RUTHFULLY YOURS

Fresh off its widely-mocked exclusive on the traffic citations given Marco and Jeannette Rubio – fewer than one per year, combined – the New York Times has an in-depth look at Scott Walker and the wealthy conservatives who backed him throughout his rise to national prominence. It’s a classic of the genre.

The article is more sophisticated than the awkward and error-filled attempted hit on Walker by Gail Collins from the Times editorial page, who blamed Walker for layoffs that took place before he had been elected. And it avoids the kind of over-the-top claims that require corrections. But the piece nonetheless makes clear that its authors believe Walker’s views are far out of the mainstream and that he owes his success to wealthy conservatives eager to exploit a simpleton as the vessel for their ideological goals.

Those disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which struck down a law allowing Jerusalem-born Americans to have “Israel” listed in their passports as their the place of birth, are missing the long-term significance of the case, which will play out about three months from now.

The United Nations General Assembly is laying plans to opens its next session on September 15, and there have been rumors that France plans to submit to the Security Council a resolution to prescribe a Palestinian state in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, with a capital in Jerusalem, with a negotiating deadline of 18 months. The Obama administration is thought to be considering voting for the resolution, or allowing it to pass with a U.S. abstention.

It’s increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Teach for America — whose leaders are at the forefront of inflammatory anti-police protests in Baltimore, Ferguson, and now McKinney, Texas — and left-wing activist groups such as Organizing for Action (President Obama’s partisan community-organizing army).

Guess what, taxpayers? You’re paying for it!

Wendy Kopp founded Teach for America in 1989 after writing her Princeton University thesis on the need for a “national teaching corps” of elite college grads who would serve students on short-term stints in low-income neighborhoods. The do-gooder group has exploded into a massive, nonprofit business.

“Between 2000 and 2013, “ researchers at the National Educational Policy Center reported, “TFA’s yearly operating expenditures increased 1,930 percent — from $10 million to $193.5 million. Of those expenditures, TFA annual reports show that about a third of operating costs are borne by the public.” Individual TFA chapters have raked in millions in federal AmeriCorps grants, supported by leaders in both political parties. Large corporations (including $100 million donor Wal-Mart), philanthropic foundations, and individuals have pitched in nearly a half-billion dollars in tax-deductible charitable private donations.

The Ohio governor and presidential hopeful is reportedly talking to a strategist who disdains those on the right.

Ohio governor John Kasich has yet to enter the presidential race, but his reported talks with Republican strategist John Weaver, even before the Washington Post reported Tuesday that he would serve as a senior strategist for the campaign, were already raising some eyebrows.

Weaver, a chief strategist for John Huntsman in 2012 and an advisor to John McCain in both 2000 and 2008, has made little attempt to hide his less-than-positive feelings toward certain conservative elements of the GOP. And he’s never been shy about criticizing the Republican party as a whole. Hiring Weaver in and of itself could turn off some more conservative GOP operatives and activists. And to some Republicans, it also telegraphs a potential campaign strategy — past campaigns run by Weaver have bypassed the Iowa caucuses and headed straight to New Hampshire, a path that irks some early-state operatives.

“I think for those in the know, it probably makes them scratch their head,” said one Republican consultant.

Though most voters pay no attention whatsoever to a candidate’s consultant, for the operatives, activists, and state-level officials whose support campaigns court each cycle, the staffing choice could be salient.

At first glance, yesterday’s decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry might seem destined to end up as but a footnote in most constitutional-law books. It decides only whether the president or Congress controls the content of U.S. passports — now Nancy Pelosi can no longer demand that the Golden Gate Bridge appear on the visa pages of your next one. But because Zivotofsky involves the treatment of Jerusalem, it adds to the president’s foreign-affairs arsenal and could affect the struggle over U.S. Middle East policy, such as an Iranian nuclear deal.

Zivotofsky upholds the executive’s right to control passports. According to the Court’s decision, the State Department, rather than Congress, decides whether to record the birthplace of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem as “Jerusalem,” rather than “Israel.” All of the justices agree that the president holds a monopoly on the recognition of foreign governments, which stems from his exclusive constitutional authority to “receive Ambassadors” and has existed since President Washington’s 1793 proclamation of neutrality during the French Revolution. Congress, on the other hand, has the authority to control immigration, the borders, and international travel. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on behalf of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, used an ill-conceived and undefined balancing test to conclude that Congress could not use these powers to contradict the president’s position on Israel’s territorial boundaries. A law using passports to contradict the president’s decision to recognize Israel “would not only prevent the Nation from speaking with one voice but also prevent the Executive itself from doing so in conducting foreign relations.”

Safely past the hurdles of re-election and the mid-terms, President Obama has plenty of time and scope left to continue his transformative ways. Obama’s sweeping new rule, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH), is up next. AFFH would override local zoning authority and expand federal control over where and how Americans live. Because of its sweeping impact and the fact that potential Clinton Vice-Presidential running mate, HUD Secretary Julian Castro, will be in charge of implementation, this issue has the potential to shift the terrain of the presidential race as well.

There is a way to stop AFFH, however, and you can help. Late this evening the House is expected to vote on an amendment by Congressman Paul Gosar that would block any funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development to enforce AFFH. Now is the time to contact your congressman and urge a yes vote on the Gosar amendment.

Almost exactly two months after Hillary Rodham Clinton’s official announcement that she’s running for president, she will give her first “official campaign announcement speech,” on June 13, according to her Twitter account.

In other words, the Clinton campaign wants a do-over. Her first rollout was the most disastrous nonfatal presidential campaign debut in modern memory, so she wants another.

Her initial announcement video in April — which most outlets accurately reported as her official announcement — was well done. After that, everything went downhill; a steady stream of news stories and damning allegations about her family foundation and tenure as secretary of state has dogged her almost daily.

Her best moment since announcing was when she was captured on grainy security video at an Ohio Chipotle franchise buying a burrito bowl. ABC News and MarketWatch dubbed it an “adventure.” Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin explained that Clinton’s excellent adventure was “fun” and “new.” “We’ve never seen her get a burrito before.”

“Violence is exploding. Jihadist Trojan horses are flowing through the porous border along with the tens of thousands ID-less refugees.”

Lefties like to tout Sweden — a country of ten milliion people — whenever they’re bloviating about the joys of national socialism. But here’s one native-born Swedish-American who’s having none of it:

This is the last post on this blog. I am leaving Sweden for good shortly, and will no longer be following its descent from what was once the third most prosperous country in the world. Frankly, it’s just too damn depressing. I was born and raised in Sweden, which leaves a cultural mark even though I moved to USA in the 1990s and have spent the better part of my adult life as an American. Coming back for a few years has been a shocking experience.

ISIS released video today of a training camp of “caliphate cubs” in Mosul that shows boys being groomed for jihad with live-fire exercises and abusive adult trainers.
The boys are masked in the video except for mealtime, when the camera pans away from their faces. Their higher voices and average heights suggest mostly pre-pubescent boys to some in their early teens.
The release comes as ISIS is preparing for its one-year anniversary of sacking Mosul and establishing the caliphate on June 29. The group has put heavy emphasis on raising younger generations as jihadis, including boys who were already living in areas seized by ISIS and children brought to the Islamic State by their parents.
The full video was viewed by PJM. Here are some images captured from the 7-minute film.
Boys are subjected to fights in a cage ringed with ISIS flags
A trainee is shown breaking a pile of tiles with his head
The trainer sledgehammers a pile of tiles on a boy’s chest
The trainer walks on the chests of boys stretched out on the ground
The trainer hits boys with a stick as they traverse climbing bars
The trainer breaks a stick across the torso or heads of boys as they’re not supposed to flinch
Boys crawl through an astroturf-lined tunnel while ISIS trainers fire live rounds at their path
Boys are put through an exercise in how to ambush a car
A boy fires at a fellow trainee in the grass

Before winning a minority government in 2006, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to get to the bottom of the climate change file and handle the issue properly. Neither he, nor most members of his party, believed that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities were causing a climate crisis. Emission reduction regulations were clearly not necessary, they said.

In a 2002 fundraising letter for the now-defunct Canadian Alliance, Harper called the UN climate process “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”

Somewhere along the road to power, everything changed. Now, like the Chretien and Martin Liberal governments before them, the Conservatives officially support UN negotiations to “stop dangerous climate change.”