Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Sharpton to defend Obama's legacy from those who would 'disrespect him'

washingtonexaminer ^ | March 15, 2016 | PAUL BEDARD 

The Rev. Al Sharpton is already bracing for critics to try to tear down President Obama's legacy after he leaves office, but the civil rights leader is promising to lead the defense.

"The legacy of President Obama, from affordable healthcare to what he's doing on criminal justice, to even what he's done with Osama bin Laden and other things of that nature, will probably be attacked by some," he said.
As a result, he plans to help the president bolster his legacy and keep the critics at bay, both personally and with his 25-year-old National Action Network.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Obama Administration Will Not Allow Oil Drilling in Atlantic Ocean

Time ^ | 3-14-16 | Matthew Daly 

This decision reverses a previous proposal from the Obama administration

(WASHINGTON)— In a major reversal, the Obama administration says it will not allow oil drilling in the Atlantic Ocean.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell made the announcement Tuesday on Twitter, declaring that the administration’s next five-year offshore drilling plan “protects the Atlantic for future generations.”
The announcement reverses a proposal made last year in which the administration floated a plan that would have opened up a broad swath of the Atlantic Coast to drilling. The January 2015 proposal would have opened up sites more than 50 miles off Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia to oil drilling no earlier than 2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...

Do Mexican flag-wavers know what happens to illegals in Mexico?

American Thinker ^ | 15 Mar, 2016 | Silvio Canto, Jr. 

On Friday night, we saw Sanders placards and a few communist flags at that anti-Trump rally. I guess you'd expect that at a leftist rally with Bill Ayers in attendance. It was the Mexican flags that caught my attention. I don't know for sure who was holding the flags but my reaction was the same. In other words, do these kids understand how Mexico treats illegal immigrants or even legal foreigners engaged in politics? Let's take a look at Mexico's immigration laws: What would Mexico do? The answer is easy: deport them on the spot. In 2002, a dozen American college students, in Mexico legally, participated peacefully in an environmental protest against a planned airport outside of Mexico City. They swiftly found themselves deported as law-breakers for interfering in Mexico’s internal affairs. Another person had a sign that read: "Liberation not deportation". What in the world does that mean? Does the young woman understand that every country has immigration laws and deports people violating them?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Bloodthirsty Trump supporters riot in Youngstown - or not?

Me | 3/15/2016 | GeorgiaDawg32 

I don't know. It just might be me, but it seems with the media, BLM and every other alphabet calling Trump supporters bloodthirsty and violent, yesterday in Youngstown should have seen half the city in flames.

Yet, completely, completely peaceful. Not one interruption, not one fight. Kinda tells you something, doesn't it?

Maybe somebody out there in the media, with a brain (a stretch I know), will put two and two together and figure out there is unrest ONLY when protesters show up, not to protest, but to intimidate and incite, knowing the media will have their backs and blame Trump.
Personally, I think these disruptions are backfiring big time.

We’ve Been Measuring Inequality Wrong Here's the real story [GOV'T REWARDS NON-WORK]

New Republic ^ | March 14, 2016 | Alan Auerbach and Laurence J. Kotlikoff 

Despite appearances to the contrary, this year’s presidential follies have managed to feature at least a few policy discussions amid all the name-calling.
Income inequality in particular has animated voters on both sides of the partisan divide, but the solutions advocated by candidates from each party are markedly different.
Democrats claim higher taxes on the rich and more benefits for the poor are the best ways to reduce inequality...
...To be clear, spending power remains extremely unequal.
Our point is that the fiscal system, taken as a whole, does materially reduce inequality, not in what people own or earn, but in what they get to spend.
This limits the scope to further equalize spending power by taxing the top 1 percent at a much higher rate. Indeed, among 40-49 year-olds, confiscating all the remaining spending power of the top 1 percent (with a 100 percent tax rate) and giving it to the poorest 20 percent would leave the latter group with 16.1 of total spending power...
...Another key finding is that U.S. fiscal policy acts as a serious disincentive to work longer hours or harder for more pay...
...The facts revealed in our study should change views. Inequality, properly measured, is extremely high, but is far lower than generally believed. The reason is that our fiscal system, properly measured, is highly progressive. And, via our high marginal taxes, we are providing significant incentives to Americans to work less and earn less than they might otherwise...
...As candidates and voters debate inequality and the best ways to reduce it, it’s important to start with the actual facts. That will make it far easier to figure out which policies, if any, should be changed going forward.
Raising taxes and benefits as Democrats advocate will...
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...

Progressive Brownshirts

Frontpagemag.com ^ | March 15, 2016 | Robert Spencer 

Ferguson. Baltimore. Chicago. Everywhere Leftist protesters occupy the streets, those whose opinions are deemed insufficiently progressive are abused, mocked, ridiculed, brutalized and physically menaced.

This lawlessness is rapidly becoming the norm; the Obama administration, as well as leading media and cultural figures, need to decry that normalization and act strongly against these thugs now – before the American public square is transformed beyond recognition, and ceases to be an arena for free discourse.

(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...

Divisive Rhetoric? Trump Didn’t Start This Fire (this from National Review? WTH!)

nationalreview.com ^ | Heather MacDonald 

Commentators on MSNBC and CNN have been shedding crocodile tears over Donald Trump’s “divisive rhetoric” and lamenting his failure to unify the country. This sudden concern for national unity is rather hard to take from the same worthies who have incessantly glorified the Black Lives Matter movement over the last year and a half.
Let’s dip into the rhetoric of a garden-variety Black Lives Matter march that I observed last November on Fifth Avenue in New York City. It featured “F**k the Police,” “Murderer Cops,” and “Racism Is the Disease, Revolution Is the Cure” T-shirts, “Stop Police Terror” signs, and “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Racist Cops Have Got to Go” chants.
What about the rhetoric of Black Lives Matter leaders? Last October, DeRay Mckesson, one of the self-appointed spokesmen for Black Lives Matter, led a seminar at the Yale Divinity School, while his BLM ally, Johnetta Elzie (ShordeeDooWhop), tweeted about the proceedings. Mckesson (now running for mayor of Baltimore) had assigned an essay, “In Defense of Looting,” which justified the August 2014 Ferguson riots as “getting straight to the heart of the problem of the police, property, and white supremacy.” Elzie’s tweeted reporting on the class included “If you put me in a cage you’re damn right I’m going to break some glass” and “Looting for me isn’t violent, it’s an expression of anger.” (Let’s hope Baltimore residents do their homework before voting.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Obama’s deep cuts could lead to a U.S. military defeat!

wash times ^ | 3/14/16 | e feulner 

Energy subsidies. Corporate welfare. Catfish-inspection programs. As I detailed in a recent column, the federal budget is rife with spending that is highly questionable, to put it mildly.
No wonder the national debt exceeds $19 trillion. It seems policymakers just can’t say no to anything. Except when it comes to defense.
For fiscal 2017, President Obama has requested $551 billion for the base defense budget, plus funding for ongoing operations, for a total of $610 billion. That sounds like a lot of money — but only if you overlook a couple of very important points.
One is that these amounts, historically speaking, are extraordinarily low. Few people will be surprised that the U.S. spent more on defense in the Reagan years (the same investment of gross domestic product would be $1.1 trillion annually, on average). But it was $917 billion annually during the Carter years, and $761 billion when George W. Bush was in office.
The military’s budget was even higher during the Clinton years: $624 billion. Now we’re talking about lowering it to $610 billion. As defense expert Justin Johnson recently pointed out, “As a percent of the government spending or total economy, the U.S. has not spent so little on national defense since the end of World War II.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Donald Trump Breaks With Tradition, and It’s Paying Off

nytimes.com ^ | ANAND GIRIDHARADAS 

Of the many ways in which Donald J. Trump is disrupting American politics, one of the most compelling is his disregard for the established rules of communicating with voters.
More than any other candidate, Mr. Trump embodies the evolving norms of communication that are being enabled and encouraged by technology and the matrix of connectivity that defines modern life: authenticity over authority, surprise over consistency, celebrity over experience.
His approach is jarring to a political establishment that has taken very different lessons from its experiences over decades of modern campaigning. Risk-averse above all, candidates and those who advise them have long prized message discipline, shied away from anything spontaneous and looked for opportunities to attack opponents who stray from talking points.
To those portions of the electorate fed up with politics as usual, Mr. Trump’s willingness to say just about anything and to improvise as he goes seems more refreshing and trustworthy than disqualifying.
“Politicians are by nature cautious and risk-averse,’’ said Mark McKinnon, a veteran political image maker who served in George W. Bush’s White House. “They like to make people happy, so their reflex is to check off strategies and tactics that have worked in the past.” Presidential Election 2016
But this approach isn’t working today, Mr. McKinnon said. “Just as we like novel and movie plots that surprise us, so are we attracted to candidates who do the unconventional,” he said. “Hence the success of Donald
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

Is the media inciting violence against Donald Trump?

News Com Au ^ | March 15, 2016 | Frank Chung 

THE media wants a member of the public to kill Donald Trump.
That’s the view of a growing number of commentators, who have sounded warnings about the increasingly dangerous tone to media reporting around the Republican presidential hopeful.
In a lengthy blog post, Scott Adams, the creator of the popular Dilbert comic strip, has slammed the media for “priming the public to try to kill Trump”, likening the conduct to the death of Princess Diana in 1997.
The author recalled how a mere three months earlier, in his book The Dilbert Future, he predicted: “In the future, the media will kill famous people to generate news that people will care about.”
Fast-forward to today and “we see the media priming the public to try to kill Trump, or at least create some photogenic mayhem at a public event,” he writes.
“Again, no one is sitting in a room plotting Trump’s death, but — let’s be honest — at least half of the media believes Trump is the next Hitler, and a Hitler assassination would be morally justified.
“Also great for ratings. The media would not be charged with any crime for triggering some nut to act. There would be no smoking gun. No guilt. No repercussions. Just better ratings and bonuses all around.
“In the 2D world of reason, no one in the media consciously wants a candidate for president to be injured, and no one is consciously acting in a way that would make it happen.
“But in the 3D world of persuasion, society has decided to lance the wart that is Trump. Collectively — the media, the public, and the other candidates — are creating a situation that is deeply dangerous for Trump.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...


Little Johnny comes down to breakfast. Since they live on a farm, his mother asks if he had done his chores. "Not yet," said Little Johnny. His mother tells him no breakfast until he does his chores. Well, he's a little pissed off, so he goes to feed the chickens, and he kicks a chicken. He goes to feed the cows, and he kicks a cow. He goes to feed the pigs and he kicks a pig. 

He goes back in for breakfast and his mother gives him a bowl of dry cereal. "How come I don't get any eggs and bacon? Why don't I have any milk in my cereal?" he asks. "Well," his mother says, "I saw you kick a chicken, so you don't get any eggs for a week. I saw you kick the pig, so you don't get any bacon for a week either. I also saw you kick the cow, so for a week you aren't getting any milk." 

Just then, his father comes down for breakfast and kicks the cat halfway across the kitchen. Little Johnny looks up at his mother with a smile, and says: "Are you going to tell him, or should I?"

Flint Water