[DW] The German minister has claimed migration is at the heart of society's disillusionment with politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel, however, said she would have put it a bit differently and called migration a "challenge."
German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, head of the CSU, the conservative sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel, has said that migration was the "mother of all political problems" in Germany and one of the principal reasons for waning support for the established parties, German media report.
"Many people now associate their social problems with the issue of migration," he told the Rheinische Post, adding that if Germany didn't change its migration policy major political parties would continue losing ground. He went on to link the "order of humanity" with balancing the political concerns of migrants and Germans.
Merkel: That's not how I'd put it
Merkel, however, said she would put it differently than her interior minister.
"I say that the question of migration poses challenges," she said in an interview with RTL television, adding that there are problems and success that come with the challenges of migration.
[Wash Examiner] On Day Two of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, a number of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared to be sizing themselves up for black judicial robes.
If they weren’t doing that, they were lamenting the fact that someone of their own great wisdom couldn’t sit on the Supreme Court ‐ the highest legislature in the land, they seem to think ‐ and rule the country from their lifetime position.
Democrats placed themselves one after another into Kavanaugh’s seat on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to second-guess rulings, which is only natural for those who think the courts are there to make policy decisions. Ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., complained that Kavanaugh had, in an opinion on D.C. gun control laws, deemed that semi-automatic rifles are in "common use" and thus not, under Supreme Court definition, something the D.C. government could ban. Feinstein was weirdly outraged about this characterization, given that private citizens in the U.S. own something on the order of 50 or 60 million such rifles, and possibly more.
Sen. Dick "Dick" Durbin, D-Ill., complained that Kavanaugh had dissented from an emergency ruling that ended up rushing a minor migrant girl in the care of the U.S. government off to get an abortion without parental consent. Durbin also complained about Kavanaugh’s interpretation of a complicated Supreme Court case that had deemed illegal immigrant workers unable to vote in workplace unionization elections.
For Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the problem was that Kavanaugh had written an opinion favoring two mergers in the grocery and health insurance industries.
All these opinions about Kavanaugh’s rulings have one thing in common: They come from politicians who seem to think judging is a lot like what they do for a living. But judges don’t make policy, and the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature. That’s why a good judge who decides cases based on law and precedent will not like all the outcomes of the cases he hears.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., complained that Kavanaugh had dissented from an emergency ruling that ended up rushing a minor migrant girl in the care of the U.S. government off to get an abortion without parental consent. Durbin also complained about Kavanaugh’s interpretation of a complicated Supreme Court case that had deemed illegal immigrant workers unable to vote in workplace unionization elections.
They DO think that legislating from the bench is what the Supreme Court does. After all, when you can't get things done democratically, you resort to the courts. Judges make political decisions and work backwards to justify them.
Coming to an end, though, and don't expect them to like it one bit.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
09/06/2018 12:36 Comments ||
Yep. Several federal circuits have been filled with non-legislative judges as well. Trump gets two terms and you can expect the most liberal circuits to get flipped as well.
The left knows that it is the Supreme Court where the buck stops and Trump is ending that dream as well. If any libtard judges go down in the next 2 years expect full revolt and violence to keep the seats from being filled with a non-legislative judge.
[NTK Network] Fox News host Tucker Carlson started his show Wednesday night claiming he had a "pretty good idea who wrote" the controversial anonymous New York Times op-ed and added that representatives from his show had called the White House for comment.
Earlier in the day, The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed that was allegedly written by a "senior official in the Trump administration."
According to the op-ed’s anonymous author, "there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment," against President Trump because of the "instability" many witnessed.
"We think we’ve got a pretty good idea who wrote this piece. We’ve called the White House for comment on it tonight. But until we confirm the identity, of course, we’re not going to accuse anybody in public," Carlson said.
Somewhere in the deep background, think about the cabal operating out of that compound up the street protected by the Secret Service that houses ValJar and her minions....and then think about the places they salted away people.
"Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis didn’t favorably receive former Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s repeated requests to get the retired Marine Corps general to appear on numerous talk shows, according to an excerpt from Bob Woodward’s upcoming book, “Fear: Trump in the White House.”
According to one passage in the book, an exasperated Mattis, having answered “no” a number of times already, lashed out at Spicer, who is an officer in the Navy Reserve.
“Sean, I’ve killed people for a living,” the secretary of defense said. “If you call me again, I’m going to f–king send you to Afghanistan. Are we clear?”
Heh. So, maybe there is some truth in the flotsam, just a bit so as to give it provenance.
The book's publisher, Simon & Schuster, is a subsidiary of CBS. You should have seen CBS News anchor Jeff Glor on Tuesday hawking this book for all he was worth for at least the first 10 minutes of the so-called news broadcast. It's one thing for CBS to advertise a book and it's quite another to call that advertisement news. It isn't news. It's anti-Trump, globalist and socialist propaganda and crass commercialism. CBS has abandoned all pretense of being a reliable source of news.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/06/2018 12:42 Comments ||
Remember the hysteria in the MSM over Wolff's book? Didn't last long. Oomooroosa's book fell out of the news even quicker. I think I see a trend approaching...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/06/2018 13:09 Comments ||
[Mercer - March 2017 article] Donald Trump is making a HUGE mistake that could cost him the midterms and/or make him a one-term president. He thinks he can defang the snakes he has gathered around him in the administration. President Trump has hired individuals who do not articulate the principles he ran on and jump at every opportunity to stick it to him.
"Hiring different perspectives in business could well be a strength. But it’s not a strength when it comes to politics and policy. In politics, you want a team that shares a political philosophy."
The main mamba is Paul Ryan, much loved and admired by MSNBC (see: "An Ode To Paul Ryan By MSNBC’s Left-Liberal Lawrence O’Donnell"), CNN and most liberal media. The GOP news media love Ryan, too, but are scared to come out as fans lest Trump Nation retaliate.
Like Pavlov’s dog, Ryan, the Damien look alike (I’m only ever referencing the old, excellent, 1970s-19802 Omen/Damien movies; there is no other, as far as I’m concerned) can’t but appear to please the CNN interviewer while making the president look bad. (See: "Ryan: I’ve seen no evidence wiretap occurred.")
Poor Damien, purr CNN’s empaneled women. The lovely, wonkish young Ryan [despised by Trump Nation] would rather legislate than have to defend The Donald.
[The Federalist] After a summer of anticipation and agitation, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh began yesterday. As has been typical for the last several decades, this Supreme Court hearing was even more rancorous than the last. Here’s what we learned from the first day’s events.
1. Protesters Are Clueless
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley called the meeting to order in the morning, but had hardly begun when loyal members of the Trump resistance showed that, as usual, they have no idea of how to behave in public. Reenacting the customs of social media in real life, they screamed, yelled, and stomped their feet even before Grassley and the other senators had a chance to say anything to which they might object.
Their quickness to act gave the game away: these protestors did not object to the content of the hearings, but to the hearings themselves.
It is unclear what they hoped to accomplish, but that is not unheard of among protesters, right or left. Since the 2016 election, opponents of the president and his agenda have excelled at making loud noises and wearing silly costumes, yet once the cosplay elements are stripped away, the concrete steps they demand are maddeningly unclear. Their agitprop, while no doubt gratifying to themselves, will never convert an opponent and might only repel an undecided observer.
Perhaps it is just a sign of the times. For all of the complaints about President Trump’s lack of decorum, the average denizen of the far left has always been less decorous than his counterpart on the right. Should we now expect the loutish manners of social media to bleed into all areas of civic life?
Things may well get worse in this regard before they get better. In any case, about two dozen protesters made enough sound and fury to get themselves removed and arrested. The atmosphere got so heated that Kavanaugh’s children had to be escorted out of the room. Four additional 'takeaways' follow:
IMO, these Donk-arranged stunts will backfire on them. These stunts are so 1960s radical left. They have become trite, hackneyed, and worn-thin. They do little to change minds and end up just being annoying.
If we had a profession dedicated to seeking out information, they'd track these people down and ask them why they say such ludicrous things.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/06/2018 12:58 Comments ||
"A vote against Kavanaugh is a vote to kill ME!" - an unborn baby
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
09/06/2018 13:11 Comments ||
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test! If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal, wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like to be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his. If a conservative read this, he'll forward it, so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."
This vid's got c. 5k views. The guy who posted it, Ady Barkan, is apparently an ALS patient best known for "confronting" Jeff Flake on a plane. Another of his videos (probably his magnum opus), framed as advice and encouragement for his (now very young) son has also gotten c. 5k views (probably the same people, more or less) despite being quite the tearjerker. Over 5 months. Fishy. Wish I could bet on his longterm survival.
A love letter from a faux conservative (David Frum) to whomever wrote the NY Times article about Trump. The Ovoid David Frum
[Atlantic] Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is a constitutional mechanism. Mass resignations followed by voluntary testimony to congressional committees are a constitutional mechanism. Overt defiance of presidential authority by the president’s own appointees—now that’s a constitutional crisis.
If the president’s closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution—and there were no “riskiness” exemptions in the text of that oath. As far as I can tell everything Trump has done has affected the government. There's no crisis except among those in government, and their supporters.
On Wednesday, though, a “senior official in the Trump administration” published an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times, writing:
Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.
The author of the anonymous op-ed is hoping to vindicate the reputation of like-minded senior Trump staffers. See, we only look complicit! Actually, we’re the real heroes of the story.
But what the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil. He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president’s willfulness.
What happens the next time a staffer seeks to dissuade the president from, say, purging the Justice Department to shut down the Mueller investigation? The author of the Times op-ed has explicitly told the president that those who offer such advice do not have the president’s best interests at heart, and are, in fact, actively subverting his best interests as he understands them on behalf of ideas of their own. The subtext is that Trump's advisers have told him to fire AG Sessions, which In my opinion he should have done. But these all are political acts, so shutting down a bogus "investigation", steeped in political maneuvering by Trumps' political opponents, will require a political end.
He’ll grow more defiant, more reckless, more anti-constitutional, and more dangerous.
And those who do not quit or are not fired in the next few days will have to work even more assiduously to prove themselves loyal, obedient, and on the team. Things will be worse after this piece. They will be worse because of this piece.
The new Bob Woodward book set the bad precedent. The high official who thought the president so addled that he would not remember the paper he snatched off his desk? Those who thought the president stupid, ignorant, beholden to Russia—and then exited the administration to return to their comfortable, lucrative occupations? Who substituted deep-background gripe sessions with a reporter for offering detailed proof of presidential unfitness, or worse, before the House or Senate? Yes, better than the robotic servility of the public record. But only slightly. In other words, White House documents being drafted for the purposes of posterity won't show what Frum contends. Frum is hedging his words even in this screed.
Speak in your own name. Resign in a way that will count. Present the evidence that will justify an invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or an impeachment, or at the very least, the first necessary step toward either outcome, a Democratic Congress after the November elections.
Your service in government is valuable. Thank you for it. But it is not so indispensable that it can compensate for the continuing tenure of a president you believe to be amoral, untruthful, irrational, anti-democratic, unpatriotic, and dangerous. Previous generations of Americans have sacrificed fortunes, health, and lives to serve the country. You are asked only to tell the truth aloud and with your name attached.
[IsraelTimes] The essay immediately triggered a wild guessing game as to the author’s identity on social media, in newsrooms and inside the West Wing, where officials were blindsided by its publication.
And in a blistering statement, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused the author of choosing to “deceive” the president by remaining in the administration.
“He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people,” she said. “The coward should do the right thing and resign.”
Sanders also called on the Times to “issue an apology” for publishing the piece, calling it a “pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed.”
White House livid over op-ed by unnamed insider; Trump questions if ‘treasonous’
The Left has been loose with the word for months and no one in their cabal has reigned them in. Another aspect of destroying the language. They also failed to notice how many other torpedoes they've fired at Trump seem to come back and hit them. So, the Left expands the definition of treason, then pearl clutches when its used about them.
Personally, I'd rather use the terms sedition and insurrection*, but I'm not the one altering the language. Let those who are, live with the consequences.
* No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. - 14th Amendment
The NYTs published an anonymous sourced op ed saying there is a subversive element within the Trump administration. The NYTs has done this before often to find they have egg on their collective faces. I have my doubts whether this happened. Lanny Davis seems to be missing from the story.
[Ynet] According to the IDF, the Iranian entrenchment in Syria was expected to attract thousands of soldiers loyal to the Revolutionary Guards; the revealing of more than 200 Israeli attacks on Iranian targets in Syria exposes an entire intelligence front active at any given moment. Tehran doesn't stop, and Israel is determined to attack even at the price of war.
The IDF revealed on Tuesday that as of the beginning of 2017, more than 200 Iranian or pro-Iranian targets were attacked across Syria.
An entire system of pilots, officers, analysts, and officials has been working around the clock to execute the strikes.
Continued on Page 49
Socialism’s legacy is heaps of bloody corpses scattered across a landscape of hunger and despair, but the youthful neo-commie hipsters infesting our colleges and coastal cities want to give it another try here and now since they’re smart and they won’t screw it up this time. Uh huh. Because when I look at millennials, I see a generation of achievers ‐ achieving unbroken eye contact with their iPhones, achieving hitherto unimagined heights of undeserved self-regard, and achieving convincing their parents to support them into middle age. If anyone can make socialism work ‐ by which I mean the pipe dream of it not being a slaughterhouse of soul crushing tyranny ‐ it’s these winners. At least that’s what Chet thinks.
Millennials have lost faith capitalism because they've been brainwashed and then graduated into a tepid economy the media was saying was great. Now the Trump has fixed the economy they'll start to come around.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.