Trump Chief of Staff Says Job Is God's Punishment, Melania's 'Einstein Visa' Raises Eyebrows, Millennials Defined: A.M. Links

|

  • Virginia police believe they can deny a FOIA request for body-cam footage if the request was made as part of "an anti-law enforcement agenda."
  • How did Melania Trump end up getting an "Einstein visa," generally reserved for people with "extraordinary ability" and "sustained national and international acclaim"?
  • "The last thing I wanted to do was walk away from one of the great honors of my life—being the secretary of homeland security—but I did something wrong, and God punished me, I guess," joked White House Chief of Staff John Kelly on Thursday.
  • The demographers at Pew Research Center have declared that babies born in 1996 are the last "millennials."

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Brickbat: Give Peace a Chance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!

    Steel border wall coming down the pike!

    1. “The demographers at Pew Research Center have declared that babies born in 1996 are the last “millennials.”

      Phew.

      1. Hello.

      2. The Guf is empty!

      3. Citizen X hardest hit.

        1. Citizen Millenial

          1. From hence forth, he shall be Citizen M.

    2. No, he’s building a brick wall to keep out foreign steel. He can’t afford to build it out of US steel because it’s too expensive.

    3. “IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!”

      OH, OK, NOW I understand WHY it is, that Government Almighty feels that It needs to steel all of my money!

      1. Uncle Joe Steel approves this message.

  2. Virginia police believe they can deny a FOIA request for body-cam footage if the request was made as part of “an anti-law enforcement agenda.”

    The totality of the request.

    1. What’s “enforcement of anti-law”?

      1. Its the law they have on Negatron 1 – the antimatter planet in the Mutara Nebula.

    2. They should deny all requests that are written in the passive voice.

    3. “Please provide verification that you are a pro-police organization with your request.”

      1. I hear Ben Franklin was a real pro-police kind of guy, *wink* *wink*

        1. Not as much as Cleveland, Madison or Chase. Send Wilson over and you can also select an item from our CAF inventory.

    4. War On Cops!

    5. Man, Mystal is a piece of shit. The start of that link:

      “When the chief law enforcement officers in the country think the First Amendment is a weapon for white supremacy, and not a shield against it, that’s going to filter down to the local level. President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions are hostile to the freedom of the press, and the freedom of dissent. They are why we’ve got Lieutenant Governors threatening to block legislation because Delta grew a conscience. “

  3. We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!

    b-b-but if you dont have steal, drumpf isnt president!!!!!11

  4. How did Melania Trump end up getting an “Einstein visa,” generally reserved for people with “extraordinary ability” and “sustained national and international acclaim?”

    Have you seen her? Considering her age, she’s clearly cracked relativity.

    1. This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far

      1. Serious question. Should beauty be considered an extraordinary ability that gives one preferential treatment in getting a visa?

        1. Well, the article specifically cited actors, why not models?

          And she does speak 5 languages, which is more than I can say.

          Seriously, if the goal of our immigration policy is to skim the world’s cream, I can’t make a good argument against including beautiful multilingual models.

        2. Beauty works.

          Why, just the other day I went cross country skiing. The fee was $12 but the girl warned that rain was-a-comin’. I toyed with her emotions like a cat paws a toy gently flashing a Magnum PI smirk saying I had to take my chance since I already got dressed.

          ‘For you, $8!”

          Woo-hoo!

          1. That was the senior citizen discount.

            1. She put ‘student’.

              I know a come on and WHEN I SEE ONE.

        3. It shouldn’t be for this type of Visa if we’re being honest since she’s not exactly going to help invent the next atomic bomb. Best case scenario she’s just a bombshell, but we have plenty of those in America already.

          This is just an example of how if you have connections and power in the United States you have a separate set of rules from everyone else. I’m not sure you really can do away with that in a society, to be honest.

          We live in a country where one person gets a speeding ticket and buys off the state whereas someone else has to sit in jail for a few days for the same offense since they can’t pay off the state. It’s not really all that different from Russia, just more formalized perhaps.

          1. Oh, I would like to see if there are any other people who ended up with this type of Visa that are comparable. I suspect she’s not the only ‘non-scientist’ that’s received one of these.

            Since ‘Oscar winning actors’ and ‘Olympic athletes’ are specifically mentioned in the Fox article, I don’t see how she wouldn’t have qualified. Maybe at one time it was for people like Einstein, but that’s clearly no longer the case.

            1. They said 5 people from Slovenia got an EB-1 that year.

              That seems like a lot of Einsteins.

    2. Doesn’t fluency in several languages count as extraordinary ability?

    3. IOW…How can a girl get an Einstein Visa? Lowered standards?

  5. How did Melania Trump end up getting an “Einstein visa,” generally reserved for people with “extraordinary ability” and “sustained national and international acclaim?”

    Please say the answer is: “who cares?”

    1. Boobs. And not bad, them.

      1. I 200% support your assessment.

  6. The demographers at Pew Research Center have declared that babies born in 1996 are the last “millennials.”

    Who is demographing the demographers?

  7. The president was up early this morning hate-tweeting Alec Baldwin

    The Dotard is a thin-skinned little snowflake.

    1. Ironic

    2. Alec is Trump’s spiritual twin.

      1. As much as I detest Alec, I really can’t refute your argument.

  8. The last thing I wanted to do was walk away from one of the great honors of my life?being the secretary of homeland security?but I did something wrong, and God punished me, I guess…

    Over the Trump White House door: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

    1. If he thinks being secretary of homeland security is a ‘great honor’, then he is worthy of all the punishment a cruel and uncaring deity and/or cosmos can dish out.

    2. Greatest honor was being the secretary of homeland security? Holy fucking shit. I guess he never won any warz.

      1. Well, he did say “one of” the great honors of his life. I think he puts being a Marine above that…

  9. Virginia police believe they can deny a FOIA request for body-cam footage if the request was made as part of “an anti-law enforcement agenda.”

    It’s more than belief if no one makes them do anything about it.

  10. The demographers at Pew Research Center have declared that babies born in 1996 are the last “millennials.”

    Star Wars: Episode IX – The Last Millennial

    1. Pew! Pew! Pew!

      1. I just checked. They did no research on an episode IX.

    2. 10/10 would watch

  11. The president was up early this morning hate-tweeting Alec Baldwin and praising steel.

    Coincidentally, it made both men hard as steel.

    1. Lemmy wasn’t mentioned a single time. Useless.

  12. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!

    Crom strong on his mountain.

  13. “How did Melania Trump end up getting an “Einstein visa,” generally reserved for people with “extraordinary ability” and “sustained national and international acclaim?”

    Is there a sex tape of her doing bukkake calculus we don’t know about?

    1. On my list of concerns, down in the thousands range.

      1. Bukkake calculus?

      2. Inquiring minds want to know. What is the number one concern for Longtorso?

  14. *Tin foil secured to head*

    I think the steel tarriff is all for Trump. Construction projects will slow down and then when he leaves office he will lower the tarriff and Trump, Inc will capitalize on lack of supply of new construction and low cost steel.

  15. Silver siren! Krysten Ritter shines in metallic dress while heading to talk show taping in New York City

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..k-NYC.html

    Sha-wing! Can’t wait for the new season of Jessica Jones next week.

    1. Who the hell dresses these people?

      1. Krysten Ritter would look good in anything or nothing.

  16. Shocking moment a cop throws a Good Samaritan out of McDonald’s because he bought a homeless man a meal to eat inside the restaurant

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..nalds.html

    The only shocking part of this story is that no one was killed.

    1. Is ‘Good Samaritan’ now code for scheming globalist?

    2. Public accommodation laws certainly don’t apply if the person is smelly. Right?

      Also… Gallo can smoke a stogie like a boss!

    3. “The owner of the McDonald’s location said that Gallo has behaved improperly on prior occasions and that this was not the first time he was asked to leave.”

      This part doesn’t fit the narrative, and so will be ignored.

      1. The “homeless guy” (we used to call them bums) probably has a history of loitering, begging, and otherwise annoying good customers on the McDonalds premises.

        The “good Samaritan” seems oblivious to that possibility.

        However, “homeless guy” seems well-behaved in the video, which seems to give no valid basis for immediate eviction unless there was a prior trespass notice or restraining order.

        A much cooler way to handle this would be for both the manager and the cop to order homeless guy to eat and leave promptly.

        I’ve no evidence of my suspicion, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this scene wasn’t a premeditated setup by the “good Samaritan” to make McDonalds look bad. It would be interesting to see the store’s surveillance video from the moment “homeless guy” and “good Samaritan” arrived.

  17. That wasn’t the most disturbing tweet of the day”

    “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!”

    —-@realDonaldTrump

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/ status/969525362580484098

    I’ve written plenty about how silly it is for Chicken Littles to run around screaming that the sky is falling every time Trump tweets something stupid, but Trump’s tweets stop being silly and inconsequential when they start making stock markets around the world take a tumble.

    Trump is moving so far to the left to steal the Democrats’ thunder ahead of the midterms, it’s gonna be sad if the Republicans lose the House and he gets impeached anyway. I guess if there’s a pony in this pile of manure, it’s that Trump is slicing off all the Democrats’ support–with the exception of environmentalists and SJWs.

    1. Trump’s not “moving”, you moron. He campaigned as a protectionist and against our FTAs.

      1. But you can’t believe anything that he campaigned on. Or what he says. Or what he tweets. Except when you can believe what he tweets, or says, or campaigned on.

        Why don’t you just let Ken, lc1789, and John tell you what to believe, capiche? Do you even play 8D chess, brah?

        1. This is a great comment.

          1. Blind squirrel, nut… something something.

        2. You aren’t aware that Trump has moved to the left on gun rights, too?!

          1. I think it’s more correct to say that he campaigned to the right on gun rights, and that he’s always been more of a centrist on guns.

            Despite these recent statements on the campaign trail, Americans might remember that Trump wasn’t always such a strong supporter of gun ownership. Before he was a presidential contender, he called out Republicans who “walk the NRA line” and “refuse even limited restrictions” on firearms laws, in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve.

            “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he wrote.

            1. Point is that Trump is positioning himself to the left ahead of the midterm–he hasn’t been perceived as being on the left by the voters at all.

              As I’ve been arguing for days, going “gun grabber”, as Reason called it yesterday, is about co-opting the Democrats’ agenda ahead of the Midterms.

              https://reason.com/blog/2018/03…..nt_7159153

              The chances of the Democrats’ taking the House are pretty good, and the chances of them taking the House are about the same as the chances of the House impeaching Trump.

              The midterms are going to be referendum on Trump, so if he wants to avoid being impeached ahead of his reelection campaign, then he should move to the left–and that’s what he’s doing on every issue he can.

              That’s bad news for us libertarians, but Trump isn’t a principled anything. He’s a politician.

              1. Trump isn’t positioning himself anywhere except all over. He’s a splatter job. The only way you can assign a lefty or righty or centrist position is to only see the lefty or righty or centrist splatters.

                1. As libertarians, we tend to see things rationally, but the average voter doesn’t see things that way. A lot of swing voters think anything Trump does is right wing because Donald Trump did it.

                  I, myself, have had to deal with libertarians, here, who seem to rationalize everything Rand Paul does as libertarian–even when he was selling fiscal conservatives down the river to save Medicaid.

                  Our libertarian, rational definitions of what is left and right and what Trump said or meant during the campaign are only interesting to Trump’s strategist in terms of where they place Trump in the minds of swing voters–or better yet, those Democrats who might stay home if only they weren’t upset about Trump over issue x, y, or z.

                  Those voters may not be as cognizant of what’s a principled left or right issue.

                  I mean, have you seen television advertising? That’s what people find persuasive.

                  New Trump is about gun control and . . .

                  He’s moving his brand image leftward.

                  He’ll move back to the right when he has to fend off Republican challengers for the nomination.

                  1. As libertarians, we tend to see things rationally,

                    You’re belief in yourself and your fellow libertarians is vastly overrated.

                    1. I see it as a defining characteristic.

                      Libertarians aren’t afraid of Reason because the truth seems to trend libertarian.

                      Other people can’t use reason to reach their conclusions–because reason doesn’t lead to their conclusions.

                      Whatever a real libertarian is, it isn’t someone who can’t be persuaded by facts and logic.

                      Saying that someone is impervious to facts and logic is basically saying that they aren’t libertarian.

                    2. Other people can’t use reason to reach their conclusions…

                      Saying that someone is impervious to facts and logic is basically saying that they aren’t libertarian.

                      My point stands. I kinda like the way you defined libertarians as the sole arbiters of reason while at the same time conflating reason and logic. That was a nice touch and I’ll bet you had a warm fuzzy feeling while you typed it out.

                    3. “I kinda like the way you defined libertarians as the sole arbiters of reason . . .”

                      The implication was that people arguing against libertarian positions have a hard time doing so because their positions aren’t as grounded in “reason or logic”.

                      “. . . while at the same time conflating reason and logic.”

                      Actually, I wrote “reason or logic”–not that I think it matters for the purposes of this conversation.

                    4. The implication was that people arguing against libertarian positions have a hard time doing so because their positions aren’t as grounded in “reason or logic”.

                      I have no doubt that you actually believe that. Because if someone uses reason to come to a different conclusion than you do then they didn’t really use reason I guess.

                      Actually, I wrote “reason or logic”

                      Actually, you wrote “reason” in one place and “facts and logic” in another. It’s pretty clear you’re implying they’re the same.

                      not that I think it matters for the purposes of this conversation.

                      If it doesn’t matter here then it doesn’t matter anywhere. They aren’t the same, you really ought to understand the difference.

                    5. “I have no doubt that you actually believe that. Because if someone uses reason to come to a different conclusion than you do then they didn’t really use reason I guess.”

                      Show me where I’m wrong and I’ll believe it.

                      The things that are mostly likely to be true are the things that survive the most and best scrutiny.

                      It works that way for evolution, science, markets, etc.

                      The ideas that have survived the most and best scrutiny appear to be libertarian.

                      I detail the reasons that I think things all the time here in the hope that someone will show me where I’m wrong. I’ve even changed positions because of things I’ve learned from other commenters.

                      Have you ever changed your position here after someone showed you that you were wrong?

                    6. Show me where I’m wrong and I’ll believe it.

                      Are you honestly expecting me to find every comment of yours where you claim someone is being unreasonable in some fashion? Are you honestly saying that any arguments that don’t agree with your conclusions aren’t reasoned arguments?

                      Have you ever changed your position here after someone showed you that you were wrong?

                      I don’t know that I’ve ever gotten into a position that this could even apply. The positions that I hold are individually ‘my’ positions and thus can’t be factually right or wrong. Others certainly don’t agree with them and argue against them all the time, that doesn’t mean one position is right and one is wrong. If I were to put forth a statement that I believe to be fact, Donald Trump is a chimpanzee for example, and someone provided information counter to that from a believable source, then sure I’d stop thinking that Donald Trump is a chimpanzee.

                      Your statement that facts that persist are libertarian is pure opinion on your part and is nicely circular.

                2. So Trump has opinions on somethings to the left, and opinions on somethings to the right. In other words he’s like 95% of the population.

                  1. “In other words he’s like 95% of the population.”

                    That’s a radical and controversial suggestion to progressives and SJWs who say he’s like 1% of the population, and they’re the 99%.

                  2. Many of Trump’s opinions — which are subject to change at any moment — are “left” from a libertarian perspective, and others are “right” from that perspective.

                    However, ALL of Trump’s opinions are to the right of Trotsky, Lenin, and Gramsi, plus he’s TEAM RED.

                    So Trump is a consistently evil, right-wing extremist from a modern American progressive perspective.

              2. No, he is a Con man. He stuck his finger in the wind and has seen the populist backlash against school shootings and the NRA.

                He has no agenda other than promoting Trump.

                1. Fascinating.

                2. “”No, he is a Con man.”‘

                  They are all Con men, or Con women. This is just a con man you don’t like.

                3. So Trump is doing what the voters want instead of telling the voters he will do things they may not want. Well now we can’t have that now can we.

                4. ^THIS

                  Broken clock phenomenon.

                5. PB: “No, he is a Con man. He stuck his finger in the wind and has seen the populist backlash against school shootings and the NRA. He has no agenda other than promoting Trump.”

                  ^THIS

                  Broken clock phenomenon.

                  1. I don’t think he’s right about deregulation or tax cuts because of broken clock phenomenon.

                    I don’t think he’s selling gun rights and free trade short for just random reasons, either.

                    I outlined why what he’s doing makes sense from a pragmatic political standpoint, and I think that explains his behavior.

                    He’s not principled like we are, but neither is any other politician.

                    A principled politicians are like unicorn in that no one’s ever actually seen one–except more people believe in principled politicians than believe in unicorns.

                  2. If it is true that Trump is only promoting Trump, then what is he promoting Trump for?

                    More money?

                    More fame?

                    More power?

                    Maybe just maybe he wants to one of the best presidents in 100 years. He has been doing okay except the tariff talk and the gun control talk (which is trolling lefties anyway). Trump does have Obama, W Bush, Clinton, H W Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, FDR, and Wilson beat… so there’s that.

        3. “”But you can’t believe anything that he campaigned on.”‘

          This applies to all politicians.

          History shows what they say on the campaign trail is NOT what they will do once elected.

          Believing campaign “promises” is for people new to the election process. Once you start paying attention and have some time on earth, it becomes obvious that it’s just talk to get you to vote for them, nothing more.

      2. He’s also moved to the left on gun rights–to steal the Democrats’ thunder ahead of the midterm. Haven’t you heard about that?

        1. Trump more than anyone knows the news cycles are about two weeks.

          The gun control narrative is already losing steam now that Congress has said no to gun control.

      3. Yeah, “moving” implies that he had a previous firm position to begin with.

        1. Not really.

          Trump has been seen by the voters as being on the right. Hell, a good third of the country thinks he’s a right wing extremist.

          If he moves himself to the left in the minds of voters by emphasizing left wing ideas like gun control, (and yes, being anti-free trade), then he’s moving himself to the left in the public’s perception–regardless of what he said in the campaign.

          Like I said, you break off the union vote from the Democratic Party, you break off the pro-gun control soccer moms (or whatever their equivalent is these days), and who’s left in the Democratic Party’s base? SJW extremists and environmentalists, sure–anybody else?

          That’s what’s going on here . . .

          1. Not impossible but I’m still rather skeptical.

            1. The point of the data below is to show what Trump can expect in the Midterms. Statistics and probability can’t tell us what the next roll of the dice will be, but they can tell that we’re most likely to roll a seven, that the further we get away from seven, the less likely we are to roll that number, etc.

              The table below shows how that’s shaping out in Trump’s situation. Unless there’s an event like 9/11 or the Great Depression, between now and November, that unifies the American people behind Trump, he should expect the Republicans to lose the House and, subsequently, to be impeached.

              The way to avoid that isn’t by playing to his own base. The downside is all about Democratic voters flooding the House with Representatives as a check on the president. The best way to fight that is to co-opt the Democrats’ issues–and that’s what he seems to be doing.

              I’m trying to understand the logic behind seeing it some other way.

              Is he fundamentally principled on gun rights?

              Is he unconcerned about being impeached?

              Neither of those explanations seems persuasive to me.

        2. This is what happens to the president’s party in the House in a new president’s first midterm–going back to the election of 1910.

          First column is House seats won/lost. The last column is what I see as the dominant issue(s) of that midterm.

          +9 1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt Great Depression
          +8 2002 George W. Bush 9/11
          -4 1962 John F. Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis
          -8 1990 George H. W. Bush USSR Falls, Operation Desert Shield
          -9 1926 Calvin Coolidge 1st Midterm in 2nd Term (Death of Harding)
          -12 1970 Richard Nixon Vietnam, Kent State
          -15 1978 Jimmy Carter Energy Crisis, Inflation
          -18 1954 Dwight D Eisenhower McCarthyism
          -22 1918 Woodrow Wilson Broken Promise not to Enter WWI
          -26 1982 Ronald Reagan Recession
          -47 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson Great Society, Civil Rights Act
          -48 1974 Gerald Ford Nixon Pardoned
          -52 1930 Herbert Hoover Smoot?Hawley Tariff, Great Depression
          -54 1946 Harry S Truman Labor Unrest, End of Wartime Price Controls
          -54 1994 Bill Clinton Gun Control, HillaryCare
          -57 1910 William Taft Strife within the Republcian Party (Progressives)
          -63 2010 Barack Obama TARP, ObamaCare
          -77 1922 Warren Harding Strife within the Republcian Party (Progressives)

          The median is -24 House seats lost.

          The average is -31`House seats lost.

          The Republicans need to lose -20 seats in order to lose the House.

          If Trump doesn’t shake things up, he’ll probably be impeached. That’s why we’re talking about free trade and guns.

      4. Yes, just like Clinton did.

    2. And once again, Trump can’t be blamed for any of his fuckups, it’s all those evil Democrats MAKING him do stupid shit.

      1. Christ, Stormy, way to undersell it. Yes, it’s the Democrats’ fault for being so leftist, but it’s also that Trump is so politically shrewd that he can’t help but drive them crazy and defeat them in this way.

      2. If you don’t think I’m blaming or criticizing Trump, here, then you’re being delusional.

        I may be able to explain why a particular axe murderer eats his victims, but that only means I’m blaming him for being an axe murderer to simple people.

        Here are the apparent reasons for Trump’s shitty behavior on free trade tweets, gun control, etc.

        1 . . .
        2 . . .
        3 . . .

        That isn’t saying Trump’s behavior here isn’t shitty.

        1. “I may be able to explain why a particular axe murderer eats his victims, but that only means I’m [NOT] blaming him for being an axe murderer to simple people.”

          Fixed!

      3. Why would he address his fuckups like pushing tariffs?

        To 1/3 of Americans, everything Trump does is a fuckup. He can do not right even though he has done pretty good so far.

    3. There’s a few problems with this:

      1. I don’t like the term “moving” here. Protectionism is about the one thing that Trump has been somewhat consistent about in his political views over the years.

      2. I also take issue with your characterization of moving “to the left.” That only makes sense if you view things strictly through the lens of right = laissez-faire free market, anything interventionist = left. But that isn’t accurate in a historical or contemporary sense. Trade in particular is an issue that doesn’t and hasn’t neatly aligned along a left-right split. Historically, there has been plenty of opposition to free markets on the right (the original right-wing, monarchists, were far from laissez-faire capitalists) and there’s always been a protectionist, economically nationalist segment of the American right. Paleoconservatives have been protectionist forever. There’s also been a split on the left between anti-trade populists and (relatively) more corporate-friendly center-left types that are more supportive of free trade. And today, there’s clearly a huge protectionist streak among many modern conservatives. Most polls today show more opposition to free trade among conservatives and Republicans than among liberals and Democrats.

  18. Man is reunited with cheetah after two years? and his ‘best buddy’ recognises him straight away and can’t wait to start licking him

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..frica.html

  19. H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn Edge Toward Exit Following Hope Hicks Resignation

    http://observer.com/2018/03/hr…..signation/

    dysfunctional clusterfuck

    1. No one cares what your nickname in high school was.

      1. That’s how I sign my checks.

  20. We’ll build a steel wall, and Alec Baldwin will pay for it.

  21. EXCLUSIVE: FBI Denies Secret Comey-Obama Meeting Raises Integrity and Public Trust Issues
    The FBI states it will not expedite the release of documents about secret meetings between FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama, according to a letter the bureau sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    Such information is not “a matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exists possible questions about the government’s integrity which affects public confidence,” David Hardy, the section chief for the bureau’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, told TheDCNF in a Feb. 26 letter….

    1. The Daily Caller has done some pretty good legit reporting lately, especially about the Imran Awan story. I’m not saying these are huge major scandals, but they sure the hell would be if Republicans did any of this shit. 95% of investigative journalists only investigate Republicans.

  22. “Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, tweeted it was a “great meeting” with Mr. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

    “We all want safe schools, mental health reform and to keep guns away from dangerous people,” said Mr. Cox, adding that Messrs. Trump and Pence “support the Second Amendment, support strong due process and don’t want gun control.”

    Mr. Trump followed with his own tweet, that saying it was a “good (Great) meeting” with the NRA.

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/ trump-calls-meeting-with- nra-great-1519997303

    Most of the things Trump proposed on gun rights and due process (particularly in regards to the insane) are things the NRA has supported in the past.

    The NRA is like the ACLU in at least one way.

    The ACLU may be in favor of the First Amendment and civil rights–as they define them–but they aren’t libertarians. They don’t support free association, free exercise, the Second Amendment, etc., the way libertarans do.

    The NRA may be in favor of the Second Amendment–as they define it–but they aren’t libertarians, and they don’t define due process, etc. the way libertarians do.

    Chris Cox’s statement about support for “strong due process” might be Barack Obama level double-speak from a libertarian perspective. The NRA has been blaming due process in regards to commitment of the insane for a long time, and they’d sell the Fifth Amendment short to save the Second Amendment in a heartbeat.

  23. Kim Jong Il said it much better,

    “You are worthress Arec Barwin!!”

  24. Dear INS,

    Melania Knauss can put her ankles behind her ears and suck a golf ball through a garden hose. If these aren’t extraordinary skills I don’t know what are.

    Sincerely, THE DONALD

    1. She also doesn’t spontaneously vomit when seeing Trump naked. That’s gotta be a rare skill.

  25. In the words of our millennial friends, with respect to President Grapefruit’s primary policy goal of expelling all the immigrants, the fact that his wife cheated the system and her folks were chain migrators, I can’t even!

    1. Poor Tony is butt hurt that Melania is a citizen after following the rules and illegals don’t, so they are being deported.

  26. When a country Taxes our products coming in at, say, 50%, and we Tax the same product coming into our country at ZERO, not fair or smart. We will soon be starting RECIPROCAL TAXES so that we will charge the same thing as they charge us. $800 Billion Trade Deficit-have no choice!

    Trump was worth it for the tax cut.

    1. So far, yup.

    2. And here we get to the true core of “libertarianism”. They’re really just garden-variety Republicans who think their taxes are too high, and are willing to sacrifice every other liberty for a tax cut.

      1. Explain to us Libertarians how your lefty idea of Liberty works.

  27. Lin-Manuel Miranda + Weird Al Yankovic =

    Hamilton Polka Medley

  28. Dear King Vajiralongkorn:

    Your majesty, I will agree to pay full board for a Thai cooking class and a course in Thai kickboxing if you will consider a royal pardon for a number of your fine political prisoners in your beautiful country. Respectfully yours,

    Josef

    Seeking Asylum, an Escort Has a Tale of Trump and Russia to Offer

  29. The demographers at Pew Research Center have declared that babies born in 1996 are the last “millennials.”

    So I’m confused. How do people born more than 5 years before the end of the millennium get the label ‘millennial’?

    Shouldn’t that be for people born *after 1996* (to 2005)?

    And how does this comport with the cultural idea that Millennials are young and clueless new entrants into the job market and ruining everything ‘because of growing up entitled and having no experience of the real world’ if half of them of them are in their late-20’s or older?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.