Month: January 2017

Police: Masked Suspects ‘Announced a Robbery,’ Were Greeted by Gunfire

Police say masked suspects who “announced a robbery” at Eagle’s Corner Chinese takeout were met with gunfire and subsequently fled the scene. The incident occurred in West Philadelphia around 9:30 pm Sunday night. According to 6 ABC, police said “two masked men walked into the restaurant and announced a robbery” while “two store owners” were present. “One of the owners pulled out a gun and shot one of the suspects in the back,” causing both suspects to flee. Police believe the suspect who escaped injury was able to drive the wounded suspect to a hospital. Police also said the suspects “tried to cut surveillance wires to a camera” before they entered the business but failed to cut the right one, so the attempted robbery was captured on video. Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Scott Small said, “The in-store surveillance cameras and the one in the back yard were still functioning and did record the robbery.” Both suspects are in custody and “expected to be charged” over the incident.

Good!  I love stories like this!  Just another example that illustrates the importance of owning a firearm for your own personal protection.  After all, cops aren’t there to protect you.  If you dial 911, they’ll show up…to try and figure out who did what, and fill out paperwork.  By the time they get there, the crime has already been committed.  You are responsible for your own protection.  Remember that.

Trump Supporter Knocked Unconscious by Protester at Portland International Airport

A Donald Trump supporter was knocked out and suffered a concussion after being attacked by a protester at Portland International Airport, says a Daily Mail report. Thirty-nine-year-old Grant Chisholm, along with with three other members of the Bible Believers Group, held a counter protest supporting President Donald Trump’s temporary immigration ban at the same time 600 people were protesting the ban. Chisholm said he was there to preach and one of the demonstrators asked him for a fight. He claimed he was hit in the head three times with a metallic object by one of the ban protesters. “They almost killed me tonight,” he told The Oregonian. After Chisholm got knocked out, people can be seen in the video surrounding him until police arrived. He was rushed to a nearby hospital and treated for a concussion.

As we oftentimes say here at The Daily Buzz…  Liberals are all for free speech…until it’s speech they don’t agree with.  Then they shut you down…or in this case, knock you out.  Typical..  Hopefully the piece of garbage that did this has been identified and will get arrested and charged for this vicious assault.  To see the video of this attack, click on the text above.

Opinion: The Un-American Canard

The surefire way to bring the word “un-American” into vogue is to propose a restriction on immigration, no matter how minor. Democrats, who have spent the past half-century since Joe McCarthy objecting to the suggestion that anyone in this country might not be patriotic, can barely mention President Donald Trump’s immigration order without calling it un-American. Judging by their performance over the past few days, if Democrats ever take back control of Congress, their first act will be to reinstitute the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate proponents of reduced immigration and their associates. (“Are you now or have you ever been an immigration restrictionist?”) Trump’s immigration order is vulnerable to any number of legitimate criticisms, on its merits and particularly on its shambolic rollout. But it is not true that a months-long pause in immigration from seven Muslim-majorities countries, some of which lack functioning governments, and all of which are either war-torn or hostile to the United States, is a violation of the nation’s creed. Nowhere is it written that the United States can never tap the brakes on immigration. For much of the political class and for an inflamed Left, any new restriction is tantamount to melting down the Statue of Liberty, an ahistorical attitude that desperately needs a corrective. President Trump, in blunderbuss fashion, is setting out to provide one. Everyone knows that we are a “nation of immigrants,” although immigration has been highly contested throughout our history. “America,” the late political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote, “has been a nation of restricted and interrupted immigration as much as it has been a nation of immigration.” Levels of immigration spiked in the 1880s, dropped in the 1890s and reached new highs before World War I. They declined precipitously during the war and bounced back afterward. Then the 1924 immigration law brought a new phase of lower immigration that didn’t end until the late 1960s. In 1965, fewer than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to the U.S. We have been at elevated levels for decades since then and now admit about 1 million a year. The proportion of the foreign-born population is set to hit a record in 2025. This means there is a lot of room to reduce immigration without shutting our doors entirely. A cut in half in legal immigration to the levels of the early 1980s would still mean roughly 500,000 new immigrants a year, a high absolute number compared with almost every other country in the world. Of course, the Trump policy that has caused such a reaction is not close to change of this scale. Trump also has temporarily suspended the U.S. refugee program and capped it at 50,000 refugees. This is in the same ballpark as the figure for admittances from the past five years or so, when the number of refugees was typically between 50,000 and 70,000 a year. If we are using an overall level of refugees to judge our American-ness, 1976, 1977, 1978, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 must have been woefully un-American years, because the number of refugees was less than 50,000 in each of them. All of this said, the critics are right to sense something different in President Trump. He is going to put much more emphasis on the integrity of our borders and less on humanitarian considerations than his predecessors. This is a direct challenge to the lazy cosmopolitanism that assumes the only correct answer in immigration policy is always “more” and never “less.” The rocky rollout of the Trump policy means that the administration is expending political capital on its executive order that would best be preserved for more important immigration-related causes, like getting Congress to pass a mandatory e-verify system to stop employers from hiring illegal labor and to emphasize skills in the legal immigration system — you know, other alleged betrayals of America.

National Review editor Rich Lowry is responsible for that piece.

Playboy Club to reopen in New York City after 30 years

The world’s most famous Bunnies are coming back to the Big Apple. A revamped Playboy Lounge and Supper Club is making a return to New York City after 30 years in midtown Manhattan’s new Cachet Boutique hotel slated to open later this year. The newly designed space will feature a lounge, game room, full-service dining room, and plenty of Playboy Bunny servers, hostesses and cocktail waitresses. The original chain of Clubs, which operated in dozens of cities between 1960 and 1988, featured waitresses chosen via auditions. The women wore “bunny suits” — complete with the iconic strapless corset teddy, bunny ears, a collar, cuffs and a fluffy cottontail– inspired by the tuxedo-clad Playboy rabbit mascot. “The reintroduction of the Playboy Club to New York City is a huge milestone for us as we continue to reinvent our brand for new audiences all around the world,” Valerie Golson, Playboy’s Vice President of Gaming and Location Based Entertainment said in a statement. Golson also confirmed that the entertainment enterprise is opening a new Playboy Club with Cachet in Shanghai, China this March. In addition to the Playboy Club, New York’s first Cachet Boutique hotel will feature 107 “design-led rooms,” wellness areas, an additional restaurant, outdoor event space, and a rarity in the concrete jungle– an outdoor Jacuzzi. The city’s original Playboy Club opened in Manhattan in 1962 and operated until 1986 before closing its doors. Several U.S. cities, including Las Vegas, have tried reopening Playboy clubs since the early 2000s. Today, there are Playboy Clubs in London, Hanoi, Hyderabad, New Delhi and Mumbai, as well as a beer garden in Pune, India, and a café in Bangkok, Thailand.



Opinion: Sally Yates should be disbarred – She betrayed her client

Sally Yates was an obscure, left-wing activist who spent her career at the U.S. Department of Justice. She had risen to become the No. 2 person in that department and was tapped to be acting Attorney General until the Senate can confirm Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General. On Monday, Sally Yates got her 15 minutes of fame when she announced the Department of Justice would not defend President Trump’s ban on people coming to this nation from seven nations. The term nation has to be used loosely here, as five have no real functioning government. President Trump’s response was immediate and anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the president could see what was coming. The president told Yates, “Your fired.” As soon as Mrs. Yates made her announcement on Monday, the left swooned over her. The liberal media heralded the “defiant” acting Attorney General. After she was fired, CNN, the most busted name in news, called it “the Monday night massacre.” In the last few years, the left has decided that liberal government lawyers can select which laws they like and if there is a law they do not like, they can refuse to defend it. This is a great system for the left. A group files a lawsuit against something the left doesn’t like, the liberal government lawyer refuses to defend it, as President Obama’s DOJ refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and then the law gets overturned because no one is defending it. Part of the statutory duties of the Attorney General and the state attorneys general is to defend the constitutionality of statutes, whether they agree with them or not. That was Sally Yates‘ job. Every first year law student understands that a lawyer owes an absolute duty of loyalty to their client. Every state codifies this in the rules and regulations concerning the behavior of lawyers. When Yates wrote the letter to DOJ attorneys telling them not to defend the President’s executive orders, she claimed that she had to stand for “what is right.” Sorry, you don’t get to make that determination. There was no legal justification for Mrs. Yates‘ decision. It was only partisan politics masked by a few meaningless words, wrapping the decision in left wing double speak. Lawyers, in rare instances, are allowed to disregard the wishes of clients. Those are instances when the client wants to commit a crime, a fraud on others or the courts and in some cases where legal arguments are frivolous. None of those apply here. If Mrs. Yates truly believed the Executive Order that President Trump signed was unlawful, instead of giving the Republican President the middle finger and very publicly refusing to follow the orders, she should have simply resigned. Instead, she wanted to become a hero to the radical left. She got her wish, as the left-wing media is now fawning over her. She will leave her job and no doubt be picked up by a big, left wing law firm and probably be asked by the Party of Treason to run for office as a Democrat in Georgia. In his letter firing Yates, President Trump said, “The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.” She did more than betray the Department of Justice. She betrayed her client. Her client was the United States of America. Her job was to defend the laws of the United States of America. Ethically, if she could not defend a law, her only option was to resign. It was not her position to refuse to defend the law. President Trump should follow up his firing of Yates with a disciplinary complaint to the state of Georgia Bar and every other bar where Mrs. Yates is admitted. President Trump has fired Sally Yates, but it should not end there. No lawyer who betrays her client should be allowed to practice law.

Agreed!!  Well said, Judson.  Attorney, and former TN Assistant DA Judson Phillips was the author of that outstanding op/ed.  Hopefully Pres. Trump will take Judson’s advice, and write the Georgia Bar.

Immigration Expert: Illegal Immigrants Can Pay for Wall

A plan to have Mexico pay for the not-yet-built border wall has been floated around President Donald Trump’s administration for weeks now. Trump announced that he may impose a 20 percent tax on all products from Mexico to quickly pay for the wall, without American taxpayers being directly hit with the expected $10 to $14 billion cost. David North, an immigration expert with the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) says he has a solution that would entail illegal immigrants living in the U.S. actually footing the bill. Under North’s proposal, he argues that by shuttering programs which federally fund illegal immigrants, nearly $1 to $3 billion could be shored annually, paying for the wall in potentially less than a decade. “Put a 2 percent fee on all outgoing remittances,” North writes. “The rate is low enough to discourage alternative ways of sending money to the homelands, and the paper created will give IRS good leads for collecting unpaid income taxes.” North also cites terminating the ruling which allows families with illegal immigrant family members obtain food-stamps, getting rid of the Additional Child Tax Credit for children who do not have Social Security numbers, mostly because their parents are illegal immigrants, and charge individuals a going-rate to enter the U.S. from Mexico. North writes that a small 25 cents fee imposed on individuals entering the country from Mexico, and an additional $1 for a vehicle and $5 for a bus, could create revenue to pay for the southern border wall. “None of these proposals would depress the Mexican economy, all would help fund the wall, and most would have absolutely no impact on the vast majority of American taxpayers, and all (but the crossing fees) would encourage illegal aliens to return home,” North writes.

Opinion: What Trump’s Wall Says to the World

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” wrote poet Robert Frost in the opening line of “Mending Walls.” And on the American left there is something like revulsion at the idea of the “beautiful wall” President Trump intends to build along the 1,900-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico. The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much. Yet something deeper is afoot here. The idea of a permanent barrier between our countries goes to the heart of the divide between our two Americas on the most fundamental of questions. Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for? Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place. It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are. Two decades ago, the Old Right and the neocons engaged in a ferocious debate over what America was and is. Were we from the beginning a new, unique, separate and identifiable people like the British, French and Germans? Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King? The Old Right contended that America existed even before the Revolution, and that this new nation, this new people, wrote its own birth certificate, the Constitution. Before Washington, Madison and Hamilton ever went to Philadelphia, America existed. What forced the premature birth of the nation — was the Revolution. We did not become a new nation because we embraced Jefferson’s notion about all men being “created equal.” We became a new people from our familial break with the Mother Country, described in the declaration as a severing of ties with our “brethren” across the sea who no longer deserved our loyalty or love. The United States came into being in 1789. The Constitution created the government, the state. But the country already existed. When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans. Not until decades after the Great Migration of 1890-1920, with the common trials of the Depression, World War II and Cold War, were we truly forged again into one united nation and people. By 1960, almost all of us shared the same heroes and holidays, spoke the same language and cherished the same culture. What those with memories of that America see happening today is the disintegration of our nation of yesterday. The savagery of our politics, exemplified in the last election, testifies to how Americans are coming to detest one another as much as the Valley Forge generation came to detest the British from whom they broke free. In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people. To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism. The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age. Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards. Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people? Old Europe never knew mass immigration until the 20th century. Now, across Europe, center-left and center-right parties are facing massive defections because they are perceived as incapable of coping with the existential threat of the age — the overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East. President Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders. The crisis of our time is not that some Americans are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.

Agreed!!  Thanks to veteran columnist Pat Buchanan for that sobering, and spot on, op/ed.  As many of you know, here at The Daily Buzz we’ve been calling on the previous (Obama)administration to BUILD THE WALL NOW!!!!…and put U.S. Army National Guard troops physically ON the border with Mexico.  Those troops should remain on that border until that wall/fence is finally built above, and below ground (to prevent tunneling)…however long it takes.  Simultaneously, we need to be deporting illegal aliens here in America by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions (and yes, you read that correctly)…paying particular attention to known gang members (i.e. MS-13, etc.), convicted criminal aliens, and those already determined by an immigration judge to be deported…regardless of age or gender.  And, that’s just for starters, folks.  To do anything less is NOT in our nation’s national security, or economic, interests.  We are $20 TRILLION dollars in debt as a nation, and our infrastructure is being crushed under the weight of this invasion by illegal immigrants and so-called Muslim “refugees.”  We can no longer afford this insanity, and need to reverse course immediately.  Thanks to Pat for this outstanding history lesson!   🙂

Ohio State course to teach how to identify microaggressions, privilege

Ohio State University will be offering a new course in the spring semester that will focus on how to “identify microaggressions” and “systems of power and privilege,” The College Fix reported. The syllabus says the class will offer insight into developing “an understanding of major social justice concepts.” The course literature includes a reading list with works such as, “Waking up White: What it means to accept your legacy, for better and worse,” and “Readings for diversity and social justice.” According the syllabus, the class will “grasp their role within greater society and how they can work to create social justice.” “Students will learn to value their own self-identity and the identities of others different from them,” the syllabus also added. The “Crossing identity boundaries: A journey towards intercultural leadership” course meets a mandatory diversity and General Education requirement for the University. The goal of the course is to offer an “intellectual and experiential engagement” on issues within “different social and cultural groups.”

Wow..  What a bunch of silly, extreme liberal, politically correct psychobbable!  This is the kind of crap that is destroying the soul of our country, and it’s being fed to young skulls full of mush in our colleges and universities, who come out yelling “microaggression!” 24/7 like good little liberal unthinking robots.  Trust me..  I had such an experience over the Thanksgiving holiday with my misguided niece.  Awful..

Analysis: Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria

To read the online commentary, one would think that President Trump just fundamentally corrupted the American character. You would think that the executive order on refugees he signed yesterday betrayed America’s Founding ideals. You might even think he banned people from an entire faith from American shores. Just look at the rhetoric. Here’s Chuck Schumer: “Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight.” If you thought only Senator Schumer saw tears in Lady Liberty’s eyes, think again. Here’s Nancy Pelosi: “This Administration has mistaken cruelty for strength and prejudice for strategy.” CNN, doing its best Huffington Post impersonation, ran a headline declaring “Trump bans 134,000,000 from the U.S.” The Huffington Post, outdoing itself, just put the Statue of Liberty upside down on its front page. So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones. Let’s analyze the key provisions, separate the fact from the hysteria, and introduce just a bit of historical perspective. First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms.

This is one you’ll definitely want to see the graphs for.  So, go ahead and click on the text above to see them, and read the rest of this outstanding and thoughtful op/ed by attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  Excellent!!   🙂

Trump’s hard-nosed executive order asks what U.N. money is going for-and is it worth it?

The Trump Administration intends to take a hard-nosed approach to one of the frustrating mysteries left behind by the Obama Administration: Just exactly how much money does the U.S. give to the United Nations, what is the money going for—and is it worth it? The Administration’s tough strategy is specifically aimed at reducing, rather than eliminating, U.S. support for the world organization and will not affect, at least in the short term, Washington’s current dues-paying commitment to pay 22 per cent of the U.N.’s so-called “regular” budget ($5.6 billion for 2016-2017) and 28.5 percent of its peacekeeping obligations ($7.9 billion) this year. But at the same time, the intent is clearly to hold the U.N.’s feet close to the fire on its value to U.S. goals and interests, as well as take special aim at organizations that offer full membership to the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or are heavily influenced by states that sponsor or support terrorism and/or systematically violate human rights. The methods for doing that include seeing what the organization has done with the money it has already received, finding ways to turn as much spending as feasible into voluntary rather than mandatory contributions—which the Administration would like to cut by 40 per cent—better sharing the international cost burden in the future, and making sure that U.S. contributions are “used in a manner consistent with their designated purpose.” Greater voluntary funding rather than automatic dues-paying has long been advocated by conservative reformers such as former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton..

And that makes sense!  This is an excellent first step in cutting back on the BILLIONS of hard-earned tax dollars that Americans send to this institution that doesn’t do a thing to further the national security, or economic, interests of the United States…and yet, we continue to just throw BILLIONS of dollars at it.  Kudos to the Trump administration for taking this action!