Two 2016 Candidates Just Got Shadier

While you were in a turkey coma, shadiness started coming out about Jeb's inner circle - and another strong whiff of corruption wafted off of Hillary.

Let's start with Jeb!: At least two close allies of Jeb Bush are thought to have spread a rumor that Marco Rubio cheated on his wife. They call it a "zipper problem," which sounds like a band name. Buzzfeed's McKay Coppins broke the story, but it's clearly far from over - did Jeb know about this? And now that the story is out in the open, will Jeb fire the two women who started this mess?

A politician having an affair is a terribly believable story. Except for one thing: There is no evidence to suggest that Rubio ever had an affair. And Team Marco has gone looking for it! They (a major PAC) submitted Rubio to a $40,000 PR investigation, which Buzzfeed calls "a political rectal probe." They raided the proverbial closet, and found zero skeletons.

But the rumor was enough to scare off some potential Rubio donors. Not a good look, Jeb, to cook up an unfounded rumor about an opponent - or to associate with people who would do such a thing.

Now, for Hillary: As Secretary of State, she met frequently with Democrat donors, Clinton Foundation benefactors, and campaign staffers. And it looks like she tried to lie about it.

Hillary's emails are trickling out, and the AP submitted a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) to the State Department for her calendars. The emails should - in theory - match the calendars. But they don't. Some of the emails are "mini schedules" - a Clinton campaign spokesman says that she was only sent "mini schedules" on certain days. I don't believe that the Secretary of State was sometimes not informed of her own schedule. That's not true - and if it was - it's a further sign of incompetence.

Anyway, the AP found 12 discrepancies between the "mini schedules" in the emails, and the official calendars. There's only been 155 "mini schedules" in the emails released so far.

Drip, drip, drip...the scandals just keep coming. Eww.

Marco Rubio's First Campaign Commercial

It's here! And it's kinda weird.

I don't mean "weird" in the same way that most campaign ads are weird. Most of them are set in a parallel world filled only with "laughing children holding American flags," "ethnically ambiguous small business owners," "golden fields," and "picturesque lakes."

This ad is just Marco, sitting in the dark, talkin' bout ISIS. It's like a summer camp ghost story being told by a grown man in a suit.

Rubio's speech is pretty much ripped from the pages of Samuel Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations, which argued that the West and the Rest are going to duke it out in the 21st century. And if you've been paying any attention whatsoever to the past 15 years, you'll see that Huntington was right: Civilizations are clashing. Militant Islamists hate everything about the West, and are intent on taking it down (so if you're one of the eleven people left who still think we can "coexist," please think afreakingain.)

Marco says that either they win, or we do - and he's right. It's impossible to live side by side in peace with someone who believes that his or her mission on Earth is to kill "infidels." Rubio is correct that "what happened in Paris could happen here." We don't like to talk about it, but we have to - because we want our side to win the clash of civilizations.

Rubio's also right that "these aren't disgruntled or disempowered people." The poorest of the poor are not the ones who turn to terror; it's a proven fact that most jihadis come from the region's thin middle class. Not sure if that helps Marco make his case to voters, but he's correct about it anyway.


Also, his ears look giant? Why do his ears look giant. That seems like a lighting problem, in that the light is ON his ears. You can tell that this bothers me.

The ad is full of facts that are scary and true. It's just that Marco Rubio is the rare candidate who is far more compelling on a debate stage than he is in a produced advertisement. If Team Marco were to cut another ad that was just clips of him speaking hot fiery foreign policy truth at the debates, well, it might be even better than what we've got here:

Can Brigette Bardot Get a Refund?

It's a headline you'd expect to see on TMZ: "Film Star (Insert Name) Faces Jail Time for (Insert Crime). But this story is not your typical celebrity gossip. It's about a government so eager to protect the feelings of Muslims that it will punish its own citizens for speaking ill of them.

This has been going on for years. Since the mid-1990s, Brigitte Bardot has been convicted five times of "inciting racial hatred" for her comments about Muslims. I'd like to tell the French lawmakers that "Muslim" is not a race, but I'm afraid they'd put me in jail, too. The fines run into the thousands of Euro, and such convictions can also carry suspended jail sentences.


Last Friday, just hours before Paris came under siege, Bardot sent a letter to President Hollande regarding the slaughter of sheep by Muslims during their annual Eid celebrations, the serving of Halal meat in public schools. She has commented on killing of a large number of sheep, and also takes issue with the way it's done (I won't elaborate here, but it's gross). Bardot, an animal rights activist, is understandably disturbed by the way Muslims treat sheep, and has (not so understandably) compared it to the way militant Islamists have slit the throats of non-Muslims. Her comments were more pro-sheep than they were anti-Muslim. She will likely be sued again, by the same "civil rights" groups that sued her the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth times around. 

As for Muslims themselves, Bardot does not mince words: "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country, and imposing its acts." For this comment, she was put on trial and slapped with a steep fine. But do you blame her for thinking this way? After all, Muslims themselves proved her to be right when they carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the Paris attacks. They proved her right just days ago, when a Jewish person in Marseille was stabbed by, you guessed it, another radical Muslim. They prove her right in the migrant camp at Calais, where "refugees" have hurled rocks at police and burned donated food. These people have refused to assimilate, let alone contribute, to the society in which they have chosen to live. The French government owes Brigitte Bardot a refund on all those fines she paid for making true statements.

Bardot has previously been convicted for "inciting racial hatred" after remarking that mosques were springing up everywhere in France 'while our church bells fall silent.' Thatis an observation, and also a demographic fact: Islam is the fastest-growing religion in France. Church attendance has been declining in Europe for decades. These are undeniable and long-standing trends. In this Brave New World governed by political correctness, uncomfortable facts amount to hate speech.

Bardot has also ranted on other topics, notably in her 2003 book A Cry in the Silence. In this text, she railed against gay people and the teachers and students in France's public schools. She also lamented people "who only accept jobs on the black market ... and cash in on taxpayers' money." Her opinions are as strong as they are, shall we say, problematic. Her opinions may be wrong, but that's how life in a Republic is supposed to work: You are allowed to have wrong opinions, and you're allowed to state them.

When asked about the legal battles over her comments, Bardot remarked, "You know, I don't gift-wrap my remarks." Indeed.

Whatever Should We Do About the Refugees

The Syrian refugee crisis is the latest global issue to drive a wedge between the American Left and the Right.

You have one side saying that these people are in a horrific situation, they deserve compassion, we'd be cruel to turn them away. There's another side saying we don't know who these people are, they don't share our democratic values of individual rights (not to mention how they feel about women and gay people), and that the United States just can't afford it (hello, $17T in debt).

This is one of the few times where both sides are right, AND there is a middle ground. I think we should let them in, under two conditions:


1. We vet these people. I mean really vet them.

This condition is necessary because of two groups of people, neither of whom are the refugees. The first is those who would pose as refugees to get into the country for nefarious reasons. At least one of the Paris attackers did this, as evidenced by the fake Syrian passport found in the rubble at the Bataclan.

The second group of people is the bloated government bureaucracy that is pretty terrible at keeping bad people out. Look at the 9/11 hijackers, who overstayed on their visas. Look at the Tsarnaev brothers (they weren't refugees, but their parents were). Michelle Malkin's book Invasion covers several cases in which the U.S. gave full citizenship to "refugees" who turned out to be "war criminals." Oops. 

Thousands of "refugees" aren't really from Syria - they're leaving Afghanistan/Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia/Eritrea, and Libya. I don't blame them for wanting to get out, but "your home country is a bummer" is not the same as "your home country is a dangerous place for you to live." The government is going to have to figure out how to vet thousands of people quickly and accurately. They have to build a system for it - and whatever you guys do, please don't hire the fools who built the Obamacare website, okay?

2. The situation is temporary.

So far, the vast majority of refugees in Europe have shown little motivation to assimilate to their host country. (In fact, they have repeatedly tried to change the culture/laws of the host country to fit them - see the many Sharia courts in the UK - it takes a pushy guest to try to rewrite the house rules!) It's okay if these people still want to be Syrians - and it's totally understandable. It just means that they shouldn't expect to be granted U.S. citizenship. In other words, Syrians can crash on our couch for awhile until things get sorted out, but we'd be ill-advised to put the Syrians on our mortgage/lease.

At some point, hopefully soon, ISIS will be gone and Syria will have to rebuild. These people will have to do the rebuilding - and that means repatriation back to their country. When ISIS is gone, these refugees won't need a place of refuge any longer - so they can, and should, go back home.

In the interim, we should take in the "tired, poor, huddled masses" and give them a safe place to live, a chance to get back on their feet, so that when this horrific war ends they'll be ready, willing, and able to rebuild.

This is compassion without recklessness. It's our duty as Americans to keep this country safe, and our duty as humans to have a heart for those in such desperate need of safe haven.

Clinton Spox Makes a Fashion Faux Pas

If you were one of the three viewers of the Democratic primary debate on Saturday night, you know that Hillary has some explaining to do. The debate moderator asked Hillary if she would really be able to regulate Wall Street, given that the big banks have donated millions of dollars to her campaign.

Then it got weird: Hillary brought up the 9/11 attacks. She said, "I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11, when we were attacked...We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is...I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country."

Um, what? That answer has nothing to do with the question! And everybody knew it - on Sunday, at a barbecue campaign event, reporters surrounded Hillary's top aides and asked, in short, what the heck that weird answer was about.

Chair of the Clinton campaign, John Podesta, said that Hillary has "a strong record on Wall Street reform. She's put forth the strongest policies on Wall Street reform."

John Podesta argued that Hillary would reign in the big banks. He did this while wearing a logo'd jacket from Equilibrium Capital, a billion-dollar financial services company.

Oops.

The Culture War, After Paris

While the terrorist attack in Paris was still ongoing, people around the world immediately took to Twitter in an effort to stop a supposed backlash against Muslims. (Never mind that the backlash never happened.)

Anyhow, the trending topics were loud and clear: TERRORISM HAS NO RELIGION and #Muslimsarenotterrorist.

I'm well aware that terrorism has no religion. But the terrorists did. And multiple eyewitnesses reported that those terrorists were shouting "Allahu Akbar" while they carried out their killing spree. So if you want to pretend that religion is not involved, you are more committed to a narrative than to the truth.

I also fully understand that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Anyone with a fully functioning noggin knows that Muslim terrorists are a small fraction of those who follow Islam. So the #NotallMuslimsareterrorist tag is directed at a Straw Man, a hypothetical person who blames all Muslims for this terrorist attack.

My issue with the chorus of "not ALL Muslims" is this: They're using this rallying cry to detract from - and distract from - the indisputable fact that SOME Muslims are waging a bloody war against the West. And if you want the rest of us to downplay, or even ignore, this threat against our countries and our lives - well, thanks for asking, but your request is denied.

Remember the conversation about sexism a few months ago? There was this statement of "not ALL men" are people you have to be afraid of - and women of the world looked around and said "Duh. But some men are. And that's why we use the buddy system/carry pepper spray/don't go out after dark." This prompted the #YesAllWomen movement - which said yes, we get it, the vast majority of men aren't going to hurt us. But some men would. And that's why we're nervous around you, until we know which side you're on.

So, sure - not all Muslims are terrorists. The vast majority are not. But those few who are, intend to carry out mass murder. #YesAllWesterners have to deal with this - and until we can separate the terrorists from the refugees (something our governments have shown little interest in doing), we are going to be nervous.


Some are saying that this may be the start of the Third World War. I don't know if that's true, but it's useful to think back to the start of World War II. Did anyone seriously believe that all Germans were Nazis? No, because that would have been moronic. But what they knew was that some Germans were Nazis, and some was too effing many, because those some were carrying out a merciless, murderous campaign against innocents.

French President Francois Hollande has declared these attacks "an act of war." He's right. ISIS wants to make war against the West, and we don't have the luxury of pretending that this war doesn't exist - we tried that for a little while, and they brought the war to us. Now, we have to fight back.

Please pray for the victims of these attacks, their loved ones, and their beautiful city.

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Using Taylor Swift Lyrics

For your lunch break enjoyment: U.S. District Court Judge Gail Standish has dismissed a lawsuit against Taylor Swift using the singer's own lyrics.

R & B singer Jesse Standish tried to sue TSwift to the tune of $42 million, claiming that they lyrics to "Shake it Off" were a copy of the lyrics to one of his songs. It was a flimsy case - "shake it off" and "players gonna play" and "haters gonna hate" are all common phrases, so Standish would have a hard time proving that he owned them.

Judge Standish knew this. And she threw out the case, shall we say, swiftly.

 

That right there is a legal work of art.

Starbucks Red Cup Nontroversy

Put down that pumpkin spice latte and pick up that peppermint mocha, because it's Red Cup season at Starbucks! The cups this year are just plain red with the green logo - and the internet would have you believe that some Christians are really ticked off that the cups no longer say "Merry Christmas."

This doesn't look like the coffee chain is making a slight to Christians. Starbucks has been moving towards a more minimalist design on all their cups, and it makes sense that their seasonal cups would be no exception. Check out this graphic from WebUrbanist, showing how their logo has changed over time:

 

Oh, and if you still think Starbucks hates Christmas? You dumb. You really dumb. Because there's this:

Also available in k-cups!

