Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 924)
World

putin in crimea

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia attends a parade in July in Crimea, a territory which came under his control in March. (Photo: Ivan Sekretarev/Associated Press)

During the NATO summit last week, Russian bombers conducted a test-run in the North Atlantic to determine an optimum point for firing nuclear-armed cruise missiles at U.S. targets. Defense officials told the Washington Free Beacon that two Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers were tracked near Iceland, Greenland, and Canada’s northeast.

The latest developments provide a cold reminder of U.S.-Russian tensions under the Obama administration that once sought a “reset” of relations, which former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton deemed successful. Clinton’s comments were made in late July after the Russian annexation of Crimea and weeks of shelling from inside Russia into Ukraine.

Gen. Yuri Yakubov, a senior Defense Ministry official, was quoted by the state-run Interfax news agency as saying that Russia’s 2010 military doctrine should be changes to reflect the United States and the NATO alliance as an enemy of Russia. Yakubov advocated for the document to identify the proper conditions for an acceptable preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. and NATO allies.

While officials say neither the U.S. nor Canada chose to reponds due to the fact the two bombers were outside of the North American Air Defense Identification Zone, mum was the word on another incident that took place over the Labrador Sea between Greenland and Canada’s Labrador Peninsula.

The Russian Tu-95 has the capability to carry out such a strike on the United States. It is a nuclear-armed bomber that can carry up to six AS-15 nuclear-armed cruise missiles, which have a range of over 1,800 miles. The report claims that a “Google Earth analysis reveals that a Tu-95 launch box located in the Labrador Sea and firing AS-15 missiles would be in range of Ottawa, New York, Washington, and Chicago, and could reach as far south as the Norfolk Naval base.”

The sheer number of operations conducted in the region has hit a new high since the Cold War ended. In August, at least 16 such instances occured within the northwestern U.S. and Canadian air defense zones over a period of just 10 days. On June 9, according to the report, two Russian Bear bombers came within 50 miles of the California coast in what was the closest strategic bomber exercise near a U.S. coast since the end of the Cold War.

During the NATO summit last week, Russian

World

al-Nusra terrorists in Syria

The State Department has launched an effort to counter propaganda from ISIS and other terror groups using social media to forward radical Islam. The 50-member Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications had previously been charged with the task of analyzing and countering terrorists’ messaging around the world, and now plans to use that data to counter the recruiting threat from ISIS, otherwise known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

In an effort to address what is now a massive social media presence that is used in the terror group’s recruiting campaign, the unit released a fake recruiting ad for ISIS.

“Run – do not walk to ISIS Land,” the video viewable below, tells would-be recruits that they can learn “useful new skills” such as “blowing up mosques” and “crucifying and executing Muslims.” The “ad” ends with the line: “Travel is inexpensive, because you won’t need a return ticket!”

The video depicts graphic images and videos, including scenes of people being crucified, decapitated heads arranged next to each other and a headless body, and mosques being blown up by suicide bombers.

There is no consensus on the impact the counter-propaganda effort may have, but the State Department believes that offering an alternative to the ISIS message is critical to winning the struggle with radical Islam.

“We believe countering our adversaries in this space is critical. We must contest the space by confronting distortion with reality and lies with truth,” a State Department spokesperson said.

President Obama plans to lay out his plans to the American people during a speech on Wednesday, and has already discussed the basics with House and Senate leaders Tuesday. Whether emphasis will be put on the effort during the speech remains to be seen, but a White House official said the president will include the plan in his remarks to the American people.

The Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, was created in 2011 to “coordinate, orient, and inform government-wide foreign communications activities targeted against terrorism and violent extremism,” according to the State Department. The unit works on an annual $6 million budget to combat “extremist propaganda in previously uncontested digital space.” The State Department tested the waters with a “small pilot English Language Initiative” at the end of 2013 to counter extremists trying to recruit in the “English-speaking world.”

However, considering the number of reports highlighting home-grown terrorists radicalized in Minnesota mosques and other Muslim centers across the nation, including Dearborn and Detroit, Michigan, the effort if effective at all was late to the game.

 

On Twitter alone, the intelligence firm Recorded Future concluded over 27,000 “pro-ISIS accounts” are active and tweeting, while the new unit’s English-language YouTube channel was just created in June.

The Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications now launches campaigns in Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi, Somali and English.

The State Department has launched an effort

Polls

obama presidency second inaugural speech

President Barack Obama makes his inaugural speech , in Washington D.C., Jan. 21, 2013. (Photo: AP)

According to a new ABC News/WaPo Poll, most American adults and registered voters now say the Obama presidency has been more of a failure than a success.

American adults say 52-42 percent that Obama has been more of a failure than a success, but among registered voters, which tends to slant Democratic, the gap is a larger 55 – 39 percent. The intensity is against the president, as well, as four in 10 (41 percent) say they “strongly” believe Obama has been a failure.

The results by partisanship are interesting.

Even one in four Democrats (25 percent) agree with the majority, as do nearly three in 10 liberals (29 percent) and a large majority of conservative Republicans (92 percent). Nearly one in five liberals (18 percent) say they feel “strongly” that Obama has been a failure.

When we look at the president’s opposition, we can assume where some of these feelings are coming from.

Nearly one in five conservatives (22 percent) say Obama has been a success (note: this is a different group from “conservative Republicans”), as do 48 percent of moderates. As far as conservatives, this is no doubt due to the fact they believe he has been successful in his efforts to “fundamentally transform” the United States. On the flip side, the number of liberals who say so is no doubt due to the fact they think he could have done more to transform the country.

In fact, self-described moderates are more likely to rate Obama a success (48 percent) than as a failure (44 percent).

Voters and American adults as a whole have had a tremendous amount of voter remorse over the past year.

A July poll released by Quinnipiac University found more Americans say Obama is the worst president since World War II than any other modern president. Not surprisingly, voters say that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would have been a better president.

“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

“Would Mitt have been a better fit? More voters in hindsight say yes.”

A past ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted in November found that if a rematch of the 2012 election was held, Romney would have defeated Obama by 49 – 45 percent in the popular vote, while a CNN/Opinion Research Center survey conducted later that same month found Romney would garner 53 percent of the popular vote, with President Obama falling extremely short at 44 percent.

(Want to see what the Electoral Map would have looked like if those results were correct?)

There are some strange inconsistencies with the poll results, however. Overall, the survey found 51 – 42 percent disapproval among all Americans and 54 – 42 percent disapproval among registered voters. Those results are fairly close to the PPD average, 41.9 – 53.6 percent. Yet, 12 percent of Americans who approve of Obama unexplainably say he is a failure, and 8 percent who disapprove of him say he’s been a success. Those cross tabs just don’t add up.

Further, the poll found that Americans think Obama should take action on his own through executive orders reagrding immigration by a 52 – 44 percent margin, which is far and away the outlier in previous examinations.

According to a new ABC News Washington

Polls

al qaeda vs isis threat

Al Qaeda (left) are in competition with ISIS (right) to stop the new threat from eclipsing the infamous terror group as the most serious threat to the U.S.

Americans’ views of the ISIS threat has reached near parity with Al Qaeda back in 2003, according to a new CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Center. As we approach the 13th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the CNN/ORC Poll shows that 45 percent of Americans see that ISIS is a “very serious threat to the U.S,” almost the 49 percent who thought the same of Al Qaeda 11 years ago.

“Americans are significantly less reluctant to use military force than they were a year ago, and the number who say that terrorism is the country’s most important problem has quadrupled, making it second only to the economy on the list of top problems in the public’s mind,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

Similarly, a recently covered Rasmussen Reports survey found support for U.S. ground troops in Iraq increasing to roughly a third from the 12 percent measured last December. Now, while a majority of Americans, 61 – 38 percent, oppose U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Syria to combat the terrorist group, those numbers represent a significant, increasing minority that far surpasses original support for ground wars of the past.

President Obama will announce his strategy to combat the ISIS army on Wednesday, which all indications suggest a long and protracted effort. Yet, a whopping 73 percent of likely voters in the Rasmussen survey said they are worried the president really is clueless when it comes to a strategy for combating the terror army, including 47 percent who said they are “very concerned.”

Further, 7 in 10 Americans believe ISIS terrorists are already in the U.S. and have the resources to launch an attack against the United States, and 90 percent say the group poses “a direct threat” to the homeland. Americans also believe that the threat from terrorism has grown under President Obama, according to the CNN poll. In September 2010, only 3 percent of Americans cited terrorism as the most important problem facing the nation. Now, it has shot up to 14 percent, which polls second only to the economy at 30 percent as the most important problem.

If we compare support for ground troops in Iraq in 2014 with past conflict, including the first Gulf War, support is relatively high. The general exception to the rule was in the aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when support for action in Afghanistan was nearly as high as President George W. Bush’s 90 percent approval rating. Support for the Iraq War in 2003 began roughly around the same levels, but support increased as Bush filled the traditional role of a wartime U.S. president, which is to make the case for war when war is unpopular.

Americans support additional U.S. airstrikes against ISIS by a 76 – 23 percent margin. As of Monday afternoon,the total number of U.S. airstrikes to date was 148, while the cost of the operations in Iraq is estimated at $7.5 million per day.

Meanwhile, the competition for who remains the greatest threat to the U.S. is only being decided in the public opinion arena. A recent report outlines a dangerous competition between the world’s two top Islamic terror groups. In the days running up to the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, this Al Qaeda vs ISIS terror rivalry is becoming a serious concern to those operating within U.S. intelligence circles.

“Al Qaeda and ISIS are in a competition and hitting the U.S. dramatically, preferably in the homeland, is key to winning,” Ryan Mauro, a national security adviser with The Clarion Project, told FoxNews.com. “Al Qaeda needs to prove it is still viable and relevant in light of ISIS’ success. And ISIS will be universally recognized as having eclipsed Al Qaeda if it can strike inside the U.S.”

While ISIS is at the center of recent media reports, as far as attacks on the homeland, U.S. intel says Al Qaeda is still the number one threat due to their incessant efforts over the years to garner sympathies from radicalized Americans.

(Correction: A previous version of this article used “parody” rather than “parity.”)

Americans' views of the ISIS threat has

Politics

kevin mccarthy getty images

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Photo: Getty Images)

Following the stunning defeat of former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), the man who took his place gave clear indication that he was allied with conservatives on an important base — the Ex-Im Bank. Now, two of American’s most powerful free-market advocacy groups, the Club for Growth and Heritage Action For America, are holding him to it.

In a letter sent to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on the Ex-Im Bank today, the groups reminded the House leader of his prior statements to Chris Wallace back in June of this year.

We were greatly encouraged by your comments on Fox News Sunday on June 22nd, in which you stated that the Export-Import Bank is ‘something government does not have to be involved in. The private sector can do it,'” the letter stated. “You also quite explicitly answered ‘yes’ to the question of whether or not you would allow the charter for the bank to expire.”

Since April, the Main Street versus Wall Street and K Street battle over the Export-Import Bank has been heating up. Conservatives have once again found themselves in a political fight with the Chamber of Commerce, a group that has spent millions pushing immigration reform to obtain cheap labor to benefit corporate America.

McCarthy, the former House whip, needed an issue to help bridge the divide between the Establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party. He is run for the leadership position didn’t go unchallenged and, even though he defeated or scared off his more conservative challengers, his current position has not yet silenced familiar criticism.

“We’re going to be doing our damnedest to focus some minds,” Christopher Wenk, the senior director for international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said of the intense lobbying effort underway over the Ex-Im Bank.

The Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers stepped up lobbying efforts early this year, as they almost dropped the ball and lost their favored interest group status the last time reauthorization came up. They have poured millions of dollars into the effort to save the bank.

“In the past several months, the bank and the private corporations it benefits have launched an all-out public relations campaign to repair the bank’s image,” the groups said. “This simply confirms what we have said all along – the Export-Import Bank is a crony-capitalist slush fund benefitting mainly politically-connected companies that receive its subsidies.”

Still, this year represents the best chance to date conservatives have to shut down what many see as a revolving door between members of Congress, K Street and Wall Street.

The Export-Import Bank, which was established in 1934 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, is supposedly in existence to “facilitate exports and imports and the exchange of commodities between the United States and other Nations.” But a past PPD investigation tells a very, very different story.

Even though the argument to keep the Ex-Im Bank in existence is filled with rhetoric focusing on U.S. jobs, in practice the money tends to benefit those who do not have the interest of the taxpayers in mind. Gennady Timchenko, one of Russia’s richest billionaire oligarchs and long-time friend of President Vladimir Putin, benefited from Boeing’s deal with the Ex-Im Bank. He sought a U.S. government-backed loan from the Ex-Im Bank to purchase 11 luxury Gulfstream jets for himself.

“To smooth the path for financial backing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank and allay possible U.S. government concerns about him, Timchenko hired lobbyists from powerhouse Washington law firm Patton Boggs, according to emails and documents viewed by Reuters,” the news agency reported back in July of 2013.

Ironically, Democrats, to include so-called populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), are standing in line to defend the money flowing to special interest groups from the taxpayer through the Ex-Im Bank.

At a recent House hearing on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, lawmakers were handed a friendly reminder in the form of index cards noting which companies in their districts receive funds from the bank and how many people are employed as a result of those projects. The lobbying trick came directly from lobbyists for corporations, including Defense Department cash-cows Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA) and General Electric Co. (NYSE:GE).

Senate Democrats plotted to pull a legislative maneuver to ensure big business supporters they would keep their favored status with Uncle Sam. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) crafted a plan to push the Senate to take up and pass a bill to reauthorize the bank before Congress left for the August recess, so conservative groups and their allied lawmakers in the House, including Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), have not been without opposition.

“I think that if we can pass it in the Senate, particularly with a good bipartisan majority … it will put pressure on the House,” Schumer said of his plan in July on a conference call with reporters.

When McCarthy made his past statements, he didn’t seem as if pressure from Senate Democrats would weigh to heavy on his decision-making process, and was more forward than usual during his appearance on Fox News Sunday.

“One of the problems with government is they go and take hard earned money so others do things that the private sector can do,” McCarthy said in June. “That’s what the Ex-Im Bank does.”

It remains to be seen whether the majority leader’s words are coming back to haunt him.

“The Export-Import Bank is a small thing, this we know,” the letter said. “But Leader McCarthy, if you can’t start with the Export-Import Bank, then how can Americans trust the Republican Party to tackle the big challenges our nation faces after six years of President Obama and his failed policies?”

Two of American's most powerful free-market

Elections

Mitch McConnell Alison Lundergan Grimes

Kentucky Senate race: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes at the Fancy Farm picnic Saturday, August 2, 2014. (Getty Images)The idea that the Kentucky Senate race was going to be truly competitive this cycle has produced some great headlines, but it was never grounded in reality. Admittedly, the possibility that the man likely to be the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate would have that long-sought position snatched from his grip just as it became within reach, is a great story. But it was always just that — a story.

The idea that the Kentucky Senate race was going to be truly competitive this cycle has produced some great headlines, but it was never grounded in reality. Admittedly, the possibility that the man likely to be the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate would have that long-sought position snatched from his grip just as it became within reach, is a great story. But it was always just that — a story.

Democrats had hoped to go on offensive in Kentucky and Georgia, both red state Senate seats currently held by Republicans. In Kentucky, McConnell’s approval rating is in the high 30s to low 40s and he has hovered below the 50-percent threshold in the majority of polls conducted throughout the cycle.

However, putting aside the speculation and simply observing the data, it is clear that both of these states are fools gold for Democrats and have been this entire cycle. From the beginning of the cycle and consistently, PPD’s 2014 Senate Map Predictions model has been more bullish on McConnell, while other pundits have been prognosticating in fantasy land.

Now, there is no excuse for the media delay in covering the political reality of this race.

Let’s take a look at some of the more important, fundamental factors in the Kentucky Senate race, absent the wishful speculation heard elsewhere. We will begin with polling, then move into demographic data and other nerdy variables.

First, McConnell’s right flank is predictably coming home. Much has been made of McConnell’s low approval ratings and the apparent tightness of the race, according to at least a few polls. Yet, as we’ve previously examined, after McConnell defeated primary challenger Matt Bevin his lead over Grimes widened and has remained consistent. In fact, in the aggregate of polling viewable below, we see Grimes has not led in a single poll since May, which was overly optimistic of her level of support.

In the average of aggregate polling, Grimes now sits at 42 percent, which is not much less than what we believe to be her ceiling of support. Let’s take a look at the state’s political environment in depth to justify that claim.

President Obama’s approval rating in the state is at 29 percent, which believe it or not, is a significant deterioration since Mitt Romney beat him by 23 points in 2012. According to Gallup’s state scorecard, Republicans hold a 6-point edge in party ID (a misleading measurement we will discuss shortly), conservative voters represent 41 percent of the overall electorate and 49 percent are “very religious.”

The only thing “blue” about the Bluegrass State is its nickname. The Partisan Voting Index is now R+14, up from R+10 in 2010 when now-Sen. Rand Paul significantly outperformed expectations in the 5th Congressional District.

And here is the crux of the problem for Alison Lundergan Grimes. Traditional Democratic voters in Kentucky have been steadily trending Republican on the national level.

The 5th Congressional District, a once-competitive region of the state due in large part to the heavily unionized and historically Democratic coal mining constituency, is naturally bailing on the national Democratic Party. In fact, since the era of Obama began in 2008, the 5th District has been bleeding once-loyal Democratic voters. The “War on Coal” may be a sound bite for most media outlets, but it’s real life for Kentucky coal miners.

Worth noting, Grimes isn’t simply underperforming in the region because of the anti-Obama sentiment, she shoulders a good deal of the blame.

Amid the Obama administration unilaterally issuing new regulations on existing coal-fired power plants that will undoubtedly cripple the economy in Kentucky’s 5th Congressional District, Grimes was caught lying about the topic of a fundraiser she attended with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). While the campaign claimed she would use the high-dollar fundraiser to fight for the Kentucky coal industry, a leaked audio tape reenforced suspicions that Grimes would largely support (or abstain from fighting) the anti-coal agenda pushed by leadership in her party.

The NRSC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, pounced on Grimes hard.

“Alison Grimes already has a credibility problem with Kentuckians,” the NRSC said in an email to PPD. “This leaves little doubt that Grimes will say whatever it takes back home but do little to stop Obama’s anti-coal agenda in DC.”

This was the beginning of the narrative Republicans had hoped to solidify, which deeply implanted a sentiment within the electorate that Grimes will say whatever she needs to say to the voters in Kentucky, while acting and speaking very differently in Washington. D.C.

“Alison Lundergan Grimes just did exactly what every Kentuckian knew she would — tell them one thing and do another with Harry Reid,” Allison Moore, McConnell’s campaign spokeswoman said in a statement. “If there was any question about what she would do as a senator, this tape erased all doubt.”

Alison Lundergan Grimes has not lived up to the hype the media and Democrats purported she would. Perhaps she was expected to live up to impossible standards.

Sure, McConnell isn’t winning any popularity contests anytime soon. However, much of his negative favorability ratings derived from his right flank and, when push comes to shove, a Majority Leader Harry Reid is still far less popular than a Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The Kentucky Senate race is rated “Likely Republican” on PPD’s 2014 Senate Map Predictions model, with the minority leader enjoying an 84 percent chance of victory.

Poll Date Sample MoE McConnell (R) Grimes (D) Spread
PPD Average 8/7 – 9/4 — — 47.2 42.0 McConnell +5.2
NBC News/Marist* 9/2 – 9/4 691 LV 3.7 47 39 McConnell +8
CNN/Opinion Research 8/28 – 9/1 671 LV 4.0 50 46 McConnell +4
Rasmussen Reports 9/1 – 9/2 750 LV 4.0 46 41 McConnell +5
CBS News/NYT/YouGov 8/18 – 9/2 2130 LV 3.0 47 42 McConnell +5
Courier-Journal/SurveyUSA* 8/25 – 8/27 569 LV 4.2 46 42 McConnell +4
PPP (D) 8/7 – 8/10 991 LV 3.1 47 42 McConnell +5
Courier-Journal/SurveyUSA 7/18 – 7/23 604 LV 4.1 47 45 McConnell +2
CBS News/NYT/YouGov 7/5 – 7/24 LV 4.2 50 46 McConnell +4
Magellan Strategies (R) 6/4 – 6/5 808 LV 3.5 46 49 Grimes +3
Rasmussen Reports 5/28 – 5/29 750 LV 4.0 48 41 McConnell +7
Wenzel Strategies (R) 5/23 – 5/24 608 LV 4.0 47 44 McConnell +3
Courier-Journal/SurveyUSA* 5/14 – 5/16 1475 LV 2.6 42 43 Grimes +1
NBC News/Marist 4/30 – 5/6 2353 RV 2.0 46 45 McConnell +1
CEA/Hickman Analytics (D) 4/24 – 4/30 500 LV 4.4 46 45 McConnell +1
NY Times/Kaiser 4/8 – 4/15 891 RV 4.0 44 43 McConnell +1
Wenzel Strategies (R) 2/8 – 2/11 1002 LV 3.1 43 42 McConnell +1
Courier-Journal/SurveyUSA 1/30 – 2/3 1082 RV 3.0 42 46 Grimes +4
Rasmussen Reports 1/29 – 1/30 500 LV 4.5 42 42 Tie
PPP (D) 12/12 – 12/15 1509 RV 2.5 43 42 McConnell +1
Wenzel Strategies (R) 7/23 – 7/24 624 LV 3.9 48 40 McConnell +8
Wenzel Strategies (R) 6/1 – 6/2 623 LV 3.9 47 40 McConnell +7
PPP (D) 4/5 – 4/7 1052 RV 3.0 45 41 McConnell +4
PPP (D) 12/7 – 12/9 1266 RV 2.8 47 40 McConnell +7

The idea that the Kentucky Senate race

Sports

The Baltimore Ravens fired running back Ray Rice after new video surfaced showing him punch his then-fiancée in the elevator of an Atlantic City hotel.

The team confirmed the termination via Twitter just hours after the video obtained by TMZ was released. It shows the 5-foot, 8-inch, 220-pound NFL player throwing a left hook to the face of Janay Palmer, knocking her completely unconscious. The video was shot from inside the Revel Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, and the footage captures the scene that transpired in a previously circulated video showing Rice dragging his unconscious fiancée out of the elevator on Feb. 15.

Rice had been suspended for just two games by the NFL, which drew widespread criticism from observers. The latest video confirmed previous suspicions; that the NFL was too lenient in their past punishment. Commissioner Roger Goodell admitted he “didn’t get it right,” but the NFL said in a statement early Monday that it had not seen the second video prior to today.

“We requested from law enforcement any and all information about the incident, including the video from inside the elevator. That video was not made available to us and no one in our office has seen it until today,” the league said in its statement.

Immediately after the new video emerged, fellow-players from throughout the league, even some who formerly supported Rice after the first video, jumped ship promptly.

“This piece of sh– needs to be out of the league. Period,” tweeted former Saints and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, a player’s union representative during his career.

“This video makes me sick to my stomach,” Denver Broncos defensive tackle Terrance Knighton said in one of many tweets. He also said that Rice belongs in prison, let alone on an NFL football field.

Still some other players continued to blame the league and Goodell.

“To say you got that wrong is an understatement. Very disappointed in you. Wow…unbelievable,” wrote former linebacker and likely future Hall of Famer London Fletcher.

“2 games. Disturbing,” added Green Bay Packers guard T.J. Lang.

Rice and Palmer married on March 28, one day after a grand jury indicted Rice on an aggravated assault charge, but he weaseled his way out of serving jail time by copping to a pretrial program.

“There are consequences when you make a mistake like that,” Ravens coach John Harbaugh said at the time. “I stand behind Ray. He’s a heck of a guy. He’s done everything right since. He made a mistake. He’s gonna have to pay a consequence. It’s good for kids to understand it works that way. That’s how it works. That’s how it should be.”

The couple held a joint news conference back in May, where Rice apologized and Palmer said the incident was partly her fault, to the alarm of domestic abuse counselors.

The Baltimore Ravens fired running back Ray

Politics, Video

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd, President Obama defended his decision to delay executive amnesty, claiming the politics of the issue changed after tens of thousands of illegals poured across the southern border over the late-spring and summer.

“The truth of the matter is that the politics did shift midsummer because of that problem,” Obama said. “I want to spend some time, even as we’re getting all our ducks in a row for the executive action, I also want to make sure that the public understands why we’re doing this, why it’s the right thing for the American people, why it’s the right thing for the American economy.”

However, amnesty activists aren’t buying Obama’s accuse or simply don’t care what the majority of the American people think on this issue, despite once being among the president’s staunchest supporters. PPD examined in detail the politics of immigration before and after the president announced he was delaying any action. The bottom line is that immigration was never a top priority or particularly popular even before the manufactured border crisis.

Even half of legal Hispanics side with opposing House Republicans and moderate Democrats on the issue, but that’s not calming activist outrage on the left.

“We are bitterly disappointed in the president,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the group America’s Voice. “The president and Senate Democrats have chosen politics over people.”

The politics regarding the 2014 midterm elections were fairly easy to comprehend. Americans were strongly opposed to the president taking executive action that would have granted countless millions of illegal immigrants amnesty, and Democrats would no doubt have paid the price at the ballot box in November. However, the president was in a lose-lose situation.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Arturo Rodriguez, United Farm Workers president. “He broke his promise to the millions of immigrants and Latinos who are looking for him to lead on this issue in the wake of Republicans’ dysfunction and obstruction.”

While Rodriguez pledges to continue working to support Democrats in November, Sherry isn’t so sure.

“It is hard to believe this litany of high expectations and broken promises will be mended by the end of the year,” Sherry said.

Meanwhile, Republican leadership is calling this action a political ploy rather than a real response to voter outrage. Recent polls find that Americans not only oppose executive action on immigration issues, but also that they think Congress should stop the president from doing. A larger 62 percent of voters opposed President Obama’s plan to unilaterally grant amnesty to countless millions of illegal immigrants and, further, said Congress should stop him in court if he tried to go ahead with it.

“There is a never a ‘right’ time for the president to declare amnesty by executive action, but the decision to simply delay this deeply-controversial and possibly unconstitutional unilateral action until after the election — instead of abandoning the idea altogether — smacks of raw politics,” House Speaker John Boehner said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is now beginning to pull away from Democratic challenger Alison Lunderg in Kentucky Senate polls, noted that Obama is simply saying “he’ll go around the law once it’s too late for Americans to hold his party accountable in the November elections.”

If the Republicans retake control of the U.S. Senate, then it far more likely that GOP leadership could hold the president accountable on future executive actions. If, however, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) remains the majority leader in the Senate, it is unlikely any action other than a lawsuit would be pursued in response. But lawsuits take years to move through the system, and millions of illegal immigrants would already be attending public schools, receiving social welfare benefits and perhaps even on a path to enfranchisement.

“I know that the president is determined to act, and when he does I support a broad use of his authority to fix as much of our broken immigration system as he can through executive action,” Reid said in a statement.

Still, many activists are furious over the latest broken promise, but pledge to move forward with lobbying efforts.

The PICO National Network’s Campaign for Citizenship, which is one of the largest Hispanic faith-based grassroots networks, expressed frustration and accused Obama and Senate Democrats of using Latinos.

“The odds of us being let down by President Obama were high,” said Eddie Carmona, the group’s campaign manager. “The president and the Senate Democrats have made it very clear that undocumented immigrants and Latinos are simply viewed as political pawns.”

While Carmona says he, too, will continue to work to affect change on the issue, others remain to outraged to speculate on what they will do next.

“The president’s latest broken promise is another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant community,” said Cristina Jimenez, the head of immigration rights group United We Dream. “Where we have demanded leadership and courage from both Democrats and the president, we’ve received nothing but broken promises and a lack of political backbone.”

President Obama defended his decision to delay

Politics

Obama Merkel NATO Summit

President Barack Obama talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the NATO Summit at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, Wales, Sept. 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Obama was widely criticized for admitting he had no ISIS strategy while speaking in Estonia at the onset of the NATO summit last week. However, the president told Chuck Todd during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” which was conducted Saturday at the White House shortly after Obama returned from a NATO summit in Wales, will tell Americans in a speech Wednesday his plans to combat Islamic State militants in the Middle East.

“What I’m going to ask the American people to understand is that this is a serious threat,” Obama told NBC. “We have the capacity to deal with it, and here’s how we’ll deal with it. This will require some resources above what’s already in there.”

Before the president faces an American public increasing skeptical about his ability to lead in foreign affairs, he will outline his plan to Capitol Hill leaders Tuesday in the Oval Office. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, all will be in attendance.

Though Obama told Todd that he has not yet seen intelligence suggesting an immediate threat to the homeland, PPD reported that U.S. intel officials are extremely worried about an Al Qaeda vs ISIS competition ahead of the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. Further, nearly a dozen stolen jetliners have been in the hands of Islamic terrorists since last month, and now U.S. intelligence agencies are concerned they could be used to target New York and Washington D.C. on the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001.

A recent survey found a whopping 73 percent of likely voters are worried the president really is clueless when it comes to a strategy for combating the terror army, including 47 percent who said they are “very concerned.” The planned speech will come one day before the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, but the president’s statements offer insight to what that plan may entail.

In the interview, Obama said the U.S. would not go after the Islamic State group alone, but would operate as part of an international coalition and continue airstrikes to support ground efforts that would be carried out by Iraqi and Kurdish troops.

“What I want people to understand … is that over the course of months, we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum of ISIL,” he said, using an alternate name for the group. “We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We’re going to shrink the territory that they control. And ultimately we’re going to defeat them.”

The president caused confusing during the NATO summit when he first said the U.S. plan was to destroy ISIS, then degrade their capabilities, and finally that we would contain the terror group until they were a manageable problem. From his latest comments in the interview, it would appear the plan will consist of measures to degrade the terror group’s capabilities.

Obama restated his opposition to sending U.S. ground troops to engage in direct combat with the militants, though support for ground troops has steadily increased since the beheading of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Nearly half of American voters now support sending U.S. combat troops to fight ISIS as part of an international coalition, however, are less enthusiastic about U.S. troops fighting alone.

President Obama will tell Americans in a

Politics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm88b4Tj0iA

Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, an avid critic of President Obama and his foreign policy, again made the observation that the president is just too small of a man for the job.

LT. RALPH PETERS: Let’s talk about this coalition. Remember how the Democrats belittled George Bush for going it alone in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had 48 nations behind him, 40 of which contributed military contingents. His father did a brilliant job of building a remarkable coalition for Desert Storm. Now Obama — well, let’s see, Bush had a coalition of the willing. Let’s see if Obama has a coalition of the chilling. Because I will tell you, he is not going to get our allies to step up the way George Bush did.

He’s not going to get neutral states and others in the Middle East to step up. Why? Because they cannot trust Obama. He’s screwed over the Eastern Europeans on missile defense to get a crappy arms deal with Putin. He’s bailed on our allies in Iraq. He’s run NATO all over the map in Afghanistan. He’s drawn red line after red line and never lived up to any of it. He won’t call an invasion of Ukraine an invasion. He won’t call a war a war. He won’t call Islamist terrorists Islamist terrorists. This president is a terrified little man in a great big job he can’t do.

Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, an avid critic

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe