President Trump's accomplishments and promises kept

[DougMacG]

Draining the DC swamp is a process underway that can't ever be fully achieved but we should celebrate every move in the right direction.  Two points here,

1) All the ruckus over state department departures underway is a big sign of progress:  http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/30/with-departure-of-top-lawyer-state-department-exodus-continues/  The career state department people especially toward the top are the ones who acquiesced to HRC's private server scandal and helped her to hide her emails and cover up the scandal.  They all tend to be liberals and globalists in the negative sense of those terms and they have been putting their agenda ahead of our security.

2) Breaking the Senate Blue Slip Rule:  The timing was amazing here.  Sen Franken was holding up hearing on Minnesota's Justice David Stras just for swamp-like political reasons, because he could and because he wanted to extract something political in return for supporting a home state nominee who is abundantly qualified.  I attribute this to Trump and Trump's watch because he made this great appointment that divided Minnesota's two Dem Senators and because Trump derangement syndrome is what was empowering Franken to be derelict in his duties as Senator to return his 'blue slip' for a perfectly qualified nominee.

It was one day before the Franken scandal broke that the Senate Judiciary committee decided to step over swamp creature Franken and hold hearings on Justice Stras.  Observers are comparing Stras in his confirmation hearing to Gorsuch.  Good thing because he might soon move from the 8th Circuit appellate court to sitting next to Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.  Scott Johnson of Powerline (who brought down Dan Rather) was the light behind the force that made this happen.  He wrote a long series of articles challenging the Minneapolis Startribune and other media to expose the travesty that this excellent Trump nomination was being held up by a Senator refusing to faithfully do his job. This week they held hearings; video at this link: 
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/the-new-al-franken-part-three.php

Stras, with great support from both sides of the aisle, is not the liberal activist judge that HRC would have appointed.  His nomination and certain confirmation to follow is a tremendous, nation-saving Trump accomplishment, IMHO.  Trump killed more than one bird with this stone.

[ccp]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/04/donald-trump-shrinks-federal-monuments-in-utah-you-know-best-how-to-take-care-of-your-land/

the greens have turned 1/3 of the west in public ownership


view the amount of land out west designated as government land:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://assets3.bigthink.com/system/tinymce_assets/944/original/federal_lands.jpg?1422311293&imgrefurl=http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us&h=1592&w=1938&tbnid=UJH8dOdplzrdtM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=195&usg=__Yc2FvMvJH4mS_pqktTiJLWaw24A%3D&vet=10ahUKEwjw-7a91vHXAhUG6RQKHcErC5oQ9QEILjAA..i&docid=Lljtit2IFUsKEM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw-7a91vHXAhUG6RQKHcErC5oQ9QEILjAA

[Crafty_Dog]

In that we are using this thread as a "for the record resource" it would be far preferable to use a source more reputable than Breitbart.

[G M]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/04/donald-trump-shrinks-federal-monuments-in-utah-you-know-best-how-to-take-care-of-your-land/

the greens have turned 1/3 of the west in public ownership


view the amount of land out west designated as government land:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://assets3.bigthink.com/system/tinymce_assets/944/original/federal_lands.jpg?1422311293&imgrefurl=http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us&h=1592&w=1938&tbnid=UJH8dOdplzrdtM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=195&usg=__Yc2FvMvJH4mS_pqktTiJLWaw24A%3D&vet=10ahUKEwjw-7a91vHXAhUG6RQKHcErC5oQ9QEILjAA..i&docid=Lljtit2IFUsKEM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw-7a91vHXAhUG6RQKHcErC5oQ9QEILjAA

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

Just How Much Land Does the Federal Government Own — and Why?
Over a year ago  by FRANK JACOBS
Article Image
The rough beauty of the American West seems as far as you can get from the polished corridors of power in Washington DC. Until you look at the title to the land. The federal government owns large tracts of the western states: from a low of 29.9% in Montana, already more than the national average, up to a whopping 84.5% in Nevada.

This map, depicting the distribution and share of federal land per state, was first published on this blog way back in 2008. Nevertheless, it keeps accumulating comments and hits at a steady pace, and is still frequently shared around. Unlike hundreds of other random maps, this one has become a perennial. That raises an interesting question for map geeks like yours truly: Which nerve, exactly, does this map strike with the Great Online Public?




Let's start with the most obvious answer: the map is stunningly effective at bringing home its message. And that message is: Federal land ownership out west is huge.

Few minds will stir when they learn that the US federal government owns a grand total of 640 million acres of land: that figure is so vast that it becomes meaningless [1]. The sum of all that acreage adds up to about 28% of the nation's total surface, 2.27 billion acres. That sounds like a lot, but since it is an average, and because we have nothing to compare it to, that percentage is, to use one of my favorite quotes, “the kind of information they conceal in books” [2].

Both issues – the blandness of averages, the lack of comparison – are eliminated by the map, which presents an immediate, jaw-droppingly clear frame of reference. In the blink of an eye, the contrast between the west and the rest becomes clear.

The clever device delivering that instant insight: 50 icons, each shaped like the particular state they are centered on and sized to reflect the percentage of the federal lands in each particular state.

Back east, but even in the Midwest, those icons – colored red for better contrast – barely amount to a distant mirror of the state they're modelled on. In those parts, the federal share of state territory rarely runs into the double digits. It even stays below 2% for the Top 10 states with the lowest percentage of federally owned land:



The largest splotches of red are all in the 11 westernmost states of the Lower 48. The federal government's enormous share of Alaska is only less obvious because as usual the largest state in the Union is shown in an inset map, at a much larger scale [3].

These red icons look like parasites, about to take over the body of the host. Take a look at poor Nevada, where non-public land is pushed out to a narrow band skirting the state's borders – marginalized, in the most literal sense of the word. Even in most other western states, that ledge is not much wider than a toehold.

The Top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land on this map looks like this:

Both because of its enormous total size and its huge percentage of federal lands, Alaska alone represents almost half the government-owned area in the 10 most 'federalised' states combined. The only two western states falling out of the Top 10 are Montana (29.9%) and Washington state (30.3%).

What is all that federal land for? And exactly who is in charge? According to the Congressional Research Service [4], a total area of just under 610 million acres – more than twice the size of Namibia – is administered by no more than 4 federal government agencies:

* The United States Forest Service (USFS), which oversees timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife habitat protection and other sustainable uses on a total of 193 million acres – almost the size of Turkey – mainly designated as National Forests.

* The National Park Service (NPS) conserves lands and resources on 80 million acres – a Norway-sized area – in order to preserve them for the public. Any harvesting or resource removal is generally prohibited.

* the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), managing 248 million acres [5] – an area the size of Egypt – has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, supporting energy development, recreation, grazing, conservation, and other uses.

* the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 89 million acres – an area slightly bigger than Germany – to conserve and protect animal and plant species.

The first agency is part of the Department of Agriculture, the latter three of the Department of the Interior. The Department of Defense manages an additional 20 million acres – a bit larger than the Czech Republic – as military bases, testing and training grounds, etc.

Back to the map – apart from making its point in such an excellent manner, why is it so popular? The aforementioned Congressional Overview of Federal Land Ownership provides a broad outline of the answer:

“47% of the 11 coterminous western states [is federally owned]. By contrast, the federal government owns only 4% in the other states. This western concentration has contributed to a higher degree of controversy over land ownership and use in that part of the country”.

“Throughout America’s history, federal land laws have reflected two visions: keeping some lands in federal ownership while disposing of others. From the earliest days, there has been conflict between these two visions. During the 19th century, many laws encouraged settlement of the West through federal land disposal. Mostly in the 20th century, emphasis shifted to retention of federal lands.”

That conflict came to a head very publicly last year with the case of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher whose conflict with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights led to the federal government impounding his cattle [6].

But the federal government's extra-extra-large involvement in the management of western lands is far more than a conflict about grazing, water, mining, logging and other development. It pits the principle of good stewardship of the land, for the welfare of present and future generations, against one of America's foundational axioms: That government is best which governs least [7].

The former attitude requires a central government to assume authority, restrict access, punish rule-breakers – and increasingly so, since resource depletion is a growing threat.

The latter viewpoint holds government intervention to be the problem, not the solution, and the stated reasons for it – be it conservation or climate change – as convenient cover stories at best.

Two quotes from the story's comments section illustrate the gap between the two extremes:

“It's too late [to take back our country]. Jump ship and buy land in a poor undeveloped country, Start a farm and build a new community.”

“Or we could stop wasting time with this nonsense and get back to the real issues.”

Ultimately, this map reverberates and keeps bouncing around the internet because it touches a divide in American politics and wider society that is about much more than land use. It pits libertarians versus federalists, with the gap between them increasing to such an extent that the former often seem to the latter to be no more than right-wing vigilantes, the latter to the former nothing less than world-government-promoting socialists. Until some middle ground emerges to bridge that divide, this map (and other incendiary devices) will continue to add fuel to the ideological fire.

 

Many thanks to Jonathan Leblang and Adam Hahn for signaling this map, which appeared as an illustration to ‘Can the West Lead Us To A Better Place?‘, an article in Stanford Magazine, a periodical for and about alumni from that university. Update: the map can be found in higher resolution – and with a long, long comments section – here on Reddit.

Strange Maps #291

Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.

 

[1] Remember the Joseph Stalin quote: “One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic”. Not that one acre is a tragedy. But you catch our meaning.

[2] Oliver Platt as Hector Cyr in Lake Placid (1999).

[3] Contrary to intuition, map objects shrunk to fit in with others are shown at a larger, not a smaller scale. See the scales at the bottom: Alaska's 500-mile line is 4 times shorter than the Lower 48's. Meaning (a) that Alaska is shown 4 times smaller than the Lower 48; and (b) that if Alaska's scale would have been as long as the other, it would have measured 2,000 miles – i.e. would measure a larger distance.

[4] Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data

[5] The BLM is also responsible for subsurface mineral resources in areas totaling 700 million acres.

[6] The sentiment is often attributed to Jefferson, but the quote as such is from the opening lines of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.

[7] Mr. Bundy refused to pay $1.2 million in grazing fees to the BLM, arguing that the land his cattle uses belongs not to the federal, but the state government. In the spring of last year, BLM officials agreed to leave his property and release his cattle after hundreds of armed supporters showed up at the Bundy ranch. As the Washington Post recently reported, the conflict remains unresolved.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://carolineglick.com/trumps-great-gifts-to-israel-and-america/

[G M]

https://spectator.org/the-middle-east-peace-process-meme-what-peace-process/

Special Report
The Middle East ‘Peace Process’ Meme: WHAT Peace Process?
DOV FISCHER
December 6, 2017, 1:19 pm

Thank you, President Trump, for again keeping your promise.

Now that he formally has announced that the United States of America fully recognizes Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of the country of Israel, President Donald Trump once again has proven that he is the first American President since Ronald Reagan who actually fulfills campaign promises he made to the American people who elected him. He promised to nominate to the United States Supreme Court a brilliant conservative judicial intellect in the tradition of the late Justice Antonin Scalia — and he named Neil Gorsuch to the High Court. He promised to continue naming impeccable conservative judges to the federal courts, and he continually has been doing so. He promised to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. To tighten the southern border and to begin the process of building a wall to choke off the opioids supply while addressing a broken and corrupted immigration policy.

He promised to roll back taxes to make American businesses competitive with those around the world, while ramping up the economy and laying the foundation for the creation of more jobs. He promised to address the regulatory stranglehold that has choked American energy and commerce. He walked away from the European climate conference and the Trans-Pacific boondoggle. He has confronted NAFTA and ended the nonsense of other multi-lateral global trade plans that always leave America subject to being cheated with little recourse. He is attempting to cut federal funds from Secessionist (“Sanctuary”) cities and “Resistance” states that defy the government of the United States. He has taken demonstrable steps to improve medical care for veterans. Hydraulic fracturing, oil exploration, clean coal development, and the entire gamut of all forms of energy harnessing now are back on the table, as he fulfills his promise to make America more energy-independent and thus less hostage to the fickle designs of tyrannical oil sheikdoms and two-bit dictatorships. He does not bow down to sheiks nor salsa with tyrants.

And now he has fulfilled his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the country of Israel.

Bill Clinton made that exact same promise, too. But he lied. Then George W. Bush promised the same — and he lied. Then Obama promised the same — If you like your capital, you can keep your capital — and he lied. Each one looked voters squarely in the faces and made the same bold promise, backed fully by Congressional bipartisan approval in a 1995 law that authorized such recognition, yet each knew he never would do it. And then came Donald Trump, uttering the same pledge — but this time honoring his word in his very first year in office. Thus, the promise to move America’s Israel embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has become the Political Rosetta Stone of the Modern Age that deciphers whether a President is a bald-faced liar or can be trusted to do his best to honor and execute the promises that brought him into office.

As the chicken-hearted, yellow-bellied, lily-livered, gutless and spineless leaders of Western Civilization from Western Europe to New Zealand now shake and tremble in the face of a simple truth that they all know — that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel — we may expect to hear the meme interminably day-and-night, until the next television or movie icon’s pants fall, that “This decision now threatens the Middle East ‘Peace Process.’” For the last fifty years, someone in a European capital and in the U.S. State Department has uttered that sentence at least once weekly. If Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston divorce, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Megyn Kelly ever gets ratings on NBC, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Hillary Clinton admits that she knowingly spoliated those emails and that they had nothing to do with yoga, yogurt, or Chelsea’s wedding, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Netflix raises its prices again, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie divorce, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Eli Manning does not start for the New York Giants, or if Colin Kaepernick does start anywhere, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Bill Clinton admits that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, it will endanger the Middle East peace process.

So, while other experts debate the meme, let us share a secret: There is no Middle East “peace process” and there has not been a “Middle East peace process” for decades. It is a sham.

When Bill Clinton was President, only one person got to see him in the White House more often and closer-up than did Monica Lewinsky: Yasser Arafat. Arafat visited the White House more than did any other foreign visitor. With Clinton brutally pressuring Israel’s most ineffective and hapless Prime Minister in its history, Ehud Barak, Arafat was promised virtually everything he always had said he was demanding — but the butcher turned it down anyway and instead launched a civilian war, the so-called “intifada.”

Arafat and his cronies, chief among them Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestinian Authority dictator who now is entering the thirteenth year of his four-year elected term in office, never wanted a final agreement that would recognize the permanent existence of a non-Muslim, Jewish-majority country in the Middle East. There never was a “Middle East Peace Process.” Rather, it was a “Piece Process”: Fool one American President to get us a piece of the Sinai, the next to get us a piece of the Golan Heights, the next to get a piece of Gaza. There never was a “Peace Process” — and, if one simply pauses to contemplate the reality of the terrain and the demography, the painful conclusion is that a “Two-State Solution” is best when not contemplated. Consider:

Before June 1967, an Arab Muslim polity (Egypt) held Gaza, an Arab Muslim polity (Syria) held the Golan Heights, and an Arab Muslim polity (Jordan) held Judea and Samaria (misnomered the “West Bank”). Yet in 1964, three years before June 1967, the Arab world created the “Palestine Liberation Organization” (PLO). Which “Palestine” did that “organization” set about to “liberate” in 1964? Not Gaza, Golan, and Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”). Jordanian Olympic athletes were not attacked for “occupying the West Bank.” Nor were Egyptian school children for “occupying Gaza.” Nor Syrian civilians for “occupying the Golan.” Rather, all PLO terror attacks, from the PLO’s 1964 founding through June 1967, aimed within pre-June 1967 Israel. That is what the PLO was organized to liberate: the “Palestine” that is Israel. Not Gaza, Golan, nor Judea and Samaria.

(By the way, how fascinating is the term “West Bank”! The Arab world could not assert with a straight face that “Judea and Samaria” belong to the PLO. So they gave it a different name. Only… they had no other name for it because Judea and Samaria never were part of their universe. Read the Torah. Read the Christian Gospels. Read the Encyclopedia Britannica before the 1960s. So, since Judea and Samaria lands are west of the Jordan River, they denominated it the “West Bank.” Anyone who has been there, to cities up and down Judea and Samaria, knows that the region is no river “bank,” not remotely close to the Jordan River. The term is a joke — akin to labeling Jersey City, Bayonne, Secaucus, and Hoboken the “West Bank” because of its immensely closer proximity to the Hudson River or calling the states of Arkansas or Iowa the “West Bank” because of proximity to the Mississippi.

(Yet the mainstream leftist media use the term “West Bank” rather than “Judea and Samaria” because they claim to shun the “Bibilical” name. But they call everywhere else in that region by their Biblical names: Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Jericho, Hebron, Negev, Syria, Damascus, Lebanon, Tyre, Nineveh, Sidon, Jordan, Egypt. And Jerusalem… which brings back the fallacy of the “Mideast Peace Process” meme…)

Today more than 200,000 Jews live in the eastern part of Jerusalem and approximately 420,000 Jews live in approximately 150 cities and other communities throughout the rest of Judea and Samaria. The mainstream left media label these cities and communities “settlements.” The Ma’aleh Adumim “settlement” in Judea has approximately 40,000 residents (comparable to New Hampshire’s third largest city, Concord; Vermont’s largest city, Burlington; Cedar Falls, Iowa; Bozeman, Montana; and other such American “settlements”). The “settlement” of Ariel in Samaria has more than 20,000 residents and a full university. The “settlement” of Modi’in Illit has 70,000 residents. The Beitar Illit “settlement” has 52,000 people. Karnei Shomron in Samaria has close to 10,000 residents. The American “settlement” of Malibu is roughly the same size.

No one ever asks this question: Given that every single Arab Muslim polity — ever — has demanded that all Jews be uprooted and removed from East Jerusalem and from the rest of Judea and Samaria as part of any “Middle East Peace Process,” where exactly does that “Peace Process” contemplate re-settling those 620,000 Jews? And how would they do it? Would they refurbish Nazi Germany’s cattle cars, the only previous method used effectively in the last 500-plus years to relocate that many Jews from their homes? And how exactly would they be rounded up — these 620,000 Jews being relocated from the homes they have built and in which they have lived for decades? The Nazis found it effective initially to relocate them into walled ghettoes. But where would the “Middle East Peace Process” have them walled before forcing them onto the cattle cars? Has the “Peace Process” identified suitable ghetto areas for temporarily confining those 620,000 Jews?

And while thinking about it: After these 620,000 Jews are barbed-wired into walled ghettoes, and subsequently prodded onto cattle cars — exactly where will they be transported for a suitable final solution to house them under the “Middle East Peace Process”?

Auschwitz-Birkenau is not available; it currently is in use as a museum and commercial tourist spot. Dachau? Majdanek? Bergen-Belsen? Buchenwald? Treblinka? Sobibor? All fascinating options. Or will Saudi Arabia offer them housing? Presently, Jews and Christians are barred from setting foot in Mecca and Medina, but there is tell that some women now may drive in some places there, often without being stoned. Or Afghanistan? Syria? Iraq?

The earliest “Middle East Peace Process” for twenty years from 1948-1967 included a solution: simply drive the Jews to their deaths in the Mediterranean Sea. Despite the solution’s neatness and elegance, the Arab Muslim world changed that meme from “Drive the Jews into the Sea” after the June 1967 war. In time, it became “The Peace Process” — without any thought as to the actual relocation of 620,000 Jews. But, if they are not to be slaughtered — a solution that the intransigent Israeli Likud government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resolutely continues to oppose despite United Nations intractability, as do most other Israeli political parties — what indeed is that part of the “peace process”?

For those who would ask “Well, can’t Israel just absorb 620,000 people into… — it’s tough to finish that sentence. In August 2005, the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon uprooted 8,600 residents living in Gush Katif from the Gaza Strip so that Abbas could have that land as his own — land that rapidly was taken from his corrupt “Palestinian Authority” and that instead became the home base of the Hamas terrorist campaign. More than a decade later, Israel still has been unable to resettle them and get their lives back to normal. They lost their homes, jobs, often families. Thus, relocating and resettling 620,000 Jews is a puzzlement.

One more thing:

Look at the logo of the Hamas terrorists. See that green jagged “dagger” on the center-top? Now look at the logo of the Palestinian Authority’s Al Fatah terrorists. See that same green jagged “dagger” in the middle, partially obstructed by the two superimposed rifles? And now look at the logo of the terrorist Islamic Jihad. See that same jagged “dagger,” only this time in red and in the middle?

One picture is worth a thousand words — yet another meme. That depiction is not a jagged dagger. Rather, it is the map of “Palestine” that Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad all are determined to attain as part of the “Middle East Peace Process.” Thing is, for the uninitiated, that “Palestine” on their mind is not a map of Gaza and the “West Bank.” Rather, that is the exact map of all of Israel, down to Tel Aviv, Haifa, Hadera, Tiberias, Masadah, Eilat, and Ben Gurion Airport. For the Arab Muslim world, “Palestine” is Israel — all of it. Nothing has changed. One need not be fluent in Hebrew nor in Arabic to grasp this, simply capable of looking at four pictures. Want more pictures of more Palestine “Middle East Peace Process” aspirants? Here they are — they all want the same thing as their “Palestine”: all of Israel. That’s all.

The “Middle East Peace Process”? What Peace Process?

[DougMacG]

It's strange how the press and polls have never been worse while the accomplishments are building to an almost unprecedented level.  It's hard to chronicle them all and they don't necessarily fall in this order.

1)  ISIS defeated in it's own Caliphate.  We never want to say mission accomplished in a thousand year war, but beating them on their home turf with death to the leadership is no small feat.  Shared credit means Trump can actually work with others.  Is this no. !?  I don't know but imagine the world if the other team won.

2)  Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch and a host of other appointees nominated and confirmed.  Hopefully the Senate will weed out the bad ones, but the lifetime seating of the good ones is part of what could possibly save the nation from going over the brink of leftism, bankruptcy and failure.  Is this no.2? I don't know but imagine the fate of our republic if the other siide had another 4-8 years to pack the Courts.

3) Decertifying Iran and bringing the Kim Jung Un threat to the attention of the nation and the world.  Add to that, getting allies to share in the security burden and most recently a commitment to re-energize our own missile defense capabilities.  I'm putting some existential accomplishments ahead of economics...

4) Single handed deregulation.  He has increased our GDP growth rate by 50-100% just by reversing some of the Obama excess and putting an expectation on future pro-growth policies.  Pulled out of the Paris accords.  Quietly removed an amazing amount of government over-reach.

5)  Tax cuts and reform.  This quickly jumps to no.1 IMHO as soon as results exceed promises and doubters begin to eat crow.  Stagnation never was the 'new normal'; it was an ugly, anti-American policy choice of hopefully an era gone by.

6)  Within the tax bill, repeal of the Obamacare penalty.

7)  Within the tax bill, drilling in ANWR.  Long overdue and proving Liberals wrong for the past 20 years.  Symbolic and real change of direction.  Throw Keystone XL pipeline in with this.

  Net Neutrality:  Gone.

9)  Illegal Immigration:  Down.

10)  Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  Symbolic, and saves the diplomats commute time to the Israel capital.

11(honorable mention) His supposed 'gaffe' of talking with Taiwan.  He put allies, rivals and enemies on notice, under new management!

As I look over my ordering, if fully accomplished, these are all No. 1's!

[ccp]

agree with most of above but not sure about this:

"9)  Illegal Immigration:  Down."

some dispute about that .   I don't see any illegals packing bags and leaving around here.

[ccp]

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/polling-shows-broad-support-for-policies-in-gop-tax-bill

[DougMacG]

agree with most of above but not sure about this:

"9)  Illegal Immigration:  Down."

some dispute about that .   I don't see any illegals packing bags and leaving around here.

Not people leaving but the flow inward is down:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/25/donald-trump/illegal-immigration-lowest-17-years-trump-said/

Is illegal immigration the lowest in 17 years, as Trump said?

Overall, we rate Trump’s claim True.
-----------------------

That could change if the economy begins to roar before improved border security is in place.

[DougMacG]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-present-for-putin-1513901798?mg=prod/accounts-wsj

[Crafty_Dog]

http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/22/how-trump-changed-the-courts-in-2017/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnprNU1tUTBPR1kxTmpBNCIsInQiOiIyU0pZMmtobjdvNlcrY1FpUVkzYmNxMmg2cXhDMGJER0tQb3FxRVFqZlhzcXA0Qzd0UzdJRnZxZCswbzhLd21paVc5cTZLQVJ5bTBwa1RHYUszemRBRUV3NXJkVjhBazlaVXRJdFM4MFZqbkllSkdVcGplR1phanh3SURxOSsraCJ9

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454985/taking-trump-seriously-foreign-policy-economy&hl=en&geo=US?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%202017-12-30&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-trump-era-is-changing-the-federal-bureaucracy/2017/12/30/8d5149c6-daa7-11e7-b859-fb0995360725_story.html?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.ad261e53f153

[Crafty_Dog]

Revolution To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 1/2/2018

One word that could describe Donald Trump's unexpected ascendancy to the presidency is – "revolt." Revolt against the "establishment." Revolt against the "status quo."

After all, status quo bureaucracies, tax rates, institutions, regulations, and narratives promised prosperity, yet the economy was mired in slow growth and many felt it was hard to get ahead. Reliably blue states tilted red, and the pendulum swung the other way.

Since 1993, the top federal tax rate on US corporations has been 35%, one of the highest in the world. This has forced US companies to expand overseas. Both sides of the political spectrum knew it was a problem, yet nothing was ever done.

Now the rate is 21%, and full expensing of business investment for tax purposes is law. These changes will boost the incentive to invest and operate in the US, leading to more demand for labor, which means lower unemployment and faster wage growth, as well. From an economic perspective, this is a revolution.

But there's more. We're referring to the new limit for state and local tax deductions. That change, combined with a larger standard deduction, will launch an overdue revolution in the policy choices of high tax states as well as the geographical distribution of business activity.

California's top marginal income tax rate is 13.3%. Under the old tax system, tax payers who itemize could deduct their state income taxes from their taxable federal income. So for the highest earners, the effective marginal rate was 8.0%, not 13.3%. [Deducting 39.6% of 13.3% saved them 5.3%. 13.3% minus 5.3% is 8.0%.]

Politicians in California could raise state income tax rates, and up to 39.6% of the cost would be carried by taxpayers in other states. The same goes for New York City residents, where the top income tax rate is roughly 12.7%.

Now taxpayers are limited to $10,000 in state and local tax deductions (with a 37% top federal tax rate). The financial pain of living in high tax states is now exposed. California and New York City - and many other high tax jurisdictions - look a lot less attractive than states like Texas, Florida, and Nevada.

This change may limit the measured income and wealth gap in the US between the rich and poor. California and New York don't just have high taxes, they also have a high cost of living. So, if some high earners in these places leave to take lower pay in places with lower taxes and a lower cost of living, the income and wealth gap would narrow.

But incentives work on all institutions, and policymakers in high-tax states have massive pressure to cut tax rates.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is set to rule on Janus vs. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Based on a similar case from a few years ago, it's likely the Court will rule that all government workers (state, local and federal) will have a choice to pay union dues, or not. We know from experience that, when given a choice, many workers stop supporting the political activities of unions. This would be another force significantly altering the balance of power.

Whether you agree with these developments or not, the U.S. hasn't seen economic policy changes like this in a long time. The forces that support markets and entrepreneurship over government control are reasserting themselves.

[Crafty_Dog]

second post


Trump Gets the U.N. to Cut Spending
The U.S. uses its leverage for once to force budget reforms.
Delegates gather in General Assembly Hall before a vote by the United Nations General Assembly, New York.
Delegates gather in General Assembly Hall before a vote by the United Nations General Assembly, New York. Photo: Albin Lohr-Jones/Zuma Press
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 1, 2018 3:39 p.m. ET
61 COMMENTS

Here’s something more miraculous than Congress spending less money—the United Nations doing it. Yet that’s what happened at the end of 2017 as the 193-nation General Assembly agreed to a 5% spending cut in its new biennial budget after American prodding.

The General Assembly agreed by consensus to shrink the U.N. budget by $286 million, to $5.4 billion, down 5% from the prior budget. The U.N. will save about $50 million by trimming hiring and overhead costs, and another $18 million from cutting the U.N. Department of Management, better known as human resources. The peacekeeping operations budget, which was negotiated separately earlier in 2017, was reduced by $593 million to $7.3 billion, a 7.5% cut.

The General Assembly also agreed to spending reforms, including restrictions on construction projects and an audit of the U.N.’s $60 billion staff pension fund. Starting in 2020, the U.N. will move to annual budgeting, which Secretary-General spokesman Stéphane Dujarric called “one of the most significant shifts in the programme planning and budgeting process of the Organization since the 1970s,” which says a lot about the U.N.’s accounting systems.

These reductions are hardly draconian. They don’t include cuts to the U.N.’s elevator operators, who cost about $300,000 per year, or trim the budget of the International Court of Justice’s judges and spouses, who travel first class. Committee for Programme and Coordination members, a strategic planning group for bureaucrats, holds a five-week meeting every year in New York City, rather than meet in a cheaper location or via teleconference.

Secretary-General António Guterres has supported the reforms. But none of this would have happened without pressure from the United States. President Trump called out the U.N.’s bloated bureaucracy and “mismanagement” in September, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley has pressed the case. The U.S. has leverage at the U.N. because it provides 22% of its budget, but credit the Trump Administration for finally using it.

[Crafty_Dog]

A schlocky internet ad, does anyone know  whether there is any substance to this?

https://pro.oxfordclub.com/p/RXSEN39TO79BRKLTOSAMALIUP/LBRKU107/?h=true

[Crafty_Dog]

http://carolineglick.com/trump-kicks-the-palestinian-habit/

[Crafty_Dog]

Stratfor Worldview
craftydog
TAKE THE TOUR
WORLDVIEW HOME




snapshots

Jan 8, 2018 | 21:30 GMT
4 mins read
U.S.: How Trump Is Addressing Immigration, Without Congress
(Stratfor)
Connections

    Articles

    Regions & Countries

    Themes

Print
Save As PDF
Listen
Forecast Update

In our 2018 Annual Forecast, Stratfor wrote that a number of factors would keep U.S. President Donald Trump from making his wishes for U.S. immigration policy a reality in 2018, despite his best efforts. Trump has continued to roll back immigration protections — such as temporary protected status for nationals from Haiti, Nicaragua and now El Salvador, but comprehensive reform of the U.S. immigration system will remain elusive.
See 2018 Annual Forecast

The comprehensive immigration overhaul U.S. President Donald Trump desires is still out of reach, but the president continues to make progress restricting immigration through decisions that don't require congressional support. Most recently, on Jan. 8, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security refused to extend temporary protected status (TPS) to around 200,000 Salvadorans residing in the United States. The move ends legal concessions — namely the right to work and reside in the country — granted to Salvadoran recipients of TPS and leaves them vulnerable to deportation after a deadline to depart in September 2019.

TPS is a humanitarian, non-immigrant visa category established by the Immigration Act of 1990. Salvadoran nationals first became eligible for TPS protection during El Salvador's civil war in the 1980s and then again after the country's 2001 earthquake. As a result, many Salvadorans have been in the United States under TPS for decades. The Trump administration's decision to end TPS programs (the Haitian and Nicaraguan designation was allowed to expire and the Honduran one is assumed to be next) is part of a wider move to restrict both legal and illegal immigration. The administration has also enacted various initiatives to increase enforcement of domestic immigration law and has moved to limit immigration through family and employment-based categories by ordering greater scrutiny of visa petitions. Allowing TPS protections to lapse is part of a move to restrict overall immigration and deport as many removable immigrants as possible.

But the administration's attempts to restrict immigration may not last if they are not codified into law. Many of the moves so far enacted by the Trump administration could be rescinded by Trump's successor through executive orders. Because of this, the Trump administration will press for wider immigration reform this year. If Congress joins the White House drive to revamp legal immigration, Trump's policies will have a better chance of outliving his presidency. However, achieving a comprehensive reform of the U.S. immigration system will be politically difficult.

Still, the administration will demand a broad range of reforms. These include a push to move away from granting visas on the basis of family ties and toward a more selective, restrictive system that would base visa grants on professional merit. In addition, the administration will attempt to use an extension of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) as a bargaining chip to secure more funding for border security measures, such as hiring more border patrol agents or constructing more barriers. But many of the White House's demands will go unmet. Because Republicans lack a sizable majority in the Senate committed to immigration reform, they will need to compromise to bring some Democrats on board in exchange for votes on spending measures. However, if a major reform effort becomes plausible, it will likely face a backlash in the form of lobbying and lawsuits from private companies that risk losing thousands of employees.

The White House push for a more selective immigration policy is unlikely to bear fruit. Instead, it's more likely that the administration will press on toward finding as many ways as possible to roll back legal protections for documented and undocumented migrants without congressional approval. Meanwhile, it won't give up its attempts this year to obtain more funding for border security or to negotiate and draft legislation to alter the landscape of legal immigration.

[Crafty_Dog]

TRUMP ENDS TEMPORARY STAY FOR 250,000 EL SALVADORANS AFTER 2001 EARTHQUAKE
January 8, 2018
 
Daniel Greenfield
 
11
Share to Facebook101Share to TwitterShare to More27Share to Print
 
Yes, you read that correctly.

We're talking about people who have been given a blank check to stay in America based on a 2001 earthquake. We might as well extend temporary protected status for all of Italy because of Pompei.

El Salvador suffered a devastating earthquake on January 13, 2001, and experienced two more earthquakes on February 13 and 17, 2001. Based on a thorough review by the Departments of State and Justice, the Attorney General has determined that, due to the environmental disaster and substantial disruption of living conditions caused by the earthquakes, El Salvador is “unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return” of its nationals.

Accordingly, the Attorney General has determined that conditions in El Salvador warrant the designation of El Salvador under the TPS program. This order will designate El Salvador under the TPS program for an initial period of 18 months.

And eighteen months then became 17 years.

Nationals of El Salvador (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who have been “continuously physically present” in the United States since March 9, 2001, and have “continuously resided” in the United States since February 13, 2001, may apply for TPS within the registration period that begins on March 9, 2001 and ends on September 9, 2002.

Now the Trump admin is ending the madness. There's one more extension and then TPS ends in September 2019.

The media doesn't actually explain any of this. Instead it ladles out buckets of sob stories by El Salvadorans who claim that they're "practically" American and that they'll be
immediately murdered if they return to their country. Meanwhile quite a few Americans are being murdered by El Salvadoran gangs like MS-13. But remember TPS was supposed to be temporary. The campaign against it, admits it isn't.

TPS isn't temporary. It's another migration backdoor.

Cue the "It's against American values to send back people to their country after 17 years when we only generously allowed them to stay here for 18 months after an earthquake."

Enough already. There are a whole lot of immigrants who want to come to America. There's a line out the door and around the world. If we're going to be fair about this, we should respect the process. TPS was a scam pulled on the American people. And now the scammers claim it was never temporary to begin with. Ending TPS is about restoring the rule of law and ending the migration lies.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nationalreview.com/morning-jolt/455396/chrysler-michigan-announcement-trump-immigration-comments?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=180112_Jolt&utm_term=Jolt

[ccp]

with minorities with impulsive thoughtless comments:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455408/donald-trump-haiti-africa-comments-identity-politics-worst

we need a thread with Trump screw ups not just

[G M]

with minorities with impulsive thoughtless comments:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455408/donald-trump-haiti-africa-comments-identity-politics-worst

we need a thread with Trump screw ups not just

Yawn. You mean people who won't vote Republican, won't be voting Republican because of Trump?

[ccp]

It is amazing to me how so many Republicans can defend Trump's big impulsive mouth.  

Never quoted Paul Ryan before but calling Trump's remarks "not helpful" is putting it mildly.

I agree with most of what Jonah says here and most importantly the long term damage Trump does to the Republicans and our way of thinking in general.  If found this article to be I agree with the most and he basically reiterates my thoughts:

http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/455420/trump-shithole-comments-authenticity-misunderstanding

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/crudeness-and-truth-15668.html

[G M]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/crudeness-and-truth-15668.html

I spent the last week at CES. After English, Mandarin was the most commonly spoken language.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455411/donald-trump-insanity-accusations-critics?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%202018-01-13&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

[ccp]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/crudeness-and-truth-15668.html

Like I said, I find it hard to believe the Right's defense of being crude and rude.

Sounds an awful lot like it is "just about sex after all.........."

I thought we used to try to be honorable

[Crafty_Dog]

Swearing and crudity in a meeting of politicians?

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked!

[G M]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/crudeness-and-truth-15668.html

Like I said, I find it hard to believe the Right's defense of being crude and rude.

Sounds an awful lot like it is "just about sex after all.........."

I thought we used to try to be honorable

Things have moved well past the point of being polite. The left is actively working, and is damn close to utterly destroying America and the western world. F*ck them and their feelings.

[DougMacG]

It's strange to see how eager and willing media and people are to say publicly what Trump (allegedly) said privately, NPR, CBS, NYT, etc.

The charge quickly went from vulgarity to racism.

[ccp]

"Things have moved well past the point of being polite. The left is actively working, and is damn close to utterly destroying America and the western world. F*ck them and their feelings."

True.  I am less concerned about the feeling of D - NERo and BRuffalo but I am concerned about feeling of those in the middle
And just insulting whole groups of people like Mexicans and Blacks is making matters worse.

The GOP has no hope of getting any in those groups on our side if we got a big mouth blindly insulting all of them.

I agree with the overall jist of what he says but I really believe the younger generation is being corrupted with all loss of civility

just my 2 cents

[G M]

"Things have moved well past the point of being polite. The left is actively working, and is damn close to utterly destroying America and the western world. F*ck them and their feelings."

True.  I am less concerned about the feeling of D - NERo and BRuffalo but I am concerned about feeling of those in the middle
And just insulting whole groups of people like Mexicans and Blacks is making matters worse.

The GOP has no hope of getting any in those groups on our side if we got a big mouth blindly insulting all of them.

I agree with the overall jist of what he says but I really believe the younger generation is being corrupted with all loss of civility

just my 2 cents

Calling shithole countries what they are isn't insulting Mexicans and blacks. Illegal aliens aren't here because they like snow.

"You can't deport the Dreamers! Mexico is a....um....."

Civility? The FCC commissioner couldn't attend CES because of death threats from the left. The FCC officials that did attend CES had Close Protection teams due to threats to them. How are Steve Scalice and Rand Paul doing after their recent encounters with leftist civility?

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.dickmorris.com/honoring-dr-king-black-unemployment-lowest-ever-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

[Crafty_Dog]

It is just a bill so far, but good to see the President and the Reps remembering this issue:


By Heidi Vogt
Updated Jan. 29, 2018 4:12 p.m. ET
WSJ

WASHINGTON—Lawmakers are moving to stanch the flow of U.S. technology to foreign investors, creating potential problems for a number of American companies that have bet big on partnering with China.

The Senate and House, with the backing of the White House, are working on bipartisan legislation to broaden the authority of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., a multi-agency body that has oversight of deals that could lead to the transfer of sensitive technology to rival countries. The current CFIUS statute doesn’t single out any country, but in recent years, the committee has often been focused on deals involving China.

Currently, CFIUS can recommend the president block foreign entities from buying majority stakes in U.S. companies; the new bill would let the committee make similar recommendations for deals involving minority investments and joint ventures, along with transactions that it determines involve “emerging technologies.”

The scope of the proposed legislation is broad. China requires foreign investors to form ventures with local partners, and Washington law firms say they are receiving a surge in inquiries over what it might mean for the large number of U.S. firms active in China. The country’s huge size has made it a market of interest for companies ranging from auto makers like General Motors Corp. , technology companies like Cisco Systems Inc. or other manufacturers like Caterpillar Inc. —all of which have local ventures in China.

It isn’t clear how broadly the new law would be enforced. For now, the most vocal corporate opponents are a handful of U.S. companies that have determined the new law might crimp business prospects by requiring companies to get the blessing of CFIUS for some joint ventures that involve shared U.S. technology.


IBM Corp. , for instance, last year agreed with China’s Wanda Internet Technology to share the cloud computing technology used in its Watson artificial intelligence system. Behind the strategy is the belief that embedding IBM’s technology in China’s business infrastructure would steer Chinese customers toward IBM as they seek future growth.

Other large U.S. corporations, from  General Electric Co.  to  Microsoft Corp. , see China as a crucial market for similar reasons.

IBM, among others, has said the bill—known as the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act—would hurt U.S. companies’ ability to compete globally. “Foreign competitors that do not face similar regulatory restrictions will seize global market opportunities while American companies are left watching from the sidelines,” IBM’s vice president of government and regulatory affairs, Christopher Padilla, testified at a recent Senate hearing.

Supporters of the bill, who think it could be signed into law later this year, aren’t convinced. “I am concerned that some of the recent witnesses before the House and Senate have major financial conflicts of interest that prohibit an objective evaluation of the security threats we face,” Rep. Robert Pittenger (R., N.C.)—one of the drafters of the bill—said in an email.

“The business models for IBM, Microsoft, and GE, for example, have led to the transfer of military applicable technologies to China that have likely aided the modernization of the Chinese military and intelligence agencies,” said Mr. Pittenger. The bill’s supporters say it complements and strengthens export regulations rather than duplicating them.
Under ReviewThe number of transaction notices that CFIUShas reviewed in recent years.Source: Treasury DepartmentNote: 2017 figure is an estimate of nearly 240.
2010’12’14’16050100150200250

IBM and other opponents, while acknowledging national-security concerns, have suggested existing export controls to counter China rather than expanding the reach of CFIUS. IBM didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In an email, GE said while it supports the idea of changes to CFIUS, “it’s also important that any reform support America’s historical leadership in attracting foreign investment, not duplicate existing and well-established export control regimes, and preserve the ability of American companies to compete globally.” The company declined an interview. Microsoft declined to comment.

Several security experts say China has been sidestepping controls by taking minority stakes in U.S. technology companies or entering joint licensing ventures.

“There’s a very sophisticated and well-organized plan [by China] to acquire the technology and the reality is there are people here who want to sell it,” said William Reinsch, who was the Commerce Department’s undersecretary for export administration under President Bill Clinton.

And for many who have watched China easily avail itself of gaps in the CFIUS review process, the bill is the minimum that can be done in a fight that is likely to get much bigger. CFIUS blocked 10 deals between 2014 and 2016 over national-security concerns; China in recent years has accounted for the largest number of reviewed transactions.

“There’s a big trade war shootout coming up with China that I think, frankly, is overdue,” said Adm. Dennis Blair, co-chair of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property and a former U.S. director of national intelligence. He said among the key technologies right now are those involving artificial intelligence, data mining and pattern recognition.
How Bill Would Broaden CFIUS’s Reach

    Expands CFIUS’s jurisdiction to partnerships where a foreign firm doesn’t have a controlling interest, such as joint ventures, minority investments and licensing deals.
    Adds ability to review real-estate purchases or leases near military bases or other sensitive U.S. government properties.
    Updates CFIUS’s definition of “critical technologies” to include emerging technologies that could be essential for maintaining U.S. technological advantage over countries that pose threats to national security.
    Makes a filing mandatory if the partnership involves a state-owned enterprise.
    Expands CFIUS’s ability to revisit earlier transactions.
    Specifies national-security factors for CFIUS to consider in its analyses.

Source: Proposed Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017

Supporters point to recent deals that they say deserve greater scrutiny because they give China access to critical technology, such as Advanced Micro Devices Inc.’s 2016 joint venture with China’s Tianjin Haiguang Advanced Technology Investment Co., which gave the company access to technology similar to that used by  Intel Corp. in its chips. Tianjin Haiguang didn’t respond to requests for comment.

AMD spokesman Drew Prairie said in an email that “some commentators have mischaracterized” the venture and that AMD received a “U.S. government classification confirming that the technology was not restricted for export”—a reference to Commerce Department export controls. As for the CFIUS overhaul bill, Mr. Prairie said AMD supports strengthened security but wants to make sure it doesn’t have “unintended consequences.” Dawning Information Industry Co. , the largest shareholder of Tianjin Haiguang, didn’t respond to an email.

Many businesses are also supportive of the bill, including software maker Oracle Corp. , telecommunications firm Ericsson Inc., steelmaker Nucor Corp. and railroad-car-equipment maker  Greenbrier Co s. Many say an expanded CFIUS would set needed ground rules for working with Chinese firms.

Even openly supporting the bill, some companies worry, could expose them to problems—not in the U.S. but in China. They don’t want to be blocked from entering deals in China, or prevented from selling products in its booming economy.

“We’re quiet about our support because of fear of retaliation,” said an executive at a large U.S. technology company.

—Kersten Zhang and Ted Greenwald contributed to this article.

[DougMacG]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/make-gitmo-full/

[Crafty_Dog]

Craig Huey's Reality Alert
www.ElectionForum.org

Special Report


Media Censorship: 15 Little Known Super Powerful Changes Since Trump Became President that Every Christian Should Know

Hello MARC F.,

It’s hard to believe that Shelly and I were near Donald Trump as he was sworn in as President of the United States…

A lot has happened in one year since then…

There may be lots of things to complain about … and the media is doing a good job reminding us of this daily.

But there is also a lot to be thankful for.

Here are just 15 accomplishments that have stood out since the inauguration of President Trump:

1.   Confirmation of great federal judges who are not legislating from the bench – and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Out of 85 federal judges nominated – not counting the Supreme Court – 28 have been confirmed so far … that’s 33%.
Obstruction of Trump’s judicial appointments and nominations makes the confirmation process slow.
In contrast, the Senate confirmed nearly 70% of Obama’s nominations during the same time period in his first term.

2.   Pro-abortion policies halted.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) redefined life as beginning at conception, and the Trump administration cut funding to UN abortion promotion agencies.

•   Trump cut U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund because it participates in China’s forced abortion policies.
•   He reinstated the Mexico City policy which denies aid money to any international non-governmental organization (NGO) that promotes abortion.
•   He expanded the scope of the Mexico City policy to include all federal aid, not just funds for family planning.

3.   Jerusalem finally recognized as the capital of Israel.

Despite liberal and pro-Palestinian objection and backlash, President Trump kept his campaign promise to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and to announce that the U.S. will move its Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is in compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all signed waivers to postpone complying with the 1995 statute, citing national security risks as the excuse.

4.   President Trump promised to protect religious freedom and stop government agencies from attacking people of faith.

He appointed Governor Sam Brownback (R-KS) to be Ambassador-at-Large for religious freedom.
He signed an executive order called, “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” on last year’s National Day of Prayer. The executive order:

•   Orders the IRS to us “maximum enforcement discretion” regarding the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofit organizations from engaging in political speech and activities
•   Gives regulatory relief to companies that object to providing the Obamacare mandated contraception coverage in health care

5.   Going on the offense – and gaining – in the Culture War.

President Trump has not been afraid to take on the “political correctness police” nor the liberal Hollywood elite, nor the “Fake News Media.”

•   He uses tweets and mass political rallies in major cities to communicate directly with the American people, bypassing the liberal spin of the biased news media.
•   He issued an executive order that bans executive branch political appointees from becoming lobbyists for at least 5 years after they leave their posts.
•   He encouraged Americans to say “Merry Christmas” last December … and to openly celebrate Easter and other Christian holidays.

6.   President Trump’s pro-growth economic policies are creating jobs, increasing wages and causing an economic boom.

•   Overall economic growth reached 3.2% in the 3rd quarter of 2017 … and was 2.3% for all of 2017.
•   Even with the recent market correction, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is still up dramatically since the 2016 election.
•   The unemployment rate is at 4.1%, a 17-year low.
•   African-American and Hispanic-American unemployment rates are the lowest ever recorded.
•   Several large corporations have announced bonus payments to their employees resulting from the reduction in the corporate tax rate incorporated in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.
•   One little-known provision of the TCJA taxes corporate profits held overseas at a one-time rate of 8% to 15.5% … after which the cash can be brought back to the U.S. without further taxation. This is expected to bring back much of the $1.4 trillion in corporate cash held overseas … to be invested in new plants, equipment and jobs in the U.S.

7.   Deregulation is the #1 reason for the economic turnaround:

•   An executive order was issued that requires two old government regulations to be eliminated for every new one implemented.
•   Over 60 federal regulations have since been repealed, saving over $70 billion in costs and resulting in substantial growth in manufacturing jobs.
•   Congressional Review Act resolutions were used to unravel 14 of Obama’s regulations enacted during the last 6 months of his administration.

8.   ISIS significantly and dramatically crushed.

President Trump has not hesitated to call ISIS what it is: radical Islamic terrorism. He has also lifted Obama’s draconian rules of engagement and has given full decision-making authority to our commanders and troops on the ground to engage the enemy as they see fit. As a result, Mosul and Raqqah in Iraq have been recaptured, along with nearly all of the territory in both Iraq and Syria previously held by ISIS.

9.   Getting tough on illegal immigration.

•    President Trump signed three separate executive orders to crack down on drug cartels, MS-13 and other international criminal organizations.
•   He has fought hard to protect Americans by seeking to increase vetting of Muslim refugees and prevent Islamic terrorists from entering the U.S.
•   He ordered the hiring of 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, including 5,000 Border Patrol agents, to restore the rule of law to immigration.
•   Illegal border crossings and arrests at the Mexican border have dropped sharply.

10.    As promised, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, which had been entered without the approval of Congress.

Continued participation could have cost the American economy $3 trillion, 6.5 million industrial sector jobs and 3.1 million manufacturing jobs.

11.    Putting America first in international treaties and trade agreements.

•   President Trump negotiated over $300 billion in trade deals with Saudi Arabia when he visited the Middle East last year.
•   China agreed to a $250 trade deal in the U.S.’s favor during Trump’s Asia diplomacy trip … He was the first president allowed into the Forbidden City.
•   President Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because it was a bad deal for the U.S.
•   He is renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
•   After threatening to remove American protections from NATO countries that weren’t paying their pledged dues, those countries promised to pay their dues to NATO.

12.    Sparking an energy boom:

•   President Trump sped up the permitting and approval process of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) expert terminals, including the Lake Charles LNG terminal in Louisiana.
•   He increased U.S. oil exploration by approving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines … creating 42,000 jobs and $2 billion in earnings.
•   He removed regulations on the outer continental shelf, allowing for more offshore oil and gas operation.

13.   Rebuilding the integrity and efficiency of the Department of Veterans Affairs:

•   President Trump has called for an end to long waiting lists for medical care, and for lying about it on the part of VA officials.
•   The VA has fired 500 employees, suspended 200 and demoted 33.
•   Trump signed legislation that allows our veterans to seek medical care outside the VA system.

14.    Standing up to foreign aggression against the U.S.

•    Currency manipulation by China.
•   Saber-rattling by North Korea dictator Kim Jung-Un.

15.    Fighting back against a history of over-designating national lands.

President Trump and Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke are working to divest land from federal control … they are freeing up much of the West for private purchase.

[DougMacG]

Take a look at Trump's new ambassador to Australia, a fierce, military man who takes strong opposition to China's expansionism in the South China Sea , for example.

http://www.atimes.com/article/trump-dispatches-china-hawk-australia/

[Crafty_Dog]

Nice find.  This is a good sign.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/14/trump-promotes-opportunity-zones-investors-rebuild/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-chairman-froze-agencys-approval-of-chicago-stock-exchange-sale-1506635485

[Crafty_Dog]

https://clarionproject.org/pressure-pays-trumps-threats-pakistan/

[Crafty_Dog]

For Europe, Trump Is a Blessing in Disguise
His policies promote energy independence and balance between France and Germany.
By Walter Russell Mead
Feb. 19, 2018 2:55 p.m. ET
248 COMMENTS

The Trump administration is turning out to be a blessing in disguise for the European Union. While many of the president’s rhetorical statements offend European sensibilities, and while dramatic acts like the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord prompt talk of a “crisis” in trans-Atlantic relations, the actual consequences of the administration’s policies are shoring up Europe’s foundations in surprising ways.

A year ago, fears that an allegedly pro-Russia Trump administration would ditch the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and throw Europe to the wolves had delicate Europeans trembling. These days those fears seem quaint. But few in Europe have yet grasped how anti-Russian and pro-European the Trump foreign policy is at its core.

This is partly because European reflexes, especially German ones, are so often nonstrategic. Fine words and noble resolutions are mistaken for hard facts, and the wrapping paper matters more than the gift.

When many Europeans—and more than a few Americans—hear the word “fracking,” for example, they don’t think of the spear tip of an American energy offensive that limits Russia’s geopolitical ambitions while creating the conditions for renewed European prosperity. And when they hear about American plans to rearm and modernize its nuclear arsenal, they instinctively think about the dangers of American militarism—overlooking Moscow’s hostile military buildup that endangers the European countries closest to Russia.

Energy is the place to begin. The vast American oil and gas resources being unlocked by unconventional (and rapidly improving) techniques like fracking are more than a domestic economic bonanza. They are a key instrument of American foreign policy. These resources will not only deprive Middle Eastern countries of the financial capacity too many have used to underwrite radicalism and terrorism; they force Russia, whose economy is greatly dependent on oil exports, to count the cost of every bullet fired in Ukraine and every mercenary deployed to Syria.

Fracking frustrates Vladimir Putin more than sanctions, and much more than harsh rhetoric at the United Nations. When the price of oil is $150 a barrel and every country in Europe is desperate for energy, Russia casts a long shadow over the EU. When oil is at $60 a barrel and supplies are plentiful, Russian leverage is dramatically diminished.

But there is another way in which fracking helps the EU. The EU is a net importer and consumer of energy; high oil and gas prices dampen European growth. The high monopoly prices that characterized the age of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries acted as a deadening tax on European economic activity. The lower prices delivered in part by fracking amount to a giant tax cut for the European economy, one that is especially welcome in southern European countries like Greece and Italy that are still struggling with the aftermath of the euro crisis.

Environmentalists wince, but Mr. Trump’s pedal-to-the-metal approach to energy production is better calculated to promote growth and cohesion in the eurozone than anything else the U.S. could do, because faster economic growth will reduce the political strains that corrode the legitimacy of EU institutions. If next month’s Italian election results in a pro-Europe government, Brussels should send champagne to the White House.

There’s more. Over time, the Trump administration’s proposed military buildup and nuclear modernization will deter Russian aggression and reduce Moscow’s ability to intimidate its neighbors. A stronger America means a stronger NATO and a more stable eastern Europe. If the U.S. were, as some wish, to reduce military spending while focusing more on Asia, European security would suffer regardless of the number of supportive speeches delivered by American diplomats.

Not everyone in Europe hates the administration. Paris, which traditionally has a less sentimental view of geopolitics than Berlin, sees a historic opportunity. Key Trump policies like promoting European self-reliance in defense, a tougher anti-Iran approach to the Middle East, and an emphasis on military power and security mesh better with French priorities than with German ones. While Berlin wrings its hands over the administration’s evident skepticism about Germany’s values agenda, President Emmanuel Macron hopes to replace a weakened Chancellor Angela Merkel as America’s key European partner.

For the French, even Mr. Trump’s vices have their uses; his unpopularity in Europe and apparent retreat from world leadership create vacuums France can help fill. Here again, the Trump administration may be solving an important European problem. Germany’s growing power and France’s weakness threatened the Franco-German balance to which the EU owes much of its strength.

Mr. Trump is not about to become a European hero, but he offers Europe a historic opportunity.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269474/boeing-must-produce-iran-air-contract-terror-kenneth-r-timmerman

Question:  Will this mean Airbus gets the deal instead?

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/27/trump-emphasizes-team-sports-children-executive-or/?utm_source=FB-ARB&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Chacka_CL:TWT_FR:Traffic_D:180207_CP:Breaking%20News%202018&utm_content=146470021&utm_term=146470021

[DougMacG]

Most anti-trust stuff is bogus to me and most market-based companies are not monopoly threats, but in this case Trump has done the right thing IMHO to stop the deal.  One keyword is 'hostile' takeover, this is not the company's choice, and the American base of this technology really is of national security importance.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-takes-qualcomm-off-the-market-1520912085

[DougMacG]

In the defense spending part of this spending bill, I'm sure one can find a Trump accomplishment. 

Overall this looks more like failure, betrayal and being played instead of winning in negotiations.

[G M]

In the defense spending part of this spending bill, I'm sure one can find a Trump accomplishment.  

Overall this looks more like failure, betrayal and being played instead of winning in negotiations.

It sure was. The only thing that may save Trump now is dem incompetence.

[Crafty_Dog]

I am at variance here.

The Senate Dems were willing to put our country in harm's way to squeeze more money i.e. the filibuster.  Our military has been ridden hard for many years now, and serious storm clouds gather on several fronts:  Russia, China (South China Sea, perhaps in the context of a trade war) North Korea, Iran, the Middle East, and and and.  Sec Def Mattis properly used his respect with President Trump to persuade him to sign the bill.