Now we know how confused Democrats are about who is and who is not an imminent threat to America

In 2016, the Obama administration determined that candidate Trump was an imminent threat to their chosen career criminal candidate Hillary Clinton. They were worried that the power they had amassed, while remaking America, was in jeopardy. Therefore, they decided to use massive amounts of taxpayer money and many agencies to take Trump out. Doesn’t that clearly violate the Hatch Act?

 

The first thing they had to do was get Hillary off from her many violations of the law. They had the Justice Department do a pretend investigation. Then there was a chance meeting of Attorney General Loretta Lynch with Bill Clinton followed up by a pretend interview with Hillary. Then, congenital liar James Comey, who had exonerated Hillary months before, came out and listed all the crimes Hillary had committed but lied that no prosecutor would ever take the case.

 

 Next, they had to go after Trump and his associates.

 

The corrupt Hillary and the DNC obviously couldn’t find truthful information to take out Trump, and couldn’t run on their unpopular policies, so they paid a foreign national, Christopher Steele, more than $10 million to produce a fictional document to take out Trump. The DNC and Hillary also filed fraudulent documents with the FEC claiming these were legal fees.

 

The Obama administration, through the corrupt, politicized Justice department and intelligence agencies, had illegally spied on thousands of Americans during its term and had to figure out a way to mislead the FISA court in order to spy on people surrounding Trump so they came up with the idea to claim Trump was colluding with Russia  despite having zero evidence that was true.

 

They decided that Carter Page was expendable so they claimed he was a spy. They continually lied (they did not make mistakes) to the FISA court about evidence but all they had was the fictional dossier from Steele. An attorney at Justice altered documents and they didn’t even tell the court that the dossier was paid for by the DNC and Hillary. The truth was inconvenient, so they continually lied to the court. All these facts have been evident for years, yet the complicit media hasn’t cared because they also don’t want Trump as president. It is dangerous to America to have an in-the-tank media.

 

The Obama administration also decided they wanted informants in the Trump campaign, so they went after George Papadopoulos to entrap him. He was also expendable.

 

The DNC computers were hacked, and they blamed Russia but refused to let government officials examine the evidence. The fact that they didn’t see evidence didn’t make any difference to the Obama administration, journalists or other Democrats. They just repeated what they were told, like puppets.

 

The Russian collusion story was obviously fake, or they would also have targeted the Clinton campaign which had many connections and contacts with Russia.

 

President Obama obviously wasn’t very concerned because in the summer of 2016 — he gave a stand down order to his cyber security chief to stop investigating Russia.

 

The targeting didn’t work, and Trump was elected. The threat to bureaucrats and Democrat policies was now more imminent than ever so they had to attack harder. The strive to impeach started on day one. President Obama, suddenly, changed the way classified documents could be shared. Susan Rice and others started illegally unmasking names and leaking like a sieve. Somehow only people surrounding Trump were targeted for unmasking.

 

Michael Flynn was now expendable and was targeted, entrapped and the corrupt, politicized Justice department illegally hid exonerating evidence as they bankrupted and charged him.

 

Then, with no evidence, we got the two-year Mueller investigation and endless Congressional investigations vainly searching for a crime to impeach Trump with. Sadly, they couldn’t find any.

 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, soon to be nominated to the Supreme Court, was also determined to be an imminent threat to the Democrat agenda so they sought to take him out with no evidence. There is no end to the number of people the media and other Democrats will seek to destroy as they quest for and protect their power. They will even seek to destroy white teenagers who dared attend a pro life rally wearing MAGA hats.

 

The election of 2020 was coming up, the economy is good, and Trump is a bigger imminent threat to radical Democrat policies than ever. Magically a whistleblower (leaker) shows up and makes up some stuff about a conversation Trump had with the Ukraine leader even though he wasn’t privy to the conversation. Suddenly whistleblower rules were changed to not require direct knowledge. The leaker went to congenital liar Adam Schiff’s staff before the complain was filed.

 

Trump was such an imminent threat that the Democrats had to rush through impeachment. They still couldn’t come up with actual crimes, so they created fictional ones. Facts again are irrelevant.

 

The threat was so imminent that they rushed the vote without evidence and fact witnesses. Survival of America was at stake. But wait, after the vote, Pelosi violated Trump’s sixth amendment rights and withheld the impeachment articles from the Senate for a month.

 

Now, after three years of targeting and destroying many people surrounding Trump, we have found someone journalists and other Democrats have determined has been unfairly targeted. Iran’s chief terrorist, General Qassem Soleimani.

 

They have questioned whether this terrorist killer, who has been responsible for the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands, including hundreds of Americans, was an imminent threat and should have been killed.

 

My guess is every member of our military, private contractors, Iranian protestors and innocent citizens throughout the Mideast consider themselves under imminent threat every day of the year because of terrorist groups sponsored by Iran and because of Soleimani.

 

President Obama and his administration are responsible for a significant amount of money Iran and Soleimani had to carry out terrorism throughout the world.

 

They lied to get the deal done, bribed the leaders with $1.8 billion, stopped an investigation into drug running, released $150 billion in frozen funds and dropped the sanctions which freed up $100’s of billions. The Europeans also have major responsibilities into ratcheting up the danger of Iran.

 

But Trump is the imminent danger because he killed the terrorist general and Congress must now limit his power. Not once did they have a resolution reigning in Obama as he attacked Libya and used drones to kill, but Trump is the problem and dangerous.

 

The Democrats want to rein in Trump, but they refused to vote for a resolution condemning Iran for taking down the airline and for killing over 1,000 protestors. They won’t even support the protesters against the tyrants. Why is there so little reporting that Iran killed so many of its own people?  The answer is that it doesn’t fit the Democrat agenda.

 

 

House Democrats blocked a resolution on Tuesday that expressed support for oppressed Iranian protesters and condemned Iran for shooting down a Ukrainian passenger plane last week that killed 176 people.

 

“Consideration and a vote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s resolution was blocked … by a vote of 226-191,” The Daily Caller reported. “The resolution would have condemned the Government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens who were protesting their government, as well as condemned the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 people.”

 

The greatest imminent threat to America’s peace, prosperity and freedom would be to listen to journalists and vote for Democrats as they seek to take out Trump who is trying to return the power and purse to the people as fast as he can and protect us from terrorist sponsoring countries like Iran.

In 2016, the Obama administration determined that candidate Trump was an imminent threat to their chosen career criminal candidate Hillary Clinton. They were worried that the power they had amassed, while remaking America, was in jeopardy. Therefore, they decided to use massive amounts of taxpayer money and many agencies to take Trump out. Doesn’t that clearly violate the Hatch Act?

 

The first thing they had to do was get Hillary off from her many violations of the law. They had the Justice Department do a pretend investigation. Then there was a chance meeting of Attorney General Loretta Lynch with Bill Clinton followed up by a pretend interview with Hillary. Then, congenital liar James Comey, who had exonerated Hillary months before, came out and listed all the crimes Hillary had committed but lied that no prosecutor would ever take the case.

 

 Next, they had to go after Trump and his associates.

 

The corrupt Hillary and the DNC obviously couldn’t find truthful information to take out Trump, and couldn’t run on their unpopular policies, so they paid a foreign national, Christopher Steele, more than $10 million to produce a fictional document to take out Trump. The DNC and Hillary also filed fraudulent documents with the FEC claiming these were legal fees.

 

The Obama administration, through the corrupt, politicized Justice department and intelligence agencies, had illegally spied on thousands of Americans during its term and had to figure out a way to mislead the FISA court in order to spy on people surrounding Trump so they came up with the idea to claim Trump was colluding with Russia  despite having zero evidence that was true.

 

They decided that Carter Page was expendable so they claimed he was a spy. They continually lied (they did not make mistakes) to the FISA court about evidence but all they had was the fictional dossier from Steele. An attorney at Justice altered documents and they didn’t even tell the court that the dossier was paid for by the DNC and Hillary. The truth was inconvenient, so they continually lied to the court. All these facts have been evident for years, yet the complicit media hasn’t cared because they also don’t want Trump as president. It is dangerous to America to have an in-the-tank media.

 

The Obama administration also decided they wanted informants in the Trump campaign, so they went after George Papadopoulos to entrap him. He was also expendable.

 

The DNC computers were hacked, and they blamed Russia but refused to let government officials examine the evidence. The fact that they didn’t see evidence didn’t make any difference to the Obama administration, journalists or other Democrats. They just repeated what they were told, like puppets.

 

The Russian collusion story was obviously fake, or they would also have targeted the Clinton campaign which had many connections and contacts with Russia.

 

President Obama obviously wasn’t very concerned because in the summer of 2016 — he gave a stand down order to his cyber security chief to stop investigating Russia.

 

The targeting didn’t work, and Trump was elected. The threat to bureaucrats and Democrat policies was now more imminent than ever so they had to attack harder. The strive to impeach started on day one. President Obama, suddenly, changed the way classified documents could be shared. Susan Rice and others started illegally unmasking names and leaking like a sieve. Somehow only people surrounding Trump were targeted for unmasking.

 

Michael Flynn was now expendable and was targeted, entrapped and the corrupt, politicized Justice department illegally hid exonerating evidence as they bankrupted and charged him.

 

Then, with no evidence, we got the two-year Mueller investigation and endless Congressional investigations vainly searching for a crime to impeach Trump with. Sadly, they couldn’t find any.

 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, soon to be nominated to the Supreme Court, was also determined to be an imminent threat to the Democrat agenda so they sought to take him out with no evidence. There is no end to the number of people the media and other Democrats will seek to destroy as they quest for and protect their power. They will even seek to destroy white teenagers who dared attend a pro life rally wearing MAGA hats.

 

The election of 2020 was coming up, the economy is good, and Trump is a bigger imminent threat to radical Democrat policies than ever. Magically a whistleblower (leaker) shows up and makes up some stuff about a conversation Trump had with the Ukraine leader even though he wasn’t privy to the conversation. Suddenly whistleblower rules were changed to not require direct knowledge. The leaker went to congenital liar Adam Schiff’s staff before the complain was filed.

 

Trump was such an imminent threat that the Democrats had to rush through impeachment. They still couldn’t come up with actual crimes, so they created fictional ones. Facts again are irrelevant.

 

The threat was so imminent that they rushed the vote without evidence and fact witnesses. Survival of America was at stake. But wait, after the vote, Pelosi violated Trump’s sixth amendment rights and withheld the impeachment articles from the Senate for a month.

 

Now, after three years of targeting and destroying many people surrounding Trump, we have found someone journalists and other Democrats have determined has been unfairly targeted. Iran’s chief terrorist, General Qassem Soleimani.

 

They have questioned whether this terrorist killer, who has been responsible for the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands, including hundreds of Americans, was an imminent threat and should have been killed.

 

My guess is every member of our military, private contractors, Iranian protestors and innocent citizens throughout the Mideast consider themselves under imminent threat every day of the year because of terrorist groups sponsored by Iran and because of Soleimani.

 

President Obama and his administration are responsible for a significant amount of money Iran and Soleimani had to carry out terrorism throughout the world.

 

They lied to get the deal done, bribed the leaders with $1.8 billion, stopped an investigation into drug running, released $150 billion in frozen funds and dropped the sanctions which freed up $100’s of billions. The Europeans also have major responsibilities into ratcheting up the danger of Iran.

 

But Trump is the imminent danger because he killed the terrorist general and Congress must now limit his power. Not once did they have a resolution reigning in Obama as he attacked Libya and used drones to kill, but Trump is the problem and dangerous.

 

The Democrats want to rein in Trump, but they refused to vote for a resolution condemning Iran for taking down the airline and for killing over 1,000 protestors. They won’t even support the protesters against the tyrants. Why is there so little reporting that Iran killed so many of its own people?  The answer is that it doesn’t fit the Democrat agenda.

 

 

House Democrats blocked a resolution on Tuesday that expressed support for oppressed Iranian protesters and condemned Iran for shooting down a Ukrainian passenger plane last week that killed 176 people.

 

“Consideration and a vote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s resolution was blocked … by a vote of 226-191,” The Daily Caller reported. “The resolution would have condemned the Government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens who were protesting their government, as well as condemned the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 people.”

 

The greatest imminent threat to America’s peace, prosperity and freedom would be to listen to journalists and vote for Democrats as they seek to take out Trump who is trying to return the power and purse to the people as fast as he can and protect us from terrorist sponsoring countries like Iran.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Bernie’s words about climate change are inspiring frightening people

One of the things that obsessed the candidates on during Tuesday’s 7th Democrat primary debate was climate change. Whatever they say, whatever they promise, it always loops back to that topic.

Bernie, especially, framed the matter in doomsday terms. When he challenged the USMCA trade deal, he skipped over the usual economic grounds for opposing a trade deal and, instead, said that the deal failed on climate grounds (emphasis added):

[E]very major environmental organization has said no to this new trade agreement because it does not even have the phrase “climate change” in it. And given the fact that climate change is right now the greatest threat facing this planet, I will not vote for a trade agreement that does not incorporate very, very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world.

[snip]

So I happen to believe — and I hope we will talk about climate change in a moment — if we do not get our act together in terms of climate change, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our children — and our grandchildren will be increasingly unlivable and uninhabitable.

Bernie’s ominous take on climate change perfectly parallels the take of Kyle Jurek, an Iowa Field Organizer for Bernie’s campaign. Project Veritas introduced America to Jurek on Tuesday through a video in which Jurek gleefully boasted about burning cities, “suiciding” Clintons, and imprisoning or executing those who dissent from his hard-Left world view.

(Interestingly, there is no word from the Sanders campaign about whether they intend to continue employing Jurek. To date, according to Project Veritas, Jurek has received over $10,000 for his work on the Bernie campaign.)

Project Veritas was back today with another video focusing on Kyle Jurek. In it, viewers get to hear more about Jurek’s horrifying and un-American views. He’s especially taken with Soviet gulags. After first stating that these torture institutions that killed well over a million people were significantly better than American prisons, Jurek riffs on the virtue of and reasoning behind imprisoning those who don’t get with the revolution. And if they refuse to fall in line, Jurek thinks killing the opposition is the way to go. Today’s video is, in some ways, a re-hash of yesterday’s video, only worse.

What made this video significantly different from Tuesday’s was listening to Jurek explain why his extremist measures were appropriate. Although one feels that Jurek enjoys violence and power for their own sake, he has a different justification for his violent desires. Unlike your average communist, Jurek doesn’t engage in the usual talk about class warfare, economic equality, or even identity politics. For him, it’s all about avoiding Armageddon:

Yeah, and that’s where we’re at right now. We’re at one of those moments in human history, where it’s, like, we’re fighting for survival, we’re fighting for survival of the entire human race. We’re fighting for the survival of living creatures on Planet Earth and there’s some people that will stop at nothing to preserve that, right?

Like, to see, to see the human race continue into the future. Right? To try and save the f**king planet from f**king destruction. And no matter what country and what laws that exist, they’re irrelevant to, there are things greater than those systems, right?

There are things that are more important than the rule of law in the United States, when it comes down to the existence of the human race. And that’s where we’re at.

Unfortunately, in, like, this is, like, there are very few, there are probably no other points in human history, in, like, recorded human history where, like, the stakes were as high as they are right now. Like, we are at a f**king, we’re, we’re at the end, we’re at the end of the road and, like, the way we choose to go, it’s going to determine like, hey, are we going to continue as a species or are we going to f**king burn up in a f**king century?

Or as Bernie said more pithily, “climate change is right now the greatest threat facing this planet,” and the failure to act will leave it “increasingly unlivable and uninhabitable.” Unintentionally or not, Bernie and the other candidates are giving the most dangerous people in America justification for acting on their instincts. No wonder people are worried, as O’Keefe said at the video’s end, that Jurek might even try to assassinate President Trump. In Jurek’s mind, why shouldn’t he do what he can to save the world from “the greatest threat facing this planet.”

One of the things that obsessed the candidates on during Tuesday’s 7th Democrat primary debate was climate change. Whatever they say, whatever they promise, it always loops back to that topic.

Bernie, especially, framed the matter in doomsday terms. When he challenged the USMCA trade deal, he skipped over the usual economic grounds for opposing a trade deal and, instead, said that the deal failed on climate grounds (emphasis added):

[E]very major environmental organization has said no to this new trade agreement because it does not even have the phrase “climate change” in it. And given the fact that climate change is right now the greatest threat facing this planet, I will not vote for a trade agreement that does not incorporate very, very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world.

[snip]

So I happen to believe — and I hope we will talk about climate change in a moment — if we do not get our act together in terms of climate change, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our children — and our grandchildren will be increasingly unlivable and uninhabitable.

Bernie’s ominous take on climate change perfectly parallels the take of Kyle Jurek, an Iowa Field Organizer for Bernie’s campaign. Project Veritas introduced America to Jurek on Tuesday through a video in which Jurek gleefully boasted about burning cities, “suiciding” Clintons, and imprisoning or executing those who dissent from his hard-Left world view.

(Interestingly, there is no word from the Sanders campaign about whether they intend to continue employing Jurek. To date, according to Project Veritas, Jurek has received over $10,000 for his work on the Bernie campaign.)

Project Veritas was back today with another video focusing on Kyle Jurek. In it, viewers get to hear more about Jurek’s horrifying and un-American views. He’s especially taken with Soviet gulags. After first stating that these torture institutions that killed well over a million people were significantly better than American prisons, Jurek riffs on the virtue of and reasoning behind imprisoning those who don’t get with the revolution. And if they refuse to fall in line, Jurek thinks killing the opposition is the way to go. Today’s video is, in some ways, a re-hash of yesterday’s video, only worse.

What made this video significantly different from Tuesday’s was listening to Jurek explain why his extremist measures were appropriate. Although one feels that Jurek enjoys violence and power for their own sake, he has a different justification for his violent desires. Unlike your average communist, Jurek doesn’t engage in the usual talk about class warfare, economic equality, or even identity politics. For him, it’s all about avoiding Armageddon:

Yeah, and that’s where we’re at right now. We’re at one of those moments in human history, where it’s, like, we’re fighting for survival, we’re fighting for survival of the entire human race. We’re fighting for the survival of living creatures on Planet Earth and there’s some people that will stop at nothing to preserve that, right?

Like, to see, to see the human race continue into the future. Right? To try and save the f**king planet from f**king destruction. And no matter what country and what laws that exist, they’re irrelevant to, there are things greater than those systems, right?

There are things that are more important than the rule of law in the United States, when it comes down to the existence of the human race. And that’s where we’re at.

Unfortunately, in, like, this is, like, there are very few, there are probably no other points in human history, in, like, recorded human history where, like, the stakes were as high as they are right now. Like, we are at a f**king, we’re, we’re at the end, we’re at the end of the road and, like, the way we choose to go, it’s going to determine like, hey, are we going to continue as a species or are we going to f**king burn up in a f**king century?

Or as Bernie said more pithily, “climate change is right now the greatest threat facing this planet,” and the failure to act will leave it “increasingly unlivable and uninhabitable.” Unintentionally or not, Bernie and the other candidates are giving the most dangerous people in America justification for acting on their instincts. No wonder people are worried, as O’Keefe said at the video’s end, that Jurek might even try to assassinate President Trump. In Jurek’s mind, why shouldn’t he do what he can to save the world from “the greatest threat facing this planet.”

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

In California, it’s better to be a thief

In California thieving is officially okay.

No, no, they won’t say it is. But it is, nonetheless. For if what a person steals is worth less than a nine hundred and fifty bucks it goes pretty much unpunished. Maybe there’ll be a fine. Usually not even that. Thieves like this. The victims of the thefts usually not so much.

This past week a young couple who had just few months back moved into a new home in the small city of Visalia, CA, were arrested. That for doing something that the state of California’s legal codes still sees as a no-no and punishes. They beat several people up with a baseball bat.

Having been the victims of theft their very first night in the community, and then again, the next, and then again and again, they decided to do something about it. They placed an unchained bicycle in their yard and then they lay in wait.

When a thief appeared — as they knew one would — they jumped out of hiding and beat him with that bat. Then they did the same thing again and again, night after night. And each time they made a video of their actions and posted it on YouTube.

Earlier this week that couple were arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon and conspiracy.

Cory Cornutt and Sacannah Grillot mug shots

Visalia Police via New York Post

None of the thieves were arrested. That, the police say, was because the couple never made an official report of the crimes.

Is there a lesson in this? Yes, I think there is.

Laws, at least in theory, are put into place to protect the law abiding from the criminal. Such allows the non-criminal to go on with their lives safe in the knowledge that The State is looking out for them.

When a state does what California has done — and that other states are today doing — it allows theft to go unpunished while tightening the ‘screws’ in one way after another on the law abiding, “law” in its customary sense is turned upside down.

The results of doing this are what we see above.

Who, as you read that story above, did your heart naturally root for? The homeowners? Or the thieves?

Yeah, me too.

Ah, California!

In California thieving is officially okay.

No, no, they won’t say it is. But it is, nonetheless. For if what a person steals is worth less than a nine hundred and fifty bucks it goes pretty much unpunished. Maybe there’ll be a fine. Usually not even that. Thieves like this. The victims of the thefts usually not so much.

This past week a young couple who had just few months back moved into a new home in the small city of Visalia, CA, were arrested. That for doing something that the state of California’s legal codes still sees as a no-no and punishes. They beat several people up with a baseball bat.

Having been the victims of theft their very first night in the community, and then again, the next, and then again and again, they decided to do something about it. They placed an unchained bicycle in their yard and then they lay in wait.

When a thief appeared — as they knew one would — they jumped out of hiding and beat him with that bat. Then they did the same thing again and again, night after night. And each time they made a video of their actions and posted it on YouTube.

Earlier this week that couple were arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon and conspiracy.

Cory Cornutt and Sacannah Grillot mug shots

Visalia Police via New York Post

None of the thieves were arrested. That, the police say, was because the couple never made an official report of the crimes.

Is there a lesson in this? Yes, I think there is.

Laws, at least in theory, are put into place to protect the law abiding from the criminal. Such allows the non-criminal to go on with their lives safe in the knowledge that The State is looking out for them.

When a state does what California has done — and that other states are today doing — it allows theft to go unpunished while tightening the ‘screws’ in one way after another on the law abiding, “law” in its customary sense is turned upside down.

The results of doing this are what we see above.

Who, as you read that story above, did your heart naturally root for? The homeowners? Or the thieves?

Yeah, me too.

Ah, California!

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

San Francisco continues to shine a light on what Leftism does to civilization

In the 1970s, San Francisco, as was true for most major American cities, had gotten very shabby. While tourists still flocked to the neighborhood directly north of Market Street, where they could find Union Square, fancy stores, and upscale hotels, those who crossed Market Street and headed south found themselves in a four-block-square area of unpleasant squalor. There were always a handful of drunken men sleeping it off in the doorways of decrepit buildings and the sidewalks stank of urine.

By the end of the 1970s, San Francisco began a massive plan to revitalize that area. It tore down the decayed buildings and, in their place, built the Moscone Conference Center, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Yerba Buena Gardens, and the Metreon theater and shopping center. It was all beautiful and inviting. People loved coming to trade shows and conferences in San Francisco, and families happily took their children to the museum, the garden, the skating rink, and the movie theaters.

Things aren’t like that anymore. While it was once just the South of Market region that was icky because of a few sleeping (or rambunctious) drunks, some stinky pee, and some shabby buildings, tourists are discovering that San Francisco’s entire downtown is inundated with hundreds of scary homeless people, mounds of fecal matter, thousands of discarded needles, and clusters of tents and shopping carts.

That the buildings still look nice is irrelevant. To get to them, one has to do the urban equivalent of walking across slippery stones spaced at far intervals in a slimy, alligator-filled swamp.

Ironically, all of this foulness and decay lives cheek by jowl with incredible wealth and excess. San Francisco’s Leftist government has effectively recreated a medieval city, in which the wealthy hide behind gilded walls while the poor wallow in filth and despair. And no, that’s not just a disenchanted native San Franciscan speaking. That’s according to Bloomberg, which reports on the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference being held in San Francisco this week, an event that attracted thousands of bankers and executives:

The JPMorgan gathering at the Westin St. Francis, which attracts about 10,000 people, has long drawn the ire of some attendees. Conference-goers have taken to Twitter and blog posts to express concerns about the homeless situation and watching city officials clean up human feces, all while spending thousands of dollars on hotel rooms and resorting to holding meetings in bathrooms.

[snip]

Most of the hotels in the conference’s vicinity were completely booked weeks ahead of time, with rooms that were available going in some cases for more than $2,000 a night. A more affordable option, the Lombard Plaza Motel, was sold out Monday but had rooms for as much as $500 a night starting Tuesday, according to Alex Patel, a front desk attendant. That’s nearly four times its normal rate.

[snip]

“I’ve been coming to JPM for five years, and the homeless situation has gotten much worse,” Selin Kurnaz, co-founder and CEO of New York-based Massive Bio, said at a party Monday night in the Tenderloin. “I feel unsafe walking around at night, especially as a young woman.”

What’s sad is that, while many people recognize that San Francisco has become a dystopian landscape, too few make the connection between its decay and its hard Left governance. Mental illness and substance abuse are certainly a problem, but letting people get away with everything short of murder, and subsidizing their worst behaviors, is more of a problem.

As the tag line to the movie Field of Dreams so memorably said, “If you build it, they will come.” What’s happening in San Francisco is not how you make the problem go away. It’s simply how you grow your government at the expense of ordinary citizens and businesses:

In the 1970s, San Francisco, as was true for most major American cities, had gotten very shabby. While tourists still flocked to the neighborhood directly north of Market Street, where they could find Union Square, fancy stores, and upscale hotels, those who crossed Market Street and headed south found themselves in a four-block-square area of unpleasant squalor. There were always a handful of drunken men sleeping it off in the doorways of decrepit buildings and the sidewalks stank of urine.

By the end of the 1970s, San Francisco began a massive plan to revitalize that area. It tore down the decayed buildings and, in their place, built the Moscone Conference Center, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Yerba Buena Gardens, and the Metreon theater and shopping center. It was all beautiful and inviting. People loved coming to trade shows and conferences in San Francisco, and families happily took their children to the museum, the garden, the skating rink, and the movie theaters.

Things aren’t like that anymore. While it was once just the South of Market region that was icky because of a few sleeping (or rambunctious) drunks, some stinky pee, and some shabby buildings, tourists are discovering that San Francisco’s entire downtown is inundated with hundreds of scary homeless people, mounds of fecal matter, thousands of discarded needles, and clusters of tents and shopping carts.

That the buildings still look nice is irrelevant. To get to them, one has to do the urban equivalent of walking across slippery stones spaced at far intervals in a slimy, alligator-filled swamp.

Ironically, all of this foulness and decay lives cheek by jowl with incredible wealth and excess. San Francisco’s Leftist government has effectively recreated a medieval city, in which the wealthy hide behind gilded walls while the poor wallow in filth and despair. And no, that’s not just a disenchanted native San Franciscan speaking. That’s according to Bloomberg, which reports on the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference being held in San Francisco this week, an event that attracted thousands of bankers and executives:

The JPMorgan gathering at the Westin St. Francis, which attracts about 10,000 people, has long drawn the ire of some attendees. Conference-goers have taken to Twitter and blog posts to express concerns about the homeless situation and watching city officials clean up human feces, all while spending thousands of dollars on hotel rooms and resorting to holding meetings in bathrooms.

[snip]

Most of the hotels in the conference’s vicinity were completely booked weeks ahead of time, with rooms that were available going in some cases for more than $2,000 a night. A more affordable option, the Lombard Plaza Motel, was sold out Monday but had rooms for as much as $500 a night starting Tuesday, according to Alex Patel, a front desk attendant. That’s nearly four times its normal rate.

[snip]

“I’ve been coming to JPM for five years, and the homeless situation has gotten much worse,” Selin Kurnaz, co-founder and CEO of New York-based Massive Bio, said at a party Monday night in the Tenderloin. “I feel unsafe walking around at night, especially as a young woman.”

What’s sad is that, while many people recognize that San Francisco has become a dystopian landscape, too few make the connection between its decay and its hard Left governance. Mental illness and substance abuse are certainly a problem, but letting people get away with everything short of murder, and subsidizing their worst behaviors, is more of a problem.

As the tag line to the movie Field of Dreams so memorably said, “If you build it, they will come.” What’s happening in San Francisco is not how you make the problem go away. It’s simply how you grow your government at the expense of ordinary citizens and businesses:

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

For the time being, at least, the dead can vote in Wisconsin

Two days ago, we hailed the good news that a trial court judge in Wisconsin held the Elections Commission and three of its Democrat members in contempt because they refused to abide by his December order that they remove 200,000 non-viable names from the state’s voting records. One day later, on Tuesday, the state appellate court stepped in to stop the Elections Commission from cleaning out the cemetery vote:

The removal of as many as 209,000 names was put on hold a day after an Ozaukee County judge found three members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission in contempt of court for ignoring an order he gave in December 2019.

An appeals court judge also blocked the contempt finding in a separate order, putting on hold a decision that fined the three Democratic members $250 a day each until they voted to purge the names.

The appeals court on Tuesday ordered the lower court’s order against the commissioners, and a Dec. 13 order to purge the names from voter rolls, “stayed until further order of this court,” the court clerk wrote.

The rulings will ensure, temporarily, that thousands of names will not be removed from the rolls, until the appeals court reviews the dispute. Democrats have raised the alarm over the potential removal of so many names from the voter roll in a state set to be a battleground when President Donald Trump seeks reelection in November.

The same judges — Michael Fitzpatrick, JoAnne Kloppenburg and Jennifer Nashold — had on two previous occasions refused to step in to block the purge. This time, however, they moved so quickly they did not even have time to write an order explaining their reasoning:

They wrote that they issued the order quickly because they knew the commission was meeting Tuesday. They will spell out their reasoning in a later opinion, they wrote.

It should be noted that the decision to remove names was not arbitrary or under the control of a single person or party. Instead, it was the last phase in a formal notice procedure:

The order to remove hundreds of thousands of names was initially made last month, and came after the state Elections Commission sent notices in October last year to more than 230,000 people that were thought to have moved, requesting that they update their voter registrations or indicate that they hadn’t moved.

The letters were sent to the voters based on data from the Electronic Registration Information Center that suggested they had potentially changed addresses. If they didn’t respond, they were in danger of being removed from the rolls by 2021.

Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat, complained that it just wasn’t fair to remove people from the rolls because once upon a time, in the past, they had been valid voters:

Responded Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat:  “These are eligible, registered voters. They are not by any stretch of the imagination illegal or anything else. They are true people who registered to vote and are eligible to register to vote. They may or may not have moved.

“This is not an example of 200,000 illegal registrants on our voting list.”

Glancey ignores the fact that, in Wisconsin, it’s incredibly easy to re-register on election day, whether online, at the polling place, or at the county clerk’s office. Glancey’s complaint therefore cannot be about the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters.

Same-day re-registration means that no one can argue that the Republicans are pushing to purge voter rolls in order to suppress voter turnout. That leaves one to conclude that the only reason Democrats want to keep 200,000 names on the rolls, even though the people attached to those names have moved on, is to have a roster of names that people who cannot vote can “borrow” for the day, also known as voter fraud.

Two days ago, we hailed the good news that a trial court judge in Wisconsin held the Elections Commission and three of its Democrat members in contempt because they refused to abide by his December order that they remove 200,000 non-viable names from the state’s voting records. One day later, on Tuesday, the state appellate court stepped in to stop the Elections Commission from cleaning out the cemetery vote:

The removal of as many as 209,000 names was put on hold a day after an Ozaukee County judge found three members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission in contempt of court for ignoring an order he gave in December 2019.

An appeals court judge also blocked the contempt finding in a separate order, putting on hold a decision that fined the three Democratic members $250 a day each until they voted to purge the names.

The appeals court on Tuesday ordered the lower court’s order against the commissioners, and a Dec. 13 order to purge the names from voter rolls, “stayed until further order of this court,” the court clerk wrote.

The rulings will ensure, temporarily, that thousands of names will not be removed from the rolls, until the appeals court reviews the dispute. Democrats have raised the alarm over the potential removal of so many names from the voter roll in a state set to be a battleground when President Donald Trump seeks reelection in November.

The same judges — Michael Fitzpatrick, JoAnne Kloppenburg and Jennifer Nashold — had on two previous occasions refused to step in to block the purge. This time, however, they moved so quickly they did not even have time to write an order explaining their reasoning:

They wrote that they issued the order quickly because they knew the commission was meeting Tuesday. They will spell out their reasoning in a later opinion, they wrote.

It should be noted that the decision to remove names was not arbitrary or under the control of a single person or party. Instead, it was the last phase in a formal notice procedure:

The order to remove hundreds of thousands of names was initially made last month, and came after the state Elections Commission sent notices in October last year to more than 230,000 people that were thought to have moved, requesting that they update their voter registrations or indicate that they hadn’t moved.

The letters were sent to the voters based on data from the Electronic Registration Information Center that suggested they had potentially changed addresses. If they didn’t respond, they were in danger of being removed from the rolls by 2021.

Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat, complained that it just wasn’t fair to remove people from the rolls because once upon a time, in the past, they had been valid voters:

Responded Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat:  “These are eligible, registered voters. They are not by any stretch of the imagination illegal or anything else. They are true people who registered to vote and are eligible to register to vote. They may or may not have moved.

“This is not an example of 200,000 illegal registrants on our voting list.”

Glancey ignores the fact that, in Wisconsin, it’s incredibly easy to re-register on election day, whether online, at the polling place, or at the county clerk’s office. Glancey’s complaint therefore cannot be about the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters.

Same-day re-registration means that no one can argue that the Republicans are pushing to purge voter rolls in order to suppress voter turnout. That leaves one to conclude that the only reason Democrats want to keep 200,000 names on the rolls, even though the people attached to those names have moved on, is to have a roster of names that people who cannot vote can “borrow” for the day, also known as voter fraud.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Gun Violence Skyrocketed at Black Colleges during Obama Administration

In the 36 years before then-senator Barack Obama promised “Change We Can Believe In” during his 2008 presidential campaign, won the presidency, and made history by becoming America’s first black president, shootings at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were infrequent and rare events.  During that time, 13 shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing four students and injuring another 12 victims, 11 being students.

While change did occur during the Obama presidency, it wasn’t hopeful change we can (or even should) believe in.  Empirical data of shootings at HBCUs, available at www.schoolshootingdatabase.com, have uncovered that during the eight years of the Obama administration, shootings at HBCUs surged 430% (in roughly 28 less years) to 56 shootings, with gunfire killing 12 and injuring 66 more.  Ten of the 12 victims (83%) killed during the Obama presidency were students, as were 39 (59%) of the injured.

The chart below shows that during President Obama’s eight-year reign as commander-in-chief, gun deaths at HBCUs spiked 300%, and gun injuries went up by 550% from the previous 36 years.

Shootings at HBCUs Throughout the Years

 

Eras

 

Time Span

 

Number of Years

 

Number of Shootings

Number of Victims Killed

Number of Victims Injured

HBCU Shootings During Pre-Civil Rights Era

1918–1953

35

1

 

 

1

 

 

0

HBCU Protest Shootings During the Civil Rights Era

1954–1972

18

5

 

 

8

 

 

40

 

Post–Civil Rights Era (36 years before Obama Administration)

1973–1981

9

 

1

 

0

 

1

1982–1990

9

1

 

1

 

0

1991–1999

9

2

 

0

 

 

5

2000–2008*

9

9

 

3

 

6

 

Obama Administration

January 20, 2009 to Jan 19, 2017

8

56

 

 

12

 

 

 

66

 

Trump Administration

 

January 20, 2017 to Present Day

3

12

 

4

 

8

Totals

101

87

29

126

*During the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred, killing two and injuring six.

When comparing the Obama administration’s record on gun violence at HBCUs to that of its predecessor, the Bush administration, the numbers surge to a 700% increase.  During the eight years of the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing two and injuring six.  Only eight months into President Obama’s first term in office, two students were shot and killed, and 19 others received gunshot injuries in eight shootings at HBCUs, eclipsing the eight shootings that happened during the entire two-term Bush presidency.

Even the racial tensions at HBCUs during the Civil Rights Era don’t compare to the devastation brought to HBCUs by the Obama presidency.  HBCUs endured five high-profile racially motivated shootings by law enforcement during Civil Rights protests with eight people getting shot and killed, 40 receiving gunshot wounds, and scores more getting roughed up and injured in the race riots.  It’s profoundly sad and ironic that the 56 shootings at HBCUs that occurred during the eight years of the Obama Administration are 11 times greater than the number of shootings that occurred at HBCUs in nearly 20 years of turbulent racial hatred of the Civil Rights Era.

Most of the shootings at HBCUs are incidents that arise from fights over petty grievances, involve gangs, or are crimes stemming from drugs or robberies.  Rival gangs from Missouri City and Fresno, about 30 to 40 minutes away from Texas Southern University, were responsible for a drive-by shooting that occurred at TSU during a concert and community rally that “featured a voter registration drive, HIV testing and appearances by Houston rapper Trae the Truth” that injured eight people, ages 14 to 21, including one male TSU student.

With all the violence that HBCU students are constantly subjected to, students at the time, like 19-year-old freshman at TSU Daijsa Fowls, are left to ask, “How do you study and watch your back?  Daijsa also said, “A bullet has no name.  It can happen to anybody.”  Another TSU student fearing for her safety, Kendra Horn, also voiced her concerns, stating, It’s literally here in front of our faces. I can’t feel safe walking all the way to class; how am I supposed to focus in class without thinking I’m going to get shot?”

To better understand the depth of the plague of shootings at HBCUs during Obama’s tenure in the White House, the list below illustrates 34 shootings that occurred at 11 HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Sometimes the frequency of the shootings is a matter of years, months, weeks, or even days.  It is also important to keep in mind that students also have to be concerned with shootings that happen just off campus and in the surrounding area, which occur even more frequently than on-campus shootings.

HBCUs With Multiple Shootings during Obama Administration

Langston University: 5 Shootings

August 16, 2009: 4 Injured
September 28, 2009: None Injured or Killed
October 14, 2010: 1 Injured
October 18, 2014: 1 Injured
October 15, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Lane College: 5 Shootings

September 16, 2011: 1 Injured
February 1, 2012: 1 Killed
September 17, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 2, 2015: 1 Injured
December 18, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Texas Southern University: 4 Shootings

July 22, 2009: 8 Injured
August 26, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
October 6, 2015: 1 Injured
October 9, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured

Elizabeth City State University: 4 Shootings

November 5, 2011: Assailant injured by law enforcement
April 11, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 13, 2013: 1 Injured
October 8, 2014: None Injured or Killed

Savannah State University: 3 Shootings

September 21, 2013: 1 Killed
September 5, 2014: 1 Injured
August 27, 2015: 1 Killed

Tennessee State University: 3 Shootings

May 18, 2009: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
January 28, 2014: 1 Injured
October 22, 2015: 1 Killed, 3 Injured

Morgan State University: 2 Shootings

September 12, 2012: 1 Injured
November 3, 2012: 1 Injured

Bethune-Cookman University: 2 Shootings

February 23, 2015: 1 Injured
March 29, 2015: 1 Injured

Paine College: 2 Shootings

May 4, 2015: 1 Injured
May 5, 2015: 1 Injured

Delaware State University: 2 Shootings

February 13, 2009: 2 Injured
April 13, 2015: 3 Injured

Grambling State University: *2 Shootings

April 16, 2013: 3 Injured
*January 28, 2015

*alleged shooting — “The Gramblinite, the student newspaper of Grambling State University, tweeted that the university was on lockdown due to an allege(d) campus shooting.”

Gun violence wasn’t the only destructive force HBCUs suffered through under the navigation of President Obama.  Devastating budget cuts and low enrollment also hindered the prosperity of HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Even though the Bush administration had designated $85 million for HBCUs, within months of becoming commander-in chief, President Obama decided not to renew the “$85 million pot of money earmarked for HBCUs by his Republican predecessor.”  Obama’s failure to financially support HBCUs also led economist Julianne Malveaux, who was the president of Bennett College in North Carolina at the time to ask, “Why is it that a recalcitrant Bush would do more for HBCUs than an ostensibly sympathetic Obama would?”

From 2000 to 2008, HBCUs “received on average 3.5 percent of federal money going to institutions of higher education,” but by 2013, even as the overall federal higher education budget grew, the HBCU share was down to 2.8 percent, according to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which lobbies for black colleges and supports students with scholarships.”  In February 2015, Hampton University president William Harvey attended a meeting of the White House’s advisory board and “delivered some blunt criticism” of the Obama administration’s poor treatment of HBCUs.  Harvey, who is the advisory board chair, said, “We are not consulted when it comes to policy changes and decisions impacting — in a major way — the institutions on whose behalf we are to advocate. Overall support to black colleges is down.”

After HBCUs were forsaken by the Obama administration for eight years, the former Thurgood Marshall College Fund president and CEO, Johnny C. Taylor, pointed out the difference between the Obama and Trump administrations.  After President Trump signed an executive order titled “The Presidential Executive Order on the White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities” in just 45 days once he took office in 2017, Taylor explained that President Trump’s actions were “something that, frankly, the black college community assumed would have been easily accomplished with the first African-American president, and after over eight years of repeated requests, to think that within 45 days of his presidency we were able to convene all of the [HBCU] presidents in the Oval Office [Monday] and [on Tuesday] a subset of us were able to come back and sign the executive order the same day that the [president] is preparing for first State of the Union address. [That] gives this tremendous importance. It’s bittersweet, but at the end of the day, we focus on the sweet.”

As 2019 comes to an end, President Trump also signed the FUTURE Act, which is a “bipartisan amendment to a bill that would permanently re-authorize millions of dollars in federal funding to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) for a decade.”

How did the Obama administration honestly hope to effect real positive change for HBCUs without addressing the skyrocketing gun violence during its two terms in office and by slashing their already strapped budgets?  After the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama could be seen wiping away a single tear in a press conference as he predictably pushed for the agenda of gun control.  How come President Obama didn’t hold a press conference or shed any tears for any of the HBCU victims and their families as an epidemic of shootings at HBCUs surged under his leadership?  Were tears not appropriate for the 12 people killed and 66 others who received gunshot wounds under the neglect of President Obama’s tenure?

Ironically, President Obama’s idea of “Hope and Change” increased shootings at HBCUs by seven times and put black American students at risk of being killed threefold and 11 times more likely to be injured from gun violence under his leadership compared to the previous eight years of the Bush administration.  What does President Obama leaving behind a legacy of neglect, less money, and more violence for HBCUs, a cornerstone of the black community, say about America’s first black president?  President Obama’s tattered legacy of dereliction, financial neglect, and escalating violence for HBCUs has proved that the Trump administration is the real driving force for actual “Hope and Change” at HBCUs, as opposed to the never-ending line of empty and broken promises of the Obama administration.

Image: Ari Levinson via Wikimedia Commons.

In the 36 years before then-senator Barack Obama promised “Change We Can Believe In” during his 2008 presidential campaign, won the presidency, and made history by becoming America’s first black president, shootings at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were infrequent and rare events.  During that time, 13 shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing four students and injuring another 12 victims, 11 being students.

While change did occur during the Obama presidency, it wasn’t hopeful change we can (or even should) believe in.  Empirical data of shootings at HBCUs, available at www.schoolshootingdatabase.com, have uncovered that during the eight years of the Obama administration, shootings at HBCUs surged 430% (in roughly 28 less years) to 56 shootings, with gunfire killing 12 and injuring 66 more.  Ten of the 12 victims (83%) killed during the Obama presidency were students, as were 39 (59%) of the injured.

The chart below shows that during President Obama’s eight-year reign as commander-in-chief, gun deaths at HBCUs spiked 300%, and gun injuries went up by 550% from the previous 36 years.

Shootings at HBCUs Throughout the Years

 

Eras

 

Time Span

 

Number of Years

 

Number of Shootings

Number of Victims Killed

Number of Victims Injured

HBCU Shootings During Pre-Civil Rights Era

1918–1953

35

1

 

 

1

 

 

0

HBCU Protest Shootings During the Civil Rights Era

1954–1972

18

5

 

 

8

 

 

40

 

Post–Civil Rights Era (36 years before Obama Administration)

1973–1981

9

 

1

 

0

 

1

1982–1990

9

1

 

1

 

0

1991–1999

9

2

 

0

 

 

5

2000–2008*

9

9

 

3

 

6

 

Obama Administration

January 20, 2009 to Jan 19, 2017

8

56

 

 

12

 

 

 

66

 

Trump Administration

 

January 20, 2017 to Present Day

3

12

 

4

 

8

Totals

101

87

29

126

*During the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred, killing two and injuring six.

When comparing the Obama administration’s record on gun violence at HBCUs to that of its predecessor, the Bush administration, the numbers surge to a 700% increase.  During the eight years of the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing two and injuring six.  Only eight months into President Obama’s first term in office, two students were shot and killed, and 19 others received gunshot injuries in eight shootings at HBCUs, eclipsing the eight shootings that happened during the entire two-term Bush presidency.

Even the racial tensions at HBCUs during the Civil Rights Era don’t compare to the devastation brought to HBCUs by the Obama presidency.  HBCUs endured five high-profile racially motivated shootings by law enforcement during Civil Rights protests with eight people getting shot and killed, 40 receiving gunshot wounds, and scores more getting roughed up and injured in the race riots.  It’s profoundly sad and ironic that the 56 shootings at HBCUs that occurred during the eight years of the Obama Administration are 11 times greater than the number of shootings that occurred at HBCUs in nearly 20 years of turbulent racial hatred of the Civil Rights Era.

Most of the shootings at HBCUs are incidents that arise from fights over petty grievances, involve gangs, or are crimes stemming from drugs or robberies.  Rival gangs from Missouri City and Fresno, about 30 to 40 minutes away from Texas Southern University, were responsible for a drive-by shooting that occurred at TSU during a concert and community rally that “featured a voter registration drive, HIV testing and appearances by Houston rapper Trae the Truth” that injured eight people, ages 14 to 21, including one male TSU student.

With all the violence that HBCU students are constantly subjected to, students at the time, like 19-year-old freshman at TSU Daijsa Fowls, are left to ask, “How do you study and watch your back?  Daijsa also said, “A bullet has no name.  It can happen to anybody.”  Another TSU student fearing for her safety, Kendra Horn, also voiced her concerns, stating, It’s literally here in front of our faces. I can’t feel safe walking all the way to class; how am I supposed to focus in class without thinking I’m going to get shot?”

To better understand the depth of the plague of shootings at HBCUs during Obama’s tenure in the White House, the list below illustrates 34 shootings that occurred at 11 HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Sometimes the frequency of the shootings is a matter of years, months, weeks, or even days.  It is also important to keep in mind that students also have to be concerned with shootings that happen just off campus and in the surrounding area, which occur even more frequently than on-campus shootings.

HBCUs With Multiple Shootings during Obama Administration

Langston University: 5 Shootings

August 16, 2009: 4 Injured
September 28, 2009: None Injured or Killed
October 14, 2010: 1 Injured
October 18, 2014: 1 Injured
October 15, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Lane College: 5 Shootings

September 16, 2011: 1 Injured
February 1, 2012: 1 Killed
September 17, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 2, 2015: 1 Injured
December 18, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Texas Southern University: 4 Shootings

July 22, 2009: 8 Injured
August 26, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
October 6, 2015: 1 Injured
October 9, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured

Elizabeth City State University: 4 Shootings

November 5, 2011: Assailant injured by law enforcement
April 11, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 13, 2013: 1 Injured
October 8, 2014: None Injured or Killed

Savannah State University: 3 Shootings

September 21, 2013: 1 Killed
September 5, 2014: 1 Injured
August 27, 2015: 1 Killed

Tennessee State University: 3 Shootings

May 18, 2009: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
January 28, 2014: 1 Injured
October 22, 2015: 1 Killed, 3 Injured

Morgan State University: 2 Shootings

September 12, 2012: 1 Injured
November 3, 2012: 1 Injured

Bethune-Cookman University: 2 Shootings

February 23, 2015: 1 Injured
March 29, 2015: 1 Injured

Paine College: 2 Shootings

May 4, 2015: 1 Injured
May 5, 2015: 1 Injured

Delaware State University: 2 Shootings

February 13, 2009: 2 Injured
April 13, 2015: 3 Injured

Grambling State University: *2 Shootings

April 16, 2013: 3 Injured
*January 28, 2015

*alleged shooting — “The Gramblinite, the student newspaper of Grambling State University, tweeted that the university was on lockdown due to an allege(d) campus shooting.”

Gun violence wasn’t the only destructive force HBCUs suffered through under the navigation of President Obama.  Devastating budget cuts and low enrollment also hindered the prosperity of HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Even though the Bush administration had designated $85 million for HBCUs, within months of becoming commander-in chief, President Obama decided not to renew the “$85 million pot of money earmarked for HBCUs by his Republican predecessor.”  Obama’s failure to financially support HBCUs also led economist Julianne Malveaux, who was the president of Bennett College in North Carolina at the time to ask, “Why is it that a recalcitrant Bush would do more for HBCUs than an ostensibly sympathetic Obama would?”

From 2000 to 2008, HBCUs “received on average 3.5 percent of federal money going to institutions of higher education,” but by 2013, even as the overall federal higher education budget grew, the HBCU share was down to 2.8 percent, according to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which lobbies for black colleges and supports students with scholarships.”  In February 2015, Hampton University president William Harvey attended a meeting of the White House’s advisory board and “delivered some blunt criticism” of the Obama administration’s poor treatment of HBCUs.  Harvey, who is the advisory board chair, said, “We are not consulted when it comes to policy changes and decisions impacting — in a major way — the institutions on whose behalf we are to advocate. Overall support to black colleges is down.”

After HBCUs were forsaken by the Obama administration for eight years, the former Thurgood Marshall College Fund president and CEO, Johnny C. Taylor, pointed out the difference between the Obama and Trump administrations.  After President Trump signed an executive order titled “The Presidential Executive Order on the White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities” in just 45 days once he took office in 2017, Taylor explained that President Trump’s actions were “something that, frankly, the black college community assumed would have been easily accomplished with the first African-American president, and after over eight years of repeated requests, to think that within 45 days of his presidency we were able to convene all of the [HBCU] presidents in the Oval Office [Monday] and [on Tuesday] a subset of us were able to come back and sign the executive order the same day that the [president] is preparing for first State of the Union address. [That] gives this tremendous importance. It’s bittersweet, but at the end of the day, we focus on the sweet.”

As 2019 comes to an end, President Trump also signed the FUTURE Act, which is a “bipartisan amendment to a bill that would permanently re-authorize millions of dollars in federal funding to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) for a decade.”

How did the Obama administration honestly hope to effect real positive change for HBCUs without addressing the skyrocketing gun violence during its two terms in office and by slashing their already strapped budgets?  After the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama could be seen wiping away a single tear in a press conference as he predictably pushed for the agenda of gun control.  How come President Obama didn’t hold a press conference or shed any tears for any of the HBCU victims and their families as an epidemic of shootings at HBCUs surged under his leadership?  Were tears not appropriate for the 12 people killed and 66 others who received gunshot wounds under the neglect of President Obama’s tenure?

Ironically, President Obama’s idea of “Hope and Change” increased shootings at HBCUs by seven times and put black American students at risk of being killed threefold and 11 times more likely to be injured from gun violence under his leadership compared to the previous eight years of the Bush administration.  What does President Obama leaving behind a legacy of neglect, less money, and more violence for HBCUs, a cornerstone of the black community, say about America’s first black president?  President Obama’s tattered legacy of dereliction, financial neglect, and escalating violence for HBCUs has proved that the Trump administration is the real driving force for actual “Hope and Change” at HBCUs, as opposed to the never-ending line of empty and broken promises of the Obama administration.

Image: Ari Levinson via Wikimedia Commons.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Virginia governor declares war on law-abiding gun-owners with emergency order

Invoking the specter of Charlottesville in a Wednesday afternoon press conference, Governor Ralph ‘Blackface’ Northam declared a temporary state of emergency ahead of Monday’s pro- Second Amendment Lobby Day rally in Richmond. The emergency order will be in effect from Friday evening until January 21, the day after tens of thousands of pro-2A supporters are expected to arrive on the grounds of the Capitol building.

In his speech, Northam ratcheted up the tension between law-abiding Virginians and gun-control zealots.

YouTube screen grab

The governor claims he has received, “credible intelligence from law enforcement agencies” that out-of-state militia groups, white nationalists and hate groups will arrive in Richmond to “intimidate and cause harm.”   “State intelligence analysts,” he says, have been perusing the dark web, and mainstream channels, both online and offline, and are seeing rhetoric similar to that used by “violent groups and white nationalists” before the Charlottesville ‘Unite the Right’ rally in 2017. Northam told a reporter during the Q&A he doesn’t “want a repeat of what happened in Charlottesville.”  

From YouTube:

Northam’s fear mongering continued, ominously suggesting non-essential employees should not report to work on Monday. “If you don’t need to be in Richmond on Monday… please consider staying home,” he said. Standing behind Northam was Richmond’s Democrat Mayor, Levar Stoney, one of Terry McAuliffe’s former employees, who now presides over a city where black-on-black shootings occur on a daily basis.  To add fuel to the fire the Democrats themselves are igniting, Stoney told the press “violations of the law will not be tolerated, I repeat, violations of the law will not be tolerated.”

Whose law, Mr. Stoney?

Northam’s emergency order prohibits the carrying of all firearms, along with “bats, sticks” and weapons of any nature on Capitol grounds until Tuesday. The governor contends the “threat of armed militias groups storming our capital” makes it necessary to impose a state of emergency.

Later, the governor who has dishonored Virginia by wearing blackface, advocating killing full-term babies and tyrannically denying citizens their constitutional right to bear arms, warned gun-rights rally goers not to “dishonor” their state. He called on the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), the organizer of Monday’s rally, to disavow and discourage violence. This, after the governor stated VCDL had “unleashed something much larger” than they are able to control. Northam’s incendiary scare tactics and ‘white supremacist’ reference portraying law-abiding citizens as evil doers may unleash his Bloomberg/Soros-funded leftists to show up on Monday — just as in Charlottesville.
 

The VCDL and other gun rights groups have done nothing but preach peace before and during their annual assembly. The Lobby Day rally has been going on peacefully for many years. The increased numbers predicted for Monday have resulted from the multiple unconstitutional gun control laws being brought before both Democrat-controlled state houses. Northam has made no secret of his desire to infringe on Virginians’ Second Amendment rights.  Declaring a “State of Emergency” and illegally denying citizens the right to carry on public grounds while corralling thousands of tax-paying unarmed gun-rights supporters inside makeshift fencing at Capitol Square is what tyranny looks like. Incredibly, law enforcement officials from the Virginia State Police, Richmond City Police and the Capitol Police also appeared at the conference swearing their allegiance to Northam, not the U.S. Constitution.

Invoking the specter of Charlottesville in a Wednesday afternoon press conference, Governor Ralph ‘Blackface’ Northam declared a temporary state of emergency ahead of Monday’s pro- Second Amendment Lobby Day rally in Richmond. The emergency order will be in effect from Friday evening until January 21, the day after tens of thousands of pro-2A supporters are expected to arrive on the grounds of the Capitol building.

In his speech, Northam ratcheted up the tension between law-abiding Virginians and gun-control zealots.

YouTube screen grab

The governor claims he has received, “credible intelligence from law enforcement agencies” that out-of-state militia groups, white nationalists and hate groups will arrive in Richmond to “intimidate and cause harm.”   “State intelligence analysts,” he says, have been perusing the dark web, and mainstream channels, both online and offline, and are seeing rhetoric similar to that used by “violent groups and white nationalists” before the Charlottesville ‘Unite the Right’ rally in 2017. Northam told a reporter during the Q&A he doesn’t “want a repeat of what happened in Charlottesville.”  

From YouTube:

Northam’s fear mongering continued, ominously suggesting non-essential employees should not report to work on Monday. “If you don’t need to be in Richmond on Monday… please consider staying home,” he said. Standing behind Northam was Richmond’s Democrat Mayor, Levar Stoney, one of Terry McAuliffe’s former employees, who now presides over a city where black-on-black shootings occur on a daily basis.  To add fuel to the fire the Democrats themselves are igniting, Stoney told the press “violations of the law will not be tolerated, I repeat, violations of the law will not be tolerated.”

Whose law, Mr. Stoney?

Northam’s emergency order prohibits the carrying of all firearms, along with “bats, sticks” and weapons of any nature on Capitol grounds until Tuesday. The governor contends the “threat of armed militias groups storming our capital” makes it necessary to impose a state of emergency.

Later, the governor who has dishonored Virginia by wearing blackface, advocating killing full-term babies and tyrannically denying citizens their constitutional right to bear arms, warned gun-rights rally goers not to “dishonor” their state. He called on the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), the organizer of Monday’s rally, to disavow and discourage violence. This, after the governor stated VCDL had “unleashed something much larger” than they are able to control. Northam’s incendiary scare tactics and ‘white supremacist’ reference portraying law-abiding citizens as evil doers may unleash his Bloomberg/Soros-funded leftists to show up on Monday — just as in Charlottesville.
 

The VCDL and other gun rights groups have done nothing but preach peace before and during their annual assembly. The Lobby Day rally has been going on peacefully for many years. The increased numbers predicted for Monday have resulted from the multiple unconstitutional gun control laws being brought before both Democrat-controlled state houses. Northam has made no secret of his desire to infringe on Virginians’ Second Amendment rights.  Declaring a “State of Emergency” and illegally denying citizens the right to carry on public grounds while corralling thousands of tax-paying unarmed gun-rights supporters inside makeshift fencing at Capitol Square is what tyranny looks like. Incredibly, law enforcement officials from the Virginia State Police, Richmond City Police and the Capitol Police also appeared at the conference swearing their allegiance to Northam, not the U.S. Constitution.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Obnoxious liberal soccer champ Rapinoe determined to make Olympics about politics

Megan Rapinoe’s roaring again.  The International Olympic Committee published new rules that prohibit “political, religious or racial propaganda” “at medal ceremonies and Olympic venues,” and Rapinoe says she “will not be silenced.”  She later added that she will kneel anyway, which would force the IOC to enforce its rules or back down.

Not one for fine distinctions, Megan understands the world only in relation to herself and, as usual, completely misses the point.  The IOC said nothing about silence.  They said she couldn’t use the Olympic stage to push politics.  You can noisily talk about anything else — your girlfriend, the state of soccer, the game you just played, your house, your car, your dog.  Just don’t use the Olympics to push politics.  That would include kneeling.

If you get to do it, then everybody gets to do it, and in short order, WWIII would erupt.

But that’s okay, Megan — keep running your face.  It would give many of us satisfaction to see this woman barred from play at Tokyo in 2020 because of her obnoxiousness.  She’s trying to bend the world to her will and we don’t like it.  We don’t like her scowling mug, her snotty comments, her arrogance, or her presumption.  Those of us who follow soccer may like to watch her play, but we turn the channel when the interviews begin.

It remains for the IOC to show that it has the scrote to keep Megan off the field.  She will doubtless be joined by some of her teammates on the U.S. women’s soccer team.  That may be when Megs notices that America really doesn’t care much about her crusade.  Not only Americans — nobody else much cares, either.  Women’s soccer just isn’t popular the way men’s soccer is.  That’s nobody’s fault.  Not Megan’s, not mine, not the IOC’s.  That’s just how it is.

Megan, you get paid right well to do something you love to do.  Many of us don’t have that privilege.  If you don’t like your job, do something else.

Image: Jamie Smed via Flickr (cropped).

Megan Rapinoe’s roaring again.  The International Olympic Committee published new rules that prohibit “political, religious or racial propaganda” “at medal ceremonies and Olympic venues,” and Rapinoe says she “will not be silenced.”  She later added that she will kneel anyway, which would force the IOC to enforce its rules or back down.

Not one for fine distinctions, Megan understands the world only in relation to herself and, as usual, completely misses the point.  The IOC said nothing about silence.  They said she couldn’t use the Olympic stage to push politics.  You can noisily talk about anything else — your girlfriend, the state of soccer, the game you just played, your house, your car, your dog.  Just don’t use the Olympics to push politics.  That would include kneeling.

If you get to do it, then everybody gets to do it, and in short order, WWIII would erupt.

But that’s okay, Megan — keep running your face.  It would give many of us satisfaction to see this woman barred from play at Tokyo in 2020 because of her obnoxiousness.  She’s trying to bend the world to her will and we don’t like it.  We don’t like her scowling mug, her snotty comments, her arrogance, or her presumption.  Those of us who follow soccer may like to watch her play, but we turn the channel when the interviews begin.

It remains for the IOC to show that it has the scrote to keep Megan off the field.  She will doubtless be joined by some of her teammates on the U.S. women’s soccer team.  That may be when Megs notices that America really doesn’t care much about her crusade.  Not only Americans — nobody else much cares, either.  Women’s soccer just isn’t popular the way men’s soccer is.  That’s nobody’s fault.  Not Megan’s, not mine, not the IOC’s.  That’s just how it is.

Megan, you get paid right well to do something you love to do.  Many of us don’t have that privilege.  If you don’t like your job, do something else.

Image: Jamie Smed via Flickr (cropped).

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

The Cannabis Industry’s Dirty Energy Secret

The Cannabis Industry's Dirty Energy Secret

Your average marijuana plant is a rather unimposing, forest green weed that blends well with nature. The dirty truth, however, is that the business of growing cannabis is anything but green. In fact, the growing of pot is so power-intensive that its ecological footprint is quickly becoming an environmental nightmare. 

The $344 billion cannabis industry is one of the country’s most energy-intensive in the world, frequently demanding an array of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, fans and 24-hour indoor lighting rigs at multiple growing sites. 

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

Worldwide Border Wall Tour, Part 1: The Great Wall Of China

The Gateway Pundit has partnered with WeBuildTheWall Inc. to provide you a first-hand look at walls built across the globe to stop invasion, combat terrorism and guard sovereignty.

While Democrats incessantly disseminate propaganda claiming President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall southern border wall is “immoral,” a “monument to racism” and try to convince us that walls don’t work, WeBuildTheWall Inc.’s investigation of walls built around the world blows a hole through the left-wing narrative.

Today, at least 65 countries have or are building walls to protect themselves.

WeBuildTheWall Inc.’s foreign correspondent Jeff Rainforth’s worldwide border wall tour took him to 7 countries in 39 days.

His first stop, one of the most ancient walls: The Great Wall of China.

While politicians in the United States are hell-bent on allowing illegal aliens to flood the United States, with an estimated half-million illegal entries into the country each year, the odds of a foreign national illegally entering China without being apprehended is nearly impossible in the highly-surveilled communist state which is known for its aggressive opposition to illegal immigration.

“When I landed in Beijing, the first thing I noticed at the airport was the abundance of security cameras – more than any other airport I’ve been in,” Rainsforth told the Gateway Pundit. “The communist party likes to keep tabs on everyone. This became evident on the drive to the village I would stay in near the wall.

“Every 3 miles there would be a flash as a camera took pictures of us as we drove. Even in the countryside, there were cameras taking our pictures. Apparently, the Chinese government wants to know where everyone is, all the time.”

Rainforth’s wall tour in China began with a two-week stop in Hong Kong, where he found himself evading arrest from Chinese police.

Pepper sprayed by Hong Kong riot police

Jeff Rainforth on the ground in Hong Kong covering the freedom from communist China protests. Jeff & others were pepper sprayed after challenging HK police for arresting an elderly man for no apparent reason.

Posted by Brian Kolfage on Sunday, October 13, 2019

“After two weeks of being embedded with the Hong Kong protesters – I was tear-gassed twice, pepper-sprayed once, running from riot police who are controlled by communist China, almost beaten with a baton, and many other brushes with danger – I left for China to visit the Great Wall.”

The 13,000-mile-long Great Wall of China, which has become the country’s preeminent national symbol, took more than 2,500 years to build and was created as a military defense line.

I’m at the Great Wall of China!

Posted by Jeff Rainforth on Saturday, October 26, 2019

The historic landmark successfully deterred nomadic invaders of the XiongNu of ancient central Asia from breaching the Chinese border. It included intermittent of guard posts, allowing its Chinese troops to spread signals to warn of invasions and draw in reinforcement troops.

The Great Wall of China isn’t one continuous wall, but a collection of walls, fortifications and watchtowers constructed across successive Chinese dynasties.

The tallest section of the wall is 46 feet, with the average height being between 20 and 23 feet.

The trail to the top of the wall Rainforth visited “zig-zagged about 4 miles up the mountain,” he said. “It took me about 3 hours to make it to the top. I was exhausted by the time I made it up. My health app said that I went up the equivalent of 167 floors and walked 6 miles that day.”

 

“It is, I can confirm, totally big and beautiful—to borrow words from our future wall-builder in chief,” he continued. “At the top of the wall, the view is breathtaking. The wall continues as far as the eye can see in either direction.”

In 221 – 206 B.C., Qin Shi Huang, the first Chinese emperor, connected portions of the wall built across the region. Construction of the wall continued until 1878 during the Qing dynasty.

Emperor Qin Shi Huang spent massively on the wall during the third century B.C. This painting is from around A.D. 1850.

Love them or hate them, walls work and the remains of the Great Wall of China are a reminder of this, Rainsforth argued.

“Seeing this wall reminds us that nations have been building walls to protect their citizens from harm since time immemorial,” Rainforth concluded. “There is nothing wrong with building a wall on our border to protect our fellow Americans from barbaric drug cartels, criminals, and terrorists.

“There are walls everywhere and they work. They build them for a reason – to keep the citizens safe from terrorism and cartels.”

We Build The Wall is near completion of a 3-mile-long border wall in Mission, Texas along the Rio Grande River, the second wall the non-profit organization has built using private donations from thousands of ordinary American citizens.

The Trump administration to date has constructed 100 miles of the border wall and has set a goal to complete an additional 350 miles of the wall by the end of 2020.

Last Thursday, a federal appeals court lifted an order blocking the Trump administration from using $3.6 billion in military construction funds to erect a taxpayer-funded wall across the entire border. The president will reportedly transfer an additional $7.2 billion from Pentagon accounts in 2020 using national emergency powers to build his promised security barrier on the southern border. If the pending transfer is not blocked by Congress or the courts, the supplementary funding would bump up his border wall spending to $18.4 billion.

While the president grapples with Congress and the courts for resources, We Build The Wall would be fully equipped to construct a wall along the entire 2000-mile border with the help of the American people, Kolfage explained.

“We are still raising money. We’ve just got to keep hammering at it, little chunks at a time. If every Trump supporter donates $80, then the nonprofit could build a wall on the entire 2000-mile border,” he said. “DHS has endorsed us. Border Patrol has endorsed us.”

 

The post Worldwide Border Wall Tour, Part 1: The Great Wall Of China appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com