Tuesday, August 7, 2018

City council votes to remove Trump's star


Could not do this kind of damage in a few minutes, where were the police?

West Hollywood councillors have voted “unanimously” to remove Donald Trump’s star from the city’s Walk of Fame.
The marker, which was unveiled in 2007, has been vandalised several times since the US president took office and was almost completely destroyed in July in a pickaxe attack.
At a meeting on Monday evening, West Hollywood City Council opted to recommend to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce that the star should be removed.
West Hollywood City council unanimously passes resolution asking the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to remove the Donald Trump star on Hollywood Walk of Fame,” said West Hollywood mayor John Duran on Twitter, announcing the decision.
However, the chamber has previously said it would never remove a star from the famous walk, arguing they represent the history of the entertainment industry in America.
It has refused to pull up slabs celebrating actor Kevin Spacey and comedian Bill Cosby, who have both been exposed during the Hollywood sexual harassment scandal.
Papers produced by council staff on the matter said a number of “disturbing” instances of Mr Trump’s behaviour towards women had emerged during and after the 2016 presidential election campaign.
It went on to list several other examples of the president’s behaviour the council found objectionable, including separation of children from their parents at the Mexico border and withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.
“Having a ‘star’ on the Walk of Fame is a privilege that is highly sought after by those in the entertainment industry,” the report said.
“Allowing Mr Trump to continue to have a star in light of his behaviour towards women, particularly in the #timesup and #metoo movements, should not be acceptable in the Hollywood and entertainment industry communities.”
The star, one of more than 2,600 placed along Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street, was granted to Mr Trump in recognition of his work with the Miss Universe Pageant, but he was by the time of its installation also staring in hit reality show The Apprentice.
On Monday, 24-year-old Austin Mikel Clay was charged with vandalising the star last month and could face up to three years behind bars if found guilty.
The marker has become something of a battleground for Mr Trump’s supporters and opponents during his presidency, coming under attack multiple times.
In October 2016, a man was filmed hitting the star with a sledgehammer, while it has also been spray-painted and spat on.

Big Tech bans Alex Jones: Drawing a line between commentary and conspiracy

"Inforwars" host Alex Jones.  (Tamir Kalifa/Austin American-Statesman via AP, File)

After years of deflection and foot-dragging, the major tech companies are finally having to take steps toward policing their own content.
They have reached this point kicking and screaming, under great public pressure, after clinging for years to the fiction that they are just public utilities and that people can use their pipes for pretty much anything.
But now they have united, for a brief moment at least, against a major conspiracy theorist.
Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify have all taken action against Alex Jones.
They are deathly afraid of being accused of political bias, sometimes for good reason. Both Facebook and Twitter have both grappled with incidents of discrimination against conservatives, which may have made them gun-shy about banning (as opposed to shadow-banning) some folks.
But almost in unison, the tech giants teamed up against Jones, who runs Infowars.
Candidate Donald Trump appeared on Jones' online show in 2015, and yesterday Jones tweeted a video defense with the headline: "EMERGENCY: President Trump Must Defend the First Amendment."
Facebook said it has taken down some Jones pages "for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."
Apple said it removed the "Alex Jones Show" and other podcasts from iTunes and its podcast app. The company said it "does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users."
Google’s YouTube dropped the ax on Jones' channel, telling The Washington Post that it terminates users who violate "our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures."
And Spotify banned Jones altogether after earlier removing some podcasts, telling the Post: "We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community."
I know Jones has a lot of fans—remember the controversy swirling around his interview with Megyn Kelly—but he's also a guy being sued by Sandy Hook parents for saying that the horrible massacre at that Connecticut school was a hoax.
Jones apologized last year, in careful language, for spreading the phony Pizzagate conspiracy theory, saying he'd been given inaccurate information.
That’s not "conservative." That's at odds with reality.
Jones texted the Post that being banned by the tech companies was "a counter-strike against the global awakening."
"We've seen a giant yellow journalism campaign with thousands and thousands of articles for weeks, for months misrepresenting what I've said and done to set the precedent to de-platform me before Big Tech and the Democratic Party as well as some Republican establishment types move against the First Amendment in this country as we know it," he said.
Separately, Jones called The New York Times a "globalist intelligence agency" and said that the "evil, wicked sociopaths" who work for major media outlets were teaming up to take down Infowars.
I confess I'd like to know how the four tech companies happened to take action on the same day. Perhaps they concluded there was safety in numbers. They seemed to have an ally in Drudge, whose banner headline was "APPLE REGULATES HATE."
But this is just a skirmish. Just recently, Mark Zuckerberg got himself into trouble by saying he saw no reason to ban pages by Holocaust deniers.
There is a fine line between banning hate and bullying on one hand and censoring controversial political opinions on the other. These battles will play out in a hyperpartisan political atmosphere. But for now, Apple, Facebook, Google and Spotify have all agreed there is one person who falls on the wrong side of that line.
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.

Trump legal team drafting letter about 'reluctance' to answer obstruction questions

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka
President Trump’s legal team said Monday they are preparing to send special counsel Robert Mueller a letter that would largely turn down a meeting that would include any “questions related to obstruction of justice,” sources told Fox News.
Trump attorneys are expected to send their response to Mueller as early as today.
Last week, a source said that Trump’s legal team would consider allowing questions regarding obstruction if they were in written form.
“In a perfect world, we’d have a few written questions about the obstruction issue, and oral questions about Russia/collusion,” the source said.
Rudy Giuliani, the top lawyer on Trump’s legal team, however, told Fox News “we have real reluctance about allowing any questions regarding obstruction of justice.”
The Washington Post was first to report the letter after an interview with Giuliani on Monday, who said the letter is not intended to decline Mueller’s request, rather he hopes to “continue the negotiations.”
Talks between Trump’s lawyers and the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have restarted in recent days, and it is not clear a deal will be struck, The Associated Press reported. Trump has publicly expressed a desire to be interviewed, but his lawyers have repeatedly objected to the investigators’ proposals.
Trump attorneys say both sides have exchanged proposals for conditions for such a Trump interview.
The negotiations come amid a backdrop of Trump’s escalating attacks on the probe, including his blunt declaration that his attorney general should terminate “right now” the federal probe into the campaign that took him to the White House, a newly fervent attack on the special counsel investigation that could imperil his presidency. Trump also assailed the trial, just underway, of his former campaign chairman by the special counsel’s team.
“The president still hasn’t made a decision, and we’re not going to make a final decision just yet,” Giuliani told the paper.
Sebastian Gorka, a Fox News national security strategist, told ‘Hannity’ that there is “zero evidence” connecting the president to Russia.
“And I’m going to say now on the record, they will never find any because there isn’t any,” he said.

Trump renews 'biting sanctions' against Iran, warns countries doing business with Tehran

In this photo released by official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency, President Hassan Rouhani addresses the nation in a televised speech in Tehran, Iran, Monday, Aug. 6, 2018. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani struck a hard line Monday as the U.S. restored some sanctions that had been lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal. (Iranian Presidency Office via AP)

President Trump on Tuesday called the sanctions against Iran that went into effect at midnight "the most biting sanctions ever imposed,” and warned that countries that do business with Tehran will not do business with the U.S.
Trump signed an executive order on Monday to restore some of the sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal during the Obama administration, targeting transactions that involve U.S. dollars, as well as the country’s automotive sector, the purchase of commercial planes and metals including gold.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded Monday, "If someone has knife in the hand and seeks talks, he should first put the knife in his pocket."
Rouhani said he has no pre-conditions for opening talks with the U.S. as long as the Islamic Republic gets paid back for decades of American “intervention in Iran.”
"If the U.S. government is ready to negotiate about paying compensation to the Iranian nation from 1953 until now," Rouhani said. "The U.S owes the Iranian nation for its intervention in Iran."
Rouhani appears to be referencing the CIA-backed mission to overthrow Iran’s elected prime minister to secure the shah’s rule in 1953, a similar sentiment touted by many of his predecessors.
A senior administration official told Fox News these restored sanctions are designed to constrict the revenue Iran uses to fund “terrorists, dictators, proxy militias, and the regime’s own cronies.”
Additional sanctions will resume on Nov. 4, targeting Iran's oil industry and banking sector.
Rouhani also said the country can rely on China and Russia to supplement its oil and banking sectors amid the U.S. imposed sanctions.
Trump, who has repeatedly vowed to withdraw the U.S. from a nuclear deal that he called “a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never ever been made,” has said he is open to negotiating with Iran.

Monday, August 6, 2018

Obamacare Cartoons





Liz Peek: Obama stiffs Ocasio-Cortez as Democrats weigh whether she hurts or helps them in November


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been jilted by President Obama. The former president recently announced 81 endorsements of candidates running in the midterm elections. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, toast of the progressive movement, did not make the cut.
Mr. Obama’s foreign policy maxim “Don’t do stupid stuff” may apply. Embracing the 28- year-old Latina supernova who is running for Congress to replace long-time Democrat leader Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th district carries risks. Already she has made gaffes that expose a tenuous (at best) understanding of important issues like unemployment and the history of capitalism; she pleads ignorance on foreign policy matters. She also ruffled feathers among House members whose caucus she hopes to join by suggesting that Crowley might try to undermine her chances.
Her rookie errors have not deterred most members of her party and the media who, like toddlers with a shiny new toy, cannot get enough of the young self-professed Democratic-Socialist. (She originally described herself as a Socialist until a helpful someone attached the D-word.)  Her surprise upset of a senior Democrat considered a contender to boot Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker shocked the media, which responded with over-the-top coverage meant to atone for their earlier neglect of the race. (The New York Times, for instance, ran but one piece about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in the lead-up to the primary ballot, a disturbing miss by the hometown newspaper.)
The real story is that a smug and entitled incumbent lost to an attractive, energetic challenger who rallied supporters with an aggressive social media campaign. Also, the demographics of the Queens-Bronx district had changed markedly during Crowley’s 20 years in the seat. It is now majority-minority, 50 percent Hispanic, and the incumbent is white.
Ocasio-Cortez won decisively, 57-42, but the margin was a little more than 4,000 votes. Only 13 percent of Democrats turned up.
In any event, since her win, and her likely election to Congress come November in the heavily Democratic district, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has become the toast of the town, not to mention the entire country. Which goes to show just how desperate Democrats are.
Democratic National Committee chief Tom Perez declares that Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party”; Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna, D-Calif., calls her a “harbinger of [a].. new progressive movement”.  The New Yorker’s David Remnick suggests she offers the nation a “glimmer of hope.”
Enthusiasts whisper she could be presidential material.
But can she sell her agenda to the nation? No, and especially not to the blue collar workers, formerly reliable Democrat voters, who defected to elect President Trump.
There is no doubt that Ocasio-Cortez has inspired excitement, partly because she is female, Latina, telegenic and feisty, and partly because standard-bearers like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have Democrats hungry for new leadership.
She also embraces the increasingly vocal progressivism that animated Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and that has arguably moved Democrats to the left. She hates pipelines, wants to abolish ICE, advocates for Medicare-for-all, free college and guaranteed employment.
But can she sell her agenda to the nation? No, and especially not to the blue collar workers, formerly reliable Democrat voters, who defected to elect President Trump. Perhaps that’s why President Obama has, for now, withheld his endorsement. He, like other Dem leaders, may think the party is spiraling out of control, or at least out of the mainstream.
Obama may think that recent (bipartisan) studies putting the price tag for Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All Act at $33 trillion (with a “t”) over its first ten years renders the proposal moot. Or they may be worried that mandating a big hike in the minimum wage will accelerate job-killing automation.
Or, those party elders may be reviewing research and polling by center-left think tank Third Way, which suggests that Americans want opportunity, not handouts. In an online survey, most respondents embraced traditional American values like hard work, and 75 percent said they wanted the government to present an “opportunity agenda for the Digital Age so that that everyone, everywhere has the opportunity to earn a better life.”
When asked, “What is the more challenging problem affecting the U.S. economy,” only 36 percent of those surveyed chose “income inequality,” while 44 percent selected “opportunities to get ahead.”
Similarly, asked to choose between “policies that spread opportunity to more people and places” and “policies that address income inequality,” 46 percent chose the former and only 25 percent the latter.  A plurality said they would vote in favor of a candidate whose platform included, “Creating one million new apprenticeship positions, giving every American who works a private retirement account on top of Social Security and eliminating all federal taxes on the first $15,000 of income each year” – all work-friendly proposals.
Also, the poll found that more people wanted to see ObamaCare strengthened and made more user-friendly,“ as opposed to single-payer health care, as well as a minimum wage geared to regional differences as opposed to a one-size-fits-all national wage.
The polling was a follow-up to a study by Third Way of the 2016 election, reviewing how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fared in counties across the country distinguished by economic circumstances. It found that President Trump won regions described as “Opportunity-Falling America” while Clinton dominated in “Opportunity-Rising America.” Those divisions were based on whether counties had more new businesses starting up or more failing. The conclusion reached by the authors of the study, and by the strategists at Third Way, is that Americans want to make it on their own, and will vote for the candidate who promises to provide jobs and opportunity, as President Trump did.
President Obama may yet come around to giving Ocasio-Cortez a boost. Democrats are struggling to find a message that can top record-low unemployment and rising wages. The progressives making promises that cannot be kept may be their best bet, and Ocasio-Cortez is emerging as their top spokesperson.  But, as former Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, “If her win makes her into…. the new face of the Democratic party, the Democratic party’s not going to have a very bright future.”

Americans are 'winning' on health care as Trump administration chips away at ObamaCare


Americans keep winning on health care reform. The public may only hear about a bungling Congress that could not repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – aka ObamaCare – even though it has been imploding on its own. 
Less publicized, the Trump administration continues to implement important, strategic reforms that empower consumers, lower the cost of insurance, and improve access to more affordable medical care. And the administration just delivered again. Secretary Alex Azar’s Department of Health and Human Services expanded the availability of short-term, limited duration insurance (STLDI) that is exempt from the coverage requirements and other regulations of the ACA.
STLDI was originally designed to fill a temporary gap in coverage of less than one year when transitioning between plans. President Obama’s HHS later finalized a rule in October 2016 that limited STLDI coverage to only three months.  This new directive allows STLDI to last for up to 12 months, and it can be renewed for up to 36 months. For those Americans who prefer the choice of more affordable premiums in lieu of many of ObamaCare’s coverage mandates that made insurance significantly more expensive, that choice is now available.
The benefits are highly significant for those choosing this coverage. Premiums are estimated to cost about one-third of ObamaCare-compliant insurance, per eHealth data from Q4 2016. That provides a new opportunity for financial protection from catastrophic health expenses for those who were formerly choosing to remain uninsured, because expensive ObamaCare insurance was totally unaffordable. 
This also benefits those who simply prefer to save money on premiums, rather than stretch to afford more expensive, more comprehensive insurance. Additionally, consumers who were buying ACA-compliant insurance just to escape the tax penalty that punishes people who would have bought non-ACA-compliant plans may also now opt for cheaper STLDI, given that the Trump administration reduced that penalty to $0 as of January 1, 2019. Beyond cheaper premiums, broader access to doctors and hospitals could also be available under STLDI compared to ACA-compliant plans that have very narrow provider networks.
Despite the failure of the Republicans in Congress to completely repeal the ACA, this administration has repeatedly made significant inroads toward providing more affordable health coverage and care to more Americans.
This administration understands that the factors by which the ACA contributed to rising premiums must be eliminated, and broader access to STLDI is an excellent step. STLDI coverage is cheaper because it is tailored coverage that circumvents the ACA’s excess mandated coverage and its harmful regulations. That includes the ACA’s required “essential benefits” that increased premiums by 10 percent; the ACA’s 3:1 age rating that raised premiums for younger enrollees by 19 percent to 35 percent; the “guaranteed issue” that gave people incentives to remain uninsured until they were sick, a grossly misguided rule that raised premiums for everyone regardless of age or city by 46 percent; and hopefully many of the costly and often unwanted state coverage mandates now totaling over 2,270 for everything from acupuncture to marriage counseling to massage therapy.
But these new rules on limited mandate plans could be improved. For instance, these plans should be allowed for longer periods of time; they should be available to everyone, regardless of age or employment; and even more boldly, they should be included in Medicare and Medicaid as alternative, cheaper coverage coupled with an option for a defined benefit instead of traditional coverage. Why would anyone be against offering such choices to Americans and instead force them to buy coverage they don’t want or value for their hard-earned money?
To appreciate the potential impact of health reforms like this, we must also sort out fact from false political grandstanding about our current state of affairs under ObamaCare.
Contrary to the claims of those wedded to ObamaCare, the data shows that its regulations caused massive increases in insurance premiums and a disappearance of insurance options across the country. In its first four years, ObamaCare insurance premiums for individuals doubled while for families they increased by 140 percent. Shockingly, this occurred even though insurance deductibles for individuals increased by over 30 percent for individuals and by over 97 percent for families, according to eHealth data.
As time passes, insurance options and prices on ObamaCare Exchanges continue to worsen, according to HHS data. For 2018, only one Exchange insurer offered coverage in each of approximately one-half of U.S. counties; many more counties had a choice of only two companies in their Exchanges.  Moreover, many Exchange enrollees continue to face large year-on-year premium increases in 2018, according to Kaiser Foundation analysis, even in the face of markedly higher deductibles.  And the spectrum of doctors and specialists accepting that insurance continues to sharply narrow, with far fewer specialists than non-ACA Exchanges. Almost 75 percent of plans are now highly restrictive.
Despite the failure of the Republicans in Congress to completely repeal the ACA, this administration has repeatedly made significant inroads toward providing more affordable health coverage and care to more Americans. New association health plans for small businesses and other groups, expanded health savings accounts, and broader access to limited mandate insurance coverage through STLDI are all important steps toward more affordable health care.
Although such arcane rule changes likely cause eye-rolling and yawns among many, these important steps remove harmful regulations from the previous administration that hurt consumers. While Americans are likely not yet “tired of winning,” expanding limited mandate insurance is a clear victory for consumers.
Scott W. Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and the author of “Restoring Quality Health Care: A Six Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost (Hoover Institution Press, 2016).

President Trump: Red Wave Likely In November Midterm Elections

U.S. President Donald Trump looks up during an event held to announce a Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) initiative at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 27, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque


OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:35 PM PT — Sun. Aug. 5, 2018
President Trump hails his rising approval numbers hinting at a likely red wave in the upcoming midterms.
The president took to twitter Sunday after a Rasmussen poll found 50 percent of Americans approve of his job performance.
President Trump said these numbers are higher than Obama’s at the same point in his presidency.
He stressed his reforms have resulted in economic acceleration, while bringing improvements to the military and several other areas.
The president also suggested the Republican party is headed for a major midterms victory.
“You know they’re talking about this blue wave. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. Maxine Waters is leading the charge. Maxine. She’s a real beauty. Maxine. A seriously low IQ person.”
President Trump urged voters to support Republican candidates to make the tax-cuts permanent, build the border wall and tackle violent crime.

'What wars?' "What wars have we started?" Fox News's Chris Wallace asked National Security Adviser John Bolton in reference to a recent Trump attack on the media. Bolton's dodge »


National Security Adviser John Bolton dodged questions from Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Sunday about President Donald Trump’s tweet earlier claiming the media is “dangerous & sick” and “can cause War.”
“What wars have we started?” Wallace asked Bolton on “Fox News Sunday.”
Bolton failed to answer that question directly and attempted to redirect the conversation, saying that “the issue of press bias has been around for a long, long time.”
″There is press bias,” Wallace interrupted. “People get stories wrong, and people are called out for it. And we should be called out if we make a mistake.”
But then, citing the language in Trump’s Sunday tweet, he said, ”‘Cause war,’ ’sick,’ ‘divisive’ ― this is taking it to a completely different level.”
But Bolton continued to defend Trump’s repeated attacks on the media and journalists, whom the president has frequently labeled “the enemy of the people” and has accused of publishing “fake news.”
“That’s the president’s view based on the attacks that the media made on him,” Bolton said. “There have been other administrations that have been highly critical of the press.”
“I think this kind of adversarial relationship is typical,” he added.
Trump on Sunday ramped up his attacks against the media in a flurry of tweets, including one in which he publicly acknowledged for the first time that his son Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians during the 2016 election to gather dirt on his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Trump’s anti-media rhetoric has drawn concern from lawmakers and journalists in newsrooms nationwide. The New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger told Trump during a meeting last month that the outlet had placed armed security guards outside their offices in response to an increase in threats against reporters.
A deadly attack against reporters at the Capitol Gazette newsroom in Maryland in June did nothing to quell Trump’s belligerent accusations against the media. Since the shooting, which left five people dead, Trump has used Twitter to attack news outlets, reporters and the media generally over 25 times.
The White House has largely stood by Trump’s anti-media stance. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to say the press is not “the enemy of the people” during a briefing for reporters on Thursday. Senior White House adviser Ivanka Trump, daughter of the president, said earlier that day that she did not believe that assessment of the media to be true.
Trump tweeted later that he believed his daughter’s statement was correct because the entire media is not “the enemy of the people” ― but a “large percentage” is.
On Sunday, top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway broke with Trump’s assertion that journalists are “the enemy of the people,” though she continued to defend her boss’ attacks on the press.
“I think some journalists are enemy of the relevant and enemy of the news you can use,” Conway told CBS’ “Face The Nation.”
  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Pompeo says sanctions a pillar of US policy toward Iran

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, center, talks with Indonesian President Joko Widodo, unseen, during their meeting at Merdeka palace in Jakarta, Indonesia, Sunday, Aug. 5, 2018.  (AP)

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said renewed U.S. sanctions on Iran will be rigorously enforced and remain in place until the Iranian government radically changes course.
Speaking to reporters aboard his plane on his way home from a three-nation trip to Southeast Asia, Pompeo said Monday's re-imposition of sanctions is an important pillar in U.S. policy toward Iran. He said the Trump administration is open to looking beyond sanctions but that would "require enormous change" from Tehran.
"We're hopeful that we can find a way to move forward but it's going to require enormous change on the part of the Iranian regime," he said Sunday. "They've got to behave like a normal country. That's the ask. It's pretty simple."
Pompeo called the Iranian leadership "bad actors" and said President Donald Trump is intent on getting them to "behave like a normal country."
A first set of U.S. sanctions that had been eased by the Obama administration under the terms of the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal will take effect again on Monday, following Trump's May decision to withdraw from the accord. Those sanctions target Iran's automotive sector as well as gold and other metals.
A second batch of U.S sanctions targeting Iran's oil sector and central bank will be re-imposed in early November.
Pompeo noted that the U.S has long designated Iran as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism and said it cannot expect to be treated as an equal in the international community until it halts such activities.
"Perhaps that will be the path the Iranians choose to go down," he said. "But there's no evidence today of a change in their behavior."
In the meantime, he said, "we're going to enforce the sanctions."

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Kevin De Leon Cartoons







Sen. Dianne Feinstein Cartoons





North Korea Demands Sanctions Relief For Denuclearization

A photo released by the White House shows Mike Pompeo, then C.I.A. director, meeting with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, in Pyongyang during Easter weekend. Credit The White House, via Associated Press
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:59 PM PT — Sat. Aug. 4, 2018
A North Korean official from Kim Jong Un’s inner circle says that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is undermining the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
The claims come after North Korea denounced the U.S. for calling on the rest of the world to maintain pressure on Kim Jong Un through international sanctions.
North Korea is saying that President Trump promised to ease sanctions on the country if it shut down its nuclear program.
However, the U.S. State Department responded back, saying that sanctions must remain in place until the denuclearization occurs.

'Fake News' shirts pulled from Newseum gift shop after media complaints

"Make America Great Again" hats displayed at Trump Tower in New York City, Aug. 20, 2016.  (Reuters)

Bowing to pressure from journalists who complained about it stocking Trump-related merchandise, a museum in Washington, D.C., on Saturday said it would no longer sell T-shirts that say "You Are Very Fake News."
The Newseum -- which claims to celebrate the role and history of the press in America -- says it has removed the shirts from its gift shop and online store, and issued a public apology and show of support for members of the media.
“We made a mistake and we apologize,” the organization said in a news release, the Hill reported. “A free press is an essential part of our democracy and journalists are not the enemy of the people.”
The statement marked a reversal from a previous Newseum position, in which the museum said it offered the "Fake News" shirts and other items out of respect for conflicting viewpoints.
Newseum spokeswoman Sonya Gavankar had defended the merchandise to Poynter.org, a website for a media think tank, saying the museum encourages an environment of free expression.
“As a nonpartisan organization, people with differing viewpoints feel comfortable visiting the Newseum," she said, "and one of our greatest strengths is that we’re champions not only of a free press but also of free speech."
But members of the free press weren’t buying it.
The T-shirt debacle followed a heated exchange earlier this week where journalists asked White House press secretary Sarah Sanders to declare that the media is not the “enemy of the people,” a position espoused by President Trump, who has also helped popularize the term “fake news.”
The mission of Newseum, a nonprofit enterprise, is to “increase public understanding of the importance of a free press and the First Amendment,” according to its website.
While the Newseum will no longer sell the “fake news” shirts, it told FOX5 DC that it will continue carrying other Trump-related merchandise, including the top-selling “Make America Great Again” hats.

Dan Gainor: The insults, they never stop! Anti-Trump media just can’t help themselves


The media didn’t even need Hillary Clinton this past week to denounce President Trump and his supporters as deplorables once more.
Trump supporters were depicted as “deranged” and being fed “venom” by the president “on an almost daily basis.”
Washington Post columnist and former Republican Jennifer Rubin said the president is “a desperate man,” “completely out of control” and “completely unhinged.”
The latest episode escalated when President Trump spoke to supporters at a rally in Tampa, Fla. CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta, a constant Trump critic, was heckled by the crowd. Boos and chants of “CNN sucks” reverberated across the Internet.
Acosta even claimed he felt like “we weren’t in America anymore.” Apparently, CNN’s America only has free press, not free speech.
Journalists couldn’t decide who they were angrier at – President Trump or his supporters – so they went after both, with Acosta as their standard-bearer.
The ever-aggrieved CNN correspondent then took his complaints to the White House press room. There he hectored press secretary Sarah Sanders about President Trump’s view that many in the media are “the enemy of the people.”
Acosta noted how Sanders didn’t respond to a previous question the way he wanted. He whined that she “did not say that the press is not the enemy of the people.” This extended the life of the story and ensured Acosta was in the center ring for the circus that followed.
Is Acosta auditioning for his own CNN opinion show?
Fair to say that Acosta didn’t like Sanders’ response. Sanders listed numerous problems with the media and how they have raised the level of vitriol in the U.S. She added that, “as far as I know, I am the first press secretary in the history of the United States that’s required Secret Service protection.”
The Times might consider changing its motto from "All the news that's fit to print" to “Do as we say, not as we do.”
None of that mattered. Media reaction to being booed devolved into journalists defending journalists.
Politico writer Marc Caputo mocked the crowd at the president’s rally as having a “full set of teeth” only if you put them all together. He also called them “garbage people” before he had to apologize.
“Meet The Press” and MSNBC host Chuck Todd went off the deep end, comparing the crowd booing CNN to the deadly white supremacist attack in Charlottesville, Va.
“And this kind of unfocused visceral anger at the other side of really neutral people like folks in the press corps, it can lead to this,” he warned, before showing video of the attack that killed Heather Heyer in Chartlottesville.
“Really neutral.”
CNN political analyst April Ryan went so far as to claim that “Jim Acosta's life, in my opinion, was in jeopardy that night.” Even though Acosta was also asked for autographs at the event.
Meanwhile, “The View” panelist Sunny Hostin described President Trump as a “dictator.” “Dictators attack the press routinely and we’re seeing it in this country,” she said.
NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell even went on Comedy Central and compared President Trump to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin for talking about the press as enemy of the people. “You know, this is something that we first heard from Josef Stalin,’ she said.
2. A Blatant Double Standard on Racism: The New York Times turned a blind eye to anti-white racism when it named tech writer Sarah Jeong, who was born in South Korea, to its editorial board. Controversy followed immediately when the Asian-American writer’s old tweets surfaced. Like a good liberal, she had blasted out numerous tweets attacking “white people.” Many of them had curse words in them directed at whites.
Jeong called to “#CancelWhitePeople,” asked if they are “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins” and referred to them as “Dumb--- f------- white people.”
In one tweet she commented: “White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along.”
Naturally, the Times stood by her, arguing that: “For a period of time she responded to that harassment (she said she was receiving online) by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”
Jeong referred to it as “counter-trolling.” Among the many other targets for her hate, she also attacked men, police (“a--holes” we should talk about “banning”) and people at the Times.
Andrew Sullivan skewered both Jeong and the Times, writing for New York magazine: “Another indicator that these statements might be racist comes from replacing the word ‘white’ with any other racial group. #cancelblackpeople probably wouldn’t fly at the New York Times, would it?” he asked.
Sullivan is right. The Times is obsessed with diversity. “Building a diverse and inclusive workplace is essential to that mission,” it claims on its official diversity page. According to Nexis, the newspaper used the word “diversity” 840 times this year in the first seven months. Only The Times isn’t diverse, a point the paper is desperate to hide.
Fast Company wrote in March: “The diversity of the New York Times’ leadership hasn’t budged in years.” In a nation where white people make up 60.7 percent of the population, they make up 72 percent of Times staff and 80 percent of its management.
The Times might consider changing its motto from "All the news that's fit to print" to “Do as we say, not as we do.”
3. That Free Speech Thing: The end of the week delivered a silly, pearl-clutching moment as professional journalists got upset over hats and T-shirts.
Journalism’s Poynter Institute reported that: “The Newseum is selling MAGA hats and 'fake news' T-shirts.” The press reacted like someone had violated hallowed ground, similar to how history buffs reacted to plans that Disney wanted to build a theme park near a Civil War battlefield.
Except this was about hats and T-shirts.
Journalists from outlets like PBS, CNN and The Washington Post did their best version of a Twitter outrage mob.
Boston Globe Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Matt Viser complained: “This t-shirt doesn’t belong anywhere. It particularly doesn’t belong at the @Newseum, a place that celebrates journalism and has the First Amendment etched in stone outside its building.”
Vice News Editor-in-Chief Ryan McCarthy snarked: “Looking forward to the Newseum's ‘Enemy of the people’ onesie.”
Washington Post journalist Karen Tumulty said: “Next up: Air and Space museum selling coffee mugs that say the moon landing was a hoax.”
And Washington Post Deputy Audience Editor Mark W. Smith responded like he was scolding a dog: “This is bad, Newseum.” Then he tried to sell followers some of the paper’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness” T-shirts. Because this is 2018.
CNN did extract a statement to toss to the mob from an unlucky Newseum spokesperson Friday: “Fake news is a word that is in our popular culture now and this is intended to be a ‘satirical rebuke’ and appears in our store with T-shirts that include a variety of other ‘tounge-in-cheek’ (sic) sayings.”
Of course the mob won soon after that. The cries of whiny journalists succeeded in banning speech that journalists didn’t like from the Newseum. (Irony alert!)
Here’s the official statement  from the Newseum (note the obvious anti-Trump dig at the end.): “The Newseum has removed the ‘You Are Very Fake News’ t-shirts from the gift shop and online. We made a mistake and we apologize. A free press is an essential part of our democracy and journalists are not the enemy of the people.”

CartoonDems