Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Gallup Poll: Confidence in Trump grows after election ^ | 11/16/16 | gallop 

Fifty-one percent of U.S. adults say they are “more confident” in President-elect Donald Trump’s ability to serve as president based on his statements and actions over the past few days.
The percentage “more confident” in Trump a few days after his election is similar to ratings when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush won their respective elections in 1992 and 2000.
While 95% of Trump voters say they are “more confident” in the president-elect, 19% of Clinton voters say the same. Only 2% of Trump voters say they are “less confident” in Trump, but 75% of Clinton voters express less confidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Kerry: Trump doesn't 'have a right' to ignore climate policy!

washingtonexaminer ^ 
By Joel Gehrke (@Joelmentum) • 11/16/16 1:52 PM

Secretary of State John Kerry argued that President-elect Trump and other world leaders do not "have a right" to ignore the scientific consensus on climate change.
"No one has a right to make decisions that affect billions of people based on solely ideology or without proper input," Kerry said during his speech at the COP-22 conference on climate change in Marrakech, Morocco.
"Anyone who has these conversations, who takes the time to learn from these experts, who gets the full picture of what we're facing — I believe they can only come to one legitimate decision, and that is to act boldly on climate change and encourage others to do the same."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Will Digital Newspapers Edge Out Print?

San Diego Reader ^ | Nov. 16, 2016 | Don Bauder 

How much money has been wasted on digital newspapers?

"Get a horse!” From 1900 to the 1920s, those were the words that made a comedian out of every American who shouted them. Those bellowed beratings were, of course, aimed at people who had purchased one of those newfangled things called “automobiles” and were stuck in the mud, repairing a flat tire, bemoaning a broken-down engine, or cranking a starter.
The expression eventually died. Automobiles triumphed. The population of American horses plunged from 26.5 million in 1915 to a mere 3.6 million in 2012.
Now there is a different rivalry. Readership of print-only newspapers has plunged from 35.4 percent of the population in 2007 to 23.3 percent last year. Newspapers are pouring money into their online editions. Among executives of metro daily newspapers, the battle cry is “digital first!” Newspaper staffs have dropped by 39 percent in the past 20 years, according to the Pew Research Center. Reporters are now trained to use social media and regularly told that “multiplatform” is the future.
But will “digital first!” win out as decisively as “get a horse!” died? You can’t tell it from the statistics — at least yet, according to Hsiang Iris Chyi, a professor and new media researcher at the University of Texas at Austin. This year, with the help of a colleague, she published an eye-opening paper, Reality Check: Multiplatform Newspaper Readership in the United States, 2007–2015. The study picks up facts from such media research organizations as the Pew Research Center and Nielsen Scarborough.
Online ventures have been around for two decades. Nonetheless, “the (supposedly dying) print product still reaches far more readers than the (supposedly promising) digital products in newspapers’ home markets, and this holds true across all age groups,” writes Chyi.
This raises serious questions about the technology-driven strategy of America’s metro daily newspapers, she says. Remember when Douglas Manchester owned the Union-Tribune? He and his sidekick John Lynch raved about multiplatforms. They had a TV station that broadcast on the paper’s website. It didn’t last long. Neither did Lynch —or Manchester.
A chain of daily newspapers in Denver went gaga over the preachings of a top executive who said digital is essentially newspapers’ only future. The holding company, which owns papers in Denver, San Jose, and St. Paul and recently bought the Orange County Register and Riverside Press-Enterprise out of bankruptcy, adopted the name Digital First Media.
The Chicago-based newspaper chain that owns the Union-Tribune on June 20 changed its name to tronc — yes, the letter t is not capitalized, although some newspapers defiantly capitalize it. The company announced that it “will change its name to tronc, Inc., a content curation and monetization company focused on creating and distributing premium, verified content across all channels.”
Wall Street doesn’t seem impressed with either print or online. For example, the biggest newspaper chain, Gannett, wanted to buy tronc. The Chicago-based chief executive of tronc — a financial swinger devoid of newspaper savvy — wanted $25 a share. According to inside sources, the deal could have been done at $20 — in my opinion, more than double what tronc was worth. Lenders — the only intelligent actors in this drama — smelled potentially deadbeat debtors and did not like the deal. In early November, it was scrapped. Tronc’s stock plunged.
Chart: Total number of newsroom employees at U.S. newspapers Chyi points out that major newspapers’ online readership “has shown little or no growth since 2007” and more than half of major newspapers have suffered digital declines since 2011. Citing Pew Research, Chyi says, “[D]igital revenue remains insufficient to cover the loss on print revenue.” Newspapers haven’t figured out how to make money on digital. When people seek out online news, they go to sites such as, CBS News, ABC News, Google News, Reuters, Yahoo News, MSNBC, and FOXnews, which all do better than newspapers’ online offerings.
The bottom line is “monetization” — making profits. To make money, a company has to have healthy revenue. From 2010 to 2014, print advertising revenue dropped from $22.8 billion to $16.4 billion, while digital advertising revenue edged up from $3 billion to $3.5 billion, notes Chyi. Still, print newspapers account for 82 percent of total newspapers’ revenue.
So, newspaper managements may be looking the wrong way: they are focusing on digital, which is producing “only limited advertising and subscription revenue,” says Chyi. In a study of 51 newspapers’ audience reach, the print edition reached 28.8 percent of local adults and online only 10 percent.
Even young people age 18 to 24 are twice as likely to read the print edition as the online edition: 19.9 percent read the print edition and only 7.8 percent read the digital edition, according to a study by Scarborough (now Nielsen-Scarborough). Of course, those over 55 are much more likely to read a print edition than those 18 to 24. A full 37.2 percent of the old folks (55 and older) read a print edition, almost double the percentage of those 18 to 24.
Why aren’t online editions doing well? After all, they provide news and interpretation as it happens; newspapers delivered to your house are too late with too little. There are several reasons, says Chyi. Online news is a “less satisfying alternative to print newspapers,” particularly for someone who has been working at a computer all day. “The screen-based reading experience is rarely pleasant.” There are cluttered designs, and intrusive ads pop up all the time. If you have the sound on, you will get fingernails-on-the-blackboard screeches all day.
Of course, comparisons can be invidious; the total audience for a local newspaper won’t match the total audience for an international publication. However, among newspapers distributed nationally or internationally, USA Today, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal aren’t among the best-read online publications.
“Fully one-fourth of advertising revenue [for newspapers] now comes from digital advertising, but not because of growth in that area,” says Michael Barthel of the Pew Research Center. “Digital advertising revenue fell 2 percent in 2015. It’s just that non-digital advertising revenue fell more, dropping 10 percent in 2015.”
But the remaining three-fourths came from nondigital sources, mostly print. A local newspaper or TV station may study the statistics and back away from digital. And watch competitors take a chunk of the market.

Congressman Slams Discredited Media on House Floor

Breitbart ^ | 11/16/16 | Warner Todd Huston 

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith recently took a few minutes on the floor of the House of Representatives to slam the old media establishment as a biased player for the Democrats. Lamar also said no one should believe a word the old media say and insisted that the media destroyed their own credibility with their biased “reporting” during the last election. Smith, the chairman of the House Science, Space, & Technology Committee, a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, spent some of his time on November 15 asserting that the media have failed America.
“The liberal media tried to destroy Donald Trump,” Lamar pointedly noted. “Instead, they destroyed their own credibility. Their extreme bias is provable.”
The congressman added, “The network media’s coverage of Mr. Trump was 91 percent negative. And 96 percent of campaign contributions from journalists went to Hillary Clinton.”
Smith also revealed that “by a 10 to 1 ratio, the American people felt the media were trying to elect Mrs. Clinton,” and he said a recent Gallup poll found that America’s trust in the media is at an all-time low.
Asking if the media have yet learned their lesson, Smith answered, “Not likely, given the last few days’ headlines and commentaries.”
The congressman concluded by saying, “Until news reporters give the American people the facts, rather than expressing their own opinions, there is no reason to believe what they say or write.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Jason Chaffetz: We Aren't Done With Hillary Yet

Town Hall ^ | 11/16/16 | Katie Pavlich 

President-elect Donald Trump indicated in an interview with 60-Minutes last weekend that he may be done pursuing the Clintons, backing off campaign statements that the former Secretary of State should be in jail.
"She did some bad things, I mean she did some bad things," Trump said. "They’re good people. I don't want to hurt them."
But although Trump might be done with the Clintons, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz is not, telling Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson Tuesday investigations into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server and pay-to-play allegations between the State Department and Clinton Foundation will continue.
(Excerpt) Read more at ..

With Trump’s Signature, Dozens of Obama’s Rules Could Fall

NY Times ^ | 11/15/16 | Stacy Cowley 

Dozens of major regulations passed recently by the Obama administration — including far-reaching changes on health care, consumer protections and environmental safety — could be undone with the stroke of a pen by Donald J. Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress starting in January, thanks to a little-used law that dates back to 1996.
And it comes with a scorched-earth kicker: If the law is used to strike down a rule, the federal agency that issued it is barred from enacting similar regulation again in the future.
The obscure law — called the Congressional Review Act — was passed 20 years ago at the behest of Newt Gingrich, then the House speaker and now a member of Mr. Trump’s transition team. It gives Congress 60 legislative days to review and override major regulations enacted by federal agencies. In the Senate, the vote would not be subject to filibuster.
The president can veto the rejection, which usually renders the law toothless. But when one party controls both the White House and Congress, it can be a powerful legislative weapon.
So far it has only been successfully used once: In 2001, a Republican Congress invoked it to eliminate workplace safety regulations adopted in the final months of President Clinton’s tenure. President George W. Bush signed the repeal two months after his inauguration, wiping out stricter ergonomics rules that had been 10 years in the making.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

COWARD Colin Kaepernick has never registered to vote in any election! ^ | 11/16/16 | Alexei Koseff 

Colin Kaepernick raised eyebrows last week when he revealed that he did not vote in the presidential election amid a football season in which his protest of racial inequality gained national attention. In fact, it would have been problematic if he had. The Sacramento Bee found that the San Francisco 49ers quarterback has never been registered to vote.
Kaepernick, who was raised in Turlock, turned 18 in 2005, but he has not registered to vote in California at any point in the last decade, according to records maintained by the California Secretary of State. He also did not register in Nevada while he attended the University of Nevada, Reno, from 2006 to 2010, according to the Washoe County Registrar of Voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Mexican government launches plan to protect immigrants in USA!

The Hill ^ | November 16, 2016 | Rafael Bernal 

The Mexican government announced Wednesday 11 actions to protect its citizens in the United States following last week's presidential election.
The measures come as Hispanic communities, including documented and undocumented Mexican immigrants, have expressed concern over an uptick in racially motivated attacks in the week since Donald Trump’s election.
"Countryman, these are moments of uncertainty. Be calm, do not fall for provocations and don't let yourself be fooled," Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Claudia Ruiz Massieu said in a video posted to Twitter announcing the steps.
Like Ruiz Massieu, U.S. Hispanic leaders have requested people keep calm, despite doubts over how the Trump administration will enforce its immigration policy.
"I would like to see more effort on the part of the incoming administration in terms of calming people's fears as to what may come next," Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) told The Hill.
President-elect Donald Trump, who early on in the campaign called Mexican immigrants "rapists" who "bring crime" into America, said in an interview with "60 Minutes" Sunday he thought the reported attacks on minorities in the wake of his election were "a very small amount," but was "saddened" to hear about them.
"I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it," Trump said.
The Mexican strategy is relying on its traditional political allies in the U.S. to protect its citizens abroad.
Many big city mayors and some governors have said they will refuse to cooperate with federal authorities persecuting non-criminal aliens. As part of the 11-step plan, the Mexican government said it will increase collaboration at the state and local level.
"Reinforce dialogue with local and state authorities, in the understanding that local policies determine, in good measure, the daily life of Mexicans in the U.S.," reads step nine of the plan.
The plan also includes provisions to strengthen ties to civil rights organizations and to call for communities to avoid "any conflict situation" and "acts that could derive in administrative or criminal sanctions."
The measures will include toll-free numbers for Mexicans to call in case of emergency or for assistance with paperwork, promotion of a mobile app for Mexican citizens abroad and expansion of consular service hours.
Mexico has 50 consulates in the United States, the largest diplomatic network deployed by any single country in any other worldwide.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, there were 11.6 million Mexican immigrants in the United States in 2014. Of those, 5.8 million were undocumented, according to the Pew Research Center.
There are also more than 23 million U.S.-born people of Mexican origin, most of whom could be eligible for dual citizenship under Mexican law.
The 11-step plan includes services tailored to undocumented immigrants and for dual citizens, including those in mixed-status families.
Consulates will expand their ID program, which in many cases provides undocumented immigrants with their only government-issued ID.
Services to provide legal assistance and assistance obtaining birth certificates, both Mexican and American, will also be expanded upon.

America Won, California Didn't: Electoral College Works ^ | November 16th, 2016 | T. Carter 

Donald Trump won the popular vote in 30 states. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 20 states. The Electoral College was designed to ensure that the popular vote in one state could not decide the next president of the United States, which is exactly what would have happened on November 8 without the Electoral College. Had the popular vote decided the presidency, Hillary Clinton would be our president-elect with a slim margin of approximately 940,176 votes mostly from the state of California.
California has long been known as the center of the elitist left-wing universe. Californians voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, just as they did for Barack Obama and almost every Democratic president since 1988 - when George HW Bush followed in Ronald Reagan's footsteps by winning the state for the last time. California's 55 electoral votes have helped Bill Clinton and Barack Obama occupy the White House for a total of 16 years, but 2016 gave the power back to blue-collar Americans living in what is offensively known today as the "rust belt". Historically, some of America's most populous states have always leaned toward the Democratic Party, while Southern states have leaned Republican, giving swing states like Florida the power to pick presidents. In 2016, Donald Trump re-drew the electoral map by flipping traditionally Democratic states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. These states would have been left powerless - and their voters inconsequential - without the Electoral College.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Newt Gingrich: Seven questions for the New York Times

Fox News ^ | November 16, 2016 | Newt Gingrich 

The paper wrote stories that were unrelentingly hostile to Trump and his supporters...
It published stories about Trump in which it distorted the accounts of interviewees, according to the subjects’ own testimony...
And now the same publisher and the same editor that oversaw this partisan assault are promising to “rededicate” themselves to reporting “honestly”. Perhaps even the paper’s liberal readership has tired of reporting that increasingly resembles the state-controlled propaganda of totalitarian regimes...

Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?

Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?..

Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations--featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Goodbye Huma Abedin, hello Keith Ellison!

Toronto Sun ^ | NOVEMBER 15, 2016 | TAREK FATAH 

One would have thought the Democratic Party would have learned a lesson in flaunting Islamists in its ranks as latter day civil rights’ symbols. But no, liberals find Islamists so succulent that, when the hangover from one fades, they pick up another. More on that later.

In the meantime, as the self-righteous liberal hysteria following Hillary’s loss settles stateside, the former First Lady is blaming her defeat on none other than the FBI.

No, in Clinton’s entitlement-state-of-mind, it was never her fault. Not even her questionable deletion of 30,000 emails or the hammer-mode destruction of her multiple cellular phones to destroy evidence. It was always someone else’s fault.

In a conference call on Saturday with her top campaign donors, Clinton was reported by Reuters as saying, she was on her way to victory until FBI director James Comey sent a letter to Congress on October 28 announcing the bureau had uncovered emails possibly related to its earlier probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Stossel the Fool ^ | November 16 | John Stossel 

I was so dumb last week.
I wrote my column Tuesday -- before election results were in. I assumed Hillary Clinton would be president-elect.
I looked so stupid.
On Facebook, commenters pounced: You owe Trump an apology! I'm sorry for the lies you continued about him! You were never fair! You're nothing but another left-wing mouthpiece. You're a washed up, anti-American gutless TV host!
I was wrong because I trusted the bettors.
That's usually not dumb. The best predictor of things has been betting markets. They are more accurate because they reflect the wisdom of crowds. Crowds can be an ignorant mob, but crowds do have wisdom. Know the TV show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"?
When contestants are stumped, they may ask the audience for help or an expert. The experts are often brilliant specialists. The audience -- well, they are the kind of people who wait in line in the rain to watch a game show. Still, the audience gets the answer right 91 percent of the time, the experts succeed just 65 percent of the time.
With betting markets, the crowd is made up of people willing to put their money where their mouths are. That makes them extra careful.
Most of these "prediction markets" are based overseas because, useful as they are, American law calls them "illegal gambling."
So producer Maxim Lott and I converted European betting into an easy to understand website,, and I've come to trust it. Again and again, betting is more accurate than pundits and polls -- until this election.
I'm not the only one who got it wrong. The Huffington Post's statistical model gave Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning. The prestigious Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance.
People just lie to pollsters when they think the pollster will sneer at them if they say they're voting for someone smugly described as racist and sexist.
This was the second time this year that betting markets were wrong. Most bettors thought Brexit would never happen -- people in Britain would vote to stay in the European Union. Again, British voters lied to pollsters because they were embarrassed to admit they would vote for Brexit after months of the elite telling them they were xenophobes and racists if they wanted a change.
Relying on the betting markets, I also wrote that it was sad that freedom-loving senators like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson lost to command-and-control bureaucrats like Russ Feingold.
Oops, wrong again.
But the prediction markets are right most of the time.
Consider what happened early in this year's Republican primary. Ben Carson surged to first place in polls, but the bettors knew better. They never gave him more than a 9 percent chance. In 2012, when Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and then Herman Cain surged to first place in polls, prediction markets correctly said Mitt Romney will win. In 2008, bettors correctly predicted results in every state but two. In 2012, it was every state but one.
The markets even predicted when Saddam Hussein would be captured. Right before his hideout was found, the odds on that date tripled in price. Somehow, people with skin in the game pay more attention and intuit the right outcome.
Even last week, when bettors were wrong, the betting odds still adjusted faster than pundits on TV did. The bettors saw what was happening and quickly hedged their bets, while many in the media -- mostly Clinton supporters -- still clung to their failed expectations.
My failure won't make me abandon prediction markets and go back to trusting pundits or opinion polls -- or internet commenters who had fun trashing me:
"Dewey beats Truman ... oh wait."
"I can't laugh enough at this article."
"I liked Stossel ... but he is as clueless as the liberal media."
I sure was! But I will still trust prediction markets over everything else.
There is wisdom in crowds, especially crowds that put their own money on the line.

What Trump Means ^ | 11/16/16 | Milo 

It happened. We won! We now live in the Age of Daddy! Leftists, of course — even those who aren’t still crying in the shower or looking for a razor blade — remain clueless about what it all signifies and how it happened.
After a few days of celebration, including receiving the Annie Taylor Award for bravery in journalism at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend, I’ve realized that many groups both within America and outside her borders need an explanation of how a Trump administration will change the game.
Luckily for everyone, including establishment conservatives who are in the same boat, I’m here to explain what Donald Trump’s election means, now that the dust has settled.
One thing is abundantly clear to most observers: Trump’s promises of change, and his promises to uproot the D.C establishment are much more likely to happen than Obama’s, which held as much water as his promise to have the most transparent administration of all time.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Seattle police chief would defy Trump administration’s efforts to deport immigrants ^ | November 16, 2016 | By Vernal Coleman 

Despite threats of reduced federal funding, a Seattle Police Department policy barring officers from cooperating with federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants will not change, Chief Kathleen O’Toole said Tuesday.
“As affirmed by Mayor Murray, the city of Seattle remains committed to values of equality, inclusion and openness,” O’Toole said. “So does the Seattle Police Department.”
O’Toole’s announcement follows earlier statements from Murray and King County Executive Dow Constantine signaling that they would defy President-elect Donald Trump on immigration policy, even if it results in cuts in federal funding.
Since his election, Donald Trump has vowed to crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities” that employ a range of policies to protect undocumented immigrants. In recent interviews, Trump pledged to block federal taxpayer dollars from going to any city that does not comply.
The Seattle policy stems from a 2003 ordinance barring officers from asking about a person’s immigration status without reasonable suspicion that the person has been previously deported or has committed a felony, unless required to by law or a court order.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Outrage as Leftist Source of Trump-Swastika Graffiti Exposed

Conservvative Tribune ^ | 11/16/16 | Unknown 

When liberals heard about swastikas painted on a campus church with the word “Trump,” they went wild. But now America just learned who was really behind the hate graffiti, and now libs are completely embarrassed.

Two Jewish students were charged with the hate crime where they vandalized the campus church at Northwestern University with swastikas, making it look as if supporters of President-elect Donald Trump were responsible for the offensive graffiti.

According to The Chicago Tribune, Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18 were both charged with a hate crime and vandalism after they came forward to admit to spray-painting the church with the highly offensive symbols.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Shale oil in Permian’s Wolfcamp formation biggest in U.S.

Star-Telegram ^ | November 15, 2016 

In a troubled oil world, the Permian Basin is the gift that keeps on giving.
One portion of the giant field, known as the Wolfcamp formation, was found to hold 20 billion barrels of oil trapped in four layers of shale beneath West Texas.

That’s almost three times larger than North Dakota’s Bakken play and the single largest U.S. unconventional crude accumulation ever assessed, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. At current prices, that oil is worth almost $900 billion.

The estimate lends credence to the assertion from Pioneer Natural Resources Chief Executive Officer Scott Sheffield that the Permian’s shale could hold as much as 75 billion barrels, making it second only to Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field. Irving-based Pioneer has been increasing its production targets all year as drilling in the Wolfcamp produced bigger gushers than the company’s engineers and geologists forecast.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

LeBron Expected to Lose Staggering Amount of Endorsement Money Over Support of Hillary Clinton

cavaliersnation ^ | 11/15 | cavaliersnation 

The end of the divisive presidential campaign between President-elect Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took place on Tuesday. However, the belief by one official from Nike is that Cleveland Cavaliers forward LeBron James will take costly hit when it comes to sales of his merchandise because of his very public support of Clinton.

The unnamed official, who recently spoke with Sam Amico of Amico Hoops, indicated that supporters of Trump were likely to be critical of James’ political support of Clinton. In response, they would refuse to purchase his shoes and other items, in addition to not purchasing the non-basketball-related products he endorses.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Newsweek ^ | 11/14/2016 | KURT EICHENWALD 

On Friday, I almost assaulted a fan of my work. I was in the Philadelphia International Airport, and a man who recognized me from one of my appearances on a television news show approached. He thanked me for the investigative reporting I had done about Donald Trump before the election, expressed his outrage that the Republican nominee had won and then told me quite gruffly, “Get back to work.” Something about his arrogance struck me, so I asked, “Who did you vote for?”
He replied, “Well, Stein, but—” I interrupted him and said, “You’re lucky it’s illegal for me to punch you in the face.” Then, after telling him to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked away.
A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. These people traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they know cannot win. I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump to bring back Churchill statue SHAMEFULLY removed from White House by Barack Obama ^ | November 15, 2016 | Rehema Figueiredo 

NIGEL FARAGE has revealed that Donald Trump will re-install a bust of Winston Churchill removed from the Oval Office by Barack Obama - in a clear sign of the friendship the new President wishes to foster with Britain.
The interim Ukip leader said Mr Trump has already pushed Britain to the front of the queue for a favourable trade relationship and added that he is the man to forge stronger ties with the US as he flew to visit the business tycoon in his first days as President Elect.
Mr Farage said: "We talked about the prospect of the United Kingdom being at the front of the queue, all of which was met positively."
His comments come after outgoing President Barack Obama told the UK earlier this year that its decision to leave the EU meant it would be at the "back of the queue" for trade talks.
The Ukip leader described Donald Trump as an "anglophile" and said his re-installation of the Churchill statue was a clear sign of his appreciation for the historically warm relationship between the allies.
He said: "At the end of our time with Trump we asked him if the bust of Sir Winston Churchill that Obama had removed from the Oval Office could be put back in its rightful place. He enthusiastically thought that was a good idea. Need I say more?"
Nigel Farage played a key role in Mr Trump's US election campaign, speaking at rallies and drumming up support, with Mr Trump referring to his shock election victory as "Brexit plus plus".
The Leave campaigner blasted the British government for refusing to trust him after Downing Street issued a statement calling him an "irrelevance".
He said: "If the president-elect trusts me then I would hope that some in the British Government could do the same thing. I would be very happy to provide introductions and to start the necessary process of mending fences. And I would not want anything in return. I hope in our national interest that some sense prevails on this."
He went on to criticise the government for being "unrelentingly negative about The Donald", which he said was the only difficuly point during their discussion, adding: "there are fences to be mended".
During Mr Farage's brief visit to the US 20,000 people protested outside Trump Tower in New York, as anti-Trump rallies and violence broke out across the country.
Echoing Mr Trump's comments online about "unfair" protests, Mr Farage said: "Some people only like democracy when the result suits them."
He asserted that the business tycoon will be a "great president" not an "ogre" and that he was both "thoughtful and reflective" during their meeting.
The Ukip leader travelled to the US with key party donor Arron Banks and attacked fellow party members for disowning him over giving his backing to the controversial tycoon who until last Wednesday was seen as the outsider in the race.
Mr Farage's comments came as the Prime Minister faced a growing backlash over her refusal to use the relationship between the Ukip leader and the new President to Britain's advantage.
Members of the cabinet have reportedly told the Theresa May she has made a mistake by referring to Mr Farage as an "irrelevance".

Immigration hardliner says Trump team preparing plans for wall, mulling Muslim registry

Reuters ^ | November 15, 2016 | Mica Rosenberg and Julia Edwards Ainsley 

An architect of anti-immigration efforts who says he is advising President-elect Donald Trump said the new administration could push ahead rapidly on construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall without seeking immediate congressional approval.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped write tough immigration laws in Arizona and elsewhere, said in an interview that Trump's policy advisers had also discussed drafting a proposal for his consideration to reinstate a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.
Kobach, who media reports say is a key member of Trump's transition team, said he had participated in regular conference calls with about a dozen Trump immigration advisers for the past two to three months.
Trump's transition team did not respond to requests for confirmation of Kobach's role. The president-elect has not committed to following any specific recommendations from advisory groups....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Pepsi Funds Planned Parenthood, Now Its CEO is Trashing Trump’s Election:“Our Employees Were Crying”

Life News ^ | November 15, 2016 | Tony Perkins 

A week after Donald Trump’s election, the comments by Pepsi’s CEO have been tough for a lot of voters to swallow. Like Grubhub founder Matt Maloney, who’s on the hot seat after an employee email showing Trump supporters the door, Indri Noovi must not have been thinking about her bottom line when the soft drink mogul bashed the new president-elect. Well, she’s certainly thinking about it now that #BoycottPepsi is picking up steam.
At a New York Times event last Tuesday, Noovi’s emotions were obviously raw from the defeat of Pepsi’s choice for the next generation: Hillary Clinton. In a sit-down with the paper’s Andrew Ross Sorkin, she was asked how she was feeling about the results.
“Is there a box of tissues here?” she said. To anyone who thinks like Trump, she insisted, “Forget about the Pepsi brand. How dare you talk about women that way?” she fumed. “If we don’t nip this in the bud it is going to be a lethal force in society.”
Sorkin, who was sympathetic to Noovi’s frustration, went on to ask how others were coping.
“I had to answer a lot of questions from my daughters, from our employees. They were all in mourning.” In what was no doubt an exaggeration, she claimed “Our employees were all crying.”
While the executive staff may have been distraught, I find it hard to believe that there wasn’t a single Trump supporter in a company of 263,000.
Nevertheless, she went on, “And the question that they’re asking, especially those who are not white, ‘Are we safe?’ Women are asking, ‘Are we safe?’ LGBT people are asking, ‘Are we safe?’ I never thought I would have to answer those questions.” Noovi’s message to the country was simple: “We should mourn.” Next, she insisted, “We have to… assure everyone living in the United States that they are safe.”
Well, one thing that may not be safe is Pepsi’s stock.
If Grubhub’s experience is any indication, Pepsi is in for a bumpy ride with Wall Street. Maloney’s stock dropped four points overnight after his epic “these views have no place at Grubhub” missive. As of yesterday his shares were in a freefall — nine percent down and counting. What part of “partisan political backlash” don’t these businesses understand? Have they learned nothing from Target, Lands’ End, J.C. Penney, and Angie’s List? This kind of liberal elitism may fly in the board rooms of America, but not in its family rooms.
And as last week’s election should have demonstrated, there’s a strong and powerful movement in this nation who are tired of being harassed, marginalized, and threatened for what are clearly mainstream values. (Natural marriage, after all, still has the majority’s support in this country!) After Trump’s election, this is an emboldened group of “deplorables,” and companies who are trading in intolerance do so at their peril.
Steve Tobak, one of the many who could only shake his head at Maloney’s prejudice, thinks corporate America is at a crossroads for liberal activism. “It’s shockingly myopic, if not downright incompetent, for the CEO of a consumer-facing company to risk insulting half his stakeholders that way… I think the board has some work to do. And given this overheated post-election climate, I’ll reiterate something I say often, but apparently not often enough: If your business isn’t politics, keep politics out of your business.” Indri Noovi would be wise to listen.
Pepsi — and its Tostitos, Lays, Doritos, Gatorade, and Lipton brands — were already at odds with pro-lifers over its support of Planned Parenthood. Apart from the more than half-billion dollar haul from U.S. taxpayers, Cecile Richards’s group is enjoying hefty financial backing from Pepsi (and these 37 other companies). When you’re buying Pepsi, a portion of those dollars is already being wired to the bank account of the largest abortion provider in America. Now, we can add anti-American, anti-conservative rhetoric to the list. Unless Noovi and company see the light, maybe it’s time to take the real Pepsi challenge and start drinking something new.


Bill Clinton: It's Hillary's Fault, Not Comey's

Newsmax ^ | Tuesday, 15 Nov 2016 | Edward Klein 

In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat.

"I was with Bill in Little Rock when he had this shouting match with Hillary on the phone and she accused Comey for reviving the investigation into her use of a private email server and reversing her campaign's momentum," said one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers.

"Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election," said the source. "As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Never mind closing Guantanamo, Trump might make it bigger!

Associated Press ^ | Nov 15, 2016 4:08 PM EST | Ben Fox and Deb Riechmann 

Never mind closing Guantanamo. It might be getting bigger.

President Barack Obama is running out of time to fulfill his longstanding promise to shutter the prison at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Sixty inmates remain in the facility and only a third are cleared for release.

If Obama can’t close it, his successor likely won’t. Donald Trump has not only pledged to keep Guantanamo open, in April he said that “we’re gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me. We’re gonna load it up.” …

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The LGBT Fraud Has Been Exposed, and They’re Definitely Not Happy about It

LifeSite News ^ | November 15, 2016 

Those who are setting our so-called “values”, such as the small but powerful group of academics, mainstream media, and homosexual activists, do so by attempting to impose strange myths and ideas that have no scientific basis.

These myths include the one that homosexuals are “born that way”, can’t change, and must be accepted for “who they are”. Further, those claiming they are a different gender than that with which they were born, i.e. the transgendered, who “feel” they belong to other than their gender at birth, must be accepted as such.

The public is supposed to put aside its intelligence and common sense, and respectfully bow collectively in obeisance to these “expert” opinions. These opinions, however, are complete and utter hogwash.

We know instinctively that they are not authentic, or worthy of our belief. However, the myth-makers attempt to force their nonsense on us by the heavy hand of the law, claiming that it’s “discrimination” to refuse to accept the myths as truth.  Jurisdictions which don’t obey their rulings are economically punished, parents are forbidden to protect their children from the monstrous “bathroom” laws that permit males to use girls’ showers, lockers and change rooms.  It’s all a fraud based on propaganda with no scientific legitimacy.

Bombshells Explode The Myths

However, two bombshells have exploded that have shattered these myths, and the opinion-makers haven’t yet controlled its fall-out.

The first bombshell was a landmark study published in The Journal – The New Atlantis, (August 23, 2016). The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C.  This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.

The report was authored by two eminent scholars. Dr. Laurence Mayer, a professor of psychiatry and statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, stated in the preface to the study that he has testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings strongly supporting equality and opposing discrimination for the LGBT Community. However, Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this report without reservation since it is about science and medicine.  He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.

The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001.  These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences.  Their conclusions were as follows:

  • The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
  • The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence.
  • Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery. 
  • Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members.  She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable.  By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory.  She summarized the relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University stating that abundant research has now established that sexual orientation – including attraction, behaviour and self-identity – is fluid for both adolescents and adults for both genders.

Her announcement flies in the face of legislation in several US states and Ontario, Canada, which ban “reparative therapy”, which seeks to help patients experiencing same-sex attraction.

It also destroys the argument by homosexual activists that sexual orientation is the “civil rights movement of our times”.   This is poppycock.  Sexual desire is based on something other than genetics, including primarily, a person’s relationships, culture and other experiences, not genetics or prenatal hormones.

The only thing that science actually tells us is that we are born either male or female.

Errant, harmful ideologies and lies, especially those which diminish and endanger the lives of children, should be condemned without delay.

Clearly, the laws on sexual orientation and the transgendered must be reassessed in light of the truth now being exposed. We can waste no more time on such inanities.

Reaction of Homosexual Activists and the Media

The mainstream media ignored these bombshells. The homosexual Human Rights Campaign (HRC), however, was not about to allow them to affect its continued existence, and the estimated nearly $49 million it hauls in annually from contributions, which maintain its luxurious headquarters in Washington D.C.  More importantly, it was not about to relinquish the tremendous power and influence it holds over society – especially the law makers and the media.

The HRC reacted as it usually does when its power base is threatened. It is to attack, attack, and attack.  On this occasion, it went for the jugular of the New Atlantis Journal, which had defied it by exposing the true facts about homosexuality.  The HRC published a criticism of the Journal’s research review, characterizing Drs. Mayer and McHugh as “Anti-Trans All-Stars”, and “anti-LGBTQ” promoters seeking to “marginalize” and mock people.  They accused the authors of intentional “misleading statements” and “biased interpretations.”

The editors of the New Atlantis Journal, however, were not about to put up with HRC’s nonsense.  The latter was only lies and distortions.  In a special publication entitled “Lies and Bullying from the Human Rights Campaign” it delineated how HRC had distorted the journal’s recent publication on homosexuality stating in the introduction “Most of the HRC document is an exercise in distortion”.  It then tackled in detail these distortions.

We can also be assured that HRC is scrambling behind the scenes to find suitable ideologically correct researchers to commence a study, funded either by the HRC directly, or, more probably, by one of the corporate mad dogs held in its kennel, to dispute the study in the New Atlantis Journal and APA.  When this new study is released, probably within a year, it will be with great fanfare and extensive coverage in the media.  It will be presented as “The Truth”.  It will, however, be a fraud and deceit based on flawed methodology.  How can it be otherwise, when its findings are pre-determined?  The purpose of the study will be for propaganda only and it will be merely a feeble house of cards.  It should be disregarded by those with any intelligence and common sense with the knowledge that such a study is only an attempt by well-funded homosexual activists to continue their control over society.

Illegals demand Obama issue mass pardons amid Trump deportation fears!

The Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, November 15, 2016 | Stephen Dinan 

Illegal immigrants are preparing to ask President Obama to pardon some 750,000 Dreamers, saying such a move is their last, best hope to stave off what they fear will be a wave of deportations once Donald Trump takes the Oval Office.
Community leaders have planned a rally in New York on Wednesday to make the request.
“Millions of law abiding undocumented immigrants are fearful of what will happen when the new Administration takes control in January,” the group of New York state lawmakers and immigration advocates said in a statement announcing the rally. “However, President Obama has the power of pardons that he can use to protect all DACA enrollees.”
As of September, more than 740,000 illegal immigrants had been approved for Mr. Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a minor amnesty that grants young adult illegal immigrants a two-year stay of deportation and issues them work permits, entitling them to driver’s licenses and some taxpayer benefits.
Mr. Trump has signaled that he would cancel that order, leaving Dreamers out of status when their work permits expire. That puts Mr. Obama in a bind because he has expressed an interest in helping illegal immigrants but also has acknowledged limits on power.
Mr. Obama ducked a question this week about what steps he might take and instead urged Mr. Trump to “think long and hard” before canceling the DACA program.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

President Trump's Commitment to Constitutional Government

Gun Watch ^ | 11 November, 2016 | Dean Weingarten 

President Trump lost no time in starting his administration.  He put up a website,, that outlines his priorities, advertises for political appointees of the highest caliber, and states his positions. 

He devotes a policy section to Constitutional Rights.  In it, he goes much further than recent residents of the White House.  His choice of words is telling.  From
Donald Trump understands the solemn duty that comes from the Oath of Office – swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He embraces the fact that the reason the Founders of this nation decided to adopt a written Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land for the first time in world history was to create a democratic form of government in which ordinary people would know the powers of government and the rights of the people. That is why the Constitution's 4,400 words were written in a way that ordinary Americans would read and understand them, and use a standard to hold public officials accountable.

As President, Donald Trump will fulfill that sworn duty, vetoing legislation that exceeds Congressional authority, taking actions as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief that are consistent with his constitutional role, and nominating Judges and Supreme Court Justices who are committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning. He will defend Americans' fundamental rights to free speech, religious liberty, keeping and bearing arms, and all other rights guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions. This includes the Tenth Amendment guarantee that many areas of governance are left to the people and the States, and are not the role of the federal government to fulfill. The Constitution declares that as Americans we have the right to speak freely, share and live out our beliefs, raise and protect our families, be free from undue governmental abuse, and participate in the public square.
There are important particulars in this document.  First, it is not the simple platitude that politicians often spout. Many politicians will say they "support the Constitution" or "the Bill of Rights" or the "Second Amendment", without any particulars, and most importantly, with the understanding that the Constitution is the false malleable, plastic, non-protective, "living constitution" fabricated by "progressives".  

Key phrases that jump out to those who have followed political debate for the last few decades:

"fundamental rights"

"committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning"  (no "living constitution")

"religious liberty"

"keeping and bearing arms"

"This includes the Tenth Amendment guarantee that many areas of governance are left to the people and the States, and are not the role of the federal government to fulfill."

Who was the last president that even remembered the Tenth Amendment?  This is a remarkable policy statement for a president, just after his election.  It is a good sign.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Link to Gun Watch

WE FOUND IT! The 60 Minutes Interview George Soros Tried To Bury!

Youtube ^ | Nov. 12, 2016 | 60 Minutes 

Federal Spending Reduction Ideas for Pres. Trump

Cato ^ | November 10, 2016 3:18PM | Chris Edwards 

President-elect Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he will balance the federal budget and cut wasteful spending. Here are some of Trump’s views on budget reforms:
  • “We are going to ask every department head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days.” Source.
  • “We can also stop funding programs that are not authorized in law. Congress spent $320 billion last year on 256 expired laws … Removing just 5 percent of that will reduce spending by almost $200 billion over a ten-year period.” Source.
  • “I may cut Department of Education. I believe Common Core is a very bad thing,” Trump said. “I believe that we should be — you know, educating our children from Iowa, from New Hampshire, from South Carolina, from California, from New York. I think that it should be local education.” Source.
  • “If we save just one penny of each federal dollar spent on non-defense, and non-entitlement programs, we can save almost $1 trillion over the next decade.” Source.
  • “We’re going local. Have to go local. Environmental protection—we waste all of this money. We’re going to bring that back to the states … We are going to cut many of the agencies, we will balance our budget, and we will be dynamic again.” Source.
  • “Waste, fraud and abuse all over the place. Waste, fraud and abuse. You look at what’s happening with Social Security, you look—look at what’s happening with every agency—waste, fraud and abuse. We will cut so much, your head will spin.” Source.
I hope my head does spin from cuts, although most of Trump’s proposals are vague and quite timid. Still, I’m hoping that the more the incoming president finds out about the federal budget, the more he will appreciate the need for major terminations.
So let me suggest some wasteful spending that the new administration should tackle, and the annual savings from terminating each:
President Trump will face major budget pressures in coming years as deficits and entitlement spending soar. Today’s $600 billion deficits are headed toward $1 trillion, and deficits will be even higher if a recession comes along.
Federal spending cuts would help avert a fiscal crisis and boost growth by reducing economic distortions. The incoming Trump team should start with some of the cuts here, and there are plenty more proposals at

Could A Radical Israel Basher Soon Head The Democratic Party?

Frontpagemagazine ^ | 11-16-16 | Joseph Klein 

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is the leading contender to head up the Democratic National Committee. In announcing his candidacy for the position, Ellison said, “When voters know what Democrats stand for, we can improve the lives of all Americans, no matter their race, religion, or sexual orientation.”
Ellison has the support of the progressive wing of the party, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, as well as the so-called establishment types such as Senator Chuck Schumer.
What would a Democratic Party led by Rep. Ellison really look like? One need look no further than Rep. Ellison’s own statements, associations and actions. Under Ellison’s leadership, the Democratic Party will continue to evolve into a pro-Islamist party that helps advance the stealth jihad agenda, and a party that moves away from its traditional support of our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, has a past history of working actively on behalf of the anti-Semitic firebrand Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. In 1995, writing as Keith X Ellison, he published a column for Insight News, which praised Farrakhan as “a role model for black youth” and denied that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite. In 1997, Ellison defended a statement by Joanne Jackson of the Minnesota Initiative Against Racism, who was reported to have said that "Jews are among the most racist white people I know."
When Ellison first ran for Congress, Nihad Awad, executive director of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), provided his support at a fund raiser in Minneapolis for Ellison. Ellison in turn has spoken at CAIR fundraising events. He also defended CAIR against credible charges that CAIR was trying to infiltrate staff offices tied to committees on the judiciary, homeland security and intelligence. At CAIR banquets in late 2008, Ellison urged CAIR supporters to seek jobs in the then incoming Obama administration.
Some of Ellison’s donors have “a history of Muslim Brotherhood connections,” according to Campus Watch. The Minneapolis branch of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Muslim American Society reportedly paid for Ellison’s pilgrimage to Mecca for the Hajj in 2008.
Ellison is not interested in hearing a diversity of views from moderate Muslims such as M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who believe that reform is needed within Islam today. Indeed, Ellison accused Jasser of speaking like those allegedly turncoat blacks “who would seek to ingratiate themselves with powerful people in the white community and would there turn them on the rest of us and give license to attack us all. Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter's hijab off, call her a horrible name, spit on her because of something that you said, Dr. Jasser, I worry about that.”
Ellison’s example of a good role model for a dedicated Islamist appears to be Hamza Yusuf, president and chairman of the Zaytuna Institute in California. Ellison lauded Yusuf as a respected religious authority who had converted to Islam. Ellison’s role model called Judaism a "most racist religion," and said just two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks on our homeland, “This country [America] unfortunately has a great…tribulation coming to it. And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall."
As Robert Spencer, the author of Stealth Jihad, has just written, the same media that are falsely claiming President-elect Trump’s choice to serve as his chief strategist, Steven K. Bannon, is a white supremacist and anti-Semite are “hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.”
In addition, one wonders why the more so-called establishment Democrats, in particular the likely next Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a strong supporter of Israel, would not be more troubled by Ellison’s virulently anti-Israel positions.
Ellison has called for the cut off of military aid to Israel. His opposition to supporting Israel with any funding for military purposes even extended to the purely defensive Iron Dome. His cockeyed justification for not even backing an effective means to destroy incoming rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza before they can reach civilian population centers in Israel was that to do so could undermine negotiation of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. “Because a cease-fire is what we should prioritize now,” Ellison said when asked to explain his vote on Meet the Press. “A cease-fire protects civilians on both sides — it doesn’t just say, ‘We’re only concerned about people on one side.’”
Ellison also wrote an op-ed article for the Washington Post in which he called for “an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip.” Thus, for the next possible chairman of the Democratic Party, cutting off Israel’s ability to defend itself with the Iron Dome, together with pressuring Israel to remove all barriers to the import into Gaza of sophisticated rockets from Iran and elsewhere for Hamas to use against Israeli civilians, represents what Democrats should stand for.
Ellison has also made himself an ally of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israel, and he has helped legitimize them through participating in their programming. For example, in July 2016, Ellison participated in a panel discussion co-sponsored by The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, one of the largest BDS operations in the US. Ellison has been at the top of that anti-Israel organization’s “House Hall of Fame.” It should be no surprise that, as Salon reported on June 2, 2016, “Rep. Keith Ellison shared a photo on Twitter…that refers to Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Palestinian territories as apartheid.”
Finally, with respect to the issue of Syrian refugees, Ellison did not think that President Obama’s decision to admit 10,000 Syrians during the last fiscal year was good enough. Shortly before Obama announced his ramp up decision, Ellison had written a letter to the president stating, “Now, more than ever, we need to live up to our history by increasing the number of Syrian refugees allowed to resettle in the United States.” After the president announced his decision to admit 10,000 more Syrian refugees in just one year, Ellison commented, “Ten thousand is not enough. Aren’t we the people who say, ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses’? We must do more for families who are not safe in their own homeland.”
Not on President-elect Trump’s watch if there is any potential danger of admitting jihadist terrorists. With Trump intent on curbing the admission of more Syrian refugees until we get a handle on who they really are, one can imagine how Ellison, as head of the Democratic National Committee, will push his open borders policy for Syrian refugees to the top of his party’s agenda, irrespective of the risks to the American people.
If the Democrats do end up selecting Rep. Keith Ellison as the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, they will be elevating a radical Islamist and Israel basher. Contrary to his pitch on Meet the Press last Sunday, his record does not demonstrate how he would successfully lead his party’s effort to “make working America know that the Democratic party is absolutely on their side.” To the contrary, his selection will risk further alienation of a vast portion of Americans who are convinced – correctly so – that the party they had once supported has abandoned them.  

Rahm Emmanuel Challenges Trump on Sanctuary Cities (cut him off)

American Thinker ^ | November 16, 2016 | Daniel John Sobieski 

President-elect Donald Trump, who ran as a law and order candidate, has had the legal gauntlet thrown down before him by Chicago Mayor and former Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel and his lawbreaking brethren have pledged that despite the election results and the law, their cities will remain sanctuary cities:
-- snip --

In a 2012 appearance at a Little Village school, Emanuel told reporters that the police department is not an "adjunct for the immigration service.""We're not going to turn people over to ICE" -- the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency," Emanuel said according to a Tribune report on the 2012 event.
That is exactly the policy that got Kate Steinle murdered by an illegal alien in San Francisco and Jamiel Shaw Jr. killed in Los angles, just two of many. Only in the fundamentally transformed America of President Obama could the former police chief of San Francisco, the city where Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien given sanctuary, herself a supporter of sanctuary cities, be the short list for the next head of the U.S. Border Patrol. As Fox News reported:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Slacker Mandate and the Safety Pin Generation ^ | November 16, 2016 | Michelle Malkin 

News flash, kids: Things aren't free. Things cost money. And "free" things provided to you by the government cost other people's money.
Donald Trump gets it -- somewhat. He vows to repeal Obamacare's most burdensome federal mandates that are jacking up the price of private health insurance. But he also plans to preserve the most politically popular provisions of the Orwellian-titled Affordable Care Act, including the so-called "slacker mandate." It's the requirement that employer-based health plans cover employees' children until they turn 26 years old.
That's right: Twenty-freaking-six.

Is it any wonder why we have a nation of dependent drool-stained crybabies on college campuses who are still bawling about the election results one week later?
Trump briefly mentioned during a "60 Minutes" interview on CBS this weekend that the slacker mandate "adds cost, but it's very much something we're going to try and keep." That's because most establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., are resigned to keeping it. Once the feds hand out a sugary piece of cradle-to-grave entitlement candy, it's almost impossible to snatch it back.
Who pays for this unfunded government mandate? As usual, it's responsible working people who bear the burden.
Earlier this year, the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the No Slacker Left Behind provision resulted in wage reductions of about $1,200 a year for workers with employer-based insurance coverage -- whether or not they had adult children on their plans. In effect, childless working people are subsidizing workers with adult children who would rather stay on their parents than get their own.
Moreover, according to company surveys and other economic analysis, the slacker mandate has resulted in overall increased health care costs of between 1 and 3 percent. The nonpartisan American Health Policy Institute reported one firm's estimate of millennial coverage mandate costs at a whopping $69 million over 10 years.
At the time the federal slacker mandate was adopted in 2010, some 20 states had already adopted legislation requiring insurers to cover Big Kids -- some up to age 31!
Yes, thirty-freaking-one.
In Wisconsin, the slacker mandate covered not only adult children, but also the children of those "children" if they lived in single-parent homes. In New Jersey, champions of the provision claimed it would help cover 100,000 uninsured young adults. But health policy researcher Nathan Benefield of the Commonwealth Institute reported that "only 6 percent of that estimate has been realized" in its first two years. "The primary reason -- health insurance is still too expensive."
That has only gotten worse, of course, as Obamacare's other expensive mandates -- especially guaranteed issue for those with pre-existing conditions -- sabotage the private individual market for health insurance, leaving young and healthy people with fewer choices, higher premiums and crappier plans. The solution is not more mandates, but fewer; more competition, not less.
The Obama White House will brag that the slacker mandate has resulted in increased coverage for an estimated 3 million people. As usual with Obamacare numbers, it's Common Core, book-cooked math. Health care analyst Avik Roy took a closer look and found that the inflated figure came from counting "(1) young adults on Medicaid and other government programs, for whom the under-26 mandate doesn't apply; and (2) people who gained coverage due to the quasi-recovery from the Great Recession."
To add insult to injury, another NBER study found that roughly 5 percent of people younger than 26 dropped out of the workforce after the provision was implemented. They used their spare time to increase their socialization, sleeping, physical fitness and personal pursuit of "meaningfulness."
Then there are the hidden costs of the millennial mandate: the cultural consequences. All this "free" stuff, detached from those actually paying the bills, reduces the incentives for 20-somethings to grow up and seek independent lives and livelihoods. Why bother? The societal sanctions have been eroded.
Now, the nation is suffering the consequences of decades of that collective coddling. Precious snowflakes can't handle rejection at the ballot box or responsibilities in the marketplace. Appropriately enough, the new virtue signals of tantrum-throwing young leftists stirring up trouble are safety pins -- to show "solidarity" with groups supposedly endangered by Donald Trump.
Safety pins are also handy -- for holding up the government-manufactured diapers in which too many overgrown dependents are swaddled.

How Trump will double growth and jobs!

The Washington Times ^ | November 15, 2016 | Stephen Moore 

When Donald Trump said last week that he will double the American growth rate, his skeptics scoffed. The left doesn’t think 4 percent growth is possible because they never came close to that target under President Obama.
But there’s no law of nature or economics that says America is doomed to anemic growth rates. We believe with the right policy fixes, fast growth is not just possible, but probable.
In the 1980s the Reagan agenda had quarterly growth rates of 6, 7 and even 8 percent. One month recorded 1 million new jobs. Now that’s a recovery. And Mr. Trump is right that if India and China can grow at 8 to 10 percent, surely we can aspire to half that growth rate.
Faster growth of the economy is imperative if America is to retain our world superpower status — especially given the new rivalry of fast-growing China. This requires the new Trump plan, which will take American competitiveness seriously....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Play it!



Bonnie & Clod!






Open the drain!


Does this mean...




Changing the locks!


He said, you said!








Trump forces black family from home!


Don't say it!


Fighting with?