Texas bill seeks to label attacks against first responders as a hate crime

The father of a Dallas police officer murdered in the July ambush says he fully supports a sweeping new hate crime bill.
The father of Patrick Zamarripa says he wants his son's murder to have a purpose and hope a Texas bill, designed to protect first responders, does that.
Rick Zamarripa knows nothing he does will bring his son back. But he hopes by pushing new legislation to make attacking police officers a hate crime will give his son's death meaning.
MARYLAND POLICE OFFICER HONORED FOR HEROISM AFTER APARTMENT EXPLOSION
“It needs to stop,” he said.
Rick goes to visit his son’s grave every week.
Patrick was a five-year veteran of the Dallas Police department. He was one of the five officers killed in the July ambush.
“Patrick was there to make sure everybody was going to be safe,” Rick said.
Rick says his son is why he's working to get a new bill passed that would increase penalties for attacking any first responder, including firefighters and EMTs, and make it a hate crime.
OH GIRL FACEBOOK MESSAGES POLICE FOR HELP ON MATH HOMEWORK
“I'm on a mission to help stop all these hate crimes against police officers — anything I can do,” he said. “If I can save a police officer's life or even a civilian's life, I'll have accomplished something. Pass that law. It has to be passed. We need to protect our officers.”
According to law enforcement groups, the number of officers killed in 2016 reached its highest level in five years.
The bill's main backer, Representative Jason Villalba of Dallas, says the bill is to help prevent attacks like the ones on officers in Dallas, San Antonio and Baton Rouge.
“Will it end attacks on police officers? No,” he said. “But will it start the process of beginning that process. Yes, we do believe it will.”

Trump says not going to White House Correspondents dinner

Trump tweets that he will not attend correspondents' dinner

President Trump said Saturday that he will not attend the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, escalating his battle with the news media and raising questions about the future of the annual event.
“I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year,” Trump tweeted. “Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!"
The comment was just the latest turn in Trump’s adversarial relationship with the news media, which essentially began at the start of his campaign in July 2015 and took another questionable turn Friday.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer excluded several news organizations from an informal, but on-the-record gathering known as a “gaggle” -- held Friday in place of the regular, daily press briefing.
Among those excluded were the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN and Politico.
The Associated Press and purportedly Time magazine chose not to participate upon learning about Spicer’s move.
Those allowed to attend included Fox News and the conservative website Breitbart News. The site's former executive chairman, Steve Bannon, is chief strategist to Trump.
The White House defended the decision by saying so-called “pool reporters,” who record events for others, were invited “so everyone was represented.”
Earlier Friday, in a speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump again railed against “dishonest” members of the media and what he calls “fake news.”
The annual black-tie dinner was already unraveling before Saturday. Some of the most prestigious news gathering groups, including Bloomberg, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, said they would not hold exclusive parties before or afterward. In addition, the casts of Veep, House of Cards and Scandal all said they would not be attending this year.
Even before Trump was elected, the party -- known to some as the “nerd prom” -- was being criticized for becoming an event more for Hollywood types than for the journalists who cover the White House.

Expand / Contract

Former President Barack Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2016 (AP)

Jeff Mason, a Reuters reporter and president of the White House Correspondence Association, told Fox News on Saturday that the dinner has “no chance” of being cancelled and that Trump has yet to be formally invited.
Though U.S. presidents and reporters frequently have adversarial relationships, the event is one each year in which the sides put aside their differences and give speeches that poke fun.
President Obama roasted Trump at the 2011 event.

CPAC straw poll shows conservatives with Trump, think he's 'realigning' movement

http://cpac.conservative.org/

 

Conservatives appear fully behind new Republican President Trump, based on a straw poll Saturday at the annual CPAC summit in which attendees gave him an 86 percent approval rating and overwhelmingly agreed that he was “realigning” the movement.
The results of the poll concluded the group’s annual four-day summit outside of Washington, D.C., at which Trump’s speech Friday was the main event.
Trump, whose views do not always align with those of fiscal or social conservatives, received high marks in the poll’s 12 questions. The popular poll did not include a question this year about who was conservatives’ favorite potential presidential candidate, considering Trump won just three months ago.
Perhaps the most applause came when the event organizers announced that 33 percent of respondents said “reforming the tax code” was the biggest Trump campaign promise they wanted him to fulfill.
“Donald Trump is actually doing things the conservative movement wants to get done,” said Matt Schlepp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, the event’s lead organizer.
The audience also cheered upon learning that 91 percent of respondents favored the federal government cutting off federal funds to any so-called “sanctuary” city, county or public college that refuses to cooperate with state and federal officials to enforce immigration laws, according to the poll by McLaughlin & Associates.

Liberal Hollywood Cartoons

Trump administration makes first tangible step to building border wall

President Trump’s administration on Friday made its first tangible step towards developing and implementing one of the president’s chief campaign promises: to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.
Bloomberg reported that the administration issued a preliminary request for proposals to contractors. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it plans to start awarding contracts by mid-April.
The agency said it will request bids on or around March 6 and that companies would have to submit "concept papers" to design and build prototypes by March 10.
The field of candidates will be narrowed by March 20, and finalists must submit offers with their proposed costs by March 24.
VIDEO: DHS SECRETARY KELLY WANTS A SURGE IN BORDER RESOURCES 
The president told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday that construction will start "very soon" and is "way, way, way ahead of schedule."
The agency's notice gave no details on where the wall would be built first and how many miles would be covered initially. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has sought employees' opinions during border tours of California, Arizona and Texas.
It is unclear how soon Congress would provide funding and how much.
The Government Accountability Office estimates it would cost on average $6.5 million a mile for a fence to keep out people who try to enter on foot and $1.8 million a mile for vehicle barriers. There are currently 354 miles of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, much of it built during President George W. Bush's second term.
Republican leaders in Congress have said Trump's wall would cost between $12 billion and $15 billion. Trump has suggested $12 billion.
An internal Homeland Security Department report prepared for Kelly estimates the cost of extending the wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border at about $21 billion, according to a U.S. government official who is involved in border issues. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been made public.
The Homeland Security report proposes an initial phase that would extend fences 26 miles and a second wave that would add 151 miles, plus 272 "replacement" miles where fences are already installed, according to the official. Those two phases would cost $5 billion.
The price tag will depend largely on the height, materials and other specifications that have not yet been defined.
Granite Construction Inc., Vulcan Materials Co. and Martin Marrieta Materials Inc. are seen as potential bidders. Kiewit Corp. built one of the more expensive stretches of fencing so far at a cost of about $16 million a mile, a project in San Diego that involved filling a deep canyon known as Smuggler's Gulch.
Cement maker Cemex SAB is also seen as a potential beneficiary even though it is based in Mexico.

Robert Davi: Anti-Trump Actors Should Invite Illegal Immigrants to Oscars

Liberal Idiots

Hollywood celebrities are expected to voice their criticims of President Trump during the Oscars this weekend, but actor and singer Robert Davi thinks they should replace their words with actions.
Last month, actors including Meryl Streep took the stage at the Golden Globes to slam Trump and his illegal immigration and refugee policies.

---

Robert Davi Talks 9/11-Inspired ‘Civilian Patrol 93’ to Prevent Domestic Terror
'This Is a Real War': Gingrich on How Trump Should Combat Media 'Falsehoods'

---

"Just lighten up," Davi, known for his roles in "License to Kill," "Die Hard" and "The Goonies," said on "Your World" today.
"Have them invite all the immigrants, all the refugees ... all the illegal criminals. Open up all the rules of the Academy," he said.
"Open the gates in Bel Air and let the people camp out. Why have any boundaries at all."
Davi added that in response to Streep's and other actors' lamentations of Trump's strict border policy, law enforcement should not be present this year to secure their award show's perimeter.
He said the politically-vocal actors in Hollywood are out of touch with the needs of working class Americans.
Davi also noted that in the 1940s through 1960s, some actors similarly expressed their "progressive, Communist, Marxist agenda" in public.

Jorge Ramos: Illegal Immigrants Use Fake ID's 'Because They Are Working For Us'

Fusion anchor Jorge Ramos told Chris Wallace on Friday that illegal immigrants coming across the Mexican border "are here to help" American citizens.

---

Hannity to Jorge Ramos: 'You Are Willing to Gamble With the Lives of Americans'
'I Don't Need Lectures From You, Jorge': Hannity & Ramos Clash on Trump, Immigration
'You're an Activist!': O'Reilly and Jorge Ramos Clash on Illegal Immigration

---

"They are coming here to benefit our lives," he said, noting the large amount of undocumented workers in fields such as agriculture.
"The vast majority of undocumented immigrants in this country are not terrorists," he said, responding to repeated contentions by President Trump that many illegal immigrants are criminals.
Ramos said he has no problem with removing violent criminal illegal immigrants, but disagreed with Wallace when asked about those who use fake ID cards or commit identity theft.
"That is not a violent crime," Ramos said on "The O'Reilly Factor," "it is a crime [but] they are coming here to benefit our lives."
"Many of them use fake drivers' licenses, why? Because they are working for us," he said.
Ramos added that the White House's statement that Mexican relations are "phenomenal" was inaccurate, calling the US-Mexico relationship the worst since the United States took part in the Battle of Veracruz in 1914.

---

'You Demonized Him': O'Reilly Clashes with Jorge Ramos on Coverage of Trump
O'Reilly Defends Trump from 'Zealot' Jorge Ramos, Mainstream Media
Hannity to Univision's Ramos: Would You Support Securing the Border?

Trump rejects DHS intelligence report on travel ban

Officials in President Trump’s administration Friday downplayed an intelligence report by the Homeland Security Department that contradicts the White House’s main arguement for implementing a travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries.
The report, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, determined that the "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity."
The Trump administration has taken the position that immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries should be blocked from the U.S. due to their terror risk. Trump used terrorism a primary justification when he announced the now court-blocked travel ban in late January.
The intelligence report found that in the past six years, foreign-born individuals who were “inspired” to strike in the U.S. came from 26 different countries.
VIDEO: DERSHOWITZ ON WHAT HE EXPECTS NEXT FOR TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN 
Senior White House Policy Adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News' "First 100 Days" Tuesday that a revised version of the travel ban would "have the same basic policy outcome."
A senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal that the DHS report’s assessment overlooked key information and the finished product that the White House requested has not been completed. The White House called the report politically motivated. Officials said it overlooked some information that supported the ban.
“The president asked for an intelligence assessment,” the official said. “This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for.”
VIDEO: DEMOCRAT FINDS ELEMENTS TO SUPPORT IN TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN
The draft report determined that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.
Gillian Christensen, a DHS spokeswoman, does not dispute the report's authenticity, but says it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.
“It is clear on its face that it is an incomplete product that fails to find evidence of terrorism by simply refusing to look at all the available evidence,” she said, according to The Journal. “Any suggestion by opponents of the president’s policies that senior (homeland security) intelligence officials would politicize this process or a report’s final conclusions is absurd and not factually accurate. The dispute with this product was over sources and quality, not politics.”