Sunday, June 25, 2017

Editor’s Choice

by -
College Vote
"Professor Jones said we get extra credit if we vote for his son for town council - he's running as a Communist"

Arizona Republican. State Rep. Bob Thorpe believes that the college students actually “dilute” the elections, in the districts where they attend school and live.

Sources note that Thorpe is currently offering legislation that would restrict students from using their college addresses to vote, even though they live at that address all year long. While, his district is home to students of the Northern Arizona University, he believes that this action would limit a major left-leaning voter block.

“These students do not influence the elections within their home communities, where their families and neighbors live, but instead they dilute the votes of the local full-time residents within the college communities,” Thorpe told Courthouse News.

The bill calls for an amendment to Arizona’s voter registration rules and require all voters to have a physical address within the state, and an “intent to remain,” at that address, thus limiting college students from voting in districts where they don’t “actually live.”

“A dormitory address or other temporary college or university address may not be used for determining residency … and is deemed to be evidence of a temporary address with intent to return to some other permanent address,” the bill states.

Thorpe had introduced a similar bill, earlier this year, however, it was shot down by Doug Colemen and was refused a hearing in the state’s House Government Committee.

“Just the basic premise of the bill of actually saying that they couldn’t choose where their residence was, even if it was where they were living, I had issues with,” Coleman told Arizona’s Capitol Media Services in January.

Moreover, it was only in January that Thorpe had introduced a bill that barred colleges and public schools from utilizing student activity fees for any political speech, political activity or other political purpose,” and had also introduced a legislation that prevented all schools from teaching courses that focused on “social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people.”

by -
Lincoln Assassination
What do we do about the, "character assassination" of a president?

Johnny Depp, lead actor of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, made a very distasteful joke about assassinating the President of the United States Donald Trump, while speaking to the crowd at Glastonbury, a United Kingdom based festival for performing arts.

During the screening of his film “The Libertine,” Depp went off topic and started discussing Trump with the crowd.

“Can we bring Trump here?” he asked; the crowd felt a jolt of energy and started jeering as soon as they heard the name. Depp continued, “No, no, no; you’ve misunderstood completely.”

Talking about Trump, Depp furthered his talk, “I think he needs help and there are a lot of wonderful dark, dark places he could go,” he said to the audience.

The actor then tried defend himself as the crowd got even more hyped up. He responded, “It is just a question – I’m not insinuating anything. By the way, this is going to be in the press. It will be horrible. I like that you are all a part of it.”

“When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” he asked. Apparently referring to the John Wilkes Booth’s murder of Abraham Lincoln. “Now, I want to clarify, I am not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it has been a while and maybe it is time.”

While people reacted to the whole incident in a mixed fashion, most found the Hollywood star’s remarks to be extremely offensive, considering the harsh political climate in the US and the Republican baseball practice attack which left Senate Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) critically injured.

by -
Crazy OpEd
"Well, darn - I thought Ryan and Pete were my friends... :("

Editor of the University of Alabama’s campus paper Marissa Cornelius writes, “If you’re white, you’re probably racist,” in a recent op-ed.

“White people must examine their own racist attitudes. I don’t necessarily mean you say openly bigoted things or that you like spending your weekends defending Confederate monuments (though you might be that brand of racist, too),” Cornelius states. “I just mean that you probably have a lot of internalized racist beliefs that you most likely haven’t spent a lot of time unpacking.”

“You being racist might not be entirely your fault. We’re raised in a society that devalues people of color with pretty much every opportunity it gets. We’re raised in a country where black people could literally be owned as few as four or five generations ago, and where they were actively being denied the right to vote during many of our parents’ lifetimes,” she continues. “We’re exposed to media that has type-casted people of color into a very narrow range of characters and tropes.”

“The fact that, yes, you have racist beliefs and attitudes, and these might even sometimes be manifested into racist words or actions.”

Pointing towards Maher, she writes, “Like almost all of white America, wants to believe that he is post-racial. But by holding on to this belief, we engage in a dangerous sort of erasure of the racism that still plagues this country, extinguishing any chance we might have to address these issues and to attempt to fix them. When we pretend we are post-racial, we ensure that this will never be the case.”

“It’s time for us as white people to accept that racism is embedded in all of us. This isn’t to say that you should be any less embarrassed and ashamed of any of your racists words or actions, it is to say that you should stop reacting with so much disbelief, with so much ‘I don’t have a racist bone in my body!’ with so much ‘I would have voted for Obama for a third time if I could have!’ When all your energy is going into denying and defending, you will have none left to go into reflecting and revising.”

Although, Cornelius cites no evidence to back her claims, she is definitely able to provide us an insight on the very mixed thoughts in terms of racism that college students now are experiencing.

Cornelius, a white female even went on to say that Americans that are not white cannot be labelled as racist, “as racism requires power, which is held by and large by whites.”

by -
Racial Tensions
"Just remember that all your ancestors were evil, racist, meanies... Class dismissed!"

Judy Morelock, a University of Tennessee Knoxville professor was fired after she shamed a student on social media, for so-called racist behavior.

Kayla Parker, a student at the university stated that Morelock had presented her class, including Parker, a multiple choice quiz. One of the questions, on the quiz read, ““Historical research on African-American families during slavery shows that: A) Family ties weren’t important in African cultures where the slaves’ ancestors originated; consequently, family bonds were never strong among slaves. B) Two-parent families were extremely rare during the slave period. C) Black family bonds were destroyed by the abuses of slave owners, who regularly sold off family members to other slave owners. D) Most slave families were headed by two parents.”

Parker further mentioned that she selected the option C, as her answer, however, it was marked as wrong. Morelock had advised Parker that the correct answer was option D.

To this, Parker sent the professor an email to further clarify her response and to present information backing up her answer.

As per Parker, Morelock went on to disagree with Parker. Moreover, to make matter worse, Morelock posted a version of the Parker’s email on Facebook, where she and her friends took turns discussing Parker’s viewpoint.

“I was shocked,” she wrote. “I knew it was something out of the ordinary when I saw her posting on my Facebook, because I’ve never seen a professor do that.

Parker had indicated that Morelock began “making backhanded comments directed at me.”

“For example,” she wrote, “‘Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to bring the textbook to class today because my bag is full of other texts for a student who requires further evidence on subjects I teach in class.”

Ever since, the comments had gone viral, the school removed Morelock from her position and placed her on a suspension. This did not stop Morelock. Upon her removal, she wrote on Facebook, “A student and her friends posted inflammatory, derogatory, libelous comments on her Facebook page and demeaned my character, honesty, and integrity … Nonetheless, she filed a complaint against me with [the University] administration and they decided she has the right to impugn my character but I had no right to defend myself. Consequently, I’ve been placed on administration leave and will likely be terminated this week.” Morelock was suspended soon after her post.

While Parker insisted that Morelock did not make use of any racial slurs or nicknames, she felt that the way in which Morelock reacted to her correction portrayed “racism.”

“If students can’t raise questions in class, it’s not a thriving, healthy academic institution,” she wrote. “College is supposed to be a place where you can agree and disagree and have intellectual discussions and that’s all I was trying to do.”

by -
Wise Choice
Man, I wish I would have been there - I'll be sure to be at his 2020 Inauguration!

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, “Wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government.”

Abused by the media nearly as much as President Trump himself, Trump’s supporters have withstood constant attacks on their character, patriotism, intelligence, and more. The message from the media elite is clear, “If you don’t think and vote the exact way we demand, you are not informed.” However, what does informed mean here in this context? And does informed mean the same as Thomas Jefferson meant it in 1789?

The  difference between Jefferson’s use of the word informed and the media’s is the difference between fact and opinion. Regardless of how popular certain political opinions are in Hollywood,  knowledge of how our democratic republic works to deliver self-government is the most important foundation of being civically informed. Certainly, there are degrees to which political ideas can be right or wrong, but these are fiercely debated, and very rarely concrete or clear.

For example, while the medial elite can (and do) argue that socialism is working for Venezuela, or that tax-and-spend policies are working for Zimbabwe, knowledge of the specific structure of our U.S. government is unambiguous and clear. Voters that know how government works are informed in the most important and foundational way that citizens must be. For example – a fact: On November 8th, Americans didn’t just vote for President, they also voted to elect a Representative – their elected official in the House of Representatives in Washington, DC. This is done every two years.

Survey Findings

A recent poll by Haven Insights shows that Trump voters have a distinct and consistent edge in civic knowledge over their Hillary supporting and 3rd party supporting counterparts. In stark contrast to the media narrative, Trump supporters are not only more informed than the general public, but also more than their political rivals.

  • Trump voters were more likely to know the name of their U.S. Representative than Hillary supporters (45% to 38%).
  • While 66% of the public know that their U.S. Representative is up for election 2 years, slightly more (68%) of Trump voters knew this simple fact. However, as embarrassing as it is, Hillary supporters performed the worst in this simple question (65%)!
  • A shocking 23% of the public voted for their U.S. representative without even knowing their Representative’s name. However, Trump voters – educated and civically responsible –were the most likely to walk into the voting booth informed and knowing the name of their elected representatives. Hillary supporters performed the worst.
  • Embarrassingly, nearly a third of liberals (30%) went to the voting booth having no clue who their U.S. Representative was – while only 21% of conservatives had a similar struggle in the voting booth.

Trump voters consistently had the edge over both the general population, and their political opponents in basic civic knowledge – who their Representative was, what party they belonged to, and if they were even on the ballot.

The Trump Edge

It isn’t enough to just go out and go through the motions of voting – voters have to have a baseline understanding of who and what exactly they are voting for. Trump supporters systematically outperformed everyone in knowledge of their Representative.

The real-world result of this knowledge edge was that Trump supporters and conservatives succeeded in specifically delivering their support to conservatives and Republicans in key narrow races across the nation. One example is in Maine, where Rep. Bruce Poliquin, soundly beat his opponent – a well funded disciple of Nancy Pelosi named Emily Cain.

As Tea Party Leader, Matt Kibbe, famously declared, “Government goes to those who show up.” Trump supporters simply know more about their government than any other slice of the electorate. This allowed them to make their opinions heard, even over and above the scorn and abuse heaped upon them by the media.

You can follow Haven Insights on Twitter HERE.

by -
Guarding Republicans
As if being under attack by the Liberal Media wasn't enough!

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives of the man, James T. Hodgkinson, who attacked GOP congressmen playing baseball at Alexandria, Virginia, last week.

Because Hodgkinson was shot dead on the scene of the massacre, the motive behind the attack will most probably never be known, however, most people, including experts, believe that the harsh rhetoric between the two parties is to blame. This is also because Hodgkinson only attacked Republicans. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot near the hip and continues to fight for his life in the MedStar Washington Hospital Center.

Following the authorities’ confirmation that Hodgkinson was the only shooter in the attack, officials began scrutinizing the 66-year-old’s social media accounts and it wasn’t very hard to figure out the motives behind the attack: James Hodgkinson appears to have been a staunch supporter of socialist politics and had deep-rooted hatred for Republicans and President Donald Trump.

However, despite the ocean of evidence proving Hodgkinson’s hatred for the Repblicans, the New York Times tried to paint a very different picture of the motives. They tried to get the perspective out there that Hodgkinson’s attack on the congressmen was due to his unstable mental conditions and it had nothing to do partisan hatred or politics.

The story’s headline emphasizes that idea: “Before the Gunfire in Virginia, a Volatile Home Life in Illinois.”

The story said:

“No one can truly know what motivates a man to drive halfway across the country, live out of his car — as Mr. Hodgkinson apparently did — and attempt a mass killing of members of Congress. In the days since the shooting, much has been made of Mr. Hodgkinson’s strong political views — he was an ardent supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders’s bid for the 2016 presidential nomination, and he railed against President Trump and Republicans in Washington on his Facebook page and in letters to the editor of the local newspaper.

But another aspect of his personality may have also presaged the shooting: his troubled home life.”

Furthermore, the story described how Hodgkinson was likely suffering from some kind of mental illness and his political ideology had “little” or nothing to do with his attempt to kill only Republicans. The article even went on to quote a Democratic staffer who denied claims that Hodgkinson was known to be a volunteer for them during the 2016 presidential campaign.

by -
Comey Deleted
When will Trump start calling this guy "Shady James Comey"

Judicial Watch today announced it sent Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe a warning letter concerning the FBI’s legal responsibility under the Federal Records Act (FRA) to recover records, including memos Comey subsequently leaked to the media, unlawfully removed from the Bureau by former Director James Comey. The June 14 letter from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton states:

As you are well aware, former FBI Director James Comey gave sworn testimony last week before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Among other things, Mr. Comey confirmed that, while in office, he created various memoranda regarding his meetings with President Trump. Mr. Comey also confirmed that, after his departure from the FBI, he provided at least some of these memoranda to a third party, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, for the purpose of leaking them to the press. Various media outlets now have reported that Professor Richman has provided these memoranda to the FBI. It is unclear whether he still retains copies of the memoranda.

I am writing to you on behalf of Judicial Watch, Inc., a not-for-profit educational organization that seeks to promote transparency, accountability, and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. In furtherance of its public interest mission, Judicial Watch regularly requests access to the records of the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act and disseminates its findings to the public. In fact, on May 16, 2017, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request seeking these specific memoranda removed from the FBI by Mr. Comey. Judicial Watch also has pending FOIA lawsuits in which the memoranda may be at issue.

These memoranda were created by Mr. Comey while serving as FBI director, were written on his FBI laptop, and concerned official government business. As such, they indisputably are records subject to the Federal Records Act. 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-18, 2901-09, 3101-07, and 3301-14. The fact that Mr. Comey removed these memoranda from the FBI upon his departure, apparently for the purpose of subsequently leaking them to the press, confirms the FBI’s failure to retain and properly manage its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act. Even if Mr. Comey no longer has possession of these particular memoranda, as he now claims, some or all of these memoranda may still be in possession of a third party, such as Professor Richman, and must be recovered. Mr. Comey’s removal of these memoranda also suggests that other records may have been removed by Mr. Comey and may remain in his possession or in the possession of others. If so, these records must be recovered by the FBI as well.

As you may be aware, the Federal Records Act imposes a direct responsibility on you to take steps to recover any records unlawfully removed from the FBI. Specifically, upon learning of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency,” you must notify the Archivist of the United States. 44 U.S.C. § 3106. Upon learning that records have been unlawfully removed from the FBI, you then are required to initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records. Id.

In the event you fail to take these steps, you should be aware that Judicial Watch is authorized under the law to file a lawsuit in federal district court seeking that you be compelled to comply with the law. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282,296 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Please advise us no later than June 26, 2017 if you intend to take the action required under the law. If we do not hear from you by that date, we will assume that you do not intend to take any action. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

“Mr. Comey took government records and the FBI and Justice Department are obligated to get them back,” added Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The former FBI director isn’t above the law and current leadership of the FBI should stop protecting him and take action.”

Judicial Watch is pursuing a lawsuit challenging the State Department’s failure to take any action to recover emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other employees unlawfully removed from the agency seeks to force State Department compliance with the Federal Records Act (FRA).  Judicial Watch argues the State Department and FBI never bothered to do a full search for Hillary Clinton’s government emails. This is one of several of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits seeking government records and information about the non-government email system used by Clinton.

by -
Terrorist Cell
What could possibly go wrong with open borders? #RefugeesWelcome!

One of the terrorists who carried out the deadly London Bridge attack in England this month fought in an affiliate of Senator John McCain’s beloved Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Libya, supporting the U.S.-backed effort to topple Muammar Gaddafi. His name is Rachid Redouane and, after fighting in the Libyan revolution with the Tripoli-based group Liwa al Ummah, he joined a militia that deployed jihadist fighters to Syria.

The unit fought alongside Al-Qaeda extremists in Syria, according to a British newspaper story that says Redouane’s plea for asylum in the United Kingdom was rejected in 2009 though he continued living in the country. The Liwa al Ummah was formed by a deputy of Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the former emir of the Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, according to a think tank that studies British foreign policy. In 2012, the Liwa al Ummah in Syria merged with the FSA, which was formed in August 2011 by Turkish-based army deserters aiming to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Liwa al Ummah was considered an FSA unit in Syria and sometimes it teamed up with Al Qaeda’s official Syrian branch, Al-Nusra.

Redouane’s connection to the FSA is yet another damaging piece of evidence showing that opposition forces in Syria are run by Islamic terrorists. This has not deterred McCain’s ardent support for the Syrian rebels, especially the FSA. The Arizona Republican, also chair of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, has worked closely with a “Syria expert” who was the political director of a Syrian Islamist organization that helped define and steer policy in the Obama White House as well as Congress. Judicial Watch has reported on this for years and back in 2013 published a piece on the so-called expert, Elizabeth O’Bagy, who somehow convinced the president, secretary of state and some federal lawmakers that Syrian rebels are mostly moderates and not terrorists who deserve U.S. support.

McCain was so smitten by O’Bagy that he read a chunk of her Wall Street Journal opinion piece—touting the FSA as a moderate opposition force—during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. In it O’Bagy makes a case for U.S. military intervention in Syria by asserting that concerns about Al-Qaeda terrorists running the rebel operations are unfounded. After all, the United States doesn’t want to support the very jihadists that want to murder its citizens. Here is a portion of the excerpt that McCain read at the hearing: “Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards.

The jihadists pouring into Syria from countries like Iraq and Lebanon are not flocking to the front lines. Instead they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern, rebel-held areas of the country. “Moderate opposition forces—a collection of groups known as the Free Syrian Army—continue to lead the fight against the Syrian regime. While traveling with some of these Free Syrian Army battalions, I’ve watched them defend Alawi and Christian villages from government forces and extremist groups. They’ve demonstrated a willingness to submit to civilian authority, working closely with local administrative councils. And they have struggled to ensure that their fight against Assad will pave the way for a flourishing civil society.”

A year later Judicial Watch reported on an embarrassing outburst that McCain, who is hell-bent on arming jihadist opposition forces in Syria, had during a meeting with Syrian Christian leaders touring Capitol Hill. The delegation of Syrian clergy went to Washington to raise awareness among lawmakers of the growing crisis among the region’s minority Christian community.

Christians make up about 10% of the Syrian population and they are being targeted and ruthlessly murdered by radical elements of the rebel forces, according to the visiting church officials. Churches have been destroyed or burned, children killed, nuns abducted and countless others abducted by Islamic fighters, the Syrian delegation revealed during the D.C. jaunt.

McCain, refused to hear the negative stories about the rebels he’s working to arm and stormed out of a closed-door meeting with the Syrian clergy officials. Held in the Senate Arms Services Committee meeting room, the reunion also included senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. McCain marched into the committee room yelling, according to a high-level source that attended the meeting, and quickly stormed out. “He was incredibly rude,” the source told Judicial Watch “because he didn’t think the Syrian church leaders should even be allowed in the room.”

While this veteran senator continues supporting the FSA, a number of domestic and international media outlets have confirmed that terrorists—mainly Al Qaeda—are running opposition forces in Syria. For instance the New York Times published a piece that reveals Islamist rebels—including the most extreme groups in the notorious Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda-aligned force—are running the show in Syria. “The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion,” the story says. “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” A British newspaper confirmed that in Syria “jihadists” are “now the largest and best armed faction in the opposition.” The report goes on to say that the “more moderate elements have become progressively weaker through a lack of supplies and defection of members.”

by -
Pervert Alert
Uh, I'm gonna need some time alone to study this "law" more in depth.

Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Ramon Perez, publicly admitted that he gave his colleagues a Wikipedia document by accident, which showed screenshots of web browser tabs with pornographic websites open.

Last Wednesday, Perez provided the House Finance Committee members, printed handouts of the article to back his push to get the bill passed.

While no images, pornographic or of the websites, were seen, the Providence Journal reported that the document showed multiple browser tabs, showing that offensive websites were still open. A reference to teenagers, and the word “MILF” could be clearly seen in the screenshot.

Perez, however, spoke to Providence Journal, and said that he is “not a pervert.”

“I made a big mistake of trusting too much in people,” he said. “I know people in here don’t believe me. They say that’s the excuse everybody makes. But I think it is a possibility because I don’t check that page … that stupid page.”

Furthermore, Perez also admitted his mistake to a local news station, saying he was “extremely” embarrassed. However, he went on to clear his position, claiming that the document was given to him by a friend whom he had asked to research on the information he was looking for.

Members of the House Finance Committee saw the browser tabs as soon as they received the document, however, a clerk recalled the docs immediately. Perez told the news station that he submitted a fresh, clean document the very next day.

“Now I think everyone is looking at me differently,” Perez told WPRI about the incident. “I have never dealt with a situation like this before.”

Last Friday, Perez posted on Facebook, claiming that the whole incident was an oversight. He then deleted his account.

by -
Scalise Shooting
Please pray for Scalise, and the policemen and staffers who were injured in this attack.

It didn’t even take an hour before liberals on Twitter began their partisan snark regarding the attack on GOP members of Congress this Wednesday morning as they gathered in Alexandria for baseball practice.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, one of the main chearleaders of Paul Ryan and Donald Trump’s American Health Care Act, was reportedly shot in the hip. Two Capitol Hill police and at least one Congressional staffers were also shot during the attack.

On Twitter, @thatgirlfrmOhio was quick to weigh, telling her 507 followers “Many weapons are used to kill people. Republicans have chosen healthcare as their weapon.”

Sergio Dericks (@sergio_dericks) posted “Scalise..Hope you pass gun control when you get better . . . You got Shot by AR 15! Need to ban all Assault weapons!

Note that at the time of this writing, all that was known as a rifle was used by the shooter.

Jen Smith (@JenSmith230) complained by the distraction saying, “Can we get back to covering #ImpeachTrumpNOw? This #Scalise thing is only dividing #TheResistance. We don’t need distractions. #Resist.”

Chris Le (@ChrisLeDC) was more pointed with his post, “Scalise, isn’t Karma something?”

Pratt Falls (@PrattFalls) jumped into the specifics when he asked, “Wonder what Scalise & Capital [sic] Police think about silencers after today’s horrible events? We need sensible gun laws.”

Pratt was referring to the Hearing Protection Act that will lift administrative restrictions on the purchase of suppressors.

Regardless of the political motivations of the shooter, it’s clear that the political Left will use the attack to promote their agenda to restrict gun ownership in America – despite that known fact that the majority of mass shootings in America have been committed by Liberals.

Twitter user C.T. summed up the Left’s judgement with his post:

Comment below.

TRENDING STORIES

Guarding Republicans

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives...