Economy and Isis Cartoon

Krauthammer: Stop nationalizing local enforcement

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer told viewers on "Special Report with Bret Baier" Friday that the federal government should "stop nationalizing the local law enforcement."
He questioned Attorney General Loretta Lynch's announcement that the Justice Department will investigate the Baltimore police's handling of the case of Freddie Gray, the 25-year old who died from a spinal injury suffered while in custody.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made the request to Lynch, who in recent days took over from Eric Holder and visited Baltimore in the aftermath of riots and unrest.
"These laws originally intended to deal with recalcitrant, hostile often racially hostile administrations using their power against minorities," said Krauthammer.
Krauthammer said the situation in Baltimore does not rise to the level of an outside review. "
We have an African-American mayor, an African-American police chief,  African-American city attorney, and of the six people charged in that wrongful death, let's say allegedly wrongful death, three of them are African-American and the one facing the most serious charges is himself African-American," he said.
"It doesn't fit the pattern. At some point we're going to have to say look, localities have to regulate themselves unless there is something egregious and some reason why you cannot trust the local administration," Krauthammer added.

Sources: Graham to announce 2016 White House bid on June 1

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham plans to announce his presidential campaign on June 1, GOP sources tell Fox News. 
Graham, a three-term senator from South Carolina, is known as a foreign policy hawk in Congress. Though he is considered a long shot -- and ranks near the bottom in recent polls of declared and potential Republican presidential candidates -- Graham could help drive the debate on national security among a GOP field that includes candidates who sharply question policies ranging from drone strikes to NSA surveillance.
Graham, however, polls better in his home state of South Carolina, which holds the critical first-in-the-South primary. Graham is considering launching the campaign from Seneca, S.C., where he lives.
A Graham spokesperson would not confirm the June 1 date when reached by Fox News.
Several other Republicans are considering jumping in the race in the coming weeks. Currently declared candidates include: Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas; Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; former HP head Carly Fiorina; and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

Illinois justices overturn state's landmark 2013 pension law

The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday struck down a 2013 law that sought to fix the nation's worst government-employee pension crisis, a ruling that forces the state to find another way to overcome a massive budget deficit. 
In a unanimous decision, the seven justices declared the law passed 18 months ago violates the state constitution because it would leave pension promises "diminished or impaired."
"In enacting the provisions, the General Assembly overstepped the scope of its legislative power. This court is therefore obligated to declare those provisions invalid," Justice Lloyd Karmeier said in writing the court's opinion.
The decree puts new Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and Democrats who control the General Assembly back at the starting line in trying to figure out how to wrestle down a $111 billion deficit in what's necessary to cover its state employee retirement obligations. The hole is so deep the state has in recent years had to reserve up to $7 billion -- or one-fifth of its operating funds -- to keep pace.
Most states faced the same public employee pension crisis, exacerbated by the Great Recession, and took steps to remedy the problem. But Illinois balked for years at addressing the crisis until former Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and fellow Democrats who control the General Assembly overcame opposition from union allies and struck the deal, amid warnings that it might not pass constitutional muster.
After the changes were adopted in December 2013, retired employees, state-worker labor unions and others filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds.
The high court opinion means the state must keep its pledge on pensions.
The law dealt with four of the state's five pension programs -- the Legislature did not include the judges' account because of the conflict posed by expected legal action.  The shortfall in the amount of money necessary to meet all pension obligations has reached stifling depths largely because of years of skimping on -- or skipping -- on annual pension contributions by past governors and General Assemblies.
It would have crimped pensions perks in several ways in an effort to erase the shortfall by 2044. Perhaps most significantly, it would have erased the 3 percent compounded cost-of-living adjustment added in 1989, replacing it with a formula that gave the increases on a portion of benefits, depending on years of service. Some would have had the option of freezing their pensions and contributing to a 401(k)-style plan.
It also would have delayed the retirement age for workers aged 45 and younger, on a sliding scale. Workers would have had to contribute 1 percent less to their retirements and the pension agencies would have been allowed to sue the state if it didn't contribute its full annual portion to the funds. Those were additions to help the matter survive a court challenge.
At the March argument before the high court, the opponents to the law argued that the constitution's language was clear -- promised pensions could not be reduced.
State lawyers contended the government had the right to exercise "police powers" in time of crisis, and that the 2008 recession, which decimated retirement fund investment portfolios, provided the crisis. But under close questioning from the bench, the state's lawyer acknowledged that past governors and legislatures shorted pension payments to save money in the short term.

Boston University prof flunks 'white masculinity' in controversial tweets

Higher Education?

Critics say a newly-hired Boston University professor has crossed the line with recent tweets bashing whites, but the school says it’s simply free speech.
“White masculinity isn’t a problem for america’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges,” Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at Boston University, tweeted in March.
In another tweet from January, she wrote: “Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. and every year i find it nearly impossible.”
In another, she called white males a “problem population.”

“White masculinity isn’t a problem for america’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges.”
- Saida Grundy, incoming assistant professor at Boston University

“Why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?” she asked.
The tweets were first noticed by student Nick Pappas, who posted them on his website “SoCawlege.com” and questioned how Grundy could be able to teach a diverse classroom given the racial hostility in her tweets.
“You have to teach college aged white males eventually, no?... this seems like you are unqualified to grade their work as you clearly demonstrate some kind of special bias against them,” he wrote.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Pappas, a junior at University of Massachusetts Amherst, told FoxNews.com that he hopes to “show the rest of America how nasty people on the far left can get at colleges.”
Those who follow campus politics say they are not shocked.
"I'm not surprised that Boston University is hiring a racist to teach African American Studies," David Horowitz, author of “Reforming our Univerisities” told FoxNews.com. "Anti-white racism is rampant in Black Studies programs which are generally indoctrination programs in left wing politics."
Boston University stands by the professor, who will start working at the college in June.
“Professor Grundy is exercising her right to free speech and we respect her right to do so,” Boston University spokesman Colin Riley said.
Grundy did not respond to a request for comment from FoxNews.com, and has made her twitter account private.
Horowitz said the university’s reaction betrays double-standards on race.
“If she were a white racist rather than an anti-white racist, she would never be hired. Professors are supposed to be experts in some scholarly field, and professionals in their classroom discourse. They don't have a license to indoctrinate students in their prejudices - whether those prejudices are right or left,” he said.
Grundy posted a number of other controversial tweets, for instance claiming that only whites enslaved entire generations of people. “Deal with your white sh*t, white people. slavery is a *YALL* thing,” she said.
Free speech advocates say that Grundy should have a right to her speech, but say the university speech policy is hypocritical because it allows the university to censor offensive or bigoted speech if it wanted to.
“Professor Grundy should and must have the freedom to publicly express her opinions on controversial topics. Unfortunately, though, [she] could be punished if she were to send such tweets through the BU computer network, as the university bans ‘transmitting...offensive’ material,” Robert Shibley of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told FoxNews.com.
“In addition, if she were a student, she could also potentially be punished for violating policies banning ‘bigotry, hatred, and intolerance,’ and for not expressing her opinion ‘in good taste and decency.’ … [BU] should eliminate these policies so that it can defend every student and faculty member's right to free speech – not just Professor Grundy's.”

Defense attorneys in Gray case call for state's attorney to be recused

Defense attorneys representing six Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray filed a motion Friday to have the case dismissed, or for the city’s top prosecutor to be recused from the case and replaced by a special prosecutor, citing alleged conflict of interest.
The attorneys argue in the documents that the officers were victims of an 'overzealous prosecution' by State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who they claim has personal and political motivations in the case.
Among the alleged conflicts of interest cited, the motion includes Mosby's marriage to the city councilman who represents the district where Gray died. 
The motion claims that Mike Mosby had a professional and personal interest in having riots in his district that erupted after Gray's death come to an end, and that Marilyn Mosby therefore had an interest in filing charges quickly.
“...His wife, Marilyn Mosby, had a professional and personal interest in accommodating the needs of her husband – his political future directly affects her personal, professional and political interests,” the motion argues.
Defense attorneys contend that Mosby's relationship with the Gray family attorney also creates a conflict of interest. The attorney, William Murphy, is a close friend, ally and lawyer for Mosby.
The filing also cites a pending motion against her office, her office’s role in investigating the case and Mosby’s personal relationships with potential witnesses as reasons she should be recused from the case.
The defense also argues that Mosby denied the officers their right to due process by using inciting rhetoric when announcing the charges last week. Mosby told protesters: “I heard your call for ‘no justice no peace.’ Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man…You’re at the forefront of this cause and as young people, our time is now.”
The motion claims her words betrayed her personal and political motivations and were another sign of a conflict of interest.
“Rarely in the history of any criminal case has a prosecutor so directly maintained so many conflicts of interest. Rarer still are instances where such clear conflicts exist and a prosecutor steadfastly refuses to recuse him or herself,” the motion says.
The court filings come as Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the Department of Justice intends to launch a civil rights investigation into the practices of the Baltimore Police Department, particularly allegations of excessive force and widespread discrimination.
The civil rights investigation, similar to ones undertaken in cities including Ferguson, Missouri, and Cleveland, will examine the policing patterns and practices of the entire police department. It is far broader in scope than a separate Justice Department investigation that aims to determine whether Gray's civil rights were violated.
Baltimore suffered days of unrest after Gray died April 19 following a week in a coma after his arrest. Protesters threw bottles and bricks at police the night of his funeral on April 27, injuring nearly 100 officers. More than 200 people were arrested as cars and businesses burned.

Muhammad Cartoon

Judge slaps down U.N. on sex crimes reporting

The United Nations’ suspension of a top human rights official who passed evidence to French authorities of rape and sexual abuse of starving children in the Central African Republic by French and African troops  last year was unlawful,  a U.N. judge has ruled.
The judge also rejected U.N. concerns that “the interest of the Organization” required that the official, Anders Kompass, be suspended “to avoid any interference with the investigation” of his actions, and ordered that the April 17 suspension be lifted until the allegations against Kompass were  fully investigated.
The judicial order from a body known as the United Nations Dispute Tribunal—part of an internal justice system for a world organization that has diplomatic immunity from everyone else’s law-- amounted to an egg-on-the-face moment for U.N. Secretary General Ki-moon, who personally  took note of the suspension last week and gave it implicit blessing by declaring that Kompass’ actions—without referring to him by name-- had been “a serious breach of protocol” which “requires redaction of any information that could endanger victims, witnesses and investigators.”
Ban also explicitly declared that “Our preliminary assessment is that such conduct does not constitute whistleblowing”—a designation that would have given Kompass limited protection for his information handover.
Despite the alleged seriousness of his offense, it took the U.N. a full month to order up an investigation of Kompass’ conduct and declare his suspension after  Kompass refused to resign in March 2015 at the request of the High Commissioner for Human Rights himself, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein of Jordan, for his alleged violation of U.N. investigation protocol
Kompass,  a top official of the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva, had never made any secret of his actions, and indeed told his bosses about handing over the information to the French shortly after he did so in December last year.
Under the U.N.’s cumbersome rules, a  confidential investigation of the sexual crimes that took place nearly a year ago would have required further internal vetting –including the removal of the names of child victims and witnesses of the alleged sex crimes--before it would have gone to the French for action.
That process would have involved further delays in action  against the wrongdoers, and potentially further crimes against vulnerable children.
The French not only began their own investigation but sent a formal letter of thanks to Kompass last July, assuring him that a military inquiry had begun “without delay”  due to his actions.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FRENCH LETTER
The fact that the French officials responsible for the military force in Central African Republic (subsequently replaced by a formal U.N. peacekeeping force) were more grateful than the U.N. to get speedy notification of alleged crimes by its troops is only one of several ironies surrounding the Kompass case.
It is also seen by many critics as a rebuff of the U.N.’s own procedures for dealing with sex crimes by U.N. peacekeepers, which according to a long-suppressed internal report are  under-reported, under-investigated and subject to little consequential follow-up, despite Ban claims of “zero tolerance.”
Ban has yet to implement a number of reforms suggested as long ago as 2005 in a special report on sexual exploitation and abuse in U.N. peacekeeping operations—whose author was none other than the current High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid, the man who unsuccessfully demanded Kompass resignation.
The same kind of bureaucratic lethargy was noted by U.N. Dispute Tribunal Judge Thomas Laker in his 18-page rejection of the suspension, which largely turned on the fact that the U.N. official who declared Kompass’ suspension did not have the authority to do so.
Lakers pooh-poohed ostensible U.N. concerns that without being suspended from work,  Kompass might have destroyed evidence or otherwise interfered with internal investigators, noting that “he could easily have done so” in the month after he was requested to resign. The decision to suspend Kompass, he ruled, “defeats its purpose.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE JUDGEMENT          
Laker’s ruling was hailed by supporters who also feel his actions, despite Secretary General Ban’s “preliminary assessment,” also deserve protected whistleblower status—which in their view is under increasing hostile pressure at the U.N.
“We’re hoping the UN recognizes it has overreached and abandons efforts to retaliate against Anders Kompass  and other whistleblowers,” observed Bea Edwards, executive director of the Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based whistleblower protection organization.
Edwards noted  that nine U.N. whistleblowers in April sent an open letter to Ban, warning that current U.N. policies “afford little to no measure of real or meaningful protection for whistleblowers. ”
The group noted that “most of us have been forced to leave the UN to save our livelihoods, our health and our reputations” and urged specific reforms, including  “immediately end the practice of subjecting known U.N. whistleblowers to lengthy internal appeals processes for contesting the loss of their job or other adverse employment decisions.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER LETTER
A similar concern for protecting those, like Kompass, who have gone public to prevent additional wrongdoing is included in a declaration published on May 4 by a group of four  international rapporteurs and special representatives on freedom of expression.
They  declared that “individuals who expose wrongdoing, serious maladministration, a breach of human rights, humanitarian law violations or other threats to the overall public interest,”  should be protected against “legal, administrative or employment-related sanction, even if they have otherwise acted in breach of a binding rule or contract, as long as at the time of the disclosure they had reasonable grounds to believe that the information disclosed was substantially true and exposed wrongdoing or the other threats noted above.”
One of the authors of that “Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and responses to conflict situations” was the U.N.’s own Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye.
The Joint Declaration was posted, among other places, on the website of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights—the same office where Anders Kompass now works again, and where he continues to be investigated.