Month: August 2017

WH: Trump Will ‘Pledge Proudly $1 Million of His Own Personal Money’ to Harvey Relief

Thursday at the White House press briefing, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said President Donald Trump would donate $1 million to victims of the historic floods in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. Huckabee Sanders said, “He’s actually asked that I check with the folks in this room since you are very good at research and have been doing a lot of reporting into the groups and organizations that have the best and most effective in helping and providing aid, and he would love some suggestions from the folks here and I would be happy to take those if any of you have them. But like I said he will pledge proudly $1 million of his own personal money to help the people of both Texas and Louisiana.” She added, “I know that the president, he said he was personally going to give, I don’t know the legal part of exactly that, but he said his personal money so I would assume that comes directly from him.”

Wow!!  That’s called leading by example.  Outstanding!!   🙂

GOP governor hopeful refuses to apologize for saying George Soros has ‘Hatred for America’

A Republican state senator from Pennsylvania refused to apologize for calling billionaire Democratic megadonor George Soros “a Hungarian Jew” with “a hatred for America” following the accusations of anti-Semitism. Sen. Scott Wagner, who’s seeking next year’s Republican nomination for governor, spoke with The York Daily Record on Monday and suggested people are overreacting over his comments. “Everybody’s getting their knickers around their ankles over this and there’s no reason for that,” he said. The senator’s comments were recorded by someone from an opposition tracker during a tomato festival in Pittston, Pennsylvania last week. The Democratic Party in the state denounced Wagner and his comments, saying they were anti-Semitic. Wagner, however, insisted that if Soros had been Catholic he would have called him a Hungarian Catholic – meaning no offense. He added that his comments should not be interpreted as racist, also noting his long history of donating to the local Jewish Community Center.

I think we’ll all agree that Sen. Wagner’s comments were ill-considered for a politician.  That said..  He is 100% technically correct in calling George Soros a “Hungarian Jew.”  To recognize that FACT is NOT “anti-Semitic.”  If he were to say, “I hate Jews, or something similar, then that would be an anti-Semitic comment.  As for saying that Soros has “hatred for America.”…   Well, Mr. Soros is a socialist who hates America’s capitalistic heritage, and has used his funding of Moveon.org and other extreme liberal organizations to undermine that heritage.  He, like Obama, would like to see America become another failed socialist European country like Greece, etc.  So, on that level, I think that charge is pretty accurate.  Hopefully the good people of Pennsylvania will see through this nonsense and wave the bs flag at their state Dem party for making much ado about nothing.

Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a liberal, Alabama-based 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization that has gained prominence on the left for its “hate group” designations, pushes millions of dollars to offshore entities as part of its business dealings, records show. Additionally, the nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of “fighting hate and bigotry” using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy. The Southern Poverty Law Center is perhaps best known for its “hate map,” a collection of organizations the nonprofit deems “domestic hate groups” that lists mainstream conservative organizations alongside racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and is often referenced in the media. A gunman opened fire at the Washington, D.C., offices of the conservative Family Research Council in 2012 after seeing it listed as an “anti-gay” group on SPLC’s website. The SPLC has turned into a fundraising powerhouse, recording more than $50 million in contributions and $328 million in net assets on its 2015 Form 990, the most recently available tax form from the nonprofit. SPLC’s Form 990-T, its business income tax return, from the same year shows that they have “financial interests” in the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Bermuda. No information is available beyond the acknowledgment of the interests at the bottom of the form.

SPLC is an extreme liberal, agenda-driven advocacy organization that has been discredited, as we’ve documented here at The Daily Buzz, on numerous occasions.  Yet, the many organs of the dominantly liberal mainstream media like CNN and MSNBC continue to refer to them as some sort of authority on who is a “hate group.”  Why”  Because the SPLC supports their agenda.  That’s not journalism.  It’s agenda advocacy.  SPLC will list the pro-life Family Research Council  as a “hate group,” which is beyond ridiculous.  But, they won’t list Black Lives Matter (which has openly called for the assassination of police officers, and you can Google videos of that if you doubt me) as a hate group.  Go figure.  Anyway, to read the rest of this excellent investigative piece which exposes the corruption of the SPLC, click on the text above.  Congress oughtta investigate why this corrupt organization still has a tax exempt status.

Obama Admin Hid Intel on Iranian Militants in Syria to Push Nuclear Deal

The Obama administration likely hid information about Iran illicitly ferrying militants into Syria on commercial aircraft in order to promote the landmark nuclear deal and foster multi-billion dollar business deals with Tehran’s state-controlled airline sector, according to lawmakers and other sources familiar with the matter. The Washington Free Beacon first disclosed last week that congressional leaders are calling for an investigation into Iran for using its state-controlled air carrier, Iran Air, to ferry militant fighters into Syria, where they are taking up arms in defense of embattled President Bashar al-Assad. Photographs provided to Congress show Iran using Iran Air to ferry these soldiers between 2016 and 2017, in part when the Obama administration removed sanctions on Iran Air and promoted multi-billion dollars sales between the carrier and aircraft manufacturer Boeing, which is seeking to provide Iran Air with a fleet of new planes that many suspect will be used to carry terrorist fighters and weapons into regional hotspots. This behavior violates international laws governing the nuclear deal and has now led lawmakers and others to accuse the Obama administration of downplaying Iran’s illicit activity in order to promote the nuclear deal and ensure Tehran receives a new commercial fleet. Multiple senior Obama administration officials, including former secretary of state John Kerry, traveled the globe to promote trade with Iranian companies, including Iran Air, at the same time Iran was found to be ferrying militants into Syria. Lawmakers and others suspect the Obama administration either hid or downplayed this information in order to preserve the nuclear deal. “The Obama administration lifted sanctions against Iran Air as a political concession during nuclear negotiations with Iran, not because of any change in its activity,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), one of the lawmakers calling for an investigation into Iran’s use of commercial aircraft for military purposes, told the Free Beacon. “Using social media and public flight tracking websites, any person with a computer can document Iranian military transports to Syria on commercial jets,” Roskam said. “The Obama administration undoubtedly knew Iranian airliners were being used to fuel Assad’s atrocities in Syria, but the administration officials who were globetrotting as Tehran’s chamber of commerce trying to shore up the nuclear deal didn’t care.” “Iran Air continues to support the Iran-Assad war machine to this day, and the Trump administration must hold the airline accountable and work to stop them,” the lawmaker said. Roskam and a delegation of other Republican congressmen petitioned the Trump Treasury Department last week to investigate photographic evidence showing Iran using Iran Air to ferry militants into Syria. “Iran’s use of commercial aircraft for military purposes violates international agreements as well as Iranian commitments under the JCPOA,” or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the lawmakers wrote..

This is one of those stories you won’t see anywhere in the dominantly liberal mainstream media.  And, with what’s going on in Texas, this is getting buried “below the fold.”

Health professionals report cases where people put sunscreen on their eyeballs to watch eclipse

A health professional in California reported cases where eclipse-viewers sought medical treatment because they put sunscreen on their eyeballs to view last week’s solar eclipse. KRCTV.com reported that these individuals applied the sunscreen because they did not have the NASA-approved eyewear. “One of my colleagues at moonlight here stated yesterday that they had patients presenting at their clinic that put sunscreen on their eyeball, and presented that they were having pain and they were referred to an ophthalmologist,” Trish Patterson, a nurse at Prestige Urgent Care in Redding, Calif., said. The Sun also reported that doctors in Virginia have reported patients complaining of applying sunscreen to their eyes. The nurse said that it only takes seconds of staring at directly at the sun to cause lasting damage to the retina.

You really can’t make this stuff up, folks..

French: Affirmative Action Has Failed. It Never Had a Chance to Succeed

This morning the New York Times published an extraordinary, data-rich article examining the outcome of diversity efforts at colleges and universities from coast to coast. The results, quite frankly, are sobering. After decades of affirmative action, billions of dollars invested in finding, mentoring, and recruiting minority students, and extraordinary levels of effort and experimentation, black and Hispanic students are “more underrepresented at the nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago” (emphasis added). White and Asian students, on the other hand, remain overrepresented as a percentage of the population, with Asian students most overrepresented of all. On the one hand, these statistics represent a staggering failure. It’s difficult to overstate the modern campus obsession with diversity. To judge from marketing materials, campus investments, and the explosive growth of diversity bureaucracies, increasing minority representation on campus isn’t just a priority on par with, say, a good math, English, or engineering department, it’s deemed to be an indispensable part of a high-quality college education. That’s the legal rationale that’s used to justify racial discrimination in college admissions — that there is a “compelling state interest” in creating a truly diverse educational experience. On the other hand, however, one wonders whether failure was inevitable. Not even the most aggressive of affirmative-action programs can find students who don’t exist. And when it comes to college admissions, the problem isn’t a lack of collegiate demand for qualified minority students but rather a serious deficiency in supply. There are simply not enough students who are ready, willing, and able to do the work. That’s not to say that affirmative action is meaningless or irrelevant. Absent admissions preferences, the number of black and Hispanic students would decrease even further. It does mean, however, that educational disadvantages exist long before the college admissions process, and the college admissions process can’t come close to closing the gap. Here’s the Times: ” Affirmative action increases the numbers of black and Hispanic students at many colleges and universities, but experts say that persistent underrepresentation often stems from equity issues that begin earlier. Elementary and secondary schools with large numbers of black and Hispanic students are less likely to have experienced teachers, advanced courses, high-quality instructional materials and adequate facilities, according to the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.” Wait just a moment. There’s little doubt that these factors matter, but isn’t there a word missing from the Times’ summary of disadvantages? Isn’t it, quite possibly, the most important word? Yes, I’m thinking of “family.” Here’s an interesting fact. The cohort that’s most overrepresented in American colleges and universities, Asian Americans, also happens to have the lowest percentage of nonmarital births in the United States. In fact, the greater the percentage of nonmarital births, the worse the educational outcomes. Only 16.4 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children are born into nonmarried households. For white, Hispanic, and black Americans the percentages are 29.2, 53, and 70.6, respectively. Taken together, that means that staggering numbers of Hispanic and black children face a degree of family stress and uncertainty that their white and Asian peers simply don’t experience. While it’s of course true that correlation doesn’t always indicate causation, one of the most important realities explored in Robert Putnam’s vital book, Our Kids, is the extent to which childhood stresses can plague kids for the rest of their lives. Family dissolution and family instability place extraordinary pressure on young hearts and minds, and one doubts whether better lab equipment, motivated teachers, or new school buildings can ameliorate the aggregate effects of such profound loss. No one should argue that increased resources make no difference. But to omit the influence of family on educational outcome is to conveniently forget the elephant in the room. Teachers know the importance of family, and they feel its absence. A good friend taught four years in an inner-city elementary school, and she told me that out of 100 kids (25 per year) exactly seven lived with their mom and dad. None lived with married parents. Only a small minority of single moms ever showed up for parent-teacher conferences. How much money will put those kids on equal footing with peers from intact, engaged families? Indeed, there’s abundant evidence that even vast increases in public spending on education hasn’t led to corresponding increases in test scores, and when you understand how education really works, it’s easy to understand why. One of the most common characteristics of high-achieving students is they come from families that prioritize academic success. Yes, there are exceptions. Every college class includes high-achieving kids from single-parent homes, but at scale family involvement is indispensable. But rather than focus on families, our political culture spends 90 percent of its time talking about 10 percent solutions — investing vast sums to move the margins. Part of this rests on fundamentally flawed conceptions of human nature, including the notion that government programs and government spending can replicate the advantages inherent in two-parent families. Think of Barack Obama’s now-famous “Life of Julia” graphic, which chronicled all the ways the Obama administration could elevate Julia and her children, with nary a man in sight. In Jessica Gavora’s memorable phrase, Julia was married to the “Hubby State.” The Hubby State is the sexual revolutionary’s dream — you gain personal autonomy without losing security or opportunity. But part of our unwillingness to talk about families rests in something else — a sense of resignation and despair. After all, what can we do? What’s the four-point plan for building a marriage culture in neighborhoods where kids may grow up without knowing a single person who lives in an intact home? We often don’t like to hear that cultural problems only have cultural or religious solutions because that’s hard, that’s long-term, and that’s out of our control. So, we change what we can change — curriculum, spending levels, admissions policies — and hope for the best. No one should think that if we could wave a magic wand and immediately knit families back together then our nation would cure all its ills. Racism and its legacy still haunts this nation, and a myriad of other factors would lead to different outcomes. But we can say, and we do know, that intact families are greater assets to children than even the most generous taxpayers or the most diligent college admissions committee, and not even the most generous taxpayers or the most diligent admissions committee can fix the inequality that damaged families create.

Well said, David.  Attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French is responsible for that sobering op/ed.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.

Opinion: Trump’s pardon of ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio was the right (and courageous) thing to do

President Trump stood up for justice and for enforcement of our immigration laws when he courageously granted a pardon Friday to Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Despite knowing he would face criticism, the president did what was right. Arpaio was convicted by a federal judge in July of criminal contempt after being charged with violating a court order that attempted to prevent suspected illegal immigrants from being targeted by the sheriff’s traffic patrols. The sheriff acknowledged continuing the patrols, but said that targeting was not the focus. Arpaio’s conviction arose out of a lawsuit wrongfully accusing the sheriff’s office of violating the rights of Hispanics, allegedly using racial profiling tactics to identify people for traffic stops, and detaining convicts based only on the suspicion that they were illegal immigrants. Arpaio denied all wrongdoing. I sat in the courtroom through Arpaio’s trial and concluded that he was wrongfully convicted. As a former law enforcement officer myself and former executive director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, I know that Arpaio was dedicated to protecting the public he served and that his highest priority was keeping his community safe. Hearing testimony during Arpaio’s trial, I realized that any reasonable person who was there to pass judgment on this honest law-abiding man – who gave his life to the rule of law – could never have found him guilty on the evidence presented. However, the only one who could pass judgment on the former sheriff was U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, because Arpaio was denied his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The judge’s verdict convicting Arpaio was a travesty of justice. Arpaio’s critics have claimed for a long time that he is a racist and biased against Hispanics. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Under his command, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office boasted the highest percentage of Hispanic deputies, detention officers and staff in the state of Arizona. Moreover, he promoted more Hispanic officers to command positions than any other law enforcement agency in the state. On top of this, Arpaio has two grandchildren who are of Hispanic descent. To say he is biased again his own family members is absurd. Labeling him a racist for enforcing U.S. immigration law is a tired, exhausted, left-wing strategy that fails time and time again. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump said that he would be the voice for law enforcement officers everywhere and always fight to protect them when they protected the public. President Trump held true to his promise by using his presidential pardon for Arpaio to set an important precedent: judges should interpret law and not try to rewrite it. And good men like Arpaio should not be prosecuted, persecuted and punished for doing their jobs. President Trump recognized that Sheriff Arpaio was doing his job, following the law, and protecting the people of Maricopa County – which includes Phoenix – by punishing criminals to the fullest extent, under the laws on the books. Arpaio was first elected as sheriff in Maricopa County 1992. He maintained that position for 24 years, receiving the honor of being the longest-serving sheriff ever been elected in the county. In June, the National Center for Police Defense, which I now head, delivered 40,000 petitions to the U.S. Department of Justice urging it to drop charges against the sheriff. Arpaio’s case has been politically motivated from the beginning, when the Obama administration’s Department of Justice filed misdemeanor charges against him a mere two weeks before the election, contributing to Arpaio’s loss in his reelection bid. The Department of Justice typically refrains from taking legal action against an elected official so close to an election in order to avoid influencing the outcome. Arpaio is now 85-years-old and has over 55 years of experience serving in law enforcement. He knows the limits of his power, and for 55 years stayed within those limits, while keeping the bad guys off the streets and the good people of his community safe. That’s how he earned the title of “Americas Toughest Sheriff.” By pardoning the wrongly convicted former sheriff, President Trump has shown he stands with the law-abiding people of our great country, who have the right to live in peace and safety. And the president has shown he stands against criminals, including those who have crossed our borders illegally. The author leads The National Center for Police Defense (NCPD) a non-profit dedicated to helping law enforcement officers who have been charged with a crime while following, “to the best of their ability,” the training and knowledge that they have been taught to use, by their departments. His charity supported former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s legal defense. James J. Fotis is president of National Center for Police Defense and a former law enforcement officer. He served more than 23 years as the Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) an association of law enforcement officers, crime victims and concerned citizens. Follow his organization on Twitter @defendpolice

Author James Fotis is, of course, spot on here.  Sheriff Joe’s prosecution, and subsequent conviction, was entirely politically motivated, and clearly a violation of Sheriff Joe’s 6th Amendment right to a trial by a jury.  After over a half century of honorable service in law enforcement, Pres. Trump was absolutely right in granting this pardon.