TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
october 22, 2018
real news today
october 22, 2018
*Fact Checker - Trump's claim of jobs from Saudi deals grows by leaps and bounds
(Trump)
*Trump-loving media figure accused of making sexual comments to teen girls encourages Trump to shoot migrants(Amerikkkans)
*Facebook prank tricks dozens of angry Trump supporters into protesting outside North Carolina store
(Suckers)
*When it comes to living longer through exercise, is more better?
(Currents)
*To hell with civility: Enough with the pity party for Mitch McConnell, please
(Worthless Media)
*WHITE CHRISTIANS ARE IN RETREAT — AND THEY’RE GETTING MORE ISOLATED AND LESS TOLERANT
(Christianity)
*Black mecca or most unequal US city: will the real Atlanta please stand up?
(America)
*Anti-Muslim rhetoric 'widespread' among candidates in Trump era – report
(Elections)
*HERE IS HOW TO ‘FOLLOW THE MONEY’ AND LOOK FOR CORRUPTION WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
(ELECTIONS)
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
comment/tweet of the day
Ragged, growing caravan of migrants resumes march toward U.S.
MArk Stevenson - philly tribune
10/22/18
TAPACHULA, Mexico — A growing caravan of Honduran migrants streamed through southern Mexico on Sunday heading toward the United States, after making an end-run around Mexican agents who briefly blocked them at the Guatemalan border.
They received help at every turn from sympathetic Mexicans who offered food, water and clothing. Hundreds of locals driving pickups, vans and cargo trucks stopped to let them clamber aboard.
Besi Jaqueline Lopez of the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula carried a stuffed polar bear in a winter cap that seemed out of place in the tropical heat. It's the favorite — and only — toy of her two daughters, 4-year-old Victoria and 3-year-old Elisabeth, who trudged beside her gleaming with sweat.
A business administration graduate, Lopez said she couldn't find work back home and hopes to reach the United States, but would stay in Mexico if she could find employment here.
"My goal is to find work for a better future for my daughters," she said.
In dozens of interviews along the journey, they have said they are fleeing widespread violence, poverty and corruption in Honduras. The caravan is unlike previous mass migrations for its unprecedented large numbers, and because it largely began spontaneously through word of mouth.
Guatemala's migration agency confirmed that another group of about 1,000 migrants crossed into the country from Honduras on Sunday.
After praising Mexico for its no-nonsense response when police at a southern border bridge pushed the migrants back with riot shields and pepper spray, U.S. President Donald Trump again hammered Democratic Party opponents over what he apparently sees as a winning issue for Republicans a little over two weeks ahead of midterm elections.
After blaming the Democrats for "weak laws" on immigration a few days earlier, Trump said via Twitter: "The Caravans are a disgrace to the Democrat party. Change the immigration laws NOW!"
"Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Souther (sic) Border," he said in another tweet. "People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the U.S. will turn them away. The courts are asking the U.S. to do things that are not doable!"
Hundreds of migrants from the caravan did just that — applied for refugee status in Mexico in the southern city of Ciudad Hidalgo. By Sunday evening, the Interior department reported that it had received more than 1,000 requests.
But a far bigger group forded the Suchiate River from Guatemala to the Mexican side individually and dozens at a time, and resumed the trek at first light, marching 10 abreast on the highway.
"Si se pudo!" they chanted in Spanish — "Yes, we did!"
The throng grew even larger than when the migrants arrived at the border bridge, swelling overnight to 5,000.
It was not immediately clear where the additional travelers came from since about 2,000 had been gathered on the Mexican side Saturday night. But people have been joining and leaving the caravan daily, some moving at their own pace and strung out in a series of columns.
Their destination Sunday was the city of Tapachula in Chiapas state. Under a blazing sun, small groups of 20 to 30 paused to rest in the shade of trees on the side of the road, and by afternoon the caravan had evolved into long lines of walkers straggling for miles.
Jesus Valdivia, of Tuxtla Chico, Mexico, was one of the many who pulled his pickup truck over to let 10 or even 20 migrants hop in at a time, sometimes causing vehicles' springs to groan under the weight.
"You have to help the next person. Today it's for them, tomorrow for us," Valdivia said, adding that he was getting a valuable gift from those he helped: "From them we learn to value what they do not have."
Passing freight trucks were quickly boarded by dozens of migrants, and straining tuk-tuks carried as many as a half-dozen.
Brenda Sanchez of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, who rode in Valdivia's truck with three nephews ages 10, 11 and 19, expressed gratitude to "God and the Mexicans who have helped us."
She even had kind words for Mexican police: "We are very grateful to them because even though they closed the doors to us (at the border), they are coming behind us taking care of us."
Federal police monitored the caravan's progress from a helicopter and had a few units escorting it. Outside Tapachula, about 500 black-uniformed officers briefly gathered along the highway on buses and in patrol units, but they said their orders were to maintain traffic and not to stop the caravan. They moved on toward the city before the caravan reached them.
As the migrants passed through villages on the outskirts of Ciudad Hidalgo, locals applauded, shouted encouragement and donated supplies.
Maria Teresa Orellana, a resident of Lorenzo, handed out sandals. "It's solidarity," she said. "They're our brothers."
Mexico's Interior Department said in a statement that federal and Chiapas state authorities were providing assistance to migrants, including legal counseling for those who applied for asylum. It released a video showing workers doling out food, medicine and medical treatment.
In comments to reporters after a rally in Elko, Nevada, on Saturday night, Trump said of Mexico's response: "I just want to say, on behalf of the American public, that we appreciate what Mexico is doing. They've really stepped up, and it will not be forgotten."
Trump also repeated: "I will seal off the border before (the migrants) come into this country, and I'll bring out our military, not our reserves."
Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said he was suggesting to Trump that the United States, Canada and Mexico seek an agreement to invest in development in Central America and southern Mexico, which is home to many of that country's poor.
"In this way we confront the phenomenon of migration, because he who leaves his town does not leave for pleasure but out of necessity," said Lopez Obrador, who takes office Dec. 1.
Mexican authorities had refused to allow the caravan mass entry from Guatemala, instead accepting small groups to process asylum requests and handing out some 45-day visitor permits. An estimated 1,500 were still on the Guatemalan side of the Suchiate, hoping to enter legally.
But police could do little if anything in the face of the throngs who avoided the official entry point and crossed the notoriously porous border elsewhere.
Migrants marching north Sunday said they gave up on Mexico because the application process was too slow, and most wanted to continue to the United States anyway.
"We're warriors, we got to get to the place we got to get to. We're gonna keep on going and we're not gonna stop," Luis Puerto, 39, of Colon, Honduras, said in English.
For Puerto, that place is North Carolina, where he has a wife and two daughters. He said he was recently deported from the United States after a brush with the law that he did not specify.
"We are going to get to the border of the U.S.," he said. "I am not going to stop. I don't care if I die." -- (AP)
They received help at every turn from sympathetic Mexicans who offered food, water and clothing. Hundreds of locals driving pickups, vans and cargo trucks stopped to let them clamber aboard.
Besi Jaqueline Lopez of the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula carried a stuffed polar bear in a winter cap that seemed out of place in the tropical heat. It's the favorite — and only — toy of her two daughters, 4-year-old Victoria and 3-year-old Elisabeth, who trudged beside her gleaming with sweat.
A business administration graduate, Lopez said she couldn't find work back home and hopes to reach the United States, but would stay in Mexico if she could find employment here.
"My goal is to find work for a better future for my daughters," she said.
In dozens of interviews along the journey, they have said they are fleeing widespread violence, poverty and corruption in Honduras. The caravan is unlike previous mass migrations for its unprecedented large numbers, and because it largely began spontaneously through word of mouth.
Guatemala's migration agency confirmed that another group of about 1,000 migrants crossed into the country from Honduras on Sunday.
After praising Mexico for its no-nonsense response when police at a southern border bridge pushed the migrants back with riot shields and pepper spray, U.S. President Donald Trump again hammered Democratic Party opponents over what he apparently sees as a winning issue for Republicans a little over two weeks ahead of midterm elections.
After blaming the Democrats for "weak laws" on immigration a few days earlier, Trump said via Twitter: "The Caravans are a disgrace to the Democrat party. Change the immigration laws NOW!"
"Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Souther (sic) Border," he said in another tweet. "People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the U.S. will turn them away. The courts are asking the U.S. to do things that are not doable!"
Hundreds of migrants from the caravan did just that — applied for refugee status in Mexico in the southern city of Ciudad Hidalgo. By Sunday evening, the Interior department reported that it had received more than 1,000 requests.
But a far bigger group forded the Suchiate River from Guatemala to the Mexican side individually and dozens at a time, and resumed the trek at first light, marching 10 abreast on the highway.
"Si se pudo!" they chanted in Spanish — "Yes, we did!"
The throng grew even larger than when the migrants arrived at the border bridge, swelling overnight to 5,000.
It was not immediately clear where the additional travelers came from since about 2,000 had been gathered on the Mexican side Saturday night. But people have been joining and leaving the caravan daily, some moving at their own pace and strung out in a series of columns.
Their destination Sunday was the city of Tapachula in Chiapas state. Under a blazing sun, small groups of 20 to 30 paused to rest in the shade of trees on the side of the road, and by afternoon the caravan had evolved into long lines of walkers straggling for miles.
Jesus Valdivia, of Tuxtla Chico, Mexico, was one of the many who pulled his pickup truck over to let 10 or even 20 migrants hop in at a time, sometimes causing vehicles' springs to groan under the weight.
"You have to help the next person. Today it's for them, tomorrow for us," Valdivia said, adding that he was getting a valuable gift from those he helped: "From them we learn to value what they do not have."
Passing freight trucks were quickly boarded by dozens of migrants, and straining tuk-tuks carried as many as a half-dozen.
Brenda Sanchez of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, who rode in Valdivia's truck with three nephews ages 10, 11 and 19, expressed gratitude to "God and the Mexicans who have helped us."
She even had kind words for Mexican police: "We are very grateful to them because even though they closed the doors to us (at the border), they are coming behind us taking care of us."
Federal police monitored the caravan's progress from a helicopter and had a few units escorting it. Outside Tapachula, about 500 black-uniformed officers briefly gathered along the highway on buses and in patrol units, but they said their orders were to maintain traffic and not to stop the caravan. They moved on toward the city before the caravan reached them.
As the migrants passed through villages on the outskirts of Ciudad Hidalgo, locals applauded, shouted encouragement and donated supplies.
Maria Teresa Orellana, a resident of Lorenzo, handed out sandals. "It's solidarity," she said. "They're our brothers."
Mexico's Interior Department said in a statement that federal and Chiapas state authorities were providing assistance to migrants, including legal counseling for those who applied for asylum. It released a video showing workers doling out food, medicine and medical treatment.
In comments to reporters after a rally in Elko, Nevada, on Saturday night, Trump said of Mexico's response: "I just want to say, on behalf of the American public, that we appreciate what Mexico is doing. They've really stepped up, and it will not be forgotten."
Trump also repeated: "I will seal off the border before (the migrants) come into this country, and I'll bring out our military, not our reserves."
Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said he was suggesting to Trump that the United States, Canada and Mexico seek an agreement to invest in development in Central America and southern Mexico, which is home to many of that country's poor.
"In this way we confront the phenomenon of migration, because he who leaves his town does not leave for pleasure but out of necessity," said Lopez Obrador, who takes office Dec. 1.
Mexican authorities had refused to allow the caravan mass entry from Guatemala, instead accepting small groups to process asylum requests and handing out some 45-day visitor permits. An estimated 1,500 were still on the Guatemalan side of the Suchiate, hoping to enter legally.
But police could do little if anything in the face of the throngs who avoided the official entry point and crossed the notoriously porous border elsewhere.
Migrants marching north Sunday said they gave up on Mexico because the application process was too slow, and most wanted to continue to the United States anyway.
"We're warriors, we got to get to the place we got to get to. We're gonna keep on going and we're not gonna stop," Luis Puerto, 39, of Colon, Honduras, said in English.
For Puerto, that place is North Carolina, where he has a wife and two daughters. He said he was recently deported from the United States after a brush with the law that he did not specify.
"We are going to get to the border of the U.S.," he said. "I am not going to stop. I don't care if I die." -- (AP)
|
|
Kavanaugh once lobbied for judge now handling ethics complaints against him
Revelation raises concerns about politicization of the supreme court and whether Trump nominee will face disciplinary action
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
the guardian
Mon 22 Oct 2018 01.00 EDT
Supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh once lobbied in support of a controversial judge who is now tasked with reviewing more than a dozen ethics complaints filed against him during his own confirmation process.
Emails sent to the Senate judiciary committee and obtained by the Guardian show that beginning in 2001, Kavanaugh was involved in a high-stakes campaign to ensure that Timothy Tymkovich, another staunch conservative and a former Colorado solicitor general, would secure a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.
Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the supreme court this month, worked on the judicial campaign in his role as a senior staff member for President George W Bush. Tymkovich was confirmed in 2003, after a long delay in the Senate. He is now chief judge on the 10th circuit court of appeals, in Colorado.
The revelation could create new concerns about the politicization of the supreme court and cast doubt on whether Kavanaugh will face any formal disciplinary action over his fiery and emotional testimony before the Senate judiciary committee earlier this month.
Critics, including hundreds of law professors, legal experts and senators, have said that Kavanaugh’s performance, in which he lashed out at Democrats over allegations he committed sexual assault, lacked judicial temperament. Kavanaugh fiercely denied the sexual assault allegations.
The chief justice of the supreme court, John Roberts, asked Tymkovich to examine more than a dozen judicial ethics complaints filed against Kavanaugh while he was technically still a circuit court judge. The complaints were not sent to Tymkovich until after Kavanaugh was confirmed to sit on the supreme court, where judges are in effect immune to disciplinary action by lower-court justices and are meant to police their own actions.
The complaints are not public but according to the Washington Post they allege Kavanaugh lied under oath and that his behaviour before the Senate was ill-suited for a judge.
Some legal experts have questioned whether it was appropriate for Roberts to wait until after Kavanaugh was confirmed to send the ethics complaints for review. But there has been little scrutiny of the man Roberts chose to conduct the review and his past relationship with Kavanaugh.
According to activists and legislative aides who were involved in the Tymkovich nomination battle, the judge was one of several controversial nominations to the federal court when he was chosen by Bush in 2001.
Resistance against the nomination was rooted in Tymkovich’s views on gay rights, recalled Kristine Lucius, who was then working for Democratic Vermont senator Patrick Leahy and is now executive vice-president for policy at the Leadership Conference, a civil rights group.
“John Roberts and Kavanaugh and Tymkovich are all in the same professional circle,” she said. “They are all tied to the Bush administration and these are all men who certainly knew each other and now are in very powerful positions on the bench.”
They also share a conservative judicial ideology.
Kavanaugh’s role in helping Tymkovich navigate difficult political terrain might not be common knowledge, but he admitted it in sworn public testimony in 2004.
Kavanaugh was questioned by senators following his own elevation to the DC circuit court of appeals. In response to questions from Dick Durbin, the Democratic senator from Illinois, Kavanaugh said he “participated in the meetings of a judicial selection committee that was responsible for making recommendations to the president”.
Tymkovich was among those discussed, according to Kavanaugh’s testimony.
Emails obtained by the Guardian, which were sent to the judicial committee during Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, show the Tymkovich nomination was one of several he was watching closely and that Kavanaugh helped plan a lobbying effort in newspapers in support of Tymkovich.
Lucius said that instead of going out of his way to choose a judge who did not have any ties to Kavanaugh, such as one nominated by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, Roberts had added to the perception that the nine supreme court justices are above the law.
That perception was ingrained in her, she said, in 2004, when Vice-President Dick Cheney was revealed to have gone duck hunting in Louisiana with supreme court justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia later declined to recuse himself from a case involving Cheney.
“When I think of judicial ethics, I think of that moment with Scalia as an ‘emperors have no clothes’ moment, and the realization that there were no ethics rules that apply to those judges,” Lucius said.
Tymkovich has himself been named in the press as a contender for a supreme court nomination, raising more questions about whether he would take any action against Kavanaugh, a sitting member of the court nominated by Donald Trump.
Leslie Proll, a civil rights lawyer who worked on judicial appointments when Tymkovich’s nomination was pending and now advises the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on judicial nominations, said Roberts’ efforts would not inspire public confidence in the judicial process.
“This is the wrong judge at the wrong time,” she said. “Any other chief judge in any other circuit would have demonstrated more impartiality and less conflict. Appearance of bias is important in the law and this fails the test.”
An attempt to ask Tymkovich if he had a conflict of interest in the case was unsuccessful. A court clerk for the 10th circuit said the judge would not accept any questions from the press.
Emails sent to the Senate judiciary committee and obtained by the Guardian show that beginning in 2001, Kavanaugh was involved in a high-stakes campaign to ensure that Timothy Tymkovich, another staunch conservative and a former Colorado solicitor general, would secure a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.
Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the supreme court this month, worked on the judicial campaign in his role as a senior staff member for President George W Bush. Tymkovich was confirmed in 2003, after a long delay in the Senate. He is now chief judge on the 10th circuit court of appeals, in Colorado.
The revelation could create new concerns about the politicization of the supreme court and cast doubt on whether Kavanaugh will face any formal disciplinary action over his fiery and emotional testimony before the Senate judiciary committee earlier this month.
Critics, including hundreds of law professors, legal experts and senators, have said that Kavanaugh’s performance, in which he lashed out at Democrats over allegations he committed sexual assault, lacked judicial temperament. Kavanaugh fiercely denied the sexual assault allegations.
The chief justice of the supreme court, John Roberts, asked Tymkovich to examine more than a dozen judicial ethics complaints filed against Kavanaugh while he was technically still a circuit court judge. The complaints were not sent to Tymkovich until after Kavanaugh was confirmed to sit on the supreme court, where judges are in effect immune to disciplinary action by lower-court justices and are meant to police their own actions.
The complaints are not public but according to the Washington Post they allege Kavanaugh lied under oath and that his behaviour before the Senate was ill-suited for a judge.
Some legal experts have questioned whether it was appropriate for Roberts to wait until after Kavanaugh was confirmed to send the ethics complaints for review. But there has been little scrutiny of the man Roberts chose to conduct the review and his past relationship with Kavanaugh.
According to activists and legislative aides who were involved in the Tymkovich nomination battle, the judge was one of several controversial nominations to the federal court when he was chosen by Bush in 2001.
Resistance against the nomination was rooted in Tymkovich’s views on gay rights, recalled Kristine Lucius, who was then working for Democratic Vermont senator Patrick Leahy and is now executive vice-president for policy at the Leadership Conference, a civil rights group.
“John Roberts and Kavanaugh and Tymkovich are all in the same professional circle,” she said. “They are all tied to the Bush administration and these are all men who certainly knew each other and now are in very powerful positions on the bench.”
They also share a conservative judicial ideology.
Kavanaugh’s role in helping Tymkovich navigate difficult political terrain might not be common knowledge, but he admitted it in sworn public testimony in 2004.
Kavanaugh was questioned by senators following his own elevation to the DC circuit court of appeals. In response to questions from Dick Durbin, the Democratic senator from Illinois, Kavanaugh said he “participated in the meetings of a judicial selection committee that was responsible for making recommendations to the president”.
Tymkovich was among those discussed, according to Kavanaugh’s testimony.
Emails obtained by the Guardian, which were sent to the judicial committee during Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, show the Tymkovich nomination was one of several he was watching closely and that Kavanaugh helped plan a lobbying effort in newspapers in support of Tymkovich.
Lucius said that instead of going out of his way to choose a judge who did not have any ties to Kavanaugh, such as one nominated by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, Roberts had added to the perception that the nine supreme court justices are above the law.
That perception was ingrained in her, she said, in 2004, when Vice-President Dick Cheney was revealed to have gone duck hunting in Louisiana with supreme court justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia later declined to recuse himself from a case involving Cheney.
“When I think of judicial ethics, I think of that moment with Scalia as an ‘emperors have no clothes’ moment, and the realization that there were no ethics rules that apply to those judges,” Lucius said.
Tymkovich has himself been named in the press as a contender for a supreme court nomination, raising more questions about whether he would take any action against Kavanaugh, a sitting member of the court nominated by Donald Trump.
Leslie Proll, a civil rights lawyer who worked on judicial appointments when Tymkovich’s nomination was pending and now advises the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on judicial nominations, said Roberts’ efforts would not inspire public confidence in the judicial process.
“This is the wrong judge at the wrong time,” she said. “Any other chief judge in any other circuit would have demonstrated more impartiality and less conflict. Appearance of bias is important in the law and this fails the test.”
An attempt to ask Tymkovich if he had a conflict of interest in the case was unsuccessful. A court clerk for the 10th circuit said the judge would not accept any questions from the press.
A Radical Republican Shows His Aryan Colors
Iowa Rep. Steve King Spells Out His Racist Worldview with an Austrian Neo-Fascist
By Terry H. Schwadron, DCReport New York Editor
10/22/18
Sometimes it is worth listening to those on the edge, even the far, opposing edge, just to remember where the American majority stands.
There is a lot of media talk about Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) because he gave an interview – another in a series over years – to a far-right Austrian publication in which he spelled out, in clearer and more shocking terms than he ever has before, his white nationalist worldview.
King’s position is nothing new for the eight-term congressman, who, of course is up for reelection in a couple of weeks, but doing so in an interview with Caroline Sommerfeld, a prominent part of Europe’s neo-fascist thinking in the Austrian far-right propaganda site Unzensuriert (which means “uncensored” in English), just underscores how far adrift we are getting.
It should serve as a reminder to us that we need to act to keep King’s style of racism from becoming part of the norm in our society. And yet, there’s no criticism from Republican leadership, no denunciations of the type leveled against a would-be Republican congressional candidate of neo-Nazi roots in Illinois. Rather, his views are ignored or seen within a larger set of acceptable bounds. And so, we should take notice.
In the interview, King discussed his belief in the superiority of European culture, decried falling fertility rates in the West, and said that Europe and America are threatened by Muslim and Latino immigration. “If we don’t defend Western civilization, then we will become subjugated by the people who are the enemies of faith, the enemies of justice,” King said.
Remember, not only is this a sitting U.S. congressman but a leader in Republican circles and enough of a force in the ever-purifying Republican House that leaders there no longer call him out for despicable statements.
According to The Huffington Post version of the interview, King’s remarks largely revolve around the paranoid idea of the Great Replacement — the belief that mass migration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, is an extinction-level event for white European culture and identity. Or as he put it in the interview, a “slow-motion cultural suicide.”
“The U.S. subtracts from its population a million of our babies in the form of abortion,” King said. “We add to our population approximately 1.8 million of ‘somebody else’s babies’ who are raised in another culture before they get to us.”
It’s a phrase widely used by anti-Muslim European networks to refer to the supposed Islamification of Europe by migrants and refugees and heralded in a book called The Camp of the Saints, a stunningly racist 1973 novel by Jean Raspail that envisions the world undergoing the fight to the death between races.” King even said George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and bogeyman of the far right, might be paying for the Great Replacement.
Last year, Austrian intelligence services found that Unzensuriertis known in Austria for routinely publishing Islamophobic, anti-refugee articles, promoted anti-Semitism and extreme xenophobia. The site also spreads misinformation and conspiracies. The site has close ties with the far-right Freedom Party, or FPO, and its former editor-in-chief is now the head of communications for the Ministry of Information.
King’s nativist rhetoric has not prevented him from becoming an incredibly important figure among conservatives, said Vox magazine. As National Review wrote in 2015, “The outspoken congressman commands tremendous influence among conservatives who agree with his staunch stances on immigration, abortion, and same-sex marriage, especially in his western Iowa district.” The Washington Post has said that “King himself has, over the past few years, established himself firmly as the most passionate congressional opponent of immigration and defender of the white demographic majority in the country — a statement that bears certain implications that, by now, are all but unavoidable.”
Generally, a review of King’s record shows that the congressman is among the most strident speakers against abortion, for extending more gun rights, and against same-sex marriage – a decision for which he called for Supreme Court justices to resign. He has opposed health care, aid for Katrina victims, any bills for economic stimulus and any regulations that would trim lobbyists’ rights.
In the presidential election, he supported Ted Cruz before backing Donald Trump.
At a 2016 panel, King said, “This whole ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie. I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?” King is a staunch opponent of immigration and multiculturalism.
King displayed the Confederate flag on his office desk, despite the fact that Iowa was part of the Union during the American Civil War. He removed it after a Confederate flag-waver shot two Iowa police officers. In 2014, King, King compared the torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison to “hazing.”
In 2010, King supported racial profiling as an important component of law enforcement and has preached for the adoption of English as the official language of the country.
It goes almost without saying that he is a wide favorite for reelection in November.
There is a lot of media talk about Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) because he gave an interview – another in a series over years – to a far-right Austrian publication in which he spelled out, in clearer and more shocking terms than he ever has before, his white nationalist worldview.
King’s position is nothing new for the eight-term congressman, who, of course is up for reelection in a couple of weeks, but doing so in an interview with Caroline Sommerfeld, a prominent part of Europe’s neo-fascist thinking in the Austrian far-right propaganda site Unzensuriert (which means “uncensored” in English), just underscores how far adrift we are getting.
It should serve as a reminder to us that we need to act to keep King’s style of racism from becoming part of the norm in our society. And yet, there’s no criticism from Republican leadership, no denunciations of the type leveled against a would-be Republican congressional candidate of neo-Nazi roots in Illinois. Rather, his views are ignored or seen within a larger set of acceptable bounds. And so, we should take notice.
In the interview, King discussed his belief in the superiority of European culture, decried falling fertility rates in the West, and said that Europe and America are threatened by Muslim and Latino immigration. “If we don’t defend Western civilization, then we will become subjugated by the people who are the enemies of faith, the enemies of justice,” King said.
Remember, not only is this a sitting U.S. congressman but a leader in Republican circles and enough of a force in the ever-purifying Republican House that leaders there no longer call him out for despicable statements.
According to The Huffington Post version of the interview, King’s remarks largely revolve around the paranoid idea of the Great Replacement — the belief that mass migration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, is an extinction-level event for white European culture and identity. Or as he put it in the interview, a “slow-motion cultural suicide.”
“The U.S. subtracts from its population a million of our babies in the form of abortion,” King said. “We add to our population approximately 1.8 million of ‘somebody else’s babies’ who are raised in another culture before they get to us.”
It’s a phrase widely used by anti-Muslim European networks to refer to the supposed Islamification of Europe by migrants and refugees and heralded in a book called The Camp of the Saints, a stunningly racist 1973 novel by Jean Raspail that envisions the world undergoing the fight to the death between races.” King even said George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and bogeyman of the far right, might be paying for the Great Replacement.
Last year, Austrian intelligence services found that Unzensuriertis known in Austria for routinely publishing Islamophobic, anti-refugee articles, promoted anti-Semitism and extreme xenophobia. The site also spreads misinformation and conspiracies. The site has close ties with the far-right Freedom Party, or FPO, and its former editor-in-chief is now the head of communications for the Ministry of Information.
King’s nativist rhetoric has not prevented him from becoming an incredibly important figure among conservatives, said Vox magazine. As National Review wrote in 2015, “The outspoken congressman commands tremendous influence among conservatives who agree with his staunch stances on immigration, abortion, and same-sex marriage, especially in his western Iowa district.” The Washington Post has said that “King himself has, over the past few years, established himself firmly as the most passionate congressional opponent of immigration and defender of the white demographic majority in the country — a statement that bears certain implications that, by now, are all but unavoidable.”
Generally, a review of King’s record shows that the congressman is among the most strident speakers against abortion, for extending more gun rights, and against same-sex marriage – a decision for which he called for Supreme Court justices to resign. He has opposed health care, aid for Katrina victims, any bills for economic stimulus and any regulations that would trim lobbyists’ rights.
In the presidential election, he supported Ted Cruz before backing Donald Trump.
At a 2016 panel, King said, “This whole ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie. I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?” King is a staunch opponent of immigration and multiculturalism.
King displayed the Confederate flag on his office desk, despite the fact that Iowa was part of the Union during the American Civil War. He removed it after a Confederate flag-waver shot two Iowa police officers. In 2014, King, King compared the torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison to “hazing.”
In 2010, King supported racial profiling as an important component of law enforcement and has preached for the adoption of English as the official language of the country.
It goes almost without saying that he is a wide favorite for reelection in November.
|
|
the "best people"
two demos voted for this turd!!!
Lawyer who fought to ban trans people from bathrooms will lead DOJ civil rights division
By Alex Bollinger · lgbtq nation
Monday, October 22, 2018
An anti-gay lawyer was confirmed to lead the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.
In a 52-45 vote, the Senate confirmed Donald Trump’s nominee, Eric Dreiband.
He will now head up the Department of Justice’s efforts to fight racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination, even though he has spent his life defending discrimination.
Dreiband represented the University of North Carolina in a lawsuit against the school’s decision to enforce HB2, which restricted bathroom access for trans people and banned local governments from passing LGBTQ anti-discrimination ordinances.
He also defended R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Bloomberg in discrimination cases, and represented clients looking for religious exemptions to the law.
“Whoever leads the ‘crown jewel’ of the Justice Department must have deep relationships with stakeholders and marginalized communities, and have a deep, abiding faith in our nation’s civil rights laws,” said Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division under Barack Obama.
“They must respect the laws that touch everyone, rights that people have literally died for. They must respect the role of what has been called the conscience of the federal government. In all those regards, Eric Dreiband is woefully unqualified to lead the Civil Rights Division.”
Lambda Legal pointed to the Civil Rights Division’s role in defending civil rights as a reason to be concerned about Dreiband.
“Throughout its 60-year history, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has been a stalwart defender of civil rights in employment, education, housing, voting and many other aspects of life,” said Lambda Legal’s Sharon McGowan, who added that Dreiband was not “a strong leader with a proven track record of defending civil rights.”
The NAACP said that Dreiband was “exactly the wrong choice” to lead the office.
“The evidence is clear,” NAACP board chair Leon W. Russell said in a statement. “For the past 20 years, Dreiband has been on the wrong side of issues pertaining to housing, hate crimes and the many other critical areas that the Civil Rights Division oversees as part of its core mission.”
Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department has made protecting religious liberty a priority at the expense of LGBTQ equality.
Earlier this year, Sessions announced the creation of a Religious Liberty Task Force to help fight against anti-discrimination efforts.
Related: Department of Justice intervenes in case to argue gays don’t have civil rights
In a 52-45 vote, the Senate confirmed Donald Trump’s nominee, Eric Dreiband.
He will now head up the Department of Justice’s efforts to fight racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination, even though he has spent his life defending discrimination.
Dreiband represented the University of North Carolina in a lawsuit against the school’s decision to enforce HB2, which restricted bathroom access for trans people and banned local governments from passing LGBTQ anti-discrimination ordinances.
He also defended R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Bloomberg in discrimination cases, and represented clients looking for religious exemptions to the law.
“Whoever leads the ‘crown jewel’ of the Justice Department must have deep relationships with stakeholders and marginalized communities, and have a deep, abiding faith in our nation’s civil rights laws,” said Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division under Barack Obama.
“They must respect the laws that touch everyone, rights that people have literally died for. They must respect the role of what has been called the conscience of the federal government. In all those regards, Eric Dreiband is woefully unqualified to lead the Civil Rights Division.”
Lambda Legal pointed to the Civil Rights Division’s role in defending civil rights as a reason to be concerned about Dreiband.
“Throughout its 60-year history, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has been a stalwart defender of civil rights in employment, education, housing, voting and many other aspects of life,” said Lambda Legal’s Sharon McGowan, who added that Dreiband was not “a strong leader with a proven track record of defending civil rights.”
The NAACP said that Dreiband was “exactly the wrong choice” to lead the office.
“The evidence is clear,” NAACP board chair Leon W. Russell said in a statement. “For the past 20 years, Dreiband has been on the wrong side of issues pertaining to housing, hate crimes and the many other critical areas that the Civil Rights Division oversees as part of its core mission.”
Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department has made protecting religious liberty a priority at the expense of LGBTQ equality.
Earlier this year, Sessions announced the creation of a Religious Liberty Task Force to help fight against anti-discrimination efforts.
Related: Department of Justice intervenes in case to argue gays don’t have civil rights
the "best people"
Trump’s new ambassador to South Africa happens to be a Mar-a-Lago member
Handbag designer Lana Marks would become the latest Mar-a-Lago member to join the U.S. diplomatic corps.
CASEY MICHEL - thinkprogress
OCT 21, 2018, 10:59 AM
Lana Marks has no diplomatic experience, a history of fabricating her past, and a skill-set devoted primarily to making six-figure designer handbags.
But there’s one hobby that appears to qualify her to become the U.S.’s latest ambassador: a membership at the Mar-a-Lago Club.
On Friday, the Palm Beach Daily News reported that U.S. President Donald Trump was tapping Marks to become the U.S.’s next ambassador to South Africa, confirming weeks of rumors surrounding the appointment.
The U.S. has not had an ambassador in Pretoria since 2016. Marks, who is originally from South Africa, has yet to comment on the appointment.
Her nomination would mean that Mar-a-Lago, one of Trump’s favorite destinations, has now produced at least four individuals Trump has selected as ambassadors. In addition to Marks, Robin Bernstein, one of Mar-a-Lago’s founding members, became the U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic under Trump. Two other members — Patrick Park and Brian Burns — were nominated by the president to ambassadorial positions in Austria and Ireland, respectively, but eventually declined the nominations.
While Trump appears to be continuing a long-standing American tradition of nominating donors and supporters to relatively low-key ambassadorial positions, the selection comes at a period of relative friction between the U.S. and South Africa.
Earlier this year, Trump accused the South African government of not doing enough to combat so-called “large scale killing” in the country, allegedly against white South African farmers. While killings have taken place, the so-called “farm murders,” which have become a favorite talking point among the far-right, don’t appear nearly as treacherous as Trump made them out to be.
Marks, though, appears woefully unqualified for the position. Not only are designer handbags her main claim to fame — some of which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars — but she has also been dogged by accusations of lying about her past accomplishments time and again.
For instance, Marks claimed that she had previously played tennis in the French Open — a claim that records don’t back up. The South African Business Live outlet also noted that Marks’ claim that she played in the 1985 Maccabi Games appears questionable. While Marks claimed she played for the Bermuda team, the Bermuda Lawn Tennis Association noted that she had participated “without their knowledge.”
Marks brings with her a satchel of legal troubles.
As the Palm Beach Daily News wrote, “Marks has repeatedly been accused of stiffing her attorneys, accountants, landlords and employees. She is also embroiled in bitter, international legal battles in South Africa and Israel with her siblings over a family trust and the care for their 89-year-old mother.”
But there’s one hobby that appears to qualify her to become the U.S.’s latest ambassador: a membership at the Mar-a-Lago Club.
On Friday, the Palm Beach Daily News reported that U.S. President Donald Trump was tapping Marks to become the U.S.’s next ambassador to South Africa, confirming weeks of rumors surrounding the appointment.
The U.S. has not had an ambassador in Pretoria since 2016. Marks, who is originally from South Africa, has yet to comment on the appointment.
Her nomination would mean that Mar-a-Lago, one of Trump’s favorite destinations, has now produced at least four individuals Trump has selected as ambassadors. In addition to Marks, Robin Bernstein, one of Mar-a-Lago’s founding members, became the U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic under Trump. Two other members — Patrick Park and Brian Burns — were nominated by the president to ambassadorial positions in Austria and Ireland, respectively, but eventually declined the nominations.
While Trump appears to be continuing a long-standing American tradition of nominating donors and supporters to relatively low-key ambassadorial positions, the selection comes at a period of relative friction between the U.S. and South Africa.
Earlier this year, Trump accused the South African government of not doing enough to combat so-called “large scale killing” in the country, allegedly against white South African farmers. While killings have taken place, the so-called “farm murders,” which have become a favorite talking point among the far-right, don’t appear nearly as treacherous as Trump made them out to be.
Marks, though, appears woefully unqualified for the position. Not only are designer handbags her main claim to fame — some of which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars — but she has also been dogged by accusations of lying about her past accomplishments time and again.
For instance, Marks claimed that she had previously played tennis in the French Open — a claim that records don’t back up. The South African Business Live outlet also noted that Marks’ claim that she played in the 1985 Maccabi Games appears questionable. While Marks claimed she played for the Bermuda team, the Bermuda Lawn Tennis Association noted that she had participated “without their knowledge.”
Marks brings with her a satchel of legal troubles.
As the Palm Beach Daily News wrote, “Marks has repeatedly been accused of stiffing her attorneys, accountants, landlords and employees. She is also embroiled in bitter, international legal battles in South Africa and Israel with her siblings over a family trust and the care for their 89-year-old mother.”
|
|
daily beast cheat sheet
10/22/18
Rubio: The Real Victim in Khashoggi Case Is Trump
(ass kisser speaks)
daily beast
Marco Rubio took to Twitter Monday morning to condemn the Saudi government for the slaying of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, arguing that his death was disrespectful to both Trump and to the politicians that support the Saudi-U.S. alliance. “The #KhashoggiMurder was immoral,” Rubio wrote. “But it was also disrepectful [sic] to Trump & those of us who have supported the strategic alliance with the Saudi’s. Not only did they kill this man, they have left @POTUS & their congressional allies a terrible predicament & given Iran a free gift.” After weeks of denying responsibility for Khashoggi’s death, the Saudi government finally admitted Friday that the Washington Post correspondent died inside the consulate—although they claimed that it was the result of a spontaneous fight that “aggregated (sic) the situation and led to his death.”
Weight-Loss, Sports Supplements Still Include FDA-Banned Drugs: Study
DAILY BEAST
Some weight-loss and sports supplements still contain experimental stimulant drugs that the Food and Drug Administration banned years ago, according to a study published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. LiveScience reports that the study authors analyzed 12 supplements for the presence of four drugs, all of which were banned by the FDA in recent years because they could increase the risk of cardiovascular problems. In 2014, when only one of the drugs had been banned, all of the supplements tested positive for at least one of the substances. But in 2017, after all of the drugs had been banned, nine of the 12 supplements still tested positive for at least one—and six tested positive for at least two. The results indicate that “what the FDA is doing to try to eliminate experimental stimulants from supplements is not working,” lead study author Pieter Cohen told LiveScience. The paper added that “thus, as in the era of the original snake oil salesmen, the rule remains, ‘buyer beware.’”
Trump Administration Moves to Exclude Transgender People from Civil Rights Protections
A new rule would define sex as "either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with."
By Gwendolyn Smith / The New Civil Rights Movement - alternet
October 21, 2018, 5:48 AM GMT
In their boldest move against LGBTQ rights, the Trump administration is considering an exceedingly limited definition of sex that would likely erase any and all transgender rights and protections.
The proposed rule, according to a report in the New York Times, would define sex as "either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with."
The rule is coming out via the Department of Health and Human Services under Alex Azar.
DHS has been arguing that "sex" doesn't include gender identity over the last year, and has, according to the Times, felt that the "lack of clarity" caused by inclusive Obama-era rules "wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them."
In the memo, DHS states that governmental bodies need a uniform definition of gender that is formed "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable."
All disputes regarding sex would be based solely on genetic testing.
The move would roll back protections at all levels of the Federal government for transgender people.
The draft memo, which has been circulating since spring, also takes aim at birth certificates, saying, "The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence."
This rule would fly in the face of scientific reality. By defining sex so rigidly, it would essentially ignore intersex people as well as transgender people.
It has been scientifically understood for decades that sex is not rigidly defined, and that there is a great variation of potential genetic markers beyond XX and XY, the most common chromosome pairs for sex determination.
This is the boldest move yet from the administration since their attempts to bar transgender people from the military.
The proposed rule, according to a report in the New York Times, would define sex as "either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with."
The rule is coming out via the Department of Health and Human Services under Alex Azar.
DHS has been arguing that "sex" doesn't include gender identity over the last year, and has, according to the Times, felt that the "lack of clarity" caused by inclusive Obama-era rules "wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them."
In the memo, DHS states that governmental bodies need a uniform definition of gender that is formed "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable."
All disputes regarding sex would be based solely on genetic testing.
The move would roll back protections at all levels of the Federal government for transgender people.
The draft memo, which has been circulating since spring, also takes aim at birth certificates, saying, "The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence."
This rule would fly in the face of scientific reality. By defining sex so rigidly, it would essentially ignore intersex people as well as transgender people.
It has been scientifically understood for decades that sex is not rigidly defined, and that there is a great variation of potential genetic markers beyond XX and XY, the most common chromosome pairs for sex determination.
This is the boldest move yet from the administration since their attempts to bar transgender people from the military.
Website offering abortion drugs by mail benefits hundreds of women in US
Aid Access, was set up after American women sought out a similar European site, supplies medication after an online consultation
Amanda Holpuch in New York
the guardian
Sat 20 Oct 2018 02.00 EDT
About 600 women in the US have obtained abortion pills through Aid Access, a website that launched quietly six months ago, aiming to help women who cannot easily access abortion.
The founder of both sites, Dutch doctor Rebecca Gomperts, said Aid Access was created in response to an increase in American women requesting help from a similar European website, Women on Web, in the past year.
“I decided that as a doctor I have a moral obligation to help women that are in need of a very safe medical procedure,” Gomperts told the Guardian.
Women’s health advocates in the US are concerned by the Trump administration’s efforts to further restrict access to abortion. These fears intensified when Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh declined to say how he would rule if the court was to consider the legality of abortion.
Aid Access allows women to request the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol after an online consultation with a doctor. If the doctor decides it would be safe for the woman to use the pills, a payment of $95 is suggested. The fee can be waived.
It appears to be the only site of its kind offering this service in the US. Women on Web has helped American soldiers deployed in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.
In April, a small study of 18 online pharmacies found it was “feasible” to obtain abortion pills in the US without a prescription.
Aid Access, which is available in English and Spanish, is different from such sites because women must consult a doctor to get a prescription. The price is also lower than that typically offered by online pharmacies.
Gomperts writes the prescriptions, which are sent to a pharmacy in India, which sends the pills to the US. Women are welcome to contact Gomperts for further medical advice.
The pills are only meant for women 10 weeks pregnant or less. A May 2017 study of 1,000 women who were less than 10 weeks pregnant and used abortion pills at home showed 95% safely ended their pregnancy without surgical intervention.
Gomperts shared with the Guardian anonymized emails from users of the service. One woman said that without Aid Access she would have “had no other choice than to take extremely dangerous actions to get the same result”.
Access to medical abortion is different in each of the 50 states, but in general it reflects tight legal restrictions for surgical abortions. In 27 states, women must receive counseling before either kind of abortion.
Only certified providers can dispense abortion pills. In 21 states, including Texas, Arizona and Tennessee, a doctor must be physically present during the procedure. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does, however, allow women to take the pills after leaving a clinic.
In Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and New York, a program is being assessed that would send abortion pills by mail overnight, after a video consultation with a doctor. Programs in Iowa, Alaska, Minnesota and Maine allow women to have a telemedicine doctor’s appointment to get a medication abortion prescription, though women must then travel to a clinic to obtain and use the pills.
Aid Access makes clear in its terms of service that the group is not liable for any legal consequences women face for using the service.
Anti-abortion groups are of course opposed to such services. Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, recently told the Atlantic: “Handing out deadly drugs through the mail is a disaster waiting to happen.”
She added: “The pro-life movement will absolutely be committed to preventing this dangerous business from harming American women.”
Gomperts said that if groups oppose Aid Access’s efforts, they should work to improve access to abortion.
“I don’t think this service should be necessary in the first place,” she said.
The founder of both sites, Dutch doctor Rebecca Gomperts, said Aid Access was created in response to an increase in American women requesting help from a similar European website, Women on Web, in the past year.
“I decided that as a doctor I have a moral obligation to help women that are in need of a very safe medical procedure,” Gomperts told the Guardian.
Women’s health advocates in the US are concerned by the Trump administration’s efforts to further restrict access to abortion. These fears intensified when Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh declined to say how he would rule if the court was to consider the legality of abortion.
Aid Access allows women to request the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol after an online consultation with a doctor. If the doctor decides it would be safe for the woman to use the pills, a payment of $95 is suggested. The fee can be waived.
It appears to be the only site of its kind offering this service in the US. Women on Web has helped American soldiers deployed in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.
In April, a small study of 18 online pharmacies found it was “feasible” to obtain abortion pills in the US without a prescription.
Aid Access, which is available in English and Spanish, is different from such sites because women must consult a doctor to get a prescription. The price is also lower than that typically offered by online pharmacies.
Gomperts writes the prescriptions, which are sent to a pharmacy in India, which sends the pills to the US. Women are welcome to contact Gomperts for further medical advice.
The pills are only meant for women 10 weeks pregnant or less. A May 2017 study of 1,000 women who were less than 10 weeks pregnant and used abortion pills at home showed 95% safely ended their pregnancy without surgical intervention.
Gomperts shared with the Guardian anonymized emails from users of the service. One woman said that without Aid Access she would have “had no other choice than to take extremely dangerous actions to get the same result”.
Access to medical abortion is different in each of the 50 states, but in general it reflects tight legal restrictions for surgical abortions. In 27 states, women must receive counseling before either kind of abortion.
Only certified providers can dispense abortion pills. In 21 states, including Texas, Arizona and Tennessee, a doctor must be physically present during the procedure. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does, however, allow women to take the pills after leaving a clinic.
In Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and New York, a program is being assessed that would send abortion pills by mail overnight, after a video consultation with a doctor. Programs in Iowa, Alaska, Minnesota and Maine allow women to have a telemedicine doctor’s appointment to get a medication abortion prescription, though women must then travel to a clinic to obtain and use the pills.
Aid Access makes clear in its terms of service that the group is not liable for any legal consequences women face for using the service.
Anti-abortion groups are of course opposed to such services. Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, recently told the Atlantic: “Handing out deadly drugs through the mail is a disaster waiting to happen.”
She added: “The pro-life movement will absolutely be committed to preventing this dangerous business from harming American women.”
Gomperts said that if groups oppose Aid Access’s efforts, they should work to improve access to abortion.
“I don’t think this service should be necessary in the first place,” she said.
*bites from real news - 10/22/2018*
*Shocking Turnout For First Day Of Early Voting In Houston
Thousands of people were already camped out at a key early voting location in Houston on Monday morning, hours before voting was even set to begin. Nearly 2,000 people stood in line outside of the M ... (Houston Chronicle)
*'Potentially catastrophic' Hurricane Willa takes aim at Mexico as a Category 5 storm
Hurricane Willa strengthened to a powerful Category 5 storm Monday morning, taking aim at the Mexican coast and threatening to deliver life-threatening storm surge, wind and rain. Now packing 160 mph winds, some strengthening was still possible for ... (ABC)
*Soledad O’Brien nails Trump for focusing on gubernatorial candidates in campaigns against black Democrats Lawyer and writer Joseph M. Azam noted there are three main gubernatorial races that President Donald Trump, but it was Soledad O’Brien who called the president out on what they had in common.
*Inside a Trump Organization real estate project that failed: Spoiler — The Trumps still won
In November 2007, The Wall Street Journal infuriated Donald Trump with an article that dissected his recent real estate setbacks. Headlined “Stalled Condo Projects Tarnish Trump’s Name,” the report raised doubt about what the mogul treasured — and banked on — most in business: the value of his personal brand.
*World hunger has risen for three straight years, and climate change is a cause
*Inside a Trump Project that Failed. Spoiler: The Trumps Still Won.
Never-before-published emails offer a window into the Trumps’ approach, this time in a failed condo project in Tampa. “They must think we are the dumbest people,” Donald Jr. wrote in one.
*part 3: ILLINOIS GOV. BRUCE RAUNER, SWORN FOE OF PENSIONS, MADE A FORTUNE CHARGING HIGH FEES TO PUBLIC PENSIONS
*‘The next Joe Arpaio’ The Maryland sheriff praised by Fox and Trump
Chuck Jenkins’ work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement has turned into a fiscal and political goldmine
*Germany urges other EU states to also stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany wants other European Union member states to follow its example in stopping arms exports to Saudi Arabia as long as uncertainty remains over the killing of journalist Jamal ... (Reuters)
Racism lands among the top Republican campaign strategies for 2018
Laura Clawson
Daily Kos Staff
Saturday October 20, 2018 · 8:00 AM PDT
Republicans are leaning hard on racism to woo voters against a historically diverse Democratic field of candidates this year. It can be hard to keep track but Huffington Post has a running list of racist comments, ads, and mailers, “grad[ing] the attacks on their subtlety using a scale of one to five white hands.”
The cases that get five white hands will be familiar to many Daily Kos readers: efforts to paint Rhodes scholar Antonio Delgado as a scary black rapper, to link Aftab Pureval to terrorism through a case he never worked on handled by the giant international law firm at which he was an associate, to link Ammar Campa-Najjar to terrorism through a grandfather who died before he was born, and, of course, Ron DeSantis’s infamous “monkey this up” comments the morning after the Florida gubernatorial primary.
But even if you know all about those incidents, it’s striking to see how widespread overt racism is in Republican campaigns, whether in casual comments from candidates or as a planned campaign strategy.
Often, it’s a comment that shows how Republicans habitually look at people of color. Both Deb Haaland and Sharice Davids, Native American women running for the House in New Mexico and Kansas, respectively, have faced comments about “the reservation”—a local Republican official wanted to send Davids “packing back to the reservation,” while Haaland’s opponent thought that identifying Haaland as Indian wasn’t quite right because it “evokes images that she was raised on a reservation.” Republican Rep. Pete Olson called his Democratic challenger, Sri Preston Kulkarni, a “liberal Indo-American who’s a carpetbagger,” when Kulkarni was raised in the suburban Houston district he’s running in and is descended from Sam Houston.
Republicans aren’t always shy about memorializing their racism, though, in the form of campaign mailers and ads. A Republican running for Tennessee state Senate against Gabby Salinas, who is an immigrant, sent out a mailer saying “his family has called Shelby County home for seven generations. He’s from here. He’s one of us.” (Subtext: And she’s not.) In Arizona, ads attacking Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Garcia have darkened his skin.
The list goes on because Republican racism goes on and on and on. And no doubt the list will keep growing in the final weeks of the campaign, and beyond. After all, we all saw how much racism didn’t go away when we elected a black president.
The cases that get five white hands will be familiar to many Daily Kos readers: efforts to paint Rhodes scholar Antonio Delgado as a scary black rapper, to link Aftab Pureval to terrorism through a case he never worked on handled by the giant international law firm at which he was an associate, to link Ammar Campa-Najjar to terrorism through a grandfather who died before he was born, and, of course, Ron DeSantis’s infamous “monkey this up” comments the morning after the Florida gubernatorial primary.
But even if you know all about those incidents, it’s striking to see how widespread overt racism is in Republican campaigns, whether in casual comments from candidates or as a planned campaign strategy.
Often, it’s a comment that shows how Republicans habitually look at people of color. Both Deb Haaland and Sharice Davids, Native American women running for the House in New Mexico and Kansas, respectively, have faced comments about “the reservation”—a local Republican official wanted to send Davids “packing back to the reservation,” while Haaland’s opponent thought that identifying Haaland as Indian wasn’t quite right because it “evokes images that she was raised on a reservation.” Republican Rep. Pete Olson called his Democratic challenger, Sri Preston Kulkarni, a “liberal Indo-American who’s a carpetbagger,” when Kulkarni was raised in the suburban Houston district he’s running in and is descended from Sam Houston.
Republicans aren’t always shy about memorializing their racism, though, in the form of campaign mailers and ads. A Republican running for Tennessee state Senate against Gabby Salinas, who is an immigrant, sent out a mailer saying “his family has called Shelby County home for seven generations. He’s from here. He’s one of us.” (Subtext: And she’s not.) In Arizona, ads attacking Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Garcia have darkened his skin.
The list goes on because Republican racism goes on and on and on. And no doubt the list will keep growing in the final weeks of the campaign, and beyond. After all, we all saw how much racism didn’t go away when we elected a black president.
|
|
Robert Reich: Here's the Truth About Trump's 'Great Economy'
The stock market is looking increasingly wobbly as Trump’s trade wars take a toll.
By Robert Reich / Robert Reich's Blog - allternet
October 21, 2018, 4:02 AM GMT
I keep hearing that although Trump is a scoundrel or worse, at least he’s presiding over a great economy.
As White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow recently put it, “The single biggest story this year is an economic boom that is durable and lasting.”
Really? Look closely at the living standards of most Americans, and you get a very different picture.
Yes, the stock market has boomed since Trump became president. But it’s looking increasingly wobbly as Trump’s trade wars take a toll.
Over 80 percent of the stock market is owned by the richest 10 percent of Americans anyway, so most Americans never got much out of Trump’s market boom to begin with.
The trade wars are about to take a toll on ordinary workers. Trump’s steel tariffs have cost Ford $1 billion so far, for example, forcing the automaker to plan mass layoffs.
What about economic growth? Data from the Commerce Department shows the economy at full speed, 4.2 percent growth for the second quarter.
But very little of that growth is trickling down to average Americans. Adjusted for inflation, hourly wages aren’t much higher now than they were forty years ago.
Trump slashed taxes on the wealthy and promised everyone else a $4,000 wage boost. But the boost never happened. That’s a big reason why Republicans aren’t campaigning on their tax cut, which is just about their only legislative accomplishment.
Trump and congressional Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage, stuck at $7.25 an hour. Trump’s Labor Department is also repealing a rule that increased the number of workers entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime.
Yes, unemployment is down to 3.7 percent. But jobs are less secure than ever. Contract workers – who aren’t eligible for family or medical leave, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, or worker’s compensation – are now doing one out of every five jobs in America.
Trump’s Labor Department has invited more companies to reclassify employees as contract workers. Its new rule undoes the California Supreme Court’s recent decision requiring that most workers be presumed employees unless proven otherwise. (Given California’s size, that decision had nationwide effect.)
Meanwhile, housing costs are skyrocketing, with Americans now paying a third or more of their paychecks in rent or mortgages.
Trump’s response? Drastic cuts in low-income housing. His Secretary of Housing and Urban Development also wants to triple the rent paid by poor households in subsidized housing.
Healthcare costs continues to rise faster than inflation. Trump’s response? Undermine the Affordable Care Act. Over the past two years, some 4 million people have lost healthcare coverage, according to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund.
Pharmaceutical costs are also out of control. Trump’s response? Allow the biggest pharmacist, CVS, to merge with the one of the biggest health insurers, Aetna — creating a behemoth with the power to raise prices even further.
The cost of college continues to soar. Trump’s response? Make it easier for for-profit colleges to defraud students. His Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is eliminating regulations that had required for-profit colleges to prove they provide gainful employment to the students they enroll.
Commuting to and from work is becoming harder, as roads and bridges become more congested, and subways and trains older and less reliable. Trump’s response? Nothing. Although he promised to spend $1.5 trillion to repair America’s crumbling infrastructure, his $1.5 trillion tax cut for big corporations and the wealthy used up the money.
Climate change is undermining the standard of living of ordinary Americans, as more are hit with floods, mudslides, tornados, draughts, and wildfires. Even those who have so far avoided direct hits will be paying more for insurance – or having a harder time getting it. People living on flood plains, or in trailers, or without home insurance, are paying the highest price.
Trump’s response? Allow more carbon into the atmosphere and make climate change even worse.
Too often, discussions about “the economy” focus on overall statistics about growth, the stock market, and unemployment.
But most Americans don’t live in that economy. They live in a personal economy that has more to do with wages, job security, commutes to and from work, and the costs of housing, healthcare, drugs, education, and home insurance.
These are the things that hit closest home. They comprise the typical American’s standard of living.
Instead of an “economic boom,” most Americans are experiencing declines in all these dimensions of their lives.
Trump isn’t solely responsible. Some of these trends predated his presidency. But he hasn’t done anything to reverse them.
If anything, he’s made them far worse.
As White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow recently put it, “The single biggest story this year is an economic boom that is durable and lasting.”
Really? Look closely at the living standards of most Americans, and you get a very different picture.
Yes, the stock market has boomed since Trump became president. But it’s looking increasingly wobbly as Trump’s trade wars take a toll.
Over 80 percent of the stock market is owned by the richest 10 percent of Americans anyway, so most Americans never got much out of Trump’s market boom to begin with.
The trade wars are about to take a toll on ordinary workers. Trump’s steel tariffs have cost Ford $1 billion so far, for example, forcing the automaker to plan mass layoffs.
What about economic growth? Data from the Commerce Department shows the economy at full speed, 4.2 percent growth for the second quarter.
But very little of that growth is trickling down to average Americans. Adjusted for inflation, hourly wages aren’t much higher now than they were forty years ago.
Trump slashed taxes on the wealthy and promised everyone else a $4,000 wage boost. But the boost never happened. That’s a big reason why Republicans aren’t campaigning on their tax cut, which is just about their only legislative accomplishment.
Trump and congressional Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage, stuck at $7.25 an hour. Trump’s Labor Department is also repealing a rule that increased the number of workers entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime.
Yes, unemployment is down to 3.7 percent. But jobs are less secure than ever. Contract workers – who aren’t eligible for family or medical leave, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, or worker’s compensation – are now doing one out of every five jobs in America.
Trump’s Labor Department has invited more companies to reclassify employees as contract workers. Its new rule undoes the California Supreme Court’s recent decision requiring that most workers be presumed employees unless proven otherwise. (Given California’s size, that decision had nationwide effect.)
Meanwhile, housing costs are skyrocketing, with Americans now paying a third or more of their paychecks in rent or mortgages.
Trump’s response? Drastic cuts in low-income housing. His Secretary of Housing and Urban Development also wants to triple the rent paid by poor households in subsidized housing.
Healthcare costs continues to rise faster than inflation. Trump’s response? Undermine the Affordable Care Act. Over the past two years, some 4 million people have lost healthcare coverage, according to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund.
Pharmaceutical costs are also out of control. Trump’s response? Allow the biggest pharmacist, CVS, to merge with the one of the biggest health insurers, Aetna — creating a behemoth with the power to raise prices even further.
The cost of college continues to soar. Trump’s response? Make it easier for for-profit colleges to defraud students. His Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is eliminating regulations that had required for-profit colleges to prove they provide gainful employment to the students they enroll.
Commuting to and from work is becoming harder, as roads and bridges become more congested, and subways and trains older and less reliable. Trump’s response? Nothing. Although he promised to spend $1.5 trillion to repair America’s crumbling infrastructure, his $1.5 trillion tax cut for big corporations and the wealthy used up the money.
Climate change is undermining the standard of living of ordinary Americans, as more are hit with floods, mudslides, tornados, draughts, and wildfires. Even those who have so far avoided direct hits will be paying more for insurance – or having a harder time getting it. People living on flood plains, or in trailers, or without home insurance, are paying the highest price.
Trump’s response? Allow more carbon into the atmosphere and make climate change even worse.
Too often, discussions about “the economy” focus on overall statistics about growth, the stock market, and unemployment.
But most Americans don’t live in that economy. They live in a personal economy that has more to do with wages, job security, commutes to and from work, and the costs of housing, healthcare, drugs, education, and home insurance.
These are the things that hit closest home. They comprise the typical American’s standard of living.
Instead of an “economic boom,” most Americans are experiencing declines in all these dimensions of their lives.
Trump isn’t solely responsible. Some of these trends predated his presidency. But he hasn’t done anything to reverse them.
If anything, he’s made them far worse.
|
|
Vote Republican!!!
by nancegreggs - demo underground
10/18/18
If you’re a minimum wage earner who likes living in poverty, vote Republican – the party that will make sure you’ll never get a raise!
If you’re a hard-working American who believes the rich need tax-cuts while your tax deductions are eliminated, vote Republican – the party that wants you to pay more while the obscenely wealthy pay less!
If you’re a woman who thinks you’re not equal to men and should have less rights than men have, vote Republican – the party that is determined to keep you in your place as a second-class citizen!
If you’re a farmer, an auto worker, or anyone else about to lose your livelihood due to Trump’s tariffs, vote Republican – the party that doesn’t give a fuck about your ability to support your family!
If you’re a Christian who doesn’t believe in Jesus’ admonition to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick, vote Republican – the party that doesn’t believe in any of that “Christian” bullshit either!
If you’re a citizen who thinks a “pResident” should spend his time watching TV, playing golf, and tweeting inane covfeve, vote Republican – the party that thinks such behaviour is not only appropriate, but worthy of praise!
If you’re not the least bit interested in having potable water to drink or clean air to breathe, vote Republican – the party that is overturning the regulations that protect your water and your air!
If you’re not concerned about the fact that your “pResident” has invariably sided with our nation’s adversaries rather than our own intelligence agencies, vote Republican – the party that put Putin’s lackey in the White House!
If you don’t mind losing your healthcare coverage, vote Republican – the party that thinks you should just die in silence if you can’t afford medical treatment!
If you have absolutely no morals, vote Republican – the party that kidnaps kids and puts them in cages!
If you’re a racist, vote Republican – the party that hates “those people” as much as you do!
If you don’t mind being lied to and cheated by representatives that don’t give a shit about you, vote Republican – the party where self-serving greed is one of their most endearing features!
If you’re not the least bit concerned about ethics in politics, vote Republican – the party that prides itself on blatant corruption!
If you’re fine with social security and Medicare payouts being gutted in order to fund tax breaks for the wealthy, vote Republican – because the richest people in the country shouldn’t have to pay their fair share!
That’s right, folks. If you are an ignorant, ill-informed dumb-ass who enjoys being kicked in the ass and spat upon on a daily basis, the Republican party is tailor-made for you.
So get out there in November and vote for the people who will lie to you, steal from you, and then tell you to fuck off when you complain – and have the track record to prove it!
Vote Republican – because this country isn’t going to flush itself down the toilet without your help!
If you’re a hard-working American who believes the rich need tax-cuts while your tax deductions are eliminated, vote Republican – the party that wants you to pay more while the obscenely wealthy pay less!
If you’re a woman who thinks you’re not equal to men and should have less rights than men have, vote Republican – the party that is determined to keep you in your place as a second-class citizen!
If you’re a farmer, an auto worker, or anyone else about to lose your livelihood due to Trump’s tariffs, vote Republican – the party that doesn’t give a fuck about your ability to support your family!
If you’re a Christian who doesn’t believe in Jesus’ admonition to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick, vote Republican – the party that doesn’t believe in any of that “Christian” bullshit either!
If you’re a citizen who thinks a “pResident” should spend his time watching TV, playing golf, and tweeting inane covfeve, vote Republican – the party that thinks such behaviour is not only appropriate, but worthy of praise!
If you’re not the least bit interested in having potable water to drink or clean air to breathe, vote Republican – the party that is overturning the regulations that protect your water and your air!
If you’re not concerned about the fact that your “pResident” has invariably sided with our nation’s adversaries rather than our own intelligence agencies, vote Republican – the party that put Putin’s lackey in the White House!
If you don’t mind losing your healthcare coverage, vote Republican – the party that thinks you should just die in silence if you can’t afford medical treatment!
If you have absolutely no morals, vote Republican – the party that kidnaps kids and puts them in cages!
If you’re a racist, vote Republican – the party that hates “those people” as much as you do!
If you don’t mind being lied to and cheated by representatives that don’t give a shit about you, vote Republican – the party where self-serving greed is one of their most endearing features!
If you’re not the least bit concerned about ethics in politics, vote Republican – the party that prides itself on blatant corruption!
If you’re fine with social security and Medicare payouts being gutted in order to fund tax breaks for the wealthy, vote Republican – because the richest people in the country shouldn’t have to pay their fair share!
That’s right, folks. If you are an ignorant, ill-informed dumb-ass who enjoys being kicked in the ass and spat upon on a daily basis, the Republican party is tailor-made for you.
So get out there in November and vote for the people who will lie to you, steal from you, and then tell you to fuck off when you complain – and have the track record to prove it!
Vote Republican – because this country isn’t going to flush itself down the toilet without your help!
*What's Inside*
october 19 - october 21
✔AFTER ALMOST A WEEK, PROUD BOYS MEMBERS FINALLY ARRESTED FOR BRUTAL ATTACK ON PROTESTORS IN NYC
(AMERIKKKANS)
*MEASLES OUTBREAK IN EUROPE SHOWS WHAT MAY COME IN U.S. AS ANTI-VACCINE MOVEMENT BITES: REPORT
(AMERICA)
*REPUBLICANS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THESE 3 EASY FIXES TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
(TALKERS)
*HERE’S WHY MEDIA COVERAGE OF INDIGENOUS ISSUES IS SO TERRIBLE, BOTH IN THE U.S. AND CANADA
(WORTHLESS MEDIA)
✔10,000 MISSOURI VOTERS RECEIVED REPUBLICAN MAILERS WITH FALSE VOTING INFORMATION
(ELECTIONS)
*JAMAL KHASHOGGI, DRONE MISSILES, AND US BY THE RUDE PUNDIT
(COMMENTARY)
*LONGTIME GOP FEMALE VOTERS REVEAL WHAT TRUMP DID TO MAKE THEM FINALLY BAIL ON THE PARTY: ‘I HUNG ON UNTIL I COULDN’T’(SUCKERS)
*MERCURY MISSION TO EXPLORE ORIGIN OF SOLAR SYSTEM
(SPACE NEWS)
*SOUTH CAROLINA IS LOBBYING TO ALLOW DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JEWISH PARENTS
(RIGHTS)
*PAUL KRUGMAN’S PREDICTION ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS JUST VINDICATED
(GOP POLITICS)
*COARD: TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY’S BLACK ‘GUINEA PIGS’
(BLACK HISTORY)
*LAURA INGRAHAM STOKES ANTI-IMMIGRANT HYSTERIA ON FOX NEWS AHEAD OF MIDTERM ELECTIONS
(WORTHLESS MEDIA)
*ANTI-ABORTION EXTREMIST SWINDLED MILLIONS IN OBAMACARE REHAB RIPOFF
(CORRUPTION)
✔REPUBLICANS HAVE NO CHOICE
(GOP POLITICS)
*NEW SURVEY REVEALS THAT MOST EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS DON’T KNOW THE CENTRAL TENETS OF THEIR OWN RELIGION
(CHRISTIANITY)
*RIHANNA STANDS WITH KAEPERNICK, REPORTEDLY WON’T PERFORM AT SUPER BOWL LIII HALFTIME SHOW
(REAL PEOPLE)
*MOST BURGER CHAINS FAIL ON ANNUAL ANTIBIOTICS REPORT CARD
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*AMID PROTEST IN LIBERIA, ITS VICE PRESIDENT GETS LIST OF DEMANDS ABOUT MORE THAN ME
(WORLD)
*WHITE WOMAN INTERRUPTS PHONE CALL TO SCREAM RACIAL SLURS AT BLACK MEN WALKING PAST
(RIGHTS)
*THE BAD BEHAVIOR OF THE RICHEST: WHAT I LEARNED FROM WEALTH MANAGERS
(CAPITALISM)
*SCIENTISTS HAVE DISCOVERED A NEW LINK BETWEEN SUGAR AND TUMOR GROWTH
(CURRENTS)
*SHAKE-UP AT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, LONGTIME OFFICIALS OUSTED
(DEMO POLITICS)
*MISSOURI IGNORED HUD’S EARLY WARNING ABOUT ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW, LEGISLATOR SAYS
(AMERICA)
*#NOTRACISTS BE LIKE: THE TOP 10 PHRASES USED BY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY ARE NOT RACIST
(RACE MATTERS)
*GEORGIA IS USING AMATEUR HANDWRITING ANALYSIS TO DISENFRANCHISE MINORITY VOTERS
(ELECTIONS)
*POLICE OFFICERS IN THE US WERE CHARGED WITH MORE THAN 400 RAPES OVER A 9-YEAR PERIOD
(GESTAPO USA)
*late news of interest*
The NFL’s treatment of Colin Kaepernick is why we’re stuck with Maroon 5 at the Super Bowl
Rihanna reportedly turned down the league out of deference to the football star.
ADAM PECK - thinkprogress
OCT 19, 2018, 2:45 PM
Last month, the NFL announced that the featured performer for the halftime show at Super Bowl LIII would be Maroon 5, a band best known for a handful of inoffensive pop/rock chart-toppers.
Reaction to the news was…muted. Many wondered why the NFL didn’t capitalize on the location of this year’s edition of the game — Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia — to book any one of numerous musicians with ties to the city.
On Thursday, though, we got new insight into the difficult situation that the NFL put itself in by alienating Colin Kaepernick and kowtowing to racists.
US Weekly and Rolling Stone reported that Rihanna — who has more #1 singles than anyone besides Mariah Carey and The Beatles — was initially approached by the NFL to headline Super Bowl LIII, but turned down the league out of deference to Colin Kaepernick, who is still pursuing a lawsuit against the NFL for collusion to keep him out of professional football.
“The NFL and CBS really wanted Rihanna to be next year’s performer in Atlanta,” an unnamed source with close ties to the musician told US Weekly. “They offered it to her, but she said no because of the kneeling controversy. She doesn’t agree with the NFL’s stance.”
Kaepernick is responsible for triggering two years of activism on the sidelines before football games, at every level of the sport. His silent protest against police brutality and institutionalized racism was met with backlash from racists like Donald Trump, who tried to portray the quarterback’s decision to kneel during the national anthem as anti-military.
For two years, the league has gone out of its way to mismanage their response to the protests. Their most recent effort was met with swift condemnation from players, owners, and fans alike, and was subsequently shelved after just a few days.
This isn’t the first time the NFL has reportedly run into difficulty booking musicians as a direct result of their treatment of Kaepernick and his protests. Jay-Z was approached to headline last year’s halftime show, but the rapper turned them down, reportedly in solidarity with Kaepernick.
Reaction to the news was…muted. Many wondered why the NFL didn’t capitalize on the location of this year’s edition of the game — Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia — to book any one of numerous musicians with ties to the city.
On Thursday, though, we got new insight into the difficult situation that the NFL put itself in by alienating Colin Kaepernick and kowtowing to racists.
US Weekly and Rolling Stone reported that Rihanna — who has more #1 singles than anyone besides Mariah Carey and The Beatles — was initially approached by the NFL to headline Super Bowl LIII, but turned down the league out of deference to Colin Kaepernick, who is still pursuing a lawsuit against the NFL for collusion to keep him out of professional football.
“The NFL and CBS really wanted Rihanna to be next year’s performer in Atlanta,” an unnamed source with close ties to the musician told US Weekly. “They offered it to her, but she said no because of the kneeling controversy. She doesn’t agree with the NFL’s stance.”
Kaepernick is responsible for triggering two years of activism on the sidelines before football games, at every level of the sport. His silent protest against police brutality and institutionalized racism was met with backlash from racists like Donald Trump, who tried to portray the quarterback’s decision to kneel during the national anthem as anti-military.
For two years, the league has gone out of its way to mismanage their response to the protests. Their most recent effort was met with swift condemnation from players, owners, and fans alike, and was subsequently shelved after just a few days.
This isn’t the first time the NFL has reportedly run into difficulty booking musicians as a direct result of their treatment of Kaepernick and his protests. Jay-Z was approached to headline last year’s halftime show, but the rapper turned them down, reportedly in solidarity with Kaepernick.
stupidity is infinite!!!
GOP Lawmaker Says Emergency Rooms Should Be Able To Turn People Away
Back to the good old days.
By Amanda Terkel - huff post
10/18/2017 12:30 pm ET
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) proposed on Friday that hospital emergency rooms should be able to turn patients away to help keep health care costs down.
“I’m an emergency room nurse,” Black told MSNBC host Chuck Todd on Friday. “There are people that came into my emergency room that I, the nurse, was the first one to see them. I could have sent them to a walk-in clinic or their doctor the next day, but because of a law that Congress put into place to say, no, I have to treat everybody that walks into that emergency room.”
“You took away our ability to say, ‘No, an emergency room is not the proper place.’ And then, you put a burden on top of that to say, ‘You must do that,’” added the congresswoman, who is also running for governor of Tennessee.
At issue is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which was signed into law by former President Ronald Reagan in 1986. It was a congressional response to stories of “patient dumping” ― hospitals would deny treatment to patients or send them elsewhere, usually because the individuals didn’t have insurance. Many of these patients were unemployed or were people of color.
Those transferred individuals were more likely to die, and the delayed care often jeopardized the patients’ health.
The law put a particular focus on pregnant women (hence “active labor” in the law’s name), to ensure that they would be able to deliver their babies and receive full care.
Changing the law, as Black advocates, would send America back to a time when hospitals can use their discretion to turn people away.
“We must treat everybody that walks in whether you’ve had a sore throat for a week, we must see them. And that crowds the emergency room. It drives the cost of emergencies up,” Black added on MSNBC. “And so, yes, if someone comes in from an auto accident, I don’t want to ask whether they have insurance or not. I’m going to take care of them.”
“But what it did is crowd my emergency room, where I work,” she added. “And disallowed me from using my good judgment skills, of which I was trained to do and doctors are as well. And the federal government said, you must ― and you can’t make those decisions. And I think that was a poor thing for us to do.”
This free-for-all system would not be unlike what happened before Obamacare, when there were fewer requirements for insurance companies to accept people for coverage. It was a time when insurance providers were free to turn people away because they had more expensive pre-existing conditions ― or were labeled as potentially having an expensive condition down the line. And since these companies were free to do so, they did.
Nobody thinks EMTALA is perfect and non-partisan organizations, including the Institute of Medicine, have long called for revising some of the law’s regulations as part of a broader strategy to ease emergency room overcrowding. And although conservatives have been among the most critical of the law, even the Heritage Foundation admits that “the outright repeal of EMTALA is highly unlikely,” and it’s not something you hear talked about much in health care debates.
When Todd asked Black whether she would get rid of the law, she replied, “I would get rid of a law that says that you ― you are not allowed, as a health care professional, to make that decision about whether someone can be appropriately treated the next day, or at a walk-in clinic, or at their doctor.”
Also, technically, no doctor or hospital is required to see anybody. But treating all patients is a requirement for hospitals using Medicare funds. So already, a doctor or hospital can turn people away ― as Black suggests they should be able to do ― they just won’t get to bill Medicare.
“I’m an emergency room nurse,” Black told MSNBC host Chuck Todd on Friday. “There are people that came into my emergency room that I, the nurse, was the first one to see them. I could have sent them to a walk-in clinic or their doctor the next day, but because of a law that Congress put into place to say, no, I have to treat everybody that walks into that emergency room.”
“You took away our ability to say, ‘No, an emergency room is not the proper place.’ And then, you put a burden on top of that to say, ‘You must do that,’” added the congresswoman, who is also running for governor of Tennessee.
At issue is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which was signed into law by former President Ronald Reagan in 1986. It was a congressional response to stories of “patient dumping” ― hospitals would deny treatment to patients or send them elsewhere, usually because the individuals didn’t have insurance. Many of these patients were unemployed or were people of color.
Those transferred individuals were more likely to die, and the delayed care often jeopardized the patients’ health.
The law put a particular focus on pregnant women (hence “active labor” in the law’s name), to ensure that they would be able to deliver their babies and receive full care.
Changing the law, as Black advocates, would send America back to a time when hospitals can use their discretion to turn people away.
“We must treat everybody that walks in whether you’ve had a sore throat for a week, we must see them. And that crowds the emergency room. It drives the cost of emergencies up,” Black added on MSNBC. “And so, yes, if someone comes in from an auto accident, I don’t want to ask whether they have insurance or not. I’m going to take care of them.”
“But what it did is crowd my emergency room, where I work,” she added. “And disallowed me from using my good judgment skills, of which I was trained to do and doctors are as well. And the federal government said, you must ― and you can’t make those decisions. And I think that was a poor thing for us to do.”
This free-for-all system would not be unlike what happened before Obamacare, when there were fewer requirements for insurance companies to accept people for coverage. It was a time when insurance providers were free to turn people away because they had more expensive pre-existing conditions ― or were labeled as potentially having an expensive condition down the line. And since these companies were free to do so, they did.
Nobody thinks EMTALA is perfect and non-partisan organizations, including the Institute of Medicine, have long called for revising some of the law’s regulations as part of a broader strategy to ease emergency room overcrowding. And although conservatives have been among the most critical of the law, even the Heritage Foundation admits that “the outright repeal of EMTALA is highly unlikely,” and it’s not something you hear talked about much in health care debates.
When Todd asked Black whether she would get rid of the law, she replied, “I would get rid of a law that says that you ― you are not allowed, as a health care professional, to make that decision about whether someone can be appropriately treated the next day, or at a walk-in clinic, or at their doctor.”
Also, technically, no doctor or hospital is required to see anybody. But treating all patients is a requirement for hospitals using Medicare funds. So already, a doctor or hospital can turn people away ― as Black suggests they should be able to do ― they just won’t get to bill Medicare.
denial conservative style!!
From Crooks & Liars: I've never gone wrong betting on the racism and arrogant ignorance of the Right: I've only erred occasionally on the point spread. And predicting Conservative behavior is dead-easy because traditionally they only have four basic settings:
Pleading Ignorance.
Of course Conservatives are ignorant -- deeply and malignantly ignorant. This comes from letting lying demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity take a dump in their skulls for the last 20 years. But since the GOP OnStar only emits turns in one direction, traditionally the only way Conservatives have been permitted to be "wrong" about anything was that they were "not Conservative enough!". From Crain's, October, 2015:
- Arrogant triumphalism: The aforementioned "We won! You lost! Bush is a genius! Suck it Libtards!"
- All-out denialism: The aforementioned "Everything I see on non-Fox teevee is fake! Terrible lies by the terrible Murrica-hating Libtard media conspiracy!"
- Bargaining: It doesn't matter whether or not I'm a brain-washed moron...because Both Sides!"
- Running Away: As I pointed out back during the first Great Skedaddle back in 2009, because Conservatives are by nature abject moral cowards, their last "out" is doing like German soldiers did after the fall of Berlin: stop running away from the catastrophe they created only long enough to burn their uniforms. See, "I'm an independent."
Pleading Ignorance.
Of course Conservatives are ignorant -- deeply and malignantly ignorant. This comes from letting lying demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity take a dump in their skulls for the last 20 years. But since the GOP OnStar only emits turns in one direction, traditionally the only way Conservatives have been permitted to be "wrong" about anything was that they were "not Conservative enough!". From Crain's, October, 2015:
