Senior officials with the U.S. Department of Justice recently announced possible legal changes which could allow the government greater room to combat so-called “anti-government extremists”.On Thursday February 4, Reuters reported that John Carlin, the Justice Department’s chief of national security, and federal prosecutors are looking for new tools to deal with the rise of “domestic extremists.”“Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment,” Carlin told Reuters. Reuters notes that the U.S. government is facing an increase in opposition from militia groups, “sovereign citizens,” and other “anti-government extremists.”
Not satisfied with merely smearing Republicans as racist, xenophobic, and sexist, liberals both inside and outside the world of politics have decided that Donald Trump and other security-conscious conservatives are actually turning moderate Muslims into radical terrorists. Despite lacking even the slightest shred of proof for this accusation, they are repeatedly and shamelessly trying to convince Americans that strong rhetoric against Islamic terrorism is enabling the enemy.At a Women’s Equality event called the Night of Comedy, “Hanoi” Jane Fonda took to the stage to accuse Trump of preying upon people’s “anxieties and racism.”“Even if he doesn’t make it which I don’t think he will, the fact that he’s said the things he’s said about Muslims for example, the damage has been done,” Fonda said. “All those young Muslims now can say, ‘Yeah I guess they really are waging a war against us.’ It will draw them closer to the terrorists. I think it’s really, really dangerous.”No, what’s dangerous is making outlandish statements about politicians that obscure the truth about Islamic terrorism. These celebrities and liberal pundits continually throw these unsupported claims out there, mischaracterizing Trump’s message along the way. Trump has never said one cross word about Islam. He’s never said anything about the free practice of the Muslim religion in the United States. He proposed putting a temporary halt to Muslim immigration, a sensible measure given how incompetent our federal government is in screening visitors and migrants. He is, in a phrase, trying to save innocent lives. But somehow, that makes him a terrible person.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is planning to cut 50 percent of the budget for aerial surveillance along the U.S.-Mexico border, agents revealed at a congressional hearing Thursday.In an effort to understand why DHS is cutting funding, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, wrote a bipartisan letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.“Any decrease in aerial observation is not only imprudent, but contradicts the very mission of border security enforcement,” the letter states.The lawmakers’ letter also asks for detailed information about the reduction aerial-based border security, also known as Operation Phalanx.Abbott and Cuellar describe news of the funding cut for border security as “unsettling.” “It has come to our attention that for calendar year 2016 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested 3,850 hours of persistent aerial detection, situational awareness and monitoring capability support for Operation Phalanx from the Department of Defense (DOD). This request was fifty percent lower than that of recent years. Given the recent surge of migrants from Central America and Cuba along the southern border, we believe DHS should request more surveillance and security resources, not fewer. Moreover, Texas requested additional aerial observation resources in a September 30, 2015, letter that went unanswered by your department.
In a major setback to the Obama administration’s climate agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan from taking effect until the legal challenges from states and industry groups fully play out.Twenty-five states, four state agencies and dozens of industry groups challenged the Clean Power Plan, which would require aggressive carbon dioxide cuts from America’s existing power plants. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses a lower court’s decision two weeks ago not to stay the regulation.Blocking Federal RegulationThe decision is important for states refusing to submit state implementation plans and opposing the Clean Power Plan. If states had to submit plans to meet their respective carbon cut targets, the rule could have taken effect prior to a final court decision. Without the Supreme Court blocking the regulation, the wheels could have already been set in motion to close many of the existing fleet of power plants with little to no hope of re-opening no matter how the legal battle played out.The plan, which the EPA finalized in October 2015, requires most states to meet individual carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals for existing power plants by 2022 and again in 2030. States are to submit plans about how they would comply with the regulations by September but could ask for two-year extensions. As Politico reports, “Lawsuits over the rule are expected to continue into 2017 at the earliest, with the Supreme Court widely expected to be the final arbiter of the regulation.”
A veteran official with the Department of Homeland Security claims he and other staff were ordered to destroy records on a federal database that showed links between possible jihadists and Islamic terrorist groups.”After leaving my 15-year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack,” the former employee, Patrick Haney, wrote in an explosive column that was published late Friday on The Hill website.Haney alleges that the Obama administration has been “engaged in a bureaucratic effort” to destroy the raw material and intelligence the Department of Homeland Security has been collecting for years, leaving the United States open to mass-casualty attacks.
The hosts of MSNBC Live on Friday thought it was “crazy” that some young women aren’t supporting Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president. Chris Jansing and Tamron Hall marveled at a New Hampshire focus group that included young, college-age females. Hall proclaimed, “The big headline for me in the randomly selected group of people, the young women there did not care that Hillary Clinton could be the first woman president.” A shocked Jansing retorted, “That’s crazy to me. It really is.” The journalists were reacting to Thursday’s Democratic debates. Finding the remarks stunning, Hall continued, “In fact, several of them were offended when she brought the line up pointing to the fact, ‘how can I be establishment, I’m a woman running for president.’”
The New American reports: While with his infamous “pen and … phone” President Barack Obama has acted to limit the availability of guns and ammunition; with his investments he profits from the purchase of both these objects which have “taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country.”A special report published by Reuters on February 5 reveals that President Obama owns stock in a couple of manufacturers of guns and ammunition.From Reuters:From his days in the Illinois General Assembly, President Obama has up to $100,000 invested in a nearly $16 billion state pension plan, which has about $5 million invested directly in several gun and ammo makers. The retirement plan, which covers state employees, judges and the general assembly, also holds shares in a small-cap mutual fund with a $9.5 million stake in Smith & Wesson.While this is admittedly a minuscule amount of money for one a man of the president’s net worth ($7 million as of 2014), the inconsistency between his advocacy of tighter gun controls and his increase in personal prosperity from the increased demand for weapons and ammunition is noteworthy.
The Obama administration is obsessed with race and sex. Many know about the administration’s scheme to collect information on the racial composition of American communities in an effort to force neighborhoods to “diversify.” Now the government is applying the same philosophy to businesses in order to “equalize” wages. It’s an effort, critics point out, that will make it harder for white men to find jobs. Writes the New York Post’s Betsy McCaughey:Claiming women aren’t getting paid enough, President Obama wants to make it easier to accuse employers of gender discrimination and hit them with class-action lawsuits. A new regulation proposed on Friday will require all employers with 100 or more workers to report how much their workforce is paid, broken down by race and [sex].The rule, slated to go into effect in September 2017, will cause headaches for employers and anyone — man or woman — who works hard and expects to get ahead based on merit. The winners are federal bean counters, class-action lawyers and the Democratic Party, which is playing up the [inter-sex] “wage gap” as usual during this election year.
Updated 12:05 p.m. | Senate Democrats blocked a broad bipartisan energy bill from advancing, with senators at loggerheads about the extent of federal assistance needed for Flint, Mich.Senators voted, 46-50, on the debate-limiting motion. That was well short of the 60 votes needed. One senator also voted “present.”Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., entered a motion to reconsider the vote, meaning it could be called again if an agreement is reached.A compromise proposal floated Wednesday has not gained traction on the Republican side. It would provide loan guarantees to help Flint replace corroded pipes that are leaching lead into the city’s drinking water.