B-Man
-
Posts
69,672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
The British Medical Association has said pregnant women should not be called "expectant mothers" as it could offend transgender people.
Instead, they should call them "pregnant people" so as not to upset intersex and transgender men, the union has said.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
-
WELL, GOOD, BECAUSE THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE:
White House Official, in Reversal, Says Green Card Holders Won’t Be Barred.
FAKE NEWS:
Narrative uber alles.
-
Susan Rice, policy wonk and former Dukakis & Clinton aide, who had no military experience whatsoever* before getting tapped as National Security Advisor by the Obama administration in 2013, blasts Trump’s decision to “remove military advice” from the National Security Council.Conveniently not mentioned is that Rice was replaced as National Security Advisor by LTG Michael T. “Mike” Flynn, USA (Ret).I swear, Susan, self awareness is so rare these days it should be considered a f$cking super power.
The troika made up of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton was perhaps the most disastrous foreign policy crew in American history. She’s got no room to talk.
-
@nytimes
Breaking News: 1 U.S. commando was killed and 4 were hurt in President Trump's first counterterrorism offensive twitter.com/i/web/status/8
BREAKING. After Eight Years Military Casualties Are Front Page News Again
Via a New York Times news alert:
I’m not opposed to military casualties being given front page billing. If you get killed in the service of your nation the least you have a right to expect is some acknowledgement of your sacrifice. And in a society based on democratic principles, the public, acting through its elected representatives, has the right and the duty to decide whether our policy goals are worth the lives of the young men and women we send off to accomplish those goals. What I am opposed to is the media using military casualties as a cudgel to beat Republican presidents while failing to acknowledge that they even happen when a Democrat is in the the White House.
It isn’t like the Obama years have been bloodless:
"http://thefallen.militarytimes.com/search?year=2016%20target="href="http://thefallen.militarytimes.com/search?year=2016%20target="
2016… 19 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
2015… 28 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
2014… 60 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
2013… 132 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
2012…314 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
2011… 467 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
2010… 559 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
2009… 459 US servicemembers died in combat operations.
At some point, shortly after January 20, 2009, deaths in combat ceased to be a concern to the US media. But now that there is a Republican in the White House, we can expect to be kept much more up to date on military casualties.
-
Tom Nichols is as big a NeverTrumper as there is, but he understands the strategy. And even he’s getting impatient with the opposition.
Stephen MillerVerified account @redsteeze 16h16 hours agProtests were happening at airports and Trump smiled and said "Look how it's working at airports already" His attitude is he won
-
In a better world, the main story today would be how the Trump Administration botched the rollout of this executive order;
but instead, liberal/media/elite reaction gives President Trump another win.
Do you want more Trump? Because explosive anger mixed with sanctimony is how you get more Trump
.
-
If you both used your brains, you'd see that B-Man's most recent article posted a condemnation of the Trump administration if certain allegations were true.
But hey, why read and think?
Thanks, but do not bother, (I even Highlighted it........lol)
They have little interest in reading.................and certainly not thinking.
Anyone who actually followed the election and read...........knows where the right stood.
They supported multiple other candidates before The Donald
But Gator and EII have their narrow minded narrative, and when I post something to show a view different from theirs........they cannot handle it.
-
Agreed. I feel like a lot of this comes down to next Thursday, when he announces his court for SCOTUS. Will he give the right what they want? Probably. But not because it is in the interest of the right, but because the media schittstorm to follow will be pretty epic.
Conservatives, yes. Republicans, not so much.
I agree, but FireChan had specifically said "the Right"
so I reminded those, with an IQ of 3 digits, that most Conservatives had supported multiple other candidates, not the Donald.
-
To be fair, neither has the right.
Conservatives have ALWAYS pointed out that Trump was not one of them.
-
.....Click on to enlarge....
-
-
Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria
by David FrenchThe hysterical rhetoric about President Trump’s executive order on refugees is out of control. Let’s slow down and take a look at the facts.
To read the online commentary, one would think that President Trump just fundamentally corrupted the American character. You would think that the executive order on refugees he signed yesterday betrayed America’s Founding ideals. You might even think he banned people from an entire faith from American shores.
Just look at the rhetoric. Here’s Chuck Schumer: "Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight."
CNN, doing its best Huffington Post impersonation, ran a headline declaring “Trump bans 134,000,000 from the U.S.” The Huffington Post, outdoing itself, just put the Statue of Liberty upside down on its front page.So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.
Let’s analyze the key provisions, separate the fact from the hysteria, and introduce just a bit of historical perspective.
First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms. The chart below, from the Migration Policy Ins: (AT LINK)
The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016. Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction.
Second, the order imposes a temporary, 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These are countries either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist governments.
The ban is in place while the Department of Homeland Security determines the “information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.” It could, however, be extended or expanded depending on whether countries are capable of providing the requested information.
{snip}However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. If, however, the Trump administration continues to apply the order to legal permanent residents, it should indeed be condemned.
Third, Trump’s order also puts an indefinite hold on admission of Syrian refugees to the United States “until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.” This is perhaps the least consequential aspect of his order — and is largely a return to the Obama administration’s practices from 2011 to 2014. For all the Democrats’ wailing and gnashing of teeth, until 2016 the Obama administration had already largely slammed the door on Syrian-refugee admissions.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria -
THERE’S THAT WORD AGAIN: Obama’s Legacy — 8 Years of an Unexpectedly Weak Economy.
The latest numbers mean that Obama’s economic forecasters missed their growth targets every year that he was in office. And, once again, economists who had been promising that strong growth was just around the corner — most recently because of a relatively strong third quarter — had to eat crow.It also means that GDP growth has not exceeded 3% for 11 straight years. . . .In dollar terms,if Obama’s recovery had merely been average, the nation’s GDP would be $2.4 trillion bigger.That translates into $19,000 in lost income per household.Heck, if Obama’s recovery had managed only to live up to the forecasts Obama himself made at the start of each year — which always turned out to be too optimistic — GDP would be nearly $1 trillion bigger today.Obama’s record on jobs tells the same story. On average, the number of jobs was 18% higher 7-1/2 years after those recoveries started. Under Obama, it was 10.9%. That translates into 12 million fewer jobs.If you want to know why Donald Trump is sitting in the Oval Office instead of Hillary Clinton, here are your reasons.In our view, the incredibly mediocre economy we’ve suffered with over the past 7-1/2 years is not the result of some mysterious underlying “secular” shift that makes it impossible to grow faster than 2.6%. It is the result of bad economic policies, most of which were enacted by Obama in his first two years in office when Democrats controlled Congress.The good news for Trump is that the bar is set pretty low.
-
EXTREME VETTING, HERE WE COME
President Trump began to fulfill one of his signal campaign promises yesterday with the promulgation of an executive order addressing immigration from Muslim countries. The New York Times has posted the text of the executive order here.
The order proceeds through a series of cross-reference to other laws that renders it incomprehensible on its own terms. Perhaps improvidently, I take the summary of the order’s operative provisions by Michael Shear and Helene Cooper in the New York Times at face value. See also Carol Morello’s Washington Post story on the order.
According to Shear and Cooper, the order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days, and Syrians indefinitely. It also suspends immigration from seven Muslim countries for only 90 days, while allegedly ordering priority be given to visas for Christians from Muslim nations (I don’t see the religious preference set forth in the text of the order). The seven Muslim countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Shear and Cooper want to imply that differentiation among faiths for the purposes of the order is unconstitutional. They write: “Mr. Trump also established a religious test for refugees from Muslim nations: He ordered that Christians and others from minority religions be granted priority over Muslims.” The Constitution, however, only bars religious tests for office or “public trust.” (More here.)
Might there be a reasonable basis for distinguishing among faiths for purposes of granting visas, refugee status, naturalization and immigration generally? Shear and Cooper don’t raise the question. Indeed, Shear and Cooper argue stupidly with the order throughout their story on it. They can’t help themselves.
Information is to be gathered, reviewed and summarized during the periods of suspension so that policy can be conformed to the national interest of the United States. Indeed, the order focuses throughout on the national interest of the United States, as in this provision that will never be quoted in a New York Times story:
Sec. 1: …In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this countrydo not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.You mean we aren’t already doing this? We must be out of our minds.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.You mean we aren’t already doing this? We must be out of our minds.
Despite its difficulty, the order is worth reviewing in its entirety. The following provision, for example, should resonate with citizens of sound mind:
It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.With Minnesota’s ever growing community of Somali immigrants and refugees, we find the order hitting close to home. The Star Tribune collects critical comments from Somali immigrants without any reference to the, ah, special law enforcement challenges that they have raised — and continue to raise.
The reform of visa, refugee and immigration policy implicit in the terms of the executive order are, to say the least, long overdue.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/extreme-vetting-here-we-come.php
-
-
-
-
-
The women’s march organizers blew it, and even the media realize it.
“A short and seemingly insignificant segment on CNN this morning illustrates just how badly the organizers of the so-called Women’s March on Washington blew their chance to turn their event into a national, bipartisan movement against Trump. . . .
Of perhaps more significant interest, however, is the fact that Keilar and CNN were forced to put the March for Life on the same political footing as the Women’s March on Washington. Equally surprising is the fact that the Women’s March on Washington is already being described as a ‘liberal women’s march’ even by an outlet such as CNN.
Instead of being a nonpartisan protest by all women against the tyranny of Trump, all the work and effort put into the Women’s March has been relegated, in the space of less than a week, to a partisan liberal protest that was most prominently associated with Planned Parenthood. All of the supposed moral authority of an entire gender has been wiped aside in favor of a frank and honest acknowledgement that the marchers were merely liberals who were super unhappy with how the election turned out.”
COMPARE AND CONTRAST:
Here’s Mia Love’s speech. Here’s Madonna.
-
DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH:
Princeton Freshman: They’re Training Us To Hate Each Other.
This mandatory orientation event was designed to help us appreciate our diversity as a student body during the first week of classes. But what did it really accomplish? In compressing us into isolated communities based on our race, religion or gender, the minister belittled every other piece of our identities. He faced a crowd of singular young adults and essentially told them that their heritage outweighed their humanity. The message was clear: know your kind and stick to it. Don’t risk offending people from other backgrounds by trying to understand their worldviews.Cost of attending Princeton University: $64,390 per year.
Too damn much to be force-fed crap like this. But you know, I had a college girlfriend who spent some time post-college working in the admissions office at Berkeley. She was (and is) a language savant, and she’d spent a summer at the University of Zagreb in what was then Tito’s Yugoslavia, after which she spoke Serbo-Croatian like a native. But she said the message from Berkeley’s administration to the students was just like Tito’s: You all hate each other, and you can only live together peacefully because of me. You can only deal with each other through me.
Divide and conquer.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255748/
.
-
back to the thread....................
-
-
“I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. - MLK
-
Good Lord, how stupid and sensitive can the Left be ?
He was using his last name to make a joke...........
Global warming err Climate change HOAX
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
“Sierra Nevada snowpack measured 197 percent of average…