Ain't The Devil Happy: In The News 12/13/15

Angela Merkel is doing more damage to the future of the West than Donald Trump

Even Atheists Could Benefit From Praying Every Once in a While

Orwellian: Award-Winning Journalist Censored After Skepticism of Man-Made Climate Change

National Security Profiling Is a No-Brainer

Obama Declares: ‘We’ve Transformed the United States Into the Global Leader in Fighting Climate Change’

Mitt Romney Loyalists May Launch WH Bid at Convention Floor

Over 10,000 Unaccompanied Minors Apprehended on U.S. Border in Last Two Months

The Media Avoid Hillary's Obvious Woman Problem

NY Daily News Columnist Sees Social Media Backlash After Saying San Bernardino Victim Had It Coming

Colorado ACLU Chairman Resigns After Writing About Shooting Trump Supporters Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/colorado-aclu-chairman-resigns-after-writing-about-shooting-trump-supporters/#ixzz3u8SxW4cv

TheDailyCaller.com:

The co-chairman of the Colorado Springs American Civil Liberties has resigned after being criticized for a Facebook post that said to supporters of Donald Trump: “If you are voting for him, I will have to shoot you before election day.”

The Daily Caller drew attention to the posts on Loring Wirbel’s Facebook account this week.

The ACLU of Colorado tweeted Friday that it “has accepted Loring Wirbel’s resignation as chapter representative to our state board.”

“The ACLU of Colorado does not condone the recent personal Facebook post of regional volunteer Loring Wirbel,” the group said.

Wirbel’s Facebook post read: “The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.’ They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force, as Laurie would say.”

In a statement to TheDC, a police spokesman in Colorado Springs, Colorado, called the post “distasteful and a little alarming, given the source and content within current political environment.” But the spokesman said the department would not launch an investigation.

“There is not an investigation underway as the contents of the threat do not address a specific individual who could be considered a victim,” Lt. Mark Comte of the Colorado Springs Police Department said in an email.

Wirbel initially denied posting the comment. But on Friday, in an interview with the Colorado Springs Gazette, Wirbel admitted to writing the post, but said he wasn’t being serious: “It was intended totally as a joke.”

RELATED: UFC President Dana White Endorses Donald Trump

Lying 'Rape Activist' Emma Sulkowicz Threatens to Sue Newsweek For Publishing Accused Student’s Side of the Story

Mediaite.com:

When contacted for comment by Newsweek, anti-rape activist Emma Sulkowicz threatened to sue the paper if they published the story of the man she accused of rape.
 
Newsweek‘s front page story, titled “The Other Side of the College Sexual Assault Crisis,” examines the surge in college students being falsely accused of rape after universities began lowering their evidentiary standards to crack down on rape. The centerpiece of the article is the story of Paul Nungesser, a Columbia University student who accused of rape by Sulkowicz.

Even under the lower “preponderance of evidence” standard, Nungesser was cleared of the charge by a Columbia tribunal. But Sulkowicz engaged in a art project/protest where she dragged a mattress across campus until the university expelled him (they never did). Sulkowicz became a media star, but the Newsweek story was one of few that was sympathetic towards Nungesser’s side of the story.

When asked for comment, Sulkowicz responded by threatening legal action: “Paul Nungesser’s complaint is filled with lies…. I want to warn you to be conscientious about what you publish as ‘fact’ for I may work with a lawyer to rectify any inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”

RELATED:  Fox News reporting: The truth about sex and college

Ben Carson Blasts RNC, Threatens To Leave Republican Party

Politico.com:

Ben Carson on Friday blasted the Republican National Committee following a Washington Post report that nearly two-dozen establishment party figures were prepping for a potential brokered convention as Donald Trump continues to lead most polls.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus held a dinner in Washington on Monday, and, according to five people who spoke with the Post, the possibility of Trump heading into the Cleveland convention with a substantial number of delegates was a topic of discussion. Some attendees suggested the establishment lay the groundwork for a floor fight that could lead the party’s mainstream wing to unite behind an alternative. Carson rejected this approach.

“If the leaders of the Republican Party want to destroy the party, they should continue to hold meetings like the one described in the Washington Post this morning,” Carson said in a statement released by his campaign. 

Carson said he prays the Post’s report is incorrect and threatened to leave the GOP. “If it is correct, every voter who is standing for change must know they are being betrayed. I won’t stand for it,” said Carson, who added that if the plot is accurate, “I assure you, Donald Trump won’t be the only one leaving the party.”

The retired neurosurgeon said that next summer’s Cleveland convention could be the last Republican National Convention if leaders try to manipulate it.

“I am prepared to lose fair and square, as I am sure is Donald,” Carson said. “But I will not sit by and watch a theft. I intend on being the nominee. If I am not, the winner will have my support. If the winner isn’t our nominee, then we have a massive problem.”

Carson told ABC News on Friday that he had no plans to run as an independent. “But I certainly don’t want to be a part of corruption,” he said, stopping short of saying he would drop out of the race if he left the Republican Party. 

“I’ll leave that up to you to speculate,” he added with a smile.

Funny how the liberal media has backed off smearing Carson now that his poll numbers are down.

RELATED: Ben Carson campaign at war with itself

So-Called "Conservative" Pundit S.E. Cupp Would Rather See Hillary Clinton Win Presidency Than Donald Trump

Mediaite.com:

Conservative CNN commentator S.E. Cupp has voiced her displeasure with Donald Trump on numerous occasions, having declared that his ideas will cost him the presidency for being too morally and constitutionally repulsive to the GOP. Today, Cupp wrote a column on Townhall where she detailed that even though a Hillary Clinton Presidency might not be a desirable outcome, it would be preferable over Trump continuing to damage the Republican brand.

Cupp noted that despite Trump’s threat to run a third-party campaign and earning condemnation across the board for his rhetoric, the mogul has managed to keep a significant chunk of conservative voters in his corner. In the event that Trump decides to spite the GOP mainstream by going independent, Cupp expressed that the 2016 election might be a necessary sacrifice so that Republicans will be able to win in the future.

“Whatever group he claims to represent should have to embrace his dimwitted and divisive proposals without the imprimatur of the Republican Party or the conservative movement,” Cupp wrote. “Republicans shouldn’t have to defend religious tests, internment camps or Eisenhower’s ‘Operation Wetback’ just because Trump and his goon surrogates do… if Trump wins the nomination and runs as a Republican, we’ll have Democrats like Clinton in the White House for the next 50 years.”

Cupp continued, saying how Democrats have successfully smeared conservatives with the same brush as Trump, and that his continued run and potential presidency would cause incalculable harm to the GOP. On that reality, she said:

Just imagine a debate between Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, for example. I bet Rubio would actually look pretty great next to those two. So would Christie. Or Fiorina. At the very least, in those cases there would be an actual Republican on the stage representing conservative values, instead of a charlatan carnival barker… Donald Trump’s near-nihilistic determination to destroy the Republican Party shouldn’t get any more help from Republicans. I know it’s a painful prospect — but we may have to lose this one to ever win again.

This chick is a proud atheist who cried tears of joy when SCOTUS passed gay marriage earlier this year. How she continues to get a pass being called a "conservative" probably has more to do with her good looks than her actual politics.

RELATED: Trump Tower website has outage after Anonymous' anti-Trump rant

Why We Need More Ayesha Curry's and Less Amber Rose's

AllBlackMedia.com:

In the age Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter it has become the norm for women to express themselves by taking provocative photos. We’ve seen regular women become overnight celebs due to the praise of this type of behavior, but what example are they setting for our future black women? Are we teaching them that popularity is more important than self respect? Ayesha Curry, who’s the wife of NBA star Steph Curry, was recently attacked on Twitter for simple stating her preference in clothing.

Nothing wrong with either sentiment, right? She wasn’t lecturing others about their fashion choices; she was merely stating her personal preference and trying to start a conversation. She did that, all right, and found herself both praised and pilloried, with a great number of responses.  

Amber Rose, on the other hand, was recently involved in a “Slut Walk” where she protested about perceived promiscuity, and how it affected her relationships with Kanye West and Wiz Khalifa. While her intensions maybe good many refused to get over the fact that she’s an ex video model/stripper who tend to use her personal “assets” as a unique selling proposition. She recently exchanged words with West and Khloe Kardashian, who both slammed her for her past.

Despite the negative attention Rose continues to flaunt her assets for all to see. Is this a problem? No, not at all but it becomes one when people like her are praised by little girls for having a “great body” instead of actually doing anything to contribute to society. Amber Rose, herself, is not to blame for this widespread issue. It is the people who’d rather support an ex stripper baring it all while bashing a housewife willing to cover it up.

RELATED:  No, Ayesha Curry Did Not Slut-Shame Women With Her Tweets

Majority of Chicagoans Want Rahm Emanuel’s Resignation

HotAir.com:

Last week, Hillary Clinton gave Rahm Emanuel her vote of confidence even after it became clear that the mayor’s administration deliberately withheld the video of the shooting of Laquan McDonald until after his re-election. This week, Chicagoans have a much different answer for the former adviser to Hillary’s husband. USA Today reports that a poll of Chicago voters puts Emanuel’s approval rate at a microscopic 18%, while a majority of respondents demand his resignation (via Newsalert):

A  new poll published on Tuesday shows that more than half of Chicagoans believe Mayor Rahm Emanuel should resign in the aftermath of the release of a police dashboard video that shows a white police officer shooting a black teen 16 times.

More than 51% of likely voters said Emanuel should resign, while 29% said he should not step down, according to the poll commissioned by The Insider, a newsletter published by Illinois Observer.

Only 18% approved of how Emanuel is handling his job and 67% disapproved, according to the poll which was conducted by the Chicago firm Ogden & Fry. Meanwhile, 63.2% of respondents said they did not believe the mayor when he said he did not view the disturbing video of officer Jason Van Dyke shooting Laquan McDonald ahead of its public release.

The pollster offered a caveat to his one-day survey:

“Right now, you’re in the middle of a strong emotional response,” said pollster Tom Swiss. “I would be curious to how people are feeling in a month or two months.”

Well, maybe, but this isn’t just the day after, either. The video finally got released before Thanksgiving, a little over two weeks ago. It was a full week ago that Emanuel insisted he wouldn’t resign, and tried to quell the firestorm by firing a police superintendent over the shooting. Thus far, the “strong emotional response” does not appear to be receding, nor the political judgment which it has created.

RELATED: New Bill Introduced In Illinois To Recall Mayor Rahm Emanuel

Ted Cruz Takes Down Global Warming Alarmists

TheAtlantic.com:

Ted Cruz doesn’t believe in man-made climate change or the science behind it. So while diplomats in Paris attempt to negotiate an international deal to fight global warming, Cruz is in Washington railing against mainstream climate science and “partisan dogma and ideology.”

On Tuesday, Cruz invited scientists who doubt the scientific consensus that climate change is real and driven by human activity to Capitol Hill to testify at a congressional hearing titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”

The skeptical message won’t sit well with the vast majority of climate scientists. But it’s likely to resonate with conservatives. That’s strategic: Cruz’s climate hearing wasn’t just a chance to talk about global warming. It was an opportunity for the Republican presidential contender to portray climate change as a flashpoint in a larger clash between liberals and conservatives—a chance to advance a narrative of “us” versus “them.” It arrives at a moment when Cruz is fighting to win votes in the midst of a crowded 2016 field.

If you were to ask American voters what they care about most, few would place climate change at the top of the list. The economy, jobs, national security, and terrorism are far more important to voters than the gradual warming of the planet. But at a moment when Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has struck a chord by suggesting that America is under threat, Cruz is styling himself as a defender of open inquiry fighting against fanatical ideology.

During the hearing, environmentalists were denounced as “global warming alarmists.” The media was assigned blame for failing to air dissent. Skeptical scientists spoke of a “chilling effect” at universities and backlash against anyone who denies mainstream scientific consensus.

“Many in the media reflexively take the side of the global warming alarmists,” Cruz declared, adding: “Public policy should follow science and evidence and data.”

The presidential contender has staked out a position on climate change to the right of many of his rivals—even in a Republican field dominated by candidates who question the consensus that human activity is the primary driver of global warming. Most Republican candidates acknowledge that the planet is warming, but say they cannot be certain how much of that is the result of human activity. In contrast, Cruz takes every opportunity to reject claims of planetary warming altogether. He frequently says that satellite data shows that “there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years.”

RELATED: Ted Cruz Takes First Lead Over Donald Trump in Iowa

LA Times: Yes, People On Terrorist Watch Lists Should Be Able To Buy Guns

Townhall.com:

Well, well the LA Times’ published this interesting editorial today, where they wrote about the ongoing debate about barring people on the terrorist watch list from buying firearms. Democrats want it; Republicans don’t; yet both parties share blame that this grossly unconstitutional anti-terror program has continued under the Bush and Obama presidencies. Unlike the paper’s rather inflammatory editorial the day of the San Bernardino shooting, which said that our “infatuation with guns” bordered on suicidal impulses, they were somewhat more measured in their response to this Democratic gun control initiative: yes, people on the watch lists should be able to buy guns. 

One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution — and yes, like it or not, the right to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

How certain is it that the people on the two lists are dangerous? Well, we don't really know, because the no-fly-list and the broader watch list are government secrets. People are not notified when they are put on, nor why, and they usually don't discover they have been branded suspected terrorists until they try to travel somewhere.

But serious flaws in the list have been identified. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the government over the no-fly list, the two lists include thousands of names that have been added in error, as well as the names of family members of suspected terrorists. 

What's more, it's not clear how much impact Feinstein's law would have. The broader watch list, which is actually a database maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, apparently had about 480,000 names on it in 2011, according to the FBI, and it has since swelled to about 1.1 million names, according to the ACLU. Of those, the vast majority are noncitizens living overseas; the number of American citizens on the list is believed to be fewer than 10,000 people.

That's important because federal law already bars gun sales to most people who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or holders of valid visas, which means the vast majority of the people on the suspected terror list would already be barred from buying a firearm in the U.S. even without Feinstein's law. That leaves us with about 10,000 American citizens (and some legal residents) who, under the proposed law, would be barred from exercising a constitutional right. That gives us pause.

They also note that this wouldn’t have stopped Syed Farook or Tashfeen Malik since they weren’t on the list.

RELATED:  Supreme Court won’t review laws banning assault weapons

Donald Trump: It’s Time For a “Total and Complete Shutdown” of Muslims Entering The U.S

HotAir.com:

He’s not just talking about immigrants and refugees, campaign manager Corey Lewandowski emphasized. He’s talking about tourism too. No more Muslims until we “figure out what is going on,” whatever that means.

It’s a perfect Trumpian play, though. It’s highly politically incorrect; the media will go positively batsh*t over it; the rest of the GOP field, especially his new rival Ted Cruz, will squirm about how to respond; and the more heat Trump takes from all sides, the more his fans will love him for it. This is why so many Trump critics, me included, thought that Trump was agreeing with that reporter a few weeks ago when the reporter started asking him about a database of Muslim citizens. That proposal would accomplish most of the same things politically for him that this one does. Maybe he’s saving it for when Cruz crosses 35 percent in Iowa.

Cruz, by the way, also wants to restrict Muslim immigration — but only a particular type, namely refugees, and only from Muslim countries like Iraq and Syria that contain “territory substantially controlled by a foreign terrorist organization.” Tourists and immigrants would presumably still be welcome. Trump’s strategy here, I take it, is to show blue-collar Republicans that Cruz is, to borrow the phrase of the day, a “total pussy” for not being as hard-ass against Muslims as he is. What it’s going to end up doing in practice is making a lot of center-right Republicans more comfortable with the idea of nominating Cruz as a less demagogic alternative to Trump if it turns out that Cruz is the only guy in the race who can realistically stop him. In fact, a Twitter buddy tweeted at me after Trump put this statement out that Trump is a stalking horse for Cruz, a guy whose role in the race is really just to advance Cruz’s political interests. I don’t buy that — they’re too different ideologically — but I’m less skeptical of the idea than I used to be. Give Trump another month of high polling and you’ll have Jeb Bush donors quietly sending money to Cruz Super PACs to take him down.

RELATED:  FDR Was Trump on Steroids