53percenter's Blog

Friday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Harvard University law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reiterated his position that there was no actionable obstruction of justice committed by President Donald Trump based on the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Dershowitz said Trump cannot be guilty of obstruction for performing duties allowed under his constitutional presidential powers.

“[I]n my introduction in the Mueller report, I go through the elements of obstruction of justice,” he said. “The act itself has to be illegal. It can’t be an act that is authorized under Article Two of the Constitution.”

That included the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey, he contended.

“It’s not even a close case,” Dershowitz explained. “The best analogy is president George H. W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger on the eve of his trial in order to stop the Iran-Contra investigation. The special prosecutor said he did it for that reason. Nobody suggested obstruction. It can’t be obstruction of justice if the president is acting within his authority. Nixon obstructed justice because he acted outside his authority, destroying evidence, paying hush money, telling his subordinates to lie to the FBI.”

Dershowitz warned Democrats, including Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), there would be consequences if Democrats continued to pursue impeachment.

“I am telling her all of the time,” he added. “She better start listening, because it’s going to come back to hurt the Democrats. I am a Democrat. I’m a liberal. I want to see the Constitution complied with, I want the Democrats to do the right thing, get back to the business of legislating.”

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Sometimes, a few sentences tell you more about a person — and, more importantly, an ideology — than a learned thesis. That is the case with tweets from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama two days ago in response to the mass murder of more than 300 Christians and others in Sri Lanka.

Their tweets are worth serious analysis because they reveal a great deal about the left. Of course, they reveal a great deal about Clinton and Obama, too, but that doesn’t interest me.

And that, too, is important. Many Americans — especially conservatives and “independents” — are more interested in individual politicians than in political ideologies.

Many conservatives have long been fixated on Clinton — so much so that probably any other Democrat would have defeated Donald Trump, as conservative anger specifically toward her propelled many people to the polls. Similarly, Republican Never-Trumpers are fixated on Trump rather than policy. They care more about Trump’s personal flaws than about the mortal dangers the left poses to America and the West or about the uniquely successful conservative policies Trump promulgates.

And independents all claim to vote “for the person, not the party.”

Only leftists understand that one must vote left no matter who the Democrat is, no matter who the Republican opponent is. Leftists are completely interchangeable: There is no ideological difference among the 20 or so Democrats running for president. Mayor Pete Buttigieg is not one degree to the right of Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.

That is why it is important to understand Clinton and Obama’s tweets: to understand the left, not to understand her or him.

Here are the tweets:

Obama: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”

Three hours later, Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”

As they both spelled “worshipers” the same idiosyncratic way and used the term “Easter worshippers,” it is likely they either had the same writers or Clinton copied Obama.

Here’s what’s critical: Neither used the word “Christians.” And in order to avoid doing so, they went so far as to make up a new term — “Easter worshippers” — heretofore unknown to any Christian.

When Jews were murdered at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Clinton mentioned the synagogue in a tweet. But in her post-Sri Lanka tweet, despite the bombing of three churches filled with Christians, Clinton made no mention of church or churches. In a tweet after the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand, she wrote that her heart broke for “the global Muslim community.” But in her latest tweet, not a word about Christians or the global Christian community.

Obama similarly wrote in his tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with “the Muslim community” over the “horrible massacre in the Mosques.” But in his tweet about Sri Lanka, there is no mention of Christians or churches.

The reason neither of them mentioned Christians or churches is that the left has essentially forbidden mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East and Africa and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa and anywhere else. This is part of the same phenomenon — that I and others have documented — of British police and politicians covering up six years of rape of 1,400 of English girls by Muslim “grooming gangs” in Rotherham and elsewhere in England.

Essentially, the left’s rule is that nothing bad — no matter how true — may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing good — no matter how true — may be said of Christians or Christianity.

Clinton’s post-New Zealand tweet also included these words: “We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”

She made sure to condemn “Islamophobia,” but she wrote not a word about the far more destructive and widespread hatred of Christians in the Muslim world, seen in Muslims’ virtual elimination of the Christian communities in the Middle East, the regular murder and kidnappings of Coptic Christians in Egypt and the murder of Christians in Nigeria. She calls on “leaders everywhere” to condemn “white supremacist terrorists,” one of the smallest hate groups on Earth, but never calls on leaders everywhere to condemn Islamist terrorists, the largest hate group on Earth.

These two tweets tell you a lot about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But far more importantly, they tell you a lot about the left.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in April 2018, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Exodus. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

In California, the water wars are continuing to boil.

Leftie greenies recently hailed the return of … five … salmon, swimming upstream to the San Joaquin river to spawn. Paradise restored! In water-starved California, that was quite an achievement, given that each salmon required 50,000 gallons of water to get the job done, coming at a price tag of $890 million at the low end and $2 billion at the high. And that water came out of the hides of California’s farmers, who got very little of the water they were promised, and paid for, as a result. That’s some use of resources to get those five salmon to swim upstream.

Wayne Western, Jr., at The Sun, writes how this clown show spend-fest came to be:

In 1988, then-Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) developed the first version of the Central Valley Improvement Act (CVPIA). That same year, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit claiming that Friant Dam violated environmental laws.

In 1992, Congress pushes through the CVPIA. This action single-handedly shifted water and money from Valley farmers by driving money to environmental organizations and sending water to the ocean.

In 2006, a Settlement is reached and by 2009, the Democrat-led Congress and President Obama enact the Settlement.

Cost estimates of this effort range from $890 million to $2 billion to restore 153 miles of the river from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River.

Between 250,000 and 360,000 acre-feet of water are specifically dedicated to fish habitat on the San Joaquin. Based on this week’s news, it appears to be working.

Taking the conservative cost estimate, each of the five fish caught cost taxpayers and water users $178,000,000.

And each of those fish needed 50,000 acre-feet of water per year.

I won’t even stress the cost of pumping, aquifer consequences, fallowed land, and – lest we forget – lost jobs. Many politicians aren’t either.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif), who represents some of the agricultural districts that got stiffed on the water, tweeted this:

 

Green Leftists take over California. Congratulations America you just spent $178 Million per fish and flushed millions of gallons of precious water out to the Pacific Ocean.  https://t.co/WUWKltEIU8

— Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) April 27, 2019

 

$178 million per fish and that’s on the low end, not the $2 billion end.

It certainly is in line with California’s bullet train boondoggle, which saw Californians shelling out $82 million per rail mile before the entire money-eating nightmare was scrapped por ahora. But the amount spent per salmon more than double the amount spent per rail mile figure.

Salmon fishing is a rich man’s sport, well beloved of the Northern California Pacific Heights set. If they wanted salmon streams, by golly, they would get salmon streams, and cost was no object, so they did. Balancing interests was never a part of this equation. Never mind the farmers stiffed on their water or the agricultural ruin that has followed, they wanted that riffraff gone anyway, the better to make the Central Valley their rich-people recreational ground.

The history of the ill-begotten project had its roots in the machinations of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as Western notes in his piece here:

Yet a stonewall from the United States Senate blocked the flow of water to our communities. The Senate’s only offering, courtesy of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, produced zero acre-feet of water for the San Joaquin Valley.

Environmental groups have been ruthlessly effective in working to diminish Valley agriculture and, by extension, the people of the region.

Those efforts extend to the State of California, with groundwater legislation that will deliver a double dose of consequences in January 2020.

In light of that, the Public Policy Institute of California has publicly said that at least 500,000 acres must be retired from growing food and fiber.

 By a creepy coincidence, Feinstein’s water-policy man, T.J. Cox, managed to ballot-harvest his way into a congressional seat in Central Valley’s worst-hit water district, the lower western San Joaquin valley, taking the slot from the GOP’s David Valadao by less than 1,000 votes after the Republican showed a commanding 5,000-vote lead on election night. Cox, who was born in the wealthy San Francisco suburb of Walnut Creek, hasn’t condemned the boondoggle of course, and his congressional website doesn’t offer anything in the way of water to farmers (he says he’s hired a staffer connected to Feinstein who will work on it, which doesn’t sound promising, given Feinstein’s record). As for the water-starved farmers. he’s introduced for them a bill to offer easier bankruptcy proceedings, the better to get them out of there.

As for the salmon, whose interests he does represent, $178 million per fish doesn’t seem to bother him a bit.

In California, the water wars are continuing to boil.

Leftie greenies recently hailed the return of … five … salmon, swimming upstream to the San Joaquin river to spawn. Paradise restored! In water-starved California, that was quite an achievement, given that each salmon required 50,000 gallons of water to get the job done, coming at a price tag of $890 million at the low end and $2 billion at the high. And that water came out of the hides of California’s farmers, who got very little of the water they were promised, and paid for, as a result. That’s some use of resources to get those five salmon to swim upstream.

Wayne Western, Jr., at The Sun, writes how this clown show spend-fest came to be:

In 1988, then-Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) developed the first version of the Central Valley Improvement Act (CVPIA). That same year, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit claiming that Friant Dam violated environmental laws.

In 1992, Congress pushes through the CVPIA. This action single-handedly shifted water and money from Valley farmers by driving money to environmental organizations and sending water to the ocean.

In 2006, a Settlement is reached and by 2009, the Democrat-led Congress and President Obama enact the Settlement.

Cost estimates of this effort range from $890 million to $2 billion to restore 153 miles of the river from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River.

Between 250,000 and 360,000 acre-feet of water are specifically dedicated to fish habitat on the San Joaquin. Based on this week’s news, it appears to be working.

Taking the conservative cost estimate, each of the five fish caught cost taxpayers and water users $178,000,000.

And each of those fish needed 50,000 acre-feet of water per year.

I won’t even stress the cost of pumping, aquifer consequences, fallowed land, and – lest we forget – lost jobs. Many politicians aren’t either.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif), who represents some of the agricultural districts that got stiffed on the water, tweeted this:

 

Green Leftists take over California. Congratulations America you just spent $178 Million per fish and flushed millions of gallons of precious water out to the Pacific Ocean.  https://t.co/WUWKltEIU8

— Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) April 27, 2019

 

$178 million per fish and that’s on the low end, not the $2 billion end.

It certainly is in line with California’s bullet train boondoggle, which saw Californians shelling out $82 million per rail mile before the entire money-eating nightmare was scrapped por ahora. But the amount spent per salmon more than double the amount spent per rail mile figure.

Salmon fishing is a rich man’s sport, well beloved of the Northern California Pacific Heights set. If they wanted salmon streams, by golly, they would get salmon streams, and cost was no object, so they did. Balancing interests was never a part of this equation. Never mind the farmers stiffed on their water or the agricultural ruin that has followed, they wanted that riffraff gone anyway, the better to make the Central Valley their rich-people recreational ground.

The history of the ill-begotten project had its roots in the machinations of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as Western notes in his piece here:

Yet a stonewall from the United States Senate blocked the flow of water to our communities. The Senate’s only offering, courtesy of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, produced zero acre-feet of water for the San Joaquin Valley.

Environmental groups have been ruthlessly effective in working to diminish Valley agriculture and, by extension, the people of the region.

Those efforts extend to the State of California, with groundwater legislation that will deliver a double dose of consequences in January 2020.

In light of that, the Public Policy Institute of California has publicly said that at least 500,000 acres must be retired from growing food and fiber.

 By a creepy coincidence, Feinstein’s water-policy man, T.J. Cox, managed to ballot-harvest his way into a congressional seat in Central Valley’s worst-hit water district, the lower western San Joaquin valley, taking the slot from the GOP’s David Valadao by less than 1,000 votes after the Republican showed a commanding 5,000-vote lead on election night. Cox, who was born in the wealthy San Francisco suburb of Walnut Creek, hasn’t condemned the boondoggle of course, and his congressional website doesn’t offer anything in the way of water to farmers (he says he’s hired a staffer connected to Feinstein who will work on it, which doesn’t sound promising, given Feinstein’s record). As for the water-starved farmers. he’s introduced for them a bill to offer easier bankruptcy proceedings, the better to get them out of there.

As for the salmon, whose interests he does represent, $178 million per fish doesn’t seem to bother him a bit.

President Donald Trump has been repeatedly hounded by the left for saying — perhaps a bit bluntly — that many of the immigrants who enter the country illegally are not the best and brightest just looking for a better life. But over and over, he has been proved to be correct.

That was once again shown to be the case in Tennessee this month. A child is now dead after police say an illegal alien murdered him with his bare hands in a fit of rage.

“Memphis police arrested a man after they said he punched a baby so hard it stopped breathing,” WHBQ-TV in Memphis reported. “According to police, the victim’s mother called 911 on April 12 when her four-month-old child was found unresponsive.”

Although the infant was rushed to a hospital, he was dead by the time he arrived. The child’s mother and her boyfriend, identified as Jose Avila-Agurcia, at first insisted that they had no idea why the boy had stopped breathing. But after suspicion fell on Avila-Agurcia, officers learned the disturbing details.

“Police said investigators met with the mother who said her boyfriend confessed he punched the child in the head multiple times when he learned the child was not his,” WHBQ reported.

TRENDING:

That situation is shocking and tragic, but it might have been avoided if the nation’s immigration laws were better enforced. It turns out that the boyfriend, who has been charged with first-degree murder, had been deported from the United States not just once but five times.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Bryan D. Cox said Avila-Agurcia is an alias for Carlos Zuniga-Aviles, a Honduran national who has been deported five times. The agency has filed an immigration detainer pending resolution of the charge,” The Associated Press reported.

How well that detainer will work is a very open question, considering he already has been kicked out of the country nearly half a dozen times. At a time when liberals and even some on the right seem to shrug off the border problem, it seems almost anyone can waltz into the country no matter his background.

While much of the focus on the porous border has centered on Mexico, the countries in Central America — including the accused murderer’s nation of Honduras — are increasingly in the spotlight.

Honduras has been the source of thousands of migrants who banded together to form caravans, which then pushed through Guatemala and into Mexico, sometimes clashing with border police and other times being essentially waved through.

Attempts by Mexican officials to identify and track who is in the groups have largely failed, and residents of border states in northern Mexico have begun pushing back against the waves of migrants pouring into their country.

Meanwhile, Democrats have flatly refused to call the situation a “crisis,” and have opposed Trump’s efforts to increase the barriers and security measures in the area.

This latest case is hardly an isolated incident. We have covered numerous instances of illegal aliens coming to the United States not to live peacefully but to commit crimes that often include rape and murder.

RELATED: It Took Kamala Harris Less Than 24 Hours To Sell Out Long-Time Supporters on Contentious Prisoner Voting Initiative

To be sure, coming across the border does not make somebody a violent criminal, but there is no denying that violent people are using the porous border to their advantage. If even a small percentage of unvetted illegal immigrants are dangerous, there’s a problem.

It’s akin to leaving your front door unlocked in a bad neighborhood. The number of good people does not magically offset the risk of an offender walking in and helping himself to your stuff, or doing far worse to your family.

That is the point that the left ignores: An unsecured frontier has consequences, and in far too many cases, it is American citizens who are impacted by the bad apples.

“Americans are dreamers too,” the president pointed out during a recent statement on border security.

Sadly, a young boy in Tennessee will never have a chance to grow up, dream or achieve — and opponents of immigration enforcement should think long and hard about that sobering fact.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

On Thursday, popular Twitter user and writer known by the alias “Kantbot” found his Medium account suspended in the wake of publishing a piece that went viral regarding school shootings and mental health interventions primarily in public schools.

“My medium account has been suspended because of this article,” Kantbot posted to Twitter.

Despite a somewhat provocative headline — “Guns Don’t Kill People, School Psychologists Do” — the piece gives a nuanced look at the culture of school psychology and mental health interventions in relation to school shootings. Notably, the post veers from talking points supporting gun control measures or, conversely, armed guards at schools — the two competing narratives consistently debated after such attacks.

According to a vague email from the tech platform, the writer’s account was suspended for “hateful text, images, or other content in (his) username, profile, or bio.”

The writer’s bio on Medium featured a photo of a philosopher-esque “Pepe the Frog” and a quote from Friedrich Schiller’s “On the Aesthetic Education of Man.”

Kantbot finds the timing suspect. The writer noted that he’s been publishing posts on Medium for two years using the same bio and photo without ever encountering an issue.

“It seems strange that after I posted a popular story to all of a sudden be cracked down on without any warning,” he told The Daily Wire, adding that he “wasn’t given a chance to remove” his avatar, if that indeed was the issue.

“I have posted only thoughtful, in depth pieces on [Medium] and have had no issues with the platform for 2 years,” Kantbot highlighted via Twitter. “After challenging the school shooting narrative my account was banned within 24 hours. Can Medium explain this?”

Kantbot reached out to Medium on Friday for further clarification, but was again left without answers.

“Why isn’t there any transparency with these decisions on these platforms?” the writer asked. “The TOS (Terms of Service) is always vague, they enforce things when they feel like it. They use their policies as a smoke screen.”

“It’s not just an issue of freedom of speech but consumer rights,” argued Kantbot. “These platforms advocate for free speech, they claim to be open, but their decision making on who is and isn’t using their service correctly is completely opaque.”

“Don’t the people who patronize these platforms and give them their power have a right to know their biases?” he continued. “Why do we allow them to make fraudulent claims about how they stand for open news and communication and freedom of speech that are consistently contradicted by their own draconian decision making process.”

Similar questions surrounding censorship have been asked time and again of other big tech platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook. Last month, for example, the Twitter account for pro-life film “Unplanned” was suspended without explanation. After swift backlash, the account was restored.

But what happens to creatives and politicos without the support to flag clearly biased censorship? That answer seems clear.