Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, June 16,2017
Fall River’s Iwo Jima Monument
Our thanks to Atty. Brian Cunha
His generosity made the Memorial Possible
CNN Anti-Trump Panel Goes Bad When the Wrong Panelists Show Up
It’s no secret that CNN is no friend of President Donald Trump… but even the left-leaning news network couldn’t skew the facts against the president when a panel of “everyday” Americans showed up.
A group of voters was recently assembled in Ohio following the testimony of James Comey. The nine citizens were asked by CNN National Correspondent Gary Tuchman to respond to several questions, and the result was definitely not what the cable network had planned.
“First thing I want to ask you: It is a crime when you testify before Congress to lie,” Tuchman stated in a clear attempt to “prep” the panel. “That is perjury. You can go to prison for it.”
“First thing I want to ask you: It is a crime when you testify before Congress to lie,” Tuchman stated in a clear attempt to “prep” the panel. “That is perjury. You can go to prison for it.”
Then, Tuchman asked what the citizens thought. “Raise your hand if you believe James Comey lied at all.” To CNN’s undoubted chagrin, four of the nine panelists put their hands in the air.
“He [Comey] said that Donald Trump, quote, ‘Lies plain and simple,'” continued Tuchman. “Raise your hand if you believe Donald Trump has lied at all about the situation.”
Not a single voter on the panel raised their hand — but then things got even worse for CNN.
The shocked correspondent asked for an explanation of why some panelists didn’t raise their hand at either question. A woman in the front row gave an answer that the liberal network was absolutely not expecting.
Not a single voter on the panel raised their hand — but then things got even worse for CNN.
The shocked correspondent asked for an explanation of why some panelists didn’t raise their hand at either question. A woman in the front row gave an answer that the liberal network was absolutely not expecting.
“Well, first of all, things can be distorted and appear like lies,” the plainspoken woman responded.
She then gave the CNN journalist a scolding look. “And I think maybe the media might have distorted some things and now we’re not getting both sides.”
The big names in media have tried for months to destroy President Trump, citing “anonymous sources” and reporting things that turned out to be the complete opposite of the truth.
Americans are no longer taking the bait, and the media shell game no longer works. Citizens trust the mainstream media about as much as they believe James Comey — and that’s not saying a lot.
Americans are no longer taking the bait, and the media shell game no longer works. Citizens trust the mainstream media about as much as they believe James Comey — and that’s not saying a lot.
ANALYSIS: The Truth About The Roger Ailes Allegations and The End of Fox News
FORMER FOX NEWS CEO ROGER AILES, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST GRETCHEN CARLSON (SOURCE: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)What follows here is my analysis of the life and times of Roger Ailes and his Fox News. Most of what has been publicly reported about Roger Ailes is nonsense.
Roger Ailes is dead and so is his Fox News. Palm Beach authorities say the cause of death is a fall down the stairs.
But the Murdoch sons really killed Roger Ailes and his Fox News when it unceremoniously dumped him from the empire he had built for them with the wishes and hopes of a rising Middle America.
Those who plot coups often act when the sovereign is out of town and so it was when Lachlan and James Murdoch acted when their octogenarian father was on a yacht with his third wife.
Having weathered the News of the World fiasco in 2011 and still wanting to claim the profit center that is Sky the Murdochs acted hastily and removed the hemophiliac Roger Ailes from his perch as one of the most powerful men in America.
I’m told by Fox sources that the Murdoch heirs have traded the conservative nature of Fox News for access to the immensely profitable Sky. There’s no competition for the conservative audience in America, they reason, so why not move more to the center?
This drive to the center has led to several high level discussions about a Fox News rival among nationalist and right of center billionaires. Could something really replace a “Fair and Balanced” network that’s losing its competitive edge? And why is Fox moving so far from the right anyway?
In steps Gretchen Carlson who wants to renegotiate her contract.
Ageing Fox News hostess Gretchen Carlson implausibly claims Ailes said some mean things to her and that she was recording their conversations the whole time. I found this hard to believe. Why haven’t we heard the tapes? More likely the Murdochs paid off Carlson lest her implausible claims stop them from acquiring Skye. When you’re a billionaire and have billions in shareholder value $20 million isn’t that much money. Nor is it that much money to pay out if you’re going to get rid of Roger Ailes, a man who always loathed the entitled Murdoch sons and was in turn loathed by them.
Alas, Ailes’s misfortunes (and the trial lawyers circling) emboldened all the other thots at Fox News to stab Ailes when he was down. I simply don’t believe Andrea Tantaros’s tails of woe.
With Ailes no longer able to protect O’Reilly O’Reilly was quick to be shown the door. The left wing media enemy had found the few alpha males left cornered and slaughtered them. I think it’s only a matter of time before Sean Hannity moves on too. He ought to.
****
It’s hard to know what to believe in the media given how many anonymous sources are circling. We all know that New York Magazine’s Gabe Sherman will publish pretty much anything about Ailes. When Ailes was alive he was looking very seriously at suing Sherman for libel. Sherman did damage to Ailes’s reputation and Ailes was too slow to respond. Perhaps he figured it didn’t matter and he had already won.
When rogues become market leaders they tend to get lazy and that’s what’s happening with the empire that Ailes built. They’re taking their audience for granted. It’s hard to think Ailes would have made any of these mistakes.
I have known him since 2011 when I won an award from Fox News and Wall Street Journal. Once upon a time I turned down a job offer from FoxNews.com. I told Roger that I accepted a fellowship with the Journal rather than Fox. “You’re making a mistake,” he said.
He was right, of course. I wanted to work for Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, a man who I have since learned is a plagiarist and a careerist and a #NeverTrumper but I should have worked for Roger Ailes. In a way all of us in conservative media already do.
Newsmax CEO Says Trump Is Considering Firing Special Investigator in Russian Collusion
BY V SAXENA
The founder and CEO of Newsmax Media stunned the nation Monday when he claimed President Donald Trump may be considering dismissing Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed earlier this year to dig into unproven allegations of Russian collusion by the president’s election campaign and obstruction of justice by the president himself.
“I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel,” Chris Ruddy said during an appearance on PBS. “I think he’s weighing that option.”
He added that Trump feels as if former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding a notorious conversation he had with the president in February “proved that there was no obstruction” of the Russia investigations.
Though Ruddy refrained from providing any additional reasons for why the president might pursue this option, others have noted that the special counsel’s investigation appears to be plagued by a number of conflicts of interest.
For one, Mueller ran the FBI from 2001 to 2013, and during that time Comey regarded him as a mentor, while Mueller in turn viewed him as a protégé, according to Gregg Jarrett of Fox News.
Moreover, at least three of the attorneys the special counsel hired to help him with his investigation “have donated primarily to Democrats, according to records from the Federal Election Commission,” as noted by the Washington Examiner.
The point is that there are some legitimate reasons why the president might want to remove Mueller from his post, though whether he really desires this remains unclear.
Responding to Ruddy’s claim Monday evening, White House press secretary Sean Spicer reportedly issued a statement stating, “Mr. Ruddy never spoke to the president regarding this issue” and that “(w)ith respect to this subject, only the president or his attorneys are authorized to comment.”
The next morning White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders chimed in as well, telling reporters that “while the president has the right to (fire Mueller), he has no intention to do so.”
Ruddy has since fired back but only at Spicer, accusing the press secretary of distorting the truth.
“Spicer issued a bizarre late night press release that a) doesn’t deny my claim the president is considering firing Mueller and b) says I didn’t speak to the president about the matter — when I never claimed to have done so,” he wrote in a text message to ABC News.
“Memo to Sean: Focus your efforts on exposing the flim-flam Russian allegations against POTUS and highlighting his remarkable achievements! Don’t waste time trying to undermine one of your few allies,” he reportedly added.
Yet as of Wednesday morning Mueller still remained at his post, making one wonder whether there was even any legitimacy to Ruddy’s claim.
This Outrageous Obama Move Has Everyone Screaming Treason
Illegal leaks of classified information continue to plague the Trump administration.Now the Deep State is targeting our national security.
This was all caused by Obama, and now everyone is buzzing about treason.
The rogue Iranian government is still on the path to a nuclear weapons program and Obama’s loyalists within the intelligence community are leaking to hurt Trump’s get tough on Iran policy.
To that end they leaked the name of America’s top spy in Iran to the New York Times and severely damaged our intelligence gathering capabilities.
Bre Peyton wrote in The Federalist:
“In an article published Friday, The New York Times outed the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) top spy overseeing the organization’s efforts in Iran. The paper justified its outing of the undercover CIA spy and his role within the agency by saying it was necessary since the agent is “leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.”
Yes. That really happened.
In an article entitled “C.I.A. Names New Iran Chief in a Sign of Trump’s Hard Line,” the newspaper of record revealed that Michael D’Andrea, who previously led the hunt for Osama bin Laden, will now be in charge of the agency’s operations in Iran.
As the Times explained in its report, Iran is “one of the hardest targets” for the CIA to keep tabs on.
“The agency has extremely limited access to the country — no American embassy is open to provide diplomatic cover — and Iran’s intelligence services have spent nearly four decades trying to counter American espionage and covert operations,” the article noted.”
Many Americans would question why this information was leaked if intelligence in Iran was so hard to come by.
But it’s not hard to understand why when put in the context of the Obama administration’s coddling of Iran.
The administration had negotiated a deal with Iran that allowed the Islamic government in Tehran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
During the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration spied on Senate staffers by putting Israelis under surveillance and monitoring those communications.
The Obama administration also set free Iranians who were being tried on terrorism charges.
Peyton writes that this was done to hurt the Trump administration’s plan to reverse Obama’s policy of appeasement:
“Here’s what the Times article says (emphasis added):
The C.I.A. declined to comment on Mr. D’Andrea’s role, saying it does not discuss the identities or work of clandestine officials. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because Mr. D’Andrea remains undercover, as do many senior officials based at the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va. Mr. Eatinger did not use his name. The New York Times is naming Mr. D’Andrea because his identity was previously published in news reports, and he is leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.
The bolded portion of the excerpt above links to a piece dated April 25, 2015, in which D’Andrea is identified as the man in charge of growing the CIA’s drone programs in Yemen and Pakistan. But the paper’s real reason for outing D’Andrea, who was depicted as a character known only as “The Wolf” in the film “Zero Dark Thirty,” is that he’s an Iran hawk likely to oppose the previous administration’s attempts to normalize the nation by giving it billions of dollars, trading it terrorists for hostages, and blessing its nuclear program.”
This leak happened for two reasons.
The first is that the Obama administration weaponized the intelligence community.
During his time in office, it morphed into the political enforcer arm of the Obama White House.
Obama had hard feelings towards Michael Flynn during his time as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency because of his hawkish views towards Iran and Islam.
So Obama loyalists illegally leaked classified information about him being picked up on surveillance talking to the Russian Ambassador.
He was never accused of wrongdoing, but he was forced to resign when his explanations for his conversations did not square with what he had previously told Vice President Pence.
Flynn was taken out for sport because he was an opponent of the Iran deal.
The same scenario played out with the leak of our top spy in Iran.
His work was compromised because he promised to undo the disastrous Obama-Iran policy.
Obama’s subverting the intelligence community to work as an arm for his political operations was maybe the greatest abuse of power in American history.
Unleashing spies on political opponents was previously reserved for banana Republics and soviet satellite nations.
But Barack Obama brought this shameful behavior to America.
Farmer Can’t Sell Crops at Market Because He Believes in Traditional Marriage
A Forbes magazine article explains that a farmer outside East Lansing, Michigan, can no longer sell crops at market because he’s a Christian. Steve Tennes, owner of The Country Mill, rents out his orchard for weddings. But when he was approached by a same sex couple, he didn’t believe he could do that without violating his conscience:
The buying and selling of produce used to be a matter of pure commerce, untainted by politics, but now East Lansing officials have banned Tennes from their market because he did something unpardonable—he declined to do a same-sex wedding on his property (which isn’t even in the same county as East Lansing). Once that came to light, city officials decided to strike back at him through their regulatory powers.
Here’s how this story unfolded.
In 2014, a gay couple wanted an orchard wedding at The Country Mill, which is something Tennes offers. But he turned these two women down because of his religious belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. He suggested that they try another farm in the area and the two were subsequently married in 2015. The following year, however, one of the two women wrote a Facebook post in which she urged consumers not to do business with Country Mill due to the owner’s discrimination against gay couples.
Guess it worked! Way to go, lesbian couple — way to stick it to a Christian. Here’s the thing — they apparently got married anyway. That’s the beauty of this nation.
I don’t care who you sleep with or what you believe. Liberals should extend to conservatives the same courtesy. Imagine for a second if it was a gay couple owning the farm. Should they be forced to host a traditional marriage if they didn’t believe in it?
We shouldn’t force our beliefs on anyone, so stop it already.
Stanley Cup champion Penguins address possible White House visit
By Bryan Chai
With the media already running amok with unverified reports about NBA champion Golden State Warriors possibly boycotting a visit with President Donald Trump at the White House (they haven’t made any decisions yet), the Pittsburgh Penguins decided to step in front of the story before the mainstream media could take even more liberties with the truth.
“The Pittsburgh Penguins would never turn down a visit to the White House and, if invited, we would go as a team,” Penguins CEO/team president David Morehouse said in a prepared statement Tuesday.
It should be noted that those at the very top of the Penguins organization are liberal. Team owner Ron Burkle is a major Democratic donor. Morehouse worked in the Clinton administration and was also a part of Al Gore’s unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2000.
To say that it’s refreshing to see people with dissenting political viewpoints maintain a fair and healthy perspective is quite the understatement.
“We respect the office of the presidency of the United States and what it stands for,” Morehouse continued in his statement.
“Any opposition or disagreement with a president’s policies, or agenda, can be expressed in other ways,” he added.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be so surprising that an NHL team has this policy. When the Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup Finals in 2011, staunch conservative Tim Thomas declined to visit the White House while President Barack Obama was in office. The Bruins said no players would be forced to attend.
A Penguins official said the same policy would apply to their potential 2017 visit. As Morehouse noted, as of this writing, there has been no formal invitation extended to the Penguins for a potential White House visit.
In today’s volatile political climate, it’s inspiring to see a sports team take such a diplomatic approach. Lost in the shuffle of finger-pointing and shouting is the fact that we are all still part of the United States of America. Regardless of how you feel about President Trump, acts of violence and disrespect serve no constructive purpose.
The Pittsburgh Penguins staved off a very game Nashville team in the Stanley Cup finals. They won the series 4-2, including two dominant wins in a row to finish off the Predators. After splitting the series 2-2 with a pair of lopsided wins and losses, the Penguins outscored Nashville 8-0 over the final two games. Penguins captain Sidney Crosby was awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy for the most valuable player of the playoffs for the second year in a row.
The Penguins received an outpouring of love from Pittsburgh when they held their championship parade on Wednesday afternoon.
Now that's an iconic duo.
An estimated 650,000 people showed up to celebrate the Penguins’ fifth Stanley Cup championship, and second in a row. The Penguins became the first team to win back-to-back Stanley Cup finals in 19 years.
The fans that showed up in droves had plenty of reasons to celebrate.
In reading Newt Gingrich’s new book, “Understanding Trump,” last night before bed, I came across a reference to Congressman Steve Scalise, shot by a radicalized liberal in Virginia yesterday, related to Democrat attacks accusing Scalise of being a racist in 2015.
I didn’t remember the episode, so I Googled it and found this report byByron York in the Washington Examiner…
“Democrats have tried to rev up the outrage machine over news that Rep. Steve Scalise, the number-three ranking House Republican, may or may not have given a speech to a white supremacist group in Louisiana 12 years ago.
“Not only has the Democratic Party attacked Scalise himself, it has also gone after the House GOP leadership and, now, the 2016 Republican presidential field.”
Of course, now that Scalise has been shot Democrats are falling all over themselves – especially socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders who the shooter supported in the presidential election last year - condemning the attack and praising the Louisiana Republican.
But it is undeniable that the “hate speech” – especially the unending false accusations of racism against Republicans for years now – has contributed to the environment leading this nutjob to thinking it was justifiable to kill Republicans (see "Famous Last Words" at the bottom for latest example).
It’s not conservatives resorting to violence in street demonstrations, town halls, rallies and campus protests. It’s radicalized liberals who are spoon-fed anti-GOP/anti-Trump hate speech on a daily basis by not only Democrat “leaders,” but their “amen corner” in the mainstream media, especially CNN.
It’s time to put the blame for this “violent resistance” movement squarely where it belongs.
Cheers.
Dr. Chuck Muth, PsD
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Nevada’s #1 Irritator of Liberals and RINOs
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Nevada’s #1 Irritator of Liberals and RINOs
P.S. Tax Cuts That Last – With 51 Votes. By Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and David McIntosh of Club for Growth. “The ‘budget window’ has traditionally been a decade. But the Senate could make it 25 years.” Interesting idea. The article follows...
Tax Cuts That Last – With 51 Votes
(Grover Norquist and David McIntosh) – Americans know what kind of tax reform they want: a bill that cuts rates across the board, kills the death tax and the alternative minimum tax, expands the personal and family exemptions, and eliminates politically directed loopholes. If lawmakers passed such a plan, it would supercharge the economy and create millions of jobs.The challenge is how to get from here to there, given the rules of Congress.
Tax reform can be enacted with a simple majority in the Senate under the process known as budget reconciliation—but only if various complicated procedures are followed. One of these, called the Byrd rule after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, says that bills passed under reconciliation cannot increase the deficit outside of the budget window—traditionally 10 years.
The practical result? Tax cuts passed under reconciliation magically disappear in year 11, like Cinderella’s carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight. That is why the Bush tax cuts, passed in 2001, would have ceased to exist in 2011 had they not been temporarily extended for two years. Some parts then were made permanent in 2013.
But any tax reform meant to spur economic growth should be permanent so that corporations and entrepreneurs can plan ahead. If they don’t know what the rules will be a few years down the road, it is tougher to build factories, hire new workers, invest in equipment, or spend on research and development.
Conventional wisdom says that the only way to pass lasting tax cuts is to offset them with corresponding tax increases, base broadening or, best of all, permanent spending cuts.
There’s another option: Extend the budget window to 25 years—or longer. The 10-year window is not set in stone. The Budget Act of 1974 simply says that the window has to be at least five years in duration.
The idea of modifying the time frame isn’t new, and it certainly isn’t radical. The budget window was expanded in fiscal year 1995 from five years to seven. Congress used the 10-year window for the first time in 2000, but then went back to five years again as recently as 2007.
We say extend the budget window to 25 years. Why? Because the people creating jobs and investing in new products think long-term. Depreciation schedules for new plant and equipment often run to 25 years or more.
Lawmakers simply should write this year’s budget to say that all tax cuts can last 25 years, which would allow rate reductions to go into effect now and be offset later with revenue from higher growth or spending restraint.
If Congress is serious about boosting the economy, it should pass a net tax cut within the extended 25-year budget window. As President Trump says, “prime the pump” now and the economy will start to flow, creating millions of jobs and more tax money for Washington.
Fortunately for taxpayers, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) has taken the lead in promoting this pathway to recovery. “Nothing in the law prevents us from using a 20- or even 30-year timeframe,” Mr. Toomey wrote in an op-ed last month. “A 20- or 30-year tax reform would be as close to permanent as we can get since Congress would be likely to overhaul the tax code within that period anyway.”
This brings to mind the classical story of the Gordian knot. It was a knot so complicated that legend said the man who could untie it would go on to rule all of Asia. That man was Alexander the Great, who didn’t wrestle with the knot as all the others had but picked up his sword and cut it in two, causing it to unravel.
That’s what Mr. Toomey wants to do. Extending the budget window to 25 years would cut the Gordian knot, unravel the Byrd rule, and allow serious tax reform to create millions of jobs in the years to come.
Mr. Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform. Mr. McIntosh is the president of the Club for Growth. This column was originally published in the Wall Street Journal on June 14, 2017.
G’day…Ciao…….Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/06/httpift_15.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment