Patterico's Pontifications

3/24/2018

Biden vs. Trump: Let’s Get Ready To Rumble!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:34 am



[guest post by Dana]

Need a little chuckle in light of the gazillion dollars being added to our debt? Leave it to a couple of old white dudes past their prime to bring it. A couple of mouthy septuagenarians embarrassing themselves without a hint of self-awareness.

Joe Biden spoke at a rally at the University of Miami earlier this week on behalf of his advocacy group, “It’s On Us,” whose mission is to fight against sexual assault on college campuses. During his speech, Biden referenced the notorious Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump:

“They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,” said Biden, getting laughter and applause from the crowd[.]

Biden said Tuesday, “I’ve been in a lot of locker rooms my whole life. I’m a pretty damn good athlete.”

He added, “Any guy that talked that way was usually the fattest, ugliest S.O.B. in the room.”

So, tough Joe Biden tells an audience of woke young people at a rally focusing on assault that he would have beat the hell out of the President and they love him for it?And then the damn good athlete, who at 75 does appear to be remarkably fit, smugly fat-shamed the President of the United States. Right. Joe Biden trying to take the moral high ground and being all judgy about Donald Trump:

Untitled

Of course Trump, never one to let any insult roll off his back, came out swinging:

“Crazy Joe Biden is trying to act like a tough guy. Actually, he is weak, both mentally and physically, and yet he threatens me, for the second time, with physical assault,” Trump tweeted Thursday morning.

“He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe!” Trump warned.

Donald Trump, who never met a p**** he didn’t feel entitled to grab, and with his own tough guy game of one-upmanship with various world leaders is schooling Biden for acting like a “tough guy,” and accusing him of threatening physical assault? Seriously?

What a couple of idiots. If this is what the crowd squawking about “toxic masculinity” is referring to, I get it now!

Some seem to think this is possibly a clever political strategy for Biden if he runs in 2020:

Taking a tough-guy approach to Trump isn’t a bad macro strategy for 2020. It scratches Democrats’ anti-Trump itch; it panders to women by presenting Biden as their valiant defender; it appeals, in theory, to the working-class voters who responded to Trump’s alpha-male swagger last time; and it distinguishes Biden from a Democratic field whose most formidable candidates are shaping up to be women.

While it could separate Biden from female candidates, he’s already got name recognition and is a familiar face to Americans. Further, it may not be necessary if very early speculation is any kind of indicator of what may come. Simultaneously, a man pandering to Democratic women as a “valiant defender,” even when pushing back against macho Trump, doesn’t seem like it would impress the sort of women who support Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren (if they are the women running in 2020). Do female supporters really want to signal they need a man to fight their battles of sexism for them – even when it involves Trump? I just can’t see women on the left being sucked into tough guy Joe Biden’s candidacy over any number of females who might run. Especially when “creepy Joe Biden photos” can be found on the internet as easily as “Donald Trump sexual allegations” or “Donald Trump sexism” reports. Women just wouldn’t fall for that. Oh. Wait.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

3/23/2018

Democrats Spike the Ball Over Omnibus — Too Early? [UPDATED]

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am



[UPDATE by JVW: It’s signed into law.]

Democrats are spiking the football over the omnibus today. Indeed, the headline in the Washington Examiner says exactly that: Schumer, Democrats spike the football over the spending bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., boasted Monday that the $1 trillion spending deal struck between Democrats and Republicans over the weekend is a win for Democrats and the public, in part because it doesn’t provide $1.5 billion in funding for a wall along the U.S./Mexico border as requested by President Trump.

“It’s a great deal. We think it’s a very good deal for the American people,” Schumer said before pointing to over 160 “poison pill riders” that Democrats got rid of prior to the agreement, including on proposed cuts to women’s health and the environment and rollbacks of Dodd-Frank. “We’re very gratified with the result.”

It might have been smart to wait. Today, as Brandon Morse notes, Trump is threatening a veto:

Who can blame Democrats for assuming Trump would sign the bill? He sent every signal that he would. If you doubt this, don’t. Trump sent out Mick Mulvaney yesterday to say in no uncertain terms that Trump would sign the bill, as reported at the notoriously left-wing anti-Trump #FakeNews site Breitbart:

President Donald Trump will sign the proposed Omnibus spending bill, White House officials confirmed on Thursday, even though the 2,232-page bill has yet to pass through Congress.

“Let’s cut right to the chase: Is the President going to sign the bill?” Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters at a White House briefing. “The answer is yes.”

The budget director made a practical case for the Republican-led budget process, even though he admitted that it was not “perfect.”

“This is what a bill looks like when you have 60 votes in the Senate when the Democrats get a chance to take their pound of flesh in order to defend the nation,” he said.

Mulvaney said the $1.3 trillion spending bill funded the president’s budget priorities including a big boost in defense spending, opioids, border security, school safety, workforce development, and infrastructure.

Trump’s own Twitter feed echoed Mulvaney’s sentiments yesterday, boasting about the good aspects of the bill and taking a “Democrats got their pound of flesh but whaddya gonna do?” attitude towards the bad parts:

Anyway, what changed between yesterday’s “the President will sign the bill” and today’s veto consideration? Hmmmm:

Schumer and Pelosi spiking the football too early + Fox & Friends = a potent brew for erratic presidential behavior.

Anyway, it seems exciting that Trump is considering a veto — until you look at what his complaints are in the tweet above: not enough amnesty and not enough spending.

I get the anger over the bill, which I share. Look at my post from earlier this morning, which lists a whole host of problems with the bill. But “not enough amnesty and not enough spending” were not among the listed problems.

Trump is not saying, let’s cut some funding from this monstrosity so we can fully fund a border wall. He’s just saying: toss another $24 billion on top. I’m all for funding a wall, but not by adding billions and billions of dollars to this already bloated bill. Life is about trade-offs, not about just paying for everything that everybody wants, like we do every time. We need to make spending choices.

But that’s not what this veto threat is about. Thomas Massie is worried too:

Anyway. You literally never know what this Trump guy is going to do from one moment to the next. His advisers may take him aside and tell him he has to sign it. Here’s an indication that might be happening:

He might go along with the advice from his advisers. He might not. This is all what makes this episode so special. It’s must-see teevee. STAY TUNED!!!!

But Democrats know as well as anyone else that he is unpredictable. So they might have waited to spike the football.

All that said, he’ll probably still sign it.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

3/22/2018

BREAKING: Senate Passes Budget-Busting Omnibus Bill

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:06 pm



Moments ago, the monstrosity passed:

The Senate has passed a massive “omnibus” spending package that will fund the government and avert a looming government shutdown. The legislation, which narrowly passed the House on Thursday, spends $1.3 trillion to keep the government open through the end of September.

It passed the Senate[] with 65 yeas to 32 nays.

I don’t understand how this could have happened! Here’s what’s so confusing: GOP Senators seemed lined up against it. Why, Ted Cruz announced that he will oppose the omnibus bill, and offered several compelling reasons why:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today issued the following statement announcing his intention to vote against the omnibus spending bill:

“In 2016, the American people voted overwhelmingly for Republicans to change Washington. Now, Congress is poised to do the exact opposite: pass a massive $1.3 trillion spending bill — 2200 pages drafted by the Swamp in the dark of night — that will plunge our nation even deeper into debt.

“The disastrous elements of this bill are almost too numerous to list.

“It continues to fund Planned Parenthood, a corrupt organization whose horrifying abortion practices should preclude it from receiving taxpayer dollars.

“It continues to fund sanctuary cities, which are defying the law and making Americans less safe. Instead of rewarding sanctuary cities, we should be passing legislation like Kate’s Law, a bill I introduced that would put criminal illegal aliens in jail so they cannot prey on innocent Americans.

“It fails to provide sufficient funds to properly secure our border, let alone build the wall that is necessary.

“It tells federal agencies that they can spend taxpayer dollars to study the ‘causes’ of gun violence, a mandate that – make no mistake – will be abused by future liberal administrations to manufacture evidence to try to violate law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“It funds the Ex-Im Bank, a classic example of corporate welfare that has doled out over $100 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, primarily to a handful of giant and well-connected corporations.

“It fails to reduce funding for the EPA, which under Obama administration zealots, killed thousands of jobs and dramatically strayed from its core mission of ensuring clean air and water.

“All of these measures amount to piling even greater debt onto the backs of our kids and grandkids, all because we are incapable of living within our means.

Nicely said. Did Cruz stand alone? No. Mike Lee also said he would be voting against the bill.

Rand Paul considered holding up the bill but backed down, allowing a vote to take place. But he said he was voting no:

And CNN says Joni Ernst came out against it. And Jeff Flake (still a Senator!) said he opposed it:

Such an amazing amount of political courage was being shown. It seemed so reassuring, because we are all used to Republicans standing up only when their votes don’t matter. But here, of course, the GOP didn’t have a big enough majority to survive so many defections. It looked like we were voting this thing down. Hooray!

Of course, it never actually looked that way at all. I’m just funnin’ ya. What’s the gag?

Well, you see, a bunch of Democrats also supported this thing.

That’s right. Leadership got into bed with Chuckie Schumer, who is thrilled. And our fight-the-swamp President will sign it.

All of which means, the above Republicans could vociferously denounce it without, you know, feeling the heat of actually rejecting it.

I’m . . . sure they would have stood strong even if they actually could have defeated it, right? I mean, it’s not like this party has a history of meaningless show votes, right? *cough* Obamacare *cough*

[Patterico hangs his head and takes a few steps towards stage left. He stops, as if to say something else, but thinks better of it. He shakes his head sadly and trudges off out of sight.]

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

Another Year, Another Trillion

Filed under: General — JVW @ 3:41 pm



[guest post by JVW]

You know the capitulation is nearly complete when the Big Dog makes feeble attempts to justify it:

Where do you suppose he “got” all that money he’s bragging about? Oh yeah, from the taxpayer in the form of increasing deficits that are driving us to fiscal ruin. This Administration may not end up adding $9 trillion to our total debt the way his predecessor did (then again, maybe he’ll add even more), but are we really going to have a warm and fuzzy feeling if they only jack up our debt by another $6 trillion or so?

And it wouldn’t be a normal work day without yet another puzzling, weirdly obsessive third-person tweet from the Commander-in-Chief to settle old scores or thump already-vanquished enemies. Behold:

But hey, he punches back, right?

Cross-posted at the Jury Talks Back.

– JVW

GOP Leadership Crams Awful Omnibus Bill Down Members’ Throats

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am



You’ve heard the Heritage Foundation’s view of the omnibus bill. Now it’s time to hear from the people actually voting on it.

The best tweets I have seen are from Mark Meadows:

Here’s Justin Amash from Monday:

and yesterday:

Thomas Massie:

Mike Lee:

And yet, it will pass, and Trump will sign it. This is how they did the tax bill and nobody talks about that process anymore — except to remind many of the complainers that they complained about that, too, and voted for it anyway.

Nothing ever changes.

Well, one thing may change, later this year: who controls Congress.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

3/21/2018

Breitbart Readership in Free Fall in a World Where “Relevance” Is Measured by Devotion to Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am



Upsetting Donald Trump has consequences. Breitbart.com, which used to ride a traffic high during its salad days as Donald Trump’s most reliable propaganda machine, is now seeing its readership leave in droves. POLITICO (cached link; no links for bullies):

Breitbart, the alt-right news site whose executive chairman Steve Bannon was pushed out in January after feuding with President Donald Trump, has lost about half its readership according to comScore, raising questions about its future.

The site dropped from 15 million unique visitors in October, per comScore, to 13.7 million in November, 9.9 million in December, 8.5 million in January and 7.8 million in February.

Its comScore figure for January was down 51 percent from the same month a year earlier, and the February number was down 49 percent from 2017. Last month was the site’s least trafficked since February 2015, four months before Donald Trump declared his candidacy for president.

POLITICO offers different possible explanations for the cratering of Breitbart’s readership, including “changes to Facebook’s newsfeed algorithm, amped up investment in digital by Fox News, and the shifting status of Bannon.” To me, it’s this last one that stands out. When Steve Bannon became persona non grata with Donald Trump, I predicted that he would be gone within days, and he was. Now, without a Trump-approved guy at the helm, the site has lost its relevance.

Relevance.

Take a look at Fox News for a contrasting example. As Ralph Peters pointed out yesterday in resigning from the network, “Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration.”

He’s not wrong. And how is Fox doing these days?

Fox News continued its cable ratings domination among total viewers, extending its long-running winning streak both in primetime and on a 24-hour basis.

Fox News averaged 2.3 million viewers in primetime during the week of March 12 to March 18, topping all cable networks for the 9th straight week, according to Nielsen. MSNBC finished second with 2.0 million viewers.

As Stormy Daniels has learned, [verb deleted]ing Donald Trump’s [noun deleted] pays.

Relevance.

If you closely read the people who are highly visible Trump supporters on the right who supported a different candidate in the primaries, you’ll notice that they constantly hit the theme of “relevance.” I’m talking about the type of people who supported Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio in the primaries — but now, when the prospect of Trump d**k pics is floated, seem excited rather than revolted. It’s very important for people like this to denigrate Trump critics on a personal level, and their go-to phrase for NeverTrumpers is “irrelevant.” They go on and on about how this NeverTrumper is on a list of Salon Conservatives, or that one is having a tough time selling berths on his magazine’s cruises.

The ultimate insult in their eyes is not that their NeverTrump targets have lost their principles or have gone ideologically astray. The ultimate insult is that NeverTrumpers have lost their relevance.

Relevance. It is the drug that, more than any other, causes humans to forget what they used to stand for.

Now: to be sure, the criticism that these most visible Trump supporters level at “NeverTrumpers” often stems from a genuine disagreement, since “NeverTrumpers” sometimes go too far in their zeal to criticize the President. I’ll acknowledge that. BUT…

But the need that some of these people feel to personally attack Trump critics, who in many cases are former friends, stems in part from shame. It’s the shame they feel when they know the Trump critics are on target with some of their criticism — criticism in which these people can no longer join, because it would alienate their new Trumpy audience.

And so they either remain silent about the valid criticism, or (in many cases) belittle it with breathtaking hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

Take the latest example: President Trump placing a phone call to Vladimir Putin to congratulate him, while saying nothing about his attempted assassination of a man and his daughter on British soil. These people know that’s the wrong thing to do. They just got through telling us days ago that Trump has condemned the attack in Britain. They said: why, he’s instituting some of the toughest anti-Russia initiatives in forever! And some of us Trump critics said: sure, he knows how to read a statement and issue some sanctions he’s told to issue, but in his heart Trump doesn’t care about any of this, and you’ll see that when he congratulates Putin. For example, I said this after Putin’s election:

I’m looking forward to Trump issuing his congratulations. My guess is that he’ll use the chance to call the “election” a sham and issue his harshest condemnation yet of the recent assassination attempt on British soil. LOL. Make sure to tip your waitresses, try the veal, I’m here all week.

Hopefully my irony was not too subtle. Now that my prediction has come true that Trump would do no such thing, Trump supporters are in the position of relying on Barack Obama as precedent for congratulating Putin. “Obama did it so it must be good” is something I never thought I’d hear from this crowd, but the need to defend Trump overcomes any cognitive dissonance that arises from uttering that phrase.

And to the trash bin as well with any complaints that Putin used trumped-up charges against his most serious rival — a guy who has done a bang-up job exposing Putin’s kleptocracy, by the way — to bar that rival from even participating in the election as a candidate. Let’s not speak of that. President Putin won and if President Trump wants to congratulate him then dammit that’s the right thing to do.

Relevance!

Take the debt as another example. The “relevant” crowd will be among the first to tell you that, sure, they used to get upset about the debt, but in a world where [insert hastily constructed pathetic rationalization here], you just can’t care about the debt anymore. They’ll even adopt Vox-like leftist theories about how the government can continue to borrow and add to its debt load forever and ever. Anything to defend Donald Trump.

Relevance!

I understand the desire for relevance. It feels nice to have your post or article shared far and wide, and to be mentioned on television or by a widely heard radio talk show host. I’ve had all those things happen and it’s fun and exciting. And, while I am not in this position, some people do this opinionating stuff for a living. Their relevance affects whether they can eat and pay the rent.

So I get it. I understand why people might cast aside lifelong principles to defend a bald orange waste of oxygen. But understanding it is not the same as agreeing with it.

Don’t worry, erstwhile Breitbart readers. There’s still plenty of fact-free propaganda out there for you. For every Breitbart.com that bleeds readers, there’s a Gateway Pundit or a Conservative Treehouse waiting in the wings to scoop them up.

I understand those sites are very relevant these days.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

3/20/2018

Explosion In Austin Tonight (UPDATE: Suspect Dead)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:08 pm



[guest post by Dana]

This time at a Goodwill Store:

Another explosion occurred in Austin on Tuesday evening, hours after one package exploded and another containing an explosive device was intercepted by law enforcement at FedEx facilities near that city and near San Antonio, authorities said.

The Austin Fire Department said on Twitter shortly after 7 p.m. local time (8 p.m. ET) that it was on the scene at a “reported package explosion” and that there was “one reported injury and crews evacuating building.”

Austin emergency management said medics transported a man in his 30s, and the injuries are not expected to be life-threatening.

Austin Police Dept. said that at this time they don’t believe this bomb is related to the string of bombs that have recently exploded in the city:

There was no package explosion in the 9800 block of Brodie Ln. Items inside package was not a bomb, rather an incendiary device. At this time, we have no reason to believe this incident is related to previous package bombs.

Note: If this is connected to the serial bomber, this will be the sixth bombing since March 2. Early Tuesday morning, a package moving through the FedEx ground sorting center in Schertz exploded.

As it stands now:

Four bombs have killed two people and injured others in Austin since March 2, with the most recent on Sunday believed to have been triggered by a tripwire that injured two people, authorities have said. In most of those bombings, packages left on doorsteps or in front yards exploded, officials said.

This notes a significant change in how authorities are looking at things:

“With this tripwire, this changes things,” Christopher Combs, special agent in charge of the FBI’s San Antonio division, said at a news conference on Monday, referring to the previous day’s explosion. “It’s more sophisticated, it’s not targeted to individuals.

A child could be walking down a sidewalk and hit something.”

Law enforcement believe the serial bomber is sophisticated and organized:

Danny Defenbaugh, a former FBI bomb technician who helped supervise more than 150 bombing investigations including the 1995 Oklahoma City attack, said such serial campaigns are unusual and can take years to solve.

“In my experience, you are looking beyond a person who simply searched the Internet for how to build these things,” Defenbaugh said.

Defenbaugh said the devices involved in the explosions — and the range of apparent sophistication — probably has investigators trying to narrow a field of possible suspects who have some formal engineering experience in the military, law enforcement or from other sources.

“That fact that someone could build these devices, including the one with the tripwire mechanism, and not blow himself up, that means something,” Defenbaugh said. “That’s why they have hundreds of people working on this.”

Weldon Kennedy, a former FBI deputy director, called the Austin serial bombings “highly unusual’’ and a challenge for the army of federal and local authorities who have descended on central Texas.

There are currently 350 FBI agents in Austin, as well as additional bomb squads.

Additionally, Gov. Abbott has released emergency funds to purchase x-ray machines to be used to help inspect packages:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott today announced an additional release of $265,000 in emergency funding to help assist bombing investigations in Austin after four attacks this month in that city. The money will be used to purchase technology that will aid law enforcement in assessing package safety.

The Emergency funding will be made available “for the Austin Police Department (APD) and the Texas Ranger Bomb Response Team to purchase seven portable x-ray systems for use in bomb detection and responding to suspicious package investigations,” the governor’s office said in a news release Monday. “These x-ray systems are used by bomb technicians on-scene and provide clear visual evidence for rapid assessment of a package’s safety.”

According to the release, several of these units are already in use by “Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) technicians.”

Prayers for the families who have lost their loved ones, and for anxious residents. Also, prayers that law enforcement locate and arrest the suspect before anyone else is killed.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Numerous outlets are reporting that the suspect is dead by one of his own bombs, after being identified and approached by police.

UPDATE BY DANA: You can read about the suspect here.

President Trump Congratulates Putin On His Unsurprising Election Win

Filed under: General — Dana @ 4:21 pm



[guest post by Dana]

As we learned earlier this week, Incumbent President Vladimir Putin was re-elected by a wide margin. In his post, our host said: I’m looking forward to Trump issuing his congratulations. Well, here you go:

President Trump on Tuesday congratulated President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on his recent re-election victory, but failed to ask him about either the fairness of the Russian vote, which Mr. Putin won with a lopsided margin, or about allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Mr. Trump also did not raise Russia’s apparent role in a nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil — an act that prompted the United States to join with Britain, France and Germany in denouncing the Russian government for violating international law.

Instead, in his phone call with Mr. Putin, the president focused on what the White House called “shared interests,” including North Korea, Ukraine and the escalating arms race between the United States and Russia. He said he and Mr. Putin were likely to meet soon to discuss those issues.

Trump later said that he was pleased with the conversation he had with Putin:

[I]n his phone call with Mr. Putin, the president focused on what the White House called “shared interests,” including North Korea, Ukraine and the escalating arms race between the United States and Russia. He said he and Mr. Putin were likely to meet soon to discuss those issues.

“We had a very good call,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, where he was meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. “We will probably be meeting in the not-too distant future to discuss the arms race, which is getting out of control.”

White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders defended the President’s call, and avoided making an assessment of whether the election was fair:

“We’re focused on our elections,” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday when asked if Trump felt Russia’s election, which excluded several Putin critics and sparked accounts of potential vote tampering, was “free and fair.”

“We don’t get to dictate how other countries operate,” she said. “What we do know is that Putin has been elected in their country, and that’s not something that we can dictate to them, how they operate. We can only focus on the freeness and fairness of our elections.”

This is not how it has always been:

That attitude is a departure from decades of U.S. foreign policy, in which a succession of administrations have freely criticized anti-democratic events and elections in other nations.

As recently as March 2017, for example, the State Department issued a statement condemning Putin’s government for cracking down on peaceful anti-Putin protests, which the statement called “an affront to core democratic values.”

Gary Kasparov refused to play along:

kasparov

Some Capitol Hill reactions were less than enthusiastic. From John McCain:

An American president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections. And by doing so with Vladimir Putin, President Trump insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country’s future, including the countless Russian patriots who have risked so much to protest and resist Putin’s regime.

McCain also tweeted:

That #Putin had to work so hard to drive voter turnout shows the Russian people know his claim to power is a sham. The US stands with all Russians yearning for freedom. #RussiaElections2018

From Mitch McConnell, who although agreed that a president can call whoever he wants, felt this was not something he’d have chosen to do:

“When I look at a Russian election, what I see is a lack of credibility in tallying the results. … Calling [Putin] wouldn’t have been high on my list.”

Ironically, the President’s call was made on the same day that the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report with recommendations on how to safeguard future U.S. elections from hackers and others attempting to manipulate elections. Including Russia:

“The Russians were relentless in attempting to meddle in the 2016 elections, and they will continue their efforts to undermine public confidence in Western democracies and in the legitimacy of our elections,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said at a news conference Tuesday.

To consider:

Trump is not alone in congratulating Putin — leaders in France, Germany and elsewhere have done so this week, as Barack Obama did in 2012. But past administrations certainly have seen it as America’s role to call balls and strikes when it comes to elections abroad, and weigh in when democratic institutions are being undermined. A departure from that approach would be welcomed not only by Putin, but other leaders of pseudo democracies around the world.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

California City Says No To State’s Sanctuary City Law

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:30 am



[guest post by Dana]

A California city voted to opt out of the state’s sanctuary city law, SB-54, because they believe it puts them at odds with the Constitution:

Orange County’s second-smallest city voted Monday night to exempt itself from California’s so-called sanctuary law, which limits cooperation between local agencies and federal immigration authorities.

The Los Alamitos City Council voted 4-1 following more than two hours of heated testimony from residents on both sides of the issue.

Mayor Troy Edgar said he hoped mayors in other cities consider similar local legislation. And his message was clear: “As the mayor of Los Alamitos, we are not a sanctuary city.”

The council went one step further. The majority also voted to direct the city attorney to write an amicus brief to a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month against California, alleging that three of the state’s laws are unconstitutional. One of those laws was the same one the Los Alamitos council looks to opt-out of: the “California Values Act,” which limits cooperation between law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities.

Councilman Warren Kusumoto accused state legislators of “bullying us into violating our oath of office.” He explained that the ordinance was “…our way of going on record saying we’re going to comply with the U.S. Constitution.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Melania Trump Holds Event on Cyberbullying

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 am



No, it’s not a “how to” you big silly. She’s opposing it.

Melania Trump today holds her first event on her signature issue: cyberbullying. Fox News reports:

Melania Trump is hosting executives from major online and social media companies to discuss cyberbullying and internet safety, more than a year after saying that would be her issue as first lady.

The meeting Tuesday marks her first public event on the topic, a choice some observers have questioned given that her husband often berates people on Twitter.

Amazon, Snap, Facebook, Google and Twitter are among the companies that are expected to attend the meeting.

The event is reportedly part of a symposium including numerous speakers on topics that touch our lives. O.J. Simpson will speak about anger management, Martin Shkreli will offer thoughts about public service, and (in something of a diplomatic coup) Kim Jong-un will address the conference about ways to best deliver food to the poor.

There is this one lunatic on Twitter with a huge following who tweets a lot of nasty personal insults. If only Melania Trump had some influence over that guy.

But I suspect she’s not spending a lot of personal time with that particular Twitter user these days, for whatever reason.

Anyway, good luck to Mrs. Trump in her noble crusade against cyberbullying. Maybe once she conquers that, she can take up the cause of reading, or promote the importance of wedding vows, or the need to be modest, or crusade on behalf of women who have been belittled because of their looks.

That would be a powerful message coming from a physically attractive First Lady, no?

There’s truly no limit to the causes she can take up once she finishes conquering cyberbullying today. Three cheers to you, Melania!

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3142 secs.