NBC still going for the gold in on-air blunders

Medalists in the women's super-G, from left: Austria's Anna Veith, silver; Czech Republic's Ester Ledecka, gold; and Liechtenstein's Tina Weirather, bronze, are seen at the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, Feb. 17, 2018.  (Associated Press)

NBC continues vying for the gold medal in broadcasting blunders during the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea.

Most recently, sportscaster Dan Hicks doubled down on a gaffe Saturday night while covering the women’s super-G skiing event, and ski analyst Bode Miller and hockey analyst Mike Milbury faced backlash for some on-air comments.

Hicks covered an Alpine race in which little-known Ester Ledecka of the Czech Republic beat Austria's Anna Veith, and won the gold medal.
Ledecka, who ranked No. 43 in the world, was considered to have so little chance to win that Hicks declared Veith the winner and NBC switched away.
“Four straight Olympic golds in the women’s super G for the skiing powerhouse of Austria. I just about can’t believe it!” Hicks reportedly said.
But the race wasn’t over. And rather than laugh off their mistake or own up to making a wrong call, ski announcers Hicks and Miller seemed intent on justifying their cut-away to the next event.

#NBC just had another Heidi moment (this time, in #AlpineSkiing), and arguably worse than the original, since Dan Hicks at least implied that Anna Veith had won, when another skiier posted a faster time after NBC switched to #figureskating. #NBColympics #NBCfail

— Aaron Camp (@ProgMid) February 17, 2018

“In everyone’s opinion, the race was over. It was one of the most incredible upsets I’ve seen in any sport,” Miller, a five-time Olympic medalist, said.
Some viewers may recall that Hicks also took heat during the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janiero, after he said Hungarian swimmer Katinka Hosszu's husband Shane Tusup, who was also her coach, was "the man responsible" for her world-record-breaking gold medal performance in the 400 meter individual medley.
'Might be her husband's fault'
Earlier last week, Miller jokingly said that in addition to Veith’s knee injury, her recent struggles were due to her marriage. Veith got married after winning the Giant Slalom at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, where she suffered a knee injury.
“The knee is certainly an issue,” Miller said. “I want to point out, she also got married. It’s historically very challenging to race on World Cup with a family or after being married. You know, not to blame the spouses, but I just want to toss that out there that it might be her husband’s fault.”

To be clear I was not seriously blaming Anna Veith's lack of results on her husband. It's a changing of priorities that is historically hard, male or female.

— Bode Miller (@MillerBode) February 15, 2018

After receiving backlash on social media, Miller apologized, calling his remarks, “an ill-advised attempt at a joke.”
'Unfortunate incident'
In another NBC-related blunder, hockey analyst Milbury, while commentating on the U.S.-Russia hockey game, described Slava Voynov's expulsion from the NHL -- after being jailed for kicking and choking his wife -- as an "unfortunate incident" that hurt the Los Angeles Kings. His choice of words earned NBC some online criticism for insensitivity.

Mike Milbury saying Voynov trying to kill his girlfriend is “an unfortunate incident that cost the kings a good player” is exactly whats wrong with NBC, hockey culture, and the world, honestly

— Ally "Letangier" Letangier (@letangier) February 17, 2018

Milbury said his intention was to discuss the impact of the incident on hockey after partner Kenny Albert outlined the domestic violence charges.
"As I said at the time he was suspended, the league made the right call, 100 percent," he said.

Trump slams FBI over 'missed signals' on Florida shooting, asserts Russia was distraction

President Donald Trump and other Republicans have been sharply critical of the FBI in recent months. The agency is led by Director Christopher Wray, right, whom Trump appointed to succeed the fired James Comey.

President Donald Trump urged the FBI to “get back to the basics” Saturday night after an embarrassing series of mistakes in connection with the Parkland, Fla., massacre.

“Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter,” the president tweeted late Saturday. “This is not acceptable.”

The president then asserted that the agency was perhaps distracted by the investigation into possible Trump administration ties to Russia.
“They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign,” the president wrote. “There is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!”
On Friday, America’s top law enforcement agency admitted that it failed to act on information that alleged Florida shooter Nikolas Cruz had a “desire to kill people,” had written a series of alarming social media posts and had access to a gun.
Cruz, 19, is suspected of opening fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where he was a former student, killing 17 people and injuring more than a dozen others.
Previously, the FBI acknowleged that it failed to follow up on a September tip flagging a YouTube comment posted by a “Nikolas Cruz,” which said “Im going to be a professional school shooter.” The FBI said it could not identify the user who made the comment.
In response to the FBI gaffes, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of FBI procedures, and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has urged Congress to launch an investigation into the agency’s operations.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott, meanwhile, has called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to resign.
Trump and other Republicans have heavily criticized the FBI in recent months. They are still dissatisfied with its decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with crimes related to her use of a private email server, and they see signs of bias in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of possible Trump campaign ties to Russia.

russian investigation cartoons (again)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: the Supreme Court's outspoken justice

Asleep at the Wheel :-)

Photo taken in California October 26, 2010

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is more than just a member of the Supreme Court -- she’s become a liberal icon and, even more improbably, a celebrity.

Her likeness appears on T-shirts. A book about her, “Notorious RBG,” is a big seller. Kate McKinnon does an impression of her on “Saturday Night Live” (“You’ve been Ginsburned!”).

In January, Ginsburg appeared before an adoring crowd at the Sundance Film Festival premiere of “RBG,” a documentary about her life. The movie went over big, and should soon be appearing at a theater near you.
Part of this rise may be attributable, ironically, to the man who presently sits in the White House. As one of the Supreme Court’s most stalwart liberals, Ginsburg, in recent years, has been defined to a certain extent by her opposition to Donald Trump.
Most justices stay out of political battles, but not Ginsburg. In the midst of the presidential race in 2016, she told “The New York Times” “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what this country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”
She wasn’t done. She later added, “He’s a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego....How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.” For someone whose job is following precedent, this sort of talk was almost unprecedented.
Trump responded in kind, tweeting: “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot — resign!”
Many felt she’d crossed a line, and she expressed regret for her criticism. (Later that year she criticized Colin Kaepernick for refusing to stand for the national anthem, and ended up apologizing for that, as well.)
Trump, probably to the surprise of Ginsburg, was elected. And Ginsburg, to the surprise of no one, did not resign as Trump had demanded. She also did not stop talking politics.
Earlier this year, she spoke of her fear that the federal judiciary, in Washington’s partisan climate, would be seen as just another political branch. But not too long after, she showed she was still willing to wade into political battles herself, repeating charges she’d made in 2017 that sexism was a major factor in Hillary Clinton’s loss, noting the candidate had a tough time getting by “the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign.”
And if that wasn’t enough to keep her name out there, she also made a stir with her #MeToo story of sexual harassment from a teaching assistant when she was a student in a Cornell chemistry class.
When all is said and done, though, what matters most are not the things she says to the media, but the official opinions she expresses as one of the nine most powerful judges in the land.
At 84, she’s the oldest member of the Court, and though she’s had health issues — twice she’s undergone cancer surgery — she has no plans to retire. (Some on the left had hoped she’d leave the court while a Democrat was in the White House, but that wish has been put on hold.) In fact, Ginsburg’s health regimen is well known — there’s a book out by her personal trainer Bryant Johnson, “The RBG Workout.”
Unlike her colleague and second-oldest justice, Anthony Kennedy — the court’s most important swing vote -- Ginsburg’s jurisprudence tends to be less in doubt on controversial cases. Certainly many of her beliefs were clear before she was nominated by President Clinton, as she had worked for the ACLU and specialized in gender discrimination.
Nevertheless, court watchers pay close attention to Ginsburg. Sitting on a court that leans conservative, many see her as the best at making the liberal argument in high profile cases.
Among her most famous opinions are “United States v. Virginia” (1996), striking down the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only policy; “Ring v. Arizona” (2002), limiting the circumstances where a defendant can receive the death penalty; and “Eldred v. Ashcroft” (2003), stating that extending copyright protection doesn’t violate the First Amendment or the Constitution’s Copyright Clause.
But it’s her dissents where many think she’s most compelling.
In “Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.” (2007), Ginsburg wrote for the minority in a 5-4 case about the proper deadline for filing a claim of sexual discrimination.
Apparently troubled, even offended, by the decision from the Court’s conservatives, she took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench. Ginsburg argued that the Court had a “cramped interpretation” of the “broad remedial purpose” of civil rights law. Her argument, in a way, won out when, in 2009, Congress passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, effectively overturning the majority’s decision.
She also dissented in “Gonzalez v. Carhart” (2007), a case that upheld, 5-4, a partial-birth abortion ban.
Ginsburg would have none of it, writing “Today’s decision is alarming...for the first time since ‘Roe,’ the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.” She didn’t hold back: “In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”
Then there’s her dissent in yet another 5-4 case, “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby” (2014), where the Court struck down, for certain companies, the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
She wrote “mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.” She claims the Court, in looking at relevant law and precedent, “falters at each step of its analysis.” She also states “The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield” in trying to determine which religious objections to laws are worthy.
In the upcoming months, there will be decisions on a number of potentially game-changing cases — issues regarding the First Amendment, states’ right, labor law and gerrymandering, for example. It’s possible Justice Ginsburg will write some of these opinions.
It’s even more likely, many believe, she’ll be writing more dissents. If that happens, expect fireworks.

Be like Michael Jordan? Not at Air Force Academy

Back in the 1990s, it seemed that almost everyone wanted to be like Michael Jordan.

But apparently those days are over.

This week the U.S. Air Force Academy issued an apology after a commandant cited the former pro basketball star as an exemplar of good grooming and professional appearance.
“He was never seen with a gaudy chain around his neck, his pants below his waistline, or with a backwards baseball hat on during public appearances,” Master Sgt. Zachary Parish wrote in an email to cadets, according to the Gazette in Colorado Springs.

"He was never seen with a gaudy chain around his neck, his pants below his waistline, or with a backwards baseball hat on during public appearances.”

- Air Force Academy Master Sgt. Zachary Parish, in an email to cadets

Parish is the top enlisted airman assigned to the student body, called the cadet wing. Across the military, top enlisted personnel enforce haircut regulations for lower-ranking personnel.
But some recipients of Parish’s email took offense, interpreting his message not as well-intentioned advice, but as a slight against African-Americans, the newspaper reported.
An academy colonel quickly attempted corrective action.
“Let me apologize for the email sent earlier today by our first sergeant,” Col. Julian Stevens wrote, according to the newspaper. "The comments were very disrespectful, derogatory and in no way reflective of (cadet wing) permanent party views.
“Microagressions such as these are often blindspots/unintentional biases that are not often recognized, and if they are recognized they are not always addressed,” Stevens added.
But even the colonel’s message drew criticism, as some Air Force sergeants writing on Facebook accused the officer of being overly sensitive.
“This is a perfect example of why we're going to lose a war with Russia/China,” one commenter wrote, according to the Gazette.

Ted Cruz accuses CNN of sitting on interview after Chris Cuomo said he's ‘afraid’ to appear on network

Ted Cruz spoke with CNN amid staffers accusing him of being afraid to appear on the network.

Ted Cruz wants CNN to know he's no coward.

The Texas senator on Friday blasted the liberal news network for sitting on an interview he gave it even as “New Day” host Chris Cuomo was accusing him of being “afraid” to appear on the network.

CNN even displayed an on-screen graphic on Thursday morning criticizing Cruz, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio for appearing on Fox News but not CNN with the headline.
“What are they afraid of?” Cuomo, said. "They're all on Fox, the mothership, because they don't want to be asked about [gun control]."
Cruz initially took to Twitter to explain that he has conducted three separate town hall events on CNN in recent months, an indication he isn't afraid of the network. Friday, Cuomo was still tweeting about Cruz, so the Republican lawmaker fired back – claiming CNN never aired an interview that he gave on Thursday afternoon.
“That's funny,” Cruz tweeted. “I spoke to CNN for 15 mins yesterday about proactive solutions to prevent gun violence (like passing the Grassley-Cruz bill—which Dems filibustered—that would add $300 million for school safety) yet CNN has aired NONE of it. Why not air the (entire) interview?”
Cruz even tweeted a picture of a CNN reporter holding a microphone to his face for what he said was a 15-minute exclusive.
CNN is now scheduled to air the interview on Friday afternoon during “The Situation Room” after facing pressure from various media outlets, according to a network source. It is unclear if the interview will air in its entirety.
“Be clear: Cruz and others were invited to come on @NewDay and be tested about how to stop these shootings. They declined. If Cruz or others did an intv [sic] with CNN thereafter fine, but they didn’t when we asked. Period. Offer stands. Anytime. Anywhere,” Cuomo tweeted in response.
The latest embarrassment for CNN began on Thursday when Catherine Frazier, a senior communications adviser to Cruz, tweeted that CNN was making “stupid, pointless accusations."
Meanwhile, critics of CNN were quick to defend Cruz via Twitter when Cuomo initially said he was “afraid” to appear on the network – many pointing to his combative interviews with Republican lawmakers and White House surrogates.
The anti-Trump Cuomo recently told a critic to “get woke” while denouncing the border wall during a lengthy storm of left-leaning tweets. Last year, Cuomo referred to a Trump-supporting viewer as a “lemming” during a nasty Twitter exchange.
Cuomo, 47, who came to CNN from reliably liberal ABC News, is known for his frenetic interviewing style and unusual questions on CNN’s troubled morning program. Cuomo’s older brother Andrew, the Democratic governor of New York, is known to harbor presidential aspirations.

Pelosi’s Doomsday Scenario: Dem leader could face rebellion if House takeover fails

House Democrats see a big opportunity this year to seize control of the chamber after years in the wilderness, but the favorable landscape has emerged as a double-edged sword for Nancy Pelosi – putting high expectations on the House minority leader to deliver or face a resurgent effort to unseat her.

The California Democrat has held onto her leadership post for roughly a dozen years, brushing aside past challenges and touting her political acumen all along, despite her party being relegated to the minority since the 2010 midterms.

This year, Pelosi may face a do-or-die scenario.
And there are no guarantees. While President Trump is thought to be a drag for Republicans in purple districts, GOP strategists see Pelosi as an albatross for Democrats, hammering her most recently for describing tax cut-tied bonuses as "crumbs." And a fresh poll shows Republicans erasing the Democrats' edge in the so-called "generic" ballot, which asks voters which party they'd support for Congress.
If Democrats do fall short in November, a contest to replace Pelosi as the chamber’s top Democrat already has been handicapped as a two-person battle – between Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the chamber’s No.  2 Democrat, and New York Rep. Joe Crowley, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
“This is very political. Nobody wants to kill the queen. Joe’s just going about his work, but he’s on everybody’s short-list,” a Democratic strategist, who asked to speak anonymously for this story, told Fox News.
Other names could emerge in such a post-midterm melee.

Rep. Joe Crowley is seen as a potential candidate for House Democratic leader, if Pelosi is challenged.  (AP)

Beyond Hoyer and Crowley, Democratic Reps. Seth Moulton, of Massachusetts; Kathleen Rice, of New York; and Linda Sanchez, of California, have all been mentioned as possible Pelosi challengers, in large part because they have publicly stated their desire for a change in leadership.
Moulton, a two-term congressman and Harvard-educated Iraq War veteran, has been openly critical of House leaders since at least 2016, when Pelosi couldn’t make good on predictions that Democrats, relying heavily on the anti-Trump message, would retake the House.
As a result, Pelosi, 77, faced a challenge for her post from Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. Pelosi won two-thirds of the caucus vote, as she accurately predicted. But 63 of the 134 House members voted against her.
In 2012, after failing to significantly cut into the GOP’s majority, Pelosi shot down a reporter’s question about whether the decision by her and others in House leadership to remain in their posts is delaying the rise of younger members. She responded by highlighting her efforts to get younger Democrats elected to Congress and concluded, “The answer is no.”
Ryan -- who argued in 2016 that the Democratic Party, including its elite California and New York leaders, has failed to connect with Middle America voters -- has since made clear he has no desire to mount another challenge. His office did not return a request for comment for this story.
The 39-year-old Moulton, even this week, continued to argue for a “next generation” of leaders. And many House Democrats consider him, not Hoyer, the “bridge” to such a new group, a House Democratic source said.
Moulton press secretary Matt Corridoni told Fox News on Tuesday that the congressman is “not interested in seeking a leadership post.”
Hoyer also has suggested that he could be the bridge to the next generation. But at 78, and as a longtime member of Pelosi’s team, such an argument is difficult to make, several Democrats said this week.
The chairman of the House Democratic Caucus is considered the No. 4 post on Pelosi’s leadership team. But Crowley maintains a high profile in Washington and in congressional districts across the country, having recently visited states like New Hampshire and Michigan and often taking charge of House Democratic leadership’s weekly Capitol Hill press conferences.
He also has contributed at least $2.6 million to candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, from his own committees or from money raised from donors, his office recently told The Washington Post.
While solid numbers, they cannot match Pelosi’s, who is known as a prolific fundraiser. Last year, Pelosi reportedly raised $49.5 million for House Democrats, including $47.6 million for the DCCC.
“She can raise in Hollywood and Silicon Valley like nobody’s business,” the Democratic strategist also said. “Crowley hasn’t matched that, but he does well.”
Crowley's office declined to comment for this report. Hoyer press secretary Mariel Saez said in an email: “Mr. Hoyer – and the entire Democratic Caucus – are focused on taking back the House in November. He will continue working hard in the coming months to ensure we have a Democratic Majority in 2019.”
A Pelosi spokesman brushed off the post-midterm speculation.
“The leader is focused on winning back the House,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told Fox News on Wednesday. “She’s not here to work a shift. She’s on a mission. There will always be people [on Capitol Hill] with ambition. That’s part of the game. But the leader is singularly focused on winning back the House and has the widespread support of the caucus.”
To be sure, Democrats have a good chance this year to win a total of two-dozen seats and take the House.
The party that controls the White House historically loses about 30 seats in the first midterms after the presidential election. In addition, Trump’s relatively low approval rating will be a strain on GOP candidates in moderate districts; more than 30 House Republicans this cycle are not seeking reelection; and recent federal election records show 55 Democratic candidates so far have raised more money this cycle than the Republican incumbents they are challenging.
But while Democrats hold the edge in many races, polling in recent weeks has shown their advantage on the generic ballot narrowing, even before this week's Politico/Morning Consult poll.
Beyond concerns about Pelosi’s tenure hurting her party’s ability to keep the party vibrant with newer members, whose ideas and leadership would presumably attract younger voters, the Democratic Party also must contend with her status as a San Francisco liberal alienating moderate voters and a lightning rod for Republicans during election seasons.
"The fact that Nancy Pelosi is the face and leader of the Democratic Party is the gift that keeps on giving for the NRCC," Matt Gorman, National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman, said last week. "As her colleagues openly grumble that she's a liability for 2018 and she continues to be the most unpopular politician in the country, I can only say one thing: go, Nancy, go."

Life In North Korea Cartoons (Not Funny)

Pentagon issues warning for non-deployable personnel: 'Deploy or be removed'

The Pentagon on Wednesday announced a new “deploy or be removed” policy that could affect up to nearly 300,000 service members who have been non-deployable for the past 12 months.

“This new policy is a 12-month deploy or be removed policy,” Robert Wilkie, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and readiness on Wednesday.

The move comes after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ memo last year stressing the need to ensure that “everyone who comes into the service and everyone who stays in the service is world-wide deployable.”
The plan was first revealed by The Military Times.
According to various estimates, between 11 to 14 percent -- or well over 200,000 service members -- of the 2.1 million personnel serving on active duty, in the reserves or National Guard are currently non-deployable on any given day, hindering military readiness.
The new policy will have exceptions such as pregnancy while medical boards will continue to be able to grant exceptions for wounded personnel.
“The situation we face today is really unlike anything we have faced, certainly in the post-World War II era,” Wilkie told the Senate panel. “On any given day, about 13 to 14 percent of the force is medically unable to deploy. That comes out to be about 286,000 [service members].”
The official asked the panel to imagine Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, walking into his company on Christmas week and finding out that 14 percent of his workforce is unable to work. “He would no longer be the largest company in the world,” Wilkie said.
Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell told the Times earlier this month that nearly 100,000 are non-deployable because of administrative reasons like not having all their immunizations or their medical exams.
Another 20,000 are not deployable due to pregnancy while the remaining service members are non-deployable because of short or long-term injuries. But Troxell said that very few of those injuries “are related to combat injuries. Or battle injuries. It’s related to everyday, doing their job, or during physical training that they were injured.”
“If you are going to serve and continue to want to serve, and if you want to make this a career, you’re going to have to learn that path of recovery and get back to being healthy. Because we need healthy, fit warriors to defend this nation,” Troxell added.
Wilkie admitted the military shares responsibility for reaching such high numbers of non-deployable personnel, as unit leaders often did not ensure those under their command received all required medical examinations and care.
“The other thing we’ve seen is that in the down years of recruiting for the military, we offered too many medical waivers,” the official said. “The medical conditions ... have followed them into the service as they progressed through their careers. We have to address that.”

VA Secretary Shulkin to pay back his wife's Europe getaway expenses

Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin said Thursday he would pay back the U.S. government costs related to a trip to Europe for his wife, but will not resign following a critical internal-watchdog report.

Shulkin was the subject of the recent internal investigation that revealed he owed the government more than $4,000 for his wife’s trip to Copenhagen and London.

The investigation claimed to have found Shulkin’s top aide, Vivieca Wright Simpson, doctoring emails to say her boss was getting “special recognition” in Denmark as a way to justify his wife’s taxpayer-funded travel.
"The investigation revealed serious derelictions" by Shulkin and his staff, according to the report, which cited "poor judgment and/or misconduct." The report advised Shulkin to pay back $4,312 to the government.
Shulkin told reporters Thursday that he will follow the advice of the report and pay back any costs associated with his wife’s trip, including making a contribution to U.S. treasure equal to the cost of tickets to the prestigious Wimbledon Tennis tournament, The Wall Street Journal reported.
“Everybody is concerned,” Shulkin said after appearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. “Everybody knows how much work we have to do in the VA. We have to continue the progress.”
He added that he has spoken to President Donald Trump about the report’s findings and will meet White House officials to discuss the contents of the revelations.
In a testimony in Congress, Shulkin insisted the trip to Europe was necessary but the “optics of this were not good.”
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado, a member of the committee, scoffed at the explanation, saying “It’s not the optics that are not good.”
Coffman was among the leading voices calling for Shulkin’s ouster from his position. “It's exactly corruption and abuses like this that doesn't help our veterans,” the lawmaker tweeted earlier this week, adding that Shulkin “must resign now.”
GOP REP CALLS ON VA SECRETARY SHULKIN TO RESIGN OVER EUROPE TRIP EXPENSES
This is not the first time an official in the Trump administration came under fire for unauthorized taxpayer-funded trips. Former health secretary Tom Price was forced to resign in September after questions over his use of private jets for government trips.
The total cost of the 10-day trip in July last year was at least $122,000, the report found. Shulkin reportedly attended meetings in London and Copenhagen concerning veterans’ issues.
But the overseas trip also included “significant personal time for sightseeing and other unofficial activities” at taxpayers’ expense, including a tour of Westminster Abbey, a cruise on the Thames River, and attending the women’s final at Wimbledon tennis tournament with American Venus Williams.
Shulkin defended his wife’s presence on his work trip, telling the committee that he and his staff followed all the processes. “Everything was done properly, but I regret any of this is a distraction from what we should be doing and that’s the reason I’m following the inspector general’s recommendations.”

Mitt Romney announces US Senate run in Utah

Mitt Romney announced Friday he will run for U.S. Senate in Utah to succeed the retiring Orrin Hatch, seeking a political comeback six years after his unsuccessful presidential campaign against then-President Barack Obama.

Romney announced on Twitter: "I am running for United States Senate to serve the people of Utah and bring Utah's values to Washington."

Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, is considered a heavy favorite for the Senate seat. He has emerged as a prominent critic of President Trump and, if he wins, could be poised to cause headaches for the administration from the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.
While a former Massachusetts governor, Romney has deep ties to Utah. He attended Brigham Young University in Provo and helped turn around the scandal-plagued 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City -- moving to the state after losing the 2012 race.
A video message posted on Twitter Friday features that Olympics background. In the video, Romney gives voters an early look at his platform: fiscal responsibility, jobs and a moderate approach on immigration -- an apparent swipe at Trump policies.
“Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in Washington,” Romney says in the video. “Utah has balanced its budgets, Washington is buried in debt. Utah exports more abroad than it imports. Washington has that backwards. Utah welcomes legal immigrants from around the world. Washington sends immigrants a message of exclusion.”
His Senate run hasn’t been welcomed by all.
Utah Republican Party Chairman Rob Anderson told The Salt Lake Tribune earlier this week that Romney was "keeping out candidates that I think would be a better fit for Utah because, let's face it, Mitt Romney doesn't live here, his kids weren't born here, he doesn't shop here." The GOP official went on to call Romney a “carpetbagger.”
Anderson released an apology later saying, “I regret that my comments about potential Senatorial candidate, Mitt Romney, came across as disparaging or unsupportive. That was never my intent.”
He continued, “I’ve no doubt that Mitt Romney satisfies all qualifications to run for Senate, and as Chairman of the Utah Republican Party, I will treat all candidates equally to ensure their path to the Party nomination is honest and fair.”
Anderson also said that Romney reached out to him in regards to his comments and “accepted my apology without hesitation.”

Life in North Korea a horror. Why are we so hesitant to tell the massive Olympic audience about this reality?

Watching the media fawning over the North Korean delegation at the Pyeongchang Olympics, I recalled a picture that my old boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, kept under the glass of a table in his office -- a satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula at night. At the bottom, awash in light, is the free and democratic South. Meanwhile, the North is in complete darkness, save for a tiny pinprick of light in Pyongyang. The two countries, Rumsfeld would often point out, have the same people and the same natural resources. Yet one is glowing with the light of freedom, innovation and enterprise, while the other is enveloped in the total darkness of human misery.

Keep that darkness in mind while watching the North's Olympic charm offensive over these two weeks. Kim Yo Jong, the sister of Kim Jong Un, is not the "North Korean Ivanka." She is the vice director of the Propaganda and Agitation Department, a senior leader of the most brutal repressive totalitarian regime on the face of the Earth. As one defector told The Washington Post last year, "It's like a religion. From birth, you learn about the Kim family, learn that they are gods, that you must be absolutely obedient to the Kim family."

Any perceived disloyalty to the Kim family can result in a visit in the middle of the night from the Bowibu -- the North Korean secret police -- that could send not just the offender, but three generations of his or her relatives, to a forced labor camp for life. North Korea's system of "re-education" camps, which was recently mapped by satellite by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, is the most extensive in the world. Under three generations of Kims, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have been imprisoned and killed in these camps. Inmates undergo the most brutal forms of torture imaginable, including being hung on hooks over open fires, while pregnant women are tied to trees while their babies are cut out of their bellies.
Yet the camps are simply prisons within a larger prison. The entire country is one giant gulag. Thanks to widespread malnutrition, North Koreans are between 1.2 and 3.1 inches shorter than South Koreans. And thanks to economic mismanagement, 97 percent of the roads are unpaved. According to my American Enterprise Institute colleague, Nicholas Eberstadt, up to a million North Koreans died of starvation in the famine that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. "It was the only time in history that people have starved en masse in an urbanized, literate society during peacetime," he notes. North Korea's people starve while the regime pours its resources into its messianic quest to deploy nuclear missiles capable of reaching and destroying American cities.
Even among the elites there is no safety. Last year, North Korea's vice premier for education was executed for not keeping his posture upright at a public event. Defense Minister Hyong Yong Chol was pounded to death with artillery fire for the crime of falling asleep at a parade. And if you wonder why those North Korean cheerleaders stay in such perfect sync, maybe it's because they saw 11 North Korean musicians lashed to the barrels of anti-aircraft guns which were fired one by one before a crowd of 10,000 spectators. "The musicians just disappeared each time the guns were fired into them," one witness declared, "Their bodies were blown to bits, totally destroyed, blood and bits flying everywhere. And then, after that, military tanks moved in and they ran over the bits on the ground where the remains lay."
This is the brutality that Kim Yo Jong represents. Yet despite this cruel reality, the media could not help fawning over the North Korean delegation. Reuters declared Kim Yo Jong the "winner of diplomatic gold at Olympics." CNN gushed how, "With a smile, a handshake and a warm message in South Korea's presidential guest book, Kim Yo Jong has struck a chord with the public." NBC even tweeted a photo of the North Korean cheerleaders with the heading "This is so satisfying to watch." Seriously? NBC failed to mention that in 2005, 21 cheerleaders were sent to a prison camp for speaking about what they saw in South Korea.
Instead of normalizing the regime, this should be an opportunity to educate the massive Olympic audience about the realities of life in North Korea under the murderous Kim crime family that is pursuing the ability to threaten American cities with nuclear destruction.

Gun Control Cartoons

White House Budget Director Grilled Over 2019 Fiscal Budget

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is defending the Trump administration’s $4.4 trillion spending proposal.

Budget Director Mick Mulvaney testifies before the Senate Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2018, on President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal.

During a U.S. budget committee meeting on Tuesday, Mulvaney spoke about the 2019 budget, which seeks to increase military spending, fund the border wall, and slash entitlements.
He said his job as director of the OMB is to fund the president’s priorities, adding that is exactly what the agency did.
Meanwhile, experts say the budget would add nearly one trillion dollars to the national deficit, and will likely be overhauled before it passes congress.
“It’s a lot more fun to spend money than it is to reduce,” said Mulvaney. “It’s a lot harder to reduce spending in the long-term than it is to spend, and I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to start making difficult decisions to decide together as a legislature, as an administration: are these deficits that we are really willing to tolerate.”
When asked by Senators if Mulvaney would vote on the proposed budget, he said he would have found enough short-comings to vote against it.
However, he added it’s his duty to defend the White House’s priorities.

Michael Goodwin: Susan Rice ought to explain her weird email under oath

“Don’t let up,” a friend living abroad wrote a few weeks ago about corruption at the FBI. “Trump has them all on the run.”
The note came to mind when I saw the weird e-mail Susan Rice wrote to herself on Inauguration Day last year.
At first glance, the e-mail, which purports to recount remarks President Obama made two weeks earlier to Rice, FBI head James Comey and others about the Russia probe, makes no sense. But ask yourself why Rice repeated that Obama wanted everything done “by the book,” and it smells as if she’s preparing a last-minute defense for Obama, and maybe herself.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, pit bulls on government misbehavior, wrote to Rice about the e-mail while noting that there were lots of doubts about whether the FBI actually did proceed “by the book.”
Hopefully, she’ll have to give her answer under oath, as should Comey and anybody else in the room.

Backlash against Bill? Many Democrats would sideline Clinton in 2018

ill the changing political climate sideline Bill Clinton?

Less than two years ago, he stood on a Philadelphia stage and heaped praise on his wife as the Democratic nominee for his old job. And he was a constant presence on the trail in a campaign that they, and nearly all journalists, thought would defeat Donald Trump.

As the 2018 midterms heat up, you might expect that a former president—one who left office with a high approval rating, despite the inconvenient fact of having been impeached—would be much in demand. But apparently, not so much.
That's the thesis of a Politico piece on the party running away from Clinton:
"Democrats are looking to embrace the #MeToo moment and rally women to push back on President Donald Trump in the midterms—and they don’t want Bill Clinton anywhere near it."
Clinton's history—Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick—looks far different to many Democrats in 2018 than it did in 1998, when the Senate acquitted him, or even 2016. His presence would detract from the Democrats' ability to make the midterms about Donald Trump, Rob Porter and Roy Moore.
There's another factor, I believe, not mentioned by Politico: Bill's presence also reminds voters of Hillary. It's not his fault that she ran a terrible campaign and lacked his ability to spin stories and connect with voters. But ever since he ran on a 2-for-1 deal back in 1992, allowed her to make policy as first lady and backed her two White House runs, they have been politically joined at the hip.
And most Democrats want to move on from the Hillary debacle.
The piece says of Bill that "an array of Democrats told Politico they're keeping him on the bench. They don’t want to be seen anywhere near a man with a history of harassment allegations, as guilty as their party loyalty to him makes them feel about it ...
"Privately, many Democratic politicians and strategists are harsher and firmer: Don't come to their states, and don't say anything about their campaigns. They are still worried about saying it out loud, but they don't want him now, or maybe ever. They know Republicans would react by calling them — with good reason — hypocrites."
This is hardly the first time the issue of Clinton’s womanizing has come up. Twenty years ago, Democrats feared that he would be an albatross in the midst of the Ken Starr investigation and impeachment drive; the Republicans lost five seats and Newt Gingrich resigned as speaker.
In 2000, Al Gore barely deployed Clinton as a surrogate as he tried to turn the page, and that may have cost him the presidency in the razor-thin recount election.
Trump didn't let Clinton’s sexual misconduct fade into the history books. He alluded to it at times, and after the "Access Hollywood" tape, he brought some of Clinton's accusers to the second debate. His surrogates weren't shy about using Bill's past to blunt Hillary's attacks on Trump’s treatment of women.
But now it's Clinton’s own party that apparently wants to turn the page. Kirsten Gillibrand, elected to the Senate with Clinton's backing but eyeing the White House in 2020, recently said he should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky affair. If most other Democrats follow suit, Clinton may have to spend more time with his family and his foundation.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Bipartisan immigration deal pits moderates against GOP leadership, Trump

A group of senators on Wednesday came up with a bipartisan immigration deal that would increase border security and give legal status to the so-called Dreamers, but fall short of President Trump’s “four pillars,” and— if passed —would likely be vetoed.

The so-called Common Sense Coalition is comprised of eight Democrats, eight Democrats and one Independent.

The compromise calls for $25 billion for border security, including the construction of the border wall over a 10-year period. The compromise falls short of Trump’s demand for immediate funding, The New York Times reported.
Nearly two million illegal immigrants, many of who came to the country as children, would be offered an eventual path to citizenship as part of the plan. The new citizens would not be allowed to sponsor their parents. The bipartisan deal leaves the diversity visa lottery in place, an immigration program Trump wants to ax.
Trump on Wednesday reiterated the need to pass the bill proposed by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, that takes a more hardline approach to immigration.
“I am asking all senators, in both parties, to support the Grassley bill and to oppose any legislation that fails to fulfill these four pillars,” Trump said in the statement. He added that the “overwhelming majority of American voters support a plan that fulfills the framework’s four pillars, which move us towards the safe, modern and lawful immigration system our people deserve.”
The president said he would oppose any “Band-Aid” measure that gives legal status to Dreamers in exchange for a minimal increase in border security.
Republican leadership came out in support for Trump.
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Wednesday that “the president has made clear what principles must be addressed if we are going to make a law instead of merely making political points.”
The Grassley bill would give a path to citizenship for young immigrants but it would also limit “chain migration,” beef up border security. It remains unclear whether the bill, which is favored by the White House, has a chance in Congress. Democrats oppose any plan to severely limit “chain migration,” a process when someone can sponsor a visa for a family member. Democrats are also opposed to ending the diversity visa lottery.
But it remains unclear whether the bipartisan agreement would reach the required 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster if brought up for the vote.
“The president’s going to have a vote on his concept. I don’t think it will get 60 votes,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham,  R-S.C., according to the Times. “The bottom line then is: What do you do next? You can do what we’ve done for the last 35 years — blame each other. Or you can actually start fixing the broken immigration system. If you came out of this with strong border security — the president getting his wall and the Dream Act population being taken care of — most Americans would applaud.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the bipartisan bill does not have the required votes yet, adding that he is encouraging the liberal wing of his party, who oppose compromises with Republicans, to support the bill. “There are plenty who don’t like this,” he said.

PBS Political Cartoons

Former UN secretary general Annam

Former UN Secretary General Annan with Hillary

Trump proposes cutting all federal funds for NPR, PBS

President Trump proposed cutting funding for PBS and NPR, but the suggestion faces long odds in Congress.

The 2019 federal budget that the White House unveiled Monday again proposes cutting all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funnels money to NPR and PBS -- a potential move that the CPB president quickly slammed.
In a statement, President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Patricia Harrison excoriated the proposal, suggesting it might even lead to fatalities.
“Americans place great value on having universal access to public media’s educational and informational programming and services, provided commercial free and free of charge,” Harrison said in a statement Monday.
“Since there is no viable substitute for federal funding that would ensure this valued service continues, the elimination of federal funding to CPB would at first devastate, and then ultimately destroy public media’s ability to provide early childhood content, life-saving emergency alerts, and public affairs programs," the statement continued.
But the idea must win the approval of a skeptical Congress to become reality. Just last year, the White House made a similar proposal to defund the CPB, although Congress effectively ignored the request.
"The Budget proposes to eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) over a two year period," the 2019 proposal states.
Republicans have long suggested that PBS and NPR, which some politicians and commentators say are left-leaning and partisan, should not receive federal funds.
But the Trump budget, rather than raising the issue of bias, simply asserts that the money is not necessary.
"CPB funding comprises about 15 percent of the total amount spent on public broadcasting, with the remainder coming from non-Federal sources," the propsal says, under a section titled "Justification."
"This private fundraising has proven durable, negating the need for continued Federal subsidies," the proposal continues, adding that NPR and PBS could make up the shortfall by "increasing revenues from corporate sponsors, foundations, and members."