ACLU: Sam Walker- ‘Conscientious Objectors’

ACLU Conscientious Objectors - Google Search

Source:ACLU– The ACLU, standing up for free speech during World War I

Source:The New Democrat 

“The ACLU was born out of World War I and the repression that resulted when the U.S. joined the fight.”

“On the night of April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made the trip from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the U.S. Capitol for a special session of Congress that he convened. In one of the most consequential speeches in U.S. history, President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war that would take the country into the Great War’s killing fields in Europe. During his address that night, President Wilson called Americans to arms with the memorable pledge that “the world must be made safe for democracy.”

Read more from Sam Walker at the ACLU Blog

“The ACLU began by defending conscientious objectors during World War I and went on to oppose Japanese internment, to defend the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s and to represent abortion rights activists. NYU Professor Norman Dorsen, who headed up the ACLU for many years, is featured in this piece.”

In a liberal democracy like America, it’s not enough to have a U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantee all of our individual rights like free speech, right to privacy, property rights, and other rights, you need private organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union there to defend Americans individual rights, simply because you have politicians and other government officials who don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights and are more than willing to impose their religious and cultural values on others and do with through government force. You also need judges and courts who believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as well, otherwise organizations like the ACLU and others won’t be that powerful.

From Evelyn Beatrice Hall

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

That’s what the ACLU is about which is the right for all Americans from people who are as Far-Left as Communists who hate our liberal democracy and U.S. Constitution, to people as Far-Right and racial and ethnic Nationalists who believe that our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to European-Americans who are English and Protestant, or other Northern European Protestants.

Anyone can defend popular speech in America, because who could possibly offend by doing that? Unpopular nerds or radicals who simply don’t fit in with the popular political or social class? It’s the people who go out on a limb and take a stand even if that stand is radical and even hateful that need the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, a functioning court system, and private individual liberty groups like the ACLU who need individual rights to be protected just as much, if not more than the popular political and social classes in America.

Posted in Free Speech | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Onion: Paul Ryan- ‘Lauded For Inspiring Millions Of Young Gutless Fucking Cowards To Take On Leadership Roles’

Paul Ryan Lauded For Inspiring Millions Of Young Gutless Fucking Cowards To Take On Leadership Roles - Google Search

Source:The Onion– Speaker Paul Ryan: the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin

Source:The New Democrat 

“WASHINGTON—Noting the former congressman’s deep, unwavering commitment to shying away from every one of his civic responsibilities, the Heritage Foundation lauded Paul Ryan Thursday for inspiring millions of young gutless fucking cowards to take on leadership roles.

“Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for showing countless milquetoast little weaklings across the United States that if they want a place in politics, they can have it,” said Heritage Foundation spokesperson Katherine Primm, adding that she was grateful so many young candy-ass pushovers had the chance to see someone just like them not just get elected but also become speaker of the House.

“Before Paul Ryan, you’d never see a spineless coward taking charge, but now, faint-of-heart boys and girls will finally have the determination to become leaders and then cower in front of more powerful people and bend to their will.”

From The Onion

President Donald Trump_ ‘Paul Ryan Was Not A Talent, He Wasn’t A Leader’

Source:MSNBC: ‘President Donald Trump: ‘Paul Ryan Was Not A Talent, He Wasn’t A Leader’– President Donald Trump: finally speaking the truth about someone

“Before, it was just the brave who led—but thankfully, that era is behind us forever.”At press time, thousands of newly inspired chickenshit Americans had reportedly begun fundraising for congressional runs in 2020.”

“President Donald Trump goes on the offensive against former House Speaker Paul Ryan at a White House departure.

Paul Ryan is sort of a tough one for me, because he really does represent what’s left of Jack Kemp Center-Right-Wing of the Republican Party: Conservatives who believe in economic freedom for everyone including for poor people and using public policy to help low-income Americans become financially independent.

But if you just look at the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin as a leader, it won’t take you very long, because there’s not much there. I mean if you had a leadership scale for political leaders with people like President Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin L. King being at the top, you wouldn’t see Paul Ryan from there. He wouldn’t even qualify as a political midget, he would be more like an ant who avoids getting stepped on by people like President Donald Trump, Representative Steve King, and the rest of the Far-Right political heavyweights in the Republican Party.

Even as former Speaker Paul Ryan and now corporate board member Paul Ryan, he struggles to take on a President that in his gut, ( assuming he has a gut: he’s so politically weak, it’s hard to tell ) he knows is not just wrong, but irresponsible and even immoral. But even with criticism about President Trump saying that he knows nothing about government, he must have had some suspicion about that going in. And also that statement would’ve been stronger and had he said that as Speaker and not as a private citizen who know longer has anything left to lose in politics, because he’s already lost everything.

You knew going to 2017 that Republicans were in for a rough year, even with a Republican President, Republican Congress, ( House and Senate ) because you had an unqualified and immoral President and a unqualified Speaker of the House in Paul Ryan, who was well-suited to a committee chairman, but had no business leading a party in the House that was dominated by the Far-Right, who he never felt comfortable with and was never part of. I don’t feel sorry for Speaker Ryan, because he didn’t have to run for reelection as Speaker, but just giving you a little background about why this relationship and leadership setup wasn’t even built to work, let alone last.

Posted in The Onion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Seidel: ‘Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American’

Michael Shermer with Andrew Seidel — Why Christian Nationalism is Un-Ame

Source:Skeptic Magazine– Michael Shermer: interviewing author Andrew Seidel

Source:The New Democrat 

“In this important new book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, constitutional attorney and scholar at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), Andrew L. Seidel, begins by explaining what apparently religious language is doing in the Declaration of Independence. Does this prove that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Are the Ten Commandments the basis for American law? What, exactly, was the role of religion in America’s founding? Christian nationalists assert that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and advocate an agenda based on this popular historical claim. But is this belief true? The Founding Myth answers the question once and for all. Seidel builds his case point by point, comparing the Ten Commandments to the Constitution and contrasting biblical doctrine with America’s founding philosophy, showing that the Bible contradicts the Declaration of Independence’s central tenets. Thoroughly researched, this persuasively argued and fascinating book proves that America was not built on the Bible and that Christian nationalism is, in fact, un-American.

Seidel and Shermer also discuss:

• the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and he explains how this could happen in the next 3–5 years
• new laws being passed in many southern states enacting the teaching of Christianity and the bible in public schools
• the thousands of letters that the FFRF receives every year from both secularists and members of minority religions who feel and believe that their rights are being threatened and even violated by Christian nationalists
• the “religious exemption” for vaccinations and why it’s nonsense
• why Christianity was not responsible for the abolition of slavery
• how the South justified slavery in the Civil War
• how Christian nationalists cherry pick biblical passages to fit current secular moral trends
• the historical treatment of women in Christianity
• the historical treatment of homosexuals in Christianity, and
• why moral progress must come from the bottom up from cultural change as well as top down from changing laws.

This dialogue was recorded on June 19, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California.”

Michael Shermer with Andrew Seidel — Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American (SCIENCE SALON # 73) - Google Search

Source:Skeptic Magazine– Author Andrew Seidel 

Source:Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Siedel: ‘Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American’

If you want me to answer the question that is the title of this piece, I’ll answer it for you anyway: Christian-Nationalism is Un-American, because it’s Un-Liberal-Democratic, if not Un-Democratic all together. And I’m not talking about the Democratic Party, but the philosophy of liberal democracy and pluralism. Liberal values that the United States was founded on that all Americans are Americans and therefor have the right to be Americans ( which is as themselves ) and don’t have to live the lives and live the way that Christian-Nationalists ( Christian-Fundamentalists ) believe they should be and should live. So Christian-Nationalism, is Un-Liberal Democratic, Un-Democratic, and anti-pluralist and therefor Un-American.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have their own fringes: or what I would call the escaped mental patient wings of their party’s. The Democrats, have this growing Socialist wing that self-describes themselves as Democratic Socialists or Progressives, even though a lot of what they argue is actually not just illiberal, but regressive with their belief that speech and media that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that personal choices and personal freedom that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that Americans should be forced to subsidize choices that they approve of, like abortion and other things.

The Republican Party, has a wing of escaped mental patients that is perhaps even more illiberal and regressive, who advertises themselves as Conservatives and in some cases Christian-Conservatives, even though a lot of what they support is actually anti-conservative. They value the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, debt and deficits don’t matter to them, morality and character doesn’t matter to them, just as long as the person with poor morality and character is doing what they politically approve of. ( Like Donald Trump, just to use as an example )

Just to further the argument for why Christian-Nationalism is Un-American: could you imagine is these so-called Bible thumpers ( who really sound like people who landed in New Mexico yesterday coming from the Planet Zoltar, or some place ) actually came to power and not just had the presidency, the Congress with super majorities in both the House and Senate, and had the military behind them, what the United States would then become as a result: if you think Saudi Arabia and Iran are bad places for women, gays, and minorities, put the Christian-Nationalists completely in charge of the United States.

Christian-Nationalists, would create their own national time machine where once again being gay is not just illegal, but punishable by death either through the criminal justice system, or through private citizens. Women, would become second-class citizens and essentially slaves to their men. Minorities, wouldn’t have the same rights as Caucasians, ( especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestants ) America, this great and gigantic mecca for freedom and pluralism would become a national hell hole for anyone who isn’t an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant male, especially who comes from a rural background.

I believe anyone who actually is a Christian regardless of what division they’re from should either be insulted that they get lumped into the same group as Christian-Nationalists, or be very amused by it and I’m sort of debating which emotion they should feel here. You could argue most if not everything that Christian-Nationalists support is anti-Christian, just like most if not what Islamists support is anti-Islam. But then you could also argue that a lot of what Christian-Nationalists support sounds so crazy as if they’re escaped mental patients that only see and believe in things that crazy people could see and support. So I will let actual Christians who actually believe in The Ten Commandments, morality and character make that decision for themselves.

Posted in Skeptic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Yorker: Opinion- Steven Markow: ‘Campaign Slogans For The Centrist Party’

Campaign Slogans for the Centrist Party - Google Search

Source:The New Yorker– Vote for Centrists, if you too believe in nothing

Source:The New Democrat 

“The nation is divided. Loved ones tweeting at loved ones. What the American people need now more than ever is a party that can unite the entire country in disappointment. That’s where we step in: the Centrist Party. In 2020, we want you to skip the red and the blue and vote for the grayish taupe that represents our ideologically meek coalition. We couldn’t decide on a campaign slogan—every time we voted on one, everyone abstained—so we’ll let you read the list and, if any resonate, awesome; if not, no big deal!

“For the exhausted.”

“Some ideas. Some beliefs. Some feelings.”

“Thinking exactly what you think since [day you were born].”

“Putting the awkward silences back in Thanksgiving.”

“We can be bought.”

“Like our symbol, the petrified deer, we’re proudly frozen in the middle of the road.”

“Make news boring again.”

“Proudly standing against proudly standing against anything.”

“The sanest, most reasonable waste of a vote.”

Read more of Steven Markow’s piece at The New Yorker

What does a moderate voter look like_

Source:Newsy: ‘What does a moderate voter look like?’– Is Moderate, another label for Nihilist?

“Moderate voters tend to see both parties as extreme, and they mainly want compromise.”

If you look at the current American political system and party system, about 3-10 American voters are Democrats. 3-10 American voters are Republicans. And then roughly 4-10 American voters are neither a Republican or Democrat, are either a member of the third-party or no party at all.

It’s that 40% number that the so-called mainstream media looks at and tends to label them as Centrists and Independents, just because they’re simply not Democrats or Republicans. Which gives you an idea about how strong the critical thinking is with these media organizations. Even though that 4-10 number is made up of people who are yes, Centrist-Independents, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) but also Libertarians on the Right, Socialists ( Democratic and otherwise on the Far-Left ) Communists on the Far-Left, people who are called White-Nationalists on the Far-Right, and people who are called Black-Nationalists on the Far-Left.

My point here is just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, doesn’t mean that they’re a Centrist. It just might mean that they don’t like Democrats and Republicans. ( And who can blame them, especially since we have to pay for them ) So when you’re talking about Centrists, you really need to know who you’re talking about and don’t automatically assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, that they’re Centrists.

Just like you shouldn’t assume that because it was warm and sunny today, that it will automatically be warm and sunny tomorrow. That you sort of want to know that in advance, before you decide to head to the beach and get caught in a tropical storm on the way there and wonder where did all of that rain come from. You also shouldn’t assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, that they’re automatically Centrists.

Me personally, I really don’t believe there is anymore any thing such thing as a Centrist: roughly 60-70% of the country believes in both economic and personal freedom. And according the the geniuses at the mainstream media, those people would be called Centrists, because they’re not particularly right or left and certainly not Far-Right or Far-Left. But if that were the case, Libertarians would be Centrists.

Think about this for a second: Libertarians, who believe that every single government regulation and safety net program, as well as civil rights law, that was created in the 20th Century should be eliminated, who believe that America should drop out of every foreign organization that America is a member of, who believe the Federal income tax should be repealed, and that every narcotic drug that is currently illegal, should be legalized at the Federal level, would be the New-Centrists in American politics. At least according to this mainstream media line of thinking. But anyone with a brain who also happens to use it and is also familiar with American politics, ( which would make you a member of a very small and exclusive club ) knows that can’t be true.

I don’t think we have Centrists, because if you poll on the issues and who American voters tend to vote for and against and who they poll based on what politicians propose and are against, we tend to have a pretty good idea. Americans tend to like their personal and economic freedom, their individualism, their independence from government at least, but they also tend to want a regulatory state for predators, as well as law enforcement to protect us from predators. A safety net for people who truly need it. A military strong enough to defend the country. Civil rights laws, so people aren’t denied access in America, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexuality.

And again to my point about Libertarians, if the definition of a Centrist was someone who was conservative on economic and fiscal policy, but liberal on social issues, who believed in both personal and economic freedom, Libertarians would be the Centrists in America. But who seriously believes that Libertarians are Centrists?

If you’re definition of a Centrist is someone who is right down the middle on the political spectrum and perhaps a member of the Mushy-Middle Voters of America, who only takes a stand on any issue when there’s a consensus to do so, whose motto: “I’m willing to compromise on anything, because I believe in nothing: a vote for me is a vote for nothing.” If that’s your idea of a Centrist, someone who is basically a Nihilist, then those voters might actually exist in American politics.

Just look at Millennial’s who only vote for people that they believe are cool and will support anything that person says, just as long as it’s cool and they sound cool. Just look at Beto O’Rourke’s base. ( Or what’s left of it at this point ) A man who proved at last Wednesday’s Democratic debate, that he can not answer questions in multiple languages. Actually, that also happens to be the only thing that Beto accomplished last Wednesday: he’s wishy-washy in two languages.

If you’re idea of a Centrist is someone who spilts the difference on the every key issue if not all issues all together, then I would hate to have that person planning my wedding or any other party. Because you would have food, outfits, decorations that are simply out of place.

I would also hate to have those people in charge of writing the U.S. Constitution some 240 years ago. What would our First Amendment look like if Centrists wrote it: Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees with it? We can have Freedom of Religion, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees to be a member of the same religion or no religion at all. We would have the Right to Privacy, but only on the second floor of our homes. We would have an Equal Protection Clause, but for only half of the country. The campaign symbol for a Centrist Party, would be the dear in the headlights in the middle of the road, because Centrists have a 100% dedication to neutrality and compromise. The life of the Centrist if there is such a thing, must be really hard. I mean just making decisions about what to do order at a restaurant must be painful.

Posted in American Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Yorker: Opinion- Osita Nevanevu: ‘Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Two Paths for the American Left’

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Two Paths for the American Left - Google Search

Source:The New Yorker– The battle for the Left-Wing in the Democratic Party

Source:The New Democrat 

“This past week was perhaps one of the most important weeks in one of the most important election seasons in the history of the Democratic Party. Elizabeth Warren is on the rise. Coverage of her array of policy proposals and hard campaigning has put her in second place over Bernie Sanders in at least one national poll and a few state polls. Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a major address this past Wednesday defining “democratic socialism,” a self-applied label that sets him apart from Warren, who has called herself “capitalist to my bones.” Each putatively offers a different tack for the Party’s reinvigorated progressive wing to take against the current front-runner, Joe Biden, and President Trump in the general election.

But since Sanders entered the race many commentators have expressed the view that the substantive differences between Warren and Sanders don’t extend very far. “Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running?” the writer Moira Donegan asked in the Guardian earlier this year. “The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field.”

This is mostly true, particularly on domestic policy. A Sanders Administration may well pursue many of the proposals Elizabeth Warren has put out, from a progressive wealth tax to large new investments in affordable housing. Warren has backed Sanders’s criticisms of Amazon’s labor practices, and both candidates support the Green New Deal. There is a key difference, however, on one of the race’s key issues: Warren is a co-sponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill but has yet to state whether she supports its call to eliminate private health insurance, a provision that other candidates who nominally support the Sanders plan have waffled on or rejected.”

Read the rest of Osita Nevanevu’s piece at The New Yorker

“Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.’ It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans.”

When you’re talking about Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren for President in the Democratic primaries, you’re not talking about Barry Goldwater vs. Nelson Rockefeller from 1964 in the Republican primaries: Senator Goldwater, was a hard-core, true Conservative-Libertarian Republican and literally one of the founding father’s the conservative-libertarian movement not just in the Republican Party, but in America. Governor Rockefeller, was a Right-Progressive Republican ( I know that sounds crazy ) back when right-wing Progressives were a major part of the Republican Party.

When you’re talking about Bernie vs. Liz, ( Or Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren ) you’re talking about two people who basically believe in the same things. If anything, Liz is to the Left of Bernie on wha the Far-Left calls identity politics and Bernie isn’t interested in making race, ethnicity, or gender political issues and just wants to see that people aren’t denied access in America simply because of their DNA and biological characteristics. And Bernie, is to the Left of Liz perhaps when it comes to rhetoric about American corporations and believes that private health insurers should be outlawed, where, Liz just wants Medicare to be available for everyone, but not mandated on everyone.

But Bernie and Liz, both believe that the American private enterprise system should still be intact and not nationalized by the U.S. Government: neither one of them are Marxists, but they’re both Democratic Socialists ( or Social Democrats, if you prefer ) who believe in the American private enterprise system, but that it should be highly taxed and regulated to fund a large and generous American welfare state. That worker benefits should be supplied by the Federal Government, not by private employers.

This idea that the main difference between Bernie and Liz, is that Bernie is a proud and self-described Democratic Socialist and that Liz calls herself a capitalist, doesn’t not just fly, but it doesn’t get off the ground: sort of like an airplane stuck in Phoenix, Arizona in July because it’s too hot and the plane overheats. ( Something that I’ve experienced personally ) Or a plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January, because there’s too much snow on the ground.

For one, capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system: when Senator Warren called herself a capitalist instead of a Socialist, she answered that as if she was saying that she was a capitalist and not a Marxist: that she believed in the private enterprise system and not state-ownership of the entire economy and society. But that was not the question; she was asked that because the reporter was asking about her political philosophy, not whether she believed in capitalism or not.

The only major differences other than a public option for Medicare, which is was Elizabeth Warren believes in, versus Medicare For All with no private options being available, which is what Bernie Sanders believes in and identity politics which is what Liz believes in and supports and Bernie doesn’t, is how they self-describe their politics. Bernie, is an out-of-the-closet Eugene Debs-Henry Wallace- Norman Thomas- David McReynolds- George McGovern Democratic Socialist and proud of all of that. Liz, is a stuck in the closet Democratic Socialist. ( Or Social Democrat, if you prefer )

Bernie and Liz, both support American private enterprise and American capitalism. But both believe in a highly regulated private economy, with a large welfare state to provide Americans workers with all the benefits that they need, instead of their employers. And they both believe in high taxation across the board and on private employers to fund that welfare state. This is not Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, but more like Henry Wallace vs. Norman Thomas.

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Onion: ‘Sarah H. Sanders- Tells Colleagues She’s Taking Temporary Post As Google CEO Before Transitioning Into Full-Time Role As Sultan Of Brunei’: No More Onion Stories From The White House?

Huckabee Sanders Tells Colleagues She’s Taking Temporary Post As Google CEO Before Transitioning Into Full-Time Role As Sultan Of Brunei - Google Search.png

Source:The Onion– Thank God, for only one Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Source:The New Democrat 

“Informing those in her professional life of her career plans, outgoing White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders reportedly told colleagues Friday she would be serving for a time as CEO of Google before gradually taking on a permanent position as the sultan of Brunei. “It’s been the honor of my life to work in the White House, but I’m excited to lead a $750 billion company in Silicon Valley and begin my reign as one of the world’s last absolute monarchs,” said Huckabee Sanders, explaining she had reluctantly turned down offers to direct the next Star Wars film, design the 2024 Olympic stadium, and become the first person to set foot on Mars, in addition to a lucrative position as head of neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic.”

Sarah H. Sanders: “Saudi Arabia and Monaco were both pursuing me pretty hard with head of state jobs, and Uber’s been trying to recruit me for their top post for 19 years now, but those opportunities just didn’t have the work–life balance I was looking for. Believe me, it was a tough choice. I spent hours talking it over with my husbands George Clooney, Tom Brady, and Jason Aldean.”

Sarah H. Sanders: “While I’m excited to begin my next chapter, I’ll be taking some time off for myself first. So don’t be surprised if you see me this summer relief-pitching for the Dodgers or traversing the Congo Rainforest with my best friend, Cardi B!” Huckabee Sanders went on to state that she was currently busy reviewing designs for the awards display she will build in the Bruneian palace of Istana Nurul Iman to showcase her multiple Emmys, Pulitzers, and Nobel Peace Prizes.”

From The Onion

Trump's Collusion Confusion & Sarah Huckabee's Departure

Source:Jimmy Kimmel Live: ‘President Trump’s Collusion Confusion & Sarah Huckabee’s Departure’-– Welcome to Donald Trump at The White House: the first reality show ever at The White House, that could only come from Donald J. Trump.

“As Trump gears up for his 73rd birthday, he joined George Stephanopoulos for 30 hours and revealed that he doesn’t seem to know what collusion is and unveiled his plans for a new Air Force One. He also tweeted about meeting the ‘Prince of Whales,’ and announced that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is leaving the White House. So as she gets ready to take her leave we stop to reflect on her two incredible years.”

When I first heard about Sarah Sanders leaving The White House as Press Secretary, my first reaction was that The Onion will no longer be feeding The White House Press Office with news stories. Seriously, a lot of what she and her colleagues report and talk about from The White House, it’s like reading The Onion and getting the same stories from them. Since this is a right-wing ( to be kind, Far-Right to be more accurate ) White House, maybe their stories and what they say sounds more like stories that come from The National Enquirer, since TNE is not just in bed with Donald Trump, but they’re like his loyal mistress ( unlike Stormy Daniels ) who’ll do anything for him. They sleep on The Donald to show how loyal they are to him.

The reason why Sarah Sanders hasn’t had a press conference since March ( even though she’s The White Press Secretary and this is a major part of her job ) is that she’s only human: there’s only so much garbage ( to be too generous ) that any human being even the world champion of compulsive liars ( Donald Trump, being the current world champion ) can manage, handle, and put up with each day. Whatever you think of her and I think she’s one of the most dishonest people in American politics today, ( which makes her very dishonest ) she’s only human and knows that she’s President Trump’s chief bullshitter and being that would have to take a toll on anyone, especially if you’re thinking about having a career with serious, credible, intelligent, and respectful people in the future.

I guess I’ll wish Sarah Sanders well, but only because that means we’ll just have one less bullshitter at taxpayers expense at The White House. But don’t get too excited, because she’ll be replaced as fast as one of President Trump’s political positions and we’ll get a new chief bullshitter at The White House who’ll be just as effective if not more at bullshitting the American people at taxpayers expense.

Posted in The Onion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Washington Post: Opinion- Karen Tumulty: ‘Joe Biden Learned The Hard Way There is No Middle Ground On Abortion’: Joe Biden’s Flip Flop Over The Hyde Amendment

joe biden kickoff rally - Google Search

Source:The Washington Post– Joe Biden: flip-flopping on the Hyde Amendment

Source:The New Democrat 

“There has long been a relatively safe space for a Democratic politician, particularly a Catholic one, to inhabit on the morally fraught issue of abortion.

It was the stance that then-Vice President Joe Biden took during a 2012 debate: “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. . . . I do not believe we have a right to tell other people — women — that they can’t control their body.”

At the time, that blanket declaration was enough to satisfy most Democrats. It is not anymore — as Biden learned this week, when the man who leads all the polls for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination was thrown off balance on the question of government funding for abortion.”

Read the rest of Karen Tumulty’s piece at The Washington Post

 

Biden flips on Hyde Amendment

Source:ABC News: Joe Biden- ‘Flips on Hyde Amendment’– Joe Biden; doing his Mitt Romney, over the Hyde Amendment

“2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden reversed his stance on a measure that prevents using federal funding for abortions.When former Vice President Joe Biden announced that he was running for President last month, his message and appeal was basically that he wasn’t President Donald Trump and that he was different.”

If you look at Donald Trump before Barack Obama before he became President and then after he became President, the so-called Donald was basically a mainstream Democrat. A wealthy, New York City businessman who backed Democrats for most of his career. And then a guy named Barack Obama becomes President the first African-American in American history, with the bogus ( to be kind ) and racist birther movement around him and The Donald decides that he wants to be in politics too and becomes the champion of the Far-Right with the birther movement back in 2011.

And then in 2015 The Donald decides he wants to be President after 6 years of a Progressive, African-American President running the country and gets behind the Far-Right on everything in launching his own Nationalist movement in the country and basically other than perhaps tariffs and immigration, reverses course on almost every single political position that he had before. Making Mitt Romney look like the most principled politician that this country has ever seen.

Joe Biden, is running not just as the anti-Trump, but as someone who will change the character of the presidency and get it out of Donald Trump’s morality toilet and return honor and decency to the country.

Kind of hard to make that case when on Wednesday of last week you’re saying that your support for the Hyde Amendment, ( that was proposed by Representative Henry Hyde in 1976 ) that was passed by Congress in 1976 that then Senator Joe Biden voted for and continued to support during his entire career in the Senate, was a deeply heartfelt view that American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for someone else’s abortions, ( except in the cases of life and health of the mother, or rape or incest ) and then on Thursday announce you can no longer support an amendment that denies abortion rights to low-income women, even though on Wednesday that you already knew that low-income women couldn’t get taxpayer assistance to pay for their abortions.

The Hyde Amendment to me at least is not about whether abortion should be legal in this country: I’m pro-choice on practically everything short of people hurting innocent people with what they’re doing, including abortion because I don’t believe life starts at conception, but at the last stages of the woman’s pregnancy. It’s not a question of whether abortion should be legal in America or not, but who should pay for it.

We all make our own choices and we all have our own personal freedom in this country. We also all have our own personal responsibility in this country and are held accountable for our own personal decisions. Why should abortion be any different? I’m not talking about forcing women who are raped including by their own male relatives to be forced to carry that pregnancy to its end. Or denying women abortion even though they need it to protect their health and even life. The Hyde Amendment, has all of these exceptions in it. I’m just saying that American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the abortions of others other than the exceptions that I just laid out. And until last Thursday, Joe Biden shared this exact same position and held that exact same position since 1976 when he voted for the Hyde Amendment when it was passed in that Congress.

People who oppose the Hyde Amendment from the Left, argue that Hyde Amendment denies low-income women the same reproductive rights as women with means in this country who aren’t poor and who can afford to get an abortion either from their private health insurance or out of their own pockets. And they’re completely right about that, but that’s not the issue. This shouldn’t be a newsflash for anyone: low-income women simply don’t have the same freedom as middle or high income women in this country. And low-income Americans regardless of gender, or race or ethnicity don’t have the same freedom in America as middle or high-income Americans either. But that’s not unfair, that’s just life. You want to have a lot of freedom in America, you need to have the income to finance that freedom. That’s just how America has always worked and how it should always be.

Posted in Democratic Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment