Leftist Liberal Hollywood Cartoons

West Hollywood City Council voted to remove Trump's Walk of Fame star

West Hollywood City Councilmembers (left to right) Lauren Meister, Lindsey Horvath, John Heilman, John D’Amico, John Duran

The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has said in the past that it would never remove stars because of a backlash.

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.

Donald Trump’s Hollywood star is back - with 24/7 police protection

“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.

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 14^th 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.”