California Assembly OKs plan for March presidential primary

The only problem Texans have with Californians moving to Texas is that they bring their stupid ideas of government with them. Look what they've done to their state, Don't mess with Texas.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. –  The California Assembly has voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the nation's most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.

The bill approved Friday will now go to the state Senate where it's expected to pass. Gov. Jerry Brown has not said whether he'll sign it.

The bill would move the presidential primary to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March -- three months earlier than the June contest held in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were already the presumptive nominees.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

A March primary would likely fall on so-called "Super Tuesday," when roughly a dozen states typically vote following the early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and several other states.
"Candidates will have to spend more time in California," said Democratic Assemblyman Kevin Mullin of San Francisco.
An earlier primary could give an edge to well-funded candidates.
California is home to 11 media markets, making it expensive to campaign.
It's easier for candidates with limited money to compete alongside financial heavy-hitters in early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. In 2016, for example, John Kasich took second in New Hampshire with limited money, while Jeb Bush, who had more than $100 million, placed fourth.
"The cost of playing in California versus playing in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina is incredibly different," said Mike Biundo, Republican Rick Santorum's 2012 campaign manager who later worked for Kasich and Trump. "A Jeb Bush or a Hillary Clinton, I think, have the advantage if California is earlier."
An earlier primary, especially one held on Super Tuesday, wouldn't mean every candidate will spend more time in the state. In 2016, for example, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Virginia and eight other states voted that day.
And it doesn't ensure the political relevance that California lawmakers crave. The last time California voted early -- in February 2008 -- the state backed Clinton, but Barack Obama went on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
California's last truly relevant presidential primary was perhaps in 1972, when George McGovern defeated Hubert Humphrey on McGovern's way to winning the Democratic nomination.
Michael Schroeder, Republican Ted Cruz's California political director in 2016, said it's too early in the political calendar to predict the impact of an earlier primary in 2020.
"Right now, California is completely irrelevant for picking presidents. We didn't pick Hillary (Clinton) and we didn't pick (President Donald) Trump," he said, referring to 2016 contests that were essentially settled before the state voted.
Changing the date "will make us at least somewhat relevant; it could make us very relevant," he said.
The Republican and Democratic national committees have not yet set rules for the 2020 contests, including the preferred primary calendar and delegates awarded to each state. Depending on rules set, other states could attempt to leapfrog ahead of California, pushing the entire primary season earlier.
California historically awards more delegates than any other state.
California may also become the first state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the state ballot. Lawmakers sent Brown a bill Friday requiring candidates to publicly share five years of returns; he hasn't said if he'll sign it.
President Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 sparked similar legislation in dozens of states from New Jersey to Hawaii. The documents reveal income sources, tax exemptions, charitable donations and potential financial conflicts of interest. Until Trump, every major presidential candidates has released his or hers for decades.

North Korea Cartoons

A war with North Korea -- the American people aren't ready

When it comes to North Korea, much digital ink as has been spilled by yours truly on these very pages concerning the dangers and challenges ahead—demonstrated by North Korea’s latest missile launch—when it comes to dealing with and deterring the so-called “hermit kingdom.”

So, let me spare you hours of reading countless articles, op-eds, and tweets.

To be honest, there is only one thing you really need to know: A war with North Korea—meaning a full-blown, all out conflict where nuclear, chemical, biological and large amounts of conventional weapons are used—would be a war like no other.
Such a conflict would be nothing like the First Gulf War, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, the Second Gulf War or Libya.

One way to achieve such a result would be a North Korean attack on South Korea’s vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Remember Chernobyl or the nuclear tragedy in Japan a few years ago? Well Pyongyang could weaponize such a disaster with ease.

Oh no, this would be an epic conflict where millions of people on the Korean Peninsula, in Japan and even in the U.S. homeland could lose their lives in the most horrific of ways.
Some might call such talk fear-mongering. But I call it reality—and we need to face up to it. Now.
Imagine large cities like Seoul, Tokyo, and perhaps Los Angeles turned to atomic ash before it’s all over. Imagine the millions of internally and externally displaced refugees whose lives would be destroyed from the sheer carnage. Then, imagine the trillions of dollars needed to put back together the economics pieces, to say nothing of the hopes and dreams of countless millions of people that would be wiped out in a nuclear nightmare that seems almost unthinkable.
Accept this nightmare is all too real.
And thanks to administration after administration—Democrat and Republican—who decided taking on North Korea was just not worth the risk, who thought patience, appeasement or bribery were better choices, we now face a crisis with no easy solution.
While I have already gone into specific detail over just how horrific just a conflict would be thanks to war games I have conducted over the years, such a war would be waged on many different fronts and have many pathways towards a humanitarian disaster that this planet has not seen in decades.
For example, North Korea does not need to launch a full-out nuclear attack on America and its allies to kill scores of people—it just needs to get a little creative.
One way to achieve such a result would be a North Korean attack on South Korea’s vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Remember Chernobyl or the nuclear tragedy in Japan a few years ago? Well Pyongyang could weaponize such a disaster with ease.
Seoul operates 24 nuclear power plants that could all come under North Korean attack. And while these plants are relatively far from the north, Kim Jong Un does not have to be a military mastermind to conceive of a way to destroy such nuclear reactors, spreading atomic materials across the Korean Peninsula and into Northeast Asia. With many of these facilities lumped together, Pyongyang could fire a salvo of missiles at these plants with devastating impact.
Or, Kim could utilize his special forces who could infiltrate the south from tunnels or who could already be in place, launching terror attacks against such facilities. If North Korea were to destroy just a few reactors, imagine multiple Chernobyl-style nuclear disasters while South Korean and U.S. forces are trying to fight North Korea’s other forces. With millions of people trying to flee the inevitable radioactive fallout, fear might just be Kim Jong Un’s best weapon.
Considering the dangers America and its allies face, the Trump Administration needs to do all it can to contain the North Korea threat. As I have said on a few occasions here, our best strategy is to eliminate any possible funds going into North Korea, driving up the costs for Kim to deploy his military assets and develop new even more dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
Team Trump should begin by asking for a new and much more robust sanctions package at the UN—something that makes Pyongyang finally pay for its risky actions. As an oil embargo is unlikely to pass and could destabilize the regime—something that could be even worse than a war—North Korea should be stopped from exporting its slave labor that it uses to make important hard currency, currency that of course goes into funding its military machine. Such a practice is nothing but revolting, and should have never been allowed in the first place.
President Trump should also announce that any entity that is caught helping the North Koreans evade sanctions, whether it’s Chinese banks or businesses or any private firm or entity from any nation, would be immediately banned from doing any business in the U.S.
In fact, President Trump should embrace a bipartisan bill crafted by Senators Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Cory Gardner, R-Colo., Ed Markey, D-Mass., Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, called the North Korean Enablers Accountability Act. The bill, if passed, would “ban any entity that does business with North Korea or its enablers from using the United States financial system, and impose U.S. sanctions on all those participating in North Korean labor trafficking abuses.” The president should push for such legislation to be passed without delay, but include a 30-day grace period so such entities could be given a chance to halt their activities. But after that, it’s time these entities suffer for enabling a regime that has as many as 200,000 in prison camps and treats their citizens like prisoners.
But whatever the Trump Administration decides to do—they need to do it now. Letting North Korea slip off our collective national security radar once again for whatever the other challenge of the day is would be a big mistake. We could end up paying for such a mistake with countless innocent American lives—a tragedy we have the power to avoid.
Harry J. Kazianis (@grecianformula) is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by former President Richard M. Nixon. Click here, for more on Mr. Kazianis.

Berkeley Republican student: Lessons from life-threatening moments as a conservative on a liberal campus

As my campus at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) “braces” itself for an appearance by conservative Ben Shapiro, I am taking a step back to think about all the moments and highlights that I have faced while being a vocal conservative in a liberal atmosphere. Now that I am a senior I am beginning to realize the crucial points that not every average conservative would or should ever face in his or her lifetime. With some of these moments being described as life-threatening, I have experienced it all through the radicalism of UCB.

The first time my life was actually threatened was on the evening of February 1, 2017. I still remember sitting on the top floor of the Martin Luther King Building where Milo Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak, thinking about how my colleagues and I were ever going to get out of there, while outside the protestors were throwing anything they could grab at the windows. Even the cops who were being paid $10,000 in security fees were astounded at the sheer chaos that had formed outside the building in the form of Antifa, BAMN (By Any Means Necessary), student, and other civilian protestors. Even after the cops had created a window for us to escape out of the back of the building, I remember being followed by one shady figure who only stopped following me after I turned around to confront him. Even then, the stranger didn’t leave me alone until he had his fill of yelling at me and calling me a “fascist, white supremist asshole.” I am in fact, Chinese and Cuban if anyone was wondering.

Even then, the stranger didn’t leave me alone until he had his fill of yelling at me and calling me a “fascist, white supremist asshole.” I am in fact, Chinese and Cuban if anyone was wondering.

I also remember how several members after that event advised the club that they were going to keep their heads low and avoid any attention for a little while, fearing for their personal safety. However, the rest of us decided that we were going to trudge on, determined to not give up on our commitment to providing a conservative voice at UCB no matter the costs. That was why I joined the Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) and why I chose to fight alongside the president at that time, Jose Marine Diaz, because I respected his commitment to the club and to its members.
After the moment on Feburary 1, my colleagues and I were consistently harassed and attacked at random times and places. Our signs were either destroyed or stolen, members of our club had been hit by people on bikes, our lists of new members had been stolen and the people on those lists had gotten threatening emails, along with the daily routine of spit, curse words, middle-fingers, and screaming. Nevertheless, we each looked out for one another, having each other’s backs, and making sure we all made it home safe and sound at the end of the day.
However, all good things must come to an end, unfortunately. Nowadays, the insincere attempts of UCB and the new leadership board of BCR to cooperate have made way for more extreme environments of political polarization, pushing regular people to plan controversial rallies on the weekends where they eventually physically clash with one another. BCR members who call themselves the champions of free speech act as though they are the reincarnations of Mario Salvo (a Berkeley Free Speech founding father, you might say), and that they live in constant fear of being arrested for speaking their minds. This is meant to get normal, conservative citizens upset. So upset, that in some cases they lash out against fellow Americans who believe in different political ideas.
This is the problem with groups on the left as well. Antifa and BAMN are so hopelessly set in their ways that they seem to forget that the people they are attacking are fellow American citizens. Instead, they see them as Nazis, bigots, fascists, racists, etc., all because they were told to think that way.
The hoopla that surrounds such events like the hosting of Yiannopoulos or Shapiro must be ignored. It is chaos for the sake of chaos where the only ones who benefit started the chaos, while the people stuck in the chaos destroy each other. The end result is more centrist conservatives like myself being stalked and harassed on our way home. The only way the senseless fighting at these rallies and events are going to truly end is when people start to realize how unimportant and ineffectual the fighting really is, and that the ones telling you that you should get angry and that you should riot are simply acting rash and should be called out for their destructive behaviors, not celebrated.
Jonathan Chow is a second-generation immigrant who grew up in Miami, Florida. His mother was born in Havana, Cuba and his father in Canton, China – both fled to the US as teenagers. He is a student at UC Berkeley majoring in early modern intellectual history.

Ben Shapiro speech at UC Berkeley results in arrests at protests

Idiots

At least nine people were arrested Thursday night related to protests at the University of California, Berkeley, over an appearance by former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said the security measures could cost $600,000. Mogulof called the speech "a successful event" and said the university was committed to hosting speakers like Shapiro in the future.

The evening did have its share of hiccups. Police said three arrests were weapons-related. Among them:
-- Hannah Benjamin, 20, was arrested for battery on a police officer and carrying a banned weapon.
-- Sarah Roark, 44, was taken into custody for carrying a banned weapon.
The arrests were announced on the police Twitter account.
The demonstrators, however, were largely peaceful. Some chanted against fascism, white supremacists and President Donald Trump. Others were holed up inside a student building, waving signs protesting the university's decision to allow Shapiro on campus.
Inside the hall, Shapiro addressed a friendly crowd. He encouraged people to hold civil discussions with people who have different opinions, saying that's what America is all about. He condemned white supremacists as "a very small select group of absolutely terrible people who believe absolutely terrible things."
The campus and surrounding Berkeley streets were under tight security after a series of previous events turned violent.
City and campus officials anticipated protests against Shapiro, and prepared for possible violence with a variety of new strategies and tightened security. It was not immediately clear whether the people arrested Thursday were protesters.
The Berkeley College Republicans invited right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to speak last February, but the event was abruptly canceled when masked left-wing anarchists rioted outside the event to shut it down.
A planned speech by author Ann Coulter was canceled in April.
Police with riot gear surrounded the plaza outside Zellerbach Hall, where Shapiro spoke.
For the first time in two decades, officers were armed with pepper spray after the city council modified a 1997 ban at an emergency meeting this week.
"We have seen extremists on the left and right in our city," said Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, a Democrat who backed the police request to use pepper spray. "We need to make sure violence is not allowed."

Ben Shapiro speaks at UC Berkeley despite arrests and protests

Conservative star Ben Shapiro spoke at the University of California at Berkeley on Thursday night amid extraordinary security measures – costing around $600,000 – prompted by fears of an outburst by violent agitators possibly descending on the campus.

All the precautiuons were to ensure that the 33-year-old conservative could deliver a speech on a college campus that was home to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. The scene was a stark change from Shapiro’s 2016 UC Berkeley talk, where the security costs were minimal.

“No violence, no nothing. And now we are spending well into six figures so that I can say many of the same things. It's utterly absurd,” Shapiro told the audience Thursday.
Metal detectors, concrete barriers and police barricades put the campus on effective lockdown.
“Conservatives here have done something amazing. They’ve achieved something incredible,” he added. “If you look outside, there’s K-bar everywhere. They’ve built basically these structures to keep Antifa from invading the premises.
"So that means Berkeley has achieved building a wall before Donald Trump did.”
Local police officers, who were allowed to use pepper spray against violent demonstrators after receiving approval this week from the Berkeley city council, arrested at least three people armed with weapons before the event, reiterating that no weapons are allowed near campus.
But the violent protesters known as Antifa, or “anti-fascists” – spooked by the security – did not show up to shut down Shapiro’s speech in their usual fashion and instead were allegedly in the audience challenging him, the Washington Times reported.
The talk by Shapiro -- author of the bestsellers "Brainwashed," "Porn Generation" and "Project President" -- was met with resistance mostly from Berkeley students who were heard chanting, “Speech is violent, we will not be silent!” and accusing Shapiro, an observant Orthodox Jew, of being a white supremacist or neo-Nazi.
“Thanks to Antifa and the supposed anti-fascist brigade for exposing what the radical left truly is,” he told the massive audience, despite a last-minute decision by the university to reportedly seize all unclaimed tickets to prevent entry to late-ticket buyers.
“All of America is watching because you guys are so stupid. It's horrifying, I am grateful, and you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses," he added.
He celebrated the police for ensuring the event occurred, saying “These are the folks that stand between civilization and lawlessness."
He added that “the only people who are standing between those ATMs and the Antifa are the police, and all they get from the left is a bunch of crap.”
The event remained cordial despite students’ disagreements with Shapiro, who was questioned on his views regarding abortion, economics and general politics. He was not interrupted by any protesters inside the venue.
In the speech aftermath, some more-confrontational protesters came out, shouting at the police officers and scuffling with counter-protesters.
Two more people were reportedly arrested – bringing the total number arrested to five.
Among the protesters was By All Means Necessary (BAMN) ringleader Yvette Felarca, who was recently arrested for allegedly inciting a riot, Fox News reported.
A crowd led by Felarca marched down a street, shouting “Nazi scum of our streets,” according to Berkleyside, while counter-protesters also marched down. The police had separated the two factions to ensure no large clashes occurred.

Schumer, Pelosi Cartoons

Pres. Trump Meets With Sen. Scott on Race Relations

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the only African-American Republican serving in the Senate, talks to reporters about his plan to meet with President Donald Trump to discuss race and Trump’s widely criticized response to last month’s protests and racial violence in Charlottesville, Va., at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In an effort to build relations and get a better understanding of African American issues, President Trump meets with South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
Scott is currently the only black Republican senator, and the pair discussed race issues in the wake of Charlottesville.
The one-on-one meeting Wednesday at the White House is also an effort by the president to unify the country.
They talked about issues facing African Americans, and how the president can continue to improve the lives of all people in the country.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders commented on the meeting, calling it productive.

Jemele Hill says 'white supremacist' comments 'painted ESPN in an unfair light'

ESPN host Jemele Hill took to Twitter on Wednesday evening “to address the elephant in the room,” after coming under fire Monday for calling President Donald Trump a “white supremacist.”   

“My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional,” Hill tweeted.

In a series of tweets Monday, Hill claimed Trump was “unqualified and unfit to be president,” and that “his rise is a direct result of white supremacy.”
The network responded Tuesday, saying Hill’s comments “do not represent the position of ESPN,” and that she “recognizes her actions were inappropriate."
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, meanwhile, said Wednesday that she believes Hill’s statements about the president constituted a “fireable offense.”
“That is one of the more outrageous comments that anybody could make and certainly is something that is a fireable offense by ESPN,” Sanders told reporters at the White House daily briefing.
Hill co-hosts the 6 p.m. broadcast of “SportsCenter” alongside Michael Smith, and has been on ESPN since 2013.
As of Wednesday, the tweets have not been deleted from Hill’s account.

Schumer, Pelosi say they have deal with Trump to protect 'Dreamers'

:-)

Democratic congressional leaders emerged from a meeting with President Donald Trump Wednesday vowing to pursue an agreement protecting immigrants who were brought illegally into the U.S. as children from deportation.

In a joint statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said they and Trump had "agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that's acceptable to both sides."

An estimated 800,000 young immigrants are currently covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which was formed by former President Barack Obama in 2012. Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced it was winding down the program over the next six months, putting pressure on Congress to pass a legislative solution.
A source briefed on the meeting confirmed to Fox News that Trump and the leaders agreed to pair the DREAM Act, which provides for giving young illegal immigrants eventual citizenship, with some measures enhancing border security. The source said that those measures do not include Trump's long-promised wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.
However, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders issued a tweet denying that the border wall was off the table. A Democratic aide familiar with the conversations told Fox News that Trump "was clear he would continue to fight for the wall separate from this agreement."
Prior to Sanders' tweet, the White House issued a statement describing the meeting as "constructive" and "a positive step toward the President's strong commitment to bipartisan solutions for the issues most important to all Americans." The statement added that the three had discussed "policy and legislative priorities," including "tax reform, border security, DACA, infrastructure and trade."
During a White House meeting with moderate House members from both parties earlier Wednesday, Trump had urged lawmakers to come up with a bipartisan solution.
"We don't want to forget DACA," Trump told the members at the meeting. "We want to see if we can do something in a bipartisan fashion so that we can solve the DACA problem and other immigration problems."
The apparent deal is the latest example of Trump's sudden pivot to bipartisanship after months of railing against Democrats as "obstructionist." He has urged them to join him in overhauling the nation's tax code, among other priorities.
Trump, who was deeply disappointed by Republicans' failure to pass a health care overhaul, infuriated many in his party when he reached a three-month deal with Schumer and Pelosi to raise the debt ceiling, keep the government running and speed relief to states affected by recent hurricanes.
"More and more we're trying to work things out together," Trump explained Wednesday, calling the development a "positive thing" for both parties.

"If you look at some of the greatest legislation ever passed, it was done on a bipartisan manner. And so that's what we're going to give a shot," he said.
The "Kumbaya" moment now appears to extend to the thorny issue of immigration, which has been vexing lawmakers for years.
Funding for Trump's promised wall had been thought to be a major point of contention between Republicans and Democrats as they attempted to forge a deal.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who also sat down with Pelosi to talk immigration Wednesday, told the Associated Press that deporting the so-called "Dreamers" was "not in our nation's interest," and said the president had "made the right call."
"I wanted him to give us time. I didn't want this to be rescinded on Day One and create chaos," Ryan said, arguing the time would allow Congress to "come up with the right kind of consensus and compromise to fix this problem."

White House disputes Schumer, Pelosi's border wall claim

Well, at least that's solved.

Two top Democrats emerged Wednesday from dinner at the White House with President Donald Trump saying the meal was “very productive."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement that Trump agreed to protect so-called "Dreamers" and agreed to terms on border security -- "excluding the wall."
Shortly after their statement, the White House issued one of its own. Trump indeed had a productive meal with the Democrats, but the exclusion of the border wall "was certainly not agreed to."
Pelosi's Twitter account still has a pinned tweet that reads: "Trump’s cowardice is on full display today. His cruelty must not stand! #ProtectDREAMERS."
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said earlier Wednesday that Trump was “committed to the wall. It doesn’t have to be tied to DACA, but it's important and he will get it done.” (DACA refers to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program through which the children of illegal immigrants have been allowed to stay in the U.S.)
Matt House, Schumer’s communications director, responded on Twitter: “The President made clear he would continue pushing the wall, just not as part of this agreement.”
The New York Times cited a White House official who said Trump pushed for border wall funding at the meeting.
Beside the border wall issue, the Democrats said Trump agreed to enshrine protections for the nearly 800,000 immigrants brought illegally to this country as kids who had benefited from the DACA program.
Trump ended the program earlier this month and gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix before the statuses of the so-called Dreamers begin to expire.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, who also sat down with Pelosi to talk immigration Wednesday, said in an interview that deporting the so-called Dreamers was “not in our nation’s interest,” and said the president had “made the right call.”
“I wanted him to give us time. I didn’t want this to be rescinded on Day One and create chaos,” Ryan said, arguing the time would allow Congress to “come up with the right kind of consensus and compromise to fix this problem.”
The dinner took place in the White House’s Blue Room, sources told Fox News. The Congress members sat at a rectangular table with Trump at the head with Pelosi to his right, and Schumer to his left. Eleven people were in the room, sources said. The first half-hour addressed trade issues with China.
The meeting between the three came shortly after Trump overruled congressional Republicans and cut a deal with Democrats to raise the federal debt ceiling for three months. Some conservatives criticized the deal as a capitulation by Trump.
Trump, however, appears to see bipartisanship as a key to get legislation out of the starting gate.
“More and more we’re trying to work things out together,” Trump explained Wednesday, calling the development a “positive thing” for both parties.
“Some of the greatest legislation ever passed, it was done on a bipartisan manner. And so that is why we’re going to give it a shot,” Trump said.
Fox News' Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

Bringing Down America Cartoons

Kid Rock opens Detroit's new arena, blocks newspaper from attending

Rocker-turned-maybe-politician Kid Rock retaliated this week after a Detroit media outlet published a “f----- up story” saying Rock didn't deserve to open the city's new taxpayer-funded sports arena because of his racist attitudes.

Rock denied the Detroit Free Press a press pass to attend Tuesday night's opening gig at the $862 million Little Caesars Arena.

A Free Press columnist had written that Rock represented a “middle finger to Detroiters” when he was chosen to perform the opening concert. The move signaled that people of color would not be welcome in the arena, the Detroit Free Press columnist opined.
Stephen Henderson, a Free Press editorial page editor, wrote that when “divisive performer Kid Rock” was chosen to open the arena, “it sent a message to the Detroiters who made the project possible and who have yet to see the benefits promised. It's a message that's not too far off those Jim Crow-era signs warning that blacks weren't welcome.
“This is a musician who got rich off crass cultural appropriation of black music, who used to wrap his brand in the Confederate flag — a symbol inextricably linked to racism, no matter what its defenders say,” he added.
According to the Free Press, the negative article about Kid Rock was not the paper’s position but an opinion article reflecting the views of an individual writer.
But the explanation was not sufficient for Rock’s publicist, Kirt Webster, who slammed the publication after being asked for a quote, saying: “You guys wrote a f----- up story and allowed it to be published. You want a quote, there it is.”
“To be published without doing any fact-checking on what Kid Rock has done for the city of Detroit? We don't condone bad behavior. We won't reward bad behavior,” he added.
Early Monday, the artist vented on social media and attacked his critics, claiming he will focus his philanthropic work on charities that defended him.
“They are trying to use the old confederate flag BS, etc., to stir the pot, when we all know none of this would be going on if I were not thinking of running for office,” he wrote, asking his fans to “pay no attention to the garbage the extreme left is trying to create.” (Rock had previously flirted with the idea of running for a U.S. Senate seat from Michigan.)
He added: “I am however very disappointed that none of the people, businesses or charities I have so diligently supported in Detroit have had anything to say about all these unfounded attacks from these handful of jackasses and the Detroit Free Press.
“So for the unforeseen future I will focus my philanthropy efforts on other organizations besides the ones I have supported in the past.”
As for the show, the Free Press described Tuesday's event as a "rowdy, defiant initiation," and noted in a separate story that about 200 protesters demonstrated outside the venue.

GOP senator wants full transcripts from Comey staffer interviews

Sen. Ron Johnson is demanding full transcripts from interviews the Office of Special Counsel conducted with former FBI staffers for James Comey, becoming the latest lawmaker to dig deeper after the documents raised questions about the bureau’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email case and the ex-director’s statements to Congress.

The White House on Monday accused Comey of giving “false testimony,” and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News last week he wants Comey to return to Capitol Hill – saying “I smell a rat.”

Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, made his request for the full, un-redacted transcripts in a letter to Acting Special Counsel Adam Miles.
“The Committee has conducted oversight of the FBI’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email system. The information in OSC’s possession could further explain the scope, course, and nature of the FBI’s investigation,” Johnson wrote on Sept. 8.
The transcripts were from interviews conducted by the OSC with James Rybicki, Comey’s former chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyber law. The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier received redacted transcripts of the interviews, revealing last month that they include claims that Comey “wrote a draft” of an "exoneration statement" for Clinton around early May 2016.
This would have been well before the bureau's early July interview with Clinton.
NEW PRESSURE ON COMEY TO RETURN TO CAPITOL HILL, AS WHITE HOUSE ACCUSES HIM OF 'FALSE TESTIMONY'
Johnson said the full transcripts “may shed light” on the FBI’s decision-making process during their investigation, the FBI’s interactions with other federal entities, and the FBI’s “distinction” between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence,” when referring to Clinton’s handling of her private email server.
Comey ultimately accused Clinton of being extremely careless in her handling of her personal email and server while secretary of state, but recommended against criminal charges. The claim that he drafted an exoneration statement weeks before Clinton was interviewed, however, raised questions about the bureau's handling of the case -- and about Comey's prior testimony.
Comey in June said one of the big reasons he spoke out on the case was concern over then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s infamous meeting days earlier on an Arizona tarmac with former President Bill Clinton. He also testified a year ago that he made the decision not to seek charges after the Clinton interview.
Some Republicans want Comey to return to Capitol Hill to testify and clarify his past statements. Just Monday, the White House slammed Comey’s testimony as “false.”
The interviews with Rybicki and Anderson were part of an OSC investigation into whether Comey violated the Hatch Act in October 2016. Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, requested an investigation after complaining that Comey may have influenced the election by telling Congress in late October that the bureau was revisiting the Clinton email probe.
Due to longstanding OSC policy, the only punishment from such a probe could be termination. So after President Trump fired Comey in May, the OSC investigation ended.
During that investigation, though, the OSC signed non-disclosure agreements with the FBI, giving them the privilege of redacting protected information. Those non-disclosure agreements bar the OSC from turning over any documents to Congress without permission from the FBI, despite Johnson’s committee having jurisdiction over the watchdog agency.
However, Johnson contends that, “Any reliance upon these non-disclosure agreements to withhold information from the Committee would be inappropriate.”
Johnson gave a deadline of Sept. 21 for the OSC to provide full transcripts, documents, and details regarding their investigation into Comey.
Both the FBI and the OSC told Fox News they had “no comment” on the interviews or on why portions of the transcripts have been redacted.
Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.

Clinton State Department silenced them on Benghazi security lapses, contractors say

EXCLUSIVE: Security at the State Department's Benghazi compound was so dire that another contractor was brought in to clean up the mess just two weeks before the 2012 terror attack – and was later pressured to keep quiet by a government bureaucrat under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to two men from the American security company.   

Brad Owens and Jerry Torres, of Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, say they faced pressure to stay silent and get on the same page with the State Department with regard to the security lapses that led to the deaths of four Americans.

They spoke exclusively with Fox News for “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” revealing new information that undermines the State Department's account of the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, where Islamic militants launched a 13-hour assault from Sept. 11-12 that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALS Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty.
Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions provides security for U.S. embassy and consulate personnel around the world in some of the most dangerous locations spanning Africa, the Middle East and South America, according to the firm.
Jerry Torres remains haunted by the fact specific bureaucrats and policies remain in the State Department after the Benghazi attack despite the change in administrations. "A U.S. ambassador is dead and nobody is held accountable for it. And three guys … all died trying to defend him," said Torres, the company’s CEO and a former Green Beret.
Asked if there was a specific effort by a senior State Department contracting officer to silence them, Torres said, "Absolutely, absolutely."
Owens, a former Army intelligence officer, echoed his colleague, saying those “who made the poor choices that actually, I would say, were more responsible for the Benghazi attacks than anyone else, they're still in the same positions, making security choices for our embassies overseas now."
In 2012, Owens was the American company’s point man in Libya with extensive experience in the region. After the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in the fall of 2011, Owens stressed to Fox News it was well-known that Islamic radicals including Al Qaeda-tied militias were pouring into the region and security “had deteriorated considerably.”
Based on documents reviewed by Fox News, Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions bid on the Benghazi compound security contract in the spring of 2012. But the State Department awarded the deal to a U.K.-based operation called The Blue Mountain Group.
Owens, who had personally visited the Benghazi compound to assess security, was shocked. "Blue Mountain U.K. is a teeny, tiny, little security company registered in Wales that had never had a diplomatic security contract, had never done any high threat contracts anywhere else in the world that we've been able to find, much less in high threat areas for the U.S. government. They had a few guys on the ground," he said.
According to Torres, the Blue Mountain Group came in 4 percent lower than their bid – and they challenged the decision, claiming the American company should have been preferred over the foreign one.
Torres said State Department contracting officer Jan Visintainer responded that the State Department had the “latitude to apply” that preference or not.
And there was more: The Blue Mountain Group hired guards through another company who were not armed. 
Problems soon arose. One month before the attack -- in August 2012, with The Blue Mountain Group still in charge of compound security -- Ambassador Stevens and his team alerted the State Department via diplomatic cable that radical Islamic groups were everywhere and that the temporary mission compound could not withstand a "coordinated attack." The classified cable was first reported by Fox News.
By Aug. 31, 2012, the situation had deteriorated to the point that Owens and Torres said the State Department asked them to intervene – as Owens put it, an "admission of the mistake of choosing the wrong company."
"They came back to us and said, ‘Can you guys come in and take over security?’ Owens said. “So we were ready.”
But Torres emphasized that time was against them, saying it would have taken two-to-three weeks to get set up.
Twelve days later, the ambassador was killed. Torres learned of the attacks by watching television. He called the circumstances leading up to the tragedy "bad decision-making from top to bottom."
“There was nothing we could've done about it. If we'd had one month warning … who knows what might've happened,” Owens said.
In the chaotic days following that attack, the Obama White House blamed the attacks on an anti-Islam video and demonstration which was not accurate. As a former Green Beret, Torres was stunned: "Coming from a military background, I would expect the administration to tell the truth. So I bought into it for a minute. But I didn't believe it in the back of my mind.” He said they later figured out the video was not the culprit. The attack was a coordinated terrorist assault which included a precision mortar strike on the CIA post in Benghazi.
But as the Obama administration and Clinton’s team struggled to answer questions about the attacks, Visintainer apparently took it one step further -- summoning Jerry Torres from overseas to attend a meeting at her government office in Rosslyn, Va., in early 2013.
Torres took Fox News back to the Virginia office building where he recalled that day's events.
"[Visintainer] said that I and people from Torres should not speak to the media, should not speak to any officials with respect to the Benghazi program,” he said.
Torres said he was afraid for his company – and hasn’t spoken publicly until now.
"We had about 8,000 employees at the time. You know, we just didn't need that level of damage because these guys, their livelihood relies on the company,” he said. “I trust that our U.S. government is going to follow chain of command, follow procedures, follow protocols and do the right thing."
Another part of that conversation stuck out to Torres. He said Visintainer told him “in her opinion, that guards should not be armed at U.S. embassies. She just made that blanket statement. … And she said that they weren't required in Benghazi. So I was kind of confused about that. And she said that she would like my support in saying that if that came up. And I looked at her. I just didn't respond."
The State Department declined Fox News’ request to make Visintainer available for an interview, or have her answer written email questions.
The Blue Mountain Group did not immediately respond to questions from Fox News.
Torres and Owens said repercussions against their company continue to this day – and that of the 20 security force contracts they’ve bid on since that conversation, they’ve lost 18.
Torres and Owens are concerned another attack like the one in Benghazi could happen again because the same State Department employees responsible for the Benghazi contract remain in place and the contracting rules are outdated.
"In 1990, Congress passed a law that required contracts of this nature to go to the lowest bidder that's technically acceptable," Owens explained. "Now, what that has created is a race to the bottom, is what we call it. So basically, every company tries to cut every corner they can for these contracts."
The men say they are hopeful that changes will come with the Trump administration’s promise to "drain the swamp."
"Let's just say there's been a change at management at Department of State," Owens said. "I feel now that, given that the politics has been taken out of the Benghazi situation, now that there's no longer a candidate or anything related to it, a change of administrations, that actually, we have an opportunity here to fix the problems that made it happen."
On the fifth anniversary, Torres said he thinks about the four families who lost a father, a brother or a son in the 2012 attack, and feels sorry "for not bringing this up earlier. For not actually being there, on the ground and taking care of these guys."
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories.”
Cyd Upson is a Senior Producer at FOX News.

Black Lives Matter targets Jefferson monument in Charlottesville

The divide over statues and monuments in Charlottesville, Va., appears far from over.

Just one month after a demonstration over plans to remove a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee turned violent, resulting in a woman's death, a different group of protesters has targeted a statue of U.S. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson.

The Thomas Jefferson Monument, which sits just outside a rotunda at the University of Virginia -- which Jefferson also founded -- was cloaked in black Tuesday evening, and adorned with signs reading “Black Lives Matter” and “TJ is a racist,” local media reported.
Nearly 100 students came together to deface the statue, chanting, “No Trump, No KKK, no racist U-V-A,” the Washington Times reported.
“One month ago, we stood on the front lines in downtown Charlottesville as all manner of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-fascists swarmed the area,” a speaker told the crowd, the Daily Progress reported. “Two months ago, the Ku Klux Klan rallied in their safe space, fully robed and fully protected by multiple law enforcement agencies who brutalized and tear-gassed peaceful counter-protesters.”
Tuesday evening’s rally was in response to the university denying demands made last month by the Black Student Alliance, which included banning white supremacists from campus and removing Confederate plaques on the rotunda, the Daily Progress reported.
“We can and must condemn the violence of one month ago and simultaneously recognize Jefferson as a rapist, racist, and slave owner,” the unidentified speaker said, the website reported. “The visibility of physical violence from white supremacists should not take our attention away from condemning and disrupting more ‘respectable’ racists that continue to control the structures that perpetuate institutional racism.”
The university did not immediately comment on the Jefferson statue shrouding, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. No police officers were seen at Tuesday's protest, according to the newspaper.
There are 718 confederate statues and monuments in the United States, 300 of which are displayed in Georgia, Virginia, or North Carolina, a 2016 study by the Southern Poverty Law Center says.

Clinton Email Cartoons

Major U.S. allies in Asia welcome new U.N. Security Council sanctions on North Korea

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un claps during a celebration for nuclear scientists and engineers who contributed to a hydrogen bomb test, in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang on September 10, 2017. KCNA via REUTERS

UNITED NATIONS/SEOUL (Reuters) – Major U.S. allies in Asia welcomed on Tuesday the U.N. Security Council’s unanimous vote to step up sanctions on North Korea, with its profitable textile exports now banned and fuel supplies to the reclusive North capped after its sixth nuclear test.
Japan and South Korea said after the passage of the U.S.-drafted Security Council resolution they were prepared to apply more pressure if Pyongyang refused to end its aggressive development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
Monday’s decision was the ninth sanctions resolution unanimously adopted by the 15-member Security Council since 2006 over North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
A tougher initial U.S. draft was weakened to win the support of China, Pyongyang’s main ally and trading partner, and Russia, both of which hold veto power in the council.
“We don’t take pleasure in further strengthening sanctions today. We are not looking for war,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the council after the vote. “The North Korean regime has not yet passed the point of no return.”
“If it agrees to stop its nuclear program, it can reclaim its future … if North Korea continues its dangerous path, we will continue with further pressure,” said Haley, who credited a “strong relationship” between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping for the successful resolution negotiations.
U.N. member states are now required to halt imports of textiles from North Korea, its second largest export after coal and other minerals in 2016 that totaled $752 million and accounted for a quarter of its income from trade, according to South Korean data. Nearly 80 percent went to China.
“This resolution also puts an end to the regime making money from the 93,000 North Korean citizens it sends overseas to work and heavily taxes,” Haley said.
“This ban will eventually starve the regime of an additional $500 million or more in annual revenues,” she said.
RESUME DIALOGUE
South Korea’s presidential Blue House said on Tuesday the only way for Pyongyang to end diplomatic isolation and become free of economic pressure was to end it nuclear program and resume dialogue.
“North Korea needs to realize that a reckless challenge against international peace will only bring about even stronger international sanctions against it,” the Blue House said.
However, China’s official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary that the Trump administration was making a mistake by rejecting diplomatic engagement with the North.
“The U.S. needs to switch from isolation to communication in order to end an ‘endless loop’ on the Korean peninsula where “nuclear and missile tests trigger tougher sanctions and tougher sanctions invite further tests,” Xinhua said.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe quickly welcomed the resolution and said after the vote it was important to change North Korea’s policy by imposing a higher level of pressure.
“U.S. GANGSTERS”
The resolution imposes a ban on condensates and natural gas liquids, a cap of 2 million barrels a year on refined petroleum products, and a cap on crude oil exports to North Korea at current levels. China supplies most of North Korea’s crude.
A U.S. official, familiar with the council negotiations and speaking on condition of anonymity, said North Korea imported some 4.5 million barrels of refined petroleum products annually and 4 million barrels of crude oil.
Pyongyang warned the United States on Monday that it would pay a “due price” for spearheading efforts on U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program, which it said was part of “legitimate self-defensive measures”.
“The world will witness how (North Korea) tames the U.S. gangsters by taking a series of actions tougher than they have ever envisaged,” the foreign ministry said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.
However, North Korea did not issue a response immediately after the adoption of the latest resolution.
Chinese officials have privately expressed fears that an oil embargo could risk causing massive instability in its neighbor. Russia and China have also expressed concern about the humanitarian impact of strengthening sanctions on North Korea.
Haley said the resolution aimed to hit “North Korea’s ability to fuel and fund its weapons program”. Trump has vowed not to allow North Korea to develop a nuclear missile capable of hitting the mainland United States.
INTERNATIONAL WILL
South Korean officials said after the North’s sixth nuclear test that Pyongyang could soon launch another intercontinental ballistic missile in defiance of international pressure. North Korea said its Sept. 3 test was of an advanced hydrogen bomb and was its most powerful by far.
The latest resolution contained new political language urging “further work to reduce tensions so as to advance the prospects for a comprehensive settlement”.
China’s U.N. ambassador, Liu Jieyi, called for a resumption of negotiations “sooner rather than later.” He called on North Korea to “take seriously” the will of the international community to halt its nuclear and ballistic missile development.
The resolution also calls on states to inspect vessels on the high seas, with the consent of the flag state, if they have reasonable grounds to believe the ships are carrying prohibited cargo.
It also bans joint ventures with North Korean entities, except for non-profit public utility infrastructure projects.