Daily Archives: April 7, 2017

Anyonewho supportsthese missile strikes has to account for what comes next.

CNN host Fareed Zakaria speaks about President Donald Trumps missile strikes on Syria during an Anderson Cooper 360 segment. (Screengrab / CNN)

It shouldnt be surprising, but it is to me nonetheless: Plenty of liberals whove long criticized Donald Trump as unfit to be president are praising his strike on Syrian airfields.

On CNNs New Day Thursday, global analystFareed Zakariadeclared, I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night. To his credit, Zakaria has previously called Trump a bullshit artist and said, He has gotten the presidency by bullshitting. But Zakaria apparently thinks firing missiles make one presidential. On MSNBC, Nicholas Kristof, an aggressive Trump critic, said he did the right thing by bombing Syria. Anchor Brian Williams, whose 11thHour has regularly been critical of Trump, repeatedly called the missiles beautiful, to a noisy backlash on Twitter.

While TheNew York Times posted several skeptical, even critical stories, it gave us this piece of propaganda: an article initially titled On Syria attack, Trumps heart came first, buying the presidents line that his opposition to anti-Assad military action was reversed by seeing the heartrending photos of children struggling to breathe after a chemical attack.

Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack, Trumpdeclared. No child of God should ever suffer such horror. (No word how he felt about ugly babies.) The piece also failed to even mention that Trump is keeping refugees from the Syrian war, even children, out of the United States. Victims of chemical weapons are beautiful babies; children trying to flee such violence require extreme vetting and an indefinite refugee ban. After a public outcry, the Times changed the headline.

Even some Obama administration veterans praised Trumps action. President Donald J. Trump was right to strike at the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using a weapon of mass destruction, the nerve agent sarin, against its own people, Antony Blinken, a deputy secretary of state under Obama,wrote in The New York Times. Blinken went on to say, correctly in theory, that what must come next is smart diplomacy. But he knows that Trump has shown himself incapable of doing anything smart, especially diplomacy.

Remember just last week, phantom Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in Turkey: I think thelonger-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people. The Kremlin-funded Russia Today described that as a U-turn from Washingtons long-held policy that Assad must go. Six days later, Tillerson was telling reporters,There is no doubt in our minds, and the information we have supports, that the Syrian regime under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad are responsible for this attack. It is very important that the Russian government consider carefully their support for Bashar al-Assad,because steps are underway to muster international support for a strike. Russia Today seemed disappointed that the United States believes Assad is behind the gassing of his people, arguing that the source is the international rescue group White Helmets, which RT shockingly calls al-Qaida affiliated.

Any liberal who praises these missile strikes has to account for what comes next. Obviously, Trump cares little about diplomacy, leaving Tillerson out of key meetings and slashing the State Departments budget. On Wednesday night, the White House released a photo of his team receiving a briefing on the Syria attack. At the table were Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross; Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin; Goldman Sachs alum Dina Powell, deputy national-security adviser; along with Jared Kushner; Steve Bannon; and Bannons sidekick Steven Miller. Why are the Commerce and Treasury secretaries there? What explains why Tillerson, who was in Palm Beach with the president, was not?

The noisiest outrage against the Syrian attack isnt coming from the left, but the rightparticularly the alt-right. Trumps noninterventionism and his friendliness to Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin were big selling points to white nationalists. Now that he seems to be challenging both men, his former acolytes are enraged. On Twitter, alt-right white supremacist Richard Spencer called it a total betrayal; the white nationalists at VDARE blamed it on the boomercucks in the administration. Ann Coulter went apoplectic:

It was disappointing to see Hillary Clinton say Wednesday afternoon that she thought air strikes on Syrian airfields were an appropriate response to the chemical-weapon attack. She was always more hawkish than I wished, and that shows it. But its wrong to insist shed have done the same thing as Trump. Clintons secretary of state wouldnt likely have told Assad we were no longer concerned about removing him; if she did fire missiles at Syrian airfields, she would have done so with a clearer notion of what comes next. Trump appears to be clueless.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

Senator Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, didnt quite oppose the Syrian strike, calling Assad a war criminal and lamenting his murder of civilians with chemical weapons. But noting that its that its easier to get into a war than get out of one, Sanders demanded that Trump must explain to the American people exactly what this military escalation in Syria is intended to achieve, and how it fits into the broader goal of a political solution, which is the only way Syrias devastating civil war ends.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand sounded closer to Sanders than Clinton on the airstrikes, decrying Trumps unilateral military action by the US in a Middle East conflict as well as the absence of any long-term plan or strategy to address any consequences from such unilateral action. Like Sanders, she demanded that Trump seek authorization of military force from Congress. By contrast, her New York colleague Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Trumps move the right thing to do. Schumer may find that many constituents think it was the wrong thing.

There remains the possibility that some of this is theater. It should be said: Some observers, besides RT, say its unproven that the chemical weapons attack came from Assad; rebels could be behind it. Theres also the possibility of a kabuki performance from Trump, Putin, and Assad. We already know the United States warned Putin of the coming missiles, and that Putin warned Assad, whose military moved airplanes and other military equipment away from the intended target. Trump, plummeting in the polls, his domestic health-care and tax plans on the rocks, the investigation into Russian election meddling closing in on his team, really needed a boost; maybe they gave it to him. Trumps sudden about-face on Syria makes it hard to judge.

However, according to Syrian state media, nine civilians, including four children, were killed in the air strikes. That is not kabuki. Trump has said nothing about those beautiful babies, nor will he. Liberals have to sober up and stop being besotted by beautiful missiles and presidential cruelty. Trump is the same Trump he was Tuesday, and that should scare all of us.

See the original post:

Too Many of Trump's Liberal Critics Are Praising His Strike on Syria - The Nation.

Many things went the way of the Hays High School girls soccer team in its Western Athletic Conference opener against Liberal on Thursday on the Indians home field. The final score wasnt one of them, however.

Despite feeling like the Indians had the advantage in possession and scoring opportunities, Liberal made the most of its few chances, scoring the games only goal in the 65th minute for a 1-0 win.

Following the contest, the Indians sat circled around first-year coach Silas Hibbs well into the first half of the junior varsity contest. His message was simple.

I told the girls we can focus on the one negative thing that happened, which was the outcome of a win or a loss or we could focus on the 100 things we did well today, Hibbs said. I know we got substantially better today.

The Indians owned a majority of the better scoring opportunities in the first 30 minutes of the contest, including a number of set pieces, but shots failed to challenge the Liberal goalkeeper.

Isabel Robben, the Indians freshman goalkeeper, was tested for the first time in the 29th minute. Moments later, she kept the visitors scoreless, stopping a Liberal breakthrough and conceding a corner kick that the Indian defense cleared.

Hays Highs best opportunity in the first half came minutes before halftime, as CJ Norris shot bounced off the crossbar and back into play. A scramble for the loose ball followed, and Liberal defenders blocked a pair of Indian shots.

The Indians earned a corner kick in the final seconds of the half but rushed to get the ball into play, as the second half started without a goal

That appeared destined to change as Maddie Keller came just a touch away from redirecting a Savannah Schneider cross into an open Liberal goal in the 42nd minute, but the Indians failed to capitalize.

After a series of near misses, Liberal notched the games only goal when Sabrina Pacheco converted on a counterattack in the 65th minute. His teams defense in the critical juncture didnt bother the Hays High coach.

We actually had two players marking that person on the backside, Hibbs said. You hear it basketball, you hear it in soccer, sometimes the ball doesnt bounce your way.

It was just one of those situations. Credit to Liberal for being in the right spot at the right time.

Hays High senior Tressa Becker nearly equalized with a powerful shot later in the half but saw it saved for an Indian corner kick.

The Indians next best opportunity came in the final seconds when Schneider played a dangerous ball into the box. No teammate reached it before it was cleared as time expired, dropping the Indians to 2-3 on the season and 0-1 in WAC play.

Sometimes all it takes is one little counterattack to fall behind, Hibbs said. Even though the outcome wasnt what we wanted, I was very proud of our girls because we dominated probably 75 to 80 percent of the possession, and we probably out-shot them 10-1.

According to the Indians statistics, Hays High owned an 11-3 advantage in shots on goal and earned eight corner kicks to Liberals two.

Robben was credited with three saves on the day, while her counterpart tallied eight.

The Indians are scheduled to return to action at home Monday against Junction City.

Excerpt from:

Goals evade Indians in loss to Liberal - Hays Daily News

In 1972, when I was 10 years old, my fathers job was transferred from Buffalo, New York, to California. After endless cold Buffalo winters, the golden state seemed like a golden place, a land of golden opportunity. My parents built a house, my father built a successful career, and my brothers and I thrived.

That was then, this is now. California is going off the deep end. The gold has turned to brass. It has become the land of fruits and nuts, a caricature of its former glory, a place people seek to leave in droves before they run afoul of the latest insanity.

Consider just a few examples of recent lunacy:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, middle class Californians are leaving the state in droves. Take a look at these words from a frustrated inhabitant:

Came to SoCal as a kid in 1969 got married and had kids who now are in college (out of state). I worked my *** off to get where I am today, but my house goes on the market this spring. Ive watched this state sink into the abyss of liberal insanity inch by inch, drop by drop.

There is no hope for the state of Kalifornia. The Dems and their insane view of this world have a super majority in the Senate and Assembly. Combined with a Dem governor, there is nothing they cannot get passed. Even the Republicans who end up getting into the minority party are squishy and put up little resistance.

This past summer the legislative branch passed a bunch of bills that finally broke my desire to stay here with my salary. Gov. Moonbeam signed into law a bill that forces the cattle industry (dairy and meat) into providing flatulent catching backpacks for all cows to wear, for their precious global warming efforts. He also signed a bill that permits early release of felons out of jail and has them live amongst the citizenry. Combine that with the draconian laws further limiting my Second Amendment rights by making ammunition costly and more difficult to obtain, making some of my firearms illegal to own, he has put more rights into criminals and made my family less safe to live here.

I am DONE. Good riddance. I am moving to a state that will appreciate my conservative, constitutional values.

This persons lament echoes that of over a million (mostly middle-class) people who have departed California in recent decades. We were among them. My husband and I shook the California dust off our feet in 1992 and never looked back at that once-beautiful state.

But its not just California. Recent articles show a massive exodus from both New York City and Chicago as well.

What do these three locations (California, New York, Chicago) have in common? They are bastions of liberalism, cauldrons of experimental progressive policies, vanguards of whatever feel-good fiscally irresponsible nonsense disturbed minds can think up.

So when we read about populations draining out of certain locations, the conclusion is obvious. People arent fleeing New York or Chicago or California; people are fleeing liberalism. The festering cauldron of stupidity progressive thought breeds ultimately makes places unlivable.

Im honestly sorry for those freedom-loving conservatives who are unable (due to work or family commitments) to beat feet and flee the gold-plated state. And I welcome those honestly looking to escape the insidious poison. I do, however, bear a grudge with those who bring their poison with them and enthusiastically spread it to a new location, dragging everything down with them.

To rephrase an old saying: If a conservative doesnt like where he lives, he moves to a place more in line with his values. If a liberal doesnt like where he lives, he moves and then creates the same problems in his new setting as his old location.

Liberals are clueless when it comes to economics and unintended consequences of government policies. As one frustrated member of the Siskiyou (Northern California) County Board of Supervisors said, the regions resources are being managed on the basis of politics rather than science. I think in the United States in general, theres a disconnect between folks who live in a city and the people who live in the rural communities. I dont think a lot of folks understand where their food comes from, where the raw products come from that support their lives. All they see when they come to the rural counties is what they consider backward people who are doing something on the land that they dont like to see.

Its often presumed these progressives dont recognize their tactics as being destructive. Theyre only trying to do good, you see. They just want to tutor the poor ignorant locals to get in touch with their feeeeeelings rather than bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles. Theyre just here to help.

This disconnect applies across many areas of cause and effect. Progressives honestly dont recognize that the effect of gun confiscation is skyrocketing crime, or that shutting down economic opportunities means unemployment. They never seem to get that the policies they endorse cause the crime, pollution, out-of-control spending, regulations and taxes that chased people out of their liberal location (California, New York, Chicago, whatever) to begin with.

Well, I dont buy the ignorance defense. To be a liberal is to be a control freak. There is plenty of factual, statistical and historical evidence showing, without fail, that leftist policies always lead to heartache, destruction and death. Some of the useful idiots and talking heads at the bottom may not be smart enough to understand this, but the real liberal leaders do. As long as they get to be the statist-slave masters, however, the ends justify the means.

There are those in California who think the state should break away and form its own country. I, for one, think this is a splendid solution. If California thinks it can go it alone, I applaud its efforts.

But it better hurry. All of its real gold is packing the family van and heading for real America.

Media wishing to interview Patrice Lewis, please contact media@wnd.com.

See more here:

REAL AMERICA - WND.com

Pankaj Mishra at Edinburgh International Book Festival, August 14, 2013. (Marc Marnie / Writer Pictures via AP Images)

When we speak or write about the liberal order, what do we mean? Most people use this phrase as if its definition and validity are foregone conclusions. But events force questions upon usone mark of our moment. Is the liberal order so liberal as commonly assumed? Is it orderly? Such as it may have once been valid, is it any longer? Taking a good look around, a few people now pose the first of these questions, a few more the second, and a very, very few the last. It is the last that is most worth investigating.1

The liberal order is also known as the post-1945 order or, more flimsily, the international order. This was stenciled across the globe very swiftly after the 1945 victories. The Atlantic world, with its historically specific variety of democracy and its market-dominant economic model, was and remains the center, the determinant, the arbiter of this order. Jimmy Carters presidency introduced us to the neoliberal orderat bottom, merely a more rigorous variant of what had been. The choice for others has always been strictly, not to say viciously, enforced: It is to conform to the imposed order, imitate it as best they can, or assume the status of outsider. In the tent or out: Remarkably, the record indicates not a single exception in the 70-odd years the liberal order has endured.2

This order is now in crisis. I am hardly the first with this. Many Americans take this view because their political institutions are in nearly anarchic disarray, because imperial adventure impoverishes them, and because they now stand at the front end of a shocking assault on all that once passed as at least an aspiration to political, social, and economic justice. Europeans face rises in right-wing nationalism, right-wing populism, and religious extremism. Inequality worsens across the West (and even more tragically in much of the non-West, of course). Are those who sustain the prevalent order serious about the climate emergency? The whole world wonders.3

Like the worsening climate, the velocity of deterioration seems fated to increase.

Having come to a dangerous global disorder, the liberal order turns out to be incapable of adequate responses to its own creation. It cannot self-correct, to put the point differently. This has been my view for a long time. For whatever reason, the famines sweeping through Africa and into Yemen, combined with an equally shameful indifference among us, noted in a previous column, tip me into a definitive position on this point. All the crises facing our quite illiberal order are epochal, in my view: They challenge its legitimacy. Its failures and fraudsnotably its habit of exclusion, of making a we and they of all humanityare simply too urgent now. Like the worsening climate, the velocity of deterioration seems fated to increase. Solutions will not arise from the order that produces and reproduces crises such as those just noted, and they are a few among very many. The immensity of this thought is not an excuse not to have it.4

In Age of Anger, Pankaj Mishra writes of a pervasive panic, of the sense of a world spinning out of control, of our state of worldwide emergency, of the global civil war. I find nothing histrionic in these diagnoses, and I will come back to Mishras just-published book. For now, it is enough to note how its urgently vigorous language throws into sharp relief the barely audible mumbling that greets this condition. The world as the vital center insisted it must be is the world as we have it. And at the center of the vital centerArthur Schlesingers celebrated phrasewe find utter vacuity, all new thinking long ago barred at the door to its immense, windowless room.5

As is its custom, Foreign Policy used its year-end edition to celebrate the leading global thinkers of 2016. I always get a weird kick out of these lists: They present dozens of stories of incremental, here-and-there changeall of it impeccably worthwhileaccompanied by what has to be an ideologically induced blindness to the utterly obvious systemic failures that produce every one of the crises addressed. These are never, ever mentioned. All that is done is perfectly worthwhile, all is perfectly forlorn. Great change amid no change: There is something almost exquisite about the contemporary liberal dodge. Someday it will get a glass case in the museum it deserves.6

This years opening essay was titled The Case for Optimism. And I need to tell you straightaway this is a depressing read. While the changes that are remaking the planet pose great challenges, David Rothkopf wrote, they really do offer even greater opportunities for the lives of everyone in virtually every corner of the world. If you wonder how someone could write such a sentence just a few months ago, the answer lies in data. Rothkopf compares such things as literacy rates, the prevalence of indoor plumbing and, of course, GDP to what these were 100 or 150 years ago. History, then, offers an encouraging story, Rothkopf advises. It is one of the reasons that those who study it and analyze current changes anticipate that, while huge tests confront us now, great progress will continue.7

If you take this to be nothing more than happy talk, please think again. It is a form of silence. In the face of all that Mishra describes with considerable diligenceand historicity, I might addthis is the vital centers reply: silence and dismissal with a truly perverse smile. It is what arises out the ideology of progress, the ideology of science, and American positivismthree 19th-century places of worship still lined up side by side along Main Street USA. Who would have guessed that denial would become so essential a feature of the sermons?8

There is a case for optimism very different from Rothkopfs. I am not a declinist, if this means assuming decline to be a fate. It is not: It is a choice. Americans have many of these to make. And refusing even to recognize these choices, as deacons of the liberal order urge at every turn, will amount to the choice of decline. High among these choices is whether and how to address the questions of politics and power. Silence no longer offers a place to hide on this point: If the liberal order has failed, it follows that the liberal order must be superseded. Looking squarely at the politys most fundamental structures will inevitably involve a lot of dismantling and disturbing and discarding, in my view, but we live in interesting times, unfortunately. There is no other way to renovate or reinvent the operations of a global order that has steadily, over a long time, brought us to crisis. And a reformation of one or another kind is required if we are to do better than the world Mishra describes.9

Disenchantment was implicit in the modern condition, but the few saying so were dismissed as outsiders.

To dissent is to declare ones optimism, a friend once told me. Why would I bother otherwise? This is my case for optimism. There are plenty of grounds for it, but in our moment optimism lies buried in apparent pessimism. I can think of no other kind of optimismand certainly not Foreign Policys brandthat matches the realities out our doors and beyond our shores. A lot of undoing is necessary to clear the ground for doing. As the last year or two advise us, it is too late, the liberal orders hand too overplayed, to flinch from this any longer.10

Disenchantment was Max Webers well-known term for what he saw around him in the second half of the 19th century. In a word, he saw a crisis buried in what was already called modernity. The Enlightenment had given way to the materialist age, and the new ages ideologiesprogress, science, and positivism as already listed, as well as secularism, the subjective individual, the nation-state, and so onhad begun to reveal a darker side. The remaking of Western society (and eventually non-Western, to very unfortunate effect) according to materialisms scientific principles and bureaucratic rationality would prove a profoundly mixed undertaking. There would be gains but also losses never to be retrieved, beneficiaries but many casualties. Science, technology, and money would not prove universal solutions. There would be regret. Disenchantmenta wistful sadness with the tint of disappointment might hold as a thumbnail definitionwas implicit in the modern condition, in Webers view. As now, so then: Disillusion may suffuse an entire culture like smoke, but the few saying so were to be dismissed as outsidersmisanthropes, eccentrics, cynics, or one or another kind of extremist. They declined to get with the program, as those who bask in the reigning order say today.11

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

Pankaj Mishra has many names for his topic, but disenchantment is certainly among them. His Age of Anger in the book so named begins long before 1945 and the advent of our liberal order. He starts with materialisms eclipse of the Enlightenment around 1870 and extends to the very minute this column is posted. Mishras concern is the world as we have it, but countless writers of varying worth are on this trail. It is Age of Angers singular ambition to give the world as we have it a past, a how-we-got-here, a where-the-mistakes-lie. The focus throughout is on those disenchanted: They made an ever-present subculture from the beginning, ancestors of all the disenchanted among us nowthe liberal orders mistake all along being silence and dismissal when faced with them. This historicity is monumentally to Mishras credit. He has sought the roots of our planetary predicament and exposed a lot of them. And how weird a world it is that this is a daring move. The last thing all apostles of the liberal order want on the table is history. Attaching chronology and causality to this universal crisisanother of Mishras descriptivesis like crashing a black mass with a crucifix.12

Mishra argues that the West has come to an epochal bend in its river, and can no longer afford its end-of-history dream.

Mishras thesis is roughly coincident with this columns: The Westand therefore the non-West, too, as things workhas come to an epochal bend in its river. It can no longer afford its end-of-history dream that what has long been will continue eternally to be. This is Age of Angers running theme. Identifying the liberal orders genealogy in the very beginning of the modernist experiment itself is an imposing thought, to put it mildly. But it is right, it seems to me. The Atlantic world has lost all knack for thinking anewa consequence of liberalisms undue self-confidencebut we are charged to do so. The single most interesting feature of last years political season was the extent to which Bernie Sanders was able to suggestin his language, in a lot (not all) of his thinking, in his relationship to moneythat this can be done. In this, Mishra is my kind of optimist: If he did not think the implied project was possible, why would he have bothered with the book?13

I have given space to Age of Anger because the book marks an important advance in our most urgent discourse, in my view. But one cannot read it as the end of the story, as I am certain Mishra agrees. It is merely the beginning. All through its 350 un-shy pages, I kept asking, Whats your idea of the way forward? Given all you say, this must be momentous. Tell us, Mishraji. Where from here?14

I read, and read some more. My answer came in the last half of the last sentence on the last page: All that Mishra explored and exposed underscores the need for some truly transformative thinking, about both the self and the world. Nothing more.15

This practically forces a disturbing question on us. Does Mishra choose not to exit his assiduously marshaled historythe past a safe haven for dissent? In the face of history and complexity, does he propose we shelter in the perpetuation of perplexityever paralyzed, at a loss as to what to do as we look forward? It does not do. Truly transformative thinking is precisely the need and is not so unachievable as many people seem to assume. A lot of it is getting done already. Mishra appears to have flinched, and that does not do, either.16

The rest is here:

The Crisis of the Liberal Order and Pankaj Mishra's 'Age of Anger' - The Nation.

In preparation for her now full-time role in the Trump administration, Ivanka Trump has been secretly reaching out to the heads of liberal special-interest groups for months, including Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

Politico reports that the first daughter requested a sit-down with Cecile Richards, apparently wanting to know more about the facts of Planned Parenthood and to reach common ground on abortion.

The purpose of the meeting, from Ceciles point of view, was to make sure that Ivanka fully understood what Planned Parenthood does, how it is funded, and why it would be a terrible idea for Planned Parenthood to be removed from being able to see Medicaid patients, Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America told Politico.

The long and short of their discussion, reportedly, was an argument from Cecile Richards to Ivanka Trump on why Planned Parenthood should not be defunded a position that conflicts with President Trumps campaign promises and claim to be pro-life.

Ivanka was, of course, fed several lies by Richards like how the money doesnt actually go to abortions (money is fungible) and how Planned Parenthood provides cancer screenings (mostly false).

Whether those lies translate to policies in the Trump administration remains to be seen, but the first daughter and her husband Jared Kushner have already worked to stop an executive order on religious freedom in defense of LGBT special-interest groups. It is not unreasonable to think Ivanka Trump will fight an effort to defund Planned Parenthood as well.

And thats not all. Perhaps the most revealing part of Politicos story is that Trump has been meeting with several leaders of progressive special interest groups since the election.

Ivanka Trump has been on a listening tour since moving to Washington, as she stakes a claim on women's issues. In addition to her meeting with Richards, she has quietly met with other leaders of the progressivewomens movement, includingMarcia Greenberger, co-president the National Women's Law Center, and Judy Lichtman, senior adviser to the National Partnership for Women and Family, sources familiar with the meetings told POLITICO.

The only conceivable purpose for doing this is to pitch the liberal lies and talking points directly to the president to move the administration further leftward. Thats what happened when Ivanka Trump brought Al Gore to Trump Tower to discuss environmental issues. Months later, the Trump administration is mulling a carbon tax.

So, through Ivanka Trump, liberal organizations have a direct influence on White House policy. And the administration continues to lurch to the left.

Which member of the Trump administration is meeting with conservatives?

Read more from the original source:

Ivanka Trump holds secret meetings with liberal special interest groups. No good can come from this - Conservative Review