Month: January 2017

Back in 2014 Mark Zuckerberg paid $100 million to purchase 700 acres of beachfront property on the North Shore of Kauai.  The estate includes 1,000’s of feet of pristine shoreline providing the perfect “safe space” for the 30-year-old Silicon Valley Billionaire and his family.

Unfortunately, there was just one little problem with the purchase…technically the sellers didn’t own the title to all of that land due to the so-called Kuleana Act, a Hawaiian law established in 1850 that for the first time gave natives the right to own the land that they lived on. 

So now, according to the Honolulu Star Advertiser, the Facebook billionaire sued a few hundred Hawaiians who still have legal-ownership claims to parts of his vacation estate through their ancestors.  Per Yahoo Finance:

Three holding companies controlled by Zuckerberg filed eight lawsuits in local court on December 30 against families who collectively inherited 14 parcels of land through the Kuleana Act, a Hawaiian law established in 1850 that for the first time gave natives the right to own the land that they lived on.

 

The 14 parcels total just 8.04 of the 700 acres Zuckerberg owns, but the law gives any direct family member of a parcel’s original owner the right to enter the otherwise private compound.

And while Zuckerberg’s lawyer attempted to downplay the lawsuits as a common practice in Hawaii, we suspect the idea of defending your private property rights against one of the top 10 richest people in the world is somewhat intimidating and slightly less than “normal.”

The quiet-title suits filed are designed to identify all property owners and give them the ability to sell their ownership stakes at auction, according to Keoni Shultz, an attorney representing Zuckerberg. Because the ownership stakes are passed down and divided among family descendants by the state, many people don’t realize they have a claim until action is taken against them in court.

 

“It is common in Hawaii to have small parcels of land within the boundaries of a larger tract, and for the title to these smaller parcels to have become broken or clouded over time,” Shultz told Business Insider in a statement. “In some cases, co-owners may not even be aware of their interests. Quiet title actions are the standard and prescribed process to identify all potential co-owners, determine ownership, and ensure that, if there are other co-owners, each receives appropriate value for their ownership share.”

Of course, the pompous dismissal of property rights isn’t the only thing riling up Hawaiian natives regarding Zuckerberg’s estate.  As The Garden Island pointed out, residents are also slightly less than ecstatic about a massive, 6 foot rock wall erected around the estate and blocking the “view that’s been available and appreciative by the community here for years.”

“The feeling of it is really oppressive. It’s immense,” Hall said. “It’s really sad that somebody would come in, and buy a huge piece of land and the first thing they do is cut off this view that’s been available and appreciative by the community here for years.”

 

“It’s hot behind that wall. Because it’s up on a berm, there’s not a breath of air on this side from the ocean,” Chantara said. “You take a solid wall that’s 10 or more feet above the road level; the breeze can’t go through.”

 

Another Kilauea resident, Donna Mcmillen, calls the wall a “monstrosity.”

 

“I’m super unhappy about that. I know that land belongs to Zuckerberg. Money is no option for him. I’m 5’8” and when I’m walking, I see nothing but wall,” Mcmillen said. “It just doesn’t fit in with the natural beauty that we have here. There are people on the island who money can pay for anything. These kind of things that they do take away what Kauai is all about.”

 

Over the past couple of weeks, intense public backlash over the lawsuit and “immense, oppressive” wall has caused Zuckerberg to backtrack on his plans. Earlier today he published a note to residents in The Garden Island announcing his intentions to drop his litigation saying that “upon reflection, it’s clear we made a mistake.”

We’ve heard from many in the community and learned more about the cultural and historical significance of this land. Over the past week, we’ve spoken with community leaders and shared that our intention is to achieve an outcome that preserves the environment, respects local traditions, and is fair to those with kuleana lands.

 

To find a better path forward, we are dropping our quiet title actions and will work together with the community on a new approach. We understand that for native Hawaiians, kuleana are sacred and the quiet title process can be difficult. We want to make this right, talk with the community, and find a better approach.

 

Upon reflection, I regret that I did not take the time to fully understand the quiet title process and its history before we moved ahead. Now that I understand the issues better, it’s clear we made a mistake.

