Target Bows Down To The Left, Plans to ‘Phase Out Gender-Based Signage’ at Its Stores

Mediaite.com:

Target announced some big news this weekend: they’re getting away from “gender-based signs” at their stores to foster a more inclusive environment.

In a press release Friday, Target explained, “Over the past year, guests have raised important questions about a handful of signs in our stores that offer product suggestions based on gender.”

And while they need to keep that going with the clothing section for obvious reasons, they understand “in some departments like Toys, Home or Entertainment, suggesting products by gender is unnecessary.”
They laid out their plan to change things up:

Right now, our teams are working across the store to identify areas where we can phase out gender-based signage to help strike a better balance. For example, in the kids’ Bedding area, signs will no longer feature suggestions for boys or girls, just kids. In the Toys aisles, we’ll also remove reference to gender, including the use of pink, blue, yellow or green paper on the back walls of our shelves. You’ll see these changes start to happen over the next few months.

RELATED:  A Genderless Society Is Not the Answer

Megyn Kelly Talks Penises, Oral Sex and Breasts with Howard Stern

Shoebat.com:

Donald Trump was disinvited from a prime speaking role to an important gathering of conservative activists on Friday for his criticism of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly after a combustible debate performance. As for the vacant spot at the Red State gathering, Red State chief Erick Erickson has invited Kelly to replace Trump. Kelly replacing Trump was a fair judgment in Erickson’s view for saying “blood coming out of her … whatever”. The comment stirred up a hornets nest. Well, Shoebat.com found a five year old interview of Meghan Kelly when she was climbing up the ladder not minding to get on the Howard Stern Show to gain fame while allowing Stern to discuss with her every sort of smut including her private sex live which is supposed to be sacred. She laughs and is okay with Stern discussing penises, breasts, in a very trashy nonchalant way.

Such a classy woman, how dare Donald Trump say anything mean about her, much less call her out on being unfair to him at that debate the other night (like he's not entitled to his opinion)? What's funny too about all this Kelly vs Trump brouhaha is all within the liberal media who are suddenly siding with and become huge Kelly fans--can we say that that is not just a coincidence? I mean a FOX host getting love from the Left? Really?!?

RELATED: Erick Erickson Disinvites Trump from Conservative Gathering Due to Megyn Kelly Remarks

Chris Christie and Rand Paul Shout at Each Other over Gov’t Surveillance

Mediaite.com:

Megan Kelly asked Chris Christie to comment on terror and his opposition to Rand Paul when it comes to government surveillance. 

Christie began by discussing what he witnessed during 9/11, and the importance of striking a balnce between respecting liberty and protecting citizens. “I will make no apologies ever for protecting the lives and the safety of the American people. We have to give more tools to our folk to do this and then trust those people and oversee them to do it the right way.”

Paul responded by saying that his aim with curbing the PATRIOT Act was in making sure that the constitutional rights of innocent civilians would be respected, while directing more resources towards suspected criminals. “I want to collect more records from terrorists but less records from other people,” Paul said.

From there, Christie interjected and he and Paul went at each other. Christie continued to blast Paul’s call for subcommittees as an inefficient use of resources to protect citizens, while Paul continued to say that unconstitutional searches were not the answer terror victims are seeking.

RELATED: Why (and how) Chris Christie needs to ramp up his style game

Cross-Dresser Bruce Jenner's New Show "I Am Cait" Loses Half Its Audience

HollywoodReporter.com:

E! may be playing the waiting game for those precious DVR views, but time-shifting likely can't change the tenor of I Am Cait's second week at bat.

The Caitlyn Jenner reality series lost more than half of its premiere haul on Sunday night, per live-plus-same-day ratings. The episode averaged 1.3 million viewers, down from 2.7 million viewers the week prior.

All told, the first episode of I Am Cait already has reached 7.7 million viewers. But that number is a combination of encores and time-shifting. The original telecast of I Am Cait's premiere fetched a more modest 3.9 million viewers with its first round of DVR views.

Though I Am Cait is bringing young viewers to its Sunday slot, 1.3 million viewers is lower than any episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians ever has pulled among live-plus-same-day showings.

Finally, the general public seems to be waking up to the fact that despite all the makeup, dresses, Vogue covers and a liberal media that celebrates everything his every move, Bruce Jenner is still a sad man/cross-dresser with a severe mental illness.

RELATED: Caitlyn Jenner's Friends In Reality Show Fake? Actresses Paid To Play Reality Star's Clique?

Barack Obama Equates Republicans To Anti-Americans Iranians

HotAir.com:

The lowest moment from what was probably the lowest speech of his presidency — so far. David Harsanyi, watching this, asks a good question:

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said that Democrats were caucusing with Saddam Hussein?

The GOP opposes the nuclear deal because they think it’s too favorable to Iran and not favorable enough to America. The hardliners in Iran’s parliament oppose the deal for the opposite reason. Insofar as they both want the deal to fail, I suppose that’s “common cause.” But then, as Harsanyi says, it must also be true that Barack Obama made “common cause” with Saddam Hussein since both of them thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obama thought it was a bad idea for U.S. and Iraqi security whereas Saddam thought it was a bad idea for his own personal security, but the reasoning is immaterial apparently. All that matters to “common cause” is how the parties to an issue align. Or at least, 12 years after the invasion of Iraq, that’s all that matters now. I wonder what Democrats like Steve Israel, who came out against the Iran deal yesterday, thought when they found out today that they’re on the same side as the worst fanatics in Iran’s government.

Actually, Obama’s insult may be worse than it at first appears. The major theme of this speech, as it always, always is — and always disingenuously — when Obama talks about diplomacy with Iran is that the only alternative is war. Reportedly he went so far today in a private meeting with Jewish leaders as to claim that Iranian rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv if the GOP-led Congress blocks the deal, because that will lead to war with Iran and war will lead to Iranian reprisals against Israel. Never mind that Iranian-made rockets already rain down on Israel every few years thanks to Hezbollah and that the sanctions relief Iran is getting from this deal will help pay for more of them. Never mind too that Israel’s own prime minister seems to think reprisals are a risk worth taking in the name of stopping an Iranian atomic bomb. The point, at least to Obama, is that only a warmonger would oppose this terrible deal, which all but endorses an Iranian bomb 10 years from now. Equating the Republicans in Congress with Iran’s hardliners was his way of suggesting, I think, that both of those groups actually seek war with each other in the name of advancing their own political interests. There’s no such thing as good-faith opposition to an Obama policy, at least outside the Democratic caucus. If GOP hawks hate his nuclear deal, it can only be because they’ve got Gulf War III on the brain and refuse to let some master stroke of diplomacy deter them.

In fact, that’s basically an Iranian talking point coming out of the president’s mouth, that some elements of the U.S. government are stone-cold fanatics who’ll accept nothing short of war with Iran.

Worse speech ever by Barry. But this uber-liberal President's sheer hatred for the GOP has never been disputed.

RELATED: Graham: Obama’s ‘Delusional’ to Compare GOP to Anti-American Iranians

How Donald Trump Can Win The Debate

CNN.com:

Muhammad Ali once professed that "it is hard to be humble when you are as great as I am." The current fantastic polling results for Trump in the run-up to the first Republican Party debate may make it difficult for him to approach the event with any sense of humility and propriety.

However, if he could find it within himself to demonstrate the high standards of decorum that the audience expects from a "real" presidential candidate, he could leave the stage as he entered -- the definitive front-runner among 17 Republicans vying to be the next president of the United States. 

In fact, Trump said on ABC this weekend that he won't be "throwing punches" and "I'm not looking to attack." But he also accused his rivals of being "all talk, no action."

Trump should not forget that exigence, the audience's expectation for what will be communicated and how it will be communicated, helps determine how people will interpret and respond to his presentation. Trump's scorched-earth attacks on immigrants, military veterans and the rest of the field have largely succeeded because they fit within the narrative of character and crisis that sustains the attention of the networks and their audiences.

Presidential debates are different. The audience expects more. They want to be informed about solutions and not simply entertained. 

RELATED:  Here’s Who Will Appear in the Fox News Primetime GOP Debate

Puerto Rico Has Defaulted

Townhall.com:

U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico defaulted on its debt for the first time Monday, paying just $628,000 of its $58 million scheduled payment. Moody's "views this event as a default."
Puerto Rico has an outstanding debt of $72 billion.

Puerto Rico's Government Development Bank paid only $628,000 of the $58 million due creditors, the agency said. It said the decision "reflects the serious concerns about the Commonwealth's liquidity" and the need to ensure "essential services (residents) deserve are maintained."

Given the tiny payout, "Moody's views this event as a default," said Emily Raimes, vice president at the U.S. credit giant.

Puerto Rico's outstanding debt of $72 billion is far bigger than Detroit's $20 billion bankruptcy two years ago but a fraction of Greece's $350 billion in obligations. But unlike Detroit, there's no law allowing Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy. And Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said the federal government won't bail out the island, as institutions such as the International Monetary Fund rescued Greece.

Puerto Rico has seen its population plummet since the recession began, and despite attempts to raise sales taxes to raise revenue, the economy has not recovered. People born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, although they do not pay federal income tax nor vote in presidential elections.

Funny, how Hispanic-Americans up in arms about protecting illegal immigrants, don't seem to mention or care about how Puerto Rico's been doing under Barry's watch.

RELATED: Obama Administration Without Plans to Bail Out Puerto Rico

The Bush Hater's Case for Jeb Bush

TheWeek.com:

Now, I very much dread the idea of Clinton-Bush Part Two, which I fear will play out like a grittier, cash-grabbing reboot of 1992. And nominating a man with a now-toxic family legacy is the surest path this side of Donald Trump to canceling all of the GOP's natural advantages against Hillary Clinton.

But strangely enough, he seems to be the only top-tier candidate on the Republican side who seems to have learned something from the disaster of his brother's presidency.

Yes, he spent a painful week earlier this year awkwardly trying to clarify his views on the Iraq War. He was so determined not to talk about his brother's war that he made it his own problem. But he ended up saying this: "Knowing what we now know, what would you have done? I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq."

Jeb Bush also went on a brain-shopping spree sometime ago. His advisers include people from across the Republican spectrum, including ultra-hawks like Paul Wolfowitz and John Hannah. But The Wall Street Journal reported that he seems more in line with his father's foreign policy, and the broader realist tradition:

In private, Jeb Bush has expressed admiration for former Secretary of State James Baker and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, two veterans of his father's administration known for advocating restraint and a tight focus on national interests, according to people familiar with those discussions. [The Wall Street Journal]

Bush has already had an occasion to distance himself from James Baker, after the old foreign policy hand gave a tough, anti-Benjamin Netanyahu speech to the dovish Israeli advocacy group J Street. But it is clear that Jeb Bush at least respects his non-neoconservative foreign policy advisers.

RELATED:  Jeb Bush: Hillary’s Greatest Weakness is ‘She Can’t be Trusted’

Democrats Protecting Illegal Sanctuary Cities

HotAir.com:

Last month, trying to strike while the iron was hot, some members of Congress – most notably Chuck Grassley – drafted legislation to reign in the so called “sanctuary cities” where illegal immigrants are regularly released back into the wild. This takes place in many cases unless there is some definitive indication that they are currently engaged in a murder spree. It will frequently happen even if federal immigration officials asked for them to be held for deportation. The Democrats have been calling this new legislation the Donald Trump Act, in an ironic attempt at an insult, even while Trump himself was happy to take credit for all the support such an initiative received in conservative circles. 

It’s still unclear if any version of such a bill will make it into law, but liberal enclaves are bracing for the changes to come in case they do. The Daily Iowan reports some of the “concerns” that they are dealing with now.

Locally, the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office policy of refusing to hold suspects requested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials would put it at risk of losing certain federal grants under bills proposed by Grassley and Republican colleagues in the House.

While “sanctuary city” is a loose term, it has been used to apply to cities such as New York City and San Francisco, which have specific laws aimed at undocumented immigrants, and more broadly to other jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities…

Johnson County Sheriff Lt. John Good defended his department’s policy from criticism rooted in the San Francisco case. He said complying with federal immigration officials would mean potentially violating the civil liberties of a suspect.

“We don’t want to house them any longer than we need to,” he said.

Keeping people suspected of being undocumented, Good said, would put the department at risk of violating a suspect’s civil liberties, which could, in turn, put the county at risk of a lawsuit. Those concerns led the department to change its policy in May 2014.

This line of reasoning completely boggles my mind. If someone is a citizen or otherwise in the country legally, they should be able to prove that in fairly short order. And assuming they are and have not broken any laws, you don’t need to worry about “holding them” for an excessive period of time. If they are in the country illegally, why are you wringing your hands over threats of lawsuits and their “civil liberties” during detention?
They are criminals by virtue of being in the country. If there is probable cause to believe that they have been involved in some sort of violent crime you should be holding them whether they are a citizen or not. This isn’t long division.

RELATED:  Massachusetts Mayor Hits Back at Bobby Jindal: ‘Come and Get Me’

Bill O’Reilly Goes Off on ‘Morally Bankrupt’ Liberals: Don’t Care About the Defenseless

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly was set off tonight by Democrats’ support of Planned Parenthood to rant against liberals for being “morally bankrupt.”

He told Charles Krauthammer tonight that the liberal philosophy has gone off the rails and, assuming Krauthammer agreed, said that liberals “don’t believe in helping the downtrodden” or protecting the defenseless, and are “cynical vote-counters who will do anything for power.”

Krauthammer slightly disagreed, saying Democrats do have a strong commitment to “underdogs” and they aren’t exactly morally bankrupt.

But O’Reilly said anyone who’s for “abortion on demand” doesn’t care about the “least defenseless in this world” and he even invoked the Nazis at one point. “They know,” he said, “this is not morally acceptable to people who really care about the defenseless.”

RELATED:  Senate vote to defund Planned Parenthood fails