|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 27, 2019 4:27:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:27:11 GMT -6
And the key to the election? Well, of course silly, it's abortion rights of trans. On that note: Julian Castro got torched on social media by conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:31:15 GMT -6
President Trump response:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:35:14 GMT -6
Not only did NBC and MSNBC have to abruptly cut to commercial after an embarrassing audio glitch during the first round of the Democratic Party presidential debates in Miami Wednesday night, it turns out TV screens across the nation went to black multiple times for several seconds at a time during the debate broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:39:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:49:39 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/06/26/bill-de-blasio-supreme-court/Democratic presidential candidate Bill de Blasio said the Democrats must prevail in right-leaning jurisdictions for progressives to seize control of the Supreme Court. The answer places him at odds with some 2020 Democrats who are considering expanding the Supreme Court. “There’s a political solution we have to come to grips with — if the Democratic party would stop acting like the party of the elites, and be the party of working people again.” The mayor added Democrats need to go into “red states — to convince people we’re on their side, we can put pressure on their senators to actually have to vote on the nominees that are put forward.” President Donald Trump’s historic judicial confirmation successes. The New York Times asked 21 of the 22 Democratic presidential candidates whether they would expand the Supreme Court — 10 said yes to varying extents, while 11 were not as open. The New York City mayor was among those candidates who expressed opposition to court-packing. (RELATED: Chaos Reigns Ahead Of Supreme Court Decision On Census Citizenship Question) “I think there’s some things we have to say are set and then we have to work politically to make the changes we need,” de Blasio said. “I think at this point in history the best way to change America is through the electoral process, and that will very rapidly change our judiciary on many levels.” “It will take longer with the Supreme Court, but I worry we will end up in a kind of arms race if one administration increases the size of the Court for their ends and then another party comes into power and increases it again, I don’t find that good for the county,” de Blasio added. Elsewhere in his remarks de Blasio worked in a subtle dig at Democratic South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, lamenting that a spate of police shootings have undermined minority confidence in police forces. He specifically name-dropped South Bend’s police department, which is currently grappling with the shooting death of 53-year-old Eric Jack Logan.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:56:02 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/06/27/elizabeth-warren-gun-confiscation/Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren Wednesday if the government should get guns off the streets during the 2020 Democratic primary debate. “What do you do about the hundreds of millions of guns already out there and does the federal government have to play a role in dealing with it?” Todd asked the 2020 Democratic candidate during the first evening of 2020 Democratic debates. “Gun violence is a national health emergency in this country and we need to treat it like that,” Warren said. She also advocated for child gun safety, universal background checks, banning assault weapons and increased research. Todd pressed her again to answer his question: “You didn’t address if you think the federal government needs to go and figure out a way to get the guns that are already out there?” (RELATED: U.S. Politicians Cheer New Zealand Gun Confiscation) “We need to treat them like a serious research problem, which we have not done,” Warren said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:58:48 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/06/26/maddow-slights-beto/MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow singled out 2020 presidential candidate Julian Castro as the only Latino on the stage at a Democratic presidential debate Wednesday. The debate moderator’s comment singled out Castro. However, presidential candidate Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke has often tried to connect with the Latino community by speaking Spanish at public events. Maddow questioned Castro as to whether an economic justice agenda is enough to mobilize Latino voters. (RELATED: Beto Says Trump ‘Responsible’ For Deaths Of Migrant Father And Daughter) “This is a 70% Latino city here in Miami,” Maddow said to Castro. “You are the only Latino Democrat who is running this year in the presidential race.” Maddows comments were met with applause. (RELATED: O’Rourke Addresses ‘Beto’ Nickname After Student Cites Donald Trump Jr.) O’Rourke, a former Texas representative, is of Irish descent. O’Rourke gained a Spanish nickname growing up in El Paso, Texas, which has a significant Latino community.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:05:36 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/48909/warren-supports-eliminating-private-insurance-no-ryan-saavedraDemocratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday night that if she becomes president that she will eliminate private insurance, force everyone on government healthcare, and will not support any restrictions on abortion. "Many people watching at home have health insurance coverage through their employer," NBC's Lester Holt said. "Who here would abolish their private insurance in favor of a government-run plan?" Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio both raised their hands. In May, The Washington Post reported that "over and over again, roughly 7 out of every 10 Americans report that they’re fairly satisfied with the quality of their personal coverage." Later, when asked if she supported any restricts on abortion, Warren refused to answer. Fox News noted that, according to a 2018 Gallup poll, "over 80 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, while only 13 percent think it should be legal."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:16:55 GMT -6
Oh no, they let down Hollywood: www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/06/26/democrats-disappoint-hollywood-during-first-debate/Hollywood was largely disappointed during the first Democratic presidential debate on Wednesday night, with reaction spanning from pillory to praise to panic. “Not a promising start,” said HBO late-night host Bill Maher, who pointed out how most of the candidates dodged the first question and failed to answer how they could justify pushing sweeping economic policy while a large majority of America (and 60 percent of Democrats) say they are doing well in President Trump’s economy. “Nobody came close to answering the first question, a good one: With 70% saying they like the economy, shld we make radical changes to it? Only interchangable chunks from the stump speeches. You’re going to have to answer that at some point, guess not tonite,” the Real Time host said. Actor Don Cheadle seemed completely put off by the debate halfway through the first hour. “why don’t we just have running color commentary from the booth and a scoreboard and throw instant replay in there too to make it all complete …?” the Avengers: End game star suggested. Others: Actor Billy Eichner was apparently disappointed by all 10 Democrats on the stage Wednesday night, and declared that he’s “voting for Hillary.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:23:49 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/26/fact-check-beto-orourke-falsely-claims-putin-invaded-our-democracy-in-2016/Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) bizarrely claimed during the first 2020 Democrat presidential debate in Miami, Florida, that Russian president Vladimir Putin “attacked and invaded our democracy” during the 2016 election — an assertion at odds with the Mueller Report and made without any supporting evidence. A partial transcript is as follows: LESTER HOLT: We asked voters from across the country to submit their questions for the candidates. Let me read one now. This comes from John in New York, who submitted this question. He asks: “Does the United States have a responsibility to protect in the case of genocide or crimes against humanity. Do we have a responsibility to intervene to protect people from their governments even when atrocities don’t event core American interests?” I’d like to direct that question to Congressman O’Rourke. BETO O’ROURKE: The answer is yes. But that action should also be undertaken with allies and partners and friends. When the United States presents a united front, we have a much better chance at achieving our foreign policy and preventing the kind of genocide that we saw in Rwanda. But unfortunately, under this administration, President Trump has alienated our allies and alliances. He’s diminished our standing in the world and he’s made us weaker as a country, less able to confront challenges, whether it’s Iran, North Korea, or Vladimir Putin and Russia, who attacked and invaded our democracy in 2016, and who President Trump has offered an invitation to do the same. He’s embraced strongmen and dictators at the expense of great democracies. As president, I will make sure we live our values in our foreign policy. I will ensure we strengthen those alliances, partnerships, and friendships. And met any challenge that we face, together. That makes America stronger. O’Rourke later repeated the claim, omitting the “attacked” language and simply saying Russia carried out an “invasion” of the United States. The conspiratorial remark was just one phrase in a free-wheeling monologue about impeaching Trump, the rule of law, and a painting of George Washington: One of the most powerful pieces of art in the U.S. Capitol is the Trumbull painting of General George Washington resigning his commission to the Continental Congress at the height of his power submitting to the rule of law and the will of the people. That has withstood the test of time for the last 243 years. If we set another precedent now, that a candidate who invited the participation of a foreign power, a president who sought to obstruct the investigation into the invasion of our democracy—if we allow him to get away with this with complete impunity then we will have set a new standard. And that is that some people because of the position of power and public trust that they hold are above the law, and we cannot allow that to stand.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:33:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:36:11 GMT -6
Delaney: China and nuclear weapons
Inslee: Donald Trump
Gabbard: Nuclear war
Klobuchar: Economic threat is china; Iran and Mideast as other threats
Beto — climate change
Warren – climate change
booker— nuclear proliferation
Castro — China and climate change
Ryan — China
De Blasio — Russia
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:41:37 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/first-debate-proved-democratic-party-gone-loco/First Debate Proved The Democratic Party Has Gone ¡Loco! And Joe Biden might be the only one left to save it. David Harsanyi By David Harsanyi JUNE 27, 2019 Joe Biden won the first Democratic Party primary debate, y ni siquiera tuvo que aparecer. Now, at his present political trajectory, Biden may end up promising to perform late-term abortions on transgendered Guatemalan migrants with his bare hands by the time the debate rolls around on Wednesday. But really, all the former vice president needs to do to maintain his lead position is not turn completely insane. Because while Sen. Cory Booker might believe that most Americans agree with the policy objectives of the Democratic Party, this is not a Democratic Party that anyone would recognize ten, or even four, years ago. It unlikely, for example, that most Americans believe the United States should be an effectively borderless nation. Yet a whole bunch of Democrats on the debate stage this Wednesday came awfully close to proposing that absolutely no person be stopped from entering the United States — outside drug and sex “traffickers” (although one wonders how they propose we weed them out). That’s around 144,000 migrants they would have let in just last month. A large number of these newcomers won’t show up in court to have their cases adjudicated, compounding an already growing problem. There will be many more on the way, because Democrats keep offering added enticement for thousands of Central American migrants to risk their lives, and the lives of their children, crossing deserts and dangerous rivers to enter an already overtaxed immigration system. While Democrats on the stage (and the ones posing as moderators) were busy blaming the horrific deaths of Oscar and Angie Martinez on Donald Trump, they were ignoring the fact that hundreds of similar tragedies have occurred over the past decade, and, not that long ago, even progressive Democrats like Barack Obama were warning that this kind brand of anarchy was a killer. So however poorly Republicans have handled the immigration issue, or however cold-hearted you believe aggressive enforcement is, the idea that most Americans prefer lawlessness to some semblance of order is an untested theory, at best. Do Americans really believe that abortion should be a right until the moment of birth, without any single restriction — all of it funded by taxpayers on demand? Polls don’t bear this out. When asked if she believed in any constraints on abortion, Sen. Elizabeth Warren refused to answer, dropping an array of platitudinous statements about reproductive rights instead. The other candidates, though, tripped over each other to claim support not only for unlimited “reproductive health,” but for “reproductive justice,” as well. Don’t forget state-funded abortions for “female trans” people, Julian Castro reminded the crowd. That’s a lot of wokeness to shoehorn into one issue. Warren had already dropped “Latinx” on the crowd — the gender-neutral alternative to Latino — promising to “fight” to take away the private health insurance all both sexes. The senator was, however, unable to explain how she was going to come up with approximately 6.5 gazillion dollars needed to fund universal child care, free college, student debt cancellation, free health care, and a deconstruction and rebuild of the entire economy based on windmills and solar panels. To be fair, Warren was quickly made to look like a lightweight. Although nearly every candidate proposed abandoning our fossil-fuel based economy, Jay Inslee announced that the United States needed to adopt a new set of “organizing principles” — don’t worry, no one mentioned the Constitution –that would be propelled by electric-powered cars and such. How much would it all cost? The mayor of America’s largest city, Bill de Blasio, explained that whenever anyone asks him how he’s going to pay for his quixotic plans, he just tells them there is “plenty of money,” the real problem is that it’s in “the wrong hands”—which doesn’t sound authoritarian, at all. The Gen-Xy Beto O’Rourke, who had kicked off an entertaining arms race in Spanish proficiency, promised to fund “resiliency” — the cost unknown. The one-time darling of the media also promised that as president he would instruct his Justice Department to prosecute his predecessor for “potential crimes,” which didn’t even provoke a murmur from the commentariat, although it’s the same kind of rhetoric that elicits high indignation when used by Trump. Even beyond all the socialistic policy prescriptions and progressive moralizing, listening to these Democrats one might have been under the impression that the nation was in the midst of a dystopian nightmare, ravaged by hunger, poverty, and slave-driving corporate masters. Do most Americans view the state of the economy this way? It seems unlikely. There were some candidates, to be fair, like Amy Klobuchar and John Delaney, who sounded something in the vicinity of a traditional Democrat. Neither has the kind of organization or support to be the leading candidate in 2020. Biden, it seems, is the only real hope for those who believe in relative temperance on the left. And even he’s a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:45:34 GMT -6
Article on student loan forgiveness: thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/millennials-work-behinds-off-pay-college-debt-like/Millennials Should Work Their Behinds Off To Pay Their Own College Debt, Like I Did We weren't too good to take what we could get to pay our own way in life, and nobody else is, either. If you want your student loans to go away, get a job. Get two if you have to. Joy Pullmann By Joy Pullmann JUNE 27, 2019 This week, the nation’s most prominent socialists told sob stories about how much college debt my generation maintains to justify sticking their tab to more responsible people. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the insane claim that she “had to” run for Congress to be able to pay her basic adult bills. “A year ago, I was waiting tables in a restaurant and it was literally easier for me to become the youngest woman in American history elected to Congress than it is to pay off my student loan debt,” she said. “In order for me to get a chance to have health care, in order for me to get a chance to pay off my student loans, I had to do something that was nearly impossible.” It’s unclear what she means by doing “something that was nearly impossible.” Getting a job? Deciding not to live in one of the most expensive cities on earth? Choosing not to attend a college that cost her so much she still has between $15,000 and $50,000 in loans? What Is Everyone Doing With All Their Money? Members of Congress make $174,000 a year. I realize Ocasio-Cortez has only been in office a few months, but I’ve lived in DC with student loans, just like her. While making approximately a third of her current annual salary together, my husband and I paid off nearly $30,000 in student debt in two years. It wasn’t that hard, either. We weren’t even eating ramen or rice and beans, which is a legitimate choice people should make over sticking their hands into others’ pockets. We just made most of our own food at home instead of eating out. We owned a car — a junker, definitely, but it got my husband to his job and back. We even had a baby during the same timeframe, paying plenty of related expenses. We flew ourselves and the baby to Montana and Wisconsin, our home states, for Christmas (and let me tell you, holiday plane tickets to Montana equal many, many round-trip train rides to New York City). I honestly cannot fathom what Ocasio-Cortez must be doing with her money to not be able to pay off whatever her remaining student loan balance is over this next year on her $174,000 salary. We could have bought a house with that kind of money, which in the DC area requires a down payment of at least 100 Gs. We could only afford an apartment, though, so that’s what we got. If she’s like other millennials, however, then the problem is not her loans so much as her spending. In 2016, “A survey from Citizens Bank found that fewer than half (47 percent) of millennials, those in the 18-35 age group, who are college graduates, would be willing to limit their online food delivery in return for reducing their student loans.” The majority were also not willing to cut their spending on concerts, sporting events, lattes, vacations, or internet in exchange for smaller student loans. This is me, in full eyeroll mode. If you want your lattes more than you want your loans paid off, that’s your choice. But then don’t tell me government should force other people to make hard choices when you won’t. Want to Trade Places With an Illegal Immigrant? Because it was in America, our loan payoff phase of life was still spectacular: We had hot water and our apartment was safe and clean and in a neighborhood with beautiful wooded paths. We had plenty of healthy food to eat, workplaces with more job protections than anyone really needs and great benefits, and free access to some of the best museums, historical sites, and natural spaces in the world. Millions of foreigners would — and do — give their own children to get this, and American kids are whining about how mean people are for charging them a fraction of what it truly costs other people to give them more education than 90 percent of the world will ever be able to have. That’s after taxpayers have paid several hundred thousands of dollars to give them a K-12 education. My husband and I had to work our rear ends off to pay our heavily discounted share of our college educations. My husband had to take what some people would consider a crap job, working at a garbage collection and moving company. Nearly all his coworkers smoked weed and other things, and most didn’t show up to work on time. Welfare Isn’t Nobler When Middle-Class People Take It After working the entry-level grunt job at that place, my husband moved up to manager. It meant he had to often fill in for his employees, who had enough welfare access, typically through baby mommas and other women, that they only needed to work enough hours per week to buy their $300 shoes and drugs (I am not making that up). Middle-class people who demand handouts, like college graduates and Medicare recipients, are no better than people who use other forms of welfare when they are fully capable of paying their own way. To pay off our loans, my husband had to work long, hard, frustrating hours in dirty conditions. But the flexible work allowed us to keep our child out of nonparent care. My salary paid our expenses, and my husband’s paid off our student loans. Thank you, dirty jobs. My husband pre-paid much of his college tuition the same way: Working outside in the desert sun all summer, hand-digging holes, sometimes through rock, at a fence company for 50 hours a week at age 18. My parents helped me with college, but I also paid most of my own way by earning scholarships that required campus work, as well as working up to three jobs at a time while taking a full load in the honors program at a college that does not mess around with its difficulty level. We graduated at the height of Obama’s great recession, when jobs were in short supply, especially entry-level. Plenty of our classmates turned their noses up at taking waitressing, labor, or comparable gigs and went home to their mothers’ basements. It was an ego struggle for us too, for sure, but in the end we weren’t too good to take what we could get to pay our own way in life. Nobody else is, either. This Crisis Is Manufactured to Buy Stupid People’s Votes The student loan “crisis” is hugely inflated. One-third of students currently graduate from college with no debt. Clearly it remains possible, and not just for those with rich parents. Neither of ours are. At state college and community college tuition rates, it is still possible to work one’s way through college and graduate debt-free. Further, of those who have debt, the typical amount upon graduation is somewhere near $25,000-$28,000, not these insane stories of $100,000 or more in student loans absent a medical degree. These are not the normal person with college debt. If you consider all adults with outstanding student loan balances, the “crisis” deflates further, as the average balance there is $17,000. In fact, only one-third of young people have any college debt. According to Pew, “Among adults ages 18 to 29, 37% say they have outstanding student loans for their own education.” So when we hear that student loans are delaying family formation and other adult milestones, perhaps one should ask, “But what is happening with the two-thirds of young adults who don’t have any student debt?” We should also be asking why it is fair for prudent people to work our rear ends off to pay expenses we’ve incurred then for government to reward people who are not willing to make the same responsible choices. In fact, it’s not fair. It’s unjust. Ocasio-Cortez has the morality backwards. She should be telling herself and her peers to put their big girl pants on and pay their bloomin’ bills — with gratitude instead of resentment. Nobody owes anyone a college education. Nobody with a college education is too good to pay it off themselves. And almost all of us are fully capable of paying our own debts. If you want your student loans to go away, get a job. Get two or three jobs, if you have to. Move to a less sexy but more rational part of the country than Manhattan or Seattle. Use the debt payoff plan we, and tens of thousands of other people, did. Get married and use one income to pay off the debt and the other to live on for a few years until you have a baby. Stop thinking your band or Instagram feed is going to make you rich some day if you just “invest” enough hours. If you’re not doing it, you don’t want it hard enough — because in America, every person who is willing to work can get a job right now, and will never lack for health care thanks to our myriad programs of health welfare. It is morally offensive for you to make other people liable for your lack of motivation and responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 8:13:26 GMT -6
Ouch. That admission had to hurt the leftists: www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/winner-first-democratic-debate-donald-trump-n1023086President Donald Trump was the big winner of the first 2020 Democratic debate. The Republican commander in chief, who was on his way to an economic summit in Osaka, Japan, emerged from the scrap largely unscathed — barely mentioned at all — even though he is a uniquely antagonizing and energizing force for Democratic voters. At the same time, the 10 candidates who were in the room here at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts often competed against one another to appeal to narrow subsets of the primary season electorate. Their jockeying, punctuated by efforts to outflank each other to the political left and conduct a middebate Spanish-speaking contest, could alienate swing voters important to the party’s chances against Trump in November 2020. For long stretches, it seemed, they completely forgot about the man who has been at the center of pretty much every discussion among Democrats for the last two-plus years — the man they’re competing to take on next year. The obvious reason: The motivation to beat each other was, on this night, more urgent than defeating Trump — a life-or-death moment for some of their campaigns. Trump was the chief beneficiary of that dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 8:20:35 GMT -6
Liberals claiming Russia is helping Tulsi.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 10:11:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 10:15:34 GMT -6
Huge ruling for the people.
Jim Jordan response:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 10:30:07 GMT -6
And, the Chief Justice decided to betray common sense and law abiding Americans by siding with the liberals on the Census question: www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-census-citizenship-question_n_5cfac4b8e4b0aab91c060021The Supreme Court has effectively blocked the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, giving a partial victory to states and civil rights groups who said the question would jeopardize what is perhaps the most crucial information the U.S. government collects. The case, Department of Commerce v. New York, arose after a number of states, cities and advocacy groups sued the Trump administration and claimed the process the administration used to add the citizenship question ran afoul of federal law. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, was set on adding the question and ignored clear evidence that showed it was a bad idea. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman agreed with the plaintiffs in January, ruling the Trump administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act and thus could not add the question. Two other judges later also struck down the citizenship question.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 10:55:31 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-27/twitter-censor-trump-tweets-ahead-2020-electionTwitter announced on Thursday that it would censor President Trump's tweets going into the 2020 election by "down-ranking" those which violate their rules via algorithms. Offensive material from the POTUS will also receive a label that applies to all verified political candidates and government officials with over 100,000 followers, according to the Washington Post. Before users can view the language in newly flagged tweets, they will need to click on a screen that says, “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.” The company also said it will set up a special team tasked with enforcing the policy, and the notification label would appear only on rare occasions. -Washington Post Twitter will deprioritize the labeled tweets so that they would be seen by fewer people according to the report, which adds that the policy will go into effect immediately and will not apply to other influencers and leaders. It is also not retroactive. "In the past, we’ve allowed certain Tweets that violated our rules to remain on Twitter because they were in the public’s interest, but it wasn’t clear when and how we made those determinations," the company wrote in a Thursday blog post. "To fix that, we’re introducing a new notice that will provide additional clarity in these situations, and sharing more on when and why we’ll use it." What will we do without being able to see tweets like this?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 11:00:16 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/economy/2019/06/26/immigration-democrats-promise-aid-central-america-deliver-cliches-viewers/The panel of Democratic candidates ran away from the tough issues of migration, wages, and amnesty on Wednesday night and found political sanctuary in vague promises of financial aid for Central American countries. “Invest in solutions in Central America … so there is no reason [for Central Americans migrants] to make that journey,” Beto O’Rourke promised. We solve this problem by making investments in the Northern Triangle” countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, claimed Sen. Cory Booker. The root cause of the issue — we need a Marshall plan for Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador so people can seek opportunity at home,” claimed Julian Castro. The candidates’ promises of a quick fix by spending money rests on the very dubious claim that financial aid can make Central America so prosperous in just a few years that few locals would travel to the United States’s wealthy cities, higher-wage jobs, and better K-12 schools. The Democrats’ foreign-aid exit strategy was greatly helped by the conventional media hosts who asked conventional questions about migrants’ priorities but no questions about the civic trade-offs, such as whether a decision to welcome low-skill migrants from Central America would reduce marketplace pressure on companies to invest in higher wages and better labor-saving machinery. Similarly, the candidates did not have to talk in public about the merits of President Donald Trump’s push to change the laws governing asylum or “Unaccompanied Alien Children” because the hosts did not ask about those alternatives. Nor did the candidates have to talk about the fundamental issue: Should the nation’s immigration rules be designed to help employees and their families or to help investors and government tax collectors? More migrants mean lower wages, higher rents, less tech investment, and bigger gains on the stock market. But more migrants also means fewer American kids, a poorer Midwest, wealthier coastal regions, and a wide wealth gaps between the top and bottom of society, according to the record created by the 1965 and 199o immigration expansions. But President Donald Trump’s “Hire American” policy has reduced migration and nudged up blue-collar salaries by roughly five percent in 2018. The announcers did push the candidates if they supported or opposed the current laws criminalizing illegal migration. The push was led by Castro who is running to the virtual office of Latin0-American mayor — and he won a yes from Sen. Liz Warren and Booker. But other candidates dodged the question — usually by saying it is unneeded — so minimizing political damage in the party’s centrist wing. Warren managed to avoid anything further about immigration, while the lesser candidates competed to expresse their desire to aid Central American migrants, both in English and in Spanish. “Look at the bottom line [of Trump’s policies, which is] — that tragic photo” of the two drowned migrants from El Salvador, said New York Mayor Bill De Blasio. “Every American should say that is not America.” As expected, the candidates promised amnesty giveaways to illegal migrants already in the U.S., welcome-mat giveaways to future migrants who are still at home, and hidden financial giveaways to the investors who gain from extra imported consumers — all without any pushback by other candidates or the hosts. “We would spare no expense to reunite [migrant] families,” said O’Rourke. “We needs workers in our fields, our factories,” said Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, who claimed a few months ago that the unemployment is uncomfortably low for companies’ needs. “Our economy needs immigrants,” she said, without referring to voters’ preference for pay raises. Aided by their hosts, the candidates also retreated into clichés: “We cannot surrender our values [to get] border security,” said de Blasio. Democrats should be the “party of immigrants … against these corporations that created this big mess, to begin with,” said de Blasio. “Diversity is our strength,” said Washington Gov. Jay Inslee. “We would rewrite immigration law in our own images,” said O’Rourke. Klobuchar topped off the Democrats’ fervently migrants-first offers by announcing: “Immigrants — they do not diminish America. They are America.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 11:36:25 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/48934/trump-twitter-targeting-me-twitter-we-will-now-hank-berrienOn Thursday, Twitter announced it had changed its policy and will label President Trump’s tweets if Twitter deems them violative of Twitter’s rules. Twitter said any verified political candidates and government officials with more than 100,000 followers can be targeted, according to The Washington Post. In order to view the labeled tweets, users will have to click on a screen that says, “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.” Twitter wrote in a blog post: Our highest priority is to protect the health of the public conversation on Twitter, and an important part of that is ensuring our rules and how we enforce them are easy to understand. In the past, we’ve allowed certain Tweets that violated our rules to remain on Twitter because they were in the public’s interest, but it wasn’t clear when and how we made those determinations. To fix that, we’re introducing a new notice that will provide additional clarity in these situations, and sharing more on when and why we’ll use it. Serving the public conversation includes providing the ability for anyone to talk about what matters to them; this can be especially important when engaging with government officials and political figures. By nature of their positions these leaders have outsized influence and sometimes say things that could be considered controversial or invite debate and discussion. A critical function of our service is providing a place where people can openly and publicly respond to their leaders and hold them accountable. With this in mind, there are certain cases where it may be in the public’s interest to have access to certain Tweets, even if they would otherwise be in violation of our rules. On the rare occasions when this happens, we'll place a notice – a screen you have to click or tap through before you see the Tweet – to provide additional context and clarity. We’ll also take steps to make sure the Tweet is not algorithmically elevated on our service, to strike the right balance between enabling free expression, fostering accountability, and reducing the potential harm caused by these Tweets. Twitter noted that violative tweets would get less oxygen, noting, “When a Tweet has this notice placed on it, it will feature less prominently on Twitter, and not appear in: Safe search, Timeline when switched to Top Tweets, Live events pages, Recommended Tweet push notifications, Notifications tab, Explore.” On Wednesday, Trump went after Twitter, asserting to Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, “Well, they’re doing it to me on Twitter. What they did to me on Twitter is incredible. You know, I have millions and millions of followers, but I will tell you, they make it very hard for people to join me on Twitter and they make it very much harder for me to get out the message.” Bartiromo asked, “What are you going to do about it? These companies have an enormous amount of power if they can even stop the president of the free world from getting his message out. “ Trump replied, “What am I going to do about it? These people are all Democrats. It’s totally biased towards Democrats. If I announce tomorrow that I’m going to become a nice liberal Democrat, I would pick up five times more followers. I was picking up a hundred thousand followers every few days, and all of a sudden — I’m much hotter now than I was a number of months ago, a number of months ago, then all of a sudden it stopped. Now I pick up a lot but I don’t pick up nearly what I did …” In late March, The Daily Wire reported: According to The Hill, on Wednesday at a Washington Post event, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's head of legal, policy, and trust and safety, said if public figures, including politicians, issue offensive tweets, Twitter may annotate them and add a message about why they have not been deleted. Asked whether President Trump could say anything he wanted to on Twitter, Gadde responded, "One of the things we’re working really closely on with our product and engineering folks is, ‘How can we label that?’ How can we put some context around it so people are aware that that content is actually a violation of our rules and it is serving a particular purpose in remaining on the platform? … When we leave that content on the platform there’s no context around that and it just lives on Twitter and people can see it and they just assume that is the type of content or behavior that’s allowed by our rules.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 11:55:49 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/27/supreme-court-votes-5-4-block-citizenship-question-2020-census/Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, would have ruled entirely in favor of the Trump administration, beginning: In March 2018, the Secretary of Commerce exercised his broad discretion over the administration of the decennial census to resume a nearly unbroken practice of asking a question relating to citizenship. Our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative. That ought to end our inquiry. The Court, however, goes further. For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale. Echoing the din of suspicion and distrust that seems to typify modern discourse, the Court declares the Secretary’s memorandum “pretextual” because, “viewing the evidence as a whole,” his explanation that including a citizenship question on the census would help enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA) “seems to have been contrived.” The Court does not hold that the Secretary merely had additional, unstated reasons for reinstating the citizenship question. Rather, it holds that the Secretary’s stated rationale did not factor at all into his decision. The Court’s holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions. And, if taken seriously as a rule of decision, this holding would transform administrative law. It is not difficult for political opponents of executive actions to generate controversy with accusations of pretext, deceit, and illicit motives. Significant policy decisions are regularly criticized as products of partisan influence, interest- group pressure, corruption, and animus. Crediting these accusations on evidence as thin as the evidence here could lead judicial review of administrative proceedings to devolve into an endless morass of discovery and policy disputes not contemplated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Unable to identify any legal problem with the Secretary’s reasoning, the Court imputes one by concluding that he must not be telling the truth…. The law requires a more impartial approach. Even assuming we are authorized to engage in the review undertaken by the Court—which is far from clear—we have often stated that courts reviewing agency action owe the Executive a presumption of regularity. The Court pays only lipservice to this principle. But, the evidence falls far short of supporting its decision. The Court, I fear, will come to regret inventing the principles it uses to achieve today’s result. After dissecting Roberts’s opinion for the majority, Thomas responded: This conclusion is extraordinary. The Court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion. Moreover, each step of the inquiry offends the presumption of regularity we owe the Executive. The judgment of the District Court should be reversed. Thomas later explained: We have held that a court is ordinarily limited to evaluating the agency’s contemporaneous explanation in light of the existing administrative record… If an agency’s stated findings and conclusions withstand scrutiny, the APA does not permit a court to set aside the decision solely because the agency had other unstated reasons for its decision, such as political considerations or the Administration’s priorities. “Unsurprisingly, then, this Court has never held an agency decision arbitrary and capricious on the ground that its supporting rationale was ‘pretextual,’” Thomas reasoned. “Nor has it previously suggested that this was even a possibility.” “But even if they were, an agency action is not arbitrary or capricious merely because the decisionmaker has other, unstated reasons for the decision,” he added. “The Court errs at the outset by proceeding beyond the administrative record to evaluate pretext,” the three justices went on. “Respondents have not made a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.” After examining the purported evidence, Thomas determined: This evidence fails to make a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior. Taken together, it proves at most that the Secretary was predisposed to add a citizenship question to the census and took steps to achieve that end before settling on the VRA rationale he included in his memorandum. Perhaps he had reasons for adding the citizenship question other than the VRA, but by the Court’s own telling, that does not amount to evidence of bad faith or improper behavior. “Even if it were appropriate for the Court to rely on evidence outside the administrative record, that evidence still fails to establish pretext,” he added. “I do not understand how the specificity of the DOJ’s letter bears on whether the Secretary’s rationale was pretextual,” Thomas continued, “particularly since the letter specifically explained why ‘census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in [VRA] litigation’ than existing data.” “In short, the evidence cited by the Court establishes, at most,” Thomas reasoned, “that leadership at both the Department of Commerce and the DOJ believed it important—for a variety of reasons—to include a citizenship question on the census.” “Finally, if there could be any doubt about this conclusion, the presumption of regularity resolves it,” he added for good measure. “Where there are equally plausible views of the evidence, one of which involves attributing bad faith to an officer of a coordinate branch of Government, the presumption compels giving the benefit of the doubt to that officer.” Thomas concluded for himself, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh: Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccess- ful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strongly worded dissent that basically tracked the same bottom line as Justice Thomas’s opinion, beginning: It is a sign of our time that the inclusion of a question about citizenship on the census has become a subject of bitter public controversy and has led to today’s regrettable decision. While the decision to place such a question on the 2020 census questionnaire is attacked as racist, there is a broad international consensus that inquiring about citizenship on a census is not just appropriate but advisable. No one disputes that it is important to know how many inhabitants of this country are citizens.And the most direct way to gather this information is to ask for it in a census. The United Nations recommends that a census inquire about citizenship,and many countries do so. Asking about citizenship on the census also has a rich history in our country. Every census, from the very first one in 1790 to the most recent in 2010, has sought not just a count of the number of inhabitants but also varying amounts of additional demographic information. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, as president of the American Philosophical Society, signed a letter to Congress asking for the inclusion on the census of questions regarding “the respective numbers of native citizens, citizens of foreign birth, and of aliens” “for the purpose . . . of more exactly distinguishing the increase of population by birth and immigration.” “Now, for the first time, this Court has seen fit to claim a role with respect to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census,” wrote Alito, “and in doing so, the Court has set a dangerous precedent, both with regard to the census itself and with regard to judicial review of all other executive agency actions.” “To put the point bluntly,” he continued, “the Federal Judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.” “In addition to requiring an examination of the text and structure of the relevant statutes,” Alito explained, “our APA §701(a)(2) cases look to whether the agency action in question is a type that has traditionally been viewed as committed to agency discretion or whether it is instead one that federal courts regularly review.” “Here, there is no relevant record of judicial review. We are confronted with a practice that reaches back two centuries,” Alito reasoned. “Notably absent from that long record is any practice of judicial review of the content of the census.” “In sum, neither respondents nor my colleagues have been able to identify any relevant, judicially manageable limits on the Secretary’s decision to put a core demographic question back on the census,” he added. Alito concludes: Throughout our Nation’s history, the Executive Branch has decided without judicial supervision or interference whether and, if so, in what form the decennial census should inquire about the citizenship of the inhabitants of this country. Whether to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire is a question that is committed by law to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and is therefore exempt from APA review. The District Court had the authority to decide respondents’ constitutional claims, but the remainder of their complaint should have been dismissed. Conservatives and the Trump administration will be deeply disappointed by this decision, and are likely to harshly criticize the chief justice. Some will undoubtedly say that this was an attempt to avoid political controversy, as those same people said in 2012 when a 5-4 Roberts-led majority ruled in favor of Obamacare in NFIB v. Sebelius. The impact of today’s decision reaches far beyond the 2020 census. Justice Thomas concluded in his dissenting opinion for conservative justices: The Court’s erroneous decision in this case is bad enough, as it unjustifiably interferes with the 2020 census. But the implications of today’s decision are broader. With today’s decision, the Court has opened a Pandora’s box of pretext-based challenges in administrative law. Today’s decision marks the first time the Court has ever invalidated an agency action as “pretextual.” Having taken that step, one thing is certain: This will not be the last time it is asked to do so. Virtually every significant agency action is vulnerable to the kinds of allegations the Court credits today. These decisions regularly involve coordination with numerous stakeholders and agencies, involvement at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, opposition from reluctant agency staff, and—perhaps most importantly—persons who stand to gain from the action’s demise. Opponents of future executive actions can be expected to make full use of the Court’s new approach.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 13:03:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 13:12:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 20:20:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 20:24:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 20:27:42 GMT -6
American citizens, including military veterans are in need of better health care, yet the Democrats are fixated on giving illegal aliens free benefits.
Had enough yet, America?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 20:30:43 GMT -6
Feigns ignorance:
Called out by an anti Communist Cuban-American:
|
|