From Washington Post: Are college students “snowflakes” — triggered, traumatized and all together too delicate for the real world? Or are they apathetic — so unconcerned that they can’t be bothered to purchase stamps to send in their absentee ballots?
The two characterizations of young Americans are in conflict, observed Melissa Hagan, an assistant professor of psychology at San Francisco State University. Her research has led her to believe that neither captures what’s going on in the minds of young people. Their intense reaction to political events runs contrary to the charge of apathy, she said, while the emotional trauma they report should not be dismissed as hypersensitivity.
With a team of researchers, she surveyed 769 introductory psychology students at Arizona State University in January and February 2017, asking about their satisfaction with the 2016 election, whether they were upset about the outcome and whether the results of the race had affected their close relationships.
The results were published Monday in an article, “Event-related clinical distress in college students: Responses to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election,” in the Journal of American College Health, a bimonthly, peer-reviewed public health journal. The article finds that 25 percent of students had “clinically significant event-related distress,” which it argues can predict future distress as well as diagnoses of PTSD, commonly associated with veterans and defined by the Mayo Clinic as “a mental health condition that’s triggered by a terrifying event — either experiencing it or witnessing it.”
The research speaks to the personal toll of partisan battles, and it offers insight into the perspective of young Americans coming to political consciousness in the era of President Trump.
Hagan, the article’s lead author, said she believed it was the first of its kind examining an election’s psychological impact on college students. She was motivated to conduct the study by what she saw in her classes the day after Trump clinched the presidency.
Her students were “visibly upset,” she recalled in an interview. “Some were even crying.” They told her that they were scared and anxious about policies that had been discussed on the campaign trail, she said, as well as about the elevation of “a candidate who had an audio recording of him describing sexual assault.”
The analysis reveals that women, racial minorities, people from working and lower-middle social classes, Democrats, non-Christians and sexual minorities reported significantly more election-related distress. Accounting for connections among various factors, the most useful predictors of stress were sex, political party, religion and perceived impact of the election on close relationships — more so than race and social class. Controlling for party affiliation, other demographic factors still influenced stress symptoms. In other words, Hagan said, it wasn’t just a case of sore losers.
Lady Gaga and her Clinton buddies: #BelieveWomen, but only of a certain political persuasion.
Lady Gaga says she was raped at 19 and as a result, suffers from PTSD. In the past, she teamed up with Joe Biden to help sexual assault survivors.
Wonder if this starlet has ever reached out to the sexual assault survivor Juanita Broaddrick? I’m going with NO. What a Hollyweird hypocrite.
From Hollywood Reporter: Lady Gaga stopped by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday night to discuss all things A Star Is Born, as well as share her thoughts on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
When asked if she was willing to talk politics, Gaga said “bring it on.” Of Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by multiple women including Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Gaga, who has been open in the past about her own sexual assault, said the ongoing “debate of Kavanaugh versus Dr. Ford is one of the most upsetting things I have ever witnessed.”
“But I will tell you something,” she continued. “Should we trust that [Dr. Ford] remembered the assault? Yes. And I’ll tell you exactly why. She’s a psychologist, she’s no dummy. And when someone experiences trauma, the brain changes. It takes the trauma and puts it in a box so that we can survive the pain.” A vote to confirm the highly controversial Trump pick to the Supreme Court is set to be held Saturday. Kavanaugh has denied all the claims against him.
Gaga added that she believes Ford was probably “triggered” when she realized Kavanaugh would be nominated and she decided to “protect this country.”
(At this point, the article doesn’t expand on any of her claims about Kavanaugh or Ford, it merely moves on to her latest movie. Because when you’ve got a movie to promote #believewomen can take a back seat.)
The pop star-turned-actress was also on hand to promote her new film A Star Is Born, which she stars in with director and writer Bradley Cooper. The film is the fourth iteration of the classic tale of a young up-and-coming star who falls in love with an older, established one whose career is fading as hers takes off. The project is Cooper’s directorial debut and Gaga’s big screen acting debut, although she previously won a Golden Globe for her role on American Horror Story: Hotel.
Of how she got the part, she said that she sang at a charity event the night before she met with Cooper. After he heard her sing “La Vie en Rose,” he wanted to meet with her, and they had an immediate connection. Of first meeting her future director and co-star, Gaga said, “There’s a lot of fake people in Hollywood but Bradley is not one of them.”
And although Gaga is a Grammy-winning artist, she’s not the only one who has a natural singing ability. She told Colbert that she was blown away by Cooper’s singing voice when she first heard it. “That man, he sings from his gut, from his soul and you can be technically perfect, but with no ability to tell a story, and he tells a story when he sings,” she said, adding, “I was drawn to his passion.”
Her character Ally may be a rising pop star, but Gaga said the similarities between her and her character end there. “My character Ally is very different than I was. I knew I had something to say and I wanted to say it… but she’s not that way,” she said, explaining that, “she’s in her 30s and she’s given up. She’s been told she’s not beautiful enough to make it and truthfully she’s insecure.”
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
From MSN: Lanny Davis, the high-powered attorney of President Trump’s longtime “fixer”-turned-foe Michael Cohen, admitted Monday he was an anonymous source for a bombshell CNN story on the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting — after The Washington Post outed him as a source for its own story.
Davis told BuzzFeed News Monday night he regretted being the anonymous source as well as his subsequent denial. The CNN story, which cited multiple “sources,” claimed Cohen said President Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower sit-down.
“I made a mistake,” Davis told BuzzFeed.
CNN, which has stood by its reporting, did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.
Davis spent recent days walking back his bombshell assertions that his client could tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that Trump had prior knowledge of the meeting with a Russian lawyer discussing potentially damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
Trump has denied knowledge all along, and fired back following CNN’s report last month.
“I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr. Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam (Taxi cabs maybe?). He even retained Bill and Crooked Hillary’s lawyer. Gee, I wonder if they helped him make the choice!” Trump tweeted on July 27.
The CNN report from July 27 headlined, “Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting,” cited “sources with knowledge,” contradicting repeated denials by Trump and his surrogates, as Fox News previously reported. CNN’s report resulted in countless cable news segments and sent other news organizations scurrying to match.
Among them was The Washington Post. On Sunday, the newspaper published an interview in which Davis backpedaled.
Davis, attempting to clean up his comments in interviews last week after Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, tax evasion and bank fraud, told the Post he “should have been more clear” that he “could not independently confirm what happened.”
Davis said he regretted his “error.”
“Davis’s latest comments cast doubt on what Cohen may know, including about a June 2016 meeting in New York’s Trump Tower attended by Trump’s eldest son and a Russian lawyer,” the Post wrote on Sunday night.
Davis started walking back the allegations last week, when during an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, he was asked whether there was evidence that Trump knew about the meeting before it happened. “No, there’s not,” Davis said.
He told BuzzFeed on Monday night about his comments to Cooper: “I did not mean to be cute.”
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
Mr. Trump has already appointed eight appellate judges, the most this early in a presidency since Richard M. Nixon, and on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to send a ninth appellate nominee — Mr. Trump’s deputy White House counsel, Gregory Katsas — to the floor.
Republicans are systematically filling appellate seats they held open during President Barack Obama’s final two years in office with a particularly conservative group of judges with life tenure. Democrats — who in late 2013 abolished the ability of 41 lawmakers to block such nominees with a filibuster, then quickly lost control of the Senate — have scant power to stop them.
The rapidity of President Trump’s judicial appointments is because he had a battle plan ready. To quote the Times again:
In the weeks before Donald J. Trump took office, lawyers joining his administration gathered at a law firm near the Capitol, where Donald F. McGahn II, the soon-to-be White House counsel, filled a white board with a secret battle plan to fill the federal appeals courts with young and deeply conservative judges.
Mr. McGahn, instructed by Mr. Trump to maximize the opportunity to reshape the judiciary, mapped out potential nominees and a strategy, according to two people familiar with the effort: Start by filling vacancies on appeals courts with multiple openings and where Democratic senators up for re-election next year in states won by Mr. Trump — like Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania — could be pressured not to block his nominees. And to speed them through confirmation, avoid clogging the Senate with too many nominees for the district courts, where legal philosophy is less crucial.
Now, President Trump has begun remaking the military by replacing upper commanders.
The Wall Street Journal reports on August 19, 2018, that according to U.S. officials, the military faces a “sweeping turnover” of its upper commanders as President Trump undertakes a series of military promotions to replace outgoing heads of regional combatant commands.
As the Trump Administration seeks to minimize U.S. footprint in conflict zones around the world, the Pentagon has leaned more heavily on the forces that fall under the Special Operations Command. President Trump’s personnel moves, which include commanders for the Middle East and Europe, will mark the administration’s largest imprint on military leadership thus far. The changes will affect top officers overseeing conflicts in the Middle East, U.S. policy to counter Russia, the detention center on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as stealth operations globally.
The promotions include some that had already taken place and others that are expected in the coming months:
(1) Earlier this year, President Trump nominated Army Gen. Scott Miller, commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, as the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Gen. Miller is expected to arrive in Afghanistan in coming weeks.
(2) Last Thursday, August 16, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced the White House nomination of his own senior military assistant, Navy Adm. Craig Faller, to head U.S. Southern Command, the post responsible for Latin and South America as well as Guantanamo Bay. (Adm. Faller was under a Navy investigation in 2011 for accepting a luxury hotel suite upgrade in Malaysia, according to a 2013 report by the Office of Naval Inspector General. The Navy concluded he was wrong to accept the upgrade but that his actions didn’t require disciplinary action because he used the larger room to accommodate several of his own staffers.)
(3) Army Lt. Gen. Richard Clarke to head U.S. Special Operations Command, in Tampa, Fla., to succeed Army Gen. Tony Thomas, who is due to retire next year. The Special Operations Command oversees highly trained, specialized forces of all the military branches, such as the Navy SEALs, Green Berets and others. General Clarke, now the director of strategic plans and policy for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, was the operations officer at Joint Special Operations Command, in Fort Bragg, N.C., at the time the Pentagon launched the raid that resulted in the death of bin Laden. As operations officer, he was a part of the planning, training and execution of the mission.
(4) Marine Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr. is expected to succeed Army Gen. Joseph Votel at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, considered the most prominent within the military, with responsibility for all of the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Gen. Votel is expected to retire next spring. Gen. McKenzie now is director of the Joint Staff, a job often seen as a launching pad for top officers, and has years of experience both in war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, and inside Washington.
(5) Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters is considered a likely pick to succeed Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti (who is retiring) as the next head of the U.S. European Command and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Gen. Wolters now heads Air Force Europe, Air Force Africa and Allied Air Command, all based in Germany; had served as the operations officer on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff; and has focused in recent years on American military policy toward Russia.
(6 & 7) Two other top Pentagon posts come open next year with the expected retirements of Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman. Top contenders for chairman are the current Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein, and Army chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley. Another possible contender is the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. John Hyten. Army Gen. John Nicholson, now the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and Army Gen. Vince Brooks, the current commander of U.S. Forces, Korea, who could be under contention, are expected to retire, officials said.
The above expected nominations, like all other combatant or geographic commands, require Senate confirmation. While senators have blocked military promotions, such a move is rare. An individual senator also could at least temporarily hold up confirmation votes once nominations have been formally submitted.
When I look at the list of all the top military commanders who are retiring, I can’t help but think they’ve been holding on through the eight long years of the cursed Obama administration (Obama had decimated the military), delaying their retirements until Donald John Trump was elected President and Commander In Chief.
God speed, Mr. President!
Please pray for President Trump — unceasingly.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
A proposal to split California into three states will be on the ballot this November.
Backers of CAL 3, led by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, collected and delivered 600,000 signatures to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s Office, surpassing the 365,000 required by law to qualify for the ballot.
The proposal is to split California into these three new states:
Conservatives should vote “No” for this reason: Instead of giving Conservatives a voice in state government, CAL 3 will make things worse because the way the proposed state lines are drawn will create two, if not three, Democrat-dominant states.
As things are today, California’s one-party Democrat government is the result of the state’s pattern of population distribution, wherein heavily-populated “liberal” metropolitan cities on the coast determine the outcome of elections. Instead of creating a new state of those “liberal” coastal cities, CAL 3 distributes the “liberal” cities to each of the three new states, thereby ensuring that they will dominate election outcomes in the new states.
Here’s the map of the proposed CAL 3: Note that:
Northern California will contain these big cities:
San Francisco: the 13th most populous city in the U.S., with a population of 884,363 in 2017.
San Jose: the 10th most populous city in the U.S., with a population of 1,035,317 in 2017.
Sacramento: the state capital; 35th largest city in the U.S., with a population of 501,334 in 2018.
California will contain these big cities:
Los Angeles: the 2nd largest city in the U.S. (after New York), with a population estimated at 3.98 million.
Santa Barbara: with a population of 91,196 in 2014.
Long Beach: the 39th largest city in the U.S., with a population of 462,257 in 2010.
Southern California will contain these big cities:
San Diego: the 8th largest city in the U.S., with a population of 1,419,516 in 2017.
Anaheim: the 10th largest city in California, with a population of 336,265 in 2010.
In the 2016 presidential election, California voted:
Hillary Clinton: 61.6%
Donald Trump: 32.8%
Here’s a map of how California voted in the 2016 presidential election
Now let’s compare California’s 2016 election results map with a map of CAL 3:
To conclude, the proposed CAL 3 will only split “liberal” California into three “liberal” states. Each of the three states will get to send two senators each to the U.S. Senate, as well as representatives to the House of Representatives. Since each new California state will be dominated by “liberal” heavily-populated cities, that means we’ll end up having even more Democrats elected to both houses of Congress.
Sorry Charlie. I don’t take life advice from someone who said republicans have “lost their minds.”
From Seattle Times: Charles Barkley is weary. He was never a fan of Donald Trump’s, even before the election, but now he’s tired of “this turmoil every single day – the tweeting, the hiring and firing.”
In an interview with David Axelrod on CNN’s “Axe Files,” Barkley was angry with those voted for Trump, saying that the president’s message had resonated with voters “who just won’t look in a mirror and say, ‘My life sucks because of me.’ “
“I’ve never been more angry and disgusted at this situation than I am now. This turmoil every single day – the tweeting, the hiring and firing.
“Dude, I’m blessed, and you are, too,” he told Axelrod. “Like, it really ain’t gonna have a big effect on our life. But I actually have humanity. I want everybody to have a good life. I want everybody to have a good job. I want their kids to go to school, I want their kids to be safe. I want everybody to have economic opportunity.
“And I want to make sure we don’t forget about DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which Trump tweeted about ending Sunday), our public schools. I don’t want to forget about those poor people in Puerto Rico. I was watching the news last night, and still, six months out, they don’t have power. And we don’t even mention them anymore. We’re wasting all our time on Russia and Stormy Daniels. It’s ridiculous.” Barkley also felt that the president “has done an awful job of trying to be inclusive,” partly because of his emphasis on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
“Do we have some bad Hispanics? Of course, we do. Do we have some bad Muslims? Of course, we do. But I believe the majority of the Muslim people in this country are amazing, hard-working people,” he said. “The president has done an awful job of trying to be inclusive.” Barkley believes that “there’s only economic opportunity if you’re rich” and that voters were looking to blame others for economic disparity.
“I think he reached a demographic who just won’t look in a mirror and say my life sucks because of me,” Barkley said. “So every person who can’t get a job says yes, he’s right, that some Mexican has taken my job. I’m like, well, wait, ‘Did you want that job, No. 1? Or did you put yourself – did you work hard enough, educate yourself enough to get – deserve that job?’ So it’s easy to blame somebody.”
Barkley, who has toyed with the idea of running for political office, campaigned against Roy Moore in the Senate race in his native Alabama last year. Campaigning for Doug Jones, he told Alabamians bluntly, “We’ve got to stop looking like idiots to the nation. I love Alabama, but we’ve got to draw a line in the sand. We’re not a bunch of damn idiots.” Jones won the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“We have spent the last year talking about Russia every single day,” Barkley told Axelrod. “Now we got Stormy, now we got another girl (Karen McDougal), and I’m sitting here saying, ‘When are we actually going to help the people?’”
Inspired in part by Watergate, in 1978 Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, which among other things established formal rules for the appointment of a special prosecutor or counsel. With the expiration of the independent counsel authority in 1999, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno promulgated regulations for the future appointment of special counsels. As of 2017, these regulations remain in effect as 28 CFR section 600. (Wikipedia)
“The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted….”
The independent counsel law originally enacted in the Ethics in Government Act did not allow independent counsels appointed under the law to be removed except under specific circumstances such as wrongdoing or incapacitation. This law is no longer in effect.
The current special counsel regulationsspecify that:
The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for their removal.”
The Attorney General works for the President of the United States, which means that the President can fire a special prosecutor, such as Robert Mueller who, in the nearly 11 months since he was appointed on May 17, 2017 to investigate Russian collusion with Trump in the 2016 election, has found no evidence of such a collusion.
But Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), like other Demonrat outlaws, refuses to abide by the special counsel regulations. Instead, Lieu attempts to intimidate and bully President Trump by threatening “widespread civil unrest” if Trump fires Mueller.
Chuck Ross reports for Daily Caller that on March 19, 2018, Lieu told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes:
“If the president does go ahead and fire Robert Mueller, we would have people take to the streets. I believe there would be widespread civil unrest because Americans believe the rule of law is paramount. I think you’re going have protests and marches and rallies and sit-ins. I believe Americans would not stand for the firing of Robert Mueller.”
Another out-of-touch Hollyweird blowhard.
From Fox News: Roseanne Barr – and her iconic TV character – may be pro-Trump, but one of her co-stars on “Roseanne,” Sandra Bernhard, certainly is not — and she went as far as to say women who support President Trump are unable to think for themselves.
The actress, who is reprising her role as Nancy Bartlett Thomas in the eagerly awaited sitcom reboot, told MSNBC’s Ari Melber that she doesn’t understand how women could support Trump unless they are “under the thumb” of their husbands. “A lot of women have compromised, given in, raised their kids and not had the luxury of being able to think for themselves,” Bernhard said Wednesday, adding they are “under the thumb of [their] husband[s].”
The 62-year-old, who has yet to make an appearance on the recently premiered TV reboot, then suggested perhaps the reason why women voted for Trump was because they were intimidated by Hillary Clinton’s intelligence.
“[Maybe it was] being so offended by Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton’s legacy that you turned on her,” the actress suggested. “Or feeling inadequate, feeling like how can somebody be so educated? How can somebody who brought themselves up from their experience and gone to the top? Educated herself, fought for rights, civil rights, and equality. And I think that is threatening to a lot of women.”
Bernhard’s remarks come as the reboot of the ABC sitcom featuring the Conner family drew massive ratings for the network. The show, starring a pro-Trump title character, was “the highest-rated regularly scheduled scripted show of the last few seasons, as well as the highest-rated sitcom in recent memory,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.
The show’s star, Roseanne Barr, revealed to reporters back in January it was important to her to showcase her character as a pro-Trump American.
“It’s just realistic,” she explained. “I have always … attempted to portray a realistic portrait of the American people and working class people. And, in fact, it was working class people that elected Trump so I felt that was very real and something that needed to be discussed.”