birminghammail--2019-11-15--Staffordshire Moorlands Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more

As announced by Nigel Farage on Monday, the Brexit Party withdrew its previously named candidates for seats currently held by the Conservatives.  As well as the Staffordshire Moorlands, this included Stoke-on-Trent South, Stafford and Congleton.  But the party will contest Labour-held seats, such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle.  Karen Bradley will vie for the seat alongside Andrew Gant of the Lib Dems, and the Green Party's Douglas Rouxel.  These are the candidates standing in Staffordshire Moorlands for 2019:  Why are we having an early election?  A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years.  There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area.  Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union.  The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.


birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stoke-on-Trent Central Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more

Stoke-on-Trent Cental's five candidates for the General Election in December have been revealed.  The Green Party are represented, alongside the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems.  The Brexit Party is also featured, after it withdrew its previously named candidates for seats currently held by the Conservatives.  The party will contest Labour-held seats, such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle.  These are the candidates for 2019's upcoming poll on December 2019:  Why are we having an early election?  A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years.  There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area.  Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union.  The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.


birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stoke-on-Trent North Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more

Stoke-on-Trent North looks set to be the most intriguing contest in the area, with six candidates standing in the marginal seat.  Labour incumbent Ruth Smeeth is likely to face a strong challenge from Conservative Jonathan Gullis.  The Brexit Party’s Richard Watkin, who was previously set to stand in the Staffordshire Moorlands, has now been moved to Stoke-on-Trent North to replace Daniel Rudd. Mr Rudd was dropped after offensive tweets were uncovered.  Lib Dem Peter Andras, Alan Borgars of the Greens, and independent Matt Dilworth complete the line-up for the seat.  These are the candidates for 2019:  Why are we having an early election?  A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years.  There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area.  Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union.  The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.


birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stoke-on-Trent South Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more

The Brexit Party will not contest the Stoke-on-Trent South seat at the general election in 2019.  Nigel Farage has withdrew his MPs from seats held by Conservatives, meaning there are only three representatives for December 12.  The Tory Party's Jack Brereton will contest the seat with Rosalyn Gordon, of the Lib Dems, and Mark McDonald, of Labour.  Voters in Stoke-on-Trent South will have the shortest list to choose from, with just three candidates standing.  But the line-up does include Lib Dem Rosalyn Gordon, who was brought in as a late replacement for former Labour MP Rob Flello, whose bid to win back his old seat for his new party ended abruptly with his de-selection on Tuesday.  Why are we having an early election?  A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years.  There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their are  Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union.  The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.


birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stone Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more

Four candidates will do battle in the forthcoming General Election from Stone, in Staffordshire, it has been announced.  The Green Party is represented, as is the Conservatives, as well as Labour and the Liberal Democrats.  Voters will rush to the polls across the region on December 12, it has been confirmed.  There is no Brexit Party representative in Stone, after Nigel Farage withdrew his MPs from seats held by Tories.  That means the candidates for the upcoming election are:  Why are we having an early election?  A general election - which determines who runs the country - normally happens every five years.  There are 650 constituencies, where voters are invited to select an MP to represent their area.  Nearly three-and-a-half years ago voters were called to the ballot box to decide whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union.  The majority chose to leave and we were supposed to have left on March, 29 this year, however, it has since been delayed after MPs failed to back plans put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and now Boris Johnson.


birminghammail--2019-11-15--Stratford-on-Avon Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem, Brexit party and more

Tory Nadhim Zahawi triumphed in Stratford on Avon with an increased number of votes back in 2017 - but can he repeat the feat?  His share rose by 4.5 per cent polling 32,657 votes - a majority of 20,958 over his nearest challenger Labour's Jeff Kenner, who received the backing of 11,699 electros.  However this was an increase of 9.29 per cent on the party's 2015 haul - and a 2.4 per cent swing to Labour.  The constituency includes the historic town itself, Warwick, and is the home of the Royal Shakespeare Company theatre.  It is surrounded by green belt villages southeast of Birmingham. , with the next largest wards being Studley and Alcester each with just under 5,000 electors.  In 2019, Mr Zahawi will represent the Tories, and the full list of candidates can be seen below:  The electorate is some 70,800 people.  Traditionally, elections are held every five years to determine which party will head up the British government. However since 2015, this year will be the third time that voters have been called to the ballot box.  Following the controversial Brexit referendum in 2016, the public has witnessed tiresome debates in Parliament resulting in several failed exit deal suggestions.  Three-and-a-half years on, we’re still quite a way off deciding what the state of play will be when the UK leaves the European Union.  At present, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson does not have enough Conservative MPs to pass new laws and approve plans for a Brexit strategy.  It is hoped the general election on December 12, will amend that.


birminghammail--2019-11-15--Warwick and Leamington Election candidates for 2019 - Labour, Tories, Lib Dem Brexit party and more

Labour gained Warwick & Leamington from the Conservative Party two years ago - but will the feat repeat itself in 2019?  Warwick and Leamington is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament.  In 2010, Chris White, a Conservative, won. But two years ago, Matt Western - of the Labour Party - achieved a majority.  Mr Western racked up 25,227 votes, up 11 per cent.  Mr White achieved 24,021, down three per cent.  The Conservatives have now fielded a new candidate as Mr Western prepares to defend the seat.  The General Election takes place on December 12 and with big issues like Brexit and the NHS on the agenda, the nation’s eyes will be on the headlines as election night unfolds.  Who are the candidates for Warwick and Leamington ?  The Brexit Party have not yet declared a candidate. A party spokesman said the candidate will be revealed "in due course".


birminghammail--2019-11-15--Who's standing in the 2019 general election in Birmingham?

If you want to be a candidate in the December 12 general election then I'm afraid you're out of luck - nominations how now closed.  That means we now know for certain who's standing as a candidate, because the official list has been published by Birmingham City Council, which is responsible for overseeing the elections in the city.  NB - Liberal Democrats have registered the name “Liberal Democrats – to stop Brexit" with the Electoral Commission and for some candidates that is the description of their party as it appears on the official statement of persons nominated, and as it will appear on ballot papers.


birminghammail--2019-11-19--The diversity of your general election candidate list in Birmingham revealed

In December there could be record numbers of women and ethnic minority MPs in parliament.  However, the diversity of the candidate list varies wildly depending on where you live.  The Reach Data Unit looked at candidate data from non-profit organization Democracy Club to find out how diverse the ballot paper is in Birmingham - including the political choice on offer, and the gender and age of candidates.  Looking across the entire election, the average number of candidates standing in each constituency is five.  That figure doesn’t change much across the country. In Birmingham, there are an average 5.3 people standing in each constituency.  Nine different political parties are standing across the city’s seats, representing a broad range of political views.  They are (in no particular order) the Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Labour Party, Conservative and Unionist Party, Independent, The Brexit Party, UK Independence Party (UKIP), Yeshua, and the Christian Peoples Alliance.  Before parliament was dissolved there were 206 women in the House of Commons - a record high.  However, that figure still only makes up 32% of the chamber.  Looking at the candidate list for this election across all Birmingham constituencies, 32% are female - mirroring the current situation in the Commons.  Birmingham, Hall Green and Birmingham, Hodge Hill have proportionally the most female representation on the ballot, with three out of the six candidates in each constituency being women.  On the other hand in Birmingham, Northfield and Birmingham, Perry Barr, just one of the five candidates is female.  In Birmingham, the Brexit Party are standing the most female candidates (five), followed by the Tories and the Lib Dems (three each).  Some 53% of the candidates that Labour have put forward are women - followed by the Green Party with 41% and the SNP with 34%. The Conservatives have selected 30% women, and the Lib Dems 31%.  The date of birth for every candidate standing in this election isn’t known.  However, there is information recorded for 1,438 of the 3,320 candidates across the country.  It shows that the average prospective MP was born in 1969 - making them around 50 years old.  In Birmingham, the average candidate (where the year of birth is known) is 49 years old.  The youngest person standing in our area is Alexander Nettle (born in 1998) who is the Green Party candidate for Birmingham, Ladywood.  The oldest is Roger Godsiff (born in 1946) who is standing as an independent in Birmingham, Hall Green.  Unfortunately the data from Democracy Club doesn’t include the ethnicity of candidates.  However, recent analysis of candidate selections by think tank British Future has found that the next parliament looks likely to be the most ethnically diverse ever, with more ethnic minority candidates  likely to be elected whichever party comes out on top on election night.  They found that there would be 67 ethnic minority MPs elected to Parliament if each party were to win the constituencies that it won at the last General Election – up from the 52 sitting in the previous parliament.  They would be 44 Labour MPs, 21 Conservative MPs and two Liberal Democrat MPs.  They also found that there would be 65 ethnic minority MPs if each party won the seat that it was favoured to win.

newsdesk@birminghamlive.co.uk (Michael Goodier, James Rodger)


birminghammail--2019-11-22--General election 2019 - here are the seats to watch in Birmingham and the Black Country

There are a number of key seats in Birmingham and the Black Country that are worth keeping an eye on during this election.  They're considered particularly important because they are marginal seats, which either the Conservatives or Labour could win.  As the results are announced after the December 12 election, we'll get a good idea which party is winning when the results in these seats are announced. Whichever party does well in these constituencies is likely to form the next government.  Here are some of the key seats, along with the gap between the winner and the party that came second place in the 2017 general election.  It’s worth remembering that a majority of, let’s say, 1,000 doesn’t require 1,000 voters to change their votes - it only takes 500 people to switch from one party to another to wipe out a majority of 1,000. That’s because the votes for one party will go down by one while the votes for the other party would go up by one at the same time.  To put it another way, if one party has a majority of 10% it might only take a swing of 5% for the other party to take the seat.  Seats the Conservatives could win from Labour  The Labour majority here was just 22, a majority of 0.1% of all the votes cast. The winning candidate, Ian Austin, has since left the Labour Party and is now an independent MP. However, we are looking at the result at the last election, when Mr Austin won as the Labour candidate.  Labour is defending a majority of 2,185, or 5.2% of votes.  Labour is defending a majority of 4,460 or 12.4%.  Labour has a majority of 4,587 or 12.6%. This should be hard for the Tories to win, but reports from the constituency suggest Labour may be in trouble here.  A Conservative target seat in recent elections, although they have been repeatedly disappointed as Labour have held on to it. In 2017 Labour won with a majority of 4667, or 10.5%.  This was once a Conservative stronghold, but it’s been a Labour seat since 1997. Labour held it in 2017 with a majority of 6,917, or 15.9%.  Labour held this with a majority of 7,285, or 19.6%.  Labour held this seat with a majority of 7,713 or 19.7% in 2017. The MP, Tom Watson, is Labour’s Deputy leader.  Labour held with a majority of 8,514, or 23.5%.  Labour held this seat with a majority of 8,892, or 20.2%.  Seats Labour could win from the Conservatives  Conservatives gained this seat from Labour in 2017 with a majority of 2,601 or 6.8%.  Conservatives held this seat in 2017 with a majority of 7,730 or 20.2%. That may seem like an impregnable majority but, as an indication of how things can change, it’s worth noting that this seat was held by Labour from 1997, when it was first created in its current form, until 2010.  How to find your constituency  The United Kingdom has 650 Parliamentary constituencies. And each constituency elects one MP.  That means that when you vote on December 12, you're not just voting for which party should form the Government. You are also voting for who should be your local MP.  And for some people, that's important. They may feel that one of the local candidates is particularly good (or bad), regardless of which party they belong to.  Some voters also like to know who came first and second in their constituency in the last election. That might affect the way they vote this time.  But if any of those things are important to you, the first thing you need to know is which constituency you are actually in.  Just enter your postcode in the box below and we will find out your constituency. We'll also show you some useful information about it.


usatoday--2019-06-24--Supreme Court limits access to government records in loss for Argus Leader part of the USA TODAY Ne

Supreme Court limits access to government records in loss for Argus Leader, part of the USA TODAY Network

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court limited public and media access to government records Monday by expanding a federal law's definition of what can be deemed confidential.  At issue was whether confidentiality, as used in a section of the Freedom of Information Act, means anything intended to be kept secret or only information likely to cause harm if publicized. The high court adopted the broader definition.  Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 decision, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.  A retailers trade group, the Food Marketing Institute, and the federal government had argued for a broad definition that would leave ample room to keep data from the public. Media organizations and public interest groups favored a more narrow definition requiring harm, which would make confidentiality apply to fewer FOIA requests.  In 2011, the case began with a request that the Argus Leader newspaper made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Sioux Falls, S.D., newsroom is part of the USA TODAY Network.  More: Conservative gains at Supreme Court leading to anger, frustration and 'peeks behind the curtain'  The Argus Leader asked the Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to release the annual amounts taxpayers paid to more than 320,000 retailers participating in the program. Data was requested as part of the newsroom's ongoing projects into food access deserts and fraud in the food stamp program.  More: F-word wins in Supreme Court free speech case on trademark protection for 'immoral, scandalous' material  The court's six-member majority rejected the request, overruling a lower court decision in the process. It said the requirement that releasing the information must cause harm stemmed from a faulty 1974 federal appeals court ruling.  "At least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is 'confidential' under the meaning of (FOIA)," Gorsuch wrote.  Breyer differed by noting that "the whole point of FOIA is to give the public access to information it cannot otherwise obtain."  "Given the temptation, common across the private and public sectors, to regard as secret all information that need not be disclosed, I fear the majority's reading will deprive the public of information for reasons no better than convenience, skittishness, or bureaucratic inertia," Breyer said.  The decision drew criticism from the Argus Leader, which fought for eight years to get the information, as well as from Gannett Co., which owns the paper.  "We’re disappointed in today’s outcome, obviously," Argus Leader news director Cory Myers said. "This is a massive blow to the public’s right to know how its tax dollars are being spent, and who is benefiting. Regardless, we will continue to fight for government openness and transparency, as always."  After the Agriculture Department refused to release the data, the Argus Leader sued. The case wound its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and back to federal district court in South Dakota, where a judge ruled the information should be released.  The government did not appeal that ruling, but the Food Marketing Institute intervened and appealed again to the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court ruled against the Institute in 2018, prompting its request to the Supreme Court to hear the case.  A key issue in the case, which was argued April 22, was whether a 1974 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had twisted FOIA beyond Congress' original intent.  Enacted eight years earlier in 1966, FOIA included an exemption allowing the government to withhold information it obtained from businesses that include trade secrets or financial data considered confidential. But the 1974 ruling narrowed what was considered confidential to records that, if released, would cause substantial competitive harm.  More: Supreme Court refuses to consider whether Second Amendment protects gun silencers  The Food Marketing Institute argued the ruling overstepped congressional intent and asked the Supreme Court to allow businesses to decide the need for confidentiality. The group was supported by other industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The Argus Leader argued that records of government spending, including taxpayer payments to food stamp retailers, were at the heart of why Congress created FOIA. It also argued that Congress had acquiesced to the 1974 ruling's standard by failing to change it during numerous reviews of FOIA since 1974.  Gannett Co., which owns the South Dakota newspaper, expressed disappointment with the ruling and warned it is likely to result in greater government secrecy and less accountability to taxpayers. The company urged Congress to restore the interpretation that stood for 40 years.  “The court’s decision effectively gives businesses relying on taxpayer dollars the ability to decide for themselves what data the public will see about how that money is spent," said Maribel Perez Wadsworth, president of the USA TODAY Network and publisher of USA TODAY. "This is a step backward for openness and a misreading of the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Act.”

Jonathan Ellis and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY


cbsnews--2019-02-14--Shutdown watch Congress to vote on funding bill

Shutdown watch: Congress to vote on funding bill

After weeks of deliberations, the bipartisan conference committee negotiating funding for the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies whose funding expires Friday night has finally finished its work. The bill contains $1.375 billion for physical barriers at the southern border and completes the six other appropriations bills to fund the roughly 25 percent of federal government that shut down for 35 days. Text of the 1,159-page bill was released late Wednesday night. The House and Senate are expected to vote on it Thursday.  Freshman Dems come out against funding bill Reps. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib said in a statement that they will vote against the bill because it gives money to ICE. "We want to be abundantly clear: this is not a rebuke of federal workers or those who depend on the services they provide, but a rejection of the hateful policies, priorities, and rhetoric of the Trump Administration," the congresswomen said. They added, "This Administration continues to threaten the dignity and humanity of our immigrant population. The Department of Homeland Security has separated thousands of children from their parents, denied asylum to those fleeing danger, and used taxpayers dollars as a slush fund to incite terror in immigrant communities. The efficacy of a government agency must be determined by assessing 'outcomes.' By any reasonable measure, Donald Trump's weaponization of ICE and CBP has been a failure. The Department of Homeland Security does not deserve an increase in funding, and that is why we intend to vote no on this funding package."  Still waiting on word from Trump The president has yet to guarantee lawmakers that he'll sign the legislation. The House and Senate have yet to announce when they will vote, although they're still expected to vote Thursday.  Shelby says Trump has "indicated" he'll sign bill but hasn't "said" so There is still no guarantee Mr. Trump will sign the bill. "He's indicated that but he hasn't said it," Shelby said, asked if the president will sign the bill.  House Freedom Caucus urges Trump to use executive authority to build wall Four leading members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, a group that railed against President Obama's use of executive authority to accomplish what he could not legislatively, urged Mr. Trump to use executive action to build his border wall. House Freedom Caucus Mark Meadows, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Rep. Jim Jordan wrote to the president Wednesday, saying, "If you feel the need to sign the legislation we also urge you to immediately use your authority pursuant to Title X, Sections 284 and 2808, to access funds to begin building a much-needed border wall," the letter says. "We support your use of the authority delegated to you as president by the United States Congress to use federal funds to protect the American people."  Pence says it's clear Trump doesn't like the deal Vice President Mike Pence, who is in Europe, told reporters he's spoken with the president several times on the trip, and it's clear the president isn't very happy with the deal. Mr. Trump has a variety of options at the border, Pence said. Pence would not say whether the president will sign the bill, noting Mr. Trump is carefully examining the legislation.  Grassley prays Trump will have "wisdom" to sign bill As the Senate came to order Thursday morning, Republican Chuck Grassley offered his own prayer in addition to the usual pledge to the flag and opening prayer: "Let's all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so government doesn't shut down," said Grassley.  In addition to Homeland Security, the legislation reflects conference agreements for six other appropriations bills: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies. Here's a look at what's in the bill: $1.375 billion for 55 miles of bollard fencing along the southern border and Rio Grande Valley of Texas; Funding for 40,520 ICE detention beds by the end of the fiscal year, a reduction from the current 49,060; $415 million for enhanced medical support, transportation, food and clothing for migrants who are in detention centers; $900 million for enhanced inspections at ports of entry, new technology, opioid detection and customs officers; A 1.9 percent pay raise for federal civilian workers (overriding President Trump's order to deny them a pay raise); $100 million for border security technology between the ports on U.S. southern and northern borders, such as mobile surveillance capability and innovative towers (surveillance towers that are able to differentiate between people and vehicles and whether they're carrying weapons or drugs) $564 million for non-intrusive inspection equipment at land ports of entry to scan vehicles entering the U.S. for narcotics and other contraband; $563.4 million to hire new immigration judges to reduce the backlog of cases; $527.6 million to support the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America, a program focused on addressing the causes of migration of undocumented Central Americans to the U.S.; $191 million for new infrastructure at the Calexico land port of entry; $112.6 million for aircraft and sensor systems, including $86 million for 3 additional multi-role enforcement aircraft; $14.5 million for integrated coastal interceptor vessels for patrolling U.S. maritime borders; and $76.9 million for countering opioids with detection equipment and staffing at international mail facilities. What it does NOT include: Back pay for federal contractors affected by the shutdown; An extension of the Violence Against Women Act (though it does include nearly $500 million in grant money for VAWA programs); No increase in total fencing money compared to fiscal year 2018 (the appropriation is $1.375 billion); Funding can't be used for any concrete wall or other Trump wall prototypes. Only "existing technologies" for fencing or barriers can be used CBS News' Rebecca Kaplan and Nancy Cordes contributed to this report  Trump says he has options people don't understand to build the wall President Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office alongside the Colombian president Wednesday, said he has options most people don't understand to build the wall. It's unclear just what those options the administration is considering, are. The president insisted the deal has $23 billion for border security, calling Democrats "stingy" on the issue. Mr. Trump also warned that the White House would be "looking for landmines" in the bill before signing the legislation.


cnbc--2019-04-23--Sen Kamala Harris calls on Congress to take steps toward Trump impeachment

Sen. Kamala Harris calls on Congress to take steps toward Trump impeachment

Sen. Kamala Harris late Monday said she would support Congress starting impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.  That comes on the heels of fellow Democratic presidential contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren last week calling for impeachment.  "I think we have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted, which has produced evidence that tells us that this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice," Harris said in response to a question at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire. "I believe Congress should take the steps toward impeachment."  Harris, the junior senator from California and a member of the Senate's Judiciary Committee and Select Intelligence Committee, said the report released following Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election made it clear there was "good evidence" to make a case for obstruction of justice.  "For those of us who have been following the investigation, and have seen any part of that report, it's very clear that there's a lot of good evidence pointing to obstruction and obstruction of justice," said Harris, a former prosecutor who once served as district attorney in San Francisco and later as California attorney general.  Added Harris: "I believe that we need to get rid of this president."  Similarly, Warren last week urged Congress to begin the process of impeachment action against Trump. The Massachusetts politician thus became the first 2020 presidential candidate to call for impeachment proceedings.  "To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways," Warren tweeted Friday. She also called on elected officials in both parties to "set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty."  Aside from Harris, Warren also was one of five 2020 Democratic presidential candidates participating in Monday evening's New Hampshire town hall event. Others were Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar as well as Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind.  Warren reiterated her call for impeachment in Monday's town hall, saying the impeachment process is a "tool" of accountability Congress is given. "This is not about politics. This is about principle."  Despite calling for impeachment, Harris told the town hall audience that she's "a realist" and recognizes the Democratic-controlled House probably will look at the impeachment issue differently than the Republican-led Senate.  "When I look at what has been happening over the last two years and some months that I've been in the United States Senate," Harris added, "I have also witnessed folks in the United States Congress, and in particular in the GOP, who have been presented with many reasons to push back against this president — and they have not."  Harris said an investigation by the House of Representatives "is very likely to happen" and would require a simply majority vote. Still, she noted that even if the House does vote to impeach, the next step would be up to the Senate.  "I've not seen any evidence to suggest that (Senate Republicans) will weigh on the facts instead of partisan adherence to, to being protective of this president," said Harris. "And that's what concerns me about what will become the eventual outcome. So we have to be realistic about what might be the end result, but that doesn't mean that the process should not take hold."


cnn--2019-04-23--Kamala Harris on Trump I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment

Kamala Harris on Trump: 'I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment'

Harris' comment at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire comes amid a growing debate among Democrats over whether the House should move to impeach the President in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller releasing his report on Russian intervention in the 2016 election and Trump's efforts to obstruct the investigation.  "I think we have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted which has produced evidence that tells us that this President and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice," Harris said. "I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment."  Harris added: "I believe that we need to get rid of this President. That's why I'm running to become president of the United States. That is part of the premise, obviously, of my plan."  For months, Democrats have not made impeachment a premier issue in their pitch to voters. But Mueller's report has upped the ante on the issue, causing candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro to call for impeachment proceedings against Trump.  Warren first announced her support of impeachment proceedings last week. But she said during her hour-long CNN town hall on Monday that if anyone else did what Trump did, according to the Mueller report, " they would be arrested and put in jail ." "He serves the whole thing up to the United States Congress and says in effect, if there's going to be any accountability, that accountability has to come from the Congress," Warren said of Mueller. "And the tool that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process. This is not about politics; this is about principle." Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar took a more wait-and-see approach to the issue Monday night, refusing to go as far as Warren, Castro or Harris. "Here is my concern: At the end of the day, what is most important to me is to see that Donald Trump is not re-elected President, and I intend to do everything I can to make sure that that doesn't happen," Sanders said. Klobuchar told the audience in New Hampshire that she doesn't want to "predispose things." The senator also pushed the decision on impeaching Trump to her colleagues in the House, noting that it is their decision. "The impeachment proceedings are up to the House. They're going to have to make that decision. I am in the Senate," Klobuchar said, adding that she "believe(s) very strongly that President Trump should be held accountable."


cnsnews--2019-01-29--Kamala Harris Urges Gun Control Put Members of Congress in Locked Room With Autopsy Photos of Babie

Kamala Harris Urges Gun Control: Put Members of Congress in Locked Room With Autopsy Photos of Babies

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) told a CNN town hall Monday night she has a "harsh" suggestion on how to force Congress to pass stricter gun control.  Citing the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Harris noted that "twenty 6- and 7-year-old babies were massacred," but still, Congress "failed to act."  "I think somebody should have required all those members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies. And then you vote your conscience.  "This has become a political issue. This has become a political issue, and it is -- there is no reason why we cannot have reasonable gun safety laws in this country," Harris said.      "And guess what, guys. Here's the reality of it also. We're not waiting for a good idea We have the good ideas, an assault weapons ban, background checks, right? We're not waiting for a tragedy. We have seen the worst human tragedies we can imagine. So what's missing? What's missing is people in the United States Congress to have the courage to act the right way."      Harris was responding to the pastor of a Presbyterian church in Des Moines, who asked her what she would do as president to address the problem of "gun violence."      Here is Harris's complete response, which the Democrat crowd cheered enthusiastically:


freedombunker--2019-01-30--How Congress Can Take a Step Toward Trade Stability

After protracted smashmouth negotiations, the United States, Canada, and Mexico agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) with the new United States Mexico Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) on November 30, 2018. The new USMCA is largely NAFTA with certain positive elements drawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”). Unfortunately, certain new protectionist provisions unnecessarily take the USMCA in the wrong direction.  Now, a new trade bill called the “Reciprocal Trade Act” could make trade turmoil much worse.  First, let’s consider the USMCA. Commentators have hailed the signing of the USMCA as ending uncertainty related to the NAFTA negotiations. Of course, it was the United States that unnecessarily created the uncertainty by demanding the renegotiations and threatening to pull out of the trade pact in the first place. To the extent that there was uncertainty that disrupted American businesses, it was self-induced.  The failure of the USMCA to resolve the issue of the steel tariffs, whether in the body of the agreement or by side letter, is a disappointment.  One positive from the new USMCA is the increased access to the Canadian dairy market. However, as Scott Lincicome has pointed out, the USMCA only opens up the Canadian dairy market by .34 percent more than would have been but for the withdrawal from the TPP. This is hardly a major accomplishment that is worth months of uncertainty and diplomatic ballyhoo.  The USMCA fails to remove the tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico pursuant to Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Under Section 232, Congress delegated its Article 1, Section 8 constitutional authority of regulating trade by authorizing the president to impose tariffs in cases necessitated by national security. The president’s claims that tariffs are necessary to protect the US steel industry on the grounds of national security are belied by the facts that the US Defense Department only requires about 3 percent of steel produced domestically and that US steelmakers enjoy a market share of about 74 percent of the domestic steel market.  The steel tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and other importers are harming American companies. Canada has retaliated against the US steel 25 percent tariffs by imposing its own 25 percent tariff on US steel imports into Canada.  The failure of the USMCA to resolve the issue of the steel tariffs, whether in the body of the agreement or by side letter, is a disappointment.  Now, Congress has some decisions to make.  Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI), working in concert with the White House, has authored the Reciprocal Trade Act, which would expand presidential powers to raise US tariffs.  Before the USMCA goes into effect, the United States Congress has to ratify it. The president has threatened to withdraw from NAFTA if Congress does not ratify the new USMCA. In light of the contentious government shutdown negotiations, it is less than certain that Congress will approve USMCA. Congress should ratify the new USMCA to avoid the trade turmoil that would come from not having either NAFTA or USMCA.  Still, Congress could make matters even worse.  Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI), working in concert with the White House, has authored the Reciprocal Trade Act, which would expand presidential powers to raise US tariffs. According to the Peterson Institute of International Economics: “The bill would give Trump unfettered discretion to raise US tariffs against imports from countries that impose higher duties than existing US rates.”  Congress should reject the Reciprocal Trade Act, then turn to legislation to rein in the president’s authority to impose Section 232 tariffs. The latter would require a veto-proof majority. Such a level of bipartisanship is probably too much to hope for in today’s Washington. But approving the USMCA and rejecting the RTA would be a step toward trade stability.


freedomoutpost--2019-03-09--Hawaii Senators Urge Congress To Repeal Second Amendment

I don't know where these people come from but "rights" are not repealable.  They are "unalienable," which means they can't be given up nor taken (Only cowards acquiesce to either of those).  Yet, here are cowardly tyrants in the state of Hawaii introducing resolutions that encourage Congress to violate the Constitution and the rights of the people, the very thing they took an oath before God and man to uphold.  Hawaii state senators, all of them Democrats, introduced Senate Resolution 29 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 42, both of which conclude with these lines:  BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2019, the House of Representatives concurring, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and adopt a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and Trending: List Of Major Corporations Who Oppose Your Right To Keep & Bear Arms BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right.  take our poll - story continues below  Unbelievable!  The senators of Hawaii have just declared war on the united States, its Constitution and its people and should summarily be arrested for undermining the very law they swore to uphold.  Chris Gomez at The New American writes:  This proposal to deny Americans their right to posess firearms underscores the serious dangers of amending the federal Constitution in this current age. And although neither resolution is an application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments, also known as a “convention of states” or constitutional convention (Con-Con), under Article V, they offer a preview into the type of amendments that a Hawaii delegation to such a convention would propose, should one be called by Congress. In fact, Hawaii lawmakers have already suggested a convention to propose, among one of its aims, an amendment to do just that. In 2012, liberal Democratic state legislators introduced House Concurrent Resolution 114, a radical leftist Con-Con application that sought to repeal the Second Amendment, declare ObamaCare to be constitutional, and to abolish the Electoral College. The key excerpts from Hawaii’s HCR 114 (2012) read: Whereas, the Legislature supports the proposal and ratification of the following amendments to the United States Constitution: (1) The repeal or modification of the Second Amendment to strengthen firearms restrictions; (2) A declaration of the constitutionality of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance; (3) An amendment to Article I, Section 5, to prohibit the supermajority cloture requirement under Rule 22 of the United States Senate for ending floor debates and filibusters, to facilitate a more reasonable voting standard for cloture; (4) An amendment abolishing the electoral college established under Article II, Section 1, and providing for the direct election of the United States President and Vice President by voters; and (5) An amendment to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, to require that Senate confirmations of appointments of officers of the United States be made by a simple majority vote within sixty days of the nomination.... BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Concurrent Resolution constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made application for a constitutional convention that is limited to consideration of the amendments to the United States Constitution enumerated in this Concurrent Resolution. (Emphasis added throughout.) Fortunately, HCR 114 failed to pass in 2012. However, like both SR 29 and SCR 42 of 2019, it also reveals just how far some on the Left are willing to go to eviscerate our constitutional freedoms. One should not expect liberal delegates to an Article V convention — especially coming from stronghold “blue states” such as Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington — to sit idly by as purportedly conservative Republicans make changes to the nation’s law of the land. In fact, even the so-called conservatives at Mark Meckler’s Convention of States Project/Action organization, also known as COS, may not be reliable guardians of the Second Amendment.  These aren't the only lawless tyrants who have advanced this idea.  We have had all sorts of past and present politicians who have pushed for outright gun confiscation to what they call "common sense" regulations, which are actually stupid.  And yet, she blurts out the truth in 2017, she admits that no guns laws can stop mass shootings or any gun crime for that matter.  Then there was "relic of the twentieth century," former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote that the Second Amendment should be repealed because it was a "relic of the eighteenth century."  These people have no idea why the Second Amendment was written, no idea that corrupt men and governments will continue to exist to advance tyranny and arms a means of the people keeping them in check, not to mention the defense of their persons, families, and communities.  The John Birch Society put out a video titled "Tricked Into Gun Control," which demonstrates that the idea of "clarifying the Second Amendment" is just another way of attempting to create outlaws out of law-abiding citizens and leads to gun confiscation.


inquisitr--2019-02-26--Barack Obama Not Only Had His Own Green New Deal He Got It Passed By Congress 10 Years Ago

Barack Obama Not Only Had His Own ‘Green New Deal,’ He Got It Passed By Congress 10 Years Ago

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims that 'no one else has even tried' to create climate change legislation, but President Barack Obama passed a $90 billion climate spending package in 2009.  On February 7, first-term New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the sweeping Green New Deal resolution. According to the text posted on the United States Congress site, the non-binding resolution aims “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions,” as well as numerous other broad goals, all “through a 10-year national mobilization.”  Critics immediately slammed the Green New Deal as overly vague, unworkable, and too expensive, with some estimates putting the price tag at $93 trillion, according to the business magazine Fortune. But at an event in New York City on Saturday evening, the 29-year-old Ocasio-Cortez fired back at critics of the resolution, claiming that “no one else has even tried” to create a sweeping climate change legislation package.  “I just introduced Green New Deal two weeks ago, and it’s creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried,” she said at the event, as quoted by the conservative Daily Caller site.  But in fact, the Green New Deal resolution is far from the first broad climate change package introduced in Congress. In 2009, President Barack Obama not only introduced a $90 billion climate change spending bill, but he also succeeded in passing the bill through the House and Senate — all within the first month of his presidency. Obama signed the bill, which was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — better known as the “stimulus package” — on February 17, 2009, as The Guardian recounts.  The ARRA, or “stimulus,” was intended to save the United States economy from collapse in the disastrous wake of the 2008 economic crisis and recession. But according to journalist Michael Grunwald, writing in Politico, the environmental portion of the $800 billion package “jump-started America’s gradual transition to a low-carbon economy.”  Grunwald, author of a book on the stimulus package, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era explained to the site The Grist that the climate-change portion of the bill was “ginormous.”  The bill’s programs, Obama claimed, would “double renewable power generation” during the four years of his first term alone. That goal was accomplished successfully, Grunwald said. In addition, by changing the financing structure for renewable energy companies, Obama’s bill “unlocked” the wind and solar power industries, which were “dead” before the Obama bill’s passage, Grunwald recounted.  The Obama climate bill “was also a huge deal for the smart grid, for electric vehicles,” Grunwald said, two other key components in reducing carbon emissions and slowing the process of climate change.


inquisitr--2019-04-08--Rudy Giuliani Not Worried About Mueller Report Says Congress Should See Full Document

Rudy Giuliani ‘Not Worried’ About Mueller Report, Says Congress Should See Full Document

For the past three years, top Democrats have mercilessly accused President Donald Trump of working for Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and of colluding with the Russian government to sway the 2016 election in his favor. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, appointed to investigate whether Trump officials had colluded with the Kremlin or not, found no Trump-Russia conspiracy.  Mueller has officially wrapped the investigation up, submitting his final report to Attorney General William Barr. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, in his own memo, Barr directly quoted Mueller who wrote that the investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign collaborated with official Moscow.  Nevertheless, top Democrats are doubling down on conspiracy claims, and urging Barr to release the full report as soon as possible. Leading the effort are House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. Barr will, he announced, release the report by mid-April, and gladly testify before both chambers of the United States Congress.  Not even this has silenced the Democrats, who continue to allege conspiracy, urging Barr to immediately release the report and all the underlying information pertaining to Mueller’s probe, without redacting anything. The White House is not only taking aim at the Democrats’ conspiratorial claims, but also agreeing with them that the full report should be released.  Even the president himself has said that he would be OK with the public seeing the report. “I don’t mind. I mean, frankly, I told the House, ‘If you want, let them see it,'” Trump said, according to The Washington Post.  Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani is in agreement with his most prominent client.  In an interview broadcast Sunday, Giuliani said that he is “not worried” about the Mueller report, adding that Congress should have access to “everything” in it, Newsweek reports.  Giuliani added that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who has consistently criticized William Barr, should “get all the information” and “everything” from Robert Mueller’s 400-page document.  As Newsweek notes, multiple media reports have alleged that members of Mueller’s legal team are not happy with Barr’s summary of the Mueller report. This was first reported by The New York Times, and The Washington Post confirmed the reporting, revealing that Mueller team members are concerned about Barr’s interpretation of the special counsel’s findings pertaining to obstruction of justice.


nationalreview--2019-01-31--Congress Must Prevent Any Military Intervention in Venezuela

As the Trump administration’s response to the crisis in Caracas heats up, lawmakers must prepare to assert their Constitutional power and check the president.  If the scribbled notes on national-security adviser John Bolton’s legal pad are to be believed, the Trump administration is seriously considering a sizeable deployment of American military forces to South America as it ratchets up pressure on embattled Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro to step down from power.  President Trump has already recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó, the head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, as the country’s rightful president, and is instituting sanctions against a state-run oil company in an effort to squeeze Maduro’s supporters. Meanwhile, influential voices in Washington who have been advocating regime change in Venezuela for decades are finding allies and sympathizers in Trump’s inner circle.  The United States Congress, which is given the power to declare war by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, has lately been distracted by the government shutdown and various investigations of Trump. But if the administration attempts to intervene militarily in the Venezuela crisis, lawmakers must immediately assert their constitutional authority and prevent such an intervention.  The situation in Venezuela is heartbreaking and frustrating, as the poisoned fruits of socialist despotism are now being reaped. It is common for those in the Washington foreign-policy establishment to respond to the destabilization of an unfriendly dictator or threats of civil war in a foreign country by calling for U.S. action, imagining a benevolent American intervention to bring about the liberation of the downtrodden or the end of a humanitarian crisis. But the results of recent interventions in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have proven less than ideal for Americans and those countries, and there is little reason to be more optimistic about a military adventure in Venezuela.  As Benjamin Denison has pointed out in the Washington Post, regime-change efforts in Latin America have a poor track record of success, and academic research shows that any military intervention in Venezuela would likely result in a costly long-term occupation for the United States. What’s more, as tragic as the failed policies of the Chavez and Maduro regimes have been for the people of Venezuela, the country poses no serious economic or national-security threat to the U.S.  The benefits of empowering Congress to decide when the United States goes to war were spelled out by the drafters of our Constitution at the Founding. The Founders were rightly concerned about the potential for abuse of the war-making power if it was vested in the commander-in-chief.  In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton compared the powers of the president with those of the British monarch in order to relieve concerns about an all-powerful executive. “It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy,” he wrote, “while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”  During the Constitutional Convention, Virginia’s George Mason put it more bluntly, declaring that he was “against giving the power of war to the executive” because the president “is not to be trusted with it.” Elbridge Gerry, who went on to serve as vice president, said he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war.”  Congress has a responsibility to our republic to assert and defend its constitutional powers over war-making, and it should prepare to do so as the Trump administration’s response to the Venezuelan crisis grows more and more aggressive.


nationalreview--2019-05-02--James Buckley Urges Congress to Stay out of State Affairs

An omnipresent, micromanaging federal government will necessarily be presidential government, with the chief executive’s discretion unbound.  At 96, James Buckley still is, like good cheddar, sharp and savory. Buckley, whose life has been no less accomplished than his brother Bill’s, recently said at a National Review gathering that his speech there would be his last public appearance. Let us hope not.  He adorned all the government’s branches — senator; undersecretary of state for international security affairs; judge on the nation’s second-most important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Shortly after his 1970 election to the Senate (as a member of New York’s Conservative party; the age of miracles had not yet passed) he was handed a recent study showing that “the work of the average congressional office had doubled every five years since 1936.” He explains:  Given the fact that, in simpler times, Congress worked at a leisurely pace and was in session for only five or six months a year, its members could take the initial increases in stride simply by devoting more hours per day and more months per year to their work. Over time, however, the available hours and months had been exhausted, and the doubling could only be accommodated by squeezing deliberation out of the legislative process.  In 1934, after 145 years of congressional activity, the U.S. Code consisted of one volume of federal statutes. Buckley says when he came to Congress 36 years later, there were eleven volumes. Today, 49 more years on, there are 41 volumes — supplemented by 242 volumes of regulations having the force of law. This, says Buckley, is the result of a Congress “that largely substitutes political reflex for reflection,” and that is so averse to “messy details” that it delegates “essentially legislative authority to executive agencies.” All this stems, however, from “abandonment of the Constitution’s limits on federal authority.”  Buckley says that the mischief erupted after a 1937 Supreme Court ruling that Congress, in promoting the “general welfare,” can supply states with money to implement programs that Congress has no enumerated power to write into law. When Buckley entered the Senate, such programs distributed $24 billion. Today, he says, the sum, properly computed, is in “mid-$700 billions.” The idea of enumerated powers having been erased, so has the Tenth Amendment (“the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”).  Buckley has hitherto proposed converting all such programs into block grants to states. He now proposes a presidential tweet vowing to veto “any bill that tells the states how to run their own affairs.” He proposes, and believes “there is a chance,” that the Supreme Court might reverse its 1937 ruling on the ground that federal grants to states “have proven to be inherently coercive.” These proposals are equally sensible, and — the age of miracles has now passed — equally unlikely.  The problem, as Yuval Levin says, is Congress’s “willful underactivity.” But the growing problem that will continue to exacerbate this problem is this: Having marginalized itself, with judicial encouragement, Congress now attracts members who either disdain it or think members of the president’s party exist to tug their forelock when the president issues orders.  Senator Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), who has been campaigning to escape from the Senate into the White House since arriving there 28 months ago, considers the legislative branch a constitutional superfluity: “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their [sic] act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun-safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.” The 100 days are granted by the grace of Queen Kamala I. In January, Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) explained why Republicans would not consider a bill funding the government without money for a border wall: “The president won’t sign it. Why would we work on it?” Perhaps because there is value in Congress expressing its independent view of the public good?  An omnipresent, micromanaging federal government will necessarily be presidential government, with the chief executive’s discretion unbound, and unsupervised by a Congress that manages to be both harried and lethargic. Many progressives have long understood this — and have approved of it because they thought Woodrow Wilson and the two Roosevelts would be the sort of presidents who would benefit from it. But because of the 45th president, progressives are having second thoughts. They should consider Buckley’s thoughts.


naturalnews--2019-02-12--Its time for radical Israel-hating Leftist Ilhan Omar to resign from Congress for racist attacks o

It's time for radical, Israel-hating Leftist Ilhan Omar to resign from Congress for racist attacks on Jewish people

(Natural News) The more skeptical among us had bad vibes when voters in Michigan and Minnesota elected, respectively, Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim woman of Palestinian descent, and Ilhan Omar, a Muslim woman of Somalian descent, to Congress.  Why? Given Democratic outrage over some of POTUS Donald Trump’s first official acts in office — signing executive orders banning people from certain countries known to harbor active terrorist factions and known to be “majority Muslim” — we were certain that these two ladies would arrive in Washington with chips on their shoulders.  And boy, did they. On the day that the new Congress was sworn in last month, at a post-session party Tlaib was wild with joy and loose of tongue, proudly telling gathered guests and supporters that Democrats “are going to impeach the motherf**ker,” in reference to POTUS.  Here’s hoping she doesn’t kiss her son with that mouth. Beyond that, following reports Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has come up short in finding “Trump-Russia collusion” and likely won’t even issue a public statement or report, good luck with finding support for impeachment, Rep. Tlaib. (Related: BOOM: Mueller will NOT issue final report in POTUS Trump probe, says former Prez lawyer.)  The Michigan mouth isn’t the only anti-Trump Muslim congresswoman with a penchant for dissing the president as well as America’s allies. Omar arrived in D.C. with her own intolerance and hate — for the president and Jews.  Shortly after taking office previous tweets Omar sent out that were not just critical of Israel but extremely unnerving surfaced, laying the groundwork for what was to come.  As The National Sentinel reported, Omar drew the ire even of Democratic leaders after she insinuated in tweets that other members of Congress supported Israel because Jewish lobbying organizations donated to their campaigns.  “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she wrote in response to a tweet from liberal reporter Glenn Greenwald, who was complaining about Republican angst over criticism of the Jewish state by both Omar and Tlaib.  “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive,” said Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn and other party leaders in a statement, Politico reported. “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”  Omar eventually apologized for her bigoted tweet, but it was panned by POTUS Donald Trump who called it “lame,” adding that she ought to consider resigning from Congress.  “One other thing I might want to say is that anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress, and Congressman Omar is terrible [for] what she said,” the president said. “And I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  What she said is so deep-seated in her heart that her lame apology – and that’s what it was, it was lame and she didn’t mean a word of it – was just not appropriate.”  Even a major newspaper from her home state was critical of what she said this week — and what she’s said in the past — about our best ally in the Middle East (and the region’s only true bastion of freedom).  The editorial board of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the state’s largest daily paper, wrote, “Getting attention does not equal effective leadership. That is a reality that U.S. House Rep. Ilhan Omar urgently needs to grasp as she settles into her new role representing Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District.”  The paper went on to call her apology “grudging.”  We call it hypocritical. For a Muslim immigrant who is among the first to cry “bigotry!” when she feels slighted over her faith to then target Jews over their faith is monumental speciousness.  At a minimum, she should be stripped of her committee assignments like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) after he uttered what many believed to be pro-White nationalism comments.  Read more about why Democrats like Omar and Tlaib are a great reason to VoteRepublican.news.


renegadetribune--2019-08-07--Feeding the Israel Lobby Congress Gives the Jewish State Whatever It Wants

Feeding the Israel Lobby: Congress Gives the Jewish State Whatever It Wants

If you have been wondering when the twenty Democratic aspirants for the presidency will begin a serious discussion of American foreign policy in the Middle East, where Washington has been bogged down in both current and impending wars, you are not alone. With the honorable exception of Tulsi Gabbard, no one seems keen to touch that particular live wire.  Part of the problem is the journalists who are asking the questions in the debates. To be sure, the publication of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt back in 2007 opened the door to a frank discussion of why the United States is involved in unresolvable conflicts on behalf of a tiny client state. But unfortunately, while it is now possible to find in the mainstream media some honest analysis of Israel’s ability to corrupt policy formulation in Washington, in general the Jewish state continues to get a pass from both the press and politicians on all issues that matter.  And then there is the problem of Congress itself, which is precisely the institution that has been most corrupted by Israel and Jewish money. Almost thirty years ago, American politician Pat Buchanan described Congress as “Israeli occupied territory.” As a result, he was viciously attacked by the mainstream media and the political leadership of both parties, demonstrating beyond all doubt that he was correct in his observation. Today the Israel Lobby in the United States is far more powerful than it was in 1990, so much so that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually boasts to his voters that he directs U.S. policy.  The hypocrisy inherent in the Israel-philia of America’s political leadership is such that it sometimes produces comic results. The whiney head of the House Intelligence Committee Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, was beside himself prior to the Robert Mueller testimony before Congress on July 24th, denouncing Russia and President Donald Trump, saying that the president’s actions amounted to “Disloyalty to country… Those are strong words… But disloyalty to country violates the very obligation of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle on which our nation was founded, that we, the people, not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide, who shall govern, us.”  Strong words indeed, but Adam Schiff knows perfectly well that Moscow’s alleged involvement in the 2016 election, which was relatively insignificant, had no measurable impact on the result. And both he and Mueller have been coy about presenting any real evidence that Russia is gearing up to do major damage in 2020, which is what they claim to be the case. By way of contrast, everyone in Washington knows very clearly but will never admit that Israel has seriously corrupted the United States government and its elected officials at all levels. But Schiff did not mention Israel, nor did he express concern that Israel’s clearly unsavory involvement with Trump transition team members General Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner was never thoroughly investigated or included in the final Mueller report. One might assume that a deliberate decision was made by some parties in power to avoid embarrassing Israel. Those parties almost certainly included Schiff.  Schiff, who is Jewish, frequently tells audiences about his love for Israel, sometimes complaining that it is treated unfairly. It might be suggested that if anyone in the government is partial to a foreign power it is Schiff, and that foreign power is Israel, not Russia.  Unfortunately, Schiff is far from unique. Perhaps he and a number of other Congressmen should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as required by law. Congressmen are not exempt when they work to benefit a foreign nation, though they frequently believe themselves to be not subject to the very laws that they pass. In May a letter was sent to the White House with the signatures of 400 congressmen, purely to express America’s legislature’s solidarity with Israel and to give it a green light to do whatever it wishes vis-à-vis its neighbors. The letter cites some questionable American interests relating to Syria, but it also mentions Israel no less than 13 times.  If that does not convince one that Congress has always been and continues to be Israeli occupied territory, check out some bills that have been working their way through the legislature. The House voted overwhelmingly on July 23rd to formally oppose the Palestinian-backed nonviolent movement to boycott Israel. The measure, H.Res.246 opposes “efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement [BDS] targeting Israel.” The bill had 349 co-sponsors and passed by a 398–17 vote. Sixteen Democrats and only one Republican opposed the bill. The bill is not a law but is rather intended to express the will of congress, which is perhaps the only good thing to say about it.  Other bills have not yet been voted on, presumably because friends of the Jewish state are looking for more goodies to add in. The pending legislative action includes the aid to Israel bill H.R.1837 the “United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act”, which has 279 cosponsors. When the bill is approved, which it will be, it will increase the amount of aid given to Israel over ten years to $38 billion, though this is now regarded as a minimum figure which will be supplemented to meet the Jewish state’s expressed needs. And the aid is now unconditional, meaning that Israel will receive the money no matter how it behaves, while the Jewish state will also be able to use the U.S. taxpayer-provided money to buy weapons from its own arms industry, cutting American defense contractors out of the loop and costing jobs in the United States.  Another bill to benefit Israel is also pending: H.R. 1850, the “Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019,” a law that would authorize and encourage financially sanctioning any foreign organization or individual that provides “support” to any group, organization or individual considered to be part of the Palestinian resistance. Interestingly, the bill does not even pretend to be based on U.S. national security: it is all about and for Israel. It could mean that foreign supporters of BDS, which is now considered a hostile entity by “the will of” Congress, could be subject to sanctions even though they are non-violent and threaten no one.  One final bit of bipartisan legislation best described as a pander to both Israel and the Jewish community is a bill that has appeared recently in the Senate that will prioritize and pay for health care and nutrition services for those who claim to be holocaust survivors. The bill is entitled the “Trauma-Informed Modernization of Eldercare for Holocaust Survivors Act” or “TIME for Holocaust Survivors Act.” It is intended to “increase the chances that survivors could age in their own homes” and also “to ensure that Holocaust survivors have care and services tailored to their needs.”  Sponsor Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who is, of course, Jewish, elaborated: “Holocaust survivors came to the United States seeking refuge from unimaginable horrors. They have lived their lives here and enriched our nation. With an average age of 85, we have an obligation to provide Holocaust survivors the community support and special services they need to live out their final days,”  WE have an obligation? How about you and your co-religionists Ben as you seem to have a lot of money to spend on lobbying for Israel and corrupting our government? Special services? Why do they need help? Because, the bill states, “institutionalized settings, with confined spaces or restrictions on food, can induce panic, anxiety, and re-traumatization due to their holocaust experiences.”  What about other elderly American who have problems with “institutionalized settings” or “confined spaces” or “restrictions on food?” How the Senate will justify special benefits for a small group of self-described victims drawn from the wealthiest demographic in the U.S. remains to be seen. If there is anyone who actually needs help, it is the U.S. taxpayer, who has to bear the burden of this utter nonsense, which sets up Jews as a special privileged group within our social services network. So-called holocaust survivors are identified in the bill’s “Findings” as “(2) More than 200,000 Jews fleeing from Nazi-occupied territory found refuge in the United States from 1933 through 1945, and approximately 137,000 additional Jewish refugees settled in the United States from 1945 through 1952. (3) Hundreds of thousands of additional Jewish refugees continued to immigrate to the United States from Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union during the subsequent decades. (4) The number of Holocaust survivors living in the United States at the end of 2018 was approximately 80,000 individuals, down from an estimated 13 127,000 in 2010.”  Thus, Holocaust survivors who will benefit from the bill are inevitably and by intention only Jews – no Christians who went through 1933-1945 in Europe need apply. That one highly privileged group should deserve special benefits from government that other retirees cannot have is a disgrace. So, is the United States Congress Israeli and also, by extension, Jewish occupied territory? I think the question answers itself.  This article was originally published on UNZ Review.  Renegade Editor’s Note: It would be great if Mr. Giraldi would read my report on Tulsi Gabbard.


rferl--2019-12-21--Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's Energy Grip On Europe

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Congress has approved legislation to bolster its security and energy cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean, where newly discovered, major natural-gas fields have the ability to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.  The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of U.S. legislation passed this year that aims to diversify Europe’s energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled companies.  “This legislation marks the dawn of a new day for the United States’ engagement in the Eastern Mediterranean. By including this legislation in the government funding package, the United States Congress has prioritized our significant national security interests in the region,” Senator Bob Menendez (Democrat-New Jersey), who is the leading minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement on December 20.     Congress also passed legislation on December 20 that sets up a $1 billion fund to finance energy infrastructure projects that promote energy independence in Eastern and Central Europe. Earlier in the week, Congress approved legislation to halt construction of Russia’s new natural-gas pipeline to Germany.  The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act authorizes the United States to give new security assistance to Cyprus and Greece and lifts the U.S. arms embargo on Cyprus. It also authorizes the establishment of an Energy Center to enhance cooperation between the United States, Israel, Greece, and Cyprus.  Major gas fields have been found off of Israel, Egypt, and Cyprus over the past few years with more expected, potentially making the Eastern Mediterranean a supplier of energy to Europe via Greece. Most recently, Texas-based ExxonMobil in February announced a major gas find off of Cyprus.  However, regional security is a major issue that could hamper development of the fields, thus driving U.S. interest to enhance security in the region.  Turkey’s military occupies the northern part of Cyprus and Ankara has challenged the island’s drilling rights in its exclusive economic zone. Turkey’s Navy last year stopped European vessels seeking to drill off the waters of Cyprus.  The legislation has also expressed concern about the existence of Russian vessels in the region to support Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad. The legislation requires the U.S. secretary of state to produce a report within 90 days assessing Russia’s security, political, and energy goals in the Eastern Mediterranean.  The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act also requires the secretary of state to submit a strategy on enhancing U.S. security and energy cooperation with the countries in the region, including evaluating ways to deliver the gas to Europe.  While an undersea pipeline has been proposed, the gas could be shipped as liquefied natural gas to ports in Greece and elsewhere.


sputnik--2019-08-06--Bipartisan Bedfellows in Congress Push for Bill Curbing Trumps Iran War Powers Report

Bipartisan ‘Bedfellows’ in Congress Push for Bill Curbing Trump’s Iran War Powers – Report

A coalition of 28 congressmen, including both Republicans and Democrats, is championing an amendment to the defence authorisation bill, which would prohibit the use of funds for military action against Iran without prior approval from Congress.  In a letter to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees obtained by Foreign Policy, senators and representatives expressed their concerns that the risk of the United States entering a war with Iran without authorisation is “acute”.  “Bipartisan majorities in both chambers have spoken up to defend Congress’ constitutional authority over matters of war and peace,” the lawmakers wrote.  “We have no illusions about the potential threats that Iran may pose, or its destabilising activities in the Middle East. These bipartisan amendments do not interfere with the United States Armed Forces’ ability to defend themselves,” they added, addressing concerns that the amendment could affect the military’s ability to quickly respond to potential security threats. “But under our constitution, any war requires congressional authorisation.”  The push for curtailing Trump’s war powers reportedly saw Republican supporters of Donald Trump, such as Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, join forces with his Democratic critics, including New Mexico Senator Tom Udall and California Rep. Ro Khanna.  “This is the most urgent national defence issue we are discussing in Congress, and it’s this rare issue where you have real bipartisan agreement and also very strange bedfellows from the farther right and farther left,” an unnamed congressional aide was quoted as saying.  On 12 July, the House passed a similar amendment to the fiscal 2020 National Defence Authorisation Act that would prohibit the Trump administration from funding military action against Iran without authorisation. It was passed in a 251-170 vote that drew 27 Republicans, and has yet to be approved by senators.  Rep. Ro Khanna, who co-sponsored the bill, called it "the most important foreign policy vote in the United States Congress".  Another similar measure languished in the Republican-controlled Senate; the final vote tally was 50 in favour to 40 against the amendment, which stopped short of meeting the 60-vote threshold.  The House and Senate have published their versions of the defence policy bill, supporting $733 billion and $750 billion for military programmes, respectively.  The House bill, adopted by a Democratic majority through a strict party-line vote, would block the Trump administration from using military funds for a border wall, ban emergency arms sales to Saudi Arabia, end US military support to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, prohibit military parades for political purposes, and prevent the transfer of new prisoners to Guantanamo Bay.  The Senate has included none of those provisions, and the two parties have yet to face difficulties reconciling their versions in the fall.  Tensions between the United States and Iran continue to run high, with Washington seeking an allied naval coalition following a series of incidents in the Gulf of Oman in recent months.  The US accused Iran of attacking foreign oil tankers in May and June – something Tehran denied.  Washington later condemned the seizure of tankers by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important waterways.  In June, Trump ordered and called off, at the last minute, an air strike against Iran after the downing of a US spy drone, which could have led to a full-scale military conflict.


thedailycaller--2019-02-08--Former Democratic Rep John Dingell Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever Dies At 92

Former Democratic Rep John Dingell, Longest Serving Member Of Congress Ever, Dies At 92

Former Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell died Thursday, a day after his family revealed he was in hospice care.  Dingell was the longest-serving member of Congress in history, according to The Detroit News.  “It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of John David Dingell, Jr., former Michigan Congressman … Congressman Dingell died peacefully today at his home in Dearborn, surrounded by his wife Deborah. He was a lion of the United States Congress and a loving son, father, husband, grandfather and friend,” Democratic Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell, Dingell’s wife, said in a statement. She now represents his former district.  Dingell was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2018 and wanted to share a message with his social media followers after the hospice announcement.  “The Lovely Deborah is insisting I rest and stay off here, but after long negotiations we’ve worked out a deal where she’ll keep up with Twitter for me as I dictate the messages,” Dingell wrote on Twitter Wednesday, referencing his wife. “I want to thank you all for your incredibly kind words and prayers. You’re not done with me just yet.” (RELATED: The Hill Posts Article About Retired Congressman Who Attacked Trump, Gets Party Wrong)  The former congressman had stepped down from office in 2014 after serving since 1955. He first came to represent Michigan’s 12th Congressional District after winning a special election following the death of his father, Rep. John D. Dingell Sr, according to Ballotpedia.  He helped draft many of the nation’s important environmental and energy laws, reported The Detroit News. He was also a big supporter of the Affordable Care Act.  “Let me just say this: You ain’t seen nothing yet. My dad was one of the authors of Social Security, [and] worked a long time to get it through. We finally, under your leadership, Madame Leader [Nancy Pelosi], we got the Affordable Care Act,” Dingell said in March 2013.  Politico health care reporter Dan Diamond predicted his influence would outlast him through the progressive left’s push for Medicare for all.  “Dingell was one of the key architects — for nearly 60 years in the House! — in the movement that’s become Medicare-for-All,” Diamond wrote Wednesday after news broke that Dingell had entered hospice care.  Dingell was not a fan of President Donald Trump, having called on him to resign in August 2017.  Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thehill--2019-02-13--Congress poised to put Trump in veto bind

President Trump Donald John TrumpSchultz won't say if he will sell all Starbucks shares if he becomes president Sarah Sanders cites El Chapo in push for border security Pence rips Omar's 'inadequate' apology for tweets criticized as anti-Semitic MORE has not issued a veto since taking office more than two years ago, but that may soon change.  The House will move a step closer to a major confrontation with Trump by voting as soon as Wednesday on a resolution that would cut off U.S. military support to the Saudi-led coalition in neighboring Yemen.  The measure is expected to easily pass the chamber controlled by Democrats. After that, it will move to the GOP-led Senate, where is it also expected to have enough votes.  Once the resolution reaches his desk, Trump will be faced with the decision of whether to follow through on a White House-issued veto threat for a resolution his administration characterized as “flawed.”  “I also am hopeful the president may sign it. I know it’s uphill still,” Rep. Ro Khanna Rohit (Ro) KhannaThe Hill's 12:30 Report — Presented by Kidney Care Partners — Negotiators look to revive stalled border talks This week: Border deal remains elusive as shutdown looms Dem tells Venezuela’s Guaidó: ‘You don't get to authorize US military interventions’ MORE (D-Calif.), the lead House sponsor, told The Hill in a phone interview. “You can’t be for withdrawal in Afghanistan and withdrawal in Syria and then say we need to escalate the war in Yemen. It just doesn’t make sense.”  Khanna downplayed the potential of confronting Trump with his first veto, saying, “I don’t want to politicize the issue.”  “The issue is not to score points against the administration or make this a Democratic or Republican issue,” he added. “The issue is: What can the United States do to avert a famine that could affect 14 million people?”  The resolution would direct the president to withdraw U.S. military forces in or “affecting” Yemen within 30 days unless they are fighting al Qaeda or associated forces.  The United States has been providing logistics, intelligence sharing and arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition fighting Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Previously, the U.S. military also provided aerial refueling to coalition jets, but the administration suspended that support in November.  The war powers resolution is coming to the House floor at a time when congressional fury over Saudi Arabia — and the administration’s continued support for the kingdom — is reaching a boiling point, much like it did in 2018.  Lawmakers’ anger reached a fever pitch last year after the slaying of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.  During the height of the ire, the Senate passed a Yemen war powers resolution similar to the one now being considered in the House, with seven Republicans siding with Democrats. The measure did not advance in the House, which was controlled by the GOP at the time.  Bipartisan anger started bubbling up again after Trump declined to adhere to a congressionally mandated deadline Friday to report on whether Saudi leadership, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is responsible for Khashoggi’s killing and should be sanctioned.  On the day of the deadline, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry warned on Twitter that “our leadership is a red line.”  “We warn against any attempt to link Khashoggi’s crime to our leadership,” the ministry added.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Michael (Mike) Richard PompeoThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by the American Academy of HIV Medicine - All eyes on Trump after lawmakers reach spending deal Trump tweets in Persian to send message to Iran on revolution's anniversary Mike Pompeo must strengthen diplomacy with Central Europe MORE this week responded to congressional critics who said the lack of adherence to the deadline shows the administration is helping cover up a crime, with Pompeo saying that’s “flat-out wrong.”  “America has taken more action in response to the tragic murder of Jamal Khashoggi and will continue to take more action, continue our investigation,” he told reporters traveling with him in Budapest. “We are working diligently on that. The president has been very clear, couldn’t have been more clear, as we get additional information we’ll continue to hold all of those responsible accountable.”  But Congress is fuming about being ignored and will have its first chance to voice its displeasure with the House vote.  “The slaughter and the starvation and the water and all the things that are going on in Yemen that are atrocious, coupled with Khashoggi and his murder, bring all of this to the fore,” Rep. Ed Perlmutter Edwin (Ed) George PerlmutterCongress poised to put Trump in veto bind Oregon Dem top recipient of 2018 marijuana industry money, study finds Trump snubs highlight Pelosi’s grip on Dems MORE (D-Colo.) said at a House Rules Committee hearing on the Yemen resolution. “It’s hard to feel any affection or some obligation to a regime that does that kind of stuff.”  The White House on Monday issued a statement saying Trump’s “senior advisors would recommend he veto the joint resolution” if it reaches his desk.  The statement of administration policy argued the resolution has an “erroneous premise” because U.S. forces are not directly engaged in combat.  “Because the president has directed United States forces to support the Saudi-led coalition under his constitutional powers, the joint resolution would raise serious constitutional concerns to the extent it seeks to override the president’s determination as Commander in Chief,” the White House said.  The administration further argued that the measure would “harm bilateral relationships” by defining hostilities as including “defense cooperation” such as aerial refueling.  “Our continued cooperation with regional partner nations allows the United States to support diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict, promote humanitarian access, mitigate civilian casualties, enhance efforts to recover United States hostages in Yemen and defeat terrorists who seek to harm the United States,” the White House added.  It’s an argument that has found sympathy from House Republicans, who have shown no sign of supporting the war powers resolution even as they express frustration at Trump’s response to the Khashoggi killing.  Rep. Michael McCaul Michael Thomas McCaulCongress poised to put Trump in veto bind Congress must stand with the people of Venezuela Overnight Defense: Trump announces Korea summit, defends Syria withdrawal in State of the Union | Pentagon official sides with Mattis on Syria withdrawal | 250 troops relocating at border ahead of migrant caravan | House panel advances Yemen resolution MORE (R-Texas), ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has said he was “deeply troubled” by the administration ignoring the sanctions deadline but later caracterized the resolution as a misuse of the War Powers Act.  “U.S. Armed Forces are not engaged in hostilities against Houthi forces in Yemen,” he said. “This resolution stretches the definition of hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries.”  McCaul said he and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel Eliot Lance EngelWhy Democrats are pushing for a new nuclear policy Omar apologizes after Dem leaders blast tweets as 'anti-Semitic' Ted Cruz tweets 'Bravo Nancy' after Dem leadership criticizes Omar MORE (D-N.Y.) sent a “very strongly” worded statement to the administration Sunday about the lack of a sanctions report on Khashoggi, but that “it has really nothing to do with Yemen.”  House Democrats will not need Republican support to send the resolution to the Senate and are charging forward, with supporters arguing the resolution is a long overdue chance for Congress to reassert its authority on war and force the Saudis to negotiate peace in Yemen.  “It’s great to see the House of Representatives finally taking decisive action to end the war in Yemen,” Khanna said. “It sends an incredible message. The United States Congress has never in our history passed a War Powers resolution, since 1973. Never happened.”


thehuffingtonpost--2019-12-16--Congress Agrees To Fund Gun Violence Research Again After Decades-Long Ban

Congress decided Monday to fund federal gun violence research for the first time in more than 20 years, marking a historic moment in the country’s gun safety movement.  The $25 million in funding is found in a $1.3 trillion federal spending deal that congressional negotiators have finalized and are expected to pass later this week before Friday’s government shutdown deadline. The deal allocates $12.5 million each for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health to study gun violence in the United States and evidence-based prevention and solutions.  “Gun violence is a public health emergency. After years of obstruction from Republicans and the [National Rifle Association] … I secured a historic $25 million investment for gun violence prevention research,” House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “With this investment, the best public health researchers in the country will be put to work to identify ways to reduce injury and death due to firearms.”  I am pleased to announce that as Chairwoman of @AppropsDems, I secured a historic $25 million investment for gun violence prevention research. The best public health researchers in the country will be put to work to identify ways to reduce injury and death due to firearms. — Nita Lowey (@NitaLowey) December 16, 2019  In last year’s spending agreement, Democrats managed to clarify in future spending bills that the amendment does not actually stop agencies from studying gun violence. But the CDC said it required allocated funding from lawmakers in order to actually study the issue.  Democrats initially tried to get $50 million in funding for gun violence research, with the House approving that amount in June. Though negotiations resulted in only half that amount, Democrats and gun safety advocates still consider the funding a win.  “For far too long, the United States Congress put the political agenda of the gun lobby over our nation’s public health and safety. But today, with outraged Americans demanding solutions to gun violence and a new gun safety majority elected to the House of Representatives, change is happening,” said former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), a gun violence survivor and the co-founder of the gun violence prevention organization named after her.  For years, the NRA held gun violence research funding hostage. But now, our movement is stronger.    I’m so proud of the @giffordscourage team’s work with our public health and medical partners & allies in Congress to get this done. https://t.co/XYoK4jkZx0 — Gabrielle Giffords (@GabbyGiffords) December 16, 2019  “We celebrate this momentous step, and we will use it to power us forward as we continue our fight to save lives,” Giffords added.  The funding allocation comes just days after the seventh anniversary of the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which killed 20 children and six adults. Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass gun control legislation as the country continued to experience mass shooting after mass shooting, but Republicans have blocked all efforts to enact gun safety measures.  “While we wish the Senate had agreed to fully fund gun violence research, we are grateful to our House allies … for continuing to fight for it,” tweeted Shannon Watts, a mother of five who founded the gun safety advocacy organization Moms Demand Action in response to the Sandy Hook massacre.  Many other lawmakers, activists and organizations spoke out on Twitter in response to the new gun violence research funding:  BREAKING NEWS: Gun violence prevention research funding I requested for the @CDCgov and @NIH has been APPROVED in end-of-year budget talks.    This is the first funding like this in 20 years, and it will help keep our families whole.    Read more⬇https://t.co/yxqD6ZhuQl — Rep. Lucy McBath (@RepLucyMcBath) December 16, 2019  It’s not often that you can feel a seismic political shift at the very moment it’s happening.     2019 started with bipartisan House passage of background checks, ends with landmark $25m investment in gun violence research.     Our movement is winning.     And this is just the start. — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 16, 2019  BREAKING: for the first time in more than 20 years, Congress has appropriated money for gun violence research.     Federal agencies (CDC & NIH) will receive $25M to study gun violence in a government spending deal reached by House & Senate.    THIS.   IS.  A.  HUGE.  VICTORY! — igorvolsky (@igorvolsky) December 16, 2019  Huge. We have worked relentlessly to get here.     An entire generation has grown up in an era where our government didn't research gun violence while hundreds of thousands of Americans died.    These issues aren't political. Keep showing up & we'll get where we need to be together. https://t.co/WYiEZ8WPXN — ChristianHeyne (@TChristianHeyne) December 16, 2019