Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, left, listens as Office of Management and Budget Acting Director Russell Vought testifies before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2019, during a hearing on the fiscal year 2020 budget. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
As Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) has shown since elected but especially in recent weeks, he is unafraid to take on the loudest, shrillest voices on the left, no matter the issue.
Last week, it was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on her “border detention centers=Nazi concentration camps” comparison, and Black Hat for disinviting Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) from a tech conference over his pro-life views. Over the weekend, it was twice-failed Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton – who tried to blame the border crisis on Republicans.
Also over the weekend, the freshman Congressman took issue with comments from longtime Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who went on a wild Twitter rant regarding President Trump and possible war with Iran:
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., drew fire from Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, on Twitter for accusing President Trump of provoking a conflict with Iran.
The U.S. military’s Central Command released a video earlier this month showing Iranian forces removing an unexploded mine from one of the two ships that were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has denied any involvement in the conflict.
Trump called off a military strike against Tehran after they shot down an American drone they claimed was in Iranian airspace. It was valued at over $100 million. Iran has since claimed they have the capability to continue shooting down American drones if necessary.
Waters said Trump didn’t deserve credit for showing restraint and questioned the nature of America’s surveillance of Iran.
In particular, Crenshaw took issue with this tweet from Waters:
In response, he blasted the Congresswoman:
Red State‘s Jennifer Van Laar documented Waters’s tweets last night and explained how her rant was wildly off the mark for a number of reasons, but commenting on an issue without the facts has never stopped Mad Maxine before.
—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–
This is one of those double take stories where you have to make sure it’s not a Babylon Bee or The Onion article.
The NBA has decided that the completely innocuous, objective descriptor of “team owner” is racially insensitive and are stopping it’s use within the NBA. Yes, people who own teams are no longer allowed be called the owner of their teams.
This seems normal.
Apparently, some players, including Draymond Green (already one of the most drama-stricken players in the NBA), have complained that it’s racially insensitive to have a figure above them in the hierarchy being described as an owner. Correlations to slave ownership and all that.
“You shouldn’t say ‘owner,’” Green said. “When you think of a basketball team, nobody thinks of the f–kin’ Golden State Warriors and think of that damn bridge. They think of the players that make that team…you don’t even know what the f–k [the bridge] is called.”
If that’s not a solid, logical argument, I don’t know what is. And who doesn’t know the name of the Bay bridge?
Of course, essentially no one ever has described a team owner as “owning” the players on his team. The person who owns the team literally owns it as an enterprise. This kind of shifting of language is just nonsensical and completely unnecessary. Every business has an owner and there are plenty of them with majority black employee bases. What makes the NBA so special here that they need to distort language this way?
The term governor will probably be found to be problematic soon, as it could be twisted historically as well. Then we can move to team “stakeholder” or something more ridiculous because no one is ever happy.
Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.
I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.
Tough words softened by gentle deeds are preferable to gentle words trampled by rough and reckless action. President Trump vows to begin deporting illegal immigrants by the millions, a campaign promise that helped elect him and may well do so again. He didn’t invent the chaos on the border, but he is the first president to try to do something about it. The nation yearns for an equitable immigration system that enables the orderly entry of foreign nationals without infringing the rights of law-abiding Americans. There’s nothing in the president’s words or deeds that dash that wish.
Read Full Article » https://trumpsminutemen.org/
At a time that US stock markets are partying like there is no tomorrow, global bond markets, together with actions by the world’s major central banks, are telling a very different story. They seem to be warning that Europe could soon be experiencing major crises in the United Kingdom and Italy that could precipitate a global economic recession.
Stock-market investors would do well to pay heed to those warnings.
A clear sign that global bond markets are highly concerned about the European economic outlook is that a record US$5 trillion, or around half, of all European government bonds now offer negative interest rates. A clear sign that markets are concerned that Europe’s troubles could lead to a US economic recession is that US long-term interest rates are significantly below US short-term interest rates. In the past, this so-called US yield-curve inversion has consistently proved to be a highly reliable indicator of an impending economic recession and oftentimes an early warning of a sharp decline in the S&P 500 index.
To be sure, bond markets and the world’s central banks are generally sensitive to economic risks. However, what seems to have them now on high alert is that this time around there are an unusually large number of such risks, especially in Europe, that have a high chance of materializing. They are also concerned that if these risks were to materialize, they would have the potential to destabilize both the US and the global economies.
Among the more immediate of these risks is that the United Kingdom, the world’s fifth-largest economy, could crash out of the European Union without a deal on Oct. 31. Both the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund are warning that such an occurrence would most probably result in a 5% decline in the UK economy in the year immediately following its European exit. Considering how large a trade partner the UK for Europe, a hard Brexit would be bound to have significant spillover effects to a European economy that is already on the cusp of a recession.
Heightening the chances of a hard Brexit is the commitment by Boris Johnson, who is almost certain to become the next UK prime minister, to have the the country leave Europe with or without a deal on Oct. 31. That is when the UK’s extended deadline to negotiate a Brexit deal ends. Johnson is making this commitment to fend off a mortal challenge to the Conservative Party from Nigel Farage’s surging Brexit Party.
Seemingly, the only thing that can stop a hard Brexit would be a successful no-confidence vote in the government before Oct. 31. However, that would hold out the prospect that a very market-unfriendly Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the Labour Party, could become prime minister. This could seriously undermine UK investor confidence, especially if he continues to offer the same economic policy prescriptions for the UK that failed so badly in the 1960s.
A more serious, albeit less imminent, threat to the global economy is the risk of a new Italian sovereign debt crisis that would pose an existential threat to the euro’s survival. Italy would be very much more difficult to save than Greece, given that its economy is around 10 times the size of Greece’s. Having the world’s third-largest bond market, a serious Italian economic crisis is bound to reach our shores in much the same way as our 2008 Lehman crisis impacted the rest of the world.
Heightening the risk of an Italian debt crisis is the reckless policy path on which its populist government is embarked. At a time that the country is already saddled with Europe’s second-highest ratio of public debt to GDP, behind only Greece, the Italian government is insisting on the introduction of a large unfunded tax cut that would raise its budget deficit to around 5% of GDP.
It is also not helping matters that the Italian government is seriously floating the idea of issuing small-denominated bonds (dubbed Mini-BOTs, after the Italian term for Treasury bonds) that would have the same denominations as euro notes and that could be used to pay future tax liabilities. The introduction of such a parallel currency, which very well could occur if Matteo Salvini, now deputy prime minister, were to become prime minister, would be bound to undermine investor confidence in Italy’s commitment to continued euro membership.
Salvini, who heads the euroskeptic Northern League, is already threatening to pull out of the current coalition government and force new elections if he doesn’t get his way over proposed tax cuts. Given that his party got 34% of the vote in the recent elections for European Parliament — twice that of his coalition partner — a government with Salvini at the head is a likely scenario for later this year.
President Trump’ America First trade policy constitutes a further major source of risk to the European economy. In particular, his threat to slap a 25% import tariff on European automobiles sometime later this year could be the final straw that pushes an already ailing German economy into recession.
Sensing these risks, as well as that coming from heightened US-China trade tensions, the world’s major central banks have become decidedly more dovish than before. Global bond markets, meanwhile, are anticipating that a weak global economy will lead to several interest-rate cuts in the year ahead.
A key question that stock-market investors should be asking themselves right now is whether they might be missing something that the central banks and the global bond markets are seeing.
Dozens of metal archaeological artifacts that had been excavated in Caesarea were stolen from an Israel Antiquities Authority storage facility in the center of the country about two months ago.
The authority never publicly disclosed the break-in at the facility, which houses a large portion of the country’s archaeological treasures, but told Haaretz it is taking the matter very seriously and took immediate security measures after it was discovered.
Among the objects apparently taken were figurines, arrowheads, rings and nails. About 50,000 items, both large and small, are housed at the facility, including coffins and decorations from ancient columns.
>> Read more: The top 10 archaeological discoveries in Israel ■ Where you can volunteer at archaeological digs in Israel
In recent years, as the pace has increased of archaeological salvage digs – conducted at sites where construction is slated to be carried out – the number of items stored at the storage facility has increased. The facility is receiving about 9,000 items a year, and although it is protected by fencing and security cameras, the burglary initially went undetected.
According to an Antiquities Authority source, the alarm system at the site sounded but the security firm protecting the site did not discover the break-in. The burglary was caught on security camera footage, however, which showed three intruders walking to the room where items that were taken were stored.
Senior officials at the authority said that other than three items details of which were not provided, the stolen Caesarea artifacts, some of which had been found in the Mediterranean, were generally not of exceptional value or of an exceptional nature.
The Israel Antiquities Authority reported the burglary to the police, which is investigating, but no suspects have been apprehended. The authority is also monitoring the antiquities market to see if the items surface for sale by antiquities dealers.
The promotion of the public prosecutor handling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption cases has been suspended, following an anonymous complaint letter that was penned by “concerned prosecutors.”
The prosecutors who signed the letter claim that Liat Ben Ari’s appointment to next deputy state prosecutor for financial crimes was only intended to “keep her in the system” for her “aggressive attitude” toward Netanyahu.
Israel’s Civil Service Commissioner Daniel Hershkowitz ordered Sunday to delay the selection committee’s meeting, which was scheduled for Monday, after the letter claimed it was just going to rubber-stamp the pick by State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan, who is set to end his six-year term at the end of 2019.
>> Read more: Judges put aside duty to protect Sara Netanyahu. Will they do the same with her husband? | Analysis ■ The bribery game is changing, taking down Israel’s wealthiest businesswoman with it | Analysis
“There is no justification for an outgoing state prosecutor to appoint in his last moment a deputy, which wouldn’t be his,” the anonymous letter read. “Any selection, any candidate, would be biased and wrong,” it added.
The letter further states that the bid for the senior position was published after the dismissal of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and before the appointment of Amir Ohana in her place, following a year in which the position hadn’t been manned since the resignation of the last deputy prosecutor, Yehuda Sheffer, and after a long time when no bid for it was published.
Shai Nitzan (left) and Avichai Mendelblit at a farewell event for former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, Jerusalem, June 4, 2019.Emil Salman
During that period, some State Prosecution officials expressed resentment for the fact that other candidates for the post had withdrawn from the race after learning it was being reserved for Ben Ari, who is considered to be Nitzan’s favorite. She is set to end her term at the Tel Aviv District Attorney’s Office Taxation and Economics Division in April 2020.
Nitzan, who is a member of the four-person selection committee, was pushing for Ben Ari’s appointment, the letter said. The prosecutors called to wait for the next state prosecutor to begin his term before a deputy is deputy is appointed for an eight-year period.
Civil Service Commissioner Hershkowitz updated Justice Minister Ohana on the turn of events, but the minister has no authority to intervene in appointments and both Hershkowitz’s office and that of the prosecutor general say he had no hand in the matters. After that conversation, Hershkowitz ordered the suspension of the bid.
The Civil Service Commission said that it froze the nomination to look into the arguments made in the letter, in a process that would take “several days.”
Last year, Haaretz revealed that Ben Ari said behind closed doors that the pace at which decisions are being made in Netanyahu’s cases is problematic. While her team, she complained, worked swiftly and efficiently, Nitzan and Attorney General Avhichai Mendelblit hold up their decisions for many weeks.
Joe Sestak, whose failed 2010 Senate race was a precursor of this decade’s shift among Democrats toward increased criticism of Israel’s government, is running for president.
Sestak, 67, is the 25th candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. His announcement Monday referred to his foreign policy experience, and his advocacy for tax reform and addressing climate change.
>> Read more: Surveyed on Israeli human rights record, this is what Democratic presidential hopefuls think
Sestak was a retired Navy admiral and two-term Democratic Pennsylvania congressman in 2009 when he announced a primary bid against Arlen Specter, the Jewish senator who had just switched parties from Republican to Democrat.
The party establishment, including President Barack Obama, backed Specter, but Sestak won the primary. He went on to narrowly lose the general election to Republican Pat Toomey, who is still one of the state’s two senators.
Sestak was one of the first endorsees of the then newly established J Street, a Jewish Middle East policy group that favors a two-state solution and pressure on Israel to bring it about.
Conservative pro-Israel groups spent millions targeting Sestak, citing J Street’s backing and his calling on Obama to pressure Israel to ease its blockade on the Gaza Strip.
Sestak’s departures from mainstream pro-Israel orthodoxies, rare at the time, have become commonplace among Democrats, and J Street is now a force to be reckoned with among Democrats vying for Congress, endorsing more than half the party’s caucuses in Congress.
Sestak ran again for the Senate in 2016, walking across the entire state to campaign, but lost the primary.
Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said on Tuesday that Israeli air strikes on Syria were undesirable.
Israel has repeatedly attacked what it describes as Iranian targets in Syria and those of allied militia, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah. The strikes have caused friction between Israel and Russia, which apart from Iran is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s other major foreign backer.
Read more: Contradicting Trump, top Putin adviser says U.S. drone downed in Iranian airspace
Russia’s national security adviser has rebuffed U.S. and Israeli attempts to isolate Iran and is urging both countries to show “restraint” toward the Islamic Republic.
Patrushev spoke at a three-way meeting Tuesday with his Israeli and American counterparts in Jerusalem. He says attempts to present Iran “as the main threat to regional security” or to equate it to international terrorist groups are “not acceptable.”
He added that “Iran is contributing a lot to fighting terrorists on the Syrian soil and stabilizing the situation there.”
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, earlier called for the three countries to agree on expelling foreign forces from neighboring Syria. He says Israel will not allow Iran to establish a permanent military presence there.
Patrushev called on Israel and the U.S. to encourage a political settlement in Syria.
“college was sunk by a financial crisis that included $31.2 million in unpaid bills that had been hidden from financial statements until late 2016”
This is now happening on a near weekly basis. Someone needs to think of something to do with all these empty campuses.
College of New Rochelle campus up for sale as school readies for shutdown
The College of New Rochelle’s 15.6-acre campus is being put up for sale as the school prepares to close this summer.
The two firms hired to manage the structured sale are marketing it for potential redevelopment as residential, senior housing or research and development.
“It is an operating college and ideal for continued use as an educational institution,” Emilio Amendola, co-founder and co-president of A&G Realty said in a statement. “Alternatively, it could be redeveloped into residential or appropriate uses through collaboration with City government and New Rochelle community.”
A&G is working with B6 Real Estate Advisors, according to an statement from the firms. The zoning for the property permits residential and educational uses and if any other uses are explored, the city would have to permit it.
Calls to city officials weren’t immediately returned Monday.
The goal is to sell the property as a whole, a college spokesman told The Journal News/lohud.
Aug. 10 is the last day of academics at the 115-year-old private, Catholic college with chapter 11 bankruptcy expected to follow. The college was sunk by a financial crisis that included $31.2 million in unpaid bills that had been hidden from financial statements until late 2016.
That debt included more than $20 million in unpaid state and federal payroll taxes. As the college winds down operations, it has been unable to keep up with its debt payments and has received several default notices from debtors, as previously reported by The Journal News/lohud.
Yesterday I explained why the pending border bill drawn up by Nancy Pelosi’s House Democrats should be considered dead on arrival. It’s true that the Senate is working on their own version (and who knows if they could actually resolve the two by the end of the week), but that one is lacking in many areas as well. Now it sounds as if the President has had a chance to take a look and he’s equally disappointed in what’s being cooked up. Word out of the White House has it that Trump is already threatening to veto it if they manage to put it on his desk. (Associated Press)
The White House is threatening to veto a $4.5 billion House bill aimed at improving the treatment of migrant families detained after crossing the U.S. southern border, saying the measure would hamstring the administration’s border security efforts and raising fresh questions about the legislation’s fate…
In a letter Monday threatening the veto, White House officials told lawmakers they objected that the House package lacked money for beds the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency needs to let it detain more migrants. Officials also complained in the letter that the bill had no money to toughen border security, including funds for building Trump’s proposed border wall.
“Because this bill does not provide adequate funding to meet the current crisis, and because it contains partisan provisions designed to hamstring the Administration’s border enforcement efforts, the Administration opposes its passage,” the letter said.
Not mentioned in the letter from the White House is the poison pill buried in the House bill that instructs the government to advertise to all migrants that if they bring a child with them (even if they are lying and trafficking somebody else’s child) they will be immune from immigration enforcement action. That’s hardly the only rotten thing in this bill, but it’s one of the worst. We would be essentially codifying a very bad loophole into law.
As far as all the spending goes, this is yet another case of the Democrats “offering” everything they want but being willing to put “not one cent” (as Pelosi likes to say) on the table for any Republican concerns in return. All of the measures in the bill are focused on improving conditions for illegal aliens crossing the border and being detained. No problem there, since conditions clearly need improvement. But what are we supposed to do? It sounds as if we’re being told to just fund all of the Democrats’ priorities now and maybe they’ll get around to providing more immigration judges, additional CBP officers and funding for wall construction later.
Sorry, but we’ve played far too many games of Lucy and the football with Democrats before. There is no pool of goodwill left at this point to place that sort of trust in them. If they want a deal, the President has been very clear in terms of what he’s asking for, and none of it is unreasonable. The Democrats used to be very big on talking about a “comprehensive immigration bill.” Well, this particular exchange can be made comprehensive as well. We’ve seen what Pelosi wants and the GOP (and Trump) are close to being ready to give it to her. Now put border security measures in there to balance it out and you’ll have a deal.
And if the Speaker wants to stick to her “my way or the highway” routine on this one, I say fine. Hit the highway and go take your Independence Day break. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail when you return.