Still, the standard pop culture blogs are all "reporting" that Christians are going into Starbucks, ordering drinks, and giving the name "Merry Christmas" so that the barista will write the holiday greeting on their cup.

I don't think this is a real protest. For starters, who protests a company by going to its stores and buying its products? No one. No one does that, because it's self-defeating.

Second, does anyone think that harassing baristas will make a difference? Nah. Does anyone think that the baristas will spell "Merry Christmas" correctly, when they manage to mess up even the most common first names? Probably also nah.

And as for anecdotal evidence - I'm from the Bible belt, and I now spend most of my days on campus at a Catholic school. I have seen zero people, in person or on my Facebook/Twitter/Instagram feeds, outraged by the plain red cups.

Let's get real: This was a campaign started by internet trolls to see if they could 1) make Christians look petty, and 2) trick people into thinking that either Starbucks is anti-Christian. There are approximately eleven, maybe twelve, real people who are mad about the Starbucks cups. There are thousands who are forming a backlash-to-the-backlash, and up in arms about how the cups just don't matter.

So good job, internet trolls. You pre-empted the "War on Christmas" chatter this year, and your meme went viral. Your hoax was a hit. As for the rest of us, we'll just keep drinking our $5 sugar-water and tuning you out. 'Tis the season!

ISIS, the Egypt Plane Crash, and the Failing TSA

Today's post is about two news stories that are each bad on their own, but are downright frightening when put together.

The first relates to the passenger plane that crashed in Egypt last weekend. British and U.S. intelligence agencies now believe that the crash was caused by a bomb planted by ISIS. The crash is tragic no matter what caused it, and if ISIS has figured out how to bypass airport security and plant an explosive on a plane, that's just terrifying.

The second news story is about the TSA, those people who scan your luggage at the airport and give you the freedom cuddle pat-down. Homeland Security tested the TSA in September of 2015, by sending agents to airports where they pose as passengers. These "passengers" should not be allowed to fly - either because their names show up on a no-fly list, or they have incorrect travel documents, or - and this is the big one - they are carrying with them an item that should not be allowed on a plane. TSA bombed this test bigtime - 95% of the time, TSA agents failed to identify and address the security problem.

TSA was also put to the test in September of 2014. Those results were dismal, so the federal government handed them over half a billion dollars to fund improved methods for inspecting checked baggage. The September 2015 test shows no improvement. That means that the return on a $550 million investment was...zero. The results of this testing demonstrated that TSA agents had no ability to know whether or not their equipment was working, and if it was not functioning properly, they don't know how to fix it.

If ISIS really did plant a bomb on that plane, it means that the terrorists have figured out how to carry out a mass casualty attack without ever actually boarding the flight. They won't be going through airport security, since they're not passengers. Oh, and even if they did come to America and try boarding the plane? There's a 95% chance that the TSA won't catch them.

Something here needs to change immediately, and we know from experience that throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it. The TSA needs an overhaul. Every serious presidential candidate needs to have a proposal for how to fix this on the very first day they're in office.
-----

Much of the info for this post came from the Congressional testimony of Inspector General John Roth. I encourage you to read his full prepared remarks at this link.

Ohio Votes No to Legal Marijuana

This looks like a bad decision, but as always, it's not quite that simple. Recreational marijuana use isn't a good thing, but it might not be a bad thing - at least not so bad that it ought to be outlawed. And it's definitely not so bad that we should keep nonviolent offenders behind bars for it.

Colorado's legalization has been a benefit to the state and to the citizens. The tax revenue is flowing in, and...um...almost everybody in Colorado was going to smoke whether it was legal or not. At least now, the state gets money from it, and doesn't have to expend police resources on fighting this "crime." However, Ohio's proposed law was written quite differently - and in a way that restricts freedom, instead of preserving it. 

The Ohio proposal, called Issue 3, would have allowed 10 growing facilities to open across the state. This "limited grow" law would have made the owners of the farms extremely wealthy. (Or extremely wealthier, given that one of the people who stood to gain from this was none other than Nick Lachey.)

The freedom to grow and use marijuana is not a freedom I ever intend to use (I get my leafy greens in the form of arugula and spinach, thankyouverymuch) but it's still a freedom I think people ought to have. And that's why I'm not upset that Issue 3 was voted down. It may have given Ohioans more access to marijuana, but it did not give them more freedom...in fact, it would have given them a government-sponsored monopoly on this "cottage industry." If Ohio and other states are going to legalize recreational marijuana - and I believe that they eventually will - they might as well do it right.