"Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue released a plan Monday to roll back the strict health standards for school meals championed in the last administration by Michelle Obama. Requirements for reduced sodium and mostly whole grains have been relaxed, and the title of the USDA’s press release declared that the plan would “Make School Meals Great Again.”"Sunday, May 07, 2017
Michelle Obama School-Lunch Plan Rolled Back by Trump Administration | National Review
Michelle Obama School-Lunch Plan Rolled Back by Trump Administration | National Review:
"Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue released a plan Monday to roll back the strict health standards for school meals championed in the last administration by Michelle Obama. Requirements for reduced sodium and mostly whole grains have been relaxed, and the title of the USDA’s press release declared that the plan would “Make School Meals Great Again.”"
"Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue released a plan Monday to roll back the strict health standards for school meals championed in the last administration by Michelle Obama. Requirements for reduced sodium and mostly whole grains have been relaxed, and the title of the USDA’s press release declared that the plan would “Make School Meals Great Again.”"Underreported: How Building a Border Wall Changed San Diego
Underreported: How Building a Border Wall Changed San Diego
"In 1986, the San Diego Border Patrol sector accounted for approximately one-third of all apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Today, it accounts for only a small fraction.
How did the region go from one of the busiest sectors for illegal border crossings to one of the most secure?
"In 1986, the San Diego Border Patrol sector accounted for approximately one-third of all apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Today, it accounts for only a small fraction.
How did the region go from one of the busiest sectors for illegal border crossings to one of the most secure?
In our latest edition of “Underreported,”
The Daily Signal visits the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego to find out."
America's Sixth President Explains Islam in One Sentence | The Federalist Papers
America's Sixth President Explains Islam in One Sentence | The Federalist Papers:
"“The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. [..]
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. […]"
"“The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. [..]
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. […]"
History for May 7
History for May 7 - On-This-Day.com:
Robert Browning 1812 - Poet, married to poet Elizabeth Barrett, Johannes Brahms 1833 - Composer and pianist, Gabby (George Francis) Hayes 1885 - Actor
Archibald MacLeish 1892 - Poet, Eva (Evita) Peron 1919 - Actress, wife of Argentina President Juan Peron, subject of the Broadway musical and film "Evita", Johnny Unitas 1933 - Football player, Tim Russert 1950 - TV host ("Meet the Press")
1763 - Indian chief Pontiac began all out war on the British in New York.
1915 - The Lusitania, a civilian ship, was sunk by a German submarine. 1,201 people were killed.
1939 - Germany and Italy announced a military and political alliance known as the Rome-Berlin Axis.
1940 - Winston Churchill became British Prime Minister.
1942 - In the Battle of the Coral Sea, Japanese and American navies attacked each other with carrier planes. It was the first time in the history of naval warfare where two enemy fleets fought without seeing each other.
1945 - Germany signed unconditional surrender ending World War II. It would take effect the next day.
1946 - Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corp. was founded. The company was later renamed Sony.
1975 - U.S. President Ford declared an end to the Vietnam War.
Saturday, May 06, 2017
Trial to expose radical Islamic agents embedded in U.S.
"The evidence is compiled in one volume that draws the praise of a member of Congress who declares: “Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamic] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan.”"
Worth the read-----The ‘sanctuary cities’ executive order: Putting the bully back into ‘bully pulpit’ - The Washington Post
The ‘sanctuary cities’ executive order: Putting the bully back into ‘bully pulpit’ - The Washington Post:
"Co-blogger Ilya Somin has thoroughly reviewed the decision by the ND Cal. court to enjoin enforcement of President Trump’s “sanctuary cities” executive order; I commend his posting to you, and I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis and with his conclusion (see also here) that the decision represents “an important victory for both federalism and separation of powers.”
"Co-blogger Ilya Somin has thoroughly reviewed the decision by the ND Cal. court to enjoin enforcement of President Trump’s “sanctuary cities” executive order; I commend his posting to you, and I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis and with his conclusion (see also here) that the decision represents “an important victory for both federalism and separation of powers.”
...I realize that these days we lurch from one crisis to the next from day to day and that the order is already stale news.
But I just want to focus on one small point, because it nicely illustrates, I think, the intellectual dishonesty, the disrespect for the niceties of the English language, and the “malevolence tempered by incompetence,” in Ben Wittes’s memorable phrase, that have characterized so much of what this administration has said and done during the first 100 days of its existence.
The most extraordinary and telling sentence in Orrick’s opinion is this one:
The Government’s primary defense is that the Order does not change the law, but merely directs the Attorney General and Secretary to enforce existing law.
That was the government’s primary defense?
That the executive order, as the court put it later, “carries no legal force” and says only that “we’re going to enforce existing law”?
Did we really need an executive order (not to mention all the hoopla surrounding it) to say that?
The executive order itself says that “sanctuary cities” (which it does not define — see below) “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic,” and their response is: “We’re going to enforce the law”?
That’s what all the fuss was about?
Well, yes and no.
Yes, in that this was indeed the position that the government attorneys took in the litigation, in a desperate attempt to save the order from being struck down.
To see how and why this makes sense, let’s start with the operative language from the order:
Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. … It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary [of Homeland Security], in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.
The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law. [emphasis added]
It seems pretty straightforward: The attorney general will take “appropriate enforcement action” against jurisdictions that don’t “comply with 8 USC 1373” or “hinder the enforcement of federal law,” including “ensur[ing]” that they are “not eligible to receive Federal grants.”
The Justice Department lawyers candidly conceded that if you read it that way — the way it’s actually written — it’s a substantial change in the law.
Under current law, jurisdictions that “refuse to comply with 8 USC 1373” or “hinder enforcement” of federal immigration law are not ineligible to receive federal grants.
Furthermore, the executive order cannot, constitutionally, make them so; the Justice Department lawyers conceded that as well, that the president has no unilateral right to impose conditions on federal funding and that the order is blatantly unconstitutional to the extent it purports to do that.
So if it doesn’t mean what it seems to say, what does the administration think it means?
Only that jurisdictions that are not complying with sec. 1373 shall be ineligible to receive federal grants in those programs that are already made conditional on compliance with sec. 1373.***
The Order, as the Justice Department “explained for the first time at oral argument,” is “merely an exercise of the President’s ‘bully pulpit’ to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement.”
There are three relatively minor programs that already condition receipt of funds on compliance with sec. 1373: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (“SCAAP”), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (“JAG”), and the Community Oriented Policing Services Grant Program (COPS).
[Oh, and that language about the attorney general taking enforcement actions against any jurisdiction that “prevents or hinders" enforcement of federal immigration law? No change there either, because the order only authorizes “appropriate" enforcement action against such jurisdictions — i.e., whatever we’re already authorized to do, we will do.]
So it’s just the “bully pulpit.”
No change in the law.
It’s a press release masquerading as an executive order: “We’re gonna get tough with all those sanctuary cities, by enforcing existing law against them.”
But that, too, is bluster and baloney.
The administration would like you to think that “sanctuary cities” are “violating federal law” when they “willfully refuse to comply with 8 USC 1373.”
But take a closer look at sec. 1373:
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.
Notice that it doesn’t require jurisdictions to do anything.
Sec. 1373 prohibits a prohibition; jurisdictions may not “prohibit” or “restrict” government officials from sending information “regarding the citizenship or immigration status … of any individual” to the INS.
It does not require the transmission of such information — it simply prohibits jurisdictions from prohibiting the transmission of such information.
That’s a pretty important distinction, because — again, incontrovertibly, even in the eyes of the Justice Department lawyers — the Constitution prohibits the federal government from requiring states and localities to expend their resources on assisting federal law enforcement, under well-established constitutional law under the 10th Amendment.
The administration does not want you to understand this.
It wants you to think that sec. 1373 requires jurisdictions to cooperate with federal ICE agents (it does not) and that a jurisdiction that doesn’t cooperate is “refusing to comply” with sec. 1373 (it is not), and that those jurisdictions are going to lose billions of dollars of federal money (they will not).
More to the point, it wants city managers, and city council members, and county commissioners, and local police officials, to believe all that BS, because if they believe all of that, they’ll enter into “voluntary” arrangements with ICE to help them enforce federal immigration law lest they lose federal money — the way, for instance, that Miami-Dade County did right after the order was promulgated.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 25 to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that don’t comply with federal immigration authorities….The next day, [Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos] Gimenez issued a directive to the head of his jail to begin honoring all “detainers” issued by ICE — requests that ICE makes to a local jail to detain somebody for up to 48 hours to give federal agents time to investigate the person’s immigration status or pick them up. Gimenez said the move was necessary to ensure that the county doesn’t lose out on $355 million it receives in federal funding. The county commission agreed, voting 9-3 on Feb. 17 to adopt Gimenez’s decision.
It is bullying, plain and simple.
We’ll scare you into thinking the consequences of noncooperation will be dire (though we know — at least, our lawyers know — that that is bluster and BS) so that you’ll cave in to our demands, notwithstanding the costs that it will impose on you (for which we will not reimburse or indemnify you) and the wreckage it imposes on your immigrant communities.
It is reprehensible, and, once again, we have a federal judge to thank for pushing back against it."
The most extraordinary and telling sentence in Orrick’s opinion is this one:
The Government’s primary defense is that the Order does not change the law, but merely directs the Attorney General and Secretary to enforce existing law.
That was the government’s primary defense?
That the executive order, as the court put it later, “carries no legal force” and says only that “we’re going to enforce existing law”?
Did we really need an executive order (not to mention all the hoopla surrounding it) to say that?
The executive order itself says that “sanctuary cities” (which it does not define — see below) “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic,” and their response is: “We’re going to enforce the law”?
That’s what all the fuss was about?Well, yes and no.
Yes, in that this was indeed the position that the government attorneys took in the litigation, in a desperate attempt to save the order from being struck down.
To see how and why this makes sense, let’s start with the operative language from the order:
Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. … It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary [of Homeland Security], in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.
The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law. [emphasis added]
It seems pretty straightforward: The attorney general will take “appropriate enforcement action” against jurisdictions that don’t “comply with 8 USC 1373” or “hinder the enforcement of federal law,” including “ensur[ing]” that they are “not eligible to receive Federal grants.”
The Justice Department lawyers candidly conceded that if you read it that way — the way it’s actually written — it’s a substantial change in the law.
Under current law, jurisdictions that “refuse to comply with 8 USC 1373” or “hinder enforcement” of federal immigration law are not ineligible to receive federal grants.
Furthermore, the executive order cannot, constitutionally, make them so; the Justice Department lawyers conceded that as well, that the president has no unilateral right to impose conditions on federal funding and that the order is blatantly unconstitutional to the extent it purports to do that.
So if it doesn’t mean what it seems to say, what does the administration think it means?
Only that jurisdictions that are not complying with sec. 1373 shall be ineligible to receive federal grants in those programs that are already made conditional on compliance with sec. 1373.***
The Order, as the Justice Department “explained for the first time at oral argument,” is “merely an exercise of the President’s ‘bully pulpit’ to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement.”
There are three relatively minor programs that already condition receipt of funds on compliance with sec. 1373: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (“SCAAP”), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (“JAG”), and the Community Oriented Policing Services Grant Program (COPS).
[Oh, and that language about the attorney general taking enforcement actions against any jurisdiction that “prevents or hinders" enforcement of federal immigration law? No change there either, because the order only authorizes “appropriate" enforcement action against such jurisdictions — i.e., whatever we’re already authorized to do, we will do.]
So it’s just the “bully pulpit.”
No change in the law.
It’s a press release masquerading as an executive order: “We’re gonna get tough with all those sanctuary cities, by enforcing existing law against them.”
But that, too, is bluster and baloney.
The administration would like you to think that “sanctuary cities” are “violating federal law” when they “willfully refuse to comply with 8 USC 1373.”
But take a closer look at sec. 1373:
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.
Notice that it doesn’t require jurisdictions to do anything.
Sec. 1373 prohibits a prohibition; jurisdictions may not “prohibit” or “restrict” government officials from sending information “regarding the citizenship or immigration status … of any individual” to the INS.
It does not require the transmission of such information — it simply prohibits jurisdictions from prohibiting the transmission of such information.
That’s a pretty important distinction, because — again, incontrovertibly, even in the eyes of the Justice Department lawyers — the Constitution prohibits the federal government from requiring states and localities to expend their resources on assisting federal law enforcement, under well-established constitutional law under the 10th Amendment.
The administration does not want you to understand this.
It wants you to think that sec. 1373 requires jurisdictions to cooperate with federal ICE agents (it does not) and that a jurisdiction that doesn’t cooperate is “refusing to comply” with sec. 1373 (it is not), and that those jurisdictions are going to lose billions of dollars of federal money (they will not).
More to the point, it wants city managers, and city council members, and county commissioners, and local police officials, to believe all that BS, because if they believe all of that, they’ll enter into “voluntary” arrangements with ICE to help them enforce federal immigration law lest they lose federal money — the way, for instance, that Miami-Dade County did right after the order was promulgated.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 25 to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that don’t comply with federal immigration authorities….The next day, [Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos] Gimenez issued a directive to the head of his jail to begin honoring all “detainers” issued by ICE — requests that ICE makes to a local jail to detain somebody for up to 48 hours to give federal agents time to investigate the person’s immigration status or pick them up. Gimenez said the move was necessary to ensure that the county doesn’t lose out on $355 million it receives in federal funding. The county commission agreed, voting 9-3 on Feb. 17 to adopt Gimenez’s decision.
It is bullying, plain and simple.
We’ll scare you into thinking the consequences of noncooperation will be dire (though we know — at least, our lawyers know — that that is bluster and BS) so that you’ll cave in to our demands, notwithstanding the costs that it will impose on you (for which we will not reimburse or indemnify you) and the wreckage it imposes on your immigrant communities.
It is reprehensible, and, once again, we have a federal judge to thank for pushing back against it."
Your tax dollars at "work"-----Butler University is now offering a full-on anti-Trump course
Butler University is now offering a full-on anti-Trump course
"Located deep in the Heartland is Butler University.
Sporting a beautiful campus and renowned for being a top academic institution in the area, the private college has been a leader in the midwest for more than century, and a place where students of all political persuasions can come together to debate competing ideas about life, government, science, and the arts.
Now, despite being located in Indiana—a state that voted overwhelming for President Trump in November—the university appears to be trafficking in anti-Trumpism.
During the Fall 2017 semester, students at Butler will be able to take a "special topics" course called "Trumpism & U.S. Democracy."
In the course's description, students are told they'll be taught the real reason Trump won the 2016 election and they'll be provided "strategies for resistance" to the Trump administration's evil agenda.
"Donald J. Trump won the U.S. Presidency despite perpetuating sexism, white supremacy, xenophobia, nationalism, nativism, and imperialism," the course description reads.
"This course explores why and how this happened, how Trump's rhetoric is contrary to the foundation of the U.S. democracy, and what his win means for the future.
The course will also discuss, and potentially engage in, strategies for resistance."
"Located deep in the Heartland is Butler University.
Sporting a beautiful campus and renowned for being a top academic institution in the area, the private college has been a leader in the midwest for more than century, and a place where students of all political persuasions can come together to debate competing ideas about life, government, science, and the arts.Now, despite being located in Indiana—a state that voted overwhelming for President Trump in November—the university appears to be trafficking in anti-Trumpism.
During the Fall 2017 semester, students at Butler will be able to take a "special topics" course called "Trumpism & U.S. Democracy."
In the course's description, students are told they'll be taught the real reason Trump won the 2016 election and they'll be provided "strategies for resistance" to the Trump administration's evil agenda.
"Donald J. Trump won the U.S. Presidency despite perpetuating sexism, white supremacy, xenophobia, nationalism, nativism, and imperialism," the course description reads.
"This course explores why and how this happened, how Trump's rhetoric is contrary to the foundation of the U.S. democracy, and what his win means for the future.
The course will also discuss, and potentially engage in, strategies for resistance."
Obama's team 'used NSA data to gather info on US citizens' | Daily Mail Online
Obama's team 'used NSA data to gather info on US citizens' | Daily Mail Online:
"The data is officially only gathered on non-US-citizens outside America that use US infrastructure such as email servers.
But critics say that the pull of the NSA's system is so strong that it routinely sweeps up data the agency does not legally have access to.
'I think it is alarming. There seems to be a universal trend toward more surveillance and more surveillance that impacts Americans' privacy without obtaining a warrant,' Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU's legislative counsel, said.
'This data confirms that there is a lack of acknowledgment that information is being specifically and increasingly mined about Americans for investigations that have little or nothing to do with international terrorism.' "
But critics say that the pull of the NSA's system is so strong that it routinely sweeps up data the agency does not legally have access to.
'I think it is alarming. There seems to be a universal trend toward more surveillance and more surveillance that impacts Americans' privacy without obtaining a warrant,' Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU's legislative counsel, said.
'This data confirms that there is a lack of acknowledgment that information is being specifically and increasingly mined about Americans for investigations that have little or nothing to do with international terrorism.' "
A media of liars!-----Trump Threatens Press Freedom? Ridiculous | Power Line
Trump Threatens Press Freedom? Ridiculous | Power Line
"The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial board wrote on Tuesday: “Trump administration continues to threaten a free press.”
Did I miss the news about President Trump vowing to shut down CNN or the New York Times? Of course, that didn’t happen.
So what is the editorial board talking about?
Did I miss the news about President Trump vowing to shut down CNN or the New York Times? Of course, that didn’t happen.
So what is the editorial board talking about?
[A]t a campaign-rally style event on Saturday, Trump used the bully pulpit to try to bully the news media, which he said included some “very dishonest people.”
So what?
A free press is not a press that is immune from criticism.
A free press is not a press that is immune from criticism.
On the contrary, disagreement is the corollary of freedom.
And we all know that the press has monolithically opposed President Trump, accusing him of dishonesty and worse. As the editorial board did in its very next sentence:
But it was actually Trump who lied about the “failing New York Times” — subscriptions have surged since the election — claiming the paper apologized because its campaign forecasts were “so bad.” In fact, no apology was issued.
Is the New York Times failing?
That is a matter of opinion, and the fact that “subscriptions have surged since the election” doesn’t answer the question.
That is a matter of opinion, and the fact that “subscriptions have surged since the election” doesn’t answer the question.
The Times has conducted one layoff after another, as declining revenues have forced personnel cuts.
And this chart shows the New York Times share price from 2001 to the present:
Is the Times failing?
As I said, that is a matter of opinion, but it violates all norms of journalism for the editorial board to say that Trump “lied” in expressing that judgment.
Did the Times apologize for its coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign?
That, too, is a judgment call.
The paper’s publisher and editor sent a letter to its readers on November 13, 2016, that can be read as a mea culpa.
That is how the New York Post saw it.
(“The publisher’s letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.”)..."
Lots here, read on!
That, too, is a judgment call.
The paper’s publisher and editor sent a letter to its readers on November 13, 2016, that can be read as a mea culpa.
That is how the New York Post saw it.
(“The publisher’s letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.”)..."
Lots here, read on!
A nation of wimps-----Oakland A’s Open Peanut-Free Seating Section For Games « CBS San Francisco
Oakland A’s Open Peanut-Free Seating Section For Games « CBS San Francisco:
OAKLAND (CBS SF) — The Oakland A’s are taking care of fans with certain food allergies with a move that is a first for a major league baseball team.
The team has decided to accommodate those fans who are allergic to peanuts with their own seating section.
“Buy me some peanuts and cracker jacks! That’s from the beginning of time with baseball,” said A’s Executive Director of Sales and Operations Steve Fanelly.
“But for some people, peanuts are not part of their day-to-day diet and can do them harm. So we got to pull the peanuts out of baseball for some people.”
The small section of seating at the Oakland Coliseum will be specially cleaned and maintained to be as free as possible from peanuts.
Now folks with nut allergies can have their own special space to safely enjoy the game.
They call it the “Peanut Control Zone.”
...The A’s said that even though they haven’t sold many tickets for the Peanut Control Zone for Friday’s game, they expect that once word gets out about the $27 seats and spectacular view, things will change quickly.
The team has decided to accommodate those fans who are allergic to peanuts with their own seating section.
“Buy me some peanuts and cracker jacks! That’s from the beginning of time with baseball,” said A’s Executive Director of Sales and Operations Steve Fanelly.
“But for some people, peanuts are not part of their day-to-day diet and can do them harm. So we got to pull the peanuts out of baseball for some people.”
The small section of seating at the Oakland Coliseum will be specially cleaned and maintained to be as free as possible from peanuts.
Now folks with nut allergies can have their own special space to safely enjoy the game.
They call it the “Peanut Control Zone.”
...The A’s said that even though they haven’t sold many tickets for the Peanut Control Zone for Friday’s game, they expect that once word gets out about the $27 seats and spectacular view, things will change quickly.
Gowdy: We'll Subpoena Rice If We Have To | The Daily Caller
Gowdy: We'll Subpoena Rice If We Have To | The Daily Caller:
"Trey Gowdy managed to take shots at both Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton in just one Fox News interview Thursday morning.
Host Bill Hemmer asked the South Carolina Republican what he thought about Rice refusing an invitation to testify about Russia hacking and the unmasking of Trump campaign officials."
"Trey Gowdy managed to take shots at both Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton in just one Fox News interview Thursday morning.
Host Bill Hemmer asked the South Carolina Republican what he thought about Rice refusing an invitation to testify about Russia hacking and the unmasking of Trump campaign officials."
Musician Dave Carroll spent over 9 months trying to get United Airlines to pay for damages caused to his custom Taylor guitar by United's baggage handlers.
United Airlines
Musician Dave Carroll
spent over 9 months trying to get United Airlines to pay for damages caused to
his custom Taylor guitar by United's baggage handlers.
During his final
exchange with the United Customer Relations Manager, he stated that he was left
with no choice other than to create a music video for YouTube exposing their
lack of cooperation.
The manager responded:
"Good luck with that one, pal."
So he posted a
retaliatory video on YouTube. The video has since received over 6 million hits.
United Airlines
contacted the musician and attempted settlement in exchange for pulling the
video.
Naturally, his response was: "Good luck with that one, pal."
Naturally, his response was: "Good luck with that one, pal."
Taylor Guitars sent the
musician 2 new custom guitars in appreciation for the product recognition from
the video that has led to a sharp increase in orders.
Here's the video:
Another Hate Crime Hoax: Church Organist Admits He Vandalized His Own Church with Trump and Nazi Slogans
Another Hate Crime Hoax: Church Organist Admits He Vandalized His Own Church with Trump and Nazi Slogans:
"An Indiana community was shocked after a local church was vandalized with Nazi slogans and Donald Trump graffiti, but now police say it is a hate crime hoax and the church was not attacked by an outsider.
They have charged the congregation’s own organist, a Hillary supporter and gay activist, for the crime.
After St. David’s Episcopal Church in Bean Blossom, Indiana, was vandalized, many suspected they were targeted by KKK members or a Nazi group.
Members of the church urged police to investigate the incident as a hate crime, WTHR Channel 13 reported.
But after an investigation, the Brown County prosecuting attorney’s office shocked the congregation by charging the church’s own organist, 26-year-old George Nathaniel Stang of Bloomington.
...“I suppose I wanted to give local people a reason to fight for good, even if it was a false flag,” he wrote according to court records."...
"An Indiana community was shocked after a local church was vandalized with Nazi slogans and Donald Trump graffiti, but now police say it is a hate crime hoax and the church was not attacked by an outsider.
They have charged the congregation’s own organist, a Hillary supporter and gay activist, for the crime.After St. David’s Episcopal Church in Bean Blossom, Indiana, was vandalized, many suspected they were targeted by KKK members or a Nazi group.
Members of the church urged police to investigate the incident as a hate crime, WTHR Channel 13 reported.
But after an investigation, the Brown County prosecuting attorney’s office shocked the congregation by charging the church’s own organist, 26-year-old George Nathaniel Stang of Bloomington.
...“I suppose I wanted to give local people a reason to fight for good, even if it was a false flag,” he wrote according to court records."...
Taxpayers fund pregnant anal-rape artwork in anti-Trump university exhibit - The College Fix
Taxpayers fund pregnant anal-rape artwork in anti-Trump university exhibit - The College Fix:
"There are many ways to depict the effect of the Dakota Access Pipeline, approved earlier this year by the Trump administration, on American Indian communities in its path.
One of them is by sodomizing a pregnant woman.
...Perhaps the most obscene painting in the exhibit is Lindi Shi’s, “Free Porn on ‘Your Tube.'”
The work of “art” depicts an apparently pregnant woman being sexually penetrated by an oil pipeline.
It’s a not-so-subtle representation of the artist’s view on the battle over the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
“This image briefly concludes what happened to the Indian tribe.
I can’t believe Trump would do anything for economic benefit.
I would like all viewers to think about the relationship between humans and nature,” Shi states in the notes.
The painting is priced at $60.
The exhibit is the work of the Wisconsin Union Directorate Art Committee, which is funded by taxpayers.
Art-related programs received $17,350 this fiscal year, while the entire Wisconsin Union Directorate received $778,981, an 11 percent increase over the previous fiscal year, according to the union council’s January meeting minutes.
The painting is priced at $60.
The exhibit is the work of the Wisconsin Union Directorate Art Committee, which is funded by taxpayers.
Art-related programs received $17,350 this fiscal year, while the entire Wisconsin Union Directorate received $778,981, an 11 percent increase over the previous fiscal year, according to the union council’s January meeting minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)