New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees has issued a response after controversy erupted over a video in which he encouraged children to bring their Bibles to school. Brees made his original comments in a video supporting Bring Your Bible to School Day, an October event sponsored by the Christian organization Focus on the Family. “Hey…
In 1963, racist Democrat governor George Wallace stood in the doorway of a building at the University of Alabama trying to prevent African Americans from integrating the school. In 2019, race-baiting Atlantic magazine writer Jemele Hill is encouraging black athletes to leave "white universities" and segregate themselves at historically black colleges and universities (HBCU’s). Hill’s story is titled, "It’s Time for Black Athletes to Leave White Colleges."
The unemployment rate for African-Americans fell to the lowest level ever recorded in August, dropping from 6 percent to 5.5 percent.
One result: the persistent gap between white and black unemployment also narrowed to its smallest on record.
The unemployment ratio has averaged around 2 to 1 or so for decades, meaning the black unemployment rate is typically twice the white unemployment rate. In good times, the unemployment rate of whites and blacks falls but the gap remains. And in bad times, the unemployment rate for whites and black rises, but black unemployment typically remains around twice that of white employment.
A year ago, the black unemployment rate stood at 6.6 percent while the white unemployment rate was 3.4 percent, meaning black unemployment was 185 percent of white unemployment.
In August, the gap narrowed so that black unemployment was under 162 percent of white unemployment. That is the smallest gap ever in records going back to January 1972.
This is particularly remarkable because it comes at a time of remarkably low unemployment. Prior to the Trump era, the last time the gap fell below 170 percent was in August of 2009, when the black unemployment rate was 14.8 percent and the white unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. Back then the gap declined because white unemployment was increasing at a faster clip than the already sky-high black unemployment.
In other words, the decline in employment inequality now is undeniably the best on record because it comes in the context of falling unemployment.
The Obamas have always been big on Chicago-style political muscle, and even in the post-presidency, Barack and Michelle have not changed a bit.
Get a load of this outrageous bid to force a little company to give up its trademark — to him. According to Fox News:
The legal team representing the Obamas filed a petition to cancel the trademark of an e-book publishing company called Higher Ground Enterprises, much to the chagrin of the publishing company.
“This is really deplorable behavior. I hope that the Obamas realize that these actions are not consistent with the values they preach and that they instruct their attorneys to immediately dismiss the petition,” attorney Larry Zerner told Fox News in a statement that was first given to The Hollywood Reporter.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Obama team wanted to name their Netflix propaganda venture ’Higher Ground Productions’ which is kind of a stupid, banal name, but whatevs. The U.S. trademark office told them ‘no’ because another company, Higher Ground Enterprises, already had the name, and the names were too similar.
But nobody tells the Obamas ‘no…’ so:
On Aug. 20, Barack and Michelle Obama’s Higher Ground Productions made a move to save its name. That day, the company went to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and demanded cancellation of someone else’s earlier trademark registration for “Higher Ground Enterprises.”
Higher Ground Enterprises is run by Hanisya Massey, who, according to her attorney Larry Zerner, is in the business of helping authors publish e-books. Her trademark is in Class 41, which includes entertainment services. Zerner says Massey has been using “Higher Ground” since 2008.
Naturally, as the Obamas came to a lucrative agreement with Netflix for films and television series, Higher Ground Productions came into conflict with Higher Ground Enterprises.
On April 10, a Trademark Examiner refused to register the Obamas’ claimed mark with a nod to the one held by Massey.
So instead of respecting the other company’s right to exist and coming up with a slightly different name, such as Higher Grounds Productions, or else concentrating their resources on appealing again to the trademark office that the names really are different (they got turned down once on appeal), they’re now going for the jugular, seeking to expropriate the little company’s name for themselves in court because they are so much more important.
What would their rationale be? They claim that the trademark was not used at the time of its granting, but that probably was a function of the Obama economy, when little startups couldn’t get the capital they needed. What an irony if true.
The only other thing they can tell the judge is that they’re the Obamas and little people just need to get of the way.
It’s not just outrageous in itself, it raises questions about just what the Obamas will do if they get laughed out of court. Might the Obamas suddenly call up their political muscle in whatever city the little e-book publisher or its operations are located in? A big fine from some allied bureaucrats would put that company out of its misery pronto, freeing up the name.
The possibilities are endless. And the horribleness of this muscle act against the little guys, over something they didn’t do wrong, is really disgusting. Shouldn’t this be getting more attention? Socialists, by hook or crook, and even if they no longer have their hands on the levers of power, will stop and nothing to steal every last thing a little guy has got.
The Obamas have always been big on Chicago-style political muscle, and even in the post-presidency, Barack and Michelle have not changed a bit.
Get a load of this outrageous bid to force a little company to give up its trademark — to him. According to Fox News:
The legal team representing the Obamas filed a petition to cancel the trademark of an e-book publishing company called Higher Ground Enterprises, much to the chagrin of the publishing company.
“This is really deplorable behavior. I hope that the Obamas realize that these actions are not consistent with the values they preach and that they instruct their attorneys to immediately dismiss the petition,” attorney Larry Zerner told Fox News in a statement that was first given to The Hollywood Reporter.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Obama team wanted to name their Netflix propaganda venture ’Higher Ground Productions’ which is kind of a stupid, banal name, but whatevs. The U.S. trademark office told them ‘no’ because another company, Higher Ground Enterprises, already had the name, and the names were too similar.
But nobody tells the Obamas ‘no…’ so:
On Aug. 20, Barack and Michelle Obama’s Higher Ground Productions made a move to save its name. That day, the company went to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and demanded cancellation of someone else’s earlier trademark registration for “Higher Ground Enterprises.”
Higher Ground Enterprises is run by Hanisya Massey, who, according to her attorney Larry Zerner, is in the business of helping authors publish e-books. Her trademark is in Class 41, which includes entertainment services. Zerner says Massey has been using “Higher Ground” since 2008.
Naturally, as the Obamas came to a lucrative agreement with Netflix for films and television series, Higher Ground Productions came into conflict with Higher Ground Enterprises.
On April 10, a Trademark Examiner refused to register the Obamas’ claimed mark with a nod to the one held by Massey.
So instead of respecting the other company’s right to exist and coming up with a slightly different name, such as Higher Grounds Productions, or else concentrating their resources on appealing again to the trademark office that the names really are different (they got turned down once on appeal), they’re now going for the jugular, seeking to expropriate the little company’s name for themselves in court because they are so much more important.
What would their rationale be? They claim that the trademark was not used at the time of its granting, but that probably was a function of the Obama economy, when little startups couldn’t get the capital they needed. What an irony if true.
The only other thing they can tell the judge is that they’re the Obamas and little people just need to get of the way.
It’s not just outrageous in itself, it raises questions about just what the Obamas will do if they get laughed out of court. Might the Obamas suddenly call up their political muscle in whatever city the little e-book publisher or its operations are located in? A big fine from some allied bureaucrats would put that company out of its misery pronto, freeing up the name.
The possibilities are endless. And the horribleness of this muscle act against the little guys, over something they didn’t do wrong, is really disgusting. Shouldn’t this be getting more attention? Socialists, by hook or crook, and even if they no longer have their hands on the levers of power, will stop and nothing to steal every last thing a little guy has got.
In a new book, former Defense Secretary James Mattis takes the Obama administration to task for its weak response to the growing threat of the Iranian regime. One bombshell included in the book is the Obama administration’s tepid response to what Mattis referred to as an “act of war” by Iran – the planned bombing of a café in Washington, D.C.
Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.
The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding “food of the future”.
Söderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food” where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.
According to his research, the main problem with the idea is the widespread taboo of eating human flesh and said that conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes at large to take up the practice of cannibalism.
Tissue culture “clean meat” already in 2018? I’ve long been looking forward to this.https://t.co/p41NR3NEZn What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus “yuck reaction” absolutism.
Regardless of the likely immense resistance to the idea of eating people, Söderlund said it was important to examine different options in the name of sustainability.
Söderlund is not alone in his call to reject the taboo of cannibalism. Last year, noted atheist and evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins advocated for lab-grown meat and suggested it may be used to “overcome our taboo against cannibalism”.
Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of Lancaster University also questioned the taboo on cannibalism in an article for Newsweek last month but ultimately did not endorse breaking it.
Cannibalism is not the only “alternative meat” advocated by climate change activists. Many have embraced plant-based meat imitations, while others have put their support behind “meat” made of insects as a way to cut down on greenhouse emissions and save on land and water use.
A YouGov poll in the UK found that 37 per cent of respondents thought that the number of food products containing insects would grow in the next ten years.
Last year in the German city of Aachen, shoppers were invited to try burgers made of buffalo worms with mixed reactions from the public.
Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJor email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com
Hundreds of millions of Facebook users’ phone numbers have been exposed online to the public. According to TechCrunch’s September 4 story, a compromised server exposed over 419 million users across multiple countries, “including 133 million records on U.S.-based Facebook users, 18 million records of users in the U.K., and another with more than 50 million records on users in Vietnam.”
The Alabama National Guard posted a statement on August 30 to Twitter that it was preparing for a possible hit by Hurricane Dorian. At that time Dorian was projected to cross the Florida peninsula and enter the Gulf of Mexico along the Florida panhandle, hitting Alabama and Georgia.
The Guard posted this statement and photo collage, “#HurricaneDorian is projected to reach southern Alabama by the early part of the week. We are watching closely and #ready to act. Are you?”
Days later when Dorian changed track and instead skirted the Atlantic coast of Florida, Alabama was still in the projected wind field for possible tropical storm force winds.
President Trump has been battling the media all week since accurately tweeting and commenting at a briefing on Sunday that Alabama was at risk from Dorian.
Thursday afternoon Trump posted several National Hurricane Center protections for Dorian that showed Alabama at risk.
Just as I said, Alabama was originally projected to be hit. The Fake News denies it! pic.twitter.com/elJ7ROfm2p
Is CNN working for the Trump campaign?
Was CNN infiltrated by Trumpkins?
Following a wild night of Democrat candidates promising to take away hamburgers, straws, fracking and modern comforts CNN immediately announced another night of pandering to the gay, lesbian and trans community.
At the end of Wednesday night’s event, CNN anchor Don Lemon announced that his network, in partnership with the left-wing activist organization Human Rights Campaign, will host an Oct. 10 town hall exclusively focused on gay, lesbian, and transgender issues, featuring all qualifying Democratic presidential candidates. Lemon said the event will focus on “issues important to LGBTQ people,” and HRC president Alphonso David said, “This town hall comes at a critical time in our fight to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people in this nation.”
Thought you were done with this seven-hour nonsense that @CNN forced on us tonight with the #ClimateTownHall? GET THIS — Don Lemon announced at the very end that @CNN will be doing this AGAIN next month on LGBTQ issues. So buckle up for what will probably be another SEVEN hours! pic.twitter.com/1ItLGZQP1O
Before Congress took its August break, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that when the Senate returns, it will take up gun control in light of the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings. He said, “What we can’t do is fail to pass something.”
That statement has the progressive Left licking their chops, hopeful that a cowed Republican majority in the Senate will pass new gun control measures – with universal background checks, red flag laws, restrictions on AR-style rifles, and magazine capacity limits all on the menu. When the Senate debate begins next week, Democrats will inevitably repeat several lies that have gained traction on the Left in recent years. Here’s the truth.
#1. Unlike other countries, America is plagued by mass shootings.
The Left claims that because the possession of guns in America is greater than in other countries, that causes the incidence of mass shootings to be higher too. However, that claim is based on a false premise. While the first statement is true, the second statement is false.
No-one has studied this issue more thoroughly than economist and author John Lott Jr. His study of mass shootings around the world revealed some interesting statistics. America has 4.6 percent of the world’s population. But America has only 1.49 percent of the murders worldwide, and less than 1.15 percent of the mass public shooters. America ranks 64th out of 97 countries in mass shootings per capita—a long way behind countries where the possession of firearms is uncommon.
#2. Background checks stop mass shootings.
This lie is particularly misleading in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings. Both shooters purchased their firearms legally from dealers who were Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL), and both passed the background checks. Therefore, existing background checks did nothing to stop the shootings, and universal background checks (compelled by H.R. 8, which passed the Democrat-controlled House in February) certainly would not have changed anything. Meanwhile law-abiding citizens would find it difficult to lend or sell firearms to family and friends.
Although background checks are necessary and do serve a legitimate purpose, as I have written previously, the biggest problem with the whole background check system is that it is routinely circumvented by criminals. Instead of buying the gun himself, the criminal simply has a person with a clean record buy the gun for him. These “straw purchaser” arrangements are illegal, but they’re almost impossible to detect and extremely difficult to prosecute. Indeed, it appears that the 2015 San Bernardino mass shooter acquired his firearms that way.
#3. Gun-free zones work.
Whenever a mass shooting occurs, Democrats typically push for laws forbidding guns in locations like that where the shooting took place. They evidently believe that a plastic sign on the door saying that no guns are allowed will stop potential shooters. It’s a fantasy. Worse, it serves as an invitation to criminals. One might as well post a sign saying “defenseless victims inside.”
The empirical data show just how dangerous gun free zones are. As pointed out by John Lott Jr., fully 98 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns. Most shooters recognize that they will encounter less resistance if their intended victims are unarmed.Or stated differently, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun; and the criminals know it.
#4. AR-style rifles are preferred by mass shooters.
The Left loves to hate AR-style rifles, better described as “modern rifles.”Their collapsible stocks, detachable magazines and general cosmetic features cause gun control advocates to hyperventilate. These firearms look like military rifles, therefore they must be bad; or so the Left believes. Hence the Left’s constant demand to institute another “assault weapons ban.”
However, it turns out that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters don’t actually use AR-style rifles. The Congressional Research Service wrote a lengthy report on this subject in 2015, defining a mass shooting as one in which three or more people are killed in a single incident. The study found that out of 317 mass shootings between 1999 and 2013, offenders used AR-style rifles in 31 incidents – or only 9.78% of the time.
This shouldn’t be particularly surprising. AR-style rifles are difficult to conceal, and semiautomatic pistols can deliver just as many bullets just as quickly. That’s why AR-style rifles aren’t usually used by most mass shooters, or by other criminals either. The notion that banning this type of firearm would put a dent in mass shootings is nonsense.
#5. So-called “smart guns” are the answer.
Perhaps the most idiotic pro-gun-control lie was delivered by Joe Biden at a campaign event in June. He said:“If I get elected president of the United States of America with your help, if that happens, guns, we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it. We have that capacity to do it now.”He repeated a similar claim during the second night of the first Democratic presidential debates.
Biden has no idea what he’s talking about. There is no such thing as a gun that can perform a DNA match. DNA matching is a time-consuming process that involves highly specialized equipment. With regard to fingerprints, at least one company is trying to develop a gun that can recognize a fingerprint, but it’s in the early development stage—and it has encountered all sorts of problems. There are no “smart guns” like Biden described currently on the market.
The closest thing to a smart gun that exists is a pistol that requires a matching bracelet in the vicinity for the gun to operate. However, that gun is easily defeated by about $15 worth of magnets; and it costs $1,800 – about four times the price of an equivalent pistol. If ever the fingerprint technology makes it to market, it will undoubtedly be even more expensive. And that’s the problem with any law requiring gun dealers to sell only smart guns if the technology becomes viable someday. The average gun buyer won’t be able to afford them.
But that’s exactly what the Left wants to see happen. If the Second Amendment forbids them from disarming all Americans, then they’d love to see firearms and ammunition become too expensive for most people to buy.
These are the lies that will be told in the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks—both by Democrats and by moderate Republicans. Let’s hope that the rest of the Senators do their homework and rebut such lies with the truth.
Kris W. Kobach served as the Secretary of State of Kansas during 2011-2019. He was a professor of constitutional law at UMKC Law School for 15 years from 1996 to 2011. He is currently General Counsel for We Build the Wall. An expert in immigration law and policy, he coauthored the Arizona SB-1070 immigration law and represented in federal court the 10 ICE agents who sued to stop President Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty. He is currently a candidate for Kansas’s U.S. Senate seat that will be open in 2020. His website is kriskobach.com.
