Mediaboss Marketing

Alexander Pechtold, the leader of D66, shakes hands with Edith Schippers, who leads formation talks | Jerry Lampen/AFP via Getty Images

Government formation talks resume after first attempt to form coalition failed.

By Cynthia Kroet

5/22/17, 3:24 PM CET

Updated 5/22/17, 3:32 PM CET

Alexander Pechtold, D66s leader, suggested that two parties from the left theSocialist Party (SP) and the Labor Party (PvdA) should jointhe exploratory talks, instead of the conservatives.But the leaders of the SP and PvdA have ruled out working with the Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the center-right party of incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, making such a formation likely.

The Netherlands has been without a government sincea general election on March 15.

The Dutch parliament last weekreappointed Edith Schippers, the center-right outgoing health minister, to lead the coalition formation process after an earlier attempt to form a government failed.Schippers said she wanted to start a fresh round of talks on Monday, and has held meetingswith party leaders.

The first potential coalition partners were the VVD, the Christian Democrats (CDA) as well as D66 and the Green Left. At least four parties will beneeded to reach a parliamentary majority of 75 seats in the 150-seat parliament.

See more here:
Dutch liberals call for five-party coalition government - POLITICO.eu

On Saturday evening, the Washington Post, among other media outlets, reported liberal pundits across the country are crying foul after Donald Trump allegedly bowed to Saudi King Salman.

The bow occurred while Trump was being awarded the gold King Abdulaziz medal in a ceremony on Saturday. As Salman went to place the medal around Trumps neck, the 6-foot-2-inch Trump leaned over, and before standing upright again, Trump seemed to hesitate and drop his body a bit.

Some are claiming the brief movement by Trump amounts to a bow to Saudi royalty. One host for CNN reportedwhile a caption beneath the broadcast read, Trump slammed as hypocrite for bowing to Saudi kingthe whole movement, including the lean, amounts to a bow.

BuzzFeed posted a video of the bow on Twitter with a caption that read, Remember when conservatives slammed Obama for bowing in front of the Saudi king? Did Trump just bow too? BuzzFeeds Julia Reinstein wrote an entire article about the one-second moment.

Far-left director Michael Moore said it looked more like a curtsy.

You might be wondering what all the fuss is about. It all goes back to a 2009 visit President Barack Obama had with Saudi Arabias King Abdullah, during which Obama appeared to bow to the king while shaking his hand.

It wasnt a bow, said one Obama aide, according to a report by Politico. He grasped his hand with two hands, and hes taller than King Abdullah.

Conservatives and many Republicans werent buying it, and they took advantage of the perceived misstep, labeling it a sign of weakness. At the time, Obama was working hard to apologize to seemingly every foreign power in the world for every alleged mistake the United States had ever made.

By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States, the Washington Times wrote in an editorial.

Trump himself criticized Obama, writing on Twitter in July 2012, .@BarackObama bowed to the Saudi King in publicyet the Dems are questioning @MittRomneys diplomatic skills.

Liberalswho seem to be in a perpetual frothing-at-the-mouth state to find anything, no matter how irrelevant, to criticize about the presidentpounced on Trumps bow, but a comparison of the Trump video and the Obama video seems to show, quite clearly, there was a world of difference between the two moments.

More here:
Did Trump bow to Saudi king? Liberals say this video proves it - TheBlaze.com

On Sunday, Last Week Tonight tried something a little different. As host John Oliver put it, For one week and one week only, the show Last Week Tonight is actually going to talk at some length about the last week, tonight. Compare this with the week before, whensave for a brief monologue about James Comeys dismissalOliver spent the majority of his time discussing dialysis. Why the sudden, rare shift toward the topical? The reason we unfortunately have to do that, Oliver said, is the last seven days have been absolutely insane.

And so, for more than 20 minutes, Oliver recapped it all. Most of his material, naturally, has already been dissected multiple ways by multiple late night hostsbut Olivers most salient point is one that, for the most part, the other hosts did not have time to address. He answered the question thats probably on more and more Trump detractors minds: how possible is impeachment, and where would that leave us? Sadly, Olivers verdict pours a massive bucket of ice water on the heads of anyone who has been on the edge of their seats with anticipation.

If you are hoping for impeachment or a resignation, it is worth taking a quick peek at the presidential line of succession, Oliver pointed out. Because Trump going would be fantastic, but remember that would give us President Mike Pence. And let me remind you how our prospective next president sees himself.

Cue multiple clips of Pence calling himself a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order. As Oliver put it, Pence is a hard-line conservative whose record on countless issues offers little to recommend him to liberals who dont like the policy decisions theyve seen under Trump. And by the way, if youre telling yourself, Well, maybe Trumps impeachment could take Pence down as well, well, think about what that would mean, Oliver continued. Because then wed have President Paul Ryanthree words I always knew Id have to say, but I didnt really expect to have to say it quite so soon.

But even those considerations are likely premature, Oliver argues, because impeachment is a long-shot for several reasons. The majority of the Republican-controlled House would have to vote to impeach, and then two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Senate would have to vote to convict. Sure, it really feels like Trumps presidency is reaching the end of the linebut as Oliver notes, that sentiment isnt exactly new. Havent there been many last straws already?

It seems like when it comes to President Trump, hes always approaching the end of the line, but it never seems to come, Oliver said. As if for him and him alone, the line is drawn by M.C. fucking Escher.

And while Trump detractors have been enraptured by his scandals, Oliver notes that his administration has, in fact, also made significant moves in the policy arena that bring grave implications. Jeff Sessions moved to lengthen drug sentences, Oliver noted, undoing Obama-era criminal-justice reforms. Just tonight, it came out that Trump is going to propose slashing Medicaid and other safety-net benefits. And tomorrow in court, the administration may decide to end key Obamacare subsidies, which, if that happens, could immediately unravel the Obamacare insurance market.

The only comfort Oliver could provide was a pretty meager one: Trump still doesnt seem to be having fun as president. In fact, he occasionally seems to miss his old life. I now have something in common with Donald Trump, Oliver quipped, because I, too, preferred my previous life before he became president.

PreviousNext

Left, by Lucas Jackson/Pool/Getty Images; right, by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images.

by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images.

by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

By NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images.

Pool

by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

By Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

By NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images.

SAUL LOEB

From Getty Images.

Read the original:
John Oliver Has Bad News for Liberals Praying for Trump's Impeachment - Vanity Fair

Don Gaetz, Columnist 12:00 p.m. CT May 20, 2017

Don Gaetz(Photo: Don Gaetz)

Texas did it. The Lone Star State passed a law that prohibits local governments from establishing sanctuaries for illegal aliens and penalizes local officials if criminals protected by sanctuary policies cause harm to people or property.

Everyone who can see Al Sharpton from where you sit on the political spectrum please breathe in a brown paper bag. Calm yourselves. This isnt about deportation patrols or profiling Muslims or banning travel from countries rife with terrorists. It isnt even about The Wall. So find a safe space and take a breath. Or, if youre John Morgan, take a toke and pass the joint.

Heres the question before us: should a county or city be able to pick and choose which federal laws it wants to abide by and whether and when to accept federal authority? Before you answer, lets roll the reel back and change the names and the circumstances but not the constitutional issue.

One hundred years ago Republicans in Congress were trying to pass a bill which would penalize counties which failed to enact anti-lynching ordinances. Democrats objected, saying Southern jurisdictions should be allowed to deal with lynching their own way, sort of a sanctuary policy. Florida, including right here in Five Flags, was dealing with it in our way by undertaking more lynchings per capita than any other state.

When Arkansas refused to acknowledge the authority of federal de-segregation rulings, should President Eisenhower have recognized Little Rock as a sanctuary instead of sending federal troops to escort those nine Black children to school?

More:Impatient Rep. Matt Gaetz tries to shake up Capitol Hill

Was it OK in January, 2017, for Jacksonville to establish itself as a sanctuary where the Americans for Disabilities Act wouldnt be enforced, thereby keeping disabled combat veterans out of housing in a gentrifying neighborhood? Should the Department of Justice have minded their own business or dropped the federal hammer?

How about consumer protection laws? Voting rights laws? Freedom of speech and, oh God, freedom of the press? You dont think there would be school boards or city councils or university boards that would welcome the chance to create sanctuaries from the nettlesome nagging of the media?

You get the idea. Lets pause to appreciate the irony. Why is it fashionable for mayors to create sanctuaries for illegal aliens who commit serious crimes? What makes it ennobling to advertise your city as a place where convicted criminals are welcome to roam loose so long as they have violated immigration laws? What gymnastics of logic and the law justify local sanctuaries of any kind from any federal jurisdiction? The answer, of course, is Trump.

President Obama deported more illegals than any other chief executive in American history. The ACLU didnt even clear its throat. But now because its Trump, the Left has succumbed, as it often does, to selective indignation.

Our liberal friends would be horrified, and justly so, if a state legislator proposed that Florida cities or counties or universities be allowed to set themselves apart as sanctuaries that disregard good federal laws. Not a whisper of protest would be heard if municipal satraps were held personally liable, shamed, shunned and run out of office for non-cooperation with federal enforcement of laws governing race, disability, consumer protection, voting rights and the First Amendment.

More:Gaetz: Call your mother. Go see her. I wish I could.

But standing arms folded athwart the city limits of San Francisco or New York City or Chicago or thirty Florida counties, if the ACLU is to be believed, celebrates a politician as a profile in courage so long as hes flaunting Trumps enforcement of federal immigration laws. From their perches in the hereafter, North Floridas infamous Pork Chop Gang must be slapping their knees and pouring up another bourbon and branch in tribute to the whole notion of sanctuary cities. What an imaginative iteration of states rights!

Trumps Justice Department isnt sifting through records at your childs elementary school looking for dreamers. If they tried, it would require subpoenas issued by judges. Jeff Sessions isnt busting down doors in Hispanic neighborhoods checking peoples citizenship status. If he tried, that would require warrants. But none of that is happening.

The Trump Administrations focus is finding and deporting those illegals who are being sought for or who have been convicted of serious crimes. Trumps DOJ is looking for thugs, drug dealers, rapists, violators of people and property bad hombres, to borrow a phrase who are in this country illegally, who were deported but returned, and who violate other laws. The President and the Attorney General are on the hunt for MS-13, the murderous gang of illegals that terrorizes minority neighborhoods in major US cities. Trump wants them out.

Sessions says if cities and counties declare themselves sanctuaries from enforcement of federal laws then DOJ will cut their federal grants. Actually, thats pretty mild. Eisenhower sent soldiers with bayonets to enforce federal law. So did President Kennedy. When Pennsylvania farmers wouldnt pay federal taxes on whiskey, President Washington suited up and led an army into the field to put down the recalcitrance.

Im for the application of reason. The Justice Department needs to quietly meet with each sanctuary city leader and read them the supremacy clause in the Constitution, remind them that Lee surrendered to Grant not the other way around and explain that the object of federal action is deporting dangerous thugs not hunting music students overstaying their visas. That will work on at least some local officials, like the Mayor of Miami who recently re-checked his oath of office and decided against being a sanctuary.

Im also for the fierce clash of ideas. Let those who believe in open borders or porous borders or knee-high walls or immigration reform bring their proposals into the public square and the halls of Congress. Lets debate and decide the best way to secure our sovereignty and still get our blueberries picked.

But, in the end, there should be no place in America where local politicians or local police decide for themselves whose rights should be upheld and which federal laws should be enforced. There should be no sanctuary from equal justice under the law.

Don Gaetz is the former president of the Florida State Senate.Contact Gaetz at djgaetz1@gmail.com.

Read or Share this story: http://on.pnj.com/2qFrMqF

View post:
Gaetz: Why liberals are wrong about sanctuary cities - Pensacola News Journal

|

Posted: May 20, 2017 12:01 AM

If self-delusion were magic, average liberals would be David Blaine, David Copperfield and Houdini all rolled up into one. Most of what they say has no relation to what theyre doing, the policies they push rarely work and logic might as well be a strange, alien language to them. Since thats the case, explaining all the things liberals get wrong about themselves could easily be the topic of my second book (Heres a link to my first one), but since we only have so much space to work with in a column, here are the top five.

1) Liberals Are Better Than Everyone Else: If theres one thing that liberals are sure of beyond all others, its that they are better, smarter and more capable than everyone else by virtue of being liberals. As the great Thomas Sowell has noted:

The presumed irrationality of the public is a pattern running through many, if not most or all, of the great crusades of (liberals) in the twentieth centuryregardless of the subject matter of the crusade or the field in which it arises. Whether the issue has been overpopulation, Keynesian economics, criminal justice, or natural resource exhaustion, a key assumption has been that the public is so irrational that the superior wisdom of (liberals) must be imposed, in order to avert disaster. The (liberals) do not simply happen to have a disdain for the public. Such disdain is an integral part of their vision, for the central feature of that vision is preemption of the decisions of others.

No matter who you are or what you do, there are always tens of millions of liberals who believe they have a better idea of what you should be thinking, feeling and spending your money on. Of course, that sense of smug superiority coupled with the disastrous results of liberal policies would almost be comical, except for the destruction in real peoples lives that is left in the wake of liberal policies.

2) Liberals Are Victims: Wrong. Liberals are bullies. In fact, theyre the worst kind of bullies -- bullies who believe that theyre the victims. Those are the worst kind of bullies because they believe theyve already been wronged and therefore almost anything they do in retaliation is justified. Of course, being wronged may mean someone disagreed with them, voted for a candidate they dont like or simply didnt want to give up more of his income for a liberal program. Liberals are the epitome of the Stop Bullying Song from South Park -- aggrieved bullies looking for a victim they can claim wronged someone so they can try to destroy him in the name of tolerance.

Bullying isn't cool. Bullying is lame.

Bullying is ugly and has a stupid name.

For a healthy world, bullying's unfit.

And I think I know what we should do to i-it.

Do do do do do to i-it.

Let's all get together and make bullying kill itself.

Bullying's an ugly thing

Lets shove its face in the dirt and make bullying kill itself.

3) Liberals Are Rebellious: If some nerd standing in the middle of a Star Trek convention shouted, Star Wars is inferior to Star Trek and then wanted everyone to pat him on the back and tell him how courageous he was for doing it, people would laugh. Yet liberals surround themselves almost entirely with other liberals, get liberalism served up to them at school, watch liberalism on TV at home, hear liberal messages from their favorite celebrities and musicians, get their news from MSNBC and the Daily Show and then want all the other libs doing the same thing to laud them for their courage because they say, I dont like Donald Trump or Good for Colin Kaepernick for protesting during the national anthem! Look at how Im fighting the power by saying the same thing as the New York Times, Washington Post and Lady Gaga! As Greg Gutfeld said, Liberalism is the one-way ticket to backslapping approval among the cool kids, which makes it about as rebellious as a divorced dad getting an earring from the local malls Piercing Pagoda.

4) Liberals Are Tolerant: The LEAST TOLERANT people in America outside of maybe the God Hates F*gs wackos are liberals. Dont believe that? Try being a conservative whos invited to speak on a college campus, a black man who likes Donald Trump or a gay American who opposes gay marriage and see how that goes for you when you interact with liberals. Think about the fact that there are college professors, actors and reporters who have to hide their ideologies because it would hurt their careers to have their liberal colleagues know they dont agree with everything Michael Moore has to say. The most abusive people in America when it comes to women? Theyre liberal men talking to conservative women. Incidentally, the second most abusive group are liberal feminists who claim to represent all women. Liberals are habitually nasty, dishonest and vindictive toward people for no other reason than because theyre incapable of tolerating even a politely offered dissenting viewpoint.

5) Liberals Are In Favor Of Progress: Liberals are so sure that theyre in favor of progress that they call themselves progressives. Meanwhile, theyve been pushing variations on the same economic agenda for 80 years even after socialism became so discredited that even the red Chinese started moving toward capitalism. Their ideas on free speech at college campuses? They believe in shutting down the speech of people that disagree with them, with violence if necessary, just like Mussolini. By the way, did you know Mussolini was widely acknowledged as a lefty even by other liberals until WWII kicked off? Liberal Democrats finally reached the same place on race in the 1960s as conservative Republicans were during the Civil War, then pretended they were the good guys all along. Once you get beyond that, what do you have? A reflexive hostility toward morals and Christianity that has been around for decades and a bunch of libs who arent sure what gender they are trying to come up with creative new things to be offended about.

See the article here:
The 5 Biggest Things Liberals Get Wrong About Themselves - Townhall