Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

Obama Appointee: White House ‘Aggressively Engaged’ in Transgender Fight By Debra Heine

The Obama White House is “aggressively engaged” in the push to allow transgender students to use whichever bathroom they wish at school, according to a top Obama appointee in the Department of Education. DOE Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon made the point last Thursday during her keynote address at an LGBT summit in Michigan which was co-hosted by the White House.

Via the Daily Caller:

The event was co-sponsored by activist group Equality Michigan, which has led a statewide charge to allow schoolchildren to choose their name, gender and bathroom, all without parental knowledge or input. Officials from seven different federal agencies attended the event, according to the Equality Michigan website.

Equality Michigan executive director Steph White blasted out a giddy email to supporters after the event, which she called “a great catalyst that will propel our collective work forward.” The email included an excerpt from Lhamon’s remarks, which White called “refreshingly clear.”
Speaking about the Obama administration, Lhamon told attendees: “We are serious. We are aggressively engaged. We will enforce Title IX.” The Daily Caller has filed a FOIA request with the Department of Education for Lhamon’s full remarks.

Under Lhamon’s guidance, the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights has ruled that schools will be in violation of Title IX if they do not permit transgender students to use the bathroom and locker rooms of their choice. The administration has made clear that giving private, single-user bathrooms is not a sufficient accommodation. That is: schools must allow boys who think they’re girls to shower and change alongside actual girls.

On April 19, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a biological female who identifies as a male may bring a claim under Title IX against a school for not allowing her to use the men’s restrooms and locker room facilities.

Curt Schilling the Science Guy From climate change to restrooms, Democrats are increasingly the anti-science party. By William McGurn

Let us stipulate that ESPN, as a private institution, was entirely within its rights to have sacked Curt Schilling for his combative Facebook post on the continuing national saga that is North Carolina restrooms. Let’s stipulate too that the way the former Red Sox pitcher advanced his case—sharing a meme featuring a grotesque fat man in a blonde wig pretending to be a woman—was not the line of argument that, say, William F. Buckley would have chosen.
But let us also note the irony. Mr. Schilling’s main contention—“a man is a man no matter what they call themselves”—is supported by DNA and those pesky X and Y chromosomes. In short, in this fight between science and authority, Mr. Schilling is in the amusing position of being the Galileo, with ESPN filling in for the Holy Office.

Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, puts it this way: “Curt Schilling is of course correct with the science in saying that claiming to be a woman when you have the chromosomal and anatomical structures of a man does not make you such. You’re still a man no matter what you think or how you dress.”

It’s an interesting detail that has gone largely unaddressed since Mr. Schilling delivered his knuckleball. Nor is it hard to see why. For it contradicts the dominant narrative in which Democrats take their positions from a clear-eyed look at the science while Republicans are blinded by their religious, social and economic orthodoxies.

This was the trope Barack Obama invoked in his maiden inaugural address, when he promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” Well, the American people have now had almost eight years of it. Turns out that restoring-science-to-its-rightful-place comes with its own set of dogmas and orthodoxies. CONTINUE AT SITE

How to Steal a State: Governor McAuliffe Expands the Criminal Vote for Democrats By Hans A. von Spakovsky & Roger Clegg

In what is likely an unconstitutional state action seemingly calculated to ensure that the purple state of Virginia goes blue in the November election, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D.) signed an order on Friday restoring the voting rights of 206,000 ex-felons in Virginia, including those convicted of murder, armed robbery, rape, sexual assault, and other violent crimes. The order also restores their right to sit on a jury, become a notary, and even serve in elected office.

McAuliffe believes that ex-felons can be trusted to make decisions in the ballot booth and the jury box but apparently not to own a gun. He draws the line at restoring their Second Amendment rights; that would be a bridge too far. His order specifically does not restore their “right to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.” And while his order requires that felons complete probation and parole before enjoying restoration of their rights, it applies regardless of whether they have paid any court fines or restitution to victims.

What McAuliffe entirely dismisses is the principle that if you won’t follow the law yourself, you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote. Restoring a felon’s right to vote should be done not automatically, as soon as he has completed his sentence, but carefully, on a case-by-case basis, after he has shown that he has really turned over a new leaf. The unfortunate truth is that many people who walk out of prison will be walking back in; recidivism rates are high. We have both testified before Congress and written about this problem. Governor McAuliffe may be happy as long as the ex-felons who can now vote just don’t walk back into prison before November.

Having a waiting period, examining each ex-felon’s application for restoration of rights carefully and individually, and differentiating between violent and nonviolent crimes is exactly the system that Virginia had — at least until Friday’s order. In a three-page summary released by the governor’s office, McAuliffe asserts that any claim that he doesn’t have the authority to grant a blanket restoration of rights is “far-outside the weight of constitutional authority across the nation and would read into the text of the Virginia Constitution words that simply are not there.” This is just legal gibberish — the weight of constitutional authority “across the nation” has no bearing on interpreting the Virginia constitution. McAuliffe is reading into that constitution authority he does not have.

EPA Budget Cuts Lung Cancer Program, Ups Climate Change Funding By Nicholas Ballasy

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle criticized the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed budget for cutting clean water funding and eliminating a lung cancer prevention program.

The Obama’s administration’s $8.3 billion EPA FY2017 budget request increases climate change-related funding to $235 million, which includes money for its Clean Power Plan.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued the administration should be putting that money into existing programs instead since the Supreme Court placed a stay on the Clean Power Plan.

“The EPA has testified before this committee that they have done no modeling on whether the rule [Clean Power Plan] would have any impact on global temperature change,” he said during a committee hearing on the EPA budget. “The president is intent on picking winners and losers in the energy economy.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy how she justifies cutting water infrastructure funding after incidents like lead poisoning in Flint, Mich., occurred. Cardin said he is “perplexed” by the $413 million reduction.

“There are obviously constraints that we have. One is we have to respect the levels that were established in the bipartisan budget agreement and our choice was how do we use the money that is allocated to us in the best way that we can,” McCarthy told Cardin.

Hillary Wants Your Guns : John Hinderaker

Given the Democrats’ dismal record when they run on an anti-gun platform, it is hard to believe that Hillary Clinton wants to make gun control her signature issue. Nevertheless, that appears to be the case. Campaigning in Connecticut, she waxed hyperbolic on firearms:

I am here to tell you I will use every single minute of every single day if I’m so fortunate enough to be your president looking for ways that we can save lives, that we can change the gun culture.

Every single minute of every single day, on guns? Well, that would be a good thing for our foreign policy, but I don’t think she means it. Still, it is always interesting to try to decode liberals’ talk about firearms. What do you think Hillary means by “chang[ing] the gun culture”? My guess is that she knows next to nothing about the “gun culture” as it is experienced by those who own and use firearms, and what she has in mind is making it really, really hard for anyone to buy a gun. Except for her armed guards, of course.

Chelsea Clinton, campaigning for her mother, brought a moment of clarity to the Democrats’ usual obfuscation:

Chelsea Clinton said Thursday at an event in Maryland that there is now an opportunity for gun control legislation to pass the Supreme Court since Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.

“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” Clinton said. “Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down.”

Clinton then touted her mother’s record on gun control issues and knowledge that the Supreme Court has an effect on whether many gun control laws stand.

Chelsea’s comment is stupid. (Normally I wouldn’t criticize a family member of a candidate, but Chelsea is an adult and Hillary sent her out on the trail as a surrogate.) The idea that upholding some gun control measures while invalidating others is “inconsistent” betrays a profound lack of understanding of the law and the Constitution. To point out the obvious, the Supreme Court has similarly upheld some restrictions on speech as constitutional, while finding that others violate the First Amendment. And it has found some searches and seizures to be legal under the Fourth Amendment, while others are unconstitutional. This is not inconsistent, it is what courts do.

And the World Was Made Right : Edward Cline

It would be interesting to chronicle the state of the world on the off chance that everything in it would be made right per the demands and expectations of today’s activists, social justice warriors, and champions of Social Progress. This was done in a speech by Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, in a commencement address delivered at the University of Chicago, at which he was presented with an Honorary Doctorate in Racial Harmony.

All climate change deniers and skeptics were executed, as advocated for years the Secret Society of the Global Warming Collect, by professional hangmen and executioners hired from ISIS. The first executions were presided over by Al Gore, former vice-president of the old U.S. European culprits were transported to Raqqah, the capital of the Islamic State Caliphate, and dispatched there with graphic footage broadcast to Europe. The experienced executioners there made short work of the liars and falsifiers and acolytes of false science. North American culprits were transported to Death Valley, California, and ISIS executioners were flown in to perform their service. The guilty had been hunted down and rounded up by the combined forces of the European-Islamic Police, of the Special Multi-Gender Law Enforcement Force, and of the American Federal Bureau of Intolerance (FBI) in coordinated raids and dragnets. Once the deniers were gone, all was made right in the world, and the world breathed easier.
To the resounding cheers and excellently choreographed Maypole dances of environmentalists of every age and color everywhere, the Environmental Protection Agency seized all private property and land in America and imposed rigorous controls on the former owners (now reduced to the status of tenant farmers) governing the use of the new federal possessions. The rules were so all-encompassing and strict that the tenants were unable to produce or grow much of anything, but were blamed for dragging their feet. Trained, armed, and experienced former Bureau of Land Management personnel were empowered to police the land and to punish violators. Thousands of tenant farmers were incarcerated in special FEMA camps, called Spotted Owl Campuses, in Nevada and Illinois and put on short rations. These new felons were also subjected to reeducation courses and new dietary regimes. And all was made right with the world, and a New Earth Day was proclaimed.
President Bernie Sanders presided over the free distribution of just about everything, including college education, food, personal grooming products, and gas rations. His taxing of major and middle income corporations and small businesses at 99% was intended to pay for the program, but when IRS personnel appeared at these venues, in many instances they found nothing but closed doors or vacant premises. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving announced a “temporary” halt in printing all the new money because of shortages of the proper paper and of the necessary chemicals and inks, while the Treasury Department also announced a halt in the mailing of “Freedom Checks” to everyone because of a shortage of paper on which to print the checks. Suppliers of the currency and check paper to the BPE and the Treasury Department were sued. But President Sanders said the setbacks were just a “blip.” He was also quoted as saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking heads.” One person was arrested and sentenced by a kangaroo court to twenty years of hard labor for having been overheard to say to a friend in private that President Sanders “not only needed a walker to get to the john but also for his brain.” Still, all was made right in the world and bad-mouthers were taken out of circulation, resulting in a significant drop in aural pollution.
The inauguration of the new federal Multi-Gender Police (the MGP) was feted by former U.S. President Barack Obama during a special ceremony in Seattle. The new law enforcement tool was expected to work closely with the re-tailored FBI. The MGP’s ranks were filled with heterosexuals, homosexuals, lesbians, trans-genders, and people of unclassified orientation. True to Barack Obama’s anti-gun philosophy, the troops were armed with only tasers, electronic batons, modified cattle prods, and katanas. Cleverly designed uniforms, modeled after samurai fighting armor, disguised the gender identity of each policeperson. However, during its first assignment, the MGP retreated from a food riot in Philadelphia, resulting in half the city being burnt down, its spokesperson saying that sending the MGP into combat violated the “safe spaces” of many of its members who weren’t quite ready to impose law and order. It also claimed that many thousands of lives were saved by the MGP’s non-intervention in the looting, destruction, and occasional killing. Still, all was made right in the world, as there was no more police brutality.
English was demoted from being the official lingua franca of the U.S. Callers to various federal agencies, bureaus, and “crony” corporations were asked to “Press 1 for Arabic, Press 2 for Spanish, Press 3 for English.” Advertising and billboards (where they were permitted) had to communicate in Arabic and Spanish first, with tiny English subtitles. And all was made right in the world, and illiteracy was no longer a social stigma.

First, Let’s Get the Facts on Saudis and Iranian Involvement in 9/11 By Andrew C. McCarthy

The 9/11 attacks were not civil torts. They were acts of war. It is important to keep that fact in the front of our minds as we press for long-overdue disclosure of evidence linking the Saudi Arabian government to the mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans, to say nothing of the even more overdue investigation of Iran’s contributory role — an investigation that should have been in high gear immediately after the planes struck their targets.

Over the years in these pages, we have catalogued the damage done to national security by regarding international terrorism as a mere law-enforcement problem — the 1990s Clinton counterterrorism paradigm that President Obama has gradually reinstated. We haven’t much considered, though, another problem with thinking about violent jihadism as a litigation matter: It leads us to lose perspective about who was attacked, and why.

Much as our hearts ache for the victims whose lives were lost, and for the families whose lives were ripped apart, 9/11 was not principally an attack on the victims and their families. It was an attack on the United States of America. It was a stealth combat operation against the American people, all of us, by foreign enemies who had quite publicly declared war on our nation. Those killed and wounded are more accurately thought of as casualties than as victims.

This is why it is so unfortunate that the drive to get public accountability for the attacks has been intertwined with the effort to get financial compensation for the families by way of civil lawsuits against complicit nations.

Don’t get me wrong: All of us should demand that state sponsors of terrorism be made to pay dearly for their atrocities – although, for reasons I’ll get to in a bit, legislation permitting victims to sue is a counterproductive way to go about this. But for all the incalculable pain and suffering inflicted on our fallen fellow Americans and their families, the laudable desire to see them awarded hefty money damages is, at best, a secondary priority.

Tubman on the Twenty By The Editors —

Last year, a faction of the feminist Left discovered that it was being oppressed by the absence of a woman on at least one piece of America’s paper currency. After much baying from activists, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has struck upon a reasonable compromise. Lew announced on Wednesday that the place of Alexander Hamilton, currently experiencing a historical renascence, on the $10 bill is safe. Instead, Harriet Tubman, the great abolitionist, will replace Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill, and the seventh president will be moved to the back.

Tubman is an admirable choice. Not only was she a courageous chaperone along the Underground Railroad, responsible for escorting more than 300 slaves to freedom; she was also a scout and spy for the Union Army, the first woman in American history to lead a military raid (against Combahee Ferry, in South Carolina, where she helped liberate more than 700 slaves), a Republican, a devout Christian, and a staunch defender of the right to bear arms.

Andrew Jackson, for his part, was a giant of American history, and the animating spirit of the Democratic party. But moods change, and in the current public consciousness, Jackson’s considerable flaws have come to outweigh his also considerable merits. If there is a reason to remove Jackson from the currency, perhaps it should simply be that he hated paper money.

Obama Administration Awards $270K to Terror-Linked Islamic Charity By Debra Heine

Islamic Relief USA (IR-USA) is the largest U.S. Muslim charity and is an affiliate of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), the largest international Islamic charity in the world. Based in Birmingham, England, IRW has a $240 million operating budget, nearly 300 employees, chapters in more than 12 countries and operations in over 30 countries. Islamic Relief says it “aims to provide rapid relief in the event of human and natural disasters and to establish sustainable local development projects allowing communities to better help themselves.”

The organization’s relief efforts in the USA and throughout the world have been linked to terrorism finance which has led some government to outlaw its activities.

IRW reportedly has a long history of working with Hamas-affiliated entities and then claiming ignorance afterward. RadialIslam.org documented IR-USA’s ties to Hamas in an expose about the organization’s CEO – an Islamist who became a USAID advisor to the Obama State Department. According to the Clarion Project, (a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamist extremism) Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) partners with a Hamas affiliate in Turkey named the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH).

Israel, Germany and the Netherlands have branded IHH as a terrorist entity. The U.S. has not formally done so, but a bipartisan group of 87 members of Congress including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have requested its designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department.

The State Department considered it but did not take action, even though a leaked State Department memo from 2009 shows that the U.S. government knows IHH is “providing material assistance to Hamas.”

Clarion Project also reported that no less than four officials of IR-USA have Muslim Brotherhood ties.

The FDA vs. Austin Leclaire The agency sits on a new treatment for a deadly muscular disease.

No government agency controls the fate of more people than the Food and Drug Administration, which has the power to deny children a treatment that could help them walk. The FDA is reviewing an experimental drug for muscular dystrophy, and the outcome could determine the quality of life for thousands—and whether companies continue to invest in curing rare diseases.

On Monday an FDA advisory committee will consider eteplirsen, a drug by Boston-based Sarepta designed to treat a strain of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is a genetic disorder that weakens every muscle in the body. The condition usually affects boys, who by age 12 or so can no longer walk, and over time damages the heart and lungs. The fatality rate is 100%, and most do not live past 25.

Eteplirsen essentially pumps out the protein missing in patients with Duchenne, known as dystrophin, by skipping over faulty genetic code. Sarepta’s clinical trial started in 2011 and treated boys about 9-years-old whose abilities seemed to be deteriorating rapidly. After four years of treatment, 10 out of 12 children can still walk. In a comparable group of 11 boys who weren’t treated, only one could still walk. No side effects or safety concerns were reported.
***One beneficiary is Max Leclaire, who is now 14. His mother, Jenn McNary, became one of the earliest advocates for the drug after noticing her son’s marked improvement. She had another reason: Her son Austin is also affected by Duchenne but wasn’t eligible for the trial, as he already had lost the ability to walk. So for years Austin was denied the care that helped his brother continue to play sports and dress himself.

Ms. McNary and Christine McSherry, who also has a son with Duchenne, have organized some 900 people to show up at Monday’s committee meeting, which forced the FDA to book a bigger venue. Among those offering public comment will be Austin, who began an eteplirsen trial about 18 months ago. He will tell the committee of his brother’s persistence and his own—and of friends who have lost dexterity and have no options without FDA action.

Sarepta has gone back and forth with the FDA since 2013, and this is somehow considered the expedited track: A 2012 law allows the agency flexibility to accelerate approval in first-in-class drugs for lethal diseases, though the FDA seems to be flouting the spirit of this directive. The agency planned to assemble an advisory committee—which offers recommendations that the FDA typically follows—in January. But the meeting was postponed due to a blizzard in Washington, one that apparently snowed in the FDA for four months. CONTINUE AT SITE