Austin bombing suspect kills self with explosive as police close in: report

Police in Austin, Texas, were preparing to stage a media briefing early Wednesday about an officer-involved shooting, amid local media reports that the Austin bombing suspect had killed himself with an explosive device.
The Austin American-Statesman was reporting that local police had located the suspect using a mix of cellphone information, security video and store receipts.
Further information about the suspect was not immediately available.
Late Tuesday night an explosion in Austin caused by an "incendiary device" was said to be unrelated to previous bombings in Texas that have killed two people and severely wounded four others since March 2, police and federal authorities said.
Someone dropped off a box containing an “artillery simulator” at an Austin Goodwill location that detonated, injuring an employee and triggering a bomb scare.
Austin assistance police Chief Ely Reyes says there was "no reason to believe" the Tuesday blast was a copycat incident.
Tuesday’s victim was a Goodwill Industries employee who was "being treated for non-life-threatening injuries," the Austin branch of the nonprofit tweeted. The man, in his 30s, was looking in a donation bin at the time of the blast, Austin's KVUE-TV reported.
According to a Goodwill employee speaking to the outlet, the victim was talking with someone about safety when the suspicious item was found. While trying to dispose of it, an employee handled one of the artillery simulators and it went off, the Austin American-Statesman reported.
The individual suffered injuries that were "potentially serious, not expected to be life-threatening," the county's EMS tweeted. Paramedics rushed him to a hospital. The victim was treated and released from care, a spokesperson from St. David's South Austin Medical Center told the American-Statesman.
Reyes said such military items are sometimes mistakenly donated to Goodwill rather than being properly disposed of. Austin Goodwill spokeswoman Valerie Swift was crying when she told Fox News: "Senior Goodwill executives and law enforcement are investigating."
Goodwill Austin tweeted that out of "an abundance of caution for our Team and customers, all Goodwill Stores will be closed." The duration of the closures was unclear.
The Houston division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, along with FBI San Antonio said they were working with Austin police in the investigation.
At least five other explosions have rocked the Austin and San Antonio areas in recent weeks.
Earlier Tuesday, a package exploded on a conveyor belt at a FedEx shipping center in Schertz, northeast of San Antonio, injuring a worker. Also Tuesday, the FBI said a suspicious package reported at a FedEx distribution center near the Austin airport "contained an explosive device."
Authorities said the two packages were connected to four earlier explosions that have occurred in the state throughout March.
U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press he was informed by federal authorities that investigators have obtained surveillance videos in Austin that "could possibly" show a suspect in the package bombing at the FedEx distribution center near San Antonio.
McCaul said he was briefed by the FBI, ATF and Austin police on the situation and added that he hoped the bomber's "biggest mistake was going through FedEx."
The detonated package bomb at the Schertz facility was reportedly sent by the same person, and from the same mail delivery office, as the suspicious package later located at the FedEx location in Austin, according to U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, who spoke to the American-Statesman.
The two packages were reportedly sent from a mail delivery office in Sunset Valley, an Austin suburb south of downtown.

Sanctuary City Cartoons

Yes, Texas does have the right to punish sanctuary cities

In a resounding victory for the State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thrown out almost all of a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court that was preventing the Lone Star State from enforcing a state law going after sanctuary cities such as Austin, the state’s capital.
This is the right result, both legally and morally.  Not only does the state law not violate the Constitution, as was erroneously claimed, but it’s intended to prevent the state from becoming a sanctuary – a safe haven – for criminal aliens who endanger the public.
Texas certainly has a right to be concerned about aliens who commit crimes in the state. The Texas Department of Public Safety recently released a report on the 245,000 criminal aliens who had been booked into local Texas jails from 2011 through the end of February of this year. Those criminal aliens, 66 percent of whom were in the country illegally, were charged with more than 650,000 criminal offenses. They have been convicted of almost 600 murders; 30,000 assaults; 3,300 sexual assaults; 9,000 burglaries; 20,000 thefts; 38,000 drug crimes; and 274 kidnappings.
As U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a recent speech, the policies of sanctuary cities and states make no sense. The fact that these aliens were arrested for committing local crimes shows that these jurisdictions found these aliens “dangerous enough to detain them in the first place, but then insist on releasing them back into the community instead of allowing federal officers to remove them,” as Sessions noted. That is reckless behavior by public officials.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said after the ruling, sanctuary policies allow “dangerous criminals…back into our communities to possibly commit more crimes.” He is right.

To stop Texas from becoming a sanctuary for criminal aliens, the state legislature passed a law last year that required local governments to comply with federal immigration law. That included 8 U.S.C. §1373, which forbids state and local governments from preventing their officials from sending information to the federal government on illegal aliens who have been arrested or otherwise detained.
In fact, the state law requires city and county officials to assist federal immigration agents in their enforcement efforts and most importantly, to “comply with, honor, and fulfill” any detainer requests made by the federal government.
That means that local sheriffs and city police departments that fail to honor federal detainer warrants – which are requests issued by federal immigration authorities to hold illegal aliens for pickup – are in violation of state law.
The Texas statute imposes a civil penalty on sanctuary cities of up to $25,500 for each day they intentionally violate the law. Texas law enforcement officials can also be charged with a criminal misdemeanor for failing to honor detainer warrants, and the state attorney general can file a petition with a state court to remove them from office.
Unfortunately, only two days before the law was scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1, 2017, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction stopping Texas from enforcing the most important provisions of the law based on a misinterpretation of federal immigration law and constitutional requirements. That mistake has now been corrected by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit. In an 18-page opinion written by Judge Edith Jones, the panel dissolved all of the injunction except for one minor (and unimportant) provision.
Jones pointed out that with only one exception, the provisions of the Texas law “do not, on their face, violate the Constitution.” The only provision that does is one that says that local officials may not “endorse a policy” that limits enforcement of immigration laws. This amounts to a First Amendment violation since it prohibits “core political speech” by attempting to prevent officials from endorsing, i.e., speaking positively about, sanctuary policies.
The fact that the Fifth Circuit left this portion of the injunction in place is immaterial. The major, substantive parts of the Texas law that force local officials to cooperate with and assist federal immigration agents and to turn over criminal and other aliens to federal authorities is now in effect in Texas. So are the civil and criminal penalties that the state can impose on any local cities or officials who violate the law.
As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said after the ruling by the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday, the Texas law is “a common sense measure” intended to prevent “the release of individuals from custody who have been charged with serious crimes.” Sanctuary policies allow “dangerous criminals…back into our communities to possibly commit more crimes.” He is right.

Are some states headed for Splitsville? Movement grows to allow sections of states to break away

New secession movements in California, and elsewhere in America, are getting genuine attention from political pundits.  (newcaliforniastate.com)

When Donald Trump was elected, a lot of people in California signed a petition supporting the state’s secession from the U.S. It was hard to take the movement seriously—didn’t we fight a war over this?
But there is another secession movement in California, and elsewhere in America, that is getting genuine attention from political pundits. While it may be unlikely to succeed, the idea of intra-state secession—a section of a state splitting off to form its own state—has been growing in popularity. And there’s even a Constitutional procedure for doing it.
In recent decades, the political differences between rural areas and metropolitan areas seem to have become more severe. This has caused political splits in certain states, where, often, those rural areas, with lower populations, feel stifled by their city brethren.
As Joel Kotkin, a fellow at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. and author of The Human City: Urbanism ForThe Rest Of Us, tells Fox News, “The worst thing in the world to be is the red part of a blue state.”
He looks at his home state of California and sees numerous clashes between the coastal cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the more conservative counties in the interior. This has led to the New California Movement, already organized in 35 counties, seeking to create two states where there was one. Other plans have California splitting into three states, or even six. It should be noted that these new states would still be bigger than many on the East Coast, and more populous than many in the West.
Kotkin feels this movement is driven by policies like the $15 minimum wage, “which makes sense in San Francisco, but doesn’t make sense in Fresno.”  He adds those running California are “fundamentally authoritarian” with “not a lot of tolerance for any kind of economic or political diversity.” As he puts it, their attitude is “’We know the truth, we know what’s right, and it has to apply to everyone.”
Kotkin further notes it’s not just California where this blue versus red battle is brewing, but up the West Coast, where eastern Oregon battles against the policies of Portland, and eastern Washington against Seattle. For that matter, there’s Chicago against downstate Illinois, and New York City versus upstate New York.  And the policy divisions are not just economic, but often traditional versus progressive politics regarding issues such as marijuana, gun control and the environment.
This is why there’s a movement in New York for upstate to split from downstate.  As Republican state senator Joseph Robach puts it, “We’re completely overwhelmed...by the policies of New York City.” In 2009 and 2011 he introduced bills to hold a referendum on secession.  And in 2015 there was a rally in favor of carving out a new state, supported by more than a dozen groups frustrated by the policies of Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo.
All this secession talk has captured the notice of University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds, who recently put out a new paper, “Splitsylvania: State Secession and What to Do About It.”
He notes that Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution allows for new states to be admitted into the union, though no new state can be formed within an old state without the consent of the state legislature as well as Congress. That’s a pretty high hurdle. But, as Reynolds told Fox News, not insurmountable.
It’s been done before, but long ago. For example, Vermont split from New York in 1791, Maine split from Massachusetts in 1820, and West Virginia split from Virginia during the Civil War in 1863. There haven’t been any states formed by secession in modern U.S. history.
What’s more, Americans seem to have gotten used to the idea of 50 states, with Hawaii the last admitted to the Union in 1959. As Reynolds points out, “for most of the country’s history we added a new state every couple of decades...now we act as if 50 is set in stone. There’s a plausible argument that we would be better off with more states. It would be more representative.”
While it would seem that state leaders wouldn’t want to give up power, Reynolds offers a scenario where politicians might greet the formation of a new entity. “If you’re a California politician, you spend a lot of time trying to fight your way to the top. And the trouble is it’s a really big state—there are a lot of other people trying to fight their way to the top...[If the state splits, there’s] a smaller pond, but you’re a big fish.”
More important than forming new states, however, Reynolds feels we should address the disputes that make citizens support secession.  Part of the problem, he believes, goes back to the Supreme Court case “Reynolds v. Sims” (1964), which declared state legislatures (as opposed to the U.S. Senate) have to be apportioned according to population, not geographical area. As Reynolds explains, “under the old system, rural areas got more representation, and under the new system they got much less.”  This has helped lead to the present-day situation where rural areas feel underserved.
Reynolds hopes there can be less dramatic solutions than secession, such as Congressional statutes (or in some cases executive orders) to ease the pressure. Reynolds thinks they have the Constitutional authority to remedy the situation, particularly under the Guarantee Clause, which states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
Reynolds points to civil rights laws, passed to protect unfairly treated minorities, as a model for how Congress might take action.  He notes “most federal laws...are written to leave states the power to make stricter regulations, but if it seems like the burden...is falling disproportionately on a minority in a state that has no real political power...then I think it’s fair for the federal government to step in and protect them.” To Reynolds, this could mean laws limiting how far states can go regarding “the environment, firearms, wages and...things that people in rural areas are unhappy about.”
This may seem like extreme intervention to some, but it’s a lot less extreme than secession.
As Reynolds puts it, “when you have people talking about wanting to split from their state, and form a new one, there’s obviously some significant unhappiness, and if we can do things that are relatively low cost...to remedy it, I think probably we should.  At least we should think about it.”

Southern California town stands up to state, votes to reject sanctuary law

California city could challenge state's sanctuary law

Councilman Warren Kusumoto joins 'Your World' to discuss why believes the city of Los Alamitos, CA should opt out of the state's new sanctuary law, which limits cooperation between law enforcement and immigration authorities.

A Southern California town council rebelled Monday night and voted to reject the state’s sanctuary law.
Los Alamitos Council members voted 4-1 to opt out of a state law that limits cooperation between local police and federal immigration agents.
The law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year and became effective on Jan. 1, includes prohibiting state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention.
Los Alamitos’ adopted ordinance claims the new state law “may be in direct conflict with federal laws and the Constitution.” The council, therefore, “finds that it is impossible to honor our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” if they do not opt out of it.
The vote caused diverse reactions among over 150 people participating in the council meeting.
“They are asserting their right to ensure the constitutional remains the main law of the land,” Arthur Schaper, who supported the motion, told Fox Los Angeles.
Moti Cohen, an immigrant from Israel, said he came to the U.S. legally and that everyone should follow that path too. He became a legal resident after marrying his American wife.
"The law is the law and has to be enforced all over the country," he told The Los Angeles Times. "The country is a law-and-order country and you have to come here legally."
Others, upset that a council in California chose to decide whether to ignore state laws aimed at protecting illegal immigrants, showed up to protest the vote – causing a temporary delay.
“What we don’t understand what we fear we kill. And that’s what we’re doing we’re killing the spirit of this nation which is American,” Joanne Abuqartoumy told the newspaper.
The only dissenting voice on the council, Mark Chirco, wrote on Facebook after the vote that “I could not see how the ordinance proposed tonight would benefit our city” and will instead “place our city in danger of a costly and uphill battle with the State of California.”
But many believe the example of the Los Alamitos Council may be a game-changer in California, where state officials have positioned themselves as against the immigration policies of the Trump administration.

Los Alamitos’ adopted ordinance claims the new state law “may be in direct conflict with federal laws and the Constitution.”  (AP)

"Perhaps it could be the leader. We are heartened that body politics is taking an action that supports federal laws," Robin Hvidston, executive director of pro-immigration enforcement group We the People Rising, told the LA Times.
"We're just calling on the federal government to stand up on behalf of the city," she said, hoping the U.S. Department of Justice will support the city.
The newly passed law will have to have a second reading in a month. It is expected that the ordinance will pass again.

China's Xi takes swipe at Trump's new 'doomed to failure' Taiwan policy in nationalistic speech

Chinese President Xi Jinping took a veiled shot at President Donald Trump on Tuesday during his nationalistic address to parliament regarding Taiwan.  (Reuters)

Chinese President Xi Jinping took a veiled shot at President Donald Trump on Tuesday during his nationalistic address to parliament regarding Taiwan.
Xi, speaking to nearly 3,000 members of the rubber-stamp National People’s Congress, declared that the Chinese people were “closer than at any time in history to realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
"In the face of national righteousness and the tide of history, all attempts or tricks aimed at dividing the motherland are doomed to failure. All will receive the condemnation of the people and the punishment of history,” he said.
The Chinese people have the will and the ability to "foil all activities to divide the nation" and are unified in their belief that "every inch of our great motherland absolutely cannot and absolutely will not be separated from China," Xi added.

"All will receive the condemnation of the people and the punishment of history."

The confrontational comments came just days after Trump signed a new law allowing high-level officials visits to Taiwan – a move now condemned by Beijing at the highest levels of government.
“China is strongly opposed to that,” The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said in a statement on Saturday, according to AFP. “We urge the US side to correct its mistake, stop pursuing any official ties with Taiwan or improving its current relations with Taiwan in any substantive way.”
The Taiwan Travel Act, signed by the White House on Friday after it passed through Congress, encourages visits between US and Taiwanese officials “at all levels.”

Xi, speaking to nearly 3,000 members of the rubber-stamp National People’s Congress, declared that the Chinese people were “closer than at any time in history to realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation."  (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

Washington has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan since 1979 because of the “one China’ policy. China sees Taiwan as its territory and has expressed a desire to reunify.
Xi, who convinced parliament to scrap term limits for the president and paved a way for him to rule indefinitely, also dismissed on Tuesday any accusations that China is a threat and seeks domination.
"China's development does not pose a threat to any country," he said. "Only those who habitually threaten others will look at everyone else as threats.”

Hillary Cartoon

Hillary Clinton tries to explain her comments on Trump voters after backlash

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton attempted to explain her comments about American voters and the 2016 election in a lengthy Facebook post Saturday that claimed she "meant no disrespect to any individual or group."
During a recent trip to India, Clinton told attendees at a conference in Mumbai that Americans did not "deserve" a Trump presidency, said she won the states "that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward," and said that Trump's campaign was "looking backwards."
Clinton summed up Trump's message as "you know, you didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs. You don't want, you know, to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are."
"I understand how some of what I said upset people and can be misinterpreted," Clinton said in her Facebook post. "I meant no disrespect to any individual or group. And I want to look to the future as much as anybody."
But the former first lady criticized Trump for relying on "scare tactics and false attacks [that masked] the fact that he is otherwise no friend to most Americans."
Clinton also stood by comments implying that white women who voted for Trump were subject to "a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."
"[T]here is anecdotal evidence and some research to suggest that women are unfortunately more swayed by men than the other way around," Clinton insisted on Facebook. "As much as I hate the possibility, and hate saying it, it’s not that crazy when you think about our ongoing struggle to reach gender balance – even within the same household.
"I did not realize how hard it would hit many who heard it," Clinton added. "So to those upset or offended by what I said last week, I hope this explanation helps to explain the point I was trying to make."
Clinton's original comments drew backlash from Democrats, among them Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, who told "Fox News Sunday" that the former secretary of state's remarks were "not helpful."
"Thirty percent of the people who voted for Donald Trump had voted for President Obama," Durbin pointed out. "Why? The same people who looked for change with President Obama thought there wasn’t enough as far as their personal lives were concerned and they supported Donald Trump.
"That is a reality that Democrats acknowledge."

proar after New Jersey high school allegedly suspends students over gun-range photo

A New Jersey high school came under fire Friday after it allegedly suspended two students over a gun photo taken during a family visit to a shooting range.
News of the unnamed students' suspension circulated through a Lacey Township Facebook group, according to NJ.com.
Amanda Buron, a Lacey resident and family friend of one of the suspended students said one of the photos shared on SnapChat featured four rifles, ammunition clips and a gun duffel with the caption "fun day at the range," NJ.com reported.
Buron said the two students received a five-day in-school suspension after the picture drew the attention of Lacey Township High School officials, who argued that it violated the school’s policy on weapons possession.
The school district shortly faced community backlash for the alleged suspension, with many calling for people to appear at the school board's next meeting on Monday to protest the decision.
The school, however, denied the students were suspended over the picture.
"Information posted on social media is incorrect,” Lacey schools Superintendent Craig Wigley told the publication last week. The officials declined to provide any additional details or point out what exactly was false.
The controversy brought the attention of a New Jersey gun advocacy group that sent the school district a cease and desist letter and threatened with a lawsuit if it does not overturn the suspension of the students and change the policies regarding the Second Amendment.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) said in a letter that the school’s policies allow suspending students for up to a year if they are "reported to be in possession of a weapon of any type for any reason or purpose on or off school grounds."

"Information posted on social media is incorrect."

“The policy is clearly wrong and violates the Second Amendment. We hope that they're reasonable people and they will fix it. If they don't, we're prepared to take legal action,” ANJRPC executive director Scott Bach told NJ.com.
The group also demands the school to apologize to the two suspended teens.
“Schools do not have the authority to chill the rights of their students off of school grounds, and this blatant infringement of constitutional rights will not be tolerated," Bach added. "I don't care if no students were disciplined. The policy has got to go."
Overtly broad policies of the school district have been criticized in the past. Ed Cardinal, whose son attends a school in the same district, said the officials once demanded his son to remove a window sticker of a gun from his pickup truck that he drives to school.
"He was kind of heated about it and so was I," Cardinal said.
They abided by the demands and removed sticker after the district threatened to punish the teen.

Zinke defends 'konnichiwa' comment to Japanese-American lawmaker

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke defended his use of the Japanese greeting “konnichiwa” when responding to a question from a lawmaker.
Zinke told reporters Saturday that the phrase is innocent and inoffensive.
“How could ever saying ‘good morning’ be bad?” he said during his tour of the U.S.-Mexico Border in Arizona.
Zinke took heat last week after he said “konnichiwa” to a Japanese American congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, D-Hawaii, who quizzed him over funding for the Japanese American Confinement Sites program.
“Will we see it funded again in 2018?," Rep. Hanabusa, asked Zinke last week.
"Oh, Konnichiwa," Zinke replied, sparking uproar among some lawmakers, civic groups and on social media who perceived the use of the phrase as perpetuating negative stereotypes about Japanese Americans.
"I think it's still 'ohayo gozaimasu,' but that's okay," Hanabusa corrected Zinke with a greeting normally used in the morning.
Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., called on Zinke to apologize for the remark: “Zinke's comment betrayed a prejudice that being Asian makes you a perpetual foreigner. Intentional or not, it's offensive. He should apologize.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, also criticized the interior secretary.

“How could ever saying ‘good morning’ be bad?”

“The internment of nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans is no laughing matter, @SecretaryZinke. What you thought was a clever response to @RepHanabusa was flippant & juvenile,” Hirono tweeted.
Hanabusa issued a statement on Saturday, saying “the real issue here is that the administration ignored one of the most racially motivated periods in American history by defunding the Japanese American Confinement Sites (JACS) grant program.”
“When Secretary Zinke chose to address me in Japanese (when no one else was greeted in their ancestral language), I understood ‘this is precisely why Japanese Americans were treated as they were more than 75 years ago,” she said.