Mediaboss Marketing

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker offered some limited praise of the new plan. | AP Photo

President Donald Trump's scaled-back order restricting travel from six majority-Muslim nations won over one of his biggest GOP critics Monday, even as few other Republicans rushed to endorse the plan.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has hounded Trump on his ties to Russia and called the presidents first attempt at a travel ban a potential self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism," embraced the White House's changes.

Story Continued Below

This executive order will achieve the goal of protecting our homeland and will, in my view, pass legal muster, the South Carolina Republican said in a statement, adding that "the new order will withstand legal challenges as its drafted in a fashion as to not be a religious ban, but a ban on individuals coming from compromised governments and failed states."

But Graham, so far, appears to be the only convert. Other Republicans who had criticized the first travel order issued in January and quickly halted in federal court offered few words of support. Graham and Sen. John McCain had criticized Trumps first travel order in a joint statement, but Grahams support, notably, came in a solo press release.

McCain later tweeted that Iraq was not included in the new executive order and that Iraqis are our allies in the fight against #ISIL. Removing Iraqi citizens from the travel ban came after entreaties from Graham, McCain and other prominent Republicans including Trump's secretary of state and defense secretary in light of Iraqis contributions to the fight against terrorism.

Other top Republicans were noticeably reticent to offer full-throated support for the new order. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, who criticized Trumps January travel ban, offered some limited praise, at least for the roll-out of the new plan.

I am very encouraged by the interagency approach the administration has taken to develop and implement the revised executive order, said Corker, adding that he was pleased that Iraq was removed from the countries subject to visa restrictions. The Tennessee Republican also said reviewing the nations screening and vetting procedures is an appropriate step and that he is hopeful these programs will then be reinstated.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer emphasized Monday that the new travel order is based on the same principles that guided the first but this time, he said, all stakeholders, including lawmakers, were extensively briefed on the contents.

"We made sure that everybody knew what we were doing," he said, adding, "I think we did a phenomenal job of rolling it out."

But the White Houses engagement didnt immediately draw an outpouring of support from the presidents allies on Capitol Hill.

House Republicans, in particular, appeared to be reserving judgment, offering sparse cover to a president who sprung his first travel ban on them with little warning, stoking turmoil and energizing grassroots Trump opponents. The relative silence was notable given the Trump administration's apparent confidence that the communication problems plaguing the execution of its initial immigration order had been fixed this time around.

"There should be no surprises whether it's in the media or on Capitol Hill," Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told reporters at a press briefing on the order, after which no questions were taken.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was a notable exception to the GOPs reticence, offering a quick endorsement of Trumps new plan.

This revised executive order advances our shared goal of protecting the homeland, said Ryan, who criticized the rollout of Trumps initial travel ban. I commend the administration and Secretary Kelly in particular for their hard work on this measure to improve our vetting standards.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) also signaled support.

Backing for Trump among Republicans was slightly more robust in the Senate.

The new immigration order also excised language from Trump's first version, which signaled a preference for refugee applications from Christians residing in majority-Muslim countries and would not affect existing visa holders, a tweak welcomed by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

That change "should ensure the unintended consequences from the last order do not reoccur," Grassley said in a statement.

Other elements of Trump's initial immigration order, including a 120-day pause in the admission of refugees from around the world and a deep cut in the number of refugees admitted during the current year, remain intact.

Inquiries with a slew of moderate Republican lawmakers who had expressed concerns about Trumps first travel order were not immediately returned.

Meanwhile top Democrats quickly condemned the new immigration limits as little more than a warmed-over regurgitation of Trump's original travel ban, a hastily rolled-out plan that faltered in federal court and provoked mass protests at international airports across the country. They continued to refer to the effort as a Muslim ban, and they were emboldened further when Spicer told reporters Monday that the principles of the executive order remain the same."

A watered-down ban is still a ban," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "Despite the administrations changes, this dangerous executive order makes us less safe, not more, it is mean-spirited, and un-American."

Newly elected Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), who called for stricter evaluation of the refugee screening process on the campaign trail in 2015, on Monday slammed Trump's order as "a backdoor Muslim ban" and "immoral," respectively.

A few conservatives who backed Trump's earlier order offered early praise for the revised edition. Arizona GOP Rep. Paul Gosar called it refreshing to see a President that isnt ashamed to uphold the most important job of the government ... protecting the American people.

See the original post:
Republicans in no rush to back Trump's new travel ban - Politico

Speaker Paul Ryan, right, and his House Republicans are reportedly planning to introduce its Obamacare replacement bill this week.

Congressional Republicans will introduce their much-anticipated bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act this week, NBC News reports, citing a senior House aide.

Draft legislation would provide expanded tax credits and health savings accounts for individuals, while cutting spending on tax subsidies and Medicaid, NBC writes. It would also practically eliminate the employer and individuals mandates to provide and carry health insurance. That legislation may have changed but a House Republican aide earlier called it the bones of what would happen.

Also read: Trump embraces HSAs as a pillar of repeal and replace, but they will need work.

SEC nominee targeted: A coalition of progressive groups is planning to announce a campaign to derail President Trumps nomination of Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Washington Post reports. Organizers say the campaign will include a six-figure digital advertising buy. As the Post says, it comes amid broader efforts by Democrats to highlight Trumps choice of finance-industry insiders for key administration positions despite his antiWall Street rhetoric when he was a candidate.

Knives out for Priebus: Politico writes that administration officials are increasingly putting blame on Trumps chief of staff, Reince Priebus, as the White House struggles to gain its footing nearly two months into the new presidency. More than a dozen Trump aides, allies and others close to the White House said Priebus was becoming a singular target of criticism within the White House.

One senior administration official said theres a real frustration among many, including Trump himself, that things arent going as smoothly as hoped for. The White House, meanwhile, pushed back on the story, with Trump chief strategist Stephen Bannon saying the presidents agenda is being implemented in record time, which shows you what a great job Reince is doing.

Also see: Opinion: With wiretapping tweets, Trump undermines the presidency.

Regulation tally: Federal agencies and the GOP-led Congress have delayed, suspended or reversed more than 90 regulations in the month and a half since Trump took office, according to a tally by the New York Times. The Times called the effort one of the most significant shifts in regulatory policy in recent decades, with dozens more rules possibly being eliminated in the coming weeks.

Read more from the original source:
Republicans to introduce health bill this week | Knives out for Reince Priebus, Trump's chief of staff - MarketWatch

President Trump and congressional Republicans are poised to roll back a series of Obama-era worker safety regulations targeted by business groups, starting with a rule that would require federal contractors to disclose and correct serious safety violations.

The Senate is set to vote Monday evening to eliminate the regulation, dubbed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule. Finalized in August and blocked by a court order in October, the rule would limit the ability of companies with recent safety problems to complete for government contracts unless they agreed to remedies.

The measure to abolish it has already cleared the House. The next step after the Senate vote would be the White House, where Trump is expected to sign it.

A half-dozen other worker safety regulations are also in Republican crosshairs, with one headed to the Senate floor as soon as this week. Many are directed at companies with federal contracts. Such companies employ 1 in 5 American workers meaning the effort could have wide-ranging effects.

This is the opening salvo of the Republicans war on workers, said Deborah Berkowitz, who was a senior policy adviser at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration when many of the regulations were crafted. It sends a signal that Congress and the administration is listening to big business and their lobbyists and they are not standing up for the interests of the American workers.

[Federal Insider: Fair-pay order for contractors under attack in Congress]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and other leading business groups have urged Congress and the Trump administration to eliminate the regulations, arguing that they discourage businesses from competing for government contracts, thereby reducing jobs.

This is the same old playbook from the left that never changes, said Randy Johnson, the Chambers senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits. Any changes in employment laws proposed by the employer community is disingenuously described as an attack on workers. The left has never seen a regulation they dont like, no matter how many jobs it kills.

Hours before the Senate vote on the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released a staff report that says that 66 of the federal governments 100 largest contractors have at some point violated federal wage and hour laws. Since 2015, the report says, more than a third of the 100 largest OSHA penalties have been imposed on federal contractors.

Too often, federal contractors break labor laws while continuing to suck down millions in taxpayer dollars, Warren said in a statement.

[Hill Republicans move to scrap Obama-era regulations]

That concern prompted the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces regulation. Among the strongest data points: Rodney Bridgett, 37, a worker at a Tysons Foods beef processing plant in Nebraska, was crushed by a piece of heavy equipment when a chain snapped on the plants kill floor in 2012.

Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman called Bridgetts death a tragic accident and said the company aspires to have zero work-related injuries and illnesses, and continue to improve our culture related to safety every day.

OSHA investigators found that Tysons supervisors had repeatedly failed to inspect the faulty chain. While OSHA sought to fine the company, the Obama administration moved separately to target a major source of Tysonss revenue: nearly $300million a year in federal contracts.

The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces regulation was finalized in August. Days later, the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) sued, securing a temporary injunction that prohibited the federal government from implementing it.

ABC and other business groups objected to the rules requirement that companies disclose citations for alleged safety violations that they are still challenging.

They define violations to include mere allegations and citations where the contractors havent had a chance to defend them, said Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy with the Chamber. We consider this a violation of their constitutional due-process rights.

David Madland of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said the rule applies only to companies with contracts worth $500,000 or more. If the rule is eliminated, he said, taxpayers will lose alongside affected workers. One purpose of the rule was to make it easier for federal agencies to identify contractors who were not honest brokers when it came to employee pay.

People who rip off workers rip off the government, Madland said.

After Trumps election, the Chamber and other business groups added the rule to wish lists for regulations they wanted to see eliminated. Republican lawmakers quickly identified a tool to assist in those efforts the rarely used Congressional Review Act (CRA). Approved in 1996, the law had been used only once to kill a worker safety rule that would have forced companies to alter their workstations or change tools and equipment if their employees suffered work-related repetitive-stress injuries.

The CRA allows Congress to roll back recently enacted regulations by a simple majority vote. Once a rule is killed, it is killed forever. No future administration can pass a similar measure unless Congress is persuaded to pass a law instead a far more difficult task.

Reps. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) and Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) are leading the charge to kill Labor Department regulations using the CRA. In addition to the effort to eliminate the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces regulation called the blacklisting rule by the Chamber and many Republican lawmakers Byrne introduced a measure to quash a regulation called the Volks rule.

Adopted in January, the rule responds to a 2012 D.C. Court of Appeals decision Volks Constructors v. Secretary of Labor that limited OSHAs power to issue citations for record-keeping violations older than six months. The new rule gives OSHA authority to issue citations and levy fines against companies for failure to record illnesses, injuries and deaths that date back as far as five years.

Last week, the House voted to kill the Volks rule. If the measure clears the Senate, Trump is expected to sign it.

Byrne said he does not think OSHA needs the Volks rule. If you are determined to be a bad actor, youll be a bad actor, he said. I dont think this is going to encourage noncompliance. I think that OSHA is being lazy on getting its investigations done.

Byrne also called the rule an overreach, saying the changes should have been made in law, not through regulation.

Rep. Robert C. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) is leading efforts to block the rule-killing measures. He argues that Byrnes measure to kill the Volks rule will block OSHAs enforcement efforts and create a safe harbor for those employers who deliberately underreport.

OSHA says staffing levels permit investigators to visit an American business roughly once every 140 years, unless a serious violation is reported.

Scott also defended the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, saying that nothing in the regulation would ban a company from securing a federal contract. He noted that only companies with serious, pervasive, intentional and repeated safety violations would have to report them.

Who qualifies for that who we need to help? Scott said. If you can save money by underpaying your workers and violating OSHA, why should you have a competitive advantage over those who are complying with the law?

Leaders on both sides of the battle hold key committee assignments and have close financial ties with the constituencies they are championing. Foxx and Byrne received hundreds of thousands in donations for their 2016 reelection campaigns from employees of federal contractors and their trade groups, including ones that have been at the forefront of efforts to kill the two worker safety rules. Foxx received $7,500 from employees of ABC, while Byrne received $10,000 from ABC employees.

Scott, meanwhile, is a long-standing champion of unions and civil rights groups who are in favor of the keeping the Obama-era rules. During Scotts 2016 reelection campaign, more than half of his donations came from union employees, including $10,000 from the United Steelworkers and $30,000 from the United Food and Commercial Workers union, according to records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

More here:
Republicans poised to roll back worker safety regulations - Washington Post

As a father of three children, Ive been drinking from the fire hose for a while now when it comes to collecting and sharing nuggets of wisdom that will (hopefully) serve them well as they become adults.

May the self-proclaimed people of reason and science be praised! What a tour de force of truth they offer us on a daily basis. Like the following five life lessons I want to make sure I nail down with my princess before I send her off into the world:

1. If you are ever photographed while on your knees, and a male of the leftist persuasion makes a sexual joke about you, make sure to publicly apologize for having put your feet up on the White House couch in the first place. I mean, sometimes you are just asking for it. Unless you pose partially topless while endorsing a classic childrens fairy tale. Then thats just art. And besides, real sexual harassment looks like not wanting to fund Planned Parenthood. The right to execute innocent babies shall not be infringed no matter what science says about when life begins. And as powerful as that is to contemplate in its own right, it becomes all the more compelling if you say it while wearing a pussy hat.

2. If you ever become a florist, a baker, or a nun, just plan on declaring your conscience dead from the get-go. Your God isnt wanted here. But if you must continue to insert a deity into your daily discussions, make sure your golden calf is purple and covered with glitter. Or try Islam, which is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for pretty much everything. Not only can it magically supply you with more rights as a foreigner than someone whose descendants came over on the Mayflower, but it can also give you a really cool alibi for murder. Thats what one actor/graduate of Marie Harfs jobs program had to say about the natural consequences of Muslims not getting more acting roles: those guilty of such clear Islamophobia will turn to violent jihad as an alternative. So sayeth the religion of peace. Its all about justifiable triggers and safe spaces, really. If you are a Muslim, you get all of them. If you are a Christian, you get zero, and youre a bigot. The Constitution seems clear on that.

3. If you want to make a successful run in the business and/or entertainment world, make sure you avoid things like making money and consistently drawing an audience. Instead, get on board with a project that comes in eight parts and already bores the hell out of, if not outright disturbs, its audience after just one viewing. Because its still a win if it replaces something people actually care about watching during primetime television. Propaganda is fun like that. And if people ever take issue with your ham-fisted tactics, always remember that you have two very powerful weapons in your arsenal to defeat them: temper tantrums and violence. Because tolerance hurts darn it.

4. If you want to be president one day, and defended as bullet proof when accused of possibly wire-tapping your eventual replacement, make sure you lay a solid foundation of unassailable ethical alibis to offer you cover. Like if you like your doctor, you can keep it. Or wiretapping journalists who irritate you. Or making the IRS your rottweiler. Or winking at the sanctity of marriage just to win an election, before turning around and choking the country with your rainbow flag. Or believing you have the most magical pen and phone in the history of America. Or encouraging your secretary of state and national security adviser to lie about how and why people died in Benghazi. See what I mean? Bulletproof. The press will never cut through that curtain of integrity. Not that theyll even try.

5. Finally, if you want to tap into the unlimited potential of being created in the image and likeness of the creator of the universe, things like the Bible and the Declaration of Independence are for suckers. Who on earth would want to be guided by that which so many martyrs died a gruesome death for, or willingly sacrificed their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors? Not when you can be guided by the likes of philosopher kings like Chris Cuomo, Lena Dunham, or Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi D-Calif. (F, 10%). Look how far they are willing to stick their neck out for total depravity and sheer asshattery over and over and over again. So inspiring. In fact, Ive rarely seen such commitment except in Islam.

Unless Im feeling pretty and sick enough in the soul to deny the science dangling between my legs, then I belong on the cover of Vanity Fair. Where I will instantly become a better woman than you could ever hope to be, my daughter.

Have a nice life.

Steve Deace is broadcast nationally each weeknight on CRTV. He is the author of the book A Nefarious Plot.

Read more from the original source:
5 lessons progressives inspired me to teach my teenage daughter - Conservative Review

It is clear that today what passes for news is essentially opinion. The left-leaning media (so called liberal) have shown more intolerance than what is essentially called right-wing by them. They hate to lose. And when they do, the savage attacks on the non-liberals show their intolerance.

Take the case of Shazia Ilmi not being allowed to speak at her Alma MaterJamia Millia Islamia on a seminar on Women empowerment. Though she was invited, the invite was withdrawn at the last minute without explanation. General Bakshi and Tarek Fatah were invited to a prestigious club in Kolkata for a seminar and Mamata Banerjee made the institution cancel the event.

None of the liberals had massive rallies against such acts against Freedom of Speech. In fact, most news channels did not even carry this.

Be it the Indian, American or British media all seem to have a markedly liberal point of view that does not allow any dissent. Talk about freedoms. Only the Left it seems has the freedom to speak and rally.

The word intolerance is used all the time when there is a blowback on whatever the liberals say or do. No matter how innocuous the subject, such as spreading yoga worldwide, the liberal left will have something unpleasant to say about it.

The people have pretty much told the liberal media that they dont rule the dialogue and the social media is, thus, thriving. Whether it is the New York Times or the New Yorker, very few read them and many think they are biased towards the extreme left.

Change in spite of the media has happened in India, Britain and USA and will follow in most European countries. One has stopped watching Indian TV news as once again there is little news but a great deal of debate. What passes for news is the opinion of the anchor or the owners of the channels who have their own agendas.

Yesterday, I watched the news briefly and saw an event, that made me think:Arun Purie congratulating his daughter for India Today TV getting the award for best English and Hindi news. To me an award is a self-perpetuating exercise by an organisation where they form a club of sorts and give each other awards. Whether it is the Oscars, Grammys, etc. They form a small cabal who decide who gets an award. Is this the peoples choice? No! The people are not consulted and mostly unaware of how and who chooses these awards.

Newspapers, magazines and such organisations pump up their reader/viewership to garner more advertising revenue, so their own statistics are always suspect. So, are these awards really relevant? Are the best reporters getting awards? Is there even such a thing as investigative reporting left in India?

I saw a portion of The big fight where the issue being debated was Is free speech being curtailed now. Well, in fact no. When the Congress realised that Modi was a potential threat way back in 2004 a sustained campaign was launched to discredit him this is a long story and much has been written on this. The US media did the same for Trump. The people lost trust and switched to social media. And voted Trump as president, in spite the hundreds of negative articles that appeared on him by CNN, New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post and many others. They switched off.

So, I looked up once again at media viewership and came up with this revealing data on TV news viewership.

Top 5 English news channels viewership (BARC data week Feb 2017):

Times Now 798,000 India Today 498,000 CNN-IBN 404,000 NDTV 376,000 BBC 184,000

Hindi News Channels (Feb 2017)

Simply put two million people watch the top five English channels put together. And 485 million people watch the top five Hindi news channels.

The conclusion is most of what we see in the English news channels is really not relevant in the context of forming public opinion. A viewership of just two million in a country of 1.3 billion is too small to be of any significance. Wake up reporters and anchors. Your air- conditioned environment plus huge salaries and popularity are at stake. Beat the streets and start feeling the pulse of all Indians not just the Liberals and their cronies.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Read more from the original source:
The liberals and their false angst on intolerance - Times of India (blog)