Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, January 6, 2026
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 696)
Opinion

http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Obama-Biden-Kerry-Keystone

President Barack Obama talks with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry in the hallway outside the Oval Office prior to entering the Roosevelt Room to announce the administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, Nov. 6, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Obama administration has finally passed judgment on the Keystone XL pipeline, and it’s a thumbs-down. The environmental arguments against it have always been impeccable. But it took America’s turn toward energy independence to cut down the economic case for it.

Americans still need oil, but we can choose to reject the dirtiest kind. A 1,179-mile pipeline was to carry crude from the tar sands in Alberta to a pumping station in Nebraska, with a separate expansion to the Gulf Coast. Tar sands oil generates 17 percent more planet-warming gases than conventional oil.

In the days of heavy reliance on Mideast oil, opposing any dependable new source of oil, above all from friendly Canada, posed political risk. But boy, have things changed. New technologies have enabled us to get at large stores of domestic oil and gas. And we’re developing ways to harvest clean energy.

Texas has so much wind power now that some utilities are giving away electricity at night. Why on earth should the U.S. be enabling the transport of tar sands gook from the bottom of the environmental oil barrel?

With the price of oil way down and little public wailing about prices at the pump, Obama was able to say “no” to the pipeline without facing serious political blowback.

Not even from Canada, where most politicians felt duty-bound to back the pipeline. That included the new prime minister, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau. Though Trudeau’s heart wasn’t much in it, Obama’s decision to nix the project took some heat off him.

There’s no little irony in the fact that the project was ultimately stopped by people who generally don’t care about global warming. We are speaking of Nebraskans.
A major oil spill would have threatened the massive underground Ogallala aquifer, which supplies water to Nebraska’s ecologically fragile Sandhills and well beyond. The aquifer is what makes this region agriculturally rich, as opposed to the Great American Desert early travelers once thought it was.

A pipe moving 830,000 barrels of oil a day would be no small concern. And the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico did not inspire confidence in the promoters’ safety claims.

Holdout landowners not interested in letting TransCanada build a pipeline on their properties provided another source of local opposition. The idea that a foreign company could use eminent domain to take their land did not go over well at all.

The Nebraska resistance created delay, giving technology time to deliver energy independence. All that’s left is the jobs argument. And it takes a certain amount of guts to defend a massively controversial project on the basis of making some temporary construction jobs and a measly 35 permanent ones.

Many of the project’s backers have argued that pipeline or no, Canada will still extract and sell the environmentally damaging tar sands oil, so why stand in the way? Well, with the price of oil so low and the cost of moving it higher by rail than by pipeline, it’s become increasingly likely that the oil will stay in the ground — where it belongs.

Obama will be taking his pipeline decision with him to Paris next month. There he will prod a summit of foreign leaders to get super-serious about confronting the enormous security and environmental implications of climate change.

“Frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership,” Obama said with considerable understatement.

Fortunately, not approving it had become no big deal in 2015. Nowadays, we Americans can afford to be choosier about how we power our lives. That’s a wonderful position to be in.

The environmental case against Keystone have always

Opinion

Ben-Carson-Harlem-BLM

Ben Carson, Republican presidential candidate and child neurosurgeon, speaks on the Black Lives Matter movement in Harlem, New York. (Photo: Ross Barkan for Observer)

Dr. Ben Carson’s whole life has been very unusual, so perhaps we should not be surprised to see the latest twist — the media going ballistic over discrepancies in a few things he said.

Years ago, when I was writing some autobiographical sketches, I dug up old letters, to check out things that I remembered — and was surprised more than once to discover that my memory was not always exactly the same as the way things had happened and were recorded at the time.

In the current flap over some things that Dr. Carson said, the biggest discrepancy has been between the furor in the media and the irrelevance of his statements to any political issue.

For example, in a video that someone dug up, Dr. Carson said to an audience that his “theory” about the Pyramids is that they were used as storage facilities. He was smiling as he said this, so it is not clear whether he was using this theory just to illustrate some point. But, in any case, he was not claiming this as a fact.

More important, the Pyramids are not an issue in today’s American political campaign, except as a “gotcha” gimmick.

Yet the media have paid far more attention to Ben Carson’s speculation about what the Pyramids were built for, thousands of years ago, than to outright lies that Hillary Clinton told about tragic American deaths in Benghazi, within days after she knew the truth, as her own e-mails now reveal.

Another media tempest in a teapot has developed because of the mild-mannered Dr. Carson’s recollections about some childhood incidents in which he depicted himself as violent toward another child. Some people who knew the young Ben Carson have said that such behavior would have been out of character for him. But has no one ever acted out of character, especially in childhood?

Albert Einstein, as a child, once threw a heavy object at his little sister that could have injured her or even killed her. Yet Einstein grew up to be a mild-mannered pacifist, and no one ever brought up that incident to try to discredit Einstein’s scientific work.

What has been far more disturbing than anything Ben Carson has said or done has been the media’s search-and-destroy mission against the renowned brain surgeon. The utter irrelevance of the issues raised by the media, at a time when the country faces monumental challenges at home and overseas, makes the media hype grotesque. It tells us more about the media than about Dr. Carson.

By contrast, the media showed no such zeal to expose Barack Obama’s associations and alliances with a whole series of people who expressed their hatred of America in words and/or deeds. Here was something relevant to his suitability to become president. But the media saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.

Nor have the media launched such attacks on President Obama as they have on candidate Carson, even after Obama proceeded to abandon existing American commitments to provide defensive aid to countries in Eastern Europe and to directly promote the destruction of governments in Egypt and Libya that posed no threat to American interests — all the while undermining Israel’s ability to defend itself.

Meanwhile he cut back on our own military defense so drastically that even former Secretaries of Defense who had served during his administration have publicly criticized his policies. So have former top generals and former top intelligence officials.

But the media largely circled the wagons to protect Obama — and now to protect Secretary of State Clinton, who carried out the foreign policies that left America’s position in virtually all regions of the world worse than when the Obama administration took office.

It was much the same story on domestic issues. Obama’s outright lies, that people would be able to keep their own doctors and their own health insurance under ObamaCare, were far more consequential than Dr. Carson’s offhand speculation about the Pyramids. But did the media try to destroy Obama’s credibility?

Unfortunately, the moment Dr. Carson entered the political arena it became inevitable that the media would try to discredit him, since any prominent conservative black figure is a threat to the left’s vision and the Democrats’ voting base. The flimsy basis for the current attacks only demonstrates the media’s bias and desperation.

Dr. Ben Carson's whole life has been

Politics

obama-executive-amnesty-speech

U.S. President Barack Obama pauses during a ceremony honoring the National Medal of Technology and Innovation awardees at the White House in Washington November 20, 2014. Obama briefly touched upon his planned executive amnesty action on immigration, which was announced that same night. (Photo: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled against President Obama and upheld a lower court ruling against his executive amnesty. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who began the 26-state lawsuit as the state attorney general, called it a “vindication for the rule of law and the Constitution.”

“President Obama should abandon his lawless executive amnesty program and start enforcing the law today,” Abbott said in a news release.

The 2-1 decision by the appeals-court panel has made permanent a Texas judge’s injunction against the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shielded young illegal immigrants from deportation if their parents brought them to the U.S. as children.

“Today’s ruling is not a surprise but is still a disappointment. We have understood from the beginning of this politically driven lawsuit that the case would likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota, an open borders pro illegal immigration group. “We urge the U.S. Department of Justice to waste no time in filing an appeal to the Supreme Court,” he said, adding that “anti-immigrant conservative politicians … are to blame.”

The 70-page majority opinion by Judge Jerry Smith, joined by Jennifer Walker Elrod, rejected administration arguments that the district judge abused his discretion with a nationwide order and that the states lacked standing to challenge Obama’s executive orders. The court not only ruled that the president did not have the power to unilaterally change immigration law, but also that the financial burden to the states was unduly placed on them by the executive order. However, the court did acknowledged the administration’s argument that an adverse ruling would discourage cooperation with law enforcement or paying taxes.

“But those are burdens that Congress knowingly created, and it is not our place to second-guess those decisions,” Judge Smith wrote in the majority opinion.

The Fifth Circuit in May also ruled to uphold the injunction against President Obama’s executive amnesty handed down in February by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. In another 2-1 decision, the court rejected the administration’s argument and ruled the president could not move forward with deferred deportation and additional benefits for at least 5 million illegal, undocumented immigrants. Justices Jerry Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod denied the stay, stating in an opinion authored by Smith that the administration is unlikely to succeed on the merits of the case. Judge Stephen Higginson dissented.

“We cannot control the courts, but we will have a say in political outcomes,” Monterroso said. “It is now up to us — Latino voters and groups like ours that are working every day to grow our vote in the 2016 national election — to elect candidates who respect our communities and will commit to working on our issues and treating us fairly.”

Still, despite Monterroso’s desire to take the case to the Supreme Court, the fact remains that Obama’s executive amnesty is now 0-5 in the courts. The president, himself, as many news outlets have noted, on at least 23 different occasions conceded he did not have the authority to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Thus far, the administration hasn’t argued in front of a court that agrees, and the high courts schedule this session in extremely stacked.

“Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction,” the judges wrote.

Prior to the ruling, and despite assurances by top administration officials to the contrary, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services began reallocating significant resources away from a computer system — known as the “Electronic Immigration System” — in order to send letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.

A newly obtained document (viewable on a previous article) written by Leon Rodriguez, the “director and co-chair of the Task Force on New Americans,” details an “integration plan that will advance our nation’s global competitiveness and ensure that the people who live in this country can fully participate in their communities.”

“The last time I checked, injunctions are not mere suggestions. They are not optional,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote in a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. “This disregard for the court’s action is unacceptable and disturbing, especially after Secretary Johnson’s assurances that his agency would honor the injunction.”

Executive amnesty has also been losing in the court of public opinion, as well. As PPD has previously examined, particularly in the case of immigration, the results get worse when the question is asked more plainly. We have examined and explained the data on this topic in great detail in the past, but most voters still oppose President Obama’s executive order to exempt millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. A solid 59% say Obama does not have that legal power to issue the order, which is up from 52% in February and a new high to date.

Further, only 35% favor the president’s actions, which is little changed from 5 months ago, and only 25% believe the president has the legal authority to grant executive amnesty without the approval of Congress. A nearly identical number of voters (26%) say Obama should take action if Congress doesn’t lay down in front of him on the issue.

The states suing Obama over his unilateral amnesty order now include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in

World

Michelle-Obama-Qatar-Reuters

First Lady Michelle Obama speaks at the World Innovation Summit for Education in Qatar (Photo: Reuters)

First Lady Michelle Obama gave a speech on women’s rights at the World Innovation Summit for Education in Qatar this week, asserting that “solving our girls’ education crisis” is “also about attitudes and beliefs.”

Unfortunately, the “attitudes and beliefs” held by the Qatar Foundation, a group known for repeatedly hosting radical clerics, have been well-documented. For example, Omar Abdelkafi, who recently mocked the killings of French satirical writers at Charlie Hebdo and called the terrorist attack in Paris “the sequel to the comedy film of 9/11,” spoke at the QF’s mosque. Another esteemed speaker said that “Jews and their helpers must be destroyed.”

In April, the foundation’s Twitter feed touted another appearance by Abdelkafi, who also once stated that “Muslims should not shake hands with Christians, or wish them well on Christian holidays, or walk on the same sidewalk with them.” The feed has openly promoted Salman al Alodah, who has has accused Jews of using “human blood” in their religious ceremonies, hosted Abdulaziz al-Fawzan, a Saudi preacher who called on Muslims to “hate” Christians.

Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst and adjunct professor at the Clarion Project, called the Qatar Foundation “an ideological factory for terrorism, anti-Semitism, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“A reasonable argument can be made for using Islamist platforms to confront their own extremism, but that requires holding them accountable,” Mauro said. “First Lady Obama is right to call for a sweeping changes in the Muslim world for women’s rights, but we must avoid positioning the so-called “moderate” Islamists as the spearhead of that movement.”

Mauro noted that the Qatar Foundation’s Faculty of Islamic Studies has a think tank that is named the Al-Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal, which bears the name of the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and most influential advocates of Hamas, suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism. “His Eminence” Dr. Yusuf al Qaradawi, as the faculty site refers to him, said the Holocaust was Allah‘s punishment of the Jews and that he hopes that Allah uses Muslim hands for the next judgment.

[brid video=”19626″ player=”1929″ title=”Yusuf alQaradawi Praises Hitler and the Holocaust”]

“Qaradawi is the leader of a network of terrorism-linked charities called the Union of Good,” Mauro added. “The charities have been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department because they were ‘created by Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization.'”

The Qatari government, which the Obama administration continues to see as a “moderate” partner against Islamic extremism, has been the target of significant bipartisan criticism from Capitol Hill lawmakers for their role in funding terrorist groups such as Hamas. Yet, Qatar remains a top U.S. ally and is sold billions of dollars worth of American arms.

The White House declined to comment for this article.

First Lady Michelle Obama gave a speech

Politics

Ben-Carson-Press-Conference

Dr. Ben Carson, a leading 2016 Republican presidential candidate, during a press conference to refute a story claiming he admitted to “fabricating” a claim he was offered a scholarship to West Point by Vietnam Gen. Westmoreland on Friday Nov. 6, 2015 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. (Photo: AP)

Dr. Ben Carson has been the target of recent media attacks led by left-leaning news outlets CNN and Politico, but they may not have had the impact they were hoping. In fact, the Carson campaign is thanking the “biased media” for a big fundraising haul over the last week, which was filled with stories questioning the details of his oft-told personal story.

Carson, a former children’s neurosurgeon, has made his background story, which is one of personal responsibility and redemption, a centerpiece of his campaign. He enjoys the highest favorability ratings out of any of the potential 2016 presidential candidates on either side of the aisle, something that has made him a target.

“Of course they would like to knee cap Ben Carson,” said Richard Baris, PPD’s senior political analyst and election forecast head. “When we apply the demographic breakdowns in head-to-head polls between Dr. Carson and Mrs. Clinton, particularly in the latest Fox and Quinnipiac surveys, then the Electoral College map turns very red. Forget about Ohio and Florida. If those numbers hold, states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa suddenly look very difficult for Democrats. And they shouldn’t be.”

According to a Politico report, his campaign ‘admitted’ that the former pediatric neurosurgeon had “fabricated” the claim in his autobiography that he’d received a “full scholarship” offer to attend the US Military Academy at West Point as a teenager. Here’s a passage from the now-edited story:

Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy. West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission…When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.

Except, though Dr. Carson appears to have incorrectly referred to the offer as a scholarship, which the military school does not offer, he never conceded the story was fundamentally false nor did he ever claim he applied, let alone received an admission. In fact, in his book, Carson clearly says he “wasn’t really tempted” by the offer from Gen. Westmoreland. Further, the academy itself describes this benefit as a “full scholarship.”

Kyle Cheney, the author of the Politico hit piece, has since edited the false headline and above quoted lead, however, without a single footnote or editor’s note.

The original headline–“Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship” with a subhed “Carson’s campaign on Friday conceded that a central point in his inspirational personal story did not occur as he previously described”–now reads, “Exclusive: Carson claimed West Point ‘scholarship’ but never applied.” The cleaned-up story still claims that Carson “conceded that he never applied nor was granted admission to West Point,” which is patently false.

Cheney and Politico were either condemned or slammed by critics across the political and media spectrum, which can be read here, here, here, here, here, and here. The aforementioned aggregation of criticisms was originally compiled by Molly Hemingway in The Federalist, which was perhaps the most thorough condemnation of the left-leaning Beltway news site.

WATCH: Ben Carson Refutes POLITICO Report During Fiery Press Conference

Considering the widespread pushback, the Carson campaign believes they have weathered the story and avoided serious damage, a conclusion Baris says he isn’t ready to draw.

“Even if Dr. Carson has emerged from what has easily been his most difficult week relatively unscathed it has underscored why he scores as low as he does as far as candidate strength on the PPD Election Projection Model,” Baris said. “Coupled with his tendency to get himself into self-created controversies, his campaign hasn’t exactly demonstrated competency during crisis, and that’s a problem.”

Carson’s campaign has also made some rather strange moves during times that have been relatively favorable, politically speaking. Coming off a strong debate performance last month, the candidate seemed to put his campaign on pause to sign and sell books, as if he wasn’t running for president. There could come a point when Republican primary voters conclude there is too much smoke for there not to be fire.

“Blaming the media in a Republican primary may get you $4 million and a reputation as a fighter,” Baris added. “But in a general election it looks like plain old whining.”

The Carson campaign is crediting the "biased

World

Myanmar-Burma-Elections

Supporters of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in Myanmar. (Photo: Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images)

The leading opposition party in Myanmar is claiming it won a landslide victory over the ruling party in the country’s first free elections in 25 years. “Time to Change” is the NLD’s campaign slogan, and many of the 32 million Burmese eligible to vote apparently agreed.

“Nationwide we got over 70 percent,” said U Win Htein, a senior member of the National League for Democracy (NLD). “We can call this a landslide victory.” Because one quarter of parliamentary seats are reserved for the military, the NLD would need to win at least two thirds of the contested seats to win a majority.

The military-backed Union Solidarity Development Party (USDP), which has been in power since 2011 and negotiated with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is now the Democratic Party frontrunner, was willing to accept what is looking more and more like a serious defeat.

“We have to find out the reason why we lost,” said U Htay Oo, the chairman of the ruling party. “However, we do accept the results without any reservations. We still don’t know the final results for sure.”

However, even if the NLD does win a majority, which grants the party the authority to appoint the president, its longtime leader Aung San Suu Kyi is constitutionally barred from holding the position. Suu Kyi is often referred to as “Mother” by supporters, but the party would likely nominate someone else, and according to Foreign Policy, she has said that she would be “above the president.”

The leading opposition party in Myanmar is

Opinion

transgender-bathrooms

One of the great things about being a libertarian is that you have no desire for government sanctions against peaceful people who are different than you are, and that should be a very popular stance.

You can be a libertarian who is also a serious fundamentalist, yet you have no desire to use the coercive power of government to oppress or harass people who are (in your view) pervasive sinners. For instance, you may think gay sex is sinful sodomy, but you don’t want it to be illegal.

Left-Right-and-Libertarian

Likewise, you can be a libertarian with a very libertine lifestyle, yet you have no desire to use the coercive power of government to oppress and harass religious people. It’s wrong (in your view) to not cater a gay wedding, but you don’t want the government to bully bakers and florists.

In other words, very different people can choose to be libertarian, yet we’re all united is support of the principle that politicians shouldn’t pester people so long as those folks aren’t trying to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

And when you’re motivated by these peaceful principles, which imply a very small public sector and a very big private sector and civil society, it’s amazing how many controversies have easy solutions.

Consider, for example, the legal fights about transgendered students.

Writing for Reason, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune highlights a controversy in Illinois.

…in Palatine, Illinois,…the public school district had to decide how to handle a transgender student who was born male but lives as a female. …The school district has largely accepted her identification, letting her play on a girls’ sports team and use the girls’ restrooms. But it draws the line at the locker room, where it says other students must be protected. Its solution is to provide a private space this student must use to change clothes.

This seems like a reasonable compromise, but some bureaucrats in Washington aren’t happy.

This remedy doesn’t satisfy the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, which this week decided that restricting locker room access to “Student A” is a violation of Title IX, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs.

But Steve says the bureaucrats are actually being reasonable.

The feds’ solution is a sensible compromise. It suggests that the district provide curtained changing areas, available to all, without forcing anyone to use them.

And this issue isn’t a rare as one might think. Here are some passages from a CNN report, which also agrees that the issue boils down to the provision of privacy curtains in locker rooms.

In 2013, …California became the first state to allow transgender students to choose which bathrooms and locker rooms to use. …a negotiated solution by putting up privacy curtains in the girls’ locker room. Similar arrangements have kept schools from running afoul of anti-discrimination violations. At Township High School District 211, however, the line between accommodation and discrimination came down to this: whether the student would be able to choose to use the privacy curtains, or whether the school could force her to do so.

And here are some excerpts from a separate CNN story from Missouri.

The 17-year-old Hillsboro High School senior wears skirts, makeup and a long wig styled with bobby pins. She even started using the girls’ locker room to change for gym class, despite the school’s offer of a single-occupancy restroom. …it became clear she was not welcome in the locker room. Because Perry has male anatomy, many students simply see her as a boy in a wig changing in the girls’ locker room — and that makes them uncomfortable. …the guidance is pretty clear as far as the federal government and LGBT advocacy groups are concerned: Transgender students should be allowed to use the restroom and changing room that accords with their gender identity.

And if every student has a private changing area, which is what Steve Chapman suggested, there shouldn’t be a problem. Heck, you wouldn’t even need a boy’s locker room and girl’s locker room.

But Steve wasn’t being sufficiently libertarian because there’s an even better solution. Why not simply engage in real education reform, give all families vouchers, and then let them choose schools on the basis of many different factors (academics, convenience, cultural programs), one of which might happen to be how they deal with transgendered students.

Some schools presumably will be very accommodating while others may be rather unwelcoming, and parents can take that information into account when deciding where to send their kids.

Here’s another controversy that could be easily solved with the application of libertarian principles. Voters in Houston recently rejected a law that would have mandated (among many other things) that people could choose bathrooms based on their preferred gender.

Here’s some of what was reported by the New York Times.

…voters easily repealed an anti-discrimination ordinance that had attracted attention from the White House, sports figures and Hollywood celebrities. The City Council passed the measure in May, but it was in limbo after opponents succeeded,following a lengthy court fight, in putting the matter to a referendum. The measure failed by a vote of 61 percent to 39 percent. Supporters said the ordinance was similar to those approved in 200 other cities and prohibited bias in housing, employment, city contracting and business services for 15 protected classes, including race, age, sexual orientation and gender identity. …In Houston, the ordinance’s proponents…accused opponents of using fearmongering against gay people, and far-fetched talk of bathroom attacks, to generate support for a repeal. The ordinance, they noted, says nothing specifically about whether men can use women’s restrooms. …Opponents of the measure…said the ordinance was so vague that it would make anyone who tried to keep any man from entering a women’s bathroom the subject of a city investigation and fine.

Scott Shackford of Reason explains that opponents used emotional arguments against the referendum instead of making a principled libertarian case against government intervention.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO)…ordinance also includes sexual orientation, genetic information, and gender identity. …HERO…is more broad than federal laws, which don’t include sexual orientation and gender identity and have a much more restrictive view of what counts as a public accommodation. …Opponents of HERO warn that if the referendum passes, men will claim to be women to hide in bathrooms and assault your little girls. …There’s no argument suggesting that individual and business freedom of association is being hampered by the law. There’s no argument that we have so many more ways to culturally apply pressure to fight bigoted behavior in the private marketplace that Houston doesn’t need additional laws.

And Shackford makes the key libertarian argument that private companies and private individuals shouldn’t be coerced by the government.

…it’s a shame the ordinance lumps in both government and private behavior. Government shouldn’t discriminate in employment and accommodations for any of these categories, and if that’s all the law did, it would be great. But for private businesses and for private restrooms, leave it to citizens to work out the issues on their own.

In other words, the entire controversy disappears (at least in the private sector) because people would have freedom of association. They could decide to have unisex bathrooms. They could decide to have traditional bathrooms. Or they could be like Facebook and have dozens of bathroom options based on categories I don’t even understand.

P.S. If you want to figure out whether you’re libertarian, there are several tests, ranging from very simple exercises (here and here), to ones that will take 5-10 minutes, or ones that require answers to dozens of questions.

P.P.S. Before answering any of those tests, you may want to read this.

Taking a libertarian approach, the entire controversy

Elections

Houston-Equal-Rights-Ordinance

Nov. 3, 2015: Campaign for Houston supporters check election results at a watch party in Houston. (Photo: AP/Pat Sullivan)

I have made an intentional habit of waiting for the pundit pontificating to quiet down before offering election analysis in the context of our projections and actual election results. Now that it has, that is, as much as we can expect, let’s take a look at what happened this week and what it could signal for Election 2016.

First, avid readers of PPD and the PPD Election Projection Model know full well that I am not a big fan of the “doomed by demographics” school of thought that permeates and dominates conventional wisdom in the Beltway. It is possible to acknowledge that a changing electorate is beneficial to Democrats, while at the same time, refuse to abandon basic lessons taught by American political and electoral history.

The fact that political coalitions are ever-changing is far more significant than knee-jerk reactions on the panels of network news outlets post Election Day. It’s also extremely important to remember that changing levels of support for a political party and its candidates among a certain bloc of voters do not occur in a vacuum. In other words, even if the GOP nominee fails to increase his or her level of support among Hispanics, for instance, but manages to either return to or exceed historic levels of support among black voters, then they will win. Plain and simple.

On the night George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, Paul Begala and James Carville lamented over their nominee losing more than 90% of the fasting growing exurbs in the country. In 2012, pundits prematurely took President Obama’s reelection as evidence of a new “emerging Democratic majority,” ignoring the results of the 2010 midterm elections and grossly misreading the impact of the Hispanic vote. Those invested in this new conventional wisdom and what it might mean for the politics of campaigning moving forward, tried to dismiss the 2014 midterm elections by incorrectly blaming low voter turnout.

READ ALSO — Top Midterm Myth: Low Turnout Doomed Democrats

The truth is that when we look at the bigger picture both parties have their own reasons for concern. However, when we consider the demographic edge Democrats should enjoy but aren’t, at least not in non-presidential election cycles, it becomes increasingly apparent that this deficit is more significant and under-reported. The defeats at the ballot box last week serve as a microcosm of what we’re talking about here.

In Kentucky, Republican Matt Bevin defeated Democrat Jack Conway in the gubernatorial race, becoming only the second GOP state executive in four decades. Bevin, a businessman backed by the Tea Party who embraced Kim Davis and opposed ObamaCare, was the clear favorite on the PPD Election Projection Model, despite polls showing Conway with an edge. But it wasn’t even close, and the results reenforce our expectations that the party will take over the only remaining Southern state legislative body controlled by Democrats in 2016.

And here is the crux of the problem for Democrats.

Traditional Democratic voters in Kentucky have been steadily trending Republican on the national level. The 5th Congressional District, a once-competitive region of the state due in large part to the heavily unionized and historically Democratic coal mining constituency, is naturally bailing on the national Democratic Party. Since the era of Obama began in 2008, the 5th District has been bleeding once-loyal Democratic voters.

While the “War on Coal” may be a sound bite for most media outlets, it’s real life for Kentucky coal miners. Coupled with the Democratic Party’s position on social and other economic issues, the old saying “All politics is local” is becoming less-and-less a factor in an increasingly polarized America.

READ ALSO — Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline, Despite Public Opinion and Democrat Division

Yet, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline project on Friday, despite multiple State Department reviews and broad public approval. The anticipated decision absolutely helped cost the party Senate seats in 2014, and while union leaders will not soon back a Republican candidate, it will help to bleed more union member-votes to the benefit of the GOP.

“We are dismayed and disgusted that the president has once again thrown the members of, and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘legacy,’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change,” The Laborers’ International Union of North America, or LIUNA said in a statement. “His actions are shameful.”

In the most liberal city in the state of Texas, voters rejected the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance by a 2-1 margin, which would’ve allowed the free use of public bathrooms by transgender men and women. It appears that Democrats completely misread support for the transgender movement in light of their victory on same-sex marriage.

Yet, in Palatine, Illinois, which is in an otherwise deeply Blue state, public outrage is growing over the Obama administration’s threat to withhold funding from a high school for not permitting a transgender student to use the girls’ locker rooms.

READ ALSO — Will SCOTUS Striking Down Same-Sex Marriage Bans Spark Culture War?

I was and remain suspicious of the accuracy of the polls on same-sex marriage. If they were so accurate, then why did proponents of same-sex marriage need the Supreme Court to shut down the debate? Either way, even if we concede they are accurate, interpreting that support to mean a greater acceptance of the transgendered movement is a big mistake. White gentry liberals and black inner-city voters shutdown the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, not rural white Christians.

Ohio voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot proposal to legalize marijuana for both recreational and medical use, despite the primary pro-pot group spending over $12 million in ads. While the polls showed a tight race going into Election Day, the actual voting results weren’t even close. With 99% of precincts reporting, Issue 3, which would’ve allowed adults 21 and older to use, purchase or grow certain amounts of marijuana, was defeated by a 64% to 34% margin.

There’s a small caveat on Issue 3, however. The perceived monopoly divided the pro-pot forces against the initiative, though that doesn’t explain the terrible polling.

San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi handily lost his bid for reelection Tuesday following months of criticism surrounding his support for sanctuary city policy. Mirkarimi refused to honor an Immigration and Customs Enforcement retainer and allowed Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a 45-year-old illegal alien with an extensive criminal history that included being deported at least 5 times prior, to walk free. Sanchez is currently being charged by city officials with the murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle.

READ ALSO — Why Hillary Clinton Took Big Risk Backing Obama’s Immigration Order

According to a recent poll, 58% want the federal government to cut off funds to cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants, while just 32% disagreed and 10% said they were not sure. Further, 62% of voters said the Department of Justice (DOJ) should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, 53% of all voters–including 76% of Republicans–agreed with Donald Trump’s previous comments that illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.

Yet, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked a straight up-or-down vote on Kate’s Law, which would impose a mandatory minimum 5-year sentence on illegals caught either in or reentering the country after deportation. Reid’s move, which only prolonged an inevitable vote, followed the blocking of a popular Republican-sponsored bill that would’ve cracked down on sanctuary city policies by threatening to withhold funds to local governments that don’t abide by federal immigration laws. The bill, known as the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, failed on a 54-45 vote and Republicans failed to peel off a single Democratic vote.

READ ALSO — Putting the Hispanic Vote Myth to Bed, Once and For All

What does all of this mean for Election 2016?

Hillary Clinton has calculated that putting her husband’s old coalition together is too risky for several of the reasons we’ve either argued above, or linked arguments in previous analysis. The campaign believes the Democratic Party has suffered such severe losses among certain voting blocs that the only chance for victory is to cobble together President Obama’s coalition. But there is no evidence to indicate that President Obama’s coalition is an “any Democrat” coalition, and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Under Obama, the Republican Party has netted 12 governor mansions, and 13 if you consider an independent in Alaska endorsed by Sarah Palin. In Congress, they lost 69 House seats and 14 Senate seats–the latter could’ve been more if not for poor candidates–and the GOP enjoys the largest majority in the former since the early 1920s (Hoover). Further, down ballot, Democrats have lost 910 seats in state legislatures across the country.

Does that sound like a party doomed by demographics, or one benefitting from an increasingly radical opposition party?

Election Data Analysis: Evidence shows Republicans aren't

Politics, Video

[brid video=”19514″ player=”1929″ title=”Donald Trump on The Don Smith Show “Where It’s Okay to Be a Conservative””]

Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican frontrunner, spoke substantively about policy and issues during an interview with conservative talk show host Don Smith.

Trump’s appearance Saturday on the Don Smith Show, “where it’s okay to be a conservative,” marks the first time The Donald has given an interview on Internet talk radio, and proved to be the most substantive of the 2016 election cycle.

The billionaire real estate mogul spoke about why it is important for the next president to have experience in business and leadership, as well as in the art of negotiation. He also offered his thoughts on why his campaign has shocked pundits and resonated so deeply with Republican primary voters.

Full Episode: Donald Trump on The Don Smith Show, “Where It’s Okay to Be a Conservative”

Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican frontrunner, spoke

Video

[brid video=”19512″ player=”1929″ title=”Ben Carson Blows Up at Reporters During Presser Why Dont You Care About Obamas Past”]

Dr. Ben Carson, a leading 2016 Republican presidential candidate, held a press conference to refute a POLITICO story claiming he admitted to “fabricating” a claim he was offered a scholarship to West Point by Vietnam Gen. Westmoreland.

“It was an offer to me. It was specifically made,” Carson said. “It’s almost 50 years ago. I bet you don’t remember all the people you talked to 50 years ago,”

The press conference was held on Friday Nov. 6, 2015 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Carson is trouncing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls, but pointed out what he called the media double standard while vetting presidential candidates.

Carson said President Obama did receive the same level of scrutiny in his 2008 White House bid, citing Obama’s relationships with Frank Marshall Davis, who had ties to the Communist Party, and Bill Ayers, a college professor who in the 1970s led the radical left group the Weather Underground.

“I do not remember this level of scrutiny for one President Barack Obama when he was running,” Carson said during the intense exchange. “In fact, I remember just the opposite. I remember people just ‘well, well, we won’t really talk about that. We won’t talk about that relationship. Well Frank Marshall Davis, well we don’t want to talk about that. Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, well, he didn’t really know him.”

He also asked reporters why they haven’t tried to unseal Obama’s under-graduate records.

“All the things Jeremiah Wright was saying, well not a big problem.’ Goes to Occidental College, doesn’t do all that well and somehow ends up at Columbia University. His records are sealed. Why are his records sealed? Why are you guys not interested in why his records are sealed?”

Dr. Ben Carson held a press conference

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe