Back in 2013, President Obama, frustrated by Republican unwillingness to pass his agenda, lashed out at Congress. “To all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change. You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election,” Obama said. “But don’t break it.”
Facebook convened a meeting Friday, October 5, a to discuss the conservative views of Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan. The VP had caused Facebook employees to panic due to his show of support of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Senate confirmation hearings. At the Facebook meeting, both CEO Mark Zuckerberg and CFO Sheryl Sandberg “expressed frustration that Kaplan had inserted the company into the political moment,” according to NBC.
Sources told NBC that Kaplan apologized at the meeting, saying it was “a mistake for him to have attended the hearing without consulting other executives.” However, Kaplan did not back down from his support of Kavanaugh, as was made apparent by Politico. The Facebook executive threw Kavanaugh and his employees a celebration on Saturday night, after Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Sandberg and Zuckerberg also “unequivocally condemned sexual assault and said that Facebook should be a place where diverse points of view are tolerated and supported.” Other members of the liberal media/political scene have called for Kaplan’s firing.
Hillary Clinton’s political advisor Adam Parkhomenko wrote on Twitter, “Clearly the problems at Facebook run deep. NY Times article on head of Facebook DC was damning. Joel Kaplan needs to be fired immediately. Email Facebook and demand they fire Joel Kaplan press@fb.com.”
In leaked statements to the New York Times on Thursday, October 4, Facebook employees called Kaplan’s actions a “slap in the face to his fellow employees” and said Kaplan “violated our policies.” Previously, Facebook engineer Brian Amerige wrote in August that Facebook employees were “quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”
Bloomberg reports that the $40 million is on top of $431 million Wells Fargo has issued to gun manufacturers since the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook attack. This means Wells Fargo is not only bucking the corporate gun control trend in 2018 but has also withstood the firearm divestiture campaign that launched following Sandy Hook.
On April 15, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Wells Fargo stemmed the tide of the push for new financial restrictions on gun makers and sellers by stressing that it is not a bank’s job to set U.S. gun policy. Reuters quoted Wells Fargo chief financial officer John Shrewsberry saying, “The best way to make progress on these issues is through the political and legislative process. In the meantime, Wells Fargo is engaging our customers that legally manufacture firearms and other stakeholders on what we can do together to promote better gun safety in our communities.”
Wells Fargo’s refusal to place new restrictions on gun manufacturers came shortly after Citigroup and Bank of America caved to the gun control push. On March 23, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Citibank issued new requirements whereby customers who own gun stores must stop selling long guns to anyone under the age of 21 and to quit selling “high-capacity” magazines as well. And Bank of America made clear they will no longer loan money to manufacturers that make “military-style firearms.”
A video of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) detailing a political tactic called the "wrap-up smear" to reporters in 2017 has resurfaced online in light of the nasty smear campaign launched against recently sworn-in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Pelosi described the smear as a common "diversionary tactic" of the Republicans, unsurprisingly.
A website created by University of Washington students allows users to anonymously post the names of men who have allegedly committed sexual assault – an act that could land the site’s administrators in legal hot water.
An illegal immigrant allegedly kicked a U.S. Border Patrol agent in the head during an arrest.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officials reported that Rio Grande Valley Sector agents came upon a group of migrants who had illegally crossed the border from Mexico on Friday morning. As the agents attempted to take the group into custody, one became combative.
During the fight, the migrant allegedly kicked the Border Patrol agent in the head. The blow caused a laceration on the agent’s forehead. The agents got control of the migrant and placed him under arrest for immigration violations and for attacking a federal agent.
The injured agent was taken to a hospital where doctors treated him for the laceration and released him.
Border Patrol agents are among the most assaulted of all federal law enforcement officers. During the first 11 months of Fiscal Year 2018, the number of assault incidents against Border Patrol agents increased 18 percent, Breitbart Texas reported.
A report released this week by U.S. Customs and Border Protection reveals that Border Patrol agents were the target of various types of assaults 619 times between October 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018. While the number of agents assaulted dropped by eight percent from Fiscal Year 2017, the number of assault incidents actually increased by 18 percent. In Fiscal Year 2017, CBP officials reported 286 incidents of assault compared to 338 in Fiscal Year 2018, the report states.
Agents are frequently attacked with rocks and other forms of physical violence including gunfire and vehicular assaults.
“U.S. Border Patrol agents are the most frequently assaulted and most frequently injured federal law enforcement officers,” El Paso Sector Chief Patrol Agent Aaron A. Hull during the groundbreaking of a new border wall segment in El Paso, Texas, last month. “We’ve seen time and time again that the addition of serious infrastructure creates a safer environment for our people to operate. It also creates a safer community on both sides of the border.”
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.
A professor at the University of Southern California has come under fire after sending a reply-all email last week to the student body stating "accusers sometimes lie."
"If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now," Professor James Moore wrote in the email. "Accusers sometimes lie."
Brett Kavanaugh made history on Sunday with his first actions as a newly sworn-in Supreme Court justice: He appointed an all-female law clerk staff.
After a vicious, hyperpartisan "circus" of a confirmation process, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh Saturday in a bipartisan vote of 50-48, which included West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and key swing-vote Republicans Susan Collins and Jeff Flake (Lisa Murkowski voted "present").
It was only a matter of time before failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton weighed in on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and it appears to have been time she spent working on a top notch critique: that Kavanaugh could return the United States to the days of slavery.
Speaking to the American Federation of Teachers Friday night, Clinton warned of “devastating consequences” if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the bench.
“Let me say a word about the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Clinton said in her speech. “This nomination holds out the threat of devastating consequences for workers rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights — including those to make our own health decisions.”
“It is a blatant attempt by this administration to shift the balance of the Court for decades and to reverse decades of progress,” Clinton continued.
And that’s where she landed on her new strategy of attack: warning of a return to the agrarian pre-Civil War America.
“I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s,” Clinton said.
Democrats have already threatened to investigate — or even try to impeach — Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh should they retake control of the House after November’s midterm elections.
On Sunday, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) responded to the news by throwing down a challenge to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
What did Graham say?
At first, when asked about the threat, made primarily by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, Graham vowed to campaign against his congressional colleagues in the run up to November’s elections, something he said he’s never done before.
"I’ve never campaigned against a colleague in my life. That’s about to change. I’m gonna go throughout this country and let people in these, you know, purple states, red states where Trump won know what I think about this process," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."
Then host Chris Wallace asked Graham about a list he brought on set. Wallace was referring to the list of potential Supreme Court nominees that President Donald Trump released last year.
"What’s your point?" Wallace asked.
Graham responded with force, issuing a direct challenge to Schumer.
"Here’s my point. This is a list that was compiled in November, but [Trump] actually put it out during the campaign. There are 20-something people on this list. I’m asking Chuck Schumer: name five, name three, name one that would be okay with you," Graham said.
He explained:
Brett Kavanaugh was a mainstream judge. I would have chose him if I’d been president. Bush supported him. Everybody running for president on our side believed that Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch were outstanding conservative jurists. The other side wants to cancel the election. So Chuck, you want somebody new? Look at this list, and see if there’s anybody you agree to — but what you want to do, Senator Schumer, is to overturn the election and you pick the judges. We’re not gonna let you pick the judges. If you wanna pick judges, then you need to win the White House.
When Obama won, I voted for two judges that he picked. So Chuck Schumer, name one person on this list you think’s acceptable.