The New not-so-secret service

      Trump has his own protection against attacks aside from the traditional secret service. This group of private army-like guards is led by Keith Schiller. Schiller is said to be a slow acting, distracted guard. During a trip to Ohio, a man rushed Trump which caused the secret service to react. However, Schiller took much longer to react. The secret service says this is due to his attention to kicking out potential threats prematurely. Schiller is an avid Trump supporter which makes sense. Trump will only feel safe with people around that:

1) Believe in him.

2) Are paid by Trump.

This is security to Trump. He's setting a new precedent for protection of the president. This can't be maintained past Trumps presidency because the cost of this personal security is phenomenal. During the campaign, it ranked up more than 1 million dollars. That, with the 24 hour surveillance from the New York State department, costed upwards of 35 million. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/12/21/trump-security-undercuts-secret-service/XVftdj8rHcKedaEhyK5BZP/amp.html

Angry Constituents: Now in the App Store

     Town halls across the country have been erupting with angry mobs of people with questions. And congress has actually been holding up like a champ. Due to the ambiguous nature of the Trump presidency, a lot of the decisions made are shrouded in mystery, even to his closest advisors. This is why if you asked Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer what Trump was doing, there would be completely different interpretations with equal amounts of grey area. 

People get this.

This is why Congress members are being asked their side of all this. The general outcry is why Trump has not been investigated, what will replace ACA, and what's going to happen to the apprentice without Trump??

 

Like I said, Congress members have been taking 60 minute+ town halls for two nights in a row just to answer their constituents dire questions. This looks very good on the Republican Party, if I'm being honest. It shows they have the stamina to lead and the dedication to make the next 4 years the best they can, if only their President wasn't the third, less funny muppet to the pair Statler and Waldorf. 

https://youtu.be/n4K_-R9h6mI
 

 

Back on Bathrooms

     A sad announcement came from the White House revoking the earlier Obama administration ruling to let transgendered children choose the bathroom that matches with their gender identity. The rationale behind the decision in the first place was to secure a place for transgender children to use the restroom comfortably, without discrimination. The Obama administration ruled this by supporting their decision with Title IX rationale of not discriminating based on sex. And to many, this made sense.

The opposing argument is that an individual could mascarada as the opposite gender to infiltrate the opposite bathroom to possibly harm another. 

I guess that makes sense, but this is not Ms. Doubtfire. That is not really happening in schools because .7% of the population identifies as transgender so having a whole bunch of dudes in wigs saying that want to be called Sandra now will raise alarms. 

What's sad is that this doesn't even make sense to repeal. Why? Why was this done? What harm was it actively providing? Were there complaints? 

This was obviously just a ploy to please the platform. For the first time in my politically aware life, I'm under a republican administration and it's annoying. 

 

https://youtu.be/TNmDduNrsZY

Let's begin, What IS Russia? (C3-1)

      Russia is technically a Federal Republic and a democracy. But MANY people doubt it's democratic nature. In reality, it's a lot like an autocracy. 

But at the same time, Russians kinda love him. 

Here is a Russian pop song solely about how all women want a man like Putin. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zk_VszbZa_s

So would that really make Russia autocratic if people kinda love the scamp? 

Yes, is the obvious answer. People who don't love Vlad usually end up dead or missing. It's strange how opposition just drops like flies in Russia. Like in the instance of Vladimir Kara-Murza who is an opposition leader who was poisoned not once, but twice suspectedly for speaking against Putin. 

     Some of their arguments begin with the obvious low hanging liberal fruit like the anti gay laws or just the general surpression of the press. But then the more personal attacks begin. Putin makes 100,000 a year but his purchases indicate he's making way more. He is one of the richest men in the world which is how he affords shirtless photo shoots.

So, with all of this in mind, is having Russia as an ally good or bad? Well morally, it's rough, especially given our slightly more progressive social views. But if that tension was alleviated and we were both on the same page, that could be beneficial. The problem with that is that we would have to be on the same page. Donald Trump, if you believe the facts behind Russian hacking, won the presidency with help from the Russians. Donald Trump has, because of this, been quite buddy buddy with Russia. But Russia has the control in this situation. With Flynn being forced to resign, the people know that the ties to Russia aren't just associated with Trump, it's tied with the deeper government than publicly recognized.

In conclusion, having Russia as a friend could be beneficial IF we:

1) Didn't care about the Russian people's way of life.

2) Weren't under the thumb of Vladimir Putin. 

 

http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/after-flynns-dismissal-russia-starts-doubt-trump

Rule 19 of the Senate

     Senator Elizabeth Warren was presenting her evidence as to why Trump's nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions, is unfit for her confirmation. Warren's evidence was a letter from Coretta Scott King, saying that Jeff Sessions used his power in office to disenfranchise elderly African Americans.  Before Elizabeth Warren could finish, she was shut down by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in violation of Rule 19 in the senate which states that a senator cannot impute upon another senators character, whether directly or indirectly.

This makes absolutely no sense. How can you hold a confirmation hearing if anything you say is in violation of Rule 19? This was obviously a method of Mitch McConnell to utilize a small senate Rule to breeze right into a confirmation of Jeff sessions. 

     This created a serious platform for Elizabeth Warren to stand on. Elizabeth Warren may now be forbidden to speak on the floor, but she has taken to twitter to show her supporters she's far from silenced. 

     Mitch McConnell stands by his decision to use this rule, saying that she was warned but "Nevertheless, she persisted." Well this only gave her supporters more ammunition. Creating the hashtag #ShePersisted. Jeff sessions was later confirmed, but at a cost for republicans. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/07/politics/elizabeth-warren-silenced/index.html?client=safari

Conflict of Interest Much?

     President Trump posted a scathing tweet at Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line of fashion. Can he do that? That's like one of the worst forms of cyber bullying that they teach you to avoid in middle school. 

     Do Trumps connections to the business world overlap in his presidency? The answer is a resounding hell yes it does. Trump delegated his businesses to his children in a semi-blind trust manor. But when he gives his family members access to government positions, how blind can he be to his ex-businesses? 

     Nordstrom replied by saying that this was not a political statement and that Ivankas line was just not performing as well, and was being discontinued at their stores. Trump turned this into a political statement and now Trump supporters are boycotting Nordstrom. But something tells me if Ivankas line wasn't performing well in Nordstrom already, they won't be losing much clientele. 

     As for other stores, they have been too scared to remove Ivanka's line, but have reduced marketing for it, by reducing signs and other forms of attention for it. 

     If the Trump brand itself has become too politicized, then there is 100% a conflict of interest. None of this is about how Ivanka is being treated "unfairly" as president Trump has claimed. 

 

Trump Assails Nordstrom for ‘Unfairly’ Dropping His Daughter Ivanka’s Line - The New York Times https://apple.news/Al8eZnQ1-SiaW017xSQQCVQ

This man is an imposter!

     Fake news, fake twitter, fake hair. This has been the political year of 2017 thus far. 

Organizations are now delegating (willingly or unwillingly) their twitter presences to outside sources to report on the actions taken by said organization. Why? Good question. Rising prices of marketing people? Still hung up on Facebook? 140 characters frustrated them? Who knows.

Whatever the case may be, unofficial official twitters have become a thing. 

In addition, there have been individuals who stand in place of an organizationto exercise their first amendment right. 

For instance there have been profiles for the Environmental protection agency, however they may be titled "Stuff the EPA can't tell you". On this twitter, they may say the things a member of the EPA would want to say, but can't. Maybe even making fun of Trump by posting climate change facts, or as Trump calls them 'opinions'. This is an easy way to represent a group of disenfranchised people and an even easier way to pair groups of people with things they agree with.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/01/27/512007632/its-not-just-the-park-service-rogue-federal-twitter-accounts-multiply
 

Bureaucracy is not down without a fight

     Drain the swamp, eh? This is how the nearly 2.1 million federal and administrative employees feel after Trumps order of Monday to freeze all federal hiring. A wave of uneasiness washed over the bureaucrats as they thought of the lawncare business they'll be able to start. They're mad. 

     However, These employees have some ways to stop what's happening. First of all, nearly 85% of these government workers are apart of unions. So that they pretty much can protect these employees from a lot of Trump Trimming. In addition to the unions, there are federal lookouts in congress to make sure everything is sitting nicely. For congress to let the Executive make sweeping cuts amongst themselves is not unheard of, but it would burn bridges, definantly. 

