American Thinker
By T.R. Clancy 10/14/2018
When a federal court dismissed on June 29 the class-action lawsuit claiming that the State of Michigan had deprived Detroit public schoolchildren of "their right to literacy," the left was all set to react in faux shock. The court's key finding hardly came as news to most of us, but the headlines in the New York Times sounded as if someone had denied climate change: "'Access to Literacy' Is Not a Constitutional Right, Judge in Detroit Rules."
These days, when everything progressives want government to provide free is defined as a "right" – health care, housing, a guaranteed income, American citizenship for illegal aliens, etc. – it stands to reason that literacy may as well be thrown in there, too. It's only obvious, provided you've never read the Bill of Rights. Hence this lawsuit, brought by public-interest lawyers (who know better) on behalf of several students of low-performing Detroit schools, claiming that "access to literacy" is a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Judge Stephen J. Murphy's 40-page opinion dismissing the case politely but firmly explains why literacy is not a fundamental right, and we can expect that finding, after years of legal dramatics, to be upheld on appeal. The defendants in the case include Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, the state superintendent of public schools, and the members of the State of Michigan School Board. Notably not being sued are any members of the Detroit school district's Board of Education, who are the elected officials actually in charge of managing Detroit schools.
The lawsuit claims that "[d]ecades of State disinvestment in and deliberate indifference to Detroit schools have denied Plaintiff schoolchildren access to the most basic building block of education: literacy." It accuses state officials of "intentionally discriminating against [Plaintiffs] on the basis of race." The plaintiffs demand a boodle bag full of remedies, collectively described in Judge Murphy's opinion as "unquestionably sweeping – and undoubtedly costly."
To support its allegations of "deliberate indifference," the complaint distorts the story of Detroit's troubled school system so it begins only after the state first intervened in 1999. The lawsuit barely manages 13 words about how it was only following decades of failures and malfeasance by the district's former elected school board that, as reported by Crain's Detroit Business, "poor academics, abhorrent graduation rates and low test scores opened the door for the state to wrest control from an elected school board." Republican Governor John Engler had been trying to get the district fixed since his election in 1990, but he was stymied by a majority of Democrats in the state House. When Republicans finally won a majority, they acted to allow Detroit's Democrat Mayor Dennis Archer (with his full support and that of many other Democrat leaders) to take over the district in an attempt to finally turn it around. According to the New York Times, the mayor had had enough of a "school board ... [that] ignored too many proposals over the years to improve its financial management practices and the overall administration of schools." For example:
Despite having classrooms without enough books or supplies, the district has a $93 million surplus, partly because officials have used low-paid substitutes to fill the 1,100 vacancies among 12,000 teaching positions[.]
The school board, invariably re-elected by loyal Detroit residents to govern the district, were manifestly incompetent and entirely ungovernable themselves:
Only $400 million has been spent of a $1.5 billion bond issue for long-term capital improvements approved in 1994. A series of school superintendents have been hired, promising substantial changes, only to end up arguing with the school board and leaving.
That's right: Democrat board members weren't even organized enough to blow $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds. It's not as if they didn't have time while being chauffeured around in limousines.
When the school board was ousted and replaced with an unelected reform board in 1999, Detroit residents were outraged, calling it undemocratic to replace an elected school board and racist that white politicians (Mayor Archer was black) should be making decisions over what happens in majority-black Detroit. Under the reform board, things improved, but not much, as the damage was too deep. Enrollment continued to drop, taking per-pupil funding with it.
In 2004, Detroiters voted to return to an elected school board. But soon, "budget missteps, corruption, financial mismanagement and enrollment losses ushered in" another round of state intervention, this time under a Democrat, Governor Jennifer Granholm. In 2009, when it came to light that "[d]istrict officials, including the school board ... had problems keeping track of how much money was coming in and what was owed," Granholm appointed Robert Bobb as emergency financial manager. He immediately figured out that basic administrative tasks were being screwed up, and "1,545 DPS employees had ineligible dependents on the staff, costing the district an estimated $2.6 million." Looking back later, Bobb said he'd "found Detroit Public Schools to be a magnificent vessel of wholesale theft and graft. Not one area of management escaped the thieves and defrauders." That included food service workers; teachers (and a teacher's mother!); and even members of his security team, who lied about overtime.
By 2016, the "culture of corruption" in the district led to federal charges against a dozen current and former school principals who were "taking bribes and kickbacks from a school supplies vendor and fabricating invoices from the city's beleaguered public schools." The scheme stretched all the way back to 2002 (and even liberal commentator Jack Lessenberry became convinced "that Detroit Public School administrators deserve to be held in contempt"). By the time six of the crooked principals were pleading guilty to their role in the kickback scheme, Michigan's Republican lawmakers were finalizing a $617-million bailout to save the district from bankruptcy. While Michigan citizens watched yet more tax dollars consigned to oblivion, Democrat legislators were griping that the bailout wasn't big enough.
At the end of 2017, Michigan Capitol Confidential reported that per-student spending for the Detroit Public Schools Community District was higher:
... [t]han all but eight of the nation's 100 largest school districts, or $14,259. Even with all that money, the district still generated the nation's worst reading scores among low-income students. The Miami-Dade district spends $8,725 per student (some $5,500 less than Detroit), and children from low-income households there had the best literacy rates among large cities.
So where exactly is the "deliberate indifference" and "disinvestment" in all of this?
Whatever is behind the literacy problems in Detroit schools, it's not lack of money, state indifference, or "disinvestment." Nor did Judge Murphy find any basis for a claim of racial discrimination against the defendants. Not that any of that will matter to the folks who brought this lawsuit, nor to the misinformed segment of the public whose indignation all of this is meant to stir up.
Thank You Mr Clancy and American Thinker.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Trump Administration Moves to Have Pharmaceutical List Prices Included in TV Ads
CNSNews
Susan Jones | October 16, 2018 | 8:37 AM EDT
(CNSNews.com) - The Health and Human Services Department wants pharmaceutical companies to include list prices in television ads hawking their prescription drugs.
Right now, drug companies are required to disclose a drug's major side effects, but not the effect that buying the drug could have on your wallet. "Patients deserve more transparency," HHS said in its announcement on Monday.
The proposal will require television advertisements for prescription drugs – the ones that are paid for by Medicare or Medicaid -- to include the list price if that price is greater than $35 for a month’s supply or the usual course of therapy. The prices would be updated quarterly.
HHS said the ten most commonly advertised drugs have list prices ranging from $535 to $11,000 a month or for the normal course of therapy.
HHS noted that many patients pay either list price or prices based on list price.
The proposed regulation is part of the American Patients First Blueprint announced in May by President Trump and Secretary Alex Azar.
That blueprint laid out four strategies: boosting competition, enhancing negotiation, creating incentives for lower list prices, and bringing down out-of-pocket costs.
Appearing on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Tuesday, Secretary Alex Azar said, “We think it's critical that patients being pitched these medicines and asked to go talk to their doctor about these drugs, that while they currently get the medical efficacy and safety concern information in the ads, they're not being told the price of the very medicine that they're being asked to have a discussion about.
"And that list price, we think, is part of fair balance, that it ought to be in the ads. And that's why the president committed to proposing a regulation that would mandate prices in the ads. That's what we delivered on yesterday."
Pharmaceutical companies set the list price. Azar said may people, including Medicare recipients and younger people with high-deductible health plans, pay list price until they meet their deductible. "So I'm not buying the pharma talking point that list prices don't matter. They do matter," Azar said.
Right now, the proposed regulation is focused on television ads. Azar said the requirement may eventually expand to include direct-to-consumer magazine and Internet ads.
He also noted that the pharmaceutical industry could have voluntarily agreed to disclose list prices in their advertising, but "they didn't do it. So we have to go with regulation if people believe in transparency."
The Trump administration also is working on a plan to get doctors' offices involved in list-price disclosure:
"We think you have a right to know not just when you have the TV ad what the drug ought to cost, but actually at the point of prescribing, when you're there with the doctor, we need to get the tools so that the doctor knows not just the list price but also what under your health care plan you would pay for that medicine as well as the competing medicines the doctor might prescribe, so you can have a more engaged, competitive discussion right there at the point of the scripts getting written."
Azar said he hopes that insurance companies who try to steer patients toward a particular medication under their benefit plans will develop the tools to help patients find the lower-cost option.
Azar also expressed concern about the rebate system, which creates the incentive for extremely high list prices.
"What we instead think we ought to be considering is pulling those rebates forward to the point of sale, when the patient walks in the pharmacy. Let the patient get that discount when they walk into the pharmacy -- that's an idea worth all of us thinking about. It would be more transparent; it would create a disincentive to these absurd list prices and constant list-price increases; and it would decrease spending for patients at the pharmacy.
“So that's something we all in our system have to be thinking about.”
Please support CNSNews today! [a 501(c)(3) non-profit production of the Media Research Center]
Thank You Ms Jones, CNS, and President Trump.
This is not a restraint of trade.
Since so very much of drug makers bottom line comes out of the tax payers pockets through CMS, it is encumbent upon the Government to act as responsible stewards of those tax dollars.
Let the tax payers know how much the new 'blockbuster' drug is costing them, to provide it for their neighbors. And if they become upset, maybe they'll start demanding some Freakin' Results from the drug makers for those 'bottom line' packers which will lead to more rigorous scrutiny of test results and lower prices.
Way to go Mr President.
Susan Jones | October 16, 2018 | 8:37 AM EDT
(CNSNews.com) - The Health and Human Services Department wants pharmaceutical companies to include list prices in television ads hawking their prescription drugs.
Right now, drug companies are required to disclose a drug's major side effects, but not the effect that buying the drug could have on your wallet. "Patients deserve more transparency," HHS said in its announcement on Monday.
The proposal will require television advertisements for prescription drugs – the ones that are paid for by Medicare or Medicaid -- to include the list price if that price is greater than $35 for a month’s supply or the usual course of therapy. The prices would be updated quarterly.
HHS said the ten most commonly advertised drugs have list prices ranging from $535 to $11,000 a month or for the normal course of therapy.
HHS noted that many patients pay either list price or prices based on list price.
The proposed regulation is part of the American Patients First Blueprint announced in May by President Trump and Secretary Alex Azar.
That blueprint laid out four strategies: boosting competition, enhancing negotiation, creating incentives for lower list prices, and bringing down out-of-pocket costs.
Appearing on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Tuesday, Secretary Alex Azar said, “We think it's critical that patients being pitched these medicines and asked to go talk to their doctor about these drugs, that while they currently get the medical efficacy and safety concern information in the ads, they're not being told the price of the very medicine that they're being asked to have a discussion about.
"And that list price, we think, is part of fair balance, that it ought to be in the ads. And that's why the president committed to proposing a regulation that would mandate prices in the ads. That's what we delivered on yesterday."
Pharmaceutical companies set the list price. Azar said may people, including Medicare recipients and younger people with high-deductible health plans, pay list price until they meet their deductible. "So I'm not buying the pharma talking point that list prices don't matter. They do matter," Azar said.
Right now, the proposed regulation is focused on television ads. Azar said the requirement may eventually expand to include direct-to-consumer magazine and Internet ads.
He also noted that the pharmaceutical industry could have voluntarily agreed to disclose list prices in their advertising, but "they didn't do it. So we have to go with regulation if people believe in transparency."
The Trump administration also is working on a plan to get doctors' offices involved in list-price disclosure:
"We think you have a right to know not just when you have the TV ad what the drug ought to cost, but actually at the point of prescribing, when you're there with the doctor, we need to get the tools so that the doctor knows not just the list price but also what under your health care plan you would pay for that medicine as well as the competing medicines the doctor might prescribe, so you can have a more engaged, competitive discussion right there at the point of the scripts getting written."
Azar said he hopes that insurance companies who try to steer patients toward a particular medication under their benefit plans will develop the tools to help patients find the lower-cost option.
Azar also expressed concern about the rebate system, which creates the incentive for extremely high list prices.
"What we instead think we ought to be considering is pulling those rebates forward to the point of sale, when the patient walks in the pharmacy. Let the patient get that discount when they walk into the pharmacy -- that's an idea worth all of us thinking about. It would be more transparent; it would create a disincentive to these absurd list prices and constant list-price increases; and it would decrease spending for patients at the pharmacy.
“So that's something we all in our system have to be thinking about.”
Please support CNSNews today! [a 501(c)(3) non-profit production of the Media Research Center]
Thank You Ms Jones, CNS, and President Trump.
This is not a restraint of trade.
Since so very much of drug makers bottom line comes out of the tax payers pockets through CMS, it is encumbent upon the Government to act as responsible stewards of those tax dollars.
Let the tax payers know how much the new 'blockbuster' drug is costing them, to provide it for their neighbors. And if they become upset, maybe they'll start demanding some Freakin' Results from the drug makers for those 'bottom line' packers which will lead to more rigorous scrutiny of test results and lower prices.
Way to go Mr President.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Cleveland To Help Crooks Dump Guns Used In Crimes
Bearing Arms
Posted at 8:30 am on October 15, 2018 by Tom Knighton
The city of Cleveland is set to host an event that will, among other things, help criminals dump guns used in crimes, thus making it more difficult for police to get convictions. Oh, they don’t advertise it as that. Not by any stretch of the imagination, but that’s what it is.
Instead, they call it a gun buyback program.
Cleveland’s 2018 Gun Buyback will be held October 20. People can exchange their working guns for a gift card for either gas or food, valued at $100 (for handguns) or $200 (for semi-automatic weapons).
“The City of Cleveland is facing the same challenges as most major metropolitan areas with regard to gun violence,” said Mayor Frank G. Jackson. “Cleveland’s Annual Gun Buy Back Program is an important step to getting guns off of our streets. I want to thank all of our residents who participate.”
“We hope that citizens will take part in this program and turn in unwanted firearms because in doing so, you could save a life,” said Chief of Police Calvin D. Williams. “We are fortunate once again to have the sponsorship provided by the Cleveland Police Foundation, ArcelorMittal, Dave’s Supermarkets, True North and Target. Without their backing, this would not be possible.”
The buyback, which takes place October 20, is just another example of well-intentioned people trying their best to end violence by blaming the tool rather than the tool using it.
Realistically, a gun sitting on a shelf isn’t a threat to anyone. I know, I’ve got an old H&R .32 revolver that my grandfather bought for my great aunt which became a family heirloom that I don’t think has been fired since the Mesozoic Era. During that time, it’s done nothing except collect dust and get cleaned every so often. Having gotten rid of it in a buyback wouldn’t actually do anything to make anyone safer.
That’s because I’m not inclined to use it on anyone except in self-defense.
What buybacks do, with their no-questions-asked policy, is allow criminals to dump incriminating evidence in a way that won’t link back to them. It makes it more difficult for police to gather evidence to put these criminals behind bars.
Oh, it’s not impossible, mind you. After all, crooks have been dumping guns for ages, and some still get locked up, but it does hinder law enforcement enough to at least be a consideration.
Further, these buybacks don’t address the guns that are the problem, and those are the ones in the hands of criminals who intend to use them to harm others. These are the people who have guns, have criminal intentions, and aren’t interested in dumping their firearms for whatever reason. They’re going to hold onto them and use them.
Additionally, with the buybacks offering well under market value for most of these weapons, they do little to entice those looking to sell guns to even consider taking advantage of the program unless there’s a political motivation at play. Those who want to get rid of their firearms are often more inclined to sell to someone else rather than a buyback, thus keeping those guns “on the streets.”
Now, I’ll say that I think those who run these buybacks are well-intentioned and I’m generally fine with them wasting their money on this kind of thing. It’s far better than trying to restrict my rights to gun ownership. But they’re still wasting their time.
Thank You Mr Knighton and Bearing Arms.
Ed; this is what gun "buybacks" are.
They frustrate the prosecution of real gun crimes, murder, armed robbery etc by wasting tax payer's hard earned money.
Posted at 8:30 am on October 15, 2018 by Tom Knighton
The city of Cleveland is set to host an event that will, among other things, help criminals dump guns used in crimes, thus making it more difficult for police to get convictions. Oh, they don’t advertise it as that. Not by any stretch of the imagination, but that’s what it is.
Instead, they call it a gun buyback program.
Cleveland’s 2018 Gun Buyback will be held October 20. People can exchange their working guns for a gift card for either gas or food, valued at $100 (for handguns) or $200 (for semi-automatic weapons).
“The City of Cleveland is facing the same challenges as most major metropolitan areas with regard to gun violence,” said Mayor Frank G. Jackson. “Cleveland’s Annual Gun Buy Back Program is an important step to getting guns off of our streets. I want to thank all of our residents who participate.”
“We hope that citizens will take part in this program and turn in unwanted firearms because in doing so, you could save a life,” said Chief of Police Calvin D. Williams. “We are fortunate once again to have the sponsorship provided by the Cleveland Police Foundation, ArcelorMittal, Dave’s Supermarkets, True North and Target. Without their backing, this would not be possible.”
The buyback, which takes place October 20, is just another example of well-intentioned people trying their best to end violence by blaming the tool rather than the tool using it.
Realistically, a gun sitting on a shelf isn’t a threat to anyone. I know, I’ve got an old H&R .32 revolver that my grandfather bought for my great aunt which became a family heirloom that I don’t think has been fired since the Mesozoic Era. During that time, it’s done nothing except collect dust and get cleaned every so often. Having gotten rid of it in a buyback wouldn’t actually do anything to make anyone safer.
That’s because I’m not inclined to use it on anyone except in self-defense.
What buybacks do, with their no-questions-asked policy, is allow criminals to dump incriminating evidence in a way that won’t link back to them. It makes it more difficult for police to gather evidence to put these criminals behind bars.
Oh, it’s not impossible, mind you. After all, crooks have been dumping guns for ages, and some still get locked up, but it does hinder law enforcement enough to at least be a consideration.
Further, these buybacks don’t address the guns that are the problem, and those are the ones in the hands of criminals who intend to use them to harm others. These are the people who have guns, have criminal intentions, and aren’t interested in dumping their firearms for whatever reason. They’re going to hold onto them and use them.
Additionally, with the buybacks offering well under market value for most of these weapons, they do little to entice those looking to sell guns to even consider taking advantage of the program unless there’s a political motivation at play. Those who want to get rid of their firearms are often more inclined to sell to someone else rather than a buyback, thus keeping those guns “on the streets.”
Now, I’ll say that I think those who run these buybacks are well-intentioned and I’m generally fine with them wasting their money on this kind of thing. It’s far better than trying to restrict my rights to gun ownership. But they’re still wasting their time.
Thank You Mr Knighton and Bearing Arms.
Ed; this is what gun "buybacks" are.
They frustrate the prosecution of real gun crimes, murder, armed robbery etc by wasting tax payer's hard earned money.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Carter Page Sues DNC And Its Law Firm Over The Steele Dossier
dailycaller
Chuck Ross
10/10/2018
Former Trump campaign associate Carter Page filed a defamation lawsuit Monday against the Democratic National Committee and its law firm, which commissioned the infamous Steele dossier.
Page filed the suit in federal court in Oklahoma against the DNC, the law firm, Perkins Coie, and two of its partners, Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann.
Perkins Coie, which also represented the Hillary Clinton campaign, is the firm that hired Fusion GPS, the opposition researcher that investigated Donald Trump’s links to Russia.
Elias was Perkins Coie’s main contact to Fusion GPS, which was founded by three former Wall Street Journal reporters.
As part of the $1 million project, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to conduct the investigation. The result was a 35-page dossier full of allegations that the Kremlin is blackmailing Trump and that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian operatives to influence the election. (RELATED: Here Is How Much The DNC And Clinton Campaign Paid For The Trump Dossier)
Page, an energy consultant, features prominently in the dossier, though he vehemently denies its allegations.
In the report, which was provided to numerous journalists and the FBI, Steele alleged that Page was the Trump campaign’s back channel to the Kremlin for the purposes of conspiring to influence the election. Steele cited anonymous sources who claimed that it was Page’s idea to release stolen DNC emails through Wikileaks. The dossier also alleged that Page met secretly with two Kremlin insiders, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016. Page has repeatedly denied meeting with either man.
Steele and Fusion GPS briefed numerous reporters on the allegations about Page, though only Yahoo! News published a story on the topic prior to the election. Page previously sued Yahoo’s parent company, Oath, Inc., over the article, which was published on Sept. 23, 2016. The lawsuit was dismissed in May, but Page has appealed the decision.
The dossier’s claims about Page did not stop just with media stories. The FBI relied heavily on Steele’s unverified report to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Page. The first warrant was granted on Oct. 21, 2016, shortly after Page left the campaign. The fourth and final warrant expired in September 2017.
Follow Chuck on Twitter
Thank You Mr Ross and the DC.
Chuck Ross
10/10/2018
Former Trump campaign associate Carter Page filed a defamation lawsuit Monday against the Democratic National Committee and its law firm, which commissioned the infamous Steele dossier.
Page filed the suit in federal court in Oklahoma against the DNC, the law firm, Perkins Coie, and two of its partners, Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann.
Perkins Coie, which also represented the Hillary Clinton campaign, is the firm that hired Fusion GPS, the opposition researcher that investigated Donald Trump’s links to Russia.
Elias was Perkins Coie’s main contact to Fusion GPS, which was founded by three former Wall Street Journal reporters.
As part of the $1 million project, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to conduct the investigation. The result was a 35-page dossier full of allegations that the Kremlin is blackmailing Trump and that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian operatives to influence the election. (RELATED: Here Is How Much The DNC And Clinton Campaign Paid For The Trump Dossier)
Page, an energy consultant, features prominently in the dossier, though he vehemently denies its allegations.
In the report, which was provided to numerous journalists and the FBI, Steele alleged that Page was the Trump campaign’s back channel to the Kremlin for the purposes of conspiring to influence the election. Steele cited anonymous sources who claimed that it was Page’s idea to release stolen DNC emails through Wikileaks. The dossier also alleged that Page met secretly with two Kremlin insiders, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016. Page has repeatedly denied meeting with either man.
Steele and Fusion GPS briefed numerous reporters on the allegations about Page, though only Yahoo! News published a story on the topic prior to the election. Page previously sued Yahoo’s parent company, Oath, Inc., over the article, which was published on Sept. 23, 2016. The lawsuit was dismissed in May, but Page has appealed the decision.
The dossier’s claims about Page did not stop just with media stories. The FBI relied heavily on Steele’s unverified report to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Page. The first warrant was granted on Oct. 21, 2016, shortly after Page left the campaign. The fourth and final warrant expired in September 2017.
Follow Chuck on Twitter
Thank You Mr Ross and the DC.
Warren Releases Results Of Her DNA Test
And Don't Ask Psychiatric 'Behavioral Genetics' to explain this one. They can't prove Anything anyway.
dailycaller
Saagar Enjeti | White House Correspondent
10/15/2018
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts released the results of a DNA test showing evidence that she may have Native-American ancestry dating back several generations.
Warren’s results show that she possibly ranges from 1/32nd Native American to 1/512th Native American. The results could temper attacks from President Donald Trump in the upcoming 2020 presidential elections, where Warren is seen as a likely candidate.
The Boston Globe later clarified “due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024.”
Warren has long claimed to have Native American ancestry based upon familial lore even going so far as to submit recipes to a cookbook dedicated to Native American cuisine. Harvard Law School featured her as a “minority” professor with in the 1990’s based on her self-listing in a directory as a Native American.
She also submitted a recipe to a Native American cookbook and identified as “Cherokee.”
The issue of Warren’s heritage surfaced in 2012 during Senate campaign against Scott Brown when he raised her claims as evidence that she did not have integrity. “As a kid, I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage. What kid would? But I knew my father’s family didn’t like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware, so my parents had to elope,” Warren said defending herself.
She also said in 2012 that her aunt commented multiple times that Warren’s grandfather “had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do.”
The heritage, she said, was part of her “family stories.”
“I have lived in a family that has talked about Native Americans, talked about tribes since I had been a little girl,” she said at the time. “I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that — a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he — her father, my Papaw — had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do. Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn’t. She thought this was the bad deal she had gotten in life.”
Trump has long derided Warren’s claim that she has Native American heritage bestowing the moniker “Pocahontas” on her and offering to pay for her DNA tests to put the matter to bed.
He was asked about the DNA test Monday morning before leaving the White House to tour the damage caused by Hurricane Michael in Florida.
“Who cares?” Trump responded.
When asked whether he would continue his pledge to donate $1 million to charity if she could prove her ancestry, Trump replied “I didn’t say that. You better read it again.”
I think she would be very easy,” Trump said later Monday. “I hope that she is running. I do not think she would be difficult at all.”
Tags : dna donald trump elizabeth warre
Thank You Mr Enjeti and the DC.
dailycaller
Saagar Enjeti | White House Correspondent
10/15/2018
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts released the results of a DNA test showing evidence that she may have Native-American ancestry dating back several generations.
Warren shared the results of her DNA test with the Boston Globe which was conducted by a Stanford researcher. “The results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor,” the researcher said in a summary of Warren’s ancestry findings, adding that the ancestor was likely in her genealogy “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.”My family (including Fox News-watchers) sat together and talked about what they think of @realDonaldTrump’s attacks on our heritage. And yes, a famous geneticist analyzed my DNA and concluded that it contains Native American ancestry. pic.twitter.com/r3SNzP22f8— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) October 15, 2018
Warren’s results show that she possibly ranges from 1/32nd Native American to 1/512th Native American. The results could temper attacks from President Donald Trump in the upcoming 2020 presidential elections, where Warren is seen as a likely candidate.
The Boston Globe later clarified “due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024.”
Warren has long claimed to have Native American ancestry based upon familial lore even going so far as to submit recipes to a cookbook dedicated to Native American cuisine. Harvard Law School featured her as a “minority” professor with in the 1990’s based on her self-listing in a directory as a Native American.
She also submitted a recipe to a Native American cookbook and identified as “Cherokee.”
The issue of Warren’s heritage surfaced in 2012 during Senate campaign against Scott Brown when he raised her claims as evidence that she did not have integrity. “As a kid, I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage. What kid would? But I knew my father’s family didn’t like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware, so my parents had to elope,” Warren said defending herself.
She also said in 2012 that her aunt commented multiple times that Warren’s grandfather “had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do.”
The heritage, she said, was part of her “family stories.”
“I have lived in a family that has talked about Native Americans, talked about tribes since I had been a little girl,” she said at the time. “I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that — a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he — her father, my Papaw — had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do. Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn’t. She thought this was the bad deal she had gotten in life.”
Trump has long derided Warren’s claim that she has Native American heritage bestowing the moniker “Pocahontas” on her and offering to pay for her DNA tests to put the matter to bed.
He was asked about the DNA test Monday morning before leaving the White House to tour the damage caused by Hurricane Michael in Florida.
“Who cares?” Trump responded.
When asked whether he would continue his pledge to donate $1 million to charity if she could prove her ancestry, Trump replied “I didn’t say that. You better read it again.”
I think she would be very easy,” Trump said later Monday. “I hope that she is running. I do not think she would be difficult at all.”
Tags : dna donald trump elizabeth warre
Thank You Mr Enjeti and the DC.
Cherokee Nation: Elizabeth Warren’s Claim To Tribe Is ‘Inappropriate’
dailycaller
Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor
10/15/2018
The Cherokee Nation called Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s use of a DNA test to justify her claim of Native American ancestry “inappropriate” on Monday.
“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” the Cherokee Nation said in a statement released Monday. “Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation.”
Warren released the results of a DNA test
over the weekend that revealed she is between 0.09 and 1.5 percent
Native American and has at least one Native American ancestor between 6
and 10 generations back. (RELATED: Boston Globe Issues Second Correction, Makes Warren’s Native American Claim Look Even Worse)
The results of Warren’s test did not connect her with any specific tribe, and Carlos D. Bustamante, the Stanford University professor who conducted the test, was unable to use Native American DNA. Native American DNA does not exist in researchers databases because tribal leaders discourage members from participating in genetic testing. (RELATED: The Scientist Warren used Didn’t Test With Native American DNA)
“To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south,” the Boston Globe reported.
Warren has repeatedly been criticized by political opponents for allegedly lying about being Native American.
Warren listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law
Schools directory from 1986-1994 and claimed that her parents had to
elope because her father’s family did not want him to marry a woman of
Cherokee descent.
Warren’s alleged deception led President Donald Trump to nickname the Massachusetts Senator “Pocahontas.”
Follow Amber on Twitter
Thank You Ms Athey and the DC.
Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor
10/15/2018
The Cherokee Nation called Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s use of a DNA test to justify her claim of Native American ancestry “inappropriate” on Monday.
“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” the Cherokee Nation said in a statement released Monday. “Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation.”
They added, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens.”Inbox: Cherokee Nation responds to Senator Warren’s DNA test. pic.twitter.com/Sh8aNZgyAT— Justin Wingerter (@JustinWingerter) October 15, 2018
The results of Warren’s test did not connect her with any specific tribe, and Carlos D. Bustamante, the Stanford University professor who conducted the test, was unable to use Native American DNA. Native American DNA does not exist in researchers databases because tribal leaders discourage members from participating in genetic testing. (RELATED: The Scientist Warren used Didn’t Test With Native American DNA)
“To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south,” the Boston Globe reported.
Warren’s alleged deception led President Donald Trump to nickname the Massachusetts Senator “Pocahontas.”
Follow Amber on Twitter
Thank You Ms Athey and the DC.
Judge Drops Stormy Daniels’ Suit Against President Trump
dailycaller
The federal judge presiding over porn star Stormy Daniel’s defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump dismissed the case on Monday afternoon.
Judge S. James Otero ruled the president’s tweet was not defamation, but “rhetorical hyperbole,” and dismissed the case.
Trump’s lawyer, Charles J. Harder, Esq. of Harder LLP, released a statement saying, “United States District Judge S. James Otero issued an order and ruling today dismissing Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Trump. The ruling also states that the President is entitled to an award of his attorney’s fees against Stormy Daniels.”
[Ed; this is just Too Kool!]
It also said, “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.”
Judge dismisses Stormy Daniels defamation suit against @realDonaldTrump – says he is entitled to legal fees from plaintiff pic.twitter.com/0gkxe1Qj7Y
— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) October 15, 2018
Avenatti, who is also considered to be a likely 2020 Democrat contender, tweeted, “Re Judge’s limited ruling: Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance. We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.”
Daniels is also legally obligated to pay Trump’s legal bills as a part of the judge’s ruling.
The porn star alleges that she had an affair with the president and that his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid her $130,000 to keep quiet right before the election.
Avenatti has had a couple big losses in recent months. Despite gaining notoriety for representing Daniels, he also took on a woman who alleged Justice Brett Kavanaugh drugged and raped women back when he was in high school. Many have blamed him for Kavanaugh’s confirmation, saying his client’s allegations were so outlandish it took away from other more likely accusations.
Follow Mike on Twitter.
Thank You Mr Brest and the DC.
The federal judge presiding over porn star Stormy Daniel’s defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump dismissed the case on Monday afternoon.
The lawsuit centered on a tweet from the president where he claimed that the man Daniels‘ alleges threatened her to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Trump was “nonexistent.” (RELATED: REPORT: Judge Ready To Toss Stormy Daniels Lawsuit Against Trump)Breaking: Federal judge dismisses Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/wkbcbd6gwe— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 15, 2018
Judge S. James Otero ruled the president’s tweet was not defamation, but “rhetorical hyperbole,” and dismissed the case.
A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)! https://t.co/9Is7mHBFda— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 18, 2018
Trump’s lawyer, Charles J. Harder, Esq. of Harder LLP, released a statement saying, “United States District Judge S. James Otero issued an order and ruling today dismissing Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Trump. The ruling also states that the President is entitled to an award of his attorney’s fees against Stormy Daniels.”
[Ed; this is just Too Kool!]
It also said, “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.”
Judge dismisses Stormy Daniels defamation suit against @realDonaldTrump – says he is entitled to legal fees from plaintiff pic.twitter.com/0gkxe1Qj7Y
— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) October 15, 2018
Avenatti, who is also considered to be a likely 2020 Democrat contender, tweeted, “Re Judge’s limited ruling: Daniels’ other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump’s contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance. We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal.”
Daniels is also legally obligated to pay Trump’s legal bills as a part of the judge’s ruling.
The porn star alleges that she had an affair with the president and that his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid her $130,000 to keep quiet right before the election.
Avenatti has had a couple big losses in recent months. Despite gaining notoriety for representing Daniels, he also took on a woman who alleged Justice Brett Kavanaugh drugged and raped women back when he was in high school. Many have blamed him for Kavanaugh’s confirmation, saying his client’s allegations were so outlandish it took away from other more likely accusations.
Follow Mike on Twitter.
Thank You Mr Brest and the DC.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Fusion GPS Founder ‘In Real Legal Jeopardy’ Over Inconsistent Testimony, GOP Lawmaker Says
dailycaller
Chuck Ross | Reporter 10/14/2018
A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson is “in real legal jeopardy” over inconsistent testimony that he gave to Congress regarding his work on the infamous Steele dossier.
“I’m not surprised that Glenn Simpson is taking the Fifth,” Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe said in a Fox News interview on Sunday.
“He probably should. He’s in real legal jeopardy. Very clearly someone is not telling the truth,” he added.
Simpson, who investigated the Trump campaign on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, informed Congress on Thursday that he will plead the Fifth to avoid speaking with members of the House Judiciary and House Oversight & Government Committee in an interview set for Tuesday. (RELATED: Fusion GPS Founder Will Take The Fifth To Avoid Testifying To Congress)
“The reason for that … is that Glenn Simpson had previously testified under oath to the House Intelligence Committee that he never met with Bruce Ohr or discussed with Bruce Ohr the Steele dossier prior to the October FISA application in 2016 or the 2016 presidential election,” said Ratcliffe, a member of the House Judiciary panel.
“That is in direct contradiction to what Bruce Ohr told me under oath last month.”
WATCH:
Ohr, a top Justice Department official, told members of the Judiciary and Oversight & Government Reform Committees in an interview on Aug. 28 that he met with Simpson in August 2016 and December 2016 to discuss Fusion GPS’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russian government.
Ohr’s wife, a Russia expert named Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS at the time.
But Simpson told a different story during a deposition before the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 14, 2017.
Simpson said that he was not in contact with anyone from the Justice Department or FBI until after the election. He acknowledged meeting with Bruce Ohr, but did not mention that Ohr’s wife worked for his company.
Ohr, who has been demoted twice since December, was also in frequent contact with Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous anti-Trump dossier. Steele, a former British spy, was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016 to investigate the Trump campaign’s possible links to the Kremlin.
Steele met with the Ohrs on July 30, 2016, a day before the FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump team. Ohr met just after with FBI deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
After the election, Ohr met with Steele more than a dozen times. That despite the FBI having severed ties with Steele on Nov. 1, 2016 because he had unauthorized contacts with the press. Ohr briefed the FBI at least a dozen times between November 2016 and May 2017.
Follow Chuck on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Thank You Mr Ross and the DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)