Obama to Send More Troops to Iraq

In an attempt to recapture the city of Mosul, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced on Monday that the military will be sending an additional 560 troops to Iraq. Mosul has been plagued by the dominant presence of ISIL.

Carter made the announcement during a surprise visit to troops in Baghdad, on the heels of a major tactical win over the weekend that saw ISIL driven out of Qayara, a key strategic airfield:

“With the retaking of Qayara West airfield, the Iraqi security forces have once again demonstrated a serious will to fight.”

The White House confirmed President Obama approved the deployment of more troops, bringing the total of U.S. forces in Iraq to 4,600. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move was tactical:

“The idea is Iraqi security forces will use this base, this airfield, as a logistics hub …and eventually drive ISIL out of Mosul. It represents a following up on the successful efforts of the Iraqis to continue to make progress against ISIL.”

Earnest echoed Carter’s comments that the new U.S. forces would be used to secure the base and get it up and running so that the Iraqi troops can take their fight to the terrorists who have been occupying Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, for quite some time:

“The president’s national security team… are focused on areas where we can leverage investments in tactics that have worked… He’s been very clear on what our mission is, and what our mission isn’t.”

Earnest added the aim is to put Iraqi security forces in a position where they can succeed with a much bigger goal, such as recapturing Mosul, which Iraq Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has said he would like to do before the end of the year.

Carter said the new troops will be deployed in coming days and weeks.

The post Obama to Send More Troops to Iraq appeared first on Independent Journal Review.

Source: Independent Journal Review


Why Do You People Even Bother to Participate in Politics?

politicalopionionwrong

Politics is annoying. It’s stressful. It’s argumentative and frustrating. It can be angry. So why do you do it? What’s driving you?

Why do you read political blogs? Why do you offer your opinions? Why do you share things on social media? Is it because there’s nothing better to do? (If so, we really need to talk about expanding your horizons.)

You know why? Because you care about this. You’re interested by it, you care what happens, and it affects you.

That’s why we write about politics, too, here at RedState. A lot of you don’t know, but for most of this website’s life everyone here except for Erick was simply an unpaid volunteer. Over the last couple of years the enterprise has expanded and people have expanded into bigger roles with it, but the spirit of volunteerism remains. You see it in our thriving community of diarists and commenters. You know it from the dialog we share with one another online. And you can see it at the RedState Gathering.

Along with Erick, I and my wife organized the first several RedState Gatherings personally. As volunteers. It was a small operation that first year, with several speakers no one had heard of, like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Nikki Haley. They’ve grown a bit since then too, you may have noticed. But they were there looking to be of service, to be elected to serve, and to speak to those whom they would serve. They gave talks. They mixed and mingled. A lot of other speakers, too, including Liz Cheney, who really fired up the crowd.

Gathing2011
There have been some other pretty memorable ones, too.

The front page writers and the diarists met and talked with the candidates and lawmakers. Ideas were exchanged. Volunteers were organized. Fundraisers were held. Now look at where we are.

The Gathering is bigger, now. You see a lot more of Townhall’s stamp on it. But it doesn’t change the spirit of why we are there. Sometimes you have to remind yourself why you’re doing this. You have to remember that there are others who are doing it as well, who share your values and ideas, even if you disagree on specifics. In 2016 I can’t say that’s what makes a political party. But I can tell you this: it’s what makes a community.

We have fancy videos and we have testimonials and we have discounts and sales pitches. But that’s all business and it’s not personal. I’m here to tell you, to ask you, to remember. Come to the RedState Gathering. Shake someone’s hand. Speak your piece. Debate. Agree. Eat. Drink. Be merry. Be committed.

This is still all about what the future has in store for America. None of us knows it for sure, but if you come to the RedState Gathering you’ll have hope. And one thing you will know for sure is this: you have allies.

We’re one month out, today. Won’t you come join us? I promise you’ll like it. And if you don’t, you can punch Bill S. in the arm while I point and laugh.

Register here, now. Remind yourself why you’re part of this crazy thing. Here’s The Man’s pitch:

It’s hard to believe, but the RedState Gathering is just one month away. We have already lined up a great slate of speakers including Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Greg Abbott, Hugh Hewitt and Ken Buck, and we are going to have some excellent activism training as well. And oh yeah, the old boss (Erick) will be there as well.

GatheringRegisterNow

The post Why Do You People Even Bother to Participate in Politics? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


America Must Reject Extremists on Both Sides of Law Enforcement Debate Who Would Sabotage Reconciliation

Or, more expansively: America Must Reject The Efforts Of Extremists On Both Sides Of The Law Enforcement Debate To Sabotage Any Opportunity For Reconciliation or Resolution.


It’s no secret that, here at RedState, we tend to find political moderation to be drastically overrated as a virtue. It’s rare that a debate happens along when both sides are making valid points in good faith and often there’s not a lot of point in pretending that the real answer lies in a bad middle of the road solution that pleases no one.

Sometimes, however, those issues do happen along and the current debate over the application by law enforcement is one of those times. I think the evidence shows that minority communities in particular have a reason to perceive their experience at the hands of police differently than those of their white counterparts. I think there’s a lot of truth to the accusation that some of the more extremist folks in the movement that is trying to point this out are unjustifiably vilifying all cops and causing a rise in anti-police violence.

And I hope all of us are troubled by the sight of police in APCs and full tactical gear marching in lockstep down the streets of Baton Rouge.

Ironically, I think the tragic events in Dallas last week provided a great opportunity for some real conversations to begin. Some conservatives, long defenders of police at any costs, began to see how the law enforcement community is perceived by black americans with some empathy. And some of the folks who have been involved in the BLM movement took a step back in horror when five innocent police officers were gunned down on live TV.

As Sara Gonzales has been pointing out all weekend, the community of Dallas has come together after this incident – both #BlueLivesMatter and #BlackLivesMatter.

Here’s the thing about police/community relations: the city of Dallas has been the proving ground for the idea that the choice between a police department that respects its citizens and is conscious about excessive force and a police department that protects its citizens is not a binary one. There are methods that can be employed by large city police departments that result in fewer excessive force complaints, fewer officer-involved-shootings, fewer violent crimes, and fewer officer assaults.

There are policies, procedures, and training programs that are proven to work. Dallas has been using them to great success. There is absolutely no reason for police to resort instantly to firearms or tasers in panic at the slightest sign that anything is going wrong. Contrary to his fervent belief (which he is surely peddling for political reasons), Rudy Giuliani’s approach to controlling crime isn’t the only one that works.

Nonetheless, as with all things in politics, the extremists on both sides have a vested interest in destroying the middle, which is sick of the ongoing struggle and wants to work toward a solution. If this problem went away tomorrow, what on earth would Deray McKesson even do for a living? How would Rudy Giuliani and Sheriff Clarke sell books and book speaking engagements? They wouldn’t, is how.

So you have idiot bomb throwers on each side whose express goal is to foster and deepen resentment between the two sides, and once again resolidify the trenches dug in our hearts, either through deliberately provocative rhetoric or through the despicable ongoing series of attacks on police officers that have continued throughout the weekend.

For those of us in the middle, the challenge is to not retreat to our own comfortable sides and commence to tossing ordinance over the big ditch between ourselves and the other side. It doesn’t have to be this way and it shouldn’t. The statistics don’t lie – too many people are killed by law enforcement in the United States – more, per capita, by far than other Western countries. For instance, England has 1/6th of the population of the United States. In a bad year in England, law enforcement kills 3 people. Every year in America, about 1,000 people are killed by law enforcement officers.

We don’t have to accept that this is okay, and we shouldn’t. Nor should we accept the increasing numbers of law enforcement officers killed by civilians. Nor should we ignore that the two problems are interrelated and are both at least partially interrelated, that the police officer should by his training be able to exert proper control over the entire interaction to generally prevent the escalation of force.

But all the while, forces on either side will be telling us either that cops should just resort to more force, more quickly, because after all, the blacks have it coming – or on the other hand, that the right way for black people to address their grievances with the police is to resort to killings or cowardly assassinations. If we want this problem to get better, we must ignore both.

The post America Must Reject Extremists on Both Sides of Law Enforcement Debate Who Would Sabotage Reconciliation appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


NC Governor Pat McCrory Signs Another Controversial Bill Into Law

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory is at it again.

By “at it again,” I mean signing into law a controversial bill that is sure to cause liberals to spontaneously combust.

From the News & Observer:

Gov. Pat McCrory signed controversial legislation Monday regulating the release of recordings from police body and dashboard cameras.

There were growing calls for McCrory to veto the legislation because it makes it difficult for the public – including people involved in a recorded police action – to see it. But the Republican governor said the law will strike a balance between improving public trust in the police and respecting the rights of officers.

The general belief is that from short snippets of cell phone videos uploaded to YouTube, people have often got a distorted view of what actually occurred between police officers and those they confront, for whatever reason.

The worst cases have seen rampant protests and violence, long before any facts are released to the general public.

The North Carolina General Assembly easily passed the law with a vote of 48 – 2 in the Senate and 88 – 20 in the House.

Body camera footage is not now spelled out in state law as public record, and law enforcement agencies often made it inaccessible to the public by declaring recordings part of personnel files. The new law, which goes into effect Oct. 1, says the footage is not a public record or a personnel record.

The law allows people who are recorded, or their representatives, to see footage if law enforcement agencies agree. The police chief or sheriff would decide whether to grant access. The law enforcement agency can consider a number of factors in making the decision, including whether disclosure may harm someone’s reputation or jeopardize someone’s safety, or if confidentiality is “necessary to protect either an active or inactive internal or criminal investigation or potential internal or criminal investigation.”

While the ACLU and the perpetually aggrieved will call it restrictive, unconstitutional, and quite a few other terms meant to throw gasoline on what has already been a highly volatile year for McCrory, he calls it a fine line.

He said during the signing ceremony that legislators wrestled with how technology “can help us and how can we work with it, so it doesn’t also work against our police officers and public safety officials.”

“Technology like dashboard and body cameras can be very helpful, but when used by itself, technology can also mislead and misinform, which also causes other issues and problems within our community,” he said. “What we need to do is walk that fine line.”

No word on if McCrory’s Democrat challenger for the governorship, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, has poked his nose out of whatever hidey-hole he’s currently hunkered down in to give commentary.

If there’s heat with this story, however, you can bet it won’t be long.

The post NC Governor Pat McCrory Signs Another Controversial Bill Into Law appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Taking Back Powers Usurped by Unelected Bureaucrats

At a young age, Americans learn about the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.  This concept was of prime importance to the Founding Fathers because many had endured themselves, the negative consequences that stem from a government with a single, dominant branch. Their collection of experiences under regimes with disproportionate governing branches was the inspiration behind the establishment of the delicate system of checks and balances on which our nation is founded.

James Madison was so repelled by the thought of an unbalanced government, that he declared the accumulation of powers all in the same hands as the “very definition of tyranny.” If he was alive today, he certainly wouldn’t be pleased with the state of affairs. Since the days of our Founders, we’ve witnessed quite a shift away from the original separation of powers established by the Constitution. A shift that’s become more drastic over time, resulting in the emergence of an almighty administrative state filled with unelected federal bureaucrats who have the ability to effectively implement, interpret and create laws.

The practice of administrative agencies engaging in de facto “lawmaking” was exacerbated by a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, which determined that courts must defer to agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as their interpretation is deemed “reasonable.” And more than three decades after the “Chevron doctrine” was established, we’ve seen its sweeping impact on the rules and regulations that are constantly churned out by federal agencies.

The controversial transgender bathroom guidance recently issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice followed a federal court decision in which the judges used the Chevron doctrine to defer to the agencies’ interpretation of Title IX, despite the fact that it defied the language and intent of the law passed by Congress. Before that, the “Chevron doctrine” was cited by the FCC to justify its controversial reclassification of broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service in its expansive “net neutrality” decision. Only a few weeks ago, a federal court decision to uphold the net neutrality rules relied on Chevron to defer to the FCC’s interpretation of the law – despite the fact that the FCC was relying on the 1934 Communications Act as the authority for its actions. And when the EPA used its interpretation of the Clean Air Act to justify its promulgation of the “Clean Power Plan,” its questionable reading of the law assumed that courts would provide Chevron deference to prevent proper judicial review of EPA’s actions.

In the case of these and countless other interpretations by the administrative state, the “Chevron doctrine” has allowed for critical changes in the law without enactment of legislation from Congress and without any say from the Judicial Branch – exhibiting the very “tyranny” that James Madison loathed. If this pattern is allowed to continue, our country will move even further away from the balance of powers that were intended to keep our government in sync with the will of the American people. As a strong constitutional conservative, I’ve teamed up with my colleagues in both chambers of Congress to introduce a solution: the Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA).

This critical measure, being voted on in the House of Representatives this week, reverses the 1984 Supreme Court decision that established the “Chevron doctrine,” placing the power to determine ambiguous laws back into the hands of the Judiciary. This would help stop future abuse of power by administrative agencies by preventing them from establishing regulations with the intent to leverage “Chevron doctrine” to implement them however they so choose, fully free from judicial review. Instead, agencies will be forced to adhere to the courts’ interpretation of the laws they implement – keeping them from “grading their own papers,” as they’re allowed under the “Chevron doctrine.”

As a member of Congress, it’s my job to ensure the federal government is working for the people, not the other way around. And I urge my colleagues to join me in stopping unelected bureaucrats from relying on the “Chevron doctrine” to push through their partisan agenda. After all, when the Constitution wins, so do the American people.

An abridged version of this article was originally published in The Hill.

The post Taking Back Powers Usurped by Unelected Bureaucrats appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Jeb Bush Calls Out the Trump Fantasy Train

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush came out to dash a bit of cold water on the GOP presumptive nominee’s big plans.

From Politico today:

Speaking to MSNBC contributor Nicolle Wallace, who served as his press secretary in Tallahassee, Bush called Trump “to his credit … very smart at exploiting these kind of opportunities.”

“He’s a master at understanding how the media works — more than anybody I’ve ever seen in politics. Kudos to him, for kind of creating the environment and then manipulating the environment to his effect,” Bush said in the interview airing in full Monday night.

There will be no wall built, Bush told Wallace, and Mexico will not pay for it, nor will there be a ban on Muslims.

This comes on the same day that an interview with former Texas Governor Rick Perry was released, stating that the border wall, as proposed by Trump, couldn’t happen.

Perry has said he will support the presumptive nominee, however. Bush has yet to voice any support.

“This is all, like, an alternative universe that he created,” Bush said of Trump. “The reality is, that’s not going to happen. And people are going to be deeply frustrated and the divides will grow in our country. And this extraordinary country, still the greatest country on the face of the earth, will continue to stagger instead of soar. And that’s the heartbreaking part of this, is I think people are really going to feel betrayed.”

 

Many already do, Governor.

The post Jeb Bush Calls Out the Trump Fantasy Train appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Idiot Founder of Moronic ‘Moms Demand Action’ Stupidly Blames NRA for Unrelated Michigan Shooting

This is Shannon Watts, the ridiculous clown who founded the hysteria-based gun grabbing org Moms Demand Action, tweeting about the shooting at a courthouse in Michigan that we reported on earlier today. Set idiocy shields to maximum, RedStaters.

<!–

–>

First of all, knee-jerker, the guy didn’t bring a gun. He took a bailiff’s gun as the officer was escorting him from the courtroom. So … yeah.

That’s something Watts later (barely) acknowledged. But you don’t even need the fact that she was 100% wrong about who the gun belonged to in order to mock her preposterous position.

Here are reasons it was stupid even BEFORE the stolen gun information came out.

1) It’s a courthouse. You can’t bring guns into courthouses. So she didn’t need a report on the gun being stolen to know that it wasn’t some guy’s personal firearm.

2) “Anyone, anywhere, any time, no questions asked” is not the NRA’s position. It’s not anyone’s position. You can’t, for example, find me someone advocating that infants pack heat in the natal ward. You just can’t find that. Nobody says this dumb thing that she and people like her always claim people say.

3) Even if that were the NRA’s position, it’s not the position of the Federal government or any State’s government or any municipality in the entire United States. People do ask questions. They do restrict when and where. These are things that already happen. So if some crazy person did think newborn infants should have TEC-9s to defend themselves from the doctor spanking them at delivery, it wouldn’t matter because it isn’t allowed. Someone who thinks courts should allow guns has no bearing on whether or not guns were allowed in this court today. Which they weren’t.

4) You know how people DO get guns in unaccountable ways? Through crime. By committing a crime. It’s a crime to do that. Also a crime? Stealing a court officer’s gun and then murdering that court officer in cold blood. All of these things are crimes, against which there are existing laws and penalties and punishments.

5) All of that doesn’t matter, because as it turns out the news that the murderer stole the gun off a bailiff broke nearly two hours before her dumb tweet. It was already known. She blamed the NRA anyway.

So, yeah, idiotic, moronic, dishonest, garbage. You know, gun grabber 101. Which by the way, hasn’t saved a single life in America and probably put some at risk. Dems talk about coming together, but in the end what they mean is you getting in line with their agenda lock, stock and barrel, so to speak.

Read some of the @replies at Twitchy.com.

The post Idiot Founder of Moronic ‘Moms Demand Action’ Stupidly Blames NRA for Unrelated Michigan Shooting appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State