Title :
link :
Helen & Moe Lauzier’s
Issues of the Day
Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com
Tues., May 8, 2017
Thomas Jefferson: Government’s Role is Defense of God-Given Rights
150
by AWR HAWKINS
When declaring independence from King George III’s tyrannical rule, Thomas Jefferson wrote that men are born with God-given, “unalienable rights,” and the government’s duty is to protect those rights.
This no-doubt comes as news to Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and the whole Democrat Party, almost every member of which is focused on using the expansive powers of government to chip away at God-given rights rather than protect them.
For example, on August 6, 2013, Breitbart News quoted Murphy saying, “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right. It has always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has.”
Murphy is wrong in at least three places: 1. Second Amendment rights are God-given. 2. They are “absolute” because they were given by Him who is absolute. 3. First Amendment rights are absolute as well (as they, like all unalienable rights, have their origin in God, not government).
As for the “absolute” nature of these rights, William Blackstone explained:
The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free-will.
Note: “absolute rights” have limits but they are not limits put in place by government, rather, they are limits inherently present in “the law of nature” and evident in the order of nature. For example, my right to keep and bear arms is “absolute” but natural protections on it end if I use my guns–or try to use my guns–to take innocent life. Moreover, my right to life–one of the most fundamental of natural rights–ends if I use my Second Amendment rights to take the life of an innocent or am in the act of the trying to take that life.
Government gun control does not do this. In fact, gun control is not even necessary to it. Rather, nature teaches us these things and the laws of man reflect it in statutes against murder and attempted murder and by laws that shield law-abiding citizens who kill attackers in self-defense.
This all comes together in Jefferson, who wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
We are born with “certain unalienable rights.” The fact that they are “unalienable” means they cannot be separated from us; they are part of our humanity. And it is government’s duty to “secure these rights,” not to regulate or in anyway diminish them. Therefore, when the Second Amendment says, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” we must understand that it is incumbent on government to shield that right from infringement.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
Obama Adviser Slams Hillary With Epic Insult
I won’t lie to you — it’s fun to pick on failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. It’s one of the most fun parts of the job. She’s just so darn pick-on-able.
It’s even more fun to watch a former senior adviser to our previous president, Barack Obama, take his turn at her like CNN commentator David Axelrod did this week.
As he put it, “It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump.”
In an interview Wednesday on “New Day,” Axelrod noted that FBI Director James Comey certainly did not do Clinton any favors when he informed Congress in a letter that he had reopened the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server a mere 11 days before the election, according to Business Insider.
But Axelrod also pointed out that Clinton doesn’t seem to be willing to really accept the blame for the mistakes her campaign made.
“Jim Comey didn’t tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. Jim Comey didn’t say ‘don’t put any resources into Michigan until the final week,'” Axelrod said.
And then he hit her harder.
“It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump, let me tell you,” he said. “He was the least popular presidential candidate to win in the history of polling.”
“And so, it wasn’t just the Comey letter,” he added. “The fact that she was in a position to lose because of the Comey letter is something that deserves some introspection, and maybe it will come in her book.”
Clinton is writing a book that will include some reflection on her stunning, dare I say, yuge election loss last year, according to BBC News.
Now, can some of that victory be credited to the awakening of the silent majority that rose up and knocked Clinton off her high horse? Totally.
But it’s true — Clinton “should” not have had a difficult time defeating Republican nominee Donald Trump, at least in the minds of those on the Clinton News Network.
But look who’s laughing now …
Spoiler alert: It’s us.
It’s even more fun to watch a former senior adviser to our previous president, Barack Obama, take his turn at her like CNN commentator David Axelrod did this week.
As he put it, “It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump.”
In an interview Wednesday on “New Day,” Axelrod noted that FBI Director James Comey certainly did not do Clinton any favors when he informed Congress in a letter that he had reopened the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server a mere 11 days before the election, according to Business Insider.
But Axelrod also pointed out that Clinton doesn’t seem to be willing to really accept the blame for the mistakes her campaign made.
“Jim Comey didn’t tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. Jim Comey didn’t say ‘don’t put any resources into Michigan until the final week,'” Axelrod said.
And then he hit her harder.
“It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump, let me tell you,” he said. “He was the least popular presidential candidate to win in the history of polling.”
“And so, it wasn’t just the Comey letter,” he added. “The fact that she was in a position to lose because of the Comey letter is something that deserves some introspection, and maybe it will come in her book.”
Clinton is writing a book that will include some reflection on her stunning, dare I say, yuge election loss last year, according to BBC News.
Now, can some of that victory be credited to the awakening of the silent majority that rose up and knocked Clinton off her high horse? Totally.
But it’s true — Clinton “should” not have had a difficult time defeating Republican nominee Donald Trump, at least in the minds of those on the Clinton News Network.
But look who’s laughing now …
Spoiler alert: It’s us.
Uh-oh: Hillary’s advice to Trump BACKFIRES bigly
By Michael Cantrell
Ever since losing the presidential election last November to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton hasn’t wasted a single opportunity to discuss her defeat, while searching for someone or something to blame for her loss.
This has been a constant topic of discussion whenever she speaks, tweets, or is interviewed — something slowly driving the general public insane. The woman is incapable of taking responsibility for her own actions.
Which is what makes her latest dig at President Trump deliciously ironic. Clinton recently spoke with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour where she said Trump needs to worry less about the election and more about doing what’s good for the country.
While Hillary Clinton said she believes she lost the 2016 presidential race because of meddling, she also took an opportunity to rib Donald Trump.
“Remember, I did win by more than 3 million votes than my opponent. So, it’s like…really?” Clinton said at the Women for Women International Luncheon in New York.
When CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said, “I feel a tweet coming,” Clinton shrugged, “Well, fine.”
“If he wants to tweet about me, I’m happy to be the diversion because we’ve got lots of other things to worry about. He should worry less about the election and my winning the popular vote than doing some other things that would be important for the country,” she said.
Clinton also said she was “on the way to winning,” but lost after FBI Director Jim Comey’s letter to Congress and WikiLeaks “raised doubts” and “scared off” voters.
Yet, when Amanpour asked whether Clinton takes personal responsibility for the loss, the former secretary of State replied, “Of course!” Clinton added: “I take absolute personal responsibility. I was the candidate.”
So, if she’s willing to take personal responsibility, why is she still blaming her loss on WikiLeaks and FBI Director Comey’s letter to Congress?
The actions exposed by these scandals are hers to bear, so at the end of the day, her loss is still squarely on her shoulders.
Hillary — and other Democrats like her — don’t seem to understand how out of touch they are with the average American citizen; or how their policies have left the middle class struggling more than it ever has.
As a result, many were fed-up with left-wing policies and open to trying something different, thus, they overwhelmingly voted for Trump.
[Note: This article was written by Michael Cantrell]
Can Trump Reverse Federal Land Grabs?
In an effort to undo what many perceive as a grotesque abuse of authority, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order calling for a review national monuments.
On its face, the presidential designation of monuments doesn’t seem particularly controversial. However, under rules such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, the federal government has taken control of 640 million acres. That figure amounts to 28 percent of the entire country, 60 percent of the total land in the 11 western continental states, two-thirds of Utah and more than 80 percent of Nevada.
Needless to say, states want their land back. But the legality of Trump returning it to them remains uncharted waters.
The Big Land Grabs
The passing of the Antiquities Act of 1906 was considered a valuable tool to preserve and protect historic sites for all Americans. More than 150 monuments have been designated by 16 presidents with the Grand Canyon being the most notable.
While the clear majority of presidential actions were perceived as conservation efforts, these federal land grabs became a heated issue when President Bill Clinton created the massive, 1.7-million-acre monument known as the Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah. Utah Congressman Bill Orton challenged Clinton in court, but the federal courts sided with the ex-president.
To say President Barack Obama was prodigious when it came to federal land grabs would be an understatement. All told, he took 30 such actions that appear to underpin his climate change policies and regulations.
Much of the land Obama federalized is rich in minerals and mining resources. The 1.35-million-acre Bears Ears National Monument, again in Utah, has made the Antiquities Act a hot-button political issue. The taking of this tract of land has been lauded by native American tribes as a protection of ancestral grounds. However, the vastness of the grab has met with outcry by Utah officials that were in the process of setting lands aside through a public process.
Many Republicans, miners and energy industry insiders view the huge swath as a blockade against tapping natural resources. In other words, Obama made a political land grab.
Can Federal Lands Be Reversed?
The notion of millions of acres being a “monument” runs contrary to common sense. They are also exactly what the original sponsor, Iowa Rep. John Lacey, did not want more than 100 years ago.
The foundation of the legislation was that presidents would never federalize more than a few square miles in Lacey’s understanding. Unfortunately, executive abuse has occurred, and neither the federal courts nor the U.S. Supreme Court are filled with “original intent” scholars. Challenges to individual executive actions have proven futile because the law places no restrictions on land size.
The only action Congress could take to stop any president from seizing, say, half of Nebraska would be to amend the Antiquities Act. Changes could include size restrictions, legislative oversight, removing or limiting presidential authority, requiring the affected state’s approval, or simply just striking down the law altogether. However, given the ferocious obstructionist politics that exist in D.C., majority agreement on changes are highly unlikely.
But now comes the curious case of President Trump, a businessman, property mogul, populist and former TV celebrity once referred to as “The Donald.” Unlike career politicians living in “The Swamp” as the president has aptly called Washington, D.C., Trump has strong leanings toward limiting the power of politicians, even the Oval Office.
Since no president has attempted to return federal land, Trump’s executive order entered unknown territory about whether or not he has the authority to change course.
The Executive Authority Question
A strong place for Trump to hang his hat may be the law itself that states the designation must be the “smallest area compatible” with managing the historic and cultural objects.
While a huge tract may be needed to protect the Grand Canyon, opponents could face an uphill battle regarding the 1.35 million acres of Bears Ears. When weighed against Obama’s anti-mining, anti-oil agenda, the political implications could weigh in Trump’s favor at the federal or Supreme Court level. And while the law doesn’t explicitly state that Trump can undo land designations, there exists a strong, unchallenged process that presidents cannot be bound by previous administration’s executive orders. New administrations commonly override past ones.
By calling for a review, President Trump appears to be readying to shrink the boundaries rather than rescind Bears Ears and others. His argument would be that the massive land grabs don’t comply with the law and could couple that issue with his executive authority.
In any event, challenges or modifications to the Antiquities Act are necessary. No president should have the power to seize millions of acres that could be used to farm, mine, graze cattle or build communities.
~ Liberty Planet
Elizabeth Warren Speaks With Forked Tongue
Elizabeth Warren tried to skate by with a blatant falsehood.
She was asked a direct question and refused to tell the truth.
But she got called out for her big lie.
Warren has been promoting her new book ahead of her 2018 re-election bid.
It’s a typical left-wing screed that lays out her radical agenda to redistribute wealth in America.
Part of her tour was a softball interview on The Rachel Maddow show.
Maddow asked Warren if she was running for President.
Warren said she was not running in 2020.
But it was a flat-out lie.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
“Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, Mass.) stated that she is not running for president in 2020 during an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night.
The question came at the end of an interview in which Warren discussed her new book, This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save Working People. Maddow also asked Warren to discuss the ongoing questions about the possible connections between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Finally, at the end of the interview, Maddow popped the question.
“If you were running for president in 2020,” Maddow asked Warren, “you would not want to talk about it now, with me or anybody else, is that true?”
“That is true,” Warren said. “But let me be clear, I am not running for president in 2020.”
While Warren may not be ready to put the cart before the horse – she first must win her re-election bid – no one seriously believes she isn’t running for President in 2020.
And none other than Donald Trump called her out for this lie.
Speaking at the National Rifle Association convention, Trump predicted that Warren – whom he’s tagged with the nickname Pocahontas for her lies about being a Native American Indian – would be a candidate in 2020.
“President Trump reprised one of his favorite insults against Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren in predicting the Massachusetts senator could launch a 2020 presidential bid.
Trump told the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Atlanta Friday that he had a feeling that during the next election cycle they would be inundated with candidates and believes Warren would be one of them.
“I have a feeling that in the next election, you’re going to be swamped with candidates but you’re not going to be wasting your time,” Trump said. “You’ll have plenty of those Democrats coming over and you’ll say, ‘no, sir, no, ma’am.’ It may be Pocahontas, remember that? And she is not big for the NRA, that I can tell you.”
The New York Times reports Warren has scheduled an extensive speaking schedule that includes a stop at the Detroit N.A.A.C.P.’s local fundraising dinner.
Democrats believed Trump won Michigan because black voters in Detroit did not turn out in the numbers they did for Obama.
Warren’s schedule also checks other important liberal boxes ahead of a Presidential campaign.
The Times also reports:
“In addition to her Detroit trip, Ms. Warren has used the release of her latest book, “This Fight Is Our Fight,” to travel the country in recent weeks. Betty Lu Saltzman, a pillar of Chicago’s Democratic donor community, hosted an event there for Ms. Warren, who also used the stop to meet with Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a more centrist Democrat.
This week, Ms. Warren will be the guest of honor at a fundraising gala for Emily’s List, the Democratic women’s group, and in June, she will be the final speaker at a daylong liberal organizing meeting in San Francisco spearheaded by Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Democratic donor.”
Warren is going to pitch herself to voters as an “authentic” progressive.
She’s also developing a reputation for being an authentic liar.
Hillary Clinton’s Disgusting Tweet About French Election Results
Here’s the way Western democracies are supposed to work. Populist parties — the ones that offer incendiary, crowd-pleasing answers — belong on the fringes. Elections are fought between mainstream parties, which are big coalitions of idealists and pragmatists, reflecting well-structured social and economic interests. The outcome is decided by voters, not by foreign interference.
Not any more. What we are now seeing — most recently in France — is competition between the political mainstream, coalescing behind a single candidate, and its anti-systemic competitors.
The old coalitions are breaking down. The parties that once dominated politics are imploding. And a big — although not yet decisive role — has been played by an outsider, in the form of Russia and its leaking of stolen e-mails.
It was a similar story in America, where the establishment (including a large slice of “Never Trump” Republicans) largely supported Hillary Clinton. But Donald Trump was able to beat her. Despite being a dodgy tycoon, he managed to crystallize public rage against a system dominated by dodgy rich people. Russian leaking of the Clinton campaign’s e-mails helped too.
The same tide of rage against an unfair system and its smug beneficiaries, coupled with Russian interference, has been running strongly in France. It did not surge all the way up the beach because Emmanuel Macron was a much better candidate that Clinton. He was not part of a political dynasty. He was an outsider, of a kind. He did not reek of entitlement. His message of Europhile liberalism and modernization was considerably more inspiring than Clinton’s, which was a barely disguised “it’s my turn.”
Macron’s advantage is that he enjoys the support of the establishment but is not its captive. They rallied behind him. He doesn’t have to do what they want.
But his victory came only because the French political system had in effect collapsed. President François Hollande has destroyed his Socialist Party. On the right, François Fillon’s careless approach to public money (he hired his wife for a non-job) epitomized the self-interested disdain for the rules which has so corroded the establishment’s legitimacy.
It may be that this weekend’s election marks a turning point. Macron’s En Marche! party may do stunningly well in next month’s parliamentary elections, giving him a chance of forming an effective government. French politics may realign with a modern center-left party, mildly pro-market but socially liberal on one side and more socially conservative and zealously free-market on the other.
But I wouldn’t bet on it.
In particular, whatever happens on the left, it looks as though Le Pen is going to dominate the French political right for the foreseeable future. Though defeated in the presidential election, her strong showing is an excellent springboard for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
The Kremlin did not succeed in getting its chosen candidate, the ardently pro-Putin Fillon, elected. But it has succeeded in another, broader aim, of undermining the legitimacy and stability of the political system, and in changing the political calculus within it.
Perhaps the most striking fact about the first round of the French presidential campaign was that just over 60% of the voters chose the explicitly pro-Kremlin candidates: Fillon and Le Pen, as well as the hard left’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Only 30% voted for Macron and the also-ran Socialist, Benoît Hamon. That is a stunning sign of Kremlin influence in a country which is a founder-member of NATO and one of Europe’s only two nuclear powers.
With Britain largely disengaged from European security, at least until the agonies over Brexit are resolved, and with continuing uncertainty over Donald Trump’s geopolitical instincts and consistency, Germany under Angela Merkel is now the last big pillar of the old Euro-Atlantic security order.
Having scored an unexpected victory in America’s presidential election, and a near-miss in France, the Kremlin will be gunning for Merkel in the German elections this fall. Russia may have lost the element of surprise, but it has not paid any significant political price for its meddling in Western countries’ elections.
It would be nice to think that outrage over Russia’s blatant meddling in the election, coupled with Macron’s victory, reboots French — and Western — politics. An ideal opportunity comes with France’s role in NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltic states, as John Vinocur noted in a powerful commentary in the Wall Street Journal: “Macron promised that his first trip out of the country would be to ‘visit the troops.’ Election maneuvering apart, if he wants to say something significant about himself as a man of responsibility, the new commander-in-chief’s destination ought to be the NATO battle-group barracks of the French marines in Tapa, Estonia.”
The other question is about what, if anything, we will do to deter future Russian political attacks. In theory, we can do plenty. The thought of Western displeasure should terrify Vladimir Putin. The West, broadly defined, is seven times bigger than Russia in terms of population, and 14 times bigger in terms of GDP.
Yet the as the judo-loving Russian president knows all too well, a smaller opponent, if skilled, nimble and determined, can easily topple a bigger and stronger one.
Our political system has become extraordinary fragile as a result of our own greed, complacency and arrogance. Until we start fixing those problems, Russia will exploit them — and win.
Not any more. What we are now seeing — most recently in France — is competition between the political mainstream, coalescing behind a single candidate, and its anti-systemic competitors.
The old coalitions are breaking down. The parties that once dominated politics are imploding. And a big — although not yet decisive role — has been played by an outsider, in the form of Russia and its leaking of stolen e-mails.
It was a similar story in America, where the establishment (including a large slice of “Never Trump” Republicans) largely supported Hillary Clinton. But Donald Trump was able to beat her. Despite being a dodgy tycoon, he managed to crystallize public rage against a system dominated by dodgy rich people. Russian leaking of the Clinton campaign’s e-mails helped too.
The same tide of rage against an unfair system and its smug beneficiaries, coupled with Russian interference, has been running strongly in France. It did not surge all the way up the beach because Emmanuel Macron was a much better candidate that Clinton. He was not part of a political dynasty. He was an outsider, of a kind. He did not reek of entitlement. His message of Europhile liberalism and modernization was considerably more inspiring than Clinton’s, which was a barely disguised “it’s my turn.”
Macron’s advantage is that he enjoys the support of the establishment but is not its captive. They rallied behind him. He doesn’t have to do what they want.
But his victory came only because the French political system had in effect collapsed. President François Hollande has destroyed his Socialist Party. On the right, François Fillon’s careless approach to public money (he hired his wife for a non-job) epitomized the self-interested disdain for the rules which has so corroded the establishment’s legitimacy.
It may be that this weekend’s election marks a turning point. Macron’s En Marche! party may do stunningly well in next month’s parliamentary elections, giving him a chance of forming an effective government. French politics may realign with a modern center-left party, mildly pro-market but socially liberal on one side and more socially conservative and zealously free-market on the other.
But I wouldn’t bet on it.
In particular, whatever happens on the left, it looks as though Le Pen is going to dominate the French political right for the foreseeable future. Though defeated in the presidential election, her strong showing is an excellent springboard for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
The Kremlin did not succeed in getting its chosen candidate, the ardently pro-Putin Fillon, elected. But it has succeeded in another, broader aim, of undermining the legitimacy and stability of the political system, and in changing the political calculus within it.
Perhaps the most striking fact about the first round of the French presidential campaign was that just over 60% of the voters chose the explicitly pro-Kremlin candidates: Fillon and Le Pen, as well as the hard left’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Only 30% voted for Macron and the also-ran Socialist, Benoît Hamon. That is a stunning sign of Kremlin influence in a country which is a founder-member of NATO and one of Europe’s only two nuclear powers.
With Britain largely disengaged from European security, at least until the agonies over Brexit are resolved, and with continuing uncertainty over Donald Trump’s geopolitical instincts and consistency, Germany under Angela Merkel is now the last big pillar of the old Euro-Atlantic security order.
Having scored an unexpected victory in America’s presidential election, and a near-miss in France, the Kremlin will be gunning for Merkel in the German elections this fall. Russia may have lost the element of surprise, but it has not paid any significant political price for its meddling in Western countries’ elections.
It would be nice to think that outrage over Russia’s blatant meddling in the election, coupled with Macron’s victory, reboots French — and Western — politics. An ideal opportunity comes with France’s role in NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltic states, as John Vinocur noted in a powerful commentary in the Wall Street Journal: “Macron promised that his first trip out of the country would be to ‘visit the troops.’ Election maneuvering apart, if he wants to say something significant about himself as a man of responsibility, the new commander-in-chief’s destination ought to be the NATO battle-group barracks of the French marines in Tapa, Estonia.”
The other question is about what, if anything, we will do to deter future Russian political attacks. In theory, we can do plenty. The thought of Western displeasure should terrify Vladimir Putin. The West, broadly defined, is seven times bigger than Russia in terms of population, and 14 times bigger in terms of GDP.
Yet the as the judo-loving Russian president knows all too well, a smaller opponent, if skilled, nimble and determined, can easily topple a bigger and stronger one.
Our political system has become extraordinary fragile as a result of our own greed, complacency and arrogance. Until we start fixing those problems, Russia will exploit them — and win.
Bernie Sander's wife could face jail time, FBI investigation over college scam
by: Remington Strelivo
Bernie Sanders’ wife is in deep trouble—and could be facing jail time, thanks to an FBI investigation into a college she once ran.
Jane O’Meara Sanders was the president of the now-defunct Burlington College in Vermont from 2004 to 2011. The college closed in May 2016.
Jane O’Meara Sanders was the president of the now-defunct Burlington College in Vermont from 2004 to 2011. The college closed in May 2016.
Towards the end of her tenure, O’Meara Sanders spent $10 million to acquire 32 acres of property from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, in order to increase the college’s footprint. In order to secure the $10 million, she took a $3.65 million loan from the diocese, and a $6.7 million loan from People’s United Bank.
In order to secure the loan, O’Meara Sanders is accused of fraudulently presenting the college’s financial strength. She told the bank that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations. However, the actual amount was a fraction of that sum.
As a result, Burlington College was ultimately unable to make its loan payments. The diocese claims to have lost between $1.5 and $2 million on the sale; it’s unclear how much People’s United Bank may have lost.
Publicly-available emails from education officials show that the FBI is currently investigating Burlington College—and has been for as much as a year. Burlington College board chair Yves Bradley went on the record to say that he wasn’t sure exactly what the FBI was investing—but speculated that it has to do with O’Meara Sanders.
"At the end of the day, it’s got to relate back to the purchase of the land by the college,” he said.
If O’Meara Sanders is convicted of defrauding a bank, she faces up to 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines.
Publicly-available emails from education officials show that the FBI is currently investigating Burlington College—and has been for as much as a year. Burlington College board chair Yves Bradley went on the record to say that he wasn’t sure exactly what the FBI was investing—but speculated that it has to do with O’Meara Sanders.
"At the end of the day, it’s got to relate back to the purchase of the land by the college,” he said.
If O’Meara Sanders is convicted of defrauding a bank, she faces up to 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines.
FBI Report Reveals 'De-Policing' Problem in Response to BLM
by Kerry Lear
Are police losing their will to to enforce the law?Ever since the Black Lives Matter movement has created an overwhelming amount of hostility towards police officers, departments across the country in response have been “de-policing” more.
"Departments — and individual officers — have increasingly made the decision to stop engaging in proactive policing," said the “Assailant Study — Mindsets and Behaviors” report, according to The Washington Times.
The Black Lives Matter Movement, which ignited after the 2014 death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, has “made it socially acceptable to challenge and discredit the actions of law enforcement.”
“Nearly every police official interviewed agreed that for the first time, law enforcement not only felt that their national political leaders [publicly] stood against them, but also that the politicians’ words and actions signified that disrespect to law enforcement was acceptable in the aftermath of the Brown shooting,” said the report, which was written in April. And in response “law enforcement officials believe that defiance and hostility displayed by assailants toward law enforcement appears to be the new norm.”
After analyzing the 50 incidents where police officers were killed while on duty, 28% were done due to the desire to “kill law enforcement,” many of which were influenced by social and political movements.
“The assailants inspired by social and/or political reasons believed that attacking police officers was their way to ‘get justice’ for those who had been, in their view, unjustly killed by law enforcement,” said the report.
The perpetrators said their hatred toward law enforcement was based on “what they heard and read in the media about other incidents involving law enforcement shootings.”
2016 was an especially deadly year for police officers, where 64 were killed while on duty. This is a massive 56% increase from 2015. 21 of last year’s attacks were ambush-style ones, which according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is the “the highest total in more than two decades.”
The report also provides a terrifying account of an officer who was beaten to the ground and refused to shoot the assailant “for fear of community backlash.”
“The officer informed the superintendent that the officer chose not to shoot because the officer didn’t want his/her ‘family or department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on the national news,” according to the report.
The de-policing is linked to decriminalization of drugs, which has inspired more violent attacks on law enforcement.
Author’s note:
The Black Lives Matter movement has become especially violent and I have no respect for social movements where violence is encouraged. Former president Obama only perpetuated the problem by consistently siding with the movement, instead of being on the side of law enforcement. The de-policing is partly attributed to Obama’s race baiting policies. Police officers can’t possibly protect others, which is their job, when they are fearing for their lives on a regular basis. Finally, we have a president who has sworn his allegiance to law enforcement, so hopefully these tensions will dwindle.
Farmer's Math
A farmer died leaving his 17 horses to his 3 sons.
When his sons opened up the will it read:
'My eldest son should get 1/2 (half) of total horses;'
When his sons opened up the will it read:
'My eldest son should get 1/2 (half) of total horses;'
'My middle son should be given 1/3rd (one-third) of the total horses;'
'My youngest son should be given 1/9th (one-ninth) of the total horses.'
As it's impossible to divide 17 into half or 17 by 3 or 17 by 9, the three sons started to fight with each other.
'My youngest son should be given 1/9th (one-ninth) of the total horses.'
As it's impossible to divide 17 into half or 17 by 3 or 17 by 9, the three sons started to fight with each other.
So, they decided to go to a farmer friend who they considered quite smart, to see if he could work it out for them.
The farmer friend read the will patiently, and, after giving due thought, brought one of his own horses over and added it to the 17. That increased the total to 18 horses.
Now, he divided the horses according to their father's will.
Half of 18 = 9. So he gave the eldest son 9 horses.
1/3rd of 18 = 6. So he gave the middle son 6 horses.
1/9th of 18 = 2. So he gave the youngest son 2 horses.
Now add up how many horses they have:
Now, he divided the horses according to their father's will.
Half of 18 = 9. So he gave the eldest son 9 horses.
1/3rd of 18 = 6. So he gave the middle son 6 horses.
1/9th of 18 = 2. So he gave the youngest son 2 horses.
Now add up how many horses they have:
Eldest son 9
Middle son 6
Youngest son 2
TOTAL = 17
Middle son 6
Youngest son 2
TOTAL = 17
This leaves one horse over, so the farmer friend takes his
horse back to his farm......
Problem solved! (Lawyer fees saved)
horse back to his farm......
Problem solved! (Lawyer fees saved)
Bill O’Reilly Breaks Silence, Brutally Destroys “Moron” Dan Rather For Trump Attacks
We were all shocked and saddened to find out that Bill O’Reilly was fired from Fox News. But just because Bill is gone from primetime doesn’t mean he is done CRUSHING bleeding-heart liberals.
According to The Hill, Bill came out to defend President Trump when former CBS host Dan Rather started spewing nonsense. O’ Reilly had this to say regarding Rather and other fake news outlets: “These morons that you see on cable news, just turn them off. Just turn them off because you are never going to get an honest story, they know nothing.”
In this particular instance, Rather had a problem with a comment that President Trump made that went along the lines of saying that if Andrew Jackson were around the Civil War could have been avoided. Trump said that Jackson was tough when he needed be, he would not have backed down and let the war happen.
Instead of the normal responses — agree, intelligently disagree, or say nothing — he chose to disagree and sounded like a fool in the process. He compared Trump’s history knowledge to that of a grade schooler.
Weird! We would bet that most grade schoolers would be able to tell you that there are only two genders. That seems a little hypocritical to judge someone’s opinion on history when your party doesn’t even understand the FACTS put forward by science.
Bill went further into his discussion and said that, in his opinion, Trump had a valid point. Andrew Jackson would not have tolerated states forming their own union. O’Reilly went on to say that James Buchanan was “afraid,” and his lack of action led to the Civil War.
The Left is SO obsessed with President Trump. It is amusing to see some of the straws they will grab at in order to make him look bad.
In this case, his opinion on what would have happened if a different person would have been in charge leading up to the Civil War caused Rather to act like a child. They love going to personal attacks if they feel like they did not get their point across, or their point is proven false.
President Trump is allowed to have opinions about events. Rather could have tried to rebuttal him like a normal adult. Instead, he compared his intelligence to less than that of a grade schooler. There is only one person here acting as if they are in grade school, and it is not President Trump.
We are sure that other left-wingers will come out and trash talk Trump for this statement. They can step away from any insults dealing with intelligence. Besides the gender issue, this is the same party that believes you can have an unlimited amount of immigrants come into the country with no cost whatsoever.
If they want to throw stones they can try. They would just do well to remember that we have FACTS and LOGIC on our side, and we WILL win!
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen & Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/05/helen-moe-lauziers-issues-of-day-write_8.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment