Blog

12/12/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense Leave a Comment

WTH? Eric Holder Says William Barr Unfit to Be Attorney General

Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder accused Attorney General William Barr of being “nakedly partisan” and “unfit to be attorney general” in an op-ed published Wednesday night.

“I respect the office ad understand just how tough the job can be. But recently, Attorney General William P. Barr has made a series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, that they demand a response from someone who held the same office,” Holder wrote in the Washington Post.

Holder then lashed out at Barr’s recent Federalist Society speech in which he railed against rising anti-police sentiment among “the left,” claiming it was “antithetical to the most basic tenets fo equality and justice.”

“It undermines the need for understanding between law enforcement and certain communities and flies in the face of everything the Justice Department stands for,” the former DOJ official added. “I and many other Justice veterans were hopeful that he would serve as a responsible steward of the department and a protector of the rule of law,”

“Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr’s words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution. Which is why I now fear that his conduct — running political interference for an increasingly lawless president — will wreak lasting damage,” he concluded.

Holder was held in civil and criminal contempt of Congress in 2012 for failure to produce subpoenaed documents related to Operation Fast and Furious — a “gunwalking” operation that resulted in foreign nationals killing Border Patrol agent Brian Terry with a weapon sold knowingly through illegal straw purchases, ostensibly for ATF to track their use by Mexican drug cartels.

Holder’s op-ed comes after he claimed the Justice Department’s inspector general report showed “conclusively that there was a need for Russia inquiry” and accusing Barr of being “politically motivated.” The watchdog found the FBI committed 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in its application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page as part of its investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign.

“IG Report shows conclusively that there was a need for Russia inquiry. All those-including the AG-who questioned the motives of the career people at DOJ and FBI must acknowledge this. Do no more harm to these organizations. You were politically motivated; you’re now proven wrong,” Holder wrote on Twitter.

Barr’s statement on the report stands in stark contrast to Holder, saying the “FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”

“It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory,” he added.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/12/eric-holder-william-barr-unfit-to-be-attorney-general/

Eric Holder’s Long History Of Lying To Congress

Scandal: Before he lied to Congress while under oath about what he knew about targeting reporters, he lied about Fast and Furious. As early as the New Black Panthers case, Eric Holder had a problem with the truth.

That the House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on Department of Justice (DOJ) surveillance of reporters comes as no surprise. People have forgotten about the New Black Panther case, perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter suppression and intimidation ever. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members in military garb were videotaped intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place.

The slam-dunk prosecution of these thugs was dropped by Holder’s Justice Department. When asked why, Holder, on March 1, 2011, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that the “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.”

Holder lied, for the decisions were made by political appointees. J. Christian Adams, a former career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, who overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by Adams and his associates.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch and a ruling by Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to a suit brought by the group show that “political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case.”

Fast forward to Fast and Furious, the Obama administration’s program to “walk” guns across the border and into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in furtherance of its gun control agenda.

“When did you first know about the program officially I believe called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked Holder in sworn testimony on May 3, 2011. “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks,” was Holder’s response.

Holder lied: A July 2010 memo shows Michael Walther, head of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in Fast and Furious “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said other documents indicate Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center on or before that date.

In an exchange with Sen. Pat Leahy on Nov. 8, 2011, Holder admitted his May 3 testimony was inaccurate when he said he knew about Fast and Furious for a “few weeks.” He later changed that to a “couple months.”

But the memo from Walther referring to Fast and Furious in detail was sent directly to Holder on July 5, 2010 — not a “couple months” before he testified in May.

No surprise then on May 15, 2013, before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder lied when he said: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

He personally signed off on James Rosen’s warrant. Holder’s defenders say the statement is technically correct because he never meant to prosecute Rosen, only to find the leaker. If so, then he lied to a federal judge.

Similarly, Holder’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the Associated Press leak investigation that led to the blanket seizure of call records is not backed up by a formal recusal letter, which is required under such circumstances.

So we have at least four counts of lying to Congress by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

When did the lies begin? Looks like right after he took the oath of his office.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/12/eric-holder-william-barr-unfit-to-be-attorney-general/

11/29/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense 1 Comment

Good Samaritan Saves A Drowning Woman And She Sues Him

Believe it or not, lifeguards are remarkably effective at preventing drownings.

We’re not kidding. The International Life Saving Federation, or ILS, estimates that lifeguards in its 120 “Member Federations” across the globe save 1,000,000 lives per year; according to the United States Lifesaving Association, whose lifeguards are ILS-certified, the chances of drowning at a beach on their watch is about 1 in 18 million, or 0.0000055 percent.

That’s because, well, lifeguards know what they’re doing. When they see someone struggling, they react instantly. Unfortunately, they’re not always where they need to be—and if that happens, you’d better hope that someone on the beach is a good swimmer.

Unfortunately, some good deeds don’t go unpunished. When someone acts quickly to save a life, they might find themselves facing a massive lawsuit.

In one Reddit thread, a user named Hobviously shared a harrowing experience of a rescue—followed by an intense and unnecessary legal battle. Hobviously was visiting a California beach when he noticed something happening offshore.

“I am a trained swimmer and [had] completed all classes to become a lifeguard,” they wrote. “However, swimming never was more than a hobby for me, and I chose a totally different career path.”

“In 2007, I saved a girl from drowning.”

“For those of you inexperienced with seashores and beaches, the sea will always push you back to the shore unless you are further than a given point,” Hobviously wrote. “After this given point, the strong current will either push you deeper into the sea or keep you where you are. You can’t just ‘float’ back to the shore; you will drown [due to] exhaustion.”

That’s important information for understanding the rest of this story.

“I was at the beach with a few friends when I noticed a girl way too far from the shore,” Hobviously wrote. “By ‘too far,’ I mean way too far: At least twice as far as any other person. Her gestures were clear: She was drowning, barely keeping her head above water. I turned around: no lifeguard. I later learned the man [who was the designated lifeguard] chose to take a break and was at the bathroom.”

He had to make a quick decision: Wait for the lifeguard, or rush out to try to save the woman. In the moment, it wasn’t a difficult decision.

“To make this clear: She was getting further and further from the shore by the second,” he wrote. “I’m a good swimmer. I raced to her, then carried her on my back to the shore, keeping her above water. She had already swallowed a lot of water. I risked my own life, because my weight with hers could have been too much. But I made it.”

Normally, this would be the end of the story. Of course, that wasn’t the case.

Incredibly, the rescued woman filed a lawsuit against her rescuer.

“The lady later sued me.”

That sounds fairly heartless, but Hobviously provided some context that makes the woman’s actions more understandable—although still reprehensible.

“Now, I learned later that she had to spend three days at the hospitals, couldn’t afford it, tried to sue the beach owners but her case was rejected, but she still sued me. Her case [was that] I should have saved her earlier. I had been careless, not carrying her to the shore fast enough, and should have let the lifeguard do his job (yes, you read that right). I had injured her, she was in pain, she wouldn’t have swallowed as much water, if that makes any sense, etc.”

The case didn’t get very far. Unfortunately, Hobviously had to bear his own legal costs.

“I had the case thrown out by a judge, but still had to hire a lawyer, and to suffer the humiliation. It was an unnecessary stress. I felt disgusted and betrayed. Amongst her charge was that I injured her while giving her CPR…as opposed to not giving her CPR, maybe?”

Later in the thread, Hobviously noted that their terminology was incorrect; the lady received rescue breaths, but not CPR.

“I mean, she stopped breathing,” they wrote. “I had to push air in her lungs; by doing so, the [carbon dioxide] concentration in her system increased and forced her to breathe again, spitting water.”

Rescue breathing, also known as mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, is standard first aid when a person isn’t able to breathe on their own. CPR is different; it involves chest compressions, which can (and usually do) cause injury.

In any case, Hobviously clearly saved the woman’s life. That, apparently, wasn’t enough.

The Reddit user’s act of good faith led to a lengthy—and expensive—legal battle.

Attorney rates typically vary from $150-500 per hour. When you’re facing a lawsuit, you’ve got to hire a lawyer—and there’s no guarantee that you’ll get any of that money back, even if you win the suit.

“I paid around $3,500, but I had to hire another lawyer,” Hobviously explained. “The first lawyer recommended me to accept a deal with the defendant, citing that legal fees alone would be more than the deal … She sued for $150,000, but [my] lawyer offered to settle for $20,000, which was her medical bill, her legal fee plus lost wages. I immediately refused and fired the lawyer. I had already given him an $800 deposit. He worked a grand total of three hours (maximum) on my case.”

Fortunately, the second attorney saw the case through. Hobviously spent months in court trying to get the case dismissed.

“[The lawsuit] took around three or four months to settle,” he wrote. “We filed a motion to dismiss, and it was granted.”

But couldn’t he countersue? Yes—but that could have added to his troubles.

“That’s the ultimate irony,” he wrote. “I could have sued her for a frivolous lawsuit for my legal fee, but, first, there was no guarantee I would win. Second, even if I won, there was no guarantee she would pay me. Third, if I lost, I would have even more legal fees to pay.”

The safest course of action was to simply pay the court costs and move on. That was a tough pill to swallow, but if he’d kept the case in court, he’d have had much bigger bills to pay, with no guarantee that he’d walk away with anything.

At this point, most readers are probably wondering: How is any of this legal? In some parts of the United States, it isn’t.

In recent years, many states have enacted “Good Samaritan” laws to prevent this type of situation.

In fact, all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) have passed legislation to give citizens some protection from frivolous lawsuits. Good Samaritan laws vary quite a bit, however, and they’re often restricted to emergency medical personnel, not untrained citizens. What’s more, California’s law has been weakened significantly in recent years. We dug into the California code to try to determine whether rescuers have legal recourse when they’re sued by their “victims.” Strap in, because the legal language gets fairly confusing.

There’s a section in the state’s Health and Safety code intended to protect rescuers from legal liability. At first glance, it seems like the language of the law protects people like Hobviously:

“No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.”

That’s pretty straightforward, right? Hobviously is a “person,” we assume, and he acted in good faith to render care at the scene of an emergency. Case closed.

Well, not so fast. That section of the law only applies to emergency care—not non-emergency care. Saving the woman might qualify as emergency care; giving her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation might not, depending on the scenario. If she incurred an injury as a result of the rescue, she could still sue—which might explain why Hobviously’s first attorney wanted to settle the case and get it out of court as quickly as possible.

To make things more confusing, a 2008 California appellate court decision ruled that people can sue rescuers who attempt to provide emergency medical care if that care wasn’t actually provided at the scene of an emergency.

If you provide care outside of the “scene of an emergency,” you might be liable for damages.

So, what does that actually mean? In the 2008 case, a rescuer named Lisa Torti pulled a woman, Alexandra Van Horn, from a crashed vehicle; Torti said that she believed the vehicle would explode, so she had to act quickly in order to save Van Horn’s life. Unfortunately, Van Horn was paralyzed as a result of the rescue, and she sued Torti, arguing that Torti shouldn’t have attempted to move her.

The court ruled that moving Van Horn was an act of rescue, but not an act of “medical care” as defined by the Good Samaritan statute. The law, as written, specifically covers medical care, but not rescue care, so it didn’t apply in this circumstance. Torti was allowed to proceed with her lawsuit against her rescuer.

If that sounds ridiculous to you, you’re not alone; the case caused a public uproar and led to changes in the language of the law.

“There may be circumstances in which moving someone from their current location is a matter of medical exigency, such as where a carbon monoxide poisoning victim needs to be moved to a source of fresh air,” Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in defending the decision. “We do not hold that the act of moving a person is never the rendition of emergency medical care, only that it was not in this case.”

To put that in layman’s terms, Torti wasn’t doing anything “medical” by dragging Van Horn away from the burning vehicle. She was acting on her belief that the car might explode, which wasn’t specifically medical in nature.

Yeah, we don’t really get it, either.

As a result of that decision—which we’re still struggling to understand—the California legislation rewrote the statute to include “non-medical care.” That should have fixed the problem, but as the case demonstrates, Good Samaritan laws often have imprecise wording that can lead to differences in interpretation.

When those differences allow for a lawsuit, victims will sometimes sue their rescuers, and that means that the rescuers face intense legal battles. Sure, they sometimes win—but that doesn’t really matter if they have to pay thousands of dollars and experience the tremendous stress that comes with a long court case.

That leads to an obvious problem: In some states, the safest course of action is to do nothing.

In Michigan, for instance, would-be rescuers can protect themselves from legal liability by refusing to help.

“Under common law liability provisions, you don’t have a responsibility to help anyone,” professor Lance Gable of Wayne State University Law School told Legal News. “There’s a general ‘no duty’ rule. If you see someone injured, you don’t have to help, even if you easily could. If you stood there and watched and did nothing, you wouldn’t be liable. That’s the common law rule, as calloused as it sounds.”

Michigan law protects emergency personnel who provide emergency care—they can’t be sued. Untrained civilians, however, don’t get the same protection.

“As far as I know, the [Michigan Good Samaritan] statute itself only covers medical personnel,” Gable said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that other individuals who respond are going to be subjected to extensive liability because they helped.”

Another example: In Illinois, the Good Samaritan statute applies only to “licensed medical professionals.” Furthermore, the law only applies to individuals who provide help “without fee.” That means that emergency room personnel—who are being paid for their time—could face lawsuits for saving lives.

Some states, however, have laws that require civilians to help.

Minnesota’s Good Samaritan law includes a “duty to assist,” which reads:

“A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.”

In other words, if you see someone drowning in Minnesota, you’re legally required to get them help. That might not mean rushing into the water yourself—but if you’re simply standing on the beach, gawking at the victim, you’re guilty of a crime.

We should also note that Minnesota provides more protection for rescuers than many other states; its law protects untrained rescuers from legal liabilities,” unless the person acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance.”

However, the same act notes that a rescuer might be liable for civil damages if they’re paid for their effort. That means that emergency personnel who accidentally cause an injury could face malpractice lawsuits, even if they’re acting in good faith to save a life. There’s also a lengthy section on the use of defibrillators (those things that use electric current to restore heart function during certain types of cardiac events), filled with plenty of legal lingo to identify exactly what “person” means in the context of the law.

If you’re not a legal savant, it’s enough to make your head spin. What should you do if you see someone in a perilous situation? Help, and expose yourself to potential liability, or sit back and hope that emergency medical personnel arrive on the scene?

We’d recommend checking out the laws in your own state (preferably before you’re actually faced with a life-or-death situation). If you’re struggling with that question, you might want to read Hobviously’s take on his unfortunate situation.

Despite his ordeal, Hobviously wrote that he didn’t regret saving the woman’s life.

“Let’s say I see the exact same girl drowning again,” he wrote. “What would I do? What would I honestly do?”

Given that he faced a long lawsuit and hefty legal bills, you might think that he’d stay on the shore. You’d be wrong.

“I’ve thought about it for [a long time],” he wrote. “She was suing me for $150,000, which is more than everything I have. She would have destroyed my life.”

“And I think I would save her again. Even if I know that, by saving her, I might get sued again.”

Ultimately, Hobviously believes he made the right decision. Sure, he faced a lawsuit, but he saved a life. Despite the woman’s apparent lack of gratitude, he knows he did something incredible; for him, sitting on the shore and waiting for the lifeguard to get back from the bathroom wasn’t an option.

That’s not to say that he wouldn’t change anything about his actions.

“However, this time, I would try not to give my name,” he wrote. “Just save her and run away. The worst [part] is, I gave my name to the emergency workers just in case they would later need my help or some information. Yeah.”

We’re certainly not saying that that’s the best course of action, but given this Good Samaritan horror story, it’s certainly understandable. After all, you never know who you’re saving—and whether or not they’ll be grateful for your efforts.

https://www.urbo.com/content/he-saved-her-life-then-she-sued-him/

11/29/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense Leave a Comment

Chick-Fil-A Donates to SPLC But Not Christian’s Against Gays. Franklin Graham Lies To Defend Chick-fil-A About Gay Mafia

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records show that Chick-fil-A is not only stopping donations to Christian organizations but is funding left-wing extremist groups, including the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Chick-fil-A’s 2017 990 IRS filing shows the fast-food franchise made a $2,500 donation to SPLC, among a laundry list of pro-abortion and pro-LGBT orgs, Townhall reports. The Chick-fil-A Foundation has come under conservative scrutiny since its decision to stop supporting Christian charities such as the Salvation Army, caving to disingenuous pressure campaigns from far-left activists.

The SPLC is most infamous for inspiring an attempted domestic terror attack against the Family Research Council (FRC), a group that lobbies for pro-marriage and pro-life policies.

In 2013, Floyd Lee Corkins II was sentenced to 25 years in prison in the first-ever conviction for domestic terrorism under Washington, DC, law. Corkins pled guilty to assault with intent to kill and committing an act of terrorism for entering the FRC’s office in August 2012 and shooting a black security guard, who ultimately thwarted his attack. Corkins used the SPLC’s “hate map” — an error–filled digital map giving the addresses of entities that the org deems “hate groups” — to locate the FRC for his planned massacre.

Corkins was carrying a bag of Chick-fil-A sandwiches when he entered the building and started shooting. He later told prosecutors that he planned to smear some of the food on the faces of his would-be victims.

FRC President Tony Perkins swiftly denounced the Chick-fil-A Foundation’s support of “one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America.”

“Not only has Chick-fil-A abandoned donations to Christian groups including the Salvation Army, it has donated to one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America,” Perkins said in a statement. “Anyone who opposes the SPLC, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives, is slandered and slapped with the ‘extremist’ label or even worse, their ‘hate group’ designation.”

“It’s time for Christians to find a fast food alternative to Chick-fil-A,” he concluded.

In addition to the FRC terrorism episode, the SPLC has suffered a number of other setbacks and humiliations, but it has not backed down from its extremist agenda, refreshing its “Hate Map” in 2018 and putting mainstream conservative activists in the same category as neo-Nazis and the alt-right.

The FRC remains a target on the map, even after the listing nearly got some of its staff killed. Other supposed “hate groups” include the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the Clarion Project.

After Corkins’ prosecution, federal agencies began distancing themselves from the then-discredited SPLC. The Department of Justice scrubbed its hate crimes web page of any association from the org in 2014, and the Department of Defense soon followed suit in its training materials. In August 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called out the org while speaking at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — which SPLC has labeled a “hate group.”

The SPLC’s broad-brush approach to political smearing has caused it more PR headaches in recent years. In December 2017, its “Hate Tracker” — a tool ostensibly set up to monitor the conversation topics of online extremists — flagged the hashtags “#Christmas,” “#MerryChristmas,” “#Jesus,” and “#ChristmasEve.” At the time of this writing, the “Hate Tracker” website is no longer functional.

Just months earlier, the org committed an even bigger blunder, including British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Nawaz sued for defamation and won a $3.375 million settlement plus an on-camera apology from SPLC President Richard Cohen.

After the Nawaz fiasco, the floodgates opened with bipartisan scrutiny of its practices. Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen wrote a piece titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility,” calling the org a “caricature” of its former self and urging donors to halt their support.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote to the IRS in April 2019, asking for a review of the SPLC’s nonprofit 501(c)(3) status in light of its obviously partisan activities which have yielded hundreds of millions of assets and “lavish salaries” for its management.

“Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents,” Cotton wrote, citing the Nawaz settlement and the org’s Hate Map. “In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

In March of 2019, the SPLC fired its founder Morris Dees, suggesting some kind of misconduct. A local reporter said several sources told him Dees had been accused of sexual harassment. In addition, SPLC employees reportedly accused management of being “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.”

Even amid all this controversy, the SPLC continues working with tech and finance companies like PayPal and Alphabet’s YouTube to silence and blacklist conservatives from banking services.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/27/chick-fil-a-donates-to-extremist-southern-poverty-law-center/

Franklin Graham Lies To Defend Chick-fil-A About Gay Mafia

CElebrated evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham revealed Thursday that Chick-fil-A’s CEO has assured him that the fast food chain has not “bowed down” to demands from LGBT activists following the news that it is ending donations to three groups that oppose gay marriage.

In a social media post, Graham wrote that he called CEO Dan Cathy to discuss the issue and said he came away thinking the controversy had been overblown, affirming that Chick-fil-A “has not changed who they are or what they believe.”

Graham wrote on Facebook:

Has Chick-fil-A caved? Some are saying they’ve rolled over, that they’ve conceded to the LGBTQ protests because they released a statement about their charitable giving. They announced that in 2020 they’re giving to fight hunger and homelessness and support education. What’s wrong with that?

I picked up the phone and called Dan Cathy. Dan was very clear that they have not bowed down to anyone’s demands, including the LGBTQ community. They will continue to support whoever they want to support. They haven’t changed who they are or what they believe. Chick-fil-A remains committed to Christian values. Dan Cathy assured me that this isn’t going to change. I hope all those who jumped to the wrong conclusion about them read this.

In my opinion, the gay movement wouldn’t ever be happy with Chick-fil-A unless they were open on Sunday, gave all of their charitable donations to LGBTQ organizations, and flew the rainbow flag over their stores! Their hatred for Chick-fil-A is rooted in founder Truett Cathy’s strong stand for biblical “traditional” values and his desire to honor God.

No fast food chain does a better job. I went through the drive-thru at Chick-fil-A yesterday morning, and I thought I might get dinner there—but a whole lot of other people had the same idea! A Chick-fil-A sandwich with waffle fries sounds really good right now!

Graham’s comments come after the Atlanta-based company said Monday that starting next year, it will focus its giving on three areas: hunger, homelessness, and education.

“This decision was made to create more clarity — and to better address three critical needs facing children across the communities Chick-fil-A serves,” the company said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A President Tim Tassopoulos said the company — which is closed on Sundays — will still consider donations to faith-based groups. The company wouldn’t say whether it will consider an organization’s position on gay rights before donating.

In the meantime, it doesn’t plan to continue its support of three groups that oppose gay marriage and have been the target of protesters’ ire.

In 2017 and 2018, the Chick-fil-A Foundation gave $2.4 million to the Missouri-based Fellowship of Christian Athletes for sports camps for underserved youth and $165,000 to the Salvation Army to buy Christmas gifts for needy children. The foundation also gave $6,000 to the Paul Anderson Youth Homes.

Chick-fil-A’s decision to no longer support the groups angered some conservatives, who say they stood by the restaurant in 2012 when CEO Dan Cathy said in several interviews that he didn’t support gay marriage. In more recent interviews, Cathy — who is the son of Chick-fil-A’s founder — has reiterated his personal beliefs but says he treats all customers with respect.

The Salvation Army issued a statement saying it was “saddened” by Chick-fil-A’s decision. It said the move was based on misinformation that, when perpetuated, puts at risk its ability “to serve those in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or any other factor.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said in a tweet Monday that he coordinated a national appreciation day for the company in 2012. Now, Chick-fil-A is betraying supporters, he said.

“They surrendered to anti-Christian hate groups. Tragic,” Huckabee tweeted.

“Chick-fil-A has decided to allow themselves to be bullied, to allow their enemies — the people who hate them — to dictate where they give their money,” Huckabee said Tuesday on WVNN’s The Jeff Poor Show. “I’m going to be very clear — they have every right to give wherever they want. They don’t have to give at all. They can choose to give to the most liberal or the most conservative organizations. But I was very disappointed that not only did they eventually bow down to the bullies on this, but then they tried to cover themselves by talking about how they had just reevaluated their overall help for education, homelessness, and job help for kids. And I just think that is disingenuous.”

“The bottom line is they caved,” he added. “They surrendered. I wish they would just be honest about it and say, ‘Despite the fact that millions of people stood up for us when we were bullied before, and came to our defense because they protected our free speech rights and our First Amendment rights of association and religion, we’re going to bow down to the bullies anyway because we want to go into business in some areas where they might create problems for us.’ It’s just a sad day in America.”

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/11/22/franklin-graham-chick-fil-a-ceo-assured-me-company-hasnt-bowed-down-to-lgbt-demands/

Chick-fil-A To Stop Donations To Charities With Anti-LGBT Views

As Chick-fil-A expands globally and into more liberal parts of the U.S., the chicken chain plans to change which charities it donates to after years of bad press and protests from the LGBT community.

Beginning next year, Chick-fil-A will move away from its current philanthropic structure, Bisnow has learned. After donating to more than 300 charitable organizations this year, the Atlanta-based fast-food chain will instead focus on three initiatives with one accompanying charity each: education, homelessness and hunger. “There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are,” Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos said in an interview with Bisnow. “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.” The new initiative will no longer include donating to organizations like the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth Home, Chick-fil-A says, all of which sparked criticism in the past from the LGBT community due to the organizations’ stances on homosexuality. The move comes after several U.S. airports rejected the company from concessions deals earlier this year. More recently, the landlord of the first Chick-fil-A in the U.K. announced eight days into its lease the pop-up venue would not be welcome to extend — all because of the company’s perceived anti-LGBT stance. The company is also months from opening its first location in Boston, where the late Mayor Thomas Menino pledged to ban the company from opening within city limits after Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy voiced his opposition to gay marriage in 2012. Starting next year, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9M to organizations like Junior Achievement USA to support education, Covenant House International to fight homelessness and community food banks for its hunger initiative in each city where the chain operates. The company intends to dedicate $25K to a local food bank each time it opens a new location. “This provides more focus and more clarity,” Tassopoulos said. “We think [education, hunger and homelessness] are critical issues in communities where we do business in the U.S.”

Along with scholarships for team members and ongoing revitalization initiatives in its hometown of Atlanta, Chick-fil-A anticipates about $32M in cash gifts in 2020. The new giving structure moves away from the multiyear commitments Chick-fil-A had with the Salvation Army and the FCA and focuses on annual grants, which Tassopoulos said will be reviewed and assessed each year. Future partners could include faith-based and non-faith-based charities, but the company said none of the organizations have anti-LGBT positions. While the philanthropic shift is an acknowledgment that past giving has hurt the company’s brand, it hasn’t negatively impacted sales. Chick-fil-A surpassed $1B in sales in 2001 and eclipsed the $5B mark in 2013, the year following Cathy’s statement on gay marriage. The chicken chain became the third-largest U.S. fast-food chain this year with $10.5B in sales, according to Nation’s Restaurant News data. Only McDonald’s and Starbucks bring in more revenue among fast-food chains. But after years of “taking it on the chin,” as a Chick-fil-A executive told Bisnow, the latest round of headlines was impossible to ignore. This time, it was impeding the company’s growth. The San Antonio City Council was voting on an airport concessions contract in March when ThinkProgress reported that Chick-fil-A was still donating to anti-LGBT groups. The Chick-fil-A Foundation had donated $1.8M in 2017 to the Salvation Army, the FCA and the Paul Anderson Youth Home. A San Antonio city councilor brought up the article at the council meeting, and councilors voted in favor of the concessions contract — as long as a planned Chick-fil-A was dropped from the deal. The story had ripple effects. Delaware North, the concessions handler for Buffalo Niagara International Airport, also decided in March not to move ahead with plans for a Chick-fil-A at that airport, and officials in San Jose, California, announced they would not renew the chain’s lease at the airport when it runs out in 2026. The company’s giving history and Cathy’s previous comments on marriage equality have also dealt a reputational blow to its international expansion. More than 100 LGBT and animal rights protesters showed up to opening day at Chick-fil-A’s first Toronto store in September. After protests and a boycott by a local LGBT group, the landlord behind a Chick-fil-A pop-up store at a mall in Reading, England, announced eight days into the lease it would not renew with the chain because the mall is meant to “offer an inclusive space where everyone is welcome.” A Chick-fil-A in Scotland is still in operation, but company leaders still felt a new message was needed — especially in foreign markets, where the most prominent brand exposure to Chick-fil-A are headlines about its support for organizations with anti-LGBT stances.

Chick-fil-A has been working on the new charitable structure since summer 2018, according to sources familiar with the process, and finally approved it in a board vote last week. But it will still take time for the plan to take effect. The Chick-fil-A Foundation donated $115K to the Salvation Army and $1.65M to the FCA in 2018, according to a tax form filed Friday with the IRS. A company spokesperson said the donations were the last of multiyear commitments to the two groups.

The company still maintains the donations were made for reasons completely unrelated to the organizations’ stance on LGBT issues. The FCA donation goes toward summer youth camps at the Atlanta HBCUs Morehouse College and Spelman College, according to the tax filing. The Salvation Army donation goes toward the organization’s Angel Tree program, which provides Christmas gifts to children in need. The LGBT community took issue with the organizations in the past due to the FCA’s employment purity statement, which speaks out against sex outside marriage and “homosexual acts.” The Salvation Army has been accused of LGBT discrimination in the past. The organization has repeatedly denied those accusations, most recently on Monday afternoon after Chick-fil-A’s announcement. “We’re saddened to learn that a corporate partner has felt it necessary to divert funding to other hunger, education and homelessness organizations,” the organization said in a statement to Bisnow. “We serve more than 23 million individuals a year, including those in the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, we believe we are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ+ population.” Looking ahead, Chick-fil-A leaders told Bisnow the mission of the company is to serve all members of its many communities. But the company also recognizes that changes are needed, especially if some communities don’t want to see a Chick-fil-A sign go up in their backyard. “When there is a tension, we want to make sure we’re being clear. We think this is going to be helpful,” Tassopoulos said. “It’s just the right thing to do: to be clear, caring and supportive, and do it in the community.”

https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/retail/exclusive-amid-global-expansion-and-lgbt-pushback-chick-fil-a-changes-charitable-giving-structure-101818

11/29/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense Leave a Comment

U.N. Summit To Make Rich Nations Pay For Climate Damage Reparations

Officials at the United Nations COP25 climate change conference in Madrid next week must consider implementing taxes on developed countries to transfer wealth to nations dealing with “the cost of drought, floods and superstorms made worse by rising temperatures,” more than 150 environmental groups said Friday.

The financial impositions being considered include U.N.-administered taxes on financial transactions, international air travel and fossil fuels.

In an open letter to the president of the COP 25 talks, Chile’s environment minister Carolina Schmidt, the organisations urged agreement on “the creation of a comprehensive financing facility, including debt relief, for developing countries experiencing such disasters.”

The U.N.-sponsored Madrid conference is set to be dominated by discussions on so-called “loss and damage” funding, with a sharp divide between developing nations and richer polluters over how finance should be structured.

Green groups this week claimed the increased pace and intensity of climate disasters, such as the twin cyclones that devastated parts of Mozambique this year, means that funding needs boosting to keep track.

They said the amount needed for loss and damage would top $300 billion annually by 2030.

“Without finance to help countries cope with climate-induced loss and damage, the most vulnerable parts of the world will sink deeper into debt and poverty every time they are hit by climate disasters they did not cause,” the letter said, as quoted by AFP.

President Donald Trump officially withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord last month as part of an election promise to voters.

As Breitbart News reported, as far back as June, 2017 Trump said he was looking forward to exiting the agreement.

The president spoke then of following through on his commitments to the American people.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord,” Trump declared.

Compliance with the accord could have cost the U.S. “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates,” said Trump. “This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need…”

The Paris Climate Accord will form the basis for any future reparations as decided at COP 25. Almost 25,000 people and 1500 journalists will fly in to Madrid from Monday to attend the meeting.

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/11/29/u-n-summit-to-hear-call-for-rich-nations-to-pay-climate-damage-reparations/

11/16/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense Leave a Comment

Marie Yovanovitch Think’s She Is A Martyr Like Those Killed in Benghazi Under Obama

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch compared herself to the diplomats and contractors killed in Benghazi in her opening statement in the second public impeachment inquiry on Friday.

“We make a difference everyday,” she said in a defense of herself and diplomats serving around the world. She continued:

We are people who repeatedly uproot our lives, who risk and sometimes give our lives for this country. We are the 52 Americans, who, 40 years ago this month, began 444 days of deprivation, torture, and captivity in Tehran. We are the dozens of Americans stationed at our embassies in Cuba, and consulates in China whom mysteriously and dangerously, and perhaps in some cases, perhaps even permanently, were injured and attacked from unknown sources several years ago.
And we are Ambassador Chris Stevens, Shawn Patrick Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty, people rightly called heroes for their ultimate sacrifice to this nation’s foreign policy interests in Libya eight years ago.

Her comparison of herself to those who were killed in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack prompted derision and disgust by some observers.

“Amb Yovanovitch’s invoking of those killed in Benghazi — in a bid to protect herself — during this impeachment inquiry is utterly sickening,” Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor to The Federalist tweeted:

Benjamin Weingarten✔@bhweingarten

Amb Yovanovitch’s invoking of those killed in Benghazi — in a bid to protect herself — during this impeachment inquiry is utterly sickening4,083 9:52 AM – Nov 15, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 1,808 people are talking about this

“It is a disgrace that Yovanovitch invoked the names of true American heroes during her self righteous tirade. She muddied the names of Ambassador Stephens and Tyrone Woods with her personal failure and short comings,” a former senior national security official told Breitbart News.

“Yovanovitch had a reputation amongst foreign service officers of being particularly partisan. She repeatedly denigrated the President and many of her embassy staff passed complaints regarding this behavior to Foggy Bottom,” the former official said.

MNSBC News analyst Elise Jordan on Friday compared Trump’s comment in the July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president, where he said Yovanovitch “would go through some things” to the threat that those in Benghazi faced.

She said:

Remember a time when everyone was really concerned about Benghazi and did the State Department, did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, did the Obama administration do enough to protect Ambassador Stevens and the other diplomats serving at that hardship post? And we literally have the President of the United States targeting an ambassador.
You have the threat coming in from the desk at the State Department, diplomatic security, what are they just being left out there, you know, protecting an ambassador and left out high and dry. This is just — it is, it’s criminal!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/15/marie-yovanovitch-compares-herself-to-diplomats-killed-in-benghazi/

11/15/2019 by The Doctor Of Common Sense Leave a Comment

Obama Fired All George Bush’s Ambassadors

The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees.

Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-political-ambassad.html

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified before the House Intelligence Committee. House Democrats have decided to take their secret impeachment proceedings out of the bunker and into the open for all to see. And if you don’t know this already, the Democrats’ reasoning to hold this circus is even shoddier and more pathetic than the Russian collusion hoax. The allegation is that in July, President Trump threatened to withhold military aid unless Ukraine opened a corruption investigation into Hunter Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, who was sitting on the board of an energy company making $50,000 a month despite having zero experience in this field of work. The quid pro quo allegation is all based on second-hand information.

Yet, today, it was more of a therapy session for Yovanovitch. Pretty much she was against Trump’s Ukraine policy, she used a congressional hearing to voice that, and in the process received the praise from Democrats for coming forward, as if she were some Rosa Parks figure. Folks, she was fired by Trump because that’s what he can do. You’d think that Trump dismissed her because she stumbled upon some felonious activity. Wrong. It was an absurdly long hearing for a career State Department employee who was there to pretty much explain the not so unprecedented reasons for her dismissal. Trump said bad things about her on Twitter. Yep. We have a First Amendment, and this was not an act of intimidating a witness. It’s not unusual for a new administration to fire ambassadors. They don’t need a reason; they serve at the president’s pleasure. Former President Barack Obama slaughtered scores of Bush appointees, brutally terminating their employment. It was a red wedding. The Washington Times’ Larry O’Connor dredged up this bit of history (via WaPo):

The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.
The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.
Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees.

Yeah, president’s firing ambassadors is totally unheard of—says the post-2016 liberal media. It’s a witch hunt. It’s a prolonged coup attempt. It has to be stopped.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/11/15/flashback-that-time-obama-brutally-fired-all-of-bushs-ambassadors-n2556576