Miffed over border wall talk, top Mexican official floats American entry fee

A top Mexican official on Tuesday said that Mexico may consider charging a fee for Americans entering the country in what could be seen as a retaliation to President Trump's call for a border wall.
Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray, in a meeting with Mexico's top legislators, called Trump's plan an "unfriendly, hostile" act, and called on his colleagues to consider the entry fee.
"We could explore — not necessarily a visa, that could impede a lot of people from coming to Mexico — but we could perhaps (have) a fee associated with entry,” Videgaray said. “This is something that I'm sure will be part of our discussion, and I believe we can find points of agreement."
Videgaray went on to say that Mexico would not pay a cent towards the wall. He said if talks between the U.S. and Mexico fail to satisfy both countries, the Mexican government would consider reducing security cooperation.
"If the negotiation on other themes — immigration, the border, trade — isn't satisfactory to Mexico's interests, we will have to review our existing cooperation," Videgaray said. "This would be especially in the security areas ... and that involves the national immigration agency, the federal police and of course, the armed forces."
Trump has asked congress to include a down payment on the wall in the spending bill but because of scrutiny from both sides, the President announced Monday that he’d be willing to wait until September to revisit the issue of funding; however, his stance on Mexico’s role in paying for the wall hasn’t changed.

Judge William Orrick III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

1
Judge William Orrick was appointed to his current position by President Barack Obama.
At the time of the appointment, Orrick was working at the law firm Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP. He has previously served as deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice.
Obama nominated Orrick in June 2012, but Orrick was not approved until February 2013. This was mainly a party line vote, though Republican Jeff Flake broke with his party to vote to confirm Orrick.

 2
When Barack Obama was running for president, Judge William Orrick reportedly helped raise money for him and donated some of his own money as well.
According to Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group, Orrick donated approximately $30,000 to committees supporting Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for president. In addition, he helped raise $200,000 in contributions to the Obama campaign.
This had not been Orrick’s first time raising money for a Democratic politician. During the 2004 election, he helped raise funds for John Kerry, according to Public Citizen.

3
In 2010, Arizona passed a controversial immigration law known as SB 1070.
This was a strict immigration bill which required that police officers attempt to determine a person’s immigration status when they are stopped for unrelated reasons if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person may be undocumented. It also barred state and local officials from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The Department of Justice ultimately filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona because of this bill. Orrick, who worked at the Justice Department at the time, was involved in coordinating the Obama administration’s argument against SB 1070, according to the Washington Examiner.
Orrick himself said during his Senate confirmation process, “Regarding Arizona, I attended meetings where the impact of SB 1070 on the operations of DHS and law enforcement was discussed [and] where the preemption analysis of the lawyers working on this issue was discussed.”

4
In 2015, Judge William Orrick issued a temporary restraining order against a pro-life group that had been releasing undercover videos about Planned Parenthood.
At the time, The Center for Medical Progress had been putting out highly-edited videos that they claimed showed Planned Parenthood had been illegally selling fetal tissue. Orrick issued a restraining order, saying that he reached this decision due to concerns over the safety of the leaders of the National Abortion Federation.
“NAF would be likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest,” Orrick said at the time, according to CNN.
The National Abortion Federation said in their restraining order request that the videos had been illegally recorded.
At the time that this decision was reached, conservative website The Federalist found that Orrick’s wife, Caroline Farrow Orrick, is pro-choice.

 5
During his Senate confirmation process, Judge William Orrick promised to never let his political views influence the way he rules on cases.
“My varied legal background is evidence that I will treat all litigants fairly and with respect, and that I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice,” he said. “… I have great respect for every type of client I have represented. I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”
Orrick went on to say that district judges must “bind themselves tightly” to precedent.
When asked what his policy on immigration-related cases would be, Orrick said he would recuse himself “from any case that was pending in OIL [Office of Immigration Litigation] while I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General and from any other case as required by the Code of Conduct for United States Judge as well as other relevant Canons and statutory provisions.”

Judge Who Blocked Trump Sanctuary City Order Bundled $200K for Obama

Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump's order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama.
Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president's plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal immigrants.
As FoxNews.com reported:

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.
The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.

---

The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.
At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

A California judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities.”
The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.
READ THE DECISION
The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.
San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that the administration warning threatened billions of dollars in funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan budgets.
"It's not like it's just some small amount of money," John Keker, an attorney for Santa Clara County, told Orrick at the April 14 hearing.
Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people's immigration status, he said.
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.
Readler argued the Trump administration was using a “bully pulpit” to "encourage communities and states to comply with the law.”
In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order "by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing."
"The rest of the order is broader still, addressing all federal funding," Orrick said. "And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments."
He said: "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves."
The judge clarified that the injunction “does not impact the Government’s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants … nor does it restrict the Secretary from developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a 'sanctuary jurisdiction.'”
The Trump administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes trust that's needed to get people to report crime.
The order also has led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and a third San Francisco Bay Area government, the city of Richmond. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County suits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.
San Francisco and the county argued in court documents that the president did not have the authority to set conditions on the allocation of federal funds and could not force local officials to enforce federal immigration law.
They also said Trump's order applied to local governments that didn't detain immigrants for possible deportation in response to federal requests, not just those that refused to provide people's immigration status.
The Department of Justice responded that the city and county's lawsuits were premature because decisions about withholding funds and what local governments qualified as sanctuary cities had yet to be made.
The sanctuary city order was among a flurry of immigration measures Trump has signed since taking office in January, including a ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority countries.
A federal appeals court blocked the original travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.

Burning Books Nazi Cartoons

New Orleans begins to take down prominent Confederate monuments (Nazi did it)

Do like the Nazi did in world war 2, if you don't like what's in a book burn it!

New Orleans planned to begin removing the first of four prominent Confederate monuments early Monday, the latest Southern institution to sever itself from symbols viewed by many as a representation racism and white supremacy.
Workers were to begin removing the first memorial, one that commemorates whites who tried to topple a biracial post-Civil War government in New Orleans, overnight in an attempt to avoid disruption from supporters who want the monuments to stay, some of whom city officials said have made death threats.
Three other statues to Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and Confederate States of America President Jefferson Davis will be removed in later days now that legal challenges have been overcome.
"There's a better way to use the property these monuments are on and a way that better reflects who we are," New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press.
Nationally, the debate over Confederate symbols has become heated since nine parishioners were killed at a black church in South Carolina in June 2015. South Carolina removed the Confederate flag from its statehouse grounds in the weeks after, and several Southern cities have since considered removing monuments. The University of Mississippi took down its state flag because it includes the Confederate emblem.
New Orleans is a majority African-American city although the number of black residents has fallen since 2005's Hurricane Katrina drove many people from the city.
The majority black City Council in 2015 voted 6-1 to approve plans to take the statues down, but legal battles over their fate have prevented the removal until now, said Landrieu, who proposed the monuments' removal and rode to victory twice with overwhelming support from the city's black residents.
People who want the Confederate memorials removed say they are offensive artifacts honoring the region's slave-owning past. But others call the monuments part of the city's history and say they should be protected historic structures.
Since officials announced the removals, contractors hired by the city have faced death threats and intimidation in this deep South city where passions about the Civil War still run deep.
Landrieu refused to say who the city would be using to remove the statues because of the intimidation attempts. And the removal will begin at night to ensure police can secure the sites to protect workers, and to ease the burden on traffic for people who live and work in the city, Landrieu said.
"All of what we will do in the next days will be designed to make sure that we protect everybody, that the workers are safe, the folks around the monuments are safe and that nobody gets hurt," Landrieu said.
Landrieu said the memorials don't represent his city as it approaches its 300th anniversary next year. The mayor said the city would remove the monuments, store them and preserve them until an "appropriate" place to display them is determined.
"The monuments are an aberration," he said. "They're actually a denial of our history and they were done in a time when people who still controlled the Confederacy were in charge of this city and it only represents a four-year period in our 1000-year march to where we are today."
The first memorial to come down will be the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.
Landrieu has called the Liberty Monument "the most offensive of the four" and said it was erected to "revere white supremacy."
"If there was ever a statue that needed to be taken down, it's that one," he said.
The Crescent City White League attempted to overthrow a biracial Reconstruction government in New Orleans after the Civil War. That attempt failed, but white supremacist Democrats later took control of the state.
An inscription added in 1932 said the Yankees withdrew federal troops and "recognized white supremacy in the South" after the group challenged Louisiana's biracial government after the Civil War. In 1993, these words were covered by a granite slab with a new inscription, saying the obelisk honors "Americans on both sides" who died and that the conflict "should teach us lessons for the future."
The Liberty Monument had been the target of a previous lawsuit after the city removed it from a location on the main downtown thoroughfare of Canal Street during a federally-financed paving project in 1989. The city didn't put the monument back up until it was sued, and moved the monument to an obscure spot on a side street near the entrance to a parking garage.

French presidential election: Le Pen, Macron win first round to advance to runoff

Macron, Le Pen to face each other in May 7 runoff vote

French politics was shaken to its core Sunday as far-right populist Marine Le Pen and centrist Emmanuel Macron advanced to a runoff presidential election after the first round of voting.
As it became clear that Le Pen would be one of the top two vote-getters, her rivals on the left and right urged voters to block her path to power in the May 7 runoff, saying her virulently nationalist anti-EU and anti-immigration politics would spell disaster for France.

"Extremism can only bring unhappiness and division to France," defeated conservative candidate Francois Fillon said. "As such, there is no other choice than to vote against the extreme right."

With 90 percent of votes counted, the Interior Ministry said Macron had nearly 24 percent, giving him a slight cushion over Le Pen's 22 percent. Fillon, with just under 20 percent, was slightly ahead of the far-left's Jean-Luc Melenchon, who had 19 percent.
The selection of Le Pen and Macron marked the first time in the 59-year history of the French Fifth Republic that neither of the country's two main parties, the Socialists and the Republicans, made the second round of presidential balloting. Macron, a 39-year-old investment banker, made the runoff on the back of a grassroots campaign without the support of a major political party.
With Le Pen wanting France to leave the EU and Macron wanting even closer cooperation between the bloc's 28 nations, Sunday's outcome meant the May 7 runoff will have undertones of a referendum on France's EU membership.

The euro jumped 2 percent to more than $1.09 after the initial results were announced because Macron has vowed to reinforce France's commitments to the EU and euro -- and opinion polls give him a big lead heading into the second round.
While Le Pen faces the runoff as the underdog, it's already stunning that she brought her once-taboo party so close to the Elysee Palace. She hopes to win over far-left and other voters angry at the global elite and distrustful of the untested Macron.
Le Pen, in a chest-thumping speech to cheering supporters, declared that she embodies "the great alternative" for French voters. She portrayed her duel with Macron as a battle between "patriots" and "wild deregulation" -- warning of job losses overseas, mass migration straining resources at home and "the free circulation of terrorists."
"The time has come to free the French people," she said at her election day headquarters in the northern French town of Henin-Beaumont, adding that nothing short of "the survival of France" will be at stake in the presidential runoff.
Her supporters burst into a rendition of the French national anthem, chanted "We will win!" and waved French flags and blue flags with "Marine President" on them.

With a wink at his cheering, flag-waving supporters who yelled "We will win!" in his election day headquarters in Paris, Macron promised to be a president "who protects, who transforms and builds" if elected.

"You are the faces of French hope," he said. His wife, Brigitte, joined him on stage before his speech -- the only couple among the leading candidates to do so on Sunday night.
France is now steaming into unchartered territory, because whoever wins on May 7 cannot count on the backing of France's political mainstream parties. Even under a constitution that concentrates power in the president's hands, both Macron and Le Pen will need legislators in parliament to pass laws and implement much of their programs.

France's legislative election in June now takes on a vital importance, with huge questions about whether Le Pen and even the more moderate Macron will be able to rally sufficient lawmakers to their causes.

In Paris, protesters angry at Le Pen's advance -- some from anarchist and anti-fascist groups -- scuffled with police. Officers fired tear gas to disperse the rowdy crowd. Two people were injured and police detained three people as demonstrators burned cars, danced around bonfires and dodged riot police. At a peaceful protest by around 300 people at the Place de la Republique some sang "No Marine and no Macron!" and "Now burn your voting cards."

Macron supporters at his Paris election-day headquarters went wild as polling agency projections showed the ex-finance minister making the runoff, cheering, singing "La Marseillaise" anthem, waving French tricolor and European flags and shouting "Macron, president!"

Mathilde Jullien, 23, said she is convinced Macron will beat Le Pen.

"He represents France's future, a future within Europe," she said. "He will win because he is able to unite people from the right and the left against the threat of the National Front and he proposes real solutions for France's economy."

Fillon, the Republican candidate said he would vote for Macron on May 7 because Le Pen's program "would bankrupt France" and throw the EU into chaos. He also cited the history of "violence and intolerance" of Le Pen's far-right National Front party, founded by her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was trounced in the presidential runoff in 2002.

In a defiant speech to supporters, Melenchon refused to cede defeat before the official count confirmed pollsters' projections and did not say how he would vote in the next round.

In a brief televised message, Socialist Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve urged voters to back Macron to defeat the National Front's "funereal project of regression for France and of division of the French."

Socialist presidential candidate Benoit Hamon, who was far behind in Sunday's results, quickly conceded defeat. Declaring "the left is not dead!" he also urged supporters to back Macron.

Voting took place amid heightened security in the first election under France's state of emergency, which has been in place since gun-and-bomb attacks in Paris in 2015. On Thursday, a gunman killed a police officer and wounded two others on Paris' iconic Champs-Elysees boulevard before he was fatally shot.

Congress returns, aiming to avert government shutdown, pass ObamaCare overhaul

Congress returns to Washington this week to take on the now-familiar task of passing an 11th-hour spending bill to avert a government shutdown, with President Trump’s promised border wall emerging this time as the big sticking point between Democrats and Republicans.
Trump tweeted several times about the issue Sunday, with one tweet saying Democrats don't want budget money paying for the wall "despite the fact it will stop drugs and very bad MS-13 gang members."
The deadline to avert a shutdown is Saturday, Trump's 100th day in office, which has increased pressure on the GOP-controlled Congress to also pass an ObamaCare repeal and replacement plan after failing to do so in March.
Congress OKs Planned Parenthood funding crackdown, as Pence breaks tie
In exchange for funding Trump's planned wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, congressional Democrats want any ObamaCare overhaul bill to continue to include subsides for health insurance companies that helped low-income people afford health policies.
The payments are a critical subsidy and the subject of a lawsuit by House Republicans. Trump has threatened to withhold the money to force Democrats to negotiate on health legislation.
Though Republicans have control of Congress, they have yet to send the GOP president a single major bill, such as an ObamaCare overhaul.
In addition to the wall, Trump also hopes to use the $1 trillion catchall spending bill to salvage victories on a multibillion-dollar down payment on a Pentagon buildup and perhaps a crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement by federal authorities.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has indicated that his priority is avoiding a politically unpopular shutdown, like the one in fall 2013 over ObamaCare funding, for which voters largely blamed Republicans.
“I don’t think anyone thinks a shutdown is desirable,” Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told “Fox News Sunday.”
Rank-and-file Republicans received few answers Saturday on conference call by top House GOP leaders, who said deals remained elusive on both health care and the spending measure, with no votes scheduled yet.
A temporary measure could be needed to prevent a shutdown and buy time for more talks.
Democratic support will be needed to pass the spending measure, as Republicans fear taking the blame again if the government shuts down on their watch.
"We have the leverage and they have the exposure," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California, told fellow Democrats on Thursday on a conference call, according to a senior Democratic aide.
Pelosi wants the spending bill to give the cash-strapped government of Puerto Rico help with its Medicaid obligations. Democrats are also pressing for money for overseas famine relief, treatment for opioid abuse, and the extension of health benefits for 22,000 retired Appalachian coal miners and their families.
Mulvaney also told Fox News on Sunday: “We are offering to give Democrats some of their priorities. They made it very clear that they want these cost-sharing reduction payments as part of ObamaCare. We don't like those very much, but we have offered to open the discussions to give the Democrats something they want in order to get something we want.”
The White House and Democrats each have adopted hard-line positions on Trump's $1 billion request for a down payment on construction of the border wall, a central plank of last year's campaign.
Talk of forcing Mexico to pay for it has largely been abandoned. But in an interview with The Associated Press on Friday, Trump stopped short of demanding that money for the project be included in the must-pass spending bill.
GOP leaders have shown no desire to revisit ObamaCare until they're assured they have enough votes to succeed, a point Ryan reiterated to lawmakers Saturday, according to participants in the call.
An initial attempt in March ended in a legislative train wreck, stinging Trump and Ryan. The measure would have repealed much of Obama's 2010 overhaul and replaced it with fewer coverage requirements and less generous federal subsidies for many people.
Two leaders of the House GOP's warring moderate and conservative factions devised a compromise during the recess to let states get federal waivers to ignore some requirements of the health law. Those include one that now requires insurers to cover specified services such as for mental health, and one that bars them from raising premiums on seriously ill patients.
But there are widespread doubts that the new attempt has achieved the support it needs.
Rep. Dan Donovan, R-N.Y., an opponent of the bill, said last week that "it doesn't cure the issues that I had concerns" about. The moderate said his objections included changes to Obama's law that would still leave people with excessive out-of-pocket costs.
The potential amendment was brokered by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who heads the conservative House Freedom Caucus and Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., a leader of the moderate House Tuesday Group.

Trump discusses North Korea tensions with Asian leaders

President Trump talked to both leaders of China and Japan Monday as tensions on the Korean Peninsula have boiled over and North Korea appears ready to for an ICBM launch.
Trump spoke by phone with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
China’s official broadcaster CCTV quoted Xi telling Trump that China strongly opposed North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and hoped “all parties will exercise restraint and avoid aggravating the situation.” Trump hopes China could increase pressure on its isolated ally instead of using military options or trying to overthrow Kim Jong Un’s regime.
Trump and Abe agreed to urge North Korea to refrain from provocative actions.
"The North Korean nuclear and missile problem is an extremely serious security threat to not only the international community but also our country," Abe told reporters after the phone call with Trump.
Meanwhile, U.S. commercial satellite images indicated increased activity around North Korea’s nuclear test site, while Kim has said that the country’s preparation for an ICBM launch is in its “final stage.”
South Korea’s Defense Ministry has said the North appears ready to conduct such "strategic provocations" at any time. South Korean Acting Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn has instructed his military to strengthen its "immediate response posture" in case the North does something significant on the April 25 anniversary of its military. North Korea often marks significant dates by displaying military capability.
North Korea separately fired what U.S. officials said were a Scud-type missile and a midrange missile earlier this month, but the launches were analyzed as failures.
In a statement released late Friday, North Korea's Foreign Ministry accused Trump of driving the region into an "extremely dangerous phase" with his sending of the aircraft carrier and said the North was ready to stand up against any kind of threated posed by the United States.
With typical rhetorical flourish, the ministry said North Korea "will react to a total war with an all-out war, a nuclear war with nuclear strikes of its own style and surely win a victory in the death-defying struggle against the U.S. imperialists."

UC Berkeley Student Protest Cartoons

UC Berkeley students threaten to sue over Ann Coulter visit

Students at the University of California at Berkeley who invited conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus are threatening to sue the university if it does not find a proper time and venue for her to speak next week.
Harmeet Dhillon, who represents the Berkeley College Republicans, said in letters sent Friday to UC Berkeley’s Interim Vice Chancellor Stephen Sutton and chief attorney Christopher Patti that if Coulter is not allowed to give a speech on campus on April 27 she will file a lawsuit in federal court because the university is violating the students’ constitutional right to free speech.
"It is a sad day indeed when the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, is morphing before our eyes into the cemetery of free speech on college campuses," Dhillon wrote.
School officials told the Berkeley College Republicans on Tuesday, and the nonpartisan Bridge USA which coordinated the event, that it was being cancelled due to security concerns.
Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks said that police have "very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker," her audience and protesters if the event goes ahead next Thursday.
Officials offered an afternoon event on May 2, when they can offer an "appropriate, protectable venue" but Coulter rejected it, saying she is not available that day. She also tweeted, "THERE ARE NO CLASSES AT BERKELEY THE WEEK OF MAY 2." The period is known as Dead Week, when students are studying for final exams.
"You cannot impose arbitrary and harassing restrictions on the exercise of a constitutional right," Coulter told "Hannity" on Thursday night. "None of this has to do with security."
It is the latest skirmish in a free-speech fight involving conservative voices on college campuses across the country, including at Berkeley. In February, masked rioters at the school smashed windows, set fires, and shut down an appearance by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Last week, the Berkeley College Republicans said threats of violence forced them to cancel a speech by writer David Horowitz. Writer Charles Murray's appearance at Middlebury saw riots last month, and Heather Mac Donald's speech at Claremont McKenna College was streamed online earlier this month after protesters blocked the door to the venue.
Berkeley has been the site of clashes between far-right and far-left protesters, most recently at a rally last weekend called in support of President Donald Trump in downtown Berkeley.

French presidential election: Voters take to the polls under heightened security

French voters began to flood the polls Sunday under heightened security to kick-off the start of a tense first-round poll that has been seen as a test for the spread of populism around the world.
Security around the more than 60,000 polling stations was tightened up in wake of the deadly shooting on the Champs-Elysses on Thursday, which left one police officer and a gunman dead. The government mobilized more than 50,000 police and gendarmes to protect the polling places and an additional 7,000 soldiers were on patrol.
It is the first time in recent memory that a presidential election, in which 47 million people are eligible to vote, taking place during a state of emergency, which was put in place after the Paris attacks of November 2015.
The vote "is really important, mainly because we really need a change in this country with all the difficulties we are facing and terrorism," said Paris resident Alain Richaud, who was waiting to cast his vote.
Opinion polls point to a tight race among the four top contenders vying to get into the May 7 presidential runoff that will decide who becomes France's next head of state.
Polls suggest far-right nationalist Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, an independent centrist and former economy minister, were in the lead. But conservative Francois Fillon, a former prime minister, appeared to be closing the gap, as was far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon.
France's 10 percent unemployment, its lackluster economy and security issues topped concerns for the 47 million eligible voters.
Hard-line right-winger Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who rails against Europe, was the first of the presidential candidates to vote Sunday morning in his constituency in the leafy Paris suburbs. Far-left candidate Nathalie Arthaud cast her ballot soon after in the Paris suburb of Pantin.
Fillon will vote in Paris, but his wife — who's been handed preliminary charges for her role in the fake jobs scandal that rocked her husband's campaign — voted 250 155 miles away near their 14th century manor house in Sarthe.
If Le Pen or Melenchon win a spot in the summer’s runoff, it will be seen as a victory for the rising wave of populism reflected by the votes for Donald Trump and Brexit.
Macron and Fillon are committed to European unity and would reform labor rules.
Political campaigning was banned from midnight Friday hours ahead of polls opening in France's far-flung overseas territories such as Guadeloupe, French Polynesia and French Guiana, which all voted a day early Saturday.

Kim Jong Un party paradise: North Korean dictator's resort revealed as his people starve

These aerial pictures show Kim Jong Un’s party island– dubbed ‘North Korea’s Ibiza’ – where the nuke-loving dictator entertains his cronies and plots world domination just like a James Bond villain.
The sprawling resort comprises of luxury villas dotted around Kim’s giant private palace on a wooded estate on the east coast of the hermit nation.
GAS STATIONS IN NORTH KOREA'S MAIN CITY RESTRICT SERVICES, SPECULATION THAT CHINA IS REDUCING SUPPLY
As millions of North Koreans starve, the despot’s guests – members of the nation’s political elite – dine on the finest imported food like lobsters, scallops and French cheeses and wash it down with bottles of champagne, fine wines, whisky and brandy.
Former Chicago Bulls basketball star Dennis Rodman – who has struck up a bizarre friendship with the dictator – was a guest at the private retreat.
Rodman, who experts claim has had more contact with the tyrant than any other American, talked about the party resort comparing it to Spanish island Ibiza.He said: “It’s like going to Hawaii or Ibiza, but he’s the only one that lives there.
“He’s got 50 to 60 people around him all the time – just normal people, drinking cocktails and laughing the whole time.
“If you drink a bottle of tequila, it’s the best tequila.
“Everything you want, he has the best.”
Guests of Kim are given rooms decorated with imported antique furniture, paintings and tapestries.
His seaside party pad – close to the port of Wonson – has its own marina and secluded bays patrolled 24 hours a day by heavily armed troops.

North Korea threatens to strike US aircraft carrier to show 'military's force'

North Korea threatened Sunday to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier to demonstrate its military prowess as two Japanese navy ship joined a U.S. strike group for exercises in the Philippine Sea.
“Our revolutionary forces are combat-ready to sink a U.S. nuclear powered aircraft carrier with a single strike," according to North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party’s newspaper, the Rodong Sinmum.
The paper also likened the USS Carl Vinson to a “gross animal” and said a strike on the carrier would be “an actual example to show our military’s force.”
President Trump ordered the USS Carl Vinson to sail to waters off the Korean Peninsula in response to the rising tensions over Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile tests and threats to attack the U.S. and its allies. Vice President Pence said Saturday that group would arrive “within days.”
The Vinson and two other U.S. warships were joined by two Japanese destroyers as they continued their journey north in the western Pacific Ocean, the U.S. Navy said in a statement. The U.S. group also includes a guided-missile cruiser and a guided-missile destroyer.
The aircraft carrier had canceled a scheduled visit to Australia to divert toward North Korea in a show of force, though it still conducted a curtailed training exercise with Australia before doing so.
The Navy called the exercise "routine" and said it is designed to improve combined maritime response and defense capabilities, as well as joint maneuvering proficiency.
The Vinson group has conducted three previous bilateral exercises with the Japanese navy since leaving San Diego on Jan. 5 for a western Pacific deployment. The most recent one was in March.
Analysts believe that North Korea could be gearing up for its sixth nuclear test in wake of a failed missile launch and ahead of the 85th anniversary of the founding of the Korean People’s Army, which takes place Tuesday.
North Korea conducted two of its five nuclear tests last year and is believed to be working to develop nuclear-tipped missiles that could reach the mainland U.S.

Bill O’Reilly statement blasts far-left ‘brutal campaign of character assassination’

An attorney for Fox News host Bill O’Reilly released a statement Tuesday blaming “far-left” organizations for a smear campaign against him, saying that he’ll be revealing evidence of his claim.
“Bill O’Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America,” the statement from attorney Marc Kasowitz read.
The statement appeared to be in reference to the accusations of sexual harassment against O’Reilly, who is on vacation this week from his show. In recent weeks, he’s been assailed by protests and a social media campaign that has forced his show to hemorrhage dozens of advertisers.
“This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons,” the statement concluded. “That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable.”
The statement offered no evidence of the claim it made.
CNN reported Tuesday that their sources claimed O’Reilly and Fox News were already in talks about his exit from the network.
The  campaign to get rid of  O’Reilly from the air began when the New York Times revealed a report saying he and Fox News had settled lawsuits to the tune of $13 million. O’Reilly responded by saying that he had settled in order to protect his children from a rancorous court battle had he chosen to fight the allegations.
But his case wasn’t aided by yet another accuser making sexual harassment claims against him Tuesday.

21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch Leftist?

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a critic of Fox News, weighed in in the controversy saying that O’Reilly should go to jail over the sexual harassment charges.

 Leftist Democrat

Document suggests Media Matters is behind O’Reilly advertiser exodus

An email obtained by conservative radio host Glenn Beck suggests that progressive media watchdog group Media Matters orchestrated the advertiser exodus from embattled Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s program.

“For years,” the email begins, “Bill O’Reilly has been one of the worst purveyors of misinformation on Fox News. A serial misinformer, pushing many of the most extreme, sexist, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic conservative theories on TV.”
The correspondence was written by Mary Pat Bonner, president of the Bonner Group.  According to the New York Times, Bonner served as a “donor adviser” to former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Through her firm, Bonner connects big money donors to liberal groups seeking donations. Bonner’s contracts give her company a sizable commission — around 12.5 percent — on any money she brings in. In addition to Clinton, the Bonner Group has also advised Media Matters and the American Bridge super PAC.
“The Bonner Group gets us the best fundraising product for the lowest cost,” David Brock, founder of Media Matters and American Bridge, told the Times. “In my experience, the commission incentivizes the fundraiser to meet the ambitious goals we set.”
In the email, which was sent April 13, Bonner heralds the success of her firm and Media Matters’ “advertiser education campaign” against O’Reilly.
“We are currently at a critical juncture in this campaign,” she wrote, before inviting recipients to join a couple of “update calls” on Thursday and Friday.
Bonner’s email was revealed just hours after one of O’Reilly’s lawyers, Marc Kasowitz, claimed that the Fox anchor “has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America.”
“This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons,” he continued. “That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable.”
Dozens of advertisers have pulled their commercials from O’Reilly’s 8 p.m. time slot in the weeks since the Times reported that O’Reilly and 21st Century Fox, Fox News’ parent company, have settled to the tune of $13 million with at least five women who have accused the network host of sexual harassment.
And according to Media Matters, the number of brands that have shifted ads away from “The O’Reilly Factor” has topped 80, “with dozens more quietly taking the action or keeping them off in the first place.”
Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters,  said “many expect more women will come forward” with allegations against O’Reilly. He also asserted Fox News Co-President Bill Shine “will go too.” Carusone offered no evidence to support either claim.
“What’s happening now is a giant smear campaign, and they work,” Beck said on his radio program Wednesday morning, later adding that the left is “splitting the conservative movement and they’re taking the bear out of the door.”
The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by News Corp, a media conglomeration founded by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch, reported Tuesday night that the news network is preparing to sever ties with O’Reilly.
The Journal’s report comes the week after news broke that 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch was reportedly ready to cut O’Reilly, who is on vacation until April 24. However, at the time, Rupert Murdoch, James’ father, and 21st Century Fox Co-Chairman Lachlan Murdoch, James’ older brother, were “more inclined” to stand by the host.
But now it appears the Murdochs are nearing a unanimous decision. And in Beck’s mind, it’s all about money — not principles.
“They’re making the decision based on money, and money has nothing to do with principle,” he said, after earlier telling listeners he “would not be saying this if I had personal information” that the accusations against O’Reilly were true.
If the harassment claims end up being true, Beck said he would be “highly disappointed” with O’Reilly. “If there is evidence that something happened, that’s something different,” he said.

Fox News after Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly

That is the billion-dollar question surely on the mind of James Murdoch, the chief executive officer of 21st Century Fox, who is slowly but surely taking over his father's company and seeking to impose order on its most controversial asset.

Fox News supplies more than $1 billion in profit to 21st Century Fox each year, accounting for roughly 20% of its total profits. It does so largely by stoking America's partisan divides and preying on conservative anxieties -- an editorial approach Murdoch has never been entirely comfortable with, according to sources close to him.
But if you think Murdoch's discomfort will cause him to change Fox News' programming and risk tampering with the company's cash cow, think again, sources with knowledge of his thinking say.
Even with Ailes and O'Reilly out, the network looks set to stay the course as a conservative juggernaut. If anything, Fox News looks likely to become more conservative, and more friendly to President Trump, than it is now.


Replacing O'Reilly in the 8 p.m. hour is Tucker Carlson, who delights in criticizing and arguing with liberals and exposing what he sees as inconsistencies of the left-wing worldview. In the first 100 days of Trump's presidency, he has been a staunch Trump defender.
Moving to the 9 p.m. hour are the co-hosts of "The Five," the roundtable opinion program on which conservative co-hosts outnumber their liberal foils. The show's new co-host is Jesse Watters, who hosted an often controversial segment on O'Reilly's show in which he ambushed unsuspecting interviewees and, in some cases, made fun of their ethnicity.
Sean Hannity, the most unabashed and outspoken Trump cheerleader on cable news, will continue to host his show at 10 p.m. Indeed, with O'Reilly out, Hannity has become Fox's most valuable player and the man the company can't afford to lose.
Many speculated that Megyn Kelly would become the face of the network, ushering in a less partisan, more news-focused era. Kelly's departure to NBC News put the kibosh on that idea, but the more down-the-middle Fox never really made sense, because its value comes from being the only game in town for cable-watching conservatives. Indeed, it was never actually the plan, according to sources at the company.
By the same token, predictions that O'Reilly's viewers will abandon the network are likely exaggerated. It will undoubtedly be hard for Carlson to match O'Reilly's ratings. But he's already been a major ratings draw since replacing Megyn Kelly at 9 p.m. earlier this year after she left for NBC.


Moreover, if you're a 72-year-old conservative who likes to watch conservative opinion at night -- the median O'Reilly viewer was 72 -- where else are you going to go? Your choices are news (CNN's Anderson Cooper) or liberal opinion (MSNBC's Rachel Maddow). Carlson may not be O'Reilly, but the opinions he'll offer are more or less the same.
Ten years ago, Murdoch told the journalist Michael Wolff, "Fox [News] is an important brand, but it needs to develop, and, to some extent, be reformed."
That was before Fox News was making 21st Century Fox more than $1 billion a year. And if Murdoch did not reform Fox News in the last decade, there is little reason to believe he'll do it now.

Bill O’Reilly Going To Continue With His Tour

Millions of Fox News supporters were enraged to hear that political host Bill O’Reilly was let go from the station. This was in response to numerous sexual assault allegations that several women brought upon him. These allegations came with no proof and are very shady at best. These need to be investigated thoroughly to see if the truth can be found. It is too late for Bill O’Reilly to continue on Fox News, but he is far from done.

It was reported by The Hollywood Reporter that Bill O’Reilly will still go on with his “The Spin Stops Here Tour,” even though many arenas are trying to cancel it. The tour will begin in New York City on June 17th with two shows. They are both sold out and will have Dennis Miller and Jesse Watters as comedians.
The tickets currently go at $65 for a standard ticket and $500 for a VIP on Ticketmaster.
After New York City, he has many other dates planned. He will go to the NYCB Theatre at Westbury in New York. He will then go to Baltimore, Tampa, Las Vegas and Anaheim. But there is now a liberal petition that is trying to get the entire thing cancelled. This is exactly what the liberals are trying to do to Bill. They want to destroy his entire life and if he is not careful, they will. They are backed by many powerful liberal elites.

Care2 manager Julie Mastrine said she cannot say how far they will go.
“There are no plans for protests now, but we will not rule it out, either. We have not delivered the signatures yet, so it is impossible to say.”
Bill O’Reilly needs your prayers now more than ever before. He needs your support. Are you sick and tired of these hateful liberals?

Wave of Illegals Cartoons

Backlash

Justice Dept threatens sanctuary cities in immigration fight

Little Dutch Boy trying to plug the dam leak with a finger?

Dam Leak.

The Trump administration intensified its threats to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration authorities, warning nine jurisdictions Friday that they may lose coveted law enforcement grant money unless they document cooperation.
It sent letters to officials in California and major cities including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and New Orleans, all places the Justice Department's inspector general has identified as limiting the information local law enforcement can provide to federal immigration authorities about those in their custody.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has warned that the administration will punish communities that refuse to cooperate with efforts to find and deport immigrants in the country illegally. But some of the localities remained defiant, despite risking the loss of funds that police agencies use to pay for everything from body cameras to bulletproof vests.
"We're not going to cave to these threats," Milwaukee County Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic said, promising a legal fight if the money is pulled.
CALIFORNIA GOP MOVES FORWARD WITH PLAN TO PUNISH SANCTUARY CITIES

Expand / Contract

Attorney General Sessions speaks after he and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly toured the ports of entry and met with Department of Justice and DHS personnel in El Paso, Texas, Thursday, April 20, 2017. (Ruben R. Ramirez/The El Paso Times via AP)

Playing off Sessions' recent comments that sanctuary cities undermine the fight against gangs, the Justice Department said the communities under financial threat are "crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime."
After a raid led to the arrests of 11 MS-13 gang members in California's Bay Area "city officials seemed more concerned with reassuring illegal immigrants that the raid was unrelated to immigration than with warning other MS-13 members that they were next," the department said in a statement.
The federal law in question says state and local governments may not prohibit police or sheriffs from sharing information about a person's immigration status with federal authorities.
The money could be withheld in the future, or terminated, if local officials fail to prove they are following the law, wrote Alan R. Hanson, acting head of the Office of Justice Programs. The grant program is the leading source of federal justice funding to states and local communities.
Kevin de Leon, leader of California's state Senate, rejected the administration's demand, saying its policies are based on "principles of white supremacy" and not American values.

Expand / Contract

FILE - In this Jan. 25, 2017 file photo, a woman holds a sign at a rally outside of City Hall in San Francisco. The Trump administration is moving beyond rhetoric in its effort to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The Justice Department is forcing nine communities to prove they are complying with an immigration law to continue receiving coveted law enforcement grant money. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File) (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

"Their constant and systematic targeting of diverse cities and states goes beyond constitutional norms and will be challenged at every level," he said.
Leaders in Chicago and Cook County, which shared a grant of more than $2.3 million in 2016, dismissed the threat. So did the mayor's office in New York City, which received $4.3 million. The Justice Department singled out Chicago's rise in homicides and said New York's gang killings were the "predictable consequence of the city's soft-on-crime stance."
"This grandstanding shows how out of touch the Trump administration is with reality," said Seith Stein, a spokesman for the New York City mayor's office, calling the comments "alternative facts." Crime is low thanks to policies that encourage police cooperation with immigrant communities, he said.
The jurisdictions also include Clark County, Nevada; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
They were singled out in a May 2016 report by the Justice Department's inspector general that found local policies or rules could interfere with providing information to immigration agents. Following the report, the Obama administration warned cities that they could miss out on grant money if they did not comply with the law, but it never actually withheld funds.
The report pointed to a Milwaukee County rule that immigration detention requests be honored only if the person has been convicted of one felony or two misdemeanors, has been charged with domestic violence or drunken driving, is a gang member, or is on a terrorist watch list, among other constraints.
It also took issue with a New Orleans Police Department policy that it said might hinder communication with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That city received nearly $266,000 in grant money through the program in fiscal year 2016. New Orleans has used Justice Department funding to pay for testing DNA kits, police body cameras, attorneys for domestic violence victims and other expenses.
Zach Butterworth, Mayor Mitch Landrieu's executive counsel and director of federal relations, said the city drafted its policies in consultation with federal immigration and Homeland Security officials. It was reviewing the Justice Department's letter.
"We don't think there's a problem," he said.
Butterworth said the New Orleans Police Department has seen a 28 percent drop in calls for service from people with limited English since November.
"People are scared, and because of that, they're less willing to report crime," Butterworth added.
Other places also insisted they were in compliance. Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, the elected head of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said the city and county were wrongly labeled sanctuary cities.
Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele said that community is hardly succumbing to violence.
"Milwaukee County has its challenges but they are not caused by illegal immigration," he said in a statement. "My far greater concern is the proactive dissemination of misinformation, fear, and intolerance."