FACEBOOK: SOCIAL MEDIA'S MASKED ANARCHISTS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, OR ME!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!

FACEBOOK: SOCIAL MEDIA'S MASKED ANARCHISTS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, OR ME! 

For months now I’ve been ‘error free’ posting my articles and research on Facebook, and because of that ‘permitted’ to post my thoughts and findings on Obama's political correctness platform, and the division it caused in America! 

I woke up around 5am this morning on Trump’s first 100-day evaluation only to find that I couldn't share my views with other friends and political pages that I have been a member of for a very long time. I’m told that it’s because of the speed in which I post to other pages, and now I can’t use that function of sharing anymore. I tried to go directly to a page that I am a member of to post directly and not by ‘sharing,’ and the same message popped up. I next went to Facebook’s notification page that gives you the reasons why, like in the past, and there’s nothing there outlining the reason, the time I have to spend on the ‘penalty box’ bench, or the list of the required amount of time between posts, the number of posts allowed within a time frame, or the speed limit sign that’s nonexistent anywhere in the Facebook’s vague criteria’s for posting on Facebook. My postings have nothing to do with commerce and advertising, or making a buck, but exercising my America’s Constitutionally protected rite granted by our Constitutional first Amendment, ‘Freedom of Speech’

After watching what’s been going within America’s colleges and universities, and the fight allowing conservative views in making the case against illegal immigration silenced, is in part, the reason I was blocked. Facebook defended Hillary’s comments about the first and second Amendments having room for regulations should make you wonder what she would have done to the constitution if she had won. Facebook leader Mark Zuckerberg has always agreed with regulating freedom of speech, and will continue to short circuit and stifle anything that has to do with making America great again, conservative views on America’s domestic and foreign policies, and outsider non-politician President Trump’s pro-constitutional, anti-globalist mandate that were given the stamp of approval by the ‘Will’ of the American people in the last election! 

I thought that the following note to Facebook's progressive editorial department stifler’s was the right way to:

“I've been posting to these groups, that I'm a member of, for a very long time, and believe that an error was made in your determination of my status. I slowed up my posting and spread it out over 3 times in a day to 35 at a time every couple of hours, and there hasn’t been a problem in  the last 8 months, why now?......is this the new silencing agenda of conservative values like on America's colleges and universities, or just an honest attempt to curtail social medias progressive agenda in silencing speech...I've never received a Facebook guideline or book of rules about the number of posts I can post, so it must be just subjective, based on content, and not etched in stone. I guess then it has to be solely based on what ‘Facebook’ believes to be fake news, and subject to only Facebook’s opinion, and not fact!  ..... I'm a numbers guy, so what's the right or wrong number of posts, the speed of which I post, the time frame in which I 'CAN' post, and I'll conform! For Facebook to ignore and disrespect the constitutional right of the first Amendment, and subjective and hidden from view by Facebook only draws suspicion from not only myself but others, SO WHAT ARE THE RULES OF POSTING BY THE NUMBERS?.......and you say ????????”

I think I already know the response already, and as long as they’re not that ‘specific’ but vague, and remain in that noncommittal rule of law gap of regulations and protecting the first Amendment, can use like Obama did when he bypassed the Constitution to rewrite the immigration laws through intent and interpretation, then Facebook will be able to thrive under the guise of following the rule of law, and the Constitution!

FACEBOOK IS TURNING TO FACT-CHECKERS TO FIGHT FAKE NEWS!  12/15/2016

The company is giving content from fact-checking organizations unprecedented visibility in the News Feed.

Facebook today announced several initiatives to help reduce the spread of fake news, and a major element involves giving fact-checking organizations unprecedented prominence in the News Feed.

The largest social network in the world is partnering with organizations that have signed on to the International Fact-Checking Network (ICFN) fact-checkers’ code of principles to enable them to verify selected links being shared on Facebook and have those fact-checks attached to the original link. This is the first-time Facebook has given third parties special placement in the News Feed, which is the biggest single referrer of traffic to news websites in the United States and a huge traffic driver in other parts of the world. This move comes after Facebook faced intense scrutiny for the spread of fake news and misinformation on its platform during the election.

“Symbolically, this is huge,” Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the ICFN, told BuzzFeed News when asked about the significance of this partnership for fact-checkers.

He also cautioned that “we’re going to have to wait and see how the solutions announced by Facebook work in practice and how they are scaled up worldwide to determine what significance this has for fact-checking and the battle against fake news.”

Adam Mosseri, the VP of product management for News Feed, told BuzzFeed News Facebook is not paying the checking organizations for their participation, but said their sites could benefit from the additional traffic that this new level of exposure could bring.

He also said this and the other new initiatives — which involve a tweak to the News Feed ranking algorithm, easier ways for users to report false content, and new ways to prevent scammers from making money from completely fake news — come in response to concerns about the spread of misinformation on Facebook.

Facebook is initially focused on attacking “the worst of the worst” of fake news, according to Mosseri. He defined that as “clear hoaxes that are intentionally false and usually spread by spammers for financial gain.”

“Fake news is something we have were looking at before the last month or two, but I would say that the urgency around fake news has definitely increased given the feedback we received from the community,” Mosseri told BuzzFeed News.

How It Works

Here’s how the partnership works and how it will change how some links look in your News Feed: Participating partners will have access to a special online queue that will show links Facebook determined may be suitable for a fact-check. Links can end up in the queue because users have reported them as false, the viral nature of the link warrants a closer look, the source of the link is “masquerading as a news site,” or, for example, a lot of comments say the story is false or misleading. One or multiple partners can fact-check a link.

If checkers rate the content of the link as false, the resulting fact-check(s) will be attached to the link in News Feed, thereby alerting users to potential factual issues. So-called disputed links will also have their reach adversely affected in News Feed, per Mosseri.

This is what a disputed piece of content will look like in News Feed:

“[The fact-checkers] can dispute an article and link to their explanation and then provide context on Facebook so people and the community can decide for themselves whether they want to trust an article or share it,” Mosseri said.

The queue of checkable links is already operational and at least some participating partners have begun submitting their articles to be attached to disputed content.

Concerns Over Bias

Conservatives in the United States have over the years criticized fact-checking organizations for having a liberal bias. The owner of a large hyper partisan conservative Facebook page and website recently told BuzzFeed News he thinks Facebook as an organization also has a liberal bias.

Mosseri emphasized that this initial partnership is focused on purely fake news, and not on checking claims from politicians or wading into partisan disputes.

“Fake news means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, but we are specifically focused on the worst of the worst — clear intentional hoaxes,” he said.

Aaron Sharockman, the executive director of PolitiFact, told BuzzFeed News that his and other checking sites often face accusations of bias and said they focus on making their work as transparent as possible so readers can make up their own minds.

“I think that at some level you are never going to be able to satisfy certain critics, particularly very partisan ones,” he said. “At PolitiFact we’ve been doing this nine years and have published 13,000 fact-checks and we have heard criticism of perceived bias from the left and from the right.”

He said he expected Facebook to take heat for aligning with fact-checkers, but credited the company with taking steps to address the spread of fake news.

“They’re sticking their neck out a little bit and I think they’re gonna have to stick it out a little bit more because there are so many falsehoods flowing through Facebook feeds that Facebook is going to be very busy attacking these issues,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mantzarlis expects the partnership will result in a huge increase of applications to sign on to the IFCN’s code.

“I imagine that inundated may be an understatement,” he said. “But if this decision by Facebook leads to a surge in genuine fact-checking projects, so much the better.”

In preparation for that deluge, and because of the new prominence checking organizations will receive in Facebook, the IFCN is reworking its vetting process.

“We’re now adapting the process to set up a vetting process and ensure compliance,” he said. “Aspiring signatories must go through that process. Existing signatories will also be vetted and if they don’t meet the criteria, will be delisted.”

He also emphasized that signing onto the IFCN code is just the minimum requirement to be included in the Facebook checking project.

“First, it is important to note that Facebook decides which fact-checkers to include; the IFCN code is just the ‘minimum condition,’” he said in an email.

In response to a follow-up question about how organizations will be approved for the third-party fact-checking program, a Facebook spokesperson said participants “must be signatories” of the IFCN code. As of this writing, six US-based organizations have signed on: The Associated Press, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, the Washington Post, and ABC News. The last was only added as a signatory two days ago, and AP joined the day of the announcement.

Mantzarlis said ABC News applied early last week. Its website lists two stories for its Fact or Fake feature. AP has been publishing fact-checks for several years. ~~By Craig Silverman, BuzzFeed News Media Editor, a Friend of America!

I don’t know if they will even let this to be posted on my profile page, but if it isn’t please share to the pro- America pages that you enjoy and members of, and find my daily M-F post of ‘While You Were Dozing’ at:

www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com 

From my blog, you can post to Facebook directly.

I always, when Facebook closed me down, was given a date when I could continue, but this time there was nothing to indicate when the block will be lifted! I will continue to write and post what I believe and research on my FB profile page, but if you would help me share to other mutual friends and pages, that would be greatly appreciated ….

THANKS!

 Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. 
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

PROGRESSIVE'S 100 DAY WAR ON COMMON SENSE REFORM, AND THE AMERICAN VOTER'S MANDATE!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
PROGRESSIVE'S 100 DAY WAR ON COMMON SENSE REFORM, AND THE AMERICAN VOTER'S MANDATE! 

America needs and wants what President Trump promised during his Presidential campaign, and now that he’s doing his best to deliver on his promises of common sense Healthcare reform, tax reform, self-dependency on energy reform, negotiating fair trade deals by renegotiating NAFTA, and dropping out TPP, and keeping America safe! The progressive left has done everything in its power, with the help of the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, to block what every American has been wishing for over the last 8 years of Obama’s anti-American Socialist, Globalist and racist agenda!

The Democratic Party has become the party of ‘NO,’ and the political progressive ‘Scrooge’ that believes the opposite of everything good and positive that the American people are feeling ever since President Trump took office. The Democrats, who run sanctuary cities don’t believe in following Federal Law, don’t believe that freedom of speech is not all what its built up to be, will fall on their swords to save a failing Obamacare because it’s owned by the first Black President, and the only signature accomplishment that Obama, through the ‘Nuclear Option,’ and never received 1 vote from a Republican, is the only chance Obama has of having any legacy at all. They obviously don’t care about the rule of law, the Constitution, or the safety of Americans against terrorism. They believe that practicing Sharia law in America is Ok, even though, by law, it's prohibited from US immigration - 1952 McCarran Walters ACT rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.

All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life's guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.

Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion.

Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any "organization" that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited, but progressives still use the moral, and 'who we are' argument to justify their 'open arms' narrative, and accepting anyone from anywhere no matter what their intentions are. Do they ask these people what their foreign religious and ideological rule of law represents, and then ask if they run parallel to our constitutional rights and freedoms? What should scare all loyal Democrats is in this time when the world is in turmoil, do you want to continue supporting the unvetted illegal immigrants and refugees with taxpayers dollars, or use that same money to help our veterans and homeless get assistance and medical care when they can’t get a needed doctor appointment for 2 months, a bed to sleep in, or a hot meal! 

We are witnessing the end result of the ‘Nuclear Option’ and the stacking of our courts with progressive justices who use interpretation and intent, and not the rule of law, to block the unvetted outside interests that threaten Americans and the safety of this exceptional country. It’s time that these unconstitutional practicing Obama justices be disbarred and sent packing for justices who can follow the letter of the law, the rule of law, and follow our founding father’s constitutional republics blueprint!

Obama sidestepped, bypassed, and ignored the Constitution, and with the help of the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, Eric Holder, James Comey, and Loretta Lynch, along with one or two leaders of our intelligence community, managed to hide and protect their clandestine plot to transform America! I guess it's easy when you use taxpayer dollars to fund, pay off, and enable our enemies to help them grow stronger, and then using those same taxpayer dollars to fund illegal unvetted immigrants and refugees while defunding and socially engineering our own militaristic line of defense.

America is the only nation that remains financially stable compared to the rest of the world, and even though the size of the national debt is pushing $20 Trillion, you should know that our government’s bureaucracy is a good part of why the national debt is so big, and only going to get bigger. If there ever was a way to replace these blood sucking pencil pushing bureaucrats, then you should know that the technical abilities and computer geniuses that were trained and taught here in America, can do the job. If we cut the cost of these bureaucrats, we could start working on paying back our vets, building our military back up, help the ‘wall’ get started, helping our lost millennial generation with direction and civic responsibility, and start working on getting rid of that ‘huuuge’ national debt.   Political nepotism runs rampant in our government, and with the overkill redundancy of federal programs, agencies, and institutions that taxpayer’s needlessly pay for, can be fixed, and that there is still hope in bringing America exceptionalism back from the brink of extinction.

I don’t see how Trumps first 100 days could be anything less than the best 100 days of any other President in modern times, and no matter how much the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, and the Progressive left try to steal the thunder, America is on the right path to being great again. I don’t know about you, but I don’t need to be told how this countries positive enthusiasm isn’t the direct result of President Trump’s campaign promises, and keeping his word, but the left and agenda journalists will try to claim that the positive Trump policies were just left over initiatives by Ex-President, Barrack ‘Insane’ Obama, and his merry band of political ideological thieves, and the actual one that should be Trump's successes, because of Obama's table setting claims of patriotism. 

TRUMPS’S 100 DAYS OF MEDIA HOSTILITY

The time has come for the media to pull out the artificial measuring stick of 100 days to evaluate President Trump. If they're kind, he'll get an I for "incomplete." But it's more likely they'll use other I words like "inability," "incompetence" or "incoherence." Whatever they say, it won't be kind.

But eight years ago? Time magazine's Joe Klein graded President Obama with an S for "spectacular" and "stupendous," saying, "The legislative achievements have been stupendous -- the $789 billion stimulus bill, the budget plan that is still being hammered out (and may, ultimately, include the next landmark safety-net program, universal health insurance)."

Notice that Klein had already granted Obama an A for things that had not passed (and with Obamacare, it would take more than another year).

Associated Press reporter Liz Sidoti must have seen the dearth of policy achievements. So, instead, she gave Obama a rave review based on his personality. "It didn't take long for Barack Obama -- for all his youth and inexperience -- to get acclimated to his new role as the calming leader of a country in crisis," she wrote. "Rookie jitters? Far from it." He spoke in "firm, yet soothing tones." He used a "just-folks approach." He "displayed wonkish tendencies, too," and "engaged in witty banter." And foreign policy, he "struck a statesmanlike stance."

Back then, nobody could tell the difference between the White House propaganda office and the press corps.

Now it looks like total war.

A Media Research Center analysis of the first 80 days of evening news coverage of President Trump revealed that the incessant journalistic negativity of the 2016 campaign has stayed almost exactly the same in 2017. Last October, coverage of Trump was 91 percent negative. Honeymoon? What honeymoon? In the first 98 days of Trump's presidency, absolutely nothing has changed. The barrage continues, to the tune of 89 percent negative coverage.

Just like last fall, the networks have centered their stories not on "news" but on what they find most objectionable about Trump. The most important White House story was Trump's attempt to impose a temporary travel ban on immigrants from seven (and later six) Muslim-majority countries. The coverage was 93 percent negative. The second-biggest story was their obsession over whether Russia hacked the election or improperly coordinated with Trump staffers, which remains completely undocumented. That topic drew 97 percent negative coverage.

Network news anchors have presented President Trump as a terrible liar, and for good measure, as potentially mentally ill. Three days after the inauguration, CBS anchor Scott Pelley snapped that the president engaged in "a weekend of tweeting tantrums and falsehoods." On Feb. 6, he knocked Trump for "presidential statements divorced from reality," and on March 8, he asked Democrat Leon Panetta, "Is it appropriate to ask whether the President is having difficulty with rationality?"

NBC anchor Lester Holt asked on March 20, "After a string of unproven claims, will this president struggle to keep the trust of the American public?" Other journalists call this kind of badgering "pointed truth-telling."

To be sure, President Trump doesn't always have proof for his tweets, such as accusing Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower (which received 99 percent negative coverage). But the coverage of Obama suggests that the media naturally assumed he was always wonderfully honest and competent, the "cool kid in class" who left everyone who met him "star-struck." Criticizing Obama was "not very patriotic."

If the media hadn't spent the last years operating a perpetual adoration machine, then maybe all this hostility toward Trump might seem like an honest evaluation instead of a shamelessly bitter and partisan exercise.

It is they, not he, who lack credibility. ~~By Brent Bozell, a Friend of America!

I guess you can say that President Trump’s first 100 days will be about his ability to learn on the job, and agenda journalist’s hiding in the shadows to catch every mistake President Trump makes while going through the trial and error process that comes with every new President. I believe that he’s already done enough to be considered for a second term, but with the Progressive Left hanging on to their Socialist blanket, can see President Trump’s common-sense promises being rejected at every step for the next 4 years. A hard road to hoe is an understatement, and with the constant drumming of progressive division, political correctness through racist accusations, and voter fraud to insure the Senate doesn’t get to that 60 seat Republican super majority in the Senate in the 2018 midterms, will still need some intuitive Constitutional Democrats to see the error of their way before their frustrated constituency jumps ship and joins the rest of America on top of that victory platform to celebrate America’s greatness again, and celebrating hand in hand as one America!

AFTER ONLY 100 DAYS, ARE WE REALLY LIVING IN TRUMP’S AMERICA?

For the past few months, whenever someone on the left says something particularly insane, conservatives immediately snark back, "This is why Trump won." To a certain extent, they're right: The palpable anger on the radicalized left that helped govern America into political polarization drove the Trump movement. Trump sits in the White House as a result.

But there's a more important question that must be asked as we approach day 100 of the Trump administration: Has Trump actually changed anything in America?

The 100-day mark means little in reality. As Trump points out, it's an arbitrary deadline; there have been presidents who did little in their first 100 days and ended up with a solid legacy (Bill Clinton) and those who did an enormous amount and ended up imploding (Lyndon B. Johnson). But here's what the first 100 days actually do: They set the table.

President Ronald Reagan set the table for his administration by pushing for lower taxes over the protestations of the Democrats and militantly standing against Soviet aggression. President Clinton's failures in his first 100 days set the stage for his move to the center -- by his second term, he declared that the "era of big government is over."

President Barack Obama came into office promising change. That change did not come chiefly in the realm of policy -- his only lasting policy change appears to be Obamacare, which is currently bankrupting itself across the country -- but in the political heart of the country. Before 2009, Americans yearned for unity. It's why Obama was elected. We were tired of the polarization of the Bush years; we were sick of the feeling that half the country wanted the other half gone. Obama pledged to change that.

That pledge came on the back of big-government promises. America could be united, Obama seemed to suggest, if only we believed in him personally. That's what Obama achieved in his first 100 days: He changed the nature of the political debate by suggesting that big government could earn your trust, that he would demonstrate the dedication necessary to turn government into an avatar of this newfound "unity."

Then he utilized government power to push for hardcore leftism, which polarized the country.

Obama's 100-day vision failed. But Trump has yet to replace it with anything new. Trump's "Make America Great Again" sloganeering hasn't promised a new unity of purpose. It has actually exacerbated a reverse polarization. His policies aren't discussed in terms of helping all Americans; they embody a political sectarianism pioneered by Obama and hijacked by Trump. Trump's first 100 days haven't moved the American story in any marked way at all, actually -- we're precisely where we were 101 days ago. That doesn't mean he hasn't had policy victories (most obvious is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch). But it does mean that there is no vision upon which he calls Americans to the table. There are just things he wants and things he doesn't, and Americans he likes and Americans he doesn't.

If past trends hold, that means his administration will continue to be a haphazard agglomeration of random partisan prescriptions without any basis in a thoroughgoing vision of Americanism. We're all here, and he's the president, and that's that. But while such lack of vision can work in an oppositional setting, as a rejection of the status quo, it can't move America forward in any real way.

That's why Trump must decide what he wants America to be, not just what he wants Americans to think of him. He must provide a vision. If he doesn't, he'll be seen as merely a placeholder, a reactionary president living in an America of Barack Obama's making. ~~ By Ben Shapiro, a Friend of America!

 Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. 
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

DID HARRY REID’S ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ HELP THE PARTY OF 'NO' RESHAPE THE COURTS FOR A GENERATION?

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!

DID HARRY REID’S ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ HELP THE PARTY OF 'NO' RESHAPE THE COURTS FOR A GENERATION?

Or did the party of 'NO' self-destruct and abandon the old ‘traditional’ Democratic Party to become the new partisan opposition to constitutionalism, and the party of Socialism, Globalism, and Progressive ideologies? You wouldn’t know it by reading the agenda journalist's account of what America want's as they portray the darkness of the deplorables that voted for Trump, but America is not ready for the 3 ‘ism’s,’ and don’t believe they ever will. I don’t care how many unvetted illegal immigrants and refugees Obama unconstitutionally brought into America and  financially support using taxpayer dollars, but I do care about these illegals being encouraged to vote by a sitting President illegally ,and trying to influence the election of 2016, like the Russians supposedly colluded with Trump to do. The silent majority, which is growing daily as President Trump wheels his version of the Obama ‘Pen and Phone,’ to undo what Obama unconstitutionally attempted to do, and you have to know that Obama didn't write and EO or PM that could be interpreted as being patriotic, constitutional, or keeping America safe, and that's a given!

President Trump, because of 'over the hill and gone' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), now has to navigate through a maze of progressive appeals court justices who won’t be following the rule of law or constitution, but the intent and interpretation of the progressive minded last minute appointed justices that will undermine our founding father’s Constitution, the ‘Will’ of the American people, and the future of America. I don't know if you saw this today, but the 'Progressive' 9th district court of appeals, in California, again used the rhetoric of their interpretation and intent argument to block President Trumps withholding funding actions against Sanctuary cities, just like they did when blocking the 90 day ban on incoming immigrants and refugees from the same terrorist countries recognized by ex President Obama!

Every day I witness the Democratic Party moving closer to extinction, and that's because they haven't put forth any new ideas, haven't assisted Republicans in fixing Obama's only signature accomplishment, and could give a shit about what's, after the 8 year reign of terror and attacks on all the good things America stands for in the world, and use to stand for at home, and that's because of the feckless leadership of the progressive team of Pelosi and Schumer continuing on with the Obama doctrine! They could care less about what American’s want, but chooses to keep doubling down on the Socialist transformation of America. These two leaders are more than willing to go down with the ship that is now being steered by the ‘Newly’ elected, or not, DNC co-Captains of Perez and Ellison, who remain to this day basically unknown to their own party constituency because of the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, not fully vetting or exposing their anti-American ideological beliefs to the remaining  American Democrats who never were asked what they wanted. These two very same, but different political hacks, don’t believe America is exceptional, and still believe that they lost the election because of the Russian influence, and not their anti-Constitutional and rule of law platform. 

There are no short cuts, and even though Harry Reid stacked the lower courts with Progressive justices, President Trump got his first constitutionally guided Supreme Court justice seated, just like he promised he would do, and with current revelations of other sitting Supreme Court Justices contemplating retirement, or untimely deaths, looks like there will be at least 1, and possibly 3 more Supreme Court Justices that President Trump will get to appoint and follow the beliefs set forth in our Constitution, just like Neil Gorsuch. While the Progressive left sinks, like the setting sun slowly does over the anti-freedom of speech California, we can take to heart that this constitutional Republic's future for America appears to be safe, and in good hands. 

Barack ‘Insane’ Obama, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Tom Perez, and Keith Ellison might have won the small battles while side stepping the rule of law and constitution through their interpretation and intent of the law, and stacking the lower courts with progressive justices, but President Trump won the ‘War’ with his first Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, and with the ‘Left’ inspired ‘Nuclear Option’ can be sure that the next 2-3 will be, like Neil Gorsuch, Constitutionally inspired, and hold the rule of law, and constitution close to their hearts, and make them part of every rulings!

The mandated agenda of President Trump should be the focus of a bipartisan congress, but with the help of the agenda journalist and their bosses, the ‘Paid to Report’ Media, the truth has been distorted, and when you hear that 92% of the Main Stream Media is anti-Trump news, you know that you’re not getting the real story, the facts, or the information you need to make an informed decision when deciding on the direction that America should take, and then taking that decision and dropping it into the ballot box. Let’s look back at the history of the ‘Nuclear Option’ and how the ‘left’ through Social Media, and a few patriotic cable news networks, showed how the left played their 'Nuclear Option' cards wrong, and how all Americans dodged the biggest Socialist transformation bullet in the history of America!

December 18, 2014, 6:00 AM EST 

President Barack Obama can thank outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for triggering the "nuclear option" in November 2013 and securing him one of the most robust judicial legacies of any modern president.

In six years, he has appointed a whopping 307 judges, who will shape the law for decades after he leaves office. The final 12 district judges were confirmed in the closing night of the Senate session on Tuesday, Reid's final move before Democrats surrender control of the chamber.

"The Obama Administration and the United States Senate have given Americans the best possible holiday present: the gift of justice," said Nan Aron, the president of the progressive law and policy group Alliance For Justice.

A total of 132 judges were confirmed in the 113th Congress — the most since the 1970s.

Perhaps most significant is his appointment of 53 judges on federal circuit courts, which have the last word on most matters of law. When Obama took office, just one of 13 appeals courts had a majority of Democratic-appointed judges on the active bench. Today, nine of 13 appeals courts have a majority of Democratic appointees.

"There has been an extraordinary onslaught of confirmations in the last year," said Russell Wheeler, an expert on federal courts at the Brookings Institution.

Obama has named the first-ever Native American woman and Indian-American federal judge. He has placed more female and Hispanic judges than any previous president, and more Asian-American and openly gay judges than all other presidents combined.

"Before Obama, 59 percent of the active judges were white males. Now it's down to 51 percent. That's quite a change in 6 years," Wheeler said. "You probably want to have a judiciary that looks like the people it's serving, and if they're all white males then you don't have that."

Until November 2013, Obama lagged behind his predecessors in confirming judges, facing unusual delays by the Senate Republican minority. Then Reid and 51 Democrats triggered the "nuclear option" to scrap the 60-vote threshold for all nominations other than the Supreme Court, advancing some stalled nominations and kicking the process into overdrive. Since then, Obama has outpaced his two predecessors in confirming appellate court judges.

In the last year, Democrats have confirmed 14 of Obama's circuit court nominees, half with fewer than 60 votes. The most salient impact of the "nuclear option" was to add three judges to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely described as the second most powerful federal court, and a feeder to the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans had refused to fill the three vacancies. The nuclear option also freed Obama to appoint some more liberal judges, including Nina Pillard to the D.C. Circuit, who drew comparisons to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and faced GOP opposition — for her work on gender equality.

Research by political scientists Robert Carp and Kenneth Manning finds that Obama's judges are "somewhat more liberal than the Clinton judges but slightly less liberal than the Carter and Johnson jurists," based on an analysis of rulings from 1932 to 2013 by judges appointed by each of the Democratic presidents.

"We've noticed patterns of voting with respect to certain kinds of legislation that gets upheld," Randy Barnett, a respected conservative legal scholar at Georgetown University, said recently. "There are certain executive branch practices that get upheld that would not have before."

For Democrats, the downside of the filibuster rule change is that Republicans have, in protest, slowed down confirmations of even judicial nominees they support, forcing procedural votes when the nominations could otherwise have breezed through.

The bad news for Obama is that the coming Republican majority can veto any judicial nominee during his final two years. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) hinted at revenge if Reid opted to go nuclear, and conservative legal advocates suggest that Republicans would rather have vacancies than bring up judges whom they dislike.

"I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: you'll regret this," McConnell said in November 2013. "And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."

Retiring Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), a staunch opponent of the "nuclear option" and one of just three Democrats who voted against it, said he sees a silver lining to the confirmation of many judges who had been blocked.

"I think there could be [an upside] in that area — that more judges that have been confirmed than otherwise would, short-term," Levin told TPM. "Yeah."

The White House said it was "grateful to the Senate for its action."

"A fully functioning judiciary is critical to the administration of justice," White House Counsel Neil Eggleston said, "and a judiciary that better resembles our nation instills even greater confidence in our justice system."

Correction: this article previously stated that Obama appointee the country's first black lesbian federal judge in Staci Michelle Yandle. That milestone was achieved by Bill Clinton with his appointee Deborah Batts.

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

The main combatants Thursday were the chamber’s two chiefs, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who have clashed for several years over Republican filibusters of Obama’s agenda and nominees.

Reid said the chamber “must evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks. “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

McConnell linked the rule change to the methods used to approve Obama’s health-care law solely with Democratic votes. The normally reserved GOP leader paced at his desk during his speech, often turning his back to Democrats to address only his fellow Republicans.

“It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” McConnell told reporters, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.”

The clash ended with a vote nearly as partisan as the times — 52 to 48, with all but three Democrats backing the move and every Republican opposing it.

The vote was the culmination of more than 25 years of feuding over nominations, beginning with President Ronald Reagan’s choices for the Supreme Court and including Obama’s picks for obscure federal regulatory agencies. Each side in Thursday’s debate cited its own statistics to state its case.

Democrats said the attempted filibusters of Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearing to become defense secretary, a first for any nominee to lead the Pentagon — as well as a blockade of picks to head the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — exceeded anything Democrats did when they were in the minority. In addition, Democrats charged that Republicans didn’t even have substantive objections to the D.C. Circuit nominees they filibustered.

After the vote, Obama told reporters at the White House that Republicans had turned nomination fights into a “reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt and noted that “neither party has been blameless for these tactics.” However, he said, “today’s pattern of obstruction. . . just isn’t normal; it’s not what our founders envisioned.”

Republicans countered that they had confirmed 99 percent of Obama’s judicial selections. McConnell accused Democrats of eyeing the D.C. Circuit in an effort to stack the court, which reviews many cases related to federal laws and regulations, to tilt its balance in a liberal direction.

What made the day so historic for senators, former senators and the small collection of parliamentary experts in Washington was the simple majority vote used to execute the changes — a tactic so extreme it is known as the “nuclear option.”

Previous majorities had threatened to upend filibuster rules in this manner, but relying on a simple majority vote had been used only for relatively minor procedural changes to how amendments were handled, never to eliminate the super­majority requirement altogether. Before Thursday, the standard precedent was that major rule changes needed a two-thirds majority. The change was so significant that Reid and his leadership team held a victory party with liberal activists afterward in a room just off the Senate floor.

Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority!

“Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

After the vote, Reid told reporters that his views on the issue had evolved — from eight years ago, when Republicans held the majority and he led the fight to protect the filibuster. He acknowledged that he wouldn’t mind seeing the supermajority requirement abolished for everything but that there were not enough votes in his caucus to support such a move.

Reid first faced pressure on this issue from junior Democrats four years ago, particularly Sen. Jeff Merkley, a former speaker of the Oregon state House, who became the point person for growing the anti-filibuster movement. But Reid repeatedly rejected their effort as too radical.

Even if Republicans want to do away with the filibuster someday, Reid said, Thursday’s move was worth it because the current climate had become too hostile to get anything significant done. Reid said he faced a choice: “Continue like we are or have democracy?”

The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or to legislation, but if we don't have the 60 votes needed to pass Obamacare, which we don't, we will use it, and protect it for the sake of Obama's signature legislation, and the only feckless accomplishment of this important, first Black President of the United States, and his nonexistent legacy!

Individual senators will still be able to seize the floor for marathon speeches opposing nominees, as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did in a nearly 13-hour session in March against the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director. But once such speeches end, the majority will be able to confirm nominees without needing bipartisan support.

With the Senate majority very much up for grabs in midterm elections next year, Democrats placed a big bet on maintaining control of the chamber. GOP leaders have suggested that, if given the Senate majority back, they might further strip filibuster rules so they could dismantle Obama’s landmark domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, on a simple majority vote.

In his remarks, McConnell finally turned to Democrats and said that a majority of them had never served in the minority and then lectured the longtime members who knew what it was like to be on the other side. ~~ By Paul Kane November 21, 2013, a Friend of America!

"The solution to America's problem is at the ballot box,” and if America is going to move forward and reinstate all the guidelines set forth in our constitution by our founding fathers, and reestablish the rule of law that ex president Obama bypassed, then we need the 2018 midterms to deliver the Senate to the outsider non-politician, who is trying to live up to his promises, despite the obstructionist party of 'NO,' and make America great again!     

 Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. 
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!