Categories
HYPOCRISY Intelwars Kyrsten Sinema minimum wage sexism

Kyrsten Sinema fires back at critics angered after she opposed wage hike by using left’s own standards

Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) was sharply criticized by Democrats on Friday for voting against a proposal to include a minimum wage hike in the latest coronavirus-related economic relief package. Sinema was one of eight Senate Democrats who opposed the effort.

In response to critics, Sinema used Democrats’ own standards against them.

What did critics say?

Sinema’s critics focused their outrage on her appearance and the manner in which she voted against the proposal.

HuffPost characterized Sinema as using “an exaggerated thumbs-down hand gesture” to display her opposition.

More from HuffPost:

Although hand gestures are commonplace on the Senate floor, particularly in the coronavirus era, Sinema’s casual body language was disappointing to some who saw the gesture as belittling the fight to end poverty wages.

Other critics focused on the name brand bag Sinema was carrying when she voted against the proposal.

“I am insane and zoomed in on another picture of her carrying and in the spirit of Edward R. Murrow-level journalism I’m humbled to announce in a parody of white feminism Krysten Sinema [sic] voted against a $15 living wage while carrying a giant Lululemon bag,” comedy writer Bess Kalb said on Twitter.

Other critics compared Sinema to Marie Antoinette for bringing chocolate cake with her into the Senate chamber.

“She’s decided she’s going to be a media darling as Marie Antoinette of the establishment. Dress in a super fun way, do performatively hip thumbs downs as she votes to kill higher wages & now rub it in with symbolic cake we can all eat instead of higher salaries,” far-left pundit Cenk Uygur said.

How did Sinema respond?

Hannah Hurley, a spokeswoman for Sinema, denounced the critics, implying they are violating Democrats’ own standards regarding comments about women.

“Commentary about a female senator’s body language, clothing, or physical demeanor does not belong in a serious media outlet,” Hurley told HuffPost.

Anything else?

Sinema released a statement after voting against the proposal explaining that she supports raising wages, but opposes doing so in legislation supposedly meant to address pandemic woes.

“Senators in both parties have shown support for raising the federal minimum wage and the Senate should hold an open debate and amendment process on raising the minimum wage, separate from the COVID-focused reconciliation bill,” Sinema explained.

Share
Categories
CNN Covid relief COVID-19 Ilhan omar Intelwars stimulus

Rep. Ilhan Omar hits Democrats over COVID relief, admits Americans received more aid under Trump

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar lamented Friday that more Americans received a greater amount of coronavirus-related economic aid under former President Donald Trump than they will receive under President Joe Biden.

Despite Democrats now controlling Congress and the White House, Democrats thus far have failed to deliver on their promises of distributing the economic aid they say Americans desperately need.

What did Omar say?

Speaking on CNN Friday, the Minnesota Democrat lamented that Trump and Republicans were willing to give Americans more aid than Democrats are now.

“I see it as a really disappointing development. We obviously are now ultimately sending money to less people than the Trump administration and the Senate majority Republicans,” Omar admitted.

“This is not the promise that we made, this is not what we are given the opportunity to be in the majority in the Senate and to have the White House,” Omar continued. “And so ultimately it is a failure when we compromise ourselves out of delivering on behalf of the American people and keeping our promises.”

Omar went on to explain the income thresholds in the forthcoming Biden-led stimulus bill mean that fewer Americans will receive direct aid.

“The last checks that we were able to send had given 17 million more people than what we will ultimately do with the caps now, and that is going to be something that we’re going to have to explain,” Omar explained.

“I don’t know if many of us have a logical explanation on why we are delivering less than what the Republicans were willing to compromise us on delivering on the American people,” she added.

Later in the interview, Omar suggested that Democrats were squandering their majority power by not delivering on promises they made.

Democrats promised they would pass $2,000 stimulus checks if they won both Georgia runoff elections. But Democrats immediately equivocated after winning both races, instead proposing only $1,400 checks.

Omar noted that Democrats cannot blame Republicans “for our inability to deliver on the promises that we made.”

Anything else?

The Senate on Saturday passed the massive $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package being championed by Biden’s administration.

Before heading to Biden’s desk for final approval, the House must first approve changes the Senate passed.

Zero Republican senators voted for the bill, citing massive spending unrelated to COVID relief that Democrats stuffed into the bill.

“This weekend’s spending is bigger than the entire annual economy of Canada, yet only one percent of it is vaccine-related. Here’s how midnight spending bills go down: Senators hide a bunch of crap behind titles like ‘The Cuddly Puppies Act,’ and then say anybody voting against it hates puppies. This $1.9 trillion ’emergency’ bill is overwhelmingly non-emergency — we should’ve just bought Canada too,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said.

Share
Categories
absentee ballots Alderman arrest Intelwars Mississippi Notary voter fraud watch

Absentee ballot fraud, voter intimidation alleged as judge orders new Democratic election in Mississippi town

A Mississippi judge last week ordered a new election after allegations of absentee ballot fraud and voter intimidation surfaced in connection with a Democratic runoff last June for an alderman seat in Aberdeen, the Monroe Journal reported.

What are the details?

The final vote tally was 177 for Nicholas Holliday and 140 for Robert Devaull, the Journal reported.

Devaull challenged the election in court, and Judge Jeff Weill said 66 of 84 absentee ballots cast in the runoff were invalid and should never have been counted, WCBI-TV reported.

Weill also issued a bench warrant for notary Dallas Jones, who admitted during a hearing to violating notary duties, WCBI said.

Lydia Quarles, attorney for Devaull, told the station that “when you have an absentee ballot, there’s an envelope, and you vote, and then you fold the ballot up, and you put it in this envelope, then you lick the flap, and then you sign across the flap, and then the notary signs your election certificate, and she essentially testified that she didn’t sign in front of anybody, she didn’t see anybody sign … she just notarized them, she just stamped them.”

What’s more, Jones testified that she was called to the home of then-Alderwoman Lady Garth in June to correct her father’s absentee ballot paperwork — and while there, Jones testified that she notarized “about 30 something ballots,” the station said.

Jones was arrested and charged with voter fraud, WTVA-TV reported. The judge set her bond at $500, the Journal said. WCBI reported that Jones has since been released.

The filing also stated that testimony from a second notary public, Lu Stephens, was not believable, the Journal said.

In addition, the judge found that 83 regular ballots were counted without being initialed by election workers — another violation, the station reported.

Weill also said there was clear evidence of voter intimidation and harassment at the polling place on Election Day, the station said. While state law says candidates and supporters must stay at least 150 feet away from polling places, Weill said in his ruling that Holliday — as well as Police Chief Henry Randle and former Mayor Maurice Howard — acted as if they were above the law, repeatedly violating criminal statutes, WCBI reported.

What did the candidates have to say?

Devaull hopes the judge’s order for a new election will mean a fair contest for the Ward 1 seat, the station said.

“It was always a lot of distraction in Ward 1 … I would like to see going forward that … be cleaned up, people be able to come and go as they like, to vote, and vote for who they want to,” Devaull told WCBI.

Aberdeen City Attorney Walter Zinn represented Holliday and said he and his client “are left offended in part and befuddled by the ruling of the court. While we respect this legal process and the days of deliberation of each party, the findings of fact are grossly inconsistent with testimony of the witnesses and reflect more of the ‘copied and pasted’ sentiments of the Defendant than what the record from the proceedings would affirm,” the station reported.


ELECTION FOLLOW UP

youtu.be

Share
Categories
democratic party Intelwars Lauren boebert Politics

Commentary: If I were a Democrat

If I were a Democrat, I’d centralize power in Washington by nationalizing our elections. It wouldn’t be enough to hold all three branches temporarily. I’d need to make it permanent.

So I’d change the rules.

If I were a Democrat, I’d flood the voter pool. I’d require all states to allow same-day voter registration. I’d mandate states automatically register felons, illegal aliens, and 16-year-olds to vote, and I’d require prisons, welfare offices, and ICE to provide their voter registration information.

I’d also use taxpayer dollars to establish aggressive voter recruitment programs at leftist training camps — otherwise known as colleges and universities.

If I were a Democrat, I’d begin a chronicle of lies that all voter verification laws are racist and with that distraction, I’d enable illegal voting.

Banning all voter ID laws would be another important step.

If any local official dared question the eligibility of one of my illegal voters, I would throw them in jail. I would threaten force until no one dared resist.

I’d block efforts to verify signatures and citizenship in the name of counting every vote — not just every legal one. I’d make it more difficult for poll watchers to ensure accountability: citizen oversight is a pest.

I’d make the fraud-ridden mail-in voting of the 2020 pandemic election permanent. To ensure my win on Election Day (or Election Month under our new scheme), I would allow aggressive ballot harvesting to begin 45 days before the election, and I’d count votes received 10 days late in case we need to drum up some missing ballots.

If I were a Democrat, I’d siphon the power of states to the federal government. I’d ignore the Constitution and prevent states from determining their own voting practices. If conservative states did not readily relinquish their authority, I would reduce their representation in Congress and give their electoral votes to my friends in California or New York.

For good measure, I’d strip all state legislatures of their ability to decide how Congressional districts are drawn, and I’d also prohibit states from enforcing their election law.

Next, I’d give D.C. statehood. Now I have the Senate.

If I were a Democrat, I’d marginalize the courts and limit access to challenges. I’d insist that all election lawsuits be processed only by my friends on the District Court in Washington, D.C.

If I were a Democrat, I’d talk about taking money out of politics, but would tax businesses to provide kickbacks and multiply my own campaign war chest by 600%.

If I were a Democrat, I’d be a career politician, so I’d enrich the Swamp while further bankrupting America.

To sweep away any ethics challenges, I’d change the bipartisan Federal Election Commission into a partisan board with a new czar governed by the ruling party — mine.

Now I know these changes are ambitious, and there could be backlash. So I’d silence dissent and cancel free speech. After I controlled the government, I’d want to control the people, so I’d cancel unauthorized thoughts. I’d empower bureaucrats to prosecute individual Americans for posting anything “fact-checkers” deem “misinformation.”

I’d dox and censor anyone who donated to my opponents by having the government publish their personal information. Then I’d weaponize the IRS to strip conservative churches and nonprofits of their tax-exempt status.

If I were a Democrat, I’d use the weight of the federal government to crush anyone who opposed me.

In other words, if I were a Democrat, I’d pass the “For the Swamp Act,” H.R. 1.

But I’m a conservative, and I will never stop fighting for the rights of states, limited government, and election integrity.

Share
Categories
Andrew Cuomo Intelwars New York Sexual Harassment

‘You are a monster’: Democrats lash out at Andrew Cuomo over newest allegations, call for investigation

Democratic politicians are becoming increasingly outspoken about New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), a scandal-embattled Democratic leader who is quickly falling from his party’s good graces.

Already saddled with a nursing home scandal in the Empire State for which Cuomo has blamed Republicans and former President Donald Trump, more Democrats are calling for an investigation into Cuomo after another woman came forward with allegations that Cuomo sexually harassed her.

As TheBlaze reported, a former Cuomo aide alleged Saturday that Cuomo sexually harassed her last year.

“I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared,” Charlotte Bennett told the New York Times. “And was wondering how I was going to get out of it and assumed it was the end of my job.”

What are the details?

Many of New York’s top Democratic politicians called for an “independent investigation.”

New York state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said, “The continued allegations are deeply disturbing and concerning. The behavior described has no place in the workplace. A truly independent investigation must begin immediately.”

New York Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D) said, “As I previously stated, all allegations of harassment must be taken seriously. A truly independent investigation is warranted.”

Even Lt. Gov Kathy Hochu (D) said, “Everyone deserves to have their voice heard and taken seriously. I support an independent review.”

Other Democrats even demanded Cuomo’s immediate resignation.

“[Y]ou are a monster, and it is time for you to go. Now,” New York state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi (D) wrote on Twitter.

“The assertions against Governor Andrew M. Cuomo by Charlotte Bennett detail behavior that is unacceptable,” Biaggi also said in a statement. “I am especially horrified by the comments the Governor made to Charlotte about her experience with sexual assault — comments he did not deny making. They are the epitome of a hostile work environment.”

“As a New Yorker, a legislator, Chair of the Senate Ethics and Internal Governance Committee and a survivor of sexual abuse, I am calling for Governor Cuomo to resign,” Biaggi added.

Anything else?

New York State Attorney General Letitia James (D) also called for an investigation into Cuomo on Sunday.

She said:

Allegations of sexual harassment should always be taken seriously. There must be a truly independent investigation to thoroughly review these troubling allegations against the governor, and I stand ready to oversee that investigation and make any appointments necessary. Given state law, this can only be accomplished through an official referral from the governor’s office based on State Law (§ 63-8) and must include subpoena power. I urge the governor to make this referral immediately.

Cuomo’s office later claimed Sunday that it had requested an independent investigation into the allegations.

Share
Categories
Covid relief COVID-19 Intelwars Paul gosar Wasteful spending

GOP rep exposes wasteful spending in Democrats’ stimulus bill by proposing $10,000 stimulus checks

Prior to House Democrats passing their massive $1.9 trillion stimulus package early Saturday, Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.) introduced an amendment increasing the stimulus check amount to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples.

The proposed amendment was meant to highlight the wasteful spending on items completely unrelated to coronavirus-related relief.

What happened?

Gosar’s amendment proposed eliminating 10 sections from the legislation that used taxpayer money to fund items unrelated to COVID relief.

Specifically, Gosar sought to eliminate spending for:

  • Farm loan assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
  • National Endowment for the Arts
  • National Endowment for the Humanities
  • Institute of Museum and Library Services
  • So-called “Vaccine confidence activities”
  • “Global health” initiatives
  • Family planning
  • Capital investment grants
  • National Railroad Passenger Corporation grants
  • Special financial assistance program for financially troubled multi-employer plans

The billions of dollars saved by eliminating funding for such non-COVID related items should be given back to struggling Americans in the form of increased stimulus checks, Gosar said.

In fact, Gosar explained on Twitter that “only 9% of Pelosi’s $1.9 trillion ‘plan’ is related to COVID-19.”

“I offered an amendment to prioritize $10,000 stimulus checks to Americans most affected by COVID-19 and lockdowns,” the Arizona Republican said.

“Instead, Democrats chose foreign aid, Big Tech transit, and Pelosi’s political priorities over direct relief to American citizens,” he added.

“Governement (sic) ordered the shutdown and broke the back of the economy. Break it, buy it,” Gosar said. “Americans need help with car payments, mortgage, rent, and everyday necessities. The people, not government, corporations, or billionaires, need this help.”

Did the amendment pass?

The amendment was rejected by Democrats, who ultimately passed their stimulus bill.

The $1.9 trillion legislation includes the controversial federal minimum wage hike, which the Senate parliamentarian has already ruled cannot be included in the Senate version of the bill if it should be passed in the upper chamber through the budget reconciliation process.

Two Democrats ultimately crossed party lines and voted against the bill: Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Kurt Schrader (Ore.).

Golden later explained that he voted against the bill because of the wasteful spending unrelated to COVID relief.

“This bill addresses urgent needs, and then buries them under a mountain of unnecessary or untimely spending,” Golden said. “In reviewing the bill in its full scope, less than 20 percent of the total spending addresses core COVID challenges that are immediately pressing: funding for vaccine distribution and testing, and emergency federal unemployment programs.”

Share
Categories
Intelwars nuclear Nuclear codes

Democrats call on President Biden to surrender sole control of nuclear weapons

Congressional Democrats sent a letter to President Joe Biden this week urging him to give up his sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, Politico reported Tuesday.

The lawmakers said they want to reform the “the decision-making process the United States uses in its command and control of nuclear forces.”

Currently, only the president has the authority to launch U.S. nuclear weapons. Though he has advisers available to consult on any such decision, there is nothing that says he must.

And that is worrisome, the 31 Democratic letter-signers stated, citing actions of both former Presidents Donald Trump and Richard Nixon:

[V]esting one person with this authority entails real risks. Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.

While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering an attack, there is no requirement to do so. The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.

The passage above included footnotes linking to stories of former President Trump threatening a nuclear attack on North Korea, Nixon Defense Secretary James Schlesinger’s concerns about outgoing President Nixon’s stability in the days before he resigned, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s futile demand that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remove the nuclear football from Trump following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), who spearheaded the letter, said in response to the Politico report, “Vesting a single person with nuclear authority entails real risks. I’m leading a group of my colleagues with @RepTedLieu in calling for reform to our nuclear command-and-control structure. It’s time to install additional checks and balances into this system.”

The letter offered a number of alternatives, including:

  • Requiring officials in the line of succession, beginning with the vice president and the House speaker, “to concur with a launch order”;
  • Requiring certifications from the defense secretary and the attorney general that a launch order is valid and legal, as well as “concurrence from the chair of the Joint Chiefs of staff and/or the secretary of state”;
  • Requiring both a declaration of war and specific authorization from Congress before a nuclear strike can occur; and
  • Creating a council of congressional leaders that would regularly meet with the executive branch on national security issues and require the president to consult with at least part of the council before using nuclear weapons.

Though the letter asked the president to implement such changes on his own, Congress could pass a law to implement any one or all of these restrictions and dare the president to veto it, HotAir’s Ed Morrissey noted. After all, it’s Congress’ job to be the checks and balances they are currently asking the president to impose on himself.

Share
Categories
Cable providers First Amendment Fox News FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Intelwars Letter NewsMax Oann

Democrats’ ‘chilling’ letter demands cable providers account for ‘misinformation’ and ‘lies’ from ‘right-wing media outlets’ they carry

Two Democratic members of Congress penned letters Monday to a dozen cable providers demanding they account for “misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies” from “right-wing media outlets” they carry — and the networks specifically named were Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News Network.

What are the details?

The letters from U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both of California, were addressed to AT&T, Verizon, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Charter, Dish, Cox, Altice, Alphabet, and Hulu. The letters leveled numerous accusations against the aforementioned news networks, including that their coverage helped the “radicalization of seditious individuals who committed acts of insurrection on January 6” at the U.S. Capitol.

“Some purported news outlets have long been misinformation rumor mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to real harm,” the letters said. “Misinformation on TV has led to our current polluted information environment that radicalizes individuals to commit seditious acts and rejects public health best practices, among other issues in our public discourse.”

Citing “experts” who claim “the right-wing media ecosystem is ‘much more susceptible…to disinformation, lies, and half-truths,'” the letters said “right-wing media outlets” like Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN “all aired misinformation about the November 2020 elections.” The letters also accused the networks of “spreading misinformation related to the pandemic.”

What do the Democrats want?

Eshoo and McNerney demanded in their letters that cable providers explain “what moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?”

The letters also asked the cable providers to detail what steps they’ve taken to “monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation” from news networks they carry, as well as any punitive measures they’ve taken against such channels — and if they plan to carry networks like Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN once contracts expire.

The letters were penned ahead of a hearing set Wednesday — “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media” — to be hosted by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which Eshoo and McNerney sit, CNBC reported.

What was the reaction?

Fox News told CNBC in a statement that “as the most watched cable news channel throughout 2020, FOX News Media provided millions of Americans with in-depth reporting, breaking news coverage and clear opinion. For individual members of Congress to highlight political speech they do not like and demand cable distributors engage in viewpoint discrimination sets a terrible precedent.”

CNBC said Comcast declined to comment, and representatives for the other cable providers to which letters were addressed didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Republican Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr called the letters a “chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys,” CBNC said, adding that Carr’s fellow Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington reacted similarly.

“The Majority is flirting with violating the First Amendment,” a GOP aide for the House Energy and Commerce Committee told CNBC in a statement. “Should the government be pressuring private industries to censor legally protected content and suppress the freedom of the press? No. If a free and independent press is still valued and mainstream in America, this censorship campaign should alarm every single journalist and member of the media.”

Haven’t we seen this movie before?

The Democrats’ letters mirror CNN’s assertion last month that cable providers should “face questions for lending their platforms to dishonest companies that profit off of disinformation and conspiracy theories” — and again the three named were Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN.

CNN’s Brian Stelter has been on the aforementioned warpath of late, specifically saying a few weeks back that “liar” Fox News’ influence must be reduced through a “harm reduction model” — which he said isn’t censorship. Later Stelter interviewed a Democratic congresswoman who called for a “truth commission” to root out “extremist ideology” so Americans can mouth a “common narrative.”

In his chat with freshman U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs of California, Stelter decried the “impact of cellphones and this constant connectivity, social networks and far-right television networks” — all of which he said are “fueling a fire” of extremism.

Share
Categories
covid COVID-19 Intelwars Michelle lujan grisham New Mexico

Report: NM Dem governor held in-person meetings despite COVID guidelines, spent thousands on alcohol, Wagyu beef

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) reportedly did not follow her own coronavirus-related gathering edicts and spent thousands of taxpayer dollars on alcohol and luxurious Wagyu beef last year.

What are the details?

While New Mexico residents faced some of the most strict COVID-related restrictions in the nation, Lujan Grisham was reportedly meeting with her staff in-person — despite advising against such gatherings for New Mexicans.

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, Lujan Grisham was holding in-person meetings with her Cabinet and New Mexico legislators while telling New Mexico residents not to gather with people they do not live with. The meetings were held at the governor’s mansion in Santa Fe, despite the widespread use of video conferencing software, like Zoom.

Meanwhile, Lujan Grisham spent nearly $13,500 of taxpayer dollars on groceries, alcohol, and services like dry cleaning during the second half of 2020.

“Receipts show more than $6,500 on groceries, from Wagyu beef and tuna steaks to several purchases of alcohol, including bottles of tequila, vodka, gin, wine and beer,” the New Mexican reported.

News of Lujan Grisham’s spending comes after she reportedly gave several staff members salary raises ranging between $7,500 to $12,000.

What was the reaction?

New Mexico House Minority Leader Jim Townsend (R) called Lujan Grisham’s spending “disenchanting.”

“It’s not what tax dollars ought to be spent for,” he said. “In the time when people are hurting all over the state, using their tax dollars to buy Wagyu beef has got to be a little bit disenchanting to many people. I think it’s just more of indication of the problem that we have had and the governor has had connecting with people.”

“Those are the kinds of things that cause people to totally distrust the government,” Townsend added. “When they see these [messages] of, ‘You need to stay home and you can’t have your family for Christmas and you can’t do this and you can’t do that,’ but I’m going to sit here and eat Wagyu beef and buy hundreds of dollars of alcohol with your tax dollars. What in the world would you expect them to think?”

House Minority Whip Rod Montoya (R) had harsher words for Lujan Grisham. He said the Democratic governor’s actions indicate she believes that she is “more privileged than everybody else.”

“It really appears in the Governor’s Office as if she really believes herself to be more privileged than everybody else in New Mexico,” Montoya said, the New Mexican reported. “I didn’t realize the governor was so underpaid that she has to use discretionary money for things that she should be paying for herself.”

What did Lujan Grisham say?

The governor’s office excused her behavior and claimed there was a difference between Lujan Grisham telling New Mexicans not to gather with people they do not live with and Lujan Grisham gathering with people she does not live with.

“There’s a difference between inviting someone into your house for the Super Bowl or someone’s birthday and having three or four Cabinet secretaries there to talk about their budgets amid an unprecedented economic downturn and to work out what we’re going to propose or recommend to the Legislature given the changing economic forecast,” spokesman Tripp Stelnicki said.

Stelnicki told the New Mexican the food and alcohol purchases were for Lujan Grisham, her staff, security, and maintenance workers.

“The governor wanted to sort of try to make things and send them to people, like pozole at Christmas,” he said.

On Friday, Lujan Grisham responded to scrutiny surrounding her spending, admitting that she had “dropped the ball.”

“When people are struggling, should it be fair that residents [of the governor’s mansion] literally have a locked-up grocery store closet … that has libations and catering stuff and food?” she said. “I don’t want New Mexicans to feel like I don’t take seriously their hardship.”

Share
Categories
CNN Intelwars minimum wage Ro khanna small businesses

Dem Rep. Khanna admits Democrats ‘don’t want’ small businesses that pay less than $15 minimum wage

California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna essentially argued Sunday that Democrats believe no jobs are better than “underpaying” jobs — those that pay less than $15 per hour.

What happened?

During an appearance on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” host Abby Phillip asked Khanna whether Democrats should be pushing for an increased federal minimum wage as the pandemic continues to adversely impact the American economy. Phillip noted that millions of Americans remain out of work, particularly in retail and service industries that are more likely to pay employees the minimum wage.

Khanna claimed now is the right time by citing Amazon and Target — two massive companies that have set their minimum wages at $15 per hour — and even alleged that increasing the minimum wage creates jobs.

Phillip responded by again asking about small businesses, not large corporations that can generally afford to pay higher wages.

“I’m wondering, what is your plan for smaller businesses?” she asked. “How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on the payroll right now?”

Shockingly, Khanna said small businesses should not keep their doors open if they do not pay employees the wage that Democrats are demanding.

“Well, they shouldn’t be doing it by paying people low wages,” Khanna replied. “We don’t want low-wage businesses. I think most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.”

“I love small businesses. I’m all for it. But I don’t want small businesses that are underpaying employees,” Khanna went on to say. “It’s fair for people to make what they’re producing and I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”


Rep. Ro Khanna on CNN Inside Politics with Abby Phillip

www.youtube.com

Later, when asked if progressive Democrats should compromise on raising the minimum wage to pass the next stimulus, Khanna said moderates should be the ones who compromise.

How many jobs are at stake?

Despite Khanna’s claims, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2019 that raising the minimum wage would potentially cost millions of jobs.

In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a two-thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

House Democrats released their $1.9 trillion stimulus bill on Friday. The legislation includes a federal minimum wage hike.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus covid COVID-19 Intelwars minimum wage stimulus

Alarming items stuffed inside House Dem’s $1.9T stimulus bill: Health surveillance, animal COVID studies

House Democrats unveiled Friday the $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package they hope to pass by late next week. Included in the bill are $1,400 stimulus checks and numerous other pandemic-related relief measures, like additional funding for state and local governments and more federal unemployment benefits.

The bill — which was “stitched together” by the Democratic-controlled House Budget Committee, according to Reuters — was also filled with dozens of items completely unrelated to direct pandemic relief.

(READ: The full 591-page bill)

Federal minimum wage increase

The bill would enact a key promise made by President Joe Biden and Democrats, increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025.

Animal COVID studies

The bill allocates $300 million of taxpayer dollars for the Agriculture Department to “conduct monitoring and surveillance of susceptible animals for incidence of SARS–CoV–2” as guided by the World Organization for Animal Health.

‘Socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers’

Addressing farm loans, the bill states that the Agriculture Department “shall provide a payment in an amount equal to 120% of the outstanding indebtedness of each socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher as of January 1, 2021, to pay off the loan directly or to the socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher.”

The purpose of the debt payments is to “alleviat[e] discriminatory barriers preventing socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers from fully participating in the American farm economy.”

The bill also provides another $1 billion to the same group for “outreach, mediation, financial training, capacity building training, cooperative development training and support, and other technical assistance to socially disadvantaged groups.”

Student loan outreach

The bill allocates $91 million for the “Department of Education to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, including direct outreach to students and borrowers about financial aid, economic impact payments, means tested benefits, and tax benefits for which they may be eligible.”

Fine arts and museums

The bill allocates $135 million to the National Endowment for the Arts and another $135 million to the National Endowment of the Humanities.

Meanwhile, the bill also allocates $200 million to the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Native American languages

The bill also gives $10 million for the “preservation and maintenance of Native American languages.”

Vaccine information

The bill provides $1 billion “to strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States,” “provide further information and education with respect to vaccines,” and “improve rates of vaccination throughout the United States.”

Family planning

Family planning, which could include abortion, gets $50 million.

Global health

The bill provides $750 million for “the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to combat SARS–CoV– 2, COVID–19, and other emerging infectious disease threats globally, including efforts related to global health security, global disease detection and response, global health protection, global immunization, and global coordination on public health.”

Health surveillance

The bill provides another $500 million “to support public health data surveillance and analytics infrastructure modernization initiatives at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

Airlines

The airline industry, which was controversially bailed out in the first stimulus last spring, gets another $15 billion in this bill.

(H/T: Oilfield Rando)

Share
Categories
Commentary Etiquette Intelwars political Politics Rush Limbaugh

20 Absolutely Horrible Things That The Left Said About Rush Limbaugh Right After He Died

I know that most Americans don’t understand much about etiquette these days, but I still expected better than this.  When someone passes away, it is customary to say positive things about the deceased.  If you can’t find anything positive to say, then you should say nothing at all.  At one time, it would have been considered to be extremely rude to make bitter and nasty comments about someone that has just died, but in America today people just do whatever they feel like doing.  Proper etiquette is a thing of the past, and at this point we have essentially become a nation of degenerate “pig people” that have no respect for anyone or anything.

The first time I ever encountered Rush Limbaugh was when my father started listening to him all the way back in the 1980s.  Rush was a lot more brash and cocky back then, but the one constant throughout the years was his deep, abiding love for America.  He truly loved the United States, our founders, our Constitution and everything that this country was supposed to represent.  He was constantly pushing us to live up to our ideals, and he was not afraid to call out politicians in both parties that he felt were betraying our values.

Over the years he got older, but he also got wiser.  Every time I listened to him I came away with something that would stick with me, and I am very thankful for that.

He was truly great at what he did, and his work has had an impact on hundreds of millions of people.

How many of us will be able to say the same thing when our lives on this planet are through?

Of course many on the left deeply hated Rush Limbaugh and everything that he stood for, and we all understand that.

But couldn’t they have waited at least a few days before viciously trashing his life and his legacy?

The following are 20 absolutely horrible things that the left said about Rush Limbaugh right after he died…

Christopher Mathias of the Huffington Post: “Rush Limbaugh was a bigot and a misogynist who saturated America’s airwaves with cruel lies and conspiracy theories for decades, transforming the GOP in the process.”

Steve Hofstetter: “‘Rest in Piss’ is trending because Rush Limbaugh died. I don’t know who the first person to write this was, but how dare you. How dare you come up with the perfect joke before the rest of us could.”

David Cross: “Cancer killed the cancer”

George Takei: “I guess I’m grateful that he lived long enough to see Trump defeated by Biden.”

Nathan Bernard: “goodbye Rush Limbaugh, may you rot in hell with your ******* ugly ties”

New York Times podcast host Jane Coaston: “Rush Limbaugh was the first person I ever recognized existed largely as a Rorschach test.”

Palmer Report: “Rush Limbaugh spent decades advancing his career by opportunistically spreading vicious lies that got a lot of bad people elected, whose corrupt policies in turn got a lot of Americans killed.”

Cameron Kasky: “Rush Limbaugh has passed on, but worry not- his memory lives on through bigots everywhere”

Bishop Talbert Swan: “Bidding him good riddance or wishing him to rot in hell is being kind.”

Chris Cillizza of CNN: “Trump was Limbaugh’s Frankenstein monster. And he proudly stood by him until the very end.”

Anthony Rapp: “A person who consistently and continually did a tremendous amount of damage to the world, #RushLimbaugh, lived twice as long as my friend Jonathan Larson, whose work and legacy have only changed the world for the better. It’s difficult to reconcile the unfairness of that fact.”

Charlotte Clymer: “Rush Limbaugh was a coward and white supremacist. He aggressively and cynically exploited divisions in our country by weaponizing hatred and bigotry for his own personal gain. He was in service to his own greed, prejudice, and hypocrisy, and that is how history will remember him.”

Danielle Campoamor: “Because the only way to truly pay our respects to the radio host, who reached more than 15 million listeners during his 30-year talk radio career, is to remember exactly who he was and the legacy he left behind— one of divisiveness, cruelty, racism, homophobia, bigotry, and sexism.”

Kirk Acevedo: “One bigot dead. Waiting for the rest to join him.”

David Klion: “Today is a sad day, as the excruciating physical and spiritual agony Rush Limbaugh experienced at all times has finally ended.”

Bette Midler: “#RushLimbaugh has gone to his reward. Bet it’s hot.”

Billy Baldwin: “Enjoy hell.”

Luke Null: “Rush Limbaugh already started a radio show in Hell and is ranting about how the devil should shut the fiery gates because all these OUTSIDERS are ruining everything!”

Finneas: “Feeling very sorry for the people of Hell who now have to deal with Rush Limbaugh for the rest of eternity”

Ron Perlman: “I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the poor devil who will no doubt have to spend the rest of eternity with Rush Limbaugh.”

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post 20 Absolutely Horrible Things That The Left Said About Rush Limbaugh Right After He Died first appeared on End Of The American Dream.

Share
Categories
Brian Stelter CNN Conservatives Intelwars Sara Jacobs Truth commission watch

Democratic congresswoman calls for ‘truth commission’ to root out ‘extremist ideology’ so Americans can have ‘common narrative’

Earlier this month, the New York Times published a story saying “experts” suggested that President Joe Biden’s administration should set up a “truth commission” and appoint a “reality czar” to battle “disinformation and domestic extremism.”

Now a Democratic congresswoman also is touting a “truth commission.”

Freshman U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs on Sunday told CNN’s Brian Stelter on his “Reliable Sources” program that we need a “truth commission” to put down “extremist ideology” so Americans can all have a “common narrative” about what is true and what isn’t.

What are the details?

Before her “truth commission” declaration, Jacobs defined an “extremist” as one who’s “unable to take in competing ideas and reflect the truth.”

Not that such a condition isn’t an issue with the left, but whatever — Stelter seemed to enthusiastically agree with her take.

Image source: Twitter video screenshot via @ReliableSources

Jacobs added that extremists believe their “sense of identity” is being threatened and lack “critical thinking skills” — and have this oh-so-problematic access to “common social networks” with those who share their views.

Stelter seemed to love what he was hearing. After all, a few weeks back he said he wanted the influence of “liar” Fox News reduced — and yet claimed his wish somehow wasn’t “censorship.”

So he took Jacobs words farther, invoking problems such as the “impact of cellphones and this constant connectivity, social networks and far-right television networks” — all of which are “fueling a fire” of extremism.

Jacobs replied by saying “we know the violence on [Jan. 6] was predicated on the idea of the ‘big lie’ — the fact that this election was stolen despite the fact that Donald Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security says it was not. You need to be able to perpetuate that kind of lie in order to get the kinds of reactions that you did. I think we need to look at far-right media — which I know, Brian, you have been such a leader on calling out — and also the role of social media and the whole ecosystem of social media where the kinds of information and the kinds of posts that get the biggest reactions are the ones that are prioritized by their algorithms.”

Soon Stelter added that for the United States “it’s about a ‘whitelash,’ about a white Christian America reaction, backlash, to a changing country personified by Trump. But … none of this is going away now, even though the [second impeachment] trial is over and even though one phase of Trumpism is over. You also said in an interview with the 19th News website this week that the country needs a truth commission. What exactly would a truth commission be?”

Jacobs explains what her ‘truth commission’ would look like

“Because we haven’t really done the reckoning with the racial injustice and white supremacy of our past that we need to do,” Jacobs replied. “And so … a truth commission — a lot of people will think of South Africa — we’ve used them in countries around the world. And basically … it’s communities all the way up to the national level having conversations about both the gory and the glory of our history and what happened — both throughout the history of our country and leading up to and on January 6 — so that we can come to a common narrative, moving forward, of what we want our country to be.”

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Fox News Intelwars Kamala Harris Lindsey Graham Trump Impeachment

Graham warns Kamala Harris could be impeachment target because Democrats ‘opened Pandora’s box’

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham warned Sunday that Democrats may have opened “pandora’s box” by pursuing a second impeachment against former President Donald Trump.

What is the background?

Although Trump was impeached for the second time prior to leaving office, one of the biggest questions looming over his Senate trial last week was the constitutionality of conducting an impeachment trial against someone who is now a private citizen.

Indeed, Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution seemingly limits impeachment to the “president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) claimed Trump is “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” that happened on Jan. 6. But he explained after the Senate trial that he voted to acquit Trump precisely because he did not think the Senate had constitutional jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial against a former president. In fact, McConnell called Trump “not eligible for conviction.”

What did Graham say?

The South Carolina Republican declared Sunday that Democrats have now established a precedent that may come back to haunt them in the future.

In fact, Graham said that if Republicans retake control of the House, Vice President Kamala Harris could be conceivably impeached for the exact same charges that Democrats levied against Trump.

“We’ve opened Pandora’s box to future presidents,” Graham said.

“If you use this model, I don’t know how Kamala Harris doesn’t get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters and one of the rioters went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open,” Graham explained. “So, we’ve opened Pandora’s box here and I’m sad for the country.”

Graham’s citation of Harris is a reference to the former California senator urging her supporters to contribute to a bail fund for protesters last summer.

Earlier in the interview, Graham said he believed the impeachment trial against Trump was an unconstitutional endeavor.

“I felt the impeachment trial was not only unconstitutional — I condemn what happens on Jan. 6 — but the process they used it to impeach this president was an affront to rule of law,” Graham declared.

“He is the first president to ever be impeached without a lawyer, without a witness, without an ability to confront those against him and the trial record was a complete joke, hearsay upon hearsay,” he added.


www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Donald Trump IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Senate trial Trump Impeachment

Democrats get torched by their own after caving on calling witnesses during Trump’s impeachment trial

Democratic lawmakers were scorned by their own supporters on Saturday after they reached an agreement with Senate Republicans to not call witnesses in former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

What happened?

Early on Saturday, the Senate voted 55-45 to call witnesses in the trial, which would have indefinitely extended the proceedings against Trump.

As TheBlaze reported, lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) had expressed interest subpoenaing Rep. Herrera Beutler (R-Wa.) to testify about a conversation between Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) that took place during the Capitol Riots.

However, Democrats quickly caved, reaching an agreement to not call witnesses, which meant Trump’s trial ended on Saturday.

Indeed, the former president, though twice impeached, has been now twice acquitted.

The result on Saturday was more bipartisan than before. Seven Republicans voted “guilty,” whereas only one Republican senator — Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) — voted guilty in Trump’s first trial. Even then, Romney only voted “guilty” on one of the charges against Trump at the time.

What was the reaction?

Democrats were panned by their own supporters for retreating on calling witnesses.

  • “This is retreat. White flag. Malpractice. Completely unstrategic. They just closed the door on others who may have stepped out, as @HerreraBeutler urged last night.

    Just when we thought Dems were being bold and strategic. This is grabbing lameness out of the jaws of boldness,” one person said.

  • “Democrats are so embarrassing,” another person said.
  • “Wait. The idiot Democrats decided NOT to call witnesses? See, this is why they are stuck on stupid. They don’t know how to play hardball. They allowed the GOP to punk them. When you play to win, you PLAY TO WIN. This is sorry ass leadership,” another person reacted.
  • “We f***ing had them and the House Managers caved. If the situation had been reversed, the GOP would have jammed so many witnesses down our throats just to run up the score.

    I’m so sick of Democrats always acting like losers,” another person responded.

  • “And the Democrats just folded. Why do we even bother?” another person said.
  • “Once again, Democrats bring a butter knife to a gunfight,” one person responded.
  • “Omg. No witnesses. That’s insane. It’s like stopping short at the 5 yard line. How unbelievably disappointing,” another person said.
  • “I cannot believe that @TheDemocrats just gave up on trying to convict a President who literally incited an insurrection at the United States Capitol. How are you not going to give that fight everything you’ve got? Stand for something, dammit,” another person responded.
  • “Truly no one is worse at politics than Senate Democrats,” one person said.
  • “This is so weak,” Meena Harris, the niece of Vice President Kamala Harris, reacted.
Share
Categories
Campaign 2022 Defund the police democratic party Intelwars open borders Scott peters Socialism

House Democrat issues stark warning to own party about 2022: Can’t ‘get caught with our pants down again’

Despite having control of the White House and Congress, some Democrats do not feel comfortable about their position heading into the 2022 midterm elections.

In fact, one House Democrat is already warning that defeat lays ahead for the Democratic Party if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders allow the party’s progressive members to steer the party further to the left beyond what most Americans find palatable.

In a thoughtful interview with liberal think tank NDN, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said this week that Democrats cannot “get caught with our pants down again” in 2022.

Rep. Scott Peters. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

Despite winning the White House, Peters suggested that Democrats must examine why they lost many seats in the House, explaining that Republicans successfully campaigned against Democrats by pointing out the party’s growing affinity for socialism, defunding the police, and progressive immigration policy.

“We were defined by Republicans in ways that were pretty effective around a couple of issues,” Peters said.

“One was that we were open borders … I think really Democrats are for fixing the immigration laws and then enforcing them,” Peters continued. “You heard that we were for defunding the police. I think part of that was that we never came up with a deal to show what we were for.”

“We also want to concentrate on this attack that we’re socialists, and I think it’s on us to show how markets and capitalism can be put to work for everybody,” Peters explained.

Peters is a vice chairman for the New Democrats Coalition, a congressional caucus of moderate Democrats.

Anything else?

While some Democrats continue to push their party further to the left, other Democrats know exactly why 2020 was not necessarily a longterm win for Democrats, despite now having control of the White House and Congress.

In a Democratic Party conference call after the 2020 election, Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), a moderate Democrat, blasted far-left policies, attributing Democrats’ failure to deliver on the promised “blue wave” to some Democrats supporting deeply unpopular policies like “defund the police.”

“We need to be pretty clear,” Spanberger reportedly said on the call, “It was a failure. It was not a success. We lost incredible members of Congress.”

“We have to commit to not saying the words ‘defund the police’ ever again,” she said. “We need to not ever use the words socialist or socialism ever again.”

“If we run this race again we will get f***ing torn apart again in 2022,” Spanberger predicted.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the No. 3 House Democrat, agrees with Spanberger’s analysis.

Clyburn has said that if Democrats “are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we’re not going to win” future elections.

Share
Categories
Fight for 15 HYPOCRISY Intelwars minimum wage Minimum wage jobs lost

Report: Democrats pushing $15 minimum wage have history of paying their own workers less

Congressional Democrats have vowed to push through a $15 minimum wage, one that President Joe Biden attempted to make part of his COVID relief package, with the hope that it could be pushed through the legislature via the budget reconciliation process.

In recent days, the “fight for 15” has suffered a couple setbacks.

Over the weekend, Biden himself admitted to CBS News that his minimum wage hike probably won’t survive the budget negotiation process and will have to be addressed separately later this year.

Then, on Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released analysis of the minimum wage plan that said the proposed hike would cost the economy 1.4 million jobs.

Despite the bad news for the “fight for 15” movement, House Democrats have said they’re not giving up.

But do they really believe in paying all Americans $15 per hour?

A Tuesday report from the New York Post indicated that at least some Democratic lawmakers who want to force businesses to pay all workers $15 per hour — even for workers whose labor is not worth that much — have a record of not paying their own workers the minimum wage they’re currently demanding.

The Post took a look at job listings posted by four House Democrats who support the minimum wage hike — Tom Malinowski (N.J.), Susan Wild (Pa.), Sharice Davids (Kan.), and Chris Pappas (N.H.) — and found that all four of the lawmakers “have offered positions that paid below the minimum wage they claimed to be fighting for.”

What did these Democrats offer?

Rep. Malinowski: According to the Post, the congressman’s campaign team listed an opening for a communications fellow in September 2018. The four-day-a-week job included “staffing the candidate at events on work days and potentially over the weekend” and offered a $500 per month stipend. The Post attempted to contact the lawmaker’s spokesman but did not get a response.

Rep. Wild: The Post noted that Wild’s campaign posted a job listing in March 2018 that was similar to Malinowski’s. Along with a $500 monthly stipend, the campaign also offered housing. College credit was also an option for payment. Wild’s press shop did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

Rep. Davids: In the final month of Davids’ 2018 race to unseat GOP Rep. Kevin Yoder, Democrats in Kansas posted a paid fellow opening that paid between $1,500 and $2,500. The pay would work out to between $9.38 per hour and $15.63 per hour, depending on experience, the Post reported. Davids’ office, the Post said, could not be reached for comment.

Rep. Pappas: The lawmaker owns a restaurant in Manchester, New Hampshire, called the Puritan Backroom. Despite Pappas’ demand for a $15 minimum wage, job listings at his eatery offer $12.50 per hour, the Post reported. When asked about his employees’ wages in June 2018, Pappas said he paid “on average” over $15 per hour to people in his kitchen, the newspaper said. In 2019, after the Democrat had changed his minimum wage position to support $15, he was found to still be offering jobs at $12.50 per hour. Pappas’ office did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

Share
Categories
Capitol riots Cori bush HYPOCRISY Intelwars Riots St. Louis Violence

Democrat Rep. Cori Bush gets slammed for defending ‘very violent’ jail riot, decrying US Capitol riot

Freshman Democratic Rep. Cori Bush (Mo.) was sharply criticized over the weekend after she seemingly defended prisoners who started a riot at the St. Louis County Jail.

What’s the background?

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the riot started early Saturday morning after an angry inmate attacked a guard. City officials blamed a “faulty locking system” that allowed about 115 inmates to escape their cells and participate in the mayhem.

The inmates took control of the jail’s fourth floor and caused widespread damage, “where they set fires, clogged toilets, flooded parts of the floor and caused other damage,” the Post-Dispatch reported.

“These were just very angry, defiant, very violent people that we house at the Justice Center,” the city’s director of public safety, Jimmie Edwards, said. “No one at the Justice Center is housed for a misdemeanor, a municipal offense or a low-level felony. Everybody housed at the Justice Center is housed there because of very serious offenses like assault on police officers and homicide and things of that sort.”

What did Bush say?

In response, Bush seemingly defended the prisoners, empathizing with them by quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“‘A riot is the language of the unheard.’ – Dr. MLK Jr,” Bush began “I want to talk to my constituents in the window. Their lives and their rights must be protected. My team and I are working to ensure that the urgent needs of people who are incarcerated are not ignored.”

Bush, whose congressional district includes St. Louis, also released a statement decrying the conditions of the criminal justice system. The statement called for “full transparency and human rights protections.”

What was the response?

Bush was criticized because, just one month ago, she was condemning riots, the one at the U.S. Capitol that she claimed then-President Donald Trump “incited.”

“Our country deserves better,” Bush tweeted at the time.

In fact, many critics said that Bush was engaging in hypocrisy by seemingly defending one riot while condemning another.

  • “Aren’t they just thugs like the Capitol rioters ? Or were the Capitol rioters the ‘unheard’ also? Which way do you want it ?” one person responded.
  • “Riots are.good again…
    I love how they never post that full MLK quote,” another person
    said.
  • “So does this quote by MLK apply to the January 6 riot?” another person responded.
  • “Riots are great again unless a bunch of whites from the trailer park are doing it, in which case it’s domestic terrorism,” one person said.
  • “Entering the Capitol without permission is terrorism but a prison riot is a peaceful protest,” another person responded.
  • “You support riots @CoriBush? According to the link, “Everybody housed at the Justice Center is housed there because of very serious offenses like assault on police officers and homicide and things of that sort.” How does this fit with your resolution in the #HouseOfHypocrites?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) responded.
  • “‘Riots are socially destructive and self-defeating… So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.’ Dr. MLK Jr. (in the same speech Cori Bush is quoting),” another person noted.

Law enforcement eventually used tear gas to control the riot. St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said the violence was over by 10 a.m. on Saturday.

Share
Categories
Bruce castor Donald Trump Fox News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Trump Impeachment

Donald Trump’s lead impeachment attorney plans to use Democrats’ own words against them at Senate trial

Former President Donald Trump’s lead impeachment attorney previewed his defense strategy during an interview on Friday, revealing that he plans to use Democrats’ own inflammatory rhetoric against them.

Speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Bruce Castor, the former acting attorney general of Pennsylvania, confirmed that he will use “dueling video” to combat evidence that Trump’s rhetoric about the election incited the deadly violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Lead Trump impeachment attorney Bruce Castor. (Image source: Fox News screenshot)

After predicting that Democrats plan to use video of Trump during his Senate trial, Ingraham asked, “Will you then respond with Maxine Waters, a number of other Democrat officials not speaking out about the Antifa and other extremist rallies over the last summer?”

“I think you can count on that,” Castor responded. “If my eyes look a little red to the viewers, it’s because I’ve been looking at a lot of video.”

Earlier in the interview, Castor explained that there is plenty of evidence showing Democrats are essentially guilty of what they claim Trump should be convicted in the Senate over.

Well, 2020 was somewhat of an unusual year, and it wasn’t all due to COVID. And there’s an awful lot of a tape of cities burning and courthouses being attacked and federal agents being assaulted by rioters in the street cheered on by Democrats throughout the country, and many of them in Washington, using really the most inflammatory rhetoric that’s possible to use. And certainly, there would be no suggestion that they did anything to incite any of the actions. Certainly, there wasn’t any anyhow.

But here, when you have the president of the United States give a speech and says you should peacefully make your thinking known to the people in Congress, he’s all of a sudden a villain. So you got to better be careful what you wish for. It’s all prosecutors trick. When you don’t have a good enough case, you just put up all the really flashy stuff, and then kind of smooth over the fact that it doesn’t really connect up to the guy that’s on trial.

Anything else?

Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) argued Sunday that Republicans should apply the same impeachment standard to Democrats that they are using against Trump.

In fact, Paul explained that if the standard Democrats use is applied fairly, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should be impeached.

“If we’re going to criminalize speech, and somehow impeach everybody who says, ‘Go fight to hear your voices heard,’ I mean really we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then,” Paul argued on “Fox News Sunday.”

“He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court and said specifically, ‘Hey Gorsuch, Hey Kavanaugh, you’ve unleashed a whirlwind. And you’re going to pay the price,'” Paul continued. “This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so bad that the chief justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the Supreme Court.”

Share
Categories
Chuck Schumer Donald Trump Fox News Sunday Intelwars Rand Paul Trump Impeachment

Rand Paul turns the tables on Chuck Schumer, demands his impeachment by applying standard Dems use against Trump

Republican Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) declared Sunday that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) should be impeached if the standard Democrats are applying against former President Donald Trump is applied equally to all politicians in positions of leadership.

What is the background?

Last spring, as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear oral arguments in a monumental case that could have significantly impacted abortion rights in the U.S., Schumer spoke out against Supreme Court Associated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh using inflammatory language.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said at a pro-abortion rally. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

In response, Supreme Court Chief Justice spoke out against Schumer in a rare and extraordinary statement, condemning the New York Democrat for “dangerous” rhetoric.

Roberts said, in part:

Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.

What did Paul say?

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Paul said that if Congress applied Democrats’ impeachment standard fairly, Schumer should also be impeached and put on trial by the Senate.

Trump’s second impeachment trial begins on Tuesday. The House impeached him last month for “incitement of insurrection,” claiming Trump’s allegations of a “rigged” or “stolen” violence incited the deadly violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

“If we’re going to criminalize speech, and somehow impeach everybody who says, ‘Go fight to hear your voices heard,’ I mean really we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then,” Paul said.

“He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court and said specifically, ‘Hey Gorsuch, Hey Kavanaugh, you’ve unleashed a whirlwind. And you’re going to pay the price,'” Paul continued. “This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so bad that the chief justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the Supreme Court.”

But, Paul continued, Democrats won’t hold Schumer or other Democratic lawmakers accountable for their inflammatory rhetoric, citing Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

“If people want to hold President Trump accountable for language, there has to be a consistent standard and to my mind it’s a partisan farce because they’re not doing anything to Chuck Schumer, not doing anything to Rep. Omar, not doing anything to Maxine Waters. It’s just not fair. It’s just partisan politics under a different name,” Paul said.

The Kentucky senator went on to predict that Trump’s defense team will use the words of Democratic lawmakers against them during Trump’s Senate trial.

“If you’re going to criminalize his speech, you have to do it with the same standard. You can’t just criminalize Republican speech and ignore all the Democrats who have incited violence,” Paul said.

“The thing is we can’t just have a double standard. Both parties have to be treated the same,” he continued. “I think Democrats had any bit of self-reflection, they would be saying this is a really terrible idea.”

Share
Categories
Bernie Sanders Covid relief democratic party Intelwars Joe Biden stimulus checks

Bernie Sanders blasts Democrats for ‘unbelievable’ COVID economic relief proposal that moves the goalposts

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders blasted the Democratic Party over the weekend, voicing frustration over Democrats who are moving the goalposts on new coronavirus-related economic relief.

What is the background?

President Joe Biden’s massive $1.9 trillion COVID-related economic relief package includes $1,400 payments, and begins phasing out the payments for individuals who earn $75,000 and couples who earn $150,000.

But as Democrats and Republicans continue negotiating, some Democrats have signaled a willingness to lower the income threshold, meaning fewer Americans would be eligible for the third round of stimulus.

The Washington Post
reported last week that Democrats are considering phasing out the payments for individuals earning $50,000 per year and married couples who earn $100,000 per year. Republicans, however, have countered with a proposal lowering both the income level and the amount of stimulus.

The idea behind lowering income threshold is to target the aid to Americans who need it most. The Post reported that Biden’s administration is open to lowering the income eligibility threshold.

What did Sanders say?

The Vermont senator, technically an independent who caucuses with the Democratic Party, denounced Democrats who are open to lowering the income eligibility limit for the next round of COVID-related stimulus.

In fact, Sanders pointed out that if Democrats agree to lowering the threshold, working class Americans would have received more economic aid under former President Donald Trump than under Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

“Unbelievable,” Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, tweeted.

“There are some Dems who want to lower the income eligibility for direct payments from $75,000 to $50,000 for individuals, and $150,000 to $100,000 for couples. In other words, working class people who got checks from Trump would not get them from Biden. Brilliant!” Sanders added.

Later tweeting from his official Senate account, Sanders said he “strongly” opposes lowering the income threshold.

“I strongly oppose lowering income eligibility for direct payments from $75,000 to $50,000 for individuals and $150,000 to $100,000 for couples. In these difficult times, ALL working class people deserve the full $1,400. Last I heard, someone making $55,000 a year is not ‘rich,'” Sanders said.

Anything else?

This is not the first time Democrats have moved the goalposts on a third round of economic stimulus.

As TheBlaze reported, Biden and the Democratic Party took flak from their own supporters last month over the $1,400 stimulus check proposal.

That’s because Democrats promised they would pass $2,000 stimulus checks if they took effective control of the Senate by winning both Georgia runoff races last month. In fact, just one day before the runoff elections, Biden promised the checks would be immediately passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

However, when Biden released his COVID economic relief plan one week later, it included only $1,400 payments, posturing the $600 payment passed in December under Trump as a “down payment.”

Share
Categories
Anthony brindisi Claudia Tenney Intelwars New York Voting machine irregularities

New York Democrat ‘shocked’ judge rejects campaign’s claims that voting machine errors led to election loss

New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi, the incumbent for New York’s 22nd congressional district, said Friday that he is “shocked” a New York judge rejected his campaign’s claims that voting machine irregularities resulted in his loss to Republican Claudia Tenney.

What are the details?

New York State Supreme Court Justice Scott DelConte ruled Friday that Tenney should be certified as the winner of the race, bringing an end to the last undecided race for Congress in the country.

In so doing, DelConte rejected Brindisi’s attempt to delay the election’s certification until he appealed his case through the court system.

Tenney defeated Brindisi by just 109 votes, 156,098 votes to 155,989.

Not only did DelConte criticize local boards of election for what he called “systemic violations of state and federal election law,” but he rejected claims that voter fraud tampered the outcome of the contested election, according to Syracuse.com.

From Syracuse.com:

The judge also took the opportunity to dispel the rumors that have swirled around the legal proceedings regarding the integrity of the election. While there were errors, he writes, there was no fraud. No dead people voted. There were no discrepancies in voting machines, he said.

“Every single valid vote that was cast in New York’s 22nd Congressional District has been accounted for, and counted,” he wrote.

Lawyers for Brindisi had argued in a court filing this week that voting tabulation errors had marred the election.

“In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi,” they said, the Associated Press reported.

How did Brindisi respond?

Brindisi called the judge’s ruling “shocking,” demanded a hand recount, and claimed the true winner of the race remains unknown.

I am shocked and surprised by this decision because of the countless errors and discrepancies that have occurred throughout this initial count. I believe a full audit and hand recount is the only way to resolve this race. With the margin so thin, the ever changing tally, and the countless errors that have occurred arriving at today’s final number we can’t afford to wonder here. We have to get it right.

Because this is not a raffle, this is a congressional election. The law that took effect January 1 says we should abide by hand counts whenever the margin is 0.5% or less— it’s even closer here right now. Let’s follow that rule, get this right for our constituents and count all the 325,000-plus votes. It’s shocking, right now, no one knows who actually won this race. My opponent and I deserve true clarity.

According to Syracuse.com, Brindisi is not only prepared to appeal his case through the court system, but he may even do so before the House of Representatives.

What did Tenney say?

“I’m honored to have won this race. It was a hard-fought campaign and I thank Anthony Brindisi for his service. Now that every legal vote has been counted, it’s time for the results to be certified. The voters need a voice in Congress, and I look forward to getting to work on behalf of New York’s 22nd Congressional District,” she said in a statement, The Hill reported.

It’s not yet clear when Tenney will be seated in the House. Her win will likely be certified early next week.

Share
Categories
Intelwars President joe biden Student Loan Debt

Democratic lawmakers push President Biden to circumvent Congress and cancel $50,000 in student loan debt by executive action

Left-wing progressive members of Congress announced a resolution Thursday urging President Joe Biden to bypass the legislative branch to which they were elected and unilaterally cancel tens of thousands of dollars of debt for every American who has federal student loan debt.

What are they pushing?

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Anna Adams (D-N.C.), Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) announced their resolution at a press conference Thursday, NBC News reported.

The non-binding resolution, which has more than 50 cosponsors so far, calls on the president to forget waiting for Congress to pass legislation and instead use executive action to erase up to $50,000 in federal student loan debt for all borrowers. The resolution also demands that Biden’s action shield borrowers from any tax liability following the debt cancellation.

The legislators’ resolution claims the secretary of education has the authority to cancel the debt via the Higher Education Act of 1965. From Forbes:

Progressive lawmakers and consumer rights organizations have argued that the Higher Education Act gives the President broad authority to release borrowers from their student loans. A specific provision of the statute provides the President, via the Secretary of Education, with the the power to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”

Schumer stated that Biden “can do this on his own,” assuring reporters that he and Sen. Warren “have researched this thoroughly, and there is legal authority.”

The liberal lawmakers urged Biden to remember who put him in office and act accordingly.

Pressley said Biden must “be responsive to the movement that elected him,” adding, “President Biden has the legal authority to cancel billions in student debt with the stroke of a pen and he must meet the moment by using that authority, which would not only set us on a path to an equitable recovery, but would also help reduce the racial wealth gap.”

Schumer, too, noted that Biden’s base is counting on him.

“During a time of historic and overlapping crises, which are disproportionately impacting communities of color, we must do everything in our power to deliver real relief to the American people, lift up our struggling economy and close the racial wealth gap,” he said. “Democrats are committed to big, bold action, and this resolution to cancel up to $50,000 in federal student loan debt is one of the strongest steps the president can take to achieve these goals.”

Warren, naturally, framed the debt cancellation as a boon to the economy, calling it “the single most effective executive action that President Biden can take to kickstart this economy.” However, she, like the rest of the resolution’s backers, failed to explain how the government would pay for the debt erasure.

The move would “provide a massive stimulus to our economy, help narrow the racial wealth gap, and lift this impossible burden off of tens of millions of families,” she said.

How did the White House respond?

For his part, Biden has repeatedly said he would support $10,000 in student loan debt forgiveness — but he wants the move to come via legislation first passed by Congress and then sent to his desk.

Press secretary Jen Psaki echoed Biden’s stance Thursday when asked about the Democratic legislators’ resolutions.

“The president has and continues to support canceling $10,000 of federal student loan debt per person as a response to the COVID crisis,” she said, according to NBC News, adding, “He’s calling on Congress to draft the proposal.”

“And if it is passed and sent to his desk, he will l look forward to signing it,” Psaki added.

However, she tweeted later that the White House “is reviewing whether there are any steps [Biden] can take through executive action.”

Share
Categories
Chuck Schumer dick durbin District courts Donald Trump federal judiciary Intelwars

Report: Democrats explore expanding federal district courts to offset Trump’s judicial legacy

Democratic lawmakers are reportedly exploring the possibility of expanding the number of federal district court judgeships in order to roll back former President Donald Trump’s judicial legacy.

What’s the background?

Trump’s greatest presidential legacy may be the influence he wielded over the federal judiciary. During his presidency, Trump was responsible for appointing 174 federal district court judges, 54 appellate court judges, and three Supreme Court justices.

Most of the judges are ideologically conservative, meaning Trump enacted generational change within the federal judiciary.

Now, with Democrats having control over the White House and Congress, Democratic lawmakers are exploring how to reverse Trump’s judicial legacy in a way that does not draw as much attention as would packing the Supreme Court.

What are Democrats planning?

According to The Hill, Democrats are increasingly considering expanding the number of federal district court judgeships, which would allow Biden to have significant influence over the shaping of the federal judiciary over at least the next two years.

Currently, there are 52 district court vacancies and four circuit court vacancies. Overall, there are currently 678 district judgeships.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) publicly floated the idea recently, citing bloated case loads in western New York.

“I have in the city of Buffalo a huge — they don’t have enough judges. There’s this long line before you can get to court because they don’t have enough. So we could expand those,” Schumer said on MSNBC.

Interestingly, the proposal could garner bipartisan support, because there is precedent for expanding the district court system and because case loads nationwide would be alleviated by having more justices share in the work.

In fact, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said at least one Republican lawmaker has already told him he would support district court expansion.

“Interestingly enough, I had a Republican senator who approached me about expanding the number of federal judges in his state, so there seems to be some sentiment that there [are] backlogs in the dockets of federal judges,” Durbin said, The Hill reported.

What would it take?

Expanding district court judgeships would require congressional approval, which means Republicans would have to support the expansion.

It remains unknown whether Republicans would actually do that, considering the political ramifications of allowing Biden to nominate even more federal judges. And with the Senate requiring a simple majority approval for judicial confirmations these days, expanding the federal district courts would undoubtedly benefit Biden and Democrats.

But the option also makes political sense for Democrats.

That’s because only about one-third of Americans support expanding the Supreme Court. Such an effort would be widely viewed as overly partisan and likely backfire at the voting booths next election. Targeting the district courts, however, would certainly be less controversial.

Share