But the United States is no stranger to national emergencies.
In fact, the US has been in a perpetual state of declared national emergency for four decades, and the country is currently under 31 concurrent states of emergency about a spectrum of international issues around the globe..."

Here is CNN's list of "active declared emergencies:"

1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (January 23, 1995)
4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (March 15, 1995)
5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 1995)
6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (March 1, 1996)
7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (November 3, 1997)
8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (June 26, 2001)
9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (August 17, 2001)
10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001)
11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001)
12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (March 6, 2003)
13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (June 16, 2006)
16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (October 27, 2006)
17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (August 1, 2007)
18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (June 26, 2008)
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (April 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (February 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (March 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (April 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (March 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 23, 2015)
29. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)
30. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 12, 2018)
31. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November 27, 2018)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here is the poll’s lead question, and the one being cited, misleadingly, for headlines all over the moronosphere:

Q: As you may know, the federal government has been partially shut down because Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress and Democrats in Congress cannot agree on laws about border security. Who do you think is mainly responsible for this situation?

The results of the poll, unsurprisingly, showed Trump and the Republicans as 53% responsible, the congressional Democrats as 29% responsible, both equally responsible at 13%, "neither” at 2%, and "no opinion” at 4%.

First of all, if you asked this exact question in a vacuum, without the respondents having been primed in any way, or provided any context, I guarantee the result would show "Donald Trump and the Republicans” as mainly responsible. Why? Because Donald Trump is the only individual person named in the question, and of course he is an extraordinarily famous person.

Furthermore, by lumping Trump together with "Republicans in Congress” as a single option, Trump’s name recognition, as well as his being the only actual person named, forces respondents to provide the optically convenient and obviously desired poll result: Trump and Republicans to blame; Democrats not to blame.

Notice, further, that the accompanying story from the Washington Post, along with the piggybacking stories all over the internet, phrase the result as I have just done, namely that Trump and the GOP are "to blame” for the shutdown. But that is not what the poll asked. The poll question asks, "Who is mainly responsible?” Responsibility and blame are two entirely different things. I am responsible for the dinner I just cooked. I can only said to be "to blame” for it if you have judged it to be a bad dinner. By framing the question as a matter of "responsibility,” the poll invites respondents who are supportive of the GOP’s position to accept their party’s responsibility, without equating this with blame, which therefore pads the results on the side of "Republicans to blame,” for the purposes of reportage, when that is not what the result actually shows.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Often these days people tell me how they don't trust what they are told by the press. I tell them they don't know half the story. I read many news stories that I find interesting and then I decide I should dig deeper. It is very often surprising how the story turns out quite a bit different than what the MSM has led us peasants to believe.

When the story broke that there was mistreatment of women during the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign, I initially had a moment of schadenfreude and then moved on to other matters. Then the complexion of the story changed for me and should for you.

Virginia Jeffries wrote her compelling story entitled "I Was Sexually Harassed on Bernie Sanders' Campaign. And No One Cared" in the Forward, a Jewish national publication. Her story brought up many questions that led to finding out how the press seems to be using this story for their own interests.

On April 19, 2016, the day of the New York Democrat primary, Ms. Jeffries was volunteering for the Sanders campaign at the South Bronx office. A voter came into the office and after requesting some t-shirts "he stepped toward me, grabbed me by the back of the neck and began stroking me up then down from the back of my head to just under my shirt collar" Jeffries decided this was a clear case of sexual harassment and decided to report it to the staff who she thought would want to prevent anyone else from experiencing the same thing.

Jeffries goes on to describe how she first reported it to a young staffer and identified the person who accosted her by name. The staffer replied "it was a voter who harassed you, then there's really nothing we can do"

Jeffries tells the tale of how she worked her way up the campaign chain, with equal disregard. Level after level of personnel ignored her as she rightfully persisted in a quest to get someone to focus on the fact that the man had sexually attacked her. She finally approached the campaign manager, Jeff Weaver. He had John Robinson, the campaign chief operating officer, contact her.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I think Kurt Schlichter may have said it best, here. The wimps on the P&G Board will not understand him, but that's just too bad.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Whoo-eee! It doesn't do well to mess with the Big Boss! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-denies-pelosi-aircraft-for-foreign-trip-in-response -to-call-for-state-of-the-union-delay

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dana Mathewson

I love articles like this.

‘Forrest Gump’ star Gary Sinise says he’s dedicated to honoring wounded veterans: ‘We can never do enough’

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dana Mathewson

Right here in a nutshell is just one more reason liberals should NEVER be elected to public office!

If Oregon Governor Kate Brown has her way, the Beaver State will become the first to require universal home visits for newborn children in the care of their own parents.

Senate Bill 526, introduced this month in the Oregon Legislative Assembly as part of Brown's budget, orders the Oregon Health Authority to "study home visiting by licensed health care providers." Lawmakers went so far as to declare that SB 526 is an "emergency" measure — one that requires a resolution by the end of the year. The intro to the bill, the language of which has not yet been crafted, reads:

The Oregon Health Authority shall study home visiting by licensed health care providers in this state. The authority shall submit findings and recommendations for legislation to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to health care not later than December 31, 2019.

Moreover, the 18 sponsors of the bill claim that its passage is "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety," and therefore "an emergency is declared to exist."

What's the big emergency? Apparently, the state of Oregon is concerned that some parents are raising their children without the watchful eye of Big Brother monitoring their every move — a big no-no in the view of the progressive left.

[...]

And Oregon is not alone in the push for "universal" home visits. Washington Governor Jay Inslee tweeted earlier this month, "My budget would also offer universal home visits. This gives every new parent the opportunity to get a visit from a nurse during the first few weeks back home with their newborn to share important information and build confidence."

My budget would also offer universal home visits. This gives every new parent the opportunity to get a visit from a nurse during the first few weeks back home with their newborn to share important information and build confidence. #waleg

— Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) January 15, 2019

While it's not clear whether either of these programs would be mandatory, the use of the term "universal" suggests that they would. It's frightening to think about what would happen to parents who refuse such visits.

As someone who has been involved in the homeschooling movement for more than 20 years, I have seen many attempts to increase the oversight of children taught at home by requiring home visits by a teacher or social worker. The basic premise behind these attempted power grabs is that parents cannot be trusted with the care of their own children — that an agent of the state is the only one qualified to ensure that children are being properly cared for. Without such surveillance, proponents argue, children are at risk for abuse and neglect, something they believe government agents can prevent, despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. In Oregon, in fact, children in the foster care system are abused at twice the national rate. One wonders how a state that can't handle the children currently in its care could possibly manage to surveil an additional 40,000 children per year, let alone pay for such a program (answer: it can't).

Anytime a state or locality has tried to draft legislation requiring home visits for home schooled children, the immediate response has always been, "What are they going to do next, require inspections for children from birth until they enter school?" The answer to that, of course, is yes. That has been the plan all along. Universal preschool, universal health care, universal free lunches — the lot of it — is just a surreptitious way for the state to monitor its citizens and control their behavior by handing out freebies.

 

Well! Two states not to live in, wouldn't you say? At least if you are of childbearing age. The article is here: https://pjmedia.com/trending/oregon-could-be-the-first-state-to-require-in-home-surveillance-of-newborn-babies/

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dana Mathewson

One can't help but wonder how and why the decision was made to adopt an advertising campaign that was virtually guaranteed to alienate a large share of the company's customers. Power Line's John Hinderaker quotes, and comments on, an article from Glenn Reynolds, who suggests that perhaps the company is more interested in pleasing its officers -- who are also Leftists -- than its customers.

The Gillette anti-men ad that I wrote about here continues to spark controversy. Most in the advertising industry seem to think it was marvelous. This raises interesting questions: Why, exactly, do companies wade into the culture wars? Especially when they join a side that is either a minority or, at best, a bare majority? How does this make sense? Glenn Reynolds notes:

Adweek pronounced Gehrig’s group libel the "Ad of the Week.” Gehrig’s efforts were also recognized by Best Ads on TV.

Glenn’s comment is spot on, and explains much of what we see from our debilitated institutions:

This is another example of how the people running American institutions now tend to perform for an audience of their peers rather than focus on doing their jobs.

Doing their jobs, and serving their alleged constituencies. Like men who need to shave.

Here's the link to the Power Line article, which of course has the link to the Reynolds article: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/gillette-follow-up-why-did-they-do-it.php

BTW: The link given for the Reynolds article about just gets you to Instapundit. There is an article about the Gillette ad at that site, posted by Glenn Reynolds but written by Helen Smith, found here: https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/the-gillette-ad-the-war-on-men-is-a-war-on-trump/

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Electoral College protects us from Vote Fraud providing 51 individual elections in the states and District of Columbia not just one election which can more easily be stolen. The Electoral College protects us against the instability of nationwide recounts and endless lawsuits. The Electoral College has worked well for over 200 years providing a peaceful transfer of power.

NPV would make Nevada and other small population states meaningless flyover states for presidential elections. Only the big population states would matter…California, New York, etc.

National Popular Vote allows Vote-Stealing and the compiling of Fake majorities. If a state signs onto the NPV Compact, and a majority of their voters do not vote for the nationally declared "popular vote majority” candidate, their Electoral Votes are stolen, and added to the declared "popular vote majority” candidate. In 2016 that would have meant Hillary Clinton. Consider that NPV would increase the stakes for Vote Fraud leading to more political corruption.

The National Popular Vote Compact Violates the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 10 Clause 3, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…” because Congress has never agreed to a National Popular Vote Compact. However, they are moving ahead ignoring Congress’ Constitutional role.

The NPV Compact states, that once States with electoral votes equaling 270 enact the Compact, it will become the law without ever passing Congress and without being sent to the states for ratification as required to amend the U.S. Constitution. The National Popular Vote Compact is an end run around the Constitution.

[...]

NPV eliminates the geographic balance provided by the Electoral College which makes all regions of the country, states both small and large, liberal or conservative important in the Presidential election.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at January 17, 2019 11:35 AM (rIYC+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dana Mathewson, with Hat Tip to David Dickinson

Victor Davis Hanson is one of today's most important writers. He's a member of the Hoover Institution, and one might well form the regular habit of accessing their site to read his work.

This article is called "A License to Hate," and describes how the Left and the Right became so alienated. Or perhaps I should say, how the Left became so alienated from the Right. I will give snippets, but you really do want to read the entire article!

Recently on CNN, former Republican politico and now Never Trump cable new analyst Rick Wilson characterized Donald Trump’s supporters as his "credulous rube ten-toothed base.”

Wilson was not original in his smear of the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump. He was likely resonating an earlier slander of Politico reporter Marco Caputo. The latter had tweeted of the crowd he saw at a Trump rally: "If you put everyone’s mouths together in this video, you’d get a full set of teeth.”

Was the point of these stereotypes that poor white working-class people who supposedly voted for the controversial Trump understandably ate improperly, did not practice proper dental hygiene, or did not visit dentists—or all three combined?

When challenged, Caputo doubled down on his invective. He snarled, "Oh no! I made fun of garbage people jeering at another person as they falsely accused him of lying and flipped him off. Someone fetch a fainting couch.”

It's easy to say that the Left takes this attitude out of a feeling of "sour grapes" because they were denied the White House in 2016, but that's not the case. They looked at the people who voted for Trump that way even before they voted for Trump. Indeed, it's probable that Trump is President because Hillary didn't bother to campaign for their votes. "Who needs 'em?" And it's sobering to think that if we didn't have the Electoral College. . .

Recently actor Jim Carey tweeted a picture of Trump supporters as apes, as if evolution is now operating in reverse as Trumpians descend into primate status.

Rep. Hank Johnson (who on prior occasions had referred to Jewish residents on the West Bank as "termites,” and believed that too many American troops based on the shoreline of Guam might "tip” the island over and capsize it) recently compared Trump to Hitler, and characterized Trump’s supporters—which included 90 percent of the Republican Party—as "older, less educated, less prosperous, and they are dying early. Their lifespans are decreasing, and many are dying from alcoholism, drug overdoses, liver disease, or simply a broken heart caused by economic despair." For former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump supporters are "virulent people” and "the dregs of society”.

Note the force of such dehumanizing invective that transcends political differences. Trump voters were not just mistaken in their political allegiances. Instead they looked like toothless zombies and stunk up stores, and are not quite human, and are destined to die off. And all this from supposedly progressive humanists, quick to demonize others who would mimic their venom.

Dr. Hanson doesn't point it out, but the Left looks at the Right with the attitude that conservatives are stupid, evil, subhuman troglodytes; not that they are perhaps merely mistaken in their political choices, as was once the case. It's gone far beyond that. How can conversations exist anymore?

At any rate, please read the entire article, found here: https://www.hoover.org/research/license-hate-0

Posted by: Anderson at January 18, 2019 01:33 AM (jnliO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Men versus women: The Gillette Mach3 Razor for men costs $8.99 on the CVS website while the Gillette Venus Women's Close & Clean in 1 Stroke Razor retails for a dollar more at $9.99

One woman tweeted screengrabs from Target's website to show that a refill pack of blades for one of Gillette's popular women's razors costs $2.50 more than its male counterpart.

Despite both products having five blades, four Gillette Venus Extra Smooth Swirl Razor blades cost $17.49 while four Gillette Fusion5 Razor blades retail for only €$14.99.

Read it all at the Daily Mail.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hide Comments | Add Comment

James and Julie Attaway allege in the lawsuit that the Missouri Department of Social Services' firearms policies violate their rights under the Missouri and U.S. constitutions.

The Kansas City Star reports Missouri doesn't prohibit foster parents from possessing firearms if they are legally allowed to do so.

But foster parents must follow several restrictions, such as keeping firearms locked in areas inaccessible to children and storing firearms and ammunition separately.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Kansas City, says those restrictions prevent the couple from carrying loaded, functioning firearms.

Hide Comments | Add Comment