Gun Control Cartoons

White House Budget Director Grilled Over 2019 Fiscal Budget

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is defending the Trump administration’s $4.4 trillion spending proposal.

Budget Director Mick Mulvaney testifies before the Senate Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2018, on President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal.

During a U.S. budget committee meeting on Tuesday, Mulvaney spoke about the 2019 budget, which seeks to increase military spending, fund the border wall, and slash entitlements.
He said his job as director of the OMB is to fund the president’s priorities, adding that is exactly what the agency did.
Meanwhile, experts say the budget would add nearly one trillion dollars to the national deficit, and will likely be overhauled before it passes congress.
“It’s a lot more fun to spend money than it is to reduce,” said Mulvaney. “It’s a lot harder to reduce spending in the long-term than it is to spend, and I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to start making difficult decisions to decide together as a legislature, as an administration: are these deficits that we are really willing to tolerate.”
When asked by Senators if Mulvaney would vote on the proposed budget, he said he would have found enough short-comings to vote against it.
However, he added it’s his duty to defend the White House’s priorities.

Michael Goodwin: Susan Rice ought to explain her weird email under oath

“Don’t let up,” a friend living abroad wrote a few weeks ago about corruption at the FBI. “Trump has them all on the run.”
The note came to mind when I saw the weird e-mail Susan Rice wrote to herself on Inauguration Day last year.
At first glance, the e-mail, which purports to recount remarks President Obama made two weeks earlier to Rice, FBI head James Comey and others about the Russia probe, makes no sense. But ask yourself why Rice repeated that Obama wanted everything done “by the book,” and it smells as if she’s preparing a last-minute defense for Obama, and maybe herself.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, pit bulls on government misbehavior, wrote to Rice about the e-mail while noting that there were lots of doubts about whether the FBI actually did proceed “by the book.”
Hopefully, she’ll have to give her answer under oath, as should Comey and anybody else in the room.

Backlash against Bill? Many Democrats would sideline Clinton in 2018

ill the changing political climate sideline Bill Clinton?

Less than two years ago, he stood on a Philadelphia stage and heaped praise on his wife as the Democratic nominee for his old job. And he was a constant presence on the trail in a campaign that they, and nearly all journalists, thought would defeat Donald Trump.

As the 2018 midterms heat up, you might expect that a former president—one who left office with a high approval rating, despite the inconvenient fact of having been impeached—would be much in demand. But apparently, not so much.
That's the thesis of a Politico piece on the party running away from Clinton:
"Democrats are looking to embrace the #MeToo moment and rally women to push back on President Donald Trump in the midterms—and they don’t want Bill Clinton anywhere near it."
Clinton's history—Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick—looks far different to many Democrats in 2018 than it did in 1998, when the Senate acquitted him, or even 2016. His presence would detract from the Democrats' ability to make the midterms about Donald Trump, Rob Porter and Roy Moore.
There's another factor, I believe, not mentioned by Politico: Bill's presence also reminds voters of Hillary. It's not his fault that she ran a terrible campaign and lacked his ability to spin stories and connect with voters. But ever since he ran on a 2-for-1 deal back in 1992, allowed her to make policy as first lady and backed her two White House runs, they have been politically joined at the hip.
And most Democrats want to move on from the Hillary debacle.
The piece says of Bill that "an array of Democrats told Politico they're keeping him on the bench. They don’t want to be seen anywhere near a man with a history of harassment allegations, as guilty as their party loyalty to him makes them feel about it ...
"Privately, many Democratic politicians and strategists are harsher and firmer: Don't come to their states, and don't say anything about their campaigns. They are still worried about saying it out loud, but they don't want him now, or maybe ever. They know Republicans would react by calling them — with good reason — hypocrites."
This is hardly the first time the issue of Clinton’s womanizing has come up. Twenty years ago, Democrats feared that he would be an albatross in the midst of the Ken Starr investigation and impeachment drive; the Republicans lost five seats and Newt Gingrich resigned as speaker.
In 2000, Al Gore barely deployed Clinton as a surrogate as he tried to turn the page, and that may have cost him the presidency in the razor-thin recount election.
Trump didn't let Clinton’s sexual misconduct fade into the history books. He alluded to it at times, and after the "Access Hollywood" tape, he brought some of Clinton's accusers to the second debate. His surrogates weren't shy about using Bill's past to blunt Hillary's attacks on Trump’s treatment of women.
But now it's Clinton’s own party that apparently wants to turn the page. Kirsten Gillibrand, elected to the Senate with Clinton's backing but eyeing the White House in 2020, recently said he should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky affair. If most other Democrats follow suit, Clinton may have to spend more time with his family and his foundation.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Bipartisan immigration deal pits moderates against GOP leadership, Trump

A group of senators on Wednesday came up with a bipartisan immigration deal that would increase border security and give legal status to the so-called Dreamers, but fall short of President Trump’s “four pillars,” and— if passed —would likely be vetoed.

The so-called Common Sense Coalition is comprised of eight Democrats, eight Democrats and one Independent.

The compromise calls for $25 billion for border security, including the construction of the border wall over a 10-year period. The compromise falls short of Trump’s demand for immediate funding, The New York Times reported.
Nearly two million illegal immigrants, many of who came to the country as children, would be offered an eventual path to citizenship as part of the plan. The new citizens would not be allowed to sponsor their parents. The bipartisan deal leaves the diversity visa lottery in place, an immigration program Trump wants to ax.
Trump on Wednesday reiterated the need to pass the bill proposed by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, that takes a more hardline approach to immigration.
“I am asking all senators, in both parties, to support the Grassley bill and to oppose any legislation that fails to fulfill these four pillars,” Trump said in the statement. He added that the “overwhelming majority of American voters support a plan that fulfills the framework’s four pillars, which move us towards the safe, modern and lawful immigration system our people deserve.”
The president said he would oppose any “Band-Aid” measure that gives legal status to Dreamers in exchange for a minimal increase in border security.
Republican leadership came out in support for Trump.
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Wednesday that “the president has made clear what principles must be addressed if we are going to make a law instead of merely making political points.”
The Grassley bill would give a path to citizenship for young immigrants but it would also limit “chain migration,” beef up border security. It remains unclear whether the bill, which is favored by the White House, has a chance in Congress. Democrats oppose any plan to severely limit “chain migration,” a process when someone can sponsor a visa for a family member. Democrats are also opposed to ending the diversity visa lottery.
But it remains unclear whether the bipartisan agreement would reach the required 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster if brought up for the vote.
“The president’s going to have a vote on his concept. I don’t think it will get 60 votes,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham,  R-S.C., according to the Times. “The bottom line then is: What do you do next? You can do what we’ve done for the last 35 years — blame each other. Or you can actually start fixing the broken immigration system. If you came out of this with strong border security — the president getting his wall and the Dream Act population being taken care of — most Americans would applaud.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the bipartisan bill does not have the required votes yet, adding that he is encouraging the liberal wing of his party, who oppose compromises with Republicans, to support the bill. “There are plenty who don’t like this,” he said.

PBS Political Cartoons

Former UN secretary general Annam

Former UN Secretary General Annan with Hillary

Trump proposes cutting all federal funds for NPR, PBS

President Trump proposed cutting funding for PBS and NPR, but the suggestion faces long odds in Congress.

The 2019 federal budget that the White House unveiled Monday again proposes cutting all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funnels money to NPR and PBS -- a potential move that the CPB president quickly slammed.
In a statement, President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Patricia Harrison excoriated the proposal, suggesting it might even lead to fatalities.
“Americans place great value on having universal access to public media’s educational and informational programming and services, provided commercial free and free of charge,” Harrison said in a statement Monday.
“Since there is no viable substitute for federal funding that would ensure this valued service continues, the elimination of federal funding to CPB would at first devastate, and then ultimately destroy public media’s ability to provide early childhood content, life-saving emergency alerts, and public affairs programs," the statement continued.
But the idea must win the approval of a skeptical Congress to become reality. Just last year, the White House made a similar proposal to defund the CPB, although Congress effectively ignored the request.
"The Budget proposes to eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) over a two year period," the 2019 proposal states.
Republicans have long suggested that PBS and NPR, which some politicians and commentators say are left-leaning and partisan, should not receive federal funds.
But the Trump budget, rather than raising the issue of bias, simply asserts that the money is not necessary.
"CPB funding comprises about 15 percent of the total amount spent on public broadcasting, with the remainder coming from non-Federal sources," the propsal says, under a section titled "Justification."
"This private fundraising has proven durable, negating the need for continued Federal subsidies," the proposal continues, adding that NPR and PBS could make up the shortfall by "increasing revenues from corporate sponsors, foundations, and members."

Senators flag 'unusual' Susan Rice email on Russia probe from Inauguration Day

Ex-national security adviser Susan Rice sent an “unusual email” to herself the day President Trump was sworn into office documenting former President Barack Obama's guidance at a high-level meeting about how law enforcement should investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race, two Republican senators said Monday. 

According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the partially unclassified email was sent by Rice on Jan. 20, 2017 -- and appears to document a Jan. 5 meeting that included Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Vice President Joe Biden and Rice. 

In the email, Obama's national security adviser wrote: “President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”
THE TRUMP DOSSIER: HOW A POLITICAL DOCUMENT MADE ITS WAY TO THE FBI
The email also appears to reflect Obama's guidance on sharing sensitive information with both the Russians and the incoming administration.
Rice wrote that Obama said "he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia."
She added, "The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.  Comey said he would."
Grassley, R-Iowa, and Graham, R-S.C., released the email Monday. They said they uncovered it as part of their oversight of the FBI and the Department of Justice, and claimed it raises new questions.
“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation,” they wrote in a letter to Rice.
They added: “In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’”
The origins of the Russia meddling probe have come under mounting scrutiny on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are looking at how an unverified anti-Trump dossier was used to seek a surveillance warrant against Trump associate Carter Page in late 2016.
The senators asked Rice to answer questions about the email by Feb. 22.
According to the released email, the Jan. 5 meeting followed a briefing by the intelligence community on Russian hacking during the 2016 election. Grassley and Graham said the meeting included a discussion of the now-infamous dossier.
But one source familiar with the meeting said it had nothing to do with Steele or the dossier. That person said it was solely focused on whether the intelligence community and the FBI needed to be careful about what Russia conversations they had with the Trump transition team.

Is Social Security to blame for so many men dying at 62?

Is the thought of looming retirement and availability of Social Security killing you? Two researchers say yes.

Maria D. Fitzpatrick of Cornell University and Timothy J. Moore of the University of Melbourne said they analyzed the mortality rates in the U.S. and noticed that many older Americans – but disproportionally men who retire at 62 – are affected by sudden increased rates of death.

“A lot happens in our early 60s. Some change jobs, scale back working hours or retire. Our health-care coverage may shift. We may have fewer financial resources, or we may begin collecting Social Security," Fitzpatrick told The Wall Street Journal. “About one-third of Americans immediately claim Social Security at 62. Ten percent of men retire in the month they turn 62.”
The numbers, according to the study, show that there is a two percent increase in male mortality at age 62 in the country. “Over the 34 years we studied, there were an additional 400 to 800 deaths per year beyond what we expected, or an additional 13,000 to 27,000 excess male deaths within 12 months of turning 62,” the professor said.
The researcher blames the increased mortality on the retirement as retirees tend to withdraw from life and no longer see the point in engaging.
“Retirement could have positive long-run benefits for your health because you’re taking better care of yourself. Or it could be that, in the long run, retirement has a negative effect. You can think of how a retiree slowly withdraws from the world because he no longer has any reason to engage,” she told the WSJ.
After all, the retirement brings new risks into life: “If you don’t go to work, you have more hours of the day to be driving around,” the professor said.
“Medical literature suggests when older men are more sedentary, they’re more likely to be at risk for infection. When they lose their jobs, they increase their smoking rate, linked to the types of deaths we see such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] or respiratory illness.”
The bottom line, says Fitzpatrick, is that the retirement “may be bad for the health of men, particularly for men who retire at the relatively early age of 62.”
While she is not advising people against not retiring, especially if their health is poor, people should take precautions and commit to fairly active yet stress-free lifestyle.
“Stay healthy, see a physician, don’t just sit on the couch, but don’t overdo it either. Be careful about driving. Just be careful. It is a tricky time,” she said.

Justice for Gemmel Moore? Family wants answers in escort's death at Dem donor's home

Democratic donor Ed Buck is seen at left in the fall of 2015 with Hillary Clinton. Gemmel Moore, at right, was found dead inside Buck's apartment on July 27, 2017.  (Facebook)

Family and friends of a male escort found dead in the West Hollywood home of a high-powered Democratic Party donor last year continue to press for answers—in a case that has eluded the national media spotlight on incidents of sexual misconduct and racial injustice.

Gemmel Moore, 26, was discovered by police on July 27 inside the apartment of Ed Buck, 63. Buck is a well-known Democratic contributor, and has given more than $500,000 to an array of Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey and a variety of state and local organizations in California.

The Los Angeles County Coroner’s office initially ruled the death an accidental methamphetamine overdose. But the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office Homicide Bureau on Aug. 14 announced they would investigate if there is any criminal culpability, after Moore’s family and friends disputed the initial finding.
Investigators told Fox News they would like to have the inquiry wrapped up in the near future—but have had trouble interviewing certain witnesses.
“We should have all the information, so we can make a good evaluation of everything that transpired to see if there’s any criminal culpability,” Lt. Joe Mendoza, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office homicide bureau, told Fox News in a recent telephone interview.
Detectives have already interviewed “numerous” witnesses who have information to share about their interactions with Buck, according to Mendoza. But investigators are trying to schedule additional interviews with people who may have useful information.

The death of Gemmel Moore, 26, is being investigated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office.  (Facebook)

According to the July 31 coroner’s report, Buck’s apartment was riddled with drug paraphernalia. Among the items found were 24 syringes containing brown residue, five glass pipes with white residue and burn marks, a plastic straw with possible white residue, clear plastic bags with white powdery residue and a clear plastic bag containing a piece of crystal-like substance.
The report also states coroner’s investigators spoke with a woman who said Moore told her someone whose name is redacted tied him up “over a year ago” and “held him against his will at the residence in West Hollywood.”
“We don’t want to move forward with anything else without every single piece of information,” said Mendoza, adding that investigators have worked with the district attorney’s office to give immunity to witnesses for unrelated minor crimes so they can speak freely. “We’re just in a holding pattern until we can get those people interviewed.”
Mendoza said investigators are “trying to leave no stone unturned.”
Buck's attorney, Seymour Amster, told Fox News that his client has done nothing wrong.

“If it didn’t hurt so bad, I’d kill myself, but I’ll let Ed Buck do it for now.”

- Gemmel Moore, in his journal

"There’s nothing there. As we always stated, this was an accidental overdose that Ed Buck had nothing to do with and it’s a tragedy," Amster said in a recent phone interview. "The coroner has not changed his opinion from an accidental death. Until that happens, and that’s not going to happen, we’re done."
Once the probe is concluded, investigators will determine whether the findings should be turned over to a district attorney or brought before a grand jury. “I think a detective would probably present it to a DA, but a grand jury is not out of play either,” said Mendoza.
Among the items being investigated is a journal that Moore appears to have kept, which investigators discovered among his belongings. The writings in the journal, which Moore’s mother, LaTisha Nixon, discussed with Fox News, describes his drug use and interactions with Buck.
“I honestly don’t know what to do. I’ve become addicted to drugs and the worst one at that,” a December entry reads. “Ed Buck is the one to thank. He gave me my first injection of crystal meth it was very painful, but after all the troubles, I became addicted…”
Moore’s final journal entry, dated December 3, 2016, reads: “If it didn’t hurt so bad, I’d kill myself, but I’ll let Ed Buck do it for now.”

A page of Moore's journal is seen in the screen grab above.  (Courtesy of LaTisha Nixon)

According to Jasmyne Cannick, an advocate for Moore’s family, a number of other gay black men have claimed Buck would invite them to his house, then pay them several hundred dollars to take drugs.
The coroner’s report also said investigators spoke with a woman who said Moore told her another man, whose name is redacted, was tied up by Buck “over a year ago” and “held him against his will at the residence in West Hollywood.”
Moore’s family has set up a website where people can come forward with information. “Gemmel deserves justice. What’s done in the dark always comes to the light,” Nixon told Fox News. “I’m happy Ed Buck got exposed for what he was doing.”
Amster told Fox News that the two men were “friends” and that Buck was “legitimately trying to help” Moore.

Gemmel Moore is seen with his mother, LaTisha Nixon, above.  (Facebook)

“These are merely accusations. This situation has turned into an attack on Mr. Buck’s personal life,” Amster told Fox News.
Moore family attorney Nana Gyamfi told Fox News she hoped a “substantive investigation can now take place with the statements of the additional victims who will corroborate certain details in Gemmel Moore’s journal, but also recount their own experiences with Ed Buck.”
Gyamfi said no wrongful death lawsuit has been filed, but that it’s “on the dry-erase board as one way in which some modicum of justice for Gemmel can be achieved.”
Moore’s mother is clear on what justice means for her:
“Getting Ed Buck off the streets and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for preying on and taking advantage of my son and others like him."