Bloody Clashes As Trump Protesters, Supporters Exchange Blows At Berkeley Rally
Family of Slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry Says Eric Holder Among ‘The Real Criminals’ Responsible
“The 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by a 7-time previously deported illegal alien could have been prevented, says the agent’s brother Kent Terry in an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas. Terry’s family hopes the Trump Administration will now go after “the real criminals” responsible for putting the “Fast and Furious” guns in the accused killer’s hands.
A task force including Mexican law enforcement officials, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents and U.S. Border Patrol Border Patrol BORTAC (Border Patrol Tactical Unit) agents arrested accused killer Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, in Mexico earlier this week, Breitbart Texas reported. Court records obtained by Breitbart Texas stated immigration officials deported Osorio-Arellanes seven times before he returned illegally on December 14, 2010, as part of a Mexican bandit “rip crew.” The accused killer of Agent Terry opened fire on the BORSTAR team in southern Arizona that had been dispatched to find the “rip crew” which had been robbing other drug and human smuggling convoys in the area.”
Intellectual Intolerance – Stunning Speech From Stanford University Provost Exposes “The Threat From Within”
“In a remarkable – for its honesty and frankness – statement on the intellectual rot within America’s Ivory Towers, Stanford University Provost John Etchemendy lay bare the challenges that higher education face in the coming, increasingly divisive, years.
The Threat From Within
Universities are a fundamental force of good in the world. At their best, they mine knowledge and understanding, wisdom and insight, and then freely distribute these treasures to society at large. Theirs is not a monopoly on this undertaking, but in the concentration of effort and single-mindedness of purpose, they are truly unique institutions. If Aristotle is right that what defines a human is rationality, then they are the most distinctive, perhaps the pinnacle, of human endeavors.
I share this thought to remind us all why we do what we do – why we care so much about Stanford and what it represents. But I also say it to voice a concern. Universities are under attack, both from outside and from within.
The threat from outside is apparent. Potential cuts in federal funding would diminish our research enterprise and our ability to fund graduate education. Taxing endowments would limit the support we can give to faculty and the services we can provide our students. Indiscriminate travel restrictions would impede the free exchange of ideas and scholars. All of these threats have intensified in recent years – and recent months have given them a reality that is hard to ignore.
But I’m actually more worried about the threat from within. Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country – not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines – there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around ourselves.
This results in a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won’t even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve.
It will not be easy to resist this current. As an institution, we are continually pressed by faculty and students to take political stands, and any failure to do so is perceived as a lack of courage. But at universities today, the easiest thing to do is to succumb to that pressure. What requires real courage is to resist it. Yet when those making the demands can only imagine ignorance and stupidity on the other side, any resistance will be similarly impugned.
The university is not a megaphone to amplify this or that political view, and when it does it violates a core mission. Universities must remain open forums for contentious debate, and they cannot do so while officially espousing one side of that debate.
But we must do more. We need to encourage real diversity of thought in the professoriate, and that will be even harder to achieve. It is hard for anyone to acknowledge high-quality work when that work is at odds, perhaps opposed, to one’s own deeply held beliefs. But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth. It is absolutely essential to the quality of our enterprise.
I fear that the next few years will be difficult to navigate. We need to resist the external threats to our mission, but in this, we have many friends outside the university willing and able to help. But to stem or dial back our academic parochialism, we are pretty much on our own. The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow.
We wish John well in his future endeavors as we are sure there will be a groundswell of hurt feelings demanding his resignation for dropping another truth bomb on their safe space.”
Charlie Daniels: It’s Only a Matter of Time Before There Is Blood on the Streets
– CNS News
“Over a century ago, the United States of America went through a divisive and bloody Civil War that separated the people of this nation bone from marrow. It split friends, families and eventually the nation itself as a line was drawn dividing the Union States of the North from the newly formed Confederacy of the Southern States.
Ostensibly, the war that followed was fought over the abolition of slavery, a devilish practice that never should have been allowed in the first place, and although it was the basic issue for the conflict – as is the case so much of the time – there were a myriad of other issues involved.
One – in my opinion – was just plain stubbornness and pride and the dogged determination that the South would not let itself be told what to do by the other half of the country, but trade, tariffs and different attitudes and beliefs about just how far a federal government could go in setting the tone and making laws to be obeyed by all the states were also involved.
The point I’m trying to make is that the feelings festered so long and ran so deep that men whose fathers had stood shoulder to shoulder in the war for independence faced off across fields of battle and killed each other.
The Civil War never should have happened, and had cooler heads prevailed on both sides, never would have. Southerners had to know that slavery was an abomination to the principles they had fought and died for in the Revolution.
No man has the right to own another man, to reap the fruits of his labor for nothing, to consider his children nothing more than commodities to be sold off or traded away on a whim, separating families and breeding human beings like livestock.
But instead of acknowledging the very obvious evil of this situation, politicians from the South, convinced that the economy of the Southern States was dependent on slavery, chose to become a separate nation and soon after over six hundred thousand Americans lost their lives in a senseless war that would set the Southern States back a half century.
Surely, had it been approached by fair, level-headed men on both sides of the issue, abolition could have been achieved without war. But the rhetoric grew ever hotter. Brash young men on both sides, who had never fired a gun in anger, viewed a war as the pinnacle of romanticism, and implacable politicians refused to give an inch.”
…..Continue reading the op-ed by Charlie Daniels @ CNS News
JFK’S HISTORIC SPEECH ON ‘THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS’ | MAR 2016
“No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.”
Judge Dismisses Al-Aulaqi Govt Targeted Killing Case | Dec 7, 2010
– The Volokh Conspiracy
“Presswires are reporting that Judge John Bates has dismissed the case which the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights sought to bring on behalf of Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s father, contesting the ability of the President to target an American citizen hiding abroad in Yemen who the government says is a targetable participant in a terrorist group covered by the AUMF. (Thanks commenter Dom, the opinion is here; thanks also Instapundit, & corrected grammar above.) The news story points to standing problems for the father.
U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion Tuesday that al-Awlaki’s father does not have the authority to sue on his son’s behalf. But he says the case raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens.
Quick update: On a fast read of the opinion – well, anyone interested in these questions needs to read it post haste. Far from merely being a narrow discussion of standing, it goes on to discuss the political question doctrine in great detail, and concluding on this point:
…this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion — that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is “constitutionally committed to the political branches” and judicially unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance. The political question doctrine requires courts to engage in a fact-specific analysis of the “particular question” posed by a specific case, see El- Shifa, 607 F.3d at 841 (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 211), and the doctrine does not contain any “carve-out” for cases involving the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. While it may be true that “the political question doctrine wanes” where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are at stake, Abu Ali, 350 F. Supp. at 64, it does not become inapposite. [p. 77 opinion, emphasis added]
The one point I’d add to Ben’s discussion is that it seems to me that Judge Bates’ motivation was to provide at least the beginning of clear institutional settlement on a crucial aspect of the executive’s national security prerogatives, even if it was arguably “mere” dicta.I’d also note in passing that this holding illustrates in a backhanded way one of the aspects of the Alien Tort Statute that I find troubling, at least as applied to conduct outside the territorial United States. Viz., it confers special rights upon aliens that are not available to US citizens – including, in this case, a citizen named Al-Aulaqi. His alien father can at least begin to bring a claim that the citizen son cannot, because he is, well, not an alien.This makes sense to me in one context only, viz., when the conduct occurs in the territorial United States, and the alien present in the US might suffer at the hands of state courts or US citizens, who themselves have ample avenues open to them; it levels the playing field. Abroad, arguably, it gives aliens something that US citizens don’t have.”….Continue reading more @ The Volokh Conspiracy
Jesse Watters Interviews New York City High School Snowflakes Protesting Travel Ban
“Over sixty percent of California voters went for Hillary Clinton — a margin of more than 4 million votes over Donald Trump.
Since Clinton’s defeat, the state seems to have become unhinged over Trump’s unexpected election.
“Calexit” supporters brag that they will have enough signatures to qualify for a ballot measure calling for California’s secession from the United States.
Some California officials have talked of the state not remitting its legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. They talk of expanding its sanctuary cities into an entire sanctuary state that would nullify federal immigration law.
Californians also now talk about the value of the old Confederate idea of “states’ rights.” They whine that their state gives far too much revenue to Washington and gets too little back.
Residents boast about how their cool culture has little in common with the rest of the U.S. Some Californians claim the state could easily go it alone, divorced from the United States.
Sound a bit familiar?
In December 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union in furor over the election of Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln did not receive 50 percent of the popular vote. He espoused values the state insisted did not reflect its own.
In eerie irony, liberal California is now mirror-imaging the arguments of reactionary South Carolina and other Southern states that vowed to go it alone in 1860 and 1861.
Like California, South Carolina insisted it could nullify federal laws within its state borders.
Like California, South Carolina promised to withhold federal revenues.
Like California, South Carolina and other Confederate states bragged that their unique economies did not need the Union.
They boasted that “King Cotton” had created the wealthiest class in the United States. Silicon Valley now often assumes that Google, Facebook, Apple and others are near-trillion-dollar companies that are a world unto their own.
Slavery and the extravagant income from cotton warped the Southern economy and culture. A wealthy plantation elite, with its millions of exploited slaves, ensured that there would be virtually no middle, working or small-business class.
Huge estates were surrounded by the impoverished shacks of servants. Hardscrabble farmers or small businessmen often fled westward to escape the shackles of wealth disparity.
The export-dependent Southern elite demanded unfettered free trade. It offered bitter resistance to Northern protectionism.
South Carolina elites were opposed to federal infrastructure projects such as the building of roads, canals, bridges and reservoirs, and other such unwelcome “progress.”
Confederates boasted that their antebellum culture was more romantic, natural, pristine, healthy and moral than was the bustle, grime and hyper-capitalism of Northern industrialism.
Southern aristocrats believed that they were culturally superior — in terms of music, art and literature — to other Americans.
Of course, this is 2017, not 1860, and California is super-liberal, not an antebellum slave-owning society.
Nonetheless, what is driving California’s current efforts to nullify federal law and the state’s vows to secede from the U.S. are some deeper — and creepy — similarities to the arrogant and blinkered Old South.
California is likewise becoming a winner-take-all society. It hosts the largest numbers of impoverished and the greatest number of rich people of any state in the country. Eager for cheap service labor, California has welcomed in nearly a quarter of the nation’s undocumented immigrants. California has more residents living in poverty than any other state. It is home to one third of all the nation’s welfare recipients.
The income of California’s wealthy seems to make them immune from the effects of the highest basket of sales, income and gas taxes in the nation. The poor look to subsidies and social services to get by. Over the last 30 years, California’s middle classes have increasingly fled the state.
“Gone With the Wind”-like wealth disparity in California is shocking to the naked eye. Mostly poor Redwood City looks like it’s on a different planet from tony nearby Atherton or Woodside.”
California’s Undocumented Kids—Why They Could be First to Lose Medical Care Under Trump
“On a recent rainy morning in Los Angeles, Maria Bernal’s stove clicks to life with a bright blue flame to toast bread on a griddle for her 9-year-old son Edwin to smear with peanut butter. As she scoops papaya chunks into the blender for a smoothie, she recalls her worry during all the years when she couldn’t afford health care and he suffered painful ear infections.
The waiting six months to get an appointment for Edwin at a county facility. The nights trying to calm him as he cried in constant pain. The months-long wait for each of three surgeries to insert tubes into his ears. The fear when the medical bills arrived.
At the time, she couldn’t afford health care, and he wasn’t eligible for regular government-funded Medi-Cal coverage because she had brought Edwin to the United States illegally from Mexico when he was 1. He qualified for a local program and emergency Medi-Cal, but that didn’t provide all the care he needed. Then last year, she heard on TV that California was creating a new program under Medi-Cal to fully cover poor undocumented children. Relieved, she rushed to sign Edwin up. As a result, she says, “I can take him in whenever he needs to go.”
Now, however, the ability of Edwin and some 164,000 poor undocumented California children to see a doctor for regular medical care hangs in the balance—with several experts predicting they could be among the first to lose health coverage if the Trump administration carries out its promise to end much of Obamacare, leaving California to try to make up the difference.
To be clear, the federal government does pay limited medical costs for kids in the country illegally under the restricted-scope Medi-Cal program, which is available to anyone regardless of immigration status for emergency and prenatal services only. Last May, however, California became one of a handful of states to provide state-funded full-scope Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. About 71 percent of the program is funded by the state, according to the state Department of Health Care Services, with 29 percent paid for out of federal funds for emergency coverage. Also of note: Because the federal government funds emergency services, the state shares enrollee information with federal health officials.
In his most recent budget proposal, Gov. Jerry Brown allocated $279.5 million to cover approximately 185,000 kids in the coming year in what the state has dubbed its Health for All Kids program—double what the program was estimated to cost when it was approved.
With the election of Donald Trump, who took office last week, some health policy experts and advocates say the fledgling program is in danger. Assuming the new administration carries out plans to change how Medicaid is funded, California could stand to lose $17 billion the federal government currently provides for the Medi-Cal expansion that California adopted under the Affordable Care Act.Such a cut would leave state leaders unable to fully make up the funding difference—and could force them to revisit a decades-old debate over whether the state has an obligation to care for sick children regardless of their immigration status, or should focus limited resources on citizens and legal residents.”
After night of violent protests, Berkeley cleans up damage
– SF Gate
“Berkeley residents woke up Thursday to boarded-up businesses, shattered glass and the remnants of fires — sprawling destruction left by protesters in the wake of a scheduled speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.
Police canceled the talk on Wednesday night by the Breitbart New editor as the demonstration escalated into chaotic turmoil that left five people with various degrees of injuries.
Several dozen UC Berkeley students showed up with brooms and trash bags to clean up the mess on as dawn broke Thursday morning over Berkeley, revealing the scope of the previous night’s vandalism.
Student Alexander Espinosa Pieb, a junior, said he cut his hand picking up shards of glass, but shrugged it off.
“It’s part of the job,” he said. “The group that did all the violence wasn’t students. They were a bunch of destructive anarchists.”
By 8 a.m., workers at the Berkeley Art Museum had already painted over graffiti reading “f— art” with white paint on its white front wall.
Much of the destruction was focused on businesses along Center Street near Shattuck Avenue and on buildings at Sproul Plaza on the UC Berkeley campus.
Vandals damaged six ATMs at the Wells Fargo along Shattuck Avenue where 13 plywood planks covered smashed doors and windows.”
Hollywood Director Tweets Threat To Trump Supporters After Berkeley Riot
– Daily Caller
“Comedy director Judd Apatow threatened Americans who support Donald Trump that the riots at the University of California-Berkeley Wednesday night were “just the beginning.”
In a now-deleted tweet, the “Knocked Up” director shared a link to CNN’s coverage of the riots with the message, “This is just the beginning. When will all the fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?”
UC Berkeley riot raises questions about free speech
– San Jose Mercury News
“BERKELEY – UC Berkeley has been long heralded as the birthplace of the country’s free speech movement. But after violent protests this week forced the school to cancel the scheduled appearance of alt-right icon Milo Yiannopoulos, some are wondering if Berkeley is where free speech is hitting a roadblock.
After the protest on Wednesday evening by more than 1,500 demonstrators outside the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union began to turn violent, instigated in part by what campus officials described as outsiders, the event was called off. On Thursday, the Berkeley College Republicans, who had hosted Yannopoulos’ appearance, summed up their disappointment this way:
“The Free Speech Movement is dead,” the group said in a statement posted on its website. “Last night, the Berkeley College Republicans’ constitutional right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs seeking to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos’ tour. Their success is a defeat for civilized society and the free exchange of ideas on college campuses across America.”
The group thanked the campus police and university administration “for doing all they could to ensure the safety of everyone involved. It is tragic that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is also its final resting place.”
Rebel San Francisco P.D. Cuts Ties with FBI on Counterterrorism
“The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is ending its coorperation with FBI counterterrorism efforts as part of the city’s larger rejection of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.
On January 31, Breitbart News reported that San Francisco Police Chief William Scott, Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, and Mayor Ed Lee sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security informing them that city would not comply with the order.
The SFPD is now cutting ties with the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), because it would couple SFPD officers with federal agents in carrying out the requirements of the immigration order.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the JTTF was formed in 2007, “when the police force entered into an agreement with the FBI that authorized intelligence-gathering by San Francisco officers of people engaged in First Amendment activities such as religious services, protests and political assemblies.”
Opponent of Trump’s order — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding operation –sent a letter to the San Francisco officials in January, asking them to adhere to “city and state rules” when working with the federal government.”
History: Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley | Dec 1964
The Night Berkeley Betrayed The Free Speech Movement
“On Wednesday night, fires blazed across the University of California, Berkeley campus, the site of the student Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, as protesters violently derailed the finale of MILO’s college lecture tour.
In 1964, Berkeley student Mario Savio addressed his peers in a speech about the importance of the free and open discussion on college campuses. In his address, Savio argued that the university must return to it’s intended function where students are invited to explore all ideas – both radical and mainstream – freely and without fear of social or academic repercussion.”
“If Bill and Hillary looked dour at Donald Trump’s inauguration, it may have been more than just frustration and sour grapes at losing the election. As Obama passed into history and Trump took power as president, what didn’t happen may have had more consequence for the former first couple than what did take place: Obama did not pardon Hillary.
Now the coast is clear for a thorough investigation of Hillary both on charges of mishandling state secrets and of running a pay-for-play operation out of the State Department.
As president-elect, Trump vowed not to pursue Hillary and expressed the wish that she not be prosecuted, but said that it “was not something I feel very strongly about.” In a series of tweets on November 22nd, Trump said that a prosecution of Hillary would be “very divisive” and noted that the Clintons have “suffered greatly” already. But, significantly, he refused to say that he would take prosecution of Hillary “off the table.”
Anyone watching the inaugural ceremonies could not fail to note how deliberately President Trump avoided eye contact with either Clinton, passing right by under their noses rather than pause for a handshake.
For his part incoming Attorney General Jeff Sessions has promised to recuse himself from any investigation.
But the investigators themselves — in at least four US Attorney offices — are by no means letting up. If they find a case that Hillary ran afoul of the law in either scandal (pay for play or national secrets), it is quite likely that they will recommend prosecution. In that eventuality, it is hard to see either Sessions of President Trump refusing to bring the case.
Hillary’s only secure protection would have been an Obama pardon. But now she is exposed. She may have to face the fruits of her own criminality.”
– Question: Why is this not on the front page of every newspaper and media web site? Is this not huge news? No explanation, no excuses, nothing. This inaction by Obama in his last hours, leaves open the opportunity for a stunning indictment of Hillary and her enablers by the Trump administration. Guess Obama didn’t like Hillary much after all. /CJ
Not Exactly News Dept.
BREAKING: OBAMA PLANNING TO PARDON HILLARY BEFORE TRUMP TAKES OVER AT NOON
– ConservativeDailyPost.com | Jan 19th 2017
“A former member of Congress has brought up the notion that Hillary might be pardoned for everything that she has done. Considering that there is literally one day before President Obama leaves office, what is there stopping him from making this pardon? That’s what former Representative Michele Bachmann believes.
“I would not be surprised to see Barack Obama issue a blank pardon for anything Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton or the Clinton Foundation has done.”
She then began discussing Clinton’s email scandal along with some other notable intelligence failures that occurred during the Obama administration. Disturbingly, there were several of them.
“The worst intelligence failures ever in the history of the United States took place under Barack Obama by Manning, Edward Snowden, and none other than our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, because of her selfishness in having an unsecure server set up in her home, had America’s most vital secrets likely intercepted by our enemies and then relayed to the world.”
Why President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton—and George W. Bush
– DailyKos | Nov 15 2016
“Before he leaves office on January 20, 2017, President Obama should take two unpleasant, unfortunate but absolutely necessary steps. First, Obama should pardon his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because she’s violated no laws yet nevertheless faces the likely prospect of indefinite investigation and possible prosecution. Then the 44th President should also pardon the 43rd, because George W. Bush admitted his crimes yet never faced any legal consequences at all. And the President should provide relief to Clinton and make an example of Bush for the very reason Republicans cited back in 2009: to prevent the “criminalization of politics.”