Iran's Nuclear Plans

For John, BLUF:  I a not convinced that the US rejoining the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is the solution to the Iran Nuclear problem.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Team Biden blames Iran’s bad behavior on Trump

From The Washington Times, by Lawyers David S. Jonas and Erielle Davidson, 25 January 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

The White House’s latest plan to improve its messaging on the Iran Nuclear Deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA) is to heap the blame for the untenable situation on President Biden’s predecessor.

As the eighth round of indirect negotiations in Vienna nears conclusion, the Biden administration has begun emotionally preparing fellow Democrats for the possibility of either a less-than-stellar arrangement with the regime or the prospect of a renewed pressure campaign against Tehran.  Neither is a desirable outcome — the former ensures dangerous concessions to the mullahs while the latter admits political defeat after months of showboating regarding the diplomatic capabilities of Team Biden.

The good news? There is someone else to blame.

Who would that be?  The same "go to" person the Biden Administration has used for the last twelve and a half months.

According to White House press secretary Jen Psaki, if former President Donald Trump hadn’t “recklessly pulled out of the nuclear deal,” none of the behaviors we’re witnessing from the Iranian regime, including “aggressive actions that they’ve taken through proxy wars around the world,” would be occurring.  This statement is patently false and evinces the depth to which the Biden administration fundamentally either does not understand the threat posed by Iran or, for political reasons, cannot concede that any acts taken by Mr. Biden’s predecessor were prudent or appropriate.

I think the Biden Administration has not properly assessed the situation.  Iran is not a Western European nation.  It has a long, long history, including a hitory of being the big dog in the neighborhood.  This combines with its fierce attachment to its Shia version of Islam.  And the belief in the return of the Twelth Imam.  Add to that the paranoia from the 1953 Anglo-American deposing Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.  They are not trusting.

Iran wants nuclear weapons, so they can again feel safe and again be the big person on the block.  They know what happened to Libya, and to its leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, after that nation gave up its nuclear weapons.♠  And, they are contemplating that, not withstanding the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which "incuded security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan," Russia has taken some territory from Ukraine and is currently threatening to take more.

Why would Iran not pursue a nuclear weapons program? : Instead of blaming President Trump for figuring out that Iran intended to press on, Ms Psaki and the rest of the White House Crew need to figure out how to (1) slow the Iranian Nuclear Progrm and (2) how to encourage the democratic forces in Iran.  Then we might be able to put this to bed and turn to North Korea and General Secretary Kim Jung-un.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Thanks SecState Hillary Clinton.

A Softening of the Economy?

For John, BLUF:  The view of one person on how the economic numbers don't aadd up to a continuing strong economy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Sketchy Economic Data About to Surface, White House Proactively Seeds MSM Narrative

From The Conservative Tree House, by Sundance, 31 January 2022.

Here is the lede plus two:

For those who have been following closely, the economic data releases over the past several months have been almost impossible to reconcile from a Main Street perspective. Additionally, the scale of inflation is skewing everything that stems from dollar valuation.

CTH is certain the fourth quarter GDP statistic (+6.9%) is useless and was an outcome of several flawed metrics:  (1) the import data was misrepresented and not accurately deducted (supply chain issue); (2) the value of building inventories was over calculated as an outcome of inflation; and (3) the value of all economic activity was subsequently skewed because the economic outputs (goods and services) were recorded at higher prices.

It has been our estimation that Main Street economic activity was substantially less than the data discussed by financial pundits.

The article suggests thzt the White House knows that the economy is softening, and is trying to crezte an alternate story.

This is important, because a soft economy would not be helpful to Democrats going into the Fall Mid-term elections.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Comparing Riots

For John, BLUF:  Some of us think the "Worst since…" rhetoric regarding Occupy Capitol Hill is a little overblown.  My comparison is the 1 March 1954 shoorup of the House floor (30 shots fired).  The Blogger linked below picks the May 2020 assault on the White House.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Flashback May 2020 Assault On The White House:  60 Secret Service Agents Wounded, President Trump Taken to Secure Bunker

Here is the sub-headline:

Let’s put this crazy J6 “insurrection” lunacy into perspective.

From Legal Insurrection, by Fuzzy Slippers, 8 January 2022, 07:30 PM.

Here is the lede plus three:

The Democrats’ January 6 clown show was worse than even I expected.  Their hysterical, pearl-clutching, lie-filled response to the events on January 6th, what Democrats are clearly hoping will be their transformative Reichstag moment, is unseemly, phony to its core, and purely and solely political.

We know this because there was no outrage over the leftist rioters who attempted to stop the peaceful transition of power during President Trump’s inauguration.  Not only did anti-Trump leftists riot, attack and injure police, set cars and buildings on fire, but they were later rewarded for this attempt to “subvert Democracy” to the tune of $1.6 million in taxpayer money.

Do you know how many Congressional Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) wailed about our “democracy” on the brink?  Do you know how many of these inauguration rioters were hunted down by the FBI, arrested, beaten and mistreated, and held as political prisoners for over a year?  Do you know how many of them were harboring blueprints of the Capitol building . . . or wait, that was an unconstructed, still boxed, Lego set not a “model” used for terroristic purposes or whatever random lunacy the FBI preened at that time.  If you said zero, you’re right on all counts.

And honestly, I think this clear two levels of justice—one for “righteous” protesters, including those who burned, looted, and murdered their way through Democrat-run cities in 2020, and one for J6 “terrorists”—is the reason that Democrats will never amass anything close to majority support for their January 6th witch hunt.

. . .

Nor did they condemn the multi-day May, 2020 assault on the White House that left at least 60 Secret Service agents wounded and forced President Trump to be whisked away to a bunker for his personal safety.

On 6 January demonstrators urned into rioters.  Rioting is bad, and should receive appropriate punishment.  The fact that it was Speaker Nancy Pelosi who was worried, rather than the Wife of Joe Sixpack, in Seattle or Portland or Kanosha or Waukesha should make no difference.  Ms Pelosi carries no title of nobility.

As to if 6 January was an Insurrection, if it was it was one of the worst in history.  No one brought weapons, not even pitch forks.  Who was going to run things?  Apparently not the man with the horned helmut.  Some people need some perspective.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Follow the Science

For John, BLUF:  Teachers, and students, should be returning to the classrooms, in person.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

When the White House can't handle the truth

From The Washington Examiner, by Chief Political Correspondent Byron York, 5 February 2021, 08:39 AM.

Here is the lede plus six:

On January 21, President Biden’s first full day in office, White House press secretary Jen Psaki began her briefing with this:  “When the president asked me to serve in this role, we talked about the importance of bringing truth and transparency back to the briefing room.”  Now, the administration’s position on opening schools shut by COVID lockdowns is testing that pledge.

Psaki’s problem started on Wednesday, when the White House COVID Response Team held a teleconference for the press.  Among the group was Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the president’s new choice to head the Centers for Disease Control.  A reporter asked Walensky about the CDC’s priorities for vaccination, and in particular whether “the federal government would be working more closely with states to kind of get more vaccinations to teachers in particular so that schools can reopen in the fall.”

Walensky said that a group inside the CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, had created a priority list for those receiving vaccinations.  In December, the committee included teachers in what was called the 1b category, meaning they would be among those who should be next in line.  But that wasn’t law — it was the CDC’s guidance for states to follow, or not to follow.

“We’ve left that to the states to manage,” Walensky explained, “in terms of recognizing the prioritization of ACIP, but also manage at their own local level.”

And then: “That said, I want to be very clear about schools, which is:  Yes, ACIP has put teachers in the 1b category, the category of essential workers.  But I also want to be clear that there is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely.  So while we are implementing the criteria of the Advisory Committee and of the state and local guidances to get vaccination across these eligible communities, I would also say that safe reopening of schools is not — that vaccination of teachers is not a prerequisite for safe reopening of schools.”

There it was: The head of the CDC frankly stating that the science shows schools can safely reopen, and that the reopening of the schools does not depend on vaccinating teachers.  Given the current debate, in which teachers unions, the longtime allies and benefactors of Democratic politicians from Joe Biden on down, are demanding that schools remain closed and that teachers be vaccinated before any reopening can occur, Walensky’s statement was big news.  Would Democratic officeholders listen to the science and break with the unions?

It was such big news that the White House immediately ran away from it.

There are two issues here.  The first is that this White House, notwithstanding the promises to be different from the Trump Administration, is trying to curate the news to meet the interests of various constituencies.  Business as usual.

The second issue is getting our students back to school.  The science seems to say that we can reopen schools, but the Teachers Unions are saying no.  I can see their concern that if the CDC (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) is wrong, it could be a serious problem for teachers.  However, it is the science.  I thought we are about following the science.  Are we?

Then there is the cui bono question.  If, as COVID-19 goes on, Student performance declines, if teachers are not in the classroom they can distance themselves from said decline.  And, they are still getting paid.

For sure, the White House hung CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky out to dry on this one.  Not a good look.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Impeachment Now and Forever

For John, BLUF:  Now and forever means the Dems must hope and pray they never lose the House with a Democrat in the White House.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Vow To Continue Impeachment Investigations Regardless Of Senate Outcome

From The Daily Wire, by Reporter Ryan Saavedra, 16 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Attorneys representing House Democrats have told a federal court that House Democrats intend to continue impeachment investigations against President Donald Trump after they vote on impeachment this week, regardless of the eventual outcome of the Senate’s impeachment trial.

“In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, House General Counsel Douglas Letter argued that the House’s demands for grand jury materials connected to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were still urgent because such evidence might become relevant to the Senate’s expected impeachment trial next month,” Politico reported. “But Letter went further to note that even apart from the Senate trial, the House Judiciary Committee intends to continue its impeachment investigation arising from the Mueller probe on its own merit.”

In the court filing, Democrats accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of essentially engaging in a cover-up to protect Trump, claiming that the DOJ took an “extraordinary position in” the Democrats’ impeachment investigations by not “disclosing grand-jury material needed for the House’s impeachment of President Trump and the Senate’s trial to remove him from office.”

Democrats’ insistence at continuing to investigate the findings of the Mueller probe comes after Attorney General William Barr said last week in an NBC News interview that “there was and never has been any evidence of collusion.”

House Democrats have said in recent days that there is no limit to the number of times that they can impeach the president.

I was hoping for the US Senate to quickly dispose of the Impeachment.  I am thinking repeat Impeachment’s might evoke a real trial, one where there are not just House Managers, but House Members and Staff as witnesses.

Some Democrat told us "Elections have consequences".  Apparently all that was forgotten in 2016.  Apparently the Democrats in the House, and the Media, are willing to throw away our Republic in a fit of pique, a fit of anger.

I have been trying to figure out Speaker Pelosi's plan, assuming she has one, and am not sure I am there yet.  At this point I am leaning toward my Wife's view—Nancy Pelosi wants President Trump to win a second term.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Just in Time

For John, BLUF:  If you don't believe in coincidences you won't like this coincidence.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Intel Community Secretly Changed The Whistle-Blower Rules To Allow The Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed

From Red State, by Bonchie, 27 September 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

This is a major, major development in the Trump-Ukraine saga and it points exactly at what a lot of people suspected.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis has discovered that the intel community secretly changed the rules governing whistle-blowers, including amending the required form, in order to allow 2nd hand information to suffice.  This happened just days before the Trump-Ukraine whistle-blower filed his complaint

This references an article in The Federalist , "Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge"! Which is subheadlined "Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing."

Yes, the Whistleblower complaint does look a little too polished, which raises the question of if this is a coordinated hit job.  I just can't imagine Speaker Nancy Pelosi being involved in such an underhanded action.

Hat tip to Hot Air.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trump Wins Again

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes it is better not to stir the pot.  And, odds are that in 2025 Mr Trump will be a retired two term President and Jim Acosta will be forgotten.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How Trump won the Acosta lawsuit.

Here is the sub-headline:

You don't alway win by winning. That's too easy. The genius move is to win by losing.

From the eponymous blog of Retired Law Professor Ann Althouse, 16 November 2018.

Here are the last two paragraphs:

The judge framed it as a matter of process, which justifies Trump issuing a set of rules of decorum.  I assume the rules will include a requirement that a reporter who has received a response (whether it's to his liking or not) must relinquish the microphone, that there can be no physical interference with a staff member who reaches out to take the microphone, and that one much stop talking once the President (or press secretary) has moved on to the next questioner.

Any complaints about these rules and the prescribed consequences of violating them can be met with pieties about adhering to the judge's ruling.  Things must be done in an orderly way — in the press room and in a system of due process.  Any complaints premised on freedom of the press will be met with statements like "We want total freedom of the press" and we want perfect due process.  So here you are, here's notice of our rules of decorum. And that should be the end of the kind of questioning Acosta has become famous for.  Trump wins.

Best Comment so far:

Jupiter said...
These Democrats just can't seem to keep their hands off the White House interns.

11/16/18, 8:46 PM

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

CNN Sues the White House

For John, BLUF:  I guess one solution, if the White House loses, is to readmit him and then stop holding pressers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CNN sues President Trump and White House for banning reporter Jim Acosta

Here is the sub-headline:

From CNBC, Reporter Kevin Breuninger, 13 November 2018.

Here is the lede:

CNN is suing President Donald Trump and multiple White House aides for revoking press pass of the news network's White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.

Developing.  CNBC had only two paragraphs at this time.

I guess that when the only real tool you have is a lawyer, every problem cries out for a lawsuit.

It seems to me the real issue the count will face is if the First Amendment guarantee of a free press includes the right of reporters to hector the President of the United States.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Acosta—Another Look

For John, BLUF:  When your ego gets to big it can blot out even the sun.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Jim Acosta violated one of the oldest rules of journalism

From The NY Post, Columnist Michael Goodwin, 7 November 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

The conduct of a handful of so-called reporters during President Trump’s news conference was disgraceful beyond measure. This is not journalism, this is narcissism.

Naturally, the boorish Jim Acosta of CNN was the instigator. As is his habit, Acosta doesn’t ask questions — he makes accusations and argues. Almost daily, he does it with the press secretary; Wednesday, he did it with the president.

“I want to challenge you,” Acosta began after Trump called on him. Trump realized he’d made a mistake, murmuring, “Here we go,” and Acosta didn’t disappoint.

He insisted that despite the president’s use of the word “invasion,” the caravan of Central American migrants “is not an invasion.”

He adopted a lecturing, I-know-best tone to declare that “they’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away; that’s not an invasion.”

Trump’s response should not have been necessary: “Honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN.”

He could have gotten his point across with well framed questions.  He might even have worked with a fellow reporter to do follow-up questions.  But, no, not Mr Acosta.

Regards  —  Cliff

White House Press Corps

For John, BLUF:  It seems to me that Mr James Acosta has gotten too big for his britches.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Doesn't anybody here respect us journalists?

From The Washington Times, by Emeritus Editor in Chief Wesley Pruden, 8 November 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

Yamiche Alcindor of National Public Radio asked the president why he calls himself a “nationalist” when he should know that the word has been twisted into a meaning it once never had.

“Mr. President,” she said, “on the campaign trail you called yourself a ‘nationalist,’ and some heard that as emboldening white nationalists.  There are some people that say the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric.  What do you make of that?”

This is the classic ‘when-did-you-stop-beating your wife’ question.  To answer it is to accept the premise, that a nationalist is a racist and bigot simply because “some people” say so, and that “the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of [the president’s] rhetoric.”  She apparently never learned that “some” is not a legitimate source.

The president might have delicately said something like “I have never said anything to support racial bigotry,” or merely defined “nationalism,” a devotion to national rather than international goals, and let it go.  But It’s difficult for anyone, even a president, to let such an accusation go.  Attributing bigotry to someone with whom you disagree has become a liberal’s first line of argument, and even a president finds it hard to ignore, and this president doesn’t do letting it go.

“I don’t know why you’d say that,” Mr. Trump replied.  “Such a racist question.  Honestly?  Let me tell you, that’s a racist question.  Why do I have the highest poll numbers ever with African Americans?  That’s such a racist question.  I love our country, I do.  You have nationalists, and you have globalists.  But to say what you said to me is so insulting to me. It’s a very terrible thing you said.”

“The Washington Press Corps,” reported one Web publication, “was floored.” The White House reporters, who can sometimes seem like a “corps,” but the reporters who cover the presidents are never so organized as a “corps.”  (Aside to Barack Obama, the scholar from Harvard, Columbia, and Occidental College, it’s still pronounced as if it were spelled “core” not “corpse,” which is a dead person.)

It isn't just about CNN's James Acosta, who has had his White House Press Pass lifted.♠  The Press Corps seems to be trying to prove, during Press Conferences, how evil the White House is, under President Trump.

The only thing that is surprising is that the Press Corps, and their Masters back at the newspapers and stations, are surprised that the President pushes back.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  It did seem like Mr Acosta was acting like he was the star of the show and should be afforded more than his fair share of the time.

Hillary Wants a Comeback Chance

For John, BLUF:  Is she going to be like Harold Stassen?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What Is Hillary Clinton Thinking?

Here is the sub-headline:

She actually believes she still has a shot at the White House.

From National Review, by Kyle Smith, 22 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

When Homer Simpson looks in the mirror, he sees ripped chest muscles and arms like the trunks of beech trees.  When Hillary Clinton looks in the mirror, she sees America’s sweetheart.  She thinks:  America adores me.  She thinks:  America already chose me to be president once!  She thinks:  Everyone is comparing me with Donald Trump and realizing I’m a better choice.  She is hoping for a call that will never come:  an earnest, sobbing plea from the Democratic party to be their standard bearer in 2020.

How else to explain Clinton’s latest media blitzkrieg? You’d think she’d be in Jimmy Carter mode:  quiet, making a display of humility, working hard to rebuild her reputation for posterity by doing good deeds and writing non-political books (like Carter’s disarming series of memoirs).  Instead, she is acting like a fired-up political candidate.  The poor dear actually thinks she’s still in the game.  The woman who, on Election Night 2016, slunk away in ignominy from thousands of supporters in the glass-ceilinged Javits Center without even saying thanks to the many who would have lain down in front of a bus for her, these days is once again singing her fight song.  But it’s a pathetic 4 a.m. karaoke act and no one can bear to tell this frail elderly lady to stop screeching so they can mop the floors and turn out the lights.  Because she has the personality of a cactus and hates everyone, H-Rod never should have entered politics to begin with, but her inability to leave it behind is an embarrassment.  Not to me, mind you.  Not to Republicans.  We all hope she keeps talking.  For us every HRC tweet and MSNBC appearance is a dopamine cookie. It is merely herself she is embarrassing.

Yes, she is running.  Only Hillary can save the Democratic Party and the nation.

Here is how Mr Smith winds up his article:

“You won’t be surprised to hear this,” Clinton informs us in the tweet calling for this radical revision of the Constitution.  No, we aren’t surprised, just as we weren’t surprised to learn that the end result of a Supreme Court case about whether it’s okay to censor a film critical of Hillary Clinton was Clinton calling for a rewrite of the First Amendment to prevent the likes of Citizens United from being rude to her.  It isn’t surprising at all that Hillary Rodham Clinton would keep relitigating the 2016 election she so astoundingly and hilariously managed to lose and call for the upending of norms as old as the Republic for such a self-serving purpose.  What might be surprising is that Clinton would be so brazen as to think “let’s abolish the Electoral College” is an applause line, rather than just a reminder that she failed to connect to voters in the heartland.  Hillary Clinton should do herself a favor and realize that big-time politics is done with her.  The good news is she has the rest of her life to spend more time on her hobbies. Like Chardonnay.

The thing that worries me is that there are Democrats running to the left of Mrs Clinton, who is to the left of her husband, former President William Jefferson Clinton, the last successful Democratic occupant of the White House.  I don't believe this to be a formula for success across the fruited plain.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Crude is the New Blue

For John, BLUF:  Can't win.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘She was ASKING for it.’  The Daily Beast journo blames Sarah Sanders for making Michelle Wolf BULLY her

From Twitchy, by Sam J, 29 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

As Twitchy reported, Michelle Wolf said some pretty horrible and unfunny things about Sarah Sanders at the lame White House Correspondent’s Dinner last night and from we can tell from her equally lame tweets when people called her out, she’s not overly sorry she bullied Trump’s press secretary.

Liberals, right?

Welp, seems The Daily Beast’s Marlow Stern had someone else in mind to blame for the way Wolf treated Sanders:

Marlow Stern
‏ @MarlowNYC
The White House purposely sent Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway to the #WHCD to then feign outrage at the jokes made at their expense, so... don't fall for it
9:56 PM - 28 Apr 2018

Ever been at a T-Intersection, where both the left and right streets were One Way, toward you?  I think that is where Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, vis-a-via the White House Correspondents.

God Bless you, Sarah.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Bauble for the Christmas Tree

For John, BLUF:  It being American, anyone can own one.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The White House Christmas Tree Ornament

Here is the obverse side of the ornament, with the American Eagle and President Franklin D Roosevelt's initials.  The Eagle is the same as the one on the stand in front of President Roosevelt at his first Inauguration:

Here is the reverse side of the ornament, with the White House and a Christmas Tree:

A very nice ornament, approved by the White House.

And a special thanks to my Brother John and his Wife Carol, for again sending us a Christmas Tree Ornament from the White House Historical Association.

Regards  —  Cliff

English Language Requirement

For John, BLUF:  So the White House Press Corps wants to exclude English speakers?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here I wrote About the Press and Immigration

In one of the videos CNN Reporter Jim Acosta asks the White House Spokesperson, Mr Steve Miller, about the English language requirement:

Are you just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia?

I am guessing Mr Acosta has never met anyone from India or Pakistan.  Or asked for Help from some on-line service, which has been out-sourced to the subcontinent.

I am guessing that Mr Acosta has never traveled to Europe, where he has talked to the locals in English.

On the other hand, referencing Great British, there is this cautionary tale.♠

Want an example?

A few years ago I was shopping around a resume of a Dutchman.

One of our PhD Cognative Psychologists retorted that "We are doing a data dictionary.  We need someone who speaks English.

My response was "His English is better than yours."

"Get me some writing samples."

I got a couple of term papers from when this person was getting a Masters Degree from (Virginia's) Old Dominion University.

When I left the company this person moved right up.

I am guessing that Mr Acosta believes, based on his own experience, that either (a) all people from Canada speak French or (b) no Canadians ever want to immigrate to these United States, just Winter in Florida.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  There is the exception of Scotland, as show in this YouTube video (skip the add).

The Press v Immigration

For John, BLUF:  It isn't that they don't get it.  It is that they are ignorant.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The White House Press Briefing Just Went Completely Off the Rails!

This is an unnamed and undated PJ Media video Report.

Steve Miller, one of President Trump's senior advisors, took the mic today at the White House press briefing -- and it didn't exactly go as planned. In fact, it went completely off the rails! Miller was there to announce the administration's new push for only educated elites to get green cards to enter this country. The mainstream media deemed this announcement racist, unfair, and anti-immigrant. Of the many verbal altercations he had with journalists, two really stood out.

And then there are two video clips.

I especially liked the part where the Reporter suggests that an "English language" requirement means only immigrants from England and Australia.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Those White House Leakers

For John, BLUF:  If you can't loyally work for someone you should quit.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Report: Three White House leakers identified, Trump preparing to fire them

That was Hot Air on 22 May, posted by ALLAHPUNDIT.

Then there is this headline at CBS, two days ago:

White House identifies three leakers of classified information

While I have more faith in Hot Air than I do in CBS, neither has a story that has been delivered on.  Yes, I do believe there are evil leakers in the White House.  The number I don't know.  The wrongness of it is obvious to me.

Show me the leakers.

Regards  —  Cliff