|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 2, 2019 8:03:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 2, 2019 9:25:13 GMT -6
amp.dailycaller.com/2019/08/02/big-labor-afl-cio-union-vote-democrats-campaignAFL-CIO President Richard Trumka put Democrats on notice Wednesday, saying they can’t maintain union support with simple “campaign rhetoric.” Trumka was speaking to a private meeting that included representatives from each of the Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination, according to a Huffington Post report published Thursday. He told the crowd that both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to big business and ignore workers’ rights. “It’s time to do better,” Trumka said. “I believe you can. I believe you will. And working people are hungry for it. But you can’t offer campaign rhetoric or count on workers’ votes simply because you have a ‘D’ next to your name.” (RELATED: Trumka: White House Staff Made Up Of Racists And People Only Looking Out For Wall Street) Although Trumka said it was easy to blame the Republican Party for policies that unions don’t agree with, it was time to “be honest” about the labor record of the Democratic Party. “More often than not, the Republican Party is bad for workers. This president is bad for workers. But let’s be honest about the Democratic Party’s record,” Trumka said. “We are caught in a web of century-old labor laws that prioritize unchecked corporate greed over all else,” Trumka said, according to the Post. “We can blame this White House all we want. But this isn’t new.” (RELATED: Union Members Have Traditionally Supported Democrats But This Poll Shows A Dramatic Shift) The union may also be concerned that the party is shifting away from traditional Democratic policies, and moving even further left on the political spectrum. In March, the AFL-CIO rebuked the Green New Deal, saying it would cause “immediate harm” to average Americans. “We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families,” the union wrote in a letter. “We will not stand by and allow threats to our members’ jobs and their families’ standard of living go unanswered.” A report released Tuesday suggested the environmental policy that aims to ban fossil fuel use within a decade would drain $70,000 from Americans households part of five key electoral states in one year. “You need to prove that this party is the one and only party for working people and recognize that unions and collective bargaining are the single best way to make this economy work for everyone” Trumka said, according to the Post. “Convince our members, and you’ll have the country’s largest and most effective movement for working people on your side.” President Donald Trump has promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement and called the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement “terrible.” Trumka called both bad for workers and the middle class. The AFL-CIO has not yet endorsed any candidate for the 2020 presidential election.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 2, 2019 10:09:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 2, 2019 10:11:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 2, 2019 15:07:07 GMT -6
Elizabeth Warren, CNN’s Ana Navarro, other liberals being sued: lawandcrime.com/high-profile/exclusive-8-covington-catholic-teens-sue-most-egregious-high-profile-individuals-for-defamation/Lawyers for eight Covington Catholic students (John Does 1-8) filed a defamation lawsuit on Thursday in Kentucky’s Kenton County Circuit Court against 12 individuals — lawmakers, journalists/media figures and social media personalities included. Attorneys Robert Barnes (disclosure: Barnes has written columns for Law&Crime) and Kevin Murphy began the suit by going back to January 18, 2019, when, they say, “A field trip to our nation’s capital for a group of minors from Covington, Kentucky turned into a social media nightmare that changed their futures forever.” This was when MAGA hat wearing high school students (Nick Sandmann, in particular) came face to face with a 65-year-old Native American man identified as Nathan Phillips. The lawsuit said that the defendants jumped to conclusions, painting the plaintiffs as racists, lying about an event they didn’t witness firsthand, and libeling the minors. (Note that these minors are bringing this lawsuit through their parents.) Several of our Senators, most-famous celebrities, and widely read journalists, collectively used their large social media platforms, perceived higher credibility and public followings to lie and libel minors they never met, based on an event they never witnessed,” the lawsuit said. “These defendants called for the kids to be named and shamed, doxxed and expelled, and invited public retaliation against these minors from a small town in Kentucky.The defendants circulated false statements about them to millions of people around the world. The video of the entire event, known to the defendants, exposed all of their factual claims against the kids as lies. The defendants were each individually offered the opportunity to correct, delete, and/or apologize for their false statements, but each refused, continuing to circulate the false statements about these children to this very day on their social media platforms they personally control.” The defendants have been named as follows (Law&Crime is not including a copy of the lawsuit here so as not publicize their addresses): 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Deb Haaland (D-New Mexico), CNN’s Ana Navarro, Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, comedian Kathy Griffin, ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd, Reza Aslan (formerly of CNN), Kentucky entrepreneur Adam Edelen, Princeton University History Professor Kevin M. Kruse, activist and journalist Shaun King, Mother Jones editor-in-chief Clara Jeffery and Rewire.News editor-in-chief Jodi Jacobson. Law&Crime is in the process of reaching out to the defendants, and will update with responses as we get them. The New York Times response: Ms. Haberman has not yet been served with this complaint. The lawsuit is entirely without merit and we will vigorously defend it if necessary. The Rewire.News response: We have no comment now until further notice. The Adam Edelen response: Thank you for reaching out, but we cannot comment on a lawsuit that we’ve neither seen nor been served. “The plaintiffs repeatedly offered each defendant publicly the opportunity to retract, correct, or delete their offending and defamatory statements, but each refused, continuing to share their defamatory comments with the public to this very day,” the lawsuit said. “No individual plaintiff seeks damages from any defendant in excess of the cost of a four-year tuition at the University of Kentucky. Plaintiffs file this Complaint for neither fame nor fortune; they bring this suit to protect future families from experiencing the nightmare the defendants caused these kids to experience.” Barnes told Law&Crime that “prominent politicians, press and public personalities used their big social media platforms to form a digital lynch mob against a bunch of kids they never knew from an event they didn’t witness.” He said that although “most retracted, deleted, and corrected their statements, a few refused long after afforded a chance to do so.” Here was an example of apology made and accepted: That is why we filed suit in Covington for these kids: so this won’t happen to anyone else without legal consequence. I founded Free America Law Center, a free speech supporting legal organization for all to democratize & equalize access to the legal system for victims of Big Media, Big Tech, and rogue government actors, for cases just like this,” Barnes added. “The first suit backed by Free America Law Center is the suit for the Covington Boys.” “Legal remedy should not be limited to the left. We need free speech for a free America that does not privilege the powerful. That is what this suit, and the Free America Law Center, is all about,” Barnes continued. Law&Crime asked Barnes how this lawsuit was different from, say, the $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post that was dismissed last week. Barnes said he believes the differences in this suit (suing individuals rather than institutions) means there is a greater chance of success. “Kentucky law makes it more difficult to sue institutions than individuals in the context of libel law. Additionally, the major media institutions almost all issued corrections per my request, as defined under Kentucky law,” Barnes said. “Finally, we are only suing the most egregious high-profile individuals who inflicted the most harm & refuse to issue corrections.” The plaintiffs alleged the defendants defamed them per se. What that means: A defamatory statement that is communicated in a fixed medium and is considered to be so harmful on its face that the plaintiff need not prove special damages. Examples of libel per se are statements that: (i) relate to the person’s business or profession to the person’s detriment; (ii) falsely claim that the person committed a crime of moral turpitude; (iii) imputes unchastity on the person; or (iv) claim that the person suffers from a loathsome disease. The plaintiffs said that the social media frenzy caused lasting damage: Does 1-8 were subjected to public hatred, contempt, scorn, obloquy, and shame. The conduct of the plaintiffs, based on the false facts the defendants placed and circulated into the court of public opinion, led to these lifetimes labels on these minors: “Display of hate, disrespect and intolerance”; “heartbreaking”; “decency decayed”; “racist”; “cried for America”; “infamous”; “gall”; “shameful”; “darker chapters”; compared to genocide; “laughing and egging on” hurtful” behavior; “awful”; “cavemen gestures”; “taunting”; harassing”; “stalking”; “mocking”; “bullies” who should be doxed, “named and shamed,” expelled from school, denied admission to college, to be punched in the face, their bodies shredded, and their lives ruined. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial and judgment no less than $15,000 but no more than $50,000 against each of the named defendants ($50,000 x 12/8 = $75,000). They seek compensation for costs, expenses, attorneys fees, as well as declaratory and equitable relief from the court. Below are images of tweets that were included as exhibits in the lawsuit:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 2, 2019 15:15:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 3, 2019 0:30:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 3, 2019 0:53:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 3, 2019 1:24:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 4:24:19 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/02/joe-bidens-brother-scored-generous-loans-during-banking-committee-tenure/Joe Biden’s younger brother James received a series of “unusually generous” bank loans during the 1970s, while the former vice president served on the Senate Banking Committee. Politico reported on Friday that James Biden, who has a history of murky financial dealings, was able to parlay his role as the chief fundraiser for his brother’s 1972 Senate run into the startup capital required to open a nightclub. The loans were considered “unusually generous” given that the younger Biden was a salesman without any business experience and purportedly had a net worth of less than $10,000 at the outset of the venture in 1973. Another key component of the story, which was widely covered by local media in Delaware and Pennsylvania at the time, is that the loans appeared to draw concerns over influence peddling, as Joe Biden had just been appointed to the Senate Banking Committee. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407“No sooner was freshman lawmaker Joe Biden seated on the Senate Banking Committee,” Politico reported, “than James became the beneficiary of business loans that were described … as unusually generous because of the relatively large amount of money he was able to borrow with little or no collateral and a lack of relevant prior experience.” The first series of loans — totaling $165,000 — were provided by Wilmington’s Farmers Bank, which, although privately managed, was partially owned by the public with the state of Delaware having a 49 percent stake. The Wilmington Morning News reported in 1977 that of the total, $60,000 was “unsecured,” meaning that James Biden was “personally liable” for its repayment. Despite the extensive startup capital, the nightclub failed to turn a profit and by 1975 had run up debts totaling more than $500,000. Unable to pay their bills, James Biden and his business partners, which by then included his brother-in-law John T. Owens, turned to First Pennsylvania Bank for a bailout. The exact manner in which the loan, for $300,000, was arranged is unclear, especially as James Biden only had a total net worth of $10,050 at the time. It appears the loan came through after the incumbent governor of Pennsylvania made a recommendation on the nightclub’s behalf. Regardless, the money did not last long and by 1977, James Biden was forced to surrender the club to creditors after incurring more than $700,000 of debt. During the same time period James Biden was receiving the extensive lines of credit, Joe Biden was sitting on the Senate Banking Committee, which had purview over the financial sector. A specific jurisdiction of the committee was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which provides bailouts to banks if they should become over leveraged. Such a bailout was required by Farmers Bank in 1976 when it nearly collapsed after all the troublesome loans, like those to James Biden, it made could not be repaid. The bank only survived after the FDIC and the state of Delaware threw it a lifeline by purchasing a majority of the problematic loans. Although the bank was brought back from the brink of ruin, its problems were not cleared up immediately. A number of the bank’s executives, including its former chairman, were indicted for fraud and other financial crimes. The scandal quickly ensnared other financiers from Delaware’s banking community and the elected officials supposedly regulating them. “A Delaware banking commissioner was found to have received a loan from Farmers while overseeing its finances, an apparent violation of federal law,” Politico reported. “Separately … The DOJ also scrutinized unusual loans made by Farmers, including the Biden loan.” A few months afterwards, Joe Biden departed the Banking Committee in order to take a seat on the more prestigious Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout the entire ordeal, James Biden maintained his brother was not involved in the business at all or aware of the generous loans. It appears, though, Joe Biden’s name and reputation as a senator was enough for some of institutions, like Farmers, to continue lending to his brother. “Former bank officers [at Farmers] said they figured the Biden name would help attract a trendy free-spending crowd to the handsomely appointed club,” the Delaware News Journal stated when reporting on James Biden’s debts in 1977.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 4:26:04 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/02/maher-on-dem-debates-obama-is-not-woke-enough-now/On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher criticized Democratic presidential candidates for their attacks on President Obama during their debates. Maher mocked the notion that Obama, a person who is still hugely popular among Democrats, “is not woke enough” and suggested this would help President Trump win re-election. Maher said, “The Democratic candidates went after the president hard. Unfortunately, the president was Obama. … The guy with the 97% approval rating among the Democrats, his shit is not woke enough now. Trump saw that, he called Putin. He said, I got this one.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 4:27:07 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/02/maher-democrats-just-have-to-be-less-crazy-than-trump-and-theyre-blowing-it/On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher argued that in order to win in 2020, Democrats just have “to come off less crazy than Trump, and, of course, they’re blowing it.” Maher argued that because of Trump fatigue, “All the Democrats have to do to win is to come off less crazy than Trump, and, of course, they’re blowing it. Coming across as unserious people who are going to take away all your money so migrants from Honduras can go to college for free and get a major in America sucks. Now, do I want Biden to be president? Not really. But Biden’s the only Democrat who beats Trump in Ohio. He’s like non-dairy creamer. Nobody loves it, but in a jam, it gets the job done.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 4:29:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 4:31:32 GMT -6
On a related note, there was a pollster measuring reaction to the rally in Cincinnati and he made a fascinating discovery. www.foxnews.com/media/pollster-voter-dials-immigration-trump-rallyPollster: Voter dials show independents siding with Trump on immigration Pollster Lee Carter measured the responses of a group of 100 voters to President Trump’s rally in Cincinnati and she said Friday that independents are leaning toward the president’s immigration stance. At one point in the speech, Trump said Democrats’ greatest “betrayal” was supporting “open borders’ and Democratic lawmakers “care more about illegal aliens than they care about their own constituents.” “We’re not going to do that,” Trump said to his base at the rally on Thursday. Carter, president of communications consulting firm Maslansky + Partners, said the voter-reaction analysis showed independents tracking closer to Republicans than Democrats in response to those statements. She said Republicans graded those comments with an A+ and Democrats rated them with an F, but independents graded them with a B-. “I think this is so interesting, how divided we are on immigration. Democrats really are not for open borders. But when you look at those independents, they were right up there with him,” Carter told “Fox & Friends.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 9:05:26 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/50210/limbaugh-democrats-showing-their-extremism-do-david-limbaugh?ampLIMBAUGH: Democrats, In Showing Their Extremism, Do Nation A Favor by David Limbaugh August 3, 2019 In Wednesday evening's Democratic presidential debate circus, the left's favorite darlings turned on one another with a selfish vengeance, which was a positive development for the country and mildly entertaining. The glorious infighting continued among progressive commentators. This acrimony, coupled with the public exposure of the left's crazy ideas, surely diminished the party's image among sane voters. The more leftists reveal their inanity and extremism, the better for President Trump and the nation. As one lifelong-Democrat African American caller told Rush Limbaugh the day after the debates, "The Democratic Party is no longer recognizable to me." The consensus was that frontrunner Joe Biden was verbally awkward, tripping over numbers and phrases, and providing confusing instructions to viewers seeking to sign up for text message updates from his campaign. While fellow Democrats gave Biden a pass for his politically incorrect comments during his term as vice president, he got no such slack for his debate faux pas. To be fair, however, you don't have to do much these days to run afoul of progressive thought police. All it took was for Biden to tell Kamala Harris as she was introduced to the stage, "Go easy on me, kid." Biden was obviously referring to Harris' aggressive attacks on him during the previous debate and playfully, even deferentially, asking her to soften her blows. Virtue-signaling liberals were compelled to evince indignation. BAFTA Award-winning television writer Dominic Mitchell tweeted, "Kid? She's a grown woman Biden. Come on, man. Don't be such a sexist wuss straight out of the 1950s." Another Twitter user said Biden used a "single sentence quip intended to simultaneously diminish Harris and characterize her as overly aggressive. He'll say it was a joke, which is what his supporters will claim while belittling critics as humorless and aggressive. Women know it well." Rev. Laura Everett was harsher, tweeting, "'Go easy on me, kid' may pass to some as folksy banter, but underneath is centuries of sexism and racism, and a presumption of privilege where niceness avoids critique." Far be it from me to defend Joe Biden, but does anyone really believe he intended condescension and sexism there? Yes, I realize the thought police don't care what he meant and are eager to see subconscious slights where none were intended. But give me a break. Biden was just being Colloquial Joe. Period. Even Harris told CNN's Anderson Cooper she wasn't bothered by it. But let these progressives strut their feigned outrage over such contrived conflicts instead of addressing substantive policy issues that might actually impact Americans' lives. This is who they are, and voters deserve to see that. It's probably a good thing for Harris that she wasn't too vexed over Biden's alleged patronizing because she committed a worse violation along those lines against Tulsi Gabbard after Gabbard attacked her record as attorney general of California. Instead of addressing the substance of Gabbard's complaint, Harris rudely dismissed Gabbard personally during an interview with Cooper, referring to herself as a "top-tier candidate" and to Gabbard as being "at 0 or 1% or whatever she might be at." Democrats also did the nation a rare service in, once again, revealing their certifiably insane policy positions, from health care to the environment. And as if to make sure voters wouldn't dare doubt their extremism, they all circled the wagons when any among them strayed from the party line and questioned the practicality of their proposals. When debate moderators or rival candidates challenged contenders to justify the financial cost of their plans, they were quickly accused of invoking "Republican talking points." We saw this from Crazy Bernie, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Julian Castro. Excellent. Any time a Democrat pretends to brush up against reality and common sense, another one savages him or her for acting like a Republican. I dare say Republicans have no problem with that image. To further illustrate that there were no holds barred last night, the contestants were apparently so determined to knock front-runner Biden off his lofty perch that they attacked the policies of their idol, former President Obama, the man Biden served so faithfully. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough was none too pleased that these upstarts criticized Obama's agenda, including his immigration and health care policies. "It is insanity, my friends," said Scarborough. "We were sort of in a Never-never land last night in that debate. It was bizarre." Scarborough said many Democrats were furious at these candidates for "trashing Barack Obama's legacy. ... Give me a break. What's wrong with you people? You're going up against Donald Trump, and you're talking about defending Obamacare as Republican talking points? Who is advising you?" Co-host Mika Brzezinski agreed, saying this turn of events must have pleased Trump. You're right, Mika. All Republicans have to be pleased and looking forward to more of the same.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 9:26:26 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/02/maher-we-heard-20-different-versions-of-america-from-harris/On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher mocked 2020 presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) for changing her positions by stating that in the debate, there were “20 different versions of America, [and] that was just from Kamala Harris.” Maher said, “It [the Democratic presidential debate] was a chance for viewers, of course, to hear 20 different versions of America, [and] that was just from Kamala Harris.” He later referenced 2020 presidential candidate Senator Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) line about dipping into the Kool-Aid and not knowing what flavor it is before stating, “I don’t even know what that means, but today, Kamala Harris just made it her healthcare plan.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 9:35:24 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/03/exclusive-kevin-mccarthy-details-gop-plan-to-retake-house-majority-31-democrats-sit-in-districts-donald-trump-won/Republicans only need to net win back 20 seats from Democrats to retake their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy broke down the GOP plan to do just that in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News that aired Saturday morning. The one-hour-long in-studio exclusive interview which aired on Breitbart News Saturday and will air again on Breitbart News Sunday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel, is the first and most comprehensive the House’s leading Republican has given detailing such plans by the GOP. In addition to the political focus in this interview, McCarthy also discussed immigration policy and tech policy with Breitbart News. McCarthy laid out the numbers that Republicans need to hit to win back their majority in 2020 alongside President Donald Trump’s efforts to win re-election. There are 31 seats that Democrats sit in today that President Trump carried,” McCarthy said. “Of those 31, 13 of them President Trump carried by more than six points. So, here you have the socialist wing of the party trying to take them further left, when the only way they have the majority is actually winning in Republican areas—areas that would be swing districts.” Currently, Republicans hold 198 seats in the House. A majority in the House is 218 seats. So, if Republicans take back those 13 seats from Democrats in districts that Trump won by more than six percent, and seven more from the remaining 18 districts that Democrats represent that Trump won—while holding what they currently have—or find some other way to net gain 20 seats, they can retake the majority in 2020. The 13 districts currently represented by Democrats that Trump won by more than six percent are as follows: Minnesota’s 7th district, New York’s 22nd, Oklahoma’s 5th, South Carolina’s 1st, Maine’s 2nd, New Mexico’s 2nd, New York’s 11th, Pennsylvania’s 8th, New York’s 19th, Michigan’s 8th, Utah’s 4th, Virginia’s 7th, and New Jersey’s 3rd. The other 18 districts currently represented by Democrats in which Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton include: New Jersey’s 2nd, Wisconsin’s 3rd, Michigan’s 11th, Iowa’s 2nd, Illinois’ 14th, Iowa’s 1st, Iowa’s 3rd, Virginia’s 2nd, Pennsylvania’s 17th, New York’s 18th, New Hampshire’s 1st, Georgia’s 6th, Minnesota’s 2nd, Arizona’s 1st, New Jersey’s 5th, Nevada’s 3rd, New Jersey’s 11th, and Illinois’ 17th. Republicans had a 23-seat majority before the 2018 midterms, but Democrats ended up netting a 40-seat swing in the House in the November elections. Part of what led to this, McCarthy noted, was a surge in GOP retirements. A whopping 41 Republicans, which is less than the number of seats the Democrats gained, retired before the midterms. Democrats also had a midterm election cycle on their side, something that historically favors the party out of power, in addition to financial advantages. In addition, McCarthy noted, redistricting efforts in Pennsylvania and election law changes in Maine—among other such factors—contributed to the Democrats taking the House back for the first time in eight years. “So if you sit back and you look at the last election, there’s not one reason why the Republicans lost the majority but there are a couple,” McCarthy explained on the Breitbart News radio special. “The first one being history, meaning that historically whichever party wins the White House, that party normally loses an average of 30 seats in the off-year election. Barack Obama lost 63. Twenty-three seats was our majority, so just history would beat us. We had more retirements than ever, the most of Republicans—41—in a year; that was a bad year for us. The Democrats had $250 million more dollars than us, and the other thing the Democrats did is they sued and had redistricting done in a partisan way in Pennsylvania so they got three seats to start up with. They changed the election law in Maine. In Maine, you don’t vote for one person —there’s only two congressional seats—what you do is you rank them. So if someone doesn’t get to 50 percent, the ranking actually pulls somebody else up. Bruce Poliquin, who was the congressman, got the most votes but is not the member of Congress from Maine anymore. It’s changing these types of things. Democrats turned out with a higher number. All the Republican vote, and all the Democrat vote, Democrats turned out eight percent higher. But if you look at those 74 seats that make up the swing of a majority in Congress, these are the 74 seats that Charlie Cook identifies, the difference between Republican vote and Democrat vote is one percent. The difference between myself serving in the minority and serving in the majority is less than 107,000 votes.” There are several GOP retirements heading into 2020, as well, but nowhere near the numbers as in 2018. Reps. Will Hurd (R-TX), Martha Roby (R-AL), Pete Olson (R-TX), Paul Mitchell (R-MI), Susan Brooks (R-IN), and Mike Conaway (R-TX) have announced planned retirements. Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan left the GOP earlier this year, becoming an “independent.” But, McCarthy says that the House is in play in 2020 because of the numbers, because the president is on the ballot again this time, and because of what is happening inside the Democrat majority’s conference. McCarthy made the point that the Democrats’ highest priority legislation, H.R. 1, would tax Americans to fund Democrat campaigns with federal dollars, a point that a vicious new ad campaign from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) that Breitbart News reported exclusively earlier this week targeting several vulnerable Democrats also exposes. Look at what the policies this new socialist Democrat party is doing,” McCarthy said. “They want to one, their first most important bill—when you become the majority, you reserve the first ten numbers for your most important bills—so their most important bill, H.R. 1, was to take your taxpayer money and give it to their campaigns. Literally, tax the American public and give them thousands of dollars for their own campaigns. Then they have what is called Medicare for None. Medicare for None would take 180 million people’s healthcare away while at the same time bankrupt those who are currently on Medicare. It’s more government control. That’s what I really believe this future election will be about: Socialism versus freedom. Control versus freedom. They just want greater control over our lives.” What’s more, in addition to the leftist socialist drift that the so-called “Squad” of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) is leading as they take over the Democrat Party, McCarthy says the Democrats, including those who represent these red districts, have no real accomplishments to point to after seven months of being in the majority. “That’s why they have an internal fight going on,” McCarthy said. “They haven’t accomplished anything. Even in fact you had Congresswoman AOC’s own chief of staff put a tweet out challenging any Democratic voter to name one thing the Democratic majority in the House accomplished for the kitchen table, then went on to question this ‘legislative genius’—referring to Speaker Pelosi.” The Democrats have done nothing for an infrastructure deal. They have done nothing to help Americans’ healthcare. They have done nothing on paid family leave, which has broad bipartisan support. They have done nothing to help working Americans in any respect on anything, McCarthy noted, instead focusing their efforts on partisan bickering, meaningless resolutions like the ones calling Trump a “racist” or failing to rebuke Ilhan Omar’s antisemitism, all while mucking up actual bipartisan policy solutions with radical leftist socialism. All of these are typical GOP talking points about the left and Democrats, but McCarthy has a real point: There is not even a single one big picture accomplishment Democrats can point to since they took the majority, and it is unlikely they will get anything done before the 2020 elections given that they are out for a six-week August recess now and return for a short fall legislative session before the holidays and the end of the year. At the beginning of 2020, with presidential politics kicking off as the Democrats hit primaries and caucuses nationwide, it is unlikely any major solutions will make it through from there until after the 2020 election—so Republicans can legitimately claim Democrats have done nothing since taking office. And McCarthy is certainly drilling that point home, even suggesting it appears they are deliberately choosing failure for political reasons. “They don’t have anything accomplished,” McCarthy said. “If you watch even what they’re doing on the floor today, it is less productive than in modern times for our Congress. They’re doing more resolutions and not legislation. Even when committees did the work, like when Energy and Commerce had three bills up to lower drug pricing—something that Republicans really want to achieve—we came to a bipartisan consensus where all Democrats and all Republicans voted for those three bills where it would lower drug prices. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker, and the Democratic leadership, before those bills came to the floor, put a poison pill in it—changed it—and that’s what’s happening, that’s why they’re not being successful either. Even when there’s opportunities to have success, they can’t. They got to continue to put partisanship in there. It’s almost like they don’t want to be successful.” McCarthy said that based off his conversations with Pelosi and other Democrats, he considers them to have abandoned the core principles of their party for this new rising leftist socialism. “I have told the Speaker many times, she will sit when we are trying to come to an agreement. Remember, our government is designed to have compromise. No one person can get 100 percent of what they want. You’ve got the House, the Senate, and then you’ve got the executive branch. Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats—to me, they’re no longer Democrats,” McCarthy said. “They don’t call themselves Democrats. They’re socialist Democrats. I think this internal fight is where they want that socialist wing to take over. That’s why they can’t come to a consensus. It’s why they can’t do anything with Homeland. You have a congresswoman who says they should abolish the Homeland, Homeland Security. Think about what is in there. That is Secret Service, FEMA, that’s other things. At any other given time, this country would be in an uproar if an elected body said that. But what’s come to the body today is socialism. That’s the strife what’s inside this past Democratic party, they’re not what they used to be.” Another example he cited was how the Democrats have turned the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) process into a partisan political football for the first time in decades. “I’ll give you another example, back in July we had what was is called the NDAA—the National Defense Authorization Act—now this is the most bipartisan bill we deal with,” McCarthy said. “It’s the authorization for our military, what we’re going to be for the future, where we’re going, everything else. They really kept it where troops come first, politics last. For 58 years, Democrats have either been in control—Republicans, then Democrats, then Republicans—despite all the changes in party power this has always been bipartisan. This was the first year it was not. The only bipartisan vote was against it. Some Democrats voted against it, some Republicans, and the one independent. They made it partisan when it didn’t have to be, and that was the socialist wing of their party. Normally, like if I go back in the last Congress and look at the NDAA bill the National Defense Authorization, when Republicans were in the majority, do you know who had the most amendments on the floor? Democrats, then the minority party. When it came to the Democrats’ own majority this time, you know who had the most? Overwhelmingly, Democrats. It was only like 16 percent were Republican amendments. So they wanted to go much further left. But if you go look at the Senate side, their National Defense Authorization Act passed with 86 votes. Schumer, Sen. Schumer, voted for it and so did McConnell. They really kept that tradition of bipartisanship. So it really comes down to one common denominator: Inside the majority of the House, this new socialist Democratic party doesn’t want to work with anybody and wants to impose something much different than we have imposed in the past. Remember, we had this whole position on NDAA that we would not allow these terrorists that are kept in GITMO to America. In the new socialist one, they’re going to want to bring these terrorists to put them into the homeland, but then you have a Democratic congresswoman who wants to eliminate the Department of Homeland [Security]. It’s outrageous that this is even going on.” Fundraising for Republicans is on the upswing as well, as McCarthy has picked up a lot of slack that former House Speaker Paul Ryan—one of the GOP’s 41 retirements last cycle—left behind. McCarthy, according to numbers released in early July, raised a record $33.7 million for Republicans this year so far—a number that has certainly increased since then—as compared with Ryan’s paltry numbers in the 2018 cycle.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 9:58:26 GMT -6
Interview video at link: www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/02/former-google-engineer-google-will-try-to-prevent-trump-from-being-re-elected/Former Google Engineer: Google Will Try to Prevent Trump from Being Re-elected .......... Friday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” former Google engineer Kevin Cernekee argued there was political bias within the tech giant. Cernekee claimed to have been bullied and ultimately fired for his right-wing beliefs. However, Cernekee said it was his view that Google would attempt to thwart President Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020. Partial transcript as follows: CARLSON: How ideological is the management at Google? CERNEKEE: It’s highly ideological. You can see bias at every level at the organization. One thing that I noticed that just handling routine issues is plagued with bias. Like they will get a report, an email with a liberal reporter complaining about something and they will jump on it and they will fix the issue very, very quickly. In contrast, one thing that I saw when I worked there was if you do a Google search for “Crippled America,” which is Donald Trump’s book you would get results that would show “Mein Kampf” instead of “Crippled America.” And I reported that I filed a bug, I escalated it, I tried to run it up the chain. They took nine months to fix that bug. They just stalled at every opportunity. They assigned it to people who no longer work there. They made every excuse in the book to avoid taking down something that made Donald Trump look bad. And I saw a number of incidents just like that. CARLSON: Do you think that Google will attempt to influence the election outcome. Attempt to prevent Trump from being re-elected? CERNEKEE: I do believe so. I think that’s a major threat. They have openly stated that they think 2016 was a mistake. They thought Trump should have lost in 2016. They really want Trump to lose in 2020. That’s their agenda. They have very biased people running every level of the company. They have quite a bit of control over the political process. That’s something we should really worry about.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2019 13:54:23 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/03/joy-reid-to-2020-democrats-youre-not-running-against-obama-debating-healthcare-details-wont-help-you-win/On Saturday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” host Joy Reid told the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates that “fighting with each other about the details of your healthcare plans” won’t help them beat President Trump and that they aren’t running against former President Obama. After referencing President Obama’s “Yes we can” speech, Reid said, “Democrats, and I mean this as tough love, fighting with each other about the details of your healthcare plans is not going to help you beat Donald Trump. Mayor Pete is right that Trump and his party are going to call all of your healthcare bills socialism. They’re going to call all of you open borders Communists. Keep your eyes on the job. The house is on fire. Tell us what this president has done to set the house on fire, and how you are going to put it out.” After playing a clip of Trump speaking, Reid stated, “Democrats, you are running against that, not against the presidency or the record of Barack Obama.”
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 4, 2019 18:39:21 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/03/joy-reid-to-2020-democrats-youre-not-running-against-obama-debating-healthcare-details-wont-help-you-win/On Saturday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” host Joy Reid told the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates that “fighting with each other about the details of your healthcare plans” won’t help them beat President Trump and that they aren’t running against former President Obama. After referencing President Obama’s “Yes we can” speech, Reid said, “Democrats, and I mean this as tough love, fighting with each other about the details of your healthcare plans is not going to help you beat Donald Trump. Mayor Pete is right that Trump and his party are going to call all of your healthcare bills socialism. They’re going to call all of you open borders Communists. Keep your eyes on the job. The house is on fire. Tell us what this president has done to set the house on fire, and how you are going to put it out.” After playing a clip of Trump speaking, Reid stated, “Democrats, you are running against that, not against the presidency or the record of Barack Obama.” I had the misfortune to listen to this cow twice lately. She's awful.
|
|
|
Post by Qanon on Aug 4, 2019 19:15:45 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/03/joy-reid-to-2020-democrats-youre-not-running-against-obama-debating-healthcare-details-wont-help-you-win/On Saturday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” host Joy Reid told the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates that “fighting with each other about the details of your healthcare plans” won’t help them beat President Trump and that they aren’t running against former President Obama. After referencing President Obama’s “Yes we can” speech, Reid said, “Democrats, and I mean this as tough love, fighting with each other about the details of your healthcare plans is not going to help you beat Donald Trump. Mayor Pete is right that Trump and his party are going to call all of your healthcare bills socialism. They’re going to call all of you open borders Communists. Keep your eyes on the job. The house is on fire. Tell us what this president has done to set the house on fire, and how you are going to put it out.” After playing a clip of Trump speaking, Reid stated, “Democrats, you are running against that, not against the presidency or the record of Barack Obama.” I had the misfortune to listen to this cow twice lately. She's awful. So what white nationalist MAGA terrorism groups do you clowns on this board belong to?
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 4, 2019 19:53:55 GMT -6
The "I fucked icky's mom and only got the clap" group.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 5, 2019 12:24:36 GMT -6
California's new Trump Tax law is being sued: www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-over-california-law-requiring-presidential-candidates-appearing-on-primary-ballot-to-disclose-tax-returns/Under the law, known as the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, candidates who do not publicly disclose their tax returns are barred from having their names printed on California’s primary ballots. Judicial Watch alleges that SB 27 imposes candidate qualifications beyond those allowed by the U.S. Constitution and impermissibly burdens a voters’ expressive constitutional and statutory rights. The lawsuit claims violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Qualifications Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988. The Judicial Watch complaint further alleges the political nature of the law, which is totally divorced from the states’ legitimate constitutional role in administering and establishing procedures for conducting federal elections: None of the interests proffered by the California legislature for requiring the disclosure of candidates’ tax returns is related to election procedure or administration. Rather, the stated interests incorporate particular, substantive judgments about what is most important for voters to know when considering a candidate, how voters should go about “estimate[ing] the risk” of a candidate “engaging in corruption,” and what might assist law enforcement in detecting violations of the Emoluments Clause and crimes “such as insider trading.” Unless SB 27 is enjoined, states will assume the power to create their own qualifications for national candidates seeking to obtain a party’s nomination for president. This could lead to as many as 50 distinct and possibly inconsistent sets of qualifications regarding the only national election in the United States. Using rationales similar to California’s, states might come to demand medical records, mental health records, sealed juvenile records, driving records, results of intelligence, aptitude, or personality tests, college applications, Amazon purchases, Google search histories, browsing histories, or Facebook friends. ......... “California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that not also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is an obvious legal issue that a state can’t amend the U.S. Constitution by adding qualifications in order to run for president. The courts can’t stop this abusive law fast enough.”
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 5, 2019 22:08:32 GMT -6
California's new Trump Tax law is being sued: www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-over-california-law-requiring-presidential-candidates-appearing-on-primary-ballot-to-disclose-tax-returns/Under the law, known as the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, candidates who do not publicly disclose their tax returns are barred from having their names printed on California’s primary ballots. Judicial Watch alleges that SB 27 imposes candidate qualifications beyond those allowed by the U.S. Constitution and impermissibly burdens a voters’ expressive constitutional and statutory rights. The lawsuit claims violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Qualifications Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988. The Judicial Watch complaint further alleges the political nature of the law, which is totally divorced from the states’ legitimate constitutional role in administering and establishing procedures for conducting federal elections: None of the interests proffered by the California legislature for requiring the disclosure of candidates’ tax returns is related to election procedure or administration. Rather, the stated interests incorporate particular, substantive judgments about what is most important for voters to know when considering a candidate, how voters should go about “estimate[ing] the risk” of a candidate “engaging in corruption,” and what might assist law enforcement in detecting violations of the Emoluments Clause and crimes “such as insider trading.” Unless SB 27 is enjoined, states will assume the power to create their own qualifications for national candidates seeking to obtain a party’s nomination for president. This could lead to as many as 50 distinct and possibly inconsistent sets of qualifications regarding the only national election in the United States. Using rationales similar to California’s, states might come to demand medical records, mental health records, sealed juvenile records, driving records, results of intelligence, aptitude, or personality tests, college applications, Amazon purchases, Google search histories, browsing histories, or Facebook friends. ......... “California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that not also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is an obvious legal issue that a state can’t amend the U.S. Constitution by adding qualifications in order to run for president. The courts can’t stop this abusive law fast enough.” California will lose. Unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2019 5:49:01 GMT -6
Never let a good tragedy go to waste. So, will the media call out Warren &/or the DNC over this despicable behavior,(I highly doubt it)? freebeacon.com/issues/warren-fundraises-for-democratic-senate-hopefuls-off-mass-shootings/Warren Fundraises for Dem Senate Hopefuls Off Mass Shootings Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) sent a fundraising email Monday on the heels of two mass shootings, urging donations to Democratic Senate campaigns. Shooters in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, over the weekend killed a combined 29 people, reigniting a fierce debate over gun rights. Warren, a 2020 presidential candidate, didn’t solicit donations for her campaign, but rather for Sens. Doug Jones (D., Ala.), Tina Smith (D., Minn.), and the eventual Democratic nominees in states holding Senate elections in 2020. Warren blasted the lack of action on gun control in the Republican-led Senate, lamenting its “inexusable” failure to pick up legislation passed by Democrats in the House expanding background checks and waiting times. “It’s clear Republicans don’t have the courage to do something about this crisis. We can’t wait for them to act — because they won’t,” she wrote. “If we’re going to address the gun violence epidemic in our country, we need to take back the Senate in 2020. I’ll fight my heart out to make sure Democrats win up and down the ballot in 2020—but if we’re going to beat Republicans and the gun lobby, it’s going to take a grassroots movement.” ....... www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-party-fundraises-off-mass-shootingsDemocratic Party fundraising off mass shootings in El Paso, Dayton The Democratic National Committee is fundraising off the weekend’s tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, seeking donations for the fight to “prevent gun violence and save lives.” The DNC sent an email to supporters on Monday, signed by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, encouraging donors to “split” a donation of $10 to $200 between the DNC and Giffords’ PAC. “Friend,” the email begins, “… We can’t afford to wait another day, or for another massacre to happen in our country, for lawmakers to address this. Yet the defenders of the status quo—the gun manufacturing lobby and every single politician who is paid to defend it—will tell you that horrific acts of violence are beyond our control.”
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 6, 2019 8:05:24 GMT -6
no
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2019 11:17:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2019 11:21:46 GMT -6
Truth:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2019 11:25:57 GMT -6
But White House counselor Kellyanne Conway fired back on Tuesday, saying Trump is “trying to bring the country together and heal a nation.”
“There is a huge difference … between running your mouth and running for president, and being the president and trying to bring together a nation,” Conway said on “Fox & Friends.”
“The president did not respond in kind. They politicized this over the weekend. They all blamed him and I want to name and shame them now. … They want to be president? He is the president. And he is trying to bring the country together and have bipartisan, bicameral steps.”
Conway also pointed out that Warren immediately began “raising money” for Senate Democratic candidates “in an email appeal talking about mass shootings.”
“This is a disgrace and if no one else is going to talk about it, I’m going to talk about it,” Conway said.
After the mass shootings over the weekend, several 2020 candidates immediately called Trump racist.
“Jesus Christ, of course he’s racist,” Robert “Beto” O’Rourke said on MSNBC.
O’Rourke went on a profane tirade as well. “What do you think?” O’Rourke reportedly said. “You know the s— he’s been saying. He’s been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. I don’t know, like, members of the press, what the f—?”
On Tuesday, Conway blasted O’Rourke.
“Beto O’Rourke — from the Vanity Fair magazine cover to the vanity project candidacy — out there screaming and cursing about President Trump. That doesn’t heal a single soul. That doesn’t help to prevent another mass shooting,” she said.
Conway also said Republicans didn’t tie then-President Barack Obama to the shooting of then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, critically wounded in a 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball game practice. The shooter was a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“When Bernie Sanders’ supporter … shot up Steve Scalise who was within inches of his life, and others on that baseball field two years ago, we didn’t run out and say that he was hunting down Republicans and that he was a Bernie Sanders supporter,” Conway said. “We were worried about Steve Scalise’s life being saved. That was absolutely the darkest day in this White House in its first year in my opinion.”
After the shootings, Trump delivered a somber statement from the White House on Monday. He laid out several avenues as potential solutions, called for unity and bipartisanship, soothed Americans as the comforter-in-chief and loudly denounced racism and white supremacy.
“Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief, we ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer, and we vow to act with urgent resolve,” Trump said.
“In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America.”
“Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside — so destructive — and find the courage to answer hatred with unity, devotion, and love,” he said.
Conway said Trump is saying exactly what needs to be said.
“He’s denouncing white supremacy, and they’re out there denouncing him,” Conway said. “America, take a look, and don’t forget it.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2019 11:30:03 GMT -6
So, another violent Elizabeth Warren/Liberal supporter threatening people. Will Warren &/or her sycophants in the media condemn it?,(honestly, I have better odds of hitting the powerball lottery jackpot three consecutive times than that happening).
|
|