     There is totally a way to reduce government and not be a fear monger. Be Obama. The number of federal employees naturally decreased during his terms. Even with the birth and implementation of ObamaCare. Funny how that is. 

     Now the last time something like this happened, it was actually Ronald Reagan. It always takes a republican to decide the government is too big. Reagan began making sweeping cuts to the bureaucrats and there was a lot of fear surrounding that. The situation is similar to today, however more fear tactics are being added on. The house recently revived an 1876 law that says with house and senate majority vote, the pay of an individual federal employee can be decreased. This pissed off the unions to no end, because now the barrier could no longer support the entirety of the federal employees. If a federal employee speaks out, they can be punished. 

All in all, things are not looking good for federal employees. However it could be 1,100,100.000 employees that are done wrong, before someone takes it to a court. This requires patience and the perfect plaintiff.

 

.http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-government-bureaucrats-234019

Snitches get Stitches: Yes you too, Alexa (C10-4)

"Alexa, where is a good place to hide a body?"

This is the recording Arkansas police are looking forward to hearing if they are able to retrieve the Amazon apathetic android alibi.

Alexa is a newer form of technology that allows users to simply say "Alexa." And ask it a question. Alexa waits for her name to be said, be recording audio, and then when she hears her name, syncs your question to the cloud to find the answer.

However, in a nearly 1-year old case about a possible coworker-coworker murder (we've all been there), police say the suspects Alexa could be a prime witness. However, Amazon does not wish to release customer information so easily. Even after the police received a warrant, Amazon gave no Prime reasons of why they should disclose their customer info. 

So here's what's interesting, this is an interesting case of business vs law, but business has the social high ground of protecting their customers while the police have the moral high ground of avenging their victims. Amazon is almost enemy to the court. No amicus curiae to be found here. 

Without the testimony of Alexa, the suspect may get off scot free. Similar problems has arisen in several situations before with Apple with the ability of accessing information becoming deliberately hard to retrieve being a key issue. This may result in serious privacy/information attainment laws to be made with the world of social media and technology at a rise.

At the end of the day, I know for sure that Siri wouldn't snitch. Maybe Alexa won't either? 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/12/28/tech/amazon-echo-alexa-bentonville-arkansas-murder-case-trnd/index.html?client=safari

20% tariff could lead to NAFTA reagreement (C10-3)

     Mexico will pay for the wall! This was the mantra of the Trump campaign. That didn't work, because the unpopular but devilishly handsome President Peña Nieto said 'náh'. 

So what do we do? We tax the people! Trump suggests a 20% tariff on exports to Mexico. This is actually enough to pay for the wall, but would seriously injure Americans.

1. Morale. We were promised that Mexico will pay for this wall. But now we have to? Our business have to? 

2. 40% of American business rely on other countries included in the NAFTA agreement (Canada and Mexico) for assembly. We make the equipment and maybe Mexico puts it together and maybe we send it up to Canada for a game of hockey. I dunno, but we shift things around a ton and having that be discouraged, could result in some SERIOUS lay offs. Like, Obama did something like this in 2009, but with China and just on tires and things were not looking to hot for some people. And this tariff will apply to all exports.

Okay, but here's where my inner conservative is a little intrigued. Get this.

It would be so sucky if we had this tariff because we're paying for a dumb wall that I personally think is dumb. But, it would force American companies to vertically integrate or at the very least, operate within their own country. This increases factory usage in America and would create more jobs. We would have a pretty crappy lull for awhile to wait for the companies to catch up instead of avoiding the tariff by any legal or illegal means. But it could be something healthy for America. 

Secondly, this was actually a pretty interesting power play. 80% of  Mexico's economy relies on American exports. Threatening Mexicos flow of jobs from America could help force their hand into paying for the wall or at the very least, staff having a conversation about how we pay for it as a single land mass. 

I hate to say it, but Trump stumbled on something dangerous and kinda cool like the beginning scenes of poltergeist. 

But be warned, we all know how ugly poltergeist got. 

 

A 20% Mexico tariff would pay for the wall. But it would hurt Americans http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/26/news/economy/trump-mexico-tariff/index.html

Sessions Sensational Senate Session Supreme (C10-2)

Jeff Sessions, the Alabama senator and nominee for attorney general of the United States, receives backlash during the confirmation hearings.

A generally well liked dude in the senate, Jeff sessions could be the life of the party. But attorney general? Questions are being raised. In the past couple months since sessions' nomination, democrats and outside groups have been building up a case as to why we can't be confirmed. This senatorial courtesy has moved onto being a senatorial sucker punch to their colleague. The overall vibe from those who opposed was "I'd invite him to my bachelor party, but no more." 

Many people drew from reasons from his rejection from the 1986 judgeship. The last time a senatorial courtesy hearing actually denied someone was in 1989, a senator from Texas. Many opposed sessions because of old lines in the sand. For instance, his views on the Hispanic community. 

One senator questioned sessions: If need be, would sessions gather up an investigation to incriminate Trump. 

And like Derek Hough, Sessions danced around that question like crazy. 

All of this compiled together has actually delayed the confirmation of Jeff sessions another week. Awkward. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-sessions-hearing-senatorial-courtesy-is-lost-in-the-tumult-of-trump/2017/01/10/94fb39be-d76c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html
 

Repeal and Delay: Political Procrastination (C10-1)

      Down boy! Take it easy!

Republican Congressmen are just so eager to repeal back the layers of ObamaCare that they decided it's gonna happen! Now! 

Wait, but what about the 20 million people on ObamaCare? What about the public health and safety of having a system in place to take over ObamaCare? 

Like every good student knows, there is only one thing to do.

Do it later.

Repeal and Delay is essentially repealing ObamaCare today and having the effects wear off in a couple of years. However, this could be a more drawn out process than expected. The affordable care act has layers upon layers that, really, only democrats have a firm understanding of. 

Could the help of democrats be brought in to help assist? Highly unlikely, more likely is that they're enjoying watching Republicans squirm after 8 years of backseat driving and NOT writing a replacement to ObamaCare.

The wildcard is, as it always will be, Trump. How will he react? Partisan? Rebel? Tweets?

Well, I believe he's trying to remain semi partisan but is trying desperately to dust off the cobwebs on the Congress Republicans and get their legislative hands going. 

However, if republicans can't get their act together with a replacement, they may just have to fill in the holes of ObamaCare, giving it a republican zest! Maybe have some private business supplementing insurance with the government. 

There are opportunities for the Republicans. It is just time to wake the conservative beast. 

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/kcrws-left-right-center/id73329771?mt=2&i=1000379687005

 

Bush v. Gore; Fact v. Lore (C9-4)

Okay, so yes I am a millenial which means that I was a toddler during the 2000 court case; Bush v. Gore, so I didn't follow the event. (Lazytown was my favorite show there for awhile so it's suffice to say I was distracted)

In any case, it's about time I learned about Bush v. Gore, reevaluating the position of the Supreme Court in the matter. 

For the sixth time in American history, the president elect won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. This is, of course, Donald J Trump. While Trump is a trendsetter, President Bush was his trendy predecessor in this matter. 

George W. Bush ran as the conservative republican nominee in 2000 and secured the nomination by being more traditionalist. 

Al Gore, then incumbent Vice President, ran as the liberal democratic nominee and had no trouble landing the nomination. (Incumbency rulez) 

The election process ensued and it came down to very contrary projections of who won the election. This was because the numbers were so tight for who voted for who. It then showed that Bush won but Gore received the popular vote. 

Gore, not ready to give up, requested a recount in Florida and specific counties in Florida. 

This is where the complications arose. Florida law says that a recount must be completed within 7 days post election. However, because of hanging jeffs, this wasn't always easy. The counties declared that they wouldn't be able to meet the deadline for the recount. 

The Florida Secretary of State then persisted a half assed recounting event that was announced on November 18th. This announcement concluded that Bush is the next president of the United States.

But NOT.

The Florida Supreme Court decided that it would be better to go through the process legitimately and extend the recount deadline. The U.S Supreme Court decided they would deny that extension. The Florida Supreme Court denied the denial and went right along with it. The U.S Supreme Court delayed the denial of the denied recount. The final decision was that a recount would be unconstitutional because of different voting methods from county to county (violating the equal protections act). The Florida Supreme Court reluctantly dismissed the case.

Bush wins.

But this decision has a lot of people asking the US Supreme Court "wait who asked you?" 

Which is an excellent question.

Personally, I believe the Supreme Court stepped into a political action and was operating outside a judicial jurisdiction. All of this, in addition to belittling states rights and just being all around inefficient. 

The US Supreme Court had a qualifier at the end of this decision that said that this was not a precedent and was a one time thing. Which sounds vaguely like the morning after political bar hopping. 

Lastly, I disagree with the qualifier because the US Supreme Court is beyond 'one time things' and that they only deal in precedents and deciding the constitutionality of an occasion. 

 

https://youtu.be/SF_2FAJzJ94

Ricky Henson et al v. Santander consumer (c9-3)

"You wanna dance, you gotta pay the band. You wanna bottom, you gotta pay the man." 

-Rocky (1976)

Okay, so maybe Santander isn't threatening to break Ricky Henson's thumbs, but who knows? 

In the most recent court case received by the Supreme Court, what constitutes a creditor versus a debt collector is being disputed.

Santander is a vehicle financial lending bank service. They recently purchased freakishly cheap debt from another bank and then continued to go out and receive said funds. 

And, like an overly attached ex, they call incessantly to the debtor. 

Is this fair? 

No! Under the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, debt collectors and the Rocky balboas of the world are kept at bay. The problem is, Santander has not been constituted as a debt collecting company since they're doing other things with their companies and banks have good rapport in a community rather than that one pawn shop that smells mysteriously like cannabis. This means that Santander is a creditor and not a debt collector. 

The FDCPA disagrees with this decision on the face of it because in a matter like this, there are only 3 major players. The original creditor, the debtor, and the debt collector. Anyone past the original creditor looking to receive the funds they purchased, is a debt collector. 

Whatever the case may be, I do hope this comes to light. If this loophole were to still exist, all debt collectors could also shift to creditors as well and they would create their own community and system of credit, sell, collect from one another.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN14X2DY?client=safari

Take two! (C9-2)

A little over a month ago, the Supreme Court made the decision to not hear the case for 60 year old Romell Broom. Broom is your everyday death row inmate trying to appeal his death sentence. Things were going poorly when the executioners came to prep him for his death penalty. 

However, this is where things get interesting.

You see, the executioners could not find Broom's vein to begin the process. So like every bad nurse, they tried again and again and again. Still, no luck. This obviously resulted in a lot of pain from Broom. Even at times yelling out in pain because of the 18 attempts to find a vein. 

This unfortunate case for Broom was also an opportunity. Because the first execution was botched, it would be unconstitutional to continue onto a second because of the double jeopardy ruling. Also, the physiological damage of preparing to die and then having it postponed can't be easy. Brooms Lawyer says that all of this means that Broom should be set free with an arm full of bandaids and a heart full of dreams.

Kind of. 

You see Broom was convicted of raping and murdering a 14 year old girl when he was 28. He maintains his innocence but the girls mother is having no part of it. The mother and the prosecutors say that Broom took medication and dehydrated himself to make his veins smaller to find for the opportunity. Saying that this is all a hoax. 

The ohio Supreme Court holds the position of "I call a do-over!" 

The Supreme Court decided not to hear it 6-2.

The double jeopardy ruling is for a crime to be tried again post the first trial. This does not mean the actual punishment however. It is immensely unfortunate that the state botched the execution and that Broom must die with new holes in his arms. But this case is more of an argument against the death penalty than a case for Broom as the individual. 

Whatever the case may be, it's stupid that the state messed it up, but Brooms fate is still by execution. The victims mother will attend, just as she had done the day the death had failed.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-lethal-injection-n694856

Campaign Promises are awkward. (C9-1)

Remember Hillary for Prison 2016? 

Yeah, so it's actually serious.

Nobody is looking to press criminal charges, but there is some more controversy over the Comey situation. *flashback fade to 2016* 

James Comey, FBI director, had information about Hillary's server and as his duty, he needs to not sit on that information. BUT. The FBI cannot be politicized and influence an election. Which, mr. Comey certainly did. 

 

Democrats claim that they definantly costed Hillary Clinton the election. However, this makes Donald Trump a little more nervous because this questions the legitimacy of his election. "Hillary for Prison!" was the chant of the Trump campaign, but now, Trump wants to treat Hillarys emails like last summers vegas trip. He wants to keep his winnings, but not talk about who he screwed. 

FBI, Justice Department to be investigated over Clinton probe http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/doj-watchdog-launches-probe-into-handling-of-clinton-email-investigation/index.html