What's new

US Politics

Will Diversity be the Death of the Democrats?

Both of America’s great national parties are coalitions.

But it is the Democratic Party that never ceases to celebrate diversity — racial, religious, ethnic, cultural — as its own and as America’s “greatest strength.”

Understandably so, for the party is home to a multitude of minorities.

It is the domain of the LGBTQ movement. In presidential elections, Democrats win 70 percent of Hispanics, Jews and Asian-Americans, and 90 percent of African-Americans.

Yet, lately, the party seems to be careening into a virtual war of all against all.

Democratic Governor Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring of Virginia have both admitted to using blackface.

Northam imitated Michael Jackson’s “moonwalk” in a 1984 dance contest. Herring, in 1980 at the University of Virginia, did a blackface impression of rap icon Kurtis Blow, who called it ugly and degrading.

The resignations of both have been demanded by Virginia’s black leadership. Northam and Herring, however, are defying the demands.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, only the second black ever to win statewide office, has been charged by two women with rape. And the demands for his resignation are growing louder and most insistent.

Yet if Fairfax is forced out, while the white governor and white attorney general get a pass, black leaders warn, all hell is going to bust loose.

The Democratic Party of Virginia was already convulsed over all the monuments, statues, schools, parks, highways and streets that bear the names of slave owners, Confederate soldiers and 19th- and 20th-century segregationists.

Across the Potomac, Ilhan Omar, the first ever Somali-American to serve in Congress, and a Muslim, ignited a firestorm last week when she gave this as the reason Congress faithfully votes the AIPAC line on Israel: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.”

The reference is to $100 bills, on which Ben Franklin’s face appears. The line is a rap lyric from a 1997 song by Puff Daddy.

Omar was saying Congress has been bought.

The House Democratic leadership demanded and got an apology from Omar for her use of an “anti-Semitic trope.”

But Omar now his company in the House. Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tlaib, also a Muslim, shares and airs her views on Israel.

The problem for Democrats?

These provocateurs are magnets for media. They speak for a rising minority in the party that regards Israel as an apartheid state that oppresses Palestinians. And they find an echo among millennials on the party’s socialist left.

As Thursday’s Washington Post headlined, this Omar flap “could forecast a Democratic divide on Israel.”

Indeed, it may have already done so.

When Senate Republicans proposed legislation to allow states to refuse to hire individuals or contractors who support the BDS movement to boycott Israel, Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders all voted no.

The four say they are supporting freedom of speech to condemn Israeli policy. But to others it looks like a progressive Democratic blessing for those urging that Israel be treated the same way Ian Smith’s Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa were treated.

Within the Democratic coalition, Asian-Americans are now in conflict with blacks and Hispanics over admission policies at elite schools and universities.

Asian-Americans are “overrepresented” where students are admitted based on test scores or entrance exams. Black and Hispanic leaders are demanding that student bodies, regardless of test scores, look like the community. And if this requires affirmative action based upon race and ethnicity, so be it.

The LBGTQ community is now in court demanding all the rights and protections of the civil rights laws of the ’60s. This will bring gay groups into constant collisions with religious communities that adhere to traditional moral views on homosexuality.

The minorities of color in the Democratic coalition are growing, as the base of the GOP is aging and shrinking. But these minorities are also becoming more rivalrous, competitive and demanding. And the further they move left, they more they move outside the American mainstream.

The pledge of allegiance this writer recited every day of school, reads: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Today, the antifa left desecrates the flag, as liberals praise NFL players who “take a knee” during the national anthem. Militant migrants march under Mexican flags to protest border security policies. The “republic” has been replaced by “our democracy.”

We are no longer “one nation … indivisible” We have almost ceased talking to one another. As for “under God,” added in 1954, Democrats at their Charlotte Convention sought to have God excised from the party platform.

“Liberty” has been supplanted by diversity, “justice” by equality.

But as Revolutionary France, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela proved, regimes that promise utopian and egalitarian societies inevitably reveal themselves to be undertakers of freedom, America’s cause.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2019 Creators.com.

The Growing Anti-Semitism Scam

In his novel 1984 George Orwell invented the expression “newspeak” to describe the ambiguous or deliberately misleading use of language to make political propaganda and narrow the “thought options” of those who are on the receiving end. In the context of today’s political discourse, or what passes for the same, it would be interesting to know what George would think of the saturation use of “anti-Semitism” as something like a tactical discussion stopper, employed to end all dispute while also condemning those accused of the crime as somehow outside the pale, monsters who are consigned forever to derision and obscurity.

The Israelis and, to be sure, many diaspora Jews know exactly how the expression has been weaponized. Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni explained how it is done“Anti-Semitic”…”its a trick, we always use it.”

If one were to read the U.S. mainstream media, reflective as it nearly always is of a certain institutional Jewish viewpoint, one would think that there has been a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, but that claim is incorrect. What has been taking place is not hatred of Jews but rather a confluence of two factors. First is the undeniable fact that Israel has been behaving particularly badly, even by its admittedly low standards. Its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza has been unusually observable in spite of media attempts to avoid mentioning it, plus its support of terrorists in Syria and attacks on that country have also raised questions about the intentions of the kleptocratic regime in Tel Aviv, which is currently pushing for an attack on Iran. That all means that the perception of Israel, which boasts that it is the exclusively Jewish state, inevitably raises questions about the international Jewish community that provides much of its support. But the shift in perception is driven by Israeli behavior, not by Jews as an ethnicity or a religion.

Second, the alleged increase in anti-Semitic incidents is largely fueled by how those incidents are defined. Israel and its friends have worked hard to broaden the parameters of the discussion, making any criticism of Israel or its activities either a hate crime or ipso facto an anti-Semitic incident. The U.S. State Department’s working definition of anti-Semitism includes “…the targeting of the state of Israel” and it warns that anti-Semitism is a criminal offense. Recent legislation in Washington and also in Europe has criminalized hitherto legal and non-violent efforts to pressure Israel regarding its inhumanity vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Legitimate criticism of Israel thereby becomes both anti-Semitism and criminal, increasing the count of so-called anti-Semitic incidents. That means that the numbers inevitably go up, providing fodder to validate a repressive response.

One might add that Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia have contributed to the allegations regarding surging anti-Semitism, relentlessly unleashing a torrent of material rooting out alleged anti-Semites and so-called holocaust deniers, while simultaneously heaping praise on Israel and its achievements. Professor of Holocaust Studies Deborah Lipstadt has written a book Anti-Semitism: Here and Now about what she regards as the new anti-Semitism, supporting her belief that it is getting markedly worse in both Europe and the U.S. There is also a movie about her confrontation with holocaust critic David Irving called Denial. All of the media exposure of so-called anti-Semitism has a political objective, whether intended or not, which is to insulate Israel itself from any criticism and to create for all Jews the status of perpetual victimhood which permits many in the diaspora to unflinchingly support a foreign country against the interests of the nations where they were born, raised and made their fortunes. That is called dual loyalty and, in spite of frequent denials from Israel-apologists, it clearly exists for many American Jews who are passionate about the Jewish state, including members of the Trump Administration Jason Greenblatt, David Friedman and Jared Kushner.

In the past week, a newly elected member of congress has been derided, shunned and then forced to both recant and apologize for having said something that is manifestly true: that Jewish money corrupts the American political system to favor Israel. The controversy erupted after House minority leader Republican Kevin McCarthy said he would initiate investigations of two Muslim congresswomen, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, over their criticisms of Israel. McCarthy called for the two to be denounced by the Democratic Party as anti-Semites after Tlaib had said that the sponsors of recent legislation intended to benefit Israel by limiting free speech “…forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right and part of our historical fight for freedom and equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”

Indeed, Tlaib had a point as the Congressional Israel boosters have long since forgotten that they are supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States while also promoting the interests of their constituents, not those of a country seven thousand miles away. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept responded to the news of the McCarthy threat with a tweet “It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.” Ilhan Omar then tweeted her own pithy rejoinder to Greenwald on Sunday February 10th: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” which was in reference to the Founder Benjamin Franklin’s portrait on hundred-dollar bills. Her comment was almost immediately interpreted as meaning that she was accusing McCarthy of being bought by Jews. She followed up on a question about who was doing the buying she tweeted “AIPAC,” an elaboration that unleashed something like an anti-Semitism shit storm in her direction.

It was manufactured outrage, with political leaders from both parties latching on to a media frenzy to score points against each other. Even though it is perfectly legitimate for a Congresswoman on the Foreign Affairs Committee to challenge what AIPAC does and where its money comes from, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi complained that Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters” was “deeply offensive.” Chelsea Clinton accused Omar of “trafficking in anti-Semitism.” President Donald Trump, who has admitted that his Mideast policy is intended to serve Israeli rather than U.S. interests, also jumped in, saying “I think she should either resign from congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and recanted. She apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.” But she also bravely wrote “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

Pelosi approved of the apology. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota who is running for president in 2020, chimed in to make sure that everyone knew how much she loves Israel, saying “I’m glad she apologized. That was the right thing to do. There is just no room for those kinds of words. I think Israel is our beacon of democracy. I’ve been a strong supporter of Israel and that will never change.”

Two days later, a motion sponsored by Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York passed by a 424 to 0 vote. It was specifically intended to serve as a rebuke to Omar. It stated that “it is in the national security interest of the United States to combat anti-Semitism around the world because…there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned.”

Congressional votes professing love for Israel notwithstanding, the fact is that there is a massive, generously funded effort to corrupt America’s government in favor of Israel. It is euphemistically called the Israel Lobby even though it is overwhelmingly Jewish and it boasts fairly openly of its power when talking with its closest friends about how its money influences the decisions made on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Its combined budget exceeds one billion dollars per year and it includes lobbying powerhouses like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which alone had $229 million in income in 2017, supporting more than 200 employees. It exists only to promote Israeli interests on Capitol Hill and throughout the United States with an army of lobbyists and its activities include using questionably legal all expenses paid “orientation” trips to Israel for all new congressmen and spouses.

McCarthy and the other stooges in Congress deliberately sought to frame the argument in terms of Ilhan Omar having claimed that he personally was receiving money from pro-Israel sources and that money influenced his voting. Well, the fact is that such activity does take place and was documented three years ago by the respected Foreign Policy Journal, which published a piece entitled “The Best Congress AIPAC can Buy” as well as more recently in an al-Jazeera investigative expose using a concealed camera.

And Kevin McCarthy does indeed receive money from Israel PACs – $33,200 in 2018. The amount individual congressmen receive is dependent on their actual or potential value to Israel. Completely corrupt and enthusiastically pro-Israel Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey received $548,507 in 2018. In the House, Beto O’Rourke of Texas received $226,690. The numbers do not include individual contributions of under $200, which are encouraged by AIPAC and can be considerable. In general, congressmen currently receive over $23,000 on averagefrom the major pro-Israel organizations while Senators get $77,000.

But, of course, direct donations of money are not the whole story. If a congressman is unfriendly to Israel, money moves in the other direction, towards funding an opponent when re-election is coming up. Former Rep. Brian Bard has observed that “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” Lara Friedman, who has worked on the Hill for 15 years on Israel/Palestine, notes how congressmen and staffs of “both parties told me over and over that they agreed with me but didn’t dare say so publicly for fear of repercussions from AIPAC.”

A good example of how it all worked involves one honest congressman, Walter Jones of North Carolina, who recently passed away. In 2014, “Wall Street billionaires, financial industry lobbyists, and neoconservative hawks” tried to unseat Jones by bankrolling his primary opponent. The “dark money” intended to defeat him came from a PAC called “The Emergency Committee for Israel,” headed by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol. Jones’ war views, including avoiding a war with Iran, were clearly perceived as anti-Israel.

And one should also consider contributions directly to the political parties. Israeli/U.S. dual nationals Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the largest single donors to the GOP and to the Democrats, having contributed $82 million and $8,780,000respectively in the 2016 presidential campaign. Both have indicated openly that Israel is their top priority.

If they have demonstrated fealty to Israel while in office, many Congressmen also find that loyalty pays off after retirement from government with richly remunerated second careers in Jewish dominated industries, like financial services or the media. And there are hundreds of Jewish organizations that contribute to Israel as charities, even though the money frequently goes to fund illegal activity, including the settlements. Money also is used to buy newspapers and media outlets which then adhere to a pro-Israel line, or, where that does not work, to buy advertising that is conditional on being friendly to Israel. So the bottom line is indeed “the Benjamins” and the corruption that they buy.

Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Education Trust said in January that “One person questioning the truth of the Holocaust is one too many.” That is nonsense. Any, and all, historical events should be questioned regularly, a principle that is particular true regarding developments that carry a lot of emotional baggage. The Israel Lobby would have all Americans believe that any criticism of Israel is motivated by historic hatred of Jews and is therefore anti-Semitism. Don’t believe it. When the AIPAC crowd screams that linking Jews and money is a classic anti-Semitic trope respond by pointing out that Jews and money are very much in play in the corruption of congress and the media over Israel. Terrible things are being done in the Middle East in the name of Jews and of Israel and it all comes down to those Benjamins and the silence they buy by accusing all critics of anti-Semitism. Just recall what the Israeli minister admitted, “It’s a trick, we always use it.”

← Is Tulsi Gabbard for Real?
 
em.jpg


Congress could block big chunk of Trump’s emergency wall money

Full funds likely to be unavailable from the sources president has identified

John M. Donnelly

More than one-third of the money President Donald Trump wants to redirect from other federal programs to build a border barrier is likely to be unavailable from the sources he has identified.

As a result, it may be difficult for the president to circumvent Congress, even if a resolution disapproving of his “emergency” moves is never enacted.

Trump announced Feb. 15 that, using emergency powers, he wants to divert as much as $6.7 billion from other programs to finance the construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. That includes $3.6 billion from unspent military construction money, $2.5 billion in unspent Pentagon counterdrug funds and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture account.

But the Defense Department has told lawmakers that only $85 million remains unspent in the counterdrug account, a House Appropriations spokesman said Thursday.

The Pentagon is planning to ask Congress for authority to reprogram more than $2.4 billion from other military programs into the counterdrug account in order to then take it right back out and move it to the wall project.

“The Department would need to reprogram additional funding into the account to reach the up to $2.5 billion that may be required for border security support,” said Christopher Sherwood, a Defense Department spokesman.

However, a reprogramming request must be approved by both Republicans and Democrats on the four authorizing and appropriating panels that oversee the Pentagon.

Such approval in this case is all but certain to fail. All it would take is one chairman or ranking member to say no.

On Thursday, one of those lawmakers, Indiana Democrat Peter J. Visclosky, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said in a statement that he would turn down any request to reprogram military money to pay for a border wall.

“I am adamantly opposed to the use of any funds provided by Congress to the Department of Defense for the unauthorized construction of a wall on the Southwest border,” Visclosky said. “I and the other members of the House Appropriations Committee will carefully examine each element of the President’s proposal and the serious jurisdictional and Constitutional concerns that it raises.”

The $2.5 billion comprises about 37 percent of the money Trump wants to redirect to the border initiative and away from its congressionally approved purposes.

Trump could still find other ways to pay for the project against Congress’ wishes, including adding to the amount of military construction money he will tap. According to a House Appropriations Committee spreadsheet, there appears to be some billions of dollars in previously appropriated but unobligated military construction money that could be available to be redirected from the projects the military and Congress approved.

The Pentagon has yet to announce which military construction projects it will tap to bankroll this year’s installment of wall money.

The additional border barriers could eventually cost an estimated $25 billion.

Some on Capitol Hill say they are bracing for another possibility: that the president could move money as he wishes in the Pentagon budget and just disregard the traditional requirement that a president must get congressional approval for shifting sizable amounts of money from one account to another. Source: Roll Call
 
I haven't heard Walter Williams on the radio for a few years. He used to guest host for Rush Limbaugh sometimes. He is a delightful economist in that he explains the way the free market works as the most democratic of systems. Your dollars are your votes. If you are free to vote (spend) and have decent information or personal savvy, the highest quality products and most efficient providers will be rewarded by your votes; and both you and they will prosper!
 
I haven't heard Walter Williams on the radio for a few years. He used to guest host for Rush Limbaugh sometimes. He is a delightful economist in that he explains the way the free market works as the most democratic of systems. Your dollars are your votes. If you are free to vote (spend) and have decent information or personal savvy, the highest quality products and most efficient providers will be rewarded by your votes; and both you and they will prosper!

It is why I am in favour of free markets established (after a revolution/independence) and allowed to permeate for some time (to erode any chasms of prejudice etc).... rather than too much govt "social" intervention/correction right off the bat first thing (which tends to divide the population long term).
 
It is why I am in favour of free markets established (after a revolution/independence) and allowed to permeate for some time (to erode any chasms of prejudice etc).... rather than too much govt "social" intervention/correction right off the bat first thing (which tends to divide the population long term).

Correct, but certain things need some government support: infrastructure, health, education.
 
Correct, but certain things need some government support: infrastructure, health, education.

Yes where there is high public (merit) good, the argument can be made.

We obviously make one for defense, courts, basic administration etc.

As far as possible the argued "market failure" must be given to every individual as direct as possible (voucher for health, education and insurance pool for those etc). This is why I am not opposed to concept of UBI either (as long as it replaces the several layers of assistance/interventionist headache now and costs much less). All of this should be focused only on basic poverty and basic equivalent social care in health +education.

What I am totally against is concept of wealth redistribution to address "inequality" past (aboslute) poverty. Relative poverty is always slippery slope argument and always is a vote buy in a democracy. It is not and never has been a true social goal (meriting social intervention)....mostly because the people engaged in this agenda are the worst representatives for it...always....esp compared to hard data of the free market.

None have practiced what they preached and set any kind of example of themselves.
 
What I am totally against is concept of wealth redistribution to address "inequality" past (aboslute) poverty. Relative poverty is always slippery slope argument and always is a vote buy in a democracy. It is not and never has been a true social goal (meriting social intervention)....mostly because the people engaged in this agenda are the worst representatives for it...always....esp compared to hard data of the free market.

I agree with the above 100%.
 
5c7073f3c675d.image.jpg


Republican Silence On Actual Voter Fraud Is Deafening

After a decade of using the alleged problem of "voter fraud" to justify things like Voter ID Laws, Republicans are remarkably silent in the fact of an actual example of fraud and election tampering.

DOUG MATACONIS ·

After years of decrying “voter fraud” as justification for Voter ID Laws, Republicans have been strangely silent when it comes to one of the most extensive examples of actual voter and election fraud in recent memory:

RALEIGH, N.C. — Republican politicians across the country have for years railed against the threat of voter fraud. Some have made unproven claims about how rampant it has become in order to pass voter ID laws and open sweeping investigations. The sanctity of the vote, they have said, must be protected at all costs.

But when a hard-fought congressional election in North Carolina — in which a Republican candidate appeared to narrowly beat his Democratic opponent — was overturned this week because of election fraud by a Republican political operative, the party was measured, and largely muted, in its response.

The state party chairman, Robin Hayes, issued a statement after officials ordered a new election calling the affair “a tremendously difficult situation for all involved.” National Republicans have been mostly mum. President Trump, who has made election fraud one of the hallmarks of his administration, was quiet on Twitter, although on Friday, facing reporters at the Oval Office, he condemned fraud — “all of it, and that includes North Carolina.”

Mark Harris, the Republican nominee, had eked out a 905-vote lead over Dan McCready. But the North Carolina Board of Elections refused to certify Mr. Harris as the winner and opened an investigation into irregularities. This week, the five-member board, made up of Republicans and Democrats, convened an evidentiary hearing in Raleigh at which witnesses described a voter-turnout effort that relied on the rogue collection of absentee ballots.

In several hours of testimony on Thursday, after his campaign acknowledged that it had withheld damning records from the board, Mr. Harris denied wrongdoing but also appeared to mislead regulators. He then surprised everyone by abandoning his claim to the Ninth Congressional District seat, which covers part of Charlotte and much of southeastern North Carolina.

Witnesses detailed how people working for a Harris campaign operative, L. McCrae Dowless Jr., had filled out parts of some absentee ballots and improperly collected others. On Friday, Lorrin Freeman, the district attorney in Wake County, said she could seek charges within weeks against Mr. Dowless and some of the people he hired.

“Obviously, it’s within the province of the grand jury as to whether they will return indictments,” Ms. Freeman said. “But do I anticipate there will be a criminal prosecution going forward? I do.”

State Republicans, who over the past few years have tightened voting laws and had fought to preserve Mr. Harris’s victory, were far less vociferous in denouncing voter fraud than they have been in the past.

That stands in marked contrast to 2016, when the state’s Republicans filed many complaints and claimed for a month that Roy Cooper, the Democrat who was elected governor that year, should not be seated because rampant fraud had enabled his victory. The charge proved baseless.


Much like North Carolina Republicans, Republicans on the national level have been strangely silent as this story has unfolded since election day. This has been true regardless of the fact that it has become apparent that the Republican candidate, Mark Harris, was involved in the entire scheme to some extent or at least had reason to think it was taking place.

The person principally most likely knowingly conspired with someone who worked with the campaign as an outside consultant and who is the one who carried out the actions that clearly led to votes for Harris’s opponent being lost, buried, destroyed, or changed to votes for Harris. It’s possible, I suppose, that Harris was completely unaware of all of this but from the testimony during the hearing held before the state elections board, it seems quite clear that a candidate and campaign would almost have to have been willfully blind to not be aware of what was going on. While that falls short of actual conspiracy with the underlying bad actor, it is a strong indication that the candidate didn’t care how he won, even if it involved nefarious means such as those undertaken in this case.

As for national Republicans, the silence is equally telling. For the better part of the past decade, Republicans have talked about the alleged problem of in-person voter fraud, specifically meaning instances in which a person seeks to vote under the name of someone else or to vote multiple times in the same election. The only solution for such fraud, they claim, is to require that every voter obtain some form of identification which must be presented at their polling place before they’re allowed to vote. As numerous studies have shown, though, this form of voter fraud is so exceedingly rare as to be non-existent or at least not prevalent enough to justify passage of Voter ID Laws that have been shown to have a discriminatory impact on poor and minority voters such as those in Texas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, all three of which have seen their Voter ID laws struck down by Federal Courts.

President Trump has picked up on these themes with his continued and unsupported claims that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 and 2018 elections. While Trump’s voters and the GOP eat this red meat right up, there’s no evidence to support the truth behind any of the allegations.

Now we have an example of real, proven, voter fraud that seems to have clearly had an impact on the outcome that was significant enough for the North Carolina Elections Board to order a new election, something that has never happened before in the context of an election to Federal office. Where are the Republicans who have spent a decade or more decrying voter fraud? Where’s the President of the United States who finds the time to tweet about virtually everything else in the news and who has advanced baseless and unsupported claims about voter fraud in each of the past two elections? They are silent, of course, and that should tell you a lot about what they really think and what the real motivation behind their push for Voter ID laws is all about.
 
House votes to terminate Trump's national emergency declaration for border wall

The House voted Tuesday to pass a resolution to terminate President Donald Trump's national emergency proclamation to build the border wall, presenting their opening salvo in a battle that's expected to drag into the next presidential campaign, both in the courts and on Capitol Hill.

The bill passed 245-182, with just 13 Republicans joining 232 Democrats to approve the measure.

The measure now heads to the Senate, where its prospects are less certain. Even if it does pass the upper chamber, Trump has vowed to veto the measure.

Given Tuesday's tally in the House, it's unlikely Congress would have the two-thirds majorities needed to override a veto.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that Trump's "power grab usurps" the legislative branch's constitutional responsibilities and "fundamentally violates the balance of power envisioned by our founders

"We would be delinquent in our duties if we did not resist, if we did not fight back to overturn the president's declaration. To not do that would be to abandon our own responsibilities. We do not intend to do that," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday. "What the president is saying about the border is mythology. It's not reality, but this is not about the wall. Whatever you think about the wall, think about the Constitution of the United States." Read more
 
What a disgrace, Trump believes North Korea’s brutal dictator, just like he believed Putin over our own intelligence agencies. The clown thinks Kim did not know that his bloodsucking special police were torturing American student Otto Warmbier.

Yeah, America first, my foot.

"He felt badly about it. He felt very badly," Trump said after his failed waste of time summit with Kim, adding they discussed Warmbier’s death privately. "He tells me that he didn't know about it and I will take him at his word."



'I don't believe he knew about it.' Trump defends Kim Jong Un on Otto Warmbier's death

John Fritze, USA TODAY Published 3:54 a.m. ET Feb. 28, 2019

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Thursday he did not hold Kim Jong Un responsible for the death of Otto Warmbier, the U.S. college student who died after being imprisoned in North Korea.

In 2016, Warmbier, then 21 years old, was arrested and accused of committing a "hostile act" as he tried to leave North Korea. He was sent home to his parents in Ohio in June 2017 in a coma with a massive brain injury and died afterward.

Trump, who abruptly ended a Vietnam summit with Kim on nuclear disarmament, was asked by a reporter about the discussions he had with the North Korean leader on Warmbier's death.

"I don't believe he knew about it," Trump said of Kim. "He tells me that he didn't know about it and I will take him at his word." Read more
 
Blue states band together looking to bypass Electoral College

AAuK4fp.img

Michael Burke 19 hrs ago

A plan to circumvent the Electoral College is gaining momentum among blue states after Democrats suffered two crushing defeats in presidential elections over the past two decades.

The plan has been given new impetus after Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) said this week that he will sign a bill to have his state become the 12th state along with the District of Columbia to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.


The states making up the compact, which already includes New York, Illinois and all the New England states except for New Hampshire, would commit to awarding their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College.

So far, these states, with Colorado, add up to 181 electoral votes, well short of the 270 needed to ascend to the White House.

Advocates are doubtful that enough states can join the compact for it to take effect by 2020, but hold hope of garnering enough support by 2024, as a handful of states like New Mexico also consider the measure, though proponents acknowledge the path to get to 270 will be far from easy.

Colorado state Rep. Emily Sirota (D), one of the sponsors of that state's legislation, said she sees the compact "as a way to ensure that every vote is counted equally" and force candidates to campaign nationwide instead of targeting a few battleground states that can deliver success in the electoral math.

"If we had presidential candidates campaigning across the country, instead of a handful of swing states, you'd see a lot more participation from across the country and I think that is good and healthy for our electoral process," Sirota told The Hill.

The renewed push comes after 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton lost the election that year despite winning the popular vote, the second time it has happened since the turn of the century.

The defeat was especially crushing to Democrats after a similar loss suffered by former Vice President Al Gore in 2000.

All states that are now part of the compact voted for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.

Colorado voted for Clinton last time but picked former President George W. Bush in 2000.

Critics of the Electoral College system have long argued it incentivizes candidates to target swing states with a bounty of electoral votes, while discouraging turnout by voters in states that are reliably red or blue.

Opponents of the current electoral system also say that electing a president through a popular vote could improve how presidents govern in office.

John Koza, the chairman of the National Popular Vote, a group that advocates for the compact, said the Electoral College "distorts" public policy by incentivizing presidents to cater to key swing states while in office, particularly in their first term.

"It's not only unfair that the second place candidate can win, it's also not good for the office of president or the country," he said.

"When you're sitting in the White House ... you say, 'What states do I have to win and what do I have to do to win them?' That's just not a good way for public policy to be set," Koza added.

Advocates of the compact are holding up hope that more steps will follow Colorado in joining the compact, which was first introduced in academic research papers as a way to effectively get rid of the electoral college system without going through the daunting process of a constitutional amendment.

The most promising is New Mexico, which has already passed a popular vote bill through one chamber and has a Democratic Governor.

Should it pass, the state would add 5 electoral votes to the compact, bringing the total to 186.

Meanwhile, legislators in 16 states have introduced bills this session seeking to join the compact, according to National Popular Vote.

Of those, Democratically-controlled Delaware, Maine, Nevada and Oregon look the most promising, with a total tally of 20 additional votes that could bring the total to 206 - though even there, the prospects are far from guaranteed.

Oregon state Rep. Diego Hernandez (D), a sponsor of the state's popular vote bill, said there may not be enough momentum in the current legislative session to pass.

"We have so many big issues we're tackling this session, when it comes to housing and the environment and education and revenue reform, that although the conversation's happening, I'm not sure that it's the top priority in terms of the collective agenda," Hernandez said.

But the prospect of passage in some of the other 16 states where a popular vote bill has been introduced look far less certain given many have split powers or are deep-red, like South Carolina or Mississippi.

Republicans are mostly opposed to any measure to derail the Electoral College system, seeing as unconstitutional.

Opponents of using the popular vote to elect presidents have long argued it would result in candidates catering to large cities and large states to rack up votes, which tend to have a bigger share of Democratic voters, ignoring smaller or rural areas.

Rose Pugliese, a county commissioner in Colorado, said in a tweet she had petitioned the Secretary of State not to award the state's votes to the winner of the popular vote, saying such a move "allows California and New York to decide Colorado's votes for President."

Nonetheless advocates of the compact remain hopeful.

Koza, the National Popular Vote chairman, said garnering the necessary support by 2020 was "theoretically" possible, but believed it was more likely by 2024.

"You never know how a bandwagon can get rolling," he said. "So at the moment, I couldn't name states that would get us there in time for 2020, although there's theoretically ways to do it. It seems perfectly plausible that we should get there by 2024." Source

 
Back
Top Bottom