North Korea’s Kim Jong Un ordered missile launch, saying, ‘Fire with courage’

North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un ordered his engineers on Tuesday to launch the country’s new intercontinental ballistic missile with "courage" a day ahead of the flight test where it demonstrated its reach deep into the U.S. mainland.

State television on Wednesday broadcast a photo of Kim's signed order where he wrote: "Test launch is approved. Taking place at the daybreak of Nov. 29! Fire with courage for the party and country!"

North Korea’s state television said that the nuclear-capable intercontinental-ballistic missile that was launched earlier is “significantly more” powerful than the previous weapon and puts the entire United States in its crosshairs.
The report called the weapon a Hwasong 15. The launch was detected after it was fired early Wednesday morning from a site near Pyongyang.
South Korea's Yonhap News Agency, which first reported the launch, said the missile launch happened around 3 a.m. local time in North Korea. South Korea fired pinpoint missiles into nearby waters to make sure North Korea understands it can be "taken under fire" by the South, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said.
The South Korean military said that the missile was fired from an area near Pyongyang. It reached a height of 2,796 miles and traveled 596 miles, demonstrating the potential to reach a range of 8,100 miles. David Wright, a U.S. physicist who has studied North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, said that this would put any part of the U.S. comfortably within reach of a North Korean missile strike.
One factor that could significantly affect the missile’s range is the payload. If, as expected, it carried a light mock warhead, then its effective range would have been shorter, analyst said.
North Korea has been working to perfect “re-entry” technology to one day have a warhead be able to survive re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere. This ICBM would be able to hit any city within the U.S. if a warhead is able to survive re-entry.
It was determined by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) that the missile "did not pose a threat to North America, our territories or our allies," Pentagon spokesman Col. Robert Manning III told Fox News.
Manning, in an earlier statement, said: "We are in the process of assessing the situation, and we will be providing additional details when available.”

Morning Joe Cartoons

More media bashing: Trump hits 'fake' networks, CNN, 'Morning Joe'

There’s a post-Thanksgiving buffet of possible topics, from the Senate scramble over tax reform to just who’s running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to whether Sarah Huckabee Sanders actually baked a pecan pie. (Really. That became a thing after correspondent April Ryan challenged the authenticity of said pie on Twitter. Seriously.)

But let’s start with the president of the United States slamming the media for the umpteenth time: This is no longer a feud or a battle but a permanent feature of the Trump tenure.

Trump now says all the networks, with one notable exception, are unfair to him, and yesterday he took to the Twitter:
“We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!”
I always say the president has every right to hit back at what he views as bad journalism. But I think the constant drumbeat of “fake news”—not about particular stories but entire networks—is losing its punch.
Trump’s most ardent supporters will cheer, but the other networks do stories that are legitimate--and Fox News does many of those same stories—even if some of them don’t please the White House. This doesn’t mean they’re not overly negative, sometimes biased, and occasionally inaccurate, but just branding everything “fake” has become more like a mantra than a specific complaint. So no trophy is needed.
But this and other recent tweets show Trump has been stewing about his coverage.
Easier to understand is his blast at MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” which had a little flap over talking about turkey on a show pretaped before Thanksgiving: “The good news is that their ratings are terrible, nobody cares!”
Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski regularly rip the president in harsh terms, and it’s personal for Trump because they were once friends. But if nobody cares because of ratings, why does he care? (“Morning Joe” has beaten CNN in total viewers for more than two years but “New Day” is recently winning the key demo.)
Perhaps most troubling was this Trumpian slam at his least favorite network:
“@FoxNews is MUCH more important in the United States than CNN, but outside of the U.S., CNN International is still a major source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly. The outside world does not see the truth from them!”
The network responded: “It's not CNN's job to represent the U.S to the world. That's yours. Our job is to report the news. #FactsFirst”
This is an outgrowth of Trump having watched CNN International on his Asia trip. And for those who haven’t seen it, the international channel has a more sober tone than CNN here and features far more world news.
A number of journalists say Trump is sending a signal to other countries that could jeopardize CNN foreign correspondents who must operate in hostile territory.
I truly hope that’s not the case, and that Trump was just expressing his usual frustration with all things CNN.
Trump knows when he tweets these things that the media will go haywire, which means that he’s driving their agenda. But he may be approaching the point of diminishing returns.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

'Blowback': Clinton campaign planned to fire me over email probe, Obama intel watchdog says

A government watchdog who played a central role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation during the Obama administration told Fox News that he, his family and his staffers faced an intense backlash at the time from Clinton allies – and that the campaign even put out word that it planned to fire him if the Democratic presidential nominee won the 2016 election.

“There was personal blowback. Personal blowback to me, to my family, to my office,” former Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III said.  

The Obama appointee discussed his role in the Clinton email probe for the first time on television, during an exclusive interview with Fox News. McCullough – who came to the inspector general position with more than two decades of experience at the FBI, Treasury and intelligence community – shed light on how quickly the probe was politicized and his office was marginalized by Democrats.
In January 2016, after McCullough told the Republican leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the “Top Secret” level passed through the former secretary of state's unsecured personal server, the backlash intensified.

Former Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III.

“All of a sudden I became a shill of the right,” McCullough recalled. “And I was told by members of Congress, ‘Be careful. You're losing your credibility. You need to be careful. There are people out to get you.’”
But the former inspector general, with responsibility for the 17 intelligence agencies, said the executive who recommended him to the Obama administration for the job – then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – was also disturbed by the independent Clinton email findings.
“[Clapper] said, ‘This is extremely reckless.’ And he mentioned something about -- the campaign … will have heartburn about that,” McCullough said.
He said Clapper's Clinton email comments came during an in-person meeting about a year before the presidential election – in late December 2015 or early 2016. “[Clapper] was as off-put as the rest of us were.”
After the Clapper meeting, McCullough said his team was marginalized. “I was told by senior officials to keep [Clapper] out of it,” he said, while acknowledging he tried to keep his boss in the loop.
As one of the few people who viewed the 22 Top Secret Clinton emails deemed too classified to release under any circumstances, the former IG said, “There was a very good reason to withhold those emails ... there would have been harm to national security.” McCullough went further, telling Fox News that “sources and methods, lives and operations” could be put at risk.
Some of those email exchanges contained Special Access Privilege (SAP) information characterized by intel experts as “above top secret.”

“I was told by members of Congress, ‘Be careful. You're losing your credibility. You need to be careful. There are people out to get you.’”

WikiLeaks documents show the campaign was formulating talking points as the review of 30,000 Clinton emails was ongoing.
The campaign team wrote in August 2015 that “Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified.”
McCullough was critical of the campaign’s response, as the classified review had barely begun. “There was an effort … certainly on the part of the campaign to mislead people into thinking that there was nothing to see here,” McCullough said.
In March 2016, seven senior Democrats sent a letter to McCullough and his State Department counterpart, saying they had serious questions about the impartiality of the Clinton email review. However, McCullough was not making the decisions on what material in Clinton’s emails was classified -- he was passing along the findings of the individual agencies who got the intelligence and have final say on classification.
“I think there was certainly a coordinated strategy,” McCullough said.
McCullough described one confrontation with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office just six weeks before the election, amid pressure to respond to the letter – which Feinstein had co-signed.
“I thought that any response to that letter would just hyper-politicize the situation,” McCullough said. “I recall even offering to resign, to the staff director. I said, ‘Tell [Feinstein] I'll resign tonight. I'd be happy to go. I'm not going to respond to that letter. It's just that simple.”
As Election Day approached, McCullough said the threats went further, singling out him and another senior government investigator on the email case.
“It was told in no uncertain terms, by a source directly from the campaign, that we would be the first two to be fired -- with [Clinton’s] administration. That that was definitely going to happen,” he said.
McCullough said he was just trying to do his job, which requires independence. "I was, in this context, a whistleblower. I was explaining to Congress -- I was doing exactly what they had expected me to do. Exactly what I promised them I would do during my confirmation hearing,” he said. “... This was a political matter, and all of a sudden I was the enemy."
He said pressures also increased early on from Clinton’s former team at the State Department, especially top official Patrick Kennedy.
"State Department management didn't want us there,” McCullough said. “We knew we had had a security problem at this point. We had a possible compromise."
Speaking about the case more than a year after the FBI probe concluded, McCullough in his interview also addressed the possibility that a more cooperative State Department and Clinton campaign might have precluded the FBI’s involvement from the start.
“Had they come in with the server willingly, without having us to refer this to the bureau … maybe we could have worked with the State Department,” he said.
More than 2,100 classified emails passed through Clinton's personal server, which was used exclusively for government business. No one has been charged.
Asked what would have happened to him if he had done such a thing, McCullough said: “I'd be sitting in Leavenworth right now.”
Fox News asked a Clinton campaign spokesman, Feinstein’s office and Clapper for comment. There was no immediate response.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Russian jet buzzes US Navy spy plane over Black Sea

A Russian Su-30 fighter jet buzzed a Navy reconnaissance plane flying in the Black Sea while conducting a routine patrol in international airspace Saturday, an official told Fox News. 

The Russian jet crossed 50 feet in front of the Navy P-8 in full afterburner causing “violent turbulence,” the official said. The provocation lasted 24 minutes.

It appears to be first known incident of this type since June, when an armed Russian fighter jet buzzed a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance aircraft over the Baltic Sea. The Russian Su-27 jet had air-to-air missiles under its wings and approached the U.S. Air Force RC-135 recon jet "rapidly," coming within 5 feet of the American aircraft, officials said.
Once alongside, the Russian jet was “provocative” in its flight maneuvers and flying “erratically,” according to another official.
RUSSIAN JET BUZZES US RECON JET: PICTURES RELEASED OF 'UNSAFE' INCIDENT
Earlier this month, U.S. fighter jets intercepted Russian nuclear bombers approaching the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan off the coast of North Korea.
Multiple U.S Navy F/A-18 jets were dispatched to escort two Russian TU-95 bombers away from the ship currently stationed near North Korea and operating in the Sea of Japan, according to Navy officials.
The Russian bombers, capable of executing a nuclear strike, were intercepted merely 80 miles away from the ship, said Navy officials.
Lt. Cmdr. Nicole Schwegman described the incident with the Russian air force as “safe and professional,” according to Military.com.
Saturday's incident, which CNN was first to report, came just weeks after the Russian foreign ministry called the U.S. an “occupying force” in Syria.
There are roughly 2,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, although the Pentagon acknowledges only 500. It’s unclear how many will remain following the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa, the terror group’s so-called capital.
There are approximately 3,000 ISIS fighters left in Iraq and Syria according to U.S. officials after reaching a height of nearly 40,000 fighters two years ago. 

Roy Moore campaign staff push, shove Fox News camera crew at rally

Campaign staffers for Senate candidate Roy Moore late Monday night got into a scuffle with two Fox News camera crews prior to a rally in the town of Henagar, Ala. 

Organizers told the media that Moore was expected to use the front entrance at the Henagar Community Center and the cameras were stationed outside, Fox News’ Jonathan Serrie reported. Moore instead used a side entrance.

Camera crews and reporters attempted to see the candidate as he made his way into the building. And that point, two men “decided to push the cameras back and physically manhandle two Fox News photographers,” Serrie told Shannon Bream host of “Fox News @ Night.”
A Fox News producer stepped in and told the two staffers not to touch the cameras.
“It’s not unusual for people to get bumped around a bit in the media scrum,” Serrie said. “This was not a scrum though. It is highly unusual for members of a political campaign to physically engage in this manner with members of the press,” he said.
It was unclear if Moore witnessed the scuffle that one cameraman said lasted about 30 seconds.
Bill Armistead, Moore’s campaign chairman, told Fox News he has not seen the video, but the campaign does not approve such behavior.
“Our campaign certainly doesn’t condone any pushing or shoving of anyone, certainly not reporters or anyone else,” he said.
Armistead accused the media of “inappropriate” behavior and “tying to stampede us in a lot of different situations and running down hallways, chasing after, shouting things that are inappropriate.”
For weeks, accusations that Moore, now 70, sexually molested or assaulted two teens, ages 14 and 16 -- and tried to date several others -- while he was in his 30s have taken center stage in the heated Alabama race. Moore denied the allegations of misconduct and said he never dated "underage" women.
“We’re not going to be open to taking questions until they’re (the media) ready to talk about issues,” Armistead said. “And that’s what we want to talk about.”
President Trump has declined to follow the path of other mainstream Republican leaders, who have called on Moore to step aside. Republican lawmakers are considering expelling Moore should he win the seat.
Serrie pointed out that the scuffle occurred on public property and Fox News had RSVP’d for the event.

Middle Eastern Terrorist Cartoons

Men cleared of terrorism ties in high-profile border case

PHOENIX –  The arrests of six Middle Eastern men caught entering the United States illegally from Mexico two years ago set off alarm in border states and in some right-wing blogs and other media outlets.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey called it a matter of national security and invoked the Islamic State group in a statement calling for stepped-up border security in response to the arrests. Conservative publications like the Washington Examiner reported on the men from "Middle East terror hotbeds," while Fox News questioned whether "Islamic State militants could be probing security."
Now, documents obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request reveal the men were fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands and were cleared of any terrorism ties. They also were physically and verbally abused by two Mexican smugglers with a history of crossing the border illegally and went days without food and water, the records show.
The case highlights the highly politicized nature of the U.S.-Mexico border as hysteria sometimes overtakes facts in an era where President Donald Trump, during his campaign, labeled Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. Some blogs incorrectly reported the men were released. Others tied them to the Islamic State.
In fact, the men cooperated with the government, and four have been deported. The remaining two are in removal proceedings, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe.
The five men from Pakistan and one from Afghanistan were arrested at a time when the Islamic State group was committing some of its bloodiest acts, just days after coordinated bombings and shootings in Paris heightened fears about attacks in the U.S.
The arrests also came around the same time as two Syrian families with children presented themselves at the border seeking asylum. The families were Christian and fleeing persecution. Still, the incident prompted a tweet from Trump that said, "Eight Syrians were just caught on the southern border trying to get into the U.S. ISIS maybe? I told you so. WE NEED A BIG & BEAUTIFUL WALL!"
But none of the cases had any ties to terrorism.
Government officials have long denied there have been any arrests of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border with ties to the Islamic State, and private security analysts agree.
Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical analysis for Texas-based intelligence firm Stratfor, said he knows of no instances of terrorists sneaking into the U.S. through the southern border.
He says it's much more likely a terrorist would use the Canadian border to sneak into the country, as Ahmed Ressam did in 1999. Ressam planned to bomb the Los Angeles airport and used false documents to enter the U.S. from Canada. Border authorities caught him with a car full of explosives.
Stewart added it's highly unlikely the Mexican cartels, which control smuggling corridors, would help a terrorist enter the United States.
"The last thing they want is to be labeled as narco-terrorists. That's just terrible for business," Stewart said. "I'm honestly much more concerned about meth, fentanyl and heroin than I am of Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State coming across."
Despite most border crossers being from Latin America, a small number come from far-away places like China, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Investigative files obtained by the AP show the Middle Eastern men completed a long and costly journey to America.
The Afghan man told Border Patrol agents he left his home seven months earlier and traveled through at least 10 countries before making it to the U.S. He was detained for weeks in Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico and paid nearly $15,000 in smuggling fees along the way.
Once the men reached the U.S. border, the smugglers told them crossing illegally into Arizona would be a matter of a few easy hours.
But their trip took several days in treacherous conditions.
The men spent three or four days walking through the desert. They ran out of water on the first night and food on the second, and then trekked through mountains near the border in snow and rain. The men said they had no jackets.
They said the smugglers verbally accosted them and threw rocks at them if they walked too slowly. The Afghan man said one of the smugglers punched him in the chest. When one man injured his ankle, a smuggler said "Bye-bye" and kept walking. Another man who couldn't keep up said he paid the smugglers more to slow down.
The men were arrested in November 2015 after triggering a Border Patrol sensor about 15 miles (24 kilometers) north of the border.
The arrests were first reported by right-wing blogs, then other news organizations. Three days after the Middle Eastern men were taken into custody, Ducey issued a statement saying their arrests were troubling, "especially in light of new threats on the United States from ISIS in a video released in just the last 24 hours."
But the FBI had already cleared the men, finding they had no ties to terrorism, according to the documents.
When asked about the governor's tweet, Ducey's spokesman issued a statement that touted the Republican's border efforts but did not address the issue of invoking the Islamic State when the men had no terrorism ties.
"The governor continues to put public safety at the forefront," spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said.
The men were interviewed separately, and all told authorities about abuses at the hands of the two Mexican smugglers. They became witnesses in the case against Ernesto Dorame-Gonzalez and Martin Lopez-Alvarado, who had committed prior immigration offenses and pleaded guilty to smuggling charges.
"We find smugglers are more interested in treating people as a commodity instead of human beings," said Stephanie Dixon, a spokeswoman with the Border Patrol's Tucson sector. "Many people are being lied to by smugglers, which leads to deaths and illnesses, for the sole purpose of criminal profiting."

Record amount of background checks for guns on Black Friday

The FBI on Friday received 203,086 requests for instant gun background checks, which would mark almost a 10 percent increase from 2016 and sets a new record for the most ever in one day, USA Today reported.

Authorities did not speculate on why so many Americans are seeking guns this holiday season, but the theory is that there is a fear about tougher gun laws in the future.

The FBI received 185,713 requests on Black Friday last year.
USA Today pointed out that background checks do not indicate the number of guns actually sold because a buyer could purchase more than one gun in a check.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, earlier this week, ordered a far-ranging review of the FBI database used to check the backgrounds of prospective gun buyers, after the Air Force failed to report the criminal history of the gunman who slaughtered more than two dozen people at a Texas church.
The failure enabled him to buy weapons, purchases his domestic violence conviction should have barred.
Sessions directed the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to determine if other government agencies are failing to report information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. He also wants a report detailing the number of times the agencies investigate and prosecute people for lying on their gun-purchase applications and a closer look at the format of the application itself.

The database “is critically important to protecting the American public from firearms-related violence,” Sessions wrote in his memo. “It is, however, only as reliable and robust as the information that federal, state, local and tribal government entities make available to it.”
The Pentagon’s inspector general launched a separate review of the Texas gunman, Devin P. Kelley, after the Air Force revealed it had failed to submit his domestic abuse case to the database. Kelley was able to buy four guns despite the conviction. He used a Ruger AR rifle with a 30-round magazine during the Nov. 6 shooting, going from aisle to aisle as he shot parishioners.
Sessions said the revelation was “alarming.” But the Pentagon has long known about failures to give military criminal history information to the FBI.

Franken will not resign, but 'embarrassed and ashamed' over misconduct allegations

Sen. Al Franken broke his silence Sunday on sexual misconduct allegations, reportedly saying he’s “embarrassed and ashamed” but will not resign from the Senate.

“I've let a lot of people down and I'm hoping I can make it up to them and gradually regain their trust," Franken, a two-term Democratic Minnesota senator, told the Star Tribune of Minnesota.

Franken spoke to Minnesota news media eight days after the first allegations surfaced.
"I am just very sorry," Franken told WCCO in an interview Sunday, reiterating that he has "a long way to go to win back the trust of the people of Minnesota."
Four women have publicly said Franken groped them, including one who said he forcibly kissed her.
"I'm looking forward to getting back to work tomorrow," Franken, on Congress’ week-long Thanksgiving break, also said in the phone interview with the newspaper.
The first claim against Franken emerged nearly two weeks ago, when Leeann Tweeden, a Los Angeles radio host, said the senator forcibly kissed and groped her during a 2006 USO tour, before he was elected to the Senate.
She said Franken kissed her while rehearsing a sketch. And later on the tour, Franken was photographed with his hands over Tweeden’s breasts, grinning at the camera, as she slept.
Franken told Minnesota Public Radio on Sunday that he apologized to Tweeden, and called the photo "inexcusable."
"She ... didn't have any ability to consent. She had every right to feel violated by that photo," Franken said. "I have apologized to her, and I was very grateful that she accepted my apology."
A second allegation was reported Monday. Lindsay Menz told CNN that Franken grabbed her buttocks in 2010 when they posed together for a picture at a Minnesota state fair, while he was a senator.
Two other women have since anonymously reported such incidents to the Huffington Post. One woman said Franken groped her in 2007, during a photo at the Minnesota Women's Political Caucus. The other said he cupped her backside with his hand in 2008 and suggested that they go to the bathroom together at a Democratic fundraiser in Minneapolis.
Franken’s office said last weekend that the senator will not resign, amid calls for him to step down.
The senator has repeatedly apologized to Tweeden. He also said he feels badly that Menz felt “disrespected” but that he does not remember the photograph being taken.
Franken has said he has posed for "tens of thousands of photos" over the years but does not remember any in which he cupped a woman's backside, as several women have alleged.
The senator also told the newspaper on Sunday that he has spent the past week "thinking about how that could happen and I just recognize that I need to be more careful and a lot more sensitive in these situations."
He said he didn’t expect such allegations would follow the first one. “I certainly hope not,” he said about the possibility of similar allegations surfacing.

Congress faces pressure to come clean on sex harassment payouts

Both Democrat and Republican politicians on Sunday called for increased transparency on how lawmakers handled allegations of sexual misconduct in the past.

There is a bipartisan effort to pass legislation that would require all sexual harassment claims to be handled in the public, The New York Times reported. It is unclear if the legislation would expose payouts in the past. 

Some politicians are in favor of exposing these older cases, while others warn of potential issues with victims who've had no interest of going public with their claims.
“I think it should be more transparent,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told NBC's “Meet the Press.” “I certainly think that if you accept taxpayer funds for settlement, that should be transparent.”
The call comes amid recent allegations against two high-profile politicians: Michigan Rep. John Conyers and Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.
Conyers is under investigation over allegations he sexually harassed female staff members. He said Sunday that he will step aside as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee while fiercely denying he acted inappropriately during his long tenure in Congress.
Denying the allegations, Conyers, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who was first elected to the House in 1964, urged lawmakers to allow him “due process.”
“I very much look forward to vindicating myself and my family,” Conyers said.
Franken broke his silence Sunday after being swept into a nationwide tide of sexual harassment allegations, saying he feels "embarrassed and ashamed," but looks forward to returning to work on Monday and gradually regaining voters' trust.
Three women allege that Franken grabbed their buttocks while taking photos with them during campaign events. Franken told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that he doesn't remember the photographs but that such behavior is "not something I would intentionally do."
Asked whether he expected any other women to step forward with similar allegations, Franken said: "If you had asked me two weeks ago, 'Would any woman say I had treated her with disrespect?' I would have said no. So this has just caught me by surprise ... I certainly hope not."
The Times reported Sunday that the House is expected to adopt a resolution that all representatives and their staffs must take anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training.

Palestinian Terrorist Cartoons

Alan Dershowitz: Ten congressional Democrats want lenient treatment for young terrorists who murder Israelis

Palestinian terrorist leaders often use teenagers to commit acts of terror because they know the Israeli legal system treats children more leniently than adults. Now 10 Democrats belonging to the Congressional Progressive Caucus are trying to give terrorist leaders yet another reason for using young people to murder even more innocent civilians.

Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., introduced legislation Nov. 14 – co-sponsored by nine other Democrats – calling on the State Department to “prevent United States tax dollars from supporting the Israeli military’s ongoing detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children.”

In a news release about the proposed legislation, McCollum said: “This legislation highlights Israel’s system of military detention of Palestinian children and ensures that no American assistance to Israel supports human rights violations …. Peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children. Congress must not turn a blind eye the unjust and ongoing mistreatment of Palestinian children living under Israeli occupation.”
It is well established that recruiting and using young Palestinians to wage terror on Israeli civilians is part of the modus operandi of Palestinian terrorist leaders. For decades, members of the radical Palestinian political and religious leadership have been stirring up young people to wage war against the Jews and the Jewish State.
This was seen in the gruesome intifada that began in 2000, in which Palestinian teenagers committed dozens of attacks against Jewish Israelis on buses, in cafes and at nightclubs.

The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minor’s transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.

More recently – in what has become known as the “lone-wolf” intifada – children as young as 13 have stabbed Israelis with scissors, screwdrivers and knives.
Legislation proposed by the 10 Democrats is titled the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. The bill does not explicitly define at what age a person moves from childhood to adulthood.
While noting that children between the ages of 12 and 17 are held and prosecuted by Israeli military courts, the bill fails to acknowledge that some of the most barbaric terrorist attacks against Jewish Israelis have been committed by Palestinian teens.
Consider the terrorist attack that took place over this past summer in Halamish, about an hour outside Jerusalem. A Palestinian in his late teens – from a nearby village controlled by the Palestinian Authority – chose a Jewish house at random and fatally stabbed three members of a family as they ate their Sabbath dinner.
The Palestinian “child” murderer also wounded several other family members, while one mother hid her young children in an upstairs room until the terrorist left.
The triple-murder is reminiscent of a similar attack that occurred only six years earlier when two Palestinian teens armed with knives broke into the Fogel family home in Itamar as they slept on Friday night. The “children” butchered the mother, father and three of their children – including a 3-month-old baby as she slept in her crib.
As a result of such deadly terrorist attacks by Palestinian teenagers, Israel has had to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. In August 2016, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a bill allowing imprisonment of terrorists as young as 12.
The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minor’s transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.
In introducing the bill, Knesset Member Anat Berko said: “This law was born of necessity. We have been experiencing a wave of terror for quite some time. A society is allowed to protect itself. To those who are murdered with a knife in the heart it does not matter if the child is 12 or 15. We’ve witnessed numerous cases where 11-year-old children were suicide bombers. Perhaps this law will also do something to protect these children from being used to slaughter people.”
In a desperate effort to justify her proposed legislation, Rep. McCollum argued that “peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children.”
McCollum’s hypocrisy in this context is palpable. She claims to be an advocate for “the rights of children.” Yet she refuses to acknowledge or condemn Palestinians who perpetrate acts of child abuse by recruiting children to commit terrorist attacks on Jews.
McCollum expressed no outrage when Palestinian leaders were caught posting material on social media inciting and encouraging young Palestinians to stab Israelis.
And the Minnesota member of Congress failed to protest when Hamas set up training camps – under the mantra “Vanguards of Liberation” – aimed at training children as young as 15 to use weapons against Israel. Nor did she speak up when children in Gaza were crushed to death when the terror tunnels they were recruited by the Hamas leadership to build collapsed on their bodies. 
So I ask: What do these members of Congress think Israel should do? If children as young as 13 were roaming the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Boston stabbing elderly women as they shopped at the supermarket or waited at a bus stop, would the Democrats protest the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators? Of course not.
No country in the world would tolerate terror in its cities, regardless of the age of the terrorists.
Israel has a right – according to international law – to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, including those committed by young Palestinians. It actually has an obligation to do so.
If Israel is punished for trying to protect its citizens from teen terrorists, this would incentivize terrorist leaders to keep using children in pursuit of their goal of wiping the Israel off the map.
But rather than condemning the abhorrent and unlawful use of children as terrorist pawns, the 10 congressional Democrats chose to single out Israel for punishment.
People of good faith on both sides of the aisle should call out this double standard for what it really is: an attack on Jewish victims of teenage terrorism and the Jewish State.
For Shame on this group of biased anti-Israel Democrats, which includes the following members of Congress: Mark Pocan of Wisconsin; Earl Blumenauer of Oregon: André Carson of Indiana: John Conyers of Michigan; Danny K. Davis of Illinois; Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon;  Raul Grijalva and Luis V. Gutiérrez  of Arizona; and Chellie Pingree of Maine. They give a bad name to the Democratic Party, to the Progressive Caucus and to Congress.  

California hands out millions of dollars in tax credits to filmmakers. Can the rest of us get some too?

In this Oct. 8, 2016 file photo, director Quentin Tarantino poses for photographers at the opening ceremony of the 8th Lumiere Festival, in Lyon, central France.

I think Quentin Tarantino is a fine filmmaker. From “Reservoir Dogs” to “Jackie Brown” to “Inglourious Basterds,” he delivers. ”Pulp Fiction” may just be the greatest movie of its era.

But, as a resident of California, I’ve got a problem. Not with him personally, but with the financing of his latest film.

He recently had to drop his longstanding business relationship with Harvey Weinstein (for obvious reasons) and shop his ninth feature, a story related to the Charles Manson murders, to the major studios.
Sony got the project. But, in addition, his film will receive an $18 million production tax credit from the California Film Commission, for which it will be shot in-state.
Tarantino’s project is only one of several films getting a big break. They’re all part of a tax credit program created by the California Legislature that, over the years, will offer hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits.
The Film Commission justifies its actions by claiming California needs the program to compete for projects.
Really? Then how does the state justify hitting up its taxpayers for so much? We residents do even more business in the state than film companies, but we’re not getting any breaks.
Quite the opposite. California has the highest income tax rate in the nation. The state’s top rate is 13.3 percent. Some dismiss it, saying that’s just for millionaires, but if you make just $43,000 the rate is 8 percent, and if you make $54,000 it’s 9.3 percent.
California also has a huge gasoline tax and the highest state-level sales tax in the nation. Overall, Californians shoulder one of the largest tax burdens in our country. And while we’re at it, the state also ranks high in the burden it places on businesses.
So I have to ask: If Golden State leaders believe giving a tax break to filmmakers is good for the local economy, why don’t they want to give a break in general to all residents? Sauce for the goose and all that.
My guess is that Tarantino was going to film in-state anyway. The Manson murders took place here, and when he’s got a story set in California, he shoots here.
But even if he might have gone elsewhere for a better deal, guess what? It’s not that hard for an individual citizen to pack up and leave a state if another one offers a better deal. That goes double for businesses.
On top of which, high taxes can discourage people from moving here, and from locating their business here. (The numbers seem to bear this out. In recent years, the rate of population growth has been cut to less than half of what it was.)
So if the state wants to make it easier on Tarantino, can’t they also try to take it easier on me, and tens of millions of my fellow Californians?
In effect, my tax money is going to subsidize Tarantino’s film. I’ll be the first in line to buy a ticket when it opens, but don’t make me an unwilling investor. Not unless I get to own a piece of it.

George HW Bush now longest-living president

Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush arrives on the field to do the coin toss ahead of the start of Super Bowl LI, in Houston, Feb. 5, 2017.  (Reuters)

Former President George H.W. Bush reached another milestone Saturday when he became the longest-living commander-in-chief in U.S. history.

Bush, who was born June 12, 1924, reached the age of 93 years and 166 days, meaning he has now lived longer than the previous record holder, former President Gerald R. Ford, who died in December 2006 at the age of 93 years and 165 days, the Washington Times reported.

But Jimmy Carter is a close No. 2 behind Bush among living former presidents. Carter was born Oct. 1, 1924, only four months after Bush, and ranks at No. 4 overall -- at age 93 years and 55 days as of Saturday.
Remarkably, founding father John Adams – the nation’s second president – ranks No. 5 on the list, having lived to age 90 years, 247 days, according to political writer Gabe Fleisher.
Unlike his high-ranking counterparts from the 20^th and 21^st centuries, Adams, who lived mostly in the 18^th century, lacked access to many modern medical advances.
After Bush and Carter, the other living presidents have a long way to go before attempting to set a new mark for longevity. Here are their ages and birth dates:
Donald Trump: 71 (June 14, 1946)
George W. Bush: 71 (July 6, 1946)
Bill Clinton: 71 (Aug. 19, 1946)
Barack Obama: 56 (Aug. 4, 1961)

Democrats' 'DREAMer' demands threaten spending bill, gov shutdown in coming weeks

A showdown could loom in December.

Not over tax reform, but over funding the government.

The federal government is funded through December 8. Republicans control the House and Senate. But historically, the GOP has failed on its own to provide the necessary votes to avert a government shutdown.
The party required a bailout from Democrats as recently as Sept. 2015 to help make up the vote deficit and pass those spending bills. Republicans sometimes balk for a variety of reasons. They don’t like stopgap appropriations packages. They’re disgusted by the process. They demand more for defense. What about entitlement spending? Where’s the plan to reduce the national debt?
As an aside, the answer to the final question wasn’t really addressed in the recent budget framework approved by the House and Senate to muscle through tax reform. And deficits are forecast to balloon by at least $1.5 trillion in the Republican tax bill.
But back to government funding …
When Republicans find themselves short in these government funding crises, they turn to Democrats. But Democratic votes could prove even more valuable in this December’s scenario.
It all has to do with DACA and DREAMers.
DACA is the abbreviation for an Obama administration-era program “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Democrats and some Republicans often refer to undocumented persons who arrived in the U.S. as minors as DREAMers. That’s derived from the bipartisan DREAM Act, short for “The Development, Relief, Education for Minors” bill.
A coalition of liberal Democrats is now flexing its muscles on the upcoming government spending bill. Many Democrats insist that congressional leaders attach the DREAM Act to the spending package, or else.
“If there’s no clean DREAM Act in the budget, we’re not voting for it,” threatened Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y. 
Rep. Pramila Jayapal recently challenged House Republicans to pass the spending bill on their own.
“But if … you need our votes, include a clean DREAM Act,” the Washington Democrat said.
“Republicans are the majority until it comes to governance,” argued Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. “Oh. You don’t have 218 votes? We’re happy to help keep the government open.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., head to the White House Tuesday afternoon to discuss “end-of-year legislative issues,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters.
Pelosi favors attaching a DACA fix to the spending package. Schumer also believes that’s a possible legislative path for DACA.
“We believe we’ll get it in the omnibus (spending) bill because both Republicans and Democrats want it,” Schumer said. “If DACA is in the bill, (President Trump) won’t veto it.”
Is there a risk of a government shutdown if Democrats insist on shoving DACA into the spending measure despite possible presidential objections?
“It won’t come to that,” Schumer replied.
Tell that to those on the right -- and maybe even those in the White House.
“DACA will not be in the government funding bill,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Including DACA in the spending plan could be the only way for Republicans to obtain necessary Democratic votes to avoid a government shutdown.
And Schumer appears correct:  There are Republicans who want to advance a DACA solution. A group of moderate House Republicans held a press conference last week calling for just that. But immigration politics are dicey for the right.
Latching the DACA plan to the spending bill poses tremendous risk for Republicans. Ryan and McConnell are sure to draw the ire of the hard right and lawmakers who fret about border security, a border wall or “amnesty.”
“He won’t be speaker for long if he does that,” a conservative House Republican predicted about Ryan if he allows a DACA provision in the spending legislation.
Ryan’s wants to cleave DACA from the spending bill. When asked if he would consider a DACA attachment in the spending legislation, he replied, “I don’t.”
The speaker also said the DACA fix should be considered “on its own merits.” And he questioned whether Congress had to address the issue by the end of the year.
“We have until, I believe, March,” Ryan said. “So I don’t think we need to have artificial deadlines within the one we already have.”
It could be time to horse trade. Democrats hold many of the cards in this poker game. But the administration has cards to play, too.
Trump may not like the idea of an immediate DACA fix. But how about a DACA deal in exchange for extra money for a border wall.
“As the president explained in his letter to the House and Senate leadership, the administration’s reform priorities ‘must be included as a part of any legislation addressing the status of DACA recipients,’ ” said a White House official to Fox.
“These reforms have been identified by our nation’s law enforcement professionals as a vital safeguard for the American people to both prevent new illegal immigration (border wall, legal loopholes) and to end chain migration.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., has said since summer he wants a DACA fix soon. But Hoyer demurred when asked whether Democrats would demand a DACA link to the spending bill in exchange for Democratic votes.
“I don’t want to get there,” he said.
Why should Democrats cede their demands on DACA just to help keep the government open in a bill without an arrangement for DREAMers? Hoyer has said for years that when it comes to funding the government, Democrats will always do “the right thing.” But Hoyer also believes it’s incumbent for Democrats and the rest of Congress to do “the right thing” for DREAMers.
“We do the right thing,” he said. “It is unacceptable, because we do the right thing, to be held hostage to bad policies because ‘you Democrats will do the right thing and while we do, we Republicans, will do the wrong thing. We will shut down the government as they have.’ We are not going to be held hostage by doing the right thing, either.”
The latest wrinkle is that Trump and congressional leaders may try to load up the spending package with hurricane relief for Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Congress has already forked over $52 billion in disaster relief. The administration submitted its third disaster spending request to Congress late last week: $44 billion. But the plan includes offsets to counteract the new spending.
Just a few weeks ago, some lawmakers thought the key to courting Democratic votes for the government spending legislation was to add on disaster relief.
“You mean to tell me they (Democrats) won’t vote for the spending? All of the disaster aid and Puerto Rico?” Meadows asked rhetorically.
But members of both parties excoriated the hurricane plan.
The OMB request "is very disappointing. Not only is it completely inadequate, it shows OMB’s complete lack of understanding of the fundamental needs of Texans,” groused Texas GOP Rep. John Culberson, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and potentially a vulnerable GOPer next election cycle. “Our community is still trying to recover, and this request is a nightmare for those who are trying to rebuild their lives.”
Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said, “The administration’s third disaster supplemental request is an insult. This request’s stinginess is both contemptable and ineffectual.”
So all eyes are trained on the big White House meeting Tuesday afternoon with the president and top Congressional leaders.
Congressional Republicans are racing to complete tax reform. But one thing is for certain: The GOP faces disaster if they fail to fund the government.
Democrats again hold many of the cards. And Trump and congressional Republicans may have to cede a lot of ground on DACA and disaster relief if they don’t want a government shutdown tussle to sideline their tax reform efforts in December.

Pro Gun Cartoons