Kole's got a cannon. @Angels pic.twitter.com/cXD5PgcQN1
— FOX Sports West (@FoxSportsWest) April 30, 2017
Angels' Kole Calhoun breaks through https://t.co/nnuHJmOqAP
— L.A. Times Sports (@latimessports) May 1, 2017
ICYMI --> New York Times ‘slammed’ with cancellations as punishment for climate change heresy https://t.co/LB2e6RrocM— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 30, 2017
That this quiet, measured Bret Stephens column caused such an uproar is hilarious. https://t.co/luAgIdlTSw— Charles Murray (@charlesmurray) April 30, 2017
#BretStephens pic.twitter.com/EthcpFe6P6
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) May 1, 2017
— fyeahsoaps (@fyeahsoaps) April 30, 2017
NEW: Democrats turn to @BernieSanders and his star power to rebuild the party, via @daveweigel https://t.co/43G6Tp93zF— Ed O'Keefe (@edatpost) April 19, 2017
LOUISVILLE — Earlier this week, before heading downstairs to speak to nearly 3,000 Kentuckians, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) reminisced about his 2016 presidential campaign. After he had gained steam, and his rallies had become arena-size events, he was struck by the difference between his crowds and those at Democratic Party fundraisers.
“We’d have a rally with five or ten thousand young people out, a great deal of energy,” Sanders said between bites of a steak sandwich. “Then I’d walk into a room and there’d be a thousand people from the Democratic Party. You were in two different worlds — one full of energy, one full of idealism. And the other, full of good people — I don’t mean to put them down — who are the bedrock of the Democratic Party.”
At that moment, Sanders was on the second day of a week-long, cross-country speaking tour with Democratic National Committee Chairman Thomas Perez. The DNC was picking up half the bill for the 12-seat chartered plane as well as the venues, including the downtown Louisville Palace.
As Sanders spoke, Perez was a block away, meeting with party leaders who — like most Democratic leaders — had backed Hillary Clinton for president. Later that evening, they would take a stage and praise Sanders, who is not a Democrat, for reinvigorating their party. A chairman who defeated Sanders’s preferred candidate to run the DNC was now touring as his opening act.
“Our values are aligned on so many of the critical issues that confront the nation and the Democratic Party,” Perez said in an interview. “When people actually look at the platform of the Democratic Party — they’ll say, ‘We need community college!’ — well, look at the platform. When they say, ‘We need a $15 minimum wage’ — look at the platform.”
The first 24 hours of the tour revealed both the strength and the seams in the strategy. It began in Portland, Maine, on Monday evening, where a crowd wrapped around the State Theatre to see the “Come Together, Fight Back” tour. Maine’s Democratic Party leaders flitted through the crowds with clipboards, encouraging fans of Sanders to sign up.
They had competition. A group of rogue “Berniecrats” had brought clipboards of their own, with petitions encouraging the senator to run for president in 2020 as an independent. When the rally began, a mention of Perez was met with boos audible over mild applause; the loudest heckling came from a man whose T-shirt declared his support for the Green Party.
Once onstage, Perez described his Democratic Party as a vessel for activists, with a platform they could love. It was activists, he said, who stopped the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It was activists who had passed a minimum-wage hike, which Maine’s Republican governor had halted.
“In these first 100 days, the most remarkable thing is not what Donald Trump did — the most remarkable thing is what you did across the county,” Perez said.
The chairman left the stage, and a disembodied announcer introduced Sanders. This time, there were no boos; over 48 minutes, Sanders mentioned Perez’s DNC only once...
Bikinis. Beaches. Burpees...? #MondayMotivation https://t.co/eloK2T7tyf pic.twitter.com/efg6pbQynO
— SI Swimsuit (@SI_Swimsuit) April 24, 2017
Trump signs offshore drilling order that may open coast waters https://t.co/fCBCufamNI pic.twitter.com/igmZ5iuXRa— SFGate (@SFGate) April 28, 2017
From colleague @curtiszupke: Ducks fall into 0-2 hole at home with 2-1 loss to Oilers https://t.co/k0JKWzN8XV
— Helene Elliott (@helenenothelen) April 29, 2017
Loving the KU band satellite uplink :) I want one!!! 😄@cbs3_wx @CBSPhilly pic.twitter.com/PStvZlPwpo
— Tania Gail (@TaniaGailPhotos) April 24, 2017
Baby hippo's keepers learn to live with bruises https://t.co/54OIPyk3Dv— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) April 30, 2017
Every 5-4 decision for next 3 decades that goes conservatives’ way is one of Trumps “First 100 Days” accomplishments https://t.co/rJ0m5pEkXX— Marc Thiessen (@marcthiessen) April 24, 2017
Despite the best efforts of the White House “PR apparatus” to sell the president’s first 100 days as a success, the New York Times declared in an editorial, the new administration has, in fact, been plagued by “many missteps” including a “bungled sales job” on his first major legislative initiative and a “snakebit” confirmation process, all of which have produced “a flurry of articles bemoaning the lack of focus in the White House.” The first 100 days, the Times declared, is a period the president “might prefer to forget.”More.
The president in question is not Donald Trump. This is how, in April 1993, the Times described the first 100 days of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But not to worry, the Times reassured its readers: “It’s still early, and a hundred days don’t really mean very much.”
The Times is right: The first 100 days really don’t mean very much at all.
Right now, the Trump White House appears to be in a panic over the approaching milestone, looking desperately for last-minute accomplishments. It is pushing the House to vote this week on repealing Obamacare, and it is risking a government shutdown in an effort to make Democrats pay for a border wall with Mexico, instead of just passing a straight extension of current funding levels. And the president announced (to the apparent surprise of his own staff) that he would unveil his tax reform plan on Wednesday, before it is fully baked.
To which I say: Mr. President, slow down. There’s no rush. Ignore the critics. You’re doing just fine.
Trump has accomplished something more significant in his first 100 days than any president in recent memory has done: the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Trump’s predecessors’ early achievements were fleeting. President Barack Obama’s stimulus (with its false promise of “shovel-ready” jobs) is long forgotten. George W. Bush’s tax cuts were not signed until June and were partially repealed by his successor. But Trump’s success in placing the 49-year-old Gorsuch on the Supreme Court will affect the direction of our country for a generation. Indeed, Trump can count every 5-4 decision over the next three decades that goes conservatives’ way as one of his “First 100 Days” accomplishments. No other modern president can claim to have had that kind of lasting impact in so short a time...
O.C. deputies complained of lax policies before the 2016 jail escape, but they were ignored, grand jury finds https://t.co/uUOu73oreF pic.twitter.com/MFWvatjNJ0— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) April 29, 2017
Deputies at the Central Men’s Jail in Santa Ana had long complained of flawed inmate monitoring procedures that allowed three men to escape from the facility last year, but nothing was done to correct the problem, according to a report released by the Orange County Grand Jury this week.Brazen AF.
The scathing study listed failures by officials that contributed to the escape, which made national headlines and became a major embarrassment for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.
The grand jury cited a flawed inmate counting procedure, the failure of deputies to remove jerry-built tents around the escapees’ bunks that may have concealed their activites and inadequate monitoring of the jail’s plumbing system, which the inmates used to gain access to the roof, as major factors in the escape.
A lack of surveillance cameras and lighting in the plumbing tunnels and on the roof, which the inmates rappelled down from before, were also cited as problematic in the report.
Deputies failed to catch on to an escape plot even though the report found it likely took months of planning and would have involved loud sawing and cutting as the prisoners worked to gain access to the plumbing tunnels.
Authorities have said that Hossein Nayeri, Jonathan Tieu and Bac Duong were able to obtain a cutting tool and saw through several layers of metal and rebar when they broke out of the jail in January 2016, sparking a statewide manhunt that lasted nearly a week, according to the report.
Jail staff did not become aware of the escape until 15 hours after the trio climbed to the roof of the jail and fled, a time lapse that likely helped the fugitives stay well ahead of their pursuers. The men had been jailed on charges including attempted murder and torture.
“After conducting a comprehensive study, problems with both supervision and training became obvious,” the report read. “Lack of compliance with existing policies and procedures by various [Orange County Sheriff’s Department] personnel at all levels was the primary factor responsible for the escape.”
The inmates took a cab driver hostage and traveled as far north as the Bay Area. Their escape plot began unraveling days later, police say, when Duong rejected Nayeri’s plan to kill their hostage and fled to a San Jose motel with the cab driver.
Duong drove back to Orange County and surrendered to authorities on Jan. 29. Nayeri and Tieu were arrested in San Francisco the next day. The men are due in court for preliminary hearings in June, records show...
#Berkeley: Free Speech and the Nationalist-Globalist Clash: https://t.co/AgDXJbT0GZ
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 29, 2017
A meteorologist freaked out when a giant spider appeared on the stations' sky camera and ate its dinner on live TV. pic.twitter.com/WPeovJTrNn
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) April 27, 2017
The battle for Normandy was the most complex and daring military operation in the history of modern warfare. Two years of intense, detailed planning reached its successful conclusion when the Allied forces took the beaches on D-Day. But the seventy-six-day campaign that followed, the Allies' crucial bid for a toehold in western Europe, was one of the bloodiest of the war, and its true story has been concealed in myth. Drawing on a wealth of previously unpublished papers, declassified documents, diaries, and personal interviews, Carlo D'Este has written the first full account of what actually happened in Normandy, how the campaign went wrong, and how it was eventually won. Step-by-step the reader is taken through the Normandy campaign from the earliest days after Dunkirk when Churchill first considered the idea of a cross-channel invasion of France, to the key battles that determined that outcome, with maps clearly explaining the strategy and logistics of each battle.
The Democrat Party is the world’s most successful hate group. It attracts poor people who hate rich people, black people who hate white people, gay people who hate straight people, feminists who hate men, environmentalists who hate the internal combustion engine, and a lot of bratty college kids who hate their parents. However, the real secret of the party’s success is that it attracts the support of journalists who hate Republicans, and who therefore work tirelessly to convince the rest of us that we should vote for Democrats. . . . No matter who the Republicans nominate for president, the Organized Forces of Liberal Journalism will paint him as a greedy, cold-hearted, woman-hating racist. If the GOP nominated a Buddhist monk or a Latina lesbian, still the New York Times and NBC News would find a way to convince themselves that the Republican candidate represented everything liberals hate about America — the military, the police, Christianity, capitalism, the internal combustion engine and heterosexual white men who work for a living.
That’s a quote from a post I wrote in February 2016 after watching a debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. A guy emailed me to ask permission to quote it in his book, and when I read the quote, I laughed: “Damn, I forgot how funny that was.” A quick Google search revealed that it’s been quoted all over the place and why?Keep reading.
Because it’s true...
New Rule: White Women Should Not Study Black Communities - by @marksjo1 https://t.co/2ppy8zehgJ pic.twitter.com/HY24oSHIdv— Commentary Magazine (@Commentary) April 24, 2017
Patience
Guns N' Roses
10:29 AM
Goodbye Stranger
Supertramp
10:23 AM
Two of Us
The Beatles
10:20 AM
Daydream
The Lovin' Spoonful
10:18 AM
Golden Years
David Bowie
10:14 AM
Games Without Frontiers
Peter Gabriel
10:10 AM
Love Is a Battlefield
Pat Benatar
10:05 AM
Centerfold
The J. Geils Band
10:01 AM
Sympathy for the Devil
The Rolling Stones
9:54 AM
Sweet Emotion
Aerosmith
9:49 AM
Thunderstruck
AC/DC
9:36 AM
Take It Easy
Eagles
9:33 AM
My last-minute thoughts on Marine Le Pen, which I pray will within hours will be found irrelevant. https://t.co/6cr21E0qVG
— Claire Berlinski (@ClaireBerlinski) April 23, 2017
Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate in France's election, may get a lift from the far left https://t.co/HHsAk4ui52— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 26, 2017
PARIS — The far-right leader Marine Le Pen faces an uphill battle in France’s presidential runoff, less than two weeks away. But she saw daylight through a small window on Tuesday, and from an unlikely source: her defeated counterpart on the far left.Keep reading.
Alone among all of France’s major political personalities, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of his own “France Unsubjugated” movement, who finished a strong fourth in Sunday’s voting, has refused to endorse Ms. Le Pen’s opponent, the former economy minister Emmanuel Macron.
Mr. Mélenchon’s critics say his obstinacy is petulant, wounded pride that can only help Ms. Le Pen’s National Front. But it also speaks to the passions that Mr. Macron, a seemingly mild-mannered centrist, provokes in large parts of the French electorate, far left and far right, who share a view of the 39-year-old former investment banker as a fire-breathing incarnation of evil market culture.
As populism and anger over the impacts of globalization energize much of the electorate, Mr. Mélenchon’s stand has added a new element of uncertainty into the final round of voting on May 7.
It has also set off a dynamic in the French race much like when Hillary Clinton defeated Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primaries last year — leaving his supporters, still in the thrall of populism, up for grabs as party allegiances broke down.
Mr. Mélenchon’s 19.6 percent of the vote Sunday is now a rich booty — triple the score of the mainstream Socialist Party, whose collapse has elevated Mr. Mélenchon to be de facto leader of the French left. He even won in big cities like Marseille and Lille.
But it is not clear where that vote will now go, not least because far-left populism and far-right populism may have more in common than the seemingly vast gulf between them on the political spectrum would suggest.
Mr. Mélenchon, 65, a former Trotskyite, ran a campaign denouncing banks, globalization and the European Union — just like Ms. Le Pen.
A grizzled orator with a penchant for Latin American dictators, he has the same forgiving attitude she does toward the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.
Both were competing for working-class voters suspicious of the global financial elite. Mr. Macron had already “ruined the lives of thousands of people” with his pro-market policies, Mr. Mélenchon said during the campaign.
And like Ms. Le Pen, Mr. Mélenchon regularly attacked the news media during the campaign. On election night, after his defeat, he tore into what he called “mediacrats” and “oligarchs.” They were “rejoicing” over “two candidates who approve and want to maintain the current institutions” of government, the longtime fan of Castro and Hugo Chávez said.
The shared lines of attack gave the candidates at the political extremes their best showings ever, if from opposite ends of the spectrum. Mr. Mélenchon almost doubled his 2012 result, refused to concede for hours and then attacked both finalists, refusing to distinguish between them.
In that, he is alone. Across the board, politicians and other former candidates have urgently counseled their supporters to vote for Mr. Macron to block Ms. Le Pen’s path to the Élysée Palace...
Who watches a murder streamed live on Facebook? writes @Jasonrileywsj https://t.co/lydmPTXkOe— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 26, 2017
The most shocking aspect of the Easter Sunday Facebook murder of 74-year-old Robert Godwin, Sr. might be that this sort of social media mayhem is losing its ability to shock.More.
In March, a video of a 15-year-old girl being sexually assaulted by several teenage boys was streamed on Facebook.
In February, a teenager was convicted of fatally shooting his friend; the killer implicated himself by sending a selfie with the dying victim on Snapchat.
In January, four people were arrested after broadcasting a video on Facebook that showed them taunting and beating a mentally disabled teenager who had been bound and gagged.
Already this year, a 14-year-old girl in Florida and a 33-year-old man in California have committed suicide on Facebook.
Last year, an armed woman in Maryland live-streamed her fatal standoff with the police, and a 12-year-old in Georgia recorded her own suicide by hanging via the Live.me app.
Shortly after Facebook launched its new video-streaming service last April, CEO Mark Zuckerberg told BuzzFeed that the goal was to support “the most personal and emotional and raw and visceral ways people want to communicate.” But preventing abuse of these platforms has been a challenge.
There’s been a smattering of calls from public officials and activists to suspend these streaming capabilities until better filters are in place, but the popularity and profitability of live video make that course of action unlikely. Besides, the safe-harbor provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress two decades ago, give operators broad protection from liability for content posted by their users.
Sure, some grandstanding member of Congress can call for a hearing, or a state attorney general looking to boost his profile can announce a lawsuit, but neither is really necessary. Social media behemoths like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube currently have every incentive to protect their services from the freaks, sociopaths and others intent on spreading violent or disturbing images. “Facebook Murderer” or “YouTube Shooter” pasted in CNN bulletins and newspaper headlines is the kind of publicity that companies work to minimize without any prompting.
With nearly two billion users, Facebook wants to be not only the place where you connect with family and friends but also your main source of news and information...
Man kills baby daughter live on Facebook and footage stays online for 24 hours https://t.co/uUmTHnumOA— The Independent (@Independent) April 26, 2017
How a Montana county became a stage for the national debate over refugees https://t.co/dVkFZfeQ4E pic.twitter.com/rwCeDWDjw0
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) April 25, 2017
A retiree tried to bring refugees to his Montana town of 6,357. He faced resistance & guns. Then Trump gave him hope https://t.co/MM3qWPIPx2
— Jaweed Kaleem (@jaweedkaleem) April 25, 2017
As images of dead Syrian children flashed across his television this month in Montana, David LeBleu prayed it would finally change minds.More.
"Could this be our chance?" he wondered.
LeBleu, 73, had been campaigning for a year to bring refugees to his tiny mountainside town of Whitefish. But in conservative Flathead County, he was making little headway.
Donald Trump had won the county with 65% of the vote in the presidential election and found widespread support there for his “America first” message and pledge to halt refugee resettlement nationwide. In that sense, the region wasn’t much different from a broad swath of the nation.
If the deaths of “beautiful babies” — as Trump had put it — in what the U.S. said was a poison gas attack couldn’t sway people, LeBleu figured nothing could.
“They don’t like newcomers here,” he said. “They want to just keep things the way they are, in the past.”
LeBleu himself is a newcomer, part of a wave of liberal-minded transplants drawn to Whitefish, population 6,357, for its natural beauty and slower pace of life. He moved from Long Island, N.Y., three years ago, following his daughter after retiring from teaching high school social studies and losing his wife to multiple sclerosis and cancer.
He was delighted that people would “talk to you on the street and ask how you were doing.” As a lifelong Christian, he was pleased to see churches everywhere.
But in Whitefish, the Presbyterian churches he visited were more interested in the Bible than the wider world and didn’t share his passion for women’s or gay rights.
LeBleu finally found a spiritual home alongside other liberal transplants at the Whitefish United Methodist Church. It was already working internationally to pay the salaries of Christian pastors in Angolan villages.
Its motto — “open hearts, open minds, open doors” — was prominently displayed on its website. To LeBleu, those were words to live by.
He saw an opportunity early last year after a photograph of a drowned Syrian boy went viral and a group of mothers in Missoula, a university town 130 miles down the interstate, were so moved that they launched an effort to take in refugees. Their plan to bring refugees to Montana for the first time in decades ignited a statewide debate and a string of demonstrations on both sides of the issue.
LeBleu’s response was to try to bring refugees to Whitefish.
But the faith that dominated northwest Montana was far more conservative than LeBleu had ever experienced.
To him, being a Presbyterian meant a life of public service and openness to other cultures. Back in Long Island, he sat on a refugee council at his church and once housed a Vietnamese refugee and her two sons. He joined churchgoers for a trip to refugee camps in the Middle East, and his church hosted a Coptic Christian priest from Egypt and a pastor from Syria...
The Angels walked off on Oakland, 2-1, in 11 innings. Kole Calhoun hit the winning single. They’re 10-12.
— Pedro Moura (@pedromoura) April 26, 2017
Lead. [#TheHaloWay] pic.twitter.com/NOh17FD7o2
— Angels (@Angels) April 26, 2017
Bring out the 💦💦💦 to celebrate @KoleCalhoun's 1st career walk-off game winner in extra innings 💪⚾️ @Angels @MLBONFOX pic.twitter.com/jGiFGeY3gF
— FOX Sports West (@FoxSportsWest) April 26, 2017
For Nicole Cuff and her friends, the 1992 Los Angeles riots used to feel like a piece of history, told in old stories by their parents or discussed and analyzed in school.More.
Recently, though, it’s started to feel much more real to her — like something that could happen again in the near future.
Cuff, a coordinator at an entertainment management company who is half black and half Filipina, said her feelings come in part from several years of headlines, viral videos of police force and Black Lives Matter protests over police shootings of African Americans.
“It evokes some unfelt anger that hasn’t been tapped into,” said Cuff, 26, who has a diverse group of friends who have become much more politically engaged in the last few years. “When nobody pays a price for it … it could set people off.”
Her view reflects what researchers who study public attitudes about the L.A. riots say is a distinct shift: For the first time since the riots, there is an uptick in the number of Angelenos who fear that another civil disturbance is likely, according to a Loyola Marymount University poll that has been surveying Los Angeles residents every five years since the 1992 disturbances.
Nearly 6 out of 10 Angelenos think another riot is likely in the next five years, increasing for the first time after two decades of steady decline. That’s higher than in any year except for 1997, the first year the survey was conducted, and more than a 10-point jump compared with the 2012 survey.
Young adults ages 18 to 29, who didn’t directly experience the riots, were more likely than older residents to feel another riot was a possibility, with nearly 7 out of 10 saying one was likely, compared with about half of those 45 or older. Those who were unemployed or worked part-time were also more pessimistic, as were black and Latino residents, compared with whites and Asians, the poll found.
Researchers theorized that the turnaround may be linked to several factors, including the more polarized national dialogue on race sparked by police shootings in Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere, as well as by the tenor of last year’s presidential election. Moreover, many parts of L.A. still suffer from some of the economic problems and lack of opportunities that fueled anger before the riots.
“Economic disparity continues to increase, and at the end of the day, that is what causes disruption,” said Fernando Guerra, a political science professor who has worked on the survey since its inception. “People are trying to get along and want to get along, but they understand economic tension boils over to political and social tension.”
The Democrats have committed to overthrowing our government.Still more.
What does #Resistance really mean? It means the overthrow of our government.
In this century, Democrats rejected the outcomes of two presidential elections won by Republicans. After Bush won, they settled for accusing him of being a thief, an idiot, a liar, a draft dodger and a mass murderer. They fantasized about his assassination and there was talk of impeachment. But elected officials gritted their teeth and tried to get things done.
This time around it’s “radically” different.
The official position, from the Senate to the streets, is “Resistance.” Leftist media outlets are feeding the faithful a fantasy that President Trump will be brought down. There is fevered speculation about the 25th Amendment, a coup or impeachment due to whatever scandal has been manufactured last.
This fantasy is part clickbait. Leftist media outlets are feeding the worst impulses of their readers. But there is a bigger and more disturbing radical endgame.
The left can be roughly divided into moderates and radicals. The distinction doesn’t refer to outcome; both want very similar totalitarian societies with very little personal freedom and a great deal of government control. Instead it’s about the tactics that they use to get to that totalitarian system.
The “moderates” believe in working from within the system to transform the country into a leftist tyranny. The “radicals” believe that the system is so bad that it cannot even be employed for progressive ends. Instead it needs to be discredited and overthrown by radicalizing a revolutionary base.
Radicals radicalize moderates by discrediting the system they want to be a part of. Where moderates seek to impose a false consensus from within the system, radicals attack the system through violent protests and terrorism. Their goal is to set off a chain of confrontations that make it impossible to maintain civil society and polarize the backlash and chaos into consolidating the left for total war.
That is what “Resistance” actually means.
A similar program implemented in Europe, with a covert alliance between Communists and Nazis, led to the deaths of millions, the destruction of much of Europe and the temporary triumph of the left.
The radical left’s efforts in America caused death and destruction but, despite the sympathy of many liberals for terrorist groups such as the Weathermen and the Black Panthers, failed to escalate because the majority of Democrats and even liberals did not accept the premise that our system was illegitimate.
That began to change this century.
64% of Democrats insisted that President Bush had not been legitimately elected. 49% declared that he was not a legitimate president. 22% vowed never to accept him no matter what he might do.
After 9/11, over half of Democrats believed that Bush had known about or been involved in the attacks.
Anywhere from two-thirds to a quarter of the Democrats rejected the results of a presidential election, rejected the president and suspected him of conspiring to murder thousands of Americans.
The left was winning. Much of its natural “moderate” base viewed our government as illegitimate.
The left has declared that President Trump’s victory is illegitimate. The response is “Resistance.” That covers violent anti-government protesters, states declaring that they are no longer bound to follow Federal immigration law and Senators obstructing for the sake of obstruction.
It’s easy to get lost in the partisan turmoil of the moment, but it’s important to understand the implications. If two presidential elections were illegitimate, then our entire system of elections might be illegitimate. And indeed the left made exactly that case with its attack on the Electoral College.
The left pressed Dems to oppose President Trump for the sake of opposition. The goal wasn’t just spite. It was to break the government. When the left forced Senate Dems to filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, the filibuster became the first casualty of the fight. The goal of the radicals was to make bipartisan legislative activity impossible. Senate Democrats adopted the position of the radical left that their mission was wrecking institutions to deny them to Republicans rather than governing.
Once that was done, the radical left could unveil arguments such as, “The United States Senate is a Failed Institution”. Much like our system of elections and every other part of our government.
The radical left’s goal is to convince its natural base that our system of government is illegitimate. It knows that this can’t be limited to the theoretical level of ideology. Instead it must radicalize by demonstrating it. It does not seriously believe that President Trump will be removed from office by the 25th Amendment or any other aspect of the system. Instead it is feeding these fantasies so that when they fall through those on the left who believed in them will be further radicalized by their failure.
And Democrats have become complicit in the radical left’s program to bring down the government.
They have normalized the radical leftist position that our system is illegitimate. They have moved into the second phase of the left’s program of demonstrating that illegitimacy through confrontation. The final phase is to overthrow the system through actions ranging from protests to terrorism.
This is Cloward-Piven institutional sabotage on a whole other scale. The goal is to collapse our entire system of government. And the Democrats have climbed on board with it using President Trump as a pretext. But regardless of which Republican had won, the end result would have been the same.
The left makes its opposition to the Constitution, the election process and the rule of law into a crisis. And then it uses that crisis to demand a new system. It has pursued this approach successfully in local areas and in narrower causes. This is not the first time that it has embarked on such a project on the national level. But this is the first time that it has the full support of a major national political party.
And that is the true crisis that we face.
The left’s endgame is a totalitarian state. Its “moderates” pursue one by peaceful means only so long as they are allowed to hijack the system. When an election fails to go their way, the radicals brandish it as proof that the system has failed and that violent revolution is the only answer.
But what was once the obscure behavior of a deranged political fringe has become the mainstream politics of the Democrats. The Resistance theme shows that the radicals have won. The Democrats haven’t just fallen to the left. They have fallen to the radical left which believes in overthrowing our system of government through conflict and confrontation rather than covertly engineering change.
The Democrats have become a terrorist party. And their commitment to a radical revolution has plunged our political system into chaos. The left is now exactly where it wanted to be.
And a civil war has begun...
This is why @SalenaZito was so effective this cycle when few other journos were: https://t.co/gbQfUfcis0— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) April 25, 2017
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell? News organizations old and new, large and small, print and online, broadcast and cable assigned phalanxes of reporters armed with the most sophisticated polling data and analysis to cover the presidential campaign. The overwhelming assumption was that the race was Hillary Clinton’s for the taking, and the real question wasn’t how sweeping her November victory would be, but how far out to sea her wave would send political parvenu Trump. Today, it’s Trump who occupies the White House and Clinton who’s drifting out to sea—an outcome that arrived not just as an embarrassment for the press but as an indictment. In some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.Pretty interesting.
What went so wrong? What’s still wrong? To some conservatives, Trump’s surprise win on November 8 simply bore out what they had suspected, that the Democrat-infested press was knowingly in the tank for Clinton all along. The media, in this view, was guilty not just of confirmation bias but of complicity. But the knowing-bias charge never added up: No news organization ignored the Clinton emails story, and everybody feasted on the damaging John Podesta email cache that WikiLeaks served up buffet-style. Practically speaking, you’re not pushing Clinton to victory if you’re pantsing her and her party to voters almost daily.
The answer to the press’ myopia lies elsewhere, and nobody has produced a better argument for how the national media missed the Trump story than FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, who pointed out that the ideological clustering in top newsrooms led to groupthink. “As of 2013, only 7 percent of [journalists] identified as Republicans,” Silver wrote in March, chiding the press for its political homogeneity. Just after the election, presidential strategist Steve Bannon savaged the press on the same point but with a heartier vocabulary. “The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what’s wrong with this country,” Bannon said. “It’s just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no fucking idea what’s going on.”
But journalistic groupthink is a symptom, not a cause. And when it comes to the cause, there’s another, blunter way to think about the question than screaming “bias” and “conspiracy,” or counting D’s and R’s. That’s to ask a simple question about the map. Where do journalists work, and how much has that changed in recent years? To determine this, my colleague Tucker Doherty excavated labor statistics and cross-referenced them against voting patterns and Census data to figure out just what the American media landscape looks like, and how much it has changed.
The results read like a revelation. The national media really does work in a bubble, something that wasn’t true as recently as 2008. And the bubble is growing more extreme. Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is both geographic and political. If you’re a working journalist, odds aren’t just that you work in a pro-Clinton county—odds are that you reside in one of the nation’s most pro-Clinton counties. And you’ve got company: If you’re a typical reader of Politico, chances are you’re a citizen of bubbleville, too.
The “media bubble” trope might feel overused by critics of journalism who want to sneer at reporters who live in Brooklyn or California and don’t get the “real America” of southern Ohio or rural Kansas. But these numbers suggest it’s no exaggeration: Not only is the bubble real, but it’s more extreme than you might realize. And it’s driven by deep industry trends...
Boyle's latest: "Ivanka Rocks Berlin" https://t.co/pwqGArddE4— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) April 25, 2017
You can dance
You can jive
Having the time of your life
See that girl
Watch that scene
Dig in the dancing queen
Friday night and the lights are low
Looking out for a place to go
Where they play the right music
Getting in the swing
You come to look for a king
Anybody could be that guy
Night is young and the music's high
With a bit of rock music
Everything is fine
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance
You are the dancing queen
Young and sweet
Only seventeen
Dancing queen
Feel the beat from the tambourine
You can dance
You can jive
Having the time of your life
See that girl
Watch that scene
Dig in the dancing queen
You're a teaser, you turn 'em on
Leave 'em burning and then you're gone
Looking out for another
Anyone will do
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance
You are the dancing queen
Young and sweet
Only seventeen
Dancing queen
Feel the beat from the tambourine
You can dance
You can jive
Having the time of your life
See that girl
Watch that scene
Dig in the dancing queen
Dig in the dancing queen
I went back out and talked to the voters I interviewed before the election. Here's what I found #trump100days https://t.co/LUBfRaG3sk pic.twitter.com/IM9uFC7YS2
— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) April 24, 2017
Trump’s supporters are unfazed that a new health care law is not in place (yet), thrilled with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, weary of the constant accusations of his ties to Russia, supportive of his strike against Syria for using chemical weapons against its people and dismayed that House Republicans and Democrats are unwilling to compromise. To them, the president remains disruptive, unconventional, defiant and willing to change his mind — appealing attributes to his supporters, but not to the press.
@AmPowerBlog @PujolsFive Thx my man! Need a W tonight— Mark Gubicza (@Markgubicza) April 25, 2017
❤ ATP#ClassyBabes 💕💕 pic.twitter.com/UPEkNpfvmh
— ❤ ALMOST_Too_PERTTY❤ (@kkoij75) April 23, 2017
ICYMI: Recent suicide by prof sparks renewed discussions about access to mental-health services for faculty members https://t.co/QpZmLQj5b8 pic.twitter.com/P9n0fFwaWm
— Inside Higher Ed (@insidehighered) April 24, 2017
Professor shares suicide note on blog https://t.co/bZCrcsVHIU #highered— Inside Higher Ed (@insidehighered) April 20, 2017
I #standwithsean - gentleman, patriot & mensch. Grace under fire. See you on Hannity 10pm. https://t.co/JUF2m7htx7 pic.twitter.com/svH8KOyMTH
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) April 24, 2017
What does the #border mean to kids who cross daily for school? My story on bond between Calexico, CA & Mexicali, Mex https://t.co/pkh8apWEBH
— Hailey Branson-Potts (@haileybranson) April 24, 2017
French parties unify against Le Pen: "This is deadly serious now" https://t.co/iM7ZKA09cZ pic.twitter.com/CYCgC3y7HL
— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 24, 2017
Already the story changes;https://t.co/0g9aAm6hdl
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) April 24, 2017
Nearing 100 days, Trump’s approval 42% but his base is holding in new Post-ABC poll, by @danbalz @sfcpoll https://t.co/2oCpoaiSG7— Post Polls (@PostPolls) April 23, 2017
President Trump nears the 100-day mark of his administration as the least popular chief executive in modern times, a president whose voters remain largely satisfied with his performance, but one whose base of support has not expanded since he took the oath of office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.Trump's doing fine. You have to remember that the entire political world is stacked up against him, and that includes foreign governments and their leftist mass-media enablers.
Trump’s first months in office have produced some tangible successes. Beyond the continued enthusiasm of his most loyal supporters, a small majority of Americans see him as a strong leader. A bigger majority approves of his efforts to pressure U.S. companies to keep jobs in this country. Those who say the economy is getting better outnumber those who say it’s getting worse by the biggest margin in 15 years in Post-ABC polling.
But the president’s balance sheet overall tilts toward the negative. Majorities of Americans say Trump has not accomplished much during his first months as president. Meanwhile, he shows little improvement on his temperament and honesty, and while he’s gained ground on empathy, over 6 in 10 still say he does not understand the problems of people like them.
With a week remaining before his 100th day in office, Trump has yet to achieve a major legislative accomplishment, having been dealt a major setback when Republicans in Congress decided not to proceed with a vote on a health-care bill supported by the White House. His clearest achievement is the successful nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court seat previously held by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Executive actions on trade, immigration, climate and government organization have pointed the direction he wants to take the country, though his controversial proposed travel ban that affects a number of Muslim-majority nations remains blocked by the courts. Trump and others in his administration have attacked the courts, accusing them of overreach, but nearly 6 in 10 people see their actions as a legitimate role for the judicial branch.
Overseas, he has demonstrated his willingness to use military force, with targeted strikes in Syria and the use of one of the biggest non-nuclear devices in the U.S. arsenal in Afghanistan. But tensions with North Korea remain high and the administration’s policy in the Middle East remains cloudy.
The 100-day marker is in part an artificial measuring post for any president, but by comparison, Trump has reached this point in his presidency faring worse to much worse than other recent presidents. An electorate that was deeply divided throughout the 2016 campaign remains so today, with opposition seemingly hardened and unyielding on most questions regarding his presidency...
