While Barack Hussein Obama is claiming ISIS is on the run, the exact opposite is proving to be true. Last night we published breaking news that al-Asad, an airbase in Iraq where 300+ U.S. Marines are stationed, had come under attack sometime earlier yesterday. You can read that full report here.
Here’s what we know so far.
1. Iraq’s al-Baghdadi did indeed fall into the hands of ISIS at some point during the past 48 hours
2. al-Baghdadi is a city located on a main road heading south to a major highway artery into Ramadi, Fallujah and Bagdad
3. al-Baghdadi is home to the only roads leading in and out of the al-Asad airbase in Iraq
4. We have 300+ Marines stationed at al-Asad to train Iraqi soldiers
5. The Pentagon is admitting al-Asad has come under attack, but says it has not fallen and the Marines have suffered no casualties
This morning Gateway Pundit posted video footage shot by ISIS that reportedly shows al-Baghdadi burning as a result of its defeat to ISIS. Video below.
Right now we’re working to identify more information about the attacks on al-Asad. We’ve seen reports that more ISIS re-enforcements are headed into the area and tensions are extremely high. We’ll continue posting updates here and at LibertyNews.com when they become available.
Look no further for a textbook example of what passes for logic from a liberal.
If there’s one thing leftist radio host Mike Malloy really hates, or so he claims, it is suffering from the improper use of firearms. Being a gun owner, he doesn’t hate guns themselves or want them banned, based on what he’s said on his show. More accurately, the thing he seems to hate most is when conservatives own guns. (Audio after the jump)
Malloy, a former CNN news writer and Air America Radio host, seldom lets an hour pass without complaining about a new law in Georgia that allows concealed carry permit holders to bring guns to bars, supermarkets, municipal buildings and some parts of airports.
Those who hold open carry permits and brandish their guns in public are another target of Malloy’s ire, to the point that Malloy recently made this bizarre threat (audio) –
I guess what I’ll do if I’m ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, I’ll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every g**-damned cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they’re going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn’t shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.
And Mike Malloy’s day will be complete.
In his brave, tireless efforts to stop senseless injuries and deaths from firearms, Malloy vows to start a panic in a public area – which would easily result in injuries and possibly fatalities. Clearly it has not crossed Malloy’s fevered mind that if he was actually opposed to senseless injuries and deaths, the last thing he would do is suggest what he did. Guess who goes to jail if you shout fire when there is none in a crowded theater, Mike? Diverting police with bogus 911 calls might prevent them from helping those in genuine distress. You really ought to think these things through.
This is what you can expect from a man who has also threatened to shoot an unnamed National Rifle Association board member – another example of Malloy’s meager efforts to cut down on violence.
If this Harvard University student got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps.
Her name is Sandra Korn. She is a senior at Harvard and columnist for the Harvard Crimson.
In a recent column, Korn unambiguously insisted that the university should stop guaranteeing professors and students the right to hold controversial views and pursue research that challenges liberalism.
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” asked Korn in her column.
The column’s subtitle was even more direct: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.”
Korn cited several instances of perspectives that clashed with her own being banned from campus as triumphant examples of the way Harvard should be run. The firing of Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard summer school instructor who was dismissed for his anti-Islamic views, was one such triumph.
She also invoked the academic boycott of Israel – something condemned by Harvard President Drew Faust and numerous other university presidents – as an example of the kind of tactics leftists should defend and use in order to get their way on campus.
Korn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Her sharp rejection of intellectual freedom – a value enshrined by U.S. law and central to the success of American institutions of higher learning – is common among left-wing activists at elite colleges. Last week, Erin Ching, a sophomore at Swarthmore College, took a similar view when she criticized her university for committing the unforgivable crime of allowing a conservative – Christian thinker Robert George – to speak on campus.
“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” she said, according to the Daily Gazette. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”
George, a Swarthmore alumnus, came to campus to debate Cornell West.
Pro-life students at the University of Alabama were victims of a similar belief that conservative views should not be publicly espoused on campus.
And at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, merely emailing an inoffensive .gif of President Barack Obama kicking a door triggers an investigation. The perpetrator was forced to apologize for committing a racial insensitivity.
Most people expect unions to protect workers, not attack their credit ratings. The Michigan Education Association (MEA) does not share these expectations. The union has threatened to damage the credit ratings of teachers who opt out of union dues.
Michigan recently became a right-to-work state, meaning workers in Michigan no longer need to pay union dues to keep their jobs. However, unions have decided not to let their members go easily. Steven Cook, president of the Michigan Education Association, announced plans to “use any legal means at our disposal to collect the dues.”
This includes sending collection agencies after teachers who don’t jump through union hoops. In May, Miriam Chanski, a 24-year-old kindergarten teacher in Coopersville, decided to leave the MEA. She informed the union of her choice and stopped paying dues. After receiving an acknowledgement letter from her union local, she believed she had done all she needed to do.
The union did not. In September, the MEA informed her that she could not leave until August. Since she had submitted her resignation form in May, the union intended to charge her dues for the 2013–2014 school year. If she didn’t give them her bank account or credit card information, the union said it would refer her to a collection agency, damaging her credit rating if she did not pay.
The August opt-out window came as a complete surprise to Chanski. The union never mentioned that fact when she left in May or in any of the MEA meetings she attended. It did not mention the window when it acknowledged her resignation. Not until August had passed did the union inform her she needed to resign then.
By hiding this information the MEA has effectively forced Chanski to choose between paying dues that can run over $600 a year or watch her credit rating suffer. In a recent interview Chanski explained, “I am a 24-year-old woman. Who knows what I’ll be doing some day, [maybe] buying a house someday? My credit is very personal to me and it’s something I take pride in.”
Unions should not mislead or threaten teachers who exercise their legal rights. With the assistance of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Chanski and six other Michigan teachers have filed a lawsuit seeking permission to leave the MEA at any time. Like many teachers, Miriam Chanski has shown love and dedication for her students. An organization claiming to represent workers should not hurt teacher’s credit ratings just to get its way.
D.C. is on the verge of passing a “Living Wage” law mandating $12.50 an hour wages, but only for retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more. The response from the world’s largest retailer is hardly unexpected.
The Washington Post reports Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’.
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
The company’s hardball tactics come out of a well-worn playbook that involves successfully using Wal-Mart’s leverage in the form of jobs and low-priced goods to fend off legislation and regulation that could cut into its profits and set precedent in other potential markets. In the Wilson Building, elected officials have found their reliable liberal, pro-union political sentiments in conflict with their desire to bring amenities to underserved neighborhoods.
Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) called Wal-Mart’s move “immensely discouraging,” indicating that he may consider vetoing the bill while pondering whether to seek reelection.
Alex Barron, a regional general manager for Wal-Mart U.S., wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece that the proposed wage requirement “would clearly inject unforeseen costs into the equation that will create an uneven playing field and challenge the fiscal health of our planned D.C. stores.”
As a result, Barron said, the company “will not pursue” stores at three locations where construction has yet to begin – two in Ward 7 and one in Ward 5. He added that the legislation, if passed, will also jeopardize the three stores underway, pending a review of the “financial and legal implications.”
The bill, known as the Large Retailer Accountability Act, passed the council on an initial 8 to 5 vote last month. The council would need nine votes to override a potential veto from Gray, who lobbied Wal-Mart to open a store at the Skyland Town Center site, near his Hillcrest home.
The Problem With “Living Wage” Laws
In the chicken-and-egg game of “living wages”, few have figured out it is government policies, not salaries that are the problem.
Here are some easy to understand examples.
Hundreds of “affordable home” programs drove home prices higher until home prices eventually collapsed (at which time government bodies did everything they could to prop up prices). Conclusion: Government bureaucrats did not really want affordable homes, they just wanted to be on record as being in favor of the idea (while handing out programs in return for votes and campaign donations)
Student loan programs (and of course education-related public unions) tell a similar story about out-of-control education costs.
Those wishing that government would do something about health care costs need to consider that government is the primary reason health care costs are absurd.
The Real Problem
The real problem is not low salaries but rather how far money goes. Blame the Fed and government policies for that problem, not Wal-Mart.
Should the law pass, it will of course artificially make small mom-and-pop retail stores more competitive, but for whose benefit?
The net effect will be higher prices for everyone, a net loss of jobs, subsidization of weak uncompetitive companies, and a big round of cheers from union sympathizers who will benefit at the expense of everyone else (with the real problem not remotely addressed).
To top it off, living wage laws (coupled with preposterously low interest rates from the Fed) provide further incentives for companies to look at software and hardware solutions to get rid of marginal workers.
Should this inane law pass, it will backfire immediately.
Leaders of South American countries held an angry and combative meeting Thursday night in Cochabamba, Bolivia – after Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane was rerouted Tuesday due to suspicions that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was on board.
Morales’ plane was prevented from entering French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese airspace after false rumors circled that Snowden was onboard his plane, and he was forced to land in Austria.
During the meeting, Morales threatened to close the American embassy in Bolivia and to expel American diplomats, saying: “We do not need them.”
Because of the general atmosphere, the American embassy in La Paz canceled their July 4 celebrations.
Latin American leaders were outraged by the incident, calling it a violation of national sovereignty and a slap in the face for a region that has suffered through humiliations by Europe and several U.S.-backed military coups.
Morales blamed Washington for pressuring European countries to refuse to allow his plane to fly through their airspace on Tuesday, forcing it to land in Vienna, Austria, in what he called a violation of international law. He had been returning from a summit in Russia during which he had suggested he would be willing to consider a request from Snowden for asylum.
“United we will defeat American imperialism. We met with the leaders of myparty and they asked us for several measures and if necessary, we will closethe embassy of the United States,” Morales said in the city where he started his political career as a leader of coca leaf farmers. “We do not need the embassy of the United States.”
A joint statement issued by the leaders said that an insult to Morales was an insult to them all. Some of those present included Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, Uruguayan President Jose Mujica and Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. The Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, said that she wanted to attend but was unable.
Ecuadorean President Correa said: “We’re not going to accept that in the 21st century there’s first, second and third rate countries,” Correa said. “The leaders and authorities in Europe have to take a lesson in history and understand that we’re not 500 years behind. This Latin America of the 21st century is independent, dignified and sovereign.” Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner said:
Speaking to supporters in Cochabamba, where a number of South American leaders were meeting to show solidarity with the Bolivian president after his delayed return home, Morales was quoted as saying “We do not need the US embassy.”