A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL?: Ben Domenech, “This Boehner-Obama Deal is Getting Worse All the Time.”

FACT, OPINION OR MYTH?: “THERE IS A GOD”: According to a public school teacher in Texas, the correct answer is “myth.” A Texas 7th grade girl says one of her teachers gave an assignment requiring students say God is a myth or receive a failing grade.

Jordan Wooley, who attends West Memorial Junior High School in the Katy Independent School District, told her school board Tuesday night they were given an assignment asking them to identify whether different statements were facts, opinions or myths. On the statement, “There is a God,” the teacher would only allow students to write myth, or else they’d fail, Wooley said.

This was part of graded assignment and #katy middle schooler says she was told she had to say God wasn't real #khou pic.twitter.com/5EQ5EnSYi7

— Josh Chapin (@JoshChapinKHOU) October 27, 2015

RACISM IN SLEEP?: The National Journal reports on the “Black-White Sleep Gap.”

BIDEN WON’T RUN IN 2016: Yep, it’s official. Uncle Joe has bowed out of the 2016 presidential race.

YES: Democrats’ 2016 strategy assumes America is lurching left. Are they wrong?

A self-proclaimed socialist like Bernie Sanders will always be an oddity in American politics; one who polls so well in Iowa and New Hampshire doubly so.

But what was so odd about the Democratic debate on Tuesday was not the socialist; it was how little his opponents disagreed with him. Particularly Hillary Clinton, whose career has always been built on, well, Clintonian triangulation. Hillary’s lurch to the left is by now well-documented. There’s her support for immigration amnesty and tougher gun control measures. When those scandalous Planned Parenthood videos emerged, she initially expressed concern — old habits die hard — before veering toward a full-throated embrace of the pro-choice gospel. And, of course, there’s her flip-flop on the TPP free trade deal, which she herself negotiated and now opposes, as well as her newfound opposition to the Keystone pipeline.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether this progressive scramble is merely a primary gambit, to be discarded for studious centrism once Clinton can decorate her desk with Bernie’s bleached skull, or whether it is her true political strategy. But remember, her lurch to the left began before Sanders’ meteoric rise in the polls. . . .

The competing narrative says that America really is becoming a much more progressive nation. The increasing secularization, or at least unchurching, of the U.S. makes America’s middle much more friendly to progressive social issues — witness the stunning success of the same-sex marriage movement. The uncertainties associated with globalization and technological change, and the increasing atomization of American society, increase the demand for a safety net. The 2012 election, after all, was basically about ObamaCare, and Obama won. In this view, America’s changing demographic mix is creating an emerging majority “rainbow coalition” even as Republicans are locked in a deadly vicious cycle of relying evermore on supermajorities of the shrinking white vote to remain competitive nationally, turning off everyone else in the process. Obama really was a “New Reagan,” a figure who not only won political successes for himself, but also changed the political balance of power for the country.

The Democrats are banking on this competing narrative. One need look no further than Clinton’s response to Anderson Cooper’s query, “Just for the record, are you a progressive, or are you a moderate?” Clinton disavowed the moderate label and replied, “I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”

Yet just a few weeks ago, Clinton told a smaller Ohio audience, “You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center,” Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. “I plead guilty.”  Even CNN talking heads have laughed at Clinton’s obvious flip-flopping.

By using the first national debate to proudly wave her progressive flag, Clinton is revealing that she thinks the “new narrative” of a left-of-center America is accurate.

WELL, TO PROGRESSIVES, MALLEABILITY IS A GOOD THING: Paul Taylor on “The Near Infinite Malleability of Obergefell.”

After the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was handed down, even commentators supportive of the result complained about the decision’s vague legal reasoning. So I did a little thought experiment: How much of the language from the Obergefell decision could be used verbatim to support the recognition of other fundamental rights to government benefits, such as unconditional welfare benefits? Remarkably few changes were necessary.

The NRO teaser then links to Paul’s longer piece, in which he essentially substitutes “marriage” for “welfare benefits” in the Obergefell opinion. The thought experiment shows how easy it would be for a future court, employing the open-ended (il)logic of Obergefell, to discover such new constitutional entitlements. As Paul confesses, it’s “not so tongue-in-cheek.”

YOU’RE WELCOME?: “The Mullahs Say Thanks.”  The Wall Street Journal editorial board opines today on the diplomatic and political fallout (pun intended) from the Iran nuclear deal:

President Obama and his foreign-policy admirers—a dwindling lot—hoped that the nuclear deal would make Iran more open to cooperation in the Middle East and with the U.S. Mark this down as another case in which the world is disappointing the American President.

Iran’s judiciary on Monday announced thatJason Rezaian, the Washington Post’s Tehran correspondent, has been convicted. He was on trial for “espionage.” . . .

The timing of the conviction won’t escape students of history. Friday was the 444th day of his captivity. That was the number of days U.S. diplomats in Iran spent as hostages following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Mr. Rezaian’s conviction three days later is the mullah equivalent of mailing a dead fish to an adversary. . . .

On Sunday the regime tested a new long-range, guided ballistic missile code-named Emad (“Pillar”) in violation of the nuclear deal. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231—which passed shortly after the agreement to harmonize its provisions with international law—prohibits Iran from conducting ballistic-missile work for eight years.

But the mullahs are nothing if not impatient, and the Islamic Republic has already made clear that it doesn’t intend to abide by the provisions of Resolution 2231 it dislikes. Testifying before the Senate over the summer, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly vowed to sanction Iran if it cheated on missiles. Well, here’s an early test case, Mr. Secretary.

The more likely outcome is that the Obama Administration will find a way to explain that the missile test doesn’t violate the nuclear accord that Mr. Obama considers a crowning achievement. . . .

But hey, Iran violating a nuclear deal by immediately testing ballistic missiles shouldn’t worry anyone. Nothing to see here.

“OUTSIDER” GOP CANDIDATES BEATING CLINTON HANDILY: The latest Fox News poll, released today, shows that the three “outsider” GOP presidential candidates–Trump, Fiorina and Carson–would all beat Hillary Clinton if the election were held today.  Carson is +11; Trump is +5; and Fiorina is +3.  Jeb! is +4 as well.

These numbers suggest Clinton’s campaign is in serious trouble, but also suggest–contrary to earlier reports–that the raw, politically incorrect positions espoused by outsiders like Trump, Fiorina and Carson could garner enough votes to beat Clinton in the general election.

If Biden enters the race, however, the same poll indicates he would enjoy an early lead over each of these GOP candidates, at least for a little while.

ANCHOR DADDIES?: Why so many of Europe’s middle eastern migrants are men.

Many of the men I interviewed traveling solo told me they had left their families behind and intended to reunite with them once they’d been accepted by a safe European country.

This helps to clarify why so many of Europe’s newcomers are young men. Of 102,753 registered arrivals through Italy and Greece, the International Organization of Migration found that 68,085 were men, with only 13,888 women and 20,780 children. . . .

“They tell us, ‘We do this dangerous trip on our own, we get asylum, and there is a law in the European Union that the family can come,’” says Christof Zellenberg, the chairman of the Europa Institute, who has been heavily involved in volunteer efforts in Vienna. You see few newcomers over 50, he adds, because “this is a grueling trip, and you need to be young and strong.” . . .

But a future influx of families could another problem, as Zellenberg notes. Europe is already struggling to deal with the financial burden caused by today’s newcomers, who are pouring across European borders at levels not seen since World War II. If the majority of these men plan to bring families later, the current numbers are totally off. Multiply it by four or more, he says.

These anchor daddies will strain Europe’s resources and could fundamentally transform its culture.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO TARGET TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVES:

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said that big-business groups are ready to target House Freedom Caucus members if they don’t “play ball” with the GOP establishment and support Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s (R-WI) potential candidacy for House Speaker.

Wallace said that he has been told that “there’s a lot of pressure being put on by the establishment and business groups, saying that some of those Freedom Caucus members, if you’re not going to play ball and you’re not going to get involved, you’re going to get a primary opponent.”

The Chamber of Commerce has reportedly budgeted $100 million to destroy the Tea Party this election cycle and news of the chamber’s plans came not-so-coincidentally days after House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announced that he would be resigning from Congress.As Roll Call noted, the chamber’s “top targets in 2016 will be right-wing, tea party candidates” and its ultimate goal is to reportedly win back “the soul of the Republican Party” for the GOP establishment establishment by helping elect more moderate candidates “in contested primaries to strengthen their hand during policy debates on the Hill.”

So apparently the Chamber and GOP establishment have come to the conclusion that continued conflict, not cooperation, with constitutional conservatives is the best path forward. And they wonder why the tea party is distrustful and angry?

RELATED: Freedom Caucus signals it could support Ryan for Speaker.

“Paul Ryan is a good man. He’s a great communicator, the kind of messenger I think our party needs,” Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said on “Fox News Sunday.” ”And certainly, if he gets in the race, I think our group would look favorably on him.” . . .

One Republican close to Ryan said that the only scenario in which Ryan might end up as speaker is if he were to be selected by unanimous acclamation, not subject to bargaining with the Freedom Caucus. This Republican demanded anonymity to discuss private considerations.

Somehow I think an attitude of “I will accept the Speakership, but only if you unanimously support me and accept that I will not bargain with you” isn’t exactly the right attitude to “unite” the House GOP.  

UPDATE: Fixed broken link (at intro).

MIKE NEEDHAM: The Heritage Action CEO explains, “The reality that drove McCarthy’s exit from the Speaker’s race.”

The reality is simple: In the aftermath of the 2011 showdown over the debt ceiling—the showdown that led to the spending caps that Boehner, et al. are now attempting to bust—the GOP began taking a passive posture toward President Obama and a dismissive disposition toward conservatives.

That dynamic within the House Republican Conference has been building over the past four years. It came close to boiling over in January, and finally became too much in September.

Of course, Americans outside of Washington played an undeniably important role in this process. The revival of the conservative grassroots empowered by access to information and a proliferation of technology created an atmosphere that forced Boehner to resign. And in a nod to political reality, McCarthy said “I don’t want to make voting for speaker a tough one…” Indeed it would have been, because as Boehner’s second in command, McCarthy would have been viewed in a similarly unfavorable light.

Rep. Peter King, a liberal Republican from New York, suggested America is now “A banana republic.” That is a petulant, childish reaction intended to dismiss the serious nature of the party’s internal divisions.

To be clear, the solution to overcoming that divide is not some moderate caretaker or an absurd coalition-style government with Nancy Pelosi. . . .

The Republican Party has fallen into the same trap—refusing to recognize or address its serious internal problems. This is an action-forcing event, and every single Republican needs to recognize it as such.

Exactly. Is the GOP establishment listening yet? Somehow, I doubt it.

HOUSE SPEAKER SELECTION DELAYED: Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has dropped out of the race for House Speaker. Boehner has delayed the GOP conference vote (slated for today) indefinitely.

It happened suddenly. A source close to McCarthy told National Review on Wednesday that the majority leader was confident that he had secured about 200 votes, and possibly gotten all the way to 218. At 1:00 P.M., just an hour after the scheduled meeting at which he withdrew from the race, came a statement from his office: “Over the last week it has become clear to me that our conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put the conference ahead of myself. Therefore, I am withdrawing my candidacy for speaker of the House.”

Almost immediately, new names for the position began to float on Capitol Hill. Trey Gowdy (“If the Hillary hearing goes well, Trey Gowdy will get a tremendous amount of pressure,” says one House Republican, referring to the Benghazi committee’s scheduled interview with the former secretary of state, set to take place later this month. “I don’t know that he has the heart to do it.”) Peter Roskam. Jason Chaffetz. An interim speaker. Somebody, anybody.

In a phone call, McCarthy tells National Review he wants Ways and Means Committee chairman Paul Ryan to run, but Ryan issued a statement Thursday ruling out a bid. So right now, McCarthy says, the conference may be ungovernable. “I don’t know,” he says. “Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom.”

McCarthy’s move followed something of a political rock bottom of his own that stretched over two brutal weeks. Even before he announced his bid, he faced resistance from conservatives who viewed him as too closely tied to Boehner, the outgoing Speaker. All week, the Tea Party Patriots had been circulating T-shirts on Capitol Hill with the term “McBoehner” emblazoned across the front, along with an orange, wine-swilling, cigarette-smoking amalgam of Boehner and McCarthy.

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL)–a former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives–is now emerging as a more likely contender, obtaining the official endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is still in the race, but appears to have fewer votes lined up than Webster.

Chaffetz was expected to finish third in the GOP caucus vote after McCarthy and Rep. Daniel Webster, a Florida Republican who on Wednesday nabbed the endorsement of the 40-something-strong House Freedom Caucus.

