If you are even remotely interested in seeing the grandiose photos for the proposed Obama Center (not library), there is a link at the end of the article to see the photos. It never ends with this man ! Nancy
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: By contrast, at the forthcoming Barack Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, for which ground will be broken later this year, things will be quite different. To begin with, it is the Obama “center” and not the Obama “library” because it is not, in fact, a library at all: There will be no books, no presidential papers or documents, nor printed matter of any kind related to the Obama presidency, except for, presumably, what’s on sale at the gift shop.
There will be no cables, no memoranda or manuscripts, no official records of the presidency it’s designed to celebrate. The Barack Obama Presidential Center will not be a historical archive, scholarly resource, or even museum, so much as a vast, 33-acre monument to Obama, spread over multiple structures and a manicured landscape.
Most startling of all, the unclassified papers of the Obama administration, the ostensible purpose of any presidential library, will repose not in Chicago but in a distant federal warehouse, digitized for online access but otherwise inconvenient and inaccessible.
Presidential libraries are many things.
They’re repositories of the official papers and, in many cases, the personal archives and artifacts of our nation’s chief executives, as well as those of their families, friends, and colleagues in public service. And as the name would suggest, they are also home to vast collections of books, articles, dissertations, monographs, and journals about their subject or the presidency in general. They’re a scholar’s dream for historians, researchers, and students alike. If you’re seeking to understand, say, Harry S. Truman’s diplomacy or Ronald Reagan’s life before politics, a journey to Independence, Mo., or Simi Valley, Calif., is probably obligatory.
In recent decades, they’ve expanded their purview. Since the advent of Jimmy Carter’s eponymous center in Atlanta, they double as the site of think tanks, foundations, or institutes intended to continue the public work of retired or deceased presidents. Some are located at birthplaces or boyhood homes, which are of interest in themselves, or on college campuses, where their presence may evoke mixed sentiments. They are conference centers, ceremonial and mortuary sites, and, above all, tourist destinations featuring well-stocked museums, rotating exhibitions, troops of visiting schoolchildren, and capacious gift shops.
At the John F. Kennedy library alongside Boston Harbor, you can see a replica of his Oval Office, complete with rocking chair, and at the Reagan library in sunny Southern California, there’s a two-story fragment of the Berlin Wall on an outside terrace.
Wait till you hear this video – explosive information on Comey’s background 11:57 on the video and re Mueller – 42:56 on the video and all the players involved in the targeting of Donald Trump . The whole interview is really incredible ! Please share with your email lists. Nancy
VIDEO – CLICK ON LINK – INTERVIEW WITH DIANA WEST RE HER NEW BOOK – THE RED THREAD
Diana West discusses her new book “The Red Thread” with Stefan Molyneux in a recent interview. Mrs West asks why the conspiracy against President Trump took place; and she is one of the few people openly challenging the false narrative about Russia intefering in the 2016 election. This is a great interview to watch:
“There was nothing normal about the 2016 presidential election, not when senior U.S. officials were turning the surveillance powers of the federal government — designed to stop terrorist attacks — against the Republican presidential team. These were the ruthless tactics of a Soviet-style police state, not a democratic republic.”
“The Red Thread asks the simple question: Why? What is it that motivated these anti-Trump conspirators from inside and around the Obama administration and Clinton networks to depart so drastically from “politics as usual” to participate in a seditious effort to overturn an election?”
Socialist revolutionaries are usually in a hurry. They ram through radical political, economic and social change, lest progressivism’s march slows or halts completely.
At the same time, history has taught them that when moving against societies with durable and cherished traditions of liberty and free-market economics, they must first acclimate those publics to statist ideas before they can actualize them as policy. The revolutionaries’ desire for speed exists in constant tension with the need for gradual conditioning of the masses.
This is precisely the blueprint for today’s American socialists, who move with both a predictable urgency and calculated methodology as they try to steer the nation away from limited government, capitalism and individual liberty and toward centralized control, command economics and collectivism.
It was former President Barack Obama — not Sen. Bernie Sanders — who turned the Democratic Party into a vehicle for neo-socialism and made unadulterated leftists like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, possible. Given his unique persona, Mr. Obama was able to cleverly disguise socialism as a hip, virtuous-sounding pragmatism, based on themes of equality and social justice.
He then used his considerable rhetorical gifts to sell longstanding progressive ambitions, from massive government spending and higher taxes to suffocating regulation, socialized medicine and government-subsidized unproven green energy projects.
None of these policies delivered on their false promises, but that was beside the point. The point was to get the American public habituated to the idea of mammoth redistributist policies.
The left relentlessly labors to move the Overton window so that what was once considered unthinkable becomes idealized and preferred, as do those who promote it. They intentionally tout the extreme in order to elicit thundering condemnation so they can then look “reasonable” by “settling” for some part of their original proposal. That, in turn, establishes a precedent for pushing forward until they achieve what was previously considered the extreme.
I am a highly motivated Trump voter because the Democrats have motivated me up to my eyeballs. I have never been more motivated in my life, because the Democrats are terrifying me.
By George S. Bardmesser George S. Bardmesser is an attorney in private practice in the Washington, DC area
This article includes rhetorical uses of profanity.
It’s a damn shame I have to wait another 20 months to vote for President Trump. I wish I could do it now. Twice. Or better yet, in as many jurisdictions as I can. Preferably in every swing district and every swing state.
Yeah, yeah, I know — sadly, I can’t. It’s been a hell of a ride these past couple of years, and I sure hope it doesn’t end next November.
I am a middle-of-the-road Republican who voted for Trump with the utmost reluctance in 2016. He sure wasn’t perfect. He was no Cicero, either––though he can give a decent speech when the chips are down. He had a few extra skeletons rattling in his closet, especially compared to colorless non-entities like Jeb. So yeah, I was queasy about voting for an ex-registered-Democrat-from-New-York-and-possible-liberal-now-turned-Republican.
Was I worried? Hell, yeah! Was I depressed? You bet. But, really, what options were there? Hillary? Jill Stein? Seriously? Trump wasn’t my first choice or my second choice or my third choice, but by the time November 2016 rolled around, Trump was the only choice on the menu. So I swallowed hard, took a leap of faith, and pulled the lever for the Donald.
Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen Are Non-Issues For Me
And let me tell ya, every time one of these newly minted Democratic “stars” opens their mouth, the same thought goes through my mind: Thank God for Trump. Trump is my last line of defense. Trump is the only thing that stands between me and these hallucinogenic socialist nut jobs. Trump is what’s keeping chaos and left-wing insanity at bay.
Maybe I am not a gettable voter for the Democrats. Certainly not easily gettable, but had Trump turned out to be a closet Nelson Rockefeller, and the Democrats were to nominate a genuine centrist, who knows what could’ve happened? Isn’t that what politicians running for president are supposed to do––spend a few months promoting themselves as the reasonable choice, and the other guy as unacceptable?
But today, every single Democrat I can name is working overtime to make damn certain that I will pull the lever for Trump again, and with both hands this time. Trump need not worry about locking down my vote––the Democrats are doing all the heavy lifting.
Every time the Democrats and their media allies peddle yet another “end of the Trump presidency bombshell,” I laugh hysterically. If I laughed any harder, people would think I was having an epileptic seizure.
I can’t even keep track of half the revelations that were supposed to bring Trump to an ignominious end. Even the Democrats forget most of them within days. Remember Papadopoulos? Flynn? Gates? Roger Stone? Some 77-year-old guy I’ve never heard of, getting a handjob at a Florida massage parlor?
Say what? This is a Trump scandal because apparently the former massage parlor owner posed with Trump and various Republicans who know or have spoken to Trump. Who? What? Huh? Democrats don’t just own crazy anymore; Democrats left crazy in their rearview mirror months ago.
Stormy Daniels? Right. Who gives two shits about Trump’s sex life 12 years ago? But, but, “Trump paid her off! It was hush money!” you say? Yeah, okay. He probably did. Oh, hell, who are we kidding here? I am certain that he did. And I care about all this why? I can see why Melania would care, but why do I care?
Heck, I’ll go even further––it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump paid off a bunch of other women over the years. In fact, and here I am really going out on a limb, there was some reason to suspect, even before the election, that Trump hasn’t always been a faithful husband to his various wives. But, dear Democrats: I just checked my Vanguard and Fidelity account balances, and I just don’t give a squat about Trump’s sex life or his ex-mistresses or how much they cost him.
When two people share the same goals, they can disagree – even strongly disagree – and still have a productive discussion about how to reach those shared objectives. As comedian and author Owen Benjamin explains, the problem with America today is we no longer share the same goals, and that’s tearing us apart.
Were you shocked at the results of the 2016 American presidential election? Most people were, but Stephen Harper was not one of them. Here, the former Prime Minister of Canada explains the trends that foreshadowed Trump’s victory and left many political elites looking wildly out of touch.
Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank hosted at King’s College, New York City, which examines national security, energy, risk-analysis and other public policy issues, He is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and “Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.” He is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC.
This dead dog, expelled from Russia, acquired a new life in the United States and regained vitality to become a living lion within the Democratic Party.
The 2018 Democratic victory in the midterms brought new Marxist arrivals to the House of Representatives who are interpreting the elections as an endorsement of socialist policies. They dropped all the pretenses — no liberals, no progressives — they are proud Marxist-Leninists driven by the ideology and committed to converting this country into the United Socialist States of America.
This militant crowd is comprised of uninformed and misinformed people looking at themselves as unfortunate, underpaid, underappreciated victims of capitalism, overwhelmed with jealousy that there are people who are everything they are not.
The Democratic Party explicitly casts itself as an inheritor of Marxism. The Democrats’ demands are almost total inversion of the Constitutional arrangements and traditional American values. The economic redistribution, open borders, repeal of the Second Amendment, the abolition of the Electoral College, the election of a president by popular vote, voting rights and free health care to illegal aliens are just part of the comprehensive strategy of putting the harness of socialism around the necks of the American people.
The driving force of the Democratic Party is economic “inequality” — the argument socialists have never tired of invoking since the dawn of capitalism. The mantra brought into play by the French Revolution — “War to the palace, peace to the cottage” — is alive and well today in the Democratic Party. The seductive idea of wealth redistribution has proved to be irresistible to the masses discontented by the inequities. The philosophy of envy and siphoning from the rich appeals to a large segment of the population that does not realize that the definition of “rich” is a spiral of devolution that eventually will reach every business and every individual who works for a living.
From the Democrats’ perspective, President Donald J. Trump is a disrupter of what had been a smooth transition to the bright socialist future. In a concerted effort to denigrate the President and paralyze executive authority, they are branding him a racist and blatantly subvert every program on his agenda. To render him ineffective, they actively support a collective mania for ever more sweeping investigations of dubious claims, rumors, unsubstantiated allegations and innuendos that has descended over the President, his family, his associates, and nominees. People who cannot even spell “impeachment” demand one without any substantiation. They act as if their fiat is turning the country into chaos, or as Lenin called it, “revolutionary environment.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that all immigrants and refugees undergo a medical screening examination to determine whether they have an inadmissible health condition. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has technical instructions for medical examination of prospective immigrants in their home countries before they are permitted to enter the U.S. They are screened for communicable and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, polio, measles, mumps and HIV. They are also tested for syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. The CDC also has medical screening guidelines for refugees. These screenings are usually performed 30 to 90 days after refugees arrive in the United States.
But what about people who enter our country illegally? The CDC specifically cites the possibility of the cross-border movement of HIV, measles, pertussis, rubella, rabies, hepatitis A, influenza, tuberculosis, shigellosis and syphilis. Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent in South Texas, warned: “What’s coming over into the U.S. could harm everyone. We are starting to see scabies, chickenpox, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and different viruses.” Some of the youngsters illegally entering our country are known to be carrying lice and suffering from various illnesses. Because there have been no medical examinations of undocumented immigrants, we have no idea how many are carrying infectious diseases that might endanger American children when these immigrants enter schools across our nation.
Today’s progressives have embraced illiberalism, from speech codes to identity politics.
By
F.H. Buckley Mr. Buckley teaches at Scalia Law School and is author of “The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed.”
Dec. 31, 2018
President Trump’s support for criminal-justice reform surprised many on the left who pigeonholed him as an illiberal populist. Had they paid closer attention to Mr. Trump’s message, however, they’d have recognized that much of it is squarely within the American liberal tradition. With more self-awareness they’d have seen that their own abandonment of liberalism explains much of Mr. Trump’s support.
The First Step Act, which Mr. Trump signed last month, reduces the three-strikes penalty for drug felonies and retroactively limits the sentencing disparities for crack cocaine that disproportionately burdened African-Americans. That will reduce prison terms for about 2,000 current federal inmates.
Contrary to the depiction of Mr. Trump as racist, the act is wholly consistent with the way he campaigned in 2016. He invited minorities to vote for him because Democrats had left them behind: “What have you got to lose?” His pride in lower minority unemployment is obviously heartfelt.
In his economic policies too, Mr. Trump was anything but a flint-eyed conservative. He made it clear he wasn’t about to gut the welfare system. He wanted trade deals that would generally benefit Americans, and a border wall to preserve American jobs. In all this, he’s occupied the sweet spot in American politics, combining social conservatism with middle-of-the-road economic policies.
The media hasn’t paid much attention. Instead, it’s fixated on Steve Bannon and right-wing populism. Mr. Bannon makes common cause with European rightists and the brutish Yellow Vest protesters who destroyed a portion of François Rude’s “La Marseillaise” at Paris’s Arc de Triomphe. The Bannonites seem to have forgotten Edmund Burke’s lesson that while the English and Americans do revolutions well, the same can’t be said of the French.
U.S. conservatives aren’t like the European right, and there’s a reason. Constitutional liberties are the center of American nationhood and identity. If Americans (including Mr. Trump) have sometimes been illiberal, in time that’s been seen as un-American. The French National Front, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban—all that poses Molière’s question: What the devil have we to do with that mess?
If Mr. Trump’s tweets have been illiberal, so are the left’s policies. The identity politics that judges people by the color of their skin, the speech codes that silence conservatives on campus, the punishments meted out to religious believers who follow their convictions, the group rights that trample on individual rights—these are the causes that define today’s progressives. They’re antithetical to American liberalism.
Climate protests cost $91 billion in lost economic activity, chamber study finds
Keep it in the Ground activists target pipelines, fracking, terminals
by Valerie Richardson December 19, 2018
Climate activists fighting to derail pipelines and other energy projects have blocked $91.9 billion in U.S. economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs, according to a new report.
“Infrastructure Lost: Why America Cannot Afford to ‘Keep It In the Ground,’” released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, quantified the cost of projects delayed or canceled as a result of environmental protests.
The report analyzed 15 targeted projects, including the hotly contested Keystone XL pipeline, Constitution Pipeline, and Oregon LNG terminal, as well as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s 2014 fracking ban.
In addition to $91.9 billion in lost economic activity, the protests cost nearly 730,000 job opportunities and $20 billion in tax revenue to federal, state and local governments.
