|Click on this logo to make a call to the Strongsville GOP hotline. Google Voice will call you back at the number you enter and will connect you with us. Or, call us direct at 440-794-1GOP.|
Feminist: Trump Is Already Heading Towards Re-Election Because The Democrats Are Overplaying Their Hand
This week, New York Post columnist Maureen Callahan asks the question which I hear many liberals whispering, but rarely saying too loudly: Why can’t the Clintons just go away? That probably sounds rather mean on the face of it. Okay… let’s be honest here. It is pretty mean. But it’s also a question which the Democratic Party should finally get around to addressing if most of them have made it through the five stages of grieving between November and now. The problem is that they’re going to have a hard time breaking up with their long time dance partners when they refuse to get their toothbrush out of the bathroom and take it home with them.
As Callahan points out early in her piece, Hillary sees no reason to leave because she still sees herself as the life of the party. (That works on multiple levels.)
Clearly, Hillary still sees herself as the leader of the Democratic Party. And why shouldn’t she? Democrats have been locked in an abusive relationship with the Clintons for decades, enabling, explaining, convincing themselves that next time will be different. Party faithful hew to Hillary’s excuses for losing to Donald Trump: It’s James Comey’s fault, plus the Russians, white supremacists, misogynists, the deplorables and immobilized millennials, among other things.
Her losses in 2008 and 2016 have been framed as things that happened to Hillary — not one, but two Black Swan events that stymied her historic destiny.
It’s not just Hillary Clinton, either. Her husband seems content to stay on the sidelines and deal with his foundation for the most part, but as soon as another campaign rolls around for his wife he’s back out on the trail and saying all sorts of… interesting things which frequently seem more likely to torpedo her than advance her candidacy. And would he be following that same pattern if Hillary wasn’t the only woman in the family looking at a run for elected office?
Yes, that brings us to Chelsea. As we’ve noted here in the past with emotions ranging from humor to annoyance, the press and the Democratic Party can’t seem to help themselves or restrain their natural impulse to fluff the former First Daughter up and suggest that she’s the heir apparent. And like a moth drawn to the flame, Chelsea seems all too willing to allow everyone to continue to court her, despite the fact that has absolutely zero experience or accomplishments of note to point to as a reason to support her. And her strange social media cheerleading is perplexing at best.
“This is not the time to be silent or stay on the sidelines,” Chelsea said. In true Clintonian mixed-messaging, she’s ruling out a run for office while continuing to raise her profile, offering policy-free platitudes to heartbroken Dems. “Talk about what’s really at risk in this moment,” she said. “Raise your voice and help others raise their voices.”
It’s a version of her mother’s intransigence, the refusal to admit voters have rejected this brand twice and to act with resultant humility. According to “Shattered,” Hillary’s repeated refusal to apologize for anything — most notably the use of her private server while secretary of state — was one of her most frustrating faults. Her closest aides kept pushing early on for a sincere apology to the American people, but Hillary remained defiant.
As a somewhat different conclusion than the one reached by Ms. Callahan, I would suggest that the problem here isn’t the Clintons. Who doesn’t like being complimented and adored? As long as people are willing to keep beating a path to their door there’s no reason for them not to keep answering it. Perhaps the actual root cause of this malady and the reason that the Clintons “won’t just go away” is that their party doesn’t have any other charismatic, successful beacon to draw them away. Barack Obama served that purpose admirably ever since he beat her in their first contest, but who else is there? The media loves Elizabeth Warren but she’s not exactly dynamite on the stump. Who else? The socialist who denies being a Democrat at all and will be pushing 80 by the next election?
They need to find a new flame to attract all the moths. If they don’t, the Clintons will keep hanging around like your unemployed younger brother who won’t move out of the basement. And the media will keep flocking to them until you give them a shinier toy to play with.
The post The Democrats are “locked in an abusive relationship with the Clintons” appeared first on Hot Air.
Former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin (R) visited the White House with fellow conservatives Ted Nugent and Kid Rock earlier this week. But for the liberal women on “The View,” it was simply too much.
Liberal co-host Joy Behar ripped the trio for taking a group photo in front of the White House’s official portrait of Hillary Clinton.
“So, is this the saddest day in the history of the White House since the British burned it to the ground in 1814?” she asked her fellow co-hosts.
Co-host Sunny Hostin agreed. She said:
I think what was so offensive to me was Sarah Palin said brought them because Jesus wasn’t available, sort of comparing these folks with Jesus. But the other thing that’s interesting is President Obama had Common, the rapper and poet, come in to celebrate poetry at the White House. Sarah Palin tweeted, ‘the judgment is just so lacking class and decency and all that’s good about America with an invite like this.’ Really? Because Ted Nugent called our former president a subhuman mongrel.
Another co-host chimed in to say that the trio was classless.
“You’re in the White House, bring a little class when you come,” said Sara Haines.
“Oh, but they’re going to make America great again, these three,” Behar quipped.
Watch the segment below:
Saturday’s “Pure Opelka” on TheBlaze Radio Network featured host Mike Opelka sharing the news of a potential medical miracle found in frog mucus.
A recently published scientific study claims the slimy stuff on the skin of a frog found in India may hold the key to fighting off H1 influenza, one of the most common types of the flu.
Opelka reported Emory University’s research showed mice treated with the frog mucus recovered from what should have been a fatal dose of the flu.
(Editor’s note: This post has been updated.)
Lynch’s untrustworthiness has always been a key ingredient to the Comey/Emailgate saga. If not for the tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton last spring, it would have fallen to her as AG to make the final decision on whether to charge Hillary. Instead, because of the suspicions surrounding her, she declared publicly that she’d follow whatever recommendation the FBI made. That left Comey as the ultimate decision-maker, so when the investigation concluded, he felt obliged to state his reasons publicly. And, having done so, he felt further obliged in October after the feds started looking through Anthony Weiner’s laptop to notify the public that maybe the investigation wasn’t concluded after all. History will never know what might have happened, or not happened, had Bill Clinton stayed off Lynch’s plane and Comey remained in a subordinate role on the Clinton matter.
According to the Times, though, there’s more to the story than that. The tarmac meeting was important in thrusting Comey into a public spotlight on Emailgate, but unbeknownst to most of the country, he and the FBI had already developed suspicions about Lynch’s political bias towards Clinton. They began in the fall of 2015 when Lynch warned the Bureau to be careful about how it described the Clinton investigation. Try not to use the word “investigation,” she insisted:
At the meeting, everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a “matter.”
Ms. Lynch reasoned that the word “investigation” would raise other questions: What charges were being investigated? Who was the target? But most important, she believed that the department should stick by its policy of not confirming investigations.
It was a by-the-book decision. But Mr. Comey and other F.B.I. officials regarded it as disingenuous in an investigation that was so widely known. And Mr. Comey was concerned that a Democratic attorney general was asking him to be misleading and line up his talking points with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, according to people who spoke with him afterward.
A few months earlier, when news first broke about the feds launching an investigation into Hillary’s emails, Lynch’s DOJ made a point of saying that the referral it had received about classified info possibly being compromised “was not a criminal referral.” Hillary herself later pointed to that as a way of turning down the political heat, insisting that the probe was merely a “security review.” But it was a criminal investigation, of course; one prosecutor teased Comey about Lynch’s semantic parsing by telling him that he now ran the “Federal Bureau of Matters.” The DOJ’s early insistence on giving Hillary cover with the silly investigation/matter distinction appears to have planted a seed of suspicion at the Bureau about Lynch’s motives.
Then the suspicions deepened:
During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.
The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document…
If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.
“Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation,” the Times notes, “one they say helps explain his decision-making” in choosing to announce the results of the investigation himself. Big unanswered question, though: Was the Democratic operative speaking with inside knowledge when he/she claimed that Lynch would see to it that the investigation didn’t blow up Hillary’s candidacy or was he/she just guessing? The Times lets that dangle, never following up on whether the FBI tried to substantiate the allegation somehow. Then again, what were they supposed to do — approach the operative and say, “Do you happen to know whether our boss is in the tank for Hillary?” That might have (and probably would have) gotten back to Lynch, who wouldn’t have appreciated the Bureau questioning her integrity. Lynch’s defenders have a fair unanswered question too, though: If Comey thought she was compromised, why didn’t he ask her to recuse herself? Even if he was wary of confronting her with “evidence” as thin as a hacked DNC memo that didn’t directly accuse her of corruption, the concern about the memo leaking was a real one. If Lynch had announced the decision not to charge Hillary and that memo had gone public, we on the right would have had a field day with it as proof that the fix was in. Comey should have wanted her to recuse herself for that reason alone, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. So why didn’t he ask her to?
It’s weird that the single most election-changing document stolen by the Russians wasn’t anything released by Wikileaks but rather the memo described above, which helped set in motion the chain of events that led to Comey’s fateful letter in late October. It’s the nexus of Russiagate and Emailgate. And it might have helped decide the presidency. Even so, if Lynch hadn’t given Comey reason to question her motives in the first place, capped by that dubious tarmac meeting, he might have remained in the background and the suspicions about Lynch’s bias would have remained a conservative hobbyhorse, not something that ultimately affected the course of the election.
The post NYT: Comey went public about Emailgate partly because he didn’t trust Loretta Lynch to be impartial appeared first on Hot Air.
A new survey by Rasmussen Reports suggests voters have a very high opinion of Vice President Mike Pence.
According to the poll, released Thursday, Pence is viewed favorably by a majority of Americans. The poll also found 63 percent of the 1,000 likely voters surveyed believe Pence is “qualified to assume the responsibilities of the presidency.” Only 32 percent, almost entirely Democrats, believe Pence is not qualified to be president.
Incredibly, 40 percent of Democrats surveyed said, despite harboring very negative views of President Donald Trump, they believe Pence is qualified.
Although voters indicating someone is qualified to be president is not an indicator of whether they would vote for that candidate, it is a very positive sign, especially considering how much hostility Democrats have shown the Trump administration in its first 100 days.
Polling released on Friday by Rasmussen Reports shows 49 percent of likely voters approve of Trump’s presidency, with 31 percent strongly approving and 40 percent strongly disapproving. This 9 percentage point gap, which is used by Rasmussen to create its Presidential Approval Index rating, is more favorable for Trump than it was during most of the past 30 days.
At least one prominent Trump supporter thinks Pence would be a good successor to Trump.
“This is great news for the election of 2024,” wrote Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke on social media, along with a link to the Rasmussen survey. “Follow 2 terms of President Trump with VP Pence. Read it and weep Dems.”
This is great news for the election of 2024. Follow 2 terms of President Trump with VP Pence. Read it and weep Dems. https://t.co/XdRLyHFQAj
— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) April 22, 2017
Voters could be responding to Trump and Pence’s response to recent threats issued by North Korea. Rasmussen found in a poll conducted earlier in April 86 percent of likely voters say North Korea is a “serious national security threat,” and most of those surveyed had a generally favorable view of Trump and Pence’s actions against the communist nation.
Pence made headlines on Monday when he made a surprise visit to the Korean Demilitarized Zone that separates communist North Korea from democratic South Korea. Pence reportedly stared down North Korean soldiers while at the border, and in a speech on the same day delivered a strong message to the communist regime.
“President Trump has made it clear that the patience of the United States and our allies in this region has run out and we want to see change. We want to see North Korea abandon its reckless path of the development of nuclear weapons, and also its continual use and testing of ballistic missiles is unacceptable,” Pence said.
The Simpsons hilariously mocked sensitive college students, colloquially known as “social justice warriors,” in an episode earlier this month.
The episode shows longtime character Mr. Burns returning to his alma mater, Yale University, to donate money and “endow a department of nuclear plant management.”
However, two university staff walking with Mr. Burns inform him the school can’t associate itself with anything nuclear.
“Of course, we can’t do nuclear,” one of the staff members says. “You’d be creating a space for violence to happen. Hmm. How about funding a chair in the non-narrative cinema of self-identified pansexuals?”
“Our students are highly-entitled wusses,” adds the other.
“But with an issue as hetero-patriarchal as nuclear power, we’ll have to hire multi-cultural empathizers, build a new safe space,” they continue, before being interrupted by a small group of students who demand the university establishes anti-nuclear curriculum.
“What’s happened to this place?” Mr. Burns says emphatically before pointing to one of the students. “This is the home of ruthless media disruptor Samuel F. B. Morse. Who is his successor? That fellow?”
“Fellow? That word is cis-gender normative, okay? You’re worse than Hitler!” the student says back.
The skit then forwards to the show’s main character, Homer Simpson, walking on Yale’s campus dressed as a woman. He then spots an “all gender bathroom” and goes in. Once he comes out, he’s no longer dressed like a woman and puts on a cardboard box with eyeholes cut out pretending that his gender is now “robot.”
“That’s unbelievably offensive. Microagression!” one student says.
“Cultural appropriation!” says another, before all of the students begin uttering similar phrases in a robotic fashion.
Watch the skit below:
College campuses have become infamous places in recent years as students become more and more liberal and demand “safe spaces” or places on campuses where they don’t have to listen to or be offended by “hate speech,” which really means speech they don’t like or agree with.
Gender change, which has also taken college campuses by storm, was also widely mocked in the episode. In 2017, progressives allege there are dozens of different genders a person can choose — or even no gender at all. Harvard, an Ivy League school similar to Yale, even said in a new campus guide that gender can change daily.
Assuming that we can briefly move past our ongoing concerns over robots gunning us down and drones with pistols, there remains hope that these new, remote controlled vehicles might make some improvements in package delivery. One big part of the problem is the people from the government who are here to help you by regulating how drones might be used in commercial endeavors. I was sent an article from SaintPetersBlog about one possible approach being debated in Florida this year which would allow for more drone deliveries, but this is tackling a different technology sector than the one we normally talk about. These are ground based robots.
A bill filed Tuesday would allow delivery drones to operate in Florida.
The legislation (SB 460), however, focuses on ground drones, or “personal delivery devices.”
Such a unit is defined as a “motorized device for use primarily on sidewalks and crosswalks at a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour, which weighs 50 pounds or less excluding cargo.”
As I said, this is a different approach to automated delivery. This short TechCrunch video provides a demonstration of how these ground crawling drones work and includes an interview with somebody from Starship.
You don’t want to rule out anything entirely, but there are some obvious concerns with this approach. First of all, the range on these things is really limited to a single neighborhood so they need many local “hubs” for the drones to operate out of. There’s also the congestion issue, because the miniature trucks will be competing with pedestrians and bikes on sidewalks and in crosswalks. Also, on the ground the drone is vulnerable to mischief and theft. The Starship rep addresses this and writes it off as being not much of a problem, but a fifty pound drone that can only do 10 miles per hour sounds like a fairly easy target to me.
Flying drones delivering reasonably small packages sounds like something with a lot more potential, but then you’re dealing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). They’re already putting such restrictive regulations on drones that using them for wide scale delivery may turn out to be virtually impossible in the United States. If they can’t fly over tall buildings and aren’t allowed to leave the line of sight of the operator (both of which are currently in the regulatory planning model) then they immediately become essentially useless for broad based delivery.
I’m not going to knock Florida for trying to do something in terms of innovation with this technology, but the ground delivery route doesn’t sound like an answer to me. And if we want our packages taking flight we’ll have to deal with the FAA instead of petty thieves. Come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure which one is worse.
The post Florida tackles the issue of drone delivery… on the ground appeared first on Hot Air.
Planned Parenthood received more than it bargained for Saturday when the pro-abortion organization tweeted that it “stands with the science community.”
“Bad science = bad policies. Planned Parenthood stands with the science community,” the organization tweeted Saturday, adding the hashtag “#standwithscience.”
— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) April 22, 2017
“We know how important science is — especially when it comes to safe, legal abortion access,” they wrote in another tweet.
The tweets came as thousands marched in cities across the country in solidarity with the science community. The marches come on the same day as “Earth Day.”
However, Planned Parenthood was widely criticized for their support of science given that they abort unborn babies alleging the unborn aren’t yet humans — despite what science says.
Given that unborn babies are widely considered life, have a heartbeat very early into the pregnancy and have it’s own unique DNA sequence, many thought Planned Parenthood’s “stand” with science lacks self-awareness.
Here are some of the best tweets:
— Harry Khachatrian (@Harry1T6) April 22, 2017
Do you mean the science that proves that unborn child are living human beings? https://t.co/nGfHGGD6NK
— Carol Tobias (@CarolTobias1) April 22, 2017
Might want to sit this one out guys. https://t.co/bSQ56oWahH
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) April 22, 2017
Just curious, what do science textbooks say about when human life begins? I'll take my answer off the air. https://t.co/yWTLJ878oj
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) April 22, 2017
Probably the least self-aware tweet ever put out on Twitter. These people are just oblivious https://t.co/rlD5OSBZ9e
— Paul (@pholly33) April 22, 2017
#marchforscience <—- These people are all about science until you ask them if an unborn baby is a human being.
— Dr Hugo Hackenbush (@MangyLover) April 21, 2017
— Lisa Townley (@lisatownley) April 22, 2017
Planned Parenthood: Science is important.
Me: Let's talk about embryology.
Planned Parenthood: Why do you hate women??!!
— Jason C. (@CounterMoonbat) April 22, 2017
Pop quiz for the scientists at Planned Parenthood: When does life begin? https://t.co/KrEFGdQvan
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) April 22, 2017
AKA, Planned Parenthood knows science shows life begins at conception, but chooses to ignore that fact in favor of murdering children. https://t.co/fq1k63Fsu3
— TheHorsePundit (@TheHorsePundit) April 22, 2017
Hey now, you know real science isn't allowed in the "science" March! https://t.co/P1sMMcIGbN
— Joe (@JoeC1776) April 22, 2017
President Donald Trump announced on Saturday he is planning a “BIG” rally to mark his 100th day in office on April 29th. According to Trump’s message, which he sent via Twitter, the event will be held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was a key swing state for Trump in 2016 and will likely be a vital election battleground in 2020.
“Next Saturday night I will be holding a BIG rally in Pennsylvania,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Look forward to it!”
Next Saturday night I will be holding a BIG rally in Pennsylvania. Look forward to it!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 22, 2017
Jeremy Diamond, a White House reporter for CNN, wrote on Twitter the rally, which has yet to be officially announced on Trump’s campaign website, will be paid for by the president’s campaign committee.
“Rally will be to mark Trump’s 100 days in office & organized/paid for by Trump’s campaign committee, per senior campaign official,” wrote Diamond.
Jeff Zeleny, CNN’s senior White House correspondent, noted on Twitter the event will be held the same evening as the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which presidents typically attend.
After spending most Saturday nights at Mar-a-lago or Trump Hotel, next week the president marks his 100 days in a rally in PA, skipping WHCD https://t.co/YJszxDF1aX
— Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny) April 22, 2017
Further details about the event have yet to be revealed.
Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania in the 2016 election by about 68,000 votes, or 1.2 percentage points. Third-party candidate Gary Johnson, a member of the Libertarian Party, received 2.4 percent of the total vote.
(H/T: Washington Examiner)
The O’Reilly Factor aired its final episode on Friday night, and the feeling that an important era in cable news had ended and a new one was about to begin was palpable.
“In the ‘Back of the Book’ segment tonight, we have come to the last line of the last page of this book,” guest host Greg Gutfeld said. “As most of you know, this is the final Factor. It has been an honor to sit in this chair over the years of filling in for Bill O’Reilly and to being a guest for the most influential television news program in history. But as the curtain comes down on this show, another one will be raised on a new era.”
Gutfeld then brought on Tucker Carlson, who will be taking over the 8 p.m. timeslot for Fox News on Monday, April 24.
“Look, I’m a conservative. I don’t believe in change, necessarily,” Carlson said jokingly of his new show. “I don’t think we’re going to change things too much. I’m very aware of the history of this hour, the bigness of it, the success of it. And the audience, which is the key to all of it. I hope I can stay true to the basics of the hour. We’re going to be skeptical, as always. I think that’s the heart of journalism. You know, ask tough questions, be respectful—I think that’s ok. But you know, force people with power to account for they’re doing. That’s the theme.”
Gutfeld closed with these final words:
“As for those of us who have been part of the Factor team, a personal note: Even as we look forward to the new beginnings, this is a sad day here. Some of the people on the Factor staff have been here from the very beginning helping Bill O’Reilly create something that had never been done before. In the 20 years since the Factor has been on the air, Bill changed the way news is done, and his show became a sanctuary for you, our loyal viewers, who are not being well-served by the mainstream media.
“As for me, I’ve been privileged to play a small role with my weekly segments and my substitute hosting gigs. But I’ve never been in a situation like this before. How do I turn out the lights on such a venerable and amazing show? I can’t. It’s not my show and it’s not my place. So on behalf of all of us on the Factor, good night and Godspeed.”
The O’Reilly Factor dominated cable news for two decades. At the end of 2016, the show averaged 3.3 million viewers every night, often doubling or tripling the viewership of his competitors.
Despite his continued success, O’Reilly was forced out of his position by the Murdoch family, which owns Fox News, on Wednesday.
“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox, the Fox News Channel’s parent company, said in a statement.
O’Reilly has been accused by several women of sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct, accusations O’Reilly vehemently denies.
“Over the past 20 years at Fox News, I have been extremely proud to launch and lead one of the most successful news programs in history, which has consistently informed and entertained millions of Americans and significantly contributed to building Fox into the dominant news network in television,” O’Reilly said in a statement. “It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims.”
Up until now, all of the talk of cutting off federal funding to renegade “sanctuary cities” or states which don’t enforce the law has been mostly that… just talk. It’s been enough to spur quite a bit of action in response, both positive and negative, but for the most part we’ve only been hearing debates in the media rather than substantive policy changes in Washington. Could this be the first step in making it more official? Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice fired of letters to a number of jurisdictions reminding them that they need to take certain steps to show that they are in compliance with the law if they want to receive the rest of their expected DoJ funding. (justice.gov)
Today, the Department of Justice sent the attached letters to nine jurisdictions which were identified in a May 2016 report by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General as having laws that potentially violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373…
The letters remind the recipient jurisdictions that, as a condition for receiving certain financial year 2016 funding from the Department of Justice, each of these jurisdictions agreed to provide documentation and an opinion from legal counsel validating that they are in compliance with Section 1373. The Department of Justice expects each of these jurisdictions to comply with this grant condition and to submit all documentation to the Office of Justice Programs by June 30, 2017, the deadline imposed by the grant agreement.
You can read the full letter here but what they’re talking about is an agreement signed on to by all such grant money recipients in which they are required to uphold the applicable portions of 8 U.S.C. § 1373. The specific sticking point will likely be this section:
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
That one’s not particularly subtle, is it? But it’s also not controversial in any way. It’s just the law, and the various levels of government are all supposed to be on the same page in terms of enforcing it. But that won’t stop the usual list of suspects from acting as if such a reminder is the fountainhead of all evil in this world. For only one of many examples, we can turn to Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. With the oh so fair and balanced title of, Feel The Propaganda, Feel the Hate, Josh seems to think he’s located “a lie” in this letter.
He points to one section I didn’t bother including above which references the skyrocketing murder rate in Chicago and then notes that New York City has been experiencing, “gang murder after gang murder.” Obviously both of those statements are true, but Marshall decides to pretend that Jeff Sessions said that the murder rate in New York City is increasing. (It’s not and he didn’t say that. But there are still too many gang murders.) Based on nothing but some mind reading, the author goes on to declare the entire premise null and void and accuse the Trump administration of being a bunch of lying liars who lie a lot.
If New York City’s policy is ‘soft on crime’, the whole country needs a lot more ‘soft on crime’ law enforcement. And fast.
There’s not much more to say. If this were one deception it might be dismissed. But of course it is not. It is a single illustrative example of deception as policy, one peep in a symphony of lies that President Trump, Attorney General Sessions and all their fellow travelers and appointees use regularly to sell their anti-immigrant crackdown and attempt to return to the ‘tough on crime’ policies of the past.
In reality, the letter reminds the recipients of current problems with gang violence and the documented fact that in some cities (most notably Chicago, Baltimore and Houston) the murder rates have spike dramatically. It also reminds them that they have already agreed to abide by the law cited above as a condition for receiving federal grant money from the Department of Justice. On the left these days, this apparently qualifies as both propaganda and hate.
Now that the letters have been sent it’s time to pull the trigger on this deal. (And no, I won’t apologize for that figure of speech.) We’re talking about billions of dollars here and a clear violation of the original contract. And since the Democrats don’t want to fund the initial phase of wall construction in the next omnibus spending bill, I know just the place that all this money can go.
The post So the DoJ just sent out letters to “sanctuary” cities and it wasn’t fan mail appeared first on Hot Air.
American Airlines says it is investigating an incident that took place on one of its flights Friday when a male flight attendant allegedly hit a women carrying a baby with her stroller — and almost hit the baby, too.
A Facebook video showing the aftermath of that incident, including the crying mother, the angry flight attendant and a male passenger who stood up for the woman is going viral. However, the video does not show the alleged stroller slinging.
“OMG! AA Flight attendant violently took a stroller from a lady with her baby on my flight, hitting her and just missing the baby. Then he tried to fight a passenger who stood up for her,” wrote Surain Adyanthaya, who captured the footage, on Facebook Friday evening. The flight was scheduled to go from San Francisco to Dallas-Ft. Worth.
“You can’t use violence with baby,” the crying mother says at the beginning of the video while another flight attendant and pilot standby. “Just give me back my stroller please.”
Then an unnamed male passenger gets up and demands to know the name of the male flight attendant: “No, I’m not going to sit here and watch this stuff…” the man says.
Then the male flight attendant at the center of the incident gets back on the plane.
“Hey bud, you do that to me, and I’ll knock you flat,” says the male passenger who demanded to know the flight attendant’s name.
“Hey, you stay out of this!” the flight attendant angrily yells back, pointing his finger while lunging at the passenger.
Then the passenger, a much bigger man, jumps up and gets in the face of the flight attendant.
“Hit me,” the flight attendant says, motioning with his hands. “Come on, hit me.”
“You don’t know what the story is!” the flight attendant says after the two continue to exchange words.
“I don’t care what the story is,” the passenger replies. “You almost hurt a baby!”
The videos ends after the male passenger sits back in his seat and the male flight attendant gets off the plane. At the end of the video, the mother can still be heard sobbing.
The original video has been viewed more than 1.6 million times as of Saturday afternoon and has been shared more than 10,000 times.
As a result of the incident, the flight attendant at the center of the incident has been suspended by American Airlines.
“The actions of our team member captured here do not appear to reflect patience or empathy, two values necessary for customer care. In short, we are disappointed by these actions. The American team member has been removed from duty while we immediately investigate this incident,” the company said in a statement.
The airline said the family at the center of the video elected to take a later flight where they were upgraded to first class for the remainder of their international trip.
“We are making sure all of her family’s needs are being met while she is in our care. After electing to take another flight, we are taking special care of her and her family and upgrading them to first class for the remainder of their international trip,” the statement said.
“What we see on this video does not reflect our values or how we care for our customers. We are deeply sorry for the pain we have caused this passenger and her family and to any other customers affected by the incident,” the statement added.
American Airlines says its investigation into the incident remains ongoing.
The incident comes just weeks after United Airlines was mired in controversy after a man was violently forced off a plane because United needed to fly four of its crew members and therefore needed to remove four passengers who had already boarded. The man didn’t want to give up his seat and police officers forcibly removed him, causing national outrage.
These incidents, many experts say, are evidence of the overall troubling U.S. airline industry.
It’s every collector’s dream to stumble upon a find of immense value, but British collector Nick Mead never expected he’d discover the find of a lifetime buried inside an old tank’s fuel compartment.
According to a report by news agency UPI, Mead—the owner of Tanks-A-Lot, a U.K. tank restoration business—purchased a Chinese Type 69 tank from collector on eBay. According to Mead, he bartered a British Army truck and self-propelled howitzer for the tank, which was used by the Iraqi military during the first Gulf War.
While one of the mechanics at Tanks-A-Lot was working on restoring the tank, he discovered what he thought could be weapons inside one of the fuel tanks. UPI reports it’s relatively common for weapons to be hidden in old tanks, and restorers often take special caution when finding materials that could be dangerous or illegal.
After grabbing a camera, Mead and mechanic Todd Chamberlain reached inside the fuel tank and discovered an incredible and highly valuable find: five gold bars weighing more than 70 pounds. According to UPI, the estimated value of the gold is $1.4 million.
Experts believe the gold was likely stolen from Kuwait during Iraq’s 1990 invasion of the country. Popular Mechanics noted Iraq returned more than 3,200 gold bars to Kuwait after the war ended, at the behest of the United Nations.
The gold bars were turned in to British authorities, but multiple media reports state it’s unclear what the fate of the gold will be or whether Mead will be compensated for his discovery.
The Russian Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a decision by the nation’s Ministry of Justice to liquidate the center for the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and to close 395 Local Religious Organizations belonging to the group.
According to a press statement by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the high court’s ruling will go into effect immediately. NPR reports the religious group’s property will now belong to the Russian government.
There are roughly 170,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.
Russia has labeled the group “extremist” on multiple occasions, and NPR says an Interfax report recorded Svetlana Borisova, an attorney for the Justice Ministry, claiming the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of citizens, public order and public security.”
“We are greatly disappointed by this development and deeply concerned about how this will affect our religious activity,” said Yaroslav Sivulskiy, a spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, in the organization’s press release. “We will appeal this decision, and we hope that our legal rights and protections as a peaceful religious group will be fully restored as soon as possible.”
“The main problem that we face now is misuse of the anti-extremism law,” said Sivulskiy, according to NPR. “In the whole world, Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as peaceful, obedient, respectful citizens. We respect government, and we are politically totally neutral.”
The religious group has 30 days to submit an appeal to the court’s ruling. The appeal would be considered by a three-person panel.
Christianity is the largest religious group in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church claims to have a worldwide membership of about 150 million. According to several media reports, Russian Orthodox leaders have supported the ban on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose religious views conflict with many Russian Orthodox teachings.
The system strikes again! Actually, that’s not quite true about the latest viral video to emerge from the modern commercial-flight experience, because American Airlines learned a very valuable lesson from United’s Oscar Munoz over the last week or so. The smartphones popped up after one of their attendants allegedly got violent with a passenger, yanking away a stroller and hitting her with it, while nearly hitting one of the babies traveling with her. Fellow passenger Surain Adyanthaya picked up the action while the sobbing mother asked for her stroller back and the bemused pilot watched — and then another passenger decided to tell off the attendant.
This … is not exactly how I learned customer service in my youth:
Hmmm. Seems American Airlines hasn’t done much training on de-escalation for their attendants. I’m not sure where this gentleman learned the “stabbing your finger at a customer and barking orders” technique, but don’t expect it to catch on. It all but confirms that this attendant shouldn’t have been on that flight in the first place, and certainly not after this incident … but American let him do so.
It’ll be his last flight for a while, anyway. Management at American Airlines has a much better sense of impending disaster than their competitors do at United. It didn’t take long for the airline to let everyone know the difference either, as ABC News reports:
American Airlines was quick to react — 20 minutes after the plane landed in Dallas. It apologized for the incident and said the flight attendant had been grounded. The woman and her family were also upgraded to first class.
“We have seen the video and have already started an investigation to obtain the facts,” the Dallas-based airline said in a statement. “What we see on this video does not reflect our values or how we care for our customers. We are deeply sorry for the pain we have caused this passenger and her family and to any other customers affected by the incident. We are making sure all of her family’s needs are being met while she is in our care. After electing to take another flight, we are taking special care of her and her family and upgrading them to first class for the remainder of their international trip.”
The statement continues, “The actions of our team member captured here do not appear to reflect patience or empathy, two values necessary for customer care. In short, we are disappointed by these actions. The American team member has been removed from duty while we immediately investigate this incident.”
ABC later interviewed the videographer and the man who confronted the attendant. The latter seems to have some regret for his role in the incident, or at least for the attention it’s now drawing:
He might have had more than just regrets had the situation escalated a little further. Federal law has jurisdiction on what happens in commercial aircraft, and assaults on flight attendants result in serious legal trouble. Generally speaking, it’s not a great idea to intervene in an already tense situation to express how you’d like to make it even more tense, but in this case it did provoke the flight attendant to react on camera in a way that apparently parallels the earlier incident. He also turned out to be prescient; the passenger warned the attendant in the video that “you’ll be in the news!”
American Airlines management took the correct action as soon as they learned of the incident, although the flight attendant should have been left at the gate after what happened in this video. The pilot should have seen the risk of having this employee serve on the same flight and exercised his authority to have the attendant replaced. That was a powder keg, and American’s fortunate it didn’t get worse in the air.
Finally, perhaps it’s time for the major airlines to consider what their industry is doing to both its customers and its employees. Their commercials depict flying as a serene, relaxing jaunt, but that’s increasingly a bitterly comedic satire on the actual experience. Commercial air travel has become more and more uncomfortable and tense. Both passengers and crews feel increasing pressure from packed flights with smaller spaces, and the security measures from TSA only exacerbate the poisonous environment. Passengers and employees are beginning to snap, and the ubiquitous nature of smartphones guarantees that every incident will go viral — because their customers don’t like them. They just have very little choice in airlines.
Until the industry rethinks its direction, this will be the new normal, and executives will get a lot of practice at apologizing and minimizing.
The post Another great moment in airline service: Flight Deck Fights appeared first on Hot Air.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson took aim at MSNBC and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on his show Friday after Maddow blamed recent unrest in Venezuela on President Donald Trump.
Violent protests and riots continue in Venezuela as the socialist government asserts more and more power over its people. Venezuelans, upset about their poverty, lack of food and lack of rights have taken to the streets to protest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his government. The protests have resulted in the deaths of more than a dozen citizens, according to CNN.
Though Venezuelans are clear in why they’re protesting, that didn’t stop Maddow from alleging on her show Thursday that Trump is the source of Venezuelan outrage.
According to Maddow, Venezuelans are “enraged” over an alleged connection between a top Venezuelan businessman and the Trump administration, which allegedly accepted inauguration donations in exchange for a promise to lift sanctions put on Venezuela by the Obama administration in 2014. Those sanctions were established after the Venezuelan government killed dozens of anti-government protesters.
But according to Carlson, Maddow’s accusations is just another example of why Americans don’t trust the mainstream media.
“For news abuse, we bring you a snapshot from America’s decadent and decaying media establishment. And in the spotlight this evening: MSNBC. As we told you recently, there are a lot of reasons why Venezuela’s people are upset, and at this point rising up in violent protests against their socialist government,” Carlson began.
“There’s no toilet paper or meat there. The currency is worthless. The murder rate is perhaps the highest in the world. The Supreme Court has tried to abolish the entire legislature for daring to oppose the dictator who’s running the place into the ground,” he continued. “It’s a disaster in Venezuela.”
“So given all of this, who did MSNBC blame for the turmoil there? If you guessed Donald Trump give yourself a million worthless Venezuelan Bolivars as a prize. According to MSNBC, the real reason Venezuelans are upset is that CITGO petroleum — that’s a subsidiary of the state oil company — donated money to Trump’s inaugural fund,” Carlson explained.
“That’s a crime according to [MSNBC], apparently a sin worse than completely destroying their own country,” Carlson added.
Thousands of people are expected to rally across the United States on Saturday, Earth Day, to participate in the March for Science, a collection of events meant to oppose Trump administration policies some have alleged are harmful to science and to support science in general. The largest rally and march is expected to take place in Washington, DC, where protesters have already begun to gather.
According to the March for Science website, “the rally will be a call for politicians to implement science based policies, as well as a public celebration of science and the enormous public service it provides in our democracy, our economy, and our daily lives.”
Organizers have told scientists attending the rallies to wear their “work clothes,” which might include “lab coat, goggles, a stethoscope, field gear — scientists work in all settings and we shouldn’t limit the march to any specific kind.” Organizers are also encouraging people to dress as their “favorite scientist” and to carry signs showing their support for science.
“It might have been ignited by Trump, but it’s not about Trump,” said Lydia Villa-Komaroff, an honorary co-chair of the March for Science, according to CNN. “It’s about the importance of science in society and continuing the support for the science community in keeping our edge.”
Other supporters and organizers of the event have echoed similar sentiments: It’s not just about Trump, it’s about protecting science.
But protecting science from what, exactly?
The marches were sparked by President Donald Trump’s budget proposal, which plans to cut $54 billion from various government programs to help pay for upgrading and expanding the military and to reduce what many conservatives have said are unnecessary, costly, freedom-limiting bureaucracies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, which Trump wants to cut by more than 30 percent.
Trump has also already signed executive orders limiting funding for climate-change-related government programs.
Some critics of the event have said the March for Science isn’t about science; it’s about protecting jobs, especially jobs related to climate change, which Trump has proven to be very skeptical of. The federal government is one of the world’s largest funders of climate-change-related research.
In its 2017 budget proposal, the National Science Foundation requested Congress provide it with nearly $8 billion in funds, most of which would be provided to scientists across the country in the form of research grants.
NSF’s budget states promoting “clean energy” is one of its highest priorities. It requested to spend more than $500 million on clean-energy-related grants alone. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, NSF spent more than $250 million on “science, engineering, and education for sustainability.”
The March for Science’s leadership is full of people climate alarmists who have been vocal opponents of Trump’s decision to scale back climate-change-related funds and worry further cuts to government programs addressing global warming will cause even greater scale-backs.
For instance, the event in Washington, D.C., is being co-hosted by the left-wing Earth Day Network, which recently published in its prospectus on its website, “Global climate change, loss of biodiversity, and unsustainable growth are among our planet’s greatest challenges, and they exist without a prescribed solution. In addition, political, economic, and social differences represent significant barriers to lasting change.”
The “problem,” the prospectus says, is the denial of man-caused climate-change.
“Yet we face a worrying form of cognitive dissonance within our society,” the prospectus says. “Misinformation and fear have led to protectionism, gridlock, and an absence of inspirational leadership and aspirational thinking from all corners of the globe.”
Bill Nye, a former children’s television host and climate change activist, is one of the headline speakers at today’s March for Science. He has been a vocal critic of Trump, and he recently told The Guardian (U.K.) Trump’s proposed cuts put science “in a dangerous place.”
“We are in a dangerous place right now,” Nye said. “Science has always been political but we don’t want science to be partisan. Objective truths have become set aside and diminished and lawmakers are acting like a strong belief in something is as valid as careful peer review.”
In an appearance on CNN, Stephanie Stuckey, a spokesperson for the March for Science, was asked about those who don’t believe humans are the primary contributor to climate change. Stuckey said they present a “troubling” problem.
“It’s troubling to think that our world is warming,” Stuckey said. “And I think sometimes people feel powerless in the face of that, and so they don’t want to accept that. And it’s really an overwhelming concept: You know, the world is rapidly changing, and how do we deal with that? So, I respect people who have some skepticism, but at the same time, the science is pretty clear.”
Is the March of Science really about protecting science, or is it motivated by a desire to protect the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars the science-research industry has received over the past decade and promoting the theory humans are destroying the planet by causing global warming?
What has Barack Obama been up to since he left office? In case you haven’t been keeping up with the All Things Obama network, the 44th president spent nearly a month in the South Pacific, vacationing in French Polynesia. As part of that journey he spent a while tooling around on David Geffen’s super yacht with Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey. And that was after spending some time kite-surfing with Richard Branson on a private island in the Caribbean and golfing at exclusive clubs in southern California. Am I here to complain about that? Nope. The Obamas have parlayed their former positions into some sweet book deals and other opportunities and are enjoying the fruits of their success. This is America and they should get out there and enjoy it as they see fit.
But now the vacation is over, at least for the moment, and the former President is heading back to Chicago to give a speech and get in on all of that hot “Resist!” action that’s going on. (Washington Times)
Steel yourselves. Barack Obama’s about to emerge from the shadows — and first stop, University of Chicago.
Why there? No doubt, it’s one of the more receptive breeding grounds for his particular brand of activism — the activism he’ll be touting to malleable student-age minds while engaging in, as his people called it, a “conversation about community organizing and civic engagement.:”
Make no mistake about it. This is about teaching the upcoming generation, loud as it already is about all topics that offend, to get even louder, even Leftist Prouder, and to — here’s the gist — use that Leftist Loud and Proud persona to tackle the problem of President Donald Trump.
That’s pretty much how Obama’s spokesperson frames it.
“This event is part of President Obama’s post-presidency goal to encourage and support the next generation of leaders driven by strengthening communities around the country and the world,” a statement about the event from Obama aides read.
Let’s jump into the Way Back Machine for a moment and return to November 21st of last year. The dust had only begun to settle from the election, and Obama was holding a press conference in Peru during his farewell tour. At that time he told reporters, “I want to be respectful of the office and give the president-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance.” Of course, he did leave himself an out by saying that he might not remain silent if something came up where he needed to, “defend our values and our ideals” from Trump.
That was already a fairly significant shift away from what he was saying in May of 2016 when he sent Valerie Jarrett out on the cable news circuit to tell everyone that he would be “staying out of politics like George W. Bush” after he left. She went on to clarify, saying that, “he will leave being the president to the new president when he moves out of the White House…”
Of course, that was when he still expected Hillary Clinton to be moving in. Obviously he didn’t want to get in her way. What a difference an election makes, eh? By January 18th he was already laying out a series of “red lines” which, if they were crossed by Donald Trump, would drag him “back into the fray.” That list wound up including pretty much anything that any Republican would be working on as part of their agenda, so we should have seen this coming. (Strangely enough, this is the same guy who couldn’t enforce a red line against chemical weapons use in Syria but apparently has a much stiffer spine fighting the results of an American election.)
Let’s compare that to Obama’s own predecessor. When Bush 43 left office you hardly ever heard from him. He did give one speech in Canada on energy exploration a few months later where all he really had to contribute was an acknowledgement that the power had shifted and he needed to get out of the way. (New York Times)
Mr. Bush said he hoped that President Obama would succeed, adding, “He deserves my silence, and if he wants my help he is welcome to call me.”
That was about it. You almost never saw Bush doing anything in public after that except for hosting charity bike rides for wounded warriors or talking about his new hobby of painting. He cleared the decks. The same could be said for Bill Clinton, really. He was very active with his foundation, and yes, it moved a lot of money, but his speeches were predominantly focused on charitable causes and he wasn’t crossing swords with Bush every five minutes. In fact, pretty much all of the presidents in the modern era have followed that tradition.
We keep hearing from the media about what an unusual and unconventional presidency we have now and how Trump is breaking all the rules. What about this tradition? Doesn’t Barack Obama deserve some scolding from the editorial boards of the major newspapers? Don’t hold your breath. What was admirable and saluted when George W. Bush did it is now quaint and out of fashion. Expect everyone to be breathlessly covering all of Barack Obama’s interventions in the political scene as if he were still in office.
The post Finally! 44th president to return from vacation and get involved in politics again appeared first on Hot Air.
On Thursday, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) came under fire when he claimed that “hate speech” isn’t protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment,” Dean tweeted Thursday.
Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. https://t.co/DOct3xcLoY
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 21, 2017
His tweet came in response to a former New York Times reporter who tweeted a quote from conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who allegedly once said that her “only regret” with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh is that “he did not go to the New York Times building.”
Of course, the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects the rights of free speech, religious freedom, press rights, petition rights and assembly rights with very minor and small restrictions.
“Hate speech,” however, has never been decided by the Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction to the First Amendment. “Hate speech” is illegal in many other countries across the globe, but not so in the U.S.
Still, that didn’t stop Dean from doubling down on his comments Friday, where he argued that a Supreme Court case from 1942 — Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire — proves the First Amendment doesn’t protect “hate speech.”
“For WAPO and others raising issues about hate speech not being constitutionally protected, read “Chaplinsky v New Hampshire SCOTUS 1942,” Dean tweeted late Friday.
For WAPO and others raising issues about hate speech not being constitutionally protected, read "Chaplinsky v New Hampshire SCOTUS 1942
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 22, 2017
That case, which established the “fighting words doctrine,” found that “some forms of expression—among them obscenity and fighting words—do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, i.e., words that ‘inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,'” according to Oyez.com.
The court case, however, didn’t address “hate speech” like Dean claims and Twitter was quick to inform him of this fact, many of them lawyers and legal experts.
@GovHowardDean I'm a First Amendment lawyer. Your reliance on Chaplinsky is misplaced.
— Geoffrey King ⚖️ (@geoffwking) April 22, 2017
Sorry, that's fighting words, not hate speech. https://t.co/JCFHvdWLqq
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) April 22, 2017
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) April 22, 2017
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) April 22, 2017
@GovHowardDean dude why are you doubling down on this. Incitement =\= "hate speech"
— EricaGrieder (@EricaGrieder) April 22, 2017
"Ah-ha! I know how to show those no-good know-it-all First Amendment lawyers…. they won't see Chaplinsky coming." https://t.co/cTXO9lgM7c
— Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh) April 22, 2017
In which Howard Dean appears to endorse the Constitutionality of arresting a man for calling a police officer a "fascist." https://t.co/YTirOtLvRN
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) April 22, 2017
— Anthony L. Fisher (@anthonyLfisher) April 22, 2017
@GovHowardDean Please leave lawyering to lawyers sir.
— Rob Welch (@RobWelch) April 22, 2017
@GovHowardDean That decision is about "fighting words" directed by one individual to another, specific, individual. You may want to stick to medicine.
— By the numbers (@TheRealFixNow) April 22, 2017
@GovHowardDean Just take the L, Gov.
— Asher Langton (@AsherLangton) April 22, 2017
— Hayden Barnes (@rivertownlawyer) April 22, 2017