President Donald Trump’s Father’s Day Proclamation

President Donald Trump proclaimed Sunday, June 17, as Father’s Day, praising the men who support and care for their children. “Fathers across our country serve as role models for their children and families,” he wrote in a statement. “Through their examples, they display the fundamental American values of hard work and dedication, which are so important to fulfilling our potential and achieving the American Dream.” The president noted the importance of fathers staying involved with their families and communities, promising to promote fatherhood in the United States. “Today, and every day, we honor our fathers who serve their families with humble and giving hearts,” he wrote. “Whether we became their children through birth, adoption, or foster care, the incredible fathers in our lives generously share with us the powerful gifts of love and care through their presence and dedication.”

Here here!  I called my dad first thing this morning…think I woke him up.  But, he was grateful for the call.  Dad’s like the little things..  Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there.   🙂

Opinion: De Niro’s crude attack on Trump proves liberals are beside themselves that he keeps winning

Courtesy of actor Robert De Niro, we finally have an admission that the Trump-hater agenda has moved from stupid “resisting” to mindless rage. Gone is any pretense that President Trump’s opponents are genuinely concerned about policy or about the condition of the country. On Sunday night at the Tony Awards for Broadway productions, De Niro was brought on stage to introduce singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen. But the moment De Niro got to the microphone he attacked President Trump, using a vulgar invective favored by juvenile bullies. “I’m gonna say one thing: f— Trump,” De Niro said. At that point the 75-year-old star of the upcoming “War with Grandpa” pumped his fists into the air. “It’s no longer down with Trump, it’s f— Trump!” Said on the eve of the Singapore summit, who knew that President Trump working for world peace would so infuriate De Niro? De Niro’s outburst illustrates why the blind and irrational hatred of the president that has infected some on the left is called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” The crowd cheered De Niro’s obscene comment, with what appeared to be half of the audience giving the insult a standing ovation. In some television close-ups of sections of the crowd, you could see that not everyone was joining in on the fun. One shot, for example, showed a woman with her hand over her mouth looking horrified. Others sat gobsmacked, not applauding and certainly not standing. The clip itself has gone viral on social media. It received massive news coverage. But there was little discussion of why some people in the theatre were appalled and did not applaud. It’s because they want their industry to survive. They want to keep working and keep making money. Consider why awards shows are televised. They’re marketing extravaganzas. The Tonys are broadcast not because everyone in the country is on the edge of their seats wondering who will win Best Play. It’s because the American Theatre Wing and The Broadway League are marketing the “excellence of Broadway” to the people they hope will leave their Middle American homes, travel to New York and see a Broadway play or musical. When De Niro declared the effort to “dump” Trump was over, and now the mission was simply to f— him, it was an admission that the only thing that matters now is to harm the president and his agenda. It was also a direct insult to everyone who voted for President Trump – the very people those invested in Broadway want to buy tickets. Salena Zito, a national political reporter and co-author, with Brad Todd, of “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics,” tweeted this after the De Niro debacle: “Dear Broadway, There are lots of families who voted for Trump who save to take their kids or wives to see stage productions either traveling to NYC or when the productions come to their hometown – they are your bread & butter. I don’t think you understand that you’re losing them.” The moment Donald Trump became the president-elect, Democrats and Never Trumpers had a window open briefly when they could try to define the president. If you were intent on convincing people something about someone that was untrue, you would have to do it before people found out the truth. That initial opportunistic braying of the left centered on claims that President Trump is an idiot, would destroy the economy, and would start World War III. Then we found out not that none of those things are true. Now with everything we know, when someone goes off unhinged like De Niro, the rage is inexplicable and evokes suspicion. An actor tells us it’s time to f— Trump because the economy is blossoming? Because unemployment is at historic lows? Because wages are increasing? Because ISIS is smashed? Because the leader of North Korea signed an agreement Tuesday after meeting with President Trump pledging to work toward the “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula?” One can imagine the conversation in family rooms, other than in Malibu and Manhattan, as the Broadway crowd stood to applaud the tirade. Could some people actually want bad things to happen to Americans simply because they hate President Trump? We have the answer, courtesy of another creation of the entertainment industry, Bill Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time.” Last Friday, Maher told his audience he was hoping for another recession, because “one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy. … I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point.” Maher is “sorry if that hurts people.” Coming from a man who some reports indicate makes at least $10 million a year, we know a recession certainly wouldn’t hurt him. A simple exchange on Twitter highlights how easily facts expose Trump hatred for the rank absurdity it is. A person tweeting as FunTrendsUSA was appalled that actress and author Alana Stewart found De Niro’s epithet to be disrespectful of the president. FunTrendsUSA snapped back that President Trump “deserves to be cursed, disrespected & impeached. Look at what he’s doing to this country!” Stewart responded by saying: “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it’s offensive to many of us to hear that kind of language on live tv. And I’m not sure what he’s doing so terrible since unemployment is lowest in 50 years & black and Hispanic unemployment lowest in history.” Logic, reason, and facts will best mindless rage every time. They also guarantee another Trump victory in 2020.

That spot-on assessment of out-of-touch, extreme liberal HollyWEIRD was written by radio talk show host, and NY Times best-selling author, Tammy Bruce.  If you liked that, check out another of her column’s immediately below.   Excellent!!    🙂

Opinion/Analysis: California’s new water rationing law is a tax in disguise, complete with fines

Last week’s column about California’s new water rationing apparently upset some of the Golden State’s swamp. This columnist pointed out that a new law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown set new “standards” of water usage. Here’s what their water-rationing bill (now law) says, in language everyone can understand: “The bill, until January 1, 2025, would establish 55 gallons per capita daily as the standard for indoor residential water use. … The bill would impose civil liability for a violation of an order or regulation issued pursuant to these provisions, as specified.” Yet, when confronted with a public discussion about what this means, the swamp pulled together to “debunk” the argument that the water rationing with fines was, well, water rationing with fines. The spin machine went into overdrive. A woman who works for the bill’s author in the California legislature assured everyone on Twitter that stories would be forthcoming in the Sacramento Bee and Snopes to prove what critics were saying were lies. The result looked very much like something the infamous Jonathan Gruber would have arranged. You remember Mr. Gruber — he’s the guy who worked on Obamacare and admitted they had no idea what economic impact the law would have on Americans, but they saw the polls and said what people wanted to hear. They relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to get the law passed. It appears Democrats in California are hoping that theory is true. The Sacramento Bee came out swinging with a fascinating spin. If you take the Bee seriously, the new standard, which was important enough to specify in gallons and make law, is really just a suggestion. “Water agencies will be encouraged to have their customers limit indoor water use to an average of 55 gallons a day per person … as part of a broader ‘water budget’ strategy,” offered the Bee. The fact of the matter is this: Water agencies will be fined based on how well their districts ration. Those fines are $1,000 a day. After assuring people that all they need to do is buy a new washing machine or change their shower heads, the Bee coyly mentions at the end of its article, “Sure, a district could pass those costs onto your water bill, but think dollars and cents instead of thousands out of your bank account.” Wouldn’t you love to have the Bee’s oracle? Because never in recent history have we been told one thing about what a new law would cost you and have it be the opposite. You know, like being told a national health insurance scheme would save your family $2,300 a year, when it ended up costing you at least $5,000 or more. As those reporters shamefully run interference for Sacramento’s politicians, what they describe is even more disturbing than individuals being targeted: If a family follows all the rules and rations their water use, they will still be fined or penalized based on what others in the district are doing. When you’re paying for what others are doing, how is one to protest? This is a new tax, plain and simple; the arrangement of a rationing law so absurd that it cannot be adhered to by most, guarantees the new cash flow into Sacramento. In other words, this scheme isn’t about water conservation or climate change. It’s about the state taking more of your money ostensibly for wasting water, an issue on which they are the most egregious offender. Harmeet Dhillon, California attorney and Republican National Committeewoman from the Golden State, had this to say about the shenanigans: “We are used to being conned with taxes hidden in ‘plans’ and ‘budgets’ and ‘goals’ every day in California — see our recent carbon tax in the guise of ‘cap and trade,’ the highest gas taxes in the nation, high tolls on the roads, and even a proposal by the governor to tax us per mile we drive. But even Californians inured to the rising tax burdens are beginning to fight back against our command economy overlords. “In June’s primary, voters in Southern California recalled — by a large margin — a state Senator who voted to raise gas taxes on his car-loving constituents. And like the Boston patriots who protested the haughty British imposition of a heavy tax on tea, legislators and bureaucrats who dare to impose higher taxes and penalties on ordinary citizens going about their business and utilizing a totally renewable resource — water — in a hygienic and responsible way — may find that it is the water police who get dunked this time around.” The willingness of reporters to help California politicians gaslight the citizens like this has been shocking. The San Diego Tribune went so far as to mock the use of math that critics use to explain what California’s bill actually means. Math often matters when it comes to facts. The Department of Interior thinks numbers are important, too. It reports the average person uses on everyday, necessary activities 80-100 gallons of water a day. In the meantime, California will continue to waste hundreds of billions of gallons of water a year through a crumbling infrastructure. But in the words of Democratic leader Rahm Emanuel, liberals should never let a good crisis go to waste. Apparently including those they create.

Thanks to Tammy Bruce for this sobering follow-up to her article on this ridiculous situation in California which we posted last week.  Scroll down about 21 articles to see that article.  In a recent poll, 46% of Californians said they were planning on the leaving the state in a few years.  With nonsense like this latest water law, we certainly can understand why.

54% of alien children, teens, on welfare, nearly half for adults

More than half of all non-citizen children and teens in the United States are receiving taxpayer-funded welfare, mostly Medicaid, while nearly half of all non-citizen adults legally in the country are on welfare, according to a new report. In a just-released study of welfare use by U.S. born Americans, naturalized citizens and non-citizen aliens, the Migration Policy Institute found that of the 22 million non-citizens in the country, 10.3 million are on at least one welfare program. The report said that 54.2 percent of children and teens up to age 17 receive at least one of four major public welfare benefits while its 46.3 percent for those aged 18-54 and 47.8 for older aliens. By comparison, 32 percent of the U.S. born population of 270 million receive some welfare. Of those, 45.8 percent are children and teens, 30 percent are aged 18-54 and 22.5 percent are age 55 and older. The report warns that the Trump administration is considering new rules that would make it difficult for immigrants to receive a green card if they or one of their dependents are receiving Medicaid, cash welfare, food stamps or Social Security benefits.

Good!  It’s about time!!

US Army by the numbers

The U.S. Army will celebrate its 243rd birthday on June 14, the same day as Flag Day. Here are some important figures and dates for the military branch. 1775: The year the Second Continental Congress established a Continental Army. “George Washington was unanimously elected Commander-In-Chief of the fledgling Army, and he would lead the colonies to victory and independence,” the Army says online. 468,579: The total number of “active duty military personnel” in the Army, according to the Defense Manpower Defense Center (DMDC). Of these, there are ten generals, 50 lieutenant generals, 121 major generals, and 133 brigadier generals. 336,619: The size of the Army National Guard. 190,350: The number of people in the Army Reserve. 69,872: The amount of active duty women (including commissioned officers, enlisted ranks and cadets) in the Army. June 14, 1956: The date the U.S. Army flag “was dedicated and unfurled to the general public,” the Army says on its website. November 11, 1956: The date “The Army Goes Rolling Along” was made the Army’s official song. 7: The number of core Army values. They are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. 1: The Secretary of the Army, Dr. Mark T. Esper.

Happy Birthday, and a big Army HOOAH to all my brothers and sisters who currently serve, and have served in any of the Army components (i.e. active, Guard, and Reserve)!!  I was honored to have served in all three components.   🙂

 

Supreme Court rules state law banning political apparel at polls is illegal

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Minnesota law banning voters from wearing political apparel to the polls, saying it was too draconian in stifling Americans’ First Amendment rights. The 7-2 decision said it may be possible for states to restrict stridently political T-shirts and buttons, but the justices said Minnesota didn’t justify why its law needed to be so broad. Minnesota’s ban covered any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” a voter might wear. Andrew Cilek, a state voter, challenged the law after he was told he couldn’t vote in 2010 because he was wearing a T-shirt with the emblem of a local tea party group and had a button asking for poll workers to check his ID. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing the majority opinion, said the law left it up to poll workers to decide what was political, creating the potential for conflicting or mischievous decisions over whether something is political. He wondered whether someone wearing a Boy Scout uniform would have to cover it up. “A rule whose fair enforcement requires an election judge to maintain a mental index of the platforms and positions of every candidate and party on the ballot is not reasonable,” the chief justice wrote. Mr. Cilek said the ruling meant free speech and the Constitution prevailed in his legal fight. “It’s ridiculous that the state would dig in its heels to the point we had to take them to the highest court in the nation,” he said. “Well, we showed that our right to free speech doesn’t stop at the polling place. Our Framers would be proud.” The lower courts had sided with the state, which argued the law was meant to avoid campaigning and disturbances near the ballot box. Thursday’s ruling overturns that decision. Justice Roberts said they weren’t striking down other state laws, saying there may be room for states to impose reasonable restrictions that can meet constitutional muster.

Agreed!  A well thought-out decision…and a decision in support of free speech.  For more on today’s ruling by the Supremes, click on the text above.   🙂

Comcast bids $65 billion for 21st Century Fox assets, topping Disney

Comcast announced a $65 billion bid for Twenty-First Century Fox units that are currently in an agreement to be acquired by Disney. The bid, announced Wednesday, represents a 19 percent premium to Disney’s offer. Comcast, the parent of CNBC, offered $35 a share in cash. Disney agreed in December to buy the majority of Fox for $52.4 billion in stock. The deal included Fox’s movie studios, networks National Geographic and FX, Star TV, and stakes in Sky, Endemol Shine Group and Hulu, as well as regional sports networks. The assets would increase Comcast’s international footprint and boost its entertainment portfolio at a time when it’s facing pressure in its video business as more consumers cut the cord and turn to internet-delivered video services like Netflix. “These are highly strategic and complementary businesses, and we are in our minds the right buyer,” Comcast’s CEO Brian Roberts said on a call with investors. In a letter to Fox’s board and members of the Murdoch family released earlier, Roberts said, “We were disappointed when [Fox] decided to enter into a transaction with The Walt Disney Company, even though we had offered a meaningfully higher price.” He went on to say, “We are pleased to present a new, all-cash proposal that fully addresses the Board’s stated concerns with our prior proposal.” Comcast is planning for an increased bid from Disney that may include a cash component, according to people familiar with the matter. Comcast believes it is better suited to offer cash because the market allows for a higher leverage ratio from a cable company with strong cash flows than a media company like Disney, which is accustomed to carrying lower leverage ratios, the people said. A Disney bid with cash will also diminish the tax benefits for the Murdoch family, which controls Fox. The long-awaited bid comes a day after a federal judge cleared AT&T’s $85 billion takeover of Time Warner, a deal the government had tried to block on competition grounds. AT&T’s win in the court case is expected to usher in a wave of big mergers as companies look for new ways to combine. Comcast feels confident of its chances to get a deal passed by U.S. regulators after AT&T’s deal was approved yesterday, according to people familiar with the matter. Comcast is willing to divest Fox’s regional sports networks and even Fox’s portion of Hulu, if necessary, the people said. While Comcast would like to keep the Fox stake in Hulu if possible, and thinks it should be able to, it would consider dropping down closer to 50 percent if necessary, one of the people said. Comcast, Fox and Disney all own 30 percent of Hulu. Time Warner owns the other 10 percent. Asked about Hulu on the investor call, NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke said, “We think that’s a very important part of this deal,” adding that Comcast would be interested in investing in and growing the streaming service in the future. Comcast also pledged to offer the same $2.5 billion reverse termination fee Disney already agreed to and has offered to reimburse the $1.525 billion break-up fee that Disney would have to pay if it doesn’t complete its deal. In the media world, cable and telecommunications giants like Comcast are looking to add capabilities in creating the content they distribute across their networks. Viacom and CBS have also been dancing around a deal that would marry cable networks and the Paramount Pictures film studio with CBS’s networks and local television stations.