Senate Intel Committee pushes for election security upgrades ahead of 2018 midterms

Top Senate Intelligence Committee lawmakers on Tuesday called Russia “relentless” in its attempt to meddle in the 2016 U.S. elections and warned that state election officials need to strengthen their safety nets against future cyberattacks ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the panel, previewed some of the committee's recommendations for improving the nation's election infrastructure at a bi-partisan news conference.
“We’ve got to get some standards in place,” Burr said.
Among other things, the committee recommended that Congress "urgently pass" legislation to boost assistance to states and establish a voluntary grant program. It also recommended that Washington "clearly communicate" that attacks on elections are hostile and to "respond accordingly."
The recommendations also include creating a voluntary state election security grant program, and urges states to “rapidly replace outdated and vulnerable voting systems.”
“At a minimum, any machine purchased going forward should have a voter-verified paper trail and no WiFi capability,” the draft summary states.
The news conference took place moments after the White House confirmed President Trump congratulated Russian President Vladimir Putin on his recent re-election win. The victory raised some eyebrow after video emerged of what appeared to be people stuffing ballot boxes.
At Tuesday’s press conference, both Republicans and Democrats were united in their belief Russia tried to influence the U.S. elections.
"The Russians were relentless in their attempts to meddle," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told reporters.
Russian agents targeted election systems in 21 states ahead of the 2016 general election, the Department of Homeland Security has said, and separately launched a social media blitz aimed at inflaming social tensions and sowing confusion.
Top U.S. intelligence officials have said they've seen indications Russian agents are preparing a new round of election subterfuge this year.
DHS took nearly a year to inform the affected states of hacking attempts, blaming it in part on a lack of security clearances. Lawmakers in both parties have pressed the department on why it took so long.
“One of the most frustrating things is that in the aftermath of the hacking, it took the Department of Homeland Security nearly nine months nine months to notify the top election officials that their states and systems had been messed with,” Warner said.
On Wednesday, the lawmakers are scheduled to hold a lengthy public hearing looking into attempted hacks on state elections systems in 2016 and the federal and state response to those efforts.
The committee has prepared a larger report on the issue, one of what could be several reports to come out of the committee's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Overall, experts say far too little has been done to shore up vulnerabilities in 10,000 U.S. voting jurisdictions that mostly run on obsolete and imperfectly secured technology.
However, there is no evidence that any hack in the November 2016 election affected election results, but the attempts spooked state election officials who sought answers about how their systems had been potentially compromised.
Warner has said he thinks the process to prevent such hacking needs to be more robust, especially since Trump has not addressed the matter as an urgent problem.
"We've got bipartisan agreement we have to do something on this," Warner said earlier this year.
The Senate intelligence panel has put off making any assessments about whether Trump's 2016 campaign in any way coordinated with Russia. Though that is one part of the panel's investigation, Burr and Warner have decided to focus on less controversial issues where all members agree.

Illegal immigrants, who dodged California ICE raid after Dem mayor's tip-off, re-arrested for new crimes

Three illegal immigrants, who avoided capture after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on a raid by federal immigration authorities last month, have since been re-arrested for new crimes including robbery and spousal abuse, ICE officials said.
Schaaf tweeted out a warning ahead of the raid in northern California last month, infuriating Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and the Trump administration.
“How dare you!” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in California this month, addressing Schaaf. “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical, open borders agenda.”
ICE officials eventually caught 232 illegal immigrants, many of them criminals, in the four-day sweep but said that hundreds more escaped because of Schaaf’s warning.
But on Tuesday, officials said that at least three of those who were targeted in the raid, but were not apprehended, had since been arrested for additional crimes.
One was a Mexican national arrested for robbery and gun crimes, who was released back into the community for a prior offense despite an ICE detainer request in November.
Another Mexican national was arrested for a DUI, despite having been deported three times and prior convictions for false imprisonment, DUI and battery of a spouse.
The third was a Mexican national who was arrested for corporal injury of a spouse, despite being deported twice and criminal convictions including drug possession, hit-and-run, DUIs, possessions of narcotics equipment and a parole violation.
Acting ICE Director Tom Homan mentioned the three cases at a roundtable on sanctuary cities at the White House on Tuesday. He also expressed frustration at the mixed messages coming from politicians in sanctuary states.
“We are told on one hand to focus efforts on criminals but those same folks who want to focus on criminals don’t let us into the county jails,” he said. “It just defies logic.”
'ANGEL FAMILIES' WANT TO SEE OAKLAND MAYOR PROSECUTED FOR THWARTING ICE RAIDS
While Homan has blamed Schaaf’s actions for the escape of as many as 800 illegal immigrants, it is unclear exactly how many evaded capture directly because of her actions. A DHS official told The New York Times that ICE agents typically find only about 30 percent of their targets during a sweep, meaning that many of those who evaded capture may not have been caught either way.
Schaaf has stood by her actions, saying the community is safer because of sanctuary city policies
“I do not regret sharing this information,” she said last month. “It is Oakland’s legal right to be a sanctuary city and we have not broken any laws. We believe our community is safer when families stay together.”
Last week an Oakland community organizer told Fox News that she was being supported by members of the community.
"People are really supportive of her because she took a stand," Emma Paulino said. "She is serving the people who elected her."
The Justice Department, which is also suing California over its sanctuary city policies, has said it is reviewing Schaaf’s actions, but has yet to make an announcement.

Democrat quits state Senate for new gov't job paying $100G more

Former North Carolina state Sen. Angela Bryant has joined the state's parole commission, an appointment by Gov. Roy Cooper. She will reportedly make about $100,000 more than her legislative salary.  (Angela Bryant state senator website)

Former North Carolina state Sen. Angela Bryant has joined the state's parole commission, an appointment by Gov. Roy Cooper. She will reportedly make about $100,000 more than her legislative salary.  (Angela Bryant state senator website)

A North Carolina Democrat resigned from the state Senate this week, on the same day she announced she was joining the state parole board -- at a pay raise of more than $100,000.
The state Senate received Sen. Angela Bryant’s resignation letter Monday, the same day Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper announced he was appointing Bryant to the state Post-Release Supervision & Parole Commission.
State law sets Bryant's board salary at $116,595 annually, about eight times more compared to her legislative salary at nearly $14,000, the Raleigh News & Observer reported.
Bryant said last month she would not seek re-election this fall, citing a redrawn Senate map making her district more difficult to win.
Cooper cited Bryant's "strong track record of diligent, thoughtful service to our state," as the reasoj behind the appointement, adding, "I know that will continue in her new role on the Parole Board," the News & Observer reported.
Bryant is an attorney and former North Carolina Industrial Commission deputy commissioner who had served in the Legislature since 2007.
"Thanks so much for the opportunity to serve the State in this great institution with the many great colleagues over my eleven years," Bryant wrote in her resignation letter, according to the newspaper. "I am also very thankful to the constituents of, at first House District 7, and then later Senate District 4, for electing me to serve in the legislature for six terms."
Bryant is a former member of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety, the Rocky Mount Telegram reported. During her tenure, she worked on issues related to offender re-entry, and more favorable expunction laws and processes, the report said.
The parole commission's four members, appointed by Cooper, set conditions under which felons completing their sentences are released or can be paroled under old sentencing rules.
The independent agency does not hold formal hearings or meet with offenders to review cases, according to the News & Observer.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper delivers a speech in Washington, May 16, 2017.  (Reuters)

Since taking office in January 2017, Cooper has faced scrutiny over some hefty pay raises handed out to his Cabinet secretaries. In fact, as of last month, each of his Cabinet members draws a higher salary than Cooper's $144,349 per year.
The governor justified the raises by stating that his Cabinet was the most diverse in state history and the average Cabinet member had 22 years of experience.

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

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

Sanctuary City Cartoons

Yes, Texas does have the right to punish sanctuary cities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California city could challenge state's sanctuary law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Cartoon

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

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

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

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

"Information posted on social media is incorrect."

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

Zinke defends 'konnichiwa' comment to Japanese-American lawmaker

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

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

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

Rep. Keith Ellison, under fire for Farrakhan ties, claims he hasn't seen the controversial leader since 2013

Republican Rep. Todd Rokita gives the inside story on the resolution he introduced condemning the Nation of Islam leader for 'promoting ideas that create animosity and anger' toward Jewish Americans and the Jewish religion. #Tucker
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., said Sunday that he had not met with or spoken to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan since 2013 -- despite the anti-Semitic minister's claim that the congressman visited him in Farrakhan's Washington D.C. suite more recently.
Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, wrote in a blog post on Medium that "I do not have and have never had a relationship with Mr. Farrakhan, but I have been in the same room as him." According to Ellison, he and Farrakhan attended the same New York meeting with Iran President Hassan Rouhani "and nearly 50 others."
NATION OF ISLAM CALLS 3 BLACK MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 'SELLOUTS' FOR DENOUNCING FARRAKHAN
Ellison said he used the meeting to push "for the release of an American political prisoner," whom he did not name. The congressman added that he "didn’t know Mr. Farrakhan would be there and did not speak to him at the event."
"Contrary to recent reports, I have not been in any meeting with him since then, and he and I have no communication of any kind," Ellison wrote.
Ellison's article contradicts claims made by Farrakhan in an interview published on the minister's Facebook page in December 2016. At the time, Farrakhan told interviewer Munir Muhammad that Ellison and Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., "visited my suite and we sat down talking like you and I are talking."
Farrakhan did not specify when the meeting with Ellison and Carson took place. The Indianapolis Star reported that Carson met with Farrakhan in 2015. The Washington Post reported that Carson had met with Farrakhan in 2016 "to discuss critical issues that are important to my constituents and all Americans."
GOP RESOLUTION CONDEMNING FARRAKHAN PUTS PRESSURE ON DEMS
A spokeswoman for Carson did not immediately respond to questions from Fox News about the meeting, including when it took place, whether Carson and Ellison met with Farrakhan together or separately, and whether Ellison's article was true or false.
Farrakhan drew backlash after a speech in Chicago last month, when he said such things as “powerful Jews are my enemy” and “the Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men.” Afterwards, the conservative publication The Daily Caller reported that seven congressional lawmakers – all Democrats and all part of the Black Caucus, including Ellison -- had current or past ties to the minister.
Ellison also disavowed what he called Farrakhan's "intolerant and divisive language" toward Jewish people.
"I believe my long record of fighting and condemning all prejudice, including anti-Semitism from whatever source, should speak for itself," he wrote. "But those who aim to make me guilty by false association have made themselves hard to ignore."
In the 2016 Facebook video, Farrakhan critized Ellison for distancing himself from Farrakhan when he ran for Congress and when he sought the chairmanship of the DNC following the 2016 election.
"If [Ellison] has to bash me in order to get a job, help yourself, brother," Farrakhan said. "Say whatever you think will get you your DNC job. But you have not diminished me one atom’s weight. What he’s done is diminished himself. He cannot say that he didn’t follow me at one time … He cannot say that we did anything to harm him or his aspiration."

Trade Deficit Cartoons

Pres. Trump Expected To Announce Tariffs On Imports From China

In this March 6, 2018, photo, President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Reports suggest the President wants to target nearly $60 billion in Chinese products, and push China to reduce the trade deficit by $100 billion
Incoming director of the White House National Economic Council Larry Kudlow said China needs a ‘tough response’ from the U.S. and its allies.
China – the largest source of the trade imbalance – is expected to respond to tariffs with higher import taxes on U.S. goods.

'We're Not an Environment for Snowflakes': College President Praises Trump

The president of a Missouri college and a member of his staff who sat at a roundtable with the Commander-In-Chief praised President Trump for his tax plan.
Jerry Davis of College of the Ozarks near Branson said he noticed that many American businesses were passing their tax savings to their employees.
"We want to be a part of that and be a good example," he said.
Davis said the College of the Ozarks is a "work college" where students are simultaneously employed while at school, and normally do not graduate with debt.

Bonnie Brazzeal: “It was an amazing experience, I never dreamed that I would meet [President @realDonaldTrump] and personally thank him for the bonus… He really cares for the American people.” pic.twitter.com/lJNbx8bP8T

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 17, 2018

"[The bonuses] are especially appropriate because [we] are a work college," he said. "We're certainly not an environment for snowflakes."
Cafeteria worker Bonnie Brazzeal said each employee received $204 in bonuses.
Rachel Campos-Duffy asked Brazzeal about her emotional reaction during the roundtable with Trump and Boeing aerospace manufacturing executives.
Brazzeal said it was "an amazing experience" to meet the president and be able to thank him in person for the money, which she said she deposited in her retirement fund.

Trump team zeroes in on FBI, Russia probe in wake of ex-Deputy Director McCabe's firing

President Trump escalated his criticism of the FBI and the Russia probe on Saturday, alleging “tremendous leaking, lying and corruption” from the bureau and other agencies and taking shots at fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and ex-Director James Comey.
The result: an equally fiery response from former intelligence officials.
McCabe was fired late Friday after an internal investigation found that he made an unauthorized leak to the media and “lacked candor” when speaking to investigators under oath. His firing came just days before he would have been eligible for a lifetime pension.

Sources told Fox News that the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility made the recommendation to fire McCabe. Sessions had the option to either accept the recommendation, or step in to stop the firing process.
President Trump quickly ramped up the the rhetoric over the termination, calling it a “great day for Democracy!"
He also skewered both McCabe and Comey, whom he accused of being sanctimonious and knowing “all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!”
On Saturday he followed up, saying that McCabe was “caught, called out and fired” and made reference to the funding of McCabe’s wife’s 2015 senatorial bid by a political action committee of then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe -- a close Hillary Clinton ally.
“How many lies? How many leaks? Comey knew it all, and much more!” the president tweeted.
The FBI has said McCabe received the necessary ethics approval about his wife's candidacy and was not supervising the Clinton investigation at the time.
On another front, Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, issued a statement Saturday morning calling on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 elections, to shut down the probe. His statement also took a swipe at Comey, who was fired by Trump back in May 2017.
“I pray that Acting Attorney General Rosenstein will follow the brilliant and courageous example of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and Attorney General Jeff Sessions and bring an end to alleged Russia Collusion investigation manufactured by McCabe’s boss James Comey based upon a fraudulent and corrupt Dossier,” he said in a statement to Fox News.
“Just end it on the merits in light of recent revelations,” he added.
While Dowd subsequently clarified that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not expressing Trump’s views, Trump appeared to give implicit support to the lawyer's thinking when he said that the House Intelligence Committee had concluded there was “no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign” (In fact, only Republicans on the committee had reached that conclusion, the top Democrat on the committee, Adam Schiff noted in his own tweet on Saturday.)
“As many are now finding out, however, there was tremendous leaking, lying and corruption at the highest levels of the FBI, Justice & State,” Trump continued.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told Fox News that Dowd's remarks seem like a new phase in the Trump team's attitude toward the Mueller probe.
"It also seems important that the timing coincides with McCabe’s firing, so we can probably expect that there will be increasing pressure on [Rosenstein] to end the Mueller inquiry, although McCabe’s actions were only tangentially related to Mueller’s work," he said.
FBI officials reacted angrily to the firing. McCabe described the termination  as part of an “ongoing war” against the FBI.
"This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally," McCabe said.
"It is part of this Administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel’s work," he added.
Adding more intrigue, a source close to McCabe told Fox News Saturday that he kept memos memorializing his interactions with Trump, in a way that was very similar to the method Comey used to keep his own memos.
Comey also weighed in, in a Twitter posting that also hinted at his coming tell-all book: “A Higher Loyalty.”
“Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon,” he tweeted. “And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not.”
Former CIA Director John Brennan, known for his outspoken criticisms of Trump, also weighed in -- blasting Trump in dramatic and colorful language and promising that “America will triumph over you.”
Democrats quickly backed those officials. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, expressed concern about the state of the FBI investigation itself, saying Dowd’s statement show that the Trump team is looking to  “undermine [Mueller] at every turn."
"The president, the administration, and his legal team must not take any steps to curtail, interfere with, or end the special counsel's investigation or there will be severe consequences from both Democrats and Republicans," Schumer said in a statement.
Jumping into the fray, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on "escalating politicized attacks" on the DOJ and FBI.
“During my four decades in the Senate, I have never before seen our nation’s career, apolitical law enforcement officials so personally and publicly maligned by politicians — indeed, by our President," he said in a statement. "And I have never been so concerned that the walls intended to protect the independence of our dedicated law enforcement professionals, including Special Counsel Mueller, are at risk of crumbling."
While the social media exchanges were especially intense earlier in the day on Saturday, Trump weighed in again on the issues associated with McCabe, and with the Mueller investigation, in the evening hours.
Shortly after 8 p.m. ET, he tweeted: "The Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime. It was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC, and improperly used in FISA COURT for surveillance of my campaign. WITCH HUNT!"

Even after death, Democrat stays 'active' in politics

Former New Jersey Gov. Brendan Byrne died in January at age 93. A ceremony at Healy's Tavern in Jersey City on Friday was held in his honor.

Admirers of the late New Jersey Gov. Brendan Byrne recently congregated in Jersey City to honor one of his last wishes: to have his ashes placed in Hudson County so he could “stay active” in politics.
Byrne, a Democrat who died Jan. 4 at age 93, used to joke about the county, long known for its history of political shenanigans -- such as recruiting "voters" from local cemeteries.
"He always had a lot of affection for Hudson County," son Tom Byrne said. "This is a great way to celebrate his life and his sense of humor."
Even a Republican rival -- former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman, remembered in part for removing Byrne's name from a state-owned sports arena -- recalled the Democrat fondly after he died.
"While he may be best remembered for his sense of humor and ability to tell a good story, he had a keen intellect and never stopped caring about the issues of the day," Whitman tweeted.
The ceremony at Healy’s Tavern was also attended by another former New Jersey governor, Democrat Jim McGreevy, plus Byrne’s widow, Ruthi, among others.
Byrne's ashes were to stay at Healy's through St. Patrick's Day, McGreevey and others said. Their final resting place was still undecided.
Tom Byrne said the family was considering locations including a state forest that bears Byrne's name, or Liberty State Park in Jersey City, located near the Statue of Liberty.
The park was among the Hudson County waterfront improvements that Byrne -- a Democrat who served two terms after being elected in 1973 -- championed in the 1970s. He also oversaw the advent of casino gambling in Atlantic City and instituted the state's first income tax.
The income tax made him unpopular with many residents, but he still managed to win a second term.