Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘America Safe’ Category

North Korea Ships Wash Up On Japanese Shores…FULL OF DEAD BODIES

https://youtu.be/UwkvsPHDcik,

Japanese authorities have launched an investigation after a “ghost ship” containing a dead and nearly decomposed crew was spotted floating aimlessly off the coast in recent days.

According to the U.K. Express, the ship and crew were virtually unidentifiable, save for a tattered North Korean flag that still flew and faded markings on the hull that partially read “Korean People’s Army,” revealing the origin of the “ghost ship.”

Conservative Tribune reports,

Despite autopsies being performed on the bodies, which revealed they had been dead for at least a few months, it was virtually impossible to determine a cause of death due to the advanced stage of decomposition of the bodies.

If this story sounds eerily familiar, that’s because it is, as “ghost ships” manned with dead crews from North Korea wash ashore on Japan’s west coast on a fairly regular basis, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times in April 2016.

That report revealed that similar ships, though not always carrying a decomposing crew, have washed ashore by the dozens each year for the past several years.

“This isn’t something new for us, so people are just saying ‘oh no, not again,’” Shizuo Kakutani, a 71-year-old retired fisherman living in a quiet fishing village known as Monzen, told the Times.

Initially, it was thought that the dead crews were defectors who had futilely attempted to flee the oppressive communist regime in North Korea, but most North Korean defectors flee by sea down the coast to South Korea or travel north overland to China.

Further inspection of the ships and bodies have revealed that they were most likely fishing vessels manned by inexperienced crews of civilians or soldiers who had become lost or stranded in the deep waters of the Sea of Japan, most likely dying from starvation, exposure or hypothermia.

A report from The Japan Times in December 2015 revealed that, save for some rudimentary fishing equipment and a minuscule amount of personal belongings, the typically wooden, tarred-hull ships are astonishingly barren, not outfitted with GPS units or other modern navigation equipment that would seemingly be standard fare on a vessel intended to ply the high seas.

Experts on North Korea explained that in response to the dire lack of farm food grown under the North Korean communist regime, dictator Kim Jong Un had set lofty goals for the nation’s fishing industry to bring in more fish to feed the starving nation, prompting the inexperienced and ill-equipped crews and ships to press farther out into dangerous waters to meet the near-impossible quotas.

EVEN WITH AN ANGELIC SUBJECT LIKE “MADE IN AMERICA,” THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

By John F. Di Leo –

Reflections on government procurement and the Buy American Act

President Donald Trump traveled to southeast Wisconsin to make a speech and issue a proclamation: that he would require that – on the big government spending projects of his administration – everything had better be Made in America.

Hopefully, no one will quarrel with the intent.

A country should be proud of its manufacturing sector, and if tax dollars are to be spent at all, the preference ought to be that they be spent giving business to their own companies, employing their own people, utilizing their own local resources.  It’s important not only for the economy, but for national security as well.  Such an intention is good and honorable.

But we all know what the road to Hell is paved with, don’t we?

The Residency Rule

Before we analyze this rule, let’s spend a moment contemplating a rule with which we’re all familiar: the residency rule that many cities have in place for their employees.

Lots of cities decree that if you want to be a policeman, fireman, school teacher, or other city employee, you have to live in the city that issues your paycheck. The theory is, this keeps fine, upstanding citizens in the neighborhoods (especially important if the city is suffering a loss of fleeing taxpayers), and it keeps rents and home values up for everyone.  Granted, it limits the hiring pool a bit, but the bigger the city, the more manageable that should be. In theory.

So it is that many cities have specific neighborhoods, like Chicago’s northwest side and Milwaukee’s southwest side, for example, that become well-known for being particularly safe because they’re chock full of policemen. Fine, as far as it goes, right?

Until the property taxes, or crime levels, or school system collapses of such a city reach the point at which it becomes unwise to raise children there, or even becomes unaffordable or unsafe to remain at all.  A city may lose good employees when this rule drives them out, to search for other jobs that allow freedom of residency.  But perhaps, sometimes, the cities decide it’s worth the tradeoff.  It’s their choice, after all; that’s what home rule is all about.

And so the cities write rules to manage their residency rule, to deal with a grace period upon time of hiring, or to deal with marriages between city employees and suburbanites, or to deal with employees who own multiple properties, like a couple of small apartment buildings in different towns as their chosen investment method.

The questions get thorny: what if a new employee can’t sell his suburban house within the 30, or 60, or 90 days of his grace period?  Surely we can’t make him sell at a loss just because it’s a slow housing market.  Or what if his child is a junior in a suburban high school; surely we won’t make our new teacher, policeman, or fireman move his kid to a new school at a time like that, just to satisfy this rule, will we?

There are dozens of such questions, and each city writes their rules, and builds in provisions for exceptions.  Every city may handle it differently, and that’s their right.

We all recognize the value in the original goal of a local residency requirement, but we also see the complexity that it causes.  The devil is in the details.

The Buy American Act

Now, in this context, we can address the national issue of a “Buy American” rule.

For the exact same reasons – all good reasons – that cities have residency requirements, nations may want a rule that tax dollars are spent on their own taxpayers.

We want a thriving economy.  We want a strong business sector, full employment, profitable manufacturers.

Because of the scale involved in the national government’s purchases, federal spending can be a huge portion of the GDP.  It shouldn’t be, of course – government is much too big already – but to the extent that we’re stuck with it, it makes sense to at least direct those purchases of asphalt and concrete, steel beams and armaments, toward businesses that keep the most Americans employed.

This is the goal that President Trump reinforced this week, and it’s nothing new; the first major Buy American Act dates all the way back to 1933, and was signed by outgoing President Hoover for the incoming Roosevelt Administration to enforce. There have been plenty of permutations of this well-intentioned concept since.

The Complexity of Manufacturing

As we’ve seen, even a rule as simple as a local residency rule can become complicated in application, as different cities have different levels of affordable real estate for renters, homeowners, parents, and investors.  Cities need to carve out both permanent exceptions and individual waivers all the time, or risk missing out on desirable employees, while mindful of the fact that too many exceptions will infuriate their existing employees who live with the same rule.

By the same token, when the national government attempts a Buy American provision, therefore, it encounters plenty of problems that it likely never anticipated, because so few people in government know anything about the world of manufacturing.

Let’s start by assuming that we do manufacture this kind of product in the United States, so domestic sourcing is at least an option.  What is that product made of?  Is it a single item, such as an injection-molded article of plastic or a cast iron product poured in a foundry?

Or is it a complex manufactured product, like a huge water pump to keep a highway underpass clear during rainstorms, or a whole electrical power station for an airport or army base? Such products have Bills of Material – a manufactured product’s “recipe,” if you will – listing hundreds, or even thousands, of materials.  Cast or molded parts, wire and cable, nuts and bolts, sheet steel and brass rods, dials and controls.

No single company manufactures all those parts, so a manufacturer sources them from vendors all over the world.  Perhaps wire and cable made in the USA, nuts and bolts made in South Korea, dials made in Germany, cast steel parts made in the USA, molded plastic parts made in Mexico, gaskets made in China… the possibilities are endless.

If we require the finished product to be made here, that’s an accomplishment.  That does indeed satisfy the first goal of spending money on American companies that put Americans to work.  But then there is always an effort to go further, to the next tier of production, and manage those purchased raw materials and components as well.

When the government implements a Buy American rule, it first has to decide how far down to go in this supply chain.  In recent years, the choices have run the gamut from final manufacture all the way to requirements of 100% American content, right down to the rawest of raw materials.

Imagine requiring, for example, that a steel part be not only formed here, but made of steel that was alloyed here, of iron, chromium and carbon that were pulled out of the earth and processed here too.  Sound easy?  Well, not so much.  We have plenty of iron in the USA, but chromium just can’t be practically sourced here; most of it comes from South Africa, Turkey, India or FSU sources like Russia and Kazakhstan.  So at a certain point, it becomes impossible to mandate domestic sourcing… and that “certain point” varies by product, by material, by industry.

So at some spot in the sourcing process, we have to stop trying to control it.  We just have to.  We don’t make lots of nuts and bolts in the USA anymore; we’d like to, but we just don’t.    And we make lots of wire and cable here, but maybe not the exact kind that the power station contractor or the pump manufacturer needs for this particular finished product.  So we have to allow them some flexibility in sourcing, if we want our finished product to work.

But all these industries – yes, all of them – have lobbyists in Washington, lobbyists (and unions and reporters and donors and businessmen) who will point out that making the bridge or power station or water pump here is nice, but we really need to create jobs for the American steel industry too, and the American fastener industry, and the American wire and cable industry, and the American electrical controller industry…

Every administration, and even more so, every individual agency issuing government contracts, has to make this decision:  Where to draw the line? Where to give up and realize that the goal of making every single government dollar create an American job is just impossible?

Complexity and Practicality

These rules add complexity to the government contracting process, and also often-unmanageable complexity for the contractors and their subcontractors.  The myriad vendors on these government projects have different skill levels, and the farther back you go from the primary contractor, the less the others upstream may understand just what their commitment actually is.

In addition to making a great product at the right price, delivering it on time at the right place, they now have to meet rules of content origin that vary from contract to contract, but that always bear the exact same title: a “Buy American clause.”

What good is a commitment that means something different in every bid, especially when the contractor offering the project for bidding probably doesn’t understand the commitment himself?

If the vendor can’t meet a requirement because the part isn’t made here at all, he can seek a waiver, of course… but seeking, proving, and obtaining such waivers are an added cost, adding to the cost of the project… and if a vendor knows he’ll need such waivers, he may drop out entirely, costing the bid some potentially good vendors.

In most of the government projects authorized in the 2009 ARRA, for example, simple US origin was required – meaning that the product had to be manufactured here, but they didn’t dig deeper into the materials therein.  The following year, the government revised it, and most 2010 contracts from the 2009 ARRA had an almost impossible 100% US content requirement, extending right into raw materials.

This made compliance difficult for many products, and accomplishment often impossible, which meant more products having the total waiver: when it becomes impossible to meet a Buy American clause, you just give up and fill the order with a foreign product.

Foreign products have no requirement for US content at all, so once you have a waiver on the origin of the “master” finished product, it gets made in Canada or Mexico or Europe instead, and no Americans are hired at all.   This overly-ambitious version of a Buy American clause is truly the textbook example of the old saying, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

So, here is our quandary: Should the government impose a Buy American clause, if it’s so difficult?

Of course we should.  But it’s time to standardize it, and make it reasonable.  If the Trump administration wants to ensure that its projects employ lots of Americans, it needs to abandon the overly-ambitious clauses of the past, and apply a reasonable requirement, based on those used by the Ex-Im Bank or NAFTA in determining US origin.

We can require US manufacture, and set a percentage of minimum US spend on the manufacturer’s purchased materials, such as “50% or 75% must be US-manufactured parts as well. “  Something along those lines.

But we need to put an end to these promises that “Every product will be made of US steel!” that the lobbyists and unionists insist upon. Such pie-in-the-sky promises create more work for lawyers, bean-counters and foreigners than they do for American workers.

Copyright 2017 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based Customs broker, writer, and actor.  A former county chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party, he has been a recovering politician for twenty years.

MAGA: Ford has plans for ‘SIGNIFICANT’ investment in Michigan 3 plants JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!

Ford Motor Co. will announce investments in three of its Michigan manufacturing plants Tuesday morning, according to three sources familiar with the automaker’s plans.

The Dearborn-based automaker will announce investments at its Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, Flat Rock Assembly Plant and its Romeo Engine Plant, according to the sources who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information. It is unclear how many jobs will be created, or the total dollar amount. However, one of the sources characterized the investments as “significant.” A promised $700 million investment at the Michigan Assembly Plant was part of the 2015 Ford-United Auto Workers contract.

From The Detroit News

Tuesday’s investment announcement comes less than two weeks after President Donald Trump pushed auto executives for more U.S. jobs and new manufacturing plants in the U.S. during a stop in Ypsilanti Township. Trump hinted then that a big auto industry announcement was coming last week, though it did not appear to happen. It’s unclear if Ford’s announcement is the same news teased by Trump.

Trump tweeted again Tuesday morning:

Ford is on Tuesday’s Michigan Strategic Fund meeting agenda for business growth and investments, and likely will receive state incentives.

The automaker plans to invest $9 billion in U.S. facilities through 2019, resulting in 8,500 new or retained jobs, according to the 2015 contract. Besides the $700 million investment at Michigan Assembly for new products — the 2019 Ford Ranger pickup and the all-new Ford Bronco planned for production by 2020 — the contract outlines a $400 million investment planned for Flat Rock for Ford Mustang and Lincoln Continental production, and a $150 million investment at the Romeo Engine plant for engine updates. It is unclear whether Tuesday’s announcements go beyond those plans.

The automaker would not comment on the details of the announcement expected Tuesday. The UAW could not be reached for comment.

Ford’s announcement will come nearly three months after the company announced cancellation of plans to construct a new $1.6 billion in plant in Mexico to build the Ford Focus.

Ford announced in January it would invest $700 million at Flat Rock assembly and create 700 new jobs in Michigan.

Trump’s DOJ sends documents related to Wiretap Claim to House Panel

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent documents to the House Intelligence Committee on Friday in response to a request for evidence backing up President Trump’s claim that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

The committee is currently reviewing the documents, an aide confirmed to The Hill.

The Hill reports,

It’s unclear what’s in the documents, which CNN reported separately had also been delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee, though that report could not be immediately confirmed.

Leaders on the House panel sent a letter to the DOJ last week asking for evidence related to Trump’s claim earlier this month that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower ahead of the presidential election. A spokesman for Obama denied at the time that he or any White House official ordered such surveillance.

On Monday, the DOJ asked for more time to produce the documents, bucking a March 13 deadline set by the committee. Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) indicated that the committee could subpoena the department for the documents if they were not received by Monday, when the panel holds a hearing.

Trump tweeted March 4 accusing Obama of having his “wires tapped” in Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign. He has stood by his claim despite lawmakers in both parties saying as of Thursday that they had not seen evidence to support his allegation.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer has sought to clarify the claim, saying that Trump put the wiretapping accusation “in quotes” and was more broadly referring to surveillance activities by the Obama administration.

But Spicer also said that Trump “stands by” his initial tweets on the subject, and Trump on Friday joked about the wiretapping claim during a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The House Intelligence Committee will hold an open hearing on Russian interference in the election on Monday, where questions about Trump’s claims are sure to be raised. Lawmakers will have the opportunity to press FBI Director James Comey on the issue.

Deport them

Ousted US Attorney Bharara Isn’t Going Quietly

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in 2015. He no longer holds the post. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)
(NEWSER) – Preet Bharara, the newly fired US attorney in Manhattan, has a brand-new Twitter account, an ax to grind, and lots of free time on his hands. Bharara was one of 46 federal attorneys ordered to resign late last week by the Justice Department, though he says he refused to do so and was fired instead. A look at coverage:

Expect lots of chatter about a run for office. The 48-year-old has previously said he’s not interested, but this run-in with the White House might mean that “his political star is rising,” reports the New York Times in a story that takes a broad look at his career.
He’s out of his job, but there’s some disagreement on whether he was technically fired, as CNBC explains.
Bharara has the reputation of being an aggressive prosecutor willing to take on big names, but ProPublica points to what it sees as a glaring exception: He brought no cases against top Wall Street execs in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse. Read the assessment here.
“By the way, now I know what the Moreland Commission must have felt like.” That tweet from Bharara, referring to a political corruption investigation that was shut down in New York, is drawing attention. Is he suggesting he got fired because he was investigating the White House? The Week takes a look.
One person who is probably pretty happy that Bharara is gone? Rupert Murdoch. As New York explains, Bharara’s office is investigating Fox News. Among other things, the network allegedly hid financial statements related to sexual harassment settlements.
For a sense of the competing views about Bharara, see this critical post at the libertarian Reason about his “overreaching” prosecutions, and this one at the Daily Beast that hopes he runs for governor in New York.

HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM AND THE AMERICAN ENTREPRENEUR

By John F. Di Leo –

Part One of the House GOP’s official plan to repair/undo/fix/replace Obamacare was released this week, to utter shock and dismay. The authors say that everything America needs will be in the full packet, so it’s unfair to judge Part One without seeing the rest. That may be true, so here, let’s just look at the big picture, whether it’s one part, two parts, three or ten.

America had a healthcare financing problem a decade ago. Conservative solutions, such as malpractice/tort reform, extending the tax-deductibility that employer-provided health insurance gets to individual policies too, and closing the borders to reduce the massive healthcare drain by indigent illegal aliens, were never given a chance. Instead, the Democrats, on straight party votes and through illegal contortions of the lawmaking process, forced through a costly and destructive nationalization of healthcare financing.

As was predicted, it was an utter disaster. Few government programs have ever been so universally hated as Obamacare.

So today – with a Republican majority in the House and Senate, along with a Republican in the White House, American has an opportunity to undo it at last… to both undo the disaster that is Obamacare, and also implement the fixes that we knew were needed all along, but never got the chance to make before.

The Big Picture

But health insurance – and the healthcare financing process in general – is only part of the economic task faced by the new administration. It’s a big part of it, but it still exists within a bigger challenge;

We are trying to climb out of a ten year long recession. Economists don’t like to admit that, because the formal definition is two successive quarters of negative growth, and we’ve only suffered that here and there.

But in fact, when you consider job losses, inflation, general contraction of manufacturing, and the continued growth of the critical employment measure – people of working age outside the workforce” – it is undeniable; the economy has been rotten for a decade. It may not have been a recession to economists, but it’s been a recession to human beings.

For a decade now, the US economy generally produced around 200,000 jobs a month, most of them lousy.

By that, we mean that – unlike past eras of manufacturing growth and general expansion – in this period, too many of the new jobs are dead-end or near dead-end jobs. A starting job on an assembly line may pay poorly at first, but it may lead to a role as team lead, supervisor, manager, foreman, plant manager. A starting job at a coffee shop or retail counter, by comparison, may be a great, convenient part time job for a student, but has far less potential for career growth.

The problem with the Obama economy is that even the tepid number of jobs it did produce included too many of the latter type, and too few of the former.

We desperately need to make up for this ten year disaster.

Since healthcare financing was part of the problem before 2010 – and it became an incredibly bigger part of the problem after passage of Obamacare (the ACA) – fixing this particular mess is clearly a critical first step in delivering the economic boom that the market and the voters are all expecting, and in fact have already baked into their forecasts. We cannot let them down!

We need the U.S. economy to produce 20 million more jobs, including a couple million startups and millions of part time and full time independent consultants, during this presidential term.

… and we need most of the many American manufacturers who have moved production lines overseas during the past 20 years to finally start moving them back.

Somehow, the Obamacare repair/undo/fix/replace project (again, whether it’s one bill or a set of several) needs to do everything it can – and it can do much! – to advance these critical goals.

Has the Congressional leadership looked at it that way? Are they just focusing on reducing the obvious, direct pain of Obamacare as fast as possible? Or are they consciously working to use the Obamacare correction to undo the damage that both the Obamacare era and the pre-Obamacare era have done to our economy?

Job Creation and the Monkey-Wrench

Let’s go back in time, and think about how health insurance costs affected decision making a decade ago, when we thought we had it so bad…

Ten years ago, let’s say you wanted to start your own startup or independent consultancy.

Leaving a job that had insurance to branch out on one’s own, one had to plan on paying $50 to $100 a month for a single policy, or – for a breadwinner – a couple hundred a month for a family policy. Such plans are necessary, to cover basic healthcare needs if something big happened, and ensure decent pricing for normal things (rather than paying “rack rates”).

Such affordable programs (somewhat high copay, somewhat high deductible, but basically fine for most people) are gone now. They’re just GONE. Obamacare has thrown a monkey-wrench into the start-up society.

Thanks to Obamacare – and its laundry lists of mandated coverage, its worthlessly micromanaged exchanges and gold/silver/bronze plans of inflated coverage, that insists on paying for Ralphie to turn into Mabel, and funding abortions for 70 year old women and birth control for nuns – health insurance today is horribly, unbearably overpriced.

We’ve spent seven years rightly talking about what this does to the individual stuck with the plan… but we haven’t talked enough about what it does to the natural urge of the entrepreneurial – the small business minded American minority – to branch out on their own.

The Obamacare era’s outlandish pricing and awful product (in most cases, we pay more than ever for insurance that can’t even be used, because of the high deductibles and lack of providers) have scared Americans out of entrepreneurship.

Obamacare literally traps employed people in their current jobs. Starting up your own business takes considerable energy and courage to begin with; this massive corruption of the healthcare aspect of American life has added a massive weight to the already stiff burden of the American start-up.

People working for big companies, the very people who used to start their own businesses, are now unable to do so, because the insurance costs don’t let them take that additional risk.

And what America needs most of all right now is an influx of new businesses, of courageous new entrepreneurs to rent offices and start inventing and selling and hiring… exactly as entrepreneurs always did in America, before the Obamacare era.

This is what has been forgotten in the recent debate… perhaps because, as usual, small businessmen aren’t heard the way that big businessmen are in our society, and perhaps because the future entrepreneur has no voice, only the past entrepreneur does.

Obamacare – as a whole, not just in the employer mandate, but AS A WHOLE – is utterly destructive to small business. Over the seven years since that hellish March 20 when it was illegally passed and signed, the number of startups has plummeted in Amerca.

We need to terminate Obamacare to get back what we had 8 years ago, to begin with.

It’s a critical first step, not just for fixing healthcare, but for starting the economic boom we so desperately need. But then… we need the corrections – the simple, logical corrections – that we knew were needed at the time, but which the Democrats refused to allow us to do.

For example:

Tort reform, to reduce the cost that malpractice insurance places on health care pricing.
Use of the Commerce Clause to allow insurance companies to sell plans across state lines.
Extend tax-deductibility of health insurance to individually-purchased plans, just as employer-provided insurance is.
Crack down on crime, particularly the drug gang crime of the inner cities and the border jumping practice of tens of millions of illegal aliens, which fill our hospitals with costly patients who can’t pay for their coverage.
This is just a start. There’s more, of course, much more. And they’ve been on the Republican reformers’ drawing boards now for eight years, disallowed from seeing the light of day.

But they are necessary. Because a simple tweak of Obamacare to reduce the most egregious errors isn’t enough. Removing the mandate, dropping a couple of the taxes, but leaving the structure in place would only help a bit on the surface, while leaving the leviathan in place to keep on holding America back from the recovery we so desperately need.

There is a huge barricade in place, retarding the natural American impulse for job creation and economic advancement. And until that barricade is removed, our economy cannot recover.

Copyright 2017 John F. Di Leo

Violent protesters beat pro-Trump demonstrators at Calif. rally, burn American flags & free speech signs

A small riot erupted Saturday afternoon in Berkeley, California, after violent protesters confronted pro-Trump demonstrators and allegedly began a confrontation that turned violent.

The confrontation occurred on a day when Americans across the country held peaceful demonstrations in support of President Donald Trump, free speech and America.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the pro-Trump demonstrators participating in the “March 4 Trump” rally began marching at 2 p.m. PST Saturday at the Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park. Just several blocks up the road, they were met by counter-protesters dressed in masks and black clothing who began the confrontation.

By 3 p.m., the self-proclaimed anarchists were dominating the crowd. Dressed all in black and wearing cloth bandannas over their faces, they stopped traffic as they marched from the park through downtown with the smaller mix of Trump supporters and counterprotesters. In the park, people opposed to Trump threw eggs and burned both American flags and the red “Make America Great Again” Trump campaign hats.
Photos and videos posted to Twitter and other social media showed fistfights, shouting matches, people being beat with sticks and signs, people pulling hair and some counter-protesters pepper-spraying the pro-Trump marchers, including an elderly man.

 

Leftists Savagely Attack Trump Supporters At Oscars And IMMEDIATELY Regret It

Dozens of supporters of US President Donald Trump rallied on the Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles, Saturday, a day ahead of the Academy Awards ceremony, in order to defend the president and protect his star on the Walk of Fame.

One arrest was made after clashes erupted as some by-passers confronted the protesters, breaking one of their placards. Protesters campaigned for Trump to build the wall at the southern US border with Mexico and displayed signs such as “Mexicans for Trump,” “California for Trump” and “women for Trump.”

The organizer of the rally Matthew Woods stressed that Trump supporters are “boycotting many actors and film directors who have an anti-America agenda.”

A few of the pro-Trump supporters who were present at the rally explained why they supported him:

“I’m Latino and I say, ‘build that wall.’ These illegal immigrants. I actually have a friend whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant.”

“They’re losing and it’s the price they’re going to pay. They’re losing support of the arts and the films. We’re boycotting many actors and film that have an anti-American agenda, a globalist agenda or an anti-Trump agenda.”

CHEATING DEMOCRAT GETS ROYAL TREATMENT FROM POLITICO

It’s astounding that the liberal media has the audacity to affix the term “disgraced” to Michael Flynn, yet still pretend like former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile has a pristine, golden reputation and a bright future in politics and punditry.

Brazile got an advance look at debate questions in the Democratic primaries, gave them to Hillary Clinton, and WikiLeaks laid it out for all to see. Maybe she got them straight from CNN, maybe she got them from someone else. But for her to keep acting like she did nothing wrong and for the media to go along with that absurd claim…well, that’s really something special.

“Did CNN provide Donna Brazile or any other contributor debate questions? No. I’ve never received questions from CNN,” she told Politico in an article designed to make Brazile out to be the longsuffering victim of a Republican witch hunt. “There’s no there there.”

She then turned to Donald Trump, saying that the president’s attacks on her were untrue.

“Donald Trump has not switched off the campaign button. He is still in campaign mode and if he wants to use his time in office — he only has four years, but if he wants to use four years, you know, bashing Donna Brazile, insinuating misleading information, that’s up to Mr. Trump,” she said. “I have no — I have the respect for the office of the President but I have no — I don’t have the capacity.”

No, because to “have respect” for someone would require first having a sense of self-respect, which Brazile clearly lacks. She apparently believes that Americans are collectively braindead or that the media coverup is significant enough to let her escape all responsibility for her actions. And hell, at least on the latter point, she may be right.

 

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN