Hundreds of people in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez gathered on the edge of the Rio Grande River on Friday to form a “human wall” to protest US President Donald Trump’s plans for a wall between the countries.
Thanks for the assist, Protestors. As we both know, the wall is necessary—metaphorically if not literally—in order to control our borders, regardless of who pays for it. Just be sure, guys, that you leave openings in it for easy, legal border crossing, just as we intend to do.
Within days of President Trump’s executive order to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, San Francisco had filed a lawsuit opposing the order [to block federal funding for them]….
We also have this regarding…coercion…by the Federal government.
Last year, a federal judge in Illinois ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Department of Homeland Security to force local jails to detain suspected undocumented immigrants without a warrant. And in a 1997 Supreme Court decision, Printz v US, a 5-4 majority held that the federal government “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
Neel Kashkari, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and active member of the Federal Open Market Committee, had the thought that’s the object of my thought in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.
…increase capital requirements on the biggest banks—those with assets over $250 billion—to at least 23.5%. It would reduce the risk of a taxpayer bailout to less than 10% over the next century.
No. Have the banks publish their reserve holdings and the total of the loans outstanding in their portfolio together with the per centages of the latter that are current, late, or in default. Let each bank’s creditors—depositors and other lenders—and investors make their own assessments of the bank’s viability. Government need not be involved.
That’s Howard Kurtz’ claim. In his piece about the NLMSM, Michael Flynn, and the “leak” that led to his resignation as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, Kurtz said that The Washington Post story that began the thing was “good reporting.”
Then Kurtz said this:
[T]he Post story would not have been possible without the cooperation of nine unnamed senior officials who furnished the leaked information.
The Post story was built entirely on those unnamed persons. Unnamed. We don’t know there were nine. We don’t know they were senior or even officials. We don’t even know they exist. I have to ask: what part of “unnamed” is unclear to Kurtz?
This time, courtesy of the Progressive-Democrats in the House of Representatives. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Congressman Elijah Cummings (D, MD), as part of their whining about the Republican majority in the House
…cited a tweet purportedly from [ex-National Security Advisor Michael (Lt Gen, USA, Ret)] Flynn that said, “I feel it is unfair that I have been made the sole scapegoat for what happened.”
Which Cummings proceeded to emphasize, with Pelosi chiming in.
CUMMINGS: Madam Leader, just this morning, Flynn tweeted, and this is a quote, “scapegoat,” end of quote. Scapegoat. He basically described himself as a scapegoat.
John Curtice, writing in The Guardian, in the land where John Locke was borne, seems confused on the question. His proximate piece is his missive on the nature of referenda in Great Britain. He began that piece with a false premise of very large proportion, and that—as false premises are wont to do—set the tone for the rest of his op-ed.
In the Commons debates on Brexit during the last fortnight, many MPs have found themselves voting for something they do not believe in. Instead of being their constituents’ “representative”, they now appear to be no more than the people’s “delegate”.
Army Colonel Jeffery Nance, the presiding judge in the Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl desertion case has some concerns, officially because Bergdahl’s lawyers has them; unfortunately, Nance has his own, and they’re misplaced.
The judge…called video of [President Donald] Trump repeatedly calling Bergdahl a traitor during campaign speeches “disturbing” at a pre-trial hearing Monday.
He went further:
He also asked prosecutors pointed questions about whether Trump’s criticism has already created a public perception that Bergdahl won’t be treated fairly.
Leave aside Michael Taube’s knee-jerk anti-Trumpism and his obsession with cute snark-bites liberally (in two senses of that word) sprinkled through his missive in the National Review. He writes about an interesting thought that may or may not be circulating in the Trump White House—Sarah Palin as ambassador to Canada.
A long-standing rumor that Palin is being considered by President Donald Trump to be the next US ambassador to Canada has gained momentum in recent days.
Oh, yeah—it’s also necessary to leave aside the NLMSM’s penchant for rumor-mongering rather than original reporting.
Buried at the bottom of a Japan Timespiece on the history of the Island of Taiwan that purports to recount the politics since 1947 of the island and then of the nation on the island was this bit:
On May 20, 2016, Tsai Ing-wen, the chair of the Democratic Progressive Party, was inaugurated as president of Taiwan. During her inauguration speech she said that the “goal of transitional justice is to pursue true social reconciliation, so that all Taiwanese can take to heart the mistakes of that era.”
Here’s Joe Pizarchik, ex- Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Director in the Interior Department, for all of the Obama years:
My biggest disappointment is a majority in Congress ignored the will of the people. They ignored the interests of the people in coal country, they ignored the law and they put corporate money ahead of all that.
Wow. Just wow. Because the people, exercising their will in electing the majority of Congress—all the members of Congress, come to that, every single one of them—had their will ignored when the majority that they elected executed on their will by rejecting a bad regulation.