 

The right path is to sit down and discuss how to best move forward. We will continue to speak with community leaders that represent different groups, including native Hawaiians and environmentalists, to find the best path.

 

Beyond this process, we are also looking for more ways to support the community as neighbors. We have contributed to community organizations and will continue to do so. We work with wildlife experts to preserve endangered species. We hope to do much more in the future.

 

We love Kaua`i and we want to be good members of the community for the long term. Thank you for welcoming our family into your community.

But, a local farmer, Joe Hart says that Zuckerberg’s retreat isn’t sufficient and, as of now, vows that the mass protest planned for tomorrow will move forward as “people are furious down here with him.”  Per McClatchey:

“People are furious down here with him,” Hart, a local farmer told Business Insider. “We just want to bring this issue to light. He’s made his money stealing everyone’s information, which we’ve let him do, but to come down here and start suing everyone, that’s not going to fly down here.”

Alas, in the end we’re sure Zuckerberg will have his way.  After all, what fun is billions of dollars if you can’t buy expansive swaths of entire states and trample on the private property rights of some little people?

via http://ift.tt/2jGGl71 Tyler Durden

Despite record U.S. auto sales last year, the number of vehicles on car-dealer lots remains near record highs, and, as J.D.Power analyst Thomas King warned this week, 2016 ended with an inventory "bubble" that will require less production or more incentives to clear.

With near record high inventories of 3.9 million vehicles…

U.S. auto inventory finished 2016 at about 66 days supply, up from 60 days a year earlier. Inventory would last 2.23 months at the November sales pace, according to the latest available data from the Census Bureau. The stock-to-sales ratio in 2016 is extremely elevated compared to historical norms…

More problematically, King warns, about one-third of inventory were older model-year vehicles, rather than more typical level of less than a quarter.

Of course this massive stockpile hits just as President Trump pressures the auto-industry to onshore more jobs and more production…

But as the industry automates, factories don’t create jobs like they used to, said Marina Whitman, a professor of business administration and public policy at the University of Michigan.

 

“The American auto industry last year produced more cars than it ever had before, but they did it with somewhere between one-third and one-half the number of workers that they had decades ago,” said Whitman, who was an adviser to President Richard Nixon and GM’s chief economist from 1978 to 1992.

 

“The last thing the auto industry needs is more capacity.” she said.

So – produce more to employ more people and please President Trump (only to dramatically worsen the inevitable collapse), or cut workforces and productin further (as we have already seen) and face the wrath of Trump's tweets?

via http://ift.tt/2kbX84U Tyler Durden

Submitted by Salil Mehta via Statistical Ideas blog,

With the battle growing in sanctuary cities to deviate from President Trump’s strategy on immigration law, it is worth seeing another topic that we have been following closely: violent crime rate across major U.S. cities.  This of course comes as President Trump menacingly engages with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, in a twitter exchange that reiterates the use of the term “carnage” to suggest the warfare-style chaos that is occurring there.

If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

By definition sanctuary cities are generally liberal (Democratic) cities or regions that oppose the current conservative policies to oppress most immigrants.  The 14 most-populated U.S. cities represent 30 million Americans (or 9% of the 319 million U.S. population).  Of these 14 cities, 9 are sanctuary cities (64%) and 5 are non-sanctuary cities (36%).  As we prove below, one is significantly safer from violent crimes in sanctuary cities, but for a couple notable exceptions (i.e., Chicago, Philadelphia). Below we’ll distinguish between these two types of cities:

• Nearly 2 thousand murders occur annually in these sanctuary cities (>70%), while less than a thousand murders occur in the non-sanctuary cities (<30%).
• While each taken life is too many, mortality statistics drive these large death numbers into probability context.  So with the much larger population from the sanctuary cities (collectively or on average), the homicide rate (per 100k) there is “just” 5, while it is 9 in non-sanctuary cities!
• It is true that the murder rates have come in most cities across the U.S., but again these rates are unacceptably high, particularly as some cities are many times more ferocious versus their peers!
• The blended murder rate from the 14 large cities meanwhile is in-between at 8, and this is also just less than twice the national average is 4.

Now we can see a chart of these 14 cities on this map below, where the size of the circular-marker is related to the population of the city, and the text color of the murder rate is blue for sanctuary cities; red for non-sanctuary cities.  The blue on the map regions represents areas who mostly voted for Hillary Clinton (as noted above this was mostly limited to mega-cities), while red indicates the rest of the country where Donald Trump completely dominated the popular vote.

Using a mathematical practice similar to boot-strapping, we show further below, the population-weighted murder rate distribution for the 14 cities.  Also 4 of the 9 (44%) sanctuary cities have had an above-average murder rate among the large cities, while 2 of the 5 (40%) of the non-sanctuary cities had an above-average murder rate.  Though this difference -skewing towards sanctuary cities- is not statistically significant (less than ½ standard deviation, or ?).

Meanwhile the murder rate difference of 4 (9 v 5), between non-sanctuary cities and sanctuary cities, is highly statistically significant, given the population in millions discussed early in this article.  But the chance any given non-sanctuary city is more murderous versus a sanctuary city is not statistically significant (less than 1 ?). Predominantly with such benign jumbo-metropolises, such as New York with their “low” murder rate of 4 (despite sky-high homelessness), versus Houston (the county’s largest non-sanctuary city) with their murder rate of 11.

The bottom line is there is a minor bias towards more violence in non-sanctuary cities, areas generally aligned to conservative policies and gun-friendly.  This is where Americans will typically have a higher probability of being slain (expressly young Black males in the inner-cities who are gunned down by others in the same community, as opposed to the police – many directors of which nationally follow this site).  Though the large cities are not easily separable into such mass generalizations, this is also why it happens to be easy for President Donald Trump to censure the worst areas of the country.  Since there we have heterogeneously diverse characteristics of violence, from our large sanctuary cities.

via http://ift.tt/2kCHNaz Tyler Durden

As the Trump administration mulls the cost (and payments) for 'the wall' with Mexico, some have suggested the barrier be extended a little…
 

h/t The Lonely Libertarian

A proposal for California to break away from the United States has been submitted to the Secretary of State's Office in the state capital. If it qualifies, it could trigger a vote on whether the most populous US state should become a separate nation. As RT reports, the group behind the proposal, Yes California Independence Campaign, was cleared on Thursday by Californian Secretary of State Alex Padilla to begin the bid to collect some 600,000 voter signatures required to put the ambitious plan on the ballot, AP reported.

The initiative would ask voters to repeal part of the state constitution that declares California an “inseparable part of the United States of America.”

 

Being a US state is “no longer serving California’s best interests,” the movement claims.

 

“Not only is California forced to subsidize this massive military budget with our taxes, but Californians are sent off to fight in wars that often do more to perpetuate terrorism than to abate it. The only reason terrorists might want to attack us is because we are part of the United States and are guilty by association. Not being a part of that country will make California a less likely target of retaliation by its enemies,” the campaign argues, among other things.

 

“America already hates California, and America votes on emotions,” Marcus Evans, vice-president of Yes California told to the Los Angeles Times.

 

“I think we'd have the votes today if we held it,” he added.

It must submit the valid voter signatures by July 25 to qualify for the November 2018 ballot.

The number of Californians who would rather see their state a sovereign nation than part of the United States jumped to 32 percent, a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll showed earlier this week. In 2014, it was only 20 percent.

via http://ift.tt/2kbO1kI Tyler Durden

Via Judicial Watch,

Dozens of Syrian refugees already living in the Unites States may have ties to terrorism and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is downplaying it, claiming federal agents missed “possible derogatory information” about the immigrants due to “a lapse in vetting.” Among those who slipped through the cracks is a man who failed a polygraph test after applying to work at a U.S. military installation and another who communicated with an Islamic State leader.

Information about this scandalous security lapse comes from federal agents with firsthand knowledge of the situation. They spoke to a mainstream newspaper on condition of anonymity, as many Judicial Watch sources who expose delicate information do, out of fear. This is the type of case the government works hard to keep quiet and consequences could be serious for those who blow the whistle. The news article reveals that federal agents are now “reinvestigating the backgrounds” of the dozens of Syrian refugees because somehow DHS discovered that the lapse in vetting allowed refugees with “potentially negative information in their files to enter the country.” The newspaper attributes the information to “U.S law enforcement officials” who were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Coincidentally, on the day this story broke a national newswire service reported that President Donald Trump drafted an executive order to stop accepting Syrian refugees. The president also plans to suspend issuing visas for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Under President Barrack Obama’s lax immigration policies, large numbers of terrorists from some of these nations entered the U.S., including members of ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. They include individuals who have engaged in or attempted to engage in acts of terrorism, conspired or attempted to conspire to provide material support to a terrorist organization or engaged in criminal conduct inspired by terrorist ideology. Some have been convicted and sentenced in American courts.

Additionally, the Obama administration was very generous in granting citizens of Muslim nations special amnesty protections and residency benefits in the U.S. During a five-year period, Obama’s DHS issued around 680,000 green cards to foreigners from Muslim countries, according to the agency’s figures. Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya were among the nations. In 2015 Judicial Watch reported on a special “humanitarian” amnesty program offered to illegal aliens from Yemen, an Islamic Middle Eastern country well known as an Al Qaeda breeding ground. Yemen is the headquarters of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the State Department has revealed that AQAP militants carried out hundreds of attacks including suicide bombers, vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), ambushes, kidnappings and targeted assassinations.

Circling back to Syrian refugees, as Obama let thousands settle in the U.S. his own intelligence and immigration officials admitted that individuals with ties to terrorist groups used the program to try to infiltrate the country and that there is no way to properly screen them. In 2015 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) confirmed that individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria tried to gain entry to the U.S. through the refugee program and that the program is “vulnerable to exploitation from extremist groups seeking to send operatives to the West.” Before that the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Matthew Emrich, admitted during a congressional hearing that there’s no way to adequately screen Syrian refugees because the Syrian government doesn’t have an intelligence database to run checks against. Additionally, FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach conceded that the U.S. government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees.

via http://ift.tt/2kvsMrX Tyler Durden

“Opposition”?

Source: Townhall.com

via http://ift.tt/2jGoFIC Tyler Durden

Adding fuel to fire of speculation around a potential run for The White House, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg felt obliged to remark upon President Trump's immigration policy and recent executive orders.

Increasingly, a number of influential people in Silicon Valley seem to think that Mark Zuckerberg will likely run for president of the United States one day. And some people, including myself, believe that he could indeed win.

 

“He wants to be emperor” is a phrase that has become common among people who have known him over the years.

As The Hill notes, such talk has intensified in recent weeks given the Facebook founder’s increasing role in political conversations.

In a Facebook post, Zuckerberg offered some praise for other aspects of Trump’s immigration policy, including Trump’s vague promise to not deport “dreamers,” the young people who illegally entered the United States or overstayed their visas as children, but the billionaire broadly rejected President Trump's recent actions…

My great grandparents came from Germany, Austria and Poland. Priscilla's parents were refugees from China and Vietnam. The United States is a nation of immigrants, and we should be proud of that.

 

Like many of you, I'm concerned about the impact of the recent executive orders signed by President Trump.

 

We need to keep this country safe, but we should do that by focusing on people who actually pose a threat.

 

Expanding the focus of law enforcement beyond people who are real threats would make all Americans less safe by diverting resources, while millions of undocumented folks who don't pose a threat will live in fear of deportation.

 

We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help. That's who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla's family wouldn't be here today.

 

That said, I was glad to hear President Trump say he's going to "work something out" for Dreamers — immigrants who were brought to this country at a young age by their parents. Right now, 750,000 Dreamers benefit from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that allows them to live and work legally in the US. I hope the President and his team keep these protections in place, and over the next few weeks I'll be working with our team at FWD.us to find ways we can help.

 

I'm also glad the President believes our country should continue to benefit from "people of great talent coming into the country."

 

These issues are personal for me even beyond my family. A few years ago, I taught a class at a local middle school where some of my best students were undocumented. They are our future too. We are a nation of immigrants, and we all benefit when the best and brightest from around the world can live, work and contribute here. I hope we find the courage and compassion to bring people together and make this world a better place for everyone.

Zuckerberg’s post came on the heels of Trump signing a new executive order for “new vetting measures” to prevent “radical Islamic terrorists,” from entering the U.S.

Trump also signed orders this week to construct a wall on the Mexican border and to withhold federal money from so-called sanctuary cities that do not enforce immigration laws.

via http://ift.tt/2jylLrF Tyler Durden

Submitted by Duane via Free Market Shooter blog,

It seems I’m just no longer with the times.  Apparently throwing things like eggs and snowballs at cars traveling on freeways (dangerous enough in its own respect) doesn’t get a rise among children anymore.  Because kids have “graduated” to throwing much more dangerous objects at cars from freeway overpasses.

In May of last year, an 18-year-old in Philadelphia was charged with throwing railroad spikes and rocks from an overpass onto cars passing below, all for the fun of it.  I actually needed to see it to believe it:

Fortunately, in this instance, it did not take much to catch the perp, but the charges pressed were far too mild:

Blake Bowers, 18, is charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment of another person, police said Sunday.

 

Police were called to the 600 block of University Avenue in West Philly around 8:20 p.m. on Friday evening, where they found four drivers who had each had their vehicles damaged while driving under a railroad overpass toward I-76.

 

“The damage was caused by objects thrown from the overpass,” a police report states, a height of some 40 feet above the street.

 

A 45-year-old male driver told police “that after his windshield was broken by the thrown object, he parked, exited his vehicle and saw the defendant on the train tracks,” according to a police report on the incident.

 

Police said they found three metal railroad spikes, two metal railroad clamps and one rock at the scene.

Aggravated assault and reckless endangerment were the only charges this kid received?  You would think the baseline could be “attempted murder” or something just as serious.  Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt or killed in this instance, and the perpetrator was able to be apprehended quickly, in part to his disregard as to the severity of his criminal actions.  Perhaps the perpetrator did not think there would be any consequences?  Or any charges he might have faced wouldn’t be that serious?

It seems that this is precisely the case, as about six months later, in a similar incident on the New Jersey Turnpike near Philadelphia, the perpetrators graduated from railroad spikes to 50-pound dumbbells.

This story was shared by someone who has stated that the incidents of throwing objects from overpasses is very common in the Philadelphia area.  In this instance, the struck car had two passengers, the driver was (obviously) seriously hurt, and finally died on Tuesday night, which prompted this Wednesday story:

The man who was struck by a 50-pound dumbbell as it came crashing through his vehicle’s windshield on the New Jersey Turnpike has died.

 

New Jersey State Police tell CBS 3 that 75-year-old Jack DeCarlo died from his injuries around 7 p.m. Tuesday at Crozer-Chester Medical Center.

 

DeCarlo was driving his SUV on the turnpike on Jan. 9 when a 50-pound dumbbell smashed through his windshield, striking him in the head. His wife, Patricia DeCarlo, was not hurt.

 

Police have not said where they believe the dumbbell came from, but they did search a nearby overpass for any possible evidence.

 

Two possibilities have stood out so far in the case. One, the dumbbell fell off a moving car or truck or that it was possibly dropped from a turnpike overpass.

I understand the need to explore all possibilities and have an open mind when it comes to police work.  But c’mon; the cops should be able to figure out what happened rather quickly in this case.  Notice how high the dumbbell is on the windshield, the extent of the damage, and remember it was a 50-pound dumbbell.  Also factoring in the wound profile to the victim, it shouldn’t take more than a basic physics equation to rule out the possibility that it fell (or was thrown) from another vehicle.  To conclude that the dumbbell was dropped from an overpass should not be a difficult process.

Bear in mind, the incident in question occurred on Monday, January 9th, and I only found out about it after the driver had died.  Two weeks later, and the police haven’t figured out the cause of the crime in question, which should have taken no more than two days.  When it comes to solving the crime, ask yourself; how hard can it really be to determine where the dumbbell originally came from?  It’s not exactly as though the weights in question grow on trees – nailing down a manufacturer, gym and suspect should not take very long.

If the perpetrator doesn’t face a minimum of a murder charge, it will be a serious miscarriage of justice.  If parents are unwilling to teach their children to behave properly and not do deadly shit like throwing heavy objects from overpasses at cars, the law needs to take matters into their own hands.  Heavy-handed punishment is the only thing that can deter such reckless, dangerous, and yes, criminal activity.

Instead, how is the state of Pennsylvania proposing to solve the problem?  By mandating fencing be build around all highway overpasses.

Again, I understand how fencing would be necessary (if it’s a pedestrian safety issue), but not for the reason they are giving here.  The decision in question stems from a woman who was nearly killed when a rock thrown from an overpass hit her car and struck her in the head.  In the state’s infinite wisdom, they think perpetrators won’t instead throw rocks or rail spikes over/through the fence.  Someone strong enough could in theory still roll the 50-pound dumbbell off the top of the above fencing.  Not exactly a serious deterrent, wouldn’t you agree?

A state senator is not giving up on his effort to fulfill a wish of the late Randy Budd, husband of the Ohio school teacher critically injured when a rock smashed the windshield of their car on Interstate 80 in 2014.

 

The Senate this session failed to act on the bill that would require protective fences on new or rehabilitated overpasses over interstate and limited access highways in Pennsylvania.

 

Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming, the bill’s chief sponsor, said he will reintroduce it in 2017. He said he believes the chances of it passing will be better getting it in at the beginning of a session.

 

The legislation also would require PennDOT to consider, regardless of the type of highway, fencing for pedestrian bridges in urban areas and those from which objects have been thrown or dropped if the situation has not been alleviated by warning signs.

Wouldn’t a much easier solution be to simply prosecute these crimes incredibly harshly?  Throwing something like eggs or snowballs at cars is already dangerous enough and could cause a serious accident.  The best (and easiest) way to stop reckless behavior that goes above and beyond, involving rocks and other heavy objects thrown at cars, is to aggressively pursue the offenders who commit these crimes.  As it stands, a baseline for anyone caught doing this should be attempted murder, with some leeway given to the prosecutors and police when charging the perpetrators.

The state shouldn’t need legislation and/or a fence to deter this activity; better enforcement of the law, and classifying this behavior as a murder/manslaughter felony charge is the best, easiest, and likely most effective course of action.  And, in the case of whoever threw a gym dumbbell at a vehicle, it is more than deserved.  A fence is merely a paper-thin deterrent that is not only easily defeated, it does not get to the root of the problem – murderous behavior that is not classified as such by the authorities. 

via http://ift.tt/2jnPJLB Tyler Durden

Shortly after the swearing in of General Mattis as the new US Defense Secretary, Trump signed two new executive orders, one to begin the “great rebuilding of the US military” according to which US military strength “will be questioned by no one”, and a second order implementing “new vetting measures” to keep “radical Islamic terrorists” out of the United States.

Speaking Friday at the Pentagon, the president said the action includes plans for new planes, new ships and new resources for the men and women in uniform. Trump announced the plans following a ceremony honoring his new Defense Secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis.

Trump also signed an executive action implementing “new vetting measures” that are aimed at keeping “radical Islamic terrorists” out of the United States. Trump says, “We don’t want them here.” The president says he only wants to admit people to the United States who will support the country. His comments echoed his campaign pledge to implement “extreme vetting” programs, particularly for people coming from countries with ties to terrorism.

Here is Trump vowing a “great rebuilding” of the US Armed Forces, allowing for new planes, resources and toodl.

Pres. Trump says new executive order will help start a “great rebuilding” of the Armed Forces and allow for new planes, resources and tools. http://pic.twitter.com/faXAZ5PRBm

— ABC News (@ABC) January 27, 2017

And here’s trump vowing to keep “radical Islamic terrorists” out of the US. We don’t want them here”

Pres. Trump: New executive order to allow “new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists” out of U.S. “We don’t want them here.” http://pic.twitter.com/XucAdyfQxq

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) January 27, 2017

The signing of the first executive order:

JUST IN: Pres. Trump signs executive order to begin “a great rebuilding” of U.S. Armed Forces and allow for new planes, resources and tools. http://pic.twitter.com/qnO6PhNCgx

— ABC News (@ABC) January 27, 2017

And the second:

JUST IN: Pres. Trump signs new executive order for the “protection of the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” http://pic.twitter.com/NGZvc9C2do

— ABC News (@ABC) January 27, 2017

via http://ift.tt/2jG4ESy Tyler Durden