27 thoughts on “News/Politics 2-3-17

  1. The end of te Trump reign already. The unforgivable sin.
    The wrong necktie.

    These are certainly interesting times, but the Internet decided to take a break from analyzing Donald Trump’s second week in office to analyze why Sean Spicer wore a lime-green tie at Thursday’s press conference. That accessory choice by the White House press secretary annoyed a lot of people this morning, particularly Charlie Sheen

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Clock Boy gets his cleaned in court.


    “On Thursday afternoon a Texas Judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro by Mohammed Mohammed, the father of “clock boy” Ahmed Mohammed.

    Claiming defamation, Mohammed filed the lawsuit in October 2015 after Shapiro made an appearance on The Kelly File questioning Ahmed’s story and motives surrounding a clock he brought to school that looked like a bomb. Ahmed was detained by police for the “clock” and was suspended. His family, who has ties to foreign regimes sponsoring terrorism, and CAIR promptly accused the school of Islamophobia and racial profiling.

    Today, they were defeated in their quest to silence those who exposed them as activists, terror sympathizers and politically motivated.”

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Funding the opposition….. of the next guy, right before you leave office.


    “A week before Barack Obama left the White House, the Department of Homeland Security gave a $400,000 grant to an organization whose leader has called for President Trump to be overthrown.

    The department on Jan. 13 announced grants it was giving out as part of an effort to fight radical Islam. One of the groups to receive money was Life After Hate, which received $400,000, according to the Gateway Pundit.”


  4. This is why the swamp needs draining. These holdover moles have gotta go.


    “Federal employees are working closely with former Obama administration officials to thwart future President Donald Trump’s policies and initiatives, according to a report published by The Washington Post.

    Federal workers regularly consult with Obama-era political appointees about ways they can push back and potentially stymie Trump’s initiatives, according to the report.

    Dozens of federal workers attended a support group last weekend for civil servants seeking a place to hash out their issues with the Trump administration. Nearly 200 or more federal employees, many of whom worked for the Obama administration, have signed up for workshops meant to train people in ways to safely engage in civil disobedience.”


  5. After making a farce of the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump continues to make a farce out of his presidency:

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Remember our little discussion about who is and will be the leader of the Free World and who will not be:

    I would like to see figures from our other allies.


  7. The story from Donna’s link last night was a very thoughtful piece, I thought. The trouble is people conflate speech with too many things–probably because speech is a part of so many things.. There is a right to assemble. There is a right to a free press. There is a right to practice religion. There is a right to vote. And then there is a right to free speech. So some people equated political corporate donations to free speech rather than bribery (Citizens United). And not some are equating violence to free speech. It’s a very slippery slope we’re on. We should go back to basics. Words are words, actions are actions, money is money.

    If our nation can’t unite unequivocally and without reservation around the notion that rioting to stop free speech is reprehensible and unlawful regardless of the ideology of the speaker, we are not only losing respect for our core constitutional values, we’re losing respect for the rule of law itself. The unraveling continues, and every public official who dares to muster up more anger at free speech than at violence — or who equates free speech and violence — is doing his part to rip at the very fabric of our civil society.



  8. rw @ 7:21: That’s not surprising, given that Germans receive their news through a mostly liberal press. The results would probably be similar in other Western European countries.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Debra, By uniting with Hillary and Sanders against the Citizens United decision I think it is you who are on the slippery slope. Would you support the Democrats’ right to regulate or abolish the right of Christians to donate to anti-abortion groups for the purposes of running ads? As you said, “Money is money.”


  10. The SCOTUS didn’t need to gut McCain-Feingold to protect Christians. It was a choice designed to allow for-profit corporations and unions to manipulate our elections under the guise of free speech.


  11. Debra, If that is to be the standard, then I definitely want a law to prevent FoxNews, the EIB (Limbaugh) network, Breitbart and other notorious Trumpkins entities from manipulating our elections under the guise of free speech. Hey! Sliding down this slippery slope with you can be fun!


  12. If we can eliminate part of the First Amendment protections for groups that “manipulate elections” surely it is permissible to remove other First Amendment rights for groups that set the Guinness world record for election manipulation by bringing into power an actual deranged imbecile?


  13. People are created in the image of God, and their rights derive from Him. Corporations are not people, Ricky. They are legal fictions whose only rights (and corresponding responsibilities) are to be determined by their creator–the government. That would be the ‘legal’ part of legal fiction I suppose.


  14. Tychicus, Agreed. The results would also probably be the same in the rest of North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and the free countries of Asia, in other words, the Free World.


  15. Debra, 11:45, amen.

    And thanks for quoting from the article, when I posted the link last night I was on my tablet and I have a hard time copying and pasting anything beyond links on that device.

    But he (not a Trump fan, by the way) nailed it.

    We do not live in normal times. I think we need to all keep remembering that and take a breath now and again. Every day seems stranger than the last, and it’s all moving at top speed. We’re not in Kansas anymore. And I’m actually feeling a bit fascinated to see how it all further unfolds. It might not be pretty. But it won’t be dull.

    And always remember — Who is your King?

    Then relax.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. So how many of us support the Citizens United decision and how many of us are with Hillary and Bernie and want it to be overturned?


  17. It’s very possible that the group, Citizens United, was entitled to show their film by virtue of establishing a filming business. The real problem with the SCOTUS decision was overreach. It needlessly destroyed a perfectly good, bipartisan effort (McCain-Feingold) at curbing corruption in the American political system by empowering for-profit corporate entities as individuals.

    I’m always nervous when I agree with Justice Ginsburg (even a little), but this portion of the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens is well expressed, and points to the larger problem, I think.

    The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering….. …Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by forprofit corporations and unions to decide this case.

    The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United maybe required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case….


    Liked by 1 person

  18. It is an interesting case, Debra. Political action committees are associations of people just like churches. Most campaign finance laws have favored rich candidates since there is never a limit to what someone can loan to their own campaign. Again we have that unintended consequence.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.