MT: Unlike the Obama supporters people like us are going to watch Trump like a hawk. We are not going to give him a liberal pass on anything. He has our hopes up and his actions will speak louder than his words. We are looking for changes for the better. The only bet we made was our vote and it can payoff much better than those odds if everything goes right. I can't believe Hillary is even on the list lol.
In terms of where are we going now with Trump in the driver’s seat there are several things to consider.
The funniest thing to consider is the liberal media. They are really showing what they are made of ever since Trump won the election. They are taking a back seat to twitter lol. They continue to try and put down Trump and his appointees and it is really getting old. They have jumped all over the phone call Trump got from the Taiwan President. So should Trump have refused to talk to her…..really.
The ties between the liberal press and the Democratic Party is so obvious. They are all still in shock and have trouble “recounting” the victory. They will no longer be insiders as far as the WH and the administration are concerned. After all these years of running down Fox News it looks like Fox has taken over the driver’s seat that they once controlled. They never stayed in the right lane and they constantly sped too fast and ran stop signs as though they did not even exist. They did not report what was happening, they reported what they wanted to report only.
Since the Dem’s have maintained Nancy Pelosi has their minority leader. That tells you all you need to know. More of the same. They ride in the back seat and still gaze at the rear view mirror. They don’t realize where they have been much less where this country is going with or without them.
The most important thing to consider is that Trump is in pursuit of change, that is change for the better. The person in the driver’s seat uses rear view mirrors but it is primarily looking out the windshield making sure they are getting where they need to go and observing the traffic signs along the way. Trump is way ahead of the game already and that is a positive indication of things to come.
Actually the liberal media is not even riding in the back seat. They seem to be locked in the Trunk (not Trump lol). They are ignoring how this country is at an all time low in so many areas. They were so used to running stop signs etc that they don’t know how to act now. They support all of the protesting (actually rioting) etc that has transpired for so many months. That tells you all you need to know. How can anyone justify looting and injuring bystanders.
Well the liberal press have lost their control and like the Democratic Party they do not know how to act when not in control. Fox news made a huge step up and all due to their competition thought they had it made. Yes, it ain’t over till it’s over, a lessen the Dem’s and the liberal press learned the hard way. They divided this country looking for power and control and now are unwilling to accept their losses.
So where are we going from this point on. Well one thing is for sure. Trump is trying to reuinite this country whereas Obama was dividing it. Trump started out on a narrow path even with his own party but the populist voters in this country were silently making way for a super highway for Trump to travel on. He surprised us by winning this election and I think he will surprise us by getting this country back on the right path and turning that path into a super highway to bigger and better things.
The funniest thing to consider is the liberal media. They are really showing what they are made of ever since Trump won the election. They are taking a back seat to twitter lol. They continue to try and put down Trump and his appointees and it is really getting old. They have jumped all over the phone call Trump got from the Taiwan President. So should Trump have refused to talk to her…..really.
The ties between the liberal press and the Democratic Party is so obvious. They are all still in shock and have trouble “recounting” the victory. They will no longer be insiders as far as the WH and the administration are concerned. After all these years of running down Fox News it looks like Fox has taken over the driver’s seat that they once controlled. They never stayed in the right lane and they constantly sped too fast and ran stop signs as though they did not even exist. They did not report what was happening, they reported what they wanted to report only.
Since the Dem’s have maintained Nancy Pelosi has their minority leader. That tells you all you need to know. More of the same. They ride in the back seat and still gaze at the rear view mirror. They don’t realize where they have been much less where this country is going with or without them.
The most important thing to consider is that Trump is in pursuit of change, that is change for the better. The person in the driver’s seat uses rear view mirrors but it is primarily looking out the windshield making sure they are getting where they need to go and observing the traffic signs along the way. Trump is way ahead of the game already and that is a positive indication of things to come.
Actually the liberal media is not even riding in the back seat. They seem to be locked in the Trunk (not Trump lol). They are ignoring how this country is at an all time low in so many areas. They were so used to running stop signs etc that they don’t know how to act now. They support all of the protesting (actually rioting) etc that has transpired for so many months. That tells you all you need to know. How can anyone justify looting and injuring bystanders.
Well the liberal press have lost their control and like the Democratic Party they do not know how to act when not in control. Fox news made a huge step up and all due to their competition thought they had it made. Yes, it ain’t over till it’s over, a lessen the Dem’s and the liberal press learned the hard way. They divided this country looking for power and control and now are unwilling to accept their losses.
So where are we going from this point on. Well one thing is for sure. Trump is trying to reuinite this country whereas Obama was dividing it. Trump started out on a narrow path even with his own party but the populist voters in this country were silently making way for a super highway for Trump to travel on. He surprised us by winning this election and I think he will surprise us by getting this country back on the right path and turning that path into a super highway to bigger and better things.
sometime over the next four years, I suspect the odds will be much better
and like you, I'm not locking anything bet up for 4 years
[h=1]Japanese Businessman Promises $50 Billion and 50,000 Jobs for U.S.[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Chandler Gill
December 6, 2016 2:27 pm
President-elect Donald Trump made an announcement from Trump Tower on Tuesday that Japanese business mogul Masayoshi Son, the chief executive of Softbank Group, has pledged to invest $50 billion and 50,000 jobs in the United States.
“So, ladies and gentlemen, this is Masa of Softbank from Japan, and he’s just agreed to invest $50 billion in the United States and 50,000 jobs,” Trump said. “He’s one of the great men of industry, so I just want to thank you very much. Thank you.”
TWEET
BY: Chandler Gill
December 6, 2016 2:27 pm
President-elect Donald Trump made an announcement from Trump Tower on Tuesday that Japanese business mogul Masayoshi Son, the chief executive of Softbank Group, has pledged to invest $50 billion and 50,000 jobs in the United States.
“So, ladies and gentlemen, this is Masa of Softbank from Japan, and he’s just agreed to invest $50 billion in the United States and 50,000 jobs,” Trump said. “He’s one of the great men of industry, so I just want to thank you very much. Thank you.”
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Posted Dec 6, 2016 5:00 AM
Jonathan Miller
Kimberly Yee Goes Against the Grain in ArizonaSenate Approves Puerto Rico Rescue, Sends to ObamaPuerto Rico Rescue Bill Moves Forward
[FONT=Lyon_Text-Regular]
[FONT="]- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/gop-readies-cuts-federal-workforce-trump#sthash.xq2BJDb0.dpuf[/FONT]
Policy
[h=1]GOP Readies Cuts to Federal Workforce Under Trump[/h][h=2]Reductions part of long-sought civil service overhaul[/h]
[h=1]GOP Readies Cuts to Federal Workforce Under Trump[/h][h=2]Reductions part of long-sought civil service overhaul[/h]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Posted Dec 6, 2016 5:00 AM
Jonathan Miller
Kimberly Yee Goes Against the Grain in ArizonaSenate Approves Puerto Rico Rescue, Sends to ObamaPuerto Rico Rescue Bill Moves Forward
[FONT=Lyon_Text-Regular]
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz is readying a plan that would likely make big changes to federal workers’ generous retirement benefits (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)
For years, Republicans in Congress have been eyeing an overhaul of the federal workforce — by reducing the number of workers and curtailing benefits and pay while making it easier to fire bad employees.
Now, with a president-elect who has promised to do much the same, 2017 could be the best time in recent memory to make sweeping changes affecting those who work for the bureaucracy.
One major plan is being readied by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Utah Republican calls it “high on our agenda.” While details remain sketchy, it would likely mean big changes to the generous retirement benefits given federal workers, mainly by looking to shift new employees from a defined benefit into a market-based 401(k).He is also interested in making it easier to fire workers who perform badly and wants to reduce the federal civilian workforce, which currently numbers 2.1 million employees, not including U.S. Postal Service employees.
“We’ve got to deal with budget realities, and while we have good federal workers, we have too many of them,” he told Roll Call.
[h=2]Longtime goal[/h]Republican leaders have long made it clear they’d like to see major changes to the civilian workforce. In fiscal 2016, the House and Senate budget resolutions called for a reduction in the number of civilian employees using a formula that would allow agencies to hire one new employee for every three who leave, reducing the workforce by roughly 10 percent while exempting “national-security positions.”
The House budget resolution also called for an eventual phaseout of the defined benefit pension while increasing employee contributions to 6.35 percent, among other benefit changes. The House plan would have saved roughly $281 billion over 10 years, according to figures compiled by Government Executive.
[Wages Request for Federal Workers Filed]
AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, said the Wisconsin Republican “believes civil service reform is necessary and will look to the committee to work on the substance.”
Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox
[FONT="][/FONT]
Republicans would likely exempt those employees deemed essential for national security, or roughly 50 percent of the total workforce, according to some experts. Chaffetz said he’d seek to increase the number of Secret Service employees. If President-elect Donald Trump wants to institute a hiring freeze, as he has promised, he can do so via executive order or other actions.
Chaffetz has yet to settle on a firm formula on how to achieve reductions, but he said some sort of attrition plan will likely be part of the bill. “I haven’t locked down on a formula, but I think an attrition formula is a wise way to go,” he said.
[h=2]‘Meaningful reform’[/h]The congressman shepherding such legislation during its early stages will be an intriguing player to watch. North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the Government Operations subcommittee, will also be the head of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus next year.
In 2015, he was stripped of his chairmanship by Chaffetz during a fight over the speakership of John A. Boehner — though Chaffetz ultimately relented and reinstated Meadows. That same year, Meadows embarked on a “listening tour” of federal agencies, and later offered an apology to federal workers whom he said were being unfairly scapegoated.
In an interview, Meadows said that he was preparing to work on “meaningful reform that works well with accountability and efficiency” and said the complexity of the issues involved means that a bill would likely not be out during the early part of 2017.
[h=2]Uncertainty looms[/h]Paul C. Light, a professor at New York University who studies the federal workforce, said federal workers shouldn’t necessarily be afraid of potential changes, but “should be very uncertain about what the future holds.” He said some revisions are needed but called the attrition proposals he’s seen “irresponsible.”
“It’s not only a blunt ax, it’s a rusty, damaging ax,” Light said. The main problem he sees with most attrition proposals is that they offer no safeguard to prevent a stampede out the door of the most experienced and highest-performing workers.
In this environment, he predicted Democrats would have a difficult time trying to block new legislation, and will likely need to meet Republicans on some issues. “I think it’s going to pass the House, and it’s going to be very, very tough,” he said. “And the Senate Democrats are going to have to take action. … They’re going to have to come up with a proposal that deals with the problems we’re having in the civil service system.”
[Bill Would Let Federal Workers Commute Via Uber]
Democratic Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, where the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health and National Security Agency are located, gave no indication that Democrats are ready to compromise.
He said some agencies are understaffed as is and that they’re “not going to be able to carry out their mission” if Republican proposals on worker reduction succeed. “The federal workforce is a high priority for us. We believe in the importance of governmental service,” he said, adding, “I’m against any effort to diminish the compensation package for federal workers.”
[h=2]Senate response[/h]It was unclear whether a companion bill will be readied in the Senate, though Chaffetz suggested one might be in the offing “in the new year.”
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has long made it clear that he believes the workforce is both too large and overcompensated. In an email statement, Johnson said he is looking forward to working with Trump and Chaffetz on “long-overdue reforms.”
“The best way to achieve this is to come to the negotiating table with all stakeholders. We may not agree on everything, but if we start with the areas of agreement, I am confident that we can make continuous improvements to the functionality of the federal workforce,” Johnson said.
Sen. James Lankford, the chairman of the Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management subcommittee that deals with federal workers, said that “we’re not necessarily looking at ways to reduce the federal workforce, we’re looking at the effectiveness of how it actually operates.”
The Oklahoma Republican said his committee is focused on ways to overhaul the Office of Personnel Management and its perpetual backlog of processing retirement applications, and speeding up the hiring process, among other issues.
In 2011, GOP Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah offered legislation aimed at thinning the workforce by 15 percent over a decade. He said he did not have any new legislation to offer, and said only last week: “I’m going to support President-elect Trump as much as I can. We’ll do whatever we have to.”
[/FONT]
[/FONT]For years, Republicans in Congress have been eyeing an overhaul of the federal workforce — by reducing the number of workers and curtailing benefits and pay while making it easier to fire bad employees.
Now, with a president-elect who has promised to do much the same, 2017 could be the best time in recent memory to make sweeping changes affecting those who work for the bureaucracy.
One major plan is being readied by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Utah Republican calls it “high on our agenda.” While details remain sketchy, it would likely mean big changes to the generous retirement benefits given federal workers, mainly by looking to shift new employees from a defined benefit into a market-based 401(k).He is also interested in making it easier to fire workers who perform badly and wants to reduce the federal civilian workforce, which currently numbers 2.1 million employees, not including U.S. Postal Service employees.
“We’ve got to deal with budget realities, and while we have good federal workers, we have too many of them,” he told Roll Call.
[h=2]Longtime goal[/h]Republican leaders have long made it clear they’d like to see major changes to the civilian workforce. In fiscal 2016, the House and Senate budget resolutions called for a reduction in the number of civilian employees using a formula that would allow agencies to hire one new employee for every three who leave, reducing the workforce by roughly 10 percent while exempting “national-security positions.”
The House budget resolution also called for an eventual phaseout of the defined benefit pension while increasing employee contributions to 6.35 percent, among other benefit changes. The House plan would have saved roughly $281 billion over 10 years, according to figures compiled by Government Executive.
[Wages Request for Federal Workers Filed]
AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, said the Wisconsin Republican “believes civil service reform is necessary and will look to the committee to work on the substance.”
Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox
[FONT="][/FONT]
Republicans would likely exempt those employees deemed essential for national security, or roughly 50 percent of the total workforce, according to some experts. Chaffetz said he’d seek to increase the number of Secret Service employees. If President-elect Donald Trump wants to institute a hiring freeze, as he has promised, he can do so via executive order or other actions.
Chaffetz has yet to settle on a firm formula on how to achieve reductions, but he said some sort of attrition plan will likely be part of the bill. “I haven’t locked down on a formula, but I think an attrition formula is a wise way to go,” he said.
[h=2]‘Meaningful reform’[/h]The congressman shepherding such legislation during its early stages will be an intriguing player to watch. North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the Government Operations subcommittee, will also be the head of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus next year.
In 2015, he was stripped of his chairmanship by Chaffetz during a fight over the speakership of John A. Boehner — though Chaffetz ultimately relented and reinstated Meadows. That same year, Meadows embarked on a “listening tour” of federal agencies, and later offered an apology to federal workers whom he said were being unfairly scapegoated.
In an interview, Meadows said that he was preparing to work on “meaningful reform that works well with accountability and efficiency” and said the complexity of the issues involved means that a bill would likely not be out during the early part of 2017.
[h=2]Uncertainty looms[/h]Paul C. Light, a professor at New York University who studies the federal workforce, said federal workers shouldn’t necessarily be afraid of potential changes, but “should be very uncertain about what the future holds.” He said some revisions are needed but called the attrition proposals he’s seen “irresponsible.”
“It’s not only a blunt ax, it’s a rusty, damaging ax,” Light said. The main problem he sees with most attrition proposals is that they offer no safeguard to prevent a stampede out the door of the most experienced and highest-performing workers.
In this environment, he predicted Democrats would have a difficult time trying to block new legislation, and will likely need to meet Republicans on some issues. “I think it’s going to pass the House, and it’s going to be very, very tough,” he said. “And the Senate Democrats are going to have to take action. … They’re going to have to come up with a proposal that deals with the problems we’re having in the civil service system.”
[Bill Would Let Federal Workers Commute Via Uber]
Democratic Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, where the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health and National Security Agency are located, gave no indication that Democrats are ready to compromise.
He said some agencies are understaffed as is and that they’re “not going to be able to carry out their mission” if Republican proposals on worker reduction succeed. “The federal workforce is a high priority for us. We believe in the importance of governmental service,” he said, adding, “I’m against any effort to diminish the compensation package for federal workers.”
[h=2]Senate response[/h]It was unclear whether a companion bill will be readied in the Senate, though Chaffetz suggested one might be in the offing “in the new year.”
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has long made it clear that he believes the workforce is both too large and overcompensated. In an email statement, Johnson said he is looking forward to working with Trump and Chaffetz on “long-overdue reforms.”
“The best way to achieve this is to come to the negotiating table with all stakeholders. We may not agree on everything, but if we start with the areas of agreement, I am confident that we can make continuous improvements to the functionality of the federal workforce,” Johnson said.
Sen. James Lankford, the chairman of the Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management subcommittee that deals with federal workers, said that “we’re not necessarily looking at ways to reduce the federal workforce, we’re looking at the effectiveness of how it actually operates.”
The Oklahoma Republican said his committee is focused on ways to overhaul the Office of Personnel Management and its perpetual backlog of processing retirement applications, and speeding up the hiring process, among other issues.
In 2011, GOP Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah offered legislation aimed at thinning the workforce by 15 percent over a decade. He said he did not have any new legislation to offer, and said only last week: “I’m going to support President-elect Trump as much as I can. We’ll do whatever we have to.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/gop-readies-cuts-federal-workforce-trump#sthash.xq2BJDb0.dpuf[/FONT]
One thing that amazes me about those who criticize Trump is his choice of generals to be heads of different departments. Think about it. Generals have attained the highest ranks because they deserved them for doing their jobs well. They are dedicated to this country and willing to serve and even give their lives. They have not gotten where they are by being involved in lobbying like so many congressmen are. They make decisions and act accordingly. They can separate politics from their jobs and their responsibilities. The term “politically correct” can be shoved aside and progress can be made for the general good (no pun intended). I think Trump is very wise to choose these generals. They are dedicated to making this country great again and that is what it is all about. They can get us where we need to go.
[h=1]The Left's Gambles[/h]
Thomas Sowell
|
Posted: Dec 06, 2016 12:01 AM
Share (2K) Tweet
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/12/06/the-lefts-gambles-n2255465#article-comments
Trending
Sometimes life forces us to make decisions, even when we don't have enough information to know how the decision will turn out. The risks may be even greater when people make decisions for other people. Yet there are some who are not only willing, but eager, to take decisions away from those who are directly affected.
Something as personal as what doctor we want to go to has been taken out of our hands by ObamaCare. What job offer, at what pay rate, someone wants to accept has been taken out of their hands by minimum wage laws.
Sick people who are dying are prevented from trying a medication that has not yet completed all the long years of tests required by federal regulations -- even if the medication has been used for years in other countries without ill effects.
One by one, innumerable decisions have been taken out of the hands of those directly affected. This is not just something that has happened. It is a central part of the agenda of the political left, even though they describe what they are doing in terms of the bad things they claim to be preventing and the good things they claim to be creating.
Minimum wage laws are described as preventing workers from being "exploited" by employers who pay less than what third parties want them to pay. But would people accept wages that third parties don't like if there were better alternatives available?
This is an issue that is very personal to me. When I left home at the age of 17, going out into the world as a black high school dropout with very little experience and no skills, the minimum wage law had been rendered meaningless by ten years of inflation since the law was passed. In other words, there was no minimum wage law in effect, for all practical purposes.
CARTOONS | JERRY HOLBERT
VIEW CARTOON
It was far easier for me to find jobs then than it is for teenage black high school dropouts today. After the minimum wage was raised to keep up with inflation, for decades the unemployment rate for black male 17-year-olds never fell below TRIPLE what it was for me -- and in some years their unemployment rate was as much as five times what it was when I was a teenager.
Yet many people on the left were able to feel good about themselves for having prevented "exploitation" -- that is, wage rates less than what third parties would like to see. No employer in his right mind was going to pay me what third parties wanted paid, when I had nothing to contribute, except in the simplest jobs.
As for me, my options would have been welfare or crime, and welfare was a lot harder to get in those days. As it was, the ineffectiveness of the minimum wage law at that time allowed me time to acquire job skills that would enable me to move on to successively better jobs -- and eventually to complete my education. Most people who have minimum wage jobs do not stay at those jobs for life. The turnover rate among people who are flipping hamburgers was found by one study to be so high that those who have such jobs on New Year's Day are very unlikely to still be there at Christmas.
In short, the left has been gambling with other people's livelihoods -- and the left pays no price when that gamble fails.
It is the same story when the left prevents dying people from getting medications that have been used for years in other countries, without dire effects, but have not yet gotten through the long maze of federal "safety" regulations in the U.S.
People have died from such "safety." Police are dying from restrictions on them that keep criminals safe.
San Francisco is currently trying to impose more restrictions on the police, restrictions that will prevent them from shooting at a moving car, except under special conditions that they will have to think about when they have a split second to make a decision that can cost them their own lives. But the left will pay no price.
One of the most zealous crusades of the left has been to prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns, even though gun control laws have little or no effect on criminals who violate laws in general. You can read through reams of rhetoric from gun control advocates without encountering a single hard fact showing gun control laws reducing crime in general or murder in particular.
Such hard evidence as exists points in the opposite direction.
But the gun control gamble with other people's lives is undeterred. And the left still pays no price when they are wrong.
Thomas Sowell
|
Posted: Dec 06, 2016 12:01 AM
Share (2K) Tweet
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/12/06/the-lefts-gambles-n2255465#article-comments
Trending
-
Mike Adams
[FONT="]How to Answer a False Accusation of Racism[/FONT] -
Michael Barone
[FONT="]The Collapse of the Political Left[/FONT] -
Brent Bozell
[FONT="]Hollywood Ponders America's Hatred of Muslims[/FONT]
Sometimes life forces us to make decisions, even when we don't have enough information to know how the decision will turn out. The risks may be even greater when people make decisions for other people. Yet there are some who are not only willing, but eager, to take decisions away from those who are directly affected.
Something as personal as what doctor we want to go to has been taken out of our hands by ObamaCare. What job offer, at what pay rate, someone wants to accept has been taken out of their hands by minimum wage laws.
Sick people who are dying are prevented from trying a medication that has not yet completed all the long years of tests required by federal regulations -- even if the medication has been used for years in other countries without ill effects.
One by one, innumerable decisions have been taken out of the hands of those directly affected. This is not just something that has happened. It is a central part of the agenda of the political left, even though they describe what they are doing in terms of the bad things they claim to be preventing and the good things they claim to be creating.
Minimum wage laws are described as preventing workers from being "exploited" by employers who pay less than what third parties want them to pay. But would people accept wages that third parties don't like if there were better alternatives available?
This is an issue that is very personal to me. When I left home at the age of 17, going out into the world as a black high school dropout with very little experience and no skills, the minimum wage law had been rendered meaningless by ten years of inflation since the law was passed. In other words, there was no minimum wage law in effect, for all practical purposes.
CARTOONS | JERRY HOLBERT
VIEW CARTOON
It was far easier for me to find jobs then than it is for teenage black high school dropouts today. After the minimum wage was raised to keep up with inflation, for decades the unemployment rate for black male 17-year-olds never fell below TRIPLE what it was for me -- and in some years their unemployment rate was as much as five times what it was when I was a teenager.
Yet many people on the left were able to feel good about themselves for having prevented "exploitation" -- that is, wage rates less than what third parties would like to see. No employer in his right mind was going to pay me what third parties wanted paid, when I had nothing to contribute, except in the simplest jobs.
As for me, my options would have been welfare or crime, and welfare was a lot harder to get in those days. As it was, the ineffectiveness of the minimum wage law at that time allowed me time to acquire job skills that would enable me to move on to successively better jobs -- and eventually to complete my education. Most people who have minimum wage jobs do not stay at those jobs for life. The turnover rate among people who are flipping hamburgers was found by one study to be so high that those who have such jobs on New Year's Day are very unlikely to still be there at Christmas.
In short, the left has been gambling with other people's livelihoods -- and the left pays no price when that gamble fails.
People have died from such "safety." Police are dying from restrictions on them that keep criminals safe.
San Francisco is currently trying to impose more restrictions on the police, restrictions that will prevent them from shooting at a moving car, except under special conditions that they will have to think about when they have a split second to make a decision that can cost them their own lives. But the left will pay no price.
One of the most zealous crusades of the left has been to prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns, even though gun control laws have little or no effect on criminals who violate laws in general. You can read through reams of rhetoric from gun control advocates without encountering a single hard fact showing gun control laws reducing crime in general or murder in particular.
Such hard evidence as exists points in the opposite direction.
But the gun control gamble with other people's lives is undeterred. And the left still pays no price when they are wrong.
[h=1]Draining the Swamp: Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis to Propose Constitutional Amendment on Term Limits[/h]
by BEN KEW9 Dec 20161,365
[h=2]Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) have revealed their plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that will impose term limits for both congressmen and senators.[/h]In a joint op-ed for The Washington Post, the two Republican firebrands said that term limits would be an effective way for the new Republican administration to “drain the swamp.”
[FONT="]VIDEOWhite Christmas Comes Early
Pause
Mute
Current Time0:33
/
Duration Time0:42
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Fullscreen
“We believe that the rise of political careerism in modern Washington is a drastic departure from what the founders intended of our federal governing bodies. To effectively “drain the swamp,” we believe it is past time to enact term limits for Congress.”
A policy of congressional term limits was repeatedly advocated for by President-elect Donald Trump during his presidential campaign, with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan also voicing his support for the idea.
The amendment would impose a three term limit for members of congress and a two term limit for senators.
Both Cruz and DeSantis also point to the “broad support” for congressional term limits, citing a Ramussen survey conducted in October that showed 74% of likely voters supported the idea.
Proposals to impose congressional term limits have been voted on before, with a 1998 proposal failing to receive the necessary two thirds support for passage. Similarly in 2012, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a non-binding measure endorsing the amendment.
“The time is now for Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, to pass a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits and send it to the states for speedy ratification,” the pair said.
“With control of a decisive majority of the states, the executive branch, the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Republican Party has the responsibility to respond to the voters’ call to action. We must, and we can, deliver,” they concluded.
[/FONT]
2783
3
by BEN KEW9 Dec 20161,365
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
[h=2]Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) have revealed their plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that will impose term limits for both congressmen and senators.[/h]In a joint op-ed for The Washington Post, the two Republican firebrands said that term limits would be an effective way for the new Republican administration to “drain the swamp.”
[FONT="]VIDEOWhite Christmas Comes Early
Pause
Mute
Current Time0:33
/
Duration Time0:42
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
“We believe that the rise of political careerism in modern Washington is a drastic departure from what the founders intended of our federal governing bodies. To effectively “drain the swamp,” we believe it is past time to enact term limits for Congress.”
A policy of congressional term limits was repeatedly advocated for by President-elect Donald Trump during his presidential campaign, with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan also voicing his support for the idea.
The amendment would impose a three term limit for members of congress and a two term limit for senators.
Both Cruz and DeSantis also point to the “broad support” for congressional term limits, citing a Ramussen survey conducted in October that showed 74% of likely voters supported the idea.
Proposals to impose congressional term limits have been voted on before, with a 1998 proposal failing to receive the necessary two thirds support for passage. Similarly in 2012, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a non-binding measure endorsing the amendment.
“The time is now for Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, to pass a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits and send it to the states for speedy ratification,” the pair said.
“With control of a decisive majority of the states, the executive branch, the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Republican Party has the responsibility to respond to the voters’ call to action. We must, and we can, deliver,” they concluded.
[/FONT]
The Hawk on Russia Policy? Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 20, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Photo
Vladimir V. Putin has a grudge against Hillary Clinton to match the one she has against him.CreditPool photo by Yuri KochetkovWASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton made it abundantly clear Wednesday night that if she defeats Donald J. Trump next month she will enter the White House with the most contentious relationship with Russia of any president in more than three decades, and with a visceral, personal animus toward Vladimir V. Putin, its leader.
“We haven’t seen a you-can’t-trust-these-guys tone like this since the days of Ronald Reagan,” said Stephen Sestanovich, who served in President Bill Clinton’s State Department and is the author of “Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama.” “But even that was more a systemic criticism of the Soviet Union. This is focused on Putin himself.”
In a reversal of political roles, Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, is the one portraying Mr. Putin as America’s newest archenemy, whose underlings hack into her Brooklyn campaign headquarters, bomb Syrian civilians and threaten Ukraine and NATO allies in Europe. For a woman who presented a big red “reset” button to her Russian counterpart in March 2009 (with the word incorrectly translated into Russian), the change in tone was more striking than ever in her debate with Donald J. Trump.
She, and the Obama White House, insist they were on the right course until Mr. Putin decided he had more to gain from reviving Cold War tensions than from a quarter-century effort to integrate with the West. Now, much of the Democratic foreign policy establishment has become as hawkish as Mrs. Clinton on the subject of Russia, a view that seems almost certain to outlast the campaign.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Privately, some of her longtime advisers are already thinking about what mix of sanctions, diplomatic isolation and international condemnation they might put together if they take office to deal with Mr. Putin and the fragile economic state he runs, an update of the “containment” strategy that George F. Kennan formulated for President Harry S. Truman in 1947.
Equally surprising is the Republican reversal of tone. Only four years ago, it was the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, who was warning of the dangers of a revanchist Russia and President Obama who said “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” noting that “the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
Most of the Republican Party remains firmly distrustful of Russia. But not Mr. Trump, its standard-bearer.
“If the United States got along with Russia, wouldn’t be so bad,” he said Wednesday, uttering not a word about Mr. Putin’s land grabs. Instead, he urged viewers to “take a look at the ‘Start Up’ they signed,” apparently confusing the lingo of Silicon Valley with New START, the 2010 arms control treaty. The problem, he said, is that Russia is outbuilding the United States’ nuclear arsenal — it is not, at least so far, because of the treaty’s limits. The debate then devolved into an argument over which candidate was Putin’s puppet.
Time after time, Mr. Trump has insisted, as he did during Wednesday’s debate, that the United States has “no idea” who was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s aides. “Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way,” he argued, from Syria to the development of new missiles.
For days, hacked emails from the Gmail account of John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have embarrassed her campaign, and on Thursday, emails from an account Mr. Obama had during his 2008 transition surfaced for the first time. No one knows if the hacking campaign is winding down or whether the revelations so far are simply a prelude to something bigger between now and Election Day.
Mr. Obama is considering retaliation that, according to several senior officials, could include attacks inside Russia that could expose corruption among the leadership and embarrass Mr. Putin. It is not clear whether Mr. Obama will choose that route, even after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued a threat last weekend that Mr. Putin could get some of his own medicine.
But it is clear that if Mrs. Clinton wins, she will enter the White House with a very personal grudge against Mr. Putin. He, in turn, has long harbored a grudge against her for her statements in 2011 calling into question the validity of a Russian parliamentary election.
It is possible, Mr. Sestanovich warned, that Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration are seeing Mr. Putin’s direct hand in too many events. He questioned how the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., would know for certain that the Kremlin leadership was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the emails of Mr. Podesta and Colin L. Powell, one of Mrs. Clinton’s predecessors as secretary of state. The United States has released none of its evidence, so it is unclear if the conclusion was based on an educated guess about Kremlin operations, an “implant” in Russian networks, or a human spy or communications intercept.
But it is clear, Mr. Sestanovich said, that Mr. Putin is using this moment of leadership transition to press for any advantage, with methods such as using information warfare techniques on American soil, intimidating Ukraine, and running major military exercises on the border with Norway.
Not surprisingly, some Democrats on the left find all this a bit unnerving. “That reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign,” Stephen F. Cohen, a professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton, told CNN in an interview over the summer. “And they really need to stop.”
In fact, many in the Democratic Party have spent decades invested in bringing Moscow into the Western fold, dating to the days when President Bill Clinton first met with Boris Yeltsin, then the Russian president, and began the process of expanding the Group of 7 industrialized countries to the Group of 8. They also began the long process of bringing Russia into the World Trade Organization, an effort to wrap the country in Western-created rules. The nuclear arsenals on both sides shrank by more than 80 percent, to 1,550 deployed warheads on each side under New START, which Mr. Obama negotiated in his first year in office.
The treaty remains in effect. But there are arguments over new weapons, and a major program to dispose of military stockpiles of plutonium was halted this month by Mr. Putin, citing the deterioration of relations with the United States.
And it is Mr. Trump who says he can reverse all that, with good negotiations, if he is president.
“I think I could see myself meeting with Putin and meeting with Russia prior to the start of the administration,” he said in an interview with Michael Savage, the talk show host, this week. “I think it would be wonderful.”
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 20, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
- Share
- Tweet
- More
- Save
Photo
Vladimir V. Putin has a grudge against Hillary Clinton to match the one she has against him.CreditPool photo by Yuri KochetkovWASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton made it abundantly clear Wednesday night that if she defeats Donald J. Trump next month she will enter the White House with the most contentious relationship with Russia of any president in more than three decades, and with a visceral, personal animus toward Vladimir V. Putin, its leader.
“We haven’t seen a you-can’t-trust-these-guys tone like this since the days of Ronald Reagan,” said Stephen Sestanovich, who served in President Bill Clinton’s State Department and is the author of “Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama.” “But even that was more a systemic criticism of the Soviet Union. This is focused on Putin himself.”
In a reversal of political roles, Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, is the one portraying Mr. Putin as America’s newest archenemy, whose underlings hack into her Brooklyn campaign headquarters, bomb Syrian civilians and threaten Ukraine and NATO allies in Europe. For a woman who presented a big red “reset” button to her Russian counterpart in March 2009 (with the word incorrectly translated into Russian), the change in tone was more striking than ever in her debate with Donald J. Trump.
She, and the Obama White House, insist they were on the right course until Mr. Putin decided he had more to gain from reviving Cold War tensions than from a quarter-century effort to integrate with the West. Now, much of the Democratic foreign policy establishment has become as hawkish as Mrs. Clinton on the subject of Russia, a view that seems almost certain to outlast the campaign.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
-
Donald Trump Says He Might Meet With Putin Before Inauguration OCT. 17, 2016
-
Behind Putin’s Combativeness, Some See Motives Other Than Syria OCT. 14, 2016
-
THE INTERPRETER
How Donald Trump Hacked the Politics of Foreign Policy OCT. 19, 2016
Privately, some of her longtime advisers are already thinking about what mix of sanctions, diplomatic isolation and international condemnation they might put together if they take office to deal with Mr. Putin and the fragile economic state he runs, an update of the “containment” strategy that George F. Kennan formulated for President Harry S. Truman in 1947.
Equally surprising is the Republican reversal of tone. Only four years ago, it was the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, who was warning of the dangers of a revanchist Russia and President Obama who said “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” noting that “the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
Most of the Republican Party remains firmly distrustful of Russia. But not Mr. Trump, its standard-bearer.
“If the United States got along with Russia, wouldn’t be so bad,” he said Wednesday, uttering not a word about Mr. Putin’s land grabs. Instead, he urged viewers to “take a look at the ‘Start Up’ they signed,” apparently confusing the lingo of Silicon Valley with New START, the 2010 arms control treaty. The problem, he said, is that Russia is outbuilding the United States’ nuclear arsenal — it is not, at least so far, because of the treaty’s limits. The debate then devolved into an argument over which candidate was Putin’s puppet.
Live Presidential Election Results
Full Coverage »
Full Coverage »
Time after time, Mr. Trump has insisted, as he did during Wednesday’s debate, that the United States has “no idea” who was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s aides. “Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way,” he argued, from Syria to the development of new missiles.
For days, hacked emails from the Gmail account of John D. Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have embarrassed her campaign, and on Thursday, emails from an account Mr. Obama had during his 2008 transition surfaced for the first time. No one knows if the hacking campaign is winding down or whether the revelations so far are simply a prelude to something bigger between now and Election Day.
Mr. Obama is considering retaliation that, according to several senior officials, could include attacks inside Russia that could expose corruption among the leadership and embarrass Mr. Putin. It is not clear whether Mr. Obama will choose that route, even after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued a threat last weekend that Mr. Putin could get some of his own medicine.
But it is clear that if Mrs. Clinton wins, she will enter the White House with a very personal grudge against Mr. Putin. He, in turn, has long harbored a grudge against her for her statements in 2011 calling into question the validity of a Russian parliamentary election.
It is possible, Mr. Sestanovich warned, that Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration are seeing Mr. Putin’s direct hand in too many events. He questioned how the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., would know for certain that the Kremlin leadership was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the emails of Mr. Podesta and Colin L. Powell, one of Mrs. Clinton’s predecessors as secretary of state. The United States has released none of its evidence, so it is unclear if the conclusion was based on an educated guess about Kremlin operations, an “implant” in Russian networks, or a human spy or communications intercept.
But it is clear, Mr. Sestanovich said, that Mr. Putin is using this moment of leadership transition to press for any advantage, with methods such as using information warfare techniques on American soil, intimidating Ukraine, and running major military exercises on the border with Norway.
Not surprisingly, some Democrats on the left find all this a bit unnerving. “That reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign,” Stephen F. Cohen, a professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton, told CNN in an interview over the summer. “And they really need to stop.”
In fact, many in the Democratic Party have spent decades invested in bringing Moscow into the Western fold, dating to the days when President Bill Clinton first met with Boris Yeltsin, then the Russian president, and began the process of expanding the Group of 7 industrialized countries to the Group of 8. They also began the long process of bringing Russia into the World Trade Organization, an effort to wrap the country in Western-created rules. The nuclear arsenals on both sides shrank by more than 80 percent, to 1,550 deployed warheads on each side under New START, which Mr. Obama negotiated in his first year in office.
The treaty remains in effect. But there are arguments over new weapons, and a major program to dispose of military stockpiles of plutonium was halted this month by Mr. Putin, citing the deterioration of relations with the United States.
And it is Mr. Trump who says he can reverse all that, with good negotiations, if he is president.
“I think I could see myself meeting with Putin and meeting with Russia prior to the start of the administration,” he said in an interview with Michael Savage, the talk show host, this week. “I think it would be wonderful.”
Also - remember this:
[h=3]Clinton Left Classified Data in Russian Hotel During State Secretary Trip[/h]
[h=3]Clinton Left Classified Data in Russian Hotel During State Secretary Trip[/h]
[h=2]10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’[/h]
Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence from the CIA investigation that Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.
Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence from the CIA investigation that Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.Why doesn't the liberal press ever bring this up in light of all the conversations about Russia.....hmm:
Barack Obama microphone gaffe: 'I'll have more flexibility after election ...
Barack Obama microphone gaffe: 'I'll have more flexibility after election ...
^^^^^^^
If Russia has been infiltrating our security for the past 8 or more years why hasn't our country under the leadership of Obama tightened our security etc.
Using all this as an excuse for Hillary losing the election is simply self serving. Nobody mentions the fact the Soros is involved with a company that makes voting machines and has them in many states Duh.
Let's move on folks. Time to make this a better country.
If Russia has been infiltrating our security for the past 8 or more years why hasn't our country under the leadership of Obama tightened our security etc.
Using all this as an excuse for Hillary losing the election is simply self serving. Nobody mentions the fact the Soros is involved with a company that makes voting machines and has them in many states Duh.
Let's move on folks. Time to make this a better country.
Oh yes, one more thing worth mentioning:
[h=3]Hillary-Putin Uranium Deal: How Long Will Media Ignore It?[/h]
[h=3]Hillary-Putin Uranium Deal: How Long Will Media Ignore It?[/h]
10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’
the truth is in the details, but the lying left has no use for the truth
