monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

A key aspect of the activity that was announced by Facebook the other day is a broad attempt to create divisions on the left.

George Soros: Trump is Winning, He’s Destroying the New World Order

From Soros’ perspective, Trump is indeed destroying the world, albeit not in the apocalyptic sense like he’s implying but in the ideological one of pioneering a completely new world order than the one that the President inherited.Obama, who can be regarded as Soros’ surrogate in the White House, worked towards building a world where the US bows before the authority of the UN on many (but crucially, not all) key issues such as climate change and sustainable development agendas.

Heralding in a new multilateralism that would have moved International Relations closer to a so-called “one world government”, albeit one that would still be largely under indirect American influence.

Concurrent with this, the Obama-Soros vision was to have the media attack all of their opponents as “racist, fascist, white supremacists” for daring to think that the future might be different, but then all of a sudden Trump came along and committed to undoing their legacy.

The world that Trump wants to build is one of unrestricted American unilateralism in “Leading from the Front” while unabashedly pioneering a return to unipolarity, righting what he truly believes to have been the many historic wrongs that Obama, Soros, and all the others before him committed involuntarily handicapping American power through lopsided trade deals and various other unfair commitments.

All told, this global recalibration can rightly be described as a “Revolution in World Affairs” because of the “new thinking” involved in guiding America’s policies from here on out.

What we face now is far more sophisticated and includes both Russian (mainly) incursion allied with GOP goals and strategies amplified by social media platforms and right wing media entities, often pushing the ill-intentioned memes up into mainstream media.

Twitter Hires So-Called Academic ‘Experts’ To….Enforce Sharia Blasphemy Laws

Special counsel Robert Mueller has referred a collection of cases to New York federal prosecutors concerning whether several high-profile American lobbyists and operatives failed to register their work as foreign agents, according to people familiar with the matter.

The transfer of the inquiries marks an escalation of Mueller's referrals to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York in the period since he turned over a case involving President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

Mueller has come under scrutiny from Trump and others for what they perceive as the special counsel's examination of matters beyond the scope of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election cycle, and Mueller's referral of cases that aren't closely linked to that central matter could be a way of insulating the special counsel probe from such backlash, people familiar with the situation said.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17639022/trump-tweet-mueller-sessions-witch-hunt

Trump has repeatedly complained about the investigation and attacked Mueller publicly, but the public statement that Sessions “should” shut down the probe “right now” is new. (Sessions recused himself from any involvement in the probe last year — but Trump has reportedly urged him privately to reverse that recusal, to no avail.)

Meanwhile, part of the Mueller probe has focused on whether Trump has attempted to obstruct justice since he’s been in office by trying to impede investigations of himself or his associates. This investigation reportedly focuses on Trump’s use of Twitter (as one of many other topics).

So the special counsel’s team will surely view this new tweet with interest.

A proposal to create an independent redistricting commission will appear on the November ballot, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled late Tuesday in a closely watched case.

The 4-3 decision is rife with political implications in Michigan, where Republicans have maintained or grown congressional and legislative advantages since last drawing the state's political boundaries in 2011.

Volunteers with the Voters Not Politicians committee gathered nearly 400,000 valid signatures to put the anti-gerrymandering plan before voters. The Board of State Canvassers certified the group’s petitions, but the proposal was challenged as being overly broad.

In a split decision, the state’s highest court ruled that voter-initiated proposals are permissible if they do not “significantly alter or abolish the form or structure of our government, making it tantamount to creating a new constitution.”

The redistricting proposal “surpasses these hurdles,” Justice David Viviano wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined by fellow Republican appointee Beth Clement and Democratic-nominated Justices Bridget McCormack and Richard Bernstein.

Will the Michigan Republican Party withdraw its planned nomination of Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Clement at its August convention, as a rebuke for her vote late Tuesday to put an anti-gerrymandering proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot?

Might the party even nominate another judicial candidate in her place?

Those questions were front and center Wednesday morning in the wake of Tuesday's late night, 4-3, decision by the Michigan Supreme Court involving the controversial proposal.

Clement, who was appointed to the court in November by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and must seek election in November for a full eight-year term, joined with another Snyder appointee, Justice David Viviano, and two Democratic-nominated justices — Richard Bernstein and Bridget McCormack — to allow the proposal to end a system of drawing political lines that has benefited Michigan Republicans in recent years.

“I know that many activists and delegates are furious with her abandonment of the Rule of Law philosophy in this case,” as well as other recent cases, Tony Daunt, executive director of the conservative Michigan Freedom Fund, said Wednesday.

“Ultimately, it’s up to the delegates on whether Clement needs to be held accountable for her record.”

The party could nominate another candidate in place of Clement, appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder, though she would remain on the ballot as an incumbent justice.

There's a precedent for such a development, though it has only happened once in Michigan history, said Bill Ballenger, a long-time state political pundit and historian and publisher of the online newsletter The Ballenger Report.

In 1976, Michigan Democrats opted not to nominate incumbent Justice Thomas Giles Kavanagh over unhappiness with his judicial record, instead nominating former Detroit Mayor Roman Gribbs. Kavanagh, who still had the "incumbent" designation beside his name on the ballot, still won handily, Ballenger said.

Republicans may feel the most important judicial priority in the Nov. 6 election is to protect the other Republican-nominated justice up for election, Kurtis Wilder. The party could withhold either funding or its nomination of Clement but not nominate anyone in her place, instead focusing its financial support on Wilder, he said.

Still, what's happened recently with the GOP's 5-2 majority is "astounding," and "I sense a growing fury building out there in the Republican Party delegation that could manifest itself at the convention."

Ballenger said the deadline for nominating candidates expired just days before the Voters Not Politicians decision was released — and that might not be a coincidence. Still, he said the party could suspend the rules at its convention by a two-thirds vote and still nominate another judicial candidate.

Sarah Anderson, a party spokeswoman, declined comment.

Clement, who served as Snyder's chief legal counsel, had no prior judicial experience and no judicial record to assess prior to her appointment.

Since Clement's appointment, a new voting bloc appears to have developed on the court in the eyes of some GOP activists that has largely evaporated the court's 5-2 Republican majority, with Clement and Viviano voting with the two Democratic-nominated justices on several key issues.

On July 27, the same four justices joined in another ruling that angered many conservatives, saying schools can ban guns on their properties. Again, Chief Justice Stephen Markman dissented along with Justices Brian Zahra and Justice Kurtis Wilder.

Meanwhile, part of the Mueller probe has focused on whether Trump has attempted to obstruct justice since he’s been in office by trying to impede investigations of himself or his associates. This investigation reportedly focuses on Trump’s use of Twitter (as one of many other topics).

So the special counsel’s team will surely view this new tweet with interest.

Especially given the Cambridge Analytica theft of data used to target voters.

The basic reality: Mexico NEVER HAD California.

Italy plans MANDATORY crucifixes in public buildings - with a £890 fine for non-compliance

Democratic Senator Hirono Doesn’t Seem to Understand That Illegal Immigration is Illegal