Saturday, August 1, 2015

Worlds Apart on Kathryn Steinle: When Political Opportunism Reigns Supreme

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN — The small Swedish Jewish Museum is tucked away on a side street. Discreet signage instructs would-be visitors to push a button which activates a camera, so they can be screened before they are granted entry. The museum’s permanent exhibition fills one fairly small room. Most of the objects on display are Jewish ritual items with some connection to Sweden, amid descriptions of the relatively short history of the Jews in Sweden (Jews have a longer history of permanent residence in the U.S. than in Sweden). There is also a small section devoted to World War II, where one item stands out from all the rest.
Compact, commonplace and simple, one everyday item is the museum’s most extraordinary exhibit. Raoul Wallenberg’s small, well-worn, personal telephone book in his own handwriting is displayed, with the page open to Adolf Eichmann’s phone number. Yes, Adolf Eichmann. It’s just one page. And as much as that one page sends one’s train of thought in all sorts of directions, who knows how many other secrets are hidden within the phone book’s pages? Each number has its own story to tell. It’s simply incredible how such a small item can manage to open itself and the viewer to such a wide, horrible swath of the world’s recent history.
At the top of the display case with Wallenberg’s phone book, there is a quote from the Talmud: “Whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” This quotation gained some currency with the movie Schindler’s List, which used it as a kind of tag line. Poetic and true in a multitude of ways, the quotation is also a fitting tribute to Raoul Wallenberg.
When I got home that evening, I read about California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is preparing for her coronation as Senator Barbara Boxer’s successor, and a comment she made about the recent murder of Kathryn Steinle. Kathryn Steinle was allegedly murdered earlier this month by Jose Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who was in the U.S. illegally, having been convicted of multiple felonies and having already been deported five times. He had been in the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, who had ignored an ICE request to turn him over to their agents for deportation.
Harris said: “Let’s not react to one specific case, when we are looking at a national problem. Let’s react to that specific case in prosecuting that specific murder, and making sure he faces very swift consequences and accountability. On the issue of immigration policy, let’s be smarter.”
Not exactly Talmudic wisdom. Not exactly: “Whoever saves a life, it is as if she has saved the entire world.”
Wouldn’t the converse also be true? Indeed, the first part of the passage from the Talmud suggests, “Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world.”
For Kathryn Steinle’s family, an entire world was destroyed. One minute she was strolling through San Francisco with her father, the next minute she was dead. Her last words were a plea to her father for help, much like Kelly Thomas, the unarmed, mentally ill homeless man, who, as he was being beaten to death by six Fullerton police officers some four years ago, cried out in vain to his father to save him. Neither Kathryn Steinle nor Kelly Thomas’s fathers could do anything to save their children, and worlds were brutally, murderously and unnecessarily destroyed.
Kamala Harris: “Our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man’s conduct.”
Can we really, seriously suggest that individual cases can’t and shouldn’t influence our thinking on larger policy considerations, whether it be police brutality or immigration? Can’t individual cases, individual actions, individual situations be the catalyst for positive changes? Shouldn’t this be our goal as policymakers, or will the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Kelly Thomas and Kathryn Steinle remain senseless?
Individuals can and do make a difference, whether it be a courageous individual like Raoul Wallenberg, Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson. But can’t we also learn from the victims?  Isn’t it our sacred duty to give some kind of meaning to their lives in the face of senseless actions?
And yet Kamala Harris is effectively saying that while Kathryn Steinle’s murderer should be punished, we shouldn’t draw policy conclusions from the circumstances of her murder.
People who are suggesting that Kathryn Steinle’s murder shouldn’t be “politicized” need to look themselves in the mirror and consider how failing to draw the right conclusions from the circumstances of her murder is in itself the worst kind of opportunistic, cynical political hay-making. I doubt Harris suggested after Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, Charleston or Chattanooga that we shouldn’t inform our policies by our collective sadness and outrage at those tragedies. Neither should we fail to take into account the context of Kathryn Steinle’s murder, as well as how it could have been reasonably avoided, in setting policy, even if it means standing up to special interest groups who feel that the context and conclusions may harm their own, narrow agendas.
It’s fairly simple. Jose Francisco Lopez-Sanchez should never have been in the U.S.  He had been convicted multiple times of felonies. He had already been deported five times. He himself says that he chose to return to San Francisco because he felt San Francisco’s current sanctuary city policies protected him from deportation. He was right.
And yet, had he not been in the country, Kathryn Steinle would be alive today. Why is it so hard for Ms. Harris, as well as other politicians, to acknowledge this simple, clear, logical truth?
And this from the highest law-enforcement official in the state.
Instead of pandering and trying to connect the murder to a lack of “comprehensive immigration reform,” it would be fitting if Ms. Harris would accept the simple truth that Lopez-Sanchez should not have been in the U.S. — and then try to figure out solutions to avoid any more senseless murders. Accept responsibility. Acknowledge the fact that had Lopez-Sanchez not been released by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, Steinle’s murder wouldn’t have happened, couldn’t have happened. Do your job. Work on ways to make sure that felons who are in this country illegally are deported and that “sanctuary city” policies aren’t allowed to protect felons like Lopez-Sanchez. Do the right thing.
In the meantime, all we seem to get is double-talk, sidestepping and excuses.
It’s not only both sad and insulting to us as voters, but until and unless our political leaders are willing to step up and take action to fix the problem, we can only expect more of the same. And it’s just a matter of time until another world, senselessly, is destroyed.
John Mirisch currently serves on the City Council of Beverly Hills. As mayor, he created the Sunshine Task Force to work toward a more open, transparent and participatory local government.

[VIDEO] Weekly Republican Address Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers Saturday August 1, 2015

WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) will deliver the Weekly Republican Address on Saturday, August 1.  She will discuss the progress that the new Congress is making on the people’s priorities, from the first real entitlement reform in nearly two decades to a plan that advances free trade and promotes American jobs.  
“Our focus is the people’s priorities, and our goal is an opportunity economy built on good-paying jobs and the freedom to innovate,” McMorris Rodgers said. “We have a long way to go, but we are making progress and getting things done for the American people.”
McMorris Rodgers represents Eastern Washington, and as Chair of the House Republican Conference, she is the fourth highest-ranking Republican in the House and the highest-ranking woman in Congress.  To learn more, visit her official website, and follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
The Weekly Republican Address will be available nationwide starting tomorrow at 6:00 am ET on Speaker.gov and gop.gov.

[VIDEO] Obama Weekly Address, Saturday August 1, 2015


WASHINGTON, DC — In this week's address, the President celebrated the fiftieth birthdays of Medicare and Medicaid, which together have allowed millions to live longer and better lives. These programs are a promise that if we work hard, and play by the rules, we’ll be rewarded with a basic measure of dignity, security, and the freedom to live our lives as we want. Every American deserves the sense of safety and security that comes with health insurance. That’s why the President signed the Affordable Care Act, and that’s why he will continue to work to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid, programs that are fundamental to our way of life, stay strong.
The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online atwww.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, August 1, 2015.



[VIDEO] Canceled MSNBC Show Congratulates Itself For Doing A Super Awesome Job

For the final segment of its final broadcast, MSNBC’s “The Cycle” decided to congratulate itself on its super awesome run. (RELATED: ‘The Cycle’ Doesn’t Know Lindsey Graham And Jim Gilmore Are Different People [VIDEO])
KRYSTAL BALL: On behalf of the four of us, I’d like to thank our incomparable crew that worked so hard to get us on the air every single day. The incredible folks in hair and makeup who make us look our best and feel our best every single day. Our amazing team that has really become a family, led by Steve Friedman. And most of all, you at home…
ABBY HUNTSMAN: The one thing we can all agree on is that “The Cycle” is a show that we can be so proud of, and we came in this building every single day with one mission in mind, and that is the audience, and that is delivering the news and delivering stories that are fun and energetic and smart and sometimes awkward… what?
NEBLETT: Look over that-a-way when you say “awkward.” *points toward Ari Melber*
[laughs]
ABBY HUNTSMAN: I just want to say, I love you guys, and I love our audience, so it’s been a great wild time, and it’s been fun.
ARI MELBER: I’m proud of this show. I’m proud of our team. This has been a show where we’ve covered a lot of stories, both serious and important, and sometimes fun as well, and we’ve sometimes brought values to the table. I think about that with each of you, the team I work with, and I’m proud of that.
NEBLETT: I’m proud that over the past three years — I love you guys. I love Steve. Thank you for trusting us on this journey, and you know, I love MSNBC. This network meant a lot to me and to us before we were here, even as guests. We’re proud to have been a small part of its history, and I hope you guys keep watching because it’s trying to do something special, and we were trying to do something special, and I think we look back with pride on the 700 shows or so that we did with pride and joy —
KRYSTAL BALL: We’ve been doing this for over three years now. It’s been a joy and a privelege.

NEBLETT: We’re going to continue being friends, continue to speak to you. Thank you for taking this journey with us.




Planned Parenthood Received Millions of Dollars After Lobbying Clinton’s State Department

Planned Parenthood lobbied the Department of State many times during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there and received tens of millions of dollars from foreign policy agencies over the past few years, according to a new report.
As secretary of state, Clinton attacked the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding of abortion overseas. Her husband revoked the policy during his administration and President Obama lifted the ban upon taking office in 2009. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is tied to the State Department, steered more than $100 million in funding to Planned Parenthood, its international affiliates, and the pro-abortion Population Council between 2010 and 2012, according to the Government Accountability Office—about 20 percent of the nearly $500 million pro-abortion organizations received from taxpayers during that time frame.
The taxpayer dollars that Planned Parenthood received dwarfed the $3.4 million that Planned Parenthood spent on lobbying during President Obama’s first term, according to a report from Women Speak Out PAC, a partner of the Susan B. Anthony List, and American Rising. Government records document more than 30 instances of Planned Parenthood lobbying federal agencies, including the State Department while Clinton was serving there.
Congress is now considering bills to deny taxpayer funds to the nation’s largest abortion provider after undercover video surfaced from the non-profit Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. The group released a fourth video Thursday showing executives at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains carving up aborted babies while saying “it’s a baby” and “another boy.” The executive identified as Savita Ginde also tells the undercover videographers, who posed as prospective organ buyers, how Planned Parenthood justifies the sale of those organs.
“In public I think it makes a lot more sense for it to be in the research vein than, I’d say, a business venture,” she said. Planned Parenthood has responded to the scandal of the videos by claiming the fetal body parts are used for research on numerous occasions.
Clinton is the top recipient of campaign donations from workers at the nation’s largest abortion provider, including a $2,700 donation from the CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Vicki Cowart. The nearly $10,000 she received from Planned Parenthood employees and executives is about 20 times more than the rest of the presidential field combined.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.
Pro-life activists, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of SBA List, have criticized Clinton’s support for abortion and Planned Parenthood throughout her political career.
“For more than two decades, her cozy relationship with Planned Parenthood was a source of cash and powerful political support. In light of yet another video brutally detailing the reality of abortion and harvesting of baby organs, it is a massive liability,” she said.
The Clinton campaign has drawn heavily from pro-abortion professionals. One of its top officials in Iowa, the nation’s first primary state, is Lily Adams, daughter of Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards. Jane Emerson, the women’s outreach director of Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign, previously served as CEO of the abortion provider’s South Carolina operations.
Planned Parenthood has also partnered with Clinton’s controversial family foundation, helping with six projects under the Clinton Global Initiative umbrella. The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.
Clinton, a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award, initially defended the billion dollar organization when the Center for Medical Progress released several hours of undercover video showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs and the price of body parts. Those videos captured numerous officials and medical personnel discussing the various techniques that the abortionist employees to recover intact body parts, which would violate federal law. Three congressional committees are now investigating Planned Parenthood over these violations.
Clinton has since backed away from outright support of the organization. After a third video was released Tuesday showing a former organ retrieval technician discuss how clinics financially benefit from the practice, Clinton told the New Hampshire Union Leader that she found the imagery “disturbing.”
“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,” she said. “This raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country … If there’s going to be any kind of congressional inquiry, it should look at everything and not just one [organization].”
Dannenfelser said that Clinton’s tepid support for the investigation was smart politics as voters react to the video scandal.
“Hillary Clinton, like many Democrats have painted themselves into a corner by supporting abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, paid for by taxpayer dollars. The more Americans learn the truth about this extreme position, the more they will reject it,” she said.

[VIDEO] Todd Starnes: Congress Vacations While Humans Are Harvested

Congress is packing its bags and getting ready to go to the beach -- the summer recess.
While our elected leaders are working on their tans and sipping fruity drinks with tiny umbrellas -- Planned Parenthood will still be harvesting body parts from aborted babies.
House Speaker John Boehner ignored my call to suspend his vacation and deal with this most pressing matter.
The Center for Medical Progress first exposed Planned Parenthood's human chop shop on July 14th -- and yet - our tax dollars are still being used to subsidize their killing fields.
To be fair - legislation has been introduced - and investigations are underway -- but based on the evidence already uncovered Congress is well within its rights to temporarily suspend funding.
It's the least they could have done.
But sadly -- when it comes to protecting the unborn - the least is the most Congress has ever done.
 

Watch Todd Starnes' American Dispatch above and sound off!

DEMS STRUGGLE TO FIND UNTAINTED REP FOR APPROPIATIONS COMMITTEE

House Minority Leader 
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
9%
 is replacing embattled Democratic 
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
11%
 (D-PA), who’s held a leadership position on the House Appropriations Committee.

Yet, the man who is slated to replace him, Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), is the subject of a substantial investigation into ethical wrongdoing of his own, which allegedly involves a “pay-to-play” scheme discovered out of a probe into his official congressional and re-election committee’s improper mixing of government and campaigning business.
Fattah, for his part, was indicted this week on 29 counts of racketeering, fraud, and conspiracy, along with four of his associates,
The Office of Congressional Ethics was created by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008 in what she called an attempt to “drain the swamp” of rampant corruption by officials in Washington, D.C. Yet Pelosi has not done anything to prevent her fellow Democrat Honda from rising to this powerful committee position.
Pelosi’s creation of this committee had a large founding in her personal targeting of former Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX), who after eight long years of trial was exonerated last Octoberafter a Texas court found that the evidence in the case was “legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions.”
Will Pelosi live up to her founding office’s ethical standards and prevent Honda from representing a committee which stands to eliminate ethics violations in the nation’s capital?
Honda’s troubles were amplified this past week when a binder dubbed “1,000 cranes” emerged listing 1,000 of the embattled congressman’s top donors who were pawns in an alleged showing of pay to play politics in which Honda sought to “fast track” the acquisition of $1 million — $1,000 from 1,000 people — in exchange for having his team complete transactional work and provide prioritized treatment for constituents who were interested in acquiring visas or other services in a more expeditious manner.
The binder reportedly emerged last week during the House ethics announcement that they would extend their probe into Honda’s alleged misconduct, which involved the mixing of government work and campaigning. The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer Carla Marinucci points out that Honda’s binder was named “1,000 cranes” after an ancient Japanese tale that sees cranes as a symbol of luck and good fortune. Honda’s top donors were reportedly identified either as “cranes” or “friends of MH.”
The investigation into the ethics matter was prompted after allegations surfaced suggesting Honda’s Chief of Staff, Jennifer Van der Heide, had blurred the lines between her official government duties and Honda’s reelection campaign by coordinating with Honda’s campaign staff for a State Department event which targeted the congressman’s fellow South Asian constituents.
The perceived ethics violation surfaced during his 2014 reelection campaign against fellow Democratic rival, and former Obama trade official, Ro Khanna. However, it did little to dissuade voters from reelecting Honda for an eighth term, which he won by a slight 5,000 vote margin.
Khanna, who is a Yale law graduate, author, and university lecturer, announced in May that he will again seek the 17th Congressional district seat which Honda now occupies.
Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz and on Facebook.

[VIDEO] Congressman: EPA Sexual Predator ‘Fed A Steady Diet Of Interns’

Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz had some harsh words for EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy during a hearing Wednesday regarding the agency’s handling of an employee who repeatedly sexually harassed interns.
For the past couple of years, Republican lawmakers have been investigating reports of misconduct at the EPA from employees watching porn everyday while on the job to an agency employee who sexually harassed interns and was not reported to the authorities and continued to work at the agency for years.
“This is a predator who was fed a steady diet of interns,” Chaffetz told McCarthy during the hearing. “The first time this happened he should have been fired and he should have probably been referred to the authorities for criminal prosecution.”
“It happened 10 times
Chaffetz remarks come after the EPA inspector general Arthur Elkins told Congress that Peter Jutro, an EPA employee, “engaged in offensive and inappropriate behavior toward at least 16 women, most of whom were EPA co-workers.” Elkins also said very senior EPA officials “were made aware of many of these actions and yet did nothing.”
The IG also noted that Jutro was even promoted to be Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Homeland Security where he again “engaged in such behavior toward an additional six women.”
Chaffetz went off on McCarthy over the agency’s failure to fire Jutro despite repeated allegations that he was sexually harassing women. Here is the exchange starting with McCarthy’s response to Chaffetz’s first remarks about a “predator who was fed a steady diet of interns”:
McCarthy: I am aware that eleven years ago there was an issue raised and it was handle appropriately is my understanding.
Chaffetz: Appropriately?! He got a promotion, he continued to work there.
M: No, he was carefully watched. The very minute we had any indication of impropriety, which was the recent issue, we took prompt action and in less than two months…
C: You moved his cubicle four spaces away. You think that’s appropriate? What do you say to the mother and father who sent their twenty-four year old to the EPA — she’s starting her career, and she’s harassed. Look at her statement. And you did the right thing by moving her four cubicles away?
M: Sir, we are doing everything we can to reinforce the policy and the law. We are developing procedures so there’s never a question about this, and we are doing everything…
C: That isn’t good enough! When someone is sexually harassed you send them to the authorities, you fire them.
M: I did send them to the authorities…
C: You sent them to human resources, who wanted to reprimand him, you never did send them to the criminal referral.
M: Human resources recommended the same thing as every manager, which was to proceed to removal, the man is no longer in federal…
C: That’s not what actually happened. It was in his record that they had had ten complaints — ten sexual harassment complaints against this gentleman and he was allowed to continue to be there. And as we heard testimony, a predator who was a fed a steady diet of interns.
M: I am aware of one complaint, eleven years ago, and the complaint that was just processed under my watch which resulted in his removal from public service within five or six weeks.
C: Did you fire him, or was he allowed to retire?
M: He was allowed to retire because that is his right. Even if he were fired, he’d be allowed to retire.
C: Do you believe this intern who said there was sexual harassment? Do that her statement is true?
M: Oh, I absolutely do…
C: Then why didn’t you refer it for a criminal referral? If you believe that her statement is true, and it was sexual harassment, and that is a violation of the law, and you allowed him to just retire, why didn’t you send that to the proper authorities?
M: We took the appropriate action.
C: Do you think it’s appropriate, do you think it’s against the law to sexually harass somebody at work?
M: I think it’s not only against the law, but it’s also against our policies, and we acted under the policies and the law when it led to the removal of him from public [office].
C: Did you let any of the law enforcement officer know?
M: Mr. Chaffetz, I’ve got two young daughters just about this woman’s age…
C: I’ve got two young daughters too! And I would never send them to the EPA, it’s the most toxic place to work I’ve ever heard of. This person, this twenty-four year old girl, she’s starting her career, she’s harassed over a three-year period and you admit that is a violation of the law. Why didn’t you do the criminal referral?

[VIDEO] It's back: FEC says regulating Internet, Google, Facebook under its 'purview'

After backing down amid concerns she wanted to regulate political speech, and even new sites like the Drudge Report, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission has renewed talk about targeting campaign and political activities on the internet.
Ann M. Ravel, discussing election regulation during a speech in New York, suggested it was time to produce "thoughtful policy" targeting internet political activity. She also expressed frustration that her last bid was met with "threatening misogynist responses to me."
She was speaking at a day-long conference hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Committee for Economic Development when she was asked about regulating the internet, Google and Facebook.
Ravel said that it would be under the "purview" of the FEC to oversee internet political activities such as fundraising and donations.
Her speech was just posted on YouTube.
Under current rules, the FEC regulates paid campaign ads on the internet just like they do on TV. However, videos or other social media posted for free are not regulated.
When the Democrats on the FEC first raised the possibility of regulations, opponents feared they were going to target conservative groups, activities and news sites. A proposal to delve into the issue died in a 3-3 vote.
Republican Commissioner Lee E. Goodman, the previous chairman,warned that regulations would silence voices on the internet and that sites with a political bent, even in the media, could face rules requiring them to disclose donors and finances.
But in answering the question this week, Ravel indicated she wants to pursue regulations. "It would be under the purview of the FEC to look at some of the issues that arise in new media and the impact of new media, in particular with respect to disclosure and ensuring that there is no corporate contributions, for example excessive contributions or contributions to a particular candidates for example," she said.

Don’t Fear The Shutdown… well, it *kind* of scans.

From the people who brought you "The Koch Bros will hurt Republicans in 2014" comes "Attacking will hurt Republicans in 2016"
More
With some clarifications, sure. First off: yes, very little that happens with a shutdown in Congress this year will have any effect on the national elections next year.  This is, of course, broadly similar to what happened in 2013: everybody who wasn’t part of the Republican grassroots (and a few of them, too) was convinced that the shutdown would do permanent damage to the GOP brand, right up to the point where Obamacare blew up in the missile silo. Technically, something equivalent has not yet happened this year.  But something will. Something always will. You can’t subject the populace to a year-plus-long rant about the inequities of the Republican party without said populace eventually tuning it out.
Second: unfortunately, you can’t really count on the Democrats being as dumb in 2015 as they were in 2013 – and they were dumb. Starting with the Democrats not taking the free gift that the GOP had offered them – there’s a bunch of former Senators and governors who wish that they had – and following with not capitalizing on even the transitory advantage the shutdown gave them. At this point somebody’s going to smugly mutter ‘Virginia,’ and I’ll mutter ‘sitting governor obvious en route to being indicted,’ and then we can all pick sides over who to blame in the Virginia gubernatorial election. I will note that, the way things were going, one more week and we would have won that race… which does not suggest that the Democrats really followed through on things. Presumably they’ve learned better. Obviously, it’s great if the Democrats haven’t, but it’s safer to assume that they have.
Third: this year’s races. A shutdown could very well affect the Kentucky gubernatorial race between Matt Bevin and Jack Conway. It probably won’t hurt Mississippi’s, given that Phil Bryant is running for re-election and he’s pretty popular. As for Louisiana’s… are we certain that a Democrat will even survive the jungle primary in the first place? – So if you do favor a shutdown of the government over Planned Parenthood funding, you should also be in favor of making sure that it doesn’t hurt Matt Bevin‘s gubernatorial bid.

Popular Posts