Obama under pressure to address American POWs in visit to Vietnam

May 22, 2016: A Vietnamese couple pass a poster of U.S President Barrack Obama with footnote read "Welcome to our city", hanging in a door front in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Relatives of U.S. military members missing in Vietnam are urging President Obama to press Hanoi on the whereabouts of anyone who may have been killed or captured during the post-World War II conflict.
Vietnam hopes that Obama will agree to lift an arms export embargo so it can better deal with China in the South China Sea dispute, while rights activists want him to hold to account a repressive one-party state seen as treating its critics abysmally during his visit on Monday.
According to The Telegraph, some Americans believe there is still some “unfinished business” to take care of in discovering the unknown fates of more than 1,600 military members who never returned home from the Vietnam War. Relatives of those military members want Vietnam’s help in accounting for those who may have died after being shot down or died as a prisoner of war.
Some others want Obama to seek answers as to whether Vietnam held Americans as prisoners of war after 1973 instead of releasing all the captives as the peace agreement called for. Hanoi has repeatedly insisted that it has provided Washington with its help in discovering the whereabouts of all of its missing personnel and denied that it held prisoners of war after the conflict was over. Just over 1,000 Americans have already been accounted for and had their remains returned, The Telegraph reported.
Even though the last 591 American POWs returned to the U.S. in April 1973, there are still suspicions that the then-North Vietnamese retained some prisoners of war to leverage an aid package with President Richard Nixon that could’ve enticed the end of the war. The theory states that the aid payment failed because of Nixon’s Watergate scandal and the North Vietnamese kept the prisoners.
The theory continues as saying that some American prisoners of war are believed to have been killed or to provide military secrets in exchange for their lives under the Communist rule, according to The Telegraph.
Speculation was also fueled by unconfirmed sightings of American POWs in Vietnam by a Vietnam expat and the findings of a 1993 Senate committee, headed by Secretary of State John Kerry. However, no real proof has ever been offered.
“We acknowledge that there is no proof that US POWs survived, but neither is there proof that all of those who did not return had died,” it concluded. “There is evidence, moreover, that indicates the possibility of survival, at least for a small number, after Operation Homecoming.”
Sen. John McCain, who was a prisoner of war captured by Vietnam, said he received “full access” to the Vietnamese records in the 1990s and didn’t believe there were any surviving American POWs remaining in the Asian nation.
Lt. Morgan Donahue’s plane was shot down over modern-day Laos in 1968 and has never been accounted for, his brother Jeffrey told The Telegraph. Jeffrey Donahue said he believes he was taken by the Vietnamese and was eliminated when they didn’t receive their aid from the Nixon administration.
“The government says he is dead. But I’m absolutely convinced he was still alive at the end of the war. I don’t hold any hope that he is alive now.”
The prisoners of war issue may not be on the series of topics in Obama’s visit to Hanoi. He’s expected to address the Communist nation on China’s threat and the country’s civil rights issues.
Ahead of Obama's visit, in what was seen as a goodwill gesture, Vietnam granted early release from prison to a prominent dissident Catholic priest. The Rev. Nguyen Van Ly has served several long terms in prison or been under house arrest for promoting political and religious freedoms.
Both Washington and international rights groups criticize Vietnam for jailing people who peacefully express their views by using vaguely worded security laws. Hanoi says that only lawbreakers are punished. In March, seven bloggers and activists were sentenced for "abusing democratic freedoms" and "spreading anti-state propaganda."

Clinton to Trayvon Martin Foundation conference: Trump's 'dangerous' pro-gun policies 'way out there'

Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of pandering to the gun lobby in a speech to a conference Saturday, organized by the Trayvon Martin Foundation to help families of gun violence victims, warning the audience about a Trump presidency that would put more children “at risk of violence and bigotry.”
Clinton spoke one day after presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that she “wants to abolish the Second Amendment.” 
Donald Trump's gun policies are "not just way out there" but "dangerous" and would make America less safe, Hillary Clinton said Saturday.
"This is someone running to be president of the United States of America — a country facing a gun violence epidemic — and he's talking about more guns in our schools, he's talking about more hatred and division in our streets," the likely Democratic presidential nominee said of her presumptive Republican rival. "That's no way to keep us safe."
Clinton's criticism of the Trump came the day after he slammed her as "Heartless Hillary" for backing restrictions on gun ownership in a speech before the National Rifle Association convention in Louisville, Kentucky. Clinton and Trump are likely to meet in the general election.
The conference was led by Sybrina Fulton, whose 17-year-old son, Trayvon Martin, was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in 2012. She has campaigned with Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

"The reason why I stand with her is because she first stood with me," Fulton said before introducing Clinton to more than 200 people packed inside a hotel banquet room.
Queen Thompson Brown, a Miami mother whose son was the victim of gun violence in 2006 and who has mentored Fulton, said she and others do not want to take away guns from Americans but hope to "promote common sense gun laws."
Clinton praised the courage of Fulton and others who had suffered the loss of loved ones to gun violence or while in police custody.
"We have a moral obligation to protect our children no matter what zip code they live in," she said.
"If you want to imagine what Trump's America will look like, picture more kids at risk of violence and bigotry, picture more anger and fear," she said.
Clinton repeated her pledge to fight the powerful National Rifle Association lobby, saying "we will not be silenced, we will not be intimidated."
The gun rights organization endorsed Trump, even though he had previously supported measures like an assault weapons ban that the NRA vigorously opposes. The group applauded Trump's call for ending "gun-free zones" across the country.
Speaking at a National Rifle Association forum Friday in Louisville, Ky., Trump vowed to preserve Americans’ gun-ownership rights and warned that Clinton, if elected, could curtail such rights with her Supreme Court nominations.
“I would like for Hillary Clinton to put a list together also,” Trump, who recently announced his list of potential nominees, said at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action forum. “I want to see what the list consists of. … It will be day and night. It won’t be good for the people in this room and the country.”
Trump also won the endorsement of the NRA-ILA and said he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
“Crooked Hillary is the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate,” he also said. “She wants to take your guns away from you, just remember that.”
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, who announced the Trump endorsement said in a written statement: "The stakes in this year's presidential election could not be higher for gun owners.
“If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. …  So the choice for gun owners in this election is clear. And that choice is Donald Trump.”

Transgender Bathroom Cartoons/Idiot America

Latinos favor Clinton over Trump by 39-point margin, Fox News Latino poll finds

I Wonder Why? Build that wall higher :-)

With less than six months to go before the presidential elections, Latinos overwhelmingly support Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to a Fox News Latino poll released on Friday.
The poll found that 62 percent of registered Latino voters would head to the ballot box for Clinton in November, while only 23 percent would support Trump on Election Day – a finding that many experts say is not surprising given the two candidates’ differing stances on issues important to Latinos.
“There’s a more hospitable tone that Hillary Clinton is taking in terms of communicating with Hispanics,” Evelyn Perez-Verdia, analyst with Political Pasión, told Fox News Latino. “Compared to Donald Trump, it’s a much different message.”
The poll, which had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, had Clinton outpacing Trump in a number of categories important to Latino voters.
In terms of job performance, Hispanics said the former secretary of state would represent their views better than Trump (72 percent to 14 percent), making decisions about nuclear weapons (65 percent to 20 percent), nominating the next Supreme Court justice (66 percent to 24 percent) and making the decisions about using military force (60 percent to 29 percent), among other issues.
Clinton leads in every demographic group particularly among Latina women (68 to 17 percent) and among Mexican-Americans (the largest Hispanic group in the nation) 67 to 21 percent.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS 
While the poll reveals that Latino voters prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump on important issues, they have an unfavorable view of both candidates.
About three out of four Latino voters have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, according to the poll.

And despite Clinton’s wide lead with Hispanics, just 56 percent of Latino voters have a favorable view of the former Secretary of State. About 41 percent of voters have an unfavorable opinion of her.
The poll offers a glimpse as to why the majority of Latino voters seemingly do not overwhelmingly like either candidate. More Latino voters than not think Clinton and Trump are dishonest and don’t think they are running for the greater good.
About 72 percent of Latino voters believe Trump is running for president for himself and not for his country. About 42 percent of Latino voters believe Clinton wants to be president to benefit herself and not the country.
Neither candidate came close to approaching President Barack Obama’s favorable-unfavorable rating of 72 percent to 26 percent. Clinton led Trump on this rating with a favorable-unfavorable rating of 56 percent to 41 percent compared to the billionaire businessman’s 23 percent to 74 percent.
Trump’s divisive rhetoric on issues important to Latinos, such as immigration and border security, have some strategists saying that Trump will have hard time winning the election if he does not improve his ratings among Hispanics.
Much was made after the 2012 election about Mitt Romney’s dismal performance among Latino voters (27 percent). That number was lower than George W. Bush’s 44 percent in 2004 and John McCain’s 31 percent four years later. However, Trump’s support among Hispanics is higher than Bob Dole’s 21 percent in 1996 and George Bush’s 25 percent in 1992.
Trump’s current 23 percent, according to the FNL, paired with the 74 percent unfavorable rating has the real estate mogul facing a monumental task if he wants to win over Latinos.
“The big issue for Trump is: can he get his numbers into the high 30s or low 40s? Because it will take that to be competitive in places like Florida,” Joe Trippi, a political strategist and frequent Fox News Channel contributor, told FNL. “It’s a big mountain to climb as he needs to draw down his unfavorables, but he has a better shot with getting his favorability rating up.”
But there is a silver lining for Trump. Half of the Latinos polled said they would vote for a candidate even if they disagree with him or her on immigration – if the voter agrees with the candidate on most other issues.
Immigration, which came in fourth in importance to Latino voters in the FNL poll, with 12 percent saying it’s the most important issue for them, has been one of the strongest points of contention between Trump and the Hispanic community. 
The poll found that 62 percent of Hispanics would still voter for candidate whose stance immigration differs from their own, compared to the 29 percent who said a divergence on immigration is a deal-breaker.
Experts tend to agree that with a record 27 million Latinos registered to vote in November, the group will play a major role in deciding who the next president of the United States will be.
"If I were a candidate running for president I’d keep my eye on Latino voters because they can really show up this year,” Trippi said. “Both candidates need to communicate and make inroads with any group that is setting records like they are.”
The Fox News Latino poll, which was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), spoke to a random sample of 886 Latino registered voters as an oversample to a national survey of 1,021 registered voters.
This Latino sample is made up of 76 interviews conducted as part of the base national sample and 810 additional interviews from a Latino voter list developed from previously conducted national random digit dial surveys.

Trump failed to raise $6M at January veterans fundraiser, campaign manager says

The campaign manager for Donald Trump said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee didn’t raise the $6 million he said he did in January when he decided to host a fundraiser event and skip a Fox News debate.
Corey Lewandowski told The Washington Post Friday that the televised fundraiser for veterans only netted about $4.5 million. Lewandowski said the event fell short of the $6 million mark because some of Trump’s wealthy friends promised big donations, but backed out last minute.
“There were some individuals who he’d spoken to, who were going to write large checks, (who) for whatever reason ... didn’t do it,” Lewandowski told The Post by telephone. “I can’t tell you who.”
He also said that he wasn’t sure whether Trump’s own $1 million donation was counted toward the total.
The comments from Lewandowski are the first mention that Trump’s fundraiser netted less than he had touted. Lewandowski’s acknowledgement also comes over a month after The Wall Street Journal reported that most of the organizations targeted to receive the money have gotten less than half of that amount.
The Wall Street Journal, citing a survey of the 22 groups listed by Trump's campaign as prospective recipients for the money, reported in April that 19 organizations had obtained a total of $2.4 million from Trump's foundation or associates.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

Of the three other charities, one declined to disclose how much it had received, another said it needed to submit more paperwork before receiving any money, and the third didn't respond to questions by the Journal.
Fox Business Network first reported in late February that only a fraction of the pledged donations had made their way to the veterans groups.
At the time, FBN reported, several groups said they had not received any money. And seven of the 22 told Fox Business Network they had received a total of $650,000. Other groups did not respond to inquiries at the time.
Trump held the Jan. 29 benefit in lieu of attending a GOP debate hosted by Fox News. The real estate mogul had declined to appear at the debate, claiming that he had not been treated fairly by the network.
Lewandowski told The Post that Trump has decided on about two dozen groups that will get the remainder of the money. He urged the paper that Trump shouldn’t be blamed for falling short of the goal, despite touting the number in the weeks after the event.
“What he said was, ‘We hope to get $6 million.’ He said this at an event where we were trying to get money. It was a best guess,” Lewandowski said. “That was his goal. His goal was to get somewhere around $6 million.”
The Post reported that seven of the nine groups that Trump said donated money to the fundraiser had given the money as promised. The money added up to $3.78 million. Small donors added to the total to bring the number up to $4.45 million.
Out of 22 veterans groups that received the donations supposedly from the Trump fundraiser all told the paper that Trump didn’t personally donate to any of the charities.
Lewandowski said Trump made good on his promise to personally donate to veteran charities, but declined to reveal who he gave the money to and how much he gave.

College reverses decision, rehires famed Delta Force hero

Hampden-Sydney College

 

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin

When given the choice of standing alongside a decorated military hero or a bunch of militant LGBT activists – choose wisely.
The leadership of Hampden-Sydney College learned that lesson the hard way.
On May 19 I reported to you that the Virginia all-male college had chosen not to renew retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin’s contract – ending his stellar, nine-year career teaching leadership and ethics.Less than six hours later, the college reversed its decision and offered the retired general a one-year contract.
“Hampden-Sydney College is a fine school with a proud history of young men who have led our country, and I am honored to be a part of shaping the next generation of leaders,” Boykin told me. “I would like to thank the leadership of Hampden-Sydney College for the courage they have demonstrated in reversing their decision and allowing me to remain a part of the Hampden-Sydney community.”
The LGBT activists had wanted Hampden-Sydney to fire Boykin over a joke he made to a gathering of conservatives. They accused him of advocating for violence against gays and transgender people.
“The first man who goes into the restroom with my daughter will not have to worry about surgery,” Boykin told the crowd.
Click here to subscribe to Todd’s weekly podcast!
The college acknowledged that LGBT activists had contacted the school – but denied their concerns were the “determining factor” in not renewing Boykin’s contract.
“Yes. They were of concern,” college spokesman Thomas Shomo told me. “They appeared to advocate or approve of violence.”
Shomo also told me Boykin is an “outspoken person who has many controversial views.”
For the record, forcing people to use the bathroom according to their God-given plumbing is not controversial. It’s common sense.
“This situation has been a great reminder of how our First Amendment principles are worth standing up for and defending,” Boykin told me.
I strongly suspect Hampden-Sydney had a bit of help with its decision to do the right thing. The readers of this column were among the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who publicly defended Gen. Boykin’s good name.
And that brings me to a very important point as we wage a battle for the soul of our nation – when patriots stand together – we can facilitate change.
“There is strength in unified numbers,” Boykin told me. “The radical left and LGBT activists completely underestimate the impact of freedom-loving Americans banding together to protect our First Amendment freedoms.”
And the general said those “unified voices” allowed him to return to the college.
I wrote extensively about this issue in my book, “God Less America.”  Consider what’s happened as a result of our silence: Atheists are rampaging across the fruited plain – waging war on religion, seeking to eradicate God from the public marketplace. The Obama administration has turned our bathrooms into cultural cesspools. And our public schools have been transformed into radical leftwing indoctrination centers.
The foundations of our nation have been ravaged – and many good people stood by and did nothing. Many churches were silent. We chose not to fight. 
“Never cave in when you know that you are standing for what is right and true, for these are the principles that made this nation great,” Boykin said. “Stand, even if it means you lose your job. Stand, even if it means you lose your life. The founding principles of this nation are worth defending, even if it costs you.”
Those are powerful and sobering words – steeped in truth. We must stand and we must stand together –with one, unified voice.
“When you stand, freedom prevails,” Boykin said.

Republican Oklahoma lawmakers urge Obama impeachment over bathroom directive

Is Idiot Obama bullying public schools over bathroom access?

 A group of Republican Oklahoma lawmakers introduced a resolution Thursday urging the state’s congressional delegation to start an effort to impeach President Obama over the White House’s directive to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their gender identity.
The Obama administration issued the recommendation to all public schools last week that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing. The directive has caused fury among lawmakers across the nation.
Reuters reported the bill introduced in Oklahoma calls on the state’s members of the House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment against Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of Education John B. King and several others.
Lawmakers on Friday also introduced a separate measure that would allow students to use religious grounds to have separate but equal bathrooms to segregate them from transgender students.
According to The Oklahoman, a state Senate committee approved a measure to grant religious accommodations for students who object to the transgender bathroom order. The bill now goes to the full Senate for consideration.
John Bennett, a Republican state representative, said in a statement that the White House’s policy on transgender bathroom usage was “biblically wrong,” and a violation of state sovereignty.
According to Reuters, advocates for Obama’s impeachment said that the president has “overstepped his constitutional authority.”
However, supporters of the transgender bathroom guidelines called the impeachment resolution a promotion of fear mongering.
"In a time when our state is facing an unprecedented economic crisis, our lawmakers should be focused on righting the ship rather than stigmatizing transgender youth," Troy Stevenson, executive director of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, told Reuters in a statement.
The measure was introduced hours after Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed a bill that would have criminalized abortion procedures.

LGBT Cartoons

Perino: Facebook recognizes its 'trust problem' with conservatives

Perino: Facebook is taking conservatives' concerns seriously

Dana Perino, co-host of Fox News Channel’s “The Five,” says that Facebook recognizes that it has a ‘trust problem’ with conservatives following her meeting Wednesday with the social network’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Perino, former White House press secretary for President George W. Bush, was among a group of leading conservatives invited to the meeting at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., following a Gizmodo report that stories about conservative topics were prevented from appearing in Facebook’s trending module. “FOX & Friends Weekend” co-host and Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson also attended the meeting.
“They acknowledged that they have a trust problem with a significant portion of their customer base and that they were trying to figure out a way, at least a first step, to open a dialogue so that they can try to fix it in the long run,” said Perino, speaking on “The Kelly File” following the meeting.
Among others who attended the special meeting, according to Facebook, were radio host Glenn Beck, American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks, Tea Party Patriots CEO Jenny Beth Martin and Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center.
Related: Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg meets with conservatives on reported bias
Perino told Megyn Kelly that there were lots of concerns raised during the meeting that had nothing to do with the particular issue of Trending Topics, noting that the module is a relatively new part of Facebook’s business. “There were lots of concerns raised about their policy on community standards – who gets blocked and for what,” she told Megyn Kelly. “We were kind of pushing on an open door because they recognize that they have a problem and it’s based on trust.”
In a Facebook post afterward, Zuckerberg did not directly respond to allegations that Facebook employees suppressed conservative stories on its "trending topics" feature. But he said, "I know many conservatives don't trust that our platform surfaces content without a political bias."
"I wanted to hear their concerns personally and have an open conversation about how we can build trust. I want to do everything I can to make sure our teams uphold the integrity of our products," he wrote.
In his post, Zuckerberg also noted that Fox News drives more interactions on its Facebook page than any other news outlet in the world. "It's not even close," he added.
Related: Facebook says there is 'no evidence' of anti-conservative bias on Trending Topics
In the meeting, Facebook maintained that it does not have any “direct specific evidence” that conservative news was suppressed on Trending Topics, according to Perino.
The Fox News host said that she found the Facebook executives at the meeting to be “pretty genuine and sincere.”
S.E. Cupp, a columnist with the New York Daily News who attended the meeting, said Zuckerberg, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, Vice President Joel Kaplan and board member Peter Thiel mostly listened to the 17 conservatives who attended.
Speaking on the “The Kelly File,” Carlson said that conservative comments at the meeting “ran the gamut.”
Related: Government requests for Facebook data on the rise, report says
“The problem is that conservatives don’t believe in the type of action that would force a business to comply,” he added.
Not every conservative figure invited to the Facebook meeting attended. American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp declined the invitation. In a statement, Schlapp said that the "deck is stacked" against conservative opinion at Facebook, adding that CPAC content "egregiously underperforms" on Facebook compared to Twitter and other platforms by factors of 10.
The trending section, which appears to the right of the Facebook news feed, was introduced in January 2014. Facebook describes the module as a product “designed to surface interesting and relevant conversations in order to help you discover the best content from all across Facebook.”

Judge orders ethics classes for 'deceptive' DOJ attorneys

A federal judge has ordered annual ethics classes for Justice Department attorneys as a punishment for being "intentionally deceptive" during litigation over President Obama's executive immigration orders.
"Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word 'Justice,'" U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in a withering order released Thursday.
Justice Department attorneys misled the court about when the Department of Homeland Security would begin implementing President Obama's executive order granting "deferred action" to illegal immigrants whose children are citizens. In doing so, they tricked the 26 states who filed a lawsuit into "foregoing a request for a temporary restraining order," according to the judge.
The facts of the deception are not in doubt, Hanen emphasized. "[DOJ] has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts," he said in the May 19 opinion, first noted by the National Law Journal. "It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements ... This court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed."

As punishment, Justice Department attorneys who wish to appear in any state or federal court within the 26 states that brought the lawsuit have to undergo annual ethics training. "At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year," he wrote.