Thursday, May 4, 2017

Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be writing a book — she should be drafting a long apology to America!

New York Daily News ^ | 5/2/2017 | Gersh Kuntzman 

Hey, Hillary Clinton, shut the f--- up and go away already.

I voted for Clinton on Nov. 8 and thought she’d be a good president.
But she lost. And she still wants us to feel bad about that. And, worse, she’s still blaming everyone else.
On Tuesday at the Women for Women conference, she reminded us again what a flawed candidate she was last year — and what a flawed person she has always been.
In her talk before a friendly audience, Clinton said she’s writing a memoir — and said it’s “painful” to revisit how Donald Trump beat her like a ragdoll in an election that was a lock.
Painful? We’re the ones in pain, Hillary. You’re making millions to process it. We’re the ones living it.
She also said she would discuss the mistakes she made during the campaign — then declined to mention even one. Instead, she fell back on the usual suspects: The Russians and FBI Director James Comey, who indeed meddled in the election at the last minute.
“If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your President,” she said.
Boo hoo.
Sorry, Simon & Schuster may want Hillary Clinton to write the history, but I’m not about to let her re-write it. No one deserves more blame for the election debacle than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Let us count the ways:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The People vs. the Press ^ | May 4, 2017 | Cal Thomas 

President Trump and I have something in common. We were both invited to last Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner and we declined.
The president wasn't interested in hearing himself mocked by an industry that holds him to a different standard than his predecessor and I wasn't interested in hearing the predictable jokes denigrating all things Republican, conservative and Fox News.

Beyond the less than funny standup act by the "comedian" Hasan Minhaj (I never heard of him until Saturday night), was another example of the denial that has imperiled the once noble profession of journalism.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were there to bask in their long-past glory days as the Watergate reporters who helped bring down Richard Nixon. The UK Daily Mail, which often does a better job covering Washington than many of those at the dinner, wrote: "Bernstein was applauded raucously for his repeated use of the word 'lies,' a word which has become freighted with meaning as a series of mainstream media outlets have put aside years of convention to accuse Trump of lying directly -- something most did not even do to Bill Clinton at the height of the Monica Lewinsky affair."
And it's not just Bill Clinton. The media didn't call former President Barack Obama a liar either when he made promises about health care or referred to the "red line" in Syria. Major media never called Clinton and Obama liars because their philosophy often aligns with Democrats, as revealed in numerous polls.
When it was time for him to speak, Woodward uttered these immortal lines: "Mr. President, the media is (sic) not fake news."
Leaving aside the grammatical error (the media are plural, though not politically pluralistic), Woodward and the audience may think that of themselves, but it's not what large numbers of Americans think. What other business operates like that? By its insensitivity to what readers and viewers believe about reporters and anchors at the big newspapers and TV networks, too many in my profession are like the person with lung cancer who keeps smoking, believing his frequent coughing is due to a bad cold.
Days before the dinner, an opinion poll by Morning Consult, a media and technology company specializing in polling and market research analysis, found that "...roughly half (51 percent) of Americans said the national political media '(are) out of touch with everyday Americans,' compared with 28 percent who said (they) "understand the issues everyday Americans are facing."
Do the deciders of what to cover and what not to cover (bias can also be observed in what is not reported) ever sit with people who don't trust them, refuse to subscribe to their newspapers and don't watch their news programs and address their concerns?
I have. These conservatives tell me the major media rarely present their views fairly and accurately, if at all. They see the media fixated on cultural issues like transgender rights and same-sex bathrooms. They read and see liberals treated as compassionate folks who care about people while observing conservatives portrayed as humorless, hate-filled and overly concerned with the accumulation of wealth. Who needs to read and watch that every day?
To their credit, The New York Times recently hired pro-Israel and sometimes conservative columnist Bret Stephens away from The Wall Street Journal. The Times also has Peter Wehner, a former aide to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as a contributing columnist. Though a frequent critic of Trump, Wehner is a thoughtful man who also does a credible job of addressing religious and cultural issues.
That's a start and the Times has acknowledged it has a perception problem.
If others recognize the problem they have with news consumers who have gone elsewhere (and not always to the best places) for their information, they might see their approval numbers improve and readers and viewers return.

Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee ^ | May 4, 2017 | Jerry Newcombe 

“Liberal censorship” is technically an oxymoron. But today liberal censorship is a common reality.
Where once free speech reigned on college campuses and in other secular institutions (or at least it was so thought), today you have the totalitarianism of political correctness. Say the wrong thing, and you may be fired.
Dissenting Justice Samuel Alito said after the Supreme Court same-sex marriage decision in June 2015: “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Ann Coulter, conservative firebrand, has proven recently that free speech is all but dead in America. Her aborted attempt last week to speak at Berkeley---the supposed birthplace of free speech in America---went up in flames. Almost literally.
Young America’s Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans had invited Coulter to speak, but the school would not ensure her safety, while the protesters vowed to violently shut her down. Coulter said to The New York Times: “It’s a sad day for free speech.”
As we see repeatedly, the “tolerant” folk are the most intolerant among us. Their attitude is simple: “Free speech for me, but not for thee…”
Historically, Christianity played a seminal role in the struggle for free speech---not that Christians have always gotten it right by any means.
The 17th century British Puritan writer John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, wrote a plea for a free press, Areopagitica. He stated, “Truth indeed came once into the world with her divine Master, and was a perfect shape most glorious to look on….For who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious.” God’s truth stands on its own, needing no artificial man-made props.
This reminds me of the quote from Church Father Tertullian, writing about 200 A.D.: “Truth asks no favours in her cause.” She doesn’t need any. Truth wins out in the marketplace of ideas.
In 1777, Thomas Jefferson noted that Jesus (“the Holy author of our religion”) is the reason we should allow civil freedom. This was in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, passed 1786.
Jefferson wrote: “Almighty God hath created the mind free…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do.” Jesus gives us freedom---who are we to deny it from others?
The alternative media continues to be a major lifeline for those in America who have dissenting views from the politically correct orthodoxy. We see a powerful example of this in WorldNetDaily, founded by journalist Joseph Farah. The pioneering independent online news source, WND celebrates its 20th anniversary this week. For his efforts, Southern Poverty Law Center profiles Farah as a supposed “Extremist” of hate. I emailed him their outrageous, derogatory profile of him. He emailed me back, “Same old. Same old.”
One of the saddest aspects of the Coulter-Berkeley story was the statement from former Democrat Chairman Howard Dean, who said, “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Tragically, many in our society today---including liberal protesters shutting down conservatives and Christians from being able to speak---do so supposedly in opposition to “hate speech.” First of all, where does the First Amendment make a provision for silencing “hate speech?” And secondly, who defines what is real hate and what is not? It seems that “hate” now is often, “speech I disagree with.”
I know a brother in Christ, David Kyle Foster, who used to be a male prostitute in Hollywood. He once told me that he probably had slept with more than a thousand different men before the Lord saved him.
Foster has interviewed hundreds of former homosexuals and lesbians and people struggling with all sorts of sexual issues, who found healing through the gospel of Jesus. Up until recently, these powerful, sensitive videos were available on Vimeo, which fashions itself as a high quality version of YouTube.
But Vimeo told Foster recently that all his videos had to be deleted because of their “hate messages.” Testimonials of lives set free through Christ are hate speech? That is another example of free speech for me, but for not for thee.
Now, if only our universities and media companies could come to grips with the First Amendment as designed by our founders, how better off things would be.

Trump Making Secret Service Better! ^ | Wednesday, 3 May 2017 | By Bill Hoffmann 

President Donald Trump is working to make the Secret Service more efficient in protecting himself and future commanders-in-chief, veteran investigative reporter Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV.

"Trump is transforming the Secret Service to make it an agency that properly protects the president and his family and the vice president – an agency that we can be proud of again," Kessler told host Bill Tucker on Wednesday's "America Talks Live."

"It began with Trump's DHS Secretary John Kelly firing two Secret Service uniformed officers.

"They were responsible for the fact an intruder was able to bum around the White House grounds for 16 minutes and even peer into White House windows and try to get into the White House."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Some Facts Jimmy Kimmel Left Out Of His Emotional ObamaCare Plea!

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 5/3/2017 | John Merline 

In the opening monologue of his late-night show Monday, Jimmy Kimmel told a heart-wrenching tale about how his newborn son had to be rushed into surgery to repair a heart defect.
Kimmel, as any parent who has gone through such an ordeal would, choked up several times while telling his story, which had a happy ending. It was a wonderful example of the miracle of modern medicine in the U.S.
Then Kimmel decided to launch into a political speech about health care reform.
"Before 2014, if you were born with congenital heart disease like my son was, there was a good chance you would never be able to get health insurance because you were born with a pre-existing condition," he said. "No parent should have to ever decide if they can afford to save their child's life; it just shouldn't happen, not here."
The clip immediately went viral, and Kimmel and his baby suddenly became the poster family for ObamaCare.
Barack Obama tweeted: "Well said, Jimmy. That's exactly why we fought so hard for the ACA, and why we need to protect it for kids like Billy. And congratulations!"
President Trump's Budget Director Mick Mulvaney was forced to respond to Kimmel, saying that "Everyone, I think, agrees with Jimmy Kimmel that we have enough money in this country to provide care for those type of folks."
What Kimmel left out of the story is the fact that most people on ObamaCare — in California and the rest of the country — are in highly restrictive HMO-type plans that wouldn't let them go the hospitals or doctors he used.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Butler University offers anti-Trump course with ‘strategies for resistance’!

Washington Times ^ | 5/03/17 | Douglas Ernst 

Students at Indiana’s Butler University will soon learn “strategies for resistance” to oppose President Donald Trump.

Students paying roughly $36,000 in tuition have signed up for a “Special Topics” class titled “Trumpism & U.S. Democracy.” The course, which begins in August and runs until December, explicitly charges the Republican with “perpetuating sexism, white supremacy, xenophobia, nationalism, nativism, and imperialism.”

"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,” reads a description on Butler’s website, first reported Wednesday by The Heartland Institute. “The course will also discuss, and potentially engage in, strategies for resistance.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

State U: Supporting Terror, Suppressing Free Speech!

Frontpagemagazine ^ | May 4, 2017 | Sara Dogan 

“My Heroes Have Always Killed Colonizers.”

Editor’s note: The Freedom Center continues its report on the “Top Ten College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment” by naming San Francisco State University to the list.  It joins the campuses of Brooklyn College (CUNY), Tufts University, Brandeis University, UCLA, UC-Berkeley and Vassar College. These campuses provide financial and institutional support to terrorist-linked campus organizations such as the Hamas-funded hate-group Students for Justice in Palestine while actively suppressing speech exposing the truth about Israel’s terrorist adversaries and their allies in the United States. 
The San Francisco State administration has ignored outright threats of terrorism originating from its General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) but labeled Freedom Center posters critical of Hamas “bullying behavior.” Last night, the Freedom Center again placed posters exposing the links between the terrorist group Hamas and SJP on SFSU’s campus. It remains to be seen whether the SFSU administration will again order them torn down or whether they will uphold the First Amendment on campus.
San Francisco State University: Leslie E. Wong, President
San Francisco State University cultivates its reputation as one of the most radical campuses in the nation, known for its disruptive protests and extremist student movements. The anti-Israel movement at SFSU, led by an SJP-surrogate group called the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) fits into this tradition. Even in the radicalized world of anti-Israel student organizations, GUPS stands out for its brazen and public Jew hatred.
In April 2016, when Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat appeared on campus, a GUPS mob shouting “Intifada” and chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!,” itself a call for the obliteration of the Jewish state, forced the cancellation of his speech. When SFSU President Leslie Wong called tepidly for an investigation into the protestors who shut down Barkat’s speech, GUPS responded by asserting that this request “criminalize[s] anti-racist speech on campus.”
The former president of GUPS, Mohammad G. Hammad, wrote dozens of social media posts threatening violence to pro-Israel students, Israelis, the IDF and others. He also praised Hamas and the violent Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

During an “emergency rally” held by GUPS at SFSU in December 2013, the phrase “My Heroes Have Always Killed Colonizers” was written with chalk on the concrete stage at Malcolm X Plaza. The same phrase, referring to the Hamas assertion that Jews have colonized Arab Palestine and must be exterminated, was also written on a sign at a display table during the “Edward Said Mural Celebration.”
The faculty advisor for GUPS, Prof. RababAbdulhadi, met with terrorists Leila Khaled and Sheikh Raed Salah during a university-funded trip to the Middle East. (Khaled is a convicted hijacker and a member of the terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Sheikh Raed Salah has been repeatedly jailed on charges of incitement to terrorist violence.) Abdulhadi also helped to broker a formal collaboration between SFSU and An-Najah National University in Palestine, which is known for its recruitment of students as cadre for Hamas and as suicide bombers.
Despite these many incidents, the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) remains an organization in good standing at SFSU. After it disrupted Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat’s speech, SFSU President Wong initially called for an open investigation of the incident, but ultimately placed the blame on campus administrators—not the student protestors—writing, “It makes exceptionally clear that the responsibility for the inadequate response prior to, during and following the event falls squarely on the shoulders of San Francisco State University administrators. On April 6, we failed our students — both the event attendees and the protesters — through multiple inactions.”

But while exonerating GUPS for its attack on Barkat, President Wong immediately attacked the David Horowitz Freedom Center and threatened legal action when it placed posters on campus exposing the links between SJP and Hamas, and criticizing SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi for her support of anti-Israel terrorists.
“Flyers were posted by an outside extremist group in numerous locations, singling out one of our faculty members, our students and vandalizing our campus,” Wong wrote in a letter addressed to the entire campus community.  “We know that this group is not affiliated with San Francisco State University.”
He continued, “Let me be clear, this is not an issue of free speech; this is bullying behavior that is unacceptable and will not be tolerated on our campus. A line has been crossed, and we are investigating any legal recourse we have with the perpetrators.”
For his repeated failure to censure SJP for its violation of campus policy and incitement of violence against Jewish students while castigating speech critical of SJP as “bullying” and threatening legal action against its agents, Wong makes the case for SFSU’s inclusion on the list of campuses most friendly to terrorists and hostile to the First Amendment.

Minimum Wage






Ever Wonder?


Protester Digester


Crime Spree!