Wednesday, June 28, 2017

The Democrats’ War on Minimum Wage Workers


Report: Minimum Wage Hike in Seattle Causing Job Losses, Lower Paychecks

By Alice Greene
In June 2014, Seattle became the first city in the nation to increase its minimum wage to $15 per hour. 
The increase, pushed for by the "Fight for 15" movement, is designed to be implemented in phases over the course of seven years (to be completed by 2021).
Seattle's minimum wage is currently at $13, and we’re already seeing the negative effects.
According to a University of Washington report, low-level workers are taking home less money than they were before the wage hike.
Employers have dealt with the 3% increase in minimum wage by reducing the number of employees and cutting the hours of those still employed.
On average, minimum wage workers are now making $125 less per month than they were before the increase. Meanwhile, Seattle has lost a whopping 5,000 jobs.
“This is a two-edged sword,” explains Jacob Vigdor, a researcher currently studying the effects of the wage hike. “If you raise this minimum wage the way Seattle did you run the risk of actually taking money away from the people you are trying to help.” 
Seattle saw an abrupt increase in the number of workers making over $19 an hour following the hike; this is because some businesses responded to the increase by hiring more skilled workers in hopes they could generate more revenue.
This is bad news for less experienced workers trying to find a job.
“Basically, what we’re doing is we’re removing the bottom run of the ladder,” says Vigdor.
-- 
We’re seeing similar effects in New York, which lost 1,000 restaurants last year following an increase in minimum wage.
Restaurants in the Big Apple are forced to pay employees $12 an hour, which is $1 more than other minimum wage employers.
Employment growth at fast-food restaurants in New York City shrank to just 3.4% in 2016, compared to 7% from 2010-2015. The number of jobs available for servers, cooks, and dishwashers grew by a measly 1.4% in 2016, compared to a 4.4% annual growth between 2010 to 2015.
Jillian Henze, a member of the Seattle Restaurant Alliance, says the “business model is evolving” thanks to the wage increase. “Some of our members are reducing the number of employees or hours,” said Henze. Others are adding fees and service charges to checks to make up for the increased labor cost.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who supports the Fight for 15 movement, denies the hike is a problem and insists that “Seattle’s economy is booming, with wages increasing and restaurants and retail among our fastest growing job sectors.”
When you look at the data, you see that job growth is strong only for those making more than $19 per hour.
Editor's note: The whole notion that every job has to provide a "living wage" is wrong headed and dangerous. From a practial standpoint, one doesn't support a family of four working at entry level at McDonald's, there is not enough value there. However, these jobs can be very useful for teens and college students and provide entry level responsibility. We are about to take that opportunity away from them. Remember the real minimum wage is $0.
From a philosophical point of view, individuals and families should be allowed and required to take care of themselves.
A minimum wage designed to take entry level jobs and make them into career positions interferes with businesses, but also signals a false "entitlement" message, that if you bother to show up at work, then you are automatically entitled to more than you produce.
This disconnect between value provided and wage returned is a very socialist idea. And you know how we feel about socialism.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Did the FBI retaliate against Michael Flynn by launching Russia probe?


By John Solomon and Sara Carter


Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Loretta Lynch


Secret memos show Trump adviser roiled bureau by intervening in agent’s discrimination case before he was targeted in Russia case.

The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the bureau’s leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.


Flynn’s intervention on behalf of Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was highly unusual, and included a letter in 2014 on his official Pentagon stationary, a public interview in 2015 supporting Gritz’s case and an offer to testify on her behalf. His offer put him as a hostile witness in a case against McCabe, who was soaring through the bureau’s leadership ranks.

The FBI sought to block Flynn’s support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn.


The EEOC case, which is still pending, was serious enough to require McCabe to submit to a sworn statement to investigators, the documents show.

The deputy director’s testimony provided some of the strongest evidence in the case of possible retaliation, because he admitted the FBI opened an internal investigation into Gritz’s personal conduct after learning the agent “had filed or intended to file” a sex discrimination complaint against her supervisors.

McCabe eventually became the bureau’s No. 2 executive and emerged as a central player in the FBI’s Russia election tampering investigation, putting him in a position to impact the criminal inquiry against Flynn.

Three FBI employees told Circa they personally witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about Flynn before and during the time the retired Army general emerged as a figure in the Russia case.

The bureau employees, who spoke only on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said they did not know the reason for McCabe’s displeasure with Flynn, but that it made them uncomfortable as the Russia probe began to unfold and pressure built to investigate Flynn. One employee even consulted a private lawyer.

“As far as the troops in the field, the vast-majority were disgusted with the Russia decision, but that was McCabe driving the result that eventually led [former FBI Director James] Comey to make the decision,” said a senior federal law enforcement official, with direct knowledge of the investigation.

FBI agents’ concerns became more pronounced when a highly-classified piece of evidence -- an intercepted conversation between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- suddenly leaked to the news media and prompted Flynn’s resignation as Trump’s top security adviser.

“The Flynn leaks were nothing short of political,” one FBI employee said, noting the specific contents of the conversation were known by only a handful of government officials when they leaked. “The leaks appeared to be targeted to take Flynn out.”

Eventually the probe on Flynn moved beyond Russia to questions about whether he properly disclosed foreign payments affecting his security clearance.

FBI officials declined to answer any questions from Circa, including whether McCabe ever considered recusing himself or has recused himself from the Flynn aspects of the Russia probe. McCabe declined comment via the FBI press office.

But one of the FBI’s most famous whistleblowers says McCabe has an ethical obligation to recuse himself in the Flynn probe to avoid the appearance of retribution or bias.


“I don't think they have any choice. He has to step aside,” said Frederic Whitehurst, who as an FBI special agent and forensic chemist blew the whistle on misdeeds inside the FBI crime lab two decades ago and prompted widespread reforms.

“If he stays involved, the case against Flynn has no credibility,” explained Whitehurst, now often called as an expert witness in court cases. “If there are criminal charges that could go against Flynn, that's got to go to court. And those agents at some point may be called before a grand jury and anything he (McCabe) said to them about Flynn could be used as exonerating information or evidence of misconduct.”

Whitehurst said he saw senior FBI officials, including then-Director Louis Freeh and then-General Counsel Howard Shapiro, recuse themselves in the 1990s from his whistleblowing case to avoid looking they were involved in retribution after he made allegations of wrongdoing by the bureau

“Louie and Howie did it, and that sets the precedent I think,” Whitehurst said.

Documents and memos obtained by Circa detail how Flynn and other top officials at other government agencies in 2014 and 2015 came to intervene in the EEOC case of Gritz, who rose over two decades to a supervisory special agent inside the FBI on the strength of her counterterrorism work.

For nearly a decade, Gritz worked with the intelligence community to help successfully track down global terrorists or rescue Western hostages, and was even occasionally called upon to personally brief then-Director Robert Mueller on sensitive cases like the disappearance of a retired agent Robert Levinson inside Iran, memos show.

But her career took a sudden downward turn after she went to work under McCabe and his leadership team in 2012, resulting in her first negative rating after years of outstanding performance reviews. She filed an EEOC complain inside the FBI against a handful of bureau executives in 2012, alleging her career was being derailed by sexual discrimination.

The FBI referred her for an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation for timecard irregularities. As hostilities rose between the two sides, emails and testimony showed senior FBI officials castigated Gritz for being too “emotional,” having a possible mental illness and sending inappropriate emails.

The FBI concluded there was no discrimination, arguing Gritz was referred to OPR for investigation on June 20, 2012 before she ever filed her EEOC complaint.

But McCabe’s sworn statement offered evidence that actually supported Gritz’s claim of retaliation and discrimination, recounting a conversation on June 19, 2012 in which he authorized the OPR investigation of Gritz after one of his deputies told him Gritz was about to file an EEO complaint, his sworn statement shows.

“I first learned of the issues that led to Ms. Gritz’s current OPR investigation during a telephone call with Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) Jennifer Ley on June 19, 2012,” McCabe testified.

“I recalled that during the course of our conversation DAD Ley mentioned to me that Ms. Gritz had filed or intended to file an EEO complaint against her immediate supervisor.”

The very next day, the FBI initiated the OPR investigation of Gritz, according to evidence in the FBI’s official personnel files. FBI records support McCabe’s version of events, showing Gritz had contacted FBI EEO officials in mid-June before the OPR probe was initiated, then filed her formal complaint a few weeks later. The FBI ‘s official report of investigation on Gritz’s EEO complaint, which absolved the FBI of any discrimination, omitted any mention that McCabe had been aware of the EEO complaint before the bureau filed its OPR action against Gritz.

Gritz’s initial complaint in 2012 named the FBI supervisor below McCabe. She chose to resign from the FBI in 2013, her case becoming the poster child for a National Public Radio story on the FBI’s allegedly hostile environment for women agents in 2015.

In 2014, Gritz amended her EEOC complaint to specifically name McCabe, alleging she suffered “a hostile environment, defamation of character through continued targeting by Andrew McCabe in official documents, and continuous patterns and instances of severe and excessive hostile behavior/attitude toward complainant. These actions have a negative impact on the complainant, professionally, financially, and personally.”

Flynn’s intervention in the case occurred around the time that McCabe’s name was added to the complaint. Flynn's first act was to write a letter of support in her case.

“SSA Gritz was well-known, liked and respected in the military counter-terrorism community for her energy, commitment and professional capacity, and over the years worked in several interagency groups on counter-terrorism targeting initiatives,” Flynn wrote May 9, 2014.

At the time, Flynn was an Army lieutenant general and the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he put his letter on official agency stationary to be submitted in Gritz’s case.

As soon as Gritz revealed to the FBI that Flynn and other top federal figures had written letters to support her case and likely would be called as witnesses, the bureau dispatched a lawyer to try to block the evidence from being included in the EEO case, documents show.

The FBI “has reviewed the letters submitted by the Complainant and objects to their inclusion in the record,” the bureau’s lawyer wrote. “They are selfserving letters, not part of any personnel file nor contemporaneous generated during the period of Ms. Gritz’s employment with the FBI, and which she has unilaterally solicited and obtained. They should be excluded.”

While the FBI argued Gritz’s had become underperforming, tardy to work, insurbordinate, possibly mentally ill or emotional and deserving of a poor performance review, Flynn argued just the opposite, saying he saw the agent excel while working with the DIA and other intelligence community agencies.

“Her work consistently made a positive difference,” Flynn wrote. “.Her tenacity and personal commitment consistently produced outstanding results in the most challenging environments.”

Flynn went further, offering an interview in 2015 with NPR in which he called Gritz one of the “bright lights and shining stars” in the intelligence community who “just kinda got it when it came to the kind of enemy that we were facing and the relationship that was necessary between law enforcement and the military.”

Flynn wasn’t alone among top officials who came to Gritz’s defense in her battle against the FBI.

“SSA Gritz was without question, the most energetic, most consistently engaged and prepared and single most effective member of this interagency group,” wrote Navy Rear Admiral B. L. Losey, who served both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama as the White House’s National Security Council Director for Combatting Terrorism.

Losey offered a most poignant endorsement of the female agent. “If I were taken hostage, I would hope that above all others SSA Robyn Gritz were assigned the task to track and recover me,” he wrote.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley also afforded Gritz support, asking federal authorities to investigate whether her case was emblematic of a hostile workplace for women inside the FBI.

In a brief interview this weekend, Gritz said she was mortified to think that her request to Flynn to help with her EEOC case in any way affected his relationship with the FBI or his current status as someone under investigation in the Russia case.

“Flynn was the first leader to defend me,” said Gritz. “He forwarded a letter to the FBI and I personally think that Comey did not receive it. McCabe knew Flynn and I were friends. I felt that from the beginning it was an issue.”


Monday, June 26, 2017

An epidemic of lawlessness

By Scott Johnson

 
According to a new report, Obama personally confronted Putin about messing with the U.S. presidential election. But he didn’t stop him.Photo: Alexei Druzhinin/AFP/Getty Images
Yesterday’s Washington Post carried the Russia story of the day. Post reporters Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous purport to deliver the goods on “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault.” It’s a long, long story that is of interest from a variety of perspectives.
The Post purports to give us the inside story on the collection of intelligence on Russian interference in the presidential election and serve up the apologetics explaining the Obama administration’s passive response. Based on highly classified intelligence related to the Post, the CIA discovered Russian interference in the election while it was in process within months of the election in the last year of the Obama administration. According to the CIA intelligence, the interference came on the order of Vladimir Putin and furthered Putin’s desire to aid the election of Donald Trump as president.
The Post dates the critical intelligence “bombshell” obtained by the CIA to August 2016. The Post reports that CIA Director John Brennan deemed it so confidential that he withheld it from the President’s Daily Brief and conveyed it directly in writing to Obama by hand delivery.
The intelligence provided Obama administration officials time to foil Putin’s plans and/or punish Putin’s deeds. Indeed, administration officials concocted plans to punish and deter Russia from interference. The Post reports that “Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could ‘crater’ the Russian economy. But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package” (emphasis added). In other words, President Obama declined to take any action while it might still have done some good in 2016.
One might infer from story that President Obama “colluded” with Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. One might support the inference with Obama’s own comment open mic comment to Dmitri Medvedev that during Obama’s second term he would have more “flexibility” to cooperate with Putin.
To be fair, we might consider the explanation that Obama was just a pusillanimous pussy disinclined to protect the interests of the United States from our enemies. Perhaps Obama’s passivity was overdetermined and other hypothetical explanations apply. Certainly some explanation beyond any offered by the Post’s sources is called for. The possibilities are endless.
By contrast, however, the Post’s reportage offers no evidence of Trump’s “collusion” with the Russian interference intended to assist Trump’s election. Zero. Nada. Not even by inference.
Perhaps evidence of Trump “collusion” with Russia is beyond the scope of the Post’s story. If the Post had obtained such evidence from its numerous sources, however, it would certainly have found a place for it in the story.
So far as I can tell, sophisticated commenters on the story take it at face value and consider it on the terms presented by the Post. See, for example, David French’s NRO column and Tom Rogan’s Examiner column.
The story comes complete with this revelation: “Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.”
I’m sure Putin is grateful for the heads-up from the Post. You don’t have to be a CIA officer or analyst to figure that out.
Now like much of the Post story, this is a piece of highly classified intelligence whose disclosure violates the oaths of those who gave it to the Post. The violation of a solemn oath by a witness is commonly taken to detract from the credibility of the witness’s testimony. Consider, moreover, that the sources for the story were not under oath when they confided in Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous. The intelligent reader would be well within his rights not to believe a word they say.
If we believe it, however, this pertinent fact should be added. The disclosure of highly classified intelligence by government officials also violates the espionage laws of the United States. It is in all likelihood felonious several times over in the case of each of the Post’s numerous anonymous sources.
The Post and its reporters are accomplices to the crimes committed by their sources. They have disseminated highly classified intelligence to the enemies of the United States — as the left has lately discovered Putin and Russia to be.
Taking the story at face value, we can conclude that the Post and its sources have done great damage to the national security of the United States. The Post attributes the leaks on which the story is based to “three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity…” As for the requirement of anonymity imposed by the Post’s sources, see the paragraph above.
Again, taken at face value, the story buries this bombshell. Three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior government positions have undertaken a campaign of gross lawlessness for their own purposes undermining the national security of the United States beyond anything Vladimir Putin can do.
 ____________________________

Trump says Obama did 'Nothing' to Stop Russian Meddling
By Alice Greene
 


With his heart set on Hillary Clinton becoming the nation’s next president, you would think Obama would have made more of an effort to stop the alleged Russian meddling.
"If Russia was working so hard on the 2016 election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn’t they stop them?" asked Trump last week on Twitter.
"If he [Obama] had the information, why didn't he do something about it?" said Trump during a recent interview with Fox News. "The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before they even – before the election. And I hardly see it. It’s an amazing thing,” said Trump.
On October 7th, the Obama Administration announced that the theft and subsequent release of DNC emails was part of a larger campaign “intended to interfere with the US election process" - but it wasn’t until after Trump won the election that the administration started to take the threat seriously.
A detailed timeline of events published last week in the The Washington Post suggests the Obama Administration dragged its feet in order to prevent politicization of the Russia threat during an election that was already rife with scandal. “It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” an Obama administration official has ben quoted as saying. “I feel like we sort of choked.”
Even the Dems are frustrated by Obama’s lack of action regarding Russia's “attack” on the election. “It was inadequate. I think they could have done a better job informing the American people of the extent of the attack,” complained Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA). “I understand the analysis, but look where we are right now. This was the worst mess our democracy has been in since the Civil War.”
The penalties Obama levied on Russia were “barely a slap on the wrist,” adds Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
President Trump has admitted that it is possible the Russians tried to interfere in the election process, but continues to criticize the Russian collusion investigation as a “witch hunt.”
Author's Note: The "Russia collusion" story is indeed a witch hunt. It is a rumor started by the Democrats to wound Trump's presidential campaign.
But apparently the meddling was an Obama Administration failure. Experts and analysts from both parties have confirmed that the Russian meddling had no effect on votes, but Obama still should have made protecting the election a priority.

____________________________

 Other News


The Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment Freedom Of Religion Rights

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, wins First Amendment appeal at the Supreme Court, with a 7-2 majority saying the state may not deny public money to religious institutions competing for grants along with private secular groups. 

____________________________

Trump travel ban: Supreme Court reinstates key parts of executive order



In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as this fall.

The court's decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration -- the president's order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a "travel ban." The court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced for now.
"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded,” the court wrote. “As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”
The justices decided to review the broader constitutional issues over executive authority on immigration with oral arguments to be held in the fall.
Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.
"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.
He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is broken!"
In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order -- which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.
Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.
Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died. Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.
The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits – that is, that the judgments below will be reversed,” wrote Justice Thomas, supported by Alito and Gorsuch. “The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.’”
At issue is whether the temporary ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law.
Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent weeks have ruled against the administration. A majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited then-candidate Trump's campaign statements proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."
The White House, on the other hand, frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security. A coalition of groups in opposition call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the six countries involved have mostly-Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
A major sticking point for the justices will be navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents dating back to Jimmy Carter have used their discretion to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats -- including those from nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.
A 1952 federal law -- the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence -- historically gives the chief executive broad authority.
"Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary," Section 212 (f) of the law states, "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
In his opinion, Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise nature of Monday's ruling, indicating he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full. Thomas said he feared "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.
"Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding -- on peril of contempt -- whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780.”
Fox News' Bill Mears contributed to this report.
 
 

Sunday, June 25, 2017

A Window Into The Heart Of President Trump

From: John Porter
To: Americans Everywhere


 
A Photo of the President, worth a thousand words.
Please try to understand the weight of this image.
This soldier lost both arms. 
The feeling of a handshake is now lost to him.
President Trump realized this, and so touched his face in order for the soldier to be able to feel the human connection, this is what I see when I think of Trump's motives.
He gave up a billionaire lifestyle to now be insulted, dragged through the mud, and lied about, on a daily basis.

All to save this Republic and people he loves.
 

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Violent Democrats: Attacking And Killing Republicans Since 1866

Commentary

By Frances Rice
As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
In contrast, as one pundit wrote, the Republican Party is the party of the four F’s: faith, family, freedom and fairness.
From the inception of the Republican Party in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, Democrats have viscerally opposed the values of Republicans.
Imbued with deep-seated hatred of Republicans, Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan in 1866 that became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.
The Klan killed over 3,000 Republicans, 1000 white and over 2,000 black Republicans.
In his book, A SHORT HISTORY OF RECONSTRUCTION, Dr Eric Foner wrote:
 “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican Party leaders, black and white.
“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.
“Jack Dupree was a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi.
“Assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins.
“Jack Dupree was ‘president of a Republican club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”
Today, Democrats continue their reign of terror against Republicans, as demonstrated in the below article.
___________________

By Pamela Geller
We know this but they are saying it, they are telling us with impunity.
They want a civil war or surrender.
Below is an alarming article.
______________
IN THEIR OWN WORDS: ANTI-TRUMP ‘RESISTANCE’ LEADERS SAY THEY WANT TO MAKE AMERICA ‘UNGOVERNABLE’
By Peter Hasson


Behind the mass protests, choreographed chants and acts of violence, leaders of anti-Trump “resistance” efforts are communicating the same simple but dark message: they want to make America “ungovernable” for the president of the United States.
These protesters say they will do whatever it takes to keep Trump from enacting his agenda, and many of them have shown a willingness to destroy public property, assault law enforcement officers and inflict violence upon their fellow citizens.
In the days and weeks leading up to the inauguration, DisruptJ20 publicly advertised an invitation to “Join us in refusing to normalize Trump’s presidency, smashing his facade of legitimacy.”
DisruptJ20 advocates using “direct action” tactics, which the group describes as taking “collective action to make social change without giving power over to an authority or middle person.”
“We don’t ask permission or put our faith in electoral politics, instead, we use our bodies to stop the smooth operation of the system we oppose,” the group’s website states, citing Black Lives Matter’s efforts to shut down highways as an example of the kind of disruption they have in mind. The group is open about its aim to become “an ungovernable force this winter.”
A website called Ungovernable 2017 helped coordinate DisruptJ20’s DC efforts with anti-Trump protests around the country. Some groups endorsed a pledge to never give Trump the “chance to govern.”
“As we resist, we will create new governing institutions, new economic relationships, and new ways of being human,” the pledge reads.
The pledge was endorsed by a number of left-wing figures including: the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, a black nationalist organization with chapters in eight cities across the country; activist and 2008 Green Party vice presidential nominee Rosa Clemente; and Lamis Deek, lawyer and a New York board member for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Mass demonstrations against Trump have continued around the country in the weeks since his inauguration. Over a week ago featured an activist calling for murder over a megaphone. The activist, reportedly associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, said that protesters “need to start killing people” and “start killing the White House.”
Milo Yiannopoulos, an editor at pro-Trump website Breitbart, was forced to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley last week after mobs of protesters started fires, assaulted bystanders and pepper sprayed suspected Trump supporters as part of an organized effort to shut down the speech.
Those protests were spear-headed by a national group calling themselves Refuse Fascism. The group is open about its apparent alliance with Princeton professor and DNC platform committee member Cornel West, who is listed as one of Refuse Fascism’s “initiators.” A spokesperson for West did not return a request for comment.
Video posted to Refuse Fascism’s Facebook page last week features one of the group’s leaders whipping a throng of protesters into a frenzy with calls of revolution. “We need to make this country ungovernable,” she declares. “We need to do what the German people should have done when Hitler was elected.”
Far-left activist group Occupy Oakland also took part in last week’s Berkeley riots. The group, a local spinoff from the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, declared victory after Milo’s speech was cancelled due to their mob-like tactics. The group circulated a picture on Twitter of two of its banners from the protest reading, “Become ungovernable” and “This is war.”
“We won this night. We will control the streets. We will liberate the land. We will fight fascists. We will dismantle the state,” Occupy Oakland captioned the photo. “This is war.”
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. 

Friday, June 23, 2017

BREAKING! Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election

By Stephen Dinan
 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.

In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”
Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.
Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.
The probe into Ms. Lynch comes as the Judiciary Committee is already looking at President Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.
Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far.”
At a Senate hearing earlier this month, Mr. Comey told lawmakers that Ms. Lynch had attempted to change the way the FBI described its probe of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server. The change appeared to dovetail with how Mrs. Clinton’s supporters were characterizing the probe.
“At one point, [Ms. Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Mr. Comey said during his June 8 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”
Acknowledging that he didn’t know whether it was intentional, Mr. Comey said Ms. Lynch’s request “gave the impression the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our investigation with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity.”
Mr. Comey said the language suggested by Ms. Lynch was troublesome because it closely mirrored what the Clinton campaign was using. Despite his discomfort, Mr. Comey said, he agreed to Ms. Lynch’s language.

Johnny Depp Asks When Was the Last Time 'An Actor Assassinated a President' Suggests 'Maybe It's Time'

By Lauretta Brown

 
Appearing at the Glastonbury Music Festival Thursday evening, Johnny Depp asked the audience, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?"

Depp was apparently alluding to the assassination of President Lincoln by actor John Wilkes Booth in Ford’s Theatre in 1865.
"I'm not insinuating anything,” he added, “by the way this will be in the press and it will be horrible.”
As the crowd cheered, Depp said: "I want to clarify I'm not an actor, I lie for a living. However, it’s been awhile and maybe it’s time.”
Depp introduced the topic by saying he thinks "Trump needs help," saying, "there are a lot of dark places he could go."
The Secret Service said in a statement that they were "aware of the comment in question. For security reasons, we cannot discuss specifically nor in general terms the means and methods of how we perform our protective responsibilities.”
Depp has never been a fan of Trump and called him a “brat” at an appearance last year.
“There's something created about him in the sense of bullydom. But what he is, I believe, is a brat," Depp said at the time, discussing his role portraying Trump in a Funny or Die movie.
Depp said in another interview last year that “if Donald Trump is elected president of the United States, in a kind of historical way it’s exciting because we will see the actual last president of the United States, it just won’t work after that.”
The assassination joke comes at a particularly sensitive time following a gunman's targeting of GOP lawmakers at a Congressional baseball practice that seriously injured Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) who is still recovering in the hospital.
Celebrities seems to think threats on the president’s life are edgy and cool, judging by Kathy Griffin’s recent video depicting Trump’s severed head, which she later apologized for, and singer Moby’s recent music video in which a cartoon Trump is blown up.

Good riddance to the Russia myth

New York Post 


 
 
— and blame Team Obama for promoting it

By Post Editorial Board
Ex-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson’s testimony Wednesday should mark the definitive end of “Russia hacked the election” hysteria. Too bad it took so long to get to this point.
Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee outright that the Russians failed to alter “ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results.”
Yes, it’s clear Russia (with Vladimir Putin’s full approval) orchestrated cyberattacks designed to influence the 2016 contest, and also pushed fake news.
But the hack, and release via WikiLeaks, etc., of Democratic emails produced nothing game-changing. The biggest impact was to confirm the obvious: The Democratic National Committee favored Hillary Clinton from the start.
And fake news mainly feeds people’s existing prejudices — which serves Putin’s goal of undermining our democracy, but fails to flip votes from one party to the other.
Johnson also made it plain that Democrats didn’t take the problem too seriously: “The FBI and the DNC had been in contact with each other months before about the intrusion, and the DNC did not feel it needed DHS’s assistance at that time.”
Johnson also explained why the Obama administration kept quiet on the threat. The White House, he recalled, argued that a public admission of possible Russian interference might be seen as an effort to influence the election — particularly since Donald Trump was warning “the election was going to be rigged.”
That is: Because Obama was fervently campaigning for Clinton, the White House figured that raising alarms about Russian interference would seem mere electioneering.
Was it more worried that this would undermine faith in the election, or just that it would help Trump? Note that Team Obama vetoed then-FBI Director James Comey’s plan to publish a late-summer op-ed warning of Russia’s efforts to interfere — which would’ve been the least political-seeming way to get the message out.
Also that when Team Obama finally did go public on the threat, it was after that “Access Hollywood” tape seemed to spell disaster for Trump.
And that the administration didn’t take action until after Election Day, when it slapped Moscow with new sanctions — putting the question of Russian interference on Page One only after Trump had won.
It’s good that the hysteria has finally died down, but too bad Team Obama’s handling of it all helped produce so much misdirected hysteria in the first place.

It's Here: Senate Unveils New Obamacare Repeal Bill

By Katie Pavlich


Majority Leader Mitch McConnell officially revealed the Senate's version of the American Healthcare Act Thursday morning, better known as the Obamacare repeal bill passed by the House.

"In the many years since Obamacare was imposed on the American people, it has continued to hurt the people we represent — over, and over, and over again. Higher costs. Fewer choices. Pain and heartbreak for the middle class. We’ve watched Obamacare unravel before our very eyes with each passing year. Now it teeters on the edge of collapse, and we face a choice — allow the unsustainable Obamacare status quo to continue hurting more Americans, or take action to finally move forward," McConnell said during a speech on the Senate floor. "More Americans are going to get hurt unless we do something."

Here's what we know so far, according to McConnell:

-Repeals the Obamacare individual mandate

-Repeals the Obamacare employer mandate 

-Improves the affordability of health insurance

-Eliminates costly Obamacare taxes, including the medical device tax

-Expands tax free health savings accounts

-Deploys tax credits to make coverage more affordable

-Shifts power from Washington D.C. to the states

-Stabilizes the health insurance market with a $15 billion, four year fund

-Transitions away from Obamacare entirely, but not right away 

-Protects coverage of preexisting conditions

-Allows parents to keep their children on their health insurance until they are 26-years-old

The legislation has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, but an estimated cost of the bill is expected Friday or Monday. It is being classified as a "discussion draft" and is open for changes and amendments.
The bill is 142 pages long. The Obamacare bill, also known as the Affordable Care Act, is 2300 pages with 20,000 additional pages of regulations.
You can read the legislation by clicking here.
Republicans must reach 50 votes for passage. Vice President Mike Pence will cast vote 51. Eight Republicans have expressed skepticism the legislation can deliver on promises made to voters.
______________________________

The Democrats Are Health Care Reform Hypocrites!

Democrat complaints that they haven’t been included in the negotiations on replacing Obamacare should be seen as purely efforts to score political points and obstruct the process.
 Sen. McCaskill was confronted with this fact this morning when she was reminded that every Senate Democrat signed a letter to Republicans in early May stating they would refuse to negotiate with Republicans unless repeal and replace language was dropped. A petty request.
And remember, Sen. Schumer stated on multiple occasions that Senate Democrats would not be working with Republicans, saying at the beginning of the process, “Not a single Democrat is negotiating.” 
Sen. McCaskill went on to argue that eliminating the tax increases in Obamacare is a bad idea saying, “Why do we need to give rich people a tax break right now to take health care away from Americans? What is the deal there? Why does the 1 percent -- the 1 percent in this country is doing great. My family doesn't need a tax cut.” 
But, Sen. McCaskill has been called out on her claim that these tax increases only effected wealthy Americans, when in fact they actually hurt many income levels. Politifact labeled her similar claims on this issue in January as “mostly false.” 
Finally, Sen. McCaskill’s choice to use her own family as an example of those who don’t need a tax cut is an interesting one given her long history of tax avoidance. 

SAM STEIN: About a couple months ago, there was some talk, led primarily by Senator Bill Cassidy about putting together some sort of compromise legislation that obviously wouldn't give Democrats what they wanted, but wouldn’t be a full repeal and replace of Obamacare.
And, Democrats made the conscious decision to not partake in those talks. They said you have to take repeal and replace fully off the table before we join the table. Was that a mistake? You might end up with a strictly republican authored bill. You could have potentially had something that was far more moderate, but you chose not to do it. 
SENATOR CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D-MO): Well, I'm not sure that we would have had something that was far more moderate. Because, there was not enough Republicans that were interested in avoiding the repeal and replace reality. So I'm not sure that was a viable alternative.
In Early May, Every Senate Democrat Signed A Letter To Republican Leaders Stating The Only Way Democrats Would Negotiate On Health Care Reform Was If Republicans Dropped Repeal Language: 
“Senate Democrats On Tuesday [May 9] Sent A Letter To Republican Leaders Urging Them To Drop Their Efforts To Repeal And Replace Obamacare And Instead To Work With Them On Drafting Fixes To The Healthcare Law.” (Robert King and Kimberly Leonard, “Senate Democrats urge GOP to halt repeal efforts,” Washington Examiner, 5/9/17)
Sen. Chuck Schumer Declared That Democrats Are Not Working With Republicans On Healthcare Reform, Saying “Until They [Republicans] Back Off Repeal, There's Really Nothing We Can Talk About.
SCHUMER: “We said all along, we say to this day, get off this repeal. Look, we have made real progress over the last several years, 20 million people covered who weren't covered, preexisting conditions taken care of, 21-to-26-year-olds getting coverage. The list goes on. We said, back off repeal, which would walk back many of these things incompletely or by degree, and we will work with you to fix it.” TAPPER: “But what...” SCHUMER: “They still haven't gotten up to the first stage. Until they back off repeal, there's really nothing we can talk about.” (CNN’s “The Lead With Jake Tapper, 5/9/17)
Democrats Have Long Refused To Work With Republicans On Fixing Obamacare:
Sen. Chuck Schumer Declared In February That “Not A Single Democrat Is Negotiating” On A Replacement For Obamacare. “‘Not a single Democrat is negotiating,’ Schumer said on a call organized by MoveOn and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. ‘We ain’t resting until the move to repeal the ACA has a dagger through its heart.’” (David Weigel, “Schumer: No Democrat Is Compromising With GOP On Obamacare Replacement,” The Washington Post, 1/10/17)
Schumer Has Threatened To Filibuster Any Repeal Of Obamacare. “Schumer said Democrats would use that same 60-vote threshold to protect Obamacare from President Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress who are vowing to dismantle it.” (Ted Barrett, “Schumer: Democratic Opposition Holding Against Gorsuch, Obamacare Repeal,” CNN, 2/21/17)
All House Democrats Voted Against The Republican Sponsored Healthcare Reform Bill. “Earlier, the Republican proposal passed the House by a vote of 217 to 213. All 193 Democrats voted against the bill. They were joined by 20 Republicans who voted ‘no.’ The GOP-sponsored bill now goes to the Senate, where approval could prove more difficult as Republicans hold a slimmer majority in that chamber.” (Christine Wang, “GOP Either Doesn’t Know The Facts Or Doesn’t Care About People, Pelosi Says After Health Bill Vote,” CNBC, 5/4/17)
  • House Democrats Acted Childishly After The Vote, Chanting At Republicans On The House Floor. “As giddy Republicans clapped when they got the necessary 216 votes to pass the bill effectively replacing Obamacare, members of the Democratic party broke out into: ‘Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye,’ singing to the conservatives in the room. The song signaled what many Democrats believe will be a turning point for Republicans -- a vote that will ultimately lose GOP members votes and end the Republican majority in the House.” (Miranda Green, “Dems To GOP After AHCA Vote: ‘Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye,’” CNN, 5/4/17)
  • Former President Obama Urged Democrats To Not “Rescue” Republicans By Helping Them Pass Replacement Measures. “In a Capitol Hill pep talk Wednesday, Obama urged Democrats not to ‘rescue’ Republicans by helping them pass replacement measures, according to sources in the room.” (MJ Lee, “How The Tables Are Turning On ObamaCare,” CNN, 1/9/17)

Complied By The Republican National Committee