Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Trump is stronger than national polls suggest!

Washington Examiner ^ | 2/7/17 | David M. Drucker 

President Trump is still popular in core Republican strongholds, even though he has suffered a dip in the national public opinion polls.

Trump's approval rating is 45 percent, an underwater mark previously unseen for a president this early in his first term. But Trump's image and his policies are holding up just fine among voters in Republican districts and states key to the president's ability to drive his agenda through Congress, and his party's success in 2018.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Poll shows growing support for Trump, travel ban

Washington Examiner ^ | 2/6/17 | Paul Bedard 

Support for President Trump is turning around and growing, especially in the Midwest and among middle class workers, and the public's opposition to his tough immigration orders isn't anything close to what critics and some in the media are reporting, according to a new survey.

A poll from Zogby Analytics provided to Secrets Monday found that 48 percent of voters approve of Trump's job as president, while 43 percent disapprove. "This is a five point jump since our last poll in January," said the survey....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

92% Of Left-Wing Activists Live With Their Parents And One In Three Is Unemployed!

The Daily Mail ^ | 02/07/17 | Dave Burke 

The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents, a new report found.
The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013.
Of these 84 per cent were men, and 72 per cent were aged between 18 and 29.
More than half of the arrests were made in the Berlin districts of Friedrichshain, Kreuzberg and Mitte, mostly during demonstrations.
A third of them were unemployed, and 92 per cent still live with their parents.
The figures published in the Berlin newspaper said of the offences committed against a person, in four out of five cases the victims were police officers.
In 15 per cent of these cases, the victims were right wing activists.
The new figures were released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).
Between 2009 and 2013, the Bild report claims, left-wing assassins attempted to commit 11 murders.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Mainstream Media’s Trump Derangement Syndrome Epidemic

American Thinker ^ | February 7, 2017 | Steve McCann 

Donald Trump concluded his second week as President of the United States last Friday. Prompted by virtually every utterance and action of the current President, the never-ending demonstrations and delirium of the professional activist Left as well as the Democratic Party hierarchy and much of the mainstream media and entertainment cabal has produced perhaps the most memorable and entertaining fortnight in recent American political history. Judging by their permanent state of hysteria it appears that this assemblage of left-wing factions is unaware that there are, at a minimum, 206 weeks remaining in the Trump presidency. Maintaining the current level of frenzy will be a formidable task.
Which prompts me, as someone who observed and at times participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations of the 1960’s and has been on this planet more than three score and ten years, to offer some observations and a few helpful hints.
I am still not certain what the Women’s March, which took place over the inaugural weekend, was all about. There was little doubt that they didn’t like Trump but beyond that it appears, based on the rhetoric and signage, that it was solely an exercise in finding as many crude ways as possible to expound on sexual activity and describe female genitalia. Was I supposed to be shocked or embarrassed or moved by all this exercise in gross one-upmanship?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Nancy Pelosi: There Are No Grounds to Impeach Trump

http://www.newsmax.com ^ | 02/06/2017 | Jeffrey Rodak 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who claims she's troubled by President Donald Trump's first two weeks in office, says there are no grounds to impeach him, The Hill reports.
"(There) are grounds for displeasure and unease in the public about the performance of this president, who has acted in a way that is strategically incoherent, that is incompetent and that is reckless," Pelosi said. "And that is not grounds for impeachment.
"When and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up. But that's not the subject of today."
Her comments came in response to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who says her "greatest desire is to lead (Trump) right into impeachment," according to the Hill.
"I have not called for the impeachment — yet. He's doing it himself," Waters says.
But Pelosi says she had been hopeful the Democrats could work with Trump, but she claims those hopes have quickly diminished.
"While it's only a couple of weeks since the inauguration … we've seen nothing that we can work — that I can work — with President (Trump) on," Pelosi said. "And I'm disappointed, because I thought that there might be some interest because of what he said in the campaign."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration Is Both Legal and Constitutional

The Foundry ^ | 2/6/17 | Hans von Spakovsky 

If you want to see the difference between a federal judge who follows the rule of law and a federal judge who ignores laws he doesn’t like in order to reach a preferred public policy outcome, just compare the two district court decisions issued in Washington state and Massachusetts over President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order.

Contrary to the “travel ban” label, the executive order temporarily suspended the granting of visas from seven failed and failing countries that are supplying many of the terrorists plaguing the world.
Despite what Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington says, Trump acted fully within the statutory authority granted to him by Congress. The temporary restraining order issued by Robart on Feb. 3 is unjustified and has no basis in the law or the Constitution.
This fact is obvious from an examination of his seven-page order, which contains absolutely no discussion whatsoever of what law or constitutional provision the president has supposedly violated. That temporary restraining order is now on an emergency appeal before a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Contrast that with the 21-page opinion issued by Massachusetts District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton that was also issued on Feb. 3.
Unlike Robart, who totally ignored the federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1182(f)) cited by Trump in his executive order, Gorton bases his decision denying the temporary restraining order on an examination of the extensive power given to the president under that statute, which gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” And he can do so “for such period as he shall deem necessary.”
That is exactly what the president has done. The order signed on Jan. 27 on “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” suspends for 90 days the issuance of visas to anyone trying to enter the U.S. from seven countries that even the Obama administration identified as “countries of concern” because of their terrorism histories.
This has been done, as Gorton explains and as the administration has made clear, in order to “ensure that resources are available to review screening procedures and that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks.”
As Gorton notes, “the decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute’ realized through the legislative and executive branches that is ‘largely immune from judicial control.’”
As the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2004 in U.S. v. Flores-Montano, “The government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border.”
In this case, Congress—which under the Constitution has complete authority over immigration—passed a statute providing the president the authority to suspend the entry of aliens into the country.
According to Gorton, in “light of the ‘plenary congressional power to make polices and rules for exclusion of aliens … which pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), has been delegated to the president, the court concludes that the government’s reasons, as provided in the [executive order], are facially legitimate and bona fide.”
No federal judge, including Robart, has the authority to substitute his judgment for that of the president when it comes to making a decision on what is detrimental to the national security and foreign policy interests of the nation.
But that is exactly what he did.
Robart’s opinion ends with a claim that seems like a joke.
He says that “fundamental” to his work is “a vigilant recognition that [the court] is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.”
Instead, says Robart, his job is “limited” to “ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution.”
Yet Robart provides no discussion of the Constitution or the federal statute that applies to this executive order and the actions of the president.
Given that there is no legal basis for his decision and the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the only basis for his decision is his judgment on the “wisdom” of Trump’s executive order.
Gorton recognized the public policy choices being made with this executive order. He discussed the “considerations of both sides with respect to a balancing of the hardships” involved.
On one side, the government is trying to implement “an effective immigration regime that ensures the safety of all Americans,” something that is “undoubtedly difficult.” On the other side, there is a “hardship to the professional and personal lives” of aliens trying to enter the country.
But it is not up to a judge to make that policy choice. The judge’s only role is to review whether the president’s action is authorized by the Constitution and federal law.
There is no question that the executive order meets both of those requirements. We can only hope that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals follows the law and does not make the same mistake that Robart made.

84 Lumber and the big-budget Super Bowl ad to nowhere

Washington Post ^ | 6 Feb 17 | Thomas Heath 

Building supplies company 84 Lumber tackled a heap of controversy over the weekend with its carefully-crafted — yet inconclusive — 90-second Super Bowl ad featuring a Mexican mother and daughter embarking on a difficult journey north that left the viewer wondering where they ended up.
At the end of the ponderous tale, script appears on the screen: “The will to succeed is always welcome here.”
That wasn’t the full story. The Super Bowl ad asked viewers to visit the 84 Lumber website if they wanted the rest of the story. The website version included a five-minute “director’s cut” version that concludes with the pair entering the United States through a door in a towering border wall, a direct take on one of the most combustible topics in the country today. Viewers logged on to see, and 84 Lumber’s site was overwhelmed by the traffic.
[The five most political Super Bowl commercials]
That and other commercials spurred a backlash on social media and elsewhere. Some viewers accused 84 Lumber of promoting illegal immigration. Others supported the Pennsylvania company’s values that promote striving and success.
The ads cames just a week after President Trump raised a national firestorm with his order to temporarily ban refugees and immigrants from seven mostly Muslim-dominated countries as part of his national security policy.
84 Lumber wasn’t alone in the Super Bowl ad pile on. Many other big brands, from beer giant Anheuser-Busch InBev to Audi, Airbnb and Kia autos used their Super Bowl time — at $5 million per 30 seconds — to break through. The challenge is to get viewers, whether they are chatting at a party or standing among a scrum at a bar, to pause and take notice — and maybe talk about it later.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Shame on 84 lumber. I hope they suffer the same fate at Target, whose sales have fallen dramatically.

84 Lumber, in a statement, denied they were promoting illegal immigration! Yeah, right. Then they said the ad was supposed to be "patriotic."

Hardy Magerko says she personally helped develop the commercial and its striking imagery, but her personal beliefs don’t play into the commercial.
“This came from the heart and I didn’t do it for personal gain,” she says. “It’s not about me or my beliefs or the wall, it’s about individuals… treating people with dignity and respect.”

Baloney. And now 84 Lumber is claiming they had a 50% positive rating for the ad, which is complete rubbish. The ad tested horribly to pre-superbowl audiences, but they ran with it anyway.

Now the company is backtracking even more, claiming the ad is "in the eye of the beholder" and they only wanted to portray "grit and determination." If that was the case, why didn't they portray average Americans building their home, returning veterans buying lumber, or any other scenario?

These jack asses are plying us with propaganda, pure and simple. Don't fall for it. 

Google Emerges As Financial Sponsor Behind Tech Giants' Anti-Trump Crusade

Zero Hedge ^ | February 6, 2017 | Tyler Durden 

Earlier today, we explained why billionaire Democrat, and Clinton supporter, George Soros is the likely source of funding behind the rapidly spreading - and costly - Trump "Muslim Ban" lawsuits.

Moments ago, we found the other "source of funds" missing link in the ongoing anti-Trump executive order campaign. As Bloomberg reports, the company footing bill for the legal brief signed by more than 120 mostly tech companies that oppose President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration, is none other than the Company which offered Hillary Clinton its "strategic plan" to help Democrats win the election, and track voters, and which hired former Clinton Foundation CEO, Eric Braverman: Google (technically, its parent company Alphabet).
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...

No Wonder!


Pardon me...


Cut 'em out!






Road Blockers


Is it true?


Go Back


Child Confirmation Hearing


BURN it down!


Debate Rules!






Sarah Silverman: Racist


Crying Card!