Rachel Dolezal Cartoons

Rachel Dolezal, also known as Nkechi Diallo, booked and released on welfare fraud, other charges

Rachel Dolezal is pictured in March 2017, six months after she changed her name to Nkechi Diallo.  (AP Photo/Nicholas K. Geranios, File)

Former Spokane NAACP President Nkechi Diallo -- who became infamous as Rachel Dolezal, a white woman identifying as black -- was booked and fingerprinted at a Washington state jail Monday as she awaits trial on multiple charges, including welfare fraud.
Diallo pleaded not guilty to state charges of first-degree theft by welfare fraud, making false verification and second-degree perjury last month. A judge ordered her freed on her own recognizance and gave her a deadline of Monday evening to report to the Spokane County jail for booking and fingerprinting.
Diallo, who changed her name from Rachel Dolezal in October 2016, is accused of receiving more than $8,800 in food and childcare assistance illegally between August 2015 and November 2017.
RACHEL DOLEZAL HIT WITH FELONY THEFT CHARGE IN WELFARE FRAUD CASE
The welfare fraud case started in March 2017 after a state investigator received information that Diallo had written a book --her autobiography, "In Full Color." The investigator reviewed Diallo's records and found that she had been reporting her income as usually less than $500 per month, court documents said.
However, a subpoena of her bank statements and other records showed Diallo had deposited nearly $84,000 into her account from 2015-17, without reporting most of it to the state Department of Social and Health Services.
The money came from book sales, speaking engagements, soap making, doll making and the sale of her art, according to the case file.
Diallo did report a change of circumstance to the state agency, saying she did a one-time job in October 2017 worth $20,000, court documents show.
Rachel Dolezal, as she was known then, achieved international infamy in June 2015 after her parents, with whom she has long feuded, told reporters their daughter was white but was presenting herself as a black activist.
She has said that she grew up near Troy, Mont., and started to change her perspective as a teenager, after her religious parents adopted four black children. She decided some years later that she would identify publicly as black.
In addition to resigning as Spokane NAACP president, she was kicked off a police oversight commission, lost a position as a freelance columnist for a weekly newspaper in Spokane and was fired from her job teaching African studies at nearby Eastern Washington University.

Alan Dershowitz slams Martha's Vineyard liberals for 'shunning' him over Trump defense

Apparently Martha’s Vineyard is a safe space.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said last week that his defense of President Donald Trump’s constitutional rights led to him being “shunned” by his own friends at a high-end seasonal destination.
The famed lawyer lamented the efforts to eject him from his social life at Martha’s Vineyard amid his outspoken criticism of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the alleged collusion with Russia.

"So they are shunning me and trying to ban me from their social life on Martha’s Vineyard.”
- Alan Dershowitz

In an op-ed for The Hill, Dershowitz, a frequent guest on Fox News, said that though he’s politically a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in addition to contributing “handsomely” to her campaign, his defense of civil liberties that could benefit Trump is too much to swallow for his social circle.
“But that is not good enough for some of my old friends on Martha’s Vineyard. For them, it is enough that what I have said about the Constitution might help Trump. So they are shunning me and trying to ban me from their social life on Martha’s Vineyard."
“One of them, an academic at a distinguished university, has told people that he would not attend any dinner or party to which I was invited. He and others have demanded ‘trigger warnings’ so that they can be assured of having “safe spaces” in which they will not encounter me or my ideas. Others have said they will discontinue contributions to organizations that sponsor my talks,” he added.
Dershowitz went on to compare his situation with McCarthyism in the 1950s, when many innocent people were perceived as being sympathetic to communist ideas and were subjected to job firings and blacklists.
 “I never thought I would see McCarthyism come to Martha’s Vineyard, but I have. I wonder if the professor who refuses to listen to anything I have to say also treats his students similarly,” he continued. “Would he listen to a student who actively supported Trump? What about one who simply supported his civil liberties?”

“I never thought I would see McCarthyism come to Martha’s Vineyard, but I have. I wonder if the professor who refuses to listen to anything I have to say also treats his students similarly."
- Alan Dershowitz

Yet, Dershowitz remains defiant amid the efforts to ostracize him from public life. “I will not change my views as a result of these attempts to ostracize me, but there are some who may remain silent for fear of being shunned,” he wrote.
“Silence is not my style. Cowardice is not my philosophy. I intend to speak up when I disagree with Republicans, and I intend to speak up when I disagree with Democrats. Right now I am speaking up in disagreement with Maxine Waters. She — like those who shun me on Martha’s Vineyard — is part of the problem rather than the solution,” he added.

Democrats risk a backlash with hardball tactics on immigration and high court

The Democratic Party is suddenly lurching left in ways that may be self-destructive.
And it's driven in large part by 2020 politics.
Two or three weeks ago, the Democrats were riding a wave of moral outrage and favorable media coverage. Most of the country agreed that President Trump's policy of separating families at the border was wrong and rather heartless. The White House was awash in contradictory messages and some leading conservative voices were demanding that the president stop a policy that he insisted he had no power to halt. When Trump reversed himself, it was a rare win for the Democrats, who control nothing in Washington, and for journalists and commentators who were emotionally invested in the border issue.
But then the Democrats overreached. Several senators who are all but campaigning for president started calling for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to be abolished, or replaced with something else.
We heard this from Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris. Their calculation, undoubtedly, is that the Democrats who will turn out to vote in the 2020 primaries detest not only the president but his immigration policies. This view may have been reinforced by 28-year-old Latino newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed socialist who knocked off House Democratic leader Joe Crowley.
But the problem is that "abolish ICE" is exactly the kind of stance that drives away moderates and independents who want some border enforcement. It is easily caricatured as a call for open borders, and Trump hasn’t hesitated to make that argument. "You get rid of ICE, you're going to have a country that you're going to be afraid to walk out of your house," the president told Fox’s Maria Bartiromo.
The rhetoric by these Democrats reminds me of when Ron Paul, in his crusade against oppressive taxes, would call for the elimination of the IRS.
And it takes time for politicians to explain that, well, we really just mean reform the agency into a more humane bureaucracy.
So rather than making a case against young children being separated from their parents, the Democrats have moved the debate to the existence of a border patrol agency, basically because that animates their most liberal voters.
Two other developments have put the Dems on the defensive.
Many liberal voices have defended the hounding of Trump administration officials, from Sarah Huckabee Sanders to Kirstjen Nielsen to Stephen Miller. When Maxine Waters called for continued "harassment" of Trump Cabinet officials, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi had to distance themselves from her rhetoric. While the Democrats can fairly retort that Trump uses rough language and tactics, do they really want to position their party as favoring personal harassment of government officials?
And the retirement of Anthony Kennedy has sparked a media debate in which liberal commentators are demanding that Democrats block any vote on any Trump nominee this year. Obviously, the Democrats say this is payback for what Mitch McConnell did in stiffing Merrick Garland in 2016. But just as obviously, by taking this stance even before Trump’s pick next week, they leave themselves open to charges of obstruction.
The Washington Post recognized these problems in a front-page story yesterday:
"Growing liberal agitation over a pivotal Supreme Court retirement and a simmering crisis about immigrant child separation have left Democratic leaders scrambling to keep the political outrage they'd counted on to fuel midterm election wins from becoming a liability for the party."
The paper also noted that Bernie Sanders-style rhetoric, including "costly guarantees of government jobs, free health care and free college could backfire in parts of the country where Trump won in 2016, and where Democrats will have to win in November to reclaim control of Congress."
And that's the problem. What plays in the Bronx may be politically toxic in West Virginia and North Dakota, which are among the states where moderate Senate Democrats are trying to hang onto their seats.
A handful of presidential aspirants don't speak for the whole party. But they get outsized media attention when they embrace positions like getting rid of ICE, especially in a party that for now is shut out of power and has no natural leader.
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.

Schumer forced to call in after canceling town hall due to plane issues: report

Sen. Chuck Schumer has vowed to "fight Donald Trump all the way, in every way.”  (AP)

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Monday—citing an equipment issue that grounded his small plane—was forced to cancel a town hall in Brooklyn, annoying some in attendance who waited hours for his arrival in a hot synagogue.
Schumer, instead, reportedly conducted a teletownhall, and took calls from attendees.
The topics varied.
One person asked why he cooled down Rep. Maxine Water’s rhetoric on harassing President Trump’s administration officials in public. Another called on the senator to use his leadership position to unite the party and oppose any extreme Supreme Court pick to replace Anthony Kennedy.
“Whip the vote,” members at the meeting chanted, which means to galvanize the party, according to Politico. “Whip the vote.”
Liberal attendees also reportedly chanted, "Don't phone it in."
Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, has been reportedly feeling pressure from Democrats on the left and some moderates on how to effectively approach Trump’s future Kennedy replacement.
The long-time champion of the left, appears to be facing a similar wave confronting his colleague in Congress, Nancy Pelosi. The party's left is emboldened and intent on making sure their leaders know it.
“There are thousands and thousands of people in this city who want to support him, so that he can win battles,” Liat Olenick, 32, a member of a liberal group in Brooklyn, told Politico. “But he’s not speaking to those people, and we want him to do that.”
Another person at the meeting told the senator, “We are in a gunfight, but we have a butter knife.”
Schumer, who said he was stuck in Utica, reminded attendees that “Brooklyn, New York is not the center of the country,” according to a New York Times reporter who was tweeting about the event.
Schumer has been crystal clear on who he expects Trump to nominate. In an op-ed in The New York Times on Monday he called on a “bipartisan majority” that believes in upholding established law on abortion.
Schumer said that while Democrats don’t control the Senate — Republicans have a 51-49 edge — most senators back abortion rights. In an unusually direct appeal to voters, he said that to block “an ideological nominee,” people should “tell your senators” to oppose anyone from Trump’s list.
The Hill reported that Schumer hopes to stop the president from swaying the high court to the right for decades. But he has to work with Democrats in states that Trump carried, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., who all voted for Trump’s earlier pick, Neil Gorsuch.
Trump is expected to begin his search in earnest this week at the White House and said the process could include interviews at his golf club before he reaches a final decision following the Fourth of July holiday.
“We need to fight Donald Trump all the way, in every way,” Schumer reportedly said.

Lopez Obrador Cartoons

Maxine Waters 'surprised' by fellow Democrats' rebukes, says Trump won't intimidate her

Idiot

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said Sunday that she was "surprised" by criticism from Democratic leaders over her statement that people should "push back" against members of the Trump administration over its immigration policy.
"One of the things I recognize, being an elected official, is in the final analysis, leadership ... will do anything that they think is necessary to protect their leadership and so what I have to do is not focus on them," Waters told MSNBC.
Waters attracted criticism from Republicans last weekend after she told rally-goers in her Los Angeles congressional district that members of the public should confront members of the Trump administration and "tell them they're not welcome." Waters made the remarks after White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a Virginia restaurant and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen left a different restaurant after protesters began shouting at her.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi distanced herself from Waters' remarks after they were made public, while Senate Democratic Leader took to the Senate floor to say that harassment of political opponents was "not right" and "not American."
Waters claimed she was "surprised" that Schumer had criticized a member of the House of Representatives, saying that she had "not quite seen that done before."
The comments did not go unnoticed by President Trump, who tweeted last week that Waters should "be careful what you wish for." On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Waters should apologize.
Waters told MSNBC that she had received "several" death threats and that one person had been arrested in connection with those threats.
"I was blessed with courage. And I was blessed with the kind of strength that does not allow me to be intimidated by the likes of Donald Trump," Waters said. "Let him call me whatever he wants to call me. Let him say whatever he wants to say. He will not stop me."

Michael Goodwin: The left needs to face reality -- Trump is winning

To understand the madness gripping American leftists, try to see the world through their eyes. Presto, you’re now part of the raging resistance.
Like the Palestinians who mark Israel’s birth as their nakba, or tragedy, you regard Donald Trump’s 2016 victory as a catastrophe. It’s the last thing you think of most nights, and the first thing most mornings.
You can’t shake it or escape it. Whatever you watch, listen to or read, there are reminders — Donald Trump really is president.
You actually believe The New York Times is too nice to him, so you understand why a Manhattan woman urged a reporter there to stop covering Trump to protest his presidency.
And where the hell is Robert Mueller? He was supposed to save us from this nightmare — that’s what Chuck Schumer banked on. Well?
You spend your tax cut even as you rail against the man who made it happen. And you are pleased that cousin Jimmy finally got a job, though you repeat the daily devotional that Barack Obama deserves credit for the roaring economy.
And now this — Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring, and Trump gets another Supreme Court pick. The court might tilt right for the rest of your life. He’s winning.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!
In a nutshell, our visit to the tortured mind of a Trump hater explains everything from Saturday’s mass marches to why a Virginia restaurant owner declared No Soup for Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Their loathing for Trump is bone-deep and all consuming. This is war and they take no prisoners.
For most marchers, border policies offer a chance to vent. They didn’t make a peep when Obama did the same thing.
If children are their main concern, they could help the 23,000 New York City kids living in shelters. Or they could have attended the funeral of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the innocent Bronx teen hacked to death by a Dominican gang.
Instead, they give in to Trump Derangement Syndrome, which causes them to immediately and absolutely adopt the opposite position of the president’s — facts and common sense be damned.
Alas, they may look back on the last few months as the good old days. For Trump, despite his stumbles and the Mueller shadow, is finding a political sweet spot.

see also

Protesters across the US march against Trump's immigration policies

He is reaching a high-water mark in his presidency, with his support growing and expanding. Events, including big Supreme Court rulings and Kennedy’s retirement, give him chances to pad his advantage.
It’s a swift reversal from just 11 days ago, when Trump was sucking wind. The media was — again — treating him like a piñata over the separation of families on the border, and the White House was ready to fight a war it couldn’t win.
Then the president suddenly called off the dogs to sign an executive order ending family separations. Much of the hot air instantly came out of the resistance balloon, though protests continue because the left is embracing little or no border control as its passion of the moment.
Whether it’s because of Trump’s quick reversal and/or the left’s overreaction, polls are capturing the president’s rising fortunes. One survey showed most Americans were not nearly as sympathetic to the illegal border crossers as the media.
“I think it’s terrible about the kids getting split up from their parents. But the parents shouldn’t have been here,” a Minnesota woman told the Times.
Another poll shows Trump with 90 percent support among Republicans, matching the backing of President George W. Bush after 9/11.
And his support is broadening. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed his approval rating hitting 47 percent, a two-point gain in one month driven by a 10-point swing among Hispanic voters and a four-point gain among Democrats.
Pollsters attributed the rise to the strong economy and that a whopping 75 percent approved of the president’s decision to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
Finally, a Pew finding about Trump supporters upends stereotypes: Just 31 percent are white men without college degrees, while 66 percent are college graduates, women or nonwhites.
These signs of the Big Mo switching sides came before two Supreme Court rulings that favored Trump. The first upheld his revised travel ban for a handful of Muslim-majority nations, saying it was within his ­executive authority.
It rebuked lower-court judges who bought the partisan canard that it was a “Muslim ban.” Their invalid rulings stood in stark contrast to plain readings of the law and show them to be hacks blowing with the political wind.
The second ruling, which blocks municipal unions from forcing workers to pay dues, is a tax cut for workers who opt out and a blow to Dems in New York, New Jersey and other blue states. The nexus between unions and Democrats turned those states into one-party fiefdoms — and resulted in union contracts taxpayers can’t afford.
Both rulings were 5-4, with Kennedy supplying the swing votes in an otherwise evenly divided court. That Trump will soon nominate his successor and likely have that person confirmed before the midterm elections improves GOP chances to hold Congress and the president’s chance to cement his legacy as an agent of dramatic change.

see also

Women are frontrunners on Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees

Because Democrats set the agenda for most media, the immediate talking point was that abortion rights are threatened with another GOP pick. While that is unlikely, given the Supremes’ traditional respect for precedent, the larger fact is that there is much more at stake than any single issue.
Consider that the travel-ban case upheld broad presidential authority on national security, and the union ruling was among several supporting First Amendment rights of individuals against government infringement.
Rulings like these have long-term cultural and political impacts and explain why Supreme Court appointments can have an outsized influence on a president’s legacy.
Already Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first pick, is enormously popular with those who believe a justice’s job is to make sure laws pass constitutional muster, not legislate from the bench. A second pick in the Gorsuch mold would secure a majority on the court for curbing government’s appetite for more domestic power, perhaps for decades.
And that could do something extraordinary for Trump’s legacy. All else being stable, putting the Supreme Court on an enduring constitutional footing would make his presidency one of the most consequential of any age.
Cue the wailing.

New Deb mini-me

New Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza is a great fit with Mayor de Blasio. Like his boss, Carranza is obsessed with counting racial beans and believes the answer to every problem is more money.
One of them was more than enough. Two may be more than even New York City can handle.

An easy ‘pass’

A friend writes with a question: “How is it that if you arrive at JFK Airport without a passport, you are sent back to your place of origin, whereas if you cross the Rio Grande River without a passport, you are not sent back?”

Michael Cohen promotes ‘Good Morning America’ interview, says ‘My silence is broken’

President Trump's former attorney on Sunday promoted an interview set to be aired on ABC's "Good Morning America."  (Michael Cohen/Twitter)

President Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen on Sunday tweeted that he sat down for an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” and proclaimed: “My silence is broken!”
Cohen did not go into any details about the "not on camera" interview with George Stephanopoulos, but posted a black-and-white picture of the two sitting together. The interview is set to be revealed on Monday, the tweet read.
“Spent Saturday afternoon with @GStephanopoulos @abc (not on camera) interview for Monday’s @GMA” Cohen tweeted.“My silence is broken!”
Federal prosecutors in New York have publicly said they are investigating alleged fraud in Cohen’s business dealings, but haven’t disclosed details. He became a household name when it was revealed that he paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to promise not to discuss an alleged sexual encounter with Trump before the election.
Cohen has been coy on Twitter in the past.
He cited Buddha, writing that “three things cannot be long hidden, the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH,” and has also asked for an apology for the extent of “misreports” and allegations made public. He tweeted on June 28, “I had nothing to do with Russian collusion or meddling!”
Rudy Giuliani, an attorney for Trump, earlier this month tried to put to rest claims that Cohen might cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
“It’s not so. He’s not cooperating nor do we care because the president did nothing wrong," he said. "I am absolutely certain of that.”
When asked if the Trump team was worried that Cohen may have tape recordings that exist without their knowledge, Giuliani was firm that the president was and is “clean as a whistle.”
Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Daniels, responded on Twitter, "If Mr. Cohen really gave an "off camera" interview to @GStephanopoulos (whom I respect) for @GMA, he is dumber than I thought. He is playing games & trying to play both sides. There is only one way he can have any legitimate shot at saving his reputation."

Mexico backs left-wing 'messiah' Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in historic presidential election

MEXICO CITY –  In an election many Mexicans hope will be a turning point for a country beset by decades of corruption, violence and enduring poverty, voters turned to a left-wing populist some supporters refer to as a “messiah.” A savior from the two major parties that have failed to deliver on promises of reform, in the eyes of many voters.
For months, polls predicted Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a 64-year-old two-time presidential runner up, would win the election by a landslide. When the National Elections Institute announced preliminary results Sunday, authorities predicted he would win with between 53 percent and 53.8 percent of the vote, a remarkable margin not seen in the country for many years.
“My presidential vote went to AMLO,” said voter Laura Rodriguez-Verdin outside a polling location in Mexico City. “The reason I voted for him is because I believe he is the only person who has the interest at heart of people who most need help in this country. People with poor education and poor health services.”
Early in his career, Obrador lived in a dirt-floor shack, built houses for the poor and marched for environmental protections against the giant state-owned, state-run oil company, PEMEX. As Mexico City's mayor in 2005, he drove an old Nissan Sentra. Today, he claims not to own a credit card or checking account and says he will sell the presidential plane, turn the presidential palace into a park and live in his tiny townhouse in Mexico City.
“I voted for Andres Manuel for president because I like his proposals,” said Mexico City resident Diana Ortiz. “He’s not promoting the a rich government, the powerful guys. Instead he wants to be empower as much to the people here. He wants a more democratic vote.”
Why does the president of Mexico matter? The U.S. shares a 2,000-mile border. Mexico has the second-largest economy in Latin America, it's the third-largest trading partner of the U.S. and a major oil exporter, and it plays a key role in two of America’s most intractable problems, immigration and drugs. Militarily, the two countries share intelligence on terrorism and security and historically Mexico played a mediating influence and bulwark against Latin America’s more radical regimes. Its 6 million illegal workers and millions more immigrants provide the backbone of America’s agricultural and service industries, from the kitchens of New York City to hotel rooms in Chicago.
MEXICO ELECTIONS CENTER ON DISGUST WITH CORRUPTION, VIOLENCE
“Out of all the candidates, Andres Manuel is probably the least enthusiastic about the bilateral relationship with the U.S., but he recognizes that the relationship with the U.S. is fundamentally important,” said Duncan Wood with the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center. “His election is going to make life more complicated for the United States, let's put it like that.”
Roughly 88 million Mexicans are entitled to vote; officials predicted a 90 percent turnout. One reason is Obrador. The other is Congress. Between the lower House of Deputies and Mexican Senate, 630 seats are up for grabs and nine out of 32 governorships are being voted on.
If Obrador and his party, Morena, perform as expected, some conservatives worry he will have a majority and a Congressional mandate to enact sweeping reforms, including free access to the Internet, a doubling of pensions for the elderly, educational grants for students, an increase in the minimum wage and subsidies for small farmers and single mothers.
“The only candidate who was truly successful positioning himself as an agent of change was AMLO,” said former PAN party foreign minister Jorge Castaneda, who believes Obrador won the election based on three issues: violence, corruption and the economy.
“In the last twenty-odd years, this includes the government I served in, the economy has not grown more than two and a half percent per year,” Castaneda said. “Mexicans are not finding deep well-paying jobs, not seeing their living standards improved, not extracting people from poverty, we’re not reducing levels of inequality which are among the highest levels in the world.”
Almost 44 percent of Mexicans live below the national poverty line, earning less than $5 per day, according to the World Bank. Poverty is most extreme in the rural south, where unemployment and violence remain highest. Because of those factors, many Mexicans continue to migrate to the U.S. in hopes of a better life. Last year, the border patrol apprehended about 110,000 Mexicans at the border. Obrador has no plans to curb or interfere with those heading to the U.S. illegally, but hopes U.S. aid and a new NAFTA treaty will improve the economy and alleviate poverty so Mexicans won’t have to migrate.
“The best way to cooperate, one country with another one, is to help redevelop the areas that are sending [citizens who want to migrate] out of Mexico because we are not having economic growth here and we are not having jobs here,” said Obrador’s campaign manager, Tatiana Clouthier. “In that way you will not be having a lot of people wanting to cross because we are able to give them an opportunity in our country.”
To reduce immigration pressures, Obrador plans to offer amnesty to farmers who turned to opium and marijuana because they could not compete with industrial farms in northern Mexico and the U.S. under NAFTA, which Obrador hopes to renegotiate. Castaneda, who also teaches at New York University, says Mexico, as America’s third largest trading partner, doesn’t have much financial leverage -- but the country has other options.
“Trade over here, immigration here, drugs here, security and intelligence here - which is a big deal,” he says. “Mexico has few bargaining chips over trade, but a lot of bargaining chips on immigration, on drugs, and security. But we’re not using them. Trump is. For once in my life, I completely agree with him.”
President Trump was not a factor in the election, as each candidate seemed to resent him equally, as does much of the public. Instead, anger was directed at Mexico’s ruling elite, whom voters blamed for rising inequality, corruption and the never-ending drug war.
“This war on drugs is not working,” said voter Hugo Stewart, an Obrador supporter. “It’s causing a lot of deaths and needs to be looked at in a different way.”
Violence remains an acute problem in Mexico, with some 25,000 homicides this year, including 133 politicians and 48 candidates since campaigning began last September, according to one of Mexico’s leading political consulting agencies, Etellekt.
To reduce the violence, Obrador proposes a softening the military’s confrontational approach, saying Mexico will no longer fight America’s drug war since Mexico doesn’t have a consumption problem.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador promised a "transformation" for Mexico amid violence and political scandal.  (AP, File)

“The last 12 years, President [Felipe] Calderon and President Enrique Pena Nieto started a war towards smugglers or drug traffic and we’re not having good results,” said Clouthier. “We have to go from war to peace. And that means going to the root of the problem. We need development in areas where there is no work.”
Fighting the drug war is just one point of contention in U.S.-Mexican relations. Another likely is the personality clash of President Trump and Obrador. Would they get along?
Here are two points of view. Obrador is considered warm, personable, and smart. He’s written more than 10 books on Mexican political history. On the other, he is a prominent nationalist, critics compare him to Venezuelan dictators Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro, and the fear his moral superiority could turn Mexico into a leftist autocracy. Obrador wrote a book critical of President Trump, who often seems to base foreign relations on the personal likability or trust of a country’s leader.  They could be friends or explosive enemies.
“I put the odds on the two abrasive personalities not getting along,” argues David Shirk, an expert on Mexican affairs at the University of San Diego. “What you will see is two men speaking their minds. There will be no bars between them.”
“I completely think they are going to get along,” counters Ana Quintana, at the Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. “I think AMLO is tapping into something in Mexico just like Trump tapped into the U.S. - that large pool of the population that has been disenfranchised by the political and economic elite.”
Trump, unlike previous U.S. presidents, did not visit Mexico in his first year in office. National Security Advisor John Bolton raised that possibility on “Fox News Sunday,” saying, “I think in this kind of context, having the two leaders get together, may produce some surprising results.”
BOLTON FIRES BACK AT CRITICS OF TRUMP-PUTIN MEETING
And while it could happen, prominent columnist Pancho Garfias with the newspaper Excelsior said it may not end well.
“Lopez Obrador is not stupid, so he will try to get along with Mr. Trump,” he said. “I think Mr. Trump knows that Mexico is better as a friend than hostile, but I don’t think Mr. Lopez Obrador will shake hands with Trump. I think he will never be together in the same picture.”

Mad Maxine Waters Cartoons

Obama still backing Pelosi while other Democrats move on

“I think everybody knows how much I love Nancy Pelosi,” former President Barack Obama said Friday at a Democratic Party fundraiser in California.

The list of Democrats expressing frustration with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been growing longer in recent weeks, but don’t expect to see former President Barack Obama’s name on it.
At a party fundraising event Friday afternoon in Northern California, Obama spoke highly of Pelosi – and even predicted that she will return to the job of House speaker after November’s midterm elections.
“I think everybody knows how much I love Nancy Pelosi,” Obama told the gathering at a home in affluent Atherton, Politico reported.
"Nancy, I believe, is one of the greatest speakers we ever had, and will once again be one of the greatest speakers we ever have after we get through this cycle," he continued. “And there's not much I could have gotten done without having Nancy there alongside of me every step of the way.”

"Nancy, I believe, is one of the greatest speakers we ever had, and will once again be one of the greatest speakers we ever have after we get through this cycle."
- Former President Barack Obama

But less than two weeks ago, Politico reported that at least 20 challengers running in Democratic primaries have been openly dismissive of Pelosi’s leadership.
In addition, a group of incumbent Democrats – including U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins of New York and Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania – say they won’t back Pelosi for another term as party leader.
"Our leadership is out of touch with what is going on, not only in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan but in Cheektowaga, West Seneca, Hamburg, Orchard Park and Lancaster," Higgins told the Buffalo News, referring to swing states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016, as well as municipalities near Buffalo.

"Our leadership is out of touch with what is going on ... in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan ... "
- U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins, D-N.Y.

Perhaps the biggest blow to Pelosi’s future prospects occurred last Tuesday in New York City, when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated longtime U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley, 56, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
To many political watchers, it suggested that Democratic voters have grown tired of the party’s old guard and want a new generation of leaders.
But Pelosi quickly dismissed Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory as a “one district” fluke – a comment that may serve only to further inspire the younger, more far-left candidates seeking to move on Pelosi and her contemporaries.
The event where Obama spoke was co-hosted by Pelosi and U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and held at the home of Liz Simons and Mark Heising, who head the philanthropic Heising-Simons Foundation.
It was part of a three-stop Obama fundraising tour in California, which included an event in Beverly Hills on Thursday night.

Student Highlights 'Shocking' Backlash After Classmate's Pro-Trump Comment During Debate

A California high school student said that a pro-Trump classmate received backlash after he voiced his support for a border wall during a class debate.
Shaina Chen, 17, said Saturday on "Fox & Friends" that during a debate about race in politics, the classmate stated: "We should build the wall."
Chen said the suggestion was met with "awkward silence" from the rest of her class.
She also detailed what happened in a New York Post opinion piece, in which she said students insulted the classmate and called him names.
Chen said Saturday that she didn't expect the reaction from her classmates, being that they attend a "diverse" school near liberal San Francisco.
"Just to have that happen, I was so surprised," Chen said.

There was discomfort in the hallway, but I noticed it was also the first time people continued a debate after class was over. In fact, this single statement led to weeks of discussion on race and the right degree of government involvement in race-related issues.

She said the reaction was "shocking" because she hadn't seen that type of opposition to free speech before in her school.
She also said that many teachers don't debate politics in their classes because it's a "sensitive" topic.
Chen wrote in her op-ed that as so many students today are opinionated, they've forgotten the value of a diversity of opinion.
"In a school that practices diversity in almost anything, we were really missing a huge chunk of diversity," Chen said.

Free speech is important, even — or, perhaps, especially — in high school, because it makes people uncomfortable. Discomfort sparks discussion and promotes an acceptance of the existence of different opinions.

She said that a diversity of opinion should be respected by everyone, and that those who can't are not open-minded or free-thinking.

House Democrat Tulsi Gabbard dodges debates in home state -- despite demanding them in 2016: report

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, delivers a nomination speech for Sen. Bernie Sanders at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, July 26, 2016.  (Reuters)

A House Democrat is drawing heat in her home state for her history of refusing to participate in debates prior to primary elections.
But ironically, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii resigned from her position with the Democratic National Committee in 2016 because she believed the party hadn't scheduled enough debates among its presidential candidates that year.
Gabbard has declined to debate her opponent ahead of the Aug. 11 primary in Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District, continiung a pattern of snubbing her primary opponents every time since being elected to Congress six years ago, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported.
“Blocking debates from happening through non-participation is the opposite of democracy,” said Sherry Campagna, Gabbard's chief primary challenger for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District. “I’ve asked for a debate. I have received silence for merely presenting a choice.”
The debate dodge is not an unusual tactic for incumbents. But the backlash against Gabbard is fueled by her past remarks urging former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to increase the number of debates during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary campaign, calling it an issue of “democracy,” the Star-Advertiser reported.
At the time, Gabbard said additional debates would “give the American people the opportunity to hear from these presidential candidates, to listen to what they’ve got to say, to hold them accountable for their views and their positions,” the paper reported, citing CNN.

“Blocking debates from happening through non-participation is the opposite of democracy."
- Sherry Alu Campagna, Democratic primary challenger

Gabbard even stepped down from her position as DNC vice chairwoman to endorse then-candidate Bernie Sanders after reaching an impasse over the debate schedule, the Daily Beast reported.
That same year, Gabbard also refused multiple debate requests from her then-primary challenger Shay Chan Hodges, the Star-Advertiser reported. Hodges had privately asked her to meet for debates across the state, but the only debate to occur that season was when Gabbard publicly stated she never received such a request.

“(I)t is the right thing to do for the voters."
- Scott Humber, news director, Hawaii News Now

As this year’s primary approaches, television station Hawaii News Now has tried for more than a month to schedule a debate between Gabbard and Campagna, but Gabbard once again declined to participate, news director Scott Humber told the Star-Advertiser.
“(I)t is the right thing to do for the voters,” Humber, who said he’d keep the invitation open, wrote in an email.
Meanwhile, Erika Tsuji, a spokeswoman for Gabbard, told the paper that Gabbard has more important priorities in her home state when she returns from her duties in Washington.
The congresswoman “is spending the limited precious time she’s able to be home with her constituents, discussing issues of importance with them," Tsuji wrote in an email, "including difficulties they are having due to the recent natural disasters on Kauai, Oahu, and Hawaiii island, especially the victims of the Puna lava flow, as well as fulfilling her National Guard service requirements."

Maxine Waters brushes off alleged threats, vows to 'Impeach 45'

During a speech Saturday at an immigration rally in California, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters reacted defiantly to alleged threats reportedly directed at her following her previous remarks about the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.
Waters took the podium at the Families Belong Together rally in downtown Los Angeles, one of the many rallies staged across the country urging for the reunification of families who were separated at the U.S.-Mexico border.
She told the crowd that she has “no fear” and is “in this fight” after saying some congressional lawmakers felt “intimidated.”
“And I know that there are those who are talking about censuring me, talking about kicking me out of Congress, talking about shooting me, talking about hanging me,” she told the disapproving crowd. “All I have to say is this: If you shoot me, you better shoot straight. There's nothing like a wounded animal.”

“And I know that there are those who are talking about censuring me, talking about kicking me out of Congress, talking about shooting me, talking about hanging me. All I have to say is this: If you shoot me, you better shoot straight. There's nothing like a wounded animal.”
- U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Waters went on to say that she was willing “to make whatever sacrifices” were necessary, adding: “I am not about to let this country go by the way of Donald Trump.”
“We are sick and tired of him. He's been there too long,” she said. “They dare me to say 'Impeach him.' Today I say, 'Impeach 45.'”

“I am not about to let this country go by the way of Donald Trump. ... We are sick and tired of him. He's been there too long. They dare me to say 'Impeach him.' Today I say, 'Impeach 45.'”
- U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Her remarks came after she encouraged her supporters earlier this month to fight back against the White House amid a controversial immigration policy that ultimately led to the separation of migrant children from their parents after crossing the border.
Those earlier remarks prompted a reaction from President Donald Trump, in a Twitter message Wednesday:
"Congratulations to Maxine Waters, whose crazy rants have made her, together with Nancy Pelosi, the unhinged FACE of the Democrat Party," the president wrote. "Together, they will Make America Weak Again! But have no fear, America is now stronger than ever before, and I’m not going anywhere!"
Waters was also featured prominently in a campaign ad posted online by the Republican National Committee that criticized the political left as being "unhinged."
Speaking previously on MSNBC, Waters said that current administration officials who defend Trump “know what they’re doing is wrong,” and said they soon won’t be able to peacefully appear in public without being harassed.
“They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” she went on to say. “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”
She made similar comments at a Los Angeles rally, telling supporters that she wanted “history to record that we stood up that we pushed back that we fought that we did not consider ourselves victims of this president.”
Following the remarks, Waters had to call off scheduled appearances in Texas and Alabama after various threats were allegedly made at her, according to the Los Angeles Times. Waters reportedly told radio station KPFK-FM on Saturday that organizers of the events “didn’t have all of our security in order and organized for those two trips, but we’ve got it together now.”
“We're going on with our schedule, and we're going to keep talking about this president and his policies, and we're going to keep fighting for these children and their parents and these families,” she told the station, the Times reported.

Mexican Illegal Cartoons

Central America battles corruption, violence despite billions in US aid

MEXICO CITY –  U.S. foreign policy in Central America has long been a considered a two-way street. America provides aid to promote stability, economic progress and reduce violence. In return, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are supposed to reduce illegal immigration.
Last week, President Trump suggested that America isn't getting what it paid for: "When countries abuse us by sending their people up, not their best people, we are not going to give any more aid to those countries. Why the hell should we? Why should we?"
As a fresh wave of refugees from the so-called North Triangle reaches the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump isn't the only one asking if Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are keeping their end of the bargain.
"The violence is bad, the conditions horrible, but at the same time it is not the responsibility of the U.S.A. to solve all the problems of other countries," says Ana Quintana, executive director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.
Over the past decade, U.S. taxpayers have provided $1.5 billion in aid to El Salvador, $1.4 billion to Guatemala and $1.1 billion to Honduras, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Yet according to the thousands of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S., all three countries remain mired in poverty and beset by gang and drug violence. Corruption, they say, has never been worse.
"In Honduras we just can't live anymore because of the gang," says Mirna Ruiz, who has fled her home nation and is currently in Tijuana. "We can't even go shopping because we are afraid."
Vice President Pence met with leaders of all three nations Thursday in Guatemala and told them the U.S. expects to see them do more to control their own borders. And while President Trump proposed cutting their aid in next year's budget, many Democrats think that’s a mistake.
"We are working on infrastructure in the Northern Triangle," Rep. Norma Torres, D-Calif., told reporters last week at an immigrant detention center outside of San Diego. "Let's continue that policy, let’s continue to help them in their own country."
Addressing the root causes of illegal immigration is a long-term proposition. Advocates say it would cost more in the long run to abandon Central America now.
Others argue it's time to demand more accountability. Historically foreign aid budgets have passed through Congress with little debate. Congressional committees rubber-stamped State Department requests, and the gravy train continued.
Immigration from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala increased by 25 percent between 2007 and 2015, compared to just a six percent increase in arrivals from Mexico, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census data. In 2011, 42,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended from those three countries combined. Last year, the number of apprehensions had skyrocketed to 163,000 — 50,000 more than apprehensions of people from Mexico.
And while these immigrants tell Border Patrol agents and asylum officers they are being persecuted at home, surveys of recently deported immigrants from those countries admit 95 percent went to the U.S. for work, not because of violence.
"The United States is not and should not be in a position to be complacent and accept countries who are not fulfilling their obligations," says Quintana. "Until there is a serious focus by the administration, a serious focus by Congress to really delve into this we are not going to see the crisis at the border stop."

California's sweeping data-privacy bill signed into law

California Gov. Jerry Brown speaks during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., March 7, 2018.  (Associated Press)

California lawmakers gave consumers unprecedented protections for their data and imposed tough restrictions on the tech industry, potentially establishing a privacy template for the rest of the nation.
The law, which was rushed through the legislature this week and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday, broadens the definition of what constitutes personal information and gives California consumers the right to prohibit the sale of personal data to third parties and opt out of sharing it altogether. The bill applies to internet giants such as Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google but also will affect businesses of any size that collect data on their customers.
Ashkan Soltani, a digital researcher and former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission, said the regulations are the first of their kind in the U.S.
While the law only applies to consumers in California, tech companies will likely shift their policies to conform to the new law given the complexity of carving out conflicting standards. It may also spur Congress to consider federal legislation, coming after multiple hearings in which legislators peppered industry executives with questions about whether they were taking data privacy seriously enough.
The bill doesn’t go into effect until 2020 and could still be amended. It is almost certain that major tech firms will lobby heavily to get certain concessions, and an industry group said Thursday that it would push for changes.
By passing the bill, the legislature headed off a more restrictive ballot initiative that recently qualified to appear before California voters in November. The ballot initiative was strongly opposed by most of the tech industry, which broadly viewed the legislation as the lesser of two evils.