Three Things You Need to Know - November 14, 2017

It's Not Looking Good for Roy Moore

It’s not looking good for Roy Moore.

Senate Republicans really don’t want him to get elected. And neither do at least five women.

Yesterday, Beverly Young Nelson announced at a news conference that Moore attacked her in his car when she was 16-years-old and he was 30.

Nelson said Moore offered to drive her home one night after her waitressing shift was over at a local restaurant. He drove her to the back of the restaurant where she said he groped her, tried to take her shirt off, grabbed her neck and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She said, “I thought that he was going to rape me.”

After she struggled against his advances, she said he dumped her out of the car in the parking lot and sped away.

She also said Moore told her that he was the District Attorney and she was a child, so “no one will ever believe you,” if she tried to report the incident.

Moore still says this is all a witch hunt. But even if just one of the allegations against him is even partially true, he should drop out of the race and check into therapy.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell believes the women and wants Moore to drop out. Now Republicans are brainstorming ways to kick out Moore even if he wins Alabama’s special Senate election on December 12.

One option would be for Republicans to allow him to be seated in the U.S. Senate, then move to expel him. Some are even considering a write-in candidate. That seems unrealistic this close to the election, but then, no Democrat has won a Senate seat from Alabama in 25 years, so maybe it’s not so far-fetched.

This Alabama Senate election is a microcosm of America’s current social and political quagmire: the flood of sexual assault and harassment accusations against powerful men, and the willingness of voters – on the Right and Left – to overlook serious character problems in candidates in order to win.

Some things are more important than winning and we need to rediscover them quickly, because our sons and daughters are watching.

Rand Paul Update

What if I told you Bernie Sanders’ legs were broken by his neighbor when he was outside recycling his RC Cola cans?

What if I told you Elizabeth Warren’s arm was pulled out of her socket by an angry neighbor when she went to pick up her Amazon Prime box of custom presidential buttons?

You would be outraged. Why? Because you’re human and have feelings. No person should be viciously assaulted by another person. At that point, your political opinions don’t mean anything.

But speaking of political views, could you just imagine how crazy the Left would be over one of their own being treated so badly? They would be livid and calling for immediate criminal prosecution.

Why is it that I hear crickets when it comes to Rand Paul’s attack?

In his first interview since he was assaulted by his neighbor, Rand struggled to speak. Six broken ribs and a damaged lung will do that to you. Despite his injuries he tried to explain that there still was no motive that he could imagine. Rand said that his first encounter with this neighbor was when he was attacked. They never had words over anything.

There has been speculation that the neighbor attacked the senator because of his anti-Trump views. Sure, Rand has a record of siding with Trump, but he is by no means the president’s biggest cheerleader.

There was also talk that they had an argument about maintaining yard work where they share a property line, but neighbors have debunked that as a false narrative.

Only time will tell what the real motive actually was.

But we do know one thing for certain: Rand’s neighbor, who was charged with fourth-degree assault, was released on Saturday on $7,500 bail.

It’s time to speak up about one of our fellow humans and make sure this attacker knows that his behavior is never acceptable—not matter what your political bent is.

Citizen Kap

GQ has named their ‘Citizen of The Year’, and his name… is Colin Kaepernick. You know, it kinda makes you wonder what exactly their selection criteria is. I’m having a hard time seeing this one, so let’s take a quick run down memory lane. Back in 2013 Kaepernick was one of the best players in football. A true ‘Citizen of The Year’ would have begun his activism when he was on top, but Colin was mysteriously quiet during this time. Oh he was posing naked in ESPN’s ‘Body Issue’, but activism? He didn’t have time for that. He had a brand to build.

Kaepernick’s meteoric NFL rise was rivaled only with his fall. As his play declined and the magazine covers dried up, suddenly he appeared VERY interested in speaking out. Colin didn’t have to move far to begin taking a knee, his position on the bench made it a quick trip. But GQ apparently doesn’t find this suspicious. They elevated him to the level of Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson, forget the fact that he was NEVER interested in speaking out until it became convenient for him to do so. And when it stopped being convenient - and as his prospects in the NFL ran out - he went silent for an entire year to try and get his job back.

So let’s recap Colin Kaepernick’s ‘Citizen of the Year’ campaign: the winner of GQ’s award went to a man that began a misguided cause for selfish reasons, and who abandoned that misguided cause - again - for selfish reasons. Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned that he glorifies Che Guevara - a mass murderer and that he admitted that he doesn’t even vote. This qualifies as ‘Citizen of The Year?’

How many people can you think of, JUST OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, that are more deserving? How about J.J. Watt? He raised over 37 million dollars to help the victims of Hurricane Harvey. 37 MILLION… completely on his own, with NO outside help, and NO selfish reasons. What about Stephen Willeford? Willeford is the definition of a private citizen exercising his rights - the 2nd Amendment - and, in the process, stopped a mass murderer. What about the police that took down the NYC truck terrorist, the Green Beret’s that died fighting terrorists in Niger, or Collette Sulcer, who sacrificed her own life to save her infant daughter from Hurricane Harvey flood waters.

All of my examples were of heroes committing uncommon acts of selflessness. Can GQ say the same for Colin Kaepernick?

MORE 3 THINGS

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.