College Program: Follow These Five Steps Before Kissing Someone or It’s Sexual Assault By Katherine Timpf

The University of Southern California hosted a “Consent Carnival” where it taught students that there’s a five-step process they must follow before kissing someone in order for it to not be considered sexual assault

In fact, the checklist also states that following these steps just once is not enough. No, you have to follow them every time you kiss someone, even if you’ve kissed them before.

The exhibit, called “Kissing Booth,” offered students Hershey’s kisses glued on to little white pieces of paper with the words “what exactly does it mean to . . . ‘consent’ to a kiss?” and the following five steps:

Affirmative: We’re really excited to share this kiss with you and we’re letting you know!

Coherent: We’re present and able to recognize exactly what’s happening when we give this kiss to you.

Willing: We made the decision to give you this kiss ourselves, without pressure or manipulation from you or anybody else.

Ongoing: Should you come back for another kiss, check in to see if we’d still like to give you one.

Mutual: Sure, we offered you a kiss, but that doesn’t mean you have to accept it. Coming over to our table doesn’t forfeit your right to say no.

So, in other words: If you are kissing someone, but stop for a half a millisecond to breathe, you have to step back and say “can I kiss you again?” before continuing.

How reasonable and normal and romantic!

Donald Trump’s Business Career Has Been One of Bullying Ordinary Citizens By Mark Antonio Wright

Donald Trump’s pitch to American voters can be summed up as “I’ve been wheeling and dealing all my life. In pursuit of personal advancement, I have made ‘great deals’ to build my company and my net worth. Elect me president of the United States and I will place those talents and services at your disposal.”

To many, it’s a compelling argument. Rather than another weak-kneed politician, America would have a CEO president — a titan of industry who could run a tight ship; a Gordon Gekko out to make America strong and rich again.

But how many Americans are aware of the grimy details of Trump’s famously #winning record?

And how many know that Donald J. Trump’s vaunted “business” career is marked less by innovative, hard-charging business acumen, and more by good old-fashioned bullying? As one might expect, Trump claims to represent the interests of the blue-collar citizenry of this country. But his business record reveals a man with a penchant for persecuting the little man — or even the little old lady:

Trump Asks the Government to Take Out an Atlantic City Widow

If there was ever an example of a caddish play, it was Trump’s persecution of five-foot-three-inch-tall Atlantic City widow, Vera Coking.

Ex-Spies Say That Clinton’s Illegal Server Triggered Widespread Devastation By Deroy Murdock

Three veterans of American intelligence are horrified by the havoc that they believe former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton caused through her epic abuse of state secrets in the E-Mailgate scandal.

“If there really were SAP [special-access programs] material on her server, consider the implications,” a former U.S. intelligence officer tells me. He refers to the “several dozen” messages marked TOP SECRET/SAP that I. Charles McCullough III, inspector general for the intelligence community, reports were on the private server at Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., 267 miles north of the State Department. Special-access programs are America’s most clandestine activities. Their revelation could damage national security severely and possibly get people killed.

In the anonymous words of this one-time American intelligence professional, here is some of the devastation likely caused by Clinton’s exposure of SAP secrets:

Intel officers responsible for those programs must be alerted.
Once alerted that SAP was mishandled and on a system that has been attacked, it is only prudent to end those programs.
What does ending those programs mean? Depending on the SAP involved, it could mean redoing war plans, terminating ongoing covert actions, rethinking how the exposed covert actions must be done and executing on that new plan, or, if it reveals a source, removing that source from his environment.
That has a significant impact. Presume, if you will, that it was a source. If that source were providing intel of such value that it rose to the SecState, now we’ve lost that source.
Intel officers care about their sources, and for two reasons. One, we’re human beings. We don’t want those assisting us and our country to be hurt, even though we recognize the danger in which they are placing themselves. Two, the business model doesn’t work very well if sources think they’ll be outed. The US intel community already has so much trouble in that regard due to Edward Snowden and Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning. This just compounds it. Think about the next meeting between a prospective source and a CIA case officer trying to recruit that source to risk his/her life for the United States: “Are you sure a high-level official won’t out me?”

Jubilant Sanders Supporters Jeer Clinton’s ‘Victory’ Speech after Iowa Tie By Brendan Bordelon —

Des Moines, Iowa — Hillary Clinton’s victory speech Monday night didn’t go over very well here at the Airport Holiday Inn, where Bernie Sanders’s campaign was holding its own victory rally.

“I’m a progressive who gets things done!” she said, before deafening boos drowned out the televisions playing her speech.

“You’re no f***ing progressive!” one man shouted indignantly. “No no no no no!” yelled another. “Turn her off!” The crowd soon broke into a chant of “She’s a liar! She’s a liar! She’s a liar!”

Rowdy as they may have been in making it, Sanders’s supporters had a point. When Clinton took the stage to declare victory, she and Sanders were within 0.2 percentage points of each other. Clinton performed slightly better in rural counties, while Sanders beat her by a slim margin in urban areas. Both seem set to leave Iowa with 21 delegates to their names — and Clinton won at least two Democratic precincts by a coin toss. If Iowa was a victory for the once-inevitable Democratic front-runner, it was a Pyrrhic one.

Sanders certainly thought so. Though he stopped short of declaring victory in his own speech, his enthusiasm could not be contained. “We went up against the most powerful political organization in the United States of America,” he said, before declaring the race a virtual tie. “I think the people of Iowa have sent a very profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment, and by the way, to the media establishment,” he said, drawing thunderous applause.

The Rubio Comeback By Alexis Levinson

Des Moines — It’s all relative. That’s been the operating theory of Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign, which has confounded both political analysts and the press. And yet Rubio’s team has been firm in its belief that, by under-promising and over-delivering, it can generate the sort of excitement, energy, and yes, actual delegates needed to capture the Republican nomination. They even thought that by notching a strong third-place finish, with over 23 percent of the vote, Rubio would emerge from the Iowa caucuses on Monday evening with more momentum that the winner, Ted Cruz.

That’s why Rubio, who nearly caught the longtime Iowa front runner, Donald Trump, who finished just a point ahead of him, walked on stage to deliver a victory speech here in Des Moines on Monday. “This is the moment they said would never happen,” he declared as he took the stage at the Marriott hotel downtown.

It was a moment the polls had not predicted, and a scenario that Rubio’s advisers had intentionally waved off in the days before the caucuses, when they told reporters they were hoping to reach the high teens.

And so, while Cruz may have won the caucuses, which he needed to do, Rubio did something his campaign considers more important: He defied expectations.

David Archibald Killing Islamists Cost-Effectively

It makes little sense to squander a $250,000 missile on a simple truck, but that is how the US and its allies have been conducting their war against ISIS. There is a better and cheaper to rid the world of jihadis, plus a simple strategy to make sure they turn up for their execution.
In HG Wells’The Shape of Things to Come, published in 1933, the Air Police of the World State establish an air base in Basra, the city in southern Iraq, in 1979 and set about eliminating the Moslem religion by aerial bombardment. About 40 years behind schedule, something like that has been instituted. A number of countries now have aircraft based in the region and are bombarding the world’s most hardcore Islamists, the immolators of Islamic State.

Until Russia joined the effort in 2015, that effort was ineffectual by design. The United States has been spending US$11 million per day in wearing out their fighter aircraft and depleting war stocks of precision guided munitions. Australia has been doing the same, with expenditure appropriately at one-tenth the US level. Islamic State is aware that they are doing their bit to help bankrupt the United States, with one of their videos noting that Maverick missiles cost US$250,000 each while Islamic State uses bullets costing US$0.50 each.

The US rules of engagement are hampered by a desire to not kill civilians. As Dave Deptula, a former US Air Force deputy chief of staff for Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance and who served as the principal attack planner for the Operation Desert Storm air campaign, notes,

“There is little morality inherent in a campaign approach that limits the use of airpower to avoid the possibility of collateral damage when it ensures the certainty of continued Islamic State crimes against humanity. Today’s coalition leaders should factor into their casualty-avoidance calculus how many of the Islamic State’s intentional murders of innocents would be avoided by rapidly collapsing the structural elements of the Islamic State that the coalition now allows to operate out of excessive concern of inadvertent civilian deaths.”

Israel-Where Providing Water Is a Crime: Evelyn Gordon

How do you build a state for people who don’t want it built? That’s the obvious question that emerges from the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of Rawabi, the first new Palestinian city. It’s a flagship project that international diplomats routinely laud as a model of Palestinian state-building, but it has won no such praise from fellow Palestinians. Instead, the very people it was meant to benefit are now accusing Rawabi’s founder of collaboration with the enemy for having committed such horrendous crimes – this is not a joke – as providing residents with electricity and running water.

Rawabi was founded with the goal of providing decent, affordable housing for middle-class Palestinians – theoretically a goal that should be welcomed by the Palestinian Authority and its residents, who routinely complain to the international community about how wretched their situation is. From the start, however, the PA did its best to undermine the project; despite repeated promises of support, it refused to provide even the basic infrastructure that most governments routinely provide to new residential developments. Thus as JTA reported last week, Rawabi’s water and sewage system, streets, schools and medical clinic were all financed, like the houses themselves, by entrepreneur Bashar Masri and the Qatari government.

Ban Ki-moon’s outrageous op-ed: Ruthie Blum

On Sunday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon published an op-ed in The New York Times to ‎do what he does best: Pummel Israel while protesting against those who call him to task for it.‎

In the piece, Ban whined that the statements he made last week — first calling on both the ‎Jewish state and the “occupied Palestinian territories” to stop the violence, and then doubling ‎down on his assertion that Israeli “occupation” was the real culprit behind it — were unjustly ‎‎”twisted” to imply that he was justifying terrorism.‎

That the U.N. chief had said it was “human nature” for downtrodden people like the Palestinians ‎to express their frustration through violence had something to do with Israel’s adverse reaction to ‎his words, particularly since he hasn’t said such things about al-Qaida, Islamic State, Hezbollah ‎or Boko Haram. You know, the group that on Saturday night burned 86 Nigerian villagers alive, ‎among them many children.‎

But Ban nevertheless repeated his anti-Israel accusations.‎

To prove that he had been unfairly misquoted not once but twice, he clarified: “The stabbings, ‎vehicle rammings and other attacks by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians are reprehensible. So, ‎too, are the incitement of violence and the glorification of killers. Nothing excuses terrorism. I ‎condemn it categorically.”‎

Readers did not have time to heave the slightest sigh of relief, however, since Ban proceeded ‎from there to explain why Israel is nevertheless responsible.‎

WHO IS SENATOR TOM COTTON REPUBLICAN OF ARKANSAS?

He is part of the election of 2014 that put the GOP in control of the Senate….RSK
Tom Cotton currently represents Arkansas in the United States Senate. He is a 6th generation Arkansan who was born and raised on his family’s cattle farm in Yell County. He graduated from Dardanelle High School before going to Harvard and Harvard Law School.

The tragic attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred during Tom’s final year of law school, and he began to reconsider his future plans. After a clerkship with the U.S. Court of Appeals and a short time in a private law practice, Tom joined the United States Army as an Infantry Officer where he spent nearly 5 years on active duty.

Tom completed combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where he served with the 101st Airborne and a Provincial Reconstruction Team. Between his two combat tours he served as a platoon leader with the Old Guard at Arlington National Cemetery, the unit responsible for military honors funerals. Tom’s military decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantry Badge and Ranger Tab.

Prior to his election to the Senate, Tom worked as a management consultant for McKinsey & Co. and served one term in the House of Representatives.

SENATOR TOM COTTON ON CLINTON E-MAILS

Cotton Statement on Top Secret Designation of 22 of Hillary Clinton’s Emails

Washington, D.C.- Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) today released the following statement on the disclosure that 22 emails found on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email account were deemed “top secret”:

“We now know Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account during her tenure at the State Department wasn’t just negligent, it was completely dangerous. Housing top-secret emails on an unsecure, personal server put our national security at grave risk. Did our enemies hack these emails? And were lives put at risk as a result? To put our country in danger for personal convenience is arrogant and irresponsible – and it’s illegal. She should face the same consequences that any federal employee who behaved similarly would face, including criminal prosecution.”