Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (996571)

1/25/2017 7:22:47 PM

From: FJB

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Mick Mørmøny
TideGlider

Respond to of 1571808

Those Whom the Gods Would Destroy…
Power Line by John Hinderaker

Steve wrote earlier today about the Left’s meltdown since Donald Trump’s inauguration. The Left’s nervous breakdown is, of course, a topic we have been covering for a while. But–to say the least–the Trump administration has accelerated the Left’s crackup. I am so old I can remember when the Associated Press wasn’t considered part of the Left. But Trump’s election has pushed the AP over the edge, and they have gone into full opposition mode. So we see headlines like FACT CHECK: White House spokesman gets election facts wrong. And stories that begin like this:

President Donald Trump tweeted early Wednesday that he is ordering a “major investigation” into voter fraud, revisiting unsubstantiated claims he’s made repeatedly about a rigged voting system.
***
Trump has been fixated on his loss of the popular vote in the election and a concern that the legitimacy of his presidency is being challenged by Democrats and the media, aides and associates say.
***
Secretaries of state across the country have dismissed Trump’s voter fraud claims as baseless.
***
Trump’s exaggerations about inauguration crowds and assertions about illegal balloting have been distractions as advisers have tried to launch his presidency with a flurry of actions on the economy.

His spokesman, Sean Spicer, has twice stepped into the fray himself, including on Tuesday, when he doubled down on Trump’s false claim that he lost the popular vote because 3 million to 5 million people living in the U.S. illegally cast ballots.

Who, these days, can tell the difference between the Associated Press and the Democratic National Committee?

But the following story, minor though it is, exemplifies as much as any how far around the bend the AP has gone: Pro-Trump site gets 1st question at White House briefing.

Think about that for a moment. Trump’s press secretary called on a pro-Trump site first! For eight years, every time Barack Obama or his press secretary gave a press conference, he called on a pro-Obama news outlet first. And second. And third. And fourth. And so on. Yet somehow, this is news? The AP is outraged:

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer took the first question at his briefing Tuesday from a reporter who works for LifeZette, a website founded by Donald Trump supporter Laura Ingraham that published some untrue stories during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Is this a news story, or a debate, with the AP taking the Democratic Party’s side?

LifeZette features a mix of conservative politics, lifestyle and consumer articles and videos. Its home page Tuesday featured a story about New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady calling Trump to congratulate him on becoming president; one that questioned the purpose of last weekend’s women’s march; and another in which Fox News’ Sean Hannity condemned Trump officials who had leaked information to the press.

The horror! To be fair, the AP story contains at least one true sentence:

Tuesday’s briefing was another indication of how press relations have changed with the onset of a new administration in Washington.

Well, yeah. So far, that is one of the best things about the nascent Trump administration.

Spicer taking the first question from Stinson attracted notice because, before Trump, major news outlets were traditionally called upon to open White House press conferences and briefings.

But by its own choice, the AP is no longer a “major news outlet.” It is just another Democratic Party mouthpiece like the New York Times and the Washington Post. So why should it expect to be treated like an objective, respected news source? The AP has gone nuts, and so far seems unable to understand how far it has fallen. But in the years to come, it is likely to get the message.

To: TideGlider who wrote (996571)	1/25/2017 8:37:19 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By Mick Mørmøny TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571808

Executive Order on Sanctuary Cities Crime and Consequences Blog by Kent Scheidegger Congress enacted this law over 20 years ago ( 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)): Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. And, of course, the Constitution has provided since its ratification in 1788: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ..., shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. So there is no real question that state or local laws which contradict the federal law are void. But what to do about it? Today President Trump issued as executive order titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, which provides in part: Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. (a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law. (b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens. (c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction. So, he is dropping the funding hammer right away. The extent of executive authority to impose the funding cut-off sanction is not entirely clear, and the order says "to the extent consistent with law." Also, the two department heads are given discretion, so there may be room for some accommodation. At one end of the spectrum, it is entirely understandable for a city to have a policy of not turning in to ICE a person who comes to the attention of the police department as a victim or a witness. Doing so would make people reluctant to come forward, to the detriment of effective policing and therefore to the detriment of public safety. At the other end is a policy so extreme that people with extensive or violent criminal records are not turned over. The blood of the victims who are subsequently victimized when such people are released is on the hands of those who establish such extreme policies. Subsection 9(b) of the order is clearly an effort to bring public pressure to bear against such policies. Hopefully some agreement can be reached before actually cutting off funds, which could have a serious impact on public safety of its own. Long-term, of course, we need a comprehensive package of immigration reform. Back in the Reagan Administration, a deal was struck to legalize those already in the country in return for tough enforcement measures. If the bargain had been kept, there would not be a new, large cohort of illegal aliens. The present dilemma is the result of the breach of the previous bargain.