According to the terms of agreement which Acosta and CNN signed, access to the White House Press Corps is given SUBJECT TO GOOD BEHAVIOR.
There’s actually quite a few more restrictions specified therein than that, but suffice it to say that Acosta clearly violated a number of them, on recorded video, and in front of the entire nation.
CNN certainly has grounds to sue, as it’s missing out on news coverage of White House press meetings, thereby incurring a financial loss. Financial injury/damage/loss are always grounds to file a lawsuit.
Proving whether or not those losses are fundamentally the result of the White House’s response or Acosta’s violation of the terms of agreement will be a matter for the courts to decide.
Here’s a FAR EASIER solution than going to court:
Formally and publicly ask CNN to replace Acosta with another qualified reporter, and when that reporter comes on board, read them the riot act i.e.
the entire content of the agreement in the presence of three White House attorneys-witnesses while recording it on video. Of course, the WH will have to record and witness all future new WH Press Corps reporters, although after the next three or four, they can lower the burden to just one attorney-witness and a video recording as the agreement is read aloud (play a recording?) to the next candidate reporter.
By offering Acosta’s seat up to any other reporter, it’s no longer about CNN. It’s just about Acosta.
Not only does this pull the rug out from beneath CNN’s lawsuit, making it solely about Acosta, and not CNN, but it also protects against any future
lawsuits by creating both crystal clear and court-admissible instructions on what members of the White House Press Corps can and cannot do. The instructions cannot limit the questions that are asked. They absolutely can require reporters to both cease and desist all further questioning and sit down when the President turns to another reporter.
While you’re at it, I noticed several reporters shouting out their questions before being called up by the President. I know that’s a tradition. It makes the event feel more alive, electrifies the air. Sometimes, however, perhaps often, the White House should employ random selection. There should be a clause in the text of the agreement that clearly prohibits shouting out, “Mr. President!” Instead, on those more solemn days, hand reporters a random number as they walk through the door. Take their questions in order. If CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or others don’t get to ask a question for six weeks until their luck turns, so be it. That might even be a good thing for the quality of the questions being asked of our President. Currently, that quality, particularly from jerks like Acosta, is rather abysmal.
There’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with nationalism, Matt Bai. Absolutely NOTHING at all.
Virginia, Delaware, and Georgia are to the United States of America as Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England are to the United Kingdom and Bremen, Hamburg, and Saxony are to Germany.
The U.S. is a union. The E.U. is a super-union, twice removed from its original member states.
Unions are ok, provided they retain strong local order. The U.S. Constitution reserves most of the powers to the States and to the People, respectively. Says so right there in our Constitution and our 9th and 10th Amendments.
The EU, however, absorbed more power than it should have, with significant recent problems where blithering idiots at the EU level were saying, “Yeah! Sure! Find refuge here!” only to meet with individual states saying, “Uh, no.” Good for you, Poland and the others!!!
Globalism, the complete erasure of local/municipality, county, state, union, and super-union lines is a VERY BAD IDEA. We are NOT all the same, and we can NOT “all just get along.” That’s NOT the way human nature works and any attempt towards this in our current stage of development would absolutely be a DISASTER.
Perhaps in another 300 to 500 years, after we’ve worked out some of those show-stopping differences, such as the one where Islam wants to conquer all, killing the infidel if they refuse and the rest of us would like Islam to go to Hell.
As I began, there’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with nationalism, Matt Bai. Absolutely NOTHING at all.
There most certainly is, however, a great deal wrong with attempts to erase the fundamental nature of human ties that have bound society throughout our history and even pre-history. We have made great advances and will undoubtedly make many more, in due time.
Rushing those advances, however, has almost always lead to arrogance, violence, and bloodshed. In fact, nearly every war on our planet began with too rapid a shift between smaller units of identity and larger ones. In fact, “How globalism failed, according to a globalist,” by Jerrod A. Laber is a very good hint at some of the dangers.
No, Matt Bai, globalism is not a cure for our ills, not in the least. Rather, slow and steady maturation of society and the human condition is the only way to go.
Check back with me in half a millennia, there, sport.
Who cares? He’s not their president. He’s ours. Furthermore, most of the world has been infected by the socialism bug, anyway, so much so they’re no longer qualified to render an opinion on a conservative leader of a sovereign nation.
When you’re the big kid on the block, the other kids automatically despise you. They decry your advantages, rail against your improvements, and applaud your weaknesses because a weakness for you is an advantage to them.
What they don’t realize or choose not to acknowledge if they do realize it is that when America does well, everyone does well. When America’s economy tanked in the 2000s, so did the world’s. When it skyrocketed in 2016 immediately following his election, so did the world’s.
Put simply, the world is stupid enough to hate that which is good for them because either A) They didn’t think of it or do it themselves and are angry and jealous; B) They’re so steeped in socialist mentality they think America should be divesting the fruits of its hard labors and giving it away to everyone else i.e. them and even though we are, it’s not enough so they want more; C) They know they screwed the pooch big time by letting in millions of illegal aliens, want our own country to suck as bad as theirs, and get angry because we’re tightening our borders rather than making the same mistakes they did.
Finally, the article was published by USA Today, a hugely liberal, anti-Trump RAG, so they cherry-picked Pew’s report like the deceptive Demoncraps they are, particularly when they lead off with the patently false, “President Donald Trump is deeply unpopular across the globe.”
“Even though America’s image has declined since Trump’s election, on balance the U.S. still receives positive marks – across the 25 nations polled, a median of 50% have a favorable opinion of the U.S., while 43% offer an unfavorable rating.”
That’s actually a great deal higher than American’s opinion of Congress!!! People tend to have a dim view of their politicians. Very few are held in high esteem. So, taken in context, and compared to the last three presidents, Trump is doing just fine.
“In Germany, where just 10% have confidence in Trump, three-in-four people say the U.S. is doing less these days to address global problems, and the share of the public who believe the U.S. respects personal freedoms is down 35 percentage points since 2008. In France, only 9% have confidence in Trump, while 81% think the U.S. doesn’t consider the interests of countries like France when making foreign policy decisions.”
Translated: “You’re not giving us free stuff so we’re not happy with you.” Well, tough cookies. We’re not the world’s grandma and you shouldn’t expect us to be an easy touch. If you’re giving away free stuff to your own people, then that’s YOUR choice, YOUR policy. Don’t confuse your policies with our own. As for personal freedoms, the actual respect level is WAY UP. Sorry, but criminals, including illegal aliens, don’t have “personal freedoms.” They have rights under the law, which we will certainly respect as we process them for deportation.
“Critical views are also widespread among America’s closest neighbors. Only 25% of Canadians rate Trump positively, more than six-in-ten (63%) say the U.S. is doing less than in the past to address global problems, and 82% think the U.S. ignores Canada’s interests when making policy. Meanwhile, Trump’s lowest ratings on the survey are found in Mexico, where just 6% express confidence in his leadership.”
First, Canada only likes the U.S. when we give them free stuff. After all, it’s Canada. Look who they elected as their Prime Minister. Trudeau is so far left he makes Pelosi and Feinstein look like hard right-wingers.
“Around the world, publics are divided about the direction of American power: Across the 25 nations surveyed, a median of 31% say the U.S. plays a more important role in the world today than it did ten years ago; 25% say it plays a less important role; and 35% believe the U.S. is as important as it was a decade ago.”
This clearly says 6% more people around the world say the U.S. plays a more important role in the world today than it did ten years ago. Furthermore, Pew’s article contains graphs which clearly show the U.S. isn’t the pariah USA Today makes us ought to be:
Bottom line, USA Today’s article clearly attempts to drive a wedge between U.S. voters and conservatives immediately prior to the Fall 2018 elections. That’s it’s only motive: Politics. It wasn’t to information. It wasn’t to discover. It wasn’t to accomplish anything one might find on the list of “Right Things to Do In Journalism.” Rather, it was simply to divide our country, an attempt to drive a wedge between We the People, a nation who voted for Donald J. Trump in 2016 to be our President, and Trump himself. I’d say that meets no criteria of journalism at all. USA Today’s article is nothing but propaganda.
If the Dems writhe in agony over the Electoral College, just wait until they get a load of what I just proposed to my Congressional Representative for consideration by our predominantly Republican Congress!
Instead of an electoral college, I propose we shift to a mix of the popular vote combined with county representation, with each county having a proportionate share, not of the popular vote, but of the population of American Citizens.
Here’s how this would work:
There are 3,007 counties in the U.S. The United States is estimated to have a population of 327,589,916 as of April 23, 2018, making it the third most populous country in the world (1). That’s 108,942 votes per county, so half that comes to 54,471 votes.
In addition to however many popular votes are given directly to the candidates, whatever candidate a county’s popular votes favor would also receive an additional 54,471 votes.
I call it Popular plus Half County, but you can call it Half-Baked, if you’d like.
The primary benefit is that it would greatly encourage people to get out and vote in order to minimize the effect of the county votes.
The secondary benefit is that like the Electoral College, it would wrest control of our nation from the largely homogeneous but largely ignorant people congregating in mega-cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York, people who usually decide issues based on what they can get out of it instead of what’s good for the nation as a whole. Only more so. In fact, it would largely undermine their vote. The Demoncrap vote. The liberal vote. The ignorant vote.
It’s actually a litmus test. You see, if a Democrat or liberal reads this, their heads have probably exploded by now. If they haven’t, and they’ve read this far, then perhaps there’s hope for them, yet.
(1) “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 – 2016 Population Estimates”. U.S. Census Bureau.
It’s not that I agree with the ACLU. I don’t. They’re idiots. Specifically, they claim that “Deploying the military in U.S. communities is a dangerous move, contrary to the fundamental norms of a civilized society.”
Under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Furthermore, 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes, specifically states the National Guard, along with the Naval Militia, are one of the two classes of the Constitutionally and federally recognized militia mentioned under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15.
That’s why the ACLU are idiots. Apparently, they can’t read. At the very least, they can’t seem to read the U.S. Constitution and federal law without totally screwing it up. It’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” The ACLU doesn’t understand that “the fundamental norms of a civilized society” require that society to maintain good order and discipline i.e. law and order while simultaneously protecting the life, limb, and property of people, both individually and collectively.
But Michael Savage is also an idiot, for two reason. First, he confuses illegal aliens crossing our border with drugs and weapons with an invasion. Second, he is apparently unaware of the U.S. Border Patrol’s actual mission.
The Cambridge Dictonary, arguable one of the top three dictionaries of the English language, defines “invasion” three ways:
– an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country
– an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way
– an action or process that affects someone’s life in an unpleasant and unwanted way
That matches the definitions I learned in history in both high school and college, as well as studies as a U.S. military officers.
There’s also this to consider: “The priority mission of the U.S. Border Patrol is preventing terrorists and terrorists weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering the United States” (Source: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/overview).
Furthermore, “While the Border Patrol has changed dramatically since its inception in 1924, its primary mission remains unchanged: to detect and prevent he illegal entry of aliens into the United States. Together with other law enforcement officers, the Border Patrol helps maintain borders that work – facilitating the flow of legal immigration and goods while preventing the illegal trafficking of people and contraband).
Finally, the U.S. Border Patrol contains a Special Operations Group (SOG) with three units:
– Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC): The mission of BORTAC is “to respond to terrorist threats of all types anywhere in the world in order to protect our nation’s homeland.”
– Border Patrol, Search, Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR)
– Mobile Response Team (MRT)
Looks to me like the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job.
Don’t get me wrong: I despite the ACLU. But the question of whether or not sending National Guard troops to the border is the right move, or whether or not it’s even legal, has nothing to do with the ACLU.
It has to do with the fact that our nation already has a civilian law enforcement on ground to do precisely the job that needs to be done. The U.S. Border Patrol is specifically trained to do the job they’re doing and they do it very well.
If those units aren’t enough due to a surge in the threat, then INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS as THEY ARE IDEALLY SUITED FOR THE JOB.
TRAINING: All Border Patrol agents spend a minimum of 13 weeks at the Border Patrol Academy (if they are fluent in Spanish) in Artesia, New Mexico, which is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Those who are not fluent in Spanish spend an additional eight weeks at the Academy for a total of 21 weeks. Border Patrol Agent Trainees are instructed in courses including; criminal law, nationality law, and administrative immigration law, police sciences, self-defense and arrest techniques, firearms training with pistol, shotgun and rifle, police vehicle driving, and other Border Patrol / federal law enforcement subjects.
Once they arrive back at their duty station, Trainees then must graduate from the Field Training Officer (FTO) program, an on-the-job training program, which varies in length from a minimum of 12 weeks to a maximum of over 16 weeks long, depending on the practical demands of the duty station and local management. They must also successfully complete the Post Academy Training Program, an extension of the Border Patrol Academy where Trainees complete additional classroom-based training over the course of their first nine months back at their duty station.
Does this mean the National Guard should never be used along our borders? Of course not! As the Constitution specifically states, it’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
What’s happening along the southern border of the United States, however, is most certainly not an invasion. It might seem like it to some people, but it utterly fails to meet that definition.
According to Wikipedia, “An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.”
You might say, “But it’s been done before!” Indeed it has: “President George W. Bush sent 6,000 troops to the border. President Barack Obama sent 1,200. The deployments cost a total of more than $1.3 billion.”
Wow. That’s $722,222 for each troop, and just because “everyone’s doing it” doesn’t make it legal.
So… Since it’s clearly not legal, and the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job, why not INSTEAD increase the U.S. Border Patrol’s budget and open wide their six-month training pipeline? That way, at the end of all this you’d pay less than a THIRD of that cost while simultaneously having another trained U.S. Border Patrol agent at the read.
Like I said earlier, the National Guard is expensive!
“Trump says Democrats ‘just want to talk’; don’t really want deal for young illegal immigrants”
Demoncraps have long had problems with proper political negotiations. They think everything, including that which they claim to support, is up for negotiating some kind of personal gain. Let’s see if this is the case, here…
“DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military…”
Ahhh… There it is! It’s not about the kids, other than as a means to a different end. Demoncraps want the money, funds that keep our military strength sufficient to avert most wars, and provide for less costly, decisive victories when wars cannot be avoiding.
They’re just using the kids as bargaining chips, HOSTAGES, if you will, in order to get their money. This was never about the Demoncraps’ little illegal immigrant slaves, as they see them. It was only about Demoncraps getting to play with more money!
The Demoncraps would rather have play money in their pockets now than avoid very costly wars in the future. Hell! They’re willing to trade our nation’s national security, “the security of our free state,” down the toilet just so they can play around with OUR money on THEIR shiny new mega-million dollar bobbles. To them, DACA children are nothing more than bargaining chips.
The question is, “Why?” Could it be related to the trillions of dollars which “disappeared” out from under Obama’s nose while he was in office? How many of you would like to bet the Demoncraps have an entire INDUSTRY of money-sucking connections throughout government for the sole purpose of augmenting their salaries?
Then there are the simple-minded Demoncraps who think they’re “saving the kids.” Well, here’s some DACA Stats they’re certainly ignoring:
The fact is, the vast majority of “dreamers” are nothing but a bunch of THUGS.
On July 4, 2017, North Korea tested a missile which it claims to be its first intercontinental missile. North Korea claimed, and Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary confirmed, the missile dubbed the Hwasong-14 ICBM flew for 40 minutes up to an altitude of 1,500 miles, well above the orbital altitude of the International Space Station. A more depressed trajectory, this mid-range missile could reach Alaska. They followed their test with threats of widespread destruction against the United States. Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, declares that North Korea continues to “ignore the repeated warning from the international community.”
On July 5, 2017, Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, delivered the following speech to the United Nations:
Thank you, Mr. President.
To my friends on the Security Council, I must say that today is a dark day. It is a dark day because yesterday’s action by North Korea made the world a more dangerous place. Their illegal missile launch was not only dangerous, but reckless and irresponsible. It showed that North Korea does not want to be part of a peaceful world. They have cast a dark shadow of conflict on all nations that strive for peace.
Yesterday’s act came from the same vicious dictator who sent a young college student back home to his parents unresponsive and in a coma. For Americans, the true nature of the North Korean regime was painfully brought home with the images of two guards holding Otto Warmbier up as they transported him from a prison he should never have been in.
Otto Warmbier is but one person out of millions who have been killed, tortured or deprived of their human rights by the North Korean regime. To Americans, the death of one innocent person can be as powerful as the death of millions because all men and women are created in God’s image. Depravity toward one is a sure sign of willingness to do much more harm.
The nature of the North Korean regime is clear. Only the scale of the damage it does could become different. That’s why yesterday’s escalation is so alarming. If North Korea will treat an innocent young student the way it treated Otto Warmbier, we should not be surprised if it acts barbarically on a larger scale.
The United States does not seek conflict. In fact, we seek to avoid it. We seek only the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and an end to the threatening actions by North Korea. Regrettably, we’re witnessing just the opposite. Make no mistake, North Korea’s launch of an ICBM is a clear and sharp military escalation.
The North Korean regime openly states that its missiles are intended to deliver nuclear weapons to strike cities in the United States, South Korea and Japan. And now it has greater capacity to do so.
In truth, it is not only the United States and our allies that are threatened. North Korea’s destabilizing escalation is a threat to all nations in the region and beyond. Their actions are quickly closing off the possibility of a diplomatic solution.
The United States is prepared to use the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies. One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction. We have other methods of addressing those who threaten us and of addressing those who supply the threat.
We have great capabilities in the area of trade. President Trump has spoken repeatedly about this. I spoke with him at length about it this morning. There are countries that are allowing, even encouraging, trade with North Korea in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Such countries would also like to continue their trade — such countries would also like to continue their trade arrangements with the United States. That’s not going to happen.
Our attitude on trade changes when countries do not take international security threats seriously. Before the path to a peaceful solution is entirely closed, however, there remains more that the international community can and must do diplomatically and economically. In the coming days, we will bring before the Security Council a resolution that raises the international response in a way that is proportionate to North Korea’s new escalation.
I will not detail the resolution here today, but the options are all known to us. If we are unified, the international community can cut off the major sources of hard currency to the North Korean regime. We can restrict the flow of oil to their military and their weapons program. We can increase air and maritime restrictions. We can hole senior regime officials accountable.
The international community has spoken frequently against the illegal and dangerous actions of the North Korean regime. For many years, there have been numerous U.N. sanctions against North Korea, but they have been insufficient to get them to change their destructive course.
So in order to have an impact, in order to move North Korea off its military escalation, we must do more. We will not look exclusively at North Korea. We will look at any country that chooses to do business with this outlaw regime. We will not have patience for stalling or talking our way down to a watered-down resolution.
Yesterday’s ICBM escalation requires an escalated diplomatic and economic response. Time is short. Action is required. The world is on notice. If we act together, we can still prevent a catastrophe and we can rid the world of a grave threat. If we fail to act in a serious way, there will be a different response.
Much of the burden of enforcing U.N. sanctions rests with China; 90 percent of trade with North Korea is from China. We will work with China. We will work with any and every country that believes in peace.
But we will not, repeat, the inadequate approaches of the past that have brought us to this dark day.
We cannot forget the multiple missile tests this year, or yesterday’s escalation.
We cannot forgot Otto Warmbier and others North Korea continues to hold. We cannot forget the threats to our friends and allies around the world.
We will not forget, and we will not delay.
Let’s examine North Korea’s position:
“President Donald Trump has staunchly opposed North Korea’s pursuit of ICBMs, as well as its desire to develop the technology to fit them with nuclear warheads, which Pyongyang views as essential to its survival in case of foreign invasion.” – Time, July 5, 2017
Given President Trump’s 50-year history of action, it is extremely unwise to attempt to call his bluff, as he simply has none. He researches what he can and cannot do, then does what he must in order to accomplish his goals.
For Pyongyang to view nuclear weapons “as essential to its survival in case of foreign invasion” is about as blitheringly idiotic as could be, especially since 95% of all countries around the world have no nuclear weapons. Not one of those 187 countries without nuclear weapons is invading them, so why would any one of the 8 countries with nuclear weapons want to invade North Korea? We’ve had nukes for seventy-two years. Most of the other 7 countries have had their nukes for at least fifty years. If any of us had any interest in invading North Korea or using nuclear weapons against North Korea in a preemptive strike, we’d have done so long ago. What we’ve been hoping for over the last 64 years is that North Korea would come to its senses and do what nearly all other countries have done: Establish normal diplomatic relations and engage in free trade with others.
The U.S. (nor any other country) has absolutely no interest whatsoever in invading North Korea, unless North Korea develops and threatens to use nuclear weapons against others. Thus, North Korea’s fearful reaction, their aggressive actions, and their threats are not only not in their best interests, they’re in their absolutely worst interests. They’re completely irrational. It’s downright blatantly stupid given the direct consequences which will — must — follow North Korea’s threats of using nuclear weapons against others.
Some FACTS about nuclear weapons:
1. Out of 196 countries around the world, only 9 (4.6%) of them have nuclear weapons. The other 187 countries (95.4%) around the world have no nuclear weapons.
2. Russia has 47.9% of all nuclear weapons. The U.S. has 44.5% of all nuclear weapons. Third on that list, France as 2.1%, followed by China at less than 2%. North Korea might have as many as 8 nuclear weapons (0.05%), but the actual number is probably less than that due to their underground testing. Here’s the full list
3. When it comes to official world policy on North Korea, 98.15% of all nuclear weapons in the world can be pointed at and used against the country, should that need arise.
Bottom line, given the military might and nuclear capability of the U.S., Russia, France, China, the U.K., Pakistan, India, and Israel — ALL of whom are members of the United Nations, North Korea will NEVER succeed in using force, especially nuclear force, against any other country, as ALL other countries would wipe them off the face of God’s good, green Earth. North Korea is about a second away from self-annihilation. They had better find someone who isn’t bent on self-destruction to right their ship and lead their nation out of the minefield into which they’ve drifted.