PHOTOS — ‘I Couldn’t Watch the Burning Babies’: Sri Lanka Grapples with Jihad Aftermath

Sri Lanka’s Christians began mass burials this week for the victims of jihadist suicide bombings on Sunday as the government announced a spike in the death toll from 290 to 359.

Witnesses to the attacks – which successfully targeted three churches and three hotels in the Colombo area and may have failed in attacking several other Christian targets – told local media they have yet to fully comprehend the horror they experienced, particularly in the churches where the terrorists appeared to target children.

One eyewitness said a suicide bomber touched his grandchild’s head while passing by before detonating his explosives.

The Daily Mirror, a Sri Lankan newspaper, spoke to some of the survivors of the bombing of the churches, who said the jihadists left a trail of mangled limbs:

Atul Loke/Getty Images

Sri Lankan local people pray near to St Anthony Church on April 23, 2019 evening in Colombo, Sri Lanka. (Atul Loke/Getty Images)

“I couldn’t bare to watch burning babies and children. But everyone rushed in to help. This is a brutal strike,” a man identified as Hamza, a local near St. Anthony’s Church, told the Mirror. “Whoever is responsible should be punished. I say that there is political force behind all this. They are seeking more and more power.”

Selvam Fernando, another eyewitness, told the newspaper that no one entered the church after the blast, but victims “with severe burns” began running out of the church and many died in the street, as medical care arrived late and the victims relied on only the generosity of panicked neighbors for treatment.

“None of us went inside the church. About 15 minutes later, two police officers at a nearby security checkpoint rushed to the scene. It took 30 minutes or so for the emergency services to reach the venue. Until then it was the residents of the area who led the rescue efforts,” he said.

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

Relatives carry the coffin of a bomb blast victim for a burial ceremony at a cemetery in Colombo on April 24, 2019, three days after a series of suicide attacks targeting churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka. (Jewel SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

A policeman with a K9 searches a cemetery before a burial ceremony for a bomb blast victim in Colombo on April 24, 2019, three days after a series of bomb attacks targeting churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka. (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

Carl Court/Getty Images

Members of the clergy walk past new graves as they wait for the funerals of people killed in the Easter Sunday attack on St Sebastian’s Church, on April 24, 2019 in Negombo, Sri Lanka. (Carl Court/Getty Images)

 The Mirror attributed to unnamed “residents” the theory that jihadists, aware that those with young children often stand in the back of churches so that they can make an easy escape if the child gets loud or upset, set off their bombs closer to the door:

People who were at the front of the altar were not affected as much as the others. Devotees accompanying small children prefer to stay at the back. The parents and children, who took their places at the rear, were caught in the explosion. I feel these problems were worsened because there was no security presence. Almost a decade ago, police security was provided for every festival and mass held at the church. Even before the terrorist threats during the war, adequate security was provided, as a large number of devotees gather here from across the island. There is clearly a lack of security here. This area received a lot of support from the Navy, before their camp was relocated. Now we don’t have their support either” residents said.

A man speaking to another Sri Lankan outlet, the Daily News, said he believes the bomber responsible for destroying another target, St. Sebastian’s Church, gently touched his grandchild’s head before entering the church. Dilip Fernando intended to attend services there but left before the blast because it was too full.

“At the end of the mass they saw one young man go into the church in [sic] with a heavy bag,” Fernando said. “He touched my granddaughter’s head on the way past. It was the bomber.”

Fernando lost seven relatives in the attack.

UNICEF issued a statement Wednesday confirming the murders of at least 45 children in the attack:

News of how these attacks have affected children and adolescents is still coming in, but we now know that 45 children* – both Sri Lankan and other nationalities – have been killed, and scores more are injured, and are now fighting for their lives in intensive care units across the country. Many children have lost one or both parents, and countless children have been witness to shocking and senseless violence.

Fr. Jude Fernando who runs St. Anthony’s Church spoke to the Mirror shortly after the attack in a state the newspaper described as “clearly traumatized.”

“I still can’t understand what happened here inside the church,” he said. “It was around 8.45 am and we were celebrating the Tamil Easter Mass and I was about to walk into the church. If I had been one step ahead, I would have been injured, but I turned aside and in that moment it collapsed.”

Many relatives of the deceased buried in the first round of services this week mourned their entire families. Jude Fernando, speaking to Al Jazeera, said he lost his mother, as well as his sister and her three children in the attack. His nephew, the youngest, was eight months old.

Several people at the mass funeral Al Jazeera attended condemned Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena for attending and the government generally for doing nothing to prevent the attack, despite reports that officials knew of Islamic State activity in the country as early as 2016.

“The attacks would not have happened like this and people would still be alive if the government had acted,” a woman whose parents died in the attack – and whose grandmother was both gravely injured and missing in a hospital somewhere – told the outlet.

“A whole new cemetery had to be hastily dug to bury more than 100 bodies” at one of the mass burials on Tuesday, CBS News reported:

Carl Court/Getty Images

Friends, family and members of the clergy attend a mass funeral at St Sebastian’s Church on April 23, 2019 in Negombo, Sri Lanka. (Carl Court/Getty Images)

Atul Loke/Getty Images

A child looks at a grave after the funeral in Katuwapity village on April 23, 2019 in Negambo, Sri Lanka. (Atul Loke/Getty Images)

Atul Loke/Getty Images

Relatives of dead offer thier prayers during funeral in Katuwapity village on April 23, 2019 in Negambo, Sri Lanka. (Atul Loke/Getty Images)

LAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHI/AFP/Getty Images

A Sri Lankan woman cries during a burial service for a bomb blast victim in a cemetery in Colombo on April 23, 2019, two days after a series of bomb attacks targeting churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka. (Lakruwan Wanniarachchi/AFP/Getty Images)

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.

via Breitbart News

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

Nolte: CNN’s Chris Cuomo Made 11 Misleading Statements About the Mueller Report

The world already knows that CNN’s Chris Cuomo is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, during an interview with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday night, Cuomo proved not only that he’s eager to mislead his audience, but that he doesn’t have the capacity to grasp even the fundamental bottom line of the Mueller Report and has no idea how our three separate branches of the federal government operate.

From Maggie Haberman to John Podhoertz to Bill Kristol to Mitt Romney to Chris Cuomo… Nepotism is replacing meritocracy and America is all that much stupider for it.

Sure, no one watches Cuomo’s show, but how did someone so breathtakingly dumb land on TV?

  1. Cuomo Lies About Trump and His Campaign Being Exonerated for Collusion

MUKASEY: Russian interference happened for sure, but cooperation and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians did not happen. And that was—

CUOMO: To a criminal level, no says Mr. Mueller.

MUKASEY: To any level.

CUOMO: I don’t know about any level. But to a criminal level I’ll give you.

This is Cuomo deliberately misleading his audience into believing there was collusion, just not at a criminal level.

This is straight from the horse’s mouth of the Mueller Report: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Total exoneration, no asterisk about criminal versus otherwise. Two years, dozens of partisan investigators, hundreds of witnesses, and $30 million later, no collusion… period.

  1. Cuomo Doesn’t Know It’s the Attorney General’s Job to Decide About Indictments

CUOMO: So, when you say no crime, Mueller couldn’t decide on that one, gave it to your friend the Attorney General, he decided it.

MUKASEY: Right, which is his job.

CUOMO: It is whose job?

MUKASEY: The Attorney General’s job.

CUOMO: To do what?

MUKASEY: It was Mueller’s job initially to decide it and he punted.

Suddenly Cuomo is Bud Abbott wondering Who’s on first? Who are we talking about here, Chris? Can you not keep up with the conversation, which is right now focused on one man, Bill Barr, without getting all lost and confused? Can we feed the rabbits, George, can we feed the rabbits now…?

  1. Cuomo Lies About Why Mueller Didn’t Indict for Obstruction

CUOMO: But who says—Well, I said that too, by the way Mike. Maybe I got it from you. I said that. I said Mueller punted. This was his job. He was supposed to make a decision to prosecute or not. But, the finesse position, I’m giving more weigh to now. He knows what his job is. And he sees this as difficult because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he can’t indict this President, so he’s leaving it to Congress and not the AG. Nowhere in the report does he ask the AG to do it.

MUKASEY: Number one, that’s not the only reason he saw it as difficult.

Cuomo is hoping to deliberately mislead his audience into believing the only reason Mueller did not indict Trump for obstruction was because he could not legally indict a sitting president due to Justice Department guidelines.

This is not even close to true.

To begin with, the Mueller Report clearly states “a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible” and “that a President does not have immunity once he leaves office.”

What’s more, there was nothing stopping the report from concluding Trump had obstructed justice but that he could not be indicted as president. Instead the report declaratively says — and this is important because it is the bottom line Cuomo wants to hide from his audience —  “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime” regarding obstruction.

The Special Counsel found not crime, therefore it is not the OLC stopping Mueller from recommending an indictment, it is the fact that NO CRIME WAS FOUND.

You need a crime in order to indict.

  1. Cuomo Believed the Mueller Investigation was Separate from the Department of Justice

CUOMO: I didn’t say the only but it does seem to be predominate in his thinking.

MUKASEY: But secondly, the Justice Department doesn’t conduct investigations for the purpose of referring things to Congress. They conduct criminal investigations with two possible results: Either you charge or you don’t charge. We don’t need Robert Mueller or whoever wrote that section of the report to tell us that Congress has the power to conduct impeachment hearings. We all learned that in 8th grade civics and if we didn’t we saw it during the Clinton administration. We know that Congress has that power.

CUOMO: But this was a special counsel. And it was put together by Rosenstein because he wanted it separate from the DOJ [Department of Justice] because of what he saw as–

MUKASEY: It’s not separate from the DOJ, it’s within the DOJ.

The idea that the Special Counsel office is in any way separate from the DOJ is simply nuts, nor is it a separate branch of the DOJ. Rather, it is working on behalf of the DOJ to investigate something specific, return with recommendations, including recommendations to indict, which the DOJ ultimately decides on.

In this case, the DOJ appointed Mueller to investigate if Trump or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with the Russians and that investigation found that no one did. The investigation also found no crimes regarding obstruction.

  1. Cuomo Believes the Special Counsel Office is a “Mechanism Separate” from the DOJ.

CUOMO: I know, but as a mechanism separate. I understand the DOJ. I understand how the guidelines are written. I understand why they were written, because we didn’t like what the independent counsel was.

MUKASEY: It’s not just the guidelines. We have three branches of government; this is within the Executive. We don’t sprout a new branch of government.

Duh.

And it is all downhill from here…

  1. Cuomo Believes the Attorney General Barr Took It Upon Himself to Not Indict Trump Just Cuz…

CUOMO: But what your friend did is not just by the book. He took it on himself to decide this rule. He didn’t have to do that.

MUKASEY: Of course he had to do it.

CUOMO: Why?

MUKASEY: Who was going to decide if we were going to indict or not?

The Attorney General of the United States deciding whether or not to indict is as “by the book” as it gets.

  1. Cuomo Believes Congress Decides Criminal Matters

CUOMO: Congress, as a political matter. Leave it to them.

MUKASEY: They decide whether to impeach or not. They don’t decide–

CUOMO: And Mike, you’re skipping the big point, which you taught me about very early on.

MUKASEY: That is the big point.

CUOMO: They can’t indict him. That is the opinion from the OLC so there’s nothing to decide on that level. It’s purely political. It always would be.

MUKASEY: Congress doesn’t indict. Congress can impeach.

CUOMO: I’m using it as just a metaphor here.

MUKASEY: But you’re misleading a lot of people. You have a big audience.

CUOMO: No, because we know the OLC says —

MUKASEY: Getting smaller by the minute now but it’s bigger.

Basically, what Fredo is arguing here is that the Attorney General should have … done nothing?

Should have … not have made a ruling on an indictment…?

Should have … punted to the Congress…?

Good heavens, the Special Counsel reports to the DOJ, is in the employ of the DOJ, not Congress. It is up to the DOJ to decide how to ultimately handle this — per the Special Counsel statute.

Apparently, Cuomo wants to live in a world where the DOJ acts as a political branch of Congress, where the DOJ does investigations on behalf of a Congress that has no power to indict or prosecute.

  1. Cuomo Believes Only Congress Can Take Action on Mueller Report

CUOMO: — you can’t indict. Right? We know they say that. Mueller knows it. He lays it out in the piece. So, the only type of action would be Congressional. That’s what I’m saying.

MUKASEY: No. He can file a sealed indictment. He could say that there should be an indictment in these circumstances but the only reason he can’t is because of the OLC opinion. He didn’t say that.

CUOMO: No. He didn’t say that about a sealed indictment but he did go out of his way to say, “hey, I want to be fair to the President too. He can’t even respond to this because of the OLC opinion.” So he — I would suggest referred it to Congress.

This might not be idiocy on Cuomo’s part, but rather an attempt to deliberately mislead the small group of people who watch his last place show.

Cuomo is pretending Justice Department guidelines kept Mueller from taking any action against Trump regarding obstruction and that Barr should not have chose not to indict; instead, what Cuomo wanted Barr to do was leave a cloud over Trump’s head by doing nothing and simply handed the report over to the Congress.

Talk about propaganda.

AGAIN… on the issue of obstruction, the Mueller Report clearly states “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime” — which is all that matters.

Secondly, the Mueller Report could have returned a sealed indictment against Trump to be used after he left office and could have said they found a crime but cannot indict due to DOJ regulations.

Moreover, the Mueller Report did NOT have to go out of its way to tell the world they did not find a crime. That wording could have easily been left out.

  1. Cuomo Doesn’t Believe the Attorney General Should Have Ruled on Indictment

CUOMO: But Mr. Barr decided to end this. He didn’t have to.

MUKASEY: He did.

CUOMO: That’s not in the book. He could have left it alone. You can’t indict a sitting president. He didn’t need to tell us that.

MUKASEY: He needed to say whether an indictment was warranted or not. And he said it.

CUOMO: You can’t have one. Why did he need to tell us that?

MUKASEY: Because Mueller left it dangling out there and in the circumstances were you have evidence going one way and evidence going another way, you don’t indict.

Actually Mueller did not leave it dangling, he declaratively said “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime.”

What’s more, the issue of an indictment, if warranted, would only be delayed until Trump left office, so of course Barr had to put an end to is, the same way Mueller put an end to it without putting forth a sealed indictment or a finding that a crime had been committed.

  1. Cuomo Believes Trump Cannot Be Indicted

CUOMO: Except you can’t indict, Mike. And I don’t know why you’re ignoring that. It’s on page 1 of the second part of this report. He says, we take our guidance from the OLC, the Department of Justice guideline on our jurisdiction with respect to indicting a sitting president, they can’t do it. AD Barr didn’t need to do it for that reason. He needed to do it to protect the President. That’s why he did it.

MUKASEY: Protect the President from what? When he can’t be indicted?

The president can be indicted for crimes committed while in office, the DOJ need only wait until after he leaves office.

Mueller could have recommended that. Barr could have done the same. The idea that Barr should have stepped aside and said nothing based on the technicality about indicting a sitting president is beyond stupid, not to mention desperate.

  1. Cuomo Lies About Attorney General Barr’s Letter Being Misleading

CUOMO: From criticism in the open question and giving Congress that kind of momentum. That’s why he did it.

MUKASEY: Oh, come on.

CUOMO: That’s why he did it. That’s why he wrote the letter the way he did. That’s why he gave the press conference the way he did. That’s why he misled us to what the report would look like the way he did.

MUKASEY: [Whistles] You done?

CUOMO: Yes, sir, respond, please.

MUKASEY: Let’s start with the letter because that’s what came first. That letter came at a time when, no criticism of you, but your network were devoting days of people sitting around and talking about a report that they didn’t — whose content they didn’t know, that they hadn’t seen, in essence panels of people sitting around a table inhaling their own exhaust and getting high on it. And trying to make the viewers—

CUOMO: Since when does the AG respond to that?

MUKASEY: Wait a second. The country was in a state of absolute hysteria. You had a countdown clock in the corner of not one but several networks about the release of the report. The release of the report. He did the responsible thing.

CUOMO: A misleading letter about what was in it.

MUKASEY: No, it wasn’t misleading at all.

CUOMO: How not?

MUKASEY: It summarized the bottom line of that report which was that there was no collusion and that the special counsel had found that he could not indict but could not vindicate the president. He put that language right in the letter.

CUOMO: He put in the letter about exoneration in there.

MUKASEY: Could not exonerate. I’m sorry. Not vindicate. Could not exonerate when it is in fact not the job of any counsel or anybody else to exonerate. God does that. Even juries that return acquittals don’t come back and say innocent, they say not guilty.

The Barr letter accurately stated that the Mueller investigation found no evidence of collusion and did not exonerate on the issue of obstruction.

MUKASEY: The special counsel said he couldn’t exonerate and Barr put that in his letter.

CUOMO: That’s right. That’s a fair point.

No, Fredo, that’s the only point.

Transcript courtesy of NewsBusters.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

 

via Breitbart News

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

Pete Buttigieg, Explained: Why Do Big tech and NeverTrump Love Him So Much?

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is attracting support from across the political establishment — the mainstream media, NeverTrump pundits like Bill Kristol, and Silicon Valley CEOs have all rallied to the South Bend mayor’s campaign. But why?

On the face of it, there’s nothing that distinguishes Buttigieg in terms of policy. In fact, he seems to eschew policy statements in favor of glib, media-friendly remarks like “it’s not just about winning an election, it’s about winning an era” and “think of something really gay — that’s how gay I am.”

Given that the establishment wants to preserve the pre-Trump status quo, it’s perhaps not surprising that it’s fallen in love with a candidate who prefers soundbites over policy. That’s what the establishment wants a candidate to be — inoffensive, un-radical, perhaps with a few nods to fashionable identity politics.

Silicon Valley CEOs also seem to have been interested in Buttigieg even before he became a candidate. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg visited South Bend in 2017, long before the mayor announced his candidacy.

Zuckerberg did a casual ride-along with Buttigieg, praised the mayor as a “very humble guy” and politely listened to his stories about the decline of South Bend and the wider industrial midwest.

This is probably less about Buttigieg himself as it is about Silicon Valley’s guilt over its role in the rust belt’s decline. In 2018, venture capitalists toured the midwest — stopping at South Bend — as part of what they called a “comeback cities tour.” The tour’s purported aim was to encourage big tech investment in the midwest, but it was also plainly a PR stunt — big tech demonstrating how much they care about the lost jobs its industry has “disrupted.”

Visits from Zuckerberg and others might be as much due to Buttigieg courting big tech as it is about big tech courting Buttigieg. Buttigieg is one of the few midwestern mayors who has successfully attracted tech startups to his town, and the media never tires of talking about it.

Dig a little deeper, though, and the miraculous South Bend revival isn’t quite so miraculous. The Indiana town has two key advantages that comparable locations lack. First, how many declining rust belt towns have an international airport within their boundaries? South Bend does. Second, how many declining rust belt towns are situated on the doorstep of a renowned research university like Notre Dame? South Bend is.

Easy international transportation, low rent, and access to a pool of graduates are all highly tempting for startups. Taking this into account, the fact that Buttigieg has managed to attract a few tech startups to his town is less impressive than it seems.

It’s also no surprise that the establishment media likes a moderate neoliberal who plays up his gay identity. If there’s one thing the mainstream media believes in, it’s moderate neoliberalism and progressive identity politics. Rupert Murdoch’s son, known for his support of Democratic candidates, has already thrown in for Buttigieg.

A third establishment faction is also in the midst of a love affair with the South Bend mayor — neoconservative NeverTrump pundits. This is harder to figure out, because as far as I know, Buttigieg hasn’t pledged to invade Iran if he wins the presidency. National Interest has questioned whether he even has a foreign policy. Maybe the neocons know something we don’t?

Whatever the reason, every NeverTrump talking head appears to be giddy for Buttigieg. Here’s Ana Navarro gushing over how many languages the South Bend Mayor knows (strange, I don’t remember similar comments about Melania Trump). And here’s Jennifer Rubin praising him as “light years ahead” of other young Democrats “in substance and seriousness.” Speaking of substance and seriousness, here’s NeverTrump pundit Nicole Wallace calling Buttigieg “chicken soup for my soul.”

Former Jeb! campaign staffer Tim Miller, who declares his allegiance to “NevereverTrump” in his Twitter bio, wrote a piece for Bill Kristol’s new website, The Bulwark, praising Buttigieg for the apparently bold, radical step of being publicly gay. Kristol himself says that President Trump is “scared  to run against Buttigieg.” And The Bulwark has even published a piece hailing the South Bend mayor for… his campaign logos.

Perhaps the establishment’s longing for Buttigieg says less about Buttigieg than it does about the establishment. From Ukraine to the Brexit party, populism continues its worldwide surge, leaving mainstream media pundits longing for the days of the neoliberal status quo, when a candidate could win on the basis of cutesy soundbites, campaign logos, and not much else.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

via Breitbart News

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

Watch: Whoopi Goldberg Agrees with Bernie Sanders on Freed Terrorists Having Voting Rights

During a segment on ABC’s The View Tuesday, Whoopi Goldberg defended Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) over his position that felons, including terrorists, should vote.

“Does anyone think a terrorist should have a right to vote?” Meghan McCain asked The View panel.

“Well, here’s what I’m going to say, if they let this terrorist out, because he served his time, he gets his — if he’s an American citizen…” Whoopi Goldberg said, pausing to ask McCain, “Why is your mouth open like that?”

“Because…Whoopi, he killed people,” McCain said.

“Yes, lots of people do this,” Goldberg replied.

“He is a terrorist…he’s a radicalized terrorist,” McCain said.

“Our constitution says, if you’ve done your time…you have, we hope, been reformed, you’ve been changed. If they let him out, that means they feel his time is up and he gets to become the American citizen,” Goldberg said.

“If you’ve done your time–that’s what prison reform is about–if they let this man out, they are saying, ‘He has been reformed, we have–fixed him…We have rehabilitated him,” Goldberg said later in the panel.

Controversy erupted after Bernie Sanders said at a CNN town hall event Monday that he agrees that felons, even those who committed sexual assault or terrorism, should be able to vote from prison.

“Yes, even for terrible people because once you start chipping away–you say, ‘That guy committed a terrible crime, we’re not going to let him vote,’ or ‘that person did that,’ you’re running down a slippery slope,” Sanders said.

This prompted a variety of responses, including from pop star Cher, who is typically liberal but voiced her disagreement with this policy on social media Tuesday.

“Does Bernie Sanders Really Believe Ppl In Prison Who Are Murderers⁉️ Rapists⁉️ Child Molesters⁉️ BOSTON BOMBERS.…STILL DESERVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE⁉️” she asked.

Later, she doubled down, then deleted her social media posts in the face of backlash.

via Breitbart News

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

Police Officer Who Arrested Beto O’Rourke for Drunk Driving Still Believes He Tried Fleeing Scene

The Texas police officer who arrested Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) for driving drunk in 1998 still believes the 2020 presidential candidate attempted to flee the scene of the ordeal, according to a report.

Now-former Anthony Police Department officer Richard Carrera, who arrested O’Rourke, along with his sergeant, Gary Hargrove, told the Texas Tribune Wednesday that they still maintain that the police report detailing the 20-year-old incident is accurate.

“I believe we have contradicting stories here,” Carrera acknowledged the Texas Tribune, before adding “I stand by my report.”

After giving the police report yet another read, Carrera said he has “no doubt” that O’Rourke tried to flee the scene in his Volvo.

The Texas Tribune reports:

Hargrove, 71, oversaw the crash scene but does not remember being there. However, he said he believes what his officers told him about the two-vehicle collision that occurred in Anthony, a tiny town near the Texas-New Mexico border west of El Paso.

Hargrove said the report, which he reread after the Houston Chroniclepublished it last year, shows O’Rourke “struck the [other] car from the rear and he ended up in the median pointed the wrong way, and he took that as his chance to get away.”

“He did something to lead the officers to believe that he was trying to get away,” Hargrove said. “What they put down, I believed them.”

“Beto’s DWI is something he has long publicly and openly addressed over the last 20 years at town halls, on the debate stage, during interviews and in Op-Eds, calling it a serious mistake for which there is no excuse,” O’Rourke spokesman Chris Evans told the Texas Tribune. “This has been widely and repeatedly reported on.”

Last year, the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News obtained copies of state and local police reports pertaining to the arrest. The documents state O’Rourke was found intoxicated after losing control of his vehicle on Interstate 10 and hitting a truck. Nobody was hurt in the accident in Anthony, Texas, about 20 miles from El Paso. A witness told police that O’Rourke tried to drive away, but the witness stopped him until officers arrived, the documents show. The witness also said that O’Rourke had been driving at “a high rate of speed.”

O’Rourke has talked about the 1998 arrest while campaigning to unseat incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). However, news stories about the arrest earlier in the campaign did not include details such as the crash and the reported attempt to flee.

“I drove drunk and was arrested for a DWI in 1998. As I’ve publicly discussed over the last 20 years, I made a serious mistake for which there is no excuse,” O’Rourke said in a statement after reports broke about the arrest.

O’Rourke had just turned 26 when the arrest happened. He did a court-ordered diversion program and a drunken-driving charge was dismissed. According to police, O’Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, Texas’ legal limit for driving at the time.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

via Breitbart News

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

Survey: Nearly Half of Teachers Under 35 Want to Negotiate Salary, Benefits Without Unions

A recent survey of 2,000 teachers in 22 states found 48 percent of teachers under 35 would prefer to negotiate their own salary and benefits for themselves, without the involvement of teachers’ unions.

However, 50 percent of teachers who are over 35, and 56 percent who have a total family income above $100,000, disagree with having to negotiate their own contract, according to the data.

The survey, commissioned by the nonprofit Teacher Freedom – which provides teachers with information about how to opt out of union membership and alternative associations to union membership – was conducted by Dynata, in March 2018, in states affected by the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision delivered three months later in June.

“A collective bargaining agreement is a lot like a big cable package,” said Colin Sharkey, the executive director of the Association of American Educators (AAE), according to Education Week. AAE is a national professional organization for educators and the largest supporter of the Teacher Freedom group.

Education Week noted Sharkey likened the finding that younger teachers were more likely to prefer to negotiate their own contracts to millennials opting out of cable bundle contracts in favor of streaming services.

“[I]it’s not as ingrained in them to have one-size-fits-all bargaining,” he said.

The report continued:

[Sharkey] said teachers tend to think they could benefit financially if they were able to negotiate their own salary. Right now, salaries are determined on a step-and-lane schedule that applies to teachers across the district—teachers receive raises for years of service and degrees earned. But Sharkey said some teachers who work in hard-to-staff subjects, like high school science, want the opportunity to negotiate higher pay.

Other teachers say they want a chance to argue for a pay raise based on their performance in the classroom, Sharkey said. Also, he said, younger teachers might not stay in the profession as long as their predecessors, so the step-and-lane salary schedule wouldn’t necessarily make financial sense for them.

The survey also found that while the overall percentage of teachers preferring a pension versus a 401(k) retirement plan was equal (35 percent for each option), younger teachers (41-27 percent) and those with incomes less than $50,000 (42-24 percent) were more likely to prefer the 401(k) retirement plan option.

“It shouldn’t come as a surprise that so many educators want to be free of government-imposed union ‘representation,’ which far too often is used by union officials to boost their own power at the expense of the very teachers they claim to represent,” Patrick Semmens, vice president of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, told Breitbart News. “It is indisputable that many provisions in union-imposed contracts actually harm wide swaths of teachers, especially rigid seniority rules and opposition to merit pay, which treat younger teachers as second-class employees no matter how effective they are in the classroom.”

Despite being forced to be members of teachers’ unions prior to the Janus decision, the survey found only 39 percent of teachers actually agree with how unions spend their money.

A study released by Center for Union Facts in May 2018 revealed that, from 2010 to 2017, labor unions sent $1.3 billion in member dues to progressive groups aligned with the Democrat Party without obtaining the approval of their members.

Among the recipients of union dues funds were the Clinton Foundation, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress, Democracy Alliance, and the Democratic Governors Association.

As expected, the Teacher Freedom survey showed Democrats (48 percent) and teachers with family incomes above $100,000 per year (45 percent) were more likely to be satisfied with how unions spend their dues, while Republicans (43 percent) were less likely to support how the union distributed its dues money. The survey also found that a fair number teachers in general either did not know much about how their union spent their dues or were neutral on the subject.

The data also showed that nearly half of the teachers (46 percent) disagreed with the requirement that union fees be paid as a condition of employment, while 36 percent agreed. Democrats (45 percent) were more likely to agree with forced union dues, but more Republicans (60 percent) said they disagreed. Among those teachers with income less than $50,000, 59 percent disagreed with forced union fees.

“Fortunately, a solution exists,” Semmens said. “End union bosses’ monopoly and let teachers decide to advocate for themselves or select a private organization to advocate on their behalf.”

“States like Virginia and North Carolina, which already ban government union monopoly bargaining, prove that letting teachers choose whether or not to associate with a union works,” he added. “That solution also fixes the First Amendment issues inherent in government-imposed union monopoly representation.”

Teacher Freedom provides a list of alternate associations teachers may voluntarily join that offer professional benefits, such as liability insurance and job resources.

The margin of sampling error for the Teacher Freedom survey’s aggregate results is 2.2%, but is higher for some subgroups.

 

via Breitbart News

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

WATCH: Mike Francesa Reads Lyrics from Controversial Kate Smith Song to Determine if Racist

The decision of the New York Yankees and Philadelphia Flyers to ditch the songs and statues associated with 1930’s era songstress Kate Smith, has become a heated topic of conversation in the sports world.

However, few people have actually read the lyrics from the controversial songs once sung by the woman who is far better known for her stirring rendition of God Bless America.

Enter WFAN host and sports talk legend Mike Francesa.

On Tuesday, Francesa took several calls from people who claimed they were not offended by the lyrics from songs like That’s Why the Darkies Were Born. In order to see for himself, Francesa acquired the lyrics with the intent of reading them on the air. Once the WFAN host received the lyrics, he found it hard to get through.

Watch:

The Yankees stopped playing Smith’s version of God Bless America this year, during the 7th inning stretch. The Flyers removed the statue to Smith that was once displayed in front of their stadium.

Follow Dylan Gwinn on Twitter @themightygwinn

via Breitbart News

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

CNN Anchors ‘Stunned’ Democratic Candidates Want Terrorists to Vote

CNN’s late-night hosts on Tuesday marveled that some Democratic candidates are "way out there," now supporting enfranchising jailed terrorists.

Hosts Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon were speaking during their usual handoff between their two shows, when they took a moment to weigh in on the state of the Democratic candidates for president in 2020.

Cuomo said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), though not even a Democrat, has set the progressive agenda for Democratic hopefuls. "Top 2020 Democratic hopefuls have been following Bernie Sanders’s lead on many progressive policy stances," he said.

Cuomo worried about the extremes to which candidates might follow the Vermont senator. He pointed to Sanders’s recent support for letting murderers vote from jail.

"Last night, Senator Sanders said that people in prison, even terrorists like the Boston bomber, have the right to vote while they’re imprisoned," Cuomo said.

Lemon expressed shock at the position. "Uh, I’m stunned, as you can see," he said. "You can see on our faces and the responses."

"Listen, I’m glad we asked the question," Lemon said. "I think it’s going to be an issue."

He predicted it was going to be a campaign issue for those who had said "yes, they should be able to vote even the most awful people among us," or those who had said "we should have a conversation about it."

During a CNN town hall Monday, Harvard student Anne Carlstein asked Sanders about his support for voting rights for those convicted of terrorism, murder, or sexual assault.

"I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy," Sanders said. "Yes, even for terrible people."

Sanders described a vision of a "vibrant" democracy, in which everyone voted. "Even if they are in jail, they’re paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our Democracy," he said.

Sanders has previously expressed support for the position.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) dodged the question when asked this week. "While they’re incarcerated, I think that’s something we can have more conversation about," she said.

Fellow 2020 candidates Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D., Ind.) both said this week that they oppose prison voting. Swalwell went further, saying those put away for violent crimes should "never" regain the right to vote.

Sen. Kamala Harris initially sidestepped the question on Monday, pointing to her support for ex-felons voting. "I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formerly incarcerated are not denied a right to vote," she said.

When asked whether that extended to "people who are convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault," Harris answered with wording similar to Warren’s.

"I think we should have that conversation," Harris said.

Cuomo noted that Harris had raced to retract her earlier view. "Do I think that people who commit murder, people who are terrorists should be deprived of their rights? Yeah, I do," she said. "I’m a prosecutor."

Lemon was unimpressed with the reversal. "Well, last night that’s not what she said," he said. "She can revise her position and change her mind, but I think that is going to be an issue."

Cuomo raised the specter of the radicalization of the Democratic party. "You know what it frames? It frames the proposition for voters as: these people are way out there in the Democratic Party. Wow have they gone far left."

The post CNN Anchors ‘Stunned’ Democratic Candidates Want Terrorists to Vote appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

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

WaPo Responds To Sri Lanka Massacres By Focusing On ‘Far-Right Anger’

In response to a horrific series of radical Islamist jihadist attacks Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka that killed 290 and left an additional 500 injured, Rick Noack of The Washington Post has decided that the proper subject of his ire ought to be…”far-right anger in the West.”

Yes, seriously.

Here is a portion of Noack’s piece, entitled, “Christianity under attack? Sri Lanka church bombings stoke far-right anger in the West”:

To some, [the attacks were] further proof that Christians in many parts of the world are under attack. Several churches were targeted in Sunday’s bombing attacks, along with hotels and a banquet hall. At one Catholic church in Negombo, more than 100 people were killed. The attack took place on Easter, one of the most important dates on the Christian calendar. …

Regional branches and sites associated with Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party framed the Sri Lankan bloodshed as an attack “against us Christians,” even though the party officially claims to be open to members of all religions …

Local party branches in the city of Solingen and eastern Germany lashed out at journalists for initially refraining to establish a link to Islamist terrorism. Some far-right groups claimed hypocrisy and double standards, arguing that attacks on Christians failed to receive the same response as attacks on Muslims. …

Katie Hopkins, a British writer and provocateur, complained on Twitter that American liberal figures such as former president Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were not using the word “Christian” to describe those killed in the church bombings. …

American far-right activists offered their own responses. “Followers of Jesus worldwide are being killed and otherwise terribly persecuted every day,” Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration aide now best known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric, said on his radio show. “All too often, their losses go unremarked.”

Well, as it turns out and as The Daily Wire reported earlier today, Islamic State has belatedly taken credit for the Sri Lanka massacre. And as it turns out, “followers of Jesus worldwide,” to use Frank Gaffney’s language that Noack apparently deems so irksome, are those who attend church on Easter Sunday. Really, this is not rocket science.

What Noack really seems to have an issue with is notion of the oppressed Christian — but the oppression of Christian in Islamist and totalitarian societies is a well-known fact, as The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh pointed out yesterday. And as Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner notes, “Christians in the Middle East have just survived a genocide attempt by ISIS. Christians in pitiless, autocratic regimes, including Iran, China, and North Korea, are subjected regularly to persecution. In fact, Christianity is the most harassed faith in the world, followed closely by Islam, according to the Pew Research Center.”

This is hardly the only recent instance of The Washington Post publishing a defamatory hit on Western conservatives. Just last week and in a similar cultural context, as The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti reported, The Washington Post published a disgraceful and calumnious smear against Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro:

Self-described “expert” on “far-right extremism” Talia Lavin has struck again, this time falsely accusing Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro of stoking the flames of racism against Muslims and pushing conservatives toward a race war over the destruction of Notre Dame cathedral. …

Shapiro, she claims, blew a dog-whistle for anti-Muslim violence when he commented that Notre Dame was a “monument to Western civilization” and “Judeo-Christian heritage.” To drive her point home, she juxtaposed Shapiro with Richard Spencer, perhaps the best known American neo-Nazi, as if Shapiro had anything to do with Spencer, whom Shapiro has repeatedly and vociferously condemned.

Lavin’s claims are downright bizarre. Notre Dame is, indeed, a monument to the civilization — the Western civilization — that built it over the course of several hundred years. It is not simply a work of art and architecture, but a monument to Christianity, and specifically Catholicism. It is a place of worship that houses one of France’s largest collection of holy relics and religiously-inspired art and sculpture.

via Daily Wire

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

NRA: Supreme Court Should Move Forward on Gun Case Despite NYC Attempt to Undercut Suit

The National Rifle Association on Monday called New York City’s proposed change to the gun law set to be examined by the Supreme Court a "feeble attempt to stop the lawsuit over the city’s unconstitutional firearm travel ban" that shouldn’t prevent the Court from hearing the case.

"New York City’s problem is they think they’re regulating a privilege instead of a fundamental, constitutional right," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "The city’s attempt to slightly modify its unconstitutional law is a nakedly transparent delay tactic. We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will reject New York’s shenanigans and allow the case to proceed."

The group’s statement comes in response to dueling court filings from lawyers representing New York City and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Earlier this month, the city filed a motion informing the Court that a proposed rule change would address the complaints made by the gun-rights activists suing the city. It said the restrictions on traveling outside of the city with a legally owned gun would be reduced and gun owners would be able to legally travel to a few new locations with their firearms.

"The proposed rule," Richard Dearing, a lawyer representing the city, told the Court, "would amend S 5-23(a) to allow premises licensees to transport a handgun listed on their premises license directly to and from any of the following additional locations, provided that the handgun is transported unloaded, in a locked container, with the ammunition carried separately: Another premises of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and possess a handgun; A small-arms range/shooting club authorized by law to operate as such, whether located within or outside New York City; and A shooting competition at which the licensee may possess the handgun consistent with the law applicable at the place of the competition."

The city said the changes would resolve the issues central to the case and asked the Court to delay hearing the case until after the rule change went into effect.

"If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case," Dearing said. "For this reason, I also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final action on the proposed rule."

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association responded with its own filing on Friday.

"This litigation has been ongoing for more than six years," Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the group, told the Court. "Throughout those six years, respondents have vigorously defended the City’s novel handgun transport ban, which prohibits law-abiding New Yorkers from taking their licensed handguns anywhere—including any legal destination outside of the state of New York—other than the meager seven authorized shooting ranges within the limits of the 8.5-million-person city."

The group argued there is no reason for the Court to delay proceedings in the case even if the city does end up changing their law.

"This Court routinely grants certiorari despite the possibility that subsequent government action could move the proverbial goalposts or otherwise shape the issues being reviewed," Clement said. "If this Court routinely stayed the briefing in cases involving potential government action of that nature, it would be difficult for cases involving potentially unlawful government action to be briefed at all. There is certainly no reason to put the briefing on hold here merely because respondents have initiated a rulemaking process."

The NRA said the city’s proposed law change is evidence that it knows its gun law violates the Second Amendment and is merely an attempt to prevent the Supreme Court from reinforcing precedents set in other landmark gun-rights decisions.

"The City of New York clearly knows that its current restrictions on the carrying and transportation of lawfully owned firearms are unconstitutional and will fail under any standard of constitutional review, as the NRA has been saying for years," Cox said. "This is nothing more than a naked attempt by New York City to resist Supreme Court review of policies that even New York must recognize as inconsistent with the holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The City of New York did not respect its citizens’ Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court granted review in this case and it will not respect them going forward."

The post NRA: Supreme Court Should Move Forward on Gun Case Despite NYC Attempt to Undercut Suit appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

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