Shots Fired: Jeb Slams Trump, Walker Hits Jeb in New Attack Ads

Round One - Team Jeb makes the (strong) case that Donald Trump doesn't even remotely resemble a reliable, principled, constitutional conservative:

This spot barely scratches the surface of Trump's ideological fluctuations, but it highlights the tycoon's...flexibility on any number of matters. But will this hurt Trump one iota with his conservative fans? Doubtful. They're willing to dismiss Trump's left-wing record on gun control, race-based affirmative action (which he still supports), and even his signature issue of immigration. So what if he's talking about putting his abortion activist sister on the Supreme Court? Policy does not lie at the heart of Trump's appeal. It's his larger-than-life personality and take-no-prisoners attitude that excites people. He plays by his own rules, which exude contempt for the political class -- even as he brags about being rather cozy with members of said political class. Tellingly, the latest Iowa poll shows three non-politicians at the top of the heap on the Republican side: Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Of those three, Trump is receiving disproportionately high media coverage; he's flooding the zone and taking advantage. Also, I suspect that sniping from the Bush campaign (even if they're simply returning fire) is unlikely to dissuade Trump supporters -- or too many other conservative voters, for that matter. If it were someone like Ted Cruz shining a spotlight on Trump's long history of supporting liberal candidates and ideas, and not just in the past, that might be another story. But Bush is the flag-carrying candidate of the monied GOP establishment, against which many Republican voters are openly revolting:

The fact that it's Bush who's training his fire on Trump probably empowers Trump all the more, while also indicating that Jeb and company see the billionaire celebrity as a threat. Advantage: Trump.  Round Two -- Scott Walker is out with a new spot assailing the terrible Iran deal and whacking Jeb's opposition to it as weak and nebulous:

It's on. Six months until Iowa.

Illinois Police Officer Shot and Killed, Manhunt Underway

A police officer in Fox Lake, Illinois has reportedly been shot and killed, according to multiple media outlets.

The officer was pursuing three suspects for “suspicious activity.” When he radioed for backup just before 8 a.m., he was in a foot pursuit when communication was then lost. The responding officer can be heard on the scanner saying, “…send everybody you possibly can … officer is down …”

Lake County Sheriff’s Det. Chris Covelli said at a morning news conference that the officer was found with a gunshot wound, and later confirmed he had died.

As a result, a manhunt is underway for the three suspects—two white males and an African-American male—who may have taken the officer’s firearm and pepper spray, according to unconfirmed dispatch reports, CBS Chicago reports. K-9 units and helicopters have been deployed to help with the search.

Several schools in the area are on lockdown and people are being told to remain indoors.

This shooting comes just days after a law enforcement officer was executed at a Houston-area gas station while filling up his patrol car.

Townhall will provide updates as they come in. 

Gerrymandering Gives Missouri College Student Sole Vote On Policy

In principle, there’s nothing wrong with gerrymandering. The process of creating congressional districts that are more favorable to the party in charge is to be expected. Gerrymandering is often blamed for the increasing partisan politics in Washington, though that’s probably due to the toxic nature of President Obama and his policies. The Washington Post published three articles that undercut the anti-gerrymandering narrative, with The Fix’s Philip Bump writing, “the idea that we've moved away from some golden era of hard-fought contests between cigar-chompin' politicians simply isn't true.”

George Washington University’s John Sides wrote in 2013 that gerrymandering gave no advantage to Republicans during the 2010 midterms. He was comparing the 2010 and 2012 results in this context.

“If we assume that nothing else affects House election outcomes but the partisanship of the districts—in other words, if we allow redistricting to have its maximum possible effect—we find that the 2011 redistricting cost Democrats 7 seats in 2012,” he wrote.

Yet, in Missouri, it’s not wonky data crunching that makes gerrymandering interesting. It’s the fact that a single college student has the sole vote in whether a sales tax will be increased (via Columbia Daily Tribune):

A mistake by representatives of the Business Loop 70 Community Improvement District means a sales tax increase the district needs to thrive will require approval by a single University of Missouri student.

On Feb. 28, Jen Henderson, 23, became the sole registered voter living within the community improvement district, or CID, meaning she is the only person who would vote on a half-cent sales tax increase for the district.

The Columbia City Council established the district on a 5-2 vote in April in response to a petition from a group of property owners in the CID boundaries. The “qualified voters” in a CID are capable of levying various taxes or assessments within the boundaries of the district to fund improvement projects. Under state law, decisions to impose sales taxes in a CID are to be made by registered voters living in the district boundaries. If no such registered voters are present, property owners vote.

Many homes surrounding the university-owned property where Henderson resides were not included in the district when it was drawn because district organizers wanted a district free of residents.

In other words, it’s as if the movie "Swing Vote," starring Kevin Costner, actually came true but on a much, much smaller scale.

Judge: No, Gov. Wolf–You Can’t Just Gut Charter School Funding

Last week supporters of school choice won a victory in Pennsylvania, where a judge ruled that Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf couldn’t just gut funding to charter schools in order to balance the books for a struggling school district in Delaware County. Wolf intended to cut $24 million to the charter schools in the Chester Upland School District, but Judge Chad Kenney found the Wolf administration’s reasoning for cutting funding “wholly inadequate,” as reported by Watchdog’s Evan Grossman:

School choice advocates won a victory in court this week when a Delaware County judge rejected Gov. Tom Wolf’s plan to de-fund charter schools in the cash-strapped Chester Upland School District.

As a means to mend the district’s bleeding budget, Wolf proposed slashing special education funding to Chester Upland charters and other cost-cutting actions. Judge Chad Kenney ruled late Tuesday night Wolf’s proposal to slash $24 million in charter school funding was “wholly inadequate” and found the state’s lawyers offered a flimsy argument for doing so.


Blocking the state from going after charters to achieve cost savings will have a ripple effect across Pennsylvania, especially in larger, fiscally challenged districts like Philadelphia, home to most of the state’s charter schools.

While Kenney ended plans to de-fund charter schools in Chester Upland, he upheld Wolf’s recommendations to put financial experts in place to solve the financial challenges the district faces — including initiating a forensic audit, bringing in a financial turnaround specialist to find immediate savings, and restructuring a loan agreement with the Department of Education.

Wolf has not hidden that fact that he wants a strong Pennsylvanian public school system. His current budget is currently having trouble getting passed in the Republican-controlled state legislature, which prompted the DEFCON-1-like response in Delaware County.

In March, Grossman reported that Wolf made good on his promise to increase education funding by $1 billion, but charter school advocates also noted that it also included cuts to cyber charter schools.

In North Carolina, their cyber charter school program has already met its 1,500-member cap in what will be a four-year program that could expand if proven to be successful (WECT):

Some North Carolina students will make history when they return to school in the coming weeks. They won’t set foot in a classroom - instead, they’ll learn from home as part of the state’s new virtual charter school pilot program.

Charter schools receive state funding and are governed by non-profit organizations, which sometimes contract with private management companies to run daily operations.

Lawmakers instructed the State Board of Education to launch the four-year program in the upcoming school year. The pilot could be altered or expanded after the trial run.

Two schools received the green light. Both plan to eventually serve students through 12th grade. They can have 1,500 students this year and grow to 2,592 by the fourth year.


NC Connections Academy (NCCA) will open with students in kindergarten through 9th grade. Connections Education, part of the Pearson company, will serve as the management contractor.


NCCA has already met its 1,500 student cap and is keeping a waiting list, a spokewoman said. The school has 59 students from New Hanover, Brunswick, Pender, Columbus and Bladen counties.

At the same time, cyber charter schools aren't necessarily a successful alternative. The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School announced that they were cutting 43 jobs due to a decline in enrollment. The Agora Cyber Charter School produced rather awful results, according to a 2011 report by The New York Times

The National Collegiate Athletic Association announced in April of 2014 that they were no longer accepting coursework from 24 virtual charter schools. In 2013, Colorado Virtual Academy (COVA) was forced to reorganize after poor results, and Tennessee's Virtual Academy was forced to close in 2014 due to similar poor academic performances. 

Nevertheless, who's to say that targeting cyber charter schools' poor academic performance can't be used to attack school choice overall. 

Hillary Received Memo From David Brock About How to Impeach Clarence Thomas

David Brock is a longtime Clinton ally, self-described liar and the paranoid founder of Media Matters. Some background on him:

David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.

“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

Five years ago, Brock came up with an extensive plan to impeach conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He sent a memo in October 2010 to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her personal email address detailing his plan and salacious "evidence" justifying his argument for impeachment. The memo was revealed late last night as part of the State Department's obligation to turn over thousands of Clinton's emails as ordered by a federal judge.

Brock Memo - Impeach Thomas

Brock accuses Thomas of engaging in multiple affairs, watching pornography at the work place, intimidating witnesses and more.

Brock has been at the forefront of defending Hillary Clinton since allegations of trading political favors at the State Department for donations to the Clinton Foundation emerged earlier this year. He went after Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, after he exposed the practice.

Brock's specialty is character assassination at all costs, with zero proof to sustain his allegations. His attack on Thomas is unsurprising.

SCOTUS Flatly Denies Kentucky Clerk’s Request to Avoid Issuing Same-sex Marriage Licenses

Seventeen words was all it took to deny a Kentucky county clerk her religious freedom:  "The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied."

No dissents. No explanation. Just one stone cold sentence.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis is religiously opposed to same-sex marriage. The state passed a religious freedom law that should have protected such convictions. None of that mattered to Governor Steve Beshear, who kindly told her to acknowledge homosexual couples in matrimony or resign. Under pressure to violate her conscience, Davis sent a request to the Supreme Court for a stay from issuing marriage licenses to unions other than one man and one woman. Their response suggested they didn't care either.

SCOTUSblog pointed out an additional discouraging note to consider:

“[t]he Justices turned her down without even asking for a response from the same-sex couples who had sued her, or from state officials in Kentucky whom Davis has sued over the issue.”

When the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was announced, along with it came a (rather weak) assurance from Justice Kennedy that traditional marriage activists could continue to "advocate" for their religious liberties. Notice he just mentioned advocacy, not the actual practice. Perhaps that should have been a hint that those liberties never stood a chance.

At the "Stand With God" rally in South Carolina over the weekend, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) urged his fellow Christians to be vigilant, for their freedoms are fragile. Decisions like these make his warning all the more real.

Video No. 9: Procurement Director Who Pays Planned Parenthood for Baby Parts Says Abortionists Who Mess With ‘Smooth Liver’ Really ‘Pisses Her Off’

The ninth video from the Center for Medical Progress's three-year investigation provides more proof that Planned Parenthood and its partners are in the business of profiting off abortion.

Planned Parenthood has supplied fetal tissue to Advanced Bioscience Resources for more than ten years for experimentation purposes, the CMP explains in its latest installment. For each body part harvested, ABR pays Planned Parenthood $60. So it’s beneficial to keep specimens as intact as possible. ABR Procurement Manager Perrin Larton describes the optimal process for procuring baby parts after an abortion. One drug her company discourages using, she says, is digoxin, for it has an unpleasant odor.

“We’ve been in the business long enough, I can tell if it’s been dig’ed or not,” Larton said. “You know, I just look at it and I go, ugh. Yeah. And they have a smell, it’s just, it’s not right. So, it’s just kind of icky.”

How Larton can find practices like this “icky,” yet be unmoved by the destruction of human life in general, is beyond rationality. She went into more detail about the ideal (and not-so-ideal) procurement process. An intact fetus - ideal:

"I literally have had women come in and they’ll go in the O.R. and they’re back out in 3 minutes, and I’m going, ‘What’s going on?’ Oh yeah, the fetus was already in the vaginal canal whenever we put her in the stirrups, it just fell out."

Messing with 'smooth liver' - not so ideal:

“Whenever we have a smooth portion of liver, we think that’s good,” she said.” Because most of the time it’s got, you know, just the instruments they go in to pull – and it’s just whatever presents first. And unfortunately, I don’t know why, a lot of times the abdomen presents first and they just go in and start pulling, and…it really pisses me off.”

Well, these videos have also pissed off many pro-life Americans, who are abhorred that $500 million of taxpayer money is funneled to Planned Parenthood each year. Thankfully, the House of Representatives has just announced they are planning to vote to defund the organization immediately following their return to Capitol Hill next week.

Terms Banned on Campus: Illegal Immigrant, Male, Female

Want a good grade in certain classes at Washington State University? Then you better avoid using the terms "illegal immigrant," "male" and "female" as part of your descriptive vocabulary. 

"It's all born out of a desire not to oppress students on the basis of their gender," Campus Reform News Editor Sterling Beard said yesterday on Fox News. "The problem of course is that these terms are no more oppressive than describing something as short or tall and lets not forget that's not the only terms that were outlawed." 

"The idea behind so many of these restrictions in classrooms is to create a healthy learning environment to keep people from being 'triggered' or what have you and keep privilege at bay. The problem is that they also expect students to engage with controversial material but how can you engage with controversial material when you're disallowed from using such useful terms like male or female or illegal immigrant?" he continued.

Universities around the country have recently release lists of banned words and phrases that professors consider "microagressions." Terms on those lists include "American," questions like, "where are you from" and the concept that hard work is how individuals get ahead in life.

Oh Boy: Clinton Reportedly Used Private Server For Clinton Foundation and State Department Business

Late last night the State Department released 7,000 new emails belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The emails were stored on her private server and 150 have been flagged as containing classified information. State Department Spokesman Mark Toner maintains that the emails deemed classified weren't categorized as such when Clinton had them on her server and that they were later upgraded to classified status. 

"So writ large or speaking broadly, classification – and we’ve said this many times – it’s not an exact science. It’s not often a black-and-white process. There’s many variation and there’s many strong opinions even on this very issue about classification. And this is all part, as we’ve said, again, many times, of the process that we’re undergoing – an interagency process where we look at these emails and we upgrade them as necessary, as we see fit," Toner said in a press briefing yesterday about the email release. "I can just say that we stand by our contention that the information we’ve upgraded was not marked classified at the time that the emails were sent."

But the most damning part of last night's document dump comes from Patrick Howley, who has reportedly discovered Clinton not only used a personal server and email address to conduct all of her State Department business, but that she also used and shared the same server with the Clinton Foundation. 

Hillary Clinton’s private email server was housed at the same physical location and on the same network as an email server used and operated by the Clinton Foundation, Breitbart News has exclusively learned.

Records reveal that Hillary Clinton’s private server shared an IP address with her husband Bill Clinton’s email server,, and both servers were housed in New York City, not in the basement of the Clintons’ Chappaqua, New York home.

Web archives show that the Web address was being operated by the Clinton Foundation as of 2009, when Hillary Clinton registered her own server.

Numerous Clinton Foundation employees used the server for their own email addresses, which means that they were using email accounts that, if hacked, would have given any hacker complete access to Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, as well.

Keep on mind that Clinton claimed the server was "protected by the Secret Service" in her Chappaqua home during a press conference about the email scandal in March of this year. That claim also seems to be false. 

Not only does this new revelation present a conflict of interest, but brings us back to news from earlier this year about Hillary Clinton trading political favors at the State Department for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Further, it reaffirms the belief of many voters than Hillary Clinton is a liar. 

Team Jeb Hits Back at Trump for Being 'Soft on Crime,' Cites Past Support for Legalizing Drugs

The Bush v. Trump feud continues. A few weeks of back and forth tussling between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump in the GOP race for 2016 reached another zenith Monday when Trump resurrected Bush's "act of love" comments from earlier this year and used it to mock the governor in an Instagram post. The post included a video showing illegal immigrants' mug shots, with the following message, "Love? Forget love. It's time to get tough!"

Jeb's team is now hitting back with a new statement Monday, slamming Donald Trump for being soft on crime himself. They outlined three areas for proof:

Donald Trump Supported Legalizing Illicit Drugs.

· Trump Has Spent Years Supporting Soft-On-Crime Liberals Like Harry Reid ($9,400), Hillary Clinton ($5,100), And Charles Schumer ($8,900).

· Donald Trump Even Supported Nancy Pelosi—Who Supports Sanctuary Cities And Backed A Moratorium On The Death Penalty.

The first bullet point linked to a Chicago Tribune article from 1999 that cites Trump as saying the only way to end the war on drugs is to legalize them.

Trump blamed the country`s drug problems on politicians who ``don`t have any guts`` and enforcement efforts that are ``a joke.`` ``We`re losing badly the war on drugs,`` Trump told 700 people at a luncheon Friday. ``You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.``

As for bankrolling Democrats, Trump responded to those donations as being all business.

Jeb's team also pumped up the former Florida governor's own record on crime, highlighting his successful record in the Sunshine State. Under his leadership, crime dropped to its lowest level since 1971. He did it, he insisted, without trampling on citizens' Second Amendment rights. One of the ways he tackled criminal activity, was by signing the 10-20-life law, described in detail here:

The law, which is still in place, issues a minimum 10-year sentence for anyone who pulls a gun while committing a crime, 20 years for pulling the trigger during a crime and 25 years to life for injuring or killing someone by firing a gun.

Does Team Jeb have a point in its attack on Trump's criminal justice record? Does the business mogul's past suggest that his ballsy rhetoric is all talk and no action? Or is this just a weak retort from Jeb, who has struggled to counter the Donald's never ending insults?

One thing's for sure: If these two can be as tough on crime as they are on each other, I think we have nothing to fear.

Sen. Chris Murphy Admits That Gun Control Legislation From Washington Probably Won’t Stop Shootings

On August 28, CNN’s Poppy Harlow had Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy on to discuss gun violence after the horrific murders of WDBJ7’s Alison Parker and Alex Ward, who were murdered on air by ex-employee Vester Lee Flanagan. Murphy is your typical liberal Democrat from New England–and a staunch supporter of gun control. During the interview, he said that Congress is complicit in these murders if nothing is done by the fall. At the same time, he admitted that gun control policy emanating from Washington is probably not going to stop future shootings.

Poppy Harlow: You said, Senator, in an interview with The Huffington Post this morning, “Congress' silence in the face of this rash of mass shootings has become complicity. We are essentially sending a message of quiet endorsements to these murders.” Who are you talking about in Congress?

Senator Murphy: I'm talking about the entirety of Congress, especially those that have stood in the way of common sense gun measures like expanded background checks or reforms to our mental health system. The fact is, is that when our leadership in Congress stands up and says we can't do anything, they are absolutely wrong. And I believe that we have become complicit in these murders because people listen to highest levels of government and when we say nothing about it – when we don't even attempt to change the laws to try to stop this mass slaughter – then people get some signal that it's okay so settle their grievances or to deal with their illness through gun violence. I just don't accept that we can do nothing and I'm speaking directly to the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate. They should be bringing anti-gun violence bills to the floor that can get consensus votes this fall or the Congress is complicit in these murders.

Harlow also discussed 2016 Republican presidential candidate Jim Gilmore’s remarks regarding this tragedy. The former Virginia governor said that gun control isn’t the answer, and that the real problem is fixing our mental health system.

Poppy Harlow: I went on to say what is the answer and he said community-based mental health services and more of that. What is the answer in your mind, Senator?

Senator Murphy: Well, let's be honest about what the data shows. We don't have any more mental illness in the United States than any other country in the world has, and yet we have five times the rate of gun violence, so it can't be that mental illness is the only answer. The reality is, is that the data shows us that in countries and communities that have more guns – especially have more guns in the hands of criminals, especially have more dangerous assault weapons out on the streets – there’s more gun violence. More guns equals more gun violence. Now, I don't want to stop law-abiding citizens from being able to own guns, but the fact is that the left wing of this country, as Mr. Gilmore says, I guess is 90% of the country because that's the number of Americans that support something like expanded background checks. So you just can't throw this whole problem on the backs of the mental health system, and you also have to recognize that you're feeding the stigma. The fact is that there's no inherent connection between mental illness and violence, and that kind of talk should stop.

Poppy Harlow: What about this shooting and the fact that this gunman, as far as we know right now, did not have any sort of documented history of mental illness. Obviously something was completely wrong with him. He idolized other mass shooters but what do you do about this situation, Senator?

Senator Murphy: Well, I don't think you can craft a legislative solution to every single incident of violence in this country, and so I don't think that we should expect that anything that we're going to enact in Washington is going to stop shootings, but there are plenty of instances – including the Connecticut shooting and the South Carolina shooting – in which better gun laws could have made a difference. In South Carolina, that guy got a gun because of the loophole in the background checks law that allowed the retailer to give him a gun despite the fact he hadn't passed the background check. And this whole culture of mass violence in which Congress does nothing, I think, sends a message to a lot of these individuals who are becoming unhinged in their mind that it's okay to go out and commit these murders because no one seems to be doing anything to stop it, and so why should [they] think any differently than everybody else that [they] see on the news carrying out this kind of violence? There's no one legislative solution, but there are changes that will make a difference, and Congress acting – just the action of Congress in any way, shape, or form – will have a chilling effect on this trend.

First, of course, violence increases when firearms are in the hands of criminals; that’s saying you are probably going to get hit by a car if you blow through a red light. It’s common sense. Second, more guns does not equal more gun violence (via Reason):

Vermont has some of the loosest gun laws in America. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives it an "F." The state requires no background checks for private gun sales, permits the sale and possession of "assault weapons," and allows concealed guns to be carried in public—without a license.

After the fatal on-air shooting of a TV reporter and her cameraman in Roanoke, Va., on Wednesday, blame was heaped on America's permissive firearms policy. "There are too many guns, and too little national will to do anything about them," asserted an editorial in The New York Times. Democratic politicians and commentators said the murders proved the need for more restrictions on guns.

But did they? Vermont isn't much different from a lot of states in the regulation of these weapons. But it's very different in the volume of bloodshed. In 2013, it had the third-lowest homicide rate in the country—less than one-sixth that of Louisiana.

Utah, which also got an "F" on its laws from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, had the fourth-lowest homicide rate. These places refute the belief that loose gun rules and high ownership are bound to produce frenzies of carnage.

Also, regarding the talking point about limiting access to guns to reduce suicides, one just has to look at Japan and South Korea. National Review noted that the latter has the highest suicide rate in the developed world, despite all guns virtually being illegal. Hunting rifles must be stored at police stations. In Japan, the rate of gun ownership is incredibly low, and most firearms are illegal to possess. Still, the suicide rate is astronomical.

Lastly, mental illness is a serious factor in this discussion. The vast majority of perpetrators who have engaged in mass shootings exhibited symptoms of mental illness. The left-wing publication, Mother Jones, crunched the numbers. Their conclusion: maybe we need a better mental health system [emphasis mine]:

After another young man unleashed horror inside a Colorado movie theater this July, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them—25 in the last seven years alone.

Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 62 cases obtained their weapons legally. Acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them, with at least 36 of the killers committing suicide on or near the scene. Seven others died in police shootouts they had little hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). And according to additional research we completed recently, at least 38 of them displayed signs of possible mental health problems prior to the killings.

Again, the issue is keeping firearms out if the hands of the mentally ill. Both sides can come together on this, but it’s the left that wants to relegate this rather important piece of the conversation to the periphery–and focus on policies that either would do little to curb gun violence or lead to mass confiscation.

As for the so-called background check loophole Sen. Murphy discusses, it’s not a loophole when government fails to update the National Instance Background Check System (NICS) with a felony charge that would have prevented Dylann Roof from purchasing a firearm. That’s negligence on government’s part. Moreover, a three-day delayed release is part of a pro-gun control law–the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Also, a gun dealer isn’t required by law to follow through with a purchase if their customer is subjected to the three-day delayed release. At any rate, a delayed release is a rare instance, so we’re not really speaking to anything substantial that will reduce overall gun violence. Lastly, Connecticut’s gun control laws did work; Adam Lanza refused to be subjected to a 14-day background check for a rifle days before he committed the horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012. Instead, he killed his mother, and took her firearms to commit his heinous act. Lanza did what most criminals do to obtain firearms; he essentially stole them while committing a homicide in the process.

The debate to keep firearms from the mentally unstable is going to be a tedious one. It’s a Gordian knot. It’s one that involves constitutional issues, doctor-patient confidentiality, the rights of the patient, or the privacy of the family that’s witnessed possible symptoms of mental illness with a loved one. There’s a way to navigate through this legal jungle gym, but we’re going to get nowhere if one side is only focused on making it harder for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, or worse, taking them away.

Friendly Reminder: Sen. Murphy said there has been a school shooting once a week since Sandy Hook. The Washington Post awarded that claim with four Pinocchios.

European Islamic Migrant Crisis At 'Unprecedented Proportions'

LONDON, United Kingdom – The flood of refugees from the Islamic world into Europe has hit 'unprecedented proportions' according to the European Union. The 28-strong bloc has taken little action to quell the crisis so far, despite it causing Germany's population to increase by one percent this year alone.

The increasing number of people who have died travelling from conflict-hit countries to Europe by land and at sea has forced governments to respond. Many are forced to risk their lives and pay huge fees by people traffickers.

Aiman Mazyek, head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, said the attendance at some Mosques in the country has doubled in the past month alone. Leading to fears Germany will be unable to cope unless something can be done to stop more migrants crossing into the country.

Germany's Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said: "Never before in history have so many people fled their homes to escape war, violence and persecution… And given the large number of unresolved conflicts in our neighborhood, the stream of refugees seeking protection in Europe will not abate in the foreseeable future."

In response the holder of the European Union's Presidency, Luxembourg, has called an emergency meeting in two weeks time to look at how to deal with the crisis. EU Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn is suggesting a scheme under which EU countries will be given a mandatory quota of refugees.The scheme is seen by the left as a better way to deal with the crisis than patrolling the border properly. Under EU law the UK, Ireland and Denmark are exempt from the plan.

Mr Hahn said: "We're going to have a quota settlement approach, and in light of recent developments, I believe all 28 member states are now ready to accept and approve that.” He continued: "There are 20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe… Ten to 12 million in Syria, 5 million Palestinians, 2 million Ukrainians and about 1 million in the southern Caucasus.”

Despite the EU's enthusiasm for taking refugees, not everyone is convinced by the plan. Viktor Orbán, President of Hungary, recently said: "For us today, what is at stake is Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations, and more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition.

“Today, the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we would like to live, but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all."

Australia had a similar problem with people traffickers but dealt with it by helping boats full of refugees sail to uninhabited islands. This was initially denounced as callous by the political left, but it has made sailing to the country pointless and as a result the numbers attempting the trip has fallen sharply. This in turn has bankrupted the criminal gangs who controlled the people trafficking business.

Under the Schengen Agreement most European Union countries have no borders at all, this means refugees who enter Italy will not be stopped until they get to the UK border with France. A number of countries want to suspend or abolish this system. The UK and Ireland refused to join it in the first place, which is why so many migrants are massed of their border.

Larry Kudlow: I'll Run Against Sen. Blumenthal If He Votes for Iran Deal

Economist, syndicated columnist, radio host, and television personality Larry Kudlow is so concerned about the ramifications of the Iran deal that he’s threatening to run against Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., if he votes for it.

“If Sen. Richard Blumenthal votes with Obama on Iran, I’m going to run against him,” Kudlow told Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., on his radio show Saturday.

“I’m not a political guy — I’m an economist, I’m a broadcaster by profession — but I’m so angry at this issue, among others,” he added. “We’re talking about world security, national security — they’re coming to get us and Iran will finance them.”

“I may lose,” Kudlow admitted. “It’s a long-shot. I’m not a politician. I’ll take on Blumenthal if I have to.”

Blumenthal is among the 13 Senate Democrats who have yet to announce a position on the deal, which even opponents admit is likely to go into effect. Some analysts suspect that he may be willing to break ranks and vote to kill the deal.

Kudlow said that he had been approached by the National Republican Senatorial Commission, which has “polled” about him.

People everywhere should pledge to run against lawmakers who support the multinational nuclear pact, he urged.

“Folks best stand up everywhere and run,” he said. “I’m telling you, citizens’ movement, run against people who support this terrible Iranian deal.”

Kudlow is right that he would be a long-shot candidate. Blumenthal is in a very strong position heading into his bid for reelection in 2016. According to a March Quinnipiac Poll, Blumenthal had a 64 percent approval rating among voters, with 59 percent saying he deserves reelection in 2016.  

Bernie Sanders: The Left's Savior On Gun Control?

On August 30, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he could get “constructive” gun control passed because he represents a state where there’s almost none.

“In fact, coming from a rural state that has almost no gun control, I think I can get beyond the noise and all of these arguments and people shouting at each other and come up with real constructive gun control legislation which, most significantly, gets guns out of the hands of people who should not have them,” said Sanders.

The part about gun politics in his state is true. While most of the liberal Northeast is anti-gun, Vermont is a constitutional carry state. There is no permit process for open or concealed carry. For lack of a better term, constitutional carry states are a gun owner’s (or anyone who believes in freedom) paradise.

Nevertheless, Sanders’ support for some pro-Second Amendment legislation, like the wonderful* Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005, has drawn the ire of some of the Democratic Party’s more gung-ho anti-gun advocates. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits, where their firearms were used, unwillingly and unknowingly, in felonious activities. Democratic Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy has hit Sanders for his record on Second Amendment rights, calling the Vermont Senator’s record “anathema to my own.”

Sanders still supports expanded background checks and banning so-called assault weapons, which probably explains his D- rating with the National Rifle Association.

While Sanders and Second Amendment advocates would probably leave a debate table not having changed their minds by the other’s arguments, Sanders does understand the cultural divide in this debate. It’s the rural/urban divide that’s firmly entrenched, and a reason why gun control advocates consistently lose in their campaigns to erode Second Amendment freedoms. Democrats need to understand that 30 percent of their supporters are law-abiding gun owners. Having wealthy, urban-based elites deride gun owners as country bumpkins doesn’t help their cause.

Hillary Clinton has said she would take on this issue, touting off some points at a campaign stop in Iowa last week, which included expanding background checks and alluded to waiting periods; the latter of which has zero statistical evidence proving that it curbs gun violence.

Again, given how Congress will probably look after 2016, the Republicans will most likely maintain their majority in the House. It’s a toss-up about the Senate, but the House alone will probably spell legislative doom for any new regulations on firearms in the country.

So, while Sanders may understand the cultural ties within the gun control debate, there has to be a time that he, and the rest of party, comes to the realization that his side has lost this debate. That’s not to say it can shift.

This is America; public opinion changes often, but it’s the Second Amendment supporters who have the political organization, the passion, and the will to continue fighting for their constitutional rights. The gun control crowd doesn’t have any of that going for them.

Lastly, Bernie has zero regrets voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005. So, he’s certainly not letting Everytown dictate his position on at least some aspects of gun politics that end up supporting our side.

*Yes, I'm a biased and staunch defender of the Second Amendment. 

Vaccination Win: Tetanus 'Virtually Eliminated' in India

Having been born and raised in the United States, my only experience with anything to do with tetanus involved a quick trip to the doctor's office for a shot after stepping on something that may have been rusty. For people in India, however, tetanus is a very dangerous and real thing that killed thousands of people, mostly babies, each year. Now, thanks to increased vaccination and public hygiene programs, tetanus in the country has been "virtually eliminated."

From the New York Times:

India has reduced cases to less than one per 1,000 live births, which the W.H.O. considers “elimination as a public health problem.” The country succeeded through a combination of efforts.

In immunization drives, millions of mothers received tetanus shots, which also protect babies for weeks.

Mothers who insisted on giving birth at home, per local tradition, were given kits containing antibacterial soap, a clean plastic sheet, and a sterile scalpel and plastic clamp for cutting and clamping the cord.

The country also created a program under which mothers were paid up to $21 to give birth in a clinic or hospital. “Lady health workers” from their neighborhoods were paid up to $9 per mother and up to $4 for bus or taxi fare to make sure women in labor went to clinics. The workers earned the full amount only after visiting each baby at home and giving tuberculosis shots.

This is great news. Tetanus is a deadly disease that is simple to protect. While it can never be totally and completely eradicated (as the bacteria that causes the illness is found in soil), it's great that these programs exist to prevent women and children from dying.

It's also a huge wake-up call as to how lucky Americans are to have access to the medical care that we do. Tetanus is not something that Americans have to worry about on a daily basis--certainly not during childbirth. Vaccines save lives--and in India, they're saving two at once.

Carson Catches up to Trump in Iowa

Donald Trump finally has some competition. Another Washington outsider, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, is gaining steam in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, a new poll from Monmouth University finds.

In a survey of 405 likely Iowa Republican caucusgoers, Carson tied Trump at the top with 23 percent. The next closest competitors were Carly Fiorina (another candidate who has never held elected office), who captured 10 percent of the vote, and Ted Cruz, who earned 9 percent. Full poll results can be found here.

Trump and Carson’s successes in the Iowa poll is indicative of voters’ desire to support candidates who aren't chummy with the GOP establishment. In the same survey, a sizable majority of Iowa caucus voters, 66 percent, said they want a government outsider as president.

Carson has a few key advantages over Trump in this latest poll. While the businessman currently has a 52 percent favorable rating, Carson has a striking 81 percent favorable, and just 6 percent unfavorable. Additionally, Carson leads among evangelical voters and “very conservative” voters. Trump, however, leads among Tea Party supporters and men.

Carson has been polling at No. 2 for quite some time, yet often had a double-digit deficit to overcome to catch up with the Donald. That makes his current momentum swing all the more impressive.

Latest Clinton Email Server Dump Reveals 150 More Documents Flagged For Classified Information

Things are rapidly getting worse in the legal department for former Secretary of State and democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 

The State Department is set to release a batch of 6,000 personal emails belonging to Clinton tonight, but we're already getting a sneak peak of what they contain.

That's right, 150 more documents flagged for classified information. This news comes on top of revelations earlier this month Clinton had at least 300 classified documents passing through her private email server, which intelligence officials are almost certain was hacked by foreign governments. Also keep in mind that out of hundreds of classified documents, at least two found in Clinton's system were deemed top secret (the highest level of classification).

As Guy wrote about last week, the FBI is reportedly using it's "A-Team" to investigate the legal aspects of Clinton's inappropriate handling of classified information with the prosecutor who took down General David Petraeus leading the way. Felonies for Clinton could be on the table if she is in fact indicted. 

An FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," an intelligence source told Fox News. The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793. A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign's standard defense and that of Clinton is that she "never sent nor received any email that was marked classified" at the time. It is not clear how the FBI team's findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for -- as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy...A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section...The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign's response to increasing pressure surrounding classified information has gone from the former Secretary "never sending or receiving any classified information" to "she never knowingly sent or received classified information."

Video: Not Many People Find The Term ‘Anchor Baby’ Offensive

On August 20, ABC News’ Tom Llamas got into a heated exchange with 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump over his use of the term “anchor baby” when discussing illegal immigration. Jeb Bush found himself in some hot water when he said the term mostly applies to Asians. At the same time, CNN’s MJ Lee wrote that he’s partially right concerning “maternity tourism,” in which there have been efforts to crackdown on the practice. Yet, it probably wasn’t the best move communications-wise to blame another ethnic group, where Republican support has precipitously declined. That’s a debate for another time, however.

Are ordinary Americans offended by the term?

Last week, MRCTV’s Dan Joseph walked around Washington D.C., specifically the Smithsonian Metro station, to ask tourists, DC residents, or anyone who would be willing to be interviewed, if the term “anchor baby” is an offensive term.

One couple from San Diego, California is familiar with the situation. The woman Joseph interviewed worked at the University of California Medical Center, where she said very pregnant Mexican women in labor would enter the center and sit in the waiting room to deliver their babies on American soil.

Overall, not many people interviewed by Joseph found the term offensive as a racial slur. One woman found it offensive because the term “makes the child out to be the enemy.” Another man said it’s offensive because it’s “intellectually lazy,” though he admitted that pregnant women coming over to have their children in the United States probably does happen.

Texas Sheriff: 'Black Lives Matter' Rhetoric is Resulting in ‘Cold-blooded Assassinations’

Another police officer was cruelly slain Friday night, this time in Houston, Texas. Deputy Darren Goforth, 47, served in the Harris County Sheriff’s office for a decade until he was shot in the back while pumping gas at a Chevron station near Houston. Local law enforcement are blaming the “Black Lives Matter” movement for creating the anti-cop culture that led to his death.

CNN provided details on the “execution-style killing:”

Deputy Goforth was refueling his vehicle and returning to his car from inside the convenience store when, unprovoked, a man walked up behind him and literally shot him to death," he said.

He was shot multiple times from behind and then fell to the ground, where the suspect fired at him some more, said Deputy Thomas Gilliland, a spokesman for the sheriff's office.

Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said the attack was unprovoked and that Goforth’s only sin was that he wore the police officers' badge.

The motive in the shooting, which Hickman described as "senseless and cowardly," is still unclear. But Goforth appears to have been targeted "because he wore a uniform," the sheriff said.

"We found no other motive or indication that it was anything other than that," said Hickman, adding that he doesn't believe the suspect and Goforth knew each other.

Hickman expanded on the deadly effects of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, which he said has generated an environment that puts police officers in danger in the same communities they signed up to serve and protect. The controversial movement was born in the wake of recent cop-related deaths involving white police officers and African-Americans. The tragic cases of Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, and Sandra Bland, to name a few, have sparked outrage in the African-American community and resulted in violent protests against “police brutality.”

At the height of racial tension between cops and local communities in New York City, two NYPD officers were murdered in cold blood in December while sitting in their squad car in Brooklyn. In Baltimore, policemen had to dodge rocks and watch their cop cars erupt in flames.

“We’ve heard black lives matter, all lives matter,” Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman told reporters at a press conference. “Well, cops’ lives matter, too.”

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson agrees, remarking that while some of these tragic cop-related deaths could and should have been avoided, it is unfair to use them to define police as tyrannical, for the majority aim to keep communities safe.

“That does not mean there should be open warfare declared on law enforcement,” Anderson said. “What happened last night is an assault on the fabric of society.”

The Houston shooting suspect, Shannon J. Miles, is currently being arraigned for capital murder.

Endgame: Iran Deal Opponents Concede They Lack Votes to Overcome Veto

This was the whole strategy behind President Obama's decision to declare the Iran accord an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty. Treaties require two-thirds support from the Senate for adoption; executive agreements, Obama has argued, don't require any vote at all. Ultimately, even Congressional Democrats were unwilling to accede to a power grab quite that brazen, especially on a deal with major geopolitical implications and that is intended to bind future presidents and Congresses. Thus, a bipartisan bill was passed that asserted the right of Congress to vote to approve or disapprove the final agreement. But with Obama's veto pen waiting in the Oval Office, derailing the deal would take a veto override -- two-thirds majorities in both houses. So the whip count math was flipped on its head: Rather than the White House needing to find 67 Senators to bless a treaty, they only need one-third of at least one house of Congress to sustain his veto of a disapproval resolution. That's a much, much lower bar, and one that Democrats are ready to clear:

Opponents of the Iran nuclear deal in Congress admit they can no longer kill the accord. Their focus now is making sure there will be a vote on the agreement at all, and salvaging some political benefit from their well-funded bid to stop it. Lawmakers, Congressional staffers and lobbyists opposed to the deal reached in Vienna last month tell us they are now fighting to get more than 60 votes in the Senate for a resolution of disapproval to avoid a filibuster by Democrats supporting President Barack Obama. That is a far cry from the 67 votes in the Senate needed, along with two thirds of the House, to overturn an expected presidential veto of that resolution. Yes, overturning an Obama veto was always a longshot. House Speaker John Boehner in April was privately warning Republicans that his party didn't have the votes to stop the deal. Now Republican leaders are saying this out in the open.

The emerging concern is whether opponents of the deal will be able to overcome a Democratic filibuster, as Harry Reid says he intends to try to obstruct a vote on the accord, with the White House's strong encouragement.  Obama has never wanted Congress to weigh in on his reckless project, and he knows that vetoing Congress' rejection of the deal would be politically damaging.  The public has turned strongly against his agreement as its details have been exposed.  All 54 Senate Republicans will vote against the deal, and two Democratic Senators have formally announced their opposition.  That's 56 votes.  Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer (who isn't whipping Democratic votes on this issue) need four of the remaining dozen-or-so undecided Senate Democrats to oppose the deal -- or at least refuse to join a debate-killing filibuster.  I've argued for some time that the Corker/Cardin legislation offered critics the most viable pathway to undermining the legitimacy of the nuclear agreement with Iran.  Once Obama decreed that his treaty would be presented as something other than a treaty, Republicans' options narrowed significantly.  They could try to sue him, assuming they'd even be granted standing, or they could begin quixotic impeachment proceedings, which would delight the White House and unite fractured Democrats.  Due to Obama's unilateralism, undermining the deal by relentlessly painting it as Obama's, not America's, foreign policy is the least bad option.  Forcing the president to defy a bipartisan Congressional vote on an unpopular foreign policy misadventure would help set the stage for a Republican president to withdraw from the agreement with plenty of political cover.  If Reid can muster 41 votes to block a Senate vote, Obama may be spared that humiliation -- although critics could argue that the deal's illegitimacy is still underscored by (a) a (virtually certain) strong House 'no' vote, and (b) the denial of a US Senate vote on the matter, at the behest of the White House.  The deal is opposed by bipartisan Congressional majorities, several key US allies, and a solid majority of the American people.  It is not stable US policy, they'd say, so foreign countries and businesses choosing to regard it as such do so at their own risk because Obama won't be around to protect them for much longer.  Nevertheless, the disqualification argument would be more potent if Obama is compelled to veto Congress' bipartisan rejection of his agreement.

Meanwhile, Obama continues to press his disingenuous case for the disastrous deal, offering contradictory babble on the efficacy of unilateral sanctions, dangerously pretending that the agreement blocks every path to Iranian nukes, and -- incredibly -- whining about the tone of the debate.  This from a guy who's accused opponents making "common cause" with 'death-to-America'-chanting zealots, and who continually claims that his terrible deal is the only alternative to war (prominent Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez and now Steny Hoyer disagree).  On that front, please enjoy these quotes, both from Friday.  As Allahpundit snarks, Team Smart Power "can't even even get their smears straight anymore:"

Is DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz a warmonger?  Parting thought: If Harry Reid mounts a successful filibuster to shield Obama from a veto scenario, should Senate Republicans blow up the legislative filibuster and pass it anyway?  Jim Geraghty says they should, in addition to voting to formally declare the agreement a treaty.  I'm more skeptical of this course of action.  Obama would undoubtedly declare the move illegitimate and veto the resolution anyway.  The Senate could contend that they alone possess the authority to determine what is (and is not) a treaty, which would lead to a protracted legal battle -- all while the agreement is signed and implemented.  Having failed to block the deal, even through drastic procedural measures, Republicans would have jettisoned the filibuster forever, a move they may live to regret.  One might argue that it's worth following in Harry Reid's 'nuclear' footsteps at some point in order to ensure passage of critical conservative reforms with a Republican president poised to sign them into law; discarding precedent and a valuable check on power just to enable votes on bills that will inevitably run into Obama's veto buzz saw seems short-sighted.

Kanye West Announces 2020 Presidential Run at VMAs

Sunday night, Kanye West was awarded the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award (essentially a lifetime achievement award) at the MTV Video Music Awards. During his 11-minute acceptance speech, West covered a variety of topics in true Yeezus fashion: awards shows are pointless, him and Taylor Swift are no longer feuding and are in fact friends, he smoked a little bit before going on stage, and, oh yes, he's going to run for president in 2020.

"And yes, as you probably could have guessed by this moment, I have decided in 2020 to run for president."

(Click the little speaker in the corner to turn on the audio of the Vine.)

Earlier in his speech, West declared "I'm not no politician, bro."

Despite the absolute insanity of West's speech, he actually raised a few good points. America's celebrity culture is somewhat toxic, and MTV is most certainly banking on "feuds" that may or may not be made up/stoked by the network. That's not a healthy culture, and West was right to call them out for it.

The VMAs are known for their outlandish antics and debauchery, and this year was no different. While most people expected host Miley Cyrus to be the main story of the night, I don't think anyone could have predicted that Kanye West was going to announce a presidential run.

Unlike fellow rapper Waka Flocka Flame, who announced earlier this year that he intends to run for president in 2016 despite being too young to actually run, West is 38 years old and Constitutionally eligible.

Let the 2020 race begin?

Jorge Ramos Slams 'Kate's Law' As Unfair to Illegal Immigrants

Univision anchor and open border illegal immigration activist Jorge Ramos is slamming 'Kate's Law' as unfair to illegal aliens. As a reminder Kate's Law, first introduced to public debate by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, would give a mandatory five years in prison to violent, deported illegal immigrants who reenter the U.S. Kate's Law was proposed after 32-year-old Kate Steinle was killed by an illegal alien, who had been deported five times, while walking on a San Francisco pier with her father back in July. 

Notice how Ramos uses the term "immigrants" rather than "illegal immigrants." Only once does he use the term "undocumented immigrant." 

Ramos argues Kate's Law "stereotypes an entire community" when in reality, Kate's Law simply punishes previously deported illegal aliens for reentering the United States illegally. Kate's Law isn't unfair to illegal immigrants. What's unfair is an illegal alien taking the life of Kate Steinle after being deported multiple times from the country.

Last week Ramos was removed from a Donald Trump press conference after speaking out of turn.

'Liberal Agenda' To Blame For Islamic State Rise Says Former Army Boss

LONDON, United Kingdom – The former head of the British Army, Lord Richards, has said the rise of the Islamic State is a result of a “liberal agenda”. Richards claimed the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, lacked the “balls” to take the fight to the country's enemies causing many of the problems in the region today.

He made the comments in a new book by Sir Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon called 'Cameron at No10: The Inside Story'. It details the twists and turns of the Cameron premiership, and lifts the lid on a number of difficult relationships he has had with others.

According to the book Lord Richards had asked Cameron and his team to take a much tougher line in Syria and Libya. Richards said: “If they’d had the balls they would have gone through with it. If they’d done what I’d argued, they wouldn’t be where they are with ISIS.”

He added: “In Ukraine, as in Syria and Libya, there is a lack of strategy. The problem is the inability to think things through. It seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.”

Lord Richards was chief of the defense staff from October 2010 to July 2013, the position is the UK equivalent of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He has made little secret of his disdain for the group of left-wing Conservatives who are all from the same trendy West London district of Notting Hill, which was itself made famous by a film of the same name.

The Notting Hill Set includes both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne.

Last year Richards first revealed details of how Cameron had rejected a "coherent military strategy" to take on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad in 2012. Richards had argued the plan would have "squeezed out of existence" the terrorists who went on to create the Islamic State.

Instead of increasing the pressure on the Islamists both Britain and America took a very hands off approach. This is widely seen as the reason the Islamic State was able to gain the foothold it enjoys today.

The book also details the rocky relationship between Cameron and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Mr Johnson returned to the House of Commons at the General Election and is now seen as a major rival to the Prime Minister.

During the campaign Johnson wrote about the number of Prime Ministers who, like Cameron, had gone to school at the $50k a year Eton College. This led Cameron to send him a text message saying “The next PM will be Miliband if you don’t f******* shut up.”

The text shows how little faith Cameron had in his own chances of beating Labour's Ed Miliband at the election. He had even planned his own resignation speech in advance of polling day. He would have said: “It is clear we have not won and I will have to go… Being Prime Minister of this country is the best job one can possibly have.

“I wish Ed and Justine every success in doing it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve.”

In the end Cameron made history by being one of the only sitting Prime Ministers ever to increase the number of seats he held in the House of Commons.

WaPo Reporter: Hillary Sounded Desperate When She Compared Republicans To Terrorists

Last week, Hillary Clinton decided to say that Republicans, specifically those running for president, hold views about women’s rights that are really no different from the terrorists we’re fighting abroad. In other words, Republicans, or anyone who hold pro-life views, are terrorists. It was an outrageous comparison, and Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin added that if a Republican said this, “the world would come to a halt.” Earlier today, The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe told John Dickerson of CBS’ Face The Nation that this was done to solidify the Democratic base, but also show liberals that she can be the partisan fighter. Yet, he also said that the remarks came off as desperate, especially if this was done to “tamper down” on the Sanders surge–or the aspect of a possible Biden candidacy within the next couple of months.

Via Free Beacon:

On August 28, Bloomberg reported that Clinton campaign aides were telling folks that they have one-fifth of the delegates needed to lock up the nomination ahead of the Democratic National Committee’s Summer Meeting in Minneapolis [emphasis mine]:

The campaign says that Clinton currently has about 130 superdelegates publicly backing her, but a person familiar with recent conversations in Minneapolis said that officials are telling supporters and the undecided in the last few days that private commitments increase that number to more than 440—about 20 percent of the number of delegates she would need to secure the nomination.


Final numbers are still in flux, but current estimates peg the total number of delegates to next summer’s presidential nominating convention at about 4,491, meaning that a candidate would need 2,246 to win. The Clinton camp’s claim to more than 440 delegates means she’s already wrapped up the support of more than 60 percent of the approximately 713 superdelegates who, under party rules, are among those who cast votes for the nomination, along with delegates selected by rank-and-file voters in primaries and caucuses beginning next February. Delegate totals won’t be finalized until the DNC determines the number of bonus delegates awarded to states, a party official said.

To be sure, Clinton had a superdelegate edge early against Barack Obama in 2008, and superdelegates are free to change their allegiance at any time between now and next summer's convention. But Clinton is ahead of the pace she had eight years ago in securing these commitments, and her support from the core of the establishment represented by these superdelegates is arguably the most tangible evidence of the difficulty Biden would have overtaking her with a late-starting campaign.

Again, we all know Biden faces obstacles, but O’Keefe commented that this aspect about the superdelegates is akin to a “student council race.”

“The idea that a certain percentage of superdelegates are telling her ‘yeah, we’re with you.’ Well, that’s like you telling your classmate you’re going to vote for him when really you’re going to vote for the cute girl down the hall … I mean, it’s just silly,” said O’Keefe.

Consolidating the base might be more a priority in these contests, as her support in Iowa has dropped by a third since May. At the same time, no one likes a desperate candidate. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. It’s just ugly. Former Pennsylvanian Republican Sen. Rick Santorum is probably the best example of this on the right when he debated then-State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Hillary will be defeated this time around. Even with the drop in support, the map still favors her to be the eventual Democratic nominee.

Oh My: Clinton's Support Drops By A Third In Iowa

On Saturday, a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll brought some bad news for Hillary Clinton. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is within seven points of her. I guess if you’re on Team Clinton you can take sober satisfaction in the fact that the former first lady is still leading Sanders 37/30, but we’re a long ways from Iowa. In all, the poll concluded that Clinton’s support in the state has dropped by a third. At this rate–she’s in danger of losing come February (via Des Moines Register):

This is the first time Clinton, the former secretary of state and longtime presumptive front-runner, has dropped below the 50 percent mark in four polls conducted by the Register and Bloomberg Politics this year.

Poll results include Vice President Joe Biden as a choice, although he has not yet decided whether to join the race. Biden captures 14 percent, five months from the first-in-the-nation vote Feb. 1. Even without Biden in the mix, Clinton falls below a majority, at 43 percent.

"This feels like 2008 all over again," said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for the Iowa Poll.

In that race, Clinton led John Edwards by 6 percentage points and Barack Obama by 7 points in an early October Iowa Poll. But Obama, buoyed by younger voters and first-time caucusgoers, surged ahead by late November.

In this cycle, Sanders is attracting more first-time caucusgoers than Clinton. He claims 43 percent of their vote compared to 31 percent for Clinton. He also leads by 23 percentage points with the under-45 crowd and by 21 points among independent voters.

The other things mentioned in the poll included the fact that Sanders really isn’t the anti-Clinton candidate. Ninety-six percent of his supporters say they support him because they like his positions on policy. There’s also the Biden factor. The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll found that the vice president captured 14 percent of the vote, with 24 percent saying he’d be their second choice. Biden’s support has grown; he was registering at eight percent in May just before his son, Beau, passed away from brain cancer.

If the vice president were to declare his intention to run for the Democratic nomination, he would probably see another bump in the polls. J. Ann Selzer, director of the Des Moines Register’s Iowa poll, noted that Biden siphons support from Clinton and Sanders. Without Biden, the poll has Clinton at 43 percent and Sanders at 35 percent. So, if you’re a Democrat who’s “ridin’ with Biden,” the fact that your candidate is already taking votes from both of the leading candidates is a positive sign. At the same time, Biden has stated he might not have the “emotional fuel” for a third run, though he has a donor base in waiting, a grassroots contingent, and the blessing from the White House to go for it.

Nevertheless, even as the aura of Clinton’s inevitability begins to fade, it’s possible that Sanders could win Iowa and New Hampshire–and then lose every contest after that. As Nate Cohn at The New York Times has mentioned consistently, white, urban-based liberals dominate the Sanders coalition. Cohn added he doesn’t have enough support with nonwhites, moderates, and southern voters to win the nomination. At the same time, the article added that his campaign is doing more to reach nonwhite Democratic voters, and he seems to be garnering the Obama coalition in Iowa, as Selzer noted on CBS’ Face The Nation.

Via America Rising: