Pence says it was right decision to prohibit flying LGBT rainbow flag outside US embassies

Vice President Pence on Monday defended the State Department's decision to bar U.S. embassies from flying rainbow flags on their flagpoles during LGBT Pride Month, saying that it was the "right" move. 

Pence acknowledged in an interview with NBC News that he was aware that the State Department had "indicated" that the American flag should be the only flag flying on U.S. embassies' flagpoles. He added that he supported the move. 

Asked whether the move ran counter to Trump's expressed support for LGBT Pride Month, Pence said that he and the president were "proud to be able to serve every American." 

"We both feel that way very passionately, but when it comes to the American flagpole and American embassies and capitals around the world, having the one American flag fly is the right decision," he said, adding that the Trump administration had administered no other restrictions regarding flags or displays at U.S. embassies. 

NBC News first reported last week that the Trump administration had rejected requests from at least four U.S. embassies to fly rainbow pride flags during the month of June. Israel, Germany, Brazil and Latvia were among the countries that reportedly received denials. 

Some U.S. diplomats responded to the rejections by displaying the LGBT pride flag in different settings. For example, diplomatic missions in Seoul, South Korea, and Chennai, India, sent out press releases and videos showing the flag hanging outside their respective buildings.

The Washington Post noted that other embassies opted to display the rainbow flag on building facades. 

State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus explained the administration's position on Monday, saying that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believed only American flags should be flown on the flagpoles outside embassies. 

“Pride Month that we’re in right now is celebrated around the world by many State Department employees, by many embassies,” Ortagus said in a press briefing. “The secretary has the position that, as it relates to the flagpole, that only the American flag should be flown there.”

The Trump administration po

Read more:

Kushner Firm’s Reported 90 Million In Secret Foreign Investments Riles Ethics Experts

Conservatives Stop Attacking Each Other

Go on Twitter and you will see plenty of prominent conservatives attacking each other. Instead of trying to work together, they are needlessly causing division. It’s frustrating because some of them are the brightest minds in the movement. They should be working together, not tearing each other down. But Twitter brings out the worst in people. It’s tempting to be clever and snarky when you’re safely in your armchair behind your screen. 

Some are merely drunk or high, and regret their fighting later. But others see nothing wrong with attacking fellow conservatives. 

What many may not realize is that they may eventually have to work together. That writer you attack who works at a magazine may end up at the same publication as yourself down the road. That campaign staffer you denigrate may end up working on the same campaign as you. From a practical standpoint alone, it’s a bad idea.  

The latest feud between National Review’s David French and New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari is a classic example. Sohrab wrote an op-ed for First Things entitled  “Against David French-ism.” He criticized the libertarian leanings of French. Other conservatives piled on. To be fair, Sohrab’s critique was relatively polite, even noting that “It isn’t easy to critique the persona of someone as nice as French.” It was those who entered the debate after his article who took it to the gutter level. French is an easy target because he’s a #NeverTrumper, which makes some people upset. He responded with an article, “In Defense of Frenchism,” but it was too late, the vicious attacks had already started. 

The civilized debate era of National Review’s original editor, the late William F. Buckley Jr., is over. The magazine was famous for cordial debates between libertarians and conservatives under Buckley. They refrained from attacking each other personally. Jane Coaston of Vox, writing about the French-Sohrab kerfuffle, admits that “decades of cordial friendship among different right-leaning factions are over.” 

The left’s factions are constantly feuding wit

Read more:

Democrats Push Ahead With Hearings On Mueller’s Russia Probe

Image result for pelosi

They will also lay the groundwork for an appearance from Mueller himself, despite his stated desire to avoid testifying.

Top Democratic leaders may be in no rush to launch an impeachment inquiry, but the party is launching a series of hearings this week on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

The slate of televised sessions on Mueller’s report means a new, intensified focus on the Russia probe and puts it on an investigative “path” — in the words of anti-impeachment Speaker Nancy Pelosi — that some Democrats hope leads to impeachment of President Donald Trump.

In doing so, they are trying to aim a spotlight on allegations that Trump sought to obstruct a federal investigation as well as his campaign’s contacts with Russia in the 2016 election.

And they will lay the groundwork for an appearance from Mueller himself, despite his stated desire to avoid testifying.

The House Judiciary Committee plans to cover the first topic at a Monday hearing on “presidential obstruction and other crimes.” The House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday intends to review the counterintelligence implications of the Russian meddling. Mueller said there was not enough evidence to establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but he said he could not exonerate Trump on obstruction.

On Tuesday, the House has scheduled a vote to authorize contempt cases against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Donald McGahn for failing to comply with subpoenas from the Democratic-controlled House.

Barr defied a subpoena to provide an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, along with underlying evidence. McGahn, who is frequently referenced in the report, has defied subpoenas to provide documents and testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

Language in the resolution would make it easier for committee chairmen to take the Trump administration to court. The chairmen could take legal action to enforce subpoenas in the future without a vote of the full House, so long as the chairmen have

Read more:

Page 2 of 3

National Weather

 Click on map for forecast