Antifa Anarchist Cartoons

WikiLeaks tweet then deletes link to text of new Trump book

The website WikiLeaks on Sunday tweeted a link to the text of the new book critical of President Trump that has angered the president, his staff and his allies.

An electronic image of the text of author Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” appeared online Sunday, two days after its release.

The post read, “New Trump book “Fire and Fury” by Michael Wolff. Full PDF.” The Daily News reported that the tweet linked to the unnumbered PDF that appeared to be the book.
Posting the text of a book without permission would violate copyright restrictions and potentially damage sales. Yet, hours after WikiLeaks tweeted the link, “Fire and Fury” remained No. 1 on Amazon’s lists of hardcover and ebook bestsellers.
The book portrays a president who doesn’t understand the weight of his office and whose own aides question his competence. Trump has called it a “Fake Book” and its author “totally discredited.” Aides have publicly rejected the book’s premise.
Trump retweeted a parody cover of the book that the Republican Party had tweeted earlier Friday, and used it as a springboard for his latest criticisms -- calling Wolff “a total loser” and saying Bannon "cried when he got fired" and has been "dumped like a dog by almost everyone" since leaving the White House in August.
The GOP's parody cover retitles the book "Liar and Phony," and surrounds a photo of Wolff with blurbs from actual reviews of his much-criticized White House exposé.
"He gets basic details wrong," a New York Times writer says about Wolff.
Wolff wrote the book over 18 months, in which he claims to have spoken with more than 200 people. He said he had access to top officials inside the Trump administration, including the president, according to an interview Thursday with the Hollywood Reporter that details the backstory to the book's publishing.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May defends Trump's mental fitness

UK Prime Minister Theresa May shot down concerns about President Trump’s mental fitness on Sunday, saying he acts in the best interests of his country.

May was forced to comment on Trump’s mental state following the release of Michal Wolff’s explosive book claiming some Trump advisers openly questioned the president’s mental capacity for the job.

Speaking with the BBC, the prime minister shot down any accusations against Trump, saying “no” to question if concerns about Trump’s mental fitness were serious.
“When I deal with President Trump what I see is somebody who is committed to ensuring that he is taking decisions in the best interests of the United States,” she added.
May also reiterated that Trump will be coming to Britain for a visit, but come up short of providing exact date and details.
There have been questions whether Trump will visit the country as a full state visit, which would include meeting the Queen, or if he will opt out for a lower-key working trip amid probable mass protests.
Trump has previously come under fire from British lawmakers after they deemed some of his statements might have violated the country’s hate speech laws – prompting country’s members of the Parliament to debate whether he should be granted a full state visit.
In November, May criticized Trump after he retweeted inflammatory videos from a British fringe far-right political group, saying it was “wrong” to have done so.
The president, tweeted in response: “Don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!”

Antifa member ordered to pay legal fees of Berkeley conservative over attempted restraining order

A middle school teacher and prominent member of an Antifa group has been ordered to pay legal fees for a failed attempt to get a permanent restraining order against the former president of the Berkeley College Republicans at the University of California, Berkeley, according to reports.

Alameda County Superior Court Commissioner Thomas Rasch ordered Yvette Felarca, the leader of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), an Antifa, or anti-fascist, group, to pay $10,000 in attorney’s fees and $1,100 in court fees, The Berkeleyside reported Friday. Rasch said that Felarca’s legal actions against Troy Worden, the former head of the Berkeley College Republicans, were not brought in good faith.

Felarca’s attorneys dispute that characterization, according to The Berkeleyside, and have vowed to appeal the ruling.
“By ruling that Yvette Felarca did not demonstrate good faith in filing the restraining order, the court recognized the frivolous nature of Felarca’s actions,” Mark Meuser, Worden’s attorney, said after the decision, according to The Berkeleyside. “The award of attorney fees should send a strong signal that she cannot abuse the court system to silence speech.”
Meuser testified in court that actual legal expenses were around $178,600, and that he was seeking a higher reimbursement, according to The Berkeleyside.
“This verdict was based on the judge’s decision to support the political views of Troy Worden and the alt-right and that is not acceptable,” Felarca’s attorney Shanta Driver said.
Felarca got a temporary restraining order against Worden in September after alleging he was stalking and harassing her on the Berkeley campus. Worden initially was ordered to stay 100 yards away from Felarca, but that distance later was reduced to 10 yards. Felarca, according to The Berkeleyside, then applied for a permanent restraining order in October but withdrew the order the day of the hearing, making Worden the prevailing party entitled to receive lawyer and court fees.
“Felarca filed a frivolous restraining order that restricted Worden’s First and Second Amendment rights and made it difficult for him to move around the campus to attend classes,” Meuser told Fox News in November.
Worden said he and many other UC Berkeley College Republicans faced months of harassment and violence.
“I have to look behind my shoulder whenever I am on campus and especially when I am engaged in political activism,” Worden said.
“The No. 1 public university in the world and the so-called ‘birthplace of the free speech movement’ is anything but. It is the place where America’s conservative youth are daily under threat of violence, lacking the support of the university administration, police, or city,” he added. “The Free Speech Movement is dead, and the left has killed it.”

Scientologist Elisabeth Moss slammed for 'hypocritical' Golden Globes speech

This image released by NBC shows Elisabeth Moss accepting the award for best actress in a drama series for her role in "The Handmaid's Tale," at the 75th Annual Golden Globe Awards in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Sunday, Jan. 7, 2018.  (AP)

Elisabeth Moss marked her Golden Globe win for Best Actress in a TV Drama by putting her own spin on a quote from Margaret Atwood whose novel inspired Moss' show "The Handmaid's Tale."

Moss thanked Atwood and other women "who were brave enough to speak out against intolerance and injustice" before slightly altering Atwood's words saying, "We no longer live in the blank white spaces at the edge of print. We no longer live in the gaps between the stories. We are the story in print, and we are writing the story ourselves."

The 35-year-old, who practices Scientology, was immediately called out on Twitter for her acceptance speech with many calling Moss a hypocrite for preaching for equality.
Moss has had to defend her religion in the past. The former "Mad Men" star is famously hush-hush about her association with the church, responded to a fan's question about "The Handmaid's Tale" and Scientology.
"Question though, does it make you think twice about Scientology? Gilead [the fictional country in the TV show] and Scientology both believe that all outside sources (aka news) are wrong and evil…it’s just very interesting," one fan asked Moss in August.
Moss responded at the time, "That’s actually not true at all about Scientology. Religious freedom and tolerance and understanding the truth and equal rights for every race, religion and creed are extremely important to me. The most important things to me probably. And so Gilead and 'THT' hit me on a very personal level."
The controversial church came under fire late last year when it was revealed that actor Danny Masterson, who is a Scientologist, had been accused of rape by four women and the Church of Scientology was accused of protecting Masterson.
People deeply connected with the church told Fox News members did have knowledge of Masterson's alleged behavior way before the media reports.
Several sources told us that the Church of Scientology systematically covers up misdeeds of its most prominent members — and Masterson, they say, is no exception.

Actress Bobette Riales (right) accused actor Danny Masterson (left) of raping her "repeatedly."  (Getty)

Chris Shelton, a former member of the Church of Scientology and Sea Org from 1987-2012, said the church silences members who want to take complaints to law enforcement.
“The church works to protect the church first,” he told Fox News.
DANNY MASTERSON FIRED FROM NETFLIX SERIES AMID RAPE ALLEGATIONS
He said the next most important thing to Scientologists is to protect the members of the church and its public image.
“[The Church of Scientology] considers anyone outside the church to be a ‘wog,’ which is a defamatory word describing non-members... It creates an ‘us versus them’ mentality [and tells] members that ‘wogs’ at law enforcement won’t protect them.”

Dumb Democrat Cartoons

Pres. Trump, GOP On 2018 Legislation: We Hope It Will Be A Bipartisan Year

President Donald Trump, center, accompanied by from left, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., Vice President Mike Pence, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif., House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, speaks after participating in a Congressional Republican Leadership Retreat at Camp David, Md., Saturday, Jan. 6, 2018. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

OAN Newsroom

President Trump alongside top GOP leaders gather at Camp David in Maryland, to give a general outlook for 2018.
Many core tenants of the republican agenda were outlined on Saturday, including construction of the wall, along with reforms for infrastructure, welfare and immigration.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who expects bipartisan support moving forward, also referenced 2017 as one of the more memorable ones of his time in congress, and added the new tax reform bill will be a boost for the economy.

President Donald Trump, right, welcomes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., third from left, to the podium to speak during a news conference after participating in a Congressional Republican Leadership Retreat at Camp David, Md. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The President also mentioned DACA as a top priority for 2018.
“We also obviously went into budget so we went into DACA and how we’re going to do and we hope that we’re going to be able to work out an arrangement with the democrats,” said President Trump. “I think it’s something that they’d like to see happen. it’s something I would like to see happen”.
President Trump has repeatedly told lawmakers that he will not work out a deal for DACA, until construction for the border wall is funded.

House GOP to consider return of earmarks, Ryan wants hearings

Few words in the congressional vocabulary are as profane as “earmark.”

Capitol Hill leaders essentially scrubbed earmarks from the congressional experience a few years ago. They toppled the earmarking process like statues of Communist dictators in Eastern Europe, circa 1989.

Earmarks were dispatched to the dustbin of history.
The problem is that congressional “earmarks” epitomized what the public viewed was wrong with Washington. So the House and Senate -- along with President Barack Obama -- ditched them.
But the earmarks could soon rise from the dead.
Fox has learned that House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, under the direction of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., plans to conduct hearings evaluating the merits and demerits of restoring some forms of earmarks.
Republicans nearly reinstated earmarks in the fall of 2016 before Ryan singlehandedly spiked the effort.
In mid-November 2016, House GOPers huddled in the ornate House Ways and Means Committee hearing room, in the Longworth Office Building, across the street from the Capitol. They plotted new internal rules for the 115th Congress that would start in January, 2017.
GOP Reps. Tom Rooney, Florida, and John Culberson, Texas, each crafted proposals to resuscitate limited forms of earmarks. The House Republican Conference was moments away from voting on the Rooney-Culberson plans.
Then Ryan interceded.
The speaker reminded his colleagues they were just days removed from a “drain the swamp” election. It was bad optics to immediately return to the old way of doing business, though earmarking was an accepted practice under Democrats and Republicans more than a decade ago.
Ryan promised his colleagues he’d address the earmark question in the first quarter of 2017.
Well, that didn’t happen.
Last year was wild. House Republicans incinerated the first quarter trying to pass a bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare. The GOP brass finally yanked the initial plan off the floor in late March, only to pass an altered version in mid-May. But the endeavor died in the Senate.
Then it was on to tax reform. That’s to say nothing of the political vortex that churned all year on Capitol Hill. Special elections. Administration scandals. Russia. North Korea. Sexual harassment. Government funding. General pandemonium.
There are only so many hours in the day. The earmark issue never again gurgled to the surface.
Earmarks are funny topic on Capitol Hill. When Ryan claimed the speakership in October 2015, he argued that Congress should reassert legislative authorities as prescribed under Article I of the Constitution.
That includes spending power. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution declares “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That’s why House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said at that time, “You’re going to see a very refreshing movement to get that power (of the purse) back to the people.”
First, let’s consider what defines an earmark:
House Rule XXI defines earmarks as “a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula driven or competitive award process.”
In other words, specific money designated for a specific project at a specific place by a specific lawmaker.
But here’s where it gets tricky.
Earmarks pale in comparison when it comes to actual federal spending. Some earmarks in 2007 cost as little as tens of thousands of dollars. That’s nothing when compared to trillions spent on federal entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
The public loves to have federal money go toward projects in their home states and districts. Money for museums. Bridges. Roadways. Dams. Locks. Levies. Research centers at universities. New equipment for police departments. But you’re liable to get an earful if you ask voters if they like earmarks.
Voters turned against lawmakers and earmarks from 2005 to 2008. They didn’t like how House GOP leaders often larded up legislation with earmarks to persuade reluctant lawmakers to support bills they otherwise opposed.
So-called “good government” groups interpreted those efforts as bribes. Scandals erupted about the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska. “Coconut Road” in Florida. There were questions about then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., buying land near his farm in Illinois -- followed by $207 million in earmarks to extend a highway close to Hastert’s land.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., lit up then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for an earmark to help construct a museum near Max Yasgur’s farm in upstate New York to commemorate Woodstock.
“I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event,” McCain said.
Authorities probed influence peddling involving numerous lawmakers. Several former lawmakers were put on trial or did jail time. Democrats focused their campaign efforts on what voters interpreted as a “culture of corruption” in Washington.
But veteran members of both parties argue there is merit in limited earmarks. The 2016 plan from Culberson would allow earmarks for federal, state and local governments and would originate in subcommittees.
Crafting earmarks at the subcommittee level would grant them proper vetting by members and staff as a bill moves to the floor. Earmarks wouldn’t just appear magically at the end as an afterthought -- and perhaps an effort to coax a lawmaker to vote yes on a bill they otherwise opposed. Rooney’s 2016 effort would allow earmarks for Army Corps of Engineers projects.
It’s easy for the public to lampoon earmarks like the $500,000 National Science Foundation study on crustacean mobility. It involved putting shrimp on treadmills. The same with money for a teapot museum in North Carolina.
But here’s the conundrum in the upcoming earmark debate: what some constituents and lawmakers view as crucial is seen by others as a boondoggle.
The Constitution clearly asserts it’s up to Congress to direct federal spending. That lack of focus means unnamed federal bureaucrats at agencies decide how to spend taxpayer dollars instead of elected representatives.
Ask voters if they want invisible bureaucrats calling the shots -- or their members of Congress.
It’s unclear if lawmakers will get anywhere with earmarks this time or forge a consensus on bringing them back. The “drain the swamp” mantra still resonates. That phrase rhymes with the Democrats’ 2006 “culture of corruption” slogan. And that’s why “earmark” could remain a dirty word in Washington.