Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Consuming A Sandwich Destroys the Planet : Lunatics Abound

And just when I thought it was safe to ride my bike around the country side at better the 15 mph for three to four hours, now I have to worry about saving the planet by driving my car instead?

I wonder as well where were the lunatics like these 'planet saves' that can't just be happy doing their particular thing of eating cardboard were a decade ago, but now get front page attention. Who the hell are these people and trying to make the rest of the common sense population appear guilty of wanton mayhem?

Get away from me and crawl back under the log where you came from! 'May I help you sir?' says the cashier at McDonalds. 'Yeah I have a double bacon burger with everything and an order of onions rings, and a chocolate shake'.

Go Green With Gasoline If You’re Going to Consume That Sandwich
David Kreutzer / /

A new study shows that if you aren’t ready to go vegan to save the world, then you should quit riding your bike and take a car.

An article in the Journal of Insufferable Busybodies (official title: Sustainable Production and Consumption) calculates the carbon footprint for a variety of sandwiches. These carbon footprints include carbon dioxide emissions from things such as farming, transportation, and refrigeration.

In the article, researchers at the University of Manchester offer helpful tips on Earth-friendly sandwich making. Among them: avoid using lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, and meat. If you’re like me, though, every sandwich you’ve eaten since middle school includes at least two of those ingredients.

However, don’t despair, you still can alter your behavior to reduce your carbon footprint. In particular, make sure you don’t ride a bike when you could drive a car. How’s that? Well, the people at Phys.org thought the sandwich-climate topic was important enough to get access to the full text of the original article.

They pass on this particularly interesting tidbit: A bacon, sausage, and egg sandwich (the whole Hampton Inn breakfast buffet in one tidy package) has a carbon footprint “equivalent to CO2 emissions from driving a car for 12 miles.”

Driving a car uses energy that comes from gasoline. Riding a bike uses energy that comes from the bicyclist’s food. Both sources of energy have carbon footprints.

We are told carbon dioxide emissions from the life-cycle process of producing a sandwich is equal to that of driving a car 12 miles. The question, then, is how far will the calories in that sandwich take you on a bike?

It isn’t clear that anybody in the U.S. has the courage to sell the cardiologist’s delight described above, which means the total caloric content of the sandwich doesn’t show up on the first page of a Google search. Fortunately, my calorie-counting app (no evidence of use since 2015, hmm … ) can do the job:

English muffin 150 calories
2 slices of bacon 87
2.5 ounces pork sausage 250
egg 72
Total 559 calories

According to this calculator, a 180-pound bicycle rider going 15 mph for 51 minutes will travel 11.9 miles, but expend 729 calories. So, this bacon, sausage, and egg sandwich doesn’t have enough food energy to power the cyclist for the full 12 miles. The bicyclist would need to eat 1.3 sandwiches to go 12 miles. That is, the carbon dioxide footprint of riding a sandwich-fueled bike would be 30 percent higher than driving a car.

Since it takes more energy to move bigger people, the imperative to drive instead of ride is even greater for those who shop in the Big & Tall section. A 222-pound blogger, for instance, would burn 899 calories for the same time and distance, requiring 60 percent more sandwich and, therefore, 60 percent more carbon dioxide from riding a bike than driving a car.

Of course, smaller people need less energy to propel themselves on a bike. The break-even weight for the ride-or-drive decision is around 140 pounds. Going more slowly helps, too.

If carbon dioxide-induced climate change is the existential threat some claim, and if people are still going to eat sandwiches that might include sausage, bacon, egg, tomato, lettuce, meat, or cheese, perhaps we need a prohibition against bike riding. Just sayin’.

Where Do Progressive Liberals Stand On World Peace? : In the Bunker!

And why do you think this was allowed? Pulling out of Iraq leaving ISIS to take control, and then taxpayers forking over $1.5 billion in cash to guaranteeing Iran will get nuclear weapons wasn't by chance.

Ever hear about Barrrack's religious jihad for ''transformation''? Iran getting the bomb was part of the strategy for taking control of the middle east.

That a nuclear war might be the result is and was of no concern or Barrack. Where there is chaos there's profit.
It started with his world ''shaming of America'' tour shortly after he took office.

Again, this was by design. Evil is that evil does. These are not nice people and they are not one of us.

AG Sessions Says FBI To Be Investigated ; Jeff, What Took You So Long?

It's just one of those 'Who Knew?' things where everyone that is involved after the fact know nothing. ''Hey, don't look at me, I found out about this from reading the papers.'' I wonder who in politics said that?

But even when there seems to many in politics, especially among the progressive socialists, and the progressive media surrogates calling, demanding an even-handed approach to explaining the unexplainable without using known facts, it's just politics, it leaves those of us in the trenches perplexed as to why it has taken this long for the Department of Justice to make it's move given all of the facts that are available.

The evidence is clear that what happened with the 'dossier' was intended to change the outcome of the election for president of the United States, and that there was a crime committed in that attempt.

Sessions Says FBI’s Handling of Anti-Trump Dossier ‘Will Be Investigated’
Chuck Ross / / Chris White / /

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department is investigating the accuracy of information the FBI submitted before the 2016 election about a “dossier” damaging to Donald Trump to obtain a warrant to surveil a campaign adviser.  “That will be investigated and looked at,” Sessions said in an interview Sunday.

Maria Bartiromo, host of Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” had asked Sessions: “Are you, sir, investigating the fact that the FBI used the dossier to get a wiretap against Trump associates and they did not tell the FISA court that the Democrats and [the] Hillary Clinton [campaign] paid for the dossier?” “Let me tell you, every FISA warrant based on facts submitted to that court [has] to be accurate,” Sessions replied.

“That will be investigated and looked at, and we are not going to participate as a Department of Justice in providing anything less than a proper disclosure to the court before they issue a FISA warrant. Other than that, I’m not going to talk about the details of it, but I tell you, we’re not going to let that happen.”

FISA refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created a secret court system to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Sessions did not provide additional details about the investigation, which has been urged by Republican lawmakers.

In October 2016, not long before the election, the FBI and Justice Department submitted an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain a spy warrant against Carter Page, a business consultant and campaign volunteer who had left the Trump team a month earlier.

The partisan dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele is said to have been a significant part of the application to the court, even though the salacious document about Trump’s connections to Russia was and is largely unverified.

Republican lawmakers have asserted that law enforcement officials who submitted the application failed to note to the court that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The application does note that the dossier was put together by a “U.S. person” with political motivations, but Republicans have argued that the application should have been more specific.

Republicans also alleged that Steele, the opponent of Trump who authored the dossier, misled the FBI by failing to reveal that he met with reporters in September 2016 to discuss his investigation of Trump. One of those reporters, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News, wrote a story based on Steele’s information.

That Sept. 23, 2016, article, which included Steele’s allegations about Page, also was used by the FBI and Justice Department to help justify the surveillance warrant. The application did not note that the Isikoff article came from the same source as the dossier.

Also Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., offhandedly criticized former President Barack Obama for not doing enough to warn voters about the Russian government’s attempt to meddle during the presidential election.

Obama probably didn’t do enough to raise a red flag after he found out Russia interfered in the election, Sanders said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” before pivoting to criticize Trump for downplaying Russia’s role. “Obama was in a very difficult position and didn’t want to make it appear he was favoring Hillary Clinton,” Sanders, who challenged Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said. “Maybe he should have done more.”

An indictment announced Friday alleged that 13 Russian nationals tried to help both Sanders and Trump during their respective presidential candidacies.

Special counsel Robert Mueller secured the indictment from a grand jury against the Russians, affiliated with three Russian companies suspected of interfering in the election. The goal was to create chaos inside the U.S. political process, according to the indictment.

The indicted Russians operated both pro- and anti-Trump social media accounts. The accounts also were used to provide support for Sanders, at the time considered a formidable opponent to Clinton, and to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Sanders’ comments Sunday came after Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, said Obama should have called out Russian meddling much sooner.

New protections must be enacted to prevent similar election meddling, Sanders said, referring specifically to the upcoming 2018 midterm elections. “We have got to do everything we can to make sure that they do not undermine American democracy,” he said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Tail of Two Americas : One Socialist - One Conservative

It's a tail of two Americas - one where people live a carefree life where all things are good and where someone else will pay the bills, while others, living in the other America, working hard to support their families and the nation, will take the responsibility of making America great again.

I wonder which one will be responsible for the success and or failure to make America great again?


Barrrick Ogbjma's Library Foundation Layed : A symbol For What's To Come

I believe this is how it's done in Chicago when it was time to start laying the foundation for Barrrack Ogbjma library as the library itself will house similar content. 


Armstrong William's Success : A Portrat of Hard Work And Vision

What a perfect storm - a perfect example of having a dream, a good family support system and then working hard and long to make it happen. Even through hard times, the dream and vision for success was the factor that produced Armstrong Williams.

This a little long but take the time to understand how this man became a success.  What a testament to what makes a man a success. Something we all need to know and implement in our own lives.

An Interview With Armstrong Williams on Trump’s Authenticity, Ben Carson’s Calming Effect, and Black Achievement
Rob Bluey / / Ginny Montalbano / /


Armstrong Williams is a political commentator, entrepreneur, nationally syndicated columnist, and host of “The Armstrong Williams Show.” He’s also a passionate supporter of President Donald Trump and close friend to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson. We spoke to him about his work in the media business, Black History Month, and Trump’s relationship with African-Americans. An audio recording of our interview is above and an edited transcript is below.

Rob Bluey: I think it’s fair to call you a media mogul of sorts. You are the largest black owner of TV stations in America, you’re prolific on Twitter and social media. As you survey the media landscape today, what’s your strategy for developing successful content and programming?

Armstrong Williams: You have, on the one side, the MSNBCs, the CNNs, and then on the other side you have the Foxes—one to the extreme right, one to the far left—and to me, they are both the same. Even when you speak about whether it’s health care, whether it’s the tax cuts, anything that the president does, anything that the left does, you know exactly what the right is going to say, and you know exactly what the left is going to say.

More and more, those two sides are really being drowned out, because obviously they’ve invested their capital, their allegiance into not a belief system, but into a party. When you invest so much into a party, you literally forget who you are. You could forget your value systems, and it’s no longer about you. You’re no more than a slave. You’re dictated to, and you just follow, the dictate of the party. I know, because

When you sort of shut out those opposites, which are the same, then somewhere you find those who search for the truth, who search for the balance, who doesn’t necessarily want to write a story, like most of the media does, who wants to be the judge, the jury, and the executioner of the president, arc of the left. You tell a story, and you allow people to come to their own conclusion because what you’ve learned in the climate that we’re in today, that Americans are very sophisticated. They know when they’re being misled. They know when they’re being manipulated, and they know when they’re being used for pawns.

One of the reasons why we have someone like a Donald Trump in the White House today is because of the dissatisfaction of the left and the right on Capitol Hill, because they work from the same platform. It’s just that when the left want to do something, which they know that their base is going to be infuriated by, they get the right to do it, and so therefore they get a pass, and they go on and do these famous stumps, and these speeches, and this outrage to pretend that they don’t like what is being said, but it supports … and it’s vice versa.

The American people, for so long, you look at the landscape, people are still dissatisfied, whether they have the Clintons in the White House, whether they have the Obamas in the White House. People are dissatisfied, and the reason why Trump does so well is because the American people have lost trust and faith in the people they elect. If the conservatives think they’re immune from this, and there’s only this ratcheted up anxiety and angst against the left, then they are mistaken.

Trump has been able to capitalize and just shake it up, throw all the bums out, and let us start from ground zero. What we try to do, while we may criticize legitimately the president on Charlottesville, on his s—hole comments, and when he says things that’s beneath him, that is not worthy of the grace, the class, the dignity of the White House, you must criticize him on that, because then you become a sycophant, and you’re no longer respected, and then the White House will use you to do their bidding as the right and the left will use somebody else to do their bidding when they realize that you’re willing to sacrifice your own principles to push an agenda that’s not necessarily in the best interest of the president, because the president cannot have someone around him always saying that everything he does is right, correct, and moral, because it’s not.

But still, the American people knew, when the president was running for president, when he took out all 17 [Republicans in the primary], that he took out the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, that he was a flawed man. He’s no different today, but you would hope that you have people that would help him find the character, the temperament, that is necessary to lead this country, because the American people really want this guy to succeed. But the problem is he is his own worst enemy. …

It’s irrelevant what I think. It’s irrelevant what my politics are. It’s irrelevant what party I belong to. What is relevant is that I take all sides without my trying to tell people and trying to guide them to a conclusion I want them to come to, and I just lay it out there and let people reach their own conclusions. That’s what you call journalistic integrity.

Ginny Montalbano: I was familiarizing myself with some of your more recent work this week, and something that I thought was really important, you mentioned “the victory is in the struggle,” that that’s an aphorism that you frequently use. Can you explain to us what that means and how you see it in your day-to-day life?

Williams: There was a time in my life early on when I found myself in storms of life. I’ve always believed I’m either in a storm, coming out of a storm, or going into a storm of life. I had, which many people know about, because when I write columns today, and I like to read all the comments, one of the things is the criticism.

If they’re not talking about my sexual harassment lawsuits, then they’re talking about my No Child Left Behind [controversy]. It’s, “Oh, this guy, he’s lost all credibility. He’s just a shill for the government.” While I did promote No Child Left Behind, and it was disclosed, what people have to understand, no matter how much you may have paid your dues … you never live down the fact that you compromised your integrity and your character. That may have happened in 2004, but even in 2018, I still have to live with that today.

It’s just like the Bible and God. God forgives us for our sin. He forgive us our adultery, our lying, and cheating, but there’s still a price we must pay, and it can be forever. What I learned from No Child Left Behind, even though I found myself in the valley for eight years, even though it was a struggle, we lost 95 percent of our business, we never laid off one employee, they never missed a paycheck, I learned something about my character. I learned about what my mother and father taught me, that you should always be moral, ethical, and legal in whatever you do, because sometimes, when the sun is so bright, you cannot necessarily see your flaws, because everything looks great around you.

But in the darkness, in the stillness of the night, when you think about your life and the struggles, and you think that you no longer have no friends, and then someone tells you that you’ll only be a footnote in life, you really test your faith. But in this struggle, there’s a piece that came over me, and if I just could hang in there, go back to the value system which I grew up on, learn my integrity, not be a shill for some party, be honorable, and even if none of us are going to ever be perfect, when we rise out of those storms, we will find the character and the leadership and the criticism that is necessary for us to move forward.

Because the problem is we lie to ourselves more than we lie to anybody else. It’s so easy for me to look at Rob and criticize him and look at you and criticize you, because that’s easier than looking at myself.

What I’ve learned in all my struggles is that when I work on myself 24 hours a day, which is the hardest work in the world, the world around me automatically improves. What I find myself, instead of trying to dig into someone else’s problem and their issues, while I do that as a journalist and broadcast on it, the most important work I have to do is work on myself. Since those days, I’ve never looked back.

Bluey: Armstrong, we’re celebrating Black History Month, and you’ve had a busy week. You’ve been to the White House. You were at the National Museum of African-American History and Culture with the vice president. You’ve been on Twitter sharing examples of black achievement. Can you tell us what it means to you?

Williams: It’s what it means to all of us. We all, sometimes we define success. Somebody could get a pair of tickets to a Wizards basketball game and they have courtside seats. Somebody could get an autograph of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas or Michael Jordan, or we could land tickets at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. You get an invitation to sit in the president’s box while he’s speaking at the State of the Union, or you could be worth a billion dollars. Are you going to beat the lottery?

Success is defined in so many ways, but there’s something I think that we all can agree about and that is that from human slavery to segregation to civil rights, when we look back and realize how our brethren were treated in this country, it literally goes against everything that we as Christians and decent, God-fearing people have ever believed. They were packaged and then manufactured and raped and disregarded and dehumanized, and it’s just not who we are as Americans and never will be who we are as Americans.

As a result of, I think, the greatest sin against our country, we still have these vestiges of segregation and bigotry and poverty, and people are so willingly to use the excuse that the reason why they have not progressed is because of slavery. I don’t think there’s any American that is alive today that can ever use slavery as an excuse as of why they have not been able to progress.

We live in a society today where we will always have the poor and the struggling among us, but anybody who’s willing to work hard, have discipline, and my friend Dr. [Ben] Carson says this often, and I agree with him, being married, not having babies before you’re married, and getting a high school and college diploma, 92 percent of those people never end up in poverty.

It all goes back to morality. It really does, but we’ve sort of abandoned morality. We like to call racism, racism, and all of these things, but what we’re dealing with of the world that is broken, there is a spiritual illness that’s in this country, and so yes, while I know many people see me as an American who happens to be black, my race and your race has nothing to do with your achievement. Now, some people will say, “Well, people look at you and you get an opportunity.” Yes, there are a lot of people who get looked at but don’t get the opportunity.

Your race is not a passport to success or failure. It’s your character. It’s the choices that you make and how hard you work, and then time and chance happens to us all. My achievement, yes, I’ve been blessed. It actually surprises me, I guess, more than it does anybody else, because I don’t take it for granted that when I wake up every morning that I expect these things to continue.

I still have to work hard, and I have to still live in a certain way. When people are not looking at me, there’s a certain way. There are certain choices that I must make, because I’ve realized the choices I made before, and I find the better moral choices I make, the more I respect myself, the more I reinforce values and virtues, the better I become.

We employ hundreds of people across the country with our television stations and our media platform, and we create opportunities. Fifty-five percent of our workforce just happens to be Americans who are black. They’re not our employees and our executives because they’re black. They just have to be the best qualified. It’s just that we seek to find the best and the brightest, like Shermichael [Singletary], who you see on TV. We want to empower them … because at some point, we’re going to step off the stage.

That is the future, and so yes, I know it’s important that for blacks to feel that they see other blacks. It gives them encouragement that they can achieve and they can be, and that’s a good thing. But Black History Month, black history, black achievement, is a tribute to America, not to a race, not to a culture, is a tribute to the ideals and the freedom as to why people come here sacrificing their lives, leaving their families, because they realize this is a place of opportunity.

If people can come here, strangers who cannot speak the language at all, and in two or three years they’re speaking the language and are thriving, there is no excuse why most Americans cannot find at least at some point, at some seasons, realize the American dream.

Montalbano: You mentioned Dr. Ben Carson, and this week you posted a photo with him at the White House. Can you give us some insight into your relationship with him and the role he’s playing at the Department of Housing and Urban Development?

Williams: Dr. Carson is a brother to me. I’ve known Dr. Carson for 25 years. For the last 20-some years, I was his business manager, managing his money and his financial portfolios. When someone trusts you with their money and their finances, that is truly a bond of trust. All three of his sons have worked for me as producers. They’ve at least stayed with me in my home at least for a year, and they all have been a part of a growing media organization.

As Dr. Carson’s business manager, you get to know someone pretty well, and I say this often, I’ve known many people in my life. I’ve worked with people who have contributed greatly and mightily to this nation, but Dr. Carson, I always say this to people who ask me about him, if Jesus, if he were among us today, Dr. Carson without any doubt would be one of his disciples. There is just no question about that. It shocks me just how good, how moral, how ethical, and what a good man he is.

Why does it shock me? Because it makes me better. It’s because of my association with Dr. Carson that I become a better human being. He knows all my flaws, all my shortcomings, and he accepts me. No matter what he may preach, Dr. Carson is just a very good person. And when he was seeking the presidency as a presidential candidate, I was involved. I was probably called the invisible hand, but it was always present. I will admit that.

We trust each other. There’s a bond. There’s loyalty. What’s amazing is a testimony to the brotherhood is that we’ve never had conflict, because you know what? I’ve always been transparent with him. …

It’s sad that we live in a society today where people feel they cannot be themselves. They have to lie. They have to perpetrate something, perpetrate something that they’re not, but with Dr. Carson, you have the freedom to be who you are. He’s very forgiving, and at HUD, he’s doing some remarkable things there.

In fact, we were joking at the White House this week during President Trump’s celebrating Black American Achievement Month that [Office of Management and Budget Director Mick] Mulvaney and others are trying to cut his budget. I believe that if they cut his budget, Dr. Carson would literally resign. There’s no question. I believe that, but I was talking to him, and he said they kept his budget levels. I said, “Well, thank goodness, because I’m glad we’re not losing you, because I need you in the president’s ear, talking about morality, talking about goodness,” because he and the president have a very good relationship. I think that whether people see it or not, Dr. Carson has a very calming effect on the president. I think it’s very impactful.

I think of all the things that will be said when Trump is no longer in the White House, I think the story will be told about the impact Dr. Carson’s relationship had on the president’s character, on his morality. Even the president jokes about it now. Even you saw it a few weeks ago when Trump asked Dr. Carson to lead the Cabinet in prayer. Yes, that’s impact. Maybe subtle, but it’s important to have that kind of a good man, a moral man, because listen, the president’s not going to change Dr. Carson, but Dr. Carson can certainly impact the president.

Bluey: Well, let’s talk about the president. You raised a couple of issues earlier like Charlottesville and when Trump made some derogatory comments about some foreign countries. At the same time, the president said African-Americans are much better off under him. Unemployment hit its lowest rate for African-Americans. It seems like a complicated relationship, Armstrong. How do you best describe Trump’s relationship with the African-American community?

Williams: It’s not even really about his relationship with the African-American community, and it’s not even complicated. It’s very simple. Trump is an equal opportunity offender. He does not discriminate. It doesn’t matter.

For people to try to call Trump a racist and a bigot, it’s ridiculous. I mean, it doesn’t matter. He offended 17 candidates, including Dr. Carson. … Are you kidding me? This is who he is. He can’t help himself, and that’s what you have to accept. But Dr. Carson forgave him, put that aside, because he felt the country was first, because Dr. Carson is not petty. Dr. Carson is not like many of these Cabinet secretaries or the other people working for President Trump trying to establish a legacy.

Dr. Carson is an icon. He’s an iconic figure, and with his pediatric neurosurgery, where he had performed over 18,000 surgeries, in his entire surgical career only lost about 18 lives, and I don’t think he lost any in the last seven years of surgery. I mean, he’s the first to separate conjoining twins. That is something that the president respects.

The president likes compassion for the poor. The president has an issue with the weak. When the president perceives you as weak, he pounces. I mean, it’s the most amazing thing that you can think of. Even with the African countries—and he was not talking about African countries. He talked about El Salvador. He talked about Haiti. It’s just people that are perceived as weak, and the countries are in dire straits. They’re in dire straits.

I think what he was saying, “Why bring those poor people here? We got problems of our own. Let them stay there, and let the country take care of them. We can send them money, but don’t bring them here,” but sometimes it’s how you say it. It’s the optics, but that’s why people like him, because most people would say that among their friends.

The president is just so transparent. He’s so authentic. He’s so real until it gets him in trouble with the media elite and their establishment. They find him embarrassing. They’re haughty in their ways, and they just cannot believe that this guy can get away with this. Why? Because the American people get up in the morning and can’t wait to see the president take them on, put them in their place. It’s just another form of entertainment, and he does it so well.

Montalbano: Now shifting gears a bit, you’ve written about the NFL, and after a tumultuous and very politicized season, do you think the NFL can bounce back, and if so, how?

Williams: They need to make the president one of their No. 1 fans. They need to work on him. I don’t think it’s difficult. I think it doesn’t take much to win the president’s trust, to get him to respect. Trump pouncing on the NFL and the kneeling has had a traumatizing impact on the league.

I know people, because I was at the Super Bowl, and many people, even in the playoffs, did not watch, because they said, “You know what? I just could not get past the disrespect of the flag. These people kneeling, we paid them all this money.” The president resonated. …

It’s another thing, too, when these players are going to win the NBA championship, they’re going to win the Super Bowl, and immediately, their media representative starts tweeting out, “Well, I’m not going to go to the White House if Trump is in the White House.”

That does not help. You should always respect the office of the president, and if you don’t want to go to the White House, keep it to yourself and just don’t show up. They’re just as much to blame as the president is. They are arrogant. They’re disrespectful, and there’s been a lot of disrespect of this president.

I’ve never, in the history of reading and living, ever seen a president treated with such utter disrespect and such dismissiveness. They can say anything about this president, and these athletes should show more respect to the president instead. … Because the bottom line, their opinion is, they should have no opinion is my attitude.

Yes, they should meet the president halfway. And by the time the NFL season starts in August during preseason in September after Labor Day when the new season starts, I think they could be off to a fast-track start, and they could restore the credibility that the NFL has lost.

I was once that person.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Mueller Finds 13 Russians Involved : Election Mischief Indictments

The Mueller investigation is a total fraud. To fulfill it's mandate to investigate a charge of collusion between Trump and the Russians, there wasn't a ''charge'' indicated on the Department of Justice's mandate to the Mueller investigation., it was an open order to do what ever they wanted and for as log as they wanted costing the taxpayers 10's of $millions of dollars.

Oh ,and now for over a year there hasn't been any proof of collusion found by investigators from congress and the media. According to most reports, it's  not only the Russians but just about everyone else around the world  trying to effect the outcome of our elections.

Also what about United States? Barrrack sent an attack team to Israel to effect the election there to defeat the current prime minister. What? Barrrak? The socialist liberal democrats? Say it ain't so!!

4 Things to Know About Mueller’s Indictment of 13 Russians
Fred Lucas / /

A federal grand jury Friday indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies on charges of conspiring to interfere with America’s 2016 election. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the presidential election is “ongoing,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said at a press conference.

Information contained in the 37-page indictment, however, indicates that no U.S. citizen knowingly collaborated with the Russian conspirators.

Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself from matters related to the Russia probe because of his role in the Trump campaign. Rosenstein, his deputy, told reporters there is no evidence that what Russians did changed the outcome of the 2016 election. “The indictment alleges that the Russian conspirators want to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” Rosenstein said. “We must not allow them to succeed.”

Here are four key points from the 37-page indictment from a grand jury in the District of Columbia.

1. The Question of ‘Collusion’

President Donald Trump was quick to tweet after Rosenstein’s press conference that nothing ties his campaign to Russians: ''Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!'' 2:18 PM - Feb 16, 2018

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders later released a statement that said Trump “has been fully briefed on this matter and is glad to see the special counsel’s investigation further indicates—that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia and that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected.”

The release by Sanders also included another statement from the president.  “It is more important than ever before to come together as Americans,” Trump said, adding:

'We cannot allow those seeking to sow confusion, discord, and rancor to be successful. It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions. We must unite as Americans to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections.'

Rosenstein said a Russian front company called the Internet Research Agency established a “translator project” in 2014 to focus on the U.S. population.

In July 2016, more than 80 employees were assigned to the translator project. Two of the defendants allegedly traveled to the United States in 2014 to collect intelligence for their American political influence operations.  “There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity,” Rosenstein said. “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”

At least not yet. Rosenstein added: “The special counsel’s investigation is ongoing.”

Last year, Mueller gained a guilty plea from Michael Flynn, Trump’s short-lived first national security adviser, as well as from campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, both for lying to investigators.  The special counsel also secured indictments of short-term Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort associate Rick Gates for financial crimes seemingly unrelated to the Trump campaign.

2. Other Candidates Mentioned

One surprise to come out of the indictment is that the Russians sought to attack some candidates while pushing support for others, beyond Trump and Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent in the general election.

The indictment says Russians sought to disparage not only Clinton but two Republican presidential contenders, Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida.  They also allegedly sought to rally support for the candidacies of Trump and Clinton’s main rival for Democrats’ nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

After the Nov. 8 election, the Russians staged protests both for and against President-elect Trump. Rosenstein said the defendants “organized one rally to support the president-elect and another rally to oppose him—both in New York, on the same day.”

3. Workings of an ‘Information Warfare’ Conspiracy

According to the indictment, the Russians and front companies conducted what they called “information warfare against the United States,” with the stated goal of “spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.”

All but one of the 13 individual defendants worked for the Internet Research Agency LLC, a company based in St. Petersburg, Russia. The indictment said the 13th individual, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, funded the conspiracy through companies known as Concord Management and Consulting LLC, Concord Catering, and many subsidiaries and affiliates.

The alleged conspirators bought space on computer servers located in the United States, according to the indictment. They opened up hundreds of social media networks on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and made it appear the accounts were controlled by someone in the United States.

The defendants allegedly recruited and paid Americans to “engage in political activities, promote political campaigns, and stage political rallies.”

Last September, after news reports that Mueller was investigating Russian operatives’ use of social media for election meddling, the indictment says, one defendant wrote: “We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity. … So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with my colleagues.”

4. The Criminal Charges

It’s not likely the Russian government will extradite any of the accused to stand trial in the United States, but the press release by the Justice Department summarizes the formal charges as:

'Count One alleges a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States, by all of the defendants. The defendants allegedly conspired to defraud the United States by impairing the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.

Count Two charges conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud by Internet Research Agency and two individual defendants.

Counts Three through Eight charge aggravated identity theft by Internet Research Agency and four individuals.

Vindicating Former Presidents : Don't Prejudge Trump

When asked why they hated Trump among some friends, they responded that he was a misogynist , sexists, stupid, mentally ill and out of control among several others. A real threat to national security.

And of course the next question put to these experts was, how did you come this conclusion? Where did you get your information and was that source credible? What is their history for telling the truth? Of course their sources were the lettered channels on television, NPR and a lot of social media. Twitter,Facebook and Bloggers. They stated their sources were as good as any other source, especially FOX.

Why single out only FOX? 

It's clear we are divided by a common denominator, the ignorance of history and reality. The facts in this debate point to commons sense conclusions that are openly available to all to see and understand, but only confuse the issues for most progressive liberal democrats. Historical facts are useless when the only important factor is a near religious ideology that answers all question before the questions are asked.

To deny these predetermined facts is heresy.  

The discussion was over at this point, if continued, anyone that would be witness to this would wonder who were the idiots. Relationships are destroyed when they are presented with questions that challenges nearly life long fixed assumptions.

History Has a Way of Vindicating Great Presidents. So Don’t Prejudge Trump.
Richard Lim / /

A recent event in Washington featured accomplished academics and government officials, some of whom had worked for either the George W. Bush or Obama administrations, discussing the first year of the Trump administration. The moderator for one panel mentioned how a former president had been unfairly maligned during his time, and how a significant percentage of Americans had held a low opinion of him.

Since then, however, new evidence emerged that changed the perception of that president—declassified information on how he ran his meetings and made decisions. Essentially, the evidence shows that president to have been an effective commander in chief who made wise decisions. It appears that this president’s critics—who had scoffed at and maligned him—were wrong in their assessment, and history’s evaluation has been much kinder.

Despite this insight, I was surprised to find that most of the rest of the panel consisted of scoffing at and maligning our current president, Donald Trump. I raised my hand. I asked the moderator, given that history often sheds new light on our presidents, is it possible that we were falling into the same trap? Are we evaluating our current president too harshly? Are we assuming too much? After all, wasn’t the entire premise of his book that we’ve unfairly judged presidents in the past?

He responded by saying yes, that is a possibility, but we can’t possibly know it until much later. So the attacks—the scoffs, the chuckles—on our current president continued.

His response left me unsatisfied. American presidents typically are attacked both fairly and unfairly—it’s been a feature of our republic since the founding. But why do we have to wait decades later before we think more deeply or exercise more caution about our presidents?

Two presidents, in particular, demonstrate to us the need for this caution.

Throughout his tenure, Dwight D. Eisenhower was dismissed by critics as passive and disengaged—as a benign, grandfatherly figure who was ill-suited for the atomic age. His occasional mispronunciations gave critics the impression that he didn’t have the intellectual heft to be president. The fact that he appointed several business leaders to his Cabinet convinced some that he was a puppet of Wall Street.

The year after Eisenhower left office, academics ranked him as a below-average president (21st out of 31).

Of course, presumptions about Eisenhower’s intellect ignored the fact that he was one of the most accomplished military figures in American history, leading the successful invasion of Normandy in 1944 and serving as the first supreme commander of NATO.

Since then, historians have discovered that Eisenhower’s supposed passivity was a misperception that resulted from his preference for working behind the scenes, and that in actuality, he was fully in charge of his presidency. They also note that Eisenhower deftly handled several Cold War crises in the nuclear age (in the Taiwan Strait, the Suez Canal, and in Lebanon, to name a few), all the while keeping the peace.

In some ways, Eisenhower’s genial persona was a valuable political asset that he exploited to maximum political benefit. It allowed him to remain above the fray, immune to petty politics. In 2017, a C-Span survey of academics ranked Eisenhower as the fifth-greatest president, even ahead of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson.

More recently, Ronald Reagan also was dismissed as an intellectual lightweight, an “amiable dunce.” Reagan’s critics believed him to be a right-wing war monger whose defense budget increases and tough rhetoric against the Soviet Union (or, as he called it, the “evil empire”) could lead to nuclear war.

In 1980, Reagan insisted he was “willing to negotiate an honest, verifiable reduction in nuclear weapons.” Soon after entering office, he explored the possibility of reducing nuclear weapons and even eliminating all intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe. These efforts seemed to go against Reagan’s image as a right-wing cowboy.

Critics, including those in the Freeze movement (which advocated a freeze in the building of nuclear warheads), dismissed Reagan’s moves as efforts to kill arms control efforts. There was no way, they believed, that right-wing Reagan was serious about reducing Cold War tensions.

But when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev took power in Moscow in 1985, Reagan found a willing partner. The rapport they built up in their summits in Geneva in 1985 and Reykjavík in 1986 helped to end the Cold War.

Reagan’s critics no longer could question his sincerity when he and Gorbachev signed a treaty in 1987 that eliminated all intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles—far beyond what any previous Democrat or Republican president had achieved in nuclear arms control.

While Eisenhower’s critics misjudged his capabilities, Reagan’s misjudged both his capabilities and his intentions. When he said he was willing to talk with the Soviets and reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, he really meant it, and proved it by his actions.

It is always a tricky thing to attempt to discern someone’s motives. Like all of us, presidents are complex individuals facing a myriad of pressures.

When it comes to our current president, this game gets even more difficult amid the fog of fake news and tweets. Almost everyone has strong opinions on Trump that, in some way, bias our evaluations of him.

History offers a cautionary tale—especially to the scoffers in Washington—that our initial assessments of presidents could be wrong and that future generations could see them very differently.