A Traverse City-area Republican office was hit with a bomb threat Wednesday, marking the seventh attack on a GOP center in October.
The Detroit News reports “Police were called to the scene about 3 p.m. after a person ran into the office, threatened to blow it up, then fled the scene.”
“The threat comes days after the party headquarters in Lansing were tagged with graffiti,” the outlet adds.
Staffers were allowed to go back to work at 4:30 p.m., according to a spokesperson of the Michigan Republican Party.
This is attack number seven in only a month, this latest coming just two days after shots were fired at a GOP center in Florida, six days after vandals attacked an office in Iowa, and week after a boulder was thrown through Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) office window.
Recorded instances of violence, vandalism, and harassment exploded against the GOP in October, to over 40, which more than doubled the previous two months.
Yahoo News called the display of the flag “controversial.”
As some on social media quickly pointed out, Chief Shubert was proudly displaying a “Blue Lives Matter” flag during the face-off — a symbol that is widely seen as law enforcement’s insulting countermovement to the Black Lives Matter campaign, which aims to end systemic racism and violence against the African-American community.
Deadspin also derided the use of the flag to honor the hero cops.
For those who don’t know, “Blue Lives Matter” is an explicit reaction by law enforcement to the Black Lives Matter movement, which aims to end racial prejudice in policing. It’s a rallying cry used by some of the most empowered workers in America as propaganda against vulnerable people who are simply asking not to be killed or abused by state actors, and its endorsement by the Penguins is a gross slap in the face to some of their most marginalized fans.
Paid protesters? They're real — and a Beverly Hills firm that hires them stands accused of extortion in a lawsuit
Paid protesters are a real thing.
Crowds on Demand, a Beverly Hills firm that’s an outspoken player in the business of hiring protesters, boasts on its website that it provides its clients with “protests, rallies, flash-mobs, paparazzi events and other inventive PR stunts.… We provide everything including the people, the materials and even the ideas.”
The company has hired actors to lobby the New Orleans City Council on behalf of a power plant operator, protest a Masons convention in San Francisco and act like supportive fans and paparazzi at an L.A. conference for life coaches.
But according to a lawsuit filed by a Czech investor, Crowds on Demand also takes on more sordid assignments. Zdenek Bakala claims the firm has been used to run an extortion campaign against him.
Bakala has accused Prague investment manager Pavol Krupa of hiring Crowds on Demand to pay protesters to march near his home in Hilton Head, S.C., and to call and send emails to the Aspen Institute and Dartmouth College, where Bakala serves on advisory boards, urging them to cut ties to him. Bakala alleges that Krupa has threatened to continue and expand the campaign unless Bakala pays him $23 million.
Los Angeles Times
Commenting on how Democrats can strengthen their party by effectively targeting Trump administration policies they oppose, Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said liberals must "fight in the courts, fight in the streets" and "fight at the ballot box."
On MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski asked, "So, broad question about the future of the Democratic Party, especially given your firsthand experience with what we've all been through. There's so much going on here that we clearly see, you know, places where you -- we can criticize what the administration is doing, but how does the party rebuild? How do you prevent overreach in a situation like this? How do you prevent a continuation of the bubble in a situation like this, and how does the party reclaim its reach across the country while fighting these battles?"
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, ridiculed by U.S. President Donald Trump as “Pocahontas” for claiming Native American heritage, hit back on Monday with DNA evidence she said supported her assertion, a possible preview of a bare-knuckles presidential campaign in 2020.
The Massachusetts lawmaker, known as a liberal firebrand in her party, said last month she would take a “hard look” at running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Trump in 2020. She and Trump clashed frequently through the 2016 presidential campaign and Trump has cast aspersions on her claim to Native American ancestry.
“When I decided to run for Senate in 2012, I never thought that my family’s Native American heritage would come under attack and my dead parents would be called liars,” she said in a statement on Monday.
“And I never expected the president of the United States to use my family’s story as a racist political joke,” she said.
Why So Many Native Americans Are Upset That Elizabeth Warren Tried Proving Her Ancestry With DNA
The primary complaint about Warren’s place in this affair has to do with her use of a DNA test to seek out evidence of a tribal ancestor. According to several activists and experts that Slate spoke to Monday, the use of a genetics test—setting aside the unreliability of those tests—indicated that Warren was buying into and promoting the notion that it is blood that determines who is and is not American Indian.
“There’s this really critical distinction between DNA and ancestry on one hand and identity and belonging on the other,” said Deborah Bolnick, an anthropologic geneticist at the University of Connecticut. “These are things based on social connections. Especially in the context of tribal nations—these are sovereign nations with political, legal, and political contexts to them.
It’s not genetically determined.”
Bolnick said she understood Warren’s desire to respond to Trump’s attacks, but she thought Warren’s search for genetic proof to back up her claims was misguided. “I do have concerns that I don’t think we should be looking to genetics to adjudicate these debates,” she said. “It’s suggesting that science, that genetic technologies have answer to questions about identity and belonging.”
Krystal Tsosie, an Indigenous geneticist-ethicist at Vanderbilt, said that on a practical level, tribal enrollment matters when it comes to arrangements with the United States government about the tribes’ rights and resources established in treaties. “Access to water, air quality, healthcare is tied with an individual’s ability to establish ascendancy to an individual Nation,” she said. “External factors that question biologically how we as indigenous individuals call ourselves would be dangerous.”
Rebecca Nagle, a writer and citizen of the Cherokee Nation, said that Warren’s decision to publicly tout a DNA test as evidence of Cherokee heritage had her “terrified” about the ways it could affect the public’s understanding of tribal sovereignty.
Nagle said she was concerned that if the public came to define native citizenship as one of blood and race, Americans with no legitimate link to a tribe could use the unreliable results of a DNA test to claim benefits and rights that tribes earned after being pushed from their land. To support her argument, she cited the story of a man in Washington who heard family lore of having Native American ancestry, took a DNA test, found he was 6 percent indigenous (and also 4 percent black), applied for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program on the basis of the test results, and sued the federal government. This kind of behavior, based on DNA, put programs and rights for indigenous people at risk, she argued.
As feminists were busy peddling their “War on Women” narrative in the U.S., Yazidi sex slave survivor Nadia Murad was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting a real War on Women in the Middle East.
Nadia was honored for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, together with Dr. Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who has been a relentless healer and advocate for women.
While any comparison between Nadia’s story and the accusations leveled against newly minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be completely unfair, it is fair to wonder how news of uncorroborated allegations of gang rape brought by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti can overshadow a gang rape survivor-turned-women’s advocate being honored with the most prestigious award in the world.
For years, it seemed the world didn’t care about Nadia’s story and the thousands of others like it. It took two years for then-Secretary of State John Kerry to declare crimes against Yazidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims genocide, and the United Nations as well.
Thousands of Yazidis remain missing, including at least 1,300 women and children, and the question of how to hold ISIS accountable for its unspeakable crimes remains unanswered.
The Daily Signal
Hillary Clinton insisted that the sexual-assault allegations against her husband are nothing like the accusations that have been levied against Brett Kavanaugh — suggesting that Bill’s accusers are not examples of victims who must be believed as part of the #MeToo movement.
“There’s a very significant difference,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “And that is the intense, long-lasting partisan investigation that was conducted in the 90s.”
Clinton’s attitude is wrong here, for many reasons. For one thing, according to the doctrine preached by many #MeToo activists themselves, the fact that Clinton’s probe did not result in criminal charges means absolutely nothing. According to many of these people, the fact that a woman levies a charge of sexual misconduct against a man is evidence enough that that man has done something wrong. Accusers are to be believed, always, regardless of evidence or of the existence of criminal charges. By the movement’s own standards, Bill Clinton should be a pariah, forced to hide from the public eye, not a celebrated figure who is being featured at an event with $745 tickets.
A professor at the University of Southern California has come under fire after sending a reply-all email last week to the student body stating "accusers sometimes lie."
"If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now," Professor James Moore wrote in the email. "Accusers sometimes lie."
According to Toni Airaksinen of PJ Media, Moore’s email was in response to a "Believe All Survivors" email and led to "hundreds" of emails from students and alumni who were concerned.
Nearly 100 students reportedly attended a rally called "Times Up for James Moore" on Monday in protest of Moore — who is tenured — demanding that he be fired.
The Daily Wire
© 2019 Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - All Rights Reserved