12 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-7-18

  1. It’s sad that the do-gooders and the unintended consequences of their actions can lead to such devastation.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/34068/barth-grimes-california-burns-new-normal-thanks-emily-zanotti

    “”Hotter, drier, longer forest fires we are witnessing today have nothing to do with dangerous manmade climate change. They have a lot to do with idiotic forest mismanagement policies and practices.”

    Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor, CFACT
    ————

    “This past week, The New York Times reported on California’s wildfires stating that “Since 2012, according to state emergency management officials, there has not been a month without a wildfire burning — a stark contrast to previous decades, when fire officials saw the fall and winter as a time to plan and regroup,”

    What’s the significance of 2012?

    It is interesting that The New York Times mentioned the 2012 date, but only attributed the wildfire increases to “the recent historic drought” and “rising temperatures” caused by climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    As California burns, many Californians have been asking why the dramatic increase in wildfires in the last five years? Except for Governor Jerry Brown. Governor Brown claims that devastating fires are the “new normal.” Supporting Obama-era regulations have resulted in the new normal: an endless and devastating fire season.

    Obama-Era Eco-Terrorism through Environmental Regulations

    Under Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, “the Obama administration finalized a rule governing the management of 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands, establishing a new blueprint to guide everything from logging to recreation and renewable energy development,” The Washington Post reported in 2012. “The rule will serve as the guiding document for individual forest plans, which spell out exactly how these lands can be used.”

    These Obama-era regulations introduced excessive layers of bureaucracy that blocked proper forest management and increased environmentalist litigation and costs — a result of far too many radical environmentalists, bureaucrats, Leftist politicians and judicial activists who would rather let forests burn than let anyone thin out overgrown trees or let professional loggers harvest usable timber left from beetle infestation, or selectively cut timber.”

    Like

  2. Like Twitter, Snopes, Facebook, and others, Wikipedia has become a joke due to it’s obvious bias. Conservatives and Republicans get censored and banned for infractions. Leftists get an edit.

    But alas, ethnic cleansing aside, screen shots are forever.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/08/sarah-jeong-wikipedia-page-undergoes-ethnic-cleansing/#more-256856

    “Long-time Legal Insurrection readers will recall the controversy over the ever-changing Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page. Here’s an overview from 2013: Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page ethnically cleansed (Update — partial restoration).

    In the wake of the controversial and hypocritical decision of the New York Times to keep Sarah Jeong despite her racist tweets, the same sort of cleansing of Jeong’s Wikipedia page is underway.

    The section of the Jeong Wikipeida page, entitled “BBC says (Headline): ‘Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter],” has been pulled and is no longer available except via the Talk page.”
    ————————-

    “So what’s going on? Apparently, a vocal segment of Wiki contributors and its sympathetic cohort who make such decisions at Wikipedia simply don’t want the information included . . . or can’t agree on how it should be parsed.

    The “Talk” section on this topic is fascinating as various contributors weigh in on the best way to cover the facts of the scandal.

    Particularly revealing is the change from a pretty innocuous report on a BBC article to the “new proposal” that blames “conservative commentators.”
    ————————–

    “The “oppose” v. “support” exchange that follows is well worth reading (if you are so inclined, here’s the archived link lest even the Talk page be purged), but ultimately, as we’ve seen, the Wikipedia powers that be have decided not to include any mention of the racist tweet/NYT hypocrisy scandal at all (the two remaining references seem to be an oversight that will likely be “corrected” at some near point . . . if the entire entry is not ultimately deleted).

    Wikipedia, like Twitter, can run itself as it wants, but there’s a reason that Wikipedia no longer enjoys the reputation it once held for providing reliable basic information about its contents. Like other once-trusted sites (i.e. Snopes), Wikipedia has become politicized to the point that it’s no longer reliable on any topic that is even marginally political. And for the left everything is political.”

    Like

  3. Last night Donna posted a Tweet from the LA Times with this……

    “The City Council will vote on a resolution to remove Trump’s star from the Walk of Fame “due to his disturbing treatment of women and other actions.””

    OK, fair enough. But let’s make sure it’s fair and we use the same standard on everyone else too. As Twitter users have pointed out, there should be alot of missing stars soon. Like Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey, Roman Polanski, and numerous other philanderers, rapists, and child molesters.

    https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/08/06/citys-going-to-be-busy-removing-more-stars-than-trumps-from-walk-of-fame-if-this-is-the-reason/

    ————

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Too bad you can’t hold the other people responsible for this officer’s death to account for their errors and flawed decisions. They’re accessories to this crime.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/6/iraqi-refugee-charged-attempted-murder-colorado-po/

    “An Iraqi refugee now charged with attempted murder of a Colorado police officer was actually in ICE custody in 2016 but was ordered released thanks to a court decision that ruled his previous convictions for assault and a host of other crimes weren’t serious enough to deport him.

    Authorities say Karrar Noaman al Khammasi, charged last week after what police say was a shootout with Colorado Springs officers, could have been ousted from the country during the Obama administration, but for a series of judges’ rulings that set him free to continue a five-year-long crime spree.

    His arrest also raises tough questions about the refugee program at a time when the Trump administration is eyeing major new constraints on the number of people let in each year.

    Mr. Khammasi was admitted to the U.S. in 2012 as a refugee from Iraq, according to a Homeland Security official.

    His first criminal encounters began a year later and he’s totaled at least nine encounters with police, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported.

    Among those were drunken driving, trespassing, assault, extortion and illegally possessing a firearm.

    He came across the radar of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in April 2016, when deportation officers put him into removal proceedings. A Homeland Security official said he was ordered deported on June 13, 2016.

    But just months the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in an appeal of another deportation case finding the deportation law too vague when it came to defining crimes that rose to the level of getting legal immigrants deported.

    After that case, Golicov v. Lynch, the Obama administration decided it’s deportation of Mr. Khammasi would also be overturned, so it reopened the case and released him from custody Nov. 7, 2016, according to a Homeland Security official.

    Mr. Khammasi would quickly amass more criminal charges, culminating in last week’s attempted murder allegation.

    Meanwhile the court cases raged over the legal standard that had set him free.”

    Like

  5. Sure, why not?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked

    “A leaked memo circulating among Senate Democrats contains a host of bonkers authoritarian proposals for regulating digital platforms, purportedly as a way to get tough on Russian bots and fake news. To save American trust in “our institutions, democracy, free press, and markets,” it suggests, we need unprecedented and undemocratic government intervention into online press and markets, including “comprehensive (GDPR-like) data protection legislation” of the sort enacted in the E.U.

    Titled “Potential Policy Proposals for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms,” the draft policy paper—penned by Sen. Mark Warner and leaked by an unknown source to Axios—the paper starts out by noting that Russians have long spread disinformation, including when “the Soviets tried to spread ‘fake news’ denigrating Martin Luther King” (here he fails to mention that the Americans in charge at the time did the same). But NOW IT’S DIFFERENT, because technology.”
    ——————–

    “Other proposals include more disclosure requirements for online political speech, more spending to counter supposed cybersecurity threats, more funding for the Federal Trade Commission, a requirement that companies’ algorithms can be audited by the feds (and this data shared with universities and others), and a requirement of “interoperability between dominant platforms.”

    The paper also suggests making it a rule that tech platforms above a certain size must turn over internal data and processes to “independent public interest researchers” so they can identify potential “public health/addiction effects, anticompetitive behavior, radicalization,” scams, “user propagated misinformation,” and harassment—data that could be used to “inform actions by regulators or Congress.”

    And—of course— these include further revisions to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, recently amended by Congress to exclude protections for prostitution-related content. A revision to Section 230 could provide the ability for users to demand takedowns of certain sorts of content and hold platforms liable if they don’t abide, it says, while admitting that “attempting to distinguish between true disinformation and legitimate satire could prove difficult.”

    “The proposals in the paper are wide ranging and in some cases even politically impossible, and raise almost as many questions as they try to answer,” suggested Mathew Ingram, putting it very mildly at the Columbia Journalism Review.”

    Like

  6. Once again, the NY Times leads with fake news, and the rest of the mainstream media parrot it as well.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/how-the-media-embraced-en-masse-fake-news-about-trump-tower-meeting.php

    “On Sunday, I exposed as “fake news” a New York Times article touting President Trump’s “admission” that the purpose of his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer was to obtain negative information about Hillary Clinton. In fact, Trump’s statement wasn’t news at all. He said the same thing more than a year ago.

    Moreover, the Times, misstated Trump’s “admission.” It characterized his statement as an admission that the meeting “focused” on Clinton dirt. This enabled the Times to claim that Trump was contradicting previous statements by his team that the focus was on adoptions of Russian babies.

    The Times thus knowingly conflated the meeting’s purpose with its focus. The purpose, for Team Trump, was to come up with dirt. The focus — what was discussed at the meeting — was different by all accounts because the Russian lawyer talked about adoptions, not Hillary.

    When I wrote my post, I didn’t realize, but should have suspected, that the New York Times’ fake news story was only the tip of the mainstream media iceberg. Nearly every major anti-Trump media outlet — which is to say nearly every major media outlet — was pushing the same false line.

    In addition to the Times, the dishonor role includes, inevitably, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the BBC, CNBC, and CNN’s Chris Cillizza. It also includes The Atlantic’s David Frum, who must have known better. It would be difficult to find a mainstream media outlet that wasn’t part of the herd.

    But there was more than herd mentality at work here. There was an enormous amount of frustration.

    The anti-Trump media is fully invested in the Russia collusion story. I can hardly fathom the amount of psychic energy it has poured into this story.

    Yet, after almost two years, the hole remains virtually dry. All its proponents have is the Trump Tower meeting. But it came to light more than a year ago and has produced barely a sip.”

    Like

  7. Best campaign ad ever?

    —————–

    And yet Facebook blocked it, because apparently pics and video of historic events are “shocking, disrespectful or sensational.”

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/34127/election-meddling-facebook-blocks-republican-asian-ryan-saavedra

    ———————–

    Like

  8. AJ – I’m not understanding the importance of the point that one thing was the purpose, but the focus was different, seeming to discount the importance of the original purpose. Isn’t the purpose of a meeting, or anything, important?

    This may be a silly analogy, but here it is anyway. Say a man goes to a meeting with a hit man. His purpose is to talk to the man about killing his wife. But the hit man is distracted, and all he talks about is his own family problems. Does that negate the fact that his purpose was to get his wife killed?

    (I’m honestly trying to understand the difference, not trying to be argumentative.)

    Like

  9. Kizzie,

    Again, these verbal gymnastics are meant to confuse you and make you think there’s a story here, and that Trump is changing his story. But that’s false, and they know it.

    This is about as good an explanation as there is.

    “On Sunday, I exposed as “fake news” a New York Times article touting President Trump’s “admission” that the purpose of his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer was to obtain negative information about Hillary Clinton. In fact, Trump’s statement wasn’t news at all. He said the same thing more than a year ago.

    Moreover, the Times, misstated Trump’s “admission.” It characterized his statement as an admission that the meeting “focused” on Clinton dirt. This enabled the Times to claim that Trump was contradicting previous statements by his team that the focus was on adoptions of Russian babies.

    The Times thus knowingly conflated the meeting’s purpose with its focus. The purpose, for Team Trump, was to come up with dirt. The focus — what was discussed at the meeting — was different by all accounts because the Russian lawyer talked about adoptions, not Hillary.”

    ——————————

    The meeting was supposed to be about opposition research on Clinton. That was the purpose on the Trump side and the other side’s stated purpose for wanting to meet. .

    However once the meeting started it became apparent there was nothing on Clinton and that the real focus of this was an attempt to lobby on other matters. At that point it was appropriately ended.

    Trump never denied the purpose and said so a year ago. None of this is new, or news.

    Like

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.