every amenity available in the world,” he wrote in an e-mail. “The asking price will be $500 million.”

Estates with views of the Los Angeles basin are the California counterpart to Manhattan’spenthouses or London’s Mayfair manors, drawing a global cast of financiers, technology tycoons and celebrities who collect trophy homes like works of art. Around the world, five properties sold for $100 million or more last year, and at least 20 others have nine-figure asking prices, Christie’s International Real Estate reported last month.

The priciest home ever sold was a $221 million London penthouse purchased in 2011, according to Christie’s. The most expensive properties on the market include a $425 million estate in France’s Cote d’Azur, a $400 million penthouse in Monaco and a $365 million London manor.

Whether Niami can get more than double the previous record for his mansion remains to be seen.

Via: Bloomberg Business

Continue Reading.....

Sticker Shock for Some Obamacare Customers

By Megan McArdle

So the proposed 2016 Obamacare rates have been filed in many states, and in many states, the numbers are eye-popping. Market leaders are requesting double-digit increases in a lot of places. Some of the biggest are really double-digit: 51 percent in New Mexico, 36 percent in Tennessee, 30 percent in Maryland, 25 percent in Oregon. The reason? They say that with a full year of claims data under their belt for the first time since Obamacare went into effect, they're finding the insurance pool was considerably older and sicker than expected.

Don't panic, says Kevin Drum. This is just the opening bid in a regulatory dance that will end up somewhere very different: "A few months from now, the real rate increases — the ones approved by state and federal authorities — will begin to trickle out. They'll mostly be in single digits, with a few in the low teens. The average for the entire country will end up being something like 4-8 percent."

He's right, of course, that the proposed rates will not end up being the final rate. Regulators are going to push back on these rates as hard as they can, with some success.

But in the case of the companies cited by the Wall Street Journal, I'd bet they're not going to go down to 4-8 percent. As it turns out, the insurer filings are public information, available on state websites. And in the three cases where I could see supporting data about premium revenue and losses, those losses appear to be large. Moda of Oregon says that its claims were 139 percent of revenue, making for a margin of -61 percent. If I am reading their somewhat confusing table right, Health Service Corporation of New Mexico says it lost $23 million on revenue of $121 million. CareFirst of Maryland says that claims were 120 percent of revenue, which if we add in some money to pay for overhead, amounts to ... less than or equal to what they're asking from regulators. I can't find claims experience data for Tennessee, but that state told the Wall Street Journal that it lost $141 million on exchange plans last year.

Via: Bloomberg View

Continue Reading....

Cleveland, Justice Department Reach Policing Deal

 People protest in reaction to Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo being acquitted of manslaughter charges after he shot two people at the end of a 2012 car chase in which officers fired 137 shots. (Ricky Rhodes/Stringer/Getty Images)

Cleveland has reached a settlement with the Department of Justice over a pattern of excessive force and civil rights violations by its police department, and it could be announced as soon as Tuesday, a senior federal law enforcement official said.

The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly about the settlement before the formal announcement, spoke Monday on the condition of anonymity.

News of the settlement came days after a white police officer was acquitted of manslaughter for firing the final 15 rounds of a 137-shot police barrage through the windshield of a car carrying two unarmed black suspects in 2012.

Special: These 7 Things Activate Alzheimer’s in Your Brain

The suspects' backfiring vehicle had been mistaken for a gunshot, leading to a high-speed chase involving 62 police cruisers. Once the suspects were cornered, 13 officers fired at the car.

The case prompted an 18-month Department of Justice investigation into the practices of the police. In a scathing report released in December, the department required the city to devise a plan to reform the police force.

The specifics of the settlement were unavailable. Messages left for a Department of Justice spokeswoman and the Cleveland Police Department seeking comment weren't returned.

The Department of Justice's report spared no one in the police chain of command. The worst examples of excessive force involved patrol officers who endangered lives by shooting at suspects and cars, hit people over the head with guns and used stun guns on handcuffed suspects.

Supervisors and police higher-ups received some of the report's most searing criticism. The report said officers were poorly trained and some didn't know how to implement use-of-force policies. It also said officers were ill-equipped.

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Bernie Sanders Wants To Bring Back A 90 Percent Tax Rate

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wouldn’t mind hiking taxes to an eye-popping 90 percent for wealthy Americans.

The socialist lawmaker — running against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary — told CNBC that he could get behind exploding tax rates back to levels not seen since the 1950s.

“[When] radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president,” Sanders said in an interview with John Harwood, “I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.”

“It was 90,” agreed Harwood. “When you think about 90 percent, you don’t think that’s obviously too high?”

“No,” Sanders replied. “What I think is obscene, and what frightens me is, again, when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90.”

“Does anybody think that is the kind of economy this country should have?”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Federal appeals court deals blow to President Obama’s amnesty

A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

---

PHOTOS: See Obama's biggest White House fails

---

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

Administration officials had criticized that ruling, and immigrant-rights advocates had called Judge Hanen an activist bent on punishing immigrants. But Tuesday’s ruling upholds his injunction, giving some vindication to the judge.

 

It also could mean Mr. Obama will have to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to implement his amnesty before the end of his term.

 

In the 2-1 decision, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod ruled in favor of Texas, finding that the state would suffer an injury from having to deliver services to the illegal immigrants granted legal status, and ruling that it was a major enough policy that the president should have sent it through the usual rule-making process.

 

“DAPA modifies substantive rights and interests — conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law,” the judges wrote

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/#ixzz3bHMvzreP 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter