Report: 3 million more children in poverty under Obama, 22% of all kids

Ever since President Obama took office, the poverty rate among children has soared to 22 percent, with three million more children living in poor conditions, according to an authoritative new report released Tuesday.

The 2015 "KIDS COUNT" report from the Annie E. Casey Foundationsaid that the percentage of children living in poverty jumped from 18 percent in 2008, the year Obama was elected, to 22 percent in 2013. It added that the rate dropped from 2012 to 2013, in line with the improving economy.

RELATED: Pew: 84% of world population lives at or below U.S. poverty line

Among minority children and in some states, especially the South, however, the situation is dire. The report said, for example:

The rate of child poverty for 2013 ranged from a low of 10 percent in New Hampshire, to a high of 34 percent in Mississippi.

• The child poverty rate among African Americans (39 percent) was more than double the rate for non-Hispanic whites (14 percent) in 2013.

RELATED: Bernie Sanders wants to spend $3 billion on solar panels for the poor

The report also explained that a lack of jobs or good income above the poverty rate of $23,624 was the reason more children have grown up in poor families.

• In 2013, three in 10 children (22.8 million) lived in families where no parent had full-time, year-round employment. Since 2008, the number of such children climbed by nearly 2.7 million

• Roughly half of all American Indian children (50 percent) and African-American children (48 percent) had no parent with full-time, year-round employment in 2013, compared with 37 percent of Latino children, 24 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 23 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

Judicial Watch: Federal Judge Declares State Department Will “Answer For” Any Destruction of Clinton Emails

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge warned the State Department that it will “have to answer for” any destruction of Hillary Clinton email records.  U. S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras made the statement at a July 9, 2015 status conference concerning a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for records about the State Department vetting of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00688)).  The transcript of the July 9 court hearing is available here.

At the hearing, attorney Chris Fedeli pressed Judicial Watch’s concerns about the preservation of records, especially email records that were not part of the 55,000 pages of records turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department late last year.

In response, Judge Contreras said he was also “concerned” about the preservation of these records:

If documents are destroyed between now and August 17, the government will have to answer for that, and, you know, if they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve between now and then, they can make that choice. I will allow them to make that choice, but they will answer for it, if something happens.

After a Justice Department lawyer attempted to assure him that the administration was asking for government records from former State Department employees, Judge Contreras questioned the State Department’s position that it had no legal obligation to take additional steps to obtain other government records in the custody of Mrs. Clinton and other former officials who used her special email system:

[I]t is to state the obvious that this is not an ordinary case, and everyone should be working to make sure that whatever documents exist today remain in existence.

Judge Contreras also voiced concerns regarding the State Department’s refusal to provide any information about the Clinton email issue:

But I am a little bit mystified that the government is not more forthcoming in just answering questions that will help this case proceed on a systematic basis, and on a basis that will allow everyone to get the answers that will eventually help resolve these cases…

The Court also seemed to reject the Obama administration’s contention that responding to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit in a timely way would derail its compliance with Judge Contreras’s order in another lawsuit (Leopold v. U.S. Department of State, (15-00123)) requiring that the 55,000 pages of Clinton email records be searched and produced under FOIA by January, 2016:

My order in Leopold was based on numbers and percentages. To the extent that documents from that universe are produced in this case, they qualify for the numbers in Leopold, don’t they? So that they’re not mutually exclusive from a resource standpoint, are they?

The Court then said his “inclination is to have a search done of the Clinton e-mail database that’s digitized and searchable for this relatively narrow, in my view, relatively narrow request.”

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request on March 17, 2015, and subsequently a lawsuit on May 6, 2015, seeking:

• Any and all records that identify the policies and/or procedures in place to ensure that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal or charitable financial relationships with foreign leaders, foreign governments, and business entities posed no conflict of interest to her role as Secretary of State; and

• Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation for potential conflicts of interest with former Secretary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State.

  Judicial Watch has also announced that it has reached an agreement with the State Department regarding production of documents in another Clinton-related lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00690)).
  Documents sought by the lawsuit include:

  Any and all records that identify the number and names of all current and former officials, officers, or employees of the U.S. Department of State from January 20, 2009 to the present who used email addresses other than their assigned “state.gov” email addresses to conduct official State Department business.

  In a joint status report filed June 29, 2015, Judicial Watch and the State Department reported to the Court that:

  The parties have met and conferred, and submit their joint proposed briefing schedule below:

  • Defendant will complete all searches and produce to Plaintiff all responsive, non-privileged, and non-exempt records within its possession, custody, or control no later than August 14, 2015.

  • The Parties will meet and confer and file a status report by August 28, 2015 indicating whether additional briefing is necessary.

  “This one court hearing shows that Hillary Clinton and her co-conspirators in the State Department will have to account for each and every email on Hillary Clinton’s notorious email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
  A separate and ongoing Judicial Watch lawsuit, one of nearly 20 active Judicial Watch lawsuits at which the Clinton email system is at issue, forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others.  Judicial Watch and The Washington Examiner partnered in thefirst story to break the Clinton conflicts scandal: “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions.”

Via: Judicial Watch

Continue Reading....

Meet the 41 Companies That Donate Directly to Planned Parenthood

In the wake of two videos allegedly showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetal body parts, Republicans in Congress are working to ensure Planned Parenthood is stripped of its federal funding.

However, it’s not only the government that fills Planned Parenthood’s coffers.According to 2nd Vote, a website and app that tracks the flow of money from consumers to political causes, more than 25 percent of Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 billion annual revenue comes from private donations, which includes corporate contributions.

2nd Vote researched the corporations and organizations to find which supported Planned Parenthood and found that more than three dozen donated to the group. Some companies donated directly, while others matched employee gifts.

Forty-one corporations and organizations directly contribute to the group.

Planned Parenthood has come under heavy fire following the release of videos from the Center for Medical Progress.

The first video, released last week, showed Planned Parenthood senior executive Dr. Deborah Nucatola meeting with actors portraying buyers from a “human biologics company.” The “buyers” discussed the sale of fetal body parts with Nucatola while they dined over lunch.

In the second video, released today, Dr. Mary Gattner, president of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director’s Council, is seen negotiating the price of aborted fetal body parts.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Bereaved Father: Too Many Americans Are Being Killed By Undocumented Immigrant Felons

On Tuesday, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) of the Senate Judiciary Committee presided over a hearing entitled, “Oversight of the Administration’s Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims.”

During that hearing, Jim Steinle, whose daughter was recently killed by an undocumented citizen in San Francisco, California, testified about the devastating loss of his beloved daughter, Kate. 

“The day she was killed we were walking arm and arm on Pier 14 in San Francisco, enjoying a wonderful day together,” Mr. Steinle recalled. “Suddenly a shot rang out, Kate fell, and looked at me and said, ‘Help me, Dad.’ Those were the last words I’ll ever hear from my daughter.”

“The alleged murderer is an undocumented immigrant who's been convicted of seven felonies in the US, and already deported five times,” he added. “Yet in March of this year, he was released from jail and allowed to stay here freely because of [legal] loopholes. It’s unbelievable to see so many innocent Americans that have been killed by undocumented immigrant felons in recent years. In fact, we’ve recently come across a statistic that says between 2010 and 2014, 121 criminals aliens — who had an active deportation case at the time of release – were subsequently charged with homicide-related offenses.”

Three other witnesses also testified about loved ones who were inexplicably and brutally murdered by illegal immigrants. Mrs. Oliver Sullivan spoke about how her husband, Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, was shot in the head — and killed — by an undocumented alien while on duty in Sacramento, California. She explained that a day doesn’t go by that she doesn’t think about him, and how his death was in all likelihood preventable. Mr. Brian McCann, meanwhile, testified that the convicted felon who murdered his brother, Dennis, was able to post bail and actually leave prison because of a failure in immigration policy. How could such a “pathetic, miscarriage of justice” be possible in the United States, he asked the panel of US senators?

Finally, and equally as heartbreaking, Ms. Laura Wilkinson recounted the unspeakable tragedy of when her son, Joshua, was tortured, killed, and left in a field to rot by a so-called DREAMer. She therefore called on members of Congress to start implementing immigrations laws that put Americans — not criminals —first. (Her son’s killer was sentenced to life in prison. But, as Ms. Wilkinson testified, she expects he will one day be granted parole and won’t be deported). Not surprisingly, she also believes that many wrongheaded, status quo immigration laws simply aren't working. She explained that the infamous sanctuary city policy, for instance, is “inviting” dangerous criminals into the country, thereby jeopardizing the national security interests and safety of American citizens. This misguided policy, she intimated, directly contributed to her son’s death.

“I don’t want your sympathy,” she declared. “I want you to do something about it."

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading....

Feds Spend $125,000 Studying Sexist Adjectives

The federal government is spending $125,000 to study adjectives that could be perceived as sexist or racist.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) tasked the University of Kansas with conducting the study last year.

“The proposed research predicts that stereotypes activate different standards of judgments for members of different groups; therefore, evaluations (adjectives) mean different things depending on the person described,” according to the grant for the study.

“For example, in a masculine work domain where women are stereotyped as less competent, ‘good’ for a woman may mean something objectively less good than ‘good’ for a man,” it said.

The project will examine letters of recommendation to see whether letters for women and minorities are “influenced by gender and racial stereotypes” that affect chances of admission into graduate school.

“In everyday life, we often are asked to provide assessments or evaluations of others’ abilities,” the grant said. “Stereotypes can subtly shape these evaluations and judgments, even among those who view themselves as non-prejudiced.”

“This can be very consequential in certain contexts; for example, hiring and admissions decisions can be based in part on the evaluative language used in letters of recommendation, and the language used may be influenced by gender and racial stereotypes,” the grant continued. “Further, audiences may also interpret this language with reference to those negative stereotypes about women and ethnic minorities.”

The NSF project said it has major implications for “understanding bias in real world, evaluative settings.”

“Understanding how and when stereotyping can occur in evaluative contexts is a critical step towards reducing bias, prejudice, and discrimination,” the grant said.

Dr. Monica Biernat, a psychology professor at the University of Kansas, is leading the study. Biernat previously received $505,001 from the NSF, as well as $7,029 from the agency for a trip to Warsaw in 2006 for the “European Social Cognition Network.”

The prior NSF projects included “a meta-analysis” of stereotyping and judgments and the hypothesis that stereotypes “exert a wide-ranging influence on social life in that they pervade our language, our interpretations of what others say and do, our decisions about others, and our thoughts about ourselves.”

The latest project on stereotypes has cost $125,000. Biernat told the Washington Free Beacon that she would likely apply for additional funding in 2016, though “that by no means guarantees I’ll get it,” she said.

Aside from the adjective “good,” Biernat provided other examples from her research of the effects of stereotypes.

“Because of shifting standards, a female chief of staff may be described as highly competent, a hit from a female softball player may generate more enthusiasm than the same hit from a male, and a Black student may receive more praise than a White student for an identical transcript,” she wrote in Volume 45 of Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. “In each case, the target is being judged relative to lower expectations or standards for their group.”

Biernat also suggested that men should think about using words such as “aggressive” when describing a woman.

“This practice may be less practical in the kinds of social judgments we render as part of everyday social discourse—judging a female driver as ‘aggressive,’ a mediocre Black student as ‘really smart,’ or a father who walks his kids to school as a ‘great’ parent,” she wrote.

“But in these cases, awareness, education, and conscious self-correction may be important tools (‘I called her aggressive; would I have used the same label for a man?’),” Biernat continued. “This would of course require ability and motivation to correct on the part of the evaluator

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

RAND PAUL DESTROYS THE TAX CODE…LITERALLY!

Rand Paul has come out with a new video where he destroys the tax code by throwing it in a woodchipper, sets it on fire and splits it with a chainsaw. I guess with The Donald sucking up all the oxygen, Paul is kicking it up a notch to get noticed:

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

Jerry Brown Takes On Climate Change-Denying 'Troglodytes'

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Tuesday urged a group of 60 mayors to take action in their cities on climate change, warning that global warming is "the biggest threat of our time" and denouncing skeptics as "troglodytes."

At a climate change conference hosted by Pope Francis at the Vatican and attended by U.S. mayors and global leaders, Brown offered a dire assessment of climate change's potential effects in the near future.  

"We don’t even know how far we've gone, or if we've gone over the edge,” Brown said. "This is not some linear set of problems that we can predict. We have to take measures against an uncertain future which may well be something no one ever wants. We are talking about extinction. We are talking about climate regimes that have not been seen for tens of millions of years. We're not there yet, but we're on our way."

Brown criticized politicians and business leaders who are skeptical of global warming and its effects as "troglodytes" who have a vested interest in "bamboozling" the public about man-made climate change.

"We have fierce opposition and blind inertia. And that opposition is well-financed, hundreds of millions of dollars going into propaganda, into falsifying the scientific record, bamboozling people of every country," Brown said. "We have to fight that propaganda and overcome the inertia and the tremendous opposition." 

Noting that he's "not counting" on the GOP-controlled Congress to address climate change, the governor pressed the mayors to cut carbon emissions in their communities. 

"We have to respond and if we don't, the world will suffer," he said. "We will all suffer. In fact, many people, millions, are suffering already."

Brown, now in his fourth term as California governor, has made climate change one of his signature issues in office. Earlier this year, he issued an executive order accelerating California's targets for slashing greenhouse gas emissions. In May, he signed a pact with 11 other states pledging to sharply reduce emissions by 2050. And later this year, the governor will travel to Paris to attend the United Nations climate conference, where 196 countries will meet to sign a new climate change agreement.

The Vatican conference, attended by municipal leaders like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, comes one month after the release of the pope's encyclicalon climate change that called for a "bold cultural revolution" to fight global warming.

"Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods," Pope Francis wrote. "It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day."

Via: Huffington Post

Continue Reading....

Can Kasich pull it off?

Governor’s experience, style could set him apart from the crowded GOP presidential field — or cost him the nomination

The hour-plus interview at the Governor’s Residence in Bexley had concluded, but Gov. John Kasich remained cross-legged and slouched in a chair, drinking black coffee and gazing at the garden through a window.

“I can win this,” he said quietly and confidently.

Against the odds, let’s say he does. What kind of president would Kasich be? Can we trust him to sit across a table from the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and do right by us?

Is he ready? Can any human truly be prepared to be the world’s most powerful person?

Probably not, but come November 2016, we’ll have a better sense of whether Kasich deserves to be that person — if his candidacy lasts that long.

>> John Kasich: Complete coverage

>> Timeline: John Kasich's career

“Ultimately, as crazy as our system may be, it does sort out those who are ready from those who are not,” said Bexley resident David Wilhelm, national manager of Democrat Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign for president.

“It’s a tough and demanding process, and John Kasich knows that process well. He’s already run."

Today, as Ohio’s 63-year-old governor officially becomes the 16th major candidate to join the GOP field for president with a rally at Ohio State University’s student union, he says he is far more ready to be president than in February 1999, when he launched an ephemeral and somewhat quixotic campaign.

“When I think back on those days, I wasn’t ready to be president,” Kasich said. “I just didn’t have enough of the experience or the testing.”

Via: The Columbus Dispatch

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Trump Responds to Lindsey Graham Insult by Giving Out His Cell Number

Donald Trump today fired back against Lindsey Graham calling him a “jackass” yesterday by just giving out his cell phone number.

Graham was so offended by Trump’s attacks on John McCain yesterday, he said that Trump needs to quit being a jackass and getting out of the race.

Trump responded by… well, doing what he does:

Politico actually got through to Graham by calling the number. This is what he said:

“I wonder what caused that,” Graham told a POLITICO reporter who dialed the number that Trump read.

“When it comes to the Donald, nothing surprises me anymore,” he said. “It’s just too bad, really,” he said, that Trump is taking away from a discussion on the Iran deal and more substantive policy issues.

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading.... 

Left Uses Bullying Tactics to Shut Down Opposition

“End of discussion!” is what those on the political left yell in your face when they know they are losing an argument. It is also the name of a compelling new book by Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson with the revealing subtitle of “How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).”

While it is true that attempts to marginalize political opponents isn’t the exclusive domain of progressives, in the last couple of decades it is the political left which has perfected these tactics to an art form.  Perhaps it is because these latest efforts reflect a full manifestation of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  An important strategy from this famous anarchist is to avoid at all costs an honest debate over whether socialist policies actually work.

And it’s not just conservatives who are sounding the alarm.  Bill Maher, the left of center host of his own show on HBO has said that liberals are too easily offended and that an overly politically correct society actually breeds more hostility between the parties.  Jerry Seinfeld, lifelong Democratic and famous comic, has said that he doesn’t play college campuses anymore because students have been brainwashed into being offended at almost anything.

While political correctness is a national problem, it is much worse in California.  Indeed, for all the alleged “openness” of the California lifestyle, here are the three things about which you cannot possibly have a rational discussion with a liberal:  Global warming, immigration and traditional marriage.

Let’s just look at global warming.  How many times have you heard Al Gore, President Obama, Jerry Brown or Tom Steyer say “the debate is over?”  As I have advised college students on both the right and left numerous times, when someone says “the debate is over” that usually means the debate is just beginning. While there is substantial evidence (mostly based on computer modeling) that man’s activities might have an impact on the earth’s climate, there are simply too many ancillary questions and unknowns for anyone to say the “debate is over.”  Shockingly, even noted environmentalists including a co-founder of Greenpeace and Bjorn Lomberg, former head of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, have been savaged by the global warming alarmists for suggesting that the hype might be overstated.

On immigration, if one dares to raise the very legitimate issues of the costs to taxpayers that flow from unregulated immigration you are immediately branded as a racist.  Despite being far more open to legal immigration than others in America, I have personally felt the wrath of this unfounded accusation.

The progressives are not interested in hearing anything that deviates one iota from their rigid orthodoxy.  And they don’t want others to hear any contrary message either.  Somalian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited to speak at Brandies University because she dared speak out against Islamic extremism.  These are prime examples of the “heckler’s veto” even before a speech begins.  Other luminaries “disinvited” from commencement speeches due to left leaning pressure include International Monetary Fund Director Christine LaGarge and Condoleezza Rice.

And our final California example of shutting off debate is an embarrassing incident in the California Capitol when Rodger Hernandez, Chairman of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee would not even allow the Republican Vice Chair, Matthew Harper speak on one of the most contentious and dangerous bills emanating from the California Legislature – Senate Bill 3, a huge increase in the state’s minimum wage.  Hernandez even went so far as to order the Sergeant at Arms to take away Harpers’ microphone.  Talk about “end of discussion!”

So how should we respond to this wave of political correctness run amok and efforts to limit debate?  First, realize it won’t be easy as the main stream media is rarely on our side.  Second, it is entirely fair to call out these tactics for what they are and challenge our adversaries to debate the issues honestly.  Third, appeal to the desire for truth.  Scripture tells us veritas vos liberabit — the truth will set you free. Or, as Andrew Breitbart said, “The truth isn’t mean. The truth is the truth.”

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-rootstaxpayerorganization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights. Originally posted on HJTA.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

The Real Reason Our Troops at Chattanooga Were Unarmed Is Absolutely Infuriating

Service members on base and outside at remote recruiting sites are not being deprived of weapons just because of short-sighted directives. It’s much worse than that. They have no access to guns to protect themselves – though in most states the civilians they pass in the streets off-post can legally and easily carry concealed – because senior military leaders are more terrified of career-ending “incidents” than the safety of their troops.

It’s a disgrace, but it’s only another example of the moral rot within the leadership of our Armed Forces that began before the Obama era but which now, under his poisonous leadership, threatens to destroy the greatest military in human history.

“Senior military leaders are more terrified of career-ending ‘incidents’ than the safety of their troops.”

Let’s be very clear – the Department of Defense (DoD) directive that limits the carrying of weapons absolutely allows commanders the discretion to arm their troops.

Let’s look at what the rules actually say. DoD Directive 5210.56, paragraph 4, reads, in part:

1. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
2. Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. …

Each service has specific regulations that further implement the DoD Directive. For example, Army Regulation (AR) 190-14, paragraphs 2-1 and 2-2, reserves the general power to arm troops in the continental United States to the Secretary of the Army, but it expressly provides that “[o]fficers of field grade rank or higher … may authorize the carrying of firearms for law enforcement and security duties” that include “[p]rotect[ing] DOD assets and personnel.”

So, the idea that military leaders have their hands tied is nonsense – the governing directives and regulations expressly allow senior leaders to arm their troops when there is a threat. And there is a threat – as we saw in Chattanooga, as we saw at Fort Hood. These freaks are not picking military personnel at random. They are continuing the radical Islamic war against America here on our soil, and our warriors remain stubbornly disarmed and defenseless.

So why would a commander not order troops who have qualified on their M9 pistols to draw sidearms and ammo and carry them during their duties, at least until this crisis passes? Perhaps their discretion has been withdrawn from higher command – that’s possible, especially with this toxic administration. But more likely it’s because of fear.

Via: The Journal

Continue Reading....

OBAMA REFUSES TO CALL MOTHER OF MURDERED MARINE; WHITE HOUSE WON’T LOWER FLAGS

It’s amazing how thoroughly President Obama has snubbed the families of the Marines and Navy petty officer murdered in Chattanooga, Tennessee by jihadi gunman Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez. The White House refuses to order flags lowered to half-staff in their honor. As Stars & Stripes notes, Obama’s flacks won’t even explain why.

“I don’t have more information about the status of the flag over the White House,” said spokesman Josh Earnest. Isn’t that astounding? Either the President doesn’t care enough about the issue to direct his vast media apparatus to prepare an explanation, or he knows there isn’t an explanation that would satisfy the public.

It’s all the more puzzling because, as Stars & Stripes recalls, the flag was lowered after the Washington Navy Yard shooting in 2013, and even after traitor Nidal Hassan’s jihad rampage at Forth Hood in 2009 – the attack shamefully classified as “workplace violence” by this Administration.

“We’ve lost five servicemen, and as you’ve said, the flag goes to half-mast for all types of other incidents around the country,” said 

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)

81%

 told Stuart Varney of Fox News on Monday. “Here we have five servicemen who lost their lives. I can’t imagine why it hasn’t been lowered.”

When Varney asked if the snub might have something to do with Obama’s reluctance to “acknowledge domestic Islamic terrorism,” DeJarlais replied, “He has a hard time with that concept for some reason. It’s here. It’s here to stay.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Dallas Man Robbed While Jogging Says Police Never Came

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Robbed at gunpoint while jogging in a Lake Highlands neighborhood in Dallas, residents are outraged over not only the crime but also the lack of response from Dallas police.

The victim, who does not want to be identified, said the robbery happened just before sunrise on Monday.

“I just heard a voice coming up from behind me saying, ‘Give me your iPhone, give me your iPhone!’ So I looked to my right and there a guy was point a gun in my face,” said the victim. “All I could think about was giving the guy whatever he wanted.”

But it was what happened right after being robbed that is bothering the victim and his neighbors even more.

Donald Wright, the victim’s neighbor, just happened to be drive by the scene and started calling 911 after hearing what happened.

After a call at 5:58 a.m., then at 6:21 a.m. and finally at almost 7:00 a.m., Wright and the victim said dispatch told them they had a shortage of patrol cars and the victim would have to come into the police station to report the crime.

“When I walked into the police station and said I needed to report an armed robbery, the guy was like, ‘What?’” said the victim. “I feel like when I was threatened with my life, it was a serious deal.”

Dallas police said it is reviewing call logs to figure out what happened and said officers are taking the incident very seriously.

“Of course I would have loved for them to catch them shortly after my incident. But unfortunately It didn’t happen. So hopefully they get quicker about responding,” said the victim.

Reports of the incident resulted in extra police presence in the area on Tuesday. Jogger Bozena Phillips likes to hit the trails with a friend. “I think it’s very important for everyone to be cautious every single day, because sometimes you know you’re in your ‘zone’ [and] you’re not paying attention to anything… what’s around and you’re tired,” he said. “So, its a good idea to always have like another person and look for each other.”

Just two miles away from where the victim was robbed, residents reported a similar crime where another jogger was also robbed at gunpoint — that incident happened minutes after the above victim was robbed. Police say the two cases appear to be connected and they are investigating.

(©2015 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Via: CBS Dallas/Ft.Worth

Continue Reading....

House readies vote on denying funds to sanctuary cities

House Republicans have put the finishing touches on a bill that would deny millions of dollars in federal funding to cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.

Washington Examiner:

The legislation was added Monday to the House schedule, and according to a spokesman from the office of the Majority Leader. The earliest that vote could come is Thursday, since the House Rules Committee will meet Wednesday evening to agree on rules for debate and voting on the legislation. 

The "Enforce the law for Sanctuary Cities Act," would withhold several kinds of federal grants for police and immigration services in cities that intentionally ignore immigration laws. 

The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and while he first proposed the measure in 2011, it has become a sudden priority for the GOP leadership in the wake of the the July 1 shooting death of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. 

The House measure could cost sanctuary cities tens of millions of dollars in policing grants and grants to help cities cope with the influx criminal illegal immigrants. Specifically, it would shut down grants that states use under a criminal alien assistance program, and cut grants under the Community-Oriented Policing Services program to states with policies that go against federal immigration law. 

States that prohibit law enforcement from gathering information about citizenship or immigration status would also be denied funding.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

[BREAKING NEWS] Fox NewsObama orders flags lowered to honor Tennessee victims, after criticism

President Obama has ordered that flags be lowered to half-staff at the White House and federal buildings across the country to honor the victims of last week's shooting rampage in Chattanooga, Tenn., after facing pressure from lawmakers and others. 

In a proclamation issued early Tuesday afternoon, Obama said of the Chattanooga victims, "We honor their service. We offer our gratitude to the police officers and first responders who stopped the rampage and saved lives. We draw strength from yet another American community that has come together with an unmistakable message to those who would try and do us harm: We do not give in to fear. You cannot divide us. And you will not change our way of life." 

He ordered flags flown at half-staff at the White House and "all public buildings and grounds," as well as over military posts and naval stations and vessels -- until July 25. Flags will be flown at half-staff at U.S. embassies and other overseas diplomatic offices. 

The decision comes after congressional leaders ordered flags at the U.S. Capitol lowered to half-staff earlier in the day -- that decision fueled questions over why the White House hadn't yet done the same. 

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a veteran, earlier released a statement calling it "unconscionable" that the flags had not been lowered, as of Tuesday morning. "The flag and all it represents is sacred to our military, and the President must know that lowering the flag is a signal of honor and respect," he said. 

Shortly afterward, the White House issued its proclamation, following similar instructions for the Capitol by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...