Saturday, July 1, 2017

Texas Judge Strips Lying, Sex Offender Immigrant of His Citizenship


Following a decision by the Supreme Court last week authorizing lower courts to strip the citizenship of immigrants who lied during naturalization, a court in Houston delivered this exact punishment to a native of Mexico who lied when applying for citizenship in 1996.
According to a Department of Justice news brief, when asked during his immigration review whether he’d ever been arrested or convicted of a crime besides traffic violations, Jose Arizmendi answered, “No.”
Yet just months earlier he had pleaded guilty in a Harris County court to aggravated sexual assault of a child and reportedly accepted a 10-year probation deal.

But it gets worse. When authorities finally discovered this giant discrepancy in 2015, nearly 20 years after he obtained citizenship, they also learned that Arizmendi was at the time serving an 18-year prison sentence in Mexico for a separate rape charge. Apparently, this guy is some sort of international pervert.
Unfortunately, they also found out that deporting him would not be as easy as they had hoped.
“Although Arizmendi might have qualified for criminal denaturalization proceedings, a 10-year statute of limitations forced the federal government to seek a civil denaturalization instead,” the U.K. Daily Mail reported. “It took more than a year to serve legal papers to the Mexican prison he was incarcerated at.”

Fast forward to Tuesday of this week, when Arizmendi finally appeared in U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore’s court for judgment day.
“Applications for naturalization must be candid with all material facts,” argued acting U.S. attorney Abe Martinez said, according to the DOJ. “Like in this case, failing to disclose material data should result in denaturalization.”
The judge agreed and effectively revoked Arizmendi’s citizenship over his lie, reportedly ordering him to immediately surrender and hand over his Certificate of Naturalization. Excellent.
But while Judge Gilmore deserves most of the credit for this, so does the Supreme Court, which paved the way for Tuesday’s ruling with its own stunningly awesome judgment call.

Dear America: Are you tired of winning yet? I’m certainly not!

H/T Houston Chronicle

Mika Brzezinski talks Melania’s personal life, FLOTUS issues firm statement condemning host’s words

Mika Brzezinski talks Melania’s personal life, FLOTUS issues firm statement condemning host’s words
“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski spoke to InStyle magazine for an interview that ran on Friday and had much to say about first lady Melania Trump.
Out of the gate, Brzezinski claimed that she “knew” Melania, and opined that President Donald Trump’s wife has “the worst job in the world.”
InStyle spoke with Brzezinski and said, “You mentioned how you know Melania Trump [during an airing of ‘Morning Joe’]. Her campaign as the first lady surrounds cyber bullying.”

In response to the magazine’s comments, Brzezinski added, “I know Melania. I haven’t talked to her in months, but if my gut is right, I don’t think she’s going to put up with it much longer. I know nothing. That’s just my instinct and I go with my gut and my gut’s always right.”

“I’m just telling you, Melania’s got the worst job in the country and I don’t think she wants do it a lot longer,” Brzezinski added. “I think she will do it for as long as she has to for her son [Barron Trump], and that’s it.”  
Melania, in response to the allegations that she won’t “put up with it much longer,” issued a statement to The Daily Mail decrying the MSNBC host’s comments.
The statement from the Office of the First Lady read:
“It is sad when people try to further their own agenda by commenting on me and my family, especially when they don’t know me.”
During the InStyle interview, Brzezinski also trashed Trump for his tweets against her, which mocked her for reported plastic surgery.

When asked by the magazine how she explains how “something like this” happens to young women, Brzezinski said, “My daughters are adults, they’re 19 and 21. I think that they’re forming their own opinions. I say the same thing [to them that] I say on the show: I think [Trump’s] got a real problem with women, and that this presidency is a setback.”
“Women in the administration need to step up and tell him that they will not stand for the way he is treating women,” she added. “I think that also applies to men in the administration.”

The president came under fire on Thursday after he tweeted a tirade against the MSNBC personality and her co-host — and fiancee — Joe Scarborough, which read, “I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

Friday, June 30, 2017

Hungarian PM: Peace in Europe Threatened by George Soros' "Mafia Network"

by: Tim Brown
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban took aim at billionaire George Soros on Wednesday, saying that he was threatening the peace of Europe by running a "mafia network" of Non-Governmental Organizations.
We reported in April that Orban was under attack by the European Union after they took legal action against him for Hungary's education laws that sought to close the Budapest-based Central European University.
According to The Telegraph:

"The Hungarian government has introduced tough measures for foreign-registered universities, a move that has been attacked by CEU as one of the most serious assaults on academic freedom since the end of the second world war.
Under the legislation, those working at CEU will in future require work permits, which the institution says will limit its ability to hire staff. The government has also demanded that the university open a wing in America and that it no longer teach US-accredited courses.
The European commission’s first vice-president, Frans Timmermans, said he expected the Hungarian government to respond within a month to the formal notice, which demands an explanation and remedy. He further warned Orb├ín that other laws his government had recently proposed relating to non-governmental organisations and the treatment of asylum seekers on Hungary’s border were “on our radar”.

At that time, Orban said, "I know that the power, size and weight of Hungary is much smaller than that of the financial speculator, George Soros, who is now attacking Hungary. Despite ruining the lives of millions of European with his financial speculations, being penalized in Hungary for speculations, and who is an openly admitted enemy of the euro, he is so highly praised that he is received by the EU’s top leaders.”

“George Soros and his NGOs want to transport one million migrants to the EU per year," he added.  "He has personally, publicly announced this program and provides a financial loan for it. You could read this yourselves. We reject this, we do not want to lose the right of national ratemaking for public utilities, because we fear that this would increase the burdens of the people and once again lead to drastic price increases, from which Hungarian families have suffered enough.”
Orban went on to speak about the refugees that were flooding into his country, and how it all tied together.
“Our position is clear: we do not want, and do not think it is in accordance with the founding treaties of the Union, to settle migrants in our country in a mandatory way," Orban said.  "The decision on who we live with can only be made by the Hungarian citizens.”
“We talk clearly and unambiguously, so everyone can understand, even if we know that this may not appeal to everyone," he continued.  "We on the other hand are irritated by the restrained political language, unable to name things for what they are, that has become widespread in European public life nowadays.”

Of the CEU founder, George Soros, Orban said he was destroying millions of lives.
“We are not as big and powerful as you are and as big and powerful as George Soros the American financial speculator attacking Hungary, who has destroyed the lives of millions of Europeans with his financial speculations, who has been fined for speculation in Hungary, and who is an open enemy of the euro," said Orban.
“He is still highly regarded and warmly received here at the highest levels," Orban added.  "But this is no reason to condemn us with untruths. Fairness is not a question of the size of the country.”
While Soros recently praised Hungarians who opposed Orban for what he said was “the deception and corruption of the mafia state the Orban regime has established," the Prime Minister responded that Soros' "mafia network" was what was threatening the peace of Europe by promoting mass immigration.
“The truth is that George Soros is a speculator who operates an extensive mafia network, and who is threatening Europe’s peace and future,” Orban said. “For him migration is good business, and it would be even better business if we stopped resisting it.”

He went on to accuse Soros of being the EU's legal actions against him and his country.
“The reason he’s so angry with Hungary – and with me personally – is that we stand in the way of his grand plan and his grand business project,” Orban said. “It’s obvious that the infringement procedure which Brussels has launched against Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic for refusing the mandatory resettlement quotas is the result of instructions from him.”
PM Orban has been one that has been very vocal concerning the flood of immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants into his country, and the people are 98% behind him!  His actions are those of one who is wanting to guard his country while preparing for conflict because even though he says he is openly against allowing Muslims to invade his country, Hungary is one of the biggest migration countries of Muslims in Europe.
Orban has also been very vocal about aiding Christians seeking to escape persecution from Muslim lands.
When it comes to Muslims in Hungary, Orban wants them out; and when it comes to non-governmental organizations, he wants Soros out too.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

This video is LOUD! See a .50 cal handgun in action!

Cannons.  They’re just not for battlefield anymore!
OK.  “Cannon” may be an overstatement, but the 500 Smith & Wesson Magnum is a BIG gun.
And you KNOW you want to see what it can do.  Well, our favorite YouTube personality, Hickock45, takes one out for a spin.
Watch as he DESTROYS concrete blocks with a .50 cal handgun.
Oh, and be sure your earphones are turned down.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Are Whales Methodically Killing South Africa’s Great White Sharks?

by:Elana Glowatz
Killer whales may have slaughtered at least four sharks in South Africa over the last couple of months, cutting out their livers as if they had the training of a surgeon. The Great White sharks have washed up after the killer whales feasted on their organs.
According to The Times, a shark was just found dead at Pearly Beach in southwestern South Africa and authorities suspect a killer whale — also known as an orca — was behind it, as it had wounds consistent with such an attack. Three other dead sharks were previously found at another beach about 20 minutes away with such wounds: their enormous and nutritious livers removed with precision.
The latest victim was about 13.5 feet long, local shark cage diving company Marine Dynamics reported in a post on Facebook.
“He was missing his liver, his testes and stomach,” the group said. “The carcass may be a few days old but it seems relatively fresh and bled out massively.” 

