Sunday, May 21, 2017

Leaking From the Top

On Monday, the Washington Post dropped a bombshell, reporting that Donald Trump had shared highly classified “codeword” intelligence—provided by an ally on the condition that it not be more widely disseminated—with Russian officials during their meeting last week.  While administration officials initially issued fierce denials, national security advisor H.R. McMaster, who had himself blasted the story as “false” in a carefully-worded statement, effectively confirmed the key elements of the report at a press briefing Tuesday morning. While McMaster repeatedly insisted that Trump’s decision to share information had been “wholly appropriate,” his remarks (perhaps inadvertently) raised several additional grounds for concern.
First, let’s dispense with the obvious: Classification authority in the United States flows from the president, and so a president is legally entitled to declassify or disclose information as he sees fit, for any reason or no reason at all.  This is a case where that infamous Nixonism—”When the president does it, that means it is not illegal”—actually applies.  Nobody, as far as I can tell, is seriously disputing that.  It’s also true that presidents often choose, for strategic or diplomatic reasons, to share particular pieces of intelligence with foreign governments.  Yet this does not appear to have been a “routine” instance of such sharing, as McMaster sought to characterize it—not by a longshot.

Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong

Democrats and progressives are concerned that the internet is about to descend into a corporate hellscape since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is moving to repeal Net Neutrality regulations, which prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking particular sites or throttling traffic from specific services. We tackle the issue in the latest episode of Mostly Weekly. The idea that Net Neutrality and Title II regulations are a vital barricade protecting the internet is an interesting position to arrive at given that a free-and-open internet managed to exist without these edicts for decades. Net Neutrality rules are still on the books, but the FCC made a procedural vote on Thursday to begin the prospect of peeling off Obama-era internet regulations like an old Band-Aid.
The main progressive arguments in favor of Net Neutrality are really arguments guarding against hypotheticals: that ISPs could otherwise block and censor content (they never have) or that they'll run their operations like shakedowns, requiring content providers to pay up or slow their traffic to molasses. The main documented instance of an ISP favoring one content provider over others wasn't sinister collusion. Metro PCS offered unlimited YouTube in a budget data plan but not unlimited Hulu and Netflix, because YouTube had a compression system that could be adapted to the carrier's low-bandwidth network. In a different context, critics might have applauded Metro PCS, since bought by T-Mobile, for bringing more options to lower-income customers.

Harvard study examines media coverage of Trump — and the results will blow you away

It doesn’t take a team of experts at Harvard University to reveal what you already know: Most of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets do not support President Donald Trump. But just how negative is the media coverage? That’s the question a new study by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy attempts to answer, and the results are truly remarkable.
The study analyzed print news reports about Trump during his first 100 days in office appearing in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. It also examined the newscasts produced by CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, the Financial Times, BBC and Germany’s ARD.
According to Harvard professor Thomas Patterson, “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak.”

From Prague to the Potomac: Trump’s Czech Mate

One glance at the map and it is easy to see the bullseye of Europe is Prague, as if the castle nation sits amidst a sea of blue NATO chess pieces: a great place for Vladimir Putin to plant seeds of distrust amongst allies arrayed against his myriad advances. Recently a strategic visit took place between our nations but without the bombast of current Washington politics. The result was that U.S.-Czech bilateral relations showed a welcome return to normal this month when the Czech Defense Minister visited Washington.
Defense Minister Martin Stropnicky came to the United States to attend a conference in Norfolk hosted by NATO’s Allied Command Transformation. He also held bilateral talks with Defense Secretary Mattis, and set aside a day to visit Nebraska, as part of ongoing discussions of a NATO initiative that ties together European partners with state National Guard units. This was a diplomatic nod by the Minister to the long history of Czech immigration to Nebraska.
Stropnicky’s visit presented a stark contrast to the increasing tilt by some Czech political figures toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia that we have seen from Prague over the past couple of years. The most recent example is the months-long circus surrounding claims by the Czech head of state, President Milos Zeman, that President Trump had invited him for a state visit — claims that the White House steadfastly ignored, contra Zeman’s protests. However, this came from the man who stated “I’m not drunk, it’s just a virus” at a crown jewels ceremony and likely experiences unrequited love outside Moscow’s arms.

The Obama Cult

Do you remember president Obama's eight scandal-free years?  This question, posted on an acquaintance's Facebook page, drew my astonished attention.  My immediate "LOL" response received a reprimand for expressing "disrespect."  Among other responses to this lead question were rapturous expressions of "love" and even "worship" for The Great Leader Barack Obama.  As the furor ignited by the Trump election continues to burn and blow, the melancholy longing for an alleged Golden Age is arising.  The longing is deep, and accompanied by swooning ecstasy at the reappearance to public life of Mr. Barack Obama.
I suspect that such expressions are representative of a significant population.  This occasion, in which I drew the rebuke of some of the faithful also offering comments, refreshes the perception that there is in America a continuing embrace of a bizarre personality cult that has found a deep resonance within the nation's political culture.  This cult was manifest as early as Barack Obama's 2007-2008 candidacy and is unique in its promotion and protection by major cultural institutions.  Apparently, it did not end with a change of national administrations; rather, it continues in the form of retrospective longing for imagined wonders of a lost decade of grace, intelligence, and integrity led by one who serves as receptor for spiritual and emotional projections.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/the_obama_cult.html#ixzz4hi9O5KOa 

Saturday, May 20, 2017

First Democrat Casualty in the Swamp Wars

The firing of James Comey was more representative of the first real Democrat Deep State casualty of the “Swamp Wars” than any other. However, despite top Democrats calling for Comey’s head at the beginning of May, the puppet masters in the Party took the position that the former FBI Director could still be useful with the now famous “Comey memo.” It is like using Comey as a dead fish to create an unbearable stench within America - a putrid stench aimed at manufacturing doubt and suspicion about the Trump presidency - yet again.
Now, the current “Democratic” Party mantra that seems to have the most traction is the “collusion” between the dastardly Russians and Donald Trump, or members of his election staff, or transition staff, or presidential staff (any propaganda that would work). Putin and the Russians are the current bad guys of the month. And ironically, James Comey may have been on the list in the past, but now he is considered useful still with his memo, which says little, and generates more unanswered questions, but fans the fumes of the stench. And though the Deep State Obama/Clinton tool was surgically removed from his post, and represents the first casualty the Democrat Party suffered in the Swamp Wars, he proved useful still.

Seven Ways Trump and Congress Can Improve Infrastructure without Spending a Dime of Taxpayer Money

“Infrastructure Week” sees the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, unions, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and many others telling Congress that “It’s Time To Build.” Yet a quick perusal of Infrastructure Week’s website suggests a more accurate description of their demand is, “It’s Time to Spend More Taxpayer Money.”
This is a shame. With President Trump pledging $1 trillion of new public and private investment across a decade and Democrats preferring direct federal spending, the group could be pushing at an open door. But the cross-party obsession on federal spending levels ignores opportunities to make infrastructure development more efficient without increasing demands on taxpayers.
In order to get the biggest “bang for our buck”, infrastructure policy should encourage innovation, cost-effective provision, and investment where it is most economically beneficial. This means putting aside short-term concerns about “creating jobs” and “shovel-ready projects,” and focusing on long-run growth. Here are seven ways to do that: