If you’ve ever played Red Dead Redemption, you probably lassoed people, thrown them on a railroad track, and watched a train run them over. It was an excellent way to deal with a posse of bounty hunters that went after you and lost. That is essentially what has happened to Steve Bannon. The Trump Administration laid into Bannon, not only saying he’s lost his mind, but also diminished the accomplishments Bannon claims.
Here’s the full statement:
Statement from the President of the United States
Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.
Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn’t as easy as I make it look. Steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country. Yet Steve had everything to do with the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama held for more than thirty years by Republicans. Steve doesn’t represent my base—he’s only in it for himself.
Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.
We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down.
To many conservatives, this is a welcomed victory. To liberals, this is Russian conspiracy fodder. After all, Steve Bannon did just switch sides on the Russian Farce issue. So Trump can expect that headache for weeks to come. Donald Trump Jr. went even more personal because Bannon’s comments were aimed at him as well.
Wow, Just looked at the comments section on Breitbart. Wow. When Bannon has lost Breitbart, he’s left with . . . umm, nothing.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 3, 2018
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 3, 2018
Steve had the honor of working in the White House & serving the country. Unfortunately, he squandered that privilege & turned that opportunity into a nightmare of backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying & undermining the President. Steve is not a strategist, he is an opportunist
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 3, 2018
Ben Shapiro has an especially scathing response to Bannon.
Ben Shapiro Daily Wire: #WAR: Bannon Goes To War With Trump, Calls Trump-Russia Campaign Activities ‘Treasonous’
None of this is a surprise coming from a leech on the ass of power, a man who rode Michele Bachmann’s coattails to Sarah Palin’s coattails to Andrew Breitbart’s coattails to Donald Trump’s and the Mercer family’s coattails. It’s also not a shock from a fellow whose only contribution to the White House was apparently leaking regularly to reporters for The New York Times. Bannon’s an ambitious fellow, and his connection to power has now been reportedly cut off on both the monetary side (the going rumor has it that the Mercers aren’t funding his side projects anymore) and the political side (he’s not on good terms with the Trump White House, either). That means he has to build a brand of his own. So far, his branding isn’t going well — it turns out endorsing a credibly accused child molester and then utilizing your publication to dig up dirt on the accusers doesn’t do much for your Q rating. So now Bannon, who always had more balls than brains, is turning on the hand that fed him.
Great America Alliance (GAA), the super PAC that has operated as a vehicle for Bannon’s endorsement and sports a top Bannon ally as an advisor, issued a statement noting that Bannon and the group “did not always agree on candidates or issues.”
“Our top priority is supporting President Trump and advancing an America First agenda,” Ed Rollins, the group’s chairman, said in the statement. “Whether or not Bannon shares this priority, it won’t change our focus one bit.”
Great America Alliance’s statement could provide some cover for endorsed candidates who don’t want to be tied to Bannon right now or seen as opposing Trump.
Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.V.), who is facing Bannon-endorsed state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in the primary, became the first candidate to publicly seize on the feud.
“After Steve Bannon’s vicious attacks on President Trump and his family, Patrick Morrisey should immediately disavow Bannon’s support,” Jenkins said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
In the last 24 hours, Trump has basically told Kim Jong Un and Steve Bannon to go f*ck themselves.
He’s not going to put up with anybody’s bullshit and this is why people love him.
— Educating Liberals (@Education4Libs) January 3, 2018
And just like that…
The left supported Steve Bannon. pic.twitter.com/A7OKDkcIZr
— MAGA PILL 🇺🇸 (@MAGAPILL) January 3, 2018
Trump hires only the best people.*
*Offer not valid for Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Omarosa, Tom Price, Seb Gorka, Reince Priebus, Anthony Scaramucci, Sean Spicer, or Steve Bannon.
— Leon Wolf (@LeonHWolf) January 3, 2018
Steve Bannon tried to do to the Trump presidency what he did to Breitbart News. Trump’s nuclear button was bigger.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 3, 2018
These events revealed that a lot of our assumptions about Steve Bannon were incorrect. He’s not a mastermind. He wasn’t that close to Trump. He’s not a Party Boss (although I mentioned that he sucked as one). Steve Bannon is just a brown-nosing sycophant and now he just got explosive diarrhea in his face. People won’t want to be around that stink, which is a welcomed victory for conservatives in 2018. People don’t want to read stink either, so we shall wait and see what happens to Breitbart.
Face Off: Congress v Zuckerberg
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional testimony revealed much about both the social media industry, and our government’s mentality.
First, Zuckerberg. He seemed “in over his head,” repeatedly inserting “run out the clock” words and phrases into his responses to evidently hide his nervousness (do you blame him?). How many times did he say, “Congressman!” and “that’s a great question”? (Well, of course it was a great question, I waited for someone to say, because if it wasn’t so great, I wouldn’t have asked it!) Zuckerberg time and time again seemed to be buying time, running seconds off each elected representative’s four or five minutes of allotted time.
Zuckerberg got buffeted by representatives on privacy, on European regulations, and most notably by Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Steve Scalise on the subject of political bias.
Yet Zuckerberg disappointed before a worldwide audience. He had a chance to tell the world that:
1. no, a private tech company is not an unpaid deputy of the government, acting with the authority and power of the state;
2. A private tech company is not acting
in loco parentis when it obtains user information, and
3. Users across the world are free to use, or leave, Facebook and that these freedoms often exceed the freedoms people enjoy under the laws of most nations in the world today. Facebook, warts and all, is one of the most democratic institutions on the planet!
Instead, Zuckerberg came to Capitol Hill, showing contrition over the involvement of Cambridge Analytica (a third party as to which Facebook’s responsibility is unclear and dubious). What we saw — what the world saw — was the United States Congress bullying a private social media company.
Now, Zuckerberg is hardly a sympathetic figure. Many people envy him for his fantastic wealth and profile, and for his youth. Also, Silicon Valley and indeed much of American big business is quite leftist (Zuckerberg acknowledged this). But his beating — which he handled pretty well, all things considered — was both undeserved and likely to backfire.
Some representatives used the hearings to preen, showboat and showcase their “fighting for the common man” bonafides, and any business leader makes for a great whipping boy these days. But almost everyone grilling Zuckerberg showed a zeal for flexing the awesome powers of government.
There are many problems with the operations of major social media platforms. The growing publicity surrounding these problems is already causing reform, and in some cases, boycotts and departures from the platforms, and innovations by new competitors.
All we got from Washington, DC was a group of elected representatives reminding the tech innovators of America of “who’s the boss.”
I can’t help but think that, across the world, innovators and disruptors are heeding that message. So are, I fear, America’s competitors.
Paving a greener California, $40000/mile at a time.
Many weird ideas come out of California. Painting roads a lighter color to reduce heat in order to combat global warming is a new one. It is well known that paved surfaces are hotter that natural surfaces. So consequentially cities create heat islands through urban sprawl. Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti, is a vocal critic of Trump, especially when Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord. Last June, Eric Garcetti was quoted saying:
“Climate change is a fact of life that people in Los Angeles and cities around the world live with every day. It is a grave threat to our health, our environment, and our economy — and it is not debatable or negotiable,” said Mayor Garcetti. “This is an urgent challenge, and it’s much bigger than one person. With the President pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, L.A. will lead by committing to the goals of the accord — and will work closely with cities across America and the world to do the same.”
It appears $40000/mile every seven years is part of the effort for LA to lead the country in fighting climate change.
“We’re exploring ways to reduce the heat island effect by reducing the absorption of heat in the built environment.”
Street Services, working in conjunction with GuardTop LLC, an asphalt coating manufacturer based in Dana Point, had first tested the cool pavement seal in the Sepulveda Basin.
Asphalt at a parking lot at the Balboa Sports Complex once averaged 160 degrees in summer. After the seal was applied two years ago, company officials say, surface temperatures dropped to between 135 to 140 degrees.
Now, after rigorous testing for durability and wet skid potential, the CoolSeal coating was being slathered across a half block of Jordan Avenue just north of Hart Street near the headwaters of the Los Angeles River.
If the new seal could boost solar reflectivity —and dramatically cool a street lined with two-story apartments in the hottest region of the San Fernando Valley — it could do it anywhere, city officials said.
The experiment will soon be duplicated in 14 other council districts before the end of June. If successful, city officials hope to encourage manufacturers to help develop cool pavement that could be incorporated into a multimillion-dollar drive to fix a backlog of L.A.’s failing streets.
“I’m thrilled to be here. This is a great day for all of us. We look forward to seeing what the results will be,” said Kevin James, president of the Los Angeles Board of Public Works.
A CoolSeal coating could cost an estimated $40,000 per mile and last seven years, city officials said. But that’s subject to change pending pavement innovation.
“We’re going to try to make Los Angeles as cool as possible,” said Jeff Luzar, national sales director for GuardTop, a privately owned firm that has covered coated mostly playgrounds and parking lots. “We’re going to be the coolest island in Southern California.”
Average temperatures in Los Angeles have risen 5 degrees in the past 100 years on account of the heat island effect produced by miles of asphalt freeways, roads, parking lots, roofs and more, climatologists say. In summer, temperatures have risen an average 10 degrees.
In addition, extreme heat days near 100 degrees have risen from two a year in 1906 to 24, while their duration has increased from a few days in a row to heat waves of two weeks, said climatologist Bill Patzert of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
“I’m all for it,” Patzert said of the cooler pavement. “We could certainly stop the rise — and perhaps reverse it.”
Unfortunately, he added, the urban forest across Los Angeles is dying because of insufficient watering during the recent drought. “They can paint the streets gray,” he said, “but when all these trees die, you’ll see a dramatic increase in the heat island effect in the whole Basin.”
The lack of fiscal responsibility is reason enough that this idea should be thrown out upon arrival. The idea isn’t bad. Reducing city heat does have a public benefit, in the summer. However, $40000 is comparable to a person’s yearly salary. That’s a lot of cash just to paint about one mile of roadway. California has problems and environmental concerns, and these concerns ought to be addressed. But the most pressing concerns are sourced from the fact that California is overpopulated.
California could stand to benefit from more plants as noted in the article. But plants require water, of which California has struggling issues with. California’s booming agriculture requires a lot of water and the entire country would hurt if it went thirsty. This was a foreseeable issue that California is behind on addressing. California should be leading the world in desalinization, thus watering its state and perhaps other states as well. But instead, they would rather focus on high price low reward methods of combating environmental concerns. Environmental policies should keep to a strict cost-benefit analysis. Eric Garcetti needs to learn that unlike climate change, fiscal responsibility should be non-negotiable.
Hazel doesn’t hold back against Woodall in GA7 debate
Marines are known as fearless, and this held true as Shane Hazel, the former Force Recon Marine, took on establishment incumbent Ron Woodall in the Republican debate for the Georgia 7th Congressional District Thursday night. The two traded barbs, but while Hazel’s centered around Woodall’s repeated betrayals of his conservative constituents, all Woodall could point to was Hazel’s lack of political experience and criticism for his plans to scale back the out of control leviathan that is the US federal government. Hazel in particular noted Woodall’s most recent snub of a conservative agenda when he voted in favor of the $1.3 Trillion omnibus bill that thrilled Democrats and agitated the most fiscally conservative members of Congress such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and the entire House Freedom Caucus. The omnibus bill included: $500 Million for Planned Parenthood, $30 Billion for a tunnel in New York, and continued to fund Sanctuary Cities, yet included only a pittance for the proposed border wall.
Woodall implied that Hazel only wanted to say “no” to bills instead of saying “yes,” ignoring the fact that that is precisely what conservatives want Congress to do after 8 years of the Obama Administration getting pretty much whatever it wanted to grow the size and scope of government. Further, Woodall appeared disinterested throughout the debate, or at the very best, amused, as if the debate were merely a formality and that the nomination for his reelection were a foregone conclusion. Hazel, by contrast, had the intent look of a man trying to save his children’s future, and by extension, the entire country’s future as well.
Hazel detailed his plans to me in an exclusive interview a few weeks ago, and has maintained his opposition to the GOP’s lack of fiscal discipline and its unwillingness to put a stop to the legacy policies of the previous administration such as Obamacare and a lack of border enforcement. I sat down with him for a post-debate interview.
BW: How do you feel the debate went?
SH: I’ll let the crowd be the judge. The crowd was hugely supportive post debate, hugging us and telling us how much they supported us. We’ve had a huge outpouring of support since the debate and it shows that people are ready for a change and not the establishment anymore.
BW: What do you think it says that Woodall could only point to your lack of political experience and kept attacking your ideas to scale back the size of government?
SH: I think it shows how out of touch he is. I’ve supported him every time he has voted in line with the constitution. There is no secret sauce. Simply follow your oath and I’ll support you. Rob Woodall is not doing that. His last question to me on what bills I would say “yes” to shows this clearly.
BW: For many conservatives the line between Republicans and Democrats has gotten ever more blurry. Why do you think the one gentleman in the audience reacted so strongly to your suggestion that Woodall run as a Democrat? Many conservatives wonder the same about MANY Republicans in the House and Senate.
SH: The gentleman in question is named Toddy Lentz and he is not a private citizen, but rather running for the same seat as an independent. I honestly think he was a Woodall plant. He’s a big Woodall fan and basically endorsed Woodall. He actually tried to warn me before the debate began to “be nice.” He’s a constant critic of mine, and has a web page dedicated to just bashing me. Apparently I’m living rent-free in his head.
BW: Do you feel the debate accomplished the things you wanted it to? I know from speaking to Banks Wise in a previous interview this wasn’t easy to get.
SH: Absolutely worth the effort for this sitting congressman to have to sit and try to defend his record.
BW: Do you think Woodall voting in favor of this extraordinarily unpopular omnibus bill and then coming back here just days later for a debate shows a level of entitlement to renomination?
SH: Yes. This is what happens. They pass spending to make their lobbyist big donors happy and then come back to their district and try to make everything seem fine and dandy when people know it’s not. People are mad about this bill and I don’t think the plan is going to work this time. He doesn’t understand why Trump won, and that’s because people are frustrated with politics as usual.
You can view the entire debate from Hazel’s Facebook page here.