Census Cartoons

Trump’s census question sends media into panic and other ridiculous news disasters

The media played the question-and-answer game with the Trump administration this week. The White House proposed adding a census question on citizenship and the media resoundingly said no.
Major news organizations screamed that there was “a growing backlash” against the question. Not from the public, mind you, just from Democrats.
NBC White House Correspondent Kristen Welker explained that there were “several Democratic state attorneys general poised to sue the Trump administration.” Because it’s novel that the left sues Trump? They’ve filed so many lawsuits that they’ve probably helped lower lawyer unemployment by a sizable amount.
Several outlets warned that critics say this “will result in a population undercount.” CNN argued the move was “a big deal.”
CNN Political Analyst John Avlon concluded that the change was "designed to drive down participation and benefit Republicans politically."
Lefty Vice predicted the question “could reshape American politics for a decade or more.” Mother Jones headlined. “Trump Is Rigging the Census.” And The New York Times editorialized an almost-identical view with, “The Trump Administration Sabotages the Census.”
HuffPost tried hard to spin the question into a Republican concern, suggesting: “The controversial question may cost some GOP-led states seats in Congress and electoral votes in presidential elections.” PBS cautioned: “Democrats fear immigrants will skip census with citizenship query.”
That was the common theme. It was never a media objection about gathering the information. The reaction was simply to provide cover for Democrats.
Many outlets pushed a falsehood, claiming the question hadn’t been used in several decades. ABC anchor David Muir was one of many to get it wrong. “For the first time in more than 60 years, the census will now ask people whether they are American citizens,” he told viewers.
The census used that question last in 1950, but only on the short form. The long form included the question from 1970 to 2000, but it was discontinued in 2010 under President Barack Obama. In other words, it only skipped one census survey.
That caused widespread confusion. The Washington Post couldn’t even agree with itself. A Thursday story used a number hard to find elsewhere: “But the Census Bureau sends it out only to 3.5 million households a year, or one out of every 38.” However, a March 27 Associated Press story that ran on the paper’s site says that “citizenship or related questions were asked of about 1 in 6 households on the census ‘long form,’ which has since been retired.”
The census still has copies online of the 2000 long form and it agrees with AP. “On average, about 1 in every 6 households will receive the long form.”
The Federalist ripped apart the arguments against the question. “If asking about citizenship is illegal, every census since 1890 has been a crime,” it wrote.
Media Hate Another Trump Appointment: Journalists know more than everybody about everything. In January, they were sure that Dr. Ronny Jackson was just another “Trump fanboy” or sycophant. Jackson was caught up in what was termed the “girther” controversy when he pronounced the president was in good health and just 239 pounds. CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta even declared without examining President Trump, that “the President has heart disease.”
The president nominated Navy Rear Adm. Jackson as the new head of the Department of Veterans Affairs this week and the media once more went ballistic. Jackson, who had been President Obama’s physician, was soon questioned with the refrain: Is he “up to the job?”
The reports tended to ignore that Jackson is both an admiral and a doctor. The medical experience might help him fix the VA, which has been embroiled in scandals “in which some veterans died while waiting months for medical appointments,” according to Time.
The media either skewered Jackson’s inexperience running a bureaucracy or depicted him as a Trump loyalist. CNN Political Analyst Ryan Lizza said President Trump has a consistent style with his appointees. “What do they all have in common? They all have excelled at going on TV and defending Trump in the most over the top way and flattering his ego.”
MSNBC’s Katy Tur called the choice “interesting timing” and possibly a Trump plan “to change the subject” from possible pardons for Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort.
The New York Times even ran an op-ed by Yale forensic psychiatrist Bandy Lee and Norman Eisen headlined “Ronny Jackson’s Disturbing Lack of Independence.” What the opinion piece failed to tell you is that Lee was the one who briefed Democrats in Congress claiming President Trump is mentally unfit.
Liberal Vox depicted Lee as “leading” the effort it called: “The case for evaluating the president’s mental capacity – by force if necessary.” Yes, “by force.” Apparently, Lee had fantasies of Secret Service agents dragging away a sitting president to force him to have psychiatric tests.
TV Has Someone Who Voted For Trump: Surprise! Sixty-plus million people voted for Donald Trump and some of them even watch TV. That’s what Hollywood discovered this week when the reboot of “Roseanne” launched to huge ratings. It’s what “Today” Co-host Hoda Kotb called “red states, ratings gold!”
While the show was in no way right-wing, it did something novel for TV. It depicted the lead character as pro-Trump. The first episode showed jokes going back and forth as the divided family tried to reconcile. It ended with Roseanne giving a prayer over dinner and saying: “But most of all, Lord…. Thank you for making America great again!”
The media generally gave the show good marks, but journalists still wrestled with a character they so opposed leading a show. Washington Post TV Critic Hank Stuever compared Roseanne to another character the media hated – 1970s bigot Archie Bunker. Steuver wrote: “Rebooted Roseanne is a proud ‘deplorable.’ Can she be the Trump era’s Archie Bunker?”
Deadline summed up the Tinseltown reaction: “‘Roseanne’ Revival’s Huge Debut Stuns Hollywood, Prompts Soul-Searching.” (Hollywood bigwigs looking for their souls? Talk about impossible chores.) Even President Trump gave Roseanne kudos. “Look at Roseanne! I called her yesterday! Look at her ratings!”
But conservative radio host Ben Shapiro was quick to point out that the show isn’t conservative, describing it as “one big lie about Trump.” “The lie that the show tells is that the reason people voted for Trump is because they were dissatisfied with the economy and because they were looking to give Donald Trump a chance to fix it. And it wasn’t about cultural issues. That’s not true.”
No One Wants To Take …: The liberal argument for gun restrictions has long been that they don’t want to take away guns. They just want “commonsense gun reform.” Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens shot that down with his New York Times op-ed headlined: “Repeal the Second Amendment.”
Suddenly the news was devoted to open discussions about … taking guns and gun rights. Longtime TV host Larry King agreed with Stevens, declaring: “Yeah, repeal it.” He told TMZ: “It’s poorly written. What did they mean by ‘militia?’”
The Washington Post followed with survey results. “One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment to be repealed, national survey finds,” it reported.
Liberal outlets practically fell over themselves to try and downplay it, saying such talk aided pro-gun supporters. Vox called the idea “a counterproductive distraction.” Slate said the call was “staggeringly misplaced.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo even denied that Stevens had done exactly what he had done and instead referred to it as a “boogeyman.”

Some visa applicants may have to fork over social media information to State Dept.

The State Dept. is proposing that foreign visitors and people planning to immigrate to the US, provide links to various social media accounts in order to obtain visas.  (AP/File Photo)

The State Department is expected to publish a set of proposals Friday that would require some tourists and immigrants to provide information on their social media accounts before visiting the U.S., The Washington Times reported.
The proposals are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to implement "extreme vetting" on immigration, the department said.
Travelers would also be required to provide phone numbers, email addresses, international travel and immigration issues within the last five years.
Travelers would also be required to answer questions about possible family connections to terrorism.
“This upgrade to visa vetting is long-overdue, and it’s appropriate to apply it to everyone seeking entry, because terrorism is a worldwide problem. The aim is to weed out people with radical or dangerous views,” Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, told the paper.
According to the documents, approximately 14 million people would be affected by the new proposals and another 700,000 would be affected in the immigration system.
Don Crocetti, a former senior fraud investigator for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said an individual’s refusal to turn over their social media accounts couldn’t alone be used to deny approval.
“The use of social media is a wrench in their toolbox. It’s not that you use that same wrench for everything you do, but it’s a wrench, it’s a different-sized tool, and you have use that selectively,” he said.
After publication, the proposals will allow 60 days for public comment before the policies are finalized later this year. 

California homeowner says she won't sell to Trump supporters: report

A woman in Sacramento will sell her family-owned home to anyone – except a Trump supporter.

Looking to buy a home in Sacramento, Calif.? Well, if you support President Donald Trump, at least one homeowner reportedly says she doesn't want to sell her home to you.
The homeowner made the condition clear to her Realtor, Elizabeth Weintraub, according to Sacramento's KOVR-TV.
Weintraub relayed the woman’s request to the station, noting it could be difficult to screen potential buyers based on politics.
"We can ask somebody how they voted, but they don't have to tell us," she said.

"We can ask somebody how they voted, but they don't have to tell us."

The house has reportedly been owned by the seller’s family for several decades. Now the woman, whose name was not released, wants to sell -- so long as the buyer has political views similar to her own.
But that may be illegal, attorney Allen Sawyer said.
Discrimination based on one's political views is “an unlawful contractual term that infringes the freedom of association and First Amendment rights,” he said.
“People have a right to believe what they want to believe," Sawyer added, "and they shouldn’t be restricted from purchasing property based on that.”

"People have a right to believe what they want to believe, and they shouldn’t be restricted from purchasing property based on that.”
- Allen Sawyer, attorney

The Fair Housing Act forbids home sellers from discriminating against potential buyers based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or nationality – but says nothing about political preference.
Despite having been home to presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan -- both of whom served as California governor prior to winning the White House -- the Golden State has backed Democrats for president in recent elections.
George H.W. Bush, who was elected in 1988, is the most recent Republican presidential candidate to win the state. 

Democratic lawmaker asked to resign over reports of harassment 'coverup'

Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Esty is being asked to resign after reports surfaced that she hid allegations of harassment.

A Connecticut Democrat is being asked to resign after reports surfaced that she let her former chief of staff continue to work for her office for months -- despite knowing of allegations that he physically harmed and threatened to “kill” another staffer.

U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty came under fire Thursday after a report in the Connecticut Post said that her former chief of staff, Tony Baker, allegedly called a young female staffer, with whom he had a romantic relationship, nearly 50 times on May 5, 2016, and had once punched her in the back in Esty’s Washington office.

An affidavit obtained by the Post said the woman, Anna Kain – who has since gone public – felt “intimidated” by Baker, which led her to keep quiet for fear of jeopardizing her own safety.
"Throughout the Winter of 2014, respondent (Baker) repeatedly screamed at petitioner (the former staffer) in the workplace, making the woman feel intimidated and caused petitioner to feel she could not report respondent’s actions without putting her safety at risk,” the affidavit says.

A Connecticut Democrat is being asked to resign after reports surfaced that she let her former chief of staff continue to work for her office for months -- despite knowing of allegations that he physically harmed and threatened to “kill” another staffer.

U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty came under fire Thursday after a report in the Connecticut Post said that her former chief of staff, Tony Baker, allegedly called a young female staffer, with whom he had a romantic relationship, nearly 50 times on May 5, 2016, and had once punched her in the back in Esty’s Washington office.

An affidavit obtained by the Post said the woman, Anna Kain – who has since gone public – felt “intimidated” by Baker, which led her to keep quiet for fear of jeopardizing her own safety.
"Throughout the Winter of 2014, respondent (Baker) repeatedly screamed at petitioner (the former staffer) in the workplace, making the woman feel intimidated and caused petitioner to feel she could not report respondent’s actions without putting her safety at risk,” the affidavit says.
But Baker remained on Esty’s staff for three months and even accompanied her to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 25, 2016.
He sent an email Aug. 12, 2016, announcing his departure.
Documents provided by Esty to the Post further revealed that after his departure, Baker was given a letter of recommendation, multiple secrecy provisions surrounding his reasons for leaving and a severance payment of $5,000.
Esty debates the letter of recommendation saying it was “limited” and added that she was forced to sign and NDA by the Office of House Employment Counsel, which she claims delayed Baker’s firing.
A spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, Chris Martin, issued a statement slamming Esty for “orchestrating one of the most disturbing Washington cover-ups in recent memory,” and asking for her resignation, the Hill reported.
An editorial in the Hartford Courant also called for Esty to resign.
‘Ms. Esty had every opportunity — and every responsibility — to at least suspend Mr. Baker on the spot and hold him accountable for his behavior. Instead, she went with the script that has cloaked sexual assault and harassment in Congress for decades. She is complicit.”
Feeling pressure from Republicans to stand down, Esty released a statement to Facebook on Thursday, apologizing for “failing to protect” Kain.

She apologized to the young female staffer and said that it is her “responsibility” to uphold “equality and fairness.”
“Equality and fairness are values I’ve held long before I came to Congress. Now that I am in Congress, it is my responsibility to run an office that is not only safe, but upholds those values and respects staff and their work on behalf of the people of the 5th Congressional District,” her statement read.
On Friday, Esty told CNN that she has no plans to step down.
"For those who have asked, I want to be clear that I am not resigning," Esty said in a statement to to the network. "I have important work to do in Congress including building on the lessons of this horrible series of events."

VA Benefits Cartoons (not really funny)

VA chief's firing portrayed as chaotic, but Trump had some good reasons

This is how the firing of the VA secretary could have been framed:
David Shulkin had gotten himself in a heap of trouble. The inspector general had spanked him for a $120,000 trip to Europe, changing a pretext so his wife’s airfare would be covered, and improperly accepting Wimbledon tickets.
What’s more, Shulkin had gone to war with some of his top deputies, was increasingly isolated at the department, and the president concluded he had to make a change.
Now some of that information was included in the B matter of various stories, but the main media themes are:
More chaos at the White House!
And how dare Donald Trump replace him with his personal doctor?
Shulkin, as the New York Times noted, also generated bad publicity when he tried to salvage his job by warning about aides "trying to undermine the department from within."
Shulkin did rack up some accomplishments on the reform front. My main discomfort with the dismissal is that Trump let him twist in the wind for weeks—as he did with Rex Tillerson—while damaging leaks made clear he was on the way out. Of course, Shulkin could have seen the handwriting and resigned.
(And yes, it's ironic that Trump once proclaimed that he'd never have to use his signature "you're fired" line against Shulkin.)
Shulkin, a former hospital executive, fired back in a New York Times op-ed that called the atmosphere in Washington "toxic, chaotic, disrespectful and subversive." He complained that he had "been falsely accused of things by people who wanted me out of the way ... It should not be this hard to serve your country."
There was a policy dispute at the heart of this battle, with Shulkin resisting efforts to privatize more VA services, which he said was "aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines care for veterans." The counter-argument is that the overstretched VA system can't provide enough effective care, as we saw with the waiting-list scandal.
But if a Cabinet member disagrees with his boss on such a fundamental principle, his days are usually numbered.
Trump is taking some heat from the media and from critics for handing the job to Ronny Jackson, his White House physician. And it's fair to argue that the rear admiral has never managed much of anything, let alone a dysfunctional 360,000-person bureaucracy.
The hot take is that Trump wants officials with whom he's personally comfortable, and that Jackson won the job with his hourlong TV performance giving the president a clean bill of health. ("He has incredibly good genes, it's just the way God made him.") Jackson was so effusive he was mocked in an "SNL" skit.
If Jackson, despite his on-camera skills, can't tame the massive bureaucracy, or get people who can do so, then he'll prove the wrong fit for the job.
Running the VA is one of the most thankless jobs in the capital. And the White House has hardly been a smoothly functioning machine. But a president should be able to replace an underperforming and controversial Cabinet member without being faulted for chaotic management.
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.

Reps. Jordan and Meadows: McCabe Lied Four Times

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) joined Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" Thursday night to reveal new information about the firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and to explain why it's more evidence of the need for a second special counsel.
McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier this month -- just hours before his planned retirement -- after the Justice Department's inspector general determined McCabe was not truthful during his review of the Clinton email investigation and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended his firing.
The inspector general's report has not been made public, but Jordan and Meadows' offices have a copy of it.
Jordan said the report reveals that McCabe lied four times about leaking information to the press: once to the Office of Professional Responsibility, once to former FBI Director James Comey and twice under oath to the inspector general.

Read Full Article

Meadows said this revelation is more evidence that a second special counsel should be appointed to look at potential bias at the FBI and DOJ, and how they handled the Clinton email probe and Russia investigation.
Sessions announced on Thursday that a federal prosecutor was evaluating certain issues involving the FBI, but said he would not appoint a second special counsel at this point.
"We need to have this special counsel. I disagree with the attorney general," Meadows said. "For the attorney general to suggest there's not enough there there is just extremely disappointing."
Jordan pointed out that McCabe is just one of many top FBI officials involved in the Clinton and Russia investigations who have been fired or demoted.
"If those aren't extraordinary circumstances warranting a second special counsel, I don't know what the heck is," Jordan said. "I don't know why the attorney general keeps postponing this. Everyone in town knows we need a second special counsel to get to the bottom of this."

Woman gets 5 years for illegally voting in 2016 presidential election

Crystal Mason, 43, was sentenced to five years in prison for illegally voting in the 2016 presidential election.  (Tarrant County Jail)

A Texas woman was sentenced to five years in prison this week following her conviction for illegally voting in the 2016 presidential election.
Crystal Mason, 43, of Tarrant County, Texas, is a convicted felon for tax fraud and voted while still on supervised release, the Dallas Morning News reported.
Texas law prohibits felons from voting until their full sentence, including supervised release, is served.
Mason opted for state District Judge Ruben Gonzalez to determine her sentence, instead of standing trial in front of a jury, the paper reported.  
During testimony, Mason said she was given a provisional ballot at the polling station after learning that her name was not on the registered voter list. However, Gonzalez pressed Mason over the affidavit form she was required to sign to get the provisional ballot, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
The affidavit form outlines the necessary requirements needed to vote, according to the Dallas Morning News.
Mason, who served just under three years in federal prison, argued she was never informed of the law that prevents felons from voting, and didn’t recall reading anything on the form that would exempt her from voting -- adding that she would never have voted had she known it would mean going back behind bars.
The 43-year-old said she voted only because her mother insisted, the Star-Telegram reported.
"I was happy enough to come home and see my daughter graduate," she said. "My son is about to graduate. Why would I jeopardize that? Not to vote. ... I didn't even want to go vote."
Immediately following the ruling, Mason’s attorney, J. Warren St. John, told the paper an appeal was filed and he hopes to have Mason released from custody on bond soon.
"I find it amazing that the government feels she made this up," St. John told the court. "She was never told that she couldn't vote, and she voted in good faith. Why would she risk going back to prison for something that is not going to change her life?”

Clinton calls 2016 election 'traumatic,' admits she'd like to 'take back' some things she said

Almost a year and a half since losing her bid for president, former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton still is talking about election woes, calling it a “traumatic” experience.
Speaking at Rutgers University Thursday, Clinton spoke primarily about being a woman in politics — and being targeted as a result, the problem Republicans face as a disjointed unit, the upcoming elections and her hopes that the recent events under the Trump administration would motivate people enough to vote for change.
When asked about being told to get off the public stage and “shut up,” Clinton said she was “struck” by the fact that “they never said that to any man,” citing unsourced research from “one of the young people” on her staff.
Clinton also mentioned being called “shrill” by the media, which she said never commented on her opponent’s habit of “finger waving.”
“It’s about time that women were allowed to be themselves the way men are allowed to be themselves,” she said.
The former secretary of state also said she’s regretted some things she said.
“I can do better. There are things I’ve said I’d like to take back.”
She might have been referring to remarks she made earlier this month in India where she said women face “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband” thinks they should. Critics slammed the comments as sexist.
She made similar remarks in September, seemingly blaming women in part for her loss.
Clinton agreed to do Thursday's speech for $25,000 from a university endowment, NJ.com reported.
Clinton also took the opportunity to bash the Republican Party saying it slowly was coming undone by “a very small group of powerful forces,” who could fund another candidate if one does not appeal to the “far right.” She said she was referring to groups including the National Rifle Association.
Clinton talked about the upcoming elections and the number of Republicans who have announced their retirement or that have said that they will not seek reelection.
“They’re leaving,” she said, “because they know they will be shown no understanding by the hard right and the money that funds it.”
Clinton also took jabs at the Trump administration ahead of the important 2018 midterm elections, although she mentioned Donald Trump by name only once, but alluded to him several other times.
“I really hope this is a turning point,” she said, speaking of the upcoming midterm elections.
“I’m hoping in this election, this midterm election, enough people will, maybe for the first time or maybe for the first time in a long time say, ‘Look, I was really moved by what happened at Parkland, or I’m sick we’re the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement on climate change, or I don’t like what they tried to do to healthcare’ or whatever the motivator is” to ensure enough people will go out to vote.
Clinton spoke to a crowd of just over 5,000 people.