Tag Archives: Politics

Culture, equal rights, Politics

Missouri passes the strongest abortion bills in U.S.,sending a message to women in the state

Leave a comment

Missouri is sending a message to women, and it is time for women to stop being silent about the issue. Women’s rights are at stake. The government should not legislate human bodies. If they do this cease to be a free society.

Missouri’s Republican-led Senate passed a bill to outlaw abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy. This happened hour after Alabama’s governor signed an abortion ban into law. However, the Missouri bill needs to have another vote of approval in the GOP-led House which is headed by Republican Gov. Mike Parson, who voiced support for this bill.

The bill would include exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. The doctor who performs an abortion would face five to 15 years in prison for violating the eight-week cutoff. The women who receive abortions would not be put on trial.

Republican Senate handler Sen. Andrew Koenig identified this bill as “one of the strongest” abortion bills yet passed in the U.S.

The state of Missouri has the most restricting abortion access regulations in the nation. Missourians in search of an abortion are open to a 72-hour postponing period and just one abortion clinic is present in the state.
Missouri joins an undertaking of GOP-dominated state legislatures encouraged by the probability that a more conservative Supreme Court may well reverse its milestone ruling legalizing the practice. Its senators voted 60 minutes after Alabama’s governor endorsed the most severe abortion prohibition in the country, making executing an abortion a crime in approximately all cases.

Culture, History, human rights, Politics, Social Justice

Does Trumps new immigration plan sway Republicans from not addressing DACA?

Leave a comment

The White House is planning to discharge a broad outline of recommended immigration reforms targeted at unifying congressional Republicans about the concern, following weeks of conversations between senior adviser Jared Kushner and a lot of conservative teams.

However, the proposition is short of trustworthy information and omits discourse on the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that Democrats have frequently stated they desire to solve.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to reveal the master plan Thursday. The White House is advertising the blueprint as responding to border protection and shifting toward a merit-based immigration structure, which provides personal preference to highly trained and educated persons.

However, the release of the innovative concepts comes among discord inside the Trump current administration over how to deal with immigration guidelines.

The discord led to the latest departure of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who also was a part of primary interactions in the White House concerning an immigration strategy.

The White House approach to change the country’s immigration structure likewise comes up against the backdrop of the steep uptick of worries on the southern national boundaries. Additional individuals have been apprehended unlawfully crossing the US-Mexico boundary this fiscal year compared to any year since 2009, as outlined by Customs and Border Protection statistics.

Culture, genealogy, History, Politics

President John Tyler, 5th cousin 6x removed

Leave a comment

President John Tyler is my is my 5th cousin 6x removed. That ancestor who connect both of us is Robert Booth, my 10th great grandfather. John Tyler was born on March 29, 1790, and died on January 18, 1862. He was, in fact, the tenth president of the United States from 1841 to 1845 after briefly serving as the tenth vice president (1841); he was elected to the latter office on the 1840 Whig ticket with President William Henry Harrison. Tyler ascended to the presidency after Harrison’s death in April 1841, only a month after the start of the new administration. He was a stalwart supporter of states’ rights, and as president, he adopted nationalist policies only when they did not infringe on the powers of the states. His unexpected rise towards the presidency, with the resulting threat to the presidential ambitions of Henry Clay and other politicians, left him estranged from both major political parties.

This is how President John Tyler appears on my genealogical chart to the ancestor we both share:

President John Tyler IV, 10th President of the United States (1790 – 1862)
5th cousin 6x removed

Mary Marot Armistead (1761 – 1797)
Mother of President John Tyler IV, 10th President of the United States

Robert Booth Armistead
Father of Mary Marot Armistead

Ellyson Armistead Captain (1690 – 1757)
Father of Robert Booth Armistead

Moss Booth (1682 – 1750)
Mother of Ellyson Armistead Captain

Robert Booth (1644 – 1695)
Father of Moss Booth

Robert Booth (1610 – 1657)
Father of Robert Booth

Culture, equal rights, Ethics, human rights, Politics, Social Justice

America has been fighting for equal right since it became a country, do you believe that the old Equal Rights Amendment is not viable today?

Leave a comment

Equal Rights Amendment resolutions are introduced in every Congress meeting since 1923. This period of Congress is virtually no different. There seemed to be a hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment in the House currently. Many will attempt to inform an individual that ratification is just around the corner. On the other hand, the Equal Rights Amendment they may be speaking about has vanished. That has not necessarily halted the Alice Paul Institute, for example, from conversing up a unique three state technique concerning ratifying the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment.

The motion was put before the states and approved by 35 for ratification. Close to four decades Social Justice Activists persuaded Nevada And Illinois to ratify the Amendment which left the Amendment one state of being added to the Constitution, the activist would like us to believe. That is not the case.

Five reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment sent to the states in 1972 is no longer viable.

First, it left Congress with a due date of seven years concerning state ratification. The time clock happened to run out on the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment along with 35 states on board. Active supporters and workers would like people to disregard that reality. Second, Congress later approved, and President Carter authorized in 1978 an expansion to 1982. The active supporters and workers would like people to overlook that due date also. The Congressional Research Service records that this expansion indicates that a neverending ratification interval is probably not allowable.In other thoughts, the expansion that Equal Rights Amendment supporters wanted in 1978 undercuts their particular situation currently that each ratification deadlines happen to be unacceptable. Furthermore, no added states ratified the Equal Rights Amendment concerning 1979 and the end of the prolonged ratification due date in 1982.

Third, five states that in the beginning ratified the Equal Rights Amendment ended up rescinding their authorization before the initial due date involving seven years. Active supporters and workers declare the rescissions are unacceptable and really should be overlooked; however, it is certainly not easy. Article V of the Constitution provides that amendments could be recommended by way of a convention referred to us by our elected representatives “around the application of the legislatures to two-thirds of the number of states.” It has been debatable whether a particular state could make or rescind the current application.

Many groups endorse the Equal Rights Amendment signed a letter which meant they were trying to rescind Article V convention. There of these stated tried later on to rescind their applications for an Article V convention. It is a difficult decision for a state to change its minds about a convention, but not on a proposed amendment.

Fourth, Equal Rights Amendment activists prefer to explain that this 27th Amendment, the newest conjunction with the Constitution, has been suggested in 1789 but not ultimately ratified till May 1992. What are the 47 years given that Congress delivered the Equal Rights Amendment to the states, these people inquire, as compared to the 203 years involving proposal and ratification of the 27th Amendment? On this concern, on the other hand, there exists a variation with a massive difference in that the 27th Amendment had zero ratification due date.

Fifth, several courtroom judgments weaken the idea the fact that Equal Rights Amendment delivered to the states in 1972 continues to be in existence. The Supreme Court made the decision Dillon versus Gloss in 1921, two years before the very first Equal Rights Amendment was recommended. As the Congressional Research Service had summarized it, the justices presented that this ratification of the Constitutional Amendment needs to happen within a reasonable period following the Amendment is recommended. That case included the 18th Amendment which, like the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, had a ratification due date regarding seven years.

In the 1939 decision in Coleman versus Miller, the Supreme Court presented that several components assist in identifying a realistic periodto ratify an amendment for the Constitution. Most of all, though, the justices declared that Congress, not the courts, ought to decide. Congress did exactly that in 1972 and 1978, figuring out that a maximum of Ten years was initially sufficient to determine that three fourths from the states wanted the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. The truth is that they failed to.

In the 1982 decision in Idaho versus Freeman, a district court presented that the authentic Equal Rights Amendment ratification due date seemed to be constitutional. The due date expansion itself was not constitutional, and the ratifications rescissions happen to be legitimate. The Supreme Court left this judgment once the 1982 ratification due date passed and made the case moot. However, the justices failed to tackle the value of the findings from the lower court.

Most likely the active supporters and workers may have far better fortune with the quantity of Equal Rights Amendment settlements launched this season. However, it is merely fictional the Equal Rights Amendment proposed throughout the 92nd Congress is still on the affirmation trail currently. This has been inactive at least THIRTY-SEVEN years.

Behavioral Science, Culture, Ethics, History, Politics, Social Justice

Do you believe that tolerance and civility, not love, will heal our society?

2 Comments

In “Love Your Enemies,” author and American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks offers a formula for healing a country divided: “Go find someone with whom you disagree; listen reflectively, and take care of him or her with respect and love. The rest will flow naturally from there.”

We build a good society; Brooks states, the way we build a great marriage: through love.

Brooks is right that how we speak to one another concerns. The language of contempt dissolves the trust. Contempt drives out any impulse we might have toward empathy and understanding, and it replaces reasoned argument with litmus tests for ideological purity.

Moving toward greater empathy, understanding, and intellectual openness will improve the quality of our public discourse and make us healthier, happier plus better human beings.

However, the shift that Brooks is championing will not be inspired by the exalted virtue of really like. It will be the fruit of the less-exalted tempered virtues of civility and tolerance.

A defender of Brooks’ thesis might say that I am splitting hairs – that it does not matter if we use the vocabulary of love or the language of civility and tolerance. However, words make a difference.

If we uncritically accept as the appropriate standard for the good society and toss aside civility and tolerance as “garbage standards,” we set ourselves up for failure.

To begin, as an expectation for the broader society, love is too tall an order. We learned this long ago from moral philosophers like David Hume and Adam Smith, who observed that there are cognitive limits to how far we can extend our sympathy.

Genuine love requires close-in local knowledge that we cannot cultivate beyond a relatively small circle of family and friends.

The good news, though, is that love is not needed to achieve the good society. On this point, Nobel Laureate F.The. Hayek offered a significant distinction between the social norms that are essential to the small intimate purchase of known friends and family and the norms essential to the extended order of the broader community.

The right standard for the small band may very well be love. It is in this sphere that we have enough local knowledge to attend to particular needs in nuanced ways. However, as Hayek argued, if we apply this regular to society as a whole, we will destroy it.

Brooks tells us that expectations of civility and tolerance are too low of a bar; that if we want “true unity” in America, we must find our “shared whys.” However, unity is the wrong goal.

A country of self-governing citizens is not one of the shared ends; it is among shared rules: individual liberty, equality before the law, property rights and impersonal rules of contract, for example.

The cultural norms that correspond to such rules are those like civility and tolerance, norms that can be applied generally, without a great deal of close-in, local knowledge.

Expectations of civility and tolerance are usually admittedly cold and impersonal. That is why they are not sufficient standards for, say, a happy family life. However, it is their impersonal quality that makes them appropriate requirements for the broader modern society.

As cultural norms, civility and tolerance allow us to pursue our different ends without checking in with one another, without any expectation that people are aligning our beliefs and actions with some shared purpose.

Once we commit to unity – even as a direction and aspiration – the individual who diverges from the pack will always be seen as impeding progress toward the ideal. Moreover, therein is situated a formula for cruelty.

Though it may seem counterintuitive, it is the requirement of civility and tolerance that sets the foundation for the civil society, one characterized by pluralism and human thriving.

By not expecting more than we can offer, by not insisting on enjoying and unity of purpose, we leave the social space contestable, open to countless conversations, out of which we have the best chance of forging bonds of mutual respect and trust.

Brooks is correct that if we are going to overcome the culture of contempt, we need better conversational ethics, such as a commitment to humility, regard and knowledge-seeking curiosity in the face of disagreement. However, we do not need love to cultivate these practices. We need the tempered virtues of civility and tolerance.

Culture, Ethics, Politics

The American people are tired of these words, hoax, fake news, and witch hunt

Leave a comment

President Trump on Sunday took to Twitter to excoriate Democrats and the media over the suggestion that the U.S. is facing a constitutional crisis, contacting the assertion “a pathetically untrue soundbite.”

Trump went on to state that the real constitutional crisis is “a giant SCAM perpetrated upon our nation, a Witch Hunt, the Treasonous Hoax.” The president has often used those terms to describe the FBI and specific counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations into Russia’s election disturbance. He afterwards said the Democrats were acting like “crazed lunatics” in the wake of the Mueller probe’s end and that the only constitutional crisis is “the Democrats neglecting to work.

President Trump upon Sunday took to Twitter to excoriate Democrats and the media on the recommendation that the U.S. is dealing with a constitutional catastrophe, calling the assertion a pathetically false soundbite.

“The Democrats brand new and pathetically untrue audio bite is that people come in a ‘Constitutional Crisis,'” Trump wrote in several tweets. “They and their partner, the Fake PRESS, are all informed to say it as loud so when often as possible. They’re a unfortunate JOKE! We might have the strongest Economic climate inside our history, best work numbers ever, lower taxes & regulations, a rebuilt army and V.A., many fun new judges, & a lot more.”

Trump continued to claim that the true constitutional crisis is “a huge SCAM perpetrated on our nation, a Witch Hunt, the Treasonous Hoax.” The president offers often used those conditions to spell it out the FBI and exclusive counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations into Russia’s election interference. He later said the Democrats had been performing like “crazed lunatics” in the wake of the Mueller probe’s finish and that the only real constitutional crisis will be “the Democrats refusing to function.”

His tweets arrive after prominent Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), the other day produced the assertion that the united states is going through a constitutional crisis.

Nadler made his feedback after his panel voted to carry Attorney Common William Barr within contempt for failing woefully to start an unredacted edition of Mueller’s final statement.

It’s unclear how congressional Democrats will progress in reaction to the fallout from Mueller’s report. Pelosi hasn’t said if the entire House will vote on the contempt quality against Barr.

Numerous progressive Democrats, meanwhile, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), have needed the House to start a study into whether Trump ought to be impeached.

However, Pelosi provides steadfastly resisted to move forward with impeachment, arguing that it is a distraction rather than the simplest way to win because the U.S. heads into an election year.

Culture, Ethics, Finances, History, Politics

Should we take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seriously, and not literally?

Leave a comment

Trump and Ocasio-Cortez are rash, unapologetic, and enigmatic New Yorkers with ardent cult followings. They will have equally tenuous associations with reality. While President Trump and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., stand starkly against one another, they are pretty similar in their refusal to accept the seriousness of the workplaces they hold.

To her credit, Ocasio-Cortez became the youngest person in the home of Representatives while operating as a waitress. That is a distinctly American accomplishment, one which deserves our admiration.

In order to his credit, Trump was a billionaire who paid attention to the lamentations of ordinary Americans and defeats out probably the most talented industry of presidential primary applicants inside our recent history to be the president of America.

The DNC and RNC establishments took neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Trump seriously, and today they are uniquely positioned to determine the terms of these policies and strategies so that they should start acting honestly like it.

Ocasio-Cortez’s gripes with fact-checking rough mirror billionaire business owner and Trump ally Peter Thiel’s distillation of the president’s relationship along with his critics.

“I think a significant factor that needs to be distinguished here is that the mass media is always getting Trump literally. It is no way takes him seriously, but it usually takes him actually,” Thiel told the Nationwide Press Club through the 2016 election, channeling columnist Salena Zito. “I believe lots of voters who vote for Trump get Trump seriously, however, not literally, when they hear things such as the Muslim comment or the walls comment, their question isn’t, ‘Are you likely to build a walls like the Great Walls of China?’ or, you understand, ‘How exactly will you enforce these assessments?’ What they hear will be we are going to possess a saner, a lot more sensible immigration policy.”

Thiel’s evaluation is correct. Nonetheless, it highlights a single flaw with both Trump and AOC’s methods in public messaging.

Both stoke fears when advocating their respective policies. Trump depends on fearmongering with the imagery of “rapists and murderers” crossing our southern border to outlandishly advocate for pretty commonsense border protection. AOC forebodes that “like, the planet is gonna finish in 12 many years,” if we don’t deal with climate change, accurately diagnosing our political sphere’s apathy towards climate modify, but ineptly advocating for an Eco-friendly New Deal that may do nothing to lessen greenhouse gasoline emissions and everything to nationalize vast swaths of the United States economy.

We do not doubt that Trump, a Queen’s outsider who built his brand name to enter the billionaires’ golf club, and Ocasio-Cortez, a millennial self-starter who has observed – first-hand – a couple of failures of the best economic system in history, genuinely wish to prove their authority within their positions.

However, they ought to begin rising to the event. They are not courtroom jesters, eliciting few times of reality, bookended by jokes and nonsense. They are users and cultural leaders of the governing bodies of the free world, and the general public and the media, on both sides of the aisles, must keep them compared to that standard.

Politics

The Plot thickens when White House asked McGahn to say Trump didn’t obstruct justice, but McGahn declined

Leave a comment

The White House asked for that former White House counsel Don McGahn publicly state that President Donald Trump did not obstruct justice, but McGahn declined, an administration official told CNN on Friday.

The timing of the White House’s request — which was made to McGahn’s attorney William Burck through top White House lawyer Emmet Flood, according to the official — is unclear.

The official and a separate source familiar with the matter said that McGahn previously told special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators he didn’t believe Trump obstructed justice.

The episode speaks to the White House’s efforts to portray the President as absolved by the redacted Mueller report since its release last month. The Wall Street Journal first reported the White House’s appeal to McGahn.

A source familiar with Flood’s call to Burck conveying the ask for said Trump was upset simply by McGahn’s refusal to convey publicly that the President didn’t obstruct justice.

The separate source acquainted with the issue said the problem was moot as soon as Trump directed a tweet at McGahn your day following the Mueller report premiered. The President tweeted a caution that day time against “individuals who take so-known as ‘notes,’ ” echoing his criticism of McGahn when planning on taking notes, that was referenced in the Mueller review.

The foundation added that McGahn and his attorney didn’t feel that this type of public statement was required because Attorney General Expenses Barr had already turned out and said Trump didn’t obstruct justice.

Flood’s ask for to McGahn had not been the initial overture by the management in search of such a declaration, according to The NY Times. The White House very first attained out to Burck after Trump’s attorneys reviewed the Mueller review before its public release and realized that McGahn’s testimony to investigators that he didn’t believe Trump obstructed justice did not appear in the report, the paper reported.

Administration officials thought that having McGahn make such a statement publicly would assuage Trump and buttress the White House’s narrative combating the Mueller report’s assessment of specific instances of potential obstruction; a person briefed on the White House’s requests to McGahn told the Times.

Barr told Congress before the report’s release that Mueller did not conclude whether Trump obstructed justice and that Barr and Rosenstein had concluded that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

In the redacted statement released later, Mueller indicated that the investigation into possible obstruction of justice could not clear Trump. The White House complained to Barr that Mueller should have decided on whether Trump obstructed justice.

Culture, Politics, Social Justice

Why did MyPillow Lays Off 150 Workers After Praising Trump’s Tax Cuts, ‘Booming Economy’?

Leave a comment

MyPillow, mostly of the remaining marketers regularly featured on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, is laying off more than 100 employees not even a year after the company’s founder praised President Donald Trump for creating a “booming economy. ”

In a statement to HuffPost, Mike Lindell, inventor and CEO of MyPillow, told us via email that he’s in the process of launching an “ online store for entrepreneurs and inventors to sell their products. ”

Lindell said that while he values “ every single one of my workers, ” “ this is specifically what is best at this time for future years of MyPillow and also to prepare for the start associated with MyStore. com. ”

This particular move from Lindell arrives significantly less than a year following a 06 2018 op-ed he composed for the Duluth News-Tribune in which he celebrated Trump’s financial plans in a bit titled, “Rest easy, Minnesota; Trump is usually successful for us. ”

The spokesperson for Lindell informed HuffPost via e-mail that “the layoffs have nothing to do with what he talked about in that op-ed. ”

MyPillow often advertises on Fox News and has done so a whopping 1, 100 occasions since Jan. 1 . As reporter Jordan Uhl notes, that’s “ more than almost every other advertiser, including ramping up advertisements on costly primetime shows that saw advertisers leave due to rhetoric. ”

Culture, Politics, Social Justice

Did you know that Pelosi declares the nation is within a ‘Constitutional Crisis’?

Leave a comment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the United States was in a “constitutional crisis” and warned that Home Democrats might move to hold more Trump administration officials in contempt of Our elected representatives if they continued their refusals to comply with committee subpoenas.

Talking with reporters in the Capitol, Microsoft. Pelosi said the girl agreed with Consultant Jerrold Nadler, chief of the House Judiciary Panel, who said Wed that the country was in a constitutional crisis after his committee suggested the House keep Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over an unredacted version of the special counsel’s report, along with the report’s underlying evidence.

“The administration has decided they are not going to honor their oath of office, ” she said.

Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would bring the contempt citation to the floor for a election of the full Home “when we have been ready. ”

Democrats have not settled on the precise date for the vote to keep Mr. Barr in contempt of Our elected representatives, though Mr. Nadler said after Wednesday’s vote that this individual wanted it planned “rapidly. ”

Democratic leaders may wait around to pair the Judiciary Committee’s contempt tips with another, probably from the Intelligence Committee should its conflict with the Justice Division get to that point.

The committee’s chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff, issued a subpoena on Thurs for Mr. Barr to hand on the full Mueller report and evidence, as well as all counterintelligence and international intelligence produced by the special counsel’s investigations. He offered the Justice Department until May 15 to comply. If Mr. Barr ignores that deadline, the Intelligence Committee would probably hold its own contempt proceedings and send another recommendation to the Home floor.

There are other possible contempt citations in the wings as well, including for Donald F. McGahn II, the former White-colored House counsel who is under subpoena by the Judiciary Committee, and witnesses in unrelated Oversight and Reform Panel investigations.

“In phrases of timing, when we’re ready, we’ll come to the floor, ” Ms. Pelosi said. “There might be some other contempt of Our elected representatives problems that we want to deal with at the same time. ”

Ms. Pelosi has already been urging caution because the release of the report by Robert S. Mueller III, the special advice; she believes that Democrats campaigned on addressing issues like health care and the high cost of prescription drugs and must keep their concentrate on priorities for voters.

She reiterated that message on Thursday, while at the same time obviously leaving the door open for impeachment.
“We’re heading to the actual right thing, that’s just the way it is, and it is going to be based on truth and law and patriotism, not partisanship or other things, ” she said.

While Mr. Mueller found insufficient evidence to bring charges against President Trump for conspiring or colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 elections, he reported at least 10 specific instances in which Mr. Trump could possibly have obstructed his investigation. After the release of the Mueller report, Ms. Pelosi promised a series of hearings and investigations that could allow the United states individuals to see the facts for on their own and decide whether impeachment was called for.

But with Mr. Trump stonewalling Democrats and vowing to fight “all the subpoenas, ” party leaders including Microsoft. Pelosi are progressively casting the decision about impeachment in phrases of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances — a message they believe voters may easily relate to.

“Will the administration break the Constitution states and not follow by the ask for of Congress in its legitimate oversight responsibility? ” the girl asked, adding, “Every day they are advertising their blockage of justice by ignoring subpoenas and by just proclaiming that folks shouldn’t come speak to Our elected representatives. ”

She said Congress was on “a path that is producing results and gathering information, and some of that information is that this management wants to have a constitutional crisis because they cannot regard the oath of office that they take. ”