Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Trump's Travel Ban 2.0
Nate Jackson · Feb. 17, 2017
A week ago, we asked if Donald Trump could win by losing. The issue was his temporary travel ban, first blocked by a federal judge and then stifled by the Ninth Circuit Court. Trump was perfectly correct legally, but he could have executed better, and we hoped he’d skip the next appeal and craft a better order. At his press conference Thursday, Trump still insisted he’s going to appeal, but also noted that he’ll issue a new order next week: “The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision.”
The Washington Examiner’s Daniel Allott explains the problem with the original order: “Trump’s initial executive order, issued in late January, raised constitutional and humanitarian questions as nobody seemed to know exactly who was barred from the county. The poorly written order created confusion, as travelers from affected countries who were in transit were detained at airports. The order was enforced against people who already had visas, including permanent U.S. residents.”
Trump’s objective with a temporary ban is to implement better vetting for incoming refugees — clearly, that’s desirable. The seven nations subject to a temporary ban (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan) are particularly troublesome in this regard. Bleeding heart liberals fuss that we should welcome all refugees with open arms, but how are we to tell the difference between a person genuinely displaced by regional violence and a person — maybe even genuinely displaced — who is bent on causing havoc or death here in the U.S.? It’s not as if people always tell the truth about their intentions. Democrats should know this better than anyone, given their expertise in deception.
Trump's Travel Ban 2.0
Nate Jackson · Feb. 17, 2017
A week ago, we asked if Donald Trump could win by losing. The issue was his temporary travel ban, first blocked by a federal judge and then stifled by the Ninth Circuit Court. Trump was perfectly correct legally, but he could have executed better, and we hoped he’d skip the next appeal and craft a better order. At his press conference Thursday, Trump still insisted he’s going to appeal, but also noted that he’ll issue a new order next week: “The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision.”
The Washington Examiner’s Daniel Allott explains the problem with the original order: “Trump’s initial executive order, issued in late January, raised constitutional and humanitarian questions as nobody seemed to know exactly who was barred from the county. The poorly written order created confusion, as travelers from affected countries who were in transit were detained at airports. The order was enforced against people who already had visas, including permanent U.S. residents.”
Trump’s objective with a temporary ban is to implement better vetting for incoming refugees — clearly, that’s desirable. The seven nations subject to a temporary ban (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan) are particularly troublesome in this regard. Bleeding heart liberals fuss that we should welcome all refugees with open arms, but how are we to tell the difference between a person genuinely displaced by regional violence and a person — maybe even genuinely displaced — who is bent on causing havoc or death here in the U.S.? It’s not as if people always tell the truth about their intentions. Democrats should know this better than anyone, given their expertise in deception.
The Three-Headed Hydra of the Middle East
Trump has inherited a matrix of problems that primarily stem from Iran, Russia, and ISIS.
By Victor Davis Hanson — February 16, 2017
The abrupt Obama administration pre-election pullout from Iraq in 2011, along with the administration’s failed reset with Russia and the Iran deal, created a three-headed hydra in the Middle East.
What makes the Middle East monster deadly is the interplay between the Iranian terrorist regime and its surrogates Hezbollah and the Assad regime; Russian president Vladimir Putin’s deployment of bombers into Syria and Iraq after a 40-year Russian hiatus in the region; and the medieval beheaders of the Islamic State.
Add into the brew anti-Americanism, genocide, millions of refugees, global terrorism, and nuclear weapons.
ISIS is simultaneously at war against the Assad regime, Iran and Iranian surrogates such as Hezbollah, and Russian expeditionary forces. ISIS also seeks to energize terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe.
Stranger still, ISIS almost surely is receiving stealth support from Sunni nations in the Middle East, some of them ostensibly American allies.
This matrix gets even crazier.
The authors of reset policy during the Obama administration are now furious at President Trump for even talking about what they tried for years: reaching out to Putin. Yet in the Middle East, Russia is doing us a favor by attacking ISIS, even as it does no favors in saving the genocidal Assad regime that has murdered tens of thousands of innocents — along with lots of ISIS terrorists as well.
Iran is the sworn enemy of the United States, yet its foreign proxies attack our shared enemy, ISIS. The very troops who once blew up Americans in Iraq with shaped charges are for now de facto allies on the Syrian and Iraqi battlefields.
Given that there is now no political support for surging thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq to reverse the disastrous Obama-administration pullout, there are three strategic choices in dealing with the Middle East hydra, all of them bad:
One, hold our nose, and for now ally with Russia and Iran to destroy ISIS first. Then deal with the other rivalries later on. (The model is the American-Soviet alliance against Hitler that quickly morphed after 1945 into the Cold War.)
Two, work with the least awful of the three, which is probably Russia. (The model might be Henry Kissinger’s outreach to Mao’s China that left Moscow and Beijing at odds and confused over the role of the United States.)
Three, simply keep out of the mess and let them all diminish one another, despite the collateral damage to the innocent. (The model is the savage Iran–?Iraq war of 1980–?88 that weakened U.S. enemies Saddam Hussein and the Iranian theocracy, though it resulted in some 800,000 deaths.)
In the short term, option three is ostensibly the least costly – at least to the U.S. But 2 million Syrian and Iraqi refugees have swarmed Europe, coinciding with an uptick in radical Islamic terrorism. Syria is becoming the new Balkans or Rwanda — and nonintervention would mean allowing the wasteland to spread, as hundreds of thousands more civilians die or flee westward.?
Which of the other two options is the least objectionable?
After 2014, we quietly pursued option one by fighting in parallel fashion with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Assad government against ISIS, the more dreadful enemy.
Apparently, the Obama rationale was that when ISIS was destroyed, the U.S. could then come to terms with an energized and empowered Iran rather than with Russia. The jury is out on that strategy.
The second option so far seems to be President Trump’s preference: a new détente with Putin in the hope that he will back off even a bit from his support of Iran and Hezbollah as we jointly fight ISIS.
The flipping-Russia approach may seem unlikely: It assumes nuclear Russia is far less of a threat than soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. Would Putin really be willing to write off a half-century of Russian support for Syria?
Or can Putin see that the U.S. has mutual interests with Russia in opposing all Islamic extremism — both ISIS and Putin’s Iranian clients?
Would the mercurial Putin work with moderate Sunni regimes, Israel, and the U.S. to provide regional stability?
Can Trump persuade Putin that having Iran as yet another nuclear power near the borders of the old Soviet Union (in addition to Pakistan, India, North Korea, China, and NATO forces) is not in Russia’s interest?
Would overlooking Putin’s autocracy be any worse than the Obama administration’s negotiations with a murderous Iran, the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism? What would be Putin’s steep price to abandon Assad, to ensure that Iran stays non-nuclear, and to finish the destruction of ISIS?
Overlooking Russian autocracy? Keeping mum should Putin threaten autonomous nations on his border?
These are bad choices.
Trump, a political outsider, did not create the monster. Rather, he inherited from past U.S. leaders the three-headed hydra of the Middle East.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2016 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444973/trump-middle-east-policy-must-face-iran-russia-isis
The Three-Headed Hydra of the Middle East
Trump has inherited a matrix of problems that primarily stem from Iran, Russia, and ISIS.
By Victor Davis Hanson — February 16, 2017
The abrupt Obama administration pre-election pullout from Iraq in 2011, along with the administration’s failed reset with Russia and the Iran deal, created a three-headed hydra in the Middle East.
What makes the Middle East monster deadly is the interplay between the Iranian terrorist regime and its surrogates Hezbollah and the Assad regime; Russian president Vladimir Putin’s deployment of bombers into Syria and Iraq after a 40-year Russian hiatus in the region; and the medieval beheaders of the Islamic State.
Add into the brew anti-Americanism, genocide, millions of refugees, global terrorism, and nuclear weapons.
ISIS is simultaneously at war against the Assad regime, Iran and Iranian surrogates such as Hezbollah, and Russian expeditionary forces. ISIS also seeks to energize terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe.
Stranger still, ISIS almost surely is receiving stealth support from Sunni nations in the Middle East, some of them ostensibly American allies.
This matrix gets even crazier.
The authors of reset policy during the Obama administration are now furious at President Trump for even talking about what they tried for years: reaching out to Putin. Yet in the Middle East, Russia is doing us a favor by attacking ISIS, even as it does no favors in saving the genocidal Assad regime that has murdered tens of thousands of innocents — along with lots of ISIS terrorists as well.
Iran is the sworn enemy of the United States, yet its foreign proxies attack our shared enemy, ISIS. The very troops who once blew up Americans in Iraq with shaped charges are for now de facto allies on the Syrian and Iraqi battlefields.
Given that there is now no political support for surging thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq to reverse the disastrous Obama-administration pullout, there are three strategic choices in dealing with the Middle East hydra, all of them bad:
One, hold our nose, and for now ally with Russia and Iran to destroy ISIS first. Then deal with the other rivalries later on. (The model is the American-Soviet alliance against Hitler that quickly morphed after 1945 into the Cold War.)
Two, work with the least awful of the three, which is probably Russia. (The model might be Henry Kissinger’s outreach to Mao’s China that left Moscow and Beijing at odds and confused over the role of the United States.)
Three, simply keep out of the mess and let them all diminish one another, despite the collateral damage to the innocent. (The model is the savage Iran–?Iraq war of 1980–?88 that weakened U.S. enemies Saddam Hussein and the Iranian theocracy, though it resulted in some 800,000 deaths.)
In the short term, option three is ostensibly the least costly – at least to the U.S. But 2 million Syrian and Iraqi refugees have swarmed Europe, coinciding with an uptick in radical Islamic terrorism. Syria is becoming the new Balkans or Rwanda — and nonintervention would mean allowing the wasteland to spread, as hundreds of thousands more civilians die or flee westward.?
Which of the other two options is the least objectionable?
After 2014, we quietly pursued option one by fighting in parallel fashion with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Assad government against ISIS, the more dreadful enemy.
Apparently, the Obama rationale was that when ISIS was destroyed, the U.S. could then come to terms with an energized and empowered Iran rather than with Russia. The jury is out on that strategy.
The second option so far seems to be President Trump’s preference: a new détente with Putin in the hope that he will back off even a bit from his support of Iran and Hezbollah as we jointly fight ISIS.
The flipping-Russia approach may seem unlikely: It assumes nuclear Russia is far less of a threat than soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. Would Putin really be willing to write off a half-century of Russian support for Syria?
Or can Putin see that the U.S. has mutual interests with Russia in opposing all Islamic extremism — both ISIS and Putin’s Iranian clients?
Would the mercurial Putin work with moderate Sunni regimes, Israel, and the U.S. to provide regional stability?
Can Trump persuade Putin that having Iran as yet another nuclear power near the borders of the old Soviet Union (in addition to Pakistan, India, North Korea, China, and NATO forces) is not in Russia’s interest?
Would overlooking Putin’s autocracy be any worse than the Obama administration’s negotiations with a murderous Iran, the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism? What would be Putin’s steep price to abandon Assad, to ensure that Iran stays non-nuclear, and to finish the destruction of ISIS?
Overlooking Russian autocracy? Keeping mum should Putin threaten autonomous nations on his border?
These are bad choices.
Trump, a political outsider, did not create the monster. Rather, he inherited from past U.S. leaders the three-headed hydra of the Middle East.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2016 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444973/trump-middle-east-policy-must-face-iran-russia-isis
He was supposed to bring him out first then do the press conference. That's the reason for the comment. He talked about him, he should easily be confirmed by both sides. Good choice. But fighting with the media should be done on Trump's time.
Will he ever stop?...............
What about the guy he was to introduce? He's already back home and calling his old job and asking if he can come back......
‘Complacency’ sends traffic deaths soaring in California and US
By Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle
February 15, 2017 Updated: February 15, 2017 8:02pm
‘Complacency’ sends traffic deaths soaring in California and US
By Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle
February 15, 2017 Updated: February 15, 2017 8:02pm
Risky driving — and a fatalistic complacency that accidents will happen — is taking a deadly toll on California roadways and across the rest of the nation, safety experts said Wednesday after the release of a report that shows record increases in traffic deaths.
“Our complacency is killing us,” said Deborah A.P. Hersman, president and CEO of the National Safety Council, which authored the report. “Americans believe there is nothing we can do to stop crashes from happening, but that isn‘t true. The U.S. lags the rest of the developed world in addressing highway fatalities. We know what needs to be done; we just haven’t done it.”
The study shows that in California, traffic deaths rose 14 percent in 2016 over the previous year, and 19 percent over the past two years. The national death toll rose 6 percent during the past year and 14 percent over the past two, marking the largest two-year jump in the U.S. since 1964.
The report, based on preliminary estimates of traffic fatalities involving motor vehicles on public roads, highways and private property, surprised state traffic safety officials.
“We’re discouraged to see the numbers go up,” said Chris Cochran, spokesman for the state Office of Traffic Safety. “We did not think they would go down, but they’ve gone up more than anyone would have projected.”
While they have not yet analyzed the numbers, traffic experts pointed to distracted driving and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and speeding as leading causes in the spike in deaths.
“We’re trying to figure it out and combat it as we go along,” Cochran said.
In terms of percentage increases, California did not lead the pack, but it did in sheer numbers. The report said 3,680 people died in traffic collisions in 2016 compared with 3,249 a year earlier and to 3,084 two years prior. Nationally, an estimated 40,000 people were killed in car crashes in 2016, 37,757 in 2015 and 35,398 in 2014.
One exception to the increasingly deadly trend was in San Francisco, where figures collected by the Department of Public Health show that the city’s Vision Zero efforts to eliminate traffic deaths by 2024 could be making progress. The number of traffic deaths in 2016 was 30, a slight decline from 2015 and 2014 when 31 people were killed in each of those years in motor vehicle collisions. The figures also showed a one-year decrease in pedestrian deaths with 16 in 2016 compared with 20 in 2015.
“It goes to show that our Vision Zero efforts are working, but not fast enough or aggressively enough,” said Nicole Ferrara, executive director of Walk San Francisco, a pedestrian advocacy group.
The National Safety Council study was based on monthly reports from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
A survey of drivers, done in connection with the report, found that 83 percent are concerned with road safety, but 64 percent said they felt comfortable speeding and 47 percent said they believe they can text either manually or through voice controls behind the wheel. Additionally, 13 percent said they could drive safely while impaired by marijuana and 10 percent said they could drive after drinking too much alcohol.
Cochran said California officials have seen spikes in recent years in the number of drivers impaired by drugs, including legally prescribed medications like opioids. Arrests for driving under the influence of marijuana are also up, he said, but it’s too early to determine if that’s connected to more fatal or injury-related crashes.
Nationally, said Ken Kolosh, the council’s manager of statistics, more drivers are distracted, particularly by their smartphones. People talking on their phones behind the wheel used to be the biggest concern, he said. But texting and using apps, including social media, have become far more common — and deadly — he said. Deaths blamed on distracted driving rose 9 percent in 2015.
Driving under the influence of alcohol also continues to be a problem, he said, showing a 3 percent nationwide increase.
The council proposes aggressive steps to combat the causes of deadly driving, including mandatory use of ignition interlock devices that keep impaired drivers from starting their cars, using automated cameras to catch speeders, a ban on all cell phone use while driving, comprehensive pedestrian safety programs and accelerated use of automated driving devices, including emergency braking, lane-departure warnings and blind-spot monitoring.
“That technology could save 10,000 lives a year,” Kolosh said.
San Francisco is already using — or trying to employ — some of those tactics. The Vision Zero program, which uses data to determine the most dangerous driver behaviors and locations, has focused on building safer intersections, and the city last week announced efforts to seek state legislation allowing it to use automated cameras to issue speeding citations.
Tom Maguire, director of Sustainable Streets for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, said speeding, red-light running and failing to yield the right of way are the leading causes of traffic deaths in San Francisco.
Vision Zero leaders have been working with national traffic safety officials, he said, to shape traffic-safety strategies.
“Our voice is at the table in this national conversation about traffic safety,” he said. “Cities like San Francisco are helping lead the conversation.”
Michael Cabanatuan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @ctuan
Traffic fatalities
California traffic deaths
2014: 3,084
2015: 3,249
2016: 3,680
Percentage increase: 13 percent jump from 2015 to 2016; 19 percent jump from 2014 to 2016
U.S. traffic deaths
2014: 35,398
2015: 37,757
2016: 40,200
Percentage increase: 6 percent jump from 2015 to 2016; 14 percent jump from 2014 to 2016
Source: National Safety Council
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Risky-driving-sends-traffic-deaths-higher-10935725.php?cmpid=sfc_em_topstories
Classic government work. The Federal Government at it's best....
Add Jerry Brown and there is no way the issue is fixed. I noticed no one has mentioned the Governor. Wonder why?.....
Oroville an area that gets good rainfall every year. When the dam was built, it creates it's own long term issue of integrity of the soils. It's also an area that gets more rain since it's well north of the Sacramento area, back in the hills. All that had to be done is for the Governor to request reinforcement for the integrity of the spillway. He didn't do it. Didn't talk about it. It's his state to manage. He's had 4 four year terms. 16 years with no results. He's finishing up his last term and wants to run for Senate. No one here is questioning, 'Where was the Governor?'. He stopped the Auburn Dam project after it was approved, river diverted, base built. The pot growers and hippie shop owners in Auburn protested and it was halted. So where was Jerry for the Oroville warnings????....
T Rex making progress. I love the no questions part. All business. Fake news to follow with the MSM.
Agree. If they don't get the outcome they want, it disappears.
Give it time. It is a large study that will be completed and reported.
Trump Has Fewest Cabinet Secretaries Confirmed Since George Washington
Rob Bluey / @RobertBluey / February 13, 2017
It took nearly a month, but President Donald Trump is finally operating with at least half of his Cabinet in place. Not since George Washington in 1789 has a newly elected president waited so long.
Twenty-five days after Trump took the oath of office, the Senate on Monday night voted to confirm the eighth and ninth members of his Cabinet: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin. The six remaining Cabinet nominees will have to wait a while longer.
Why? Unprecedented delays and obstructionism on the part of Democrats have resulted in the most contentious confirmation process in U.S. history, according to a Washington Post analysis. No other president’s nominees have collectively faced similar opposition.
And that’s just the 15 members of Trump’s Cabinet. Other top nominees, such as Rep. Mick Mulvaney to lead the Office of Management and Budget and Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency, continue to wait as well. And then there’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, who could face the biggest battle of anyone.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/13/trump-has-fewest-cabinet-secretaries-confirmed-since-george-washington/
Quiz: Why is the public trashing Trump over the North Korea missile test? Who is the most responsible for doing nothing? Cheat sheet in the signature area.
That's hilarious. I like the music but can't stand their politics so didn't watch. This is their big night and they can't get it right? This is what they do for a living?..... Bet people turned it off and ratings will drop again but they'll probably report the viewers as the ones who originally tuned in but changed the channel when they saw/heard the screw-ups.
Music in our day was different. It was new, it was great. The Rolling Stones first tour of America came through Sacramento, was living in the suburbs, a kid, my father bought my brother and I tickets, the family drove to Memorial Auditorium and we were in the second row, middle. Rolling Stones last concert in SF at the last concert at Fillmore West. College friend and I hitched from Sacramento suburb after college done for the year. Everyone sits on the ground in this venue. Last year in London, went to the new Rolling Stones exhibit.
Been to a lot of concerts. Back in the day, they were huge with the best bands in the world. They loved touring the colleges in mass. Didn't go to Altamont, glad I didn't. Friends with came back and a bit shaken. Those were the days....... Like sports too.
Grammys, agree, who cares.
According to preliminary Nielsen estimates that incorporate first-time live West Coast viewing of the Grammys, Monday’s telecast averaged a 7.7 rating in adults 18-49 and 24.95 million viewers overall from 8-11:30 p.m. ET. This is down 7% in the demo (from 8.3) but up slightly in total viewers (from 24.82 million).
That makes the Grammys the television season’s most-watched entertainment telecast. And despite the decline among young adults (to its lowest average since the 2009 show did a 7.4), the Grammys remain firmly entrenched as the No. 2-rated awards show on television, behind only the Oscars.
I love it.
Scandalous Photos and Facts Hillary Doesn’t Want You to Know
By Mae - Sep 8, 2016
Another reminder of why it's so important to remember Hillary......
http://cyber-breeze.com/scandalous-photos-and-facts-hillary-clinton-doesnt-want-you-to-know/?utm_content=2b00db&utm_source=Outbrain&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=OB-Hillary-facts&utm_term=006b2b40c00cbb625a81ad6714cc918e84
Grammys producer wants stars to be political during speeches
By Cynthia Littleton, Variety
February 11, 2017 | 10:17am
In a fraught moment of political protest across the country, the live mic at televised award shows has become a potent weapon.
As such, Grammy Awards producer Ken Ehrlich has a message for those who will take the stage on Sunday’s ceremony: Bring it on.
Ehrlich has no reservations about political messages or anti-President Trump statements flying during CBS’ three and a half hour Grammycast. Artists expressing passionate opinions about real-life issues are the stuff of memorable moments, he said.
“One of the tenets of our show is artistic freedom, and over the years we’ve shown we do believe in it,” Ehrlich told Variety. “How many more times do we need to hear ‘I’d like to thank my publicist, my agent, my wife and kids.’ The great acceptance speeches are ones that have a point of view and are more personal.”
The only guidelines on speech that Ehrlich has to keep an eye (and ear) on is profanity, given the potential for CBS to be hit with FCC fines if F-bombs fly before 10 p.m. But almost everything else is fair game.
“One of the things I’ve learned from working with artists for 40 years is that they are deep-thinking, vital individuals who have interests that cover a broad cover a broad spectrum of subjects and passions,” he said. “We should certainly allow for it on the broadcast.”
Ehrlich notes that the Grammy Awards as an institution has addressed issues of social justice and equality on the telecast in recent years.
In 2014, rapper Macklemore was given a big showcase for his plea to end homophobia and misogny in hip-hop. The same telecast featured en masse weddings of 33 gay and straight couples to make a statement about same-sex marriage. The following year, the Grammycast focused on the problem of rape on college campuses, giving a rape survivor chance to address the audience, followed by a video from President Obama and a performance by Katy Perry.
Ehrlich, who is in his 37th year of producing the Grammys and just extended his deal through 2020, emphasized that those segments would not have happened without the support of the Recording Academy, notably from president Neil Portnow, and the CBS team led by specials and event programming czar Jack Sussman. The high-wire act of producing a live telecast with so many forceful personalities hinges on the trust built up over many years.
“This is a real team,” Ehrlich said. “We all work on a lot of shows, but I’d like to think when we come together every year for this one, it’s really special.”
http://pagesix.com/2017/02/11/grammys-producer-says-political-acceptance-speeches-welcome/?_ga=1.186887976.1269764977.1486907558
Grammys producer wants stars to be political during speeches
By Cynthia Littleton, Variety
February 11, 2017 | 10:17am
In a fraught moment of political protest across the country, the live mic at televised award shows has become a potent weapon.
As such, Grammy Awards producer Ken Ehrlich has a message for those who will take the stage on Sunday’s ceremony: Bring it on.
Ehrlich has no reservations about political messages or anti-President Trump statements flying during CBS’ three and a half hour Grammycast. Artists expressing passionate opinions about real-life issues are the stuff of memorable moments, he said.
“One of the tenets of our show is artistic freedom, and over the years we’ve shown we do believe in it,” Ehrlich told Variety. “How many more times do we need to hear ‘I’d like to thank my publicist, my agent, my wife and kids.’ The great acceptance speeches are ones that have a point of view and are more personal.”
The only guidelines on speech that Ehrlich has to keep an eye (and ear) on is profanity, given the potential for CBS to be hit with FCC fines if F-bombs fly before 10 p.m. But almost everything else is fair game.
“One of the things I’ve learned from working with artists for 40 years is that they are deep-thinking, vital individuals who have interests that cover a broad cover a broad spectrum of subjects and passions,” he said. “We should certainly allow for it on the broadcast.”
Ehrlich notes that the Grammy Awards as an institution has addressed issues of social justice and equality on the telecast in recent years.
In 2014, rapper Macklemore was given a big showcase for his plea to end homophobia and misogny in hip-hop. The same telecast featured en masse weddings of 33 gay and straight couples to make a statement about same-sex marriage. The following year, the Grammycast focused on the problem of rape on college campuses, giving a rape survivor chance to address the audience, followed by a video from President Obama and a performance by Katy Perry.
Ehrlich, who is in his 37th year of producing the Grammys and just extended his deal through 2020, emphasized that those segments would not have happened without the support of the Recording Academy, notably from president Neil Portnow, and the CBS team led by specials and event programming czar Jack Sussman. The high-wire act of producing a live telecast with so many forceful personalities hinges on the trust built up over many years.
“This is a real team,” Ehrlich said. “We all work on a lot of shows, but I’d like to think when we come together every year for this one, it’s really special.”
http://pagesix.com/2017/02/11/grammys-producer-says-political-acceptance-speeches-welcome/?_ga=1.186887976.1269764977.1486907558
He already poisoned nearly half the population and continues to grow. Where did the Berkeley rioters come from. The violent group was an outside agitator group according to the local media. It was easy to tell as they had large, full back packs and were not students. Easy to see on our television coverage.
Rules for Radicals. Obama said that was his bible. People forget where this guy grew up, where he lived and what he stood for. Reverend Wright's church is a radical, political so called church but actually an anti white organization. His history is clear and he should never have been President to begin with.
The half the country continues to prove itself unworthy of the freedoms our founders provided us. Obama intends to grow this movement.
How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency
By Paul Sperry
February 11, 2017 | 12:52pm
When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.
In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.
He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.
Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.
Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.
“It is fine for everybody to feel stressed, sad, discouraged,” he said in a conference call from the White House. “But get over it.” He demanded they “move forward to protect what we’ve accomplished.”
How Obama is bankrolling a nonstop protest against invented outrage
“Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope.”
Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”
Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.
OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts.
Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation.
Critical to the fight is rebuilding the ravaged Democrat Party. Obama hopes to install his former civil-rights chief Tom Perez at the helm of the Democratic National Committee.
Perez is running for the vacant DNC chairmanship, vowing “It’s time to organize and fight .?.?. We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments;” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grass-roots organizing force this country has ever seen.”
The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.
“You’re going to see me early next year,” he said after the election, “and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”
Added the ex-president: “Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go.”
Paul Sperry is the author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which details the link between race-based housing policies and the mortgage crisis.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/how-obama-is-scheming-to-sabotage-trumps-presidency/
How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency
By Paul Sperry
February 11, 2017 | 12:52pm
When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.
In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.
He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.
Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.
Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.
“It is fine for everybody to feel stressed, sad, discouraged,” he said in a conference call from the White House. “But get over it.” He demanded they “move forward to protect what we’ve accomplished.”
How Obama is bankrolling a nonstop protest against invented outrage
“Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope.”
Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”
Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.
OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts.
Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation.
Critical to the fight is rebuilding the ravaged Democrat Party. Obama hopes to install his former civil-rights chief Tom Perez at the helm of the Democratic National Committee.
Perez is running for the vacant DNC chairmanship, vowing “It’s time to organize and fight .?.?. We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments;” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grass-roots organizing force this country has ever seen.”
The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.
“You’re going to see me early next year,” he said after the election, “and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”
Added the ex-president: “Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go.”
Paul Sperry is the author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which details the link between race-based housing policies and the mortgage crisis.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/how-obama-is-scheming-to-sabotage-trumps-presidency/
Well, he was there for a few years and had plenty of tp. Could be they didn't but his comment sounds like it's what they do. We were supplying them with pretty much everything they needed. He was working with the Iraqi military, police and their 'leadership' people to train and set up their security. The Iranians were in there messing around shooting small rockets at the new security and govt. He sent photos. We also had the air base agreement but we know who wouldn't sign it, denying it existed. Initially, 20k troops were to stay then down to 10k. Wouldn't have the mess there now, thanks BO and the Demon Party. The PM started screwing with their parliament AFTER BO got on board and said 'we're bailing.'
Sounds good. We have a cap machine. Got a bit lazy with the Nespresso machine but it works fine. Rather have what we all have than a Starbucks adventure when one never knows......
To be PC or not PC..... That is the question. Answer: NOT!
Just received a note from our friend who was the former DOJ, DEA and Naval Intelligence officer who was a contractor in charge of Iraq police training for 43 until BO pulled him out.
His words: True!! How they do it in Iraq!!
Check the signature and think about it if you are a Starbucks fan. We prefer Peets and Nespresso at home. Have a nice day.....
The Classicist: Is Trumpism Sustainable?
interview with Victor Davis Hanson via The Classicist
Friday, February 10, 2017
http://www.hoover.org/research/trumpism-sustainable?utm_source=hdr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2017-02-10
Good interview.
The Classicist: Is Trumpism Sustainable?
interview with Victor Davis Hanson via The Classicist
Friday, February 10, 2017
http://www.hoover.org/research/trumpism-sustainable?utm_source=hdr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2017-02-10
Good interview.
Nearly 7 of 10 Dems believe Christianity as violent as Islam
(Obvious difference, the leftists hate America unless they rule it. Why don't they seek to merge into the world they seem to admire. Open up some housing and jobs that others can fill who are here and ready.)
A new nationwide poll reveals that two-thirds of Democrats believe that Islam “encourages violence the same as other religions” – including Christianity.
Despite the numerous jihadist terrorist attacks on American soil, Democrats continue to maintain the politically correct mindset that the Islamic holy book, the Koran, is relatively peaceful – similar to the Bible of Christianity or the Torah of Judaism.
“The trusting attitude towards Islam is revealed in the February 2017 poll follows 17 tumultuous years of attacks against Americans motivated or shaped by Islamic ideology throughout the United States – from the 9/11 atrocity to the Pulse nightclub attack in Florida committed by an observant, orthodox Muslim man from a Muslim family,” Breitbart News reported.
Jihad, Shariah law peaceful?
Reflecting the multiculturalism teachings of the U.S. public education system and the pro-Palestinian/Iranian foreign policy touted by former President Barack Obama, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and other Leftists, an overwhelming majority of Democrats in America see Islam as no more violent than other major world religions – even though militant jihad and the overtly merciless Shariah law are integral parts of the religion.
“Merely one-in-seven Democrats believe that Islam is more violent than other religions, such as Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism and Buddhism,” Breitbart’s Neil Munro relayed from the CBS Poll. “One in 10 Democrats believe that Islam is less violent than other religions, according to the poll of 1,019 adults, which was taken Feb. 1 and Feb. 2.”
This progressive view of the Middle Eastern religion is not shared by most conservatives, who believe that national security measures should be taken to counter the jihadist threat that has
consistently penetrated the U.S. border for nearly two decades.
“In contrast, Republicans have a far colder view of Islam,” Munro added. “Sixty-three percent of Republicans view Islam as aggressive, compared to other religions, and only 2 percent view Islam as more pacific than other faiths.”
Even though the Koran calls for Muslims to kill “infidels” – those who do not submit to the god of Islam (Allah) — and leaders frequently call for fellow jihadists to forward their holy war by wiping out the “Great Satan” (the U.S.) and the “Little Satan” (Israel), a significant minority of Americans identifying with the GOP think Islam promotes peace as much as the Bible.
“Still, 25 percent of Republican voters believe Islam’s encouragement of violence is level with Christianity’s doctrines, including the Beatitudes passage, reported by Matthew: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,’” the conservative journalist pointed out.
Shockingly, when looking at Americans as a whole, half (50 percent) say Islam encourages violence about the same as other religions. Even more surprisingly, the majority of Independents (53 percent) ascribe to this belief, while only 28 percent of this political party believes Islam is more violent than other religions.
Discounting the words of Allah?
In stark contrast to the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ to “turn the other cheek” and Scripture telling Christians that “vengeance is God’s,” the Koran – which true Muslims believe is the direct transcript of many of Allah’s commands – directs Islamic adherents to acts of violence and various forms of brutality toward those who do not follow his ways, as seen in the two following verses.
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.” –Koran 8/12
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” –Koran 2/190
“So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens.” –Koran 47/4
Obama’s interpretation the Koran’s teachings as being peaceful – to support his Syrian refugee resettlement programs, Iran nuke deal and push for a Palestinian state – is argued to be nothing less than misinformed.
“Former President Barack Obama and other leaders in the Democratic Party have repeatedly suggested that Islam is not more violent than other religions,” Munro informed. “Obama told Muslims in February 2016 that Islam means ‘peace,’ although it actually means ‘submission.’”
Three senior Democratic legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives recently proclaimed Islam to be a religion of peace, as well.
“There are over three million Americans who practice Islam peacefully,” the Democratic leaders declared in a letter they signed on February 3, according to Breitbart. “The specter that there would be a federal program that – in name and action – singles out people of a particular faith warrants immediate [critical] consideration by the Department of Justice.”
Christians the violent ones?
Left-leaning activists and journalists have often blamed Christians for violence around the world, even though they rarely claim that their hostile behavior is incited by Scripture.
“However – and this will probably shock many, so you might want to take a breath – overwhelmingly, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe aren’t Muslims,” a Daily Beast columnist asserted, stressing the role of European nationalist groups in terrorism rates.
Another progressive publication attempted to take the emphasis off of Islam as a promoter of terrorism by turning the argument around.
“Conservatives claim that all terrorists are Muslim, but most violent attacks in the U.S. are carried out by white men,” a Salon.com article reads, with the author focusing on the murders of abortionists.
It is also argued that the mainstream media does its best to paint those concerned about Islamic terrorism as haters, isolationists and bigots, while portraying those who disassociate Islam from terrorism as champions of tolerance and civil rights.
“[E]stablishment media sites have played up the pro-Western, anti-Islam views of White House officials without even trying to address the truth or falsity of the views,” Munro pointed out.
He went on to note the dichotomy between the Islamic and Christian influences on societies around the world.
“In contrast, pro-Western critics of Islam routinely argue that Islam’s mixture of religion and political ideology has a harmful impact on adherents and on societies,” Murno added. “They argue that Islam is far more aggressive and harmful to societies than what they describe as the beneficial impact of Christianity’s mix of faith and reason, freedom and law.”
http://www.gopusa.com/nearly-7-of-10-dems-believe-christianity-as-violent-as-islam/
Hard to believe................
Demons seems to have a difficult time accepting a free society and the will of the people.
Germany to speed up and increase numbers of refugee deportations
Associated Press
BERLIN (AP) — Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday that she and the governors of Germany’s 16 states have agreed to push for more and faster deportations of rejected asylum-seekers.
Merkel, who faces a national election in September, has called repeatedly for a “national effort” to make sure that people without the right to stay leave the country.
Deportations currently are handled by state governments, but top officials have recently made clear the federal government wants more influence.
After meeting Thursday, Merkel and the governors told reporters in Berlin that they would work closely to devise new deportation regulations, German news agency dpa reported.
The government officials are planning to create several so-called “exit centers” where people could be taken before their scheduled deportations to make sure they don’t disappear at the last minute.
The officials also want to establish a national center to coordinate returns.
According to the developing plans, people with few prospects of getting asylum would be processed and deported only weeks after their arrivals in Germany.
Immigrants who agree to return to their home countries voluntarily without waiting for their applications to be reviewed would receive financial incentives.
In 2016, some 55,000 asylum-seekers left Germany voluntarily and about 25,000 were deported. Also last year, 280,000 people requested asylum, compared to 890,000 in 2015.
http://www.gopusa.com/germany-to-speed-up-and-increase-numbers-of-refugee-deportations/
The Clintoons - What an example of living off other people's money. Their loser daughter and son in law now leeching off the 'Foundation' 2 short articles. Modern day grifters.
Chelsea Clinton's Husband Closes His Hedge Fund
Saijel Kishan
?February? ?8?, ?2017? ?6?:?48? ?AM? ?PST
Eaglevale Partners, the hedge fund co-founded by Marc Mezvinsky, the son-in-law of Hillary and Bill Clinton, closed in December, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
Eaglevale, based in New York, is in the process of returning money to clients, said the person who asked not to be named because the firm is private.
Eaglevale was started by former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. traders Bennett Grau, Mark Mallon and Mezvinsky in 2011. They had previously worked together on the bank’s global macro proprietary-trading desk.
A spokesman for Eaglevale declined to comment on the news, which was reported earlier by Hedge Fund Alert.
(Apparently he put his bet on the Greece economy improving. LOL!!! Lost 95% in one fund. The only reason he got money was that he was the son in law of Bill. Chelsea (woof...) 'left' her job to take care of her children. That's ok as the Foundation picked her salary and now her husband's.)
Chelsea Clinton Leaving Her Unbelievably Cushy Fake Job at NBC
By Joe Coscarelli
Kicking off the annual Labor Day Friday News Dump, Chelsea Clinton has announced, via People, that she will no longer pretend to be a reporter. The once (and future?) First Daughter has been a “special correspondent” for NBC News since 2011, when she was dubbed, following her debut, “one of the most boring people of her era.” For the occasional feel-good segment or interview with the CGI Geico gecko, Clinton earned a reported annual salary of $600,000, or approximately $26,724 for every minute she was on-air.
She switched to a month-by-month contract earlier this year, allegedly because of her pregnancy and her mother’s impending run for president, not because she was being paid an insane amount of money to do almost nothing.
Related Stories
This Is What Chelsea Clinton Does at NBC
NBC Paid Chelsea Clinton $600,000 to Do Nothing, Basically
But she just doesn’t have time to occasionally appear on TV for a few minutes anymore and is departing, amicably we’re sure, “to continue focusing on my work at the Clinton Foundation and as Marc and I look forward to welcoming our first child,” Clinton told People.
“Chelsea’s storytelling inspired people across the country and showcased the real power we have as individuals to make a difference in our communities,” said NBC News senior vice president Alex Wallace. “While she will be missed, we look forward to working with her in the future.”
A search for her recent work turns up “Oscar-Winning Actor Jeff Bridges Fights to End Childhood Hunger” and “Homework Diner Serves Up Education With a Side of Food” (a follow-up to the same story from last year), along with “Chelsea Clinton Pregnant: ‘Marc and I Are Very Excited,” “Chelsea Clinton: I’m Very Excited About First Child,” and “‘So Thrilled’: Chelsea Clinton Announces Pregnancy.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/clinton-son-in-law-s-hedge-fund-eaglevale-partners-said-to-close
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/chelsea-clinton-leaving-her-fake-job-at-nbc.html
The Clintoons - What an example of living off other people's money. Their loser daughter and son in law now leeching off the 'Foundation' 2 short articles. Modern day grifters.
Chelsea Clinton's Husband Closes His Hedge Fund
Saijel Kishan
?February? ?8?, ?2017? ?6?:?48? ?AM? ?PST
Eaglevale Partners, the hedge fund co-founded by Marc Mezvinsky, the son-in-law of Hillary and Bill Clinton, closed in December, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
Eaglevale, based in New York, is in the process of returning money to clients, said the person who asked not to be named because the firm is private.
Eaglevale was started by former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. traders Bennett Grau, Mark Mallon and Mezvinsky in 2011. They had previously worked together on the bank’s global macro proprietary-trading desk.
A spokesman for Eaglevale declined to comment on the news, which was reported earlier by Hedge Fund Alert.
(Apparently he put his bet on the Greece economy improving. LOL!!! Lost 95% in one fund. The only reason he got money was that he was the son in law of Bill. Chelsea (woof...) 'left' her job to take care of her children. That's ok as the Foundation picked her salary and now her husband's.)
Chelsea Clinton Leaving Her Unbelievably Cushy Fake Job at NBC
By Joe Coscarelli
Kicking off the annual Labor Day Friday News Dump, Chelsea Clinton has announced, via People, that she will no longer pretend to be a reporter. The once (and future?) First Daughter has been a “special correspondent” for NBC News since 2011, when she was dubbed, following her debut, “one of the most boring people of her era.” For the occasional feel-good segment or interview with the CGI Geico gecko, Clinton earned a reported annual salary of $600,000, or approximately $26,724 for every minute she was on-air.
She switched to a month-by-month contract earlier this year, allegedly because of her pregnancy and her mother’s impending run for president, not because she was being paid an insane amount of money to do almost nothing.
Related Stories
This Is What Chelsea Clinton Does at NBC
NBC Paid Chelsea Clinton $600,000 to Do Nothing, Basically
But she just doesn’t have time to occasionally appear on TV for a few minutes anymore and is departing, amicably we’re sure, “to continue focusing on my work at the Clinton Foundation and as Marc and I look forward to welcoming our first child,” Clinton told People.
“Chelsea’s storytelling inspired people across the country and showcased the real power we have as individuals to make a difference in our communities,” said NBC News senior vice president Alex Wallace. “While she will be missed, we look forward to working with her in the future.”
A search for her recent work turns up “Oscar-Winning Actor Jeff Bridges Fights to End Childhood Hunger” and “Homework Diner Serves Up Education With a Side of Food” (a follow-up to the same story from last year), along with “Chelsea Clinton Pregnant: ‘Marc and I Are Very Excited,” “Chelsea Clinton: I’m Very Excited About First Child,” and “‘So Thrilled’: Chelsea Clinton Announces Pregnancy.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/clinton-son-in-law-s-hedge-fund-eaglevale-partners-said-to-close
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/chelsea-clinton-leaving-her-fake-job-at-nbc.html
I agree with that. He needs to arm with overwhelming force to destroy the demons and their lame stream media. Destroy them with facts they cannot disprove and provide the solutions the overwhelming majority of our country need and want. Take back our country from the left and their greedy, anarchist approach grab for power. If the left wants war...... destroy them with their own words and actions.
Looking forward to Trump blowing the demons out with Brexit agreements. Be first to the table, first to shake hands.
And it's raining here again today.
Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels
Video below.
Funny, I was posting about this yesterday and it was on FOX later in the day. They must be watching........
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks
Undermining Our Republic, One Lawsuit After Another
By Arnold Ahlert
Feb. 9, 2017
In 1996, California voters approved1 a ballot initiative known as Proposition 209. It banned all preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and gender in public education, employment and contracting. The decision was anathema to the progressive bean-counters and quota-mongers who did what progressives always do when the will of the people conflicts with their agenda: they found U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson, who issued a temporary restraining order preventing the law’s implantation. Henderson’s reasoning? Because the elimination of preferences disadvantaged women and racial minorities, it violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Henderson’s affront to logic was eventually overturned2, but this saga illustrates two things that afflict the nation to this very day: Leftists remain utterly contemptuous of the democratic process when the results of that process conflict with their “enlightened” worldview; and far more important, Americans have becoming increasingly inured to Abraham Lincoln’s warning3 that “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”
Would that it were solely the Supreme Court. As usual, leftists were able to secure a ruling4 from federal district judge James Robart of Seattle restraining the Trump administration’s efforts to temporarily suspend visas for aliens “who cannot be realistically vetted for security risks because their native countries are either sponsors of anti-American terrorism … or have been left with dysfunctional or nonfunctional governments because of war,” as National Review aptly explains5.
This is judicial abuse, and nothing makes it clearer than Section 1182(f)6 of immigration law, granting the president the power to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
That leftists have twisted Trump’s order into an attack on religion is unsurprising. It is even less surprising that a judge with a track record7 of left-leaning activism would support it.
But this is just the beginning of the Left’s effort to employ “useful” jurists willing to preserve their agenda, even if it thwarts the will of the electorate, a congressional majority and/or the Trump administration. Fred Lucas reports8 that there are more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive order that “largely stem from organizations bankrolled by billionaire leftist George Soros and Democratic state attorneys general” have been filed for exactly that reason.
The results of Robart’s injunction alone are as predictable as they are infuriating. “Lifting of Travel Ban Sets Off Rush to Reach U.S.,” proclaims9 a New York Times headline. The Times also refers to a “vigorous” vetting process that can take as long as two years.
Not exactly. “Because of a spike in Middle Eastern refugees needing placement, the Obama administration has decided to rush their vetting process to three months, from the original 18-24 months,” the Washington Times revealed10 — last April.
Americans should be clear about what is really happening here: progressives are once engaged in the process of finding judges willing to elevate the interests of aliens and their progressive enablers over Americans and national security.
Americans should also understand this particular battle is only the beginning of a war in which leftists will flood the courts with lawsuits aimed at undermining every facet of Trump’s agenda.
In what may have been one of his most misguided assumptions, Thomas Jefferson argued11 “for the permanency of the judicial offices” based on the idea that “few men in the society … have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.”
The rise of moral relativism, essentially the idea that one man’s “depravity” is another man’s “lifestyle,” has given the nation a plethora of judges completely bereft of anything resembling the union of requisite integrity and requisite knowledge. Thus, for example, Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt is quite comfortable wearing12 her “pussy hat” while sitting on the bench. It’s apparently OK because her job is largely administrative, and her judicial powers are limited to conducting marriages and administrative hearings.
Yet the ultimate judicial divide in our nation is the chasm between judges who believe the Constitution means what it actually says, and those who believe it is a “living” document rife with “penumbras” or implied rights necessitating interpretation.
For the latter group, it is completely irrelevant the Framers fought over every word contained in our founding document. Moreover, members of the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court have expressed13 their comfort with using decisions produced by foreign and international courts to inform their rulings.
The concept known as judicial supremacy began with Marbury v. Madison14, the first time SCOTUS voided congressional legislation.
It has now evolved to the point where Americans have been led to believe the Constitution “was deliberately framed in terms of heroic generalities precisely to give federal judges a wider scope for discretion,” as Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell put it15.
Columnist Clarke D. Forsythe echoes Lincoln. “Judicial supremacy fundamentally contradicts self-government,” he writes.
Sadly, America’s governance is often determined by who sits on our courts rather than who sits in our legislatures. This makes the selection of judges far more critical that it should be, to the point where Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to stack the DC Court of Appeals with Democrats. Thus, Democrat hysteria surrounding that elimination of the filibuster to ultimately appoint Neil Gorsuch16 to the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia rings exceedingly hollow.
Article III of the Constitution17 grants Congress to create — or eliminate — every federal court but SCOTUS, a power that could be used to rein in much judicial overreach. But if Congress did put the judges on notice that unconstitutional rulings might cost them their jobs, Americans' focus would be on our elected representatives when divisive political outcomes arose. “Can’t have that,” columnist Selwyn Duke writes18. “Federal judges don’t have to be reelected — congressmen do.”
Again, the short-term implications are clear. Progressives will employ every opportunity to use the judiciary as a bulwark against a president they despise, and an electorate that has decimated Democrat legislative power at both the federal and state level. Moreover, as SCOTUS made clear on rulings from Roe v. Wade to Obergefell v. Hodges, jurists will continue to “discover” laws that have “no basis in the Constitution,” as Chief Justice John Roberts characterized19 the latter decision in his dissent.
That would be the same Chief Justice Roberts who also “discovered”20 ObamaCare’s individual mandate — argued as such by the Obama administration itself — was actually a tax, making passage of the health care law possible. A law giving the federal government control over one-sixth of the nation’s economy.
Long term, Americans are facing the ever-increasing reality that “five lawyers can determine what law means for 320 million Americans,” Duke explains. That system of governance may be many things. A constitutional republic isn’t one of them.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/47365
The criticizer, imo.
Sid is a classic leftist. Trump needs to keep his mouth shut and let his ALL his appointees get through the vetting and approval process and get his policies finalized for rollout. Tooo much talk to the lamestream media and twitter makes it more difficult to force the demons to do their job. He needs his people in place so he can disappear behind the wall of expertise and success of those he's hiring. When in place, then shoot the mortars of policy that have to be voted on in the House and Senate so they can push them through asap.
Give the left plenty of rope to hang themselves for the midterm elections.
Vetting Richard Blumenthal's Background
By Political Editors
Feb. 9, 2017
Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, faces the usual hurdles for a Republican nominee and then some. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said of Gorsuch, “It is important that every aspect of his background be critically and closely scrutinized.” Fair enough, though we know what that usually means for Democrats — nasty personal destruction, complete with charges of racism, sexism, etc.
But it’s Blumenthal whose background deserves the scrutiny. He lied about his military service in Vietnam, and when his lies were exposed, he brazenly lied about the lies. “My intention has always been to be completely clear and accurate and straightforward,” he insisted in 20101, “out of respect to the veterans who served in Vietnam.” No such thing. Blumenthal repeatedly claimed to have “served in Vietnam” when in fact he received five deferments and never went further west than Washington state — to organize a Toys for Tots drive. But by all means, let’s trust him to vet Gorsuch’s background.
On a final note, Blumenthal met with Gorsuch and reported that the SCOTUS nominee objected to Donald Trump’s words about “so-called judges,” calling that characterization “demoralizing” and “disheartening.” Trump responded via Twitter, “Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie), now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?” By all accounts, Gorsuch did use those words (and rightly so), leaving an apparent contradiction between Trump’s tweet and reality. So once again, Trump has stepped in it with his Twitter account. He’s directly contradicted his nominee, which will come up again in confirmation hearings. Media-generated perception will be that Trump demands fealty from the judicial branch. Instead, the focus should be what Democrats do to destroy nominees.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/47370