The multinational Nike corporation — accused of employing slave labor — is fighting to keep Oregon a “sanctuary state” for all illegal aliens less than a month after an illegal alien has been accused of killing a young couple in a drunk driving car crash.
In a statement this week, Nike CEO Mark Parker announced the corporation’s opposition to a statewide measure that would repeal Oregon’s sanctuary state law that has protected criminal illegal aliens for three decades.
Parker wrote in a statement:
Nike employs people from all over the world; we can attest to the unique value, contributions, and innovations that people from diverse backgrounds add to Nike and to Oregon’s culture and economy. Ending Oregon’s sanctuary law will damage Oregon’s long-standing track record as a place that attracts diverse talent from across the globe. [Emphasis added]
Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle also released a statement backing Oregon’s sanctuary state law for criminal illegal aliens, writing:
THE Dalai Lama has said refugees should return to home and help rebuild their countries as “Europe belongs to Europeans”.
The Buddhist spiritual leader from Tibet, acknowledged that Europe had a responsibility to help them, but insisted they must also do their part.
Speaking at a conference in Malmo, Sweden, the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner said: “Receive them, help them, educate them.
“But ultimately they should develop their own country.”
He added: “I think Europe belongs to the Europeans…”
The 83-year-old later explained, Europe was “morally responsible” for helping a “refugee really facing danger against their life”.
The Dalai Lama was forced to leave the Obama White House at the trash exit.
Comments
As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.
Announcement: We have disabled the ability to post graphics after experiencing an attack of inappropriate image spam over the last several days. Thanks for your understanding.
Pope Francis commissioned a four-book study in 2010 as archbishop of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires attacking sexual abuse victims and defending a priest convicted of molesting a teenage boy.
Barack Obama announced that he would not have a federally-funded presidential library, but instead would rely on private money paid to the Obama Foundation to build a “presidential center” that may or may not have any books (we still don’t know, but there definitely will be basketball courts). That’s what Obama wants, so that’s what Obama gets.
The entire project would be all his to control, a monument created by the person being honored. Normally, that is the practice of dictators like Saddam Hussein, but Barack Hussein Obama was a president like no other.
And oddly enough, the building style chosen by the Obamas resembles nothing so much as a cenotaph, even though Obama is alive and kicking.
Of course, the usual claque applauded. Politico Magazine gushed that it would be:
…a new model for a privately run presidential museum that can be laudatory in its exhibits and partisan in its programming, but not while under the troubling imprimatur of the federal government—and without the taxpayers footing the bill.
Unfortunately, the notion that taxpayers would be unmolested is fake news. Start with the acres of city-owned park land on the shore of Lake Michigan that Chicago handed over as a gift, in apparent violation of law. The group Protect Our Parks has sued to prevent the giveaway, and cites this Illinois State Law. (They have also cited my writings, which gratifies me no end.)
But the taxpayer-owned parkland is but one aspect of the rape of the taxpayers. The new Illinois state budget artfully obscures the estimated $244 million dollars that Land of Lincoln Obama taxpayers will be giving to make the project happen. The Illinois Policy Institute writes:
Projects relevant to the forthcoming Obama Presidential Center in Chicago’s Jackson Park will cost taxpayers $224 million, according to the Washington Examiner.
This includes $174 million for roadwork in and around Jackson Park and $50 million for renovations to the Garfield Green Line station, two miles from the presidential center. Illinois taxpayers will be on the hook for $199 million of the total cost, with $25 million of the Garfield station renovations funded through a federal grant, according to the Washington Examiner.
Fifty million dollars for renovating one El station that is two miles from the project? Are we supposed to believe that tourists would walk that far though Chicago’s notoriously dangerous Southside to visit the library? And how can it take that much money to spiff up a station that already is in operation? Paint and ceramic tiles aren’t that expensive. Elevators and escalators don’t cost ten million dollars each.
Unfortunately, Illinois taxpayers would have no way of knowing this money was flowing to the presidential project from looking at the state’s 1,245-page budget, which makes no mention of the Obama Presidential Center. That spending is hidden, but has been confirmed by political figures such as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
Taxpayers aren’t the only ones kept in the dark:
The negotiating process in drafting of the budget took place outside of public view and state senators were given five hours to read the massive document before taking a vote.
But rest assured that diversity will be foremost in the minds of those selecting contractors to build unusually expensive projects for the library. As the Obama Foundation promises:
In our first year, we announced our plans to hire a diversity consultant to prioritize the hiring of local, diverse residents for construction and subcontracting.
Barack Obama announced that he would not have a federally-funded presidential library, but instead would rely on private money paid to the Obama Foundation to build a “presidential center” that may or may not have any books (we still don’t know, but there definitely will be basketball courts). That’s what Obama wants, so that’s what Obama gets.
The entire project would be all his to control, a monument created by the person being honored. Normally, that is the practice of dictators like Saddam Hussein, but Barack Hussein Obama was a president like no other.
(Source: Obama.org)
And oddly enough, the building style chosen by the Obamas resembles nothing so much as a cenotaph, even though Obama is alive and kicking.
Of course, the usual claque applauded. Politico Magazine gushed that it would be:
…a new model for a privately run presidential museum that can be laudatory in its exhibits and partisan in its programming, but not while under the troubling imprimatur of the federal government—and without the taxpayers footing the bill.
Unfortunately, the notion that taxpayers would be unmolested is fake news. Start with the acres of city-owned park land on the shore of Lake Michigan that Chicago handed over as a gift, in apparent violation of law. The group Protect Our Parks has sued to prevent the giveaway, and cites this Illinois State Law. (They have also cited my writings, which gratifies me no end.)
But the taxpayer-owned parkland is but one aspect of the rape of the taxpayers. The new Illinois state budget artfully obscures the estimated $244 million dollars that Land of Lincoln Obama taxpayers will be giving to make the project happen. The Illinois Policy Institute writes:
Projects relevant to the forthcoming Obama Presidential Center in Chicago’s Jackson Park will cost taxpayers $224 million, according to the Washington Examiner.
This includes $174 million for roadwork in and around Jackson Park and $50 million for renovations to the Garfield Green Line station, two miles from the presidential center. Illinois taxpayers will be on the hook for $199 million of the total cost, with $25 million of the Garfield station renovations funded through a federal grant, according to the Washington Examiner.
Fifty million dollars for renovating one El station that is two miles from the project? Are we supposed to believe that tourists would walk that far though Chicago’s notoriously dangerous Southside to visit the library? And how can it take that much money to spiff up a station that already is in operation? Paint and ceramic tiles aren’t that expensive. Elevators and escalators don’t cost ten million dollars each.
Unfortunately, Illinois taxpayers would have no way of knowing this money was flowing to the presidential project from looking at the state’s 1,245-page budget, which makes no mention of the Obama Presidential Center. That spending is hidden, but has been confirmed by political figures such as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
Taxpayers aren’t the only ones kept in the dark:
The negotiating process in drafting of the budget took place outside of public view and state senators were given five hours to read the massive document before taking a vote.
But rest assured that diversity will be foremost in the minds of those selecting contractors to build unusually expensive projects for the library. As the Obama Foundation promises:
In our first year, we announced our plans to hire a diversity consultant to prioritize the hiring of local, diverse residents for construction and subcontracting.
On Tuesday’s 9/11 anniversary, a middle school social studies teacher allegedly skipped discussion about the terror attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden and instead had students read a fictional story about a Muslim boy bullied because his name is Osama, an outraged pair of parents told the New Jersey Herald.
Ed O’Rourke, a former Marine, told the paper he and his wife pulled their sixth-grade daughter from that teacher’s class at Glen Meadow Middle School in Vernon Township, New Jersey, after hearing about the lesson revolving around the story titled, “My Name Is Osama.”
“I thought it was a joke at first,” O’Rourke told the Herald. “I couldn’t believe it.”
What’s the story about?
The story is about an Iraqi immigrant boy taunted by fellow students who call him a “terrorist” and say his hijab-wearing mother has “a bag on her head,” the paper noted, adding that he soon gets suspended for fighting his bullies.
“My Name Is Osama,” however, doesn’t include context regarding the radical Islamic beliefs that inspired bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terror organization to carry out the attacks, the Herald reported.
A hijacked commercial plane crashes into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, in New York. (SETH MCALLISTER/AFP/Getty Images)
And O’Rourke told the paper that discussion should have occurred.
“It would be like, on a day about the Holocaust doing a made-up lesson about a boy named Adolf being bullied by Jewish kids and saying we shouldn’t blame all Germans. Or don’t pick on the poor kid named Adolf on the Jewish holidays,” he added to the Herald. “It’s grotesque.”
What happened next?
O’Rourke told the paper that he contacted Principal Edwina Piszczek late Tuesday about his concerns, and she forwarded them to acting Superintendent Charles McKay — and they all met Wednesday morning.
“They couldn’t have been better as far as letting me vent, and agreed that the timing couldn’t have been more horrific,” O’Rourke told the Herald. “They said they were unaware the teacher was planning to do this and that it fell through the cracks, though when I asked if they were planning any disciplinary action against the teacher, they said they weren’t sure at this point.”
What did the district have to say?
“There were concerns expressed by a parent about an article one of our teachers gave out to a class on Tuesday, September 11th,” McKay said in a late Wednesday statement, the paper reported. “I met with our teacher this morning to relay those concerns, and then I met with the father to make sure his point of view was heard. Each meeting was civil and instructive.”
What else did the dad have to say?
“I know a lot of firemen and cops who lost family members on 9/11, but unlike the religious extremists who would have no problem blowing all of us up, our society is not going out blaming all Muslims,” O’Rourke told the Herald.
He added to the paper that there’s an “ideology … that causes some people to want to kill us and to not respect women’s rights, and that should be taught as well. Instead this teacher was able to influence an entire class with a tainted story made up to show Muslims as victims.”
Lacking a catch of late, the New York Times decided to pull a Scott Pruitt on United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, accusing her of being Extravagance Woman, a regular Stateside Imelda, based on a $53,000 purchase of customized and mechanized curtains for her United Nations apartment. It’s got more than a whiff of the jobs they did on former EPA Director Scott Pruitt for his first-class airfare, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Tom Price for his chartered flights, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for his office doors, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson for his office table, and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin for his plane rides. Hey, what better way to pick off another Trump scalp?
The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to the United Nations, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts and had frozen hiring.The residence, in a new building on First Avenue, has spectacular views, and Ms. Haley is the first ambassador to live in it.
But this time, they picked the wrong woman, because the “narrative” just doesn’t work.
Turns out the fancy curtain order was the work of Samantha Power, President Obama’s former UN ambassador, who, when she wasn’t busy unmasking Americans to learn all about what was going on in the Trump campaign (or maybe handing her password out, given the quantity of such unmaskings under her name), was also busy getting the decorating in. Status stuff, like self-opening curtains, the better to impress the Harvard and NGO crowds who undoubtedly would come by to visit. And it was President Obama who approved the purchase.
But the paper didn’t mention until the sixth paragraph that Haley’s spokesman said the Trump administration had no input in the purchase decision.
So after running a headline suggesting Haley was corrupt and extravagant, it turns out she had nothing at all to do with the fancy curtains Obama approved for his cronies, confident Hillary Clinton would be elected president in 2016. Based on the outcry from leftist NGOs and academic elites, it looks like the Obama administration’s plan was for a place that would become a clubhouse for their ilk and other hangers-on, with the coming new Clinton administration, and now Haley was occupying the space. That explain why Obama would have approved such an extravagant purchase so late in his administration, at a time of cutbacks — and why they are screaming about it. According to Fox, they hollered about it all over Twitter and then to the Times:
“How can you, on the one hand, tell diplomats that basic needs cannot be met and, on the other hand, spend more than $50,000 on a customized curtain system for the ambassador to the U.N.?” Brett Bruen, a White House official in the Obama administration, told the Times.
“When @nikkihaley’s not busy rejecting the idea of universal human rights, she’s busy spending $52,701 of US tax payer money on curtains for her residence. Milk the people, screw the world. Fine priorities you got there,” Andrew Stroehlein, Human Rights Watch’s European Media Director, wrote in a tweet.
Either some of their rice bowl is threatened, or else it was the same dynamic seen in outgoing Mexican presidents, all socialists, who famously spent up a storm as they exited, and then took the light bulbs as they went.
It’s great that such a lie was shot down so instantly by Fox. But what’s obnoxious about the whole report is that it was so out of character for Nikki Haley to ever be involved in extravagant purchases, something that surely would have come out during her time as governor. Haley has always been one of the cleanest whistles in the Trump administration with impeccable integrity. To suggest she was one of the old boys spending up the public fisk on fancy office equipment is the height of absurdity, and says a lot about the Times’ refusal to employ newsroom skepticism to their reportage in matters of Trump. Oh, and it’s a bit sexist, too, given that they were all on the big story of Sarah Palin’s extravagant campaign clothes. Apparently, they’ll believe anything if it smears conservatives.
Now it’s a new black eye for the Times in its bid to Get Trump. It’s also another justification for why the public does not trust the press.
Lacking a catch of late, the New York Times decided to pull a Scott Pruitt on United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, accusing her of being Extravagance Woman, a regular Stateside Imelda, based on a $53,000 purchase of customized and mechanized curtains for her United Nations apartment. It’s got more than a whiff of the jobs they did on former EPA Director Scott Pruitt for his first-class airfare, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Tom Price for his chartered flights, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for his office doors, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson for his office table, and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin for his plane rides. Hey, what better way to pick off another Trump scalp?
The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to the United Nations, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts and had frozen hiring.The residence, in a new building on First Avenue, has spectacular views, and Ms. Haley is the first ambassador to live in it.
But this time, they picked the wrong woman, because the “narrative” just doesn’t work.
Turns out the fancy curtain order was the work of Samantha Power, President Obama’s former UN ambassador, who, when she wasn’t busy unmasking Americans to learn all about what was going on in the Trump campaign (or maybe handing her password out, given the quantity of such unmaskings under her name), was also busy getting the decorating in. Status stuff, like self-opening curtains, the better to impress the Harvard and NGO crowds who undoubtedly would come by to visit. And it was President Obama who approved the purchase.
But the paper didn’t mention until the sixth paragraph that Haley’s spokesman said the Trump administration had no input in the purchase decision.
So after running a headline suggesting Haley was corrupt and extravagant, it turns out she had nothing at all to do with the fancy curtains Obama approved for his cronies, confident Hillary Clinton would be elected president in 2016. Based on the outcry from leftist NGOs and academic elites, it looks like the Obama administration’s plan was for a place that would become a clubhouse for their ilk and other hangers-on, with the coming new Clinton administration, and now Haley was occupying the space. That explain why Obama would have approved such an extravagant purchase so late in his administration, at a time of cutbacks — and why they are screaming about it. According to Fox, they hollered about it all over Twitter and then to the Times:
“How can you, on the one hand, tell diplomats that basic needs cannot be met and, on the other hand, spend more than $50,000 on a customized curtain system for the ambassador to the U.N.?” Brett Bruen, a White House official in the Obama administration, told the Times.
“When @nikkihaley’s not busy rejecting the idea of universal human rights, she’s busy spending $52,701 of US tax payer money on curtains for her residence. Milk the people, screw the world. Fine priorities you got there,” Andrew Stroehlein, Human Rights Watch’s European Media Director, wrote in a tweet.
Either some of their rice bowl is threatened, or else it was the same dynamic seen in outgoing Mexican presidents, all socialists, who famously spent up a storm as they exited, and then took the light bulbs as they went.
It’s great that such a lie was shot down so instantly by Fox. But what’s obnoxious about the whole report is that it was so out of character for Nikki Haley to ever be involved in extravagant purchases, something that surely would have come out during her time as governor. Haley has always been one of the cleanest whistles in the Trump administration with impeccable integrity. To suggest she was one of the old boys spending up the public fisk on fancy office equipment is the height of absurdity, and says a lot about the Times’ refusal to employ newsroom skepticism to their reportage in matters of Trump. Oh, and it’s a bit sexist, too, given that they were all on the big story of Sarah Palin’s extravagant campaign clothes. Apparently, they’ll believe anything if it smears conservatives.
Now it’s a new black eye for the Times in its bid to Get Trump. It’s also another justification for why the public does not trust the press.
As Twitchy reported earlier, Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced that she’d turned over to authorities a letter that had some incriminating information about SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a woman, possibly reaching back as far as his high school years.
Of course, idiots like ThinkProgress’s Ian Millhiser floated the idea that Kavanaugh “may have committed a very serious crime — possibly even a sex crime.” A lot of people starting making #MeToo accusations.
With that insinuation floating around all day, The Guardian has a source who claims to know the contents of the letter, and … well, it doesn’t even rise to the level of Mitt Romney cutting some kid’s hair.
Socialists want everybody to get everything — as long as they get theirs first.
And socialists looooove money. Take Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent who touts himself as a socialist. He’s got three houses, including a shorefront house on Lake Champlain.
Same goes for the hot new socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s everywhere now as she runs for a New York seat in the U.S. House. And with that comes money — and bling.
Net Neutrality. We have all heard of it, but no one seems to know what it is, other than the fact that it causes a lot of outrage online. Ricochet editor-in-chief Jon Gabriel hosts the latest Prager University video. "What Is Net Neutrality," in which he breaks down what it really means for those of us who surf the internet.
Despite the Catholic left’s collusion with the mainstream media to discredit Archbishop Viganò’s testimony as a work of fringe fantasy, the emerging evidence continues to support the former Nuncio’s allegations that high-ranking Vatican prelates actively covered for disgraced D.C. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
