Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘MSNBC’

MSNBC Guest: Hurricane Harvey A ‘Man-Made Disaster’ [VIDEO]


Reported by Photo of Amber Athey Amber Athey | Media Reporter | 5:05 PM 08/31/2017

An MSNBC guest asserted Thursday that natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Katrina are actually “man-made disasters.”

Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for public diplomacy, blamed politicians and city planners for the extent of the damage caused by Harvey and Katrina.

“Part of the problem with Harvey, like Katrina, is these are man-made disasters in part because the thousands of buildings that have been built in Houston on flood plains–on 100 year flood plains–over the past ten years, these are public officials and unregulated expansion that has made this area vulnerable,” Stengel claimed.

Stengel then seemed to criticize the plan of officials to rebuild the city of Houston “bigger and better” after the flooding subsides.

 

“To me, it’s not about building bigger and better, it’s about building to a 500 and 1000 year plan like Amsterdam and other cities are built,” he said.

WATCH:

 Follow Amber on Twitter

Like and share this article on Facebook and Twitter with your comments on this issue

Please tell me what you think about his comment. Scroll down to comment below!

MSNBC Accidentally Proves that the Democrat Party is Toast


Reported By Onan Coca | August 7, 2017

Columbia Law Professor Explains why Donald Trump Jr. did Nothing Wrong


Reported By Onan Coca | July 14, 2017

MSNBC had an interesting conversation this morning with Columbia University Law Professor Richard Briffault who told the hosts and their viewers that basically everything that Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner have been accused of is wrong. Legally, technically, wrong.

As Briffault expertly, and concisely, explains neither man is guilty of “treason,” “perjury,” giving “false statements,” or “colluding” with Russia. Based on all of the “evidence” gathered, the worst that can be said is that Jared Kushner might have lied or he might just be forgetful and Donald Trump Jr. showed bad judgment.

The MSNBC hosts were visibly saddened.

RICHARD BRIFFAULT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Treason is a little extreme for this, I mean it is not clear — [Russia] may not be our friend, but it is not clear they are our enemy. We are not at war. It is not clear this violates — it is against the U.S. government. So I am not up to treason yet.

STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC: So take ‘T’ off the table. What about the ‘P’? Perjury definition: ‘A person under oath states any material which he does not believe to be true.’ Would be constituted as perjury. 

BRIEFAULT: Well, with the possible exception of Jared Kushner and the forms he filled out to get his security clearance, I’m not sure any of this has been under oath yet. On those, maybe it is not perjury, but there is a crime of lying to the U.S. government, but you would have to prove he was knowingly and maliciously misleading, and his claim is to say he just forgot. So we’re in a gray area there. 

STEPHANIE RUHLE: So can we add in? The TIME Magazine [cover story this week] currently has Don Jr. on the cover, but in their piece they say that in the email chain between Don Jr. and the Russian intermediary, they say ‘Kushner maintains he did not read to the bottom of the email invitation to the meeting, so he didn’t understand the Russian promise it contained, that was on the fourth page. And yet, the subject line says ‘Russia, Clinton Private and Confidential.’ Does that argument that he didn’t scroll down hold any water? 

BRIFFAULT: Is is irrelevant. The thing was that he was at the meeting and he didn’t report having been at the meeting –as I understand it– in his intial filing to get the security clearance.

So, at the very least, he has corrected that, but there is some question about how knowing that was. So, perjury no, lying to the government maybe.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC: We have another one: False statements. This is about a person knowingly and willfully making any materially false statement or representation within any of the three branches of government. This is obviously a lower standard, but does this apply here? 

BRIFFAULT: This relates to the filing for the security clearance. It is a simlar kind of question. It was a false statement. Did he know it was false, or did he just forget? And it has been corrected. It may still affect whether he should have a security clearance. But it is not quite up to the level of a crime.

OK. Did you get all of that? Basically Donald Trump Jr. did nothing that was “actionably” wrong. Ali Velshi tries one more time and asks Professor Briffault about collusion, and Briffault crushes Velshi’s liberal dreams…

BRIFFAULT: Collusion isn’t really a crime, I think we are getting at things like ‘conspiracy to commit a crime,’ or coordination of campaign finance stuff. Collusion is more of a political term than a legal term.

This Constitutional Law Prof Knock Down MSNBC’s ‘Obstruction Of Justice’ Narrative In Less Than Two Minutes


Reported by Photo of Peter Hasson Peter Hasson | Associate Editor | 7:16 PM 06/11/2017

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/11/watch-this-con-law-prof-knock-down-msnbcs-obstruction-of-justice-narrative-in-less-than-two-minutes-video/

Screenshot/MSNBC

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley spent her Sunday afternoon knocking down the “obstruction of justice” narrative on MSNBC.

The Harvard-educated Foley calmly explained to frustrated MSNBC host Yasmin Vossoughian why President Trump would have been legally allowed to suggest former FBI Director James Comey let go of the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and why Trump was well within his constitutional authority to later fire Comey.

“If the American people are unhappy with the way Trump acted,” Foley said, “their two options under our constitutional system are to push for impeachment or to vote somebody else into office in 2020.”

“To the extent that people want try to make this obstruction of justice, there’s a million different layers why this is not technically obstruction of justice, either as a statutory matter or a constitutional matter,” Foley said. “But this point particularly about a ‘corrupt intent’ is even worse. Because think about it, the president also has the authority under Article II [of the Constitution] to pardon people, but we don’t say for example that the president can’t pardon a certain person because he has a corrupt intent, he likes the guy he’s known him for a long time so therefore he can’t pardon him.”

“The pardon power like the power to head the investigative, or the rest of the executive branch like the FBI, like the DOJ is a plenary discretionary authority of the president. He can pardon anybody for any reason he wants, corrupt purpose or no, and he can direct the investigation or non- investigation corrupt motive or no,” she added.

“You don’t put discretionary limits on constitutional authority ap and if you do you invite Article III non-elected non-accountable judges to second-guess the president’s authority. You never want to have a constitutional regime that sets up that way. We the people can either not vote the president in or we can impeach him, those are the political pushback mechanisms.”

4 Supremes alert America: ‘Trouble is coming’


Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts

America needs to prepare for a major governmental assault on religious liberty in the wake of the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, but those standing against the tide can find plenty of inspiration from those who pioneered the concept of religious freedom at the American founding.

Michael Farris is co-founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and author of “The History of Religious Liberty.” The book details the fierce fight for the religious freedom provisions that eventually emerged in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Farris said history is critical to understand in the wake of the marriage decision and the brand new threats to liberty being advocated on the political left.

The day after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was handed down, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., told MSNBC she believed religious liberty was a much narrower concept than has been understood for centuries. “Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs,” Baldwin said. “But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception.”More Evidence

She added, “Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled? In this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts, and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”What did you say 05.jpg

Michael Farris’ “History of Religious Liberty” is a sweeping literary work that passionately traces the epic history of religious liberty across three centuries, from the turbulent days of medieval Europe to colonial America and the birth pangs of a new nation. 

Farris is dumbfounded at Baldwin’s reading of the First Amendment. “The ignorance of members of Congress and the U.S. Senate never ceases to baffle me. How did they get there in the first place without taking a basic civics course? Or maybe they have and they just don’t believe it,” Farris said. “This senator has just simply walked away from not only the text of the Constitution and the meaning of the Constitution but our great American traditions.”

In fact, Farris believes Baldwin’s concept of religious liberty is almost completely backward. “It is an institutional right,” he said. “Churches have religious freedom, but it’s primarily an individual right. The Supreme Court – back in the day when it used to think straight – would say things like it’s not up to the government or the courts to determine which individual within a faith has correctly understood the demands of that faith. You’re allowed to go your own way.”SCOTUS GIANT

In response to the court decision, Govs. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, have announced their states will vigorously protect the religious liberty of the people. Farris applauds the efforts but warns those policies won’t stop all government intrusion into Americans’ lives or the practices of religious institutions. “That’s a good thing. It limits the areas where a church or a school can expect an attack. But a Christian college residing in one of those states can still expect an attack from the IRS or from the accrediting association or from the U.S. Department of Education if they don’t go along with the federal edicts on this,” said Farris, who warned schools and churches would be wise to protect themselves legally now given the dire warnings offered in the dissents to the Obergefell decision. “We have four justices on the Supreme Court effectively warning all the religious institutions, ‘You better do something about this because trouble’s coming.’ I don’t think that’s an idle speculation,” he said. “That’s about as strong of a warning from about as high a source as you can possibly get.”

<div>Please enable Javascript to watch this video</div>Farris expects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to provide federal protection for Christian individuals and organizations, but only to the extent that Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledges it.

In “The History of Religious Freedom,” Farris details the long, unlikely triumph of religious freedom in America’s founding. Just as in Europe, colonial America witnesses various denominations cracking down on others.

Modern history textbooks credit enlightenment thinking for the emergence of religious liberty in America. To Farris, that’s academic fantasy, cp 11and true scholars have actually debunked that notion. “It’s simply not true,” he said. “I lay out the historical evidence in great detail. One Harvard historian around the 1920s said the evidence that people who are indifferent to religion, that basically is the enlightenment crowd, were the cause of religious liberty is an unsustainable argument. There is simply no evidence for that point.” He added, “It was people who cared very deeply. It was grassroots kinds of Christians fighting establishment kind of Christians who gave us religious liberty for everybody. The battle for religious liberty wasn’t settled on the Mayflower.”

Protections for the free exercise of religion were anything but guaranteed in America. Farris said the colonial government of Virginia teamed with the Anglican Church to punish dissenters as late as the 1770s. In 1776, Virginia’s Declaration of Rights became the first declaration of religious liberty anywhere in the world.

In 1789, Congress approved the Bill of Rights and sent them to the states for approval. That same year, the French Revolution unfolded. The upheaval in the two countries has long been compared, especially as the U.S. moved forward with stability and France subsequently endured the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic era.

Farris said there are key reasons for the very different results of revolutions rooted in freedom, including America’s much deeper respect for personal religious liberty and vastly different views about the nature of man.

“France believed that man was perfectable and that we could create our own utopia, whereas the American Revolution followed the Christian biblical idea that all men are sinners and that’s why you needed limited government, because you can’t trust any man in government to rule faithfully forever,” he explained.

According to Farris, the greatest parallel between the colonial struggle for religious freedom and today’s cultural battles is where the battle lines are drawn. Religious freedom was not championed by the ruling class. “It was a monumental battle,” he said. “It was the common people, who believed in Jesus, who believed the Bible was the authority for their faith and their life, who really fought the war and won. Many of them paid with their lives.”

Farris said the founding generation should serve as inspiration for the religious freedom fights of this century.

“Common people armed with bravery and faith in God can turn anything around,” he said. “I’ve seen it in my own life through the homeschooling movement. We were outnumbered and outgunned by the teachers’ unions day after day after day. We won battle after battle after battle because (we were) common people armed with the Constitution of the United States and belief in the Word of God.”

Tree of Liberty 03 Freedom is never free freedom combo 2

‘Black Lives Matter’: We Will ‘Shut Down’ GOP Convention If We Can


waving flagBy Mark Finkelstein | July 25, 2015

Shades of 1968 and the Days of Rage? Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors has announced that “any opportunity we have to shut down a Republican convention, we will.”

Appearing on today’s Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC, Cullors also blithely spoke of “the murder of Mike Brown” in Ferguson, MO. Neither of the co-guest hosts sitting in for Harris-Perry, Richard Liu and Janet Mock, challenged Cullors’ characterization.  This despite the fact that even Eric Holder’s Justice Department found no wrongdoing on the part of the police officer who shot Brown.

Question: what would be the effect on the election if Black Lives Matter seriously disrupted the Republican convention?

JANET MOCK: What action do you want to see the candidates take for what the movement is calling for?

PATRISSE CULLORS: I think first off we want candidates to actually call movement leaders sit and have meetings with us, have a conversation with us about what’s happened this last year since the murder of Mike Brown.

. . .

MOCK: What is your plan for the Republican candidates specifically after Jeb Bush and his idea of saying that #black lives matter is just a slogan?

CULLORS: Yes. And we — many folks have asked why would you go after the Democratic party? They’re on our side. What about the Republican party? And trust and believe that any opportunity we have to shut down a Republican convention, we will. We will make sure that our voices are made loud and clear. And we also want to be clear that the Democratic party isn’t off the hook.

SEE PART OF THE INTERVEIW BELOW:
More Evidence Alinsky affect freedom combo 2

 

Ann Coulter Letter: There’s A Reason We Mostly Hear About ‘Micro-Aggressions’


waving flag Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2015/06/24/theres-a-reason-we-mostly-hear-about-micro-aggressions

There's A Reason We Mostly Hear About 'Micro-Aggressions'

The massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston by an evil psycho is a hideous thing. The case is especially sickening because the victims were chosen specifically because of their race. Thank God it’s extremely rare for whites to target black people for attack.

And yet the public is being told by The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC and Salon that the Charleston massacre is one small example of white racists rampaging through the country. It’s like saying we have an epidemic of men flying gyrocopters onto Capitol Hill. Yes, there’s that one time, but I notice you keep citing the same case. 

In The Washington Post, for example, columnist Lonnae O’Neal blamed the Charleston attack on “white supremacy,” claiming that “racial sickness is all around us.” (I guess the one upside of the horror in South Carolina is that we can FINALLY have a national conversation about race.) insane

The media’s WHITES ARE TERRORIZING BLACKS campaign reflects reality as accurately as the media’s other campaign, WHITE MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE RAPING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!

In a country of more than 300 million people, everything will happen eventually. That doesn’t make it a trend. Go up to any ordinary, sentient person and ask: Which race assaults the other race more?

Remember the “knockout game” — or as its devotees called it, “polar bear hunting”? Black teenagers would go looking for white people to knock unconscious with a single punch, videotape the attacks and post them online. The knockout game was a real trend — which the media denied was a trend.

Just last month, we saw videos of white reporters from the Daily Caller being mugged by black men in Baltimore.

Ask around. You might be surprised at how many whites you know have been physically attacked by a black person at least once in their lives.

Ordinary people keep hearing that we are in the middle of an epidemic of white-on-black violence and think, Surely the media wouldn’t be making this up, so I must be misinformed.

According to a preposterously, laughably, ridiculously bogus report on “hate crimes” produced by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, blacks are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are. It would be like a government report asserting that most rapes are committed by elderly white women. Holder’s DOJ got to the desired outcome by:

(1) Defining “hate crime” only as those in which the perp uses a racial epithet. (Because that’s what people fear most: I don’t mind getting the crap kicked out of me — as long as no one calls me a “cracker”!)

(2) Defining Hispanic perpetrators as “white.” (Yes, according to our federal government, Hispanics are “Hispanic” when they are victims of crimes, but “white” when they are the perpetrators.)

(3) Defining less than 0.1 percent of all violent crimes as “hate crimes.” (According to the FBI’s detailed crime victimization report, there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012, but Holder’s Justice Department characterized less than 1,000 of those as “hate crimes.”)

The FBI’s crime victimization surveys tell a very different story, one more in line with a normal person’s life experience. In 2008, the most recent year for which such data seems to have been collected, FBI surveys show that, out of 520,161 interracial violent crimes, blacks committed 429,444 of them against whites, while whites committed 90,717 of them against blacks.Picture4

In other words, blacks commit more than 80 percent of all interracial violent crime.

Going for the element of surprise, columnist Brit Bennett recently complained in The New York Times that “white violence is unspoken and unacknowledged” by the media. Yes, I barely heard a thing about such alleged white-on-black crimes as: Tawana Brawley (hoax), the Duke lacrosse gang rape (hoax), Trayvon Martin (self-defense), Ferguson (hoax) and Eric Garner (justified police arrest). Other than the wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage for months on end, there was barely a peep out of the media about these cases. The media will pounce on any suspicion of a white-on-black crime, spend a year being hysterical about it, and, if it turns out to be a false alarm, refuse to apologize, before quickly moving on to the next hoax.

The Charleston church shooting is the first case in a very long time in which blacks really were targeted by a white person because of their race (and had the misfortune of being in a gun-free zone). Even Bennett had to reach back to stories her grandmother told her about the Ku Klux Klan (100 percent Democratic) to come up with a previous example of whites terrorizing blacks.

The Charleston attack was a hideous, sickening crime. But that’s why we should thank our lucky stars that it was so unusual. White-on-black violence is freakishly rare everywhere in America, except liberal imaginations.freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: