The NAACP’s Hate-motivated Call to Impeach the President

How do ANY of the impeachment warriors think they can get a supermajority in a GOP-dominated Senate?  They are out of their minds with hate

At the 110th NAACP annual convention in Detroit, delegates voted unanimously last week to call for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

The NAACP’s official Twitter account announced the news Wednesday, including the hashtag #WhenWeFightWeWin.

Many NAACP members and liberal lawmakers alike are tenacious about the president’s potential impeachment.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., known for her dislike of the president, might be more passionate than anyone else. Standing on stage at the convention, Tlaib stated that she is going “nowhere, not until I impeach this president.”

Well, Tlaib might be staying right where she is for a long time.

I couldn’t be further from concerned about whether Trump will be impeached. In fact, I wonder how possible it really is.

Where is the evidence? What are the NAACP’s reasons behind wanting this? It just doesn’t like him? I hate to say it—well, not really—but it takes a lot more than mere hatred to achieve a goal as large as impeachment.

For more than two years, the left has mounted investigation after investigation to try to find evidence to impeach the president. Removing the president from office has been the agenda of the far left since Nov. 8, 2016—the day of the election.

Last week we saw the final hammer dropped on their dreams of impeachment during the two bizarre House hearings for former special counsel Robert Mueller.

The hearings, on the same day the NAACP announced its stand on impeachment, confirmed that after spending nearly two years and tens of millions to produce impeachable offenses by the president, no impeachable offenses exist.

The fourth and final expense report is due soon. The first three reports totaled approximately $6.8 million, $10 million, and $8.5 million, respectively. So the last one, if comparable to the others, would make the final dollar amount of Mueller’s probe between $32 million and $35 million.

The two Mueller hearings Wednesday proved a few things:

—Mueller was confused as to both the law and the facts. He did not know, for example, that the special counsel’s mandate did not authorize him to exonerate or not exonerate the president.

—Mueller filibustered by continuously asking that questions be repeated.

—It did not appear that he had written the report, and his legal analysis in many cases was simply flawed.

Because Democrats are unable to impeach Trump on serious, legitimate charges of collusion with Russians or obstruction of justice, they have taken up the banner of hate. They actually want to impeach the president because, they claim, he is a hateful racist. We now have officially entered into the land of the absurd.

Unfortunately for the 11% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats who want to impeach our president, the Mueller investigation did not yield anything new.

It is clear to see that this notion of impeachment, so passionately taken on by the NAACP, is fueled purely by hatred and nothing else. The cries for impeachment without any facts do the nation and the historic civil rights organization a disservice. 

Calling racist every tweet from the president may keep the discussion relevant for a while, but it never will be grounds for impeachment.

With no evidence, something seemingly gallant and beneficial for America just turns into a waste of time and money.

A YouGov survey states that 45% of Americans oppose the president’s impeachment, which is more than the 36% that support it. Why don’t we just listen to America?

In the future, the NAACP should try to fight for something it might actually win, such as advocating  policies to help black Americans, that is its mission, instead of rushing into a war doomed for failure—and blindly telling its followers, “It’s all going to be OK.”

SOURCE 






Judges Seated by Trump Begin to Transform ‘9th Circus’

The Trump administration gained a rare victory this summer in the most unlikely of venues—the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is widely viewed as the most liberal federal appeals court.   

One big reason: President Donald Trump’s appointments to the 9th Circuit have moved it closer to ideological balance.

The court, long known for being both liberal and among the most overturned circuits, has been a thorn in Trump’s side, ruling against the president multiple times, mostly on immigration policies. 

The confirmation of Trump nominee Daniel Bress in July gave the president his seventh judge on the court. It also brought the once lopsided appeals court to 16 Democrat appointees and 12 Republican appointees, with one remaining vacancy.

The administration won a 3-0 victory in June regarding a Department of Health and Human Services policy to restrict funding for family planning clinics that perform abortions.

While Trump hasn’t flipped the majority on the entire 9th Circuit, his progress increases the likelihood that randomly drawn three-judge panels will have more originalists, said Travis Weber, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council.

“The new judges will increase the credibility of this court,” Weber told The Daily Signal, noting that it long has been derided by conservatives as the “9th Circus.”

“We should have judges that interpret the Constitution rather than activists trying to legislate from the bench, which we’ve seen from the 9th Circuit,” he said.

Weber noted that most recently, the 9th Circuit has been the go-to venue for liberal activists seeking to block the agenda of the Trump administration.

This includes policies denying federal funds to “sanctuary cities,” which are local jurisdictions that refuse to assist federal immigration agents.

The court also has thwarted the administration’s “extreme vetting” policy designed to prevent migrants from failed states, including several majority Muslim countries, from coming to the United States.

The California-based 9th Circuit is the nation’s largest appeals court, encompassing California, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Hawaii, and Oregon. It now has more Trump-appointed judges than any other appeals court, according to Bloomberg News. 

The 9th Circuit is responsible for about 40% of the United States and 30% of all appeals, says Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who wants to split up the circuit to produce more fair hearings for Montana residents.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., commented in January: “I’m very supportive of the nominees submitted by President Trump to serve on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. … These nominations continue a trend by the Trump administration of selecting highly qualified men and women to serve on the federal bench.”

Judicial nominees have been one of Trump’s crowning achievements, as he has named more than 40 appeals court judges as well as two Supreme Court justices. While not having as much success at the district court level, the president has secured some 80 confirmations.

“It would take a long time, if it ever happens, before the full 9th Circuit has enough constitutional judges for a pattern to take effect,” Thomas Jipping, deputy director of the Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

Because of Trump’s prolific filling of circuit court vacancies, currently only five of the 179 appeals court judgeships are vacant, Jipping said. But, of those, four seats were held by Republican-appointed jurists, he added.

To flip a court, Trump would have to replace Democratic nominees with Republican nominees. Even then, it’s not a sure thing to secure originalist interpretations, Jipping said.

“We tend to focus on the president who appoints the judge as a proxy of who the judges are,” Jipping said. “Republican presidents are more likely to appoint constitutionalists. Democratic presidents are more likely to appoint activists.”

“But every case is different,” he said. “Judges don’t make widgets.”

SOURCE 





A Crohn's disease sufferer asked to use a Starbucks bathroom. He was denied, but that's illegal

Starbucks still can't get its bathroom policy right:  Yes to all blacks, No to a man with a medical need

Stephen Marcus burst into a Starbucks store in downtown Boston one day this past spring with an urgent request. Marcus, 64, a longtime lawyer, has Crohn's disease, which sometimes triggers a sudden and acute need to use the bathroom.

In 2012, Marcus had helped get a state law passed requiring retailers like Starbucks to open employee-only bathrooms to people suffering from inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis or other medical conditions.

Marcus had never before invoked the law. But on May 10, as he walked to a meeting in suit and tie, the dreaded symptoms struck.

Marcus spotted the Starbucks at the corner of Tremont and Boylston streets and made a run for it. He figured it was his only hope of avoiding a messy disaster brought on by his chronic and incurable disease.

Here is his recollection of the exchange he had at the Starbucks counter:

"I need to use the restroom right away," he said.

"We don't have any restrooms," an employee replied. (Not true; there's one for employees.)

"You are required under the law to allow me to use the employees' restroom," he said, his voice rising.

Marcus said he held up a wallet-size card, signed by a physician, certifying his medical condition and citing the 7-year-old bathroom-access law. (Fifteen other states have similar laws.)

But one of the employees told him to go across the street and down the block to a restaurant with public-use bathrooms, according to Marcus.

Marcus dashed out the door, but it was too late.

"Within 10 feet I had an `accident,' " he said when we met at his office in Braintree.

Marcus said he continued to the restaurant, where he cleaned up in the bathroom.

"It was totally humiliating and totally unnecessary," he said.

A Starbucks representative I contacted gave me a significantly different version, one that seems to minimize Starbucks' responsibility.

The Starbucks rep said Marcus entered the store, said something about the bathroom, then left before any employee had a chance to understand or respond to him.

Starbucks would not tell me what was said between Marcus and its employees.

In its telling, Starbucks didn't deny Marcus access (and thus violate the law); it was Marcus who went weirdly running into the street before employees could react.

Marcus is a consummate lawyer and a dedicated fund-raiser for Crohn's medical research, a well-known figure for decades in certain circles. It's hard to believe this founder of a law firm would fail to cite his legal rights or to flash his medical access card - or leave without getting a reply to his desperate demand for a bathroom. But that is what Starbucks would have me believe.

I think the employees told Marcus what they told me when I asked for a bathroom last week while anonymously retracing Marcus's steps: Go across the street and down the block.

Marcus isn't looking for money. "There isn't a dollar amount that will restore the dignity they took from me," he said.

What he does want is for Starbucks to join him in a public awareness campaign on bathroom-access laws, including displaying decals at their stores.

(The number of Americans diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease has steadily increased and is now estimated at 3 million.)

Starbucks has declined to do so.

Starbucks says its public restrooms are available to anyone, with or without a purchase. The company made that clear, belatedly, last year, after two black men waiting for a friend were arrested in a Philadelphia store following a request by one of them to use the bathroom without having made a purchase.

Following a national outcry, the company closed more than 8,000 stores for several hours the following month and trained 175,000 employees on racial bias.

But some Starbucks stores, like the one on Tremont Street, have no public restrooms. This is where Starbucks needs to step up and make clear to employees and customers alike that employee bathrooms must be made available in medical emergencies.

Corporately, Starbucks has shown it knows how to do the right thing. So just do it.

SOURCE 






Australia: Christian footballer launches legal action against politically correct Rugby body

Their political correctness could send them broke, which would be great!  They may even end up having to pay Folau's legal fees

Armed with a multi-million dollar warchest, Israel Folau has launched legal action against Rugby Australia and can “bleed them dry”.

Rugby Australia and Israel Folau are headed to the Federal Court after conciliation failed at the Fair Work Commission.

Rugby star Israel Folau has begun legal action against his former employers Rugby Australia and the NSW Waratahs for unfair dismissal.

The decision comes after the former Wallaby and RA failed to reach an agreement at a mediation hearing at the Fair Work Commission on June 28.

“Unfortunately, our conciliation before the Fair Work Commission did not resolve the matters between us and I have been left with no choice but to commence court action,” Folau said in a statement on Thursday.

RA terminated Folau’s multimillion-dollar contract over a social media post in which he paraphrased a Bible passage, saying “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters” would go to hell unless they repented.

The committed Christian argues he was unfairly dismissed on religious grounds. Folau, 30, is seeking $10 million in damages from RA and wants his contract reinstated.

The Australian reports his legal team insists he should still be playing for the Waratahs and the Wallabies, including in the upcoming Rugby World Cup.

“His form and natural talent suggests he would continue to be a star player for both teams,” the unfair termination claim says, per The Australian.

More than 20,000 people have donated about $2.2 million to help fund Folau’s legal battle via a campaign page set up by the Australian Christian Lobby. The ACL effort replaced an earlier campaign on GoFundMe, which was taken down by the platform for breaching its service guidelines.

Folau thanked his many supporters in the statement. “I have been blessed to have received the support of tens of thousands of Australians throughout my journey, and I want to say thank you to everyone who has offered their prayers and support. It has meant so much to (wife) Maria and me over the last few months and gives us strength for the road ahead,” he said.

In a segment on Sky News, digital editor Jack Houghton said Folau could bleed Rugby Australia dry.

“The broader point that got missed when people were raising funds for this particular legal challenge was not that they were specifically endorsing anything he said — or the intentions behind it — but they were making the broader case, ‘should you be able to be fired for holding certain religious views, if those views are controversial?’. That’s the question we all want to know right now,” he said.

“It really looks like Rugby Australia is in a lot of hot water here and financially they’re not doing that great, we know this, and he (Folau) doesn’t have to pay for any of this, so he can just sit there bleeding them dry and the benefit to the rest of Australia is some clarity over an issue which is getting a lot of people who may be haven’t read much about the legislation weighing in prematurely.”

“Rugby Australia was very foolish to pick this fight and they’re now starting to pay for it,” added The Advertiser columnist Caleb Bond. “You reap what you sow and while their sponsors might have been happy with the decision they’ve made they might lose more money out of this than they would have out of the sponsorship situation.”

According to a previous report in The Daily Telegraph, the future of rugby in Australia could be decided if Folau is successful in his challenge of RA’s move to rip up his contract.

The report claimed Rugby Australia is privately bracing for a $12 million financial loss this season — pushing the code to the brink of collapsing.

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************