Mediaboss Marketing

During a heated exchange on Thursday, Fox News Tucker Carlson of Tucker Carlson Tonight calledco-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) Dan Barkera bully who runs a highly aggressive interest group, after Barkers group shut down a before-school Bible study group for first- and second-graders.

The Altruria Bible Club met at Altruria Elementary School in Bartlett, Tennessee, before classes in the morning, with dozens of students attending the meetings, according to WMC-TV. The groupsent a letter tothe schooland told them to investigate the club to see to it that teachers or staff were not taking part in it, citing the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

The school shut down the club, causing outrage among parents. The FFRF said ina statement to WATN-TV in Memphis that this development is a victory not only for reason and the law but for the inviolable right of a captive audience of first- and second-grade students to be free from indoctrination in a public school setting.

Carlson and Barker exchanged opinions over the matter of the club being shut down. Carlson asked Barker if he felt good about shutting down a Bible study for children.Barker told Carlson that his group did feel good about it, and that the school did the right thing by shutting down the illegal Bible club.

Well, you bullied them into it, Carlson said. Bullied them into canceling a club for first graders.

Carlson then asked Barker what the Constitutional problem was with what the club was doing, stating that school district employeeshave their right to free speech. Barker disagreed, saying that the teachers are the government.

Theres a difference between free speech and governmentspeech, he said. When those teachers are at the school, they are the government.

There are families who wish to protect their children from the depravity and the violence thats in the Bible, Barker said.

Carlson and Barker arguedover First Amendment rights. Barker refuted Carlsons statement that teachers do not give up their First Amendment rights just because they are teachers.

You dont forfeit your First Amendment rights, or any of your Constitutional rights, just because you work for the government. You know that, Carlson said.

Yes, you do, Barker replied.

Carlson finished the segment by calling Barker a zealot who flexes his muscles because children reading the Bible bugs him, and said Barkers pride in shutting down the Bible study group weird.

The Supreme Court ruled that schools are required to allow religious groups to meet after hours on campus, if they allow similarly situated non-religious groups to do soin a 6-3 decision in the The Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools case in 2001. The Milford School in upstate New York claimed that allowing the private Christian group for children, The Good News Club, to hold meetings on school grounds after school was the equivalent of religious worship.

The Good News club claimed that the school was discriminating against the club due to their religious beliefs, while allowing other groups to teach their definition of morality, such as the Boy Scouts of America, and the 4-H club. The Supreme Court found that the school allowing other groups to meet on school grounds, but not the Good News Club, was indeed discrimination on the basis of religion, and made their ruling allowing religious groups tomeet on school grounds after hours.

When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the schools limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

Visit link:
Watch: Tucker Carlson verbally pummels atheist activist with the ... - TheBlaze.com

There's a sucker born every minute, goes the old saying, and several hundred of them gathered at Wellesley College last Thursday to cheer Hillary Clinton as she rehashed, complained about and justified her electoral loss by saying in different ways over and over that she is simply too good for this world. Seriously, just how addled does one have to be to take this nepot and parasite as an inspiration for women, and as a model of how one should build her career?

To follow Clinton's career path, one has to first attack then-Sen. Edward Brooke, R-Mass., at your graduation from Wellesley. Second, proceed to Yale Law School to meet and marry a skilled politician. Third, follow him home to suppress bimbo eruptions and otherwise serve as first lady of Arkansas. And fourth, wait for the day he's elected as president, so that you are first lady for real.

Having done that, one can start at the top, being given control of his healthcare reform plan, which you run into the ground 18 months later, just in time for a staggering wipeout in Congress in which he loses the Senate and House. And how does one manage to get this much power? One lies on "60 Minutes" on the eve of the New Hampshire primary about a woman in Arkansas who claimed that she and one's husband had had an affair.

If you had any doubts as to how she got to run healthcare, Carl Bernstein explains it to you on page 218 of A Woman In Charge, the book that he wrote about Hillary. "He was president in no small measure because she stood by him in the Gennifer Flowers mess," he quotes Bill's aide as saying. "He had to pay her back. This is what she wanted, and he couldn't figure out how not to give it to her. And so he hoped for the best." What he got was the worst, while Hillary built her career on trying to discount what Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick had accused Bill of doing, while joining Anita Hill and others in running against Clarence Thomas, for what Hillary had claimed that he said.

Having gotten so much because Bill misbehaved with one woman, Hillary got even more five years later, when it turned out he misbehaved with three more: In the course of a suit brought by Paula Jones (who charged that Bill asked her to "kiss it" in a hotel room in Little Rock), it came out that he had an affair with a 24-year-old intern, and had also molested an aide in the White House on the day that her husband had died.

As this broke new ground on the Richter scale of spouse mortification, the public was happy enough to allow her to run for the Senate from New York, a state that she had never lived in in order to start life anew. Hillary, who got one big job by covering up for her husband's philandering, got another because he had strayed once again (and been impeached in the process), while the three jobs she held that required executive competence healthcare reform and her two runs for president could be studied in as examples of cosmic mismanagement.

So, of course, she is now the ideal of millions of women, who swear she's the soul of self-made girl power, who would in due course have made a great president if only men had given her a chance.

Noemie Emery, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."

See the original post:
Hillary Clinton is making fools out of feminists - Washington Examiner

Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel seemed a bit irked that CNNs Dana Bash was asking him about the possibility of Hillary Clinton mounting a third presidential run would be good for the party, noting that it wasnt a good question. Emanuel said that he loves Hillary, and that she has lost to offerbut the decision about a 2020 run is best left with her. Also, were not even close to the 2018 midterm elections (via The Hill):

"I know, but I asked the question. Do you think she should," CNN's Dana Bash responded.

"Well it's not I love you. It's not a good question, OK," he said.

"Why not?" Bash asked.

"It's not a good question," he reiterated.

When pressed further, Emanuel said he happens to "love" Clinton, adding that he thinks she's "full of energy."

"We have a lot of time between now and the presidential election of 2020," he said.

Emanuel said Clinton has a "lot to offer," but the main question is whether Clinton wants to launch a bid in 2020.

"The core question is not whether I think she would be a good candidate. It's whether she wants to run," he said.

Well, I agree that it is up to Clinton about whether she wants to run again. At the same time, shes a two-time presidential loser, a substantial proportion of the Democratic base is moving more towards the left and away from her positions on policy, and they werent thrilled that she won the nomination in 2016.

The emails from the Democratic National Committee showing staffers mulling ways to undercut Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) primary campaign only confirmed what many in that camp thought: the establishment was fixing the game. It caused the DNC a lot of heartburn going into their national convention in Philadelphia last year. There isnt much there to create a good give me anther shot pitch. Many in the vocal progressive wing of the Democratic Party feel that its imperative that Clinton goes away in order for the party to move forward. The left inability to truly have an introspective analysis of why they lost in 2016 also hamstrings them from that goaland it doesnt help that Clinton is part of this behavior as well.

She has yet to fully take responsibility for her 2016 loss, instead pivoting to blaming the Russians and former FBI Director James Comey. She will never get past her other handicaps as well that were cemented in the minds of the electorate long before the 2016 campaign, which are that she (along with Bill) are secretive, and that they play by a different set of rules. These two conceptions were incredibly damaging, with the ethical questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation and her private email system embodying those criticisms. It was a throwback to the 1990s; voters viewed Clinton as untrustworthy and dishonest.

Also, the talk of Clinton 2020 also seems to highlight another problem Democrats have for the next presidential election. They dont have a deep bench concerning candidates anymore.

Trump Communications Director Resigns

More:
Rahm Emanuel On Hillary Clinton 2020: 'It's Not A Good Question, Okay' - Townhall

Subscribe to The Global POLITICO on iTunes here. | Subscribe via Stitcher.

MANCHESTERIs Prime Minister Theresa May a British Hillary Clinton? Is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn a sort of left-wing Donald Trump?

Story Continued Below

Britain votes next week in a general election that was supposed to be effectively a coronation for May, the unlikely prime minister who came to power last summer as a result of Britains surprise decision last June to vote to leave the European Union. But instead of the Brexit Election, as May called it, strengthening her hand as she heads into tough negotiations with the European Union over the terms of their divorce, May now finds herself in a real contest on June 8 with a Labour leader previously seen as utterly unelectable.

For an American columnist fresh off the 2016 election, there are some striking similarities to ponder. Both leading candidates seem to have taken their cues from the U.S. in ways that could prove risky. Like Clinton when faced with Trump, May has chosen to turn the contest into a referendum on her opponent, the hard-left Corbyn, whose views are far outside the British mainstream and whose party members in parliament voted 80 percent in favor of dumping him as their leader. As a top May adviser put it to me, Any day were talking about May versus Corbyn, were winning. Anything else, and we are not.

But many days lately they have not been talking about Corbynor even much about the future of Britain at all.

It was going to be the Brexit Election but it seems that other concerns were dominating, says Steve Hilton, who served as the Conservatives top strategist in the last British general election before falling out with his close friend, Mays predecessor David Cameron, over Brexit. In a new interview for The Global Politico, Hilton says May has not followed through on the political revolution that brought Brexit and Trump to the U.S. with a comparable policy revolutionnor does she seem likely to after a campaign that at times now seems reminiscent of last years American contest.

Indeed, Mays own leadership style and decision-making became the issue in ways she could hardly have anticipated when she called the snap election in April. In loud echoes of the rap on Clinton, May has been dinged in recent days on everything from her insular way of running 10 Downing St. and small circle of confidants to talking points-laden speeches and lack of a positive vision for the country.

May promised British voters strong and stable leadershipin theory an appealing slogan at a time of massive uncertainty about the countrys post-Europe futurebut then was forced to abandon a key plank in her party platform just four days after issuing the campaign manifesto. She proposed and quickly withdrew a so-called dementia tax to make Britons pay more out of pocket for long-term care, resulting in days of punishing press coverage; the Tories lead in the polls quickly collapsed from some 22 points to as little as 5 points. Headlines, like this one in the left-leaning Independent, started warning: Theresa May will meet the same fate as Hillary Clinton.

And meantime, the much-maligned Corbyn has been running what many British pols this week told me they consider a near-flawless campaign. His advisers speak openly of how they Trumpified their leftist boss, courting controversy rather than avoiding it, doubling down on the partys left wing rather than worrying about pivoting to the center, rallying the public with populist pledges to skip the messy foreign entanglements in favor of investing more back home.

Then came Manchester.

Massacre of the Innocents. Fortress Britain. Pure Evil.

All week long the tabloids screamed out the horror of the terrorist attack in this football-obsessed, proudly working-class hub of the industrial revolution turned booming center of the new economy, with 22 dead in the Monday night bombing of an Ariana Grande concert full of young girls and their mothers. By the time I arrived Tuesday afternoon, all national campaigning had been suspended as Britain stopped to mourn the dead. At the vigil that night in Manchesters Albert Square, I stood amid a silent, tearful crowd of thousands. There was shock but not necessarily surprise that Manchester had been added to the long list of European cities like Paris, Brussels and Berlin that have been hit by such attacks in the last few years.

On his first international trip as president, Trump took time out to condemn the Manchester attack, calling the bomber who did it an evil loser. Even many Brits who said they didnt like Trump thought that was just about the right tone to strike.

By Wednesday, May had ordered armed police to the streets and the British military to take up positions at key posts and raised the nations threat level to the highest in a decade, assessing the chances of another attack as imminent. The papers were no longer talking about her U-turn on the dementia tax but about whether the national police budget had been cut too much in recent years and how security should play in Mays favor over Corbyn, nobodys idea of a get-tough-on-terrorists hawk.

By Friday, campaigning was back on, and the subject was most decidedly not Mays social program. As Corbyn complained that British foreign policy was partly to blame for the terrorist attack, May went on the offensive.

Mixing partisan politics with a G-7 summit in Sicily, she said Corbyns statement amounted to an excuse for terrorism, adding: The choice that people face at the general election has just become starker. Its a choice between me, working constantly to protect the national interest and to protect our securityand Jeremy Corbyn, who frankly isnt up to the job.

After a painful detour of more than a week, May was back doing what her campaign believed she had to do to win: Make it a him-or-me kind of a race.

But those nagging, havent-we-seen-this-play-before doubts continue to follow May, and how could they not, with memories so fresh of Clintons decision to make the election a referendum on Trump? May is very much a creature of the British Tory establishment whose careful political persona would seem to be not only Clintonian, but out of step with the to-hell-with-that ethos that led to the Brexit vote less than a year ago.

Then again, her advisers reckon that might not matter so much, and there are several broad developments that might help May even if her own political skills undercut her. Most important: shes pulled perhaps the most important flip-flop possible in going from Brexit opponent before last years referendum to portraying herself as the strong-willed negotiator who can deliver on Brexit in this years race, pitching even more explicitly to the white working-class voters who fueled the referendum win at just the moment when the insurgent party that helped fuel the referendum, the UK Independence Party and its immigrant-bashing leader Nigel Farage, has seemingly imploded.

And besides, its still hard to see a realistic scenario for a Prime Minister Corbyn.

Can a Labour leader who repeatedly voted against counterterrorism funding, who has been attacked for calling the killing of Osama bin Laden a tragedy, and whose party manifesto is the most left-wing document the party has produced since 1983, really have a chance? What are the odds?

Zero percent, a veteran BBC producer told me meexcept, he quickly added that, in this age of Brexit and Trump, he no longer trusts the polls, or his own political instincts honed over three decades of covering British elections, or anything really.

Susan B. Glasser is POLITICOs chief international affairs columnist. Her new podcast, The Global Politico, comes out Mondays. Subscribe here. Follow her on Twitter @sbg1.

Excerpt from:
An English Hillary Clinton? Left-wing Trump? - POLITICO Magazine

Richard Nixon was the only president in U.S. history to resign from office doing so on Aug. 9, 1974, amid the Watergate scandal but he was not, as is often stated, impeached by the House of Representatives.

The issue has become current again withgrowing comparisons being made between Nixons obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal and President Trumps efforts to get law enforcement authorities to end an FBI probe into whether members of his campaign had colluded withRussia during the 2016 election.

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said in a commencement speech at Wellesley College last week that Nixon was impeached. Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), her running mate inthe presidential campaign, said the same thing during a September 2016 interview with CBSs This Morning show. The Telegraph, a British newspaper, had this headline on a May 20, 2017, report: What was Watergate and why was Nixon impeached? The story says in part:

In July [1974] the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the remaining tapes, which he again tried to resist.

The House of Representatives lost patience, voting to impeach Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, criminal cover-up and several violations of the Constitution.

Clinton who served on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of Nixon said this in her recent Wellesley speech, referring to her graduation from the same school in 1969:

We didnt trust government, authority figures or really anyone over 30, in large part thanks to years of heavy casualties and dishonest official statements about Vietnam, and deep differences over civil rights and poverty here at home. We were asking urgent questions about whether women, people of color, religious minorities, immigrants, would ever be treated with dignity and respect.

And, by the way, we were furious about the past presidential election of a man [Nixon] whose presidency would eventually end in disgrace with his impeachment for obstruction of justice after firing the person running the investigation into him at the Department of Justice.

No, the House did not impeach Nixon. The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment (see below) and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a trial in the House.

The two presidents who were impeached by the House were Clintons husband, Bill Clinton, in 1998, and Andrew Johnson in 1868 though both were acquitted by the Senate.

Impeachment is the job of the full House, not a committee. The impeachment process against Nixon did lead to his resignation, but he wasnt formally impeached. Heres how Joy Hakim, author of the American history series A History of US, explained it in the last volume, All the People:

In the House of Representatives, articles of impeachment were prepared. President Nixon was charged with lying, obstructing justice, and using the Internal Revenue Service (the tax office) and other government agencies illegally. Nixon was going to be impeached. After that, he would face a trial in the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors. He chose to leave the presidency instead. He resigned as president of the United States (the only man ever to do so).

In England, an editor of the London Spectator wrote that the U.S. presidency had gone from George Washington, who could not tell a lie, to Richard Nixon, who could not tell the truth.

Here are the three articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July 1974:

Article 1

RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Article 3

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Read the rest here:
Richard Nixon was not impeached, despite what Hillary Clinton and others say - Washington Post