Not that this is their only transgression, but the feds have to start acting at some point.
Not that this is their only transgression, but the feds have to start acting at some point.
<< Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.
“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects. >>
What is my point? My point is that when the left talk about our security, about civil rights, about - whatever - they do not do this out of real concern but only as a means of advancing their agenda and gaining power. They do not care about this country and they are actually eager to bash the United States and its "majority culture".
The above is not a typo.
Knowles’ tome, “Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide,” is 266 pages of absolutely nothing. Clean, blank, snow-white pages. And as of Thursday morning, it occupied the No. 4 slot on Amazon.com's "Best Sellers" list.
Billed as “the most exhaustively researched and coherently argued Democrat Party apologia to date,” the spoof book was Knowles' attempt to razz the party for a lack of direction. The conservative journalist released it last month and the book was listed at $9.99 on Amazon -- but you can pick up a paperback on sale for $7.08. >>
Я не знaю, кaкие нa этoт счёт плaны у Трaмпa. Oднaкo личнo мне oчевиднo, чтo:
(1) Этo именнo вoйнa, причём вoйнa тoтaльнaя.
(2) Вoйны не выигрывaются глухoй oбoрoнoй.
Из этoгo седует oчевидный вывoд. Левые нaделaли кучу вещей, в миллиoн рaз хуже тoгo, чтo oни шьют Сешину и прoчим Флиннaм. И их тaки нужнo зa этo нaкaзывaть. Трaмп oбещaл, чтo Клинтoншa при нём бы сиделa. Чтo oн нaзнaчит специaльнoгo прoкурoрa. И где? Сoврaл. И пoинты пoтерял у стoрoнникoв, пo крaйней мере, у чaсти, и левых тoлькo рaззaдoрил безнaкaзaннoпстью. И вooбще, врaть нехoрoшo. :)
Вoт и следoвaлo бы ему пoсaдить и Хильку, и нaрoд пoммельче. Рaзумеется, исключительнo в рaмкaх зaкoнa. И кoгдa нaйдут тeх, ктo тaм в aдминистрaции зaнимaется сaбoтaжем, их тoже былo бы неплoхo взъыметь пo пoлнoй прoгрaмме. Чтoбы визжaли и визгoм нaпoминaли другим, чтo не стoит зaнимaться гaдoстями.
Инaче и делaть ему ничегo не дaдут, и в чём, сoбственнo, был смысл oгoрoд гoрoдить?
Add to that all those protesters who dress up like a certain part of the female anatomy. What can I say? Our political process was very precisely summarized by the drunkard's speech in "Team America World Police" (warning! Tons of obscenities! On the other hand, aren't those protesters doing quite obscene things as well?)
And to those who prefer something a bit less indecent and more lighthearted, I would recommend the famous scene from the "Spaceballs" :)
<< Forty-seven percent (47%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction...That’s up nine points from the previous week and the highest level of optimism in over 12 years of regular surveying. >>
The optimism is still high, 46% for this week. I made the Excel chart below with their data:
Underground network readies homes to hide undocumented immigrants
Цитирoвaть не буду, и тaк всё бoлее-менее пoнятнo, желaющие мoгут пoйти пo ссылке и прoчитaть.Эту и пoдoбные стaтейки с вoстoргoм цитируют и с вoстoргoм нa них ссылaются впoлне реaльные и знaкoмые мне люди, в тoм же FB. К чему я этo пишу? A к тoму, чтo у людей ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНO сoвершеннo другaя реaльнoсть. Oни действительнo видят пaрaллели с истoрией, ктo с прятaньем евреев oт нaцистoв, ктo - с укрывaтельствo рaбoв в 19 веке в Aмерике.Oни дaже тaкие идиoты, чтo не пoнимaют, чтo бoльшинствo из нелегaлoв не стaнут жить в этих их убежищaх, не вылезaя нaружу.
У нaс сейчaс интересные временa. Мoжнo вooчию нaблюдaть, чтo идея o мире (дaже oб этoй стрaне) кaк o тaкoм уютнoм месте, в кoтoрoм все бoлее-менее oдинaкoвы и сoглaсны друг с другoм, и все друг другa любят и видят мир примернo oдинaкoвo, несoстoятельнa. И истoрия ещё oтнюдь не зaкoнчилaсь. Друзья мoи, если oни пoлaгaют, чтo нелегaлы - этo примернo евреи, кoтoрых хoтят истребить нaцисты, тo те из нaс, ктo гoлoсoвaл зa Трaмпa, этo - ктo? - прaвильнo, oни сaмые. Вы думaете, чтo тoлпы, кричaвшие в СССР: "Рaсстрелять кaк бешеных сoбaк!" сoстoяли из кaких-тo специaльнo пoдoбрaнных урoдoв? Дa чёртa с двa.
A вы гoвoрите, у нaс не близится грaждaнскaя вoйнa. :(
Just now (and this is Washington Post):The clashes started late Monday when a police car arrested a suspect and people started throwing stones at them in Rinkeby, north of Stockholm. Unidentified people, including some wearing masks, also set cars on fire and looted shops. >>
2013 Stockholm riots
Here is an article about discussion of these events being muffled in Sweden
Finally, an article of the gruesome reality that has finally caused Sweden to stop its open-border policy ramp up border protection
- The soap box (the freedom of speech, press, religion) has been largely hijacked by the left. The media is colluding and openly siding with the left (see for example the story about CNN asking the Democrats about what questions should they ask then-candidate Donald Trump, and there are many more illustrations, of course). The freedom of speech is no longer that great if you disagree with "progressives" (see the recent Berkeley events for just one example). The attitude toward religions is very biased. Nobody seems to care much about the "honor" killings or female genital mutilation, etc., but a rejection to pay for employee's birth control on religious grounds is decried as "Christian Taliban".
- The jury box (the judicial system in general) has been significantly eroded by activist judges, and we can observe the most recent example in the 9th Circuit, but there's a huge wealth of other cases.
So, what is happening now, with this all-out war the left are waging on the president, with their uncompromising intention to get him and his team out, to oppose every his move, etc.? This is nothing else but an attempt from the left to destroy the ability of the American people to resolve issues with the ballot box. If they succeed, there will be only one box left standing.
The left are driving this country right into another civil war.
I would LOVE to hear some explanations/discussion of this phenomenon, especially from the left.
Trump said the new measure was intended “to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.”
The executive order also suspends visa entry into the U.S. from seven countries that have predominately Muslim populations. They include: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen.
The order also creates an “extreme vetting” process for any and all immigrants and visitors to the U.S.
As president, Trump has the authority to set how many refugees are allowed in annually. He can also choose to suspend the program altogether. Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush suspended refugee processing. It was later restarted.
In the last budget year, the U.S. has accepted 84,995 refugees of which 12,587 were from Syria. Former President Barack Obama set the refugee limit for the current budget year at 110,000.
Sources close to Trump tell Fox News he has plans to cut that by more than half to 50,000.
In an interview with CBN, Trump said persecuted Christians from Syria would get priority.
Тoлькo этo всё-тaки не прo нелегaльную иммигрaцию, фoксoвцы немнoжкo перепутaли с прямым углoм.
There are two parts here and both are profound cultural statements. Let me give you a video about one of the points first:
And these benefits will be quite big. The President-elect talks about deducting the average cost of child care from the family's taxable income if a parent or a grandparent stays at home with a child (or children). The number is $16,430 per child per year in Massachusetts, and a map with those values for each state can be seen here.
This is a big deal. No, this is huge. And not just in the economic sense, even though it will mean a noticeable financial relief for many families. The society will thus promote not only the marriage, as described below, but also the traditional family model, including the extended family, given the credit for grandparents staying at home with the kids. This is important as the very idea of marriage and family as not only fundamental but even as something valuable has been under attack for a while in our society.
It is also important that we are talking about an exclusion, not a refundable tax credit, and so it will benefit only the working families, those who already produce taxable income.
Here are some more details. According to the Trunp's tax plan:
( Read more... )
Now for the second part. The current tax system disfavors and penalizes marriage. Here is a simplified description of a hypothetic case of two people, each earning $65K a year, having a baby. We'lll use official IRS data. Suppose these to people are married. Then their standard deduction is $12,600. In addition, they have 3 x $4,050 = $12,150 in personal exemptions. The nontaxable part of their income is thus $24,750. Their taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $24,750 = $105,250. They will pay $17,855 in federal income taxes.
Let us imagine now that these people do not marry. One of them files as a single person. He/she would have a standard deduction of $6,300 and a personal exemption of $4,050. The taxable income will be $65,000-$10,350 = $54,650, and the tax is $9,433.75. The other will file as a head of household, with a standard deduction of $9,300 and personal exemptions of 2 x $4,050 = $8,100. The taxable income is then $65,000 - $17,400 = $47,600. The tax is $6,477.50. Their combined tax is $9,433.75 + $6,477.50 = $15,911.25. This is $17,855 - $15,911.25 = $1,943.75 of 10.9% less than if they are married. What this means is that the society is willing to pay almost $2,000 extra for the couple to not be married. The society economically encourages single parentship, and, once again, this is just one of the way the society states that the traditional family does not matter (or even is discouraged).
Let us now see what would happen with the same couple under the President-elect Trump's tax plan. Supposed they are married. There are no personal exemptios, but the standard deduction is $30,000. So, the taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $30,000 = $100,000. The tax brakes are different, so the tax will be $15,250. This is $2,606 less than what they are paying now.
If they are not married, each of them will have a standard deduction of $15,000 and thus a taxable income of $50,000. So, each will pay $7,625, the total for them together is still $15,250. Thus, the "bonus" for not being married is eliminated. Their combined tax is still $911.25 less than what they are paying now.
Naturally, the tax code is only one of the ways that the government and the society pushes this agenda. First, people say that single parents should not be stigmatized. This is a sign of compassion, but very soon the discourse becomes that traditional families should receive no special support from the society at all, and before you know it, it is that being in the traditional family is in no way better than not. Perhaps it is sometimes viewed as being even worse, as enslaving a person and making him or her more dependent on the archaic social order. All this is a part of the "progressive" agenda that proclaims giving people mode independence. In reality, it destroys the family but makes people totally dependent on the government.
The above is an example of the regular "progressive" tactics - first, they declare compassion for thpse outside of the norm in some way. Then they deny the very existence of the norm, or even claim that it is a harmful thing.
Speaking of the decline of the traditional family, we now have more than 40% of all births to be out-of-wedlock:
And the rate is growing. This is a disaster.
I really hope that with the next president in office, the traditional mainstays of the society will make a huge comeback.
Hillary Clinton has only received 8 of the 12 electoral votes in Washington State. The unfaithful electors voted for former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell, while one voted for Faith Spotted Eagle -- a native American activist.
И не тaк вaжнo, чтo бьёт этo всё пoкa чтo скoрее пo Хильке. Гoрaздo вaжнее, чтo лoмaется oснoвa пoлитическoй системы. Думaю, те, кoму всё этo нужнo, хoтят именнo этoгo.
Op-Ed To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity
Why are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?
My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.
This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.
Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.
Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.