Sunday, April 17, 2016

Saudi Arabia Sheikh Cartoon



Insurgent Dem threatens to upset Pelosi ally in Md. Senate battle


Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a big ally of Nancy Pelosi and other top Washington Democrats, was expected to have a clear path to the state’s open Senate seat. But fellow Maryland congressman Donna Edwards and her insurgent campaign is poised for an upset victory -- in a contest often being defined by race and gender politics.
As part of House Democratic leadership, and with enough name recognition to raise millions, Van Hollen was almost a sure thing when Elijah Cummings, another Maryland Democratic congressman, and a presumptive frontrunner, decided in February not to run.
However, the under-funded and lesser-known Edwards has run a resilient campaign, with a message of economic hope and prosperity for the work-class that is resonating with women and black voters.
“She is out of the populist wing,” says Nathan Gonzales of the non-partisan Rothenberg and Gonzales Political Report. “There’s some real value now in delivering that message in a primary. There’s a similar divide in the presidential primaries. Look at Bernie Sanders. … Being part of the establishment and leadership is no longer what it once was for voters.”
An NBC News/Maryland Marist poll released Wednesday shows Van Hollen with a 44-to-38 percent lead over Edwards, a black, single mother whose former struggles to afford health insurance has become part of her campaign.
The poll follows one released in late-February by The Washington Post that showed Van Hollen leading by just 4 percentage points and one by The Baltimore Sun in mid-March that showed him trailing Edwards by as many as 10 points.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
The Post poll also showed Edwards leading Van Hollen among likely female voters, now the biggest voting bloc in recent presidential election years, and black voters, who make up two-thirds of registered Maryland Democrats.
State Sen. Delores Goodwin Kelley, a Baltimore County Democrat, said Wednesday that the contest being thrust into the framework of race and gender politics is “kind of sad,” considering it’s more about voter demographics.
Nevertheless, Kelley, a black female, is voting for Van Hollen.
“If you really want to get the job done, you have to pick the best person,” said Kelley, who served roughly 12 years in the state legislature with Van Hollen. “When one person is clearly more knowledgeable, works better with others, is willing to do the heavy lifting, now is not the time to make an historic statement.”
As proof of Van Hollen’s fundraising prowess, he reported on Friday raising $1.8 million in the first three months of this year.
To keep pace, Edwards has gotten some huge help from EMILY’s List, the liberal group dedicated to getting pro-choice women elected to office. A PAC supporting the group has reportedly spent roughly $2.4 million so far on the Edwards campaign.
The winner of the April 26 primary will in November likely take the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski, considering 56 percent of registered Maryland voters are Democrats, more than double the number of registered Republicans.
Early primary voting started this week.
Edwards certainly has a natural advantage, considering her Prince George’s County-centric congressional district has a large black population, compared to Van Hollen’s Montgomery County-based district, also in suburban Washington, which is made up of more white and affluent voters.
However, the race could potentially be decided by who performs best in Baltimore City.
Edwards has at times been criticized for being difficult in Congress, across the aisle and compared to Van Hollen, a member of House Minority Leader Pelosi’s leadership team and the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
“She’s such a purist about who she will talk to and work with that it’s almost paralyzing,” Kelley said.
Edwards campaign spokesman Ben Gerdes said this week that his candidate “doesn’t shy away” from being who she is, which includes a being a single parent and black female lawmaker.
“Who she is has shaped the type of legislation she supports,” Gerdes said. He also said Edward’s closing strategy will be the same as what got her to the threshold of a potential upset victory.
“People care about the same things -- good jobs, good schools, getting rid of the heroin epidemic,” Gerdes said.
Key issues like Social Security and more recently gun control have helped define the race, in which the two progressive candidates are ideologically close.
Edwards has tried to suggest Van Hollen would cut Social Security to reduce the federal deficit. But Pelosi and others have defended him as a strong supporter of entitlements for the poor and elderly, and for ObamaCare.
Edwards and supporters are also now using ads to try to tie Van Hollen to the National Rifle Association because he led efforts on a 2010 bill to create more transparency in campaign finance reporting that included exemptions -- or “carve outs” -- for the NRA, in an apparent attempt to garner more support.
Van Hollen has fought back by arguing that Cummings and President Obama supported the legislation, which failed in the Senate, and points to his long political career of being tough on guns.
"We're confident that Chris's proven track record of getting results and vision for the future are what Marylanders want in their next U.S. senator,” Van Hollen spokeswoman Bridgett Frey said Friday. “Congresswoman Edwards has focused her campaign on false and misleading attacks because she's trying to hide her record of ineffectiveness. But Maryland families want a progressive leader who turns values into action.”

Report: Saudis vow to sell US assets if Congress decides gov was involved in 9/11

Saudis Blackmailing American Government?
Saudi Arabia has reportedly told the Obama administration and congressional leaders that it will sell billions of dollars in U.S. financial assets if Congress passes a bill to make the Saudi government legally responsible for any role in the 9/11 attacks.
The administration has tried to stop Congress from passing the legislation, a bipartisan Senate bill, since Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month told Washington lawmakers his country’s position, according to The New York Times.
Al-Jubeir purportedly informed the lawmakers during a trip to Washington that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell as much as $750 billion in Treasury securities and other American financial assets on the world market, fearing the legislation could become law and U.S. courts would then freeze the assets.
The revelations about the Saudis’ ultimatum come several days after reports that President Obama will soon decide whether to declassify 28 pages of sealed documents suspected of showing a Saudi connection to the deadly 9/11 terror attacks.
Former Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham told Fox News on Tuesday that the White House told him a decision on whether to declassify the documents would be made within 60 days.
Graham helped lead a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks.
The Bush and Obama administrations have refused to unseal the documents, arguing their release would jeopardize national security.
Critics claim the reluctance is a calculated move to hide Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the al Qaeda terror attack that killed almost 3,000 people on U.S. soil on Sept. 11, 2001.
Obama had come under renewed pressure to release the documents ahead of a scheduled trip next week to Saudi Arabia for a summit of Persian Gulf leaders.
Economists are purportedly skeptical about the Saudis making good on their vow to sell the assets, considering such a move would be difficult to execute and could severely hurt that country’s economy, which depends on the U.S. dollar.
The separate 9/11 Commission essentially found no evidence that the Saudi Arabia government supported the attacks.
However, the commission’s narrowly worded finding about having “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization” has skeptic suggesting that lesser officials government operatives or were involved.

Battle over Obama immigration actions lands before Supreme Court

Illegal immigrants forcing Americans to accept them.

The impassioned election-year debate over President Obama’s immigration executive actions lands Monday before a short-handed Supreme Court, where justices will consider a fundamental question: how much power does the president truly have?
The justices plan to hold 90 minutes of oral arguments dealing with Obama’s bid to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.
A coalition of states calls it an executive power grab. "President Obama's executive action is an affront to our system of republican self-government," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who supports those states.
But the White House contends the president’s authority is clear, and the policies humane and reasonable. Obama has promoted his program as a plan to "prioritize deporting felons not families."
It’s a case that will be closely watched in an election season where Republican front-runner Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his campaign. The outcome also could have considerable bearing on Obama’s legacy, potentially determining whether his lame-duck bid to go around Congress is upheld or ruled an overreach.
At issue Monday is whether as many as 5 million illegal immigrants can be spared deportation -- including those who entered the U.S. as children, and the parents of citizens or legal residents. The programs -- known as Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) -- effectively went around the Republican-led Congress.
Opponents, including 26 states and GOP members of Congress, say the plan exceeds constitutional power.
A federal appeals court earlier had struck down DAPA, which has yet to go fully into effect. The Justice Department then asked the high court for a final review, in what could be a key test of Obama's executive powers his last year in office.
The decision to review the case was welcome on both sides of the aisle.
"The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, not the president,” said Hatch, urging the justices to rule against the administration.
But the White House voiced confidence the policies would be upheld.
"Like millions of families across this country -- immigrants who want to be held accountable, to work on the books, to pay taxes, and to contribute to our society openly and honestly -- we are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to review the immigration case," spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said.
The issue of illegal immigration has taken a center-stage role in the Republican primary battle, as Trump calls for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and candidates spar over who is toughest on the issue.
The immigrants who would benefit from the Obama administration's plan are mainly parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said in a court filing that allowing the past rulings to stand would force millions "to continue to work off the books.”
Besides immigration, Obama has used his unilateral authority to act on such hot-button issues as gun control, health care and global warming.
However, as with other high-profile Supreme Court appeals this term -- on ObamaCare, abortion rights and affirmative action -- the outcome here likely will be affected by death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia, which left a 4-4 bench split along conservative-liberal lines.
A 4-4 ruling would effectively scuttle the issue until after Obama leaves office in nine months, and mean at least a temporary setback to his domestic policy legacy -- even if the justices punt, and choose to reargue the case when Scalia's replacement is sworn in. The justices also could rule narrowly on procedure, finding a compromise on a technical issue not directly related to the larger policy questions.
On the legal side, the GOP-controlled House filed an amicus brief supporting the states, telling the high court, "the Executive does not have the power to authorize -- let alone facilitate -- the prospective violation of the immigration laws on a massive class-wide scale."
Supporters of the administration vow this issue will resonate in an election year.
"There are millions of families of U.S.-born citizens that live under the fear of separation and deportation," said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota, an Hispanic advocacy nonprofit. "Our community is watching and will hold accountable those who have stood on the way of our families through the ballots in November."
MFV and other immigrant rights advocates plan to march at the Supreme Court around Monday's arguments.
The case is U.S. v. Texas (15-674). A ruling is expected by late June.
 

Cruz takes all 14 delegates at Wyoming GOP convention, NY primary next


Ted Cruz on Saturday won all 14 delegates in the Wyoming GOP convention -- a relatively small number but enough for the Texas senator to declare victory and keep GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump from securing the nomination.
“We are likely to have a battle in Cleveland to decide who is the nominee,” Cruz told party members before they picked the delegates. “If you don’t want to see Donald Trump as the nominee, … then I ask you to please vote for the men and women on this slate.”
The Wyoming process mirrored that of Colorado, which was engulfed by political controversy after hosting a similar convention last week.
Cruz’s campaign ran circles around the Trump operation there, prompting Trump to slam the multi-tiered caucus system as “rigged.”
Cruz was expected to do well in Wyoming because his campaign had been lining up support there for months, too.
“The ground game is starting early and starting at your most local, smallest enclave,” said Ed Buchanan, Cruz’s Wyoming chairman.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
After being tapped by Cruz in February, Buchanan started drafting activists across the state. His efforts were bolstered by two days of Cruz campaign stops in Wyoming last August.
Trump did not actively campaign in either state, while Cruz put in face-time in both.
“You are going to hear this from me more and more: We have to bring our country together. We are a divided nation,” Trump said at a rally in upstate New York, ahead of the state’s primary Tuesday in which 95 GOP delegates are up for grabs.
Before Saturday, Trump had 742 delegates, followed by Cruz with 529 and Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 143. The winner needs 1,237 delegates to win the nomination. (Kasich is running second in the New York primary, according to polls.)
Senior Trump adviser Alan Cobb said about Colorado and Wyoming: "Candidates that have allies that are party insiders have advantages in states that have a pyramid process of selecting their delegates. These folks have worked this process for years."
Mindful of potential accusations, Wyoming GOP leaders are ready. Their message: The rules were set long before anyone announced their candidacy.
“Every presidential candidate for the last 40 years has managed this process and has worked through this process and has followed the process that we have in Wyoming,” state GOP Chairman Matt Micheli said in an interview with Fox News. “We are simply following the rules that are in place and that have been in place for a long time.”

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos