White House says no special counsel needed to investigate national security leaks

From CNS News.

Excerpt:

The White House on Monday dismissed calls for a special prosecutor to investigate the national security leaks that have prompted concern from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The New York Times recently reported that President Obama had approved “kill lists” for the U.S. drones strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. The newspaper also revealed the extent of U.S. involvement in cyber attacks on Iran. And other news outlets have leaked details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “it’s obvious” that the leaks “came from individuals who are in the administration. The president may not have done it himself, but the president is certainly responsible as commander-in-chief.”

[…]During a White House news conference Friday, Obama said, “The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive.  It’s wrong.  And people I think need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me here approach this office.”

Later that day, McCain responded in a statement, “What the President did not unequivocally say today is that none of the classified or highly sensitive information recently leaked to the media came from the White House. I continue to call on the President to immediately appoint a special counsel to fully investigate, and where necessary, prosecute these gravely serious breaches of our national security.”

[…]On Sunday, McCain — on CNN’s “State of the Union” — repeated that a special counsel should be appointed to lead the leaks investigation.

“I have great respect for the two individuals (the U.S. attorneys from D.C. and Maryland) that were appointed,” McCain told CNN. But he also noted that Eric Holder has no credibility with Congress.

“This needs a special counsel, someone entirely independent of the Justice Department,” McCain insisted – “someone with credibility like Mr. Bob Bennett.”

The response of the White House to being held accountable for leaking national security secrets to benefit their election campaign has been to be offended. I.e. – “how dare you accuse me of leaking secrets for political gain?” But everything points to a source within the White House for the leaks, up to and including Barack Obama himself.

I wrote previously about the leak on the British agent who foiled the recent bombing attack, as well. The Democrats are simply unreliable on national security and counter terrorism.  Even before that I wrote about the leak of information about the planned strike on Iran by Israel. And so on.

Obama administration sues Florida for purging non-citizens from voter rolls

From Breitbart. (H/T Dr. G)

Excerpt:

The US Department of Justice announced Monday it will sue Florida to stop the state from purging ineligible voters from its voter rolls. The DOJ statement came after Florida filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security for failing to cooperate with efforts to clean up the state’s voter registration records.

A preliminary comparison between drivers license records and voter registration has flagged as many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be US citizens.  Florida officials sought access to the DHS immigration database (SAVE) to verify their matches but DHS has refused to respond to the state’s requests.

At least 141 non-citizens have been found on the voter rolls and 47 on this list have cast ballots in previous elections. More than 500 on the list have been identified as citizens and lawful voters.

Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner released a statement after filing the suit in Washington DC:

For nearly a year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has failed to meet its legal obligation to provide us the information necessary to identify and remove ineligible voters from Florida’s voter rolls… We can’t let the federal government delay our efforts to uphold the integrity of Florida elections any longer. We’ve filed a lawsuit to ensure the law is carried out and we are able to meet our obligation to keep the voter rolls accurate and current.

Let this be a lesson to conservatives. The first thing you do when you get power is pass a voter identification law. Some form of state-issued photo ID that can be checked in a database, and purple ink on the fingers after voting. Democrats love to cheat in elections, and they are quite open about their desire to do so.

Do children raised by gays and lesbians do as well as those of married parents?

Straight vs. lesbian parenting (click for larger image)
Straight vs. lesbian parenting (click for larger image)

ECM pointed out to me that some more information about the two studies that were just published in the mainstream science journal Social Science Research appeared in National Review.

Excerpt:

The mainstream academic journal Social Science Research has just published two articles that expose and challenge the schlock social science on gay parenting that has been uncritically embraced and propagated by so many people eager to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” LSU professor Loren Marks addresses a puzzle: On the one hand, studies based on “large, representative samples” have shown that “[c]hildren who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents.” On the other hand, “social science research with small convenience samples has repeatedly reported no significant differences between children from gay/lesbian households and heterosexual households.” (Pp. 735-736 (emphasis added).)

Marks’s essential answer to the puzzle is that the studies “with small convenience samples” are unreliable. Among other things:

1. “[S]ocial researchers examining same-sex parenting have repeatedly selected small, non-representative, homogeneous samples of privileged lesbian mothers to represent all same-sex parents.” (P. 739 (emphasis added).)

2. “[I]n selecting heterosexual comparison groups for their studies, many same-sex parenting researchers have not used marriage-based intact families as heterosexual representatives, but have instead used single mothers.” (P. 741 (emphasis added).) Despite the broad claims made on behalf of the research, “with rare exceptions, the research does not include studies comparing children raised by two-parent, same-sex couples with children raised by marriage-based, heterosexual couples. (P. 742.)

3. The American Psychological Association’s claim that “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged” fails to take account of the largest study that actually examined “children’s developmental outcomes.” (Pp. 742-743.)

4. The same-sex parenting studies have failed to address a range of outcomes for children that are usually the focus of national studies on children, including drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, sexual activity, and criminality. (Pp. 743-744.)

These new studies contradict the politically correct pronouncements of the APA. But evidence came out last week that they are “controlled” the gay rights movement, according to a former President of the APA, who is himself pro-same-sex-marriage.

We should not be redefining marriage if it is going to hurt vulnerable children. I made the case before from the research that same-sex unions are not the same as heterosexual married couples. And now we have direct evidence that the differences matter to children.