Posts tagged ‘President Obama’
Houston journalist Scarlett Fakhar, has lost her job after she spoke her mind on Facebook after the election. She said that Obama has made the “entire country hate one another” and was glad Trump won. Does the first amendment mean anything anymore?
In a Facebook post that has since been deleted, Scarlett Fakhar, a Fox 26 Houston journalist, said “God had a hand” in the election and she could “barely sleep from how happy and relieved she was” after Trump’s election victory.
In place of the deleted post, Fakhar said: “Guess what fans!!?? FOX 26 Houston is trying to take my fan page down now! DON’T LET THEM! #FREEPRESS #FREESPEECH #FIRSTAMENDMENT”
A spokesman from the KRIV confirmed to a local US newspaper that the journalist was sacked, but declined to comment.
She wrote: “The media has made this a race issue, when in reality the matter boils down to a difference in political philosophy.’
“As a multiracial person myself, I never have been or never will be racist.”
Authored by Rep. Kevin Cramer / @RepKevinCramer / November 17, 2016
URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/17/the-facts-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-protesters-dont-want-you-to-know/
<!– A mix of 2,000-plus indigenous and nonindigenous water protectors rally in Foley Square, a park across the street from the Army Corps of Engineers who temporarily halted the Dakota Access Pipeline’s construction, Nov. 16, 2016, New York City. (Photo: Pacific Press/Sipa USA
For more than three months, thousands of protesters, most of them from out of state, have illegally camped on federal land in Morton County, North Dakota, to oppose the construction of a legally permitted oil pipeline project that is 85 percent complete.
The celebrities, political activists, and anti-oil extremists who are blocking the pipeline’s progress are doing so based on highly charged emotions rather than actual facts on the ground.
This 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline will deliver as many as 570,000 barrels of oil a day from northwestern North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to connect to existing pipelines in Illinois. It will do this job far more safely than the current method of transporting it by 750 rail cars a day.
The protesters say they object to the pipeline’s being close to the water intake of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. However, this should be of no concern as it will sit approximately 92 feet below the riverbed, with increased pipe thickness and control valves at both ends of the crossing to reduce the risk of an incident, which is already low.
Just like the companies that run the 10 other fossil-fuel pipelines crossing the Missouri River upstream of Standing Rock, Energy Transfer Partners—the primary funder of this pipeline—is taking all necessary precautions to ensure that the pipeline does not leak.
But even if there were a risk, Standing Rock will soon have a new water intake that is nearing completion much further downstream near Mobridge, South Dakota.
From the outset of this process, Standing Rock Sioux leaders have refused to sit down and meet with either the Army Corps of Engineers or the pipeline company. The Army Corps consulted with 55 Native American tribes at least 389 times, after which they proposed 140 variations of the route to avoid culturally sensitive areas in North Dakota. The logical time for Standing Rock tribal leaders to share their concerns would have been at these meetings, not now when construction is already near completion.
The original pipeline was always planned for south of Bismarck, despite false claims that it was originally planned for north of Bismarck and later moved, thus creating a greater environmental danger to the Standing Rock Sioux.
The real reasons for not pursuing the northern route were that the pipeline would have affected an additional 165 acres of land, 48 extra miles of previously undisturbed field areas, and an additional 33 waterbodies.
It would also have crossed zones marked by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as “high consequence” areas, and would have been 11 miles longer than the preferred and current route.
North Dakotans have respected the rights of these individuals to protest the pipeline, but they have gone beyond civil protesting. Though these protesters claim to be gathered for peaceful prayer and meditation, law enforcement has been forced to arrest more than 400 in response to several unlawful incidents, including trespassing on and damaging private land, chaining themselves to equipment, burning tires and fields, damaging cars and a bridge, harassing residents of nearby farms and ranches, and killing and butchering livestock. There was even at least one reported incident where gun shots were fired at police.
The recent vandalization of graves in a Bismarck cemetery and the unconscionable graffiti marking on the North Dakota column at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., are examples of how the protesters’ actions do not match their claims of peaceful demonstration.
Equally disturbing is the meddling by the Obama administration in trying to block this legally permitted project through executive policymaking. This has encouraged more civil disobedience, threatened the safety of local residents, and placed an onerous financial burden on local law enforcement—with no offer of federal reimbursement for these increasing costs.
All that remains for the pipeline project to be completed is for the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a final easement to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. With no legal reason remaining to not issue it, I am confident the Trump administration will do what’s right if it’s not settled before President Donald Trump takes office.
The simple fact is that our nation will continue to produce and consume oil, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport it. Legally permitted infrastructure projects must be allowed to proceed without threat of improper governmental meddling.
The rule of law matters. We cannot allow lawless mobs to obstruct projects that have met all legal requirements to proceed.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Rep. Kevin Cramer/ @RepKevinCramer
URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/media-lies-rise-hate-crimes-muslims/
Now that Donald Trump has been elected to the White House, you can be sure that the media will suddenly realize that homelessness is rampant, unemployment is a major problem, the economy is bad, and America is evil again. And to prove the contention, the media is already talking about how there has been a “massive rise” in “hate crimes” against Muslims. And it’s all Trump’s fault. But don’t believe these lies.
The latest guffaw worthy claim that America is suddenly gone all racist against Muslims was floated by the Associated Press on Monday, almost a week after President Elect Donald Trump stunned the media by winning the election.
The wild-eyed, spittle-specked claim was then echoed by such sources as CNN, The New York Times, ABC News, and a host of others decrying the “surge” or the “hike” or the fears of a “massive” rise in hate crimes against Muslims.
But it is all based on lies, folks. Don’t believe a word of it. So, let’s look at the AP’s version of this nonsense, shall we?
For its November 14 article, the AP decided to essentially misuse the FBI’s reporting on hate crimes to float in an alarming headline reading: ”Hate crimes against Muslims up by 67 percent in 2015
Oh, and the AP wants you to know it’s all Trump’s fault. Now look how alarming this first paragraph is as given to us by the AP…
“Reported hate crimes against Muslims rose in 2015 to their highest levels since those seen in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to FBI statistics released Monday.”
With this opening sentence, one might think that thousands of cases of hate crimes have been reported against Muslims across this mean, rotten ‘ol country. If so, the second and third paragraphs doesn’t reassure much.
Civil rights groups had been raising concerns about an anti-Muslim backlash in the U.S. even before the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, late in the year. The reporting period covers calendar year 2015, but comes at a time of heightened tensions following last week’s presidential election.
There have been reports of racist and anti-religious instances since Tuesday that have sparked outrage, including students at one school who chanted “white power” and a videotaped assault in Chicago that showed black men beating a white man as onlookers screamed, “You voted Trump!” In 2008, after Barack Obama was elected as the nation’s first black president, there were also suspected cases of alleged hate crimes tied to the election.
Ah, you see what they did there. It’s all Trump’s fault, right?
But then AP gets past its partisan and overheated rhetoric to tell us the actual numbers reported by the FBI. And it turns out that the grand total of so-called “hate crimes” against Muslims reported for 2015 was… drum roll, please… 257 incidents.
That’s right in a nation of over 300 million Americans a whopping 257 people claimed to have been victimized because they are Muslims. Two hundred. Fifty Seven.
That isn’t even a measurable percentage of the population. In fact, it’s not just an immeasurable number of the U.S. population it’s not even a measurable number of the 2.75 million member U.S. Muslim population!
Granted the AP is right that the 2015 statistic is a rise of some 67 percent over the 154 Muslims attacked for their religion in 2014. But so what? This number is statistically meaningless either way.
Furthermore, the “crimes” the FBI reported weren’t all violent crimes. Some were graffiti related, others were personal harassment charges, and many were low-end crimes that don’t amount to anything as bad as harm or even death occurring to a Muslim. The AP fails to note that the crimes reported are not all violent.
The AP, though, was looking for sensation, not facts. Let’s face it, when one uses percentages instead of reporting actual numbers, it can always sound worse than it is. After all if one person is hurt in 2014 because he was a Muslim yet three were attacked in 2015 that is a 200 percent increase! And it sure sounds worse to say a “200 percent increase” than to say the number went from one victim to three victims.
The AP does one other disservice with its report on this purported rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes. By not really pointing out that the FBI noted that hate crimes against Jews is many, many times more than those against Muslims, it gives weight to the attacks on Muslims but discounts the much larger number of attacks on Jews.
To be sure, the AP does note the following at the very end of its piece: “Jews and Jewish institutions remain the most frequent target of religious-based hate crimes, representing 53 percent of all those reported. Crimes against Jews increased about 9 percent.”
Still, this sentence doesn’t do the truth any service. While there were 257 crimes against Muslims in 2015, the FBI noted that there were a much larger 664 crimes against Jewish people in the U.S. during the same year. So, in fact, this story about the “alarming rate” of anti-Muslim hate crimes is actually dwarfed by the hate crimes against Jews.
Of course, even at that rate, the 664 hate-crimes against Jews is still practically nil when measured against our population of 318 million people.
So, all we really have in these new reports calling America a racist nation is an alarming headline, puffed up percentage-based statistics instead of hard numbers, and lies in place of solid, logical, and truthful reporting.
Another thing the AP and the rest of the old media establishment are working so hard to ignore is that many of the so-called anti-Muslim hate crimes against Muslims end up being hoaxes. Just in the last few weeks we saw a female Muslim from Louisiana claim she was assaulted, called names, and had her hijab ripped off her head by Trump supporters. Later she admitted she lied about the whole thing. Police are now weighing charges against her.
Then there was the recent case of the fake hate crime reported by The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce in Florida which claimed one of its members was attacked for being Muslim. It was learned shortly after that no such attack ever occurred. The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce was the same Islamic group that the Pulse nightclub killer frequented.
In another case, two teenaged Muslims in New York City claimed they were beaten by a white guy because they were Muslim. It later turned out that the white guy caught them sexually harassing his girlfriend and deservedly smacked them around because of their actions.
There are dozens of stories like these, stories of Muslims making shocking claims of anti-Muslim hate crimes that end up being hoaxes. On the other hand, one never hears stories of hoax attacks on Jews.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Warner Todd Huston
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and BigJournalsim.com along with all Breitbart News sites, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, and many, many others. He has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs across the country to discuss his news stories and current events and has appeared on TV networks such as CNN, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and various Chicago-based news programs. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at
Authored by Brad Bishop / November 10, 2016
URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/10/7-areas-with-obama-executive-actions-trump-should-reverse/
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the president, creates the laws. Article I of the Constitution grants enumerated legislative powers to Congress. The Constitution assigns the executive the duty to enforce the law, and Article II, Section 3 requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
However, throughout the last eight years, we have seen the Obama administration continually abuse the power of the executive branch by issuing unconstitutional, unilateral executive actions to push its agenda. The “old days” of Congress creating our laws have become a distant memory.
President Barack Obama even went so far as to announce his unilateralism, saying, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
Well, it appears that American voters have their own pens, too, and they’ve put them to their ballots now in a stunning and decisive way. On Tuesday, the American people elected Republican outsider Donald J. Trump to serve as the 45th president of the United States.
Now, with control of the presidency, both chambers of Congress, and soon the Supreme Court, conservatives across the country are looking forward to repairing some of the damage Obama has inflicted on our constitutional system.
As long promised, Trump should use the first 100 days of his administration to repeal every illegal executive action the Obama administration has issued while in office.
Here is a list of the seven areas with the most damaging executive actions signed during the Obama administration that must be repealed:
- Crony Exemptions to Obamacare. While Trump works with Congress to actually repeal Obamacare, he can start by issuing an order to halt some of Obama’s executive actions that created special exemptions to Obamacare for his favored constituencies.
- Executive Amnesty. The new president must repeal Obama’s unilateral changes to our nation’s immigration laws, which exempted certain categories of illegal aliens from being deported. (This bar on deportations was halted by a court order, but the underlying exemption still remains on the books.)
- Environmental Protection Agency Overreaches. Trump must repeal Obama’s multiple illegitimate expansions of EPA rules. These new rules have imposed huge costs on society and are crippling the U.S. energy sector.
- Appeasement of Iran. Trump must repeal the executive order that single-handedly removed U.S. sanctions on Iran. These sanctions provided key leverage to the U.S. in negotiations with Iran, and their removal has cleared Iran’s path in developing a nuclear weapon.
- Climate Change Bureaucracy. Trump must repeal the executive order that purports to “prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change.” This action from Obama created manifold new justifications for government spending based on inconclusive science.
- Life and Religious Liberty. Trump should reverse Obamacare’s unprecedented taxpayer funding of abortion. He should also direct the secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake a rulemaking process that will end the mandate for insurance to cover abortion-inducing drugs and contraception, along with “gender transition” therapies and surgeries.
- “Gender Identity.” Trump should repeal the Obama administration’s Title IX guidance equating “gender identity” with “biological sex.” The Department of Justice and Department of Education have wielded this guidance to punish educational institutions for “discrimination” under Title IX, simply for having separate showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms for men and women.
By making the repeal of these executive actions a priority, the Trump administration will have an easy opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past administration.
As Henry Ford once said, “Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.” It’s been a while since conservatives have had an opportunity like this one, and it is imperative we take advantage of it.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Brad Bishop
Brad Bishop is a senior media associate at The Heritage Foundation.