The World Wildlife Fund lists the great white as a “vulnerable” species because its numbers are decreasing, as people catch it for its fins and teeth or hunt it for sport, and as it gets wrapped up in other fishing nets. The Great White is a somewhat mysterious creature because scientists don’t understand its behavior very well, but it is important to the marine ecosystem because it is at the top of the food chain.
Great white sharks can grow to between 4,000 and 7,000 pounds and between 16 and 20 feet long. The WWF says it has 300 teeth, but instead rips off huge chunks of its prey and swallows them whole rather than chewing.
For comparison, killer whales can grow to between 23 and 32 feet long and weigh up to 12,000 pounds, making them also the size of a school bus.
South Africa protects great white sharks, but there have been fewer sightings of the swimmers in the southwestern part of the country this year, according to The Times, which could be because of what orcas are doing to them out in the water. 

The Dyer Island Conservation Trust has worked with Marine Dynamics to perform the autopsies. In the previous three cases, the sharks “had consistent bite wounds and were found to be missing their livers,” the trust explained in a blog post earlier this month. “This indicates what is known of orca predation on sharks, as they attack and stun the shark into tonic immobility and the buoyant liver rises to the surface through the injury.”
One of those sharks was also missing its heart.
According to the trust, there have been more killer whales in the area in the last couple of years and this gives biologists a better idea of how they affect sharks. 

Neil Gorsuch Is The Anti-LGBTQ Nightmare His Gay Friends Hoped He Wasn't

oped: I concur and agree with Neil Gorsuch/SCOTUS...being that Neil is a strict Constitutionalist as was cannot take away ones Constitutional/Bill of Rights for anothers...both must be respected!

by: Michelangelo Signorile
Back in February, when Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, I wrote a piece: “Why Neil Gorsuch Likely Believes It’s Perfectly Fine To Ban Gay Sex.”
It brought out some Gorsuch defenders, including some of his students (at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where Gorsuch taught) and friends of Gorsuch, who responded to me on Twitter and elsewhere, some angrily, accusing me of wrongly portraying Gorsuch as a homophobe.
In fact, I did nothing of the kind, even pointing to the fact that Gorsuch had a former clerk to whom he reportedly offered support upon the former clerk’s same-sex marriage in 2014. My point was that whether he was a homophobe or not, Gorsuch is a constitutional originalist like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Gorsuch revered. Scalia based his own opposition to overturning sodomy statutes ― and his other anti-LGBTQ opinions ― on originalism.  

A few days after my piece (and after critiques by other writers and LGBTQ legal scholars and groups about the dangers Gorsuch posed), came a New York Times story, just as the organized campaign for Gorsuch by the White House and right-wing groups was gearing up, “Gorsuch, Hard to Pigeonhole On Gay Rights, Friends Say.” I was quoted in the piece: 
Just this past week, the gay author and blogger Michaelangelo Signorile published a piece in The Huffington Post headlined: “Why Neil Gorsuch Likely Believes It’s Perfectly Fine to Ban Gay Sex.” In it, he argued that Judge Gorsuch “may be all mild-mannered and cuddly, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t in a heartbeat deny your very existence under the Constitution if you happen to be queer.”
The Times article seemed almost designed to counter those kinds of opinions ― which were based on Gorsuch’s judicial decisions and writings ― by presenting us with Gorsuch’s gay friends, who spoke glowingly of him as a person. In the piece, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, we meet Phil Berg, smartly photographed specifically for the story in a suit on the steps of a majestic courthouse, along with his husband, Ronald Riqueros. Berg, who went to Harvard with Gorsuch, spoke in the article about the “special bond” he and Gorsuch have had for many years, and explained how supportive Gorsuch is of him and his husband: “We have had a standing invitation to stay with Neil and Louise in Denver.”  

The former Gorsuch clerk, Joshua Goodbaum, was interviewed, too, explaining that Gorsuch was “thrilled” for him and his husband when they got married in 2014. Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman and former campaign manager for George W. Bush, who came out as gay a few years ago and helped in the fight for marriage equality, was also described as a friend of Gorsuch’s, who, according to the article, was “circulating a letter of support for the judge and posted a congratulatory message to Judge Gorsuch on his Facebook page.”
Christian Mammen, described as “a Democrat” and someone who “grew close” to Gorsuch when they were at Oxford together, was referred to in the piece as one of several friends who, rather than viewing Gorsuch as in the mold of Scalia, “wonder if his jurisprudence might be closer to that of Justice Anthony Kennedy who has carved out a name for himself as the court’s conservative defender of gay rights.” 

“Everybody’s got him pegged as being more Scalia,” Mammen is quoted as saying. “I’m not sure I see that.”
But as I pointed out in a second piece I published later that day in response ― drawing upon the analyses of the highly regarded Supreme Court reporters, Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times and Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio, specifically on the histories of both LGBT rights and originalism at the Supreme Court ― this was naive at best, as Justice Kennedy is not an originalist: 
It’s not “everybody” else who has Gorsuch pegged as being like Scalia ― it’s Gorsuch who has willingly, unequivocally pegged himself that way. He gave a major speech about the importance of the late justice and his philosophy last year and, again, publicly adheres, like Clarence Thomas, to Scalia’s philosophy of originalism. Based on that and his decisions, the Times put Gorsuch on a chart as just to the right of Scalia, with only Thomas further to the right. And, much as Gorsuch’s gay friends would like to believe otherwise, Justice Kennedy is not an originalist. In fact, his sound rejection of originalism is what had him lead the court majority in ruling that gays are protected against discrimination in the Constitution, should not be criminalized, and most certainly have the right to marry.
And now we have the proof of just how wrong Gorsuch’s friends were, looking at the actions of the court this week. Gorsuch revealed a dangerous disregard for the Obergefell marriage equality decision, in the 6-3 ruling that overturned an Arkansas law that prevented both parents in a same-sex marriage from being named on the birth certificate when one gives birth to a child ― as is the case for heterosexual marriages in the state. Gorsuch took pride in writing the dissent, joined by far-right Justices Thomas and Alito, clearly supporting flat out discrimination and ignoring precedent ― something even Justice John Roberts, who dissented in Obergefell but joined the majority in this case, would not do.

Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern, noting that Gorsuch is “everything that liberals most feared,” explained how Gorsuch is laying the groundwork to harm or even reverse Obergefell
On Monday, Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates ... That, alone, is startling: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that the Constitution compels states to grant same-sex couples “the constellation” of “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” that “the states have linked to marriage,” including “birth and death certificates.” Obergefell, then, already settled this issue. Gorsuch’s dissent suggests he may not accept Obergefell as settled law and may instead seek to undermine or reverse it.
The court also announced it would take the case of a Colorado baker who was penalized for refusing to serve a gay couple ― a couple that wanted a wedding cake but hadn’t even yet discussed design with the baker, and were turned away when they simply identified they were having a same-sex wedding. Many legal observers believed that when the court didn’t take a similar case a few years ago that involved a wedding photographer in New Mexico, it was deferring to state sovereignty in states like Colorado and New Mexico where LGBT people are protected under state law against discrimination in public accommodations. Ian Milhiser, justice editor at Think Progress, weighed in:

[T]he Court announced that it will hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case brought by a baker who claims that religion gives anti-LGBTQ business owners the right to ignore civil rights laws.
We cannot know for sure whether Gorsuch voted to take up this case — but it is notable that the Court decided not to consider this issue when Justice Antonin Scalia was still alive. Gorsuch now occupies Scalia’s seat.
It takes four justices for the court to accept a case. It’s hard to believe that Gorsuch is even farther to the right on this issue than Scalia. But Scalia did have a reverence for states’ rights, while Gorsuch seems to have a fetishistic obsession with “religious liberty.” As I’ve described in looking at his opinion on Hobby Lobby while he was a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he went much further than both Justice Alito, who wrote the Hobby Lobby decision for the Supreme Court, and Kennedy, who wrote a concurring opinion. 

Both Alito and Kennedy held that it was constitutional for the arts and crafts chain to deny certain forms of birth control to women in its employer-sponsored health care plan, but put limits on the decision regarding discrimination against other groups. LGBT legal experts believed Kennedy’s concurring opinion specifically protected against religious exemptions regarding LGBT rights. But Gorsuch, in his 10th circuit decision, had issued no caveats, no limits. 
Last week I thought that the first case to be the test of the reach of Gorsuch ’s view of religious liberty might be the abominable Mississippi law that a federal appeals court allowed to go into effect ― considered the worst anti-LGBTQ law ever by many LGBTQ activists and legal experts.
But obviously that will likely be the second act, after the Colorado baker case. All of this is part of the long-term strategy I’ve written about, interviewing those on the right and attending their conferences, in which religious conservatives, dealt a blow by Obergefell, will now work ― as they did regarding Roe v. Wade ― to weaken the decision, and try to turn same-sex marriage in second-class marriage.  


Tuesday, June 27, 2017

NY DA Vance Cites ISIS as Reason to Disarm Countrymen while Unvetted Foreign Nationals Given ‘Sanctuary’

Join Oath Keepers

 Vance memorializes the Pulse nightclub “gun-free zone” murders by an Islamist terrorist by endorsing more citizen disarmament as the way to thwart ISIS. Promoting anti-RKBA sentiment in Spanish is telling in terms of understanding the enthusiasm for “sanctuary cities.”


“New York County District Attorney Cy Vance in an interview aired Sunday blasted a GOP plan that would allow qualified owners to carry concealed handguns in other states that allow individuals to carry concealed firearms,” The Hill reported Sunday. “The district attorney warned lawmakers that they were ‘playing into the hand’ of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorists, pointing to ISIS publications describing the ease of buying guns in some American states.”
“This bill is supported, I’m sure, by ISIS,” Vance asserted, just to make sure the headlines would be hysterical and the herd would be properly spooked. “ISIS points its readers to America and how they can easily obtain guns by going to states where there are no permitting requirements. So ISIS is paying close attention to this bill as well.”
For “Progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, so leave it to one of their key players to declare the very thing the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State” to be its undoing. And that, of course, requires that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms [BE] infringed.” 

Tim Sullivan knew the most successful official criminals controlled the guns.
New York City is a prime violator of that right, from the criminally insane Sullivan Laws—literally. The notoriously corrupt “Big Tim” Sullivan, a favorite of city trade union leaders and the suffragette movement, forced them through to the benefit of his criminal cronies. He died under mysterious circumstances after escaping from a sanitarium, where he’d been suffering from paranoid delusions and the ravages of tertiary syphilis.
Vance is happy to keep the paranoid delusions against an armed citizenry going. The son of a former Secretary of State and globalist insider, he has teamed with Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (another oath-breaking gun-grabber) to form Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, a nationwide clique of elitist government lawyers from “progressive”-controlled urban areas intent on advancing a state monopoly of violence.

“The group plans to focus on policies to reduce gang violence and weapons trafficking,” The Los Angeles Times claims. “Prosecutors will also explore connections linking domestic violence, mental health and gun-related crimes.”
Meanwhile, they fight like hell to import more gang members, who promise to reward them with even more blood to dance in and exploit, translating to more power. Their ancillary agenda, using domestic violence and mental health as cover justifications, is to disarm even more citizens who have not been convicted of anything. Their agenda is to further erode the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the right to full due process and jury trials.

Vance welcomes Feuer as they join to impose their “progressive” urban disarmament agenda throughout the Republic.

As for Vance’s charge that ISIS will benefit if your right to keep and bear arms is recognized and honored, it’s fair to explore what’s wrong with immigration and refugee policies that allow unvettable foreign nationals into the country in the first place. But rather than address that problem, New York City, under socialist Mayor Bill de Blasio, has proudly declared The Big Apple a “sanctuary city,” and pledged to fight President Trump’s travel restrictions (which we should be learning more about later today if the Supreme Court weighs in as expected).
So the “progressive” solution is to let in more Islamists, disarm the people, and smear anyone who warns against that as a hater and an anti-government extremist.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

Monday, June 26, 2017

California Issues Travel Ban on States It Accuses of LGBT Discrimination

LGBT Flag 

oped: Yes indeed Kawlifornia under the leadership of Gov Jerry Brown thinks they are a independent country separate and superior from the United States of America...they thumb their collective noses at the US Constitution/Bill of Rights on all issues...they truly believe the US Constitution is a document that they and they alone can rewrite at will! 
Kawlifornia's agenda is all about #LGBTQ preferential rights...Gun Control...Thought Control and being the Nations Tax Collector ... no ands ifs buts about it! 

California has issued a ban on all state-funded and state-sponsored travel to four more states that it says discriminates against the LGBT community.
The travel ban under law AB 1887, first put into effect on Jan. 1, targets states that California believes use religious freedom as a basis for discrimination.
Fox 5 San Diego reports, “Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee were the original states banned by AB 1887, but [California Attorney General Xavier] Becerra added Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas on Thursday, citing what he called new discriminatory legislation enacted against the LGBTQ community in those states.”
“Alabama, South Dakota, and Texas all recently passed legislation that could prevent LGBT parents from adopting or fostering children and Kentucky passed a religious freedom bill that would allow students to exclude LGBTQ classmates from campus groups.”

According to AB 1887, "the California Legislature determined that 'California must take action to avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.' To that end, AB 1887 prohibits a state agency, department, board, or commission from requiring any state employees, officers, or members to travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that (1) has the effect of voiding or repealing existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; (2) authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; or (3) creates an exemption to antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

The law was first enacted on Jan. 1, 2017, amid the continued controversy surrounding North Carolina's so-called "bathroom bill."
California Attorney General Becerra said in a statement Thursday, “Each of those states in the recent weeks have enacted legislation that may deprive some of the individuals of those states and individuals who visit those states of their constitutional rights.”

“Discrimination has consequences," he said. "While the California DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people, discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back. That’s why when California said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.”

Attorney General Becerra
on Thursday
Discrimination has consequences. I’m adding four states -- Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota & Texas -- to California's restricted travel list due to recently passed anti-LGBTQ laws.
While DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people, discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back. When California said we would not tolerate discrimination against #LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.…/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updat…

The travel ban does not prohibit personal travel to any state on the list.
California under law AB 1887 has the discretion to ban state-funded or state-sponsored travel to any state it deems discriminatory against LGBT people, even if certain laws such as adoption laws involve deeply held religious beliefs.


Gay Jews Kicked Out of Chicago Dyke March Because of Jewish Pride Flags

oped: Can't y'all get along? 

A gay pride march in Chicago ejected attendees for carrying flags emblazoned with the Star of David to signify Jewish pride and gay pride because the flags allegedly “made people feel unsafe.”
According to the Windy City Times, a paper for Chicago’s gay community, three people carrying the Jewish gay pride flags were forced to leave the Chicago Dyke March on Saturday.
A member of the Dyke March Collective, which ran the event, told the Windy City Times the flags “made people feel unsafe” and that the event was explicitly “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestine.”
The Chicago Dyke March Collective does not mention the words “Zionism” or “Palestine” on its “about” page.

Wider Bridge Movement Midwest Manager Laurel Grauer, who attended the rally, was said she was told to leave because her flag was deemed "triggering."
“They were telling me to leave because my flag was a trigger to people that they found offensive," Grauer told the Windy City Times. “Prior to this [march] I had never been harassed or asked to leave and I had always carried the flag with me.”
"It was a flag from my congregation which celebrates my queer, Jewish identity which I have done for over a decade marching in the Dyke March with the same flag,” she explained.
Another attendee who was asked to leave, Iranian Jew Shoshany-Anderson said, “I was here as a proud Jew in all of my identities.”

"The Dyke March is supposed to be intersectional. I don't know why my identity is excluded from that. I fell that, as a Jew, I am not welcome here,” she continued.
In a statement, Dyke March Chicago wrote, “Sadly, our celebration of dyke, queer and trans solidarity was partly overshadowed by our decision to ask three individuals carrying Israeli flags superimposed on rainbow flags to leave the rally. This decision was made after they repeatedly expressed support for Zionism during conversations with Dyke March Collective members.”
The flag featured a Jewish star and was rainbow.

According to Grauer, she was approached and asked if she was a Zionist.
“People asked me if I was a Zionist and I said 'yes, I do care about the state of Israel but I also believe in a two-state solution and an independent Palestine,'” Grauer told the Windy City Times. “It's hard to swallow the idea of inclusion when you are excluding people from that. People are saying 'You can be gay but not in this way.' We do not feel welcomed. We do not feel included.”
Dyke March Collective Member Iliana Figueroa told the Chicagoist, "Yesterday during the rally we saw three individuals carrying Israeli flags super imposed on rainbow flags. Some folks say they are Jewish Pride flags. But as a Collective we are very much pro-Palestine, and when we see these flags we know a lot of folks who are under attack by Israel see the visuals of the flag as a threat, so we don't want anything in the [Dyke March] space that can inadvertently or advertently express Zionism.”

The Dyke March Chicago has defended themselves from claims of anti-Semitism by repeatedly posting comments from Jews who are anti-Zionist on social media pages.


Longtime "Republican" Senator Shows True Colors With Trump Threat


Though President Donald Trump nominated top Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan to be the deputy secretary of defense in March, the prospective number two man at the Pentagon has only just sat down for Senate confirmation hearings. Now, he is at risk of being further delayed by one particular Republican senator.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee which is holding the hearing, threatened to withhold Shanahan’s name from being voted on due to finding the nominee’s answers regarding Ukraine and his ties to Boeing “not satisfactory,” The Washington Post reported.
“In your questions that were submitted to you, one of the questions was providing the Ukrainians with legal, lethal defense weaponry with which to defend themselves,” McCain said. “Inexplicably, you responded by saying you have to look at the issue. It’s not satisfactory, Mr. Shanahan.”

Shanahan made it clear that he did support arming the Ukrainians, but due to his current inability to see all classified information regarding such matters, he needed to wait until he was fully briefed before taking a final position. According to McCain, he found this explanation “very disappointing” and accused Shanahan of dodging questions.
“Not a good beginning. Not a good beginning. Do not do that again, Mr. Shanahan, or I will not take your name up for a vote before this committee,” McCain threatened, according to The Hill.
Though Shanahan seemed to be respected by most of the other members of the committee, McCain continued to chastise and grill him, both in regard to the Russia/Ukraine issue as well as his time as an executive at Boeing.

Defense News reported that Shanahan — senior vice president of supply chain operations and former VP of the missile defense systems and the Rotorcraft Systems division at Boeing — noted that, if confirmed, he would recuse himself from any decision making on programs in which Boeing was involved, unless a waiver was given to him by the ethics office.
But that wasn’t good enough for McCain, who said, “Your job is one of the most important and key elements (for DoD) and frankly I’m not overjoyed that you came from one of the five (big defense) corporations, 90 percent of the spending of the taxpayer dollars comes out of five different corporations. That’s not what our founding fathers had in mind.”

Defense News noted that the tough line of questioning and threat to hold up the nomination process was particularly unexpected given McCain’s prior statements about Shanahan in April, when he cited the nominee’s “excellent reputation” as a reason for moving forward with the confirmation process.
We expect Democrats to stall the process and throw a wrench into the Trump administration’s plans at every opportunity, but such behavior is not expected from Republicans, at least not from those who are even tangentially on board with the overall mission of strengthening the military and making America great again.

Sen. McCain appears to have completely missed that train, and his behavior at the confirmation hearing will only have more of the Republican base questioning the senator’s loyalty to country and party and whether he should continue to serve as a member of Congress.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to let everyone know Sen. McCain borrowed a page from the Democrats’ handbook and is threatening to block a Trump nominee.

What do you think of Sen. McCain's opposition to Trump's nominee as deputy secretary of defense? Scroll down to comment below!

Sunday, June 25, 2017

After Firing Is Announced, Ron Howard's Career Takes Sudden Turn

'The firing shocked many in Hollywood'
Veteran filmmaker Ron Howard is set to take over the directing responsibilities of Lucasfilm and Disney’s Han Solo spinoff movie, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Howard’s role in the film marks a creative shakeup, as he will replace directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who are leaving the project well into production.
After working on the film for over four-and-a-half months, Lord and Miller were apparently dropped from the film after the two clashed with veteran screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan over differences in style and tone. 

The change-up is somewhat unprecedented in Hollywood, as directors are rarely let go once production is well underway.
“I’m beyond grateful to add my voice to the Star Wars Universe after being a fan since 5/25/77,” Howard said in a tweet.

I'm beyond grateful to add my voice to the Star Wars Universe after being a fan since 5/25/77.
Ron Howard @RealRonHoward
I hope to honor the great work already done & help deliver on the promise of a Han Solo film.

Sources told The Hollywood Reporter that Howard plans to meet with the cast and crew of the film, who are rattled over the firing of Lord and Miller.
Although little is known about the plot for the upcoming movie, it will likely be an origin story for one of Star Wars’ most memorable characters.

Read  More ~Video: