Conservative Blogger
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Did Obama White House bully anti-Muslim preacher?
 |
| Why did White House bully Anti-Muslim Preacher? |
According to the report -- the White House directed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to call Preacher Jones.
There were also discussions that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might “issue another statement to distance the United States from the Pastor Jones video.”
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for conservatives!
It was one of several action items involving the Obama administration’s efforts to blame the attack on a YouTube video that mocked Islam.
It’s not exactly clear why they were reaching out to Preacher Jones – because he had nothing to do with the YouTube video. And the report does not indicate whether they actually followed through with the telephone calls.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
If I didn’t know better, I’d say they were trying to find a fall guy – someone to blame other than the true culprits – Islamic radicals.
It was not the first time the Obama administration tried to strong-arm Preacher Jones.
The Washington Post reported that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the minister in 2010 to complain about a Koran burning event. Gates said the preacher was putting military lives in jeopardy.
A Defense Department spokesperson described the conversation to NPR:
"Secretary Gates reached out to Pastor Jones this afternoon. They had a very brief phone conversation during which the Secretary expressed his grave concern that going forward with the Quran burning would put at risk the lives of our forces around the world, especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he urged the Pastor not to proceed with it."
Folks, I believe a very dangerous line separating church and state has been breached. The government has no authority to involve itself in the business of a church.
Click here to get Todd’s best-selling book – an indepth primer on how to restore traditional American values!
Is burning a Koran despicable? Absolutely. But so is burning the American flag. And both are protected forms of free speech.
Did the Secretary of Defense call Black Lives Matter and tell them to stop burning the American flag?
Did anti-Christian artists get a phone call from the White House-- urging them not to submerge a crucifix in a jar of urine?
Now some of you might say Preacher Jones deserved to get that phone call. He deserved to be intimidated by government officials. Perhaps. But where does it stop? Where do you draw the line?
Because one day it might be your pastor who gets a phone call -- maybe from the attorney general -- telling him to stop preaching sermons about traditional marriage -- telling him those kinds of sermons put people in harm's way.
Where does it stop, folks? Where does it stop?
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.
Democratic draft platform seeks DOJ probe of fossil fuel companies
The Democratic Party's draft platform calls for the Justice Department to join several state prosecutors in investigating whether fossil fuel companies misled the public on global warming -- marking an escalation in a controversial campaign that critics liken to censorship.
As first reported by Inside Climate News, the committee drafting the party platform inserted the measure last Friday.
The measure called on “the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change," according to the committee website.
The proposal is the latest shot fired in a broader battle being waged by environmental groups and their allies in government against oil companies and others.
Oil giant ExxonMobil is the target of several investigations being led by state attorneys general. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed Exxon’s financial records and emails last year, and has indicated ExxonMobil is not the only energy company in his office’s crosshairs. Other state AGs -- including those in Massachusetts and California -- have launched different probes against the company, seeking to replicate the success of the federal government’s 1999 case against Big Tobacco.
The U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, an independent, also issued a subpoena in March seeking 40 years' worth of Exxon communications with 90 conservative groups “and any other organizations engaged in research or advocacy concerning Climate Change or policies.”
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
Fox News Poll: Clinton up by 6 points, 89 percent say 'hot-headed' describes Trump
Donald Trump has had a few rocky weeks on the campaign trail, and it shows in the latest Fox News Poll. Just over half of Republicans would rather have someone besides Trump as their nominee, and his support in the presidential ballot test has dropped seven points since May.
Democrat Hillary Clinton is up 44-38 percent over Trump in a head-to-head matchup. Earlier this month, Clinton had a three-point edge (42-39 percent). In May, Trump was up by three (45-42 percent). Clinton’s current lead is just inside the poll’s margin of sampling error.
The national poll, released Wednesday, finds she has a similar advantage when voters are asked about confidence in the candidates to make the “right” decisions for the country if they were president: 48 percent are at least somewhat confident Clinton would. It’s 42 percent for Trump.
In the matchup, Clinton is the choice among blacks (87-3 percent), women (51-32 percent), voters under age 45 (45-35 percent), and those earning less than $50,000 annually (52-30 percent).
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL POLL RESULTS
Trump leads among white evangelical Christians (66-18 percent), whites without a college degree (51-33 percent), gun owners (52-30 percent), whites (48-34 percent), men (46-36 percent), and independents (39-31 percent).
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
The race is almost even among just those “extremely” or “very” interested in the election (45 Clinton to 43 Trump). This group went for Trump by four points in early June (45-41 percent).
Party unity is a trouble spot for Trump. Just 74 percent of Republicans back him over Clinton, down from 82 percent in May. For comparison, Mitt Romney lost despite garnering 93 percent support among Republicans in 2012. In addition, just over half of Republicans would prefer a different nominee (51 percent someone else vs. 48 percent Trump). And while most GOP voters describe Trump as intelligent, more than 7-in-10 feel he’s hot-headed and obnoxious. More on that later.
Eighty-three percent of Democrats support Clinton in the ballot test. That’s better than Trump does among Republicans, yet worse than the 92 percent backing President Obama received in 2012. By a 21-point margin, Democrats want Clinton (58 percent) as their party’s nominee over Bernie Sanders (37 percent).
Some 66 percent of Democrats who preferred Sanders are backing Clinton over Trump. By comparison, only 52 percent of Republicans who want someone else to lead their party support Trump over Clinton.
Twenty-four percent of Republicans lack confidence that Trump would make the right decisions for the country. Fourteen percent of Democrats feel that way about Clinton.
"The results here aren't disastrous for Trump given the troubles he's encountered the past few weeks,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll along with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson. “He's within striking distance. But he absolutely must combat the growing perception that he is temperamentally unsuited and intellectually unprepared to be president."
What words best describe the candidates? There are a couple things voters generally agree on, and that’s both Clinton and Trump are patriotic -- and lack honesty.
Clinton outperforms Trump by the widest margin on “experienced,” as 77 percent say that describes her, while just 34 percent feel the same of Trump.
Far more see Clinton (82 percent) than Trump (66 percent) as “intelligent,” and “sensible” (54 percent Clinton vs. 35 percent Trump).
About six-in-ten think “patriotic” fits each.
Clinton is still dogged by low honesty numbers, as a record low 30 percent think she’s “honest and trustworthy,” and 58 percent describe her as “corrupt.”
Trump doesn’t have much to brag about here either: just 34 percent describe him as “honest and trustworthy” and 45 percent say “corrupt” fits.
Most voters feel Trump is “hot-headed” (89 percent) and “obnoxious” (83 percent), while far fewer say those apply to Clinton (35 percent “hot-headed” and 45 percent “obnoxious”).
Less than half say the phrase “cares about people like me” describes Clinton (45 percent) and only about one third say it fits Trump (35 percent).
“While our polling shows a clear positive trend for Clinton, her six-point lead is notably small considering voters almost universally think Trump is hot-headed and obnoxious, and most think he’s inexperienced,” says Anderson.
“This race is nowhere close to breaking open, despite some huge perceived deficiencies in Trump’s character.”
Pollpourri
Libertarian Gary Johnson captures 10 percent in a hypothetical three-way vote. That causes both Clinton and Trump to lose ground, although for the most part she maintains her edge (41-36 percent). Another 14 percent is up for grabs.
Fully 92 percent of those backing Clinton in the two-way race also back her in the three-way matchup. For Trump, 89 percent stick with him.
The contest for the Congress looks similar to the presidential race. When voters are asked to choose between the Democratic and Republican candidates in their district, Democrats are up by five points, 46-41 percent.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,017 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 26-28, 2016. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.
FEC Democrats voted to punish Fox News over debate changes
Democratic members of the Federal Election Commission, in a decision to be made public on Thursday, voted last month to punish Fox News over criteria changes for the network’s first Republican presidential primary debate – but were blocked by Republican commissioners.
Commissioner Lee Goodman, one of those who voted to block the move, confirmed the details of the vote to FoxNews.com.
He called the attempt to punish Fox News over the debate changes “astonishing” and described it as a move toward censorship.
“All press organizations should be concerned when the government asserts regulatory authority to punish and censor news coverage,” Goodman said in a statement.
The vote concerned changes made to the criteria for the Fox News-hosted GOP primary debate on Aug. 6, 2015 in Cleveland. For that debate, Fox News decided to alter the format – hosting two debates instead of one and expanding the first debate to include lower-polling candidates, as well as any candidate identified as such in national polls. Seven candidates ultimately participated in the first debate, and 10 participated in the prime-time event.
A complaint subsequently was filed with the FEC claiming those changes were tantamount to an illegal corporate contribution to the candidates on stage.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
The case ended on a split 3-3 vote, resulting in no action. Three commissioners concluded Fox News violated election law; two of the Democratic commissioners went a step further and voted to penalize the network. But because any enforcement action requires four votes, the case was dismissed.
While political debate rules have come before the FEC in the past, rarely has the commission come so close to penalizing a news outlet over the issue.
The commission in 2002 dismissed a complaint about debate rules that had been lodged against the Boston Globe and WBZ-TV. And years earlier, in 1980, the commission threatened an injunction against the Nashua Telegraph over a planned debate between George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan that excluded other candidates. Reagan then stepped in to pay the costs – and during that debate, famously said, “I am paying for this microphone.”
Until recently, the FEC had steered clear of threatening action over press-sponsored debates.
Goodman argued that such “editorial decisions” regarding debate rules should be free from FEC regulation. He suggested there is “no practical or logical difference” between hosting a debate with 17 candidates and interviewing 17 candidates.
“How could expanding debate news coverage from 10 to 17 candidates be against the law?” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
