Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. COM
Fri. Aug.25, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~ God Bless America~
Was this guy in the Civil War?
To the left stands a black man proudly waving a Confederate flag, and to the right stands a white liberal with a “Black Lives Matter” sign. The dichotomy could not be any more real.SHOCK POLL About Anti-Trump Senator
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake is in trouble from all sides. With a dismal approval rating of 18 percent, he faces a primary challenge from former state Sen. Kelli Ward. At the federal level, President Trump torched Flake for being weak on borders, crime, and being a “non-factor” in the Senate. The president also called him toxic. In July, the Arizona senator’s vulnerabilities were highlighted by FiveThirtyEight, where the publication said it might not be a bad investment for Democrats to find someone to run against Flake since the state is shifting left, he’s never been popular, and he barely won in 2012.
…
Great to see that Dr. Kelli Ward is running against Flake Jeff Flake, who is WEAK on borders, crime and a non-factor in Senate. He's toxic!
Great to see that Dr. Kelli Ward is running against Flake Jeff Flake, who is WEAK on borders, crime and a non-factor in Senate. He's toxic!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 17, 2017
Roll Call has also noted Flake’s vulnerabilities. Now, a poll from HighGround shows Ward with a 14-point (42/28) lead over Flake. Yet, the polling firm also noted that anything can happen, given the volatile nature of Arizona politics, noting that former Gov. Jan Bewer had been able to erase such deficits in shorter periods of time:
Roll Call has also noted Flake’s vulnerabilities. Now, a poll from HighGround shows Ward with a 14-point (42/28) lead over Flake. Yet, the polling firm also noted that anything can happen, given the volatile nature of Arizona politics, noting that former Gov. Jan Bewer had been able to erase such deficits in shorter periods of time:
...
I know, look at the sample size. It’s only 273 for the GOP primary. Usually 350 is needed for an accurate gauge of a congressional race, 600 for statewide, and at least 1,000 for a nationwide poll. Yet, National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar noted the methodology is sound. We do have a long way to go—and it seems Mr. Flake is deep in the well right now. He’s not isolated, however. The Senate Leadership Fund is already hitting Ward for her remarks about chemtrails a year ago.
Media Fail: Trump's Job Approval UP After Charlottesville
More proof that what you see on cable news and from Twitter's blue checkmark mafia has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
By JOHN NOLTE @NolteNC
This might be hard to believe for some of you, but the mainstream media and all those blue check marks on Twitter do not reflect anything close to reality. Not since the Access Hollywood tape have we seen the MSM go in for the Trump-kill as they did in last week post-Charlottesville, and the result in public opinion has been the exact opposite of what they had hoped.
One of the few journalists who realizes this is the National Journal's Josh Kraushaar, who writes of the Confederate statue issue ...
A PBS/NPR/Marist poll conducted after the Charlottesville protests found a whopping 62 percent of registered voters preferring to maintain Confederate memorials as a “historical symbol” over removing them “because they’re offensive to some people.” The issue united Republicans (86 percent approved maintaining them and only 6 percent disapproved), while dividing Democrats (47 percent approved removing them and 44 percent disapproved). Even a 44 percent plurality of African-Americans didn’t want to tear them down.
Kraushaar also points out that on the very issue the MSM is trying to bludgeon Trump with, his (appropriate) blaming of "both sides" for the violence in Charlottesville, 43% of Americans agreed with Trump, while 53% disagreed. Still, 43% is higher than his overall approval rating and if you watch the news media, 43% sounds impossible. Trump had been under withering 24/7 fire for days and the best the media could grab was 53%? That's pretty pathetic.
Moreover, by correctly blaming "both sides" for the violence, Trump has improved his standing with his base. A full 87% of Republicans agreed with him on this issue, an improvement of the 80% of Republicans who generally approve of the way he is doing his job.
On the overall job approval front, post Charlottesville, Trump has improved +4 points in Gallup, jumped +6 points with Quinnipiac (compared to the previous month), and held steady overall. Over at Real Clear Politics, Trump's average approve/disapprove improved from 37.4%/ 57.4% (-20) to 39%/55% -16) — hardly spectacular, but more proof that, at best, the media frenzy has had absolutely no effect whatsoever on public opinion. At worst (in the eyes of the media), the public has inched closer to Trump post-Charlottesville.
My theory about all of this was realized yesterday afternoon during a visit with my folks. The mistake Trump made on Saturday with his initial "both sides" comments about Charlottesville, was in his assumption the general public understood the truth about what he meant, that everyday Americans knew who this Antifa group was and just how awful they are.
My folks keep up with current events (and are not Trump supporters), but until last week they had no idea who Antifa was. And why would they? The MSM has been covering up the truth about these leftwing terrorists for a year. It was only after Trump's second presser, the one where he brought up the alt-left and forced the media to report on Antifa that they realized and were more forgiving of what he said.
By the way, both are also firmly on Trump's side about the removal of statues, Confederate or otherwise. "I was saying the statues of Jefferson and Washington will be next even before Trump was," my mom (and Barack Obama's biggest fan) told me.
Mike Rowe rips ‘smug’ reader for ‘white nationalist’ insinuation, attack on Republicans
Mike Rowe speaks during Discovery Channel’s 2010-11 upfront presentation in New York, April 8, 2010. Mr. Rowe’s new travelogue program, “Somebody’s Gotta Do It,” is a key part of CNN’s strategy for the future. It debuts Wednesday at 9 p.m. …By Douglas Ernst
Mike Rowe of “Somebody’s Gotta Do It” fame pulled no punches this week after a reader insinuated that he and his Republican admirers have a lot in common with “white nationalists.”
The man behind the mikeroweWORKS Foundation did not take kindly to a letter by Chuck Atkins, which he addressed in unequivocal terms on Tuesday. Mr. Atkins rhetorically linked Mr. Rowe’s nonprofit, which trains Americans for in-demand jobs, with racist anti-intellectuals. The reader also took issue with Mr. Rowe’s reluctance to discuss President Trump’s handling of violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“One of the tenants [sic] of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests [sic],” Mr. Atkins said. “Comment? No? I’m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism [sic] in this country — promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin [sic] our a— academically.”
Mr. Rowe said that he would not behave before his nearly 5 million readers like a partisan celebrity activist.
“Since we’re being candid,” the television star wrote, “allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me — your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be ‘bad for business.’”
“What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs.”
The former “Dirty Jobs” host then said that rants on Mr. Trump, besides alienating many of his fans, would be “annoying.”
“I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine,” Mr. Rowe said. “So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready? Let’s start with a closer look at your claims.”
“You say that white nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an ‘academic elite.’ You then say that Republicans promote ‘anti-intellectualism.’ You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter — your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common — a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans ‘love’ me because they believe that my initiative and ‘their’ initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as white nationalists.
“Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things ‘intellectual.’ And poof — just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!”
The host concluded his response by noting the millions of dollars his organization raises for work-ethic scholarships, along with bipartisan support he enjoys among Democrats and Republicans.
“To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) ‘If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.’ On this point, my foundation does not equivocate,” Mr. Rowe said.
The man behind the mikeroweWORKS Foundation did not take kindly to a letter by Chuck Atkins, which he addressed in unequivocal terms on Tuesday. Mr. Atkins rhetorically linked Mr. Rowe’s nonprofit, which trains Americans for in-demand jobs, with racist anti-intellectuals. The reader also took issue with Mr. Rowe’s reluctance to discuss President Trump’s handling of violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“One of the tenants [sic] of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests [sic],” Mr. Atkins said. “Comment? No? I’m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism [sic] in this country — promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin [sic] our a— academically.”
Mr. Rowe said that he would not behave before his nearly 5 million readers like a partisan celebrity activist.
“Since we’re being candid,” the television star wrote, “allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me — your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be ‘bad for business.’”
“What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs.”
The former “Dirty Jobs” host then said that rants on Mr. Trump, besides alienating many of his fans, would be “annoying.”
“I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine,” Mr. Rowe said. “So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready? Let’s start with a closer look at your claims.”
“You say that white nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an ‘academic elite.’ You then say that Republicans promote ‘anti-intellectualism.’ You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter — your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common — a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans ‘love’ me because they believe that my initiative and ‘their’ initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as white nationalists.
“Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things ‘intellectual.’ And poof — just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!”
The host concluded his response by noting the millions of dollars his organization raises for work-ethic scholarships, along with bipartisan support he enjoys among Democrats and Republicans.
“To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) ‘If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.’ On this point, my foundation does not equivocate,” Mr. Rowe said.
Podcast: Jeff Flake Feels the Heat
Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake talk before the start of the Senate Foreign Relations hearing to debate the authorization for use of military force in Syria on Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)Sen. Jeff Flake's path to reelection is complicated. The Arizona Republican was potentially vulnerable even before President Donald Trump touched down in Phoenix to criticize him at a campaign style rally.
Now Flake, who has argued for more civility in politics, finds himself in a big fight in both the GOP primary and, if he gets past that, a compressed general election. Roll Call elections analyst Nathan Gonzales discusses the 2018 Senate race in Arizona with Roll Call leadership editor Jason Dick on the Big Story Podcast.
Show Notes:
Of course we're all waiting for the President to attack Jeff Flake, the Arizona senator who voted for the health care bill. https://twitter.com/elizacollins1/status/900191189571215360 …
Rogue Spooks Scramble As FBI, Congress, And Courts Close In
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
SPOOKS WILL BE FORCED TO TESTIFY
The top rogue spooks -- the producers of the unverifiable anti-Trump dossier that created the entirely fake illusion of Trump/Russian collusion -- are now under a big bright microscope.
Suddenly, there's lots of interest in who paid for the largely phony dossier and who were the sources of the fake information in it that was distributed throughout the world.
The FBI, a Miami Federal Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Queen's Court in London are all on the case.
Order A Copy Of Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War On Donald Trump -- CLICK HERE!
The top rogue spooks -- the producers of the unverifiable anti-Trump dossier that created the entirely fake illusion of Trump/Russian collusion -- are now under a big bright microscope.
Suddenly, there's lots of interest in who paid for the largely phony dossier and who were the sources of the fake information in it that was distributed throughout the world.
The FBI, a Miami Federal Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Queen's Court in London are all on the case.
Order A Copy Of Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War On Donald Trump -- CLICK HERE!
GLENN SIMPSON AND FUSION GPS
On Tuesday, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, the negative research company that hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele, testified for ten hours in a private session before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Apparently he also provided the Committee with documents that had been requested months earlier. Last week, Simpson basically told the Committee to get lost. Instead of relevant documents about communications and contract with Steele and others, Simpson sent newspaper clippings and blank pages.
This did not amuse the Chairman, Senator Charles Grassley, who has been seeking the facts on the dossier since its release.
Simpson refused to divulge the name of his clients -- including those Hillary Clinton supporters who funded the rogue spook project.
So, we still don't know who the faceless money-men were who underwrote this shady scheme.
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS?
The Judiciary Committee should find Simpson in contempt of Congress. He does not have the legal right to simply thumb his nose at a Senate Committee.
The dossier created by Steele and Simpson and peddled to mainstream U.S. media was no less an attempt to intrude on our presidential politics than the Russian hacking was.
IT was an attempt to destroy Trump's candidacy and presidency.
We need to know who arranged for this shockingly inept document that the FBI Director decided to expose to the President and the leaders of Congress -- assuring its public release.
In the past, Simpson has claimed that he doesn't have to turn over the documents because of the first amendment and attorney/client privilege. But Simpson nor Fusion GPS are neither lawyers or journalists and do not have the authority to claim such a privilege. Simpson and his lawyers have to know this and have to be using the unavailable privileges.
READ ROGUE SPOOKS: THE INTELLIGENCE WAR ON DONALD TRUMP TO LEARN ALL OF THE DOSSIER'S FALSE STATEMENTS -- CLICK HERE!
WERE CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUND THE DOSSIER IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS?
Dick and I were guests on the Eric Metaxas radio show yesterday and he raised a brilliant and important point. Were the contributions by "Hillary Clinton supporters" to fund the negative research on Trump in violation of campaign finance laws? It's possible, depending on whether they were made by individuals or other entities, like a Super PAC. If they donated as individuals, that could be a problem. A big one. If it was a Super PAC, we need to know which one.
That's another good reason we need to know the names of the people behind this project.
FEDERAL LAWSUIT DEMANDS SIMPSON'S AND STEELE'S DEPOSITION
Aleksej Gubarev, who was falsely named in the dossier as one of the hackers of the DNC emails, has sued BuzzFeed for defamation in Miami.
The judge recently approved a request for Gubarev's lawyers to depose Christopher Steele in London, where, he, too is being sued by Gubarev. If the deposition goes forward, we will learn a lot more in testimony under oath.
And Simpson will not get away with his ridiculous claims of privilege when a federal judge is overseeing his testimony. He'll have to talk.
They are running out of time.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE
ABC reported that rogue spook Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who was paid by Hillary Clinton supporters to compile an anti-Trump dossier, has revealed his sources to the FBI.
That's interesting, since he already swore to a court in London that at least some of his alleged sources were apparently unknown to him and given to him "unsolicited." That information, he claimed, needed further investigation and analysis.
Contrary to the image that the spooks and the FBI have developed about Steele, he is no super spy in Russia. That ended twenty-five years ago. Because his activities were known to the Russians and because he no longer has diplomatic immunity, Steele cannot travel to Russia.
So he never met face-to-face with his alleged sources.
So who were these sources -- if there ever were any?
Did he tell the FBI who was his source in the tale about Michael Cohen arriving in Prague to pay off the two hackers that he allegedly hired to get the DNC emails? He claimed that he was there to meet with Kremlin bigwigs and was accompanied by three associates.
Only problem is that Michael Cohen has never been to Prague and that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So had did Steele explain that to the FBI?
Over the next few months, we will have a better picture of who paid the rogue spooks and where they got their phony information.
On Tuesday, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, the negative research company that hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele, testified for ten hours in a private session before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Apparently he also provided the Committee with documents that had been requested months earlier. Last week, Simpson basically told the Committee to get lost. Instead of relevant documents about communications and contract with Steele and others, Simpson sent newspaper clippings and blank pages.
This did not amuse the Chairman, Senator Charles Grassley, who has been seeking the facts on the dossier since its release.
Simpson refused to divulge the name of his clients -- including those Hillary Clinton supporters who funded the rogue spook project.
So, we still don't know who the faceless money-men were who underwrote this shady scheme.
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS?
The Judiciary Committee should find Simpson in contempt of Congress. He does not have the legal right to simply thumb his nose at a Senate Committee.
The dossier created by Steele and Simpson and peddled to mainstream U.S. media was no less an attempt to intrude on our presidential politics than the Russian hacking was.
IT was an attempt to destroy Trump's candidacy and presidency.
We need to know who arranged for this shockingly inept document that the FBI Director decided to expose to the President and the leaders of Congress -- assuring its public release.
In the past, Simpson has claimed that he doesn't have to turn over the documents because of the first amendment and attorney/client privilege. But Simpson nor Fusion GPS are neither lawyers or journalists and do not have the authority to claim such a privilege. Simpson and his lawyers have to know this and have to be using the unavailable privileges.
READ ROGUE SPOOKS: THE INTELLIGENCE WAR ON DONALD TRUMP TO LEARN ALL OF THE DOSSIER'S FALSE STATEMENTS -- CLICK HERE!
WERE CONTRIBUTIONS TO FUND THE DOSSIER IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS?
Dick and I were guests on the Eric Metaxas radio show yesterday and he raised a brilliant and important point. Were the contributions by "Hillary Clinton supporters" to fund the negative research on Trump in violation of campaign finance laws? It's possible, depending on whether they were made by individuals or other entities, like a Super PAC. If they donated as individuals, that could be a problem. A big one. If it was a Super PAC, we need to know which one.
That's another good reason we need to know the names of the people behind this project.
FEDERAL LAWSUIT DEMANDS SIMPSON'S AND STEELE'S DEPOSITION
Aleksej Gubarev, who was falsely named in the dossier as one of the hackers of the DNC emails, has sued BuzzFeed for defamation in Miami.
The judge recently approved a request for Gubarev's lawyers to depose Christopher Steele in London, where, he, too is being sued by Gubarev. If the deposition goes forward, we will learn a lot more in testimony under oath.
And Simpson will not get away with his ridiculous claims of privilege when a federal judge is overseeing his testimony. He'll have to talk.
They are running out of time.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE
ABC reported that rogue spook Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who was paid by Hillary Clinton supporters to compile an anti-Trump dossier, has revealed his sources to the FBI.
That's interesting, since he already swore to a court in London that at least some of his alleged sources were apparently unknown to him and given to him "unsolicited." That information, he claimed, needed further investigation and analysis.
Contrary to the image that the spooks and the FBI have developed about Steele, he is no super spy in Russia. That ended twenty-five years ago. Because his activities were known to the Russians and because he no longer has diplomatic immunity, Steele cannot travel to Russia.
So he never met face-to-face with his alleged sources.
So who were these sources -- if there ever were any?
Did he tell the FBI who was his source in the tale about Michael Cohen arriving in Prague to pay off the two hackers that he allegedly hired to get the DNC emails? He claimed that he was there to meet with Kremlin bigwigs and was accompanied by three associates.
Only problem is that Michael Cohen has never been to Prague and that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So had did Steele explain that to the FBI?
Over the next few months, we will have a better picture of who paid the rogue spooks and where they got their phony information.
Gore documentary called ‘bad science’ as sales plummet
Climatologist Roy Spencer publishes rebuttal to ‘Inconvenient Sequel’ as weekend box office drops by 59%
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is interviewed upon arrival at the premiere of the film ‘An Inconvenient Sequel: Power to Truth’, in London, Thursday, Aug.10, 2017 (Photo by Grant Pollard/Invision/AP) By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times
It was a tough weekend for Al Gore. Not only did “An Inconvenient Sequel” continue its nosedive at the box office, but the climate change documentary also drew a scathing rebuttal from a leading climate scientist.
Climatologist Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, released Saturday an 81-page e-book on Amazon titled “An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy.”
“After viewing Gore’s most recent movie, ‘An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,’ and after reading the book version of the movie, I was more than a little astounded,” Mr. Spencer said on his blog, Global Warming. “The new movie and book are chock-full of bad science, bad policy, and factual errors.”
Mr. Spencer said the sequel, like its 2006 predecessor “An Inconvenient Truth,” implies repeatedly that naturally occurring weather episodes are the result of human-caused global warming — for example, a shot in which the former vice president stands ankle-deep in a flooded Miami street.
“That flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s), and (2) satellite-measured sinking of the reclaimed swamps that have been built upon for over 100 years in Miami Beach,” said Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer isn’t new to the warming debate — he’s a well-known climate skeptic — but there’s no disputing his credentials: He’s an award-winning former NASA senior scientist for climate studies who continues to work with NASA on the U.S. Science Team.
Story Time with Hillary: ‘Creep’ Trump Couldn’t ‘Intimidate Me’
Clinton reads excerpt from dramatic new book recalling moment her skin 'crawled' around opponent
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton relived the night of the second presidential debate, when “creep” Donald Trump “was looming behind me” and “making faces” at her, during an excerpt she read from her upcoming book Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
Clinton has acknowledged repeatedly that she has been struggling to come to terms with Trump’s stunning Election Day victory on Nov. 8. In her upcoming book, called “What Happened,” she plans to tell her side of the contentious presidential election and explain why she lost against nearly all odds.
But in a particularly dramatic excerpt, Clinton chose to inform “Morning Joe” viewers of the “incredibly uncomfortable” moment she experienced when Trump drew closer to her during the course of the debate.
"This is not OK, I thought. It was the second presidential debate, and Donald Trump was looming behind me," Clinton read from her book. "Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces.
"It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled," Clinton continued. "It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, 'Well, what would you do? Do you stay calm, keep smiling, and carry on as if he weren't repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye, and say loudly and clearly, 'Backup you creep, get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can't intimidate me. So back up.'"
Clinton ultimately choose to follow "option A," even under the extreme discomfort she experienced when Trump moved away from his podium and stood closer to her on the stage.
"I kept my cool, aided by a lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off," Clinton said. "I did, however, grip the microphone extra hard. I wonder, though, whether I should have chosen option B. It certainly would have been better TV. Maybe I have over-learned the lesson of staying calm, biting my tongue, digging my fingernails into a clenched fist, smiling all the while, determined to present a composed face to the world."
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee did offer "Morning Joe" viewers an explanation of why she chose to chronicle her side of the presidential election and her humiliating loss to Trump, which shocked the country.
Clinton ultimately choose to follow "option A," even under the extreme discomfort she experienced when Trump moved away from his podium and stood closer to her on the stage.
"I kept my cool, aided by a lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off," Clinton said. "I did, however, grip the microphone extra hard. I wonder, though, whether I should have chosen option B. It certainly would have been better TV. Maybe I have over-learned the lesson of staying calm, biting my tongue, digging my fingernails into a clenched fist, smiling all the while, determined to present a composed face to the world."
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee did offer "Morning Joe" viewers an explanation of why she chose to chronicle her side of the presidential election and her humiliating loss to Trump, which shocked the country.
Democratic pollster urges Democrats to move on from 2016 and get to work on health care reform, trade, North Korea
"I want to pull back the curtain on an experience that was exhilarating, joyful, infuriating, and just plain humbling," Clinton said. "Every day I was a candidate for president, I knew millions of people were counting on me. And I couldn't bear the idea of letting them down. But I did. I couldn't get the job done, and I'll have to live with that for the rest of my life."
Although Clinton took some time off from the spotlight following her loss to Trump, she began reasserting herself a few months into the Trump administration, as she jabbed at the president and his policies and offered a wide range of explanations for why her campaign failed. Many of these explanations had nothing to do with her own conduct or her own negatives as an unpopular candidate.
In particular, Clinton pinned the bulk of the blame on misogyny, former FBI Director James Comey, the presidential debate moderators, and Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.
"I was on the way to winning when a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28th and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off," Clinton said during an interview back in May at a Women for Women forum, conducted by CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour.
(photo credit, homepage and article images: Gage Skidmore, Flickr)
(photo credit, homepage and article images: Gage Skidmore, Flickr)
All of Recent U.S. Warming Has Been Faked by NOAA
5
All of recent U.S. warming has been faked by NOAA.
You don’t need to be a scientist to see the hoax here: it’s there in blue and red. The blue is based on the raw data from weather stations in each of the U.S. states since 1990, which clearly shows a downward (ie cooling) trend. The red is what the data from these same stations shows after the climate fraudsters at NOAA have “adjusted” it. Now, instead of cooling it shows warming.
Well if nothing else, you’ve got to admire these guys’ chutzpah. As we saw from yesterday’s story Global Warming Is Almost Entirely Natural, Study Confirms, global mean temperature is currently about one degree C colder than it was at the height of the Medieval Warming Period about 850 years ago. So alarmist scientists have had to work pretty hard to advance their claim that recent warming is dramatic, unprecedented and largely man-made. Here they are, caught red-handed, torturing the data till it screams.
Let’s look at it another way. Here’s the measured surface temperature data in the U.S. since 1990 (Note: no warming trend).
And here is the data – now adjusted by NOAA so that it shows the desired warming trend.
As Goddard notes, it’s even worse than it looks. USHCN – that’s the United States Historic Climatology Network, which is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – has since 1990 been losing its real temperature data at a “phenomenal rate” and substituting its made-up data instead.
How do they get away with this stuff?
For the same reason a dog licks his ba--s.
Because they can.
At least they have been able to do so up till now.
Over to you, President Swamp Drainer…
Charlottesville Covers Confederate Monuments In Black Shrouds
Will they attempt to destroy Stone Mountain?Less than two weeks after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly, the city has covered the Confederate monuments at the center of the controversy with black tarp:
The work began around 1 p.m. in Emancipation Park, where a towering monument of Gen. Robert E. Lee on horseback stands. Workers gathered around the monument with a large black drape. Some stood in cherry-pickers and others used ropes and poles to cover the statue as onlookers took photos and video. Some of the crowd cheered as the cover was put in place.
“It’s great. It’s a good start,” said Jamie Dyer, who spoke a short time later from nearby Justice Park, where workers covered a statue of Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. “They do have to go, but it is a start, and I’m glad the city has finally recognized it has to happen on some level.”
“It’s great. It’s a good start,” said Jamie Dyer, who spoke a short time later from nearby Justice Park, where workers covered a statue of Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. “They do have to go, but it is a start, and I’m glad the city has finally recognized it has to happen on some level.”
The city council made the decision to cover the monuments at a meeting earlier this week. They also took the first administrative steps to remove the Jackson monument completely.
Not long after the Lee statue was shrouded, a man calmly attempted to remove it with a knife as an onlooker called him a “cold-hearted bastard.” He complied when police asked him to stop, but told the reporters and bystanders present that he thought it was illegal under state law to cover a war memorial.
A Virginia state law passed in 1998 does indeed forbid local governments from removing, damaging, or defacing war monuments. However, there’s legal ambiguity as to whether the law applies to statues like the Lee monument, which was erected before the law was passed.
It seems counterintuitive that the law would not protect monuments erected before 1998. More likely, the question over the Lee monument’s protection under the law isn’t so much about when it was put up as it is about what the monument represents.
G'ay…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/2017/08/httpift_24.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment