California has worst 'quality of life' in US, study says

California has the worst quality of life in the U.S., according to a new study.

Awards season is in full swing in California, and the Golden State just took home a booby prize of its own.

California ranks dead last among U.S. states in quality of life, according to a study by U.S. News, ranking behind New Jersey (49th) and Indiana (48th).

The ignominious honor reflects California's low marks in the sub-categories of environmental quality and social engagement. The latter category measures voting participation and community bonds.
Californians scored poorly in part because they're simply insufferable, U.S. News suggested.
"In addition to a healthy environment, a person's quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them," the magazine wrote in a blurb accompanying the results.
POST-BANKRUPTCY CALIFORNIA CITY TESTS 'UNIVERSAL' INCOME FOR RESIDENTS
U.S. News ranked each state in seven other areas, which were weighted based on a survey that determined their importance to the public: health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, and fiscal stability.
In those categories, California finished No. 43 in fiscal stability, No. 46 in opportunity, and No. 38 in infrastructure. It posted relatively high marks in health care (11th), economy (4th), and crime and corrections (28th).
California ranked No. 32 among all U.S. states overall, behind New York (25th), New Jersey (19th), and Florida (15th).
Which state has the best quality of life?
Iowa, which scored highly in infrastructure and health care, took the top spot overall.

Dems Fixation on Trump Cartoons

Hillary Clinton to speak at Yale graduation event ( So funny )

Hillary Clinton, pictured here speaking at a campaign rally on Nov. 8, 2016, was announced as Yale's 2018 Class Day Speaker.

Yale University on Monday announced former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak at its prestigious “Class Day” ceremony.

The school’s Class Day co-chairs told the senior class Monday night that Clinton, a 1973 graduate of Yale Law School, would speak at the event in New Haven, Connecticut, on May 20, the Yale Daily News reported.

Class Day is scheduled the day before the Ivy League school’s commencement ceremony.
“When Secretary Clinton spoke at her Wellesley graduation in 1969, she told her class that their challenge was ‘to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible,’” event co-chair Josh Hochman told the student newspaper.
“The ‘impossible’ world Secretary Clinton imagined in 1969 is not yet won — yet it will be if our generation dares to emulate her life of resilient and courageous service," Hochman added.
Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have said they met at Yale’s law school in the spring of 1971.

The Clintons have said they met at Yale Law School in the spring of 1970.  (Clinton Digital Library)

The 2016 Democratic nominee for president joins a slew of former Obama administration officials who have spoken at the school’s event.
Former Vice President Joe Biden gave Yale’s Class Day address in 2015, and former Secretary of State John Kerry, of the 1966 Yale class, spoke at the school’s 2014 traditional event. Class of 1992’s Samantha Power, the former United Nations Ambassador, addressed the school’s Class Day in 2016.
Clinton's most recent commencement address was at the 2017 graduation ceremony of Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1969.

Scary stuff: How fabricators attacked Miami paper after school shooting

I am not in favor of censorship.

And it's amazing that I have to say that, but there it is.

What I'm opposed to are the dissemination of fabrications, bogus conspiracy theories and fake propaganda accounts that cause damage to individuals, to groups and to our country.
When I spoke about this on the air, I quickly heard from folks who embrace some of these conspiracy theories and who flung the charge of censorship. I fully acknowledge, and have said before, that a crackdown on fakery and propaganda risks stomping on people's free speech rights. But I believe it's possible without undermining those rights, as long as one set of political views isn't unfairly targeted.
The temperature level has of course shot way up in the wake of the Florida school shooting. And now comes a dramatic case study from Miami.
McClatchy has a chilling report on one of its papers, the Miami Herald—chilling, that is, if you care about the future of journalism.
Some hacker managed to create "two fake tweets that looked like they came from the account of Alex Harris, a Herald reporter preparing tributes to the slain students. One fake tweet asked for photos of dead bodies at the school and another asked if the shooter was white."
Such tweets are designed to discredit the reporter and the newspaper through old-fashioned lies.
That wasn't all. The perpetrator also managed "to create a phony Miami Herald story — in the high tension following the Parkland shooting — saying that a Miami-Dade middle school faced threats of 'potentially catastrophic events' on upcoming dates, indicating that a new mass shooting was in the offing."
After screenshots of the fictitious story were shared on Twitter and Snapchat, Monique Madan, the Herald reporter whose byline was slapped on the story, said: "It looks super real. They use the same font that we use. It has our masthead. It has my byline. If I were't a journalist, I wouldn’t think twice about it."
And talk about real-world consequences. Of course parents, students and teachers at the middle school would be scared by such a story and blame the Herald for fomenting fear.
As technology makes it easier to create fake tweets, fake stories, even fake videos, the potential for undermining those who try to cover real news.
We've also seen stark evidence of this as the Russians, during and since the 2016 campaign, have used bots and bogus accounts to try to disrupt American politics, first to push Donald Trump’s candidacy and most recently to exploit divisions over the Florida shooting.
On Sunday’s "Media Buzz," I questioned why Facebook, Google, YouTube and other social media sites can't do a better job of cracking down on fakery and propaganda. They've all admitted shortcomings and promised to do better, but one reason is that they don't want to invest the substantial sums that it would take.
YouTube has apologized for inadvertently promoting a video calling Florida shooting survivor David Hogg an "actor." A 51-year-old Idaho man with under 1,000 followers posted footage of Hogg being interviewed by local TV last year for having witnessed a confrontation at a California beach—the clear implication being that he’s an actor who wasn’t really at the Parkland high school.
That video drew more than 200,000 views and hit No. 1 on YouTube before apologizing and deleting it for violating policies against bullying and harassment.
Conspiratorial stuff will always find an audience. But in an age when bad actors can use technology to literally fabricate the news, journalism outlets—including social media companies that profit from journalism—have to be constantly on guard.
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.

Dems taking heat from allies for fixation on slamming tax cuts, Trump

Washington Democrats are taking heat from some of their biggest financial supporters over a midterm-election strategy still focused on bashing President Trump and the Republican tax cut plan – as recent polls suggest the party's candidates could be losing their edge. 

Congressional Democrats, just a couple months ago, thought they had a winning plan for taking control of the chamber by arguing the tax cuts were a gift to corporate supporters at the expense of the American worker. Within hours of the bill's passage, Democrats returned to their districts for the holidays, ready to trumpet the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s message of “House Republicans Sign Away Their Seats.”

However, the extra money in employee paychecks since early January, and bonuses related to the cuts, apparently are winning over voters.
Those outside the Capitol Hill bubble are taking note, and urging Democrats to reconsider their message.
“If we spend all of our cycle running against the tax bill, it’s probably going to be a mistake,” Julie Greene, a former Democratic National Committee aide who now leads midterm campaign efforts for the AFL-CIO, recently said.
The most recent RealClearPolitics average of “generic” ballot polls -- asking voters which party they prefer in congressional races -- shows Democrats with a roughly 7-percentage-point lead over Republicans, compared with 13 points the day after Congress approved the tax law.
And a new Morning Consult/Politico poll showed Republicans leading by 1 percentage point, after trailing for three months.
Trump also has taken note of the polls, as Democrats try to win a total two-dozen seats to retake the House majority they lost in 2010.
“Republicans are now leading the Generic Poll, perhaps because of the popular Tax Cuts which the Dems want to take away. Actually, they want to raise you taxes, substantially,” the president tweeted Tuesday.
Gallup, meanwhile, announced that Americans’ satisfaction with the direction of the country was its highest since before Trump became president in November 2016, saying the impact of the cuts -- as seen on employees’ “first pay stubs” -- was a potential factor.
“This is a terrible idea for Democrats to run on,” Rory McShane, a Republican political media consultant, said Tuesday. “The tax plan is benefitting most Americans. Everybody knew it was going to be like an extra 50 bucks in each paycheck. But that pays a cellphone bill. That just shows you the world in which Democratic leadership doesn’t live.”
Republicans already are trying to tie 2018 Democratic candidates to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s recent comment that employee bonuses as a result of the tax cuts amount to “crumbs.”
McShane speculated that by Election Day, the cuts likely won’t impact the well-paid, well-educated “suburban” swing voters that pollsters frequently say decide elections. “But they will likely make Trump’s base happy that they put him in office and make them want to vote the same way in 2018,” he said.
Meanwhile, Priorities USA, the major Democratic super PAC that backed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns, issued a memo last week raising concerns about whether the party has become too focused -- or perhaps too refocused -- on reacting to Trump, according to Politico.
Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan told Politico the memo was "spot on."
"There are some real issues that we need to pound -- and I mean pound relentlessly -- if we are going to win the districts we need to win in," said Ryan, who has been critiical of House leadership.

The offices for House Democratic leaders and the DCCC, whose mission is to get the chamber's Democratic candidates elected and reelected, have not responded to requests for comment for this report.
Washington Democrats acknowledge that their failures in 2016 to keep the White House or retake the House were in large part the result of a campaign platform relying too much on opposing Trump and failing to connect with Middle America voters.
The party last year announced its “Better Deal” platform, an effort to create more better-paying, full-time jobs for Americans. This past fall, House Democratic leaders announced their related “Jobs for America Task Force,” though the idea of attacking Trump still appeared to be on their minds.
“We all know our agenda just can’t be against Donald Trump, as alluring as that may be,”’ said New York Rep. Joe Crowley, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “We will create a jobs package that our members can advocate for in this Congress and beyond.”

Dem-olition Derby: Glut of candidates has party at war with itself

The throngs of Democratic candidates jumping into the 2018 congressional contests in hopes of 'resisting' President Trump have in turn fueled a nasty war within the party -- a fight that has seen incumbents scorned as primary fields swell. 

This was witnessed most recently over the weekend, when the California Democratic Party declined to endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bid for a sixth term.

But in California and beyond, Democrats are experiencing internal tensions similar to what Republicans went through during the Tea Party wave of 2010. The open question: will they replicate the GOP's success of that cycle, or crumble amid their own divisions?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has struggled to lock down support from the state party this year.  (Reuters)

One potential risk is that moderate candidates will be pushed aside, in favor of liberal candidates who might not be as electable in a general election.
CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY WON'T ENDORSE FEINSTEIN
In Illinois, at least four Capitol Hill Democrats have endorsed the primary challenger over incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski, a moderate seeking an eight term.
Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, one of the four to back challenger Marie Newman, acknowledged the unusual, bare-knuckle move, while arguing it was necessary to show his party has “a response in the age of Donald Trump.”

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez came out against a fellow Democratic incumbent.

“It’s not easy to endorse a challenger over a colleague in the House of Representatives, especially when that colleague is a member of your party,” Gutierrez told Capitol Hill reporters, when he and fellow Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky last month endorsed Newman, a businesswoman and first-time candidate.
Schakowsky also is a part of the leadership team for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has yet to endorse Lipinski over the more liberal Newman, with the party primary less than a month away.
Newman also has an endorsement from potential 2020 presidential candidate and New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and touts support from many of the progressive movement's biggest names -- including feminist icon Gloria Steinem, Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, the Service Employees International Union and Indivisible, leaders in the resist-Trump movement.
“I don’t think we’ve ever seen this type of robust involvement by national Democrats picking winners and losers in their own primaries,” Caleb Burns, a partner in the Washington law firm Wiley Rein and who specializes in election law, said Monday.
The California Democratic Party's Feinstein snub reflected another such intra-party battle.
At the group’s annual convention, members gave Feinstein 37 percent of the vote, compared with 57 percent for state Senate leader Kevin de Leon. However, de Leon, a favorite of the state party’s progressive wing, didn’t get the endorsement either because he failed to garner the required 60 percent of the vote.
“With how far to the left the party has lurched, Democrats who do qualify for the general [election] are likely to be too extreme for their districts,” Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Ahrens said Sunday, echoing what moderate Democrats are purportedly telling DCCC leaders. “California Democrats made it clear that even Dianne Feinstein … is not nearly liberal enough for them anymore.”
Nowhere is the challenge of a candidate overload more glaring than in California, where the DCCC has targeted at least eight Republican-held House seats on their path to win a total of 24 and take control of the chamber.
However, the flood of Democratic candidates eager to capitalize on anti-Trump sentiment and the Republican-controlled Congress’ low approval ratings has created headaches for the DCCC, particularly in Orange County.
The group, whose mission is to get Democrats elected and re-elected to the House, has been hand-wringing for months over the situation. Group polling suggests so many Democrats are running in California’s top-two primary system that the splintered votes could hurt their ability to reach the general election, The Los Angeles Times reports.
Four races in Orange County were at the top of Democrats’ midterm list, considering 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won the conservative stronghold for the party for the first time in about 80 years -- in large part the result of the state’s Hispanic population migrating south from greater Los Angeles.
But in two 2018 races -- against incumbent GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and retiring GOP Rep. Ed Royce -- eight Democrats have entered the fray.
A source tells Fox News that House Democrats focused on the midterms are at least suggesting to some candidates to withdraw.
The situation in Texas’s 7th Congressional District appears even more sharp-elbowed, with the DCCC openly opposing candidate Laura Moser, one of at least six Democrats running in a district Clinton also wrested from the GOP.
“Democratic voters need to hear that Laura Moser is not going to change Washington,” the group said last week. “She is a Washington insider, who begrudgingly moved to Houston to run for Congress.”
The DCCC also says in its website post that Moser as of last month was still claiming her Washington property as her primary residence to get a tax break and that she’s paid her husband’s D.C. political consulting firm more than $50,000 from campaign contributions.
“Whatever happens, I will continue to run a campaign on the issues, a campaign worthy of my daughter and all our daughters,” Moser, who this past weekend had actress Alyssa Milano on the campaign trail, responded on Twitter.
The DCCC has yet to respond to a request Monday for comment.
Beyond riding the anti-Trump sentiment, Washington Democrats are also relying on historical tailwinds to give them the House majority for the first time since 2010, considering the party that holds the White House typically loses about 30 seats in the first post-presidential race midterm.
However, recent generic ballot polls, in which likely voters say whether they’d prefer a Democrat or Republican for Congress, show Democrats’ big leads now down to single digits -- particularly after the GOP tax cuts.
“I think the tax bill is going to be a great benefit to Republican incumbents,” Burns also said. “They’re now able to explain a complicated law by pointing to the money that companies are putting back in people’s pockets. Voters can now see the results in structured, measurable ways.”
The conservative opposition research group America Rising said Monday: “As these contests unfold across the country, one thing is clear: Giddy talk of a coming ‘blue wave’ must be tempered with the ugly reality that the eventual Democratic nominees will not come out of these contests unscathed."

DACA Cartoons

Rep. Mac Thornberry: We need a strong vibrant economy to fund our military

This 2007 image shows two U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor aircraft during a training mission.  (AP/ U.S. Air Force) 

The primary job of the federal government is to provide for the common defense, yet today only 15 percent of the budget is devoted to that task.  While our military personnel will always try to do whatever is asked of them, years of inadequate and unpredictable funding have taken a real toll.  Much of their equipment is old and worn out, and too often they have not been getting the training they need to do what the nation asks.  In 2017 about four times as many service members lost their lives in routine training and operations than in hostile actions.

Defense Secretary James Mattis testified recently that “our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare – air, land, sea, space, and cyber.”  Others have put our position compared with rival states, such as Russia and China, in much starker terms.  There can be little doubt that this erosion of American military strength has encouraged a variety of adversaries to be more aggressive and that the world has grown more dangerous as a result.

The budget agreement recently passed by Congress and signed into law begins to reverse this decline.  At the same time, sufficient resourcing comes with additional responsibility, for both the Congress and the Department of Defense.  While the added funding will allow us to begin to repair our planes, ships, and equipment, we must also continue to drive significant reforms needed within the Department and other agencies to stay ahead of rapidly changing technologies and a wide range of current and anticipated future threats.  In addition, the first full audit of the Department will occur this year, which will help uncover areas for financial improvement.
Over the past three years, Congress has enacted significant reforms with strong bipartisan support. We have modernized military benefits, reorganized much of the Defense bureaucracy, and reformed the way the Pentagon buys goods and services. All of this was done with a goal of making the Pentagon, and especially the acquisition system, more agile.  As a result, anyone entering military service today will witness these reforms, over the course of their career, save the taxpayer billions. We have more work to do, and top officials in the Department seem willing to work with Congress towards this important goal. 

A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically.

Still, some have opposed restoring military budgets by trying to revive the old “guns versus butter” debate.  In fact, American economic prosperity and our national security are more like the chicken and the egg – we cannot have one without the other.
We need a strong, vibrant economy to produce the tax revenue to fund our military.  We also need economic growth and innovation to ensure that our military technology stays ahead of authoritarian, directed economies like China’s that can force a whole-of-nation effort against us.
But a strong military is also an essential prerequisite to a healthy economy and to our quality of life.  Since World War II, the rules-based international order created and maintained by the United States has benefited peoples around the globe and none more so than Americans here at home.  We are living longer with a higher material standard of living than ever before.
When we talk about the necessity of a strong military, it is not only to protect our people and allies from North Korean missile and terrorist attacks.  It is also to guarantee freedom of navigation in the sea and in the air and to ensure that there are fair, enforceable international rules that give American companies and American workers a fair chance to compete.
Allowing our military strength to continue to wane adds fuel to China’s narrative that America is a nation in decline so that Asian nations would do better to enlist in China’s alternative economic and military order.  If China sets the rules for much of the world’s economy, America will feel the consequences in our pocketbooks as well as in our security.
A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically.  That is why Congress came together this month and ended the era of asking our troops to do too much with too little.  To make the most of that investment, we must now apply equal effort to agility driven reforms.
The brave men and women in the military serve the nation unconditionally, and our support for them should be unconditional as well.  They deserve the best training, equipment, and support that our nation can provide.  By providing that kind of support for them, we are also helping ensure that future Americans will inherit a country of growth and opportunity.
Republican Mac Thornberry represents Texas' 13th District in the U.S. House of Representatives where he serves as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

What is DACA and why is the Trump administration ending it?

DACA: What is it?

President Trump is expected to make a decision on the fate of Obama-era immigration Executive Order DACA. But what is it?

It’s down to the wire for President Trump and lawmakers to come up with a plan for the hundreds of thousands of young, undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

In September 2017, the Trump administration officially announced its plan to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) – which provides a level of amnesty to certain undocumented immigrants, many of whom came to the U.S. as children – with a six-month delay for recipients. However, two federal judges have recently ruled that DACA must continue while litigation is pending. 

Here’s a look at the DACA program and why the Trump administration dismantled it.

What is the DACA program?

Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth fell under the DACA program's umbrella.  (Reuters/Jose Luis Gonzalez)

The DACA program was formed through executive order by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and allowed certain people who came to the U.S. illegally as minors to be protected from immediate deportation. Recipients, called Dreamers, were able to request “consideration of deferred action” for a period of two years, which was subject to renewal.
“Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated. “Deferred action does not provide lawful status.”
Individuals were able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007.
Individuals also had to have a high school diploma, GED certification, been honorably discharged from the military or still be in school. Recipients could not have a criminal record.
It did not provide “legal status.”

How many people are affected by DACA?

Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth are under the program's umbrella.
Thousands of people could lose their jobs if the DACA program is rescinded permanently, according to a study by the left-leaning think tank, the Center for American Progress.
Daniel Garza, president of the conservative immigration nonprofit Libre Initiative, told Fox News that DACA offers a “reprieve from a life of uncertainty for innocent kids who didn’t break the law.”
“It’s rather disappointing to think they could return to a state of anxiety and fear,” he said.

Why did the Trump administration dismantle it?

The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it planned to phase out DACA for current recipients, and no new requests would be granted.
Since the announcement, Trump has offered to work with lawmakers on a solution for the hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. who fell under DACA’s umbrella of protections. He has also repeatedly blamed Democrats on social media for lack of a solution.
On Feb. 13, a Brooklyn federal judge ordered the government to let people already in the DACA program continue enjoying protections but declined to guarantee the program to new applicants. In January, a San Francisco judge ruled that DACA must remain in place while litigation is ongoing.
The Supreme Court reportedly held a close-door meeting to discuss the court decisions on Feb. 16.
Earlier this year, Trump released his “four pillars” of immigration reform, which included a provision for legal status for DACA recipients and others who would be eligible for DACA status. The White House estimated that total to be 1.8 million people.
Republicans – and some Democrats – opposed Obama’s order establishing DACA from the start as a perceived overreach of executive power.
Obama spoke out on social media after the Trump administration announced the plan to dismantle the program, stating that it's "self-defeating ... and it is cruel" to end DACA and questioned the motive behind the decision.
One thing to consider: Trump's decision to end DACA could throw a wrench into his administration's other immigration reform efforts.

Do any DACA recipients serve in the military?

Despite some rumors circulating online to the contrary, Dreamers were eligible to serve in the U.S. military since 2014 when the Pentagon adopted a policy to allow a certain amount of undocumented immigrants to join.
In the fiscal year 2016, 359 DACA recipients had enlisted in the Army – which is the only branch to accept immigrants of this category.
A Department of Defense official said in April 2017 that the military would continue to accept noncitizen recruits, but it is unclear if that will continue to be the case.

Russia official calls US charges a joke worthy of actor Jim Carrey

A spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman says the U.S. indictment charging 13 Russians with trying to influence the U.S. presidential election is ridiculous enough to be the work of a professional comedian.

State news agency Tass quoted ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying Sunday: "I sometimes get the impression that ... behind these statements that are made in the U.S. are some of their most popular comedians, maybe Jim Carrey."

The indictment issued Feb. 16 alleges a businessman linked to President Vladimir Putin and a dozen other Russians ran a "troll farm" that created false social media content.
The indictment – the first filed against Russian nationals as part of Mueller’s probe – effectively returns focus to the meddling activities out of Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election, following a string of charges relating to the actions of Trump associates.
Further, the DOJ made clear that the indictment does not allege that any of the interference changed the outcome of the presidential race.
“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe, said at a Friday press conference.
Tass says Zakharova commented during a talk show on state Rossiya-1 TV: "It's really very ridiculous to blame 13 Russians from a legal company with influence on the U.S. election and seriously discuss it as evidence."