Hillary Clinton writes letter consoling girl, 8, who ran for class president against boy -- and lost

Please just shut up and go away.

Hillary Clinton surprised an 8-year-old girl with a letter earlier this month after the elementary school student lost an election for class president to a boy by a single vote.
Martha Kennedy Morales, a third-grader at a private Quaker school in College Park, Md., decided to run for the top office as part of a lesson on government in which elections for class president and Congress were held, the Washington Post reported. Morales told the paper she lost to a “popular” fourth-grade boy and was affirmed as vice president.
“As I know too well, it’s not easy when you stand up and put yourself in contention for a role that’s only been sought by boys,” Clinton wrote in a consoling letter obtained by the Post.

“As I know too well, it’s not easy when you stand up and put yourself in contention for a role that’s only been sought by boys.”
— Hillary Clinton

Clinton went on to praise the student by relating her own experience losing to now-President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. The Democratic nominee won the popular vote by a few million but lost in the Electoral College.
TOP HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS IN NH DON'T BUY THE IDEA OF ANOTHER WHITE HOUSE RUN
“The most important thing is that you fought for what you believed in, and that is always worth it,” Clinton wrote.
Morales is now working on writing the former secretary of state a thank-you note, according to the Post.

Trump blasts shuttering Weekly Standard as ‘pathetic and dishonest,’ rips editor Kristol

President Trump's Saturday tweet suggsted that he was not a fan of the Weekly Standard or editor-at-large William Kristol.

Many conservatives may have been saddened by Friday’s news that the Weekly Standard, a publication that has existed for 23 years, will be ceasing operations this month. But don’t count President Trump among them.
In a Twitter message Saturday, Trump blasted the magazine as “pathetic and dishonest,” and slammed its editor-at-large, William Kristol, as a “failed prognosticator.”
THE WEEKLY STANDARD ANNOUNCES IT WILL FOLD AFTER 23 YEARS
Kristol had written in July: “Donald Trump is in many ways a bad president — bad for the country, bad for conservatism, bad for the Republican party. His sway over party and policy should be limited as much as is feasible and his dominance of our politics not extended any longer than necessary.”
“May it rest in peace!” the president wrote of the magazine Kristol co-founded.
Kristol appeared concerned that the president's Twitter message wasn't sent to him directly.
Parent company Clarity Media’s CEO Ryan McKibben told staffers Friday morning that the magazine would print its final issue Monday.
McKibben said the publication “has been hampered by many of the same challenges that countless other magazines and newspapers across the country have been wrestling with,” and ultimately it needed to make the tough decision to close.
Others reported that McKibben and associates at Clarity preferred to shutter the Standard rather than sell it, in order to bolster a weekly launched by the Washington Examiner, which, like the Standard, is owned by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz.

‘Text tax’ vote canceled by California utilities panel after FCC ruling

The California Public Utilities Commission has withdrawn from its January meeting agenda a scheduled vote on imposing a tax on text messaging.
The move came after the Federal Communications Commission in Washington declared text messaging to be an “information service,” not a telecommunications service, and thus not subject to a surcharge under California law.
“Prior to this FCC ruling,” the CPUC wrote in a statement posted on Twitter, “text messaging was not a classified service under federal law.
CALIFORNIA MULLS TAX ON TEXT MESSAGING, MAY LEAD TO SHOWDOWN WITH FEDERAL REGULATORS
“In light of the FCC’s action,” the statement added, “assigned Commissioner Carla J. Peterman has withdrawn from the CPUC’s Jan. 10, 2019 Voting Meeting agenda the draft decision in Docket R.17-06-023, which proposed to clarify that text messaging service should be subject to the [state of California’s[ statutory surcharge requirement.”
The CPUC’s plan was to use the proposed tax on text messages to help subsidize telecommunications service for the state’s rural areas, as well as for its low-income and disabled residents.
A report from the commission laid out why it viewed the tax was needed. It specifically cited declining telecommunications industry revenues during the past six years -- a drop of nearly $5 million.
TEXT MESSAGES MIGHT BE NEXT TO FACE CALIFORNIA TAX, REPORTS SAY
"This is unsustainable over time," the report states.
It was not clear from the CPUC’s statement whether the panel had an alternative plan for funding those initiatives.
Jim Patterson, a Republican former mayor of Fresno who now represents the state’s 23rd District as a state assemblyman, was among those hailing the CPUC’s decision to cancel the vote.
“You can bet I’ll keep a watchful eye on them for future shenanigans,” Patterson wrote on Twitter. “For now…consider the Text Tax cancelled.”
Previously, Patterson had characterized the text tax plan as “an outrageous attempt at a money grab from California families.”
The CPUC had claimed that revenues for its subsidy programs have been falling as consumers switch from traditional landline telecom services to text messaging, FOX 11 of Los Angeles reported.

 (Blls) It's no wonder a lot of Californians are moving to Texas and bringing their stupid liberal politics with them. They screwed up their state and now they want to screw up Texas!

ObamaCare 2018 Cartoons

Justice Dept. asks Supreme Court to allow transgender military ban

( Blls) People in America are sick and tired of a few small groups like this claiming they're speaking for the majority of us when they're not, ENOUGH.

The Trump administration is seeking aid from the Supreme Court to take the next step in imposing a ban on transgender people in the military.
In court filings Thursday, the Justice Department’s solicitor general — Noel Francisco — requested a hold against the lower courts, which are currently preventing the administration from enforcing the policy.
If approved, the hold will allow a temporary block of military recruitment of transgender individuals pending the outcome of the ongoing legal battle.
The move comes just weeks after the administration asked the Supreme Court to fast-track its review of the order, pushing the issue past the appeals court.
Many critics have chimed in against the ban since the president first announced it on Twitter last year, claiming the president is taking an anti-LGBTQ stance. However, the White House is adamant the decision is based off security concerns and is claiming the previous policy poses a risk to overall military effectiveness.
“The president’s expressed concerns since this Obama policy came into effect, but he’s also voiced that this is a very expensive and disruptive policy and based on consultation that he’s had with his national security team, came to the conclusion that it erodes military readiness and unit cohesion and made the decision based on that,” stated Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

Francisco is claiming this current legal battle is part of a “growing trend” by activist judges. He cited the numerous injunctions placed on the administration by the courts blocking policies involving national security, defense, and immigration.

Despite federal judge’s ruling, Obamacare exchanges are open for business, CMS official says

A spokesperson from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services told Fox News early Saturday that open enrollment for Affordable Care Act’s health insurance will continue despite the federal judge's ruling that the law is unconstitutional and must be "invalidated in whole.”
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, a federal judge in Texas appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled that last year's tax cut bill knocked the constitutional foundation from under Obamacare by eