just to note, the final AM Joy segment in the post to which this is a reply, "Will Trump grant or deny Jared Kushner’s security clearance?" (since retitled "Jared Kushner security clearance could be granted by Trump"), is noted as a must-watch in particular due to the presence of Malcolm Nance on Joy's panel
CPAC: Woman panelist booed for blasting Trump, Moore
AM Joy 2/25/18
CPAC attendants booed conservative woman political analyst Mona Charen after she blasted the GOP’s apparent acceptance of Donald Trump and Roy Moore despite sexual abuse allegations against them. Joy Reid and her panel discuss.
Rep. Adam Schiff released the Democrats’ rebuttal memo to the Nunes memo, showing ‘ample probable cause to execute a search warrant on Carter Page,’ according to Rep. Ted Lieu. Joy Reid and her panel discuss.
CPAC: Spokeswoman Dana Loesch defends NRA, derides FBI
AM Joy 2/25/18
At CPAC, NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch attacked the FBI to explain the Parkland shooting and other gun-driven mass murders, diverting attention from semiautomatic weapons. Joy Reid and her panel discuss this conservative trend.
Conspiracy theorists claim Parkland survivors are actors
AM Joy 2/25/18
As Internet conspiracy theorists claim that Parkland survivors are actors, fake news web sites and Twitter bots continue to spread false information. Joy Reid and her panel discuss how to combat these destructive entities.
NRATV: NRA TV streaming channel on YouTube, Amazon
AM Joy 2/25/18
NRA TV is streaming on YouTube, Amazon, Google and more, but Pulse shooting survivor Brandon Wolf believes it will fail miserably at reaching young people. Joy Reid and her panel discuss.
Meet ‘Black Panther’ breakout star Winston Duke who shines as M'Baku in the blockbuster movie breaking box office records. Joy Reid asks about Duke’s meteoric rise.
Statement by the Press Secretary on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
Issued on: February 25, 2018
President Donald J. Trump’s Administration is committed to achieving the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The United States, our Olympic Host the Republic of Korea, and the international community broadly agree that denuclearization must be the result of any dialogue with North Korea. The maximum pressure campaign must continue until North Korea denuclearizes. As President Trump has said, there is a brighter path available for North Korea if it chooses denuclearization. We will see if Pyongyang’s message today, that it is willing to hold talks, represents the first steps along the path to denuclearization. In the meantime, the United States and the world must continue to make clear that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs are a dead end.
How are atheists treated differently in Canada vs. in the US? What drives secular activists there vs. in the Southern United States? Join me live in this discussion with two Canadian secular activists, Godless Cranium & Shannon Q.
Emperor Atheist sits down with King Crocoduck to discuss pseudo-science and how to defeat it. Also we discuss other things on how to normalize atheism.
Our Cartoon President Addresses CPAC | Our Cartoon President | SHOWTIME
Published on Feb 23, 2018 by SHOWTIME
Our Cartoon President Trump speaks today at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Cartoon Wolf Blitzer brings us live where Our Cartoon President talks Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, Devin Nunes, Mitt Romney, and Roy Moore.
Italy is in the throes of a turbulent race to elect a new prime minister. John Oliver discusses the colorful contenders and introduces an equally ridiculous candidate.
Trump Approval Rating Hits Lowest Point [CNN 35%, also CBS 33%] While Joe Biden’s Approval Skyrockets Donald Trump's approval rating sank this week, while Joe Biden started talking 2020 behind closed doors. [...] CNN also conducted a random hypothetical poll running Joe Biden against Donald Trump, with numbers favoring Joe Biden at 57 percent to Donald Trump’s forty percent. In that same CNN poll assessing hypotheticals, Oprah Winfrey also received 51 percent approval, over Donald Trump’s 42 percent. [...] https://www.inquisitr.com/4802316/trump-approval-rating-hits-lowest-point-while-joe-bidens-approval-skyrockets/
There are 3 important reasons Wall Street’s simmering inflation worries are premature Wall Street is worried about inflation as the passage of new tax cuts and a sharply higher budget deficit have raised fears of more aggressive interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve. There are three reasons to believe the market is getting ahead of itself: signals from the Fed, the underlying inflation data, and a lack of wage growth. "The Fed is likely to err on the slow gradual approach," State Street's Michael Arone told Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/inflation-worries-in-the-market-are-premature-fed-to-stay-gradual-2018-2
Jerusalem: Christianity's 'holiest site' closed in protest Christian leaders in Jerusalem have taken the rare step of shutting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in protest against a new Israeli tax policy and a proposed property law. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43190381
Saleh Muslim: Syrian Kurdish leader arrested in Prague A prominent Syrian-Kurdish leader has been arrested in the Czech capital Prague on a warrant issued by Turkey. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43189719
Peter Navarro, a Top Trade Skeptic, Is Ascendant WASHINGTON — President Trump could soon promote Peter Navarro, a trade policy adviser, to a more powerful position in the White House, elevating a longtime trade skeptic who has found himself sidelined by more pro-trade voices inside the White House. Mr. Navarro’s ascendance may signal that the balance of power is shifting toward those who have backed Mr. Trump’s get-tough approach to trade policy and away from those who have sought to restrain it. The president has agreed to promote Mr. Navarro to assistant to the president from his current role as deputy assistant, giving him more access to top strategy meetings, said two trade experts close to the White House, who requested anonymity to discuss plans that weren’t yet public. Natalie Strom, a spokeswoman, said the White House had no personnel announcements to make at this time. Mr. Navarro’s promotion was first reported by Inside U.S. Trade. In December 2016, before taking office, Mr. Trump created the new office of the White House National Trade Council and appointed Mr. Navarro as its director. The creation of the office suggested the new body would have a position on par with the powerful National Security Council and National Economic Council. But in April, Mr. Navarro’s National Trade Council was eliminated, and he was renamed head of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. In September, that office was moved into the National Economic Council and placed under the purview of its director, Gary D. Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs investor whose more conventional views on trade have contrasted sharply with those of Mr. Navarro. The White House said then that reorganization was part of an effort to streamline protocols in the West Wing, but it was widely viewed as sidelining the influence of Mr. Navarro, once a primary adviser to the president. With Mr. Navarro’s promotion, the White House is again considering making his Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy independent from the National Economic Council. White House trade policy has been rocked in recent weeks by the departure of Rob Porter, a former aide accused of domestic violence, who had organized regular meetings for the trade staff. John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff who imposed order on the West Wing through a strict hierarchy that left Mr. Navarro out of high-level meetings, has also been beset by rumors that he has lost standing in the White House over a series of recent negative events. Amid the tumult, Mr. Navarro has been able to leverage a close personal relationship with the president to gain more access, a third trade expert close to the White House said. It is unclear what new responsibilities Mr. Navarro’s promotion could bring, or whether the president could change his mind. But the biggest change for Mr. Navarro is that he may once again gain more access to top meetings — and to the president himself. Mr. Navarro presided over an early period on the campaign trail and in the White House, during which President Trump appeared poised to fulfill his most aggressive promises on trade, including ripping up trade deals that he had criticized as bad for American companies and workers and imposing tariffs on imports. Mr. Navarro entered the White House with multiple trade actions written and ready for the president’s signature, including a directive to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta. As The New York Times has previously reported, on at least three occasions in the president’s first year in office, Mr. Navarro’s attempts to withdraw the United States from Nafta were blocked by more pro-trade advisers, headed by Mr. Cohn. The president did sign another directive authored by Mr. Navarro, pulling the United States out of a multinational trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But other efforts by Mr. Navarro to impose tariffs on steel imports and withdraw from a free-trade agreement with South Korea were blocked, leading some to question whether the president had abandoned his promise to take a more aggressive approach to trade than his predecessors. As Mr. Kelly imposed order on the White House by limiting the president’s access to some advisers, Mr. Navarro’s influence was reduced. Mr. Navarro was required to copy Mr. Cohn, his new superior, on all emails. He was absent from some high-level strategy meetings on trade, as well as the president’s trip to China, a focus of Mr. Navarro’s. Supporters and opponents of Mr. Navarro describe this as a concerted effort by more pro-trade factions to keep the president from hearing Mr. Navarro’s views, which could have goaded Mr. Trump into more aggressive action. Mr. Navarro is a Ph.D. economist and a former professor at the University of California, Irvine, but some of his ideas on trade have been criticized by mainstream economists. While most economists say Nafta has benefited the United States economy on the whole, Mr. Navarro has sharply criticized the deal. He has denounced some foreign investments as “conquest by purchase” and argued for retracting global supply chains back within the United States’ borders. From a nearby post in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Mr. Navarro spent months focusing on trade measures that were less in the spotlight, including expanding provisions that require the government to buy American goods, and carrying out a government-wide review of the defense industry. In the last few months, however, the Trump administration has ramped up its trade actions. The White House announced tariffs on washing machines and solar cells and modules in January. The administration is also on the cusp of announcing tariffs or other restrictions on imports of steel and aluminum, as well as measures to penalize China for unfair trade. In an expanded post, Mr. Navarro may be particularly influential on combating China. Mr. Navarro has authored books including “Death by China” and “The Coming China Wars,” which advocated the type of aggressive trade stance toward China that is now widely echoed by officials in the Trump administration. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/us/politics/peter-navarro-trade.html
Cattlemen’s beef with fake meat In the battle for the planet’s future and the stomachs of its inhabitants the word “meat” has suddenly become fiercely contested territory. Heavily funded technology companies such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat are racing to develop vegetarian burgers, sausages and steaks that are indistinguishable from the real thing. Their ambition is to produce “meat” from plants in their Californian laboratories and their success so far has rattled the meat industry enough for it to fire its opening shots in response. [...] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cattlemens-beef-with-fake-meat-mlh0b3bgw
Behind a Key Anti-Labor Case, a Web of Conservative Donors - Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 [ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/janus-v-american-federation-state-county-municipal-employees-council-31/ ] In the summer of 2016, government workers in Illinois received a mailing that offered them tips on how to leave their union. By paying a so-called fair-share fee instead of standard union dues, the mailing said, they would no longer be bound by union rules and could not be punished for refusing to strike. “To put it simply,” the document concluded, “becoming a fair-share payer means you will have more freedom.” The mailing, sent by a group called the Illinois Policy Institute, may have seemed like disinterested advice. In fact, it was one prong of a broader campaign against public-sector unions, backed by some of the biggest donors on the right. It is an effort that will reach its apex on Monday, when the Supreme Court hears a case that could cripple public-sector unions by allowing the workers they represent to avoid paying fees. One of the institute’s largest donors is a foundation bankrolled by Richard Uihlein, an Illinois industrialist who has spent millions backing Republican candidates in recent years, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois. Tax filings show that Mr. Uihlein has also been the chief financial backer in recent years of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents Mark Janus, the Illinois child support specialist who is the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. And Mr. Uihlein has donated well over $1 million over the years to groups like the Federalist Society that work to orient the judiciary in a more conservative direction. They have helped produce a Supreme Court that most experts expect to rule in Mr. Janus’s favor. The case illustrates the cohesiveness with which conservative philanthropists have taken on unions in recent decades. “It’s a mistake to look at the Janus case and earlier litigation as isolated episodes,” said Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, a Columbia University political scientist who studies conservative groups. “It’s part of a multipronged, multitiered strategy.” In doing so, these donors have not just brought labor to the brink of crisis but threatened the Democratic Party as well. Amid changes in the campaign finance landscape and the decline of private-sector unions, the party and its candidates have increasingly relied on major public unions for funding, including hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect spending during the 2016 presidential cycle. Those unions include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, whose Council 31 is the defendant in the Janus case. A recent paper by Mr. Hertel-Fernandez and two colleagues may foretell what Democrats can expect if Mr. Uihlein and his fellow philanthropists succeed. It found that the Democratic share of the presidential vote dropped by an average of 3.5 percentage points after the passage of so-called right-to-work laws allowing employees to avoid paying union fees. That is larger than Democrats’ margin of defeat in several states that could have reversed their last three presidential losses. And that is clearly on the mind of Republicans. In a recent interview, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, acknowledged the potential of the Janus case to hurt Democratic fund-raising for the coming midterm elections. “In states where they got rid of the automatic deduction and employees figured they could keep their own money, they did,” he said. “So it could have an impact.” Conservative groups aren’t alone in locking arms to advance an ideological agenda. For decades, liberal donors and foundations, sometimes working together through coalitions like the Democracy Alliance, have promoted liberal goals in a variety of ways. Some backed groups, like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, that used litigation to move American society leftward. But the extent of the coordination on the right often dwarfs liberal efforts. Especially on the state level, conservative groups are “doing different things, mobilizing different constituencies,” Mr. Hertel-Fernandez said. “But they’re all working with one another. You don’t see the same thing on the left.” As the percentage of unionized private-sector workers has collapsed in recent decades, public-sector unions, which have held steady in the mid-30s since the early 1980s, have increasingly become a target. Conservatives chafe at the unions’ political influence, which they believe not only props up the Democratic Party but also drives up government spending and skews public policy on issues like education. In 2011, Wisconsin rolled back the right of most public unions to bargain over anything other than wages and eliminated the requirement that nonmembers pay fees. The portion of unionized public-sector workers in the state plummeted from half to just over one-quarter within five years. In seeking to produce similar results nationally, conservative donors have created a symbiosis between groups aiming to overturn Supreme Court precedent favorable to unions and groups that take advantage of those rulings to drain unions of members. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Wisconsin, which had over $800 million in assets in 2016, has funded both kinds of organizations. In a 2014 case brought by a group that had received more than $1 million in contributions from the Bradley Foundation, the Supreme Court ruled that home-care aides and other “partial-public employees” paid through Medicaid could not be forced to pay fair-share fees if they left their unions. Unions say these fees, typically about 80 percent of standard dues, are necessary to compensate them for representing nonmembers in bargaining and grievance proceedings. Then in 2016, the court heard a case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, that could have struck down fair-share fee requirements for all public employees represented by unions in more than 20 states, including California, Illinois and New York. The case was brought by a group that has received millions of dollars from the Bradley Foundation. During 2015 and 2016, the foundation also substantially increased its contributions, totaling well over $1 million, to groups like the Independence Institute of Colorado and the Freedom Foundation of Washington State. Those groups have used such tools as direct mail, phone calls and door knocking to persuade public-sector workers to give up union membership. Richard Graber, the chief executive of the Bradley Foundation, said the foundation avoided short-term tactical considerations in its giving. But he acknowledged that the increase was driven partly by the recent Supreme Court developments, which promised to make such opt-out campaigns more compelling for union members. (Some conservative groups are currently raising money for even more ambitious opt-out campaigns to take advantage of a favorable ruling this year.) In February 2016, the month after the Supreme Court heard the Friedrichs case, Justice Antonin Scalia died, depriving conservatives of a decisive fifth vote to strike down mandatory union fees. That gave the Liberty Justice Center, backed by Mr. Uihlein, a chance to try again. Few philanthropists have funded a more sweeping assault on labor than Mr. Uihlein, who with his wife, Elizabeth, founded a Wisconsin-based shipping supply company called Uline. Mr. Uihlein is an ardent conservative who considers many Republican office holders too moderate on fiscal and social issues, according to those who know him. “It’s not just politics for him,” said his friend Leonard A. Leo, the Federalist Society executive vice president, who declined to offer specifics on Mr. Uihlein’s views. “I think he is philosophically attuned to conservative ideas,” added Mr. Leo, whom the Trump White House enlisted to shepherd the Supreme Court nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch, Justice Scalia’s successor. The Uihleins have spent tens of millions of dollars over the past decade supporting Republican candidates and committees. That includes contributions to super PACs backing the 2016 presidential campaigns of Mr. Walker and Mr. Cruz, and at least $250,000 to help Mr. Walker survive a 2012 recall election. (Mr. Uihlein did not respond to a request for comment.) The Uihleins appear to be preoccupied with state employee pensions and the unions that negotiate them. “Bruce is the only one in the race who isn’t beholden to public-sector unions,” Mr. Uihlein said of Mr. Rauner, the year before his 2014 election as Illinois governor, in an interview with Crain’s Business Chicago. The Uihleins gave more than $2.5 million to his campaign. Mr. Rauner has been a major ally in the fight against public-sector unions. Shortly after taking office in 2015, he challenged the constitutionality of mandatory union fees in federal court. By the time a judge ruled that Mr. Rauner lacked standing for his lawsuit, the Illinois Policy Institute, which drew more than one-third of its $5.8 million in revenue that year from Mr. Uihlein’s foundation, had found a viable plaintiff to replace him: Mark Janus. The Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which Mr. Uihlein also contributes to, represented Mr. Janus in court. Since then, the policy institute has sought to persuade state employees to leave their union through its mailing campaign. It said it had obtained employees’ names through Freedom of Information Act requests. Mr. Rauner’s administration has amplified the institute’s message, and vice versa. In an August 2016 email to state workers, the administration highlighted a benefit of giving up union membership and urged workers to visit a website that would help them do so. The policy institute soon promoted the same website and provided similar guidance in its mailings to state workers. Mr. Uihlein’s foundation has supplemented these efforts by supporting a nonprofit called Think Freely Media, which uses storytelling techniques to champion free-market ideas, including right-to-work laws. The Uihlein foundation contributed more than $1.5 million to Think Freely from 2014 to 2016, the last year for which tax records are available. At the center of this network is a longtime conservative activist named John Tillman, who serves as the chief executive of the Illinois Policy Institute as well as the chairman of the Liberty Justice Center and Think Freely Media. In an interview, Mr. Tillman, who managed a call center earlier in his career and talked up his “marketing-centric approach” to promoting free enterprise, said the institute is fighting the enormous power of union leaders but is not anti-union per se. “In the late 1800s, early 20th century, business owners had all the power, and workers had very little power,” he said. “Unions and collective bargaining emerged as a way to level the playing field. I think it was an amazing story of success.” But in other contexts, Mr. Tillman has been less conciliatory. In a fund-raising solicitation by the policy institute in December, Mr. Tillman claimed credit for helping more than 2,600 workers leave their union, resulting in a loss of $1.2 million in union revenue. “It’s time for Illinois to throw off the shackles of big labor and big government,” he wrote. “When you and I look around Illinois and see the devastation the union-dominated status quo has inflicted,” he continued, “we simply have no choice.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/business/economy/labor-court-conservatives.html