90 Miles From Tyranny

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Can the UK Really Do This to Tommy Robinson?

Morning Mistress

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,

from the beautiful to the repugnant,

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,

you could be inspired, you could be appalled.

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.

You have been warned.

Monday, May 28, 2018

It's OK to Talk About Tommy Robinson - British Patriots Mob Gates of 10 Downing

Girls With Guns - Doubleplusgood Memorial Day Edition...

On Friday, President Trump signed three executive orders aimed reforming the federal bureaucracy. The first order makes it easier to fire incompetent federal employees. The second limits the amount of time federal employees can be paid for union work. The third requires federal agencies to negotiate union contracts in less than a year.

Last year, Congress passed a law that made it easier for the Department of Veterans Affairs to fire poor performers and employees involved in misconduct. The law was urgently needed, given the problems that have plagued the VA.

But why shouldn’t officials at all government agencies have similar power to reward good performers and to remove those who are letting taxpayers down? A government job ought not be a sinecure. Federal workers should be held accountable for poor performance just as employees in the private sector are.

The second reform, limiting the amount of time federal employees can be paid for union work, also makes great sense. Under Trump’s executive order, they can spend no more than 25 percent of their workday doing union business. The administration estimates that this measure will save the government $100 million a year.

Frankly, 25 percent seems like an excessive amount of time for government workers to spend blowing off their real job to work on union matters, including political matters on the unions’ agenda. As Rick Manning of Americans for Limited Government says, “there is nothing more galling to limited government advocates than public employee unions being largely subsidized by taxpayer dollars while using their dues payments to support politicians in favor of expanding government.” But at least Trump’s order restricts this phenomenon. It’s a step in the right direction.

Executive orders can be overturned by a new president. As sensible as Trump’s order are, I would expect the next Democratic president to overturn all three, including the one facilitating the discharge of poor performers. Protecting incompetent people who belong to groups that vote for Democrats is a significant component of what that party is about.

Candidate Trump promised to rein in the federal bureaucracy. This is now yet another promise Trump has moved decisively to keep.

And it’s yet another action Trump has taken that conservatives have wanted for years. Others include nominating conservative judges, cutting taxes and reforming the tax code, increasing military spending, eliminating or trimming excessively burdensome federal regulations, effectively ending Obamacare’s individual mandate, enforcing immigration laws, expanding domestic energy production, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, aligning the U.S. more closely with Israel, being tougher with Iran, and, for that matter, being tougher with Russia.

If the Obama administration and its deep state operataives used improper methods in an effort to undermine Trump’s presidential bid, and later his presidency, it’s easy to see why. What’s difficult to understand is why some conservatives provided so much aid and comfort to these efforts and continue to...

These Blogs Provide Links To Rule 5 Sites:

The Other McCain has: Rule 5 Sunday: Eponymous Shorts

Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around

The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style

The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama

The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Media Double Down After New York Times Gets Busted Peddling Fake News

On the path to the June 12 summit with North Korea, journalists claimed President Donald Trump would not be willing to walk away from the negotiating table because he was too desperate for a win.

The Washington Post’s David Nakamura wrote that “critics fear that a president determined to declare victory where his predecessors failed will allow his desire for a legacy-making deal to override the substance of the negotiations.” On the same day, the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman mocked Trump’s desire for a win, which he said was turning Trump into a fool who was getting played.

Then President Trump did what media outlets said he’d never do. He walked away from the negotiating table due to North Korea’s behavior. The media outlets didn’t acknowledge their previous analytical missteps so much as come up with new lines of attack on Trump.

Mark Landler and David Sanger of The New York Times wrote an article arguing there were deep divisions between Trump and his advisors. To support the claim, the Times argued that Trump said a June 12 summit was still possible, while his top aides said it was “impossible”:

As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said, ‘It could even be the 12th.’

President Trump responded by calling it fake news, tweeting:

Trump was incorrect when he said that The New York Times “quotes” the official. They actually characterized his remarks. But they definitely claimed a senior White House official said June 12 was impossible.

Media types rushed to The New York Times’ defense, claiming they heard a White House official say the “impossible” line in a background briefing they were privy to. Someone leaked audio of a background briefing that they said supported The New York Times’ “impossible” characterization.

Yashar Ali, who writes for New York magazine and HuffPo, then outed the name of someone who briefed reporters on background and provided audio that he erroneously claimed supported The New York Times’ characterization:

The audio says:

REPORTER: Can you clarify that…the President obviously announced in the letter and at the top of the bill signing that the summit is called off. But then, later, he said it’s possible the existing summit could take place, or a summit at a later date. Is he saying that it’s possible that June 12th could still happen?
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: That’s…
REPORTER: Or has that ship sailed, right?
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: I think that the main point, I suppose, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And there’s really not a lot of time. We’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need in order to, I mean, there’s been an enormous amount of preparation that’s gone on over the past few months at the White House, at State, and with other agencies and so forth. But there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate, and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes, and it’s going to be, you know. But the President has said that he has — someday, that he looks forward to meeting with Kim.

You will note that at no time does the White House official say a June 12 meeting is “impossible,” and at no point does he agree that the “ship sailed” or that time has run out. He definitely says it would be difficult to prepare for the summit given the lack of time to do so. His main point, as he says, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court and they need to act quickly. Mount Everest is difficult to climb, but it would be inaccurate for The New York Times to say it is “impossible” to climb.
Clearly The New York Times peddled fake news. There may have been a real White House briefing with real White House officials, but The New York Times couldn’t be trusted to accurately summarize what the White House official said. And it wasn’t on a minor point.

Recall that the whole point of their characterization was to say this official was at odds with Trump and that Trump wasn’t listening to his advisors. The fact that Trump and his advisors were not disagreeing with each other undermines the entire point of The New York Times story.

But rather than admit that The New York Times was incorrect, and their reporters aren’t good at listening to Trump advisors or accurately conveying their remarks, the media claimed that...