Month: June 2017

Susan Rice suggests race, gender bias linked to ‘unmasking’ backlash

Susan Rice, the Obama national security adviser under fire over her alleged involvement in the “unmasking” of Trump associates during the 2016 presidential election, suggested in a fresh interview that race and gender might be playing a role in the scrutiny she’s faced. In an interview with journalist Michael Tomasky for New York Magazine, Rice reportedly questioned the criticism she’s faced dating back to the Benghazi controversy. “Why me? Why not Jay Carney, for example, who was then our press secretary, who stood up more?” she asked. Tomasky noted in the piece that Carney “isn’t an African-American woman, of course” and apparently asked Rice whether that is the key factor. Rice, in response, left the door open: “I don’t know… I do not leap to the simple explanation that it’s only about race and gender. I’m trying to keep my theories to myself until I’m ready to come out with them. It’s not because I don’t have any.” But Rice mentioned other prominent female figures – like Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice – who faced “ad hominem” attacks, suggesting a correlation. Asked about the comments, a Republican Capitol Hill source pushed back. “This is screaming out for attention… She’s saying I don’t know why they all started picking on me to begin with.” As to the suggestion of race and gender being a factor, the source countered, then “why would there be a subpoena for a white male?”

Exactly!!

AG Sessions Urges House to Pass Measures Combating Criminal Aliens

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement Wednesday urging members of the House of Representatives to pass two bills designed to crack down on illegal immigration. Both HR 3004, commonly known as Kate’s Law, and HR 3003, the No Sanctuaries for Criminals Act, were scheduled to be considered in the House Wednesday. Both laws seek to crack down on illegal alien criminality, a central policy aim of Sessions’s Department of Justice. Kate’s Law increases penalties for those illegally re-entering the United States, especially those, like the killer of the law’s namesake Kate Steinle, who racked up criminal records before being deported. HR 3003 seeks to reign in so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions by prohibiting them from preventing their own officials and law enforcement officers from inquiring about prisoners’ immigration status and reporting that information to the federal government. It also adds congressional backing to efforts by the Justice Department to limit federal grant money to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement

Excellent!!  It’s about time!  To read the rest, click on the text above.       🙂

Paying workers to protest: The controversial trend of social justice benefits

Since the election, scores of activists have taken to the streets, town halls and rallies to blast President Trump. That’s all with the blessing of their boss thanks to social justice benefits and paid time off work policies that are growing in popularity. At San Francisco marketing firm Traction, social justice benefits take the form of two so-called “Days of Action” a year. “They can take part in a protest, they can volunteer for a cause that is meaningful to them,” says CEO Adam Kleinberg. “Civic engagement is a foundation of our democracy, and companies should encourage it.” Kleinberg says while he’s liberal, Traction’s new policy is neutral: so long as it’s not a group that promotes violence, such as the Ku Klux Klan, his 50 employees can support whatever political group or cause they want. They must first get approval from management and submit a request for the time off. “If someone wanted to participate in a pro-life rally,” says Kleinberg, “they are absolutely welcome to do that. This is not about the partners at Traction promoting our agenda, it’s about having a broader view of democracy, and encouraging people to be engaged.” But in the famously left-leaning Bay Area, conservative activists don’t buy it. “They want, basically, a harder left turn than we’re seeing now,” says Howard Epstein, vice chair of communications for the San Francisco Republican Party. “And if you’re going political, you’re going to discourage some people from going to your place of business.” It is a risk: Consumers opposed to an official endorsement of protest culture might spend their money elsewhere. When news of Traction’s “Day of Action” benefit spread, Kleinberg was the target of a backlash and calls for a boycott. “Traction has been called everything from fascists, to socialists, to communists, to libtards, candya—s. I’m not quite sure what being a candya– is, but if being candya—s is what it takes for Traction to inspire change, we’re willing to own that.”

Crazy…  Now you know who those rabble rousers really are..  To read the rest of this article, click on the text above.

Black Trinity College prof who called white people ‘inhuman’ after GOP shooting placed on leave

Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams has been placed on leave “effective immediately” for racial comments he made after the June 14 shooting of Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise. Assertions by Mr. Williams on social media that white people are “inhuman a—holes” who should “die” garnered national headlines last week for Connecticut’s Trinity College. The school was initially quiet on the June 18 posts by its associate professor of sociology, but released a brief statement on Monday addressing the situation. “I write to inform you that Professor Johnny Williams has been placed on leave, effectively immediately. We’ve determined that a leave is in the best interest of both Professor Williams and the college. The review by the Dean of the Faculty of the events concerning Professor Williams will continue,” Trinity College President Joanne Berger-Sweeney said Monday. Mr. Williams also shared an op-ed by an anonymous writer called “Son of Baldwin,” which encouraged minorities to ignore white people in emergency rooms and burning buildings. “As scholars and citizens, and as individuals and as a community of higher learning, our roles in and relationship to social media and the public sphere are complicated,” Ms. Berger-Sweeney’s statement continued. “We must be able to engage in conversations about these difficult and complex issues, and Trinity College and other places like it are precisely where such conversations should occur. I, for one, welcome them.”

Man destroys new Ten Commandments statue at Arkansas Capitol

Arkansas’ new Ten Commandments monument was smashed to pieces early Wednesday by someone driving a vehicle into it less than 24 hours after the 6-foot (1.8 meter) granite statue was placed on state Capitol grounds. Secretary of State’s Office spokesman Chris Powell said capitol police arrested the male suspect early Wednesday. Pulaski County jail records show that Michael Tate Reed of Van Buren, Arkansas, was booked into the jail shortly after 7:30 a.m. Wednesday on preliminary charges of defacing objects of public interest, criminal trespass and first-degree criminal mischief, with Capitol Police listed as the arrest agency. A Facebook Live video shot early Wednesday and posted on an account belonging to a Michael Reed appears to show the destruction of the monument. Arkansas’ monument fell from its plinth and broke into multiple pieces as it hit the ground. “As far as what happens to the monument, it’s unclear at this time,” Powell said. “The first thing will be to clean up the debris.”

Indeed..  What a loser..  At the very least, Mr. Reed should some some time in jail and pay a hefty fine.  And, of course, he needs to pay for the replacement of this statue….however much it costs.

60 Percent of Americans Support Trump’s Immigrant Welfare Ban

A plan by President Donald Trump to ban immigrants who have only been living in the U.S. for less than five years from receiving welfare services has widespread support. In a new Rasmussen poll, 62 percent of likely voters said they support barring new immigrants to the U.S. from receiving welfare benefits for at least five years, as Trump recently proposed during a speech to supporters. Middle-class Americans making $30,000 to $50,000 a year are the most likely to support the ban on welfare for immigrants, with 72 percent in favor. Those who describe themselves as “moderates” are also on-board at a rate of 61 percent. Even more is the prospects of making sure no illegal aliens receive taxpayer-funded public welfare benefits. A whopping 76 percent said those seeking welfare should be made to certify that they are in the U.S. legally. Only 17 percent oppose the plan. Middle-class Americans making $30,000 to $50,000 a year are the most supportive, with 80 percent favoring the plan. It’s also incredibly popular with Americans who dropped out of college or high school. A total of 96 percent of high school dropouts support banning illegal immigrants from welfare, while 80 percent of college dropouts agree. The poll shows that on immigration, Trump’s restrictive proposals have the backing of the majority of Americans. In a recent Missouri poll, more than 60 percent of likely midterm voters said they wanted to see a reduction in legal immigration to the U.S., opposing the yearly 1.5 million legal immigrant-level that is currently in place.

Imagine that!  And still the dominantly liberal mainstream media doesn’t get it.

Alien spaceship on Mars or NASA debris? Curiosity rover spots a mystery object on the red planet sending conspiracy theorists into a spin

NASA’s Curiosity rover has snapped a photo of a mysterious object on the surface of Mars, which conspiracy theorists believe could be evidence of aliens. The high-definition image appears to show the object glinting against Mars’ rocky landscape. While many people believe that the object is made by aliens, others have suggested that it is merely the rover’s own entry debris. The image was taken in March, but was posted on Reddit this week, sparking a huge online debate about what it shows. Prosaic Origin, the Reddit user who posted the image, wrote: ‘Uh NASA? UFO caught on Mars Rover mission? Is this real?’ His post has received 79 replies, many of which back up his thoughts that it could be aliens. EdisonVonneZula said: ‘Looks like light glimmering off of a genuine spaceship on an alien planet in outer space.’ And Crazylegs99 wrote: ‘They forgot to Photoshop that one out. Love how skeptical the mods are. ‘You could have aliens waving hi through the windshield and it would be flagged as a likely prosaic.’ But not everyone is convinced. OnceReturned suggested the image could merely show debris from the rover’s landing craft.

Perhaps..  Click on the text above to see the photos in question, and you be the judge!

EPA moves to nix Obama’s ‘waters of the US’ regulation

The Trump administration Tuesday announced plans to scrap an Obama-era environmental rule that had been attacked as federal overreach by farmers and property-rights groups. The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers said they would withdraw Obama’s 2015 “waters of the United States” — or WOTUS — regulation, which expanded the number of waterways covered by the federal Clean Water Act. The agencies described a withdrawal process as an interim step and promised a broader review of which waters should fall under federal jurisdiction. “We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said, adding that the re-evaluation would be “thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public.” The EPA and the Army Corps said dismantling the Obama rule would not change existing practices because the measure has been stayed by the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in response to opponents’ lawsuits. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said the move showed “the West has won in the battle over the Obama administration’s WOTUS rule. “This regulation would have been a disaster for rural communities in the West and across the country, giving Washington near-total control over water resources,” Ryan added. “The livelihoods of American farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs were at stake.” The debate over which waterways are covered under the Clean Water Act has dragged on for years and remains murky despite two Supreme Court rulings. The Obama rule expanded the definition of “navigable waters” to include “intermittent streams” — that is, streams that sometimes had no water in them at all.

Great news!!  This entirely unconstitutional Obama WOTUS rule/regulation has been a big government/brother disaster.  Glad to see EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt getting rid of it.  Excellent!!

Opinion: The Emoluments of Sore Losers

In our putrid, take-no-prisoners politics, the Constitution’s prohibition on accepting foreign “emoluments” is the weapon du jour in the war on Trump. The president faces multiple lawsuits brought by prominent liberal law professors, the attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia, and, most recently, 196 Democratic members of Congress. Trump’s opponents claim that every time, say, a foreign diplomat books a room in a Trump hotel or pays for a meal in a Trump restaurant, the Constitution is violated. They seek to force the president to sell off all his holdings and demand disclosure of his tax returns to track foreign payments. Before assuming office, President Trump disposed of his publicly traded and liquid investments. He put his illiquid assets (e.g., hotels, golf courses, and commercial properties) into a trust. He further resigned from all official positions with the Trump Organization and turned over management of the businesses to his adult sons. None of this is enough for his enemies. The Constitution’s foreign-emoluments clause provides that no federal official “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” Borrowed from our first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the foreign-emoluments clause has two purposes. First is the preservation of republican simplicity. Titles of nobility create castes within society where title holders receive honors and privileges above those of ordinary citizens. This was not to be the case in the United States. As the great Virginia legal scholar St. George Tucker (1752–1827) observed: “Washington in retirement was equal, and only equal, in rights, to the poorest citizen of the state.” Washington’s natural nobility shone forth, but not because of any title granted to him. The second purpose behind the clause is protection of the government from foreign influence. Neither the government under the Articles of Confederation nor that under the U.S. Constitution wanted federal officers to be corrupted by receipt of expensive gifts or high-paying “side jobs” offered by foreign governments. The Founders knew their history and recalled how Charles II, although serving as the king of England in the 17th century, was little more than a puppet of Louis XIV because of a pension he received from France. Presents, offices, and titles we understand. But the term “emolument” is not in our modern vocabularies. In his first inaugural address, George Washington used the term as synonymous with government salary when he refused “any share of the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department.” In Hoyt v. United States (1850), the U.S. Supreme Court defined emolument as “embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office.” Accordingly, President Trump argues that “emolument” must be understood as a prohibited benefit arising from the services a federal officer provides to a foreign power, either on account of his office (making a decision favorable to a foreign government for pay) or as an employee/agent of the foreign power. He further argues that the foreign-emoluments clause does not prohibit his companies from engaging in market transactions on the same terms as any other citizen or private business. Early presidential practice supports the president’s interpretation. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all owned massive plantations and sold agricultural commodities in Europe. Undoubtedly, some of their customers were foreign governments, but no political opponent ever raised the specter that they were violating the foreign-emoluments clause. President Trump’s opponents, on the other hand, seek to define emolument as the receipt of anything of value by the Trump Organization from any foreign country, with no distinction made for arm’s-length commercial transactions. To them, there is no difference between a foreign diplomat paying for a steak dinner at a Trump restaurant and a foreign diplomat paying the president a bribe for favorable treatment. Alas, Trump opponents, still wincing from the 2016 election, are undertaking constitutional litigation and making strained arguments solely to embarrass and harm him. They apparently haven’t learned the lesson that public disgust with give-no-quarter politics, in part, led to the defeat of Establishment candidates in both the Republican primaries and the general election. The emoluments litigation is likely to backfire, especially for many of the 196 members of Congress involved. How can anyone take congressional whining about possible corruption seriously when Congress as a body has sold its collective soul to special interests and is pushing our national debt to the $20 trillion mark? The American people will surely see the lawsuits for what they are: a desperate effort to preserve the fetid conditions of the swamp by hindering an elected agent of reform.

Agreed!!  That outstanding legal op/ed was written by William J. Watkins, Jr; a fellow over at the Independence Institute here in Colorado.