Politics

[Irish YJ]

This chart and explanation sounds like something written by the NEA.

Note the groupings:

• 15 jurisdictions performed significantly higher than National public
• 20 jurisdictions not significantly different than National public
• 17 jurisdictions performed significantly lower than National public
• 1 jurisdiction no assessment /data not available

For Math the National Average is 240 points out 500. In other words the National Average is 48% of the possible score. Pretty crummy.

The graphic notes the first grouping "performed significantly higher than National public". Actually the highest score was 250, a whopping 10 points higher than the average. How about a round of applause for the best not even earning an inflated C+ in a nation of C students.

Now look at the opposite grouping, "jurisdictions performed significantly lower than National public". The Lowest Score was 230. Again a whopping 10 points (but this time) lower than the National average.

While the comment is make about states and local governments addressing their individual issues, across this wide country of ours, the results from high to low vary by a total of 10 points from average. A spread of 20 points out of a possible 500 points. Our "best" perform all of 4% better than the average. Our "worst" perform only 4% lower than the average.

Let's give our state and local governments, our teachers, and the parents, etc an attaboy, or more P.C., a participation trophy for providing an education where everyone is almost equally mediocre.

AOC, Bernie, et al, are demanding free college. Why? Our state and local governments "who know their individual issues" do a crap job providing both elementary and secondary education. So let's send these mediocre students to 4 to 8 more years of mediocre instruction.

I'm really curious what the state and local governments know about math that qualifies them to "understand the issues" in Math. Does 2 x 2 equal 4 in Georgia but 5 in Maine or California? Does a chemical equation get written differently in South Dakota than North Dakota. Funny countries across the oceans in either direction outperform our students. Hmmm must be because they understand the local issues in education, right?

B.S.!

The scores in the other test subjects are worse.

Reading has a national average of 219 out of 500, 44%.

Science and writing both have an average of 153. But great news folks that only out of 300 not 500. WOW! 51% performance. Rhodes Scholarships For Everyone!

The numbers above are for 4th graders, 8 graders aren't better with more years in the system. Apparently when you don't learn the fundamental your advanced performance is equally deficient. Our education gurus apparently take pride in a national average of 37% proficiency.

I'd comment on the performance of the 12 graders but clicking there does nothing. No change from the 12 graders lack of performance. Perhaps someone doesn't want to document how unprepared our 12 graders are to move on.

BUT yeah, FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE. IT'S A RIGHT! Even if they can't perform.

We've got to keep those teachers and guidance counselors making those 6 figure incomes.


And WTF does these test results have to do with the statement about civics knowledge of natural born and naturalized citizens?

The naturalized citizens probably know it better because they take the test as adults after studying a pamphlet while the those born here have spent their formative years being taught that America is the most oppressive country in recorded history.

 

[Irish YJ]

Postscript on the National Report Card.

While the report is segregated by state, the highest Math score was for an unknown state to me, "DoDEA". I went to google to find that DoDEA stands for Department of Defense Educational Activity. It's a field activity of the Secretary of Defense for military kids schooling.

From Wiki:



Once again we must keep in mind that "states and local governments are better able to address their local issues" ... so why is the highest scoring school system on the Math Score NOT a state but a FEDERAL governmental agency. An agency that runs 163 ACCREDITED schools in 11 foreign countries, 7 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

How could that successfully run a school curriculum when none of the 17,000 federal employees teachers and administrators are a mayor, a councilperson, or a state legislator?

Their schools are in 20 different entities around the globe. A fair percentage of those students are moved frequently with their parents tour of duty every 18 to 36 months. They will see multiple schools in multiple lands during their student years while losing multiple friendships. They don't live in with the trauma of school shootings or inner city drivebys. They do live with the knowledge that their parents, dad, mom, or both can be deployed and sent on patrol tonight and not return alive.

Despite the disadvantages and without a state governor and legislature to promulgate
curricula tailored to local issues they endure and many prosper. I have a grand nephew and grand niece that were Air Force brats. Spent all their school years in the DoD school system. One's a public school teacher, the other works for a international company. Both are multilingual fluent in 3 languages and able to "get by" in a couple of others.

Could it be due to the discipline in a military environment? It can't be due to both parent being at home at night as many of them pull duty on rotating shifts, or might spend too much time in the O Club or NCO Club, or one or both parents might be deployed to a out of country.

Surely it can't be due to a school system run by a federal agency and not locals who better know the issues.

It is ironic that the highest score "state" is the federal government.

Great stuff as always BGIF. It's ironic indeed, but I think the irony speaks more about the why. I'd bet this result is a simple product of an environment of no-nonsense structure, accountability, and discipline like you allude to. No BS about being oppressed, disadvantaged, etc.. The parents are likely a mix of every race and economic background, with only the military "life" or service of sort in common. I wouldn't be surprised if the schools were full of admin and teachers that were active military or have military backgrounds. The stress of multiple schools, leaving friends, combat parents, foreign lands, etc., all overcome by likely a simple demand of accountability.

 

[Legacy]

This chart and explanation sounds like something written by the NEA.

Note the groupings:

• 15 jurisdictions performed significantly higher than National public
• 20 jurisdictions not significantly different than National public
• 17 jurisdictions performed significantly lower than National public
• 1 jurisdiction no assessment /data not available

For Math the National Average is 240 points out 500. In other words the National Average is 48% of the possible score. Pretty crummy.

The graphic notes the first grouping "performed significantly higher than National public". Actually the highest score was 250, a whopping 10 points higher than the average. How about a round of applause for the best not even earning an inflated C+ in a nation of C students.

Now look at the opposite grouping, "jurisdictions performed significantly lower than National public". The Lowest Score was 230. Again a whopping 10 points (but this time) lower than the National average.

While the comment is make about states and local governments addressing their individual issues, across this wide country of ours, the results from high to low vary by a total of 10 points from average. A spread of 20 points out of a possible 500 points. Our "best" perform all of 4% better than the average. Our "worst" perform only 4% lower than the average.

Let's give our state and local governments, our teachers, and the parents, etc an attaboy, or more P.C., a participation trophy for providing an education where everyone is almost equally mediocre.

AOC, Bernie, et al, are demanding free college. Why? Our state and local governments "who know their individual issues" do a crap job providing both elementary and secondary education. So let's send these mediocre students to 4 to 8 more years of mediocre instruction.

I'm really curious what the state and local governments know about math that qualifies them to "understand the issues" in Math. Does 2 x 2 equal 4 in Georgia but 5 in Maine or California? Does a chemical equation get written differently in South Dakota than North Dakota. Funny countries across the oceans in either direction outperform our students. Hmmm must be because they understand the local issues in education, right?

B.S.!

The scores in the other test subjects are worse.

Reading has a national average of 219 out of 500, 44%.

Science and writing both have an average of 153. But great news folks that only out of 300 not 500. WOW! 51% performance. Rhodes Scholarships For Everyone!

The numbers above are for 4th graders, 8 graders aren't better with more years in the system. Apparently when you don't learn the fundamental your advanced performance is equally deficient. Our education gurus apparently take pride in a national average of 37% proficiency.

I'd comment on the performance of the 12 graders but clicking there does nothing. No change from the 12 graders lack of performance. Perhaps someone doesn't want to document how unprepared our 12 graders are to move on.

BUT yeah, FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE. IT'S A RIGHT! Even if they can't perform.

We've got to keep those teachers and guidance counselors making those 6 figure incomes.


And WTF does these test results have to do with the statement about civics knowledge of natural born and naturalized citizens?

The naturalized citizens probably know it better because they take the test as adults after studying a pamphlet while the those born here have spent their formative years being taught that America is the most oppressive country in recorded history.

The State Profiles link was in response to YJ's comment about comparing Texas and California, providing objective results sortable by test, grade, etc. over time as well as how states meeting Basic or Proficient standards.

This has nothing to do with civics, civics knowledge, or state and local initiatives to address this important need. Those were detailed in my posts on 11-27-19 prior to the National Report Card. Local and state entities including business, governmental, educational, judicial and others have all been involved in improving their area's civic knowledge, as was mentioned, with links.

Should my quote that I intended to apply to civic knowledge only and refer back to my prior postings have been misinterpreted, that is on me:

State and local govs are usually better able to address their individual issues. Natural-born citizens civics knowledge based on testing should meet or exceed those of naturalized citizens.

Examples of different states' legislation and actions were detailed, which varied by state. One quote in one of the articles on civics education referred to local/state initiatives:

More than 30 states have established new Civics proficiency requirements, more than half have incorporated the citizenship test into their assessment practices; some use it as a standalone test, while others use parts of the exam, or have added more material to create customized tests, according to the Civics Education Initiative. Many more are considering legislative proposals to improve civics knowledge.

The NAEP does have a section on Civics Assessment, but I found the other links I previously provided to have more information. A section from one:

A 2016 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government, which was a significant decline from previous years.1 Not surprisingly, public trust in government is at only 18 percent2 and voter participation has reached its lowest point since 1996.3 Without an understanding of the structure of government; rights and responsibilities; and methods of public engagement, civic literacy and voter apathy will continue to plague American democracy. Educators and schools have a unique opportunity and responsibility to ensure that young people become engaged and knowledgeable citizens.

I did not ignore much of your post reflecting your opinions, but thought you may wish an opportunity to turn a jaundiced eye to civics education, proficiency and knowledge.

 

[Irish YJ]

The State Profiles link was in response to YJ's comment about comparing Texas and California, providing objective results sortable by test, grade, etc. over time as well as how states meeting Basic or Proficient standards.

This has nothing to do with civics, civics knowledge, or state and local initiatives to address this important need. Those were detailed in my posts on 11-27-19 prior to the National Report Card. Local and state entities including business, governmental, educational, judicial and others have all been involved in improving their area's civic knowledge, as was mentioned, with links.

Should my quote that I intended to apply to civic knowledge only and refer back to my prior postings have been misinterpreted, that is on me:


Examples of different states' legislation and actions were detailed, which varied by state. One quote in one of the articles on civics education referred to local/state initiatives:



The NAEP does have a section on Civics Assessment, but I found the other links I previously provided to have more information. A section from one:



I did not ignore much of your post reflecting your opinions, but thought you may wish an opportunity to turn a jaundiced eye to civics education, proficiency and knowledge.

My point is, and continues to be, why trust the states to teach civics when they fail at the basics? What specifically puts a poorly performing state in a better position to gauge what's needed when they clearly can't on Match and English..

Honestly I didn't understand the posting of state grades link as it only showed TX performing better than Cali which is what I pointed out. And going back a post further, they should focus more on basic education than politics.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Here's a brief blog post by David Myers titled "Should Social Conservatives Be Economic Progressives?":

Time and again I am struck by two robust social science findings.

The first, to which social conservatives nod their appreciation, concerns the benefits of successful marriages—which are a substantial predictor of health, longevity, personal happiness, and the well-being of children. An example: As I documented here, U.S. Child Health Surveys have shown that children living with two parents have been half as likely as those living with a never or formerly married mother to have been suspended or expelled from school—even after controlling for variations in race, family size, and parental education and income. To be sure, most single-parented children thrive, and many co-parented children are dysfunctional. Yet show me a place where nearly all children are co-parented by two adults enduringly committed to each other and their children and I will show you a place with relatively low rates of psychological disorder and social pathology. Marriage matters.

The second, to which progressives nod their appreciation, is that economic inequality is socially toxic. Places with great inequality have more social pathology—higher rates of crime, anxiety, obesity, and drug use, and lower life expectancy and happiness (see here and here). Show me a place with great inequality and I will show you a place with a comparatively depressed and dissatisfied populace. Disparity dispirits.

Moreover, argues John Hopkins University sociology chair Andrew Cherlin, there is a path between these two oft-confirmed findings: Rising income inequality contributes to family dissolution. As the gap between rich and poor has widened, unstable cohabitations and nonmarital child-bearing have dramatically increased among those with lower incomes—or where men have dim job prospects. In deteriorating job markets, marriage wanes and families become less stable. Moreover, for working single parents, affordable quality child care may be out of reach.

Ergo, doesn’t it follow that those who support marriage and stable co-parenting (a typically conservative value) should also be economic progressives—concerned about reducing inequality and poverty? To envision a culture that welcomes children into families with two or more people who love them is to envision an economic environment that nurtures secure families.

What do you think: Might this vision of a family-supportive just economy be a meeting place between conservatism and progressivism? And might it be a basis for depolarizing our politics and unifying our aspirations?

A glimmer of hope: After writing this essay, I learned of Fox News’ conservative voice, Tucker Carlson, recent lament that “families are being crushed by market forces” . . . to which Dean Baker of the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research replied: “It’s a bit scary to me how much of this I agree with.”

 

[wizards8507]

Here's a brief blog post by David Myers titled "Should Social Conservatives Be Economic Progressives?":

Secular economic progressivism necessarily ends in eugenics, full stop. It's the only logical end.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Here's a brief blog post by David Myers titled "Should Social Conservatives Be Economic Progressives?":

The mention of Tucker Carlson's blog piece from about a year ago is worth the read too.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-mitt-romney-supports-the-status-quo-but-for-everyone-else-its-infuriating

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Secular economic progressivism necessarily ends in eugenics, full stop. It's the only logical end.

It's the "secular" part of that leads to eugenics, not economic Progressivism per se. A big part of the reason that social conservatives have done nothing but lose ground over the last several decades is because they're in a coalition with economic libertarians who scream "socialism!" every time someone proposes using the state to advance a concrete agenda (never mind that something, usually unaccountable corporations, is always rushing to fill that gap regardless).

Social conservatives have to get comfortable with fighting to win and actually ruling once in power, because their enemies have no illusions on either of those fronts. And as it relates to this blog post, that means being willing to pay for policies that support stable family formation.

 

[wizards8507]

It's the "secular" part of that leads to eugenics, not economic Progressivism per se.

Come on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

Massive administrative apparatuses devolve into corruption at best and downright evil more often than not.

A big part of the reason that social conservatives have done nothing but lose ground over the last several decades is because they're in a coalition with economic libertarians who scream "socialism!" every time someone proposes using the state to advance a concrete agenda (never mind that something, usually unaccountable corporations, is always rushing to fill that gap regardless).

The issue is not "policy A is socialism and socialism is bad, therefore policy A is bad." The issue is "the feds couldn't implement policy A if their lives depended on it because they suck at everything besides killing people, which they're experts at."

I've said it before, but the issue with integralism is a pragmatic one. I have no a priori issues with the idea of a benevolent king, but I have a pragmatic objection based on the observation that a benevolent kind has never and will never exist because it's contrary to human nature.

 

[Old Man Mike]

On the "free college for everyone business" : I've mentioned several times here that Kalamazoo got it right with its Kalamazoo Promise. The Promise says that any student graduating from KPS school system can count on free tuition wherever they go, BUT THEY MUST BE ABLE TO GET ACCEPTED. Once they flunk, the assistance stops.

This is not free college for everyone. This is giving everyone a chance to go to college even if they cannot pay the tuition. If they blow it, either in HS or afterwards in college, too bad for them.

The "forgiveness" of student debt is an entirely different issue, and should be addressed accordingly without confusing two almost opposed things. If we all did "The Kalamazoo/USA Promise" there would be no student debt to forgive, but there still would be lazy bums or otherwise incompetents who did not earn college degrees, and didn't last long or even get admitted.

Kalamazoo Promise simply gives everyone a full chance to grab the college opportunity --- but limited by their own effort in pursuit of such opportunity.

People arguing that some disgraceful "colleges" would lower standards to just get the free bucks along with a bunch of dolts and bums, are partly correct to worry but mostly not. Established colleges and universities whom the academic establishment recognizes as organizations whose degrees actually MEAN something, will not, and really CAN not, suddenly expand their campuses and faculties to handle a bunch of possibly marginal students. Only students passing their entry requirements will get in anyway.

So-called "distant-learning" pseudo-colleges would be the problem to watch, as they could conceivably expand without limits. Some method of serious standards checking by a national academic organization would be needed to allow such, or any, institutions to participate in a Kalamazoo/USA Promise.

There are always jerks who will slip through the cracks --- I saw them regularly at WMU --- they did not pass my classes. The number of prospective students from poor families who would succeed because of this, however, would dwarf the screwasses, and would be well worth the minor waste in the system.

By the way, ALL Big Systems, industrial, business, agricultural, you-name-it, have a percentage of "waste." That's the way BIG goes. We all accept that amount of "waste" to get the products that we want. I've always felt that people objecting to "people programs" just because they have flaws and some waste have some other personal hang-up as to why they single this sort of thing out. Chemical pollution, rotting garbage, white-collar crimes, somehow all of that waste is tolerable. But PEOPLE --- oh, no. They're bad.

 

[Legacy]

Lost children of Francoism

 

[Irish YJ]

lol

Maxine Waters' phone call with 'Greta Thunberg' was apparently the work of Russian pranksters

<iframe width="600" height="350" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b5DpdWE9oKc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Atlantic just published an essay by Erika Bachiochi titled "The Troubling Ideals at the Heart of Abortion Rights":

Many Americans think of Roe v. Wade as the defining Supreme Court decision on the issue of abortion. But a 1992 high-court decision actually governs abortion law. That ruling rested on fateful assumptions about the relationship between abortion and women’s equality. But in so doing, it has served to enshrine social and professional inequalities, which mothers must fight against every day.

In that case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a mere plurality of justices on the Court affirmed Roe, not because they thought it was good law but because of its “precedential force.” Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter wrote that the “certain cost” of overruling Roe was just too extensive 19 years later—“even on the assumption that the central holding of Roe was in error.”

What were the costs that persuaded these justices to affirm a prior—potentially erroneous—constitutional decision? Judicial conservatives point to the joint opinion’s concern with the threat to the high court’s integrity and legitimacy in overturning long-established precedent. But another concern was just as operative: The plurality writes that the country so “relied” upon the right bestowed in Roe for women’s economic and social progress that the Court could not now stand in the way.
More in this series

Behind this logic is a kind of nontraditional, sociological rationale undergirding stare decisis—the legal principle of deferring to precedent. But the Casey plurality is also paying tribute to a long-popular argument among pro-abortion-rights legal thinkers: Abortion rights are necessary for women’s equality. Indeed, for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the cadre of other like-minded legal thinkers, the right to abortion, currently based in substantive due process, would be better secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—or, better still, the long-proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Ginsburg, who defended abortion rights as equality rights in scholarship in the 1980s, more recently argued in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart that a constitutionally protected right to abortion is even necessary for women’s “equal citizenship stature.”

Equality arguments for abortion rights have become so pervasive in law and politics that it’s easy to overlook just what is being claimed, and how very different this idea of equality is from that of those who first advocated for women’s full legal, political, and social equality in this country.

Consider, as one striking example, Victoria Woodhull, a leading suffragist and radical, and the first woman to run for president of the United States, nominated by the Equal Rights Party in 1872. With her peers in the 19th-century women’s movement, she asserted, among a host of other rights, the right to be free of the common-law sexual prerogative that husbands then enjoyed over their wives. Understanding the asymmetrical consequences of sexual intercourse for women, Woodhull anticipated a time “when woman rises from sexual slavery to sexual freedom into the ownership and control of her sexual organs, and man is obliged to respect this freedom.”

But owning and controlling one’s body did not extend, for Woodhull and other advocates of “voluntary motherhood,” to doing what one willed with the body of another. Rather, these women sought sovereignty over their own bodies in part because they could claim no legitimate authority to engage, in Woodhull’s words, in “antenatal murder of undesired children.” An outspoken advocate of constitutional equality for women, Woodhull also championed the rights of children—rights that “begin while yet they remain the fetus.” In 1870, she wrote:

Many women who would be shocked at the very thought of killing their children after birth, deliberately destroy them previously. If there is any difference in the actual crime we should be glad to have those who practice the latter, point it out. The truth of the matter is that it is just as much a murder to destroy life in its embryonic condition, as it is to destroy it after the fully developed form is attained, for it is the self-same life that is taken.

Nearly 100 years later the arguments shifted, and women’s-equality advocates began making arguments in favor of abortion rights. In 1969, in a first-of-its-kind legal brief, attorneys for 300 women challenged New York State’s then–relatively restrictive abortion law. The attorneys in Abramowicz v. Lefkowitz rightly brought attention to the same stubborn reproductive asymmetries to which advocates of voluntary motherhood had sought to respond. But rather than call men to join women at a high standard of mutual responsibility and care, as prior generations of women’s-rights advocates had done, the attorneys argued for a different kind of sexual equality. Because “the man who shares responsibility for her pregnancy can and often does just walk away,” the plaintiff's brief maintained that the woman ought to enjoy that same freedom—through abortion. As the Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe would articulate the concept two decades later, “While men retain the right to sexual and reproductive autonomy, restrictions on abortion deny that autonomy to women.”

But abortion restrictions do not deny sexual and reproductive autonomy to women; reality does. While pregnant, a woman is carrying a new and vulnerable human being within her. Unlike a biological father, a pregnant woman cannot just walk away; to approach the desired autonomy of the child-abandoning man, a pregnant woman must engage in a life-destroying act.

So in a twisted imitation of the common-law dominion husbands once wielded over their wives, women would now seek sexual equality through the ultimate dominion over their unborn children. To make matters worse, this dominion is now thought necessary for women to achieve, in Justice Ginsburg’s view, “equal citizenship stature.”

Yet this view of “equal citizenship” seems to be in some tension with Ginsburg’s definition of “full citizenship” in the opinion for the Court in United States v. Virginia, the much-heralded 1996 sex-discrimination case. Ginsburg defined a person’s full citizenship as the “equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.”

But those capacities are not the same for men and women, at least when it comes to sex and reproduction. If citizenship is understood along the traditional, male model—the capacity to remain physically autonomous from the reproductive consequences of sexual intercourse and unencumbered by the demands of caregiving—the affirmative attachment and nurturing required of young children and those who care for them become symbols of dependence, and anathema. To celebrate autonomy as the defining feature of citizenship undervalues both men and women who have caregiving responsibilities, especially when those responsibilities impede one’s capacity to live and work unencumbered.

The market economy, ever seeking efficiency and profits, already carries a bias against time-consuming and often-unpredictable parental duties. Given feminism’s tendency today to associate equality with autonomy, it is no wonder that work-family balance remains a foremost issue, and that women’s status as mothers still results in the most acute social and professional inequalities, even as women have made tremendous gains overall.

Perhaps the strongest illustration of the brokenness of these ideas comes in the form of a counterfactual: Imagine a world without Roe and Casey, but with Ginsburg’s rightfully celebrated anti-discrimination successes in the 1970s. In this world, workplaces and other institutions better acknowledge encumbered women, duly encumbered men, and the child-rearing family’s demands generally. Rather than being “free to assume Roe’s concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society,” as the Casey plurality contemplated, employers are burdened instead by the reality—now too easily cast aside—that most working persons are, and wish to be, deeply encumbered by their obligations to their families and the important work they do in their homes. In such a world, authentically transformed by women’s legal, political, and social equality, today’s overburdened mothers and fathers just might receive the respect they deserve.

I'm amazed this appeared in The Atlantic.

 

[Legacy]

File this under big money in politics and uses of 501 (c) (3) charities for political purposes, e.g. Clinton, Trump etc. aka The Swamp. Bullet points bolded.

Charities steered $65M to Trump lawyer Sekulow and family

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s lead attorneys during the impeachment trial, is being paid for his legal work through a rented $80-a-month mailbox a block away from the White House.

The Pennsylvania Avenue box appears to be the sole physical location of the Constitutional Litigation and Advocacy Group, a for-profit corporation co-owned by Sekulow. The firm has no website and is not listed in national legal directories. The District of Columbia Bar has no record of it, and no attorneys list it as their employer.

But Sekulow, 63, is registered as chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit Christian legal advocacy group based in an expansive Capitol Hill row house a short walk from the Senate chamber.

A half dozen lawyers employed by the non-profit ACLJ are named in recent Senate legal briefs as members of Trump’s defense team — including one of Sekulow’s sons. The ACLJ, as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, is barred under IRS rules from engaging in partisan political activities.

The Republican National Committee has paid more than $250,000 to Sekulow’s for-profit CLA Group since 2017, when he was first named to Trump’s legal team as special counsel Robert Mueller was leading the Russia investigation, according to campaign disclosures.

Sekulow has been one of Trump’s most visible defenders, enduring as a trusted attorney for the president even as other of his lawyers have been sidelined or entangled in controversy.

In the impeachment trial, he has sought to present Trump as unfairly hounded by investigations, seizing on surveillance errors the FBI acknowledged making in the Russia probe and accusing Democrats of investigating the president over Ukraine simply because they couldn’t bring him down after the Mueller investigation.

Charity watchdogs for years have raised concerns about the blurred lines between for-profit businesses tied to Sekulow and the complex web of non-profit entities he and his family control.

The Associated Press reviewed 10 years of tax returns for the ACLJ and other charities tied to Sekulow, which are released to the public under federal law. The records from 2008 to 2017, the most recent year available, show that more than $65 million in charitable funds were paid to Sekulow, his wife, his sons, his brother, his sister-in-law, his nephew and corporations they own.

Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said Sekulow appears to be mixing his defense of Trump with his charitable endeavors. The group has issued a “Donor Alert” about ACLJ on its CharityWatch website.

“Charities are not supposed to be taking sides in partisan political activities, such as providing legal services to benefit a politician in an impeachment trial,” Borochoff said. “Regulators should investigate whether or not charitable resources, such as office, labor, equipment, etc., are being wrongly utilized to benefit Sekulow’s for-profit law firm.”

The address for CLA Group listed in recent court filings matches Carr Workplaces, a flex-space provider that rents out mini offices, individual desks and conference rooms for periods as brief as one hour. According to its website, the company also offers its customers “virtual offices” that include a mailbox and mail forwarding.

A receptionist at the Carr Workplaces office confirmed the law firm’s mail is delivered to a mail slot in a secure room before being forwarded to another location, which she declined to disclose.

A call to Carr last week asking to be connected to CLA Group was forwarded. After a few rings, the call was answered by a receptionist at the non-profit ACLJ.

Inquiries about Sekulow’s for-profit law firm were referred to Gene Kapp, a Virginia public relations contractor paid through the charity.

“Jay Sekulow is serving as a member of the President’s legal team in his personal capacity,” Kapp said in an email. “His work with the President is separate and distinct and is not connected with his work as Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. The ACLJ’s work is separate and distinct from the legal work being done for the President.”

Kapp declined to say whether CLA Group has any support staff or whether Sekulow was doing his legal work for Trump in the non-profit group’s office. Kapp would also not comment on whether CLA Group was reimbursing ACLJ for any resources being utilized for Trump’s legal defense.

A 2005 investigation by the publication Legal Times reported about questionable spending at ACLJ, quoting former employees describing millions in charity funds being spent to support the Sekulows’ lavish lifestyle, which included multiple homes, golf junkets, chauffeur-driven cars and a private jet used to ferry then-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The Guardian and The Washington Post reported additional details in 2017, shortly after Sekulow was named as Trump’s lawyer.

Over the 10-year-period examined by AP, the tax returns show nearly $37 million in charitable funds were paid by ACLJ to the CLA Group, the phantom law firm listed on court filings as defending Trump.

Incorporation filings and tax records show Sekulow co-owns CLA Group with his law school classmate and longtime business partner Stuart J. Roth. Roth is also listed as senior counsel at ACLJ and named in recent legal briefs as one of Trump’s defense lawyers.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat, is investigating the potential abuse of charitable funds raised by the organizations tied to Sekulow. Spokeswoman Laura Brewer said it was unclear when that probe, begun in 2017, would be complete.

Trump, Sekulow’s star client, has faced similar legal questions. Trump agreed to pay $2 million as part of a settlement with the state of New York in which he was forced to admit he misused charitable funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his 2016 presidential campaign, pay off business debts and buy a $10,000 portrait of himself hung at one of his Florida resorts. Trump’s charity also cut an illegal $25,000 check to support the reelection of then-Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who now works with Sekulow as a member of the president’s defense team.

A Brooklyn native, Sekulow graduated from Mercer Law School in Georgia and briefly worked for the Internal Revenue Service before going into private practice in Atlanta with his former classmate Roth in the early 1980s. The pair specialized in buying and selling historic properties as tax shelters, but the business collapsed after disgruntled investors sued them over alleged fraud and securities violations. Court records show both Sekulow and Roth filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1987.

Sekulow quickly remade himself as general counsel for the group Jews for Jesus. A self-described Messianic Jew, Sekulow won a religious liberties case before the U.S. Supreme Court after members of the group were barred from passing out pamphlets at the Los Angeles International Airport.

The following year, records show Sekulow founded the non-profit Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (CASE), a charity “dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, god given rights.”

In 1992, he was named chief counsel at the ACLJ, which was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson as a conservative counterweight to the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union. It is affiliated with the law school at Regent University, the Christian college founded by Robertson and located next to the studios of his Christian Broadcasting Network in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Tax records show ACLJ now receives the bulk of its $23 million annual budget from CASE. All six of the charity’s paid board members share the last name Sekulow, including Jay’s wife, Pam, and their sons, Jordon and Logan.

That tight-knit family control runs afoul of standards issued by multiple watchdog groups to help stem the likelihood of self-dealing and graft.

The Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance recommends at least five independent board members and not more than one who receives direct financial benefits. Bennett Weiner, who heads the BBB alliance, said it issued an advisory about ACLJ after the organization didn’t respond to requests for more information about its finances.

The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, founded 40 years ago by Billy Graham and other evangelical leaders to accredit Christian non-profits, requires independent boards of directors made up of people “not related by blood or marriage to staff members.” CASE and ACLJ are not listed among the council’s 2,400 members.

As Sekulow has positioned himself among Trump’s chief defenders in both the courtroom and as a legal analyst on Fox News, CASE has continued to raise more than $50 million annually through an aggressive mix of telemarketing and direct mail soliciting the conservative faithful to support ACLJ’s courtroom advocacy.

But tax records show much of that money is routed to Sekulow and his family. Over the 10-year period examined by AP, more than $12 million was paid in direct salary and benefits to Sekulow and his family members.

Gary Sekulow, Jay’s 61-year-old brother, was paid a total of $985,947 in salary and benefits in 2017 as the chief operating and financial officer at both ACLJ and CASE — two full-time positions that tax documents indicate would require him to work 80 hours each week.

Adam Sekulow, Gary’s 31-year-old son, was paid $229,227 as the director of development at CASE and $65,052 as the director of major donors at ACLJ the same year.

Records show millions more each year going to for-profit companies controlled by the family. In addition to the $5.8 million ACLJ paid to CLA Group in 2017, $1.4 million was paid to Regency Productions, a company owned by Jay Sekulow that receives his fees for appearing on the radio show “Jay Sekulow Live!” and his television show “ACLJ This Week with Jay Sekulow,” which airs on the same Christian network as Pat Robertson’s “The 700 Club.”

Over the 10-year period reviewed by AP, CLA Group and Regency were paid a combined $46 million in charitable funds by ACLJ and CASE. Millions more were paid by the charities for “airtime,” though the recipients of that money were not detailed in the tax records.

Sekulow’s show is often recorded at a studio located at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of ACLJ. Tax records show the office building, with a current assessed value of $3.8 million, is owned by CASE. The charity controlled by the Sekulow family also owns the spacious four-bedroom, four-bath row house next door, which has a current assessed value of $1.8 million.

This week, an AP photographer saw Jay’s son Jordan Sekulow, 37, entering the residence. A graduate of Regent law school, Jordan Sekulow is the executive director of ACLJ, a member of Trump’s defense team, and also hosts his father’s radio show. ACLJ’s website and affiliated YouTube channel have been posting daily updates about the impeachment trial, reiterating GOP arguments and hammering Democratic House managers.

Jordan’s wife, Anna Sekulow, 36, also works at the charity as a digital media adviser, according to its website. The public tax records do not indicate how much they are paid.

About $6.8 million went to the company PFMS of Georgia for producing Sekulow’s shows. That company’s website lists Gary Sekulow’s wife, Kimberly Sekulow, 60, as president and CEO. The address for that business is in the same suburban Atlanta building listed on tax returns as the offices for CASE, the charity that pays it.

In addition to his two paid jobs at the non-profits, the couple’s son Adam Sekulow is listed as the acquisition manager at PFMS. His sister Jennifer Sekulow, 27, is the head of market research.

The records show at least $1.2 million was spent by the charities on private jets, including an unusual arrangement where CASE was paying to lease a plane co-owned by the for-profit companies controlled by Jay Sekulow and his sister-in-law.

The tax records show millions more were routed into numerous non-profit and for-profit entities, which makes it challenging to determine who is really getting the money.

For example, ACLJ and CASE made payments to the Law & Justice Institute, a non-profit entity created by Sekulow and Roth. Tax records show that charity’s only activity was to make annual payments to two for-profit companies, Advocacy Services Inc. and Educational Resources Associates.

Virginia incorporation records list “M.G. Robertson” of Virginia Beach as the president and director of Advocacy Services, which received $4 million in payments. Marion Gordon Robertson, 89, is better known to TV viewers by his nickname, Pat.

Incorporation filings for Education Resources Associates in Washington, D.C, list its CEO as John Ashcroft, who served as U.S. attorney general in the administration of President George W. Bush. That company got $2.2 million in consulting fees from the charitable Law & Justice Institute. Ashcroft, 77, is listed as a distinguished professor at Regent University and has appeared with Sekulow at ACLJ events.

Marc Owens, who served for 10 years as the director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the Internal Revenue Service, said the structure of the charities and corporations controlled by the Sekulow family appeared designed to obscure just who is getting paid and how much.

Federal law forbids charities from excessively benefiting those who have “substantial influence over the organization.” Owens said both the IRS and state attorneys general should investigate.

“This is an apparent web of organizations that seem to exist to pay compensation to Sekulow and his family members,” said Owens, who is now in private practice. “That pattern clearly raises questions for those entities that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) as to whether they’re operating for a public benefit or the private benefit of Jay Sekulow and his family members.”

Sekulow’s spokesman denied any wrongdoing.

“The financial arrangements between ACLJ, CASE and other entities have been reviewed by outside independent experts and are in compliance with all tax laws,” Kapp said.

Asked who those outside experts are and whether AP could speak with them, Kapp responded that he didn’t have anything to add.

The first to report this use of charitable donations to Sekulow which were used for personal and political purposes in Law.com in 2005.

Excerpt:

But there is another side to Jay Sekulow, one that, until now, has been obscured from the public. It is the Jay Sekulow who, through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle -- complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

That less-known side of Sekulow was revealed in several interviews with former associates of his and in hundreds of pages of court and tax documents reviewed by Legal Times. Critics say Sekulow's lifestyle is at odds with his role as the head of a charitable organization that solicits small donations for legal work in God's name.

For example, in 2001 one of Sekulow's nonprofit organizations paid a total of $2,374,833 to purchase two homes used primarily by Sekulow and his wife. The same nonprofit also subsidized a third home he uses in North Carolina.

At various times in recent years, Sekulow's wife, brother, sister-in-law, and two sons have been on the boards or payrolls of organizations under his control or have received generous payments as contractors. Sekulow's brother Gary is the chief financial officer of both nonprofit organizations that fund his activities, a fact that detractors say diminishes accountability for his spending.

 

[Circa]

Can someone smarter than me explain this?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rj7iRwzX-A0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ACamp1900]

What is going on at Oxford is a pretty good microcosm of too much of the current climate movement(s).

Climate protester: "YOU need to do something, everyone must do something!!"

Responsible person: "Okay, this is what YOU can do as well, do without X and it'll help..."

Climate protester:

 

[Bishop2b5]

I read something today that reminded me of the following funny political story. About 30 years ago, Alabama's senior US Senator was a witty guy named Howell Heflin who sounded almost exactly like Foghorn Leghorn. Although he was a Dem, he absolutely despised Ted Kennedy, considering him a low-character drunken buffoon. The National Enquirer published several pics of Ted on the deck of his sail boat having sex with a woman who wasn't his wife. Heflin reportedly quipped in that rumbling Foghorn Leghorn voice, "I see Senator Kennedy has changed his position on offshore drilling."

A few years later, my sister was the news producer for a CBS affiliate in Alabama and got a chance to speak with Heflin while he was in town for some event. She asked him if he'd really said that and he threw his hands up and said, "Now is not the time. Theh's LADIES present!"

 

[NorthDakota]

Can someone smarter than me explain this?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rj7iRwzX-A0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have no idea if I'm smarter than you but I believe he's going off on the attacks (real and rhetorical) that Jews are subjected to because the wealthy want working class people to have a target on someone other than them.

Jews are an easy group to target because of their minority status but relative affluence as a group.

It would be akin to workers in the Dakotas going through a hard time and the bonanza farmers paying them poor wages and claiming that the problems in the state are actually the indian tribes fault.

The goal is to paint a target on a small "other" group.

At least that's how I interpreted it.

 

[ulukinatme]

I read something today that reminded me of the following funny political story. About 30 years ago, Alabama's senior US Senator was a witty guy named Howell Heflin who sounded almost exactly like Foghorn Leghorn. Although he was a Dem, he absolutely despised Ted Kennedy, considering him a low-character drunken buffoon. The National Enquirer published several pics of Ted on the deck of his sail boat having sex with a woman who wasn't his wife. Heflin reportedly quipped in that rumbling Foghorn Leghorn voice, "I see Senator Kennedy has changed his position on offshore drilling."

A few years later, my sister was the news producer for a CBS affiliate in Alabama and got a chance to speak with Heflin while he was in town for some event. She asked him if he'd really said that and he threw his hands up and said, "Now is not the time. Theh's LADIES present!"

"I say uh, I say uh, mind yer mannas, boy."

 

[Bishop2b5]

Back in the 60's conservatives often referred to a couple of the most left wing universities, such as Harvard, as Joe Stalin U. The leftists and Dems would vehemently deny that they were in favor of socialism or communism, despite constantly preaching all its tenets and lionizing its leading figures. Most of my life I've heard Dems swear they weren't in favor of socialism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At least they've stopped denying it now.

 

[loomis41973]

This better not pass. Democrats hate Americans is all I see.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...1120-page-coronavirus-bill-stuffed-with-pork/

 

[Irish YJ]

Just some of the ornaments supposedly hung on the Covid Christmas tree. Shameful if true.

Increased fuel emission standards for airlines receiving funds and carbon offsets:

(1) IN GENERAL. Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall require each air carrier receiving assistance under section 101, to fully offset the annual carbon emissions of such air carriers for domestic flights beginning in 2025.
….
(1) IN GENERAL. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall require each air carrier receiving assistance under section 101 toA) make and achieve a binding commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the domestic flights of such air carrier in every calendar year, beginning with 2021, on a path consistent with a 25 percent reduction in the aviation sector’s emissions from 2005 levels by 2035, and a 50 percent reduction in the sector’s emissions from 2005 levels by 2050, applying the standards, recommended practices, and guidance agreed to by the United States pursuant to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011

Payment for up to $10,000 in student loans:(1) MINIMUM STUDENT LOAN RELIEF AS A RESULT OF THE COVID–19 NATIONAL EMERGENCY. Not later than 270 days after the last day of the COVID–19 emergency period, the Secretaries concerned shall jointly carry out a program under which a qualified borrower, with respect to the covered loans and private education of loans of such qualified borrower, shall receive in accordance with paragraph (3) an amount equal to the lesser of the followingA) The total amount of each covered loan and each private education loan of the borrower; or
(B) $10,000.


Same-day voter registration, early voting, voting by mail, ballot harvesting. The bill includes several provisions on voting laws and regulations, as Democrats argue that the crisis should force the government to revisit voting regulations to make it easier to vote, allowing same-day voter registration and voting by mail, and mailing out ballots to absentee voters. Other voting fraud watchdogs raised flags about ballot harvesting and grants for conducting risk-limiting audits of election results
Same-day registration:

‘‘SEC. 325. SAME DAY REGISTRATION.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(1) REGISTRATION.—Each State shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is permitted for a Federal election—

‘‘(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling place using a form that meets the requirements under section 9(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (or, if the individual is already registered to vote, to revise any of the individual’s voter registration information); and

‘‘(B) to cast a vote in such election.

Online voter registration:

(a) REQUIRING AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET FOR VOTER REGISTRATION.—

(1) REQUIRING AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET FOR REGISTRATION.—The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

Ballot harvesting:

(2) PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT.—


The State— (A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and ‘(B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.

Automatic mailing of absentee ballots:

‘(A) AUTOMATIC MAILING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO ALL VOTERS.—If the area in which an election is held is in an area in which an emergency or disaster which is described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 1135(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b- 5(g)(1)) is declared during the period described in subparagraph.

Grants for risk-limiting audits:

PART 8—GRANTS FOR CONDUCTING RISK- LIMITING AUDITS OF RESULTS OF ELECTIONS ‘‘SEC. 298. GRANTS FOR CONDUCTING RISK-LIMITING AUDITS OF RESULTS OF ELECTIONS.‘(a) AVAILABILITY OF GRANTS.—The Commission shall make a grant to each eligible State to conduct risk-limiting audits as described in subsection (b) with respect to the regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office held in November 2020 and each succeeding election for Federal office.

Preserving collective bargaining powers for unions
Several provisions in the bill include carveouts for big labor, including labor protections, collective bargaining, and organizing, as well as overturning President Trump’s executive orders regarding federal employee unions.

The expansion of wind and solar tax credits.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other lawmakers specifically called out Democrats for trying to negotiate the expansion of wind and solar tax credits in the bill.

Requirements for federal and corporate gender and racial diversity data
The bill demands that corporate recipients of financial assistance are required to report racial and gender data regarding salaries, number of employees, supplier diversity, and membership on corporate boards. It also requires federal agencies to use businesses and financial institutions owned by minorities or women.

Post Office Bailout
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE PAYMENT TO POSTAL SERVICE FUND

For payment to the ‘‘Postal Service Fund’’, for revenue forgone due to the coronavirus pandemic, $20,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2022: Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Automatic extension of nonimmigrant visas.
Rep. Paul Gosar flagged a provision regarding the automatic extension of nonimmigrant visas.(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to any alien whose nonimmigrant status, status under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a), or employment authorization has expired within the 30 days preceding the date of the enactment of this act, or will expire not later than one year after such date, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall automatically extend such status or work authorization for the same time period as the alien’s prior status or work authorization.


Restricting colleges from providing information about citizenship status
(1) INFORMATION.—Only information requested

On the official 2020 decennial census of population form may be provided to the Bureau of the Census pursuant to this section. No institution of higher education may provide any information to the Bureau on the immigration or citizenship status of any individual.

Money for Planned Parenthood
The Hill reported that Democrats want the bill to prop up Planned Parenthood, just another reason why bipartisan efforts have failed to reach a consensus.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...1120-page-coronavirus-bill-stuffed-with-pork/

 

[drayer54]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Child: Mom, are we going to eat today?<br><br>Mom: Maybe, honey. We just need to wait to see if lawmakers agree on a corporate diversity requirement. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SenateDemocrats?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SenateDemocrats</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HouseDemocrats?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HouseDemocrats</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Democrats?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Democrats</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CoronaBill?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CoronaBill</a> <a href="https://t.co/kKPBS2l1BY">pic.twitter.com/kKPBS2l1BY</a></p>— Derek Drayer (@derekdrayer) <a href="https://twitter.com/derekdrayer/status/1242175707003998218?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[loomis41973]

Ballot harvesting is all you need to know.

 

[loomis41973]

You know, I have a certain admiration for the laser-focus the Left has to win absolute power in this country and keep it forever. They don't let anything stand in their way. Not morals, not principles, not facts, not truth, not even a full-blown national crisis. This is the psychology of sociopaths and demagogues. They have their eyes firmly on the prize and never stray from it. They will smear innocent people and destroy their lives. If people die, they don't second-guess themselves. They lie, lie, and lie if it means moving their agenda forward. If there is any collateral damage, then so be it. It's all a means to an end.

The Left is able to do this because the media is controlled by them and so are our college campuses and Big Tech. When you have a massive propaganda arm like this masquerading as a "free press" and a "university education", and "free speech platforms", you're able to dupe a lot of people into becoming obedient, unthinking moron.

Mr. President please scream this from your pulpit loudly and often. Do not negotiate with these demons.

 

[irishff1014]

To keep the politics out of the other thread. I am no Ted Cruz fan but boy did he make at statement yesterday. Good job Cruz

 

[Irish YJ]

To keep the politics out of the other thread. I am no Ted Cruz fan but boy did he make at statement yesterday. Good job Cruz

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sen. <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tedcruz</a> UNLOADS on Dems from the Senate floor:<br><br>"What the hell do the emissions standards on airplanes have to do with thousands of people dying and millions of people out of work in the Coronavirus epidemic?" <a href="https://t.co/zXiQjJRpRA">pic.twitter.com/zXiQjJRpRA</a></p>— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) <a href="https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1242202282952986626?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish#1]

Bravo Ted.

 

[NorthDakota]

You know, I have a certain admiration for the laser-focus the Left has to win absolute power in this country and keep it forever. They don't let anything stand in their way. Not morals, not principles, not facts, not truth, not even a full-blown national crisis. This is the psychology of sociopaths and demagogues. They have their eyes firmly on the prize and never stray from it. They will smear innocent people and destroy their lives. If people die, they don't second-guess themselves. They lie, lie, and lie if it means moving their agenda forward. If there is any collateral damage, then so be it. It's all a means to an end.

The Left is able to do this because the media is controlled by them and so are our college campuses and Big Tech. When you have a massive propaganda arm like this masquerading as a "free press" and a "university education", and "free speech platforms", you're able to dupe a lot of people into becoming obedient, unthinking moron.

Mr. President please scream this from your pulpit loudly and often. Do not negotiate with these demons.

Really bold of Nancy to try this. She and the Dem power base are concentrated in the areas most likely to get hit hard by this and be shut down the longest. This isnt a government shutdown that has a negligible impact on people.

This was already negotiated. The grownups already had this done..

 

[ACamp1900]

Really bold of Nancy to try this. She and the Dem power base are concentrated in the areas most likely to get hit hard by this and be shut down the longest. This isnt a government shutdown that has a negligible impact on people.

This was already negotiated. The grownups already had this done..

She’ll go out there and say the Republicans want people dying of Coronavirus in the streets and that it’s all their fault and her peps will believe it