Rep. Steve King, one of the House’s more conservative members, said that he saw Webster with up to 70 votes in the race so far and that he was far ahead of Chaffetz.

“What I saw was Webster’s numbers growing,” King said. “I didn’t see that Chaffetz’s numbers were growing and they may have shrunk, I don’t know.”

King said McCarthy’s withdrawal was an opening for Webster, not Chaffetz.

Asked whether Chaffetz now had a better shot, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., was abrupt.

“No,” said the former chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Chaffetz now heads.

Boehner has not scheduled a new date for the GOP conference to vote on his replacement. Rumors are flying that Boehner is maneuvering to stay on as Speaker until a clear GOP consensus emerges. I have even heard rumors that Boehner is considering staying on as Speaker after his term of office expires (he has also announced that he will not seek reelection), as the Speaker of the House does not have to be an elected member of the House.

If Boehner stays on as Speaker much longer, it will be horrific for the GOP, further deepening the anger of the base and dividing the members of the House. It’s long past time for him to go, and his feeble attempts to stay on any longer is only harming, not helping, the GOP.

The GOP conference needs to pick a replacement as soon as possible. Once the GOP conference has picked its candidate, it will be incumbent upon all members of the GOP to unite and support that candidate, regardless of which “side” the candidate is on. To do otherwise would be to allow the Democrats to pick the next Speaker.

CRAZY UNCLE JOE–YEAH, CRAZY AS A FOX: Biden himself leaked word of his son’s dying wish.

Joe Biden has been making his 2016 deliberations all about his late son since August.

Aug. 1, to be exact — the day renowned Hillary Clinton-critic Maureen Dowd published a column that marked a turning point in the presidential speculation.

According to multiple sources, it was Biden himself who talked to her, painting a tragic portrait of a dying son, Beau’s face partially paralyzed, sitting his father down and trying to make him promise to run for president because “the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values.”

It was no coincidence that the preliminary pieces around a prospective campaign started moving right after that column. People read Dowd and started reaching out, those around the vice president would say by way of defensive explanation. He was just answering the phone and listening.

But in truth, Biden had effectively placed an ad in The New York Times, asking them to call.

Before that moment and since, Biden has told the Beau story to others. Sometimes details change — the setting, the exact words. The version he gave Dowd delivered the strongest punch to the gut, making the clearest swipe at Clinton by enshrining the idea of a campaign against her in the words of a son so beloved nationally that his advice is now beyond politics. This campaign wouldn’t be about her or her email controversy, the story suggests, but connected to righteousness on some higher plane.

Biden’s “Uncle Joe” schtick is designed to camouflage the career politician inside who has no qualms about lying to further his own ambitions. You know, the man who plagiarized his law review comment and falsely claims that he played college football, graduated in the top half of his law school class (he was 76 out of 85), had a blue collar upbringing, that his first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver (there is no evidence the driver was drunk), and that he was a skeptic of the Iran nuclear deal.

Biden has displayed, over a long period of time, a near-pathological propensity to lie in order to aggrandize himself. That he would “embellish” the story of his dying son’s last words–and plant the story himself with the New York Times–is just another example of this pattern.

Run, Joe, run!

IS THE POPE CATHOLIC? An LA Times oped today by a former chief of staff to Israeli PM Netanyahu answers itself, “Are Islamic State terrorists sneaking into the West?”

Not since World War II has Europe seen such a stark population shift. Germany is preparing to house a staggering 800,000 refugees from Syria and elsewhere this year, a decision that will surely alter the country’s very character. Other nations have also pledged refuge for significant numbers, and they will also inevitably face enormous integration challenges.

Meanwhile, Hungary and Slovakia have been vilified by many for rebelling against taking in thousands of refugees. Not only have they rejected European Union-imposed quotas, but both countries have made it clear that a mass Muslim migration would pose unacceptable demographic and cultural challenges. Their concerns are well founded, not only over integration but especially from a security perspective.

Lebanon’s education minister, Elias Bousaab, warned recently that two in every 100 Syrian migrants arriving in Europe are Islamic State fighters, sent to infiltrate a continent distracted by sympathy. If Bousaab’s conservative calculation proves accurate, it would mean that among the 10,000 Syrian refugees that Secretary of State John F. Kerry has pledged to allow into the United States in 2016, there could be 200 committed terrorists. . . .

Many in the West would prefer to open their arms to waves of refugees — terrorists among them — rather than take up arms to deal with the root of the problem. Of course, those who require refuge must be aided. But the West can best help them by flexing its considerable military muscle. Refusal to do so is likely to hand the likes of Islamic State a double victory, as it entrenches its positions in Syria and Iraq while also establishing a foothold in Europe. 

A war weary America, led by an impuissant and anti-American President, is dangerous for the globe.

DELAY INDICATES DISARRAY: Boehner postpones House vote on House majority leader and whip. The GOP Conference’s vote on Speaker is still slated for Thursday.

Speaker John Boehner on Monday postponed the election for House majority leader and majority whip until next month, a blow to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who announced less than 24 hours earlier he had the votes to win the majority leader race.

The House Republican Conference will still choose its nominee for speaker on Thursday, and the full chamber will vote on Boehner’s successor on Oct. 29.

Boehner’s decision could take some of the pressure off House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the favorite to replace him. But the bigger impact may be on the majority leader’s race: the delay will give conservatives more time to find a candidate to run against Scalise (R-La.) and Georgia Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) for the No. 2 leadership position.

Some hardline GOP conservatives are opposed to simply promoting McCarthy and Scalise up the leadership ranks following Boehner’s departure, believing that such a move will just leave in place a team that has failed to deliver on its promises to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood or dramatically reduce government spending. These hardliners have searched for an alternative candidate to Scalise and Price, but no one has stepped forward to take up that mantle. Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) are running against McCarthy, but neither is given much of a chance of defeating the California Republican.

The delay likely means more leverage for the Freedom Caucus and its desire to get more conservative/tea party voices in the GOP leadership as either Majority Leader or Whip. While current Majority Whip Scalise is a definite conservative, he has been closely aligned with Boehner and is not a favorite of the tea party wing of the party.

As for the Speakership, I wouldn’t rule out Chaffetz, though time is not on his side. He’s a smart and principled guy who may be able to bridge the gap between the establishment and tea party wings of the GOP. While McCarthy has indicated he wishes to bridge this gap as well, his position within the Boehner leadership team has tainted him with the tea party wing.

RELATED: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), current chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, announced today that he will seek the Majority Whip slot. Sessions is no tea party favorite, either.

BIAS OF ASSOCIATED PRESS SHINES THROUGH: While casually flipping through the Saturday edition of a local paper, the Key West Citizen, I happened upon a short piece under the “Nation” section about Carly Fiorina, the title of which caught my eye: (as I’m sure it did many others) “Fiorina makes distortion of Planned Parenthood a centerpiece.”

After Googling this title, it turns out that the larger, “parent” piece (no pun intended) of the blurb was written by Bill Barrow at AP, as it appears in newspapers throughout the country, and contains the typical mainstream media’s minimal, begrudging attempt at “balance,” which is then robustly counterbalanced with thinly disguised bias, as evidenced in word choices and selective quotes.

But the patently biased headline itself–without any content at all– appears on the webpages of multiple local papers and televisions stations throughout the country (here, here, here, here, and here, for example).

And the blurb that is being spawned from Barrow’s larger piece is so one-sided that I almost spit out my coffee.  The Key West Citizen piece is not available online (the paper’s horrible search engine turns up nothing on “Carly Fiorina” at all). But it’s very short, so I will reproduce it in toto for the Insta readers to enjoy:

Fiorina makes distortion of Planned Parenthood a centerpiece

Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina has spent the last two weeks repeating an erroneous description of videos secretly recorded by anti-abortion activists. That seems bound to continue as she makes her opposition to Planned Parenthood a centerpiece of her 2016 campaign.

Campaigning in South Carolina on Friday, Fiorina said she “absolutely” stands by her criticism of Planned Parenthood. She accused the women’s health organization–it’s also the nation’s largest abortion provider–of pushing “propaganda” against her while being “aided and abetted by the media.”

Oh, the irony of that last sentence!

The AP’s aiding and abetting of a hit job against Fiorina aside, notice the incredibly lopsided content of this blurb. It contains several assertions:

1.  Carly Fiorina has spend the last two weeks lying;

2.  She has been lying about Planned Parenthood videos that were “secretly recorded by anti-abortion activists”;

3.  Fiorina opposes Planned Parenthood; and

4.  Planned Parenthood is a provider of “women’s health,” which just happens to also include a large number of abortions.

There is no discussion of the content of the videos at all. The piece implies that there are some loony bin, right-wing activists who have secretly recorded some videos that distort Planned Parenthood, a provider of “women’s health.” Most readers, who rely on the mainstream media, have probably never even seen these disgusting Planned Parenthood videos. So they read this piece and assume that Cary Fiorina is going around lying about them simply because she–like other conservatives, of course–is opposed to “women’s health.”

She is, in short, a woman who cannot be trusted on women’s issues. The desired implication for the reader of the AP piece is that Carly Fiorina is a liar and opposed to “women’s health.” 

One cannot even imagine the AP running a piece on Hillary Clinton that is so overtly biased. I mean, Hillary would never lie or distort anything, right? 

DEAFENING SILENCE: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stares down the cowardly hypocrites at the U.N.

“Seventy years after the murder of 6 million Jews, Iran’s rulers promise to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing,” Netanyahu said. “Utter silence. Deafening silence.”

What followed were more than 45 seconds of silence where Netanyahu stared down the audience inside the auditorium.

 [jwplayer mediaid=”215631″]

PROGRESSIVES’ CAUSE DU JOUR: HATING ISRAEL: The Progressive Left and Israel’s Right to Exist

A small incident during Bernie Sanders’ recent talk at the University of Chicago reveals how the progressive left has turned against Israel. The venue was the largest on campus, and it was packed with enthusiastic supporters. During a Q&A, one student said that he and his friends liked Bernie’s progressive politics but didn’t much like his views on the Middle East. Bernie’s response, and the crowd’s, are worth pondering.

First of all, Bernie said, Israel has a right to exist. It was supposed to be an applause line, but it fell flat. There was only a smattering. That changed when he said he strongly favored a Palestinian state. For that, the applause was loud and sustained.

It’s only a small incident, but it captures a movement that has been developing for years at elite universities and is now spreading to cultural and media institutions. Their views are surely encouraged by President Obama’s diffidence toward the Jewish state. But he is less a leader than an accurate weather gauge. The left loves Israel about as much as it loves fracking, the Keystone pipeline, Goldman Sachs, voter IDs, Clarence Thomas, and deer hunting.

Actually, progressives would probably prefer to go deer hunting with Clarence Thomas than admit that Israel is a democratic ally whose existence is, in large part, the product of a Holocaust that killed an estimated six million Jews and rendered hundreds of thousands more refugees.  Indeed, it is not unusual to still hear “history deniers” disclaim that the Holocaust even happened, or believe it is greatly exaggerated.

Jewish “victimhood” after the Holocaust is irrelevant to the progressives, who only acknowledge the “victimhood” of Arabs. The covert anti-Semitism is patent, but progressives will never admit it, lest they lose the political support of American Jews.

Haters gonna hate, I know, but progressives lack self-awareness of their hatred, and instead project it onto others with whom they disagree.

NCAA BAN ON PAYING COLLEGE ATHLETES VIOLATES FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW:  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that the NCAA’s ban on any pay for basketball or football players in Division I schools violates federal antitrust law.

Ruling that the Supreme Court has not settled the issue, and setting the stage for the Court to do so, a federal appeals court declared on Wednesday that the main college sports organization’s total ban on any pay for students who play football or basketball at major schools is illegal under federal antitrust law.  But, it also ruled by a divided vote that those athletes should not be paid even one dollar more than what it costs them to attend college while they are there.  It voided a judge’s order that they get paid $5,000 for each year of play, after they have left the campus.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a case that applies only to so-called Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association — that is, the big-time programs — and only for basketball and football players at that level.   But it creates a conflict with other federal appeals courts on an issue that the NCAA has long treated as vital to the very existence of college football as a game for amateurs, not professionals.

The NCAA has vigorously defended its “amateur athlete” view every time it has been challenged by student athletes who sought compensation, and it has long held the view that its rules are totally exempt from antitrust law — an exemption it traces to a 1984 Supreme Court decision dealing with television rights for college football games.  The Ninth Circuit disagreed with that argument Wednesday.

The organization has strong reasons for taking the issue on to the Supreme Court, to defend a view of amateurism that it has held for perhaps ninety-four years and that it has reinforced with strict rules against athlete compensation for sixty-seven years.  (The NCAA’s amateurism view gained significantly earlier this year, when the National Labor Relations Board found it had no authority to rule on a plea by Northwestern University football players that they should have a legal right under federal labor law to join a union to bargain for pay and other benefits related to their sports careers in college.  That decision could not be appealed.)

It is not clear at this point whether the new Ninth Circuit decision will have a major impact on the finances of college football, if that ruling stands.  The NCAA, under a policy that the Ninth Circuit said the organization would otherwise be free to change, has already allowed athletes to get football and basketball scholarships that not only cover the basics of tuition and books (so-called “grant-in-aid” packages), but at a level that would cover the entire cost of their attendance.  The Ninth Circuit ruling would simply require the NCAA to continue compensation at that full level, as a legal duty.

The full Ninth Circuit opinion is available here.

GEE, I DUNNO–PROSTITUTES AND FOREIGN “DONATIONS” MAYBE?: Where have all of Bill and Hillary’s millions gone?

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.

From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?

“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”

It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day. . . .

It seems unlikely, but they could have given it away overseas: Donations to foreign charities are not deductible and would not be listed on tax returns. Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshmi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to their foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?

Maybe. Quid pro quos are not unusual among wealthy donors. Or maybe the Clintons are just big spenders with a lavish lifestyle.

Maybe an investigative reporter should ask the Clintons and actually investigate this.

CALLING IT LIKE IT IS: S.E. Cupp, “Democrats: The Party of Abortion, Not the Party of Women.”

If you didn’t know any better, you might be under the impression that Planned Parenthood clinics are the only place a woman can go for any variety of health services, including abortions, mammograms, contraceptive services and screenings.

That’s because Planned Parenthood actively fosters this impression to bolster its own necessity, aided by Republicans determined to end federal funding of abortions who have unwittingly helped elevate the organization’s image out of scale with its actual importance.

In reality, however, the 700 Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the country — predominately in urban areas — are dwarfed by the nearly 9,000 community health centers or CHCs around the country, with one in almost every Congressional district. . . .

Though Planned Parenthood routinely insists women need it for mammograms, the clinics don’t actually perform any (they are legally not allowed to). The CHCs, however, do. . . .

Congressional House Republicans passed a measure this month that wouldn’t just defund Planned Parenthood, but redirect its funding to CHCs. Republicans are making the argument for more access to more women’s services, while Democrats are actively trying to limit them.

The Planned Parenthood battle isn’t over, but it has proven one thing: Democrats are not the party of women. They are the party of abortion. There’s a big difference.

Well, yes. But Democrats’ are much better at getting their “spin” accepted by the mainstream media; hence the oft-used “War on Women” label, the battles of which oddly focus exclusively on providing an unfettered access to abortion, as if abortion were the only issue of salience to women’s lives. How paternalistic of the Democrats.

Moreover, never mind that Republicans are spearheading the effort to make birth control pills more widely available by classifying them as over-the-counter–something the Democrats and Planned Parenthood vehemently oppose.  And never mind that Republicans wish to expand access to all kinds of women’s medical care–not just abortion and contraception–by expanding funding for community health centers.  None of that fits with the Democrats’ “war on women” label, so it can’t be too widely discussed.

If the Republicans in Congress were smart (a big if, I know), they would start talking about the Democrats’ “war on birth control” and “war on women’s health.”

BLACK LIVES MATTER, EXCEPT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: William McGurn observes in the Wall Street Journal:

When Bill de Blasio was elected mayor of New York in 2013, he came in riding two progressive narratives.

The grand narrative was his “Tale of Two Cities,” a New York where elites grow rich while millions of others are left struggling for basics. Running through this tale was the subtheme of race, especially of young African-Americans being unfairly deprived of their rights. So when the #BlackLivesMatter movement exploded in New York last year, Mr. de Blasio naturally embraced it. . . .

Today, however, the mayor is finding that his progressive measures are being turned against him. For nowhere in New York is the divide between haves and have-nots—or between black and white—as stark as it is on equal access to a decent education. It is this divide the pro-charter Families for Excellent Schools will highlight on Wednesday as mothers and fathers march across the Brooklyn Bridge to demand “school equality,” i.e., great schools for all children.

In the run up to this march, the group has released a powerful new TV ad designed to drive home the human costs of the existing inequality by showing a white boy and an African-American boy on their way to school. As the camera follows the white child, a narrator says, “Because he lives in a wealthy neighborhood, this 6-year-old will attend a good school.” It points out he’ll “likely go on to college.”

The black child is also walking to school. “Because he lives in a poor neighborhood, this 6-year-old will be forced into a failing school,” says the narrator. The narrator adds this child will probably never make it to college.

“Mayor de Blasio,” the ad ends, “stop forcing kids into failing schools. Half a million kids need new schools now.”

One measure of the ad’s power is how vehemently the mayor’s black allies have denounced it. “Racist to the core,” charged Bertha Lewis, an activist who ran the left-wing community organizing group Acorn until it was disbanded. Likewise the head of the state’s NAACP, Hazel Dukes, who calls the ad “an insult to our communities.”

To the progressive left, advocating for better education for minority students is “racist.” Because, you know, #BlackLivesMatter, but one shouldn’t actually try to do anything about it, other than march in the streets, hold signs, get on TV, and condemn white people as racist– well, at least white people who aren’t Democrats.

When will black Democrats wake up and realize they’re being played? Democrats’ policies–including a ridiculous refusal to give parents meaningful educational options other than failed public schools (that resemble prisons more than schools)–are antithetical to the interests of most blacks. But hey, those conservatives are all just whiteys who can’t be trusted, so whatever they propose must be racist in some way, right?

KEN CUCCINELLI: “Yes, Hillary Clinton Broke the Law.”

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. . . . On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].” . . .

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority. . . The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

But of course laws are for the little people, or at least (in the case of Petraeus), people whom the Obama Administration finds inconvenient or threatening.

THIS SEEMS SO OBVIOUS, AND YET SO UNLIKELY: Larry Kudlow, “Every Now and Then, the GOP Should Disrupt the Status Quo.”

Nobody really likes government shutdowns, including me. But sometimes you have to make a point. Send a message. Show voters what you really believe. Take a stand.

With John Boehner set to resign at the end of October, many believe the outgoing speaker can team up with House Democrats to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1. Daniel Clifton, partner at Wall Street research firm Strategas and ace Washington watcher, reports, “The risk of a government shutdown next week has been eliminated.” And he expects Congress to pass a short-term continuing resolution that will fund government appropriations through December 11.

That would be a clean bill that does not defund Planned Parenthood. More Democrats than Republicans would support it. And Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stands ready to pass a similar clean resolution. . . .

I am not arguing for a constant series of budget shutdowns. And I will always oppose any expiration of the U.S. Treasury debt ceiling. That would be a harmful global economic event. No good. But it is worth remembering that there are no catastrophic political or economic consequences attached to these shutdowns.

Surely, shutdowns are a cumbersome way to make a point. But the GOP base is clamoring for a more aggressive Republican Congress. The grassroots are angry and frustrated that the Republican House and Senate have not passed a series of large-scale bills.

There’s been no repeal and rewrite of Obamacare. There’s been no corporate tax reform, at a minimum, or overall personal tax reform. There’s been no energy bill — neither to build the XL pipeline nor to end limits on oil and gas exports and drilling on federal lands.

Immigration reform is a hot topic on the presidential debate scene. But there’s been nothing on this from Congress. And the huge issue is the Iran nuclear deal, which in addition to being unverifiable would give Iran $150 billion to kill more American soldiers and advance its domination of the Middle East. But the congressional GOP response has been weak and confusing.

And the fact that legislative hurdles — such as the filibuster, 60-vote rule in the Senate — prevents these reforms is unsatisfying to the GOP base.

Of course, the arrogant and ideologically stubborn President Obama would veto all these reforms if they ever got to his desk. But if I read the grassroots properly, they know this and believe these vetoes would set the stage for a big Republican victory in 2016.

Well, yes. But the GOP establishment is kicking and screaming while its base takes it to the woodshed.

KEEPING AMERICA SAFE: President Obama releases 9/11’s “20th hijacker” from Gitmo. His name is Abdul Rahman Shalabi, and he’s considered by DoD to be a “high” risk to U.S. interests. It’s just another impeachable offense, but who really cares? Certainly not the mainstream media.