Monday, April 30, 2018

EPA Chief Attacked by Progressives : Barrrack's Legacy of Tyranny Being Eradicated

Scott Pruitt marches forward to end the Ogbjma legacy of treachery and fraud at the Environmental Protections Agency(EPA). Wonder no longer why they hate Pruitt and everyone else that is dedicated to eradicating the criminal activity at all federal agencies. 

The wreckage left behind from Barrrack's department leaders is legion. At no time in our history have so many individuals dedicated themselves to bring Barrrack's ''fundamental change'' to civil society.

The criminals are heralded and cheered as hero's by progressives socialist democrats everywhere. You have to remember the IRS and there attack on Republicans seeking non-profit tax protection and how their friends in the FBI, the DOJ, among others, lent a hand in the attack.

The attack on Pruitt is systematic on all Trump agency heads that are being effective in turning those departments and agencies around and making them part of a government that believes the people of this country deserve better then what was left behind by Barrrack on his religious jihad and his fellow democrat destructors.


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Fends Off Democrat Critics, Makes Case for Deregulation in Testy Hearings
Kevin Mooney / /

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt offered up a vigorous defense of his record amid negative media coverage of his travel, security, and living expenses Thursday in testifying before two House subcommittees.

“Much of what has been targeted toward me and my team has been half-truths or at best stories so twisted they do not represent reality,” Pruitt said in opening remarks to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on the environment.

The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, who also testified before an Appropriations Committee panel, said attacks on him and his staff are part of a larger agenda to derail President Donald Trump’s efforts to cut burdensome regulations on individuals and businesses. “I simply will not let that happen,” he said.

Although both hearings had been scheduled to address the EPA’s budget, committee members spent the bulk of their time questioning Pruitt about allegations concerning his public expenditures and management decisions.

Beforehand, EPA officials distributed a 23-page document disputing what the agency describes as “false claims” circulated in the news media concerning Pruitt’s international travel, security expenses, and housing arrangements. The document cites information showing that Pruitt’s international travel costs so far actually are lower than those of his predecessors in the Obama administration.

Pruitt, in office since Feb. 17, 2017, has taken two international trips costing a total of $160,000. His immediate predecessor as EPA administrator under the Obama administration, Gina McCarthy, took 10 international trips costing $630,000. McCarthy’s immediate predecessor, Lisa Jackson, took four international trips costing $332,000, according to the document.

Allegations against Pruitt made by political opponents and some in the media have been looked into by the EPA’s inspector general, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Government Accountability Office, and the White House.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also has come under criticism in the media, in large part for his use of chartered flights. But as The Daily Signal reported last week, Zinke’s chartered flight expenses are lower than those of two predecessors under the Obama administration.

 Related: Obama Interior Secretaries Spent More Than Ryan Zinke on Chartered Flights

In his opening statement before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on environment, Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, defended himself against the allegations while highlighting cost savings to taxpayers that have been produced through deregulation. “I realize there have been very troubling media reports over the past few weeks,” Pruitt told committee members, adding:

''I promise you that I more than anyone want to establish the hard facts and provide answers to questions surrounding these reports. Let me be very clear, I have nothing to hide as it relates to how I have run the agency for the past 16 months. I’m not afraid to admit that there has been a learning process. When Congress or independent bodies find fault in our decision-making, I want to correct that and ensure that it does not happen again. Ultimately, as administrator of the EPA, the responsibility for making necessary changes rests with me and no one else.

With that being said, facts are facts and fiction is fiction. And a lie doesn’t become truth just because it appears on the front page of a newspaper. Much of what has been targeted toward me and my team has been half-truths or at best stories so twisted they do not represent reality.''

But committee Democrats who insisted on simple “yes or no” answers to their questions accused Pruitt of evading responsibility for the EPA’s deregulatory and other actions that they and other critics have questioned.

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., the ranking member on the full Energy and Commerce Committee, asked Pruitt whether he had taken any action against employees who disagreed with his views. Pallone also asked about the agency’s decision to delay a ban on a certain chemical.

“I think your actions are an embarrassment to President Trump and distract from the EPA’s ability to effectively carry out the president’s mission, and if I were the president I wouldn’t want your help,” Pallone said to Pruitt. “I’d get rid of you.”

Although Pallone demanded “yes or no” answers, Pruitt provided explanations and points of clarification.

Pruitt said he did not “ever recall” having any conversations about retaliatory measures against employees who differed on any policy. He said the agency continues to review its policy on the chemical in question, and that he had made no final decision.

Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., asked whether Pruitt had adopted a policy of “pay to play” where he would meet only with oil and gas interests while declining to meet with environmental and health groups. Pruitt replied that he had not exercised such preferential treatment.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., asked about the purchase and installation, for $43,000, of a soundproof booth for his office, which the Government Accountability Office ruled was illegal.

Pruitt told lawmakers that he did ask for a secure phone line, but that he was not involved in decisions that led to higher costs. The soundproof booth is discussed at length in the document released by the EPA. Career officials with purchasing power were responsible for the rising costs associated with the booth, according to the document. EPA officials who solicited bids initially estimated it would cost $13,500.

Some of the Republican lawmakers who questioned Pruitt attempted to bring the focus back to his policy decisions.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, credited Pruitt for working to make the EPA’s use of scientific data more open and transparent. Earlier this week, Pruitt signed off on a proposed rule to make public any underlying data from scientific studies that underpin regulatory decisions.

Related: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Moves to End ‘Secret Science’

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said Pruitt is a “victim of Washington politics” who is being targeted by opponents of his reforms to the EPA.

In his opening remarks, Pruitt also highlighted deregulation initiatives that he said had generated significant cost savings for Americans:

''There is consequential and important work being done at the EPA since the beginning of the Trump administration, both in terms of improved environmental outcomes as well as substantial regulatory reform.

''We are stripping burdensome costs to the American economy at an unprecedented pace and we are doing this while inspiring confidence in the American people that government is going to work with them, as opposed to against them, to achieve harmony between jobs and growth and environmental stewardship. In a short time in the Trump administration, we have made enormous progress in terms of improved environmental outcomes.''

Pruitt told committee members that the EPA has “removed over three times the number of polluted sites of contaminated communities across the country, as compared to the previous administration, for 2017.” In 2018, he said, “we are on pace to remove as many as 10 times the number of polluted sites.”

Trump’s goals for the EPA are not limited to the agency’s fulfilling its “core mission” with greater efficiency, but to achieve “comprehensive regulatory reform,” Pruitt said.

“That transformational change is happening,” he said. “In just one year, the Trump administration has saved the American people almost $8 billion in regulatory savings, and the EPA alone is responsible for nearly two dozen actions saving Americans $1 billion of that $8 billion in regulatory costs.”

The EPA chief added:

''These actions are providing America’s job creators with the regulatory clarity they deserve. By repealing and replacing the so-called Clean Power Plan, we are ending one-size-fits-all regulation on energy providers and restoring rule of law. By rescinding and revising the Water of the United States (WOTUS) rule, we are ending Washington’s power grab over land use decisions across the country.

''It is indisputable that we have made enormous progress in advancing president Trump’s agenda and pruning back decades of regulatory overreach that was unnecessary, burdensome, and ultimately harmful to hardworking Americans across the country.''

Pruitt’s temporary living arrangement in a room of a condo near Capitol Hill when he first arrived in Washington also has been the subject of scrutiny. He paid $50 a night for the space to the wife of J. Steven Hart, chairman and CEO of the Washington law firm Williams & Jensen, whose clients include energy companies. He has said he paid Vicki Hart only for the nights he slept in the room.

EPA ethics officials cleared the arrangement after it came to light. The EPA document released before the hearings Thursday cites several news reports that the agency’s ethics counsel found that Pruitt paid the market rate and the room was not a gift.

“I didn’t rent an apartment,” Pruitt told The Daily Signal’s Fred Lucas in an exclusive April 3 interview. “This was an Airbnb-type situation where I rented literally one room that was used in a temporary status, until I found more permanent residence.”

Pruitt’s entire appearance before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee may be viewed here.

The EPA administrator testified Thursday afternoon before the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on interior, environment, and related agencies. That hearing may be viewed here.

Exclusive: EPA Chief Says Media Reports About Him Don’t Tell True Story

Socialized medicine In Britain : Alfie Evans Dies Because They Said So!

Baby Alfie Died at the hands of Bureaucrats. Socialized medicine. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain operating the levers of power, he knows what's best for everyone. There can be no debate, no discussion and no alternative to decision made by government officials. Bureaucrats. It's the law.

Remember OgbjmaCare and how it was instituted as the law of the land, and it provisions for how those decision were to be made, and how Sarah Palin was vilified for calling the twenty member panel of physicians, politicians and medical technicians who where tasked, supposedly to decide on medical operations and procedures as  ''Death Panels''?

If there is one over riding fact in the progressive democrat collective, it's the fear of the truth.

Britain has socialized medicine. American democrats are progressive socialists and liberals and they all voted, every last one of them, for OgbjmaCare to destroy our health care system. Not one Republican voted for it!!!! We knew better and understood what the thinking of democrats was it was to take control of all options for everyone's survival.

Do like we say or die. Now that is real power.

The Sad Case of Alfie Evans: A Sordid Lesson in Government-Controlled Health Care
Robert Moffit /

The next time Sen. Bernie Sanders or his progressive Senate allies tout their proposal for total federal control of health care, just remember the case of Alfie Evans.

Consider the basic facts. The National Health Service, Britain’s “single payer” health care system, provides universal government coverage for British citizens. Alfie, a seriously ill 23-month-old toddler, is a beneficiary of the National Health Service, and, as of this writing, a “patient” of Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, England.

Hospital physicians have determined that Alfie is in a “semivegetative state.” Remarkably, however, hospital personnel have been unable to give Tom Evans and Kate James, Alfie’s parents, a diagnosis of exactly what’s wrong with their child.

The parents wanted to move little Alfie to other hospitals, in hopes that he would have a chance of getting better care. British officials denied the parents’ requests.

Hospital officials determined that Alfie’s case was hopeless, and decided to remove his ventilator and let the child die. Alfie’s parents, hopelessly guilty of hope, wanted to provide oxygen for their son on their own if the hospital would not do so. Hospital officials denied the parents the right to provide their own oxygen for their child.

British authorities determined that Alfie must remain in the hospital, and hospital officials determined to end medical treatment, remove the ventilator, and let the child die. In the meantime, Alfie’s parents went to the British courts for relief, as well as the European Court of Human Rights. These panels denied the parents’ petitions.

Alfie’s parents wanted to fly their son to Rome, Italy, where they could get a second medical opinion and try alternative treatments from Italian doctors that Alder Hey Children’s Hospital either would not or could not provide. A British court blocked that parental option, declaring that such a trip to the Rome would be “wrong and pointless.”

Finally, on appeal, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on April 20 issued its four-page decision, concluding: “The hospital must be free to do what has been determined to be in Alfie’s best interests. That is the law in this country.”

With the court’s ruling, hospital officials withdrew life support April 23, and expected the child to die quickly. After all, the British courts had formally and decisively ruled that the child’s condition was hopeless, and that he could not live without a ventilator.

Their problem: Alfie did not die. The boy started breathing on his own, and, as of this writing, is still breathing on his own.

That same day, Italy intervened. The Italian government granted Italian citizenship to Alfie, and agreed to fly the child to Rome for treatment at Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital. There would be no cost to the National Health Service or the British taxpayer. As of this writing, British authorities have refused these charitable overtures.

In correspondence with this writer, Joseph Morris, a former assistant attorney general of the United States and a law partner in a firm with offices in Britain and America, says the U.K. Supreme Court’s decision is itself beyond stunning:

''The court holds that the preferences of the bureaucracy count for more than the judgments of Alfie’s parents. The court does not explain why this must be. The court’s opinion leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the views of the bureaucracy count for more than the views of a family in determining what is in the best interests of a child. … This is a dark hour for British justice. Parliament and the British judiciary stand indicted by their own actions and inactions of cruelty, intellectual dishonesty, and the high crime of hostility to life and liberty.''

Morris is correct. British hospital officials may indeed be right in assessing Alfie’s condition as terminal, but British government officials are wrong in denying Alfie’s parents the right to try alternative medical treatment.

The sordid Alfie Evans saga holds larger lessons for all of us. If you give government officials control over your health care, you give them control over your life. If you reduce medical judgments to political or bureaucratic decisions, you can expect arrogant and cruel, often heartless and incompetent, decisions.

Finally, if you assume that the laws of the state are superior to the laws of God, then, for all practical purposes, your God is the state. If there is no higher law over the power of the state—natural law, as Cicero and Aquinas, Locke and Jefferson would describe it—then, logically, state power is absolute. Welcome to tyranny.

And yes, it can happen here.

WH Correspondence Dinner : A Rampage of Insanity


Image may
If you have been awake over the week end and watched or heard about the White House correspondence dinner comedian that attacked Sarah Sanders with the most vile and outrageous comments that only a liberal could deliver, you will understand where democrats live.

And then you have to understand this depiction of progressive socialist liberal democrats is what has happened to the democrats and their entire population that have escaped their safe house.

It is truly insanity - worse - for something this bad just means there is no cure!


Golfer Explains Bad Foursomes : Truth Is Refreshing

Okay, here is more good news from the land where progressive socialist liberal democrats will not go - it's so refreshing. It's a place where real people will laugh right out loud and feel good that they actually can do it. That is, see humor and react to it wherever it's found.

So let it all hang out big time with this one!   More good stuff to start the day.

WORST FOURSOME IN GOLF HISTORY

1. STORMY DANIELS
2. O. J. SIMPSON
3. TED KENNEDY
4. BILL CLINTON

WHY ? YOU ASK

1. STORMY IS A HOOKER.

2. O. J. IS A SLICER.

3. TED CAN'T DRIVE OVER WATER, and

4. BILL CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH HOLE HE PLAYED LAST.













Sarah Sanders Fights Back : Monday Morning Smiling Is Good!

Is this true, hmmmm - maybe not but still it's fun especially on a Monday morning to refresh the feeling there is some place around here where smiling at the expense of fools hasn't been seen as racist.

Don't know the author and I don't care. This is good stuff and accurate. In those words from that immortal CBS news anchor, Dan Rather, ''It isn't true but it aught to be''.

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible.” Anonymous

During a recent press conference, a reporter with MSNBC hollered from the press corps, "Where is President Trump hiding his tax returns?”

Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, astutely responded, "We've found a very secure place and I'm certain they won't be found.”

"And just where is that?", said the reporter, sarcastically.

Mrs. Sanders grinned sardonically and said, "They are underneath Obama's college records, his passport application, his immigration status as a student, his funding sources to pay for college, his college records, and his Selective Service registration.”

"Next question?"

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Pennsylvania LGBT Bill Attacks Christians : Accommodation Not A Strategy

And the beat goes on. Attack! - Attack! - Attack! The progressive socialist liberal LGBT mob know that Republicans and Conservatives do not want a fight in the public square. By nature they want to go about their personal lives without intervention and conflict. Leave us alone. 

The Conservative mind set is to 'live and let live'. We have our life and you can have yours. But don't try and force us into a corner were we have to decide between what we believe is right for us and what others demand we have to yield to, will only in the end bring chaos to Christian families. 

But then that is the entire purpose of domestic terrors. Force people to yield to their demands.

What is puzzling though is just how far the Republicans are willing to bend to accommodate others just to make them stop the attacks? The problem with this strategy is it only makes the situation worse as the progressive LGBT mob sees this as a weakness and ramps up their attacks to destroy them were Christians live.

The crime is the LGBT mob is incredible small but well organized and funded. Of curse it doesn't hurt the mainstream media is on their side as well.

The attacks will not end if Christians refuse to meet this terror face-on in the public square using the strategy that the progressives use, 'by any means necessary'.

LGBT Megadonor Who Wants to ‘Punish the Wicked’ Pushes Pennsylvania Bill
Monica Burke / /

Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn as a haven for political and religious diversity. Now, a Pennsylvania bill poses an existential threat to that history of freedom and tolerance by reinforcing a disturbing trend already happening at the local level.

Last year, the state Senate introduced Senate Bill 613, an act that would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class in anti-discrimination statutes.

At face value, the bill promises freedom from discrimination for all Pennsylvanians. But if the liberal activists promoting the bill have their way, SB 613 would punish Pennsylvanians for their religious and moral beliefs.

SB 613 is supported by none other than Tim Gill, the man dubbed “the megadonor behind the LGBTQ rights movement” by Rolling Stone magazine.

When Rolling Stone profiled Gill last June, he disclosed his strategy to use his $500 million fortune to agitate for state nondiscrimination laws that pit LGBT activists against religious Americans “We’re going into the hardest states in the country,” he told the magazine. “We’re going to punish the wicked.” Pennsylvania is next on Gill’s list.

In 2015, a Gill front group, Pennsylvania for Economic Competitiveness, and Gill himself collectively donated $15,000 to the Reform PA PAC when the Fairness Act, a similar sexual orientation and gender identity law, made its debut.

Another Gill front group, Pennsylvania Competes, joined forces with the Human Rights Campaign in 2015 to the same end. Then in 2017, SB 613 was introduced as a Senate counterpart to the Fairness Act, which was reintroduced in the House as HR 1410.

Gill’s plan to “punish” is already coming to pass in the Keystone State, even without a statewide law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Cities and towns have already passed 43 local ordinances that can be used to target residents for their beliefs.

Just last month, the city of Philadelphia halted the placements of two Christian foster care agencies—Catholic Social Services and Bethany Christian Services—because of their religious beliefs about the nature of the family. The agencies are now under investigation for discrimination under the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance, the city’s sexual orientation and gender identity policy.

Even the very possibility of such a law being implemented can be sufficient to drive regular residents out of the public square for fear of being accused of discrimination. Take W.W. Bridal in Bloomsburg. The Christian owners of this business closed their doors at the end of March because the city is likely to pass such an ordinance.

The city had considered passing such an ordinance in 2014, but it failed to clear the city council. This earlier initiative may have been designed to target W.W. Bridal for its biblical view of marriage. Even without an ordinance, the owners had no choice but to close: Activists attacked the store’s reputation by posting fake Yelp reviews and have made threats to burn the business down or shoot the owners in the head.

Forced to choose between their livelihood and their beliefs, the owners chose the latter. “We will not be forced by government, local ordinances, or bullies to participate in something that goes against our faith,” the business stated in a Facebook post.

Average Pennsylvanians are already vulnerable to losing their livelihoods not for holding “animus” against LGBT people, but for holding a long-established, reasonable belief about marriage. A state law could only make matters worse.

Sexual orientation and gender identity laws don’t have to be interpreted this way. Anti-discrimination laws are supposed to be used to protect people, not to attack them. They should be shields, not swords. States that already have such laws on the books can and should interpret them in a nuanced way that respects different moral and religious beliefs about sexuality.

Ultimately, these policies will have a chilling effect on society. Even when not directly weaponized against people with traditional beliefs, these policies still stigmatize the traditional view of marriage, which has been upheld by reasonable people of good will for thousands of years.

In the long run, SB 613 would leave regular Pennsylvanians constantly vulnerable to be targeted by the government for their beliefs. This enduring threat to their livelihoods would only perpetuate animosity between both sides of the marriage debate.

Sexual orientation and gender identity laws are not the path forward for mutual tolerance. Pennsylvania should uphold its rich history of peace and diversity and abandon this dangerous initiative.

Note: This article has been corrected to reflect when Senate Bill 613 was introduced.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Out With The Garbage : The People Voted for Change - Donald Trump

Along with the other garbage from her leadership with Barrrack, goes Nancy Pelosi into the outer darkness of all worthless and damaging things in our lives.
To save our country, take out the garbage.

The day of the criminal is on the way out.


Free Speech Definition : If Only I Say It's Correct

Free speech definition by destruction.Speech
It's not about free speech, it's really about changing the guard on free speech.

Who claims to have control and who is willing to allow them to have control.

Believe what ever you want as long as it agrees with me and my friends. If not we will destroy you.

The motto of ''Resistance is futile'' reigns supreme from those that are driven by hate for all opposition to a personal ideology.

And hate for the most miserable that they see in the mirror. An empty shell, a shadow of smoke from fires deep in the caldrons of hell it's self. A singular existence each day based only on destruction. An existence most miserable.

Eqquility of Out Comes With Compromised Failure : Socialisms Ideolgoy

I guess this is a good illustration of when a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's another one that works to describe socialism, ''Lots of smoke and but no fire''.

Everything you ever wanted for free, until it isn't.

Promises based on deception and outright lies cloaked in a fantasy of the equality of outcomes, a level playing field where everyone is equally compromised with personal failure.


Blacks On The Move : Leaving The Plantation for Freedom to Chose

And now for the rest of the story. Let the debates begin!
Blacks leaving the plantation?



Oh no! Say it 'aint so. Are the black people becoming aware that they have been paying the ultimate price for the existence with the personal freedom to chose?

Orders from the progressive socialist liberal democrat collective have always been the dictate for how blacks have to think and react or be cast into the outer darkness along with the Republicans.

Apparently that's no longer the theme of political rhetoric for submission and compliance. The flood gates of self awakening have been flung wide and the progressive liberal democrats are running for their personal ''crying closets'' in abject fear.

If the socialist democrats lose even 5% of the black vote, let alone maybe as high as 15%, they won't win another election. Little wonder the democrats hate Donald Trump.

6 of the Best Exchanges in Social Media Hearing With Diamond and Silk
Rachel del Guidice / /

Conservative social media personalities Diamond and Silk, who say Facebook has censored their page, were front and center at a congressional hearing Thursday on the content-filtering practices of social media platforms.

“Shame on the ones that don’t even see that we have been censored, yet when the Black Lives Matter people complain about it—oh, everybody is up in arms,” Lynnette “Diamond” Hardaway said Thursday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Hardaway appears regularly in videos on social media with her real-life sister, Rochelle “Silk” Richardson, as Diamond and Silk.

“Let me just say this here: If the shoe was on the other foot, and Mark Zuckerberg was a conservative, and we were liberals—oh, fences and chains would have broke loose,” Hardaway said of the Facebook CEO. “You know it, and I know it.”

Twitter declined The Daily Signal’s request for comment, but Facebook said that it’s standing by remarks made by Zuckerberg, when he testified April 10 and 11 on Capitol Hill about the company’s practices. “As Mark stated during his testimony in front of Congress, ‘I’m very committed to making sure that Facebook is a platform for all ideas,’” a Facebook spokesperson told The Daily Signal in an email, adding:

''That’s a very important founding principle of what we do. We’re proud of the discourse and the different ideas that people can share on the service, and that is something that as long as I’m running the company, I’m going to be committed to making sure is the case.''

On April 9, Hardaway and Richardson said on Fox News that their videos had been called “unsafe to the community” by Facebook. Representatives from Google and Twitter, as well as Facebook, were invited to the hearing and to testify, but did not attend. “Facebook, Google, and Twitter, in many cases, would like to appear as neutral channels,” House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in prepared remarks as the hearing opened.

“YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, for example, states that its purpose is ‘to give everyone a voice and show them the world,’” Goodlatte said. “But this goal, and those of the others, appear wildly aspirational, and do not reflect the true nature of the business that these for-profit companies engage in.”

The following are six of the most interesting exchanges from the hearing:

1. Trump Being Censored?

Richardson said she thinks President Donald Trump’s social media have been censored. “Even down to the president of the United States is being censored as well, with him having over 23 million people on his platform, unable to garner a million views on a video within an hour,” Richardson said. “Before the censoring, he was able to do that. Now, he can’t do that. So yeah, there is a lot of conservative voices that are being censored.”

2. Facebook Violating Its User Agreement?

Hardaway says Facebook has not delivered on its user agreement that it would show users the content that they like and that they subscribe to. “Facebook says in their ruling, that if you like and follow our page, that you are supposed to receive a notification whenever we drop content,” she said. “What is the purpose of them following and liking the page … for Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg to think that they can dictate to people and tell people what they can and cannot see in their news feed? I thought this was a platform for all ideas.”

3. Push Back on Claims of Being Funded by Trump Campaign

Richardson and Hardaway were questioned by Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, and Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., about a May 2017 Trump campaign finance report filed with the Federal Election Commission that said the campaign paid Hardaway and Richardson $1,274.94 on Nov. 22, 2016, for “field consulting.”

“There may have been a mistake from the Trump campaign whenever they wrote what the $1,274.94 was for,” Richardson said. “We were asked to join the Women for Trump tour back in 2016, and Miss Lara Trump asked that our airline tickets be refunded back to us because we paid for those tickets when we went from New York to Ohio.”

4. Twitter’s Disparity of Representation Among Administrators

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said at the hearing that research has shown Twitter in its administration favors liberal viewpoints over those of conservatives. “The Media Research Center found that liberal Twitter advisers outnumbered conservatives 12 to 1,” Smith said. “Twelve U.S. members of Twitter Trust and Safety Council, which help guide its policies, are liberal, and only one is conservative.”

5. Is Facebook Really ‘a Platform for All Ideas’?

Hardaway said that since Facebook itself says it’s “a platform for all ideas,” some ideas should not be given preferential treatment over others. “I don’t care if you are on the left or the right. The deal is that no voices should be silenced, and you should not be discriminating,” she said. “If it’s a platform to express ideas, express all ideas, not just one side.”

6. Using Facebook as a Moneymaking Tool

Diamond and Silk, who are black, also pushed back on comments from Jeffries, the New York lawmaker, for earning money with their platform at Trump’s reported suggestion.

“[Trump] urged us to monetize our platform,” Hardaway told Jeffries. “You, as an African-American, are not going to make us feel guilty, because we are going to get out here and take advantage of these platforms and monetize, just like everybody else does. I don’t see you walking up to a white person and say, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t be monetizing.’”
Diamond and Silk have 147,940 subscribers on their YouTube channel, which has been in existence since 2015, more than 678,000 Twitter followers, and 1,624,172 followers on Facebook.

Friday, April 27, 2018

California Dreamin : If It's Illegal, It's Free.

California dreamin' - Surf's up - the woody is loaded with the boards and friends - life is good and free. WOW - Living in California has always been a dream of everyone in past generations. 

In songs and stories of warm weather, pretty girls in bikinis on the beach, worries go out the window. But now things are different in that once great state of California - - 

So as not to be outdone by all the redneck, hillbilly, and Texan
jokes, somebody had to come up with this:  You know you're from California if . . .

1. Your coworker has 8 body piercings and none are visible.

2. You make over $300,000 and still can't afford a house. The average house costs more then $400,000.

3. You take a bus and are shocked at two people carrying on a
conversation in English. More then 40% of the stare are immigrants.

4. Your child's 3rd-grade teacher has purple hair, a nose ring, and is
named Flower. Her education to become a teacher was done online.

5. You can't remember . . . is pot illegal? Who Cares!

6. You've been to a baby shower that has two mothers and a sperm donor and the moms don't know his name or care.

7. You have a very strong opinion about where your coffee beans are
grown, and you can taste the difference between Sumatran and
Ethiopian.

8. You can't remember . . . . is pot illegal? It must be otherwise it wouldn't be in the middle schools.

9. A really great parking space can totally move you to tears. Oh, and it only costs you a bribe of $50 to keep the gangs from stripping it down before you return.

10. Gas costs $1.00 per gallon more than anywhere else in the U.S. But not if you have a credit card from the state called ''Access Card'' or ''Partnership Card''. Better even if you can sell it for cash.

11. Unlike back home, the guy at 8:30 am at Starbucks wearing a
baseball cap and sunglasses who looks like George Clooney really IS
George Clooney. And it's good news as he can possibly be rolled before he gets to his care.

12. Your car insurance costs as much as your house payment. But that's only if you are a citizen and have a job. Other wise the car is free. Who needs insurance?

13. You can't remember . . . .is pot illegal? Who gives a shit! Pass the blunt!

14. It's barely sprinkling rain, and there's a report on every news
station: "STORM WATCH." And watch out for the mud slides.

15. You pass an elementary school playground, and the children are all
busy with their cell phones. It's becoming more difficult to find the best place to by a joint. The stores are everywhere, even some inside the school but they are expensive.

16. Or it's barely sprinkling rain outside, so you leave for work an
hour early to avoid all the weather-related accidents.

17. HEY!!!! Is pot illegal???? Drop dead man, and shut up! I'm trying to sleep in the stupid 6th grade class on civil obedience. yka!

18. Both you AND your dog have therapists, psychics, personal
trainers, and cosmetic surgeons. And what so cool is thise stupid cools out there are all working to support me and my dog! Life is good, man!

19. The Terminator was your governor. A lumbering idiot.

20. If you drive illegally, they take your driver's license.  If
you’re here illegally, they want to give you one. What a great country for illegals. And in those immortal words of Obama's buddy, Bill Ayres, ''Guilty as hell and free as a bird.''

 BADA BING, BADA BOOM!
 

Bernie Sanders Free Life Style : Take From The Productive

First of all, crazy Bernie is not a independent politician but a complete card caring progressive liberal socialist. And he is called crazy for a reason. He makes no financial sense given our history in this country and elsewhere, where free markets are the rule of the day and the results have always been positive for prosperity and success.

On the other hand, progressive liberal socialism has always been a loser when ever and where ever it has been instituted as a financial agenda. Without production of a product or service, how does it happen that revenue is generated?

Where does the money come from if no one has a job to pay people to do nothing? Without dynamic markets populated by people seeking individual prosperity and a future, who will generate the revenue to pay and support government programs?

Progressive socialist liberalism is criminal. Taking from the productive and giving it to the unproductive ludicrous, a sinister fantasy for the taking of absolute power from individuals.

Bernie's ideology is absurd and historically a disaster for everyone. When Bernie was married he honeymooned in Moscow. How come? Marx said it best and Bernie followed his lead, ''To each according to ones need and From each according to ones ability''. 

Do you need more information to understand why crazy Bernie is pushing a free life style? It's called the tyranny of the few and the obedience of many.

Bernie Sanders’ ‘Jobs’ Program Would Undo Our Real Economic Progress
David Kreutzer / /

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ big-idea solution to everything is big government. The independent senator from Vermont wants government-run, single-payer health care. Seeing efficiencies that nobody else can see, he wants to turn post offices into banks.

Now, he wants to leverage the notoriously inept federal job-training system (see here, here, here, etc.) and a new set of regional bureaucracies to guarantee everybody a job.

In addition to not actually working, the program would require gobs of money. Of course, that is no problem for Sanders so long as at least one solvent corporation or rich person remains in America. We will tax them to pay for whatever is the big-spending plan of the day.

In this worldview, the economy is a big pile of money that simply needs to be distributed fairly. Incentives matter little. Tax cuts are thievery and not a means of stimulating job-creating investment.

However, reality is different. Incentives do matter, just as we have seen in the past year. The tax cuts passed in December have already led to pay raises, bonuses, and (more importantly) increased investment. It is this increased investment that will lead to continuing raises and bonuses.

The rhetoric of big-government jobs programs originated in the Great Depression, a time when the unemployment rate was 25 percent. But today’s unemployment rate is barely above 4 percent—a level widely viewed as representing full employment. In this worldview, the economy is a big pile of money that simply needs to be distributed fairly. Incentives matter little. Tax cuts are thievery and not a means of stimulating job-creating investment.

However, reality is different. Incentives do matter, just as we have seen in the past year. The tax cuts passed in December have already led to pay raises, bonuses, and (more importantly) increased investment. It is this increased investment that will lead to continuing raises and bonuses.

The rhetoric of big-government jobs programs originated in the Great Depression, a time when the unemployment rate was 25 percent. But today’s unemployment rate is barely above 4 percent—a level widely viewed as representing full employment.

Of course, there are still people who want to work and can’t find a job—but the big picture is backward from what most people think. The problem is not so much with job availability as with finding workers who can show up and pass a drug test.

The issue is not just with marijuana. Seventy percent of firms in one survey blamed opioids for problems with absenteeism, reduced productivity, and safety issues. The track record of federal jobs programs gives little hope that yet another expensive jobs bill will solve what is more a mental health problem than a job shortage.

Wages grow when productivity grows. Stimulating investment, as the recent tax cuts are doing, will increase productivity. Bloated, costly, ineffective federal jobs programs will not. Pretending otherwise may stir up the crowds at rallies of the uninformed, but it won’t get them good jobs.

Of course, there are still people who want to work and can’t find a job—but the big picture is backward from what most people think. The problem is not so much with job availability as with finding workers who can show up and pass a drug test.

The issue is not just with marijuana. Seventy percent of firms in one survey blamed opioids for problems with absenteeism, reduced productivity, and safety issues. The track record of federal jobs programs gives little hope that yet another expensive jobs bill will solve what is more a mental health problem than a job shortage.

Wages grow when productivity grows. Stimulating investment, as the recent tax cuts are doing, will increase productivity. Bloated, costly, ineffective federal jobs programs will not. Pretending otherwise may stir up the crowds at rallies of the uninformed, but it won’t get them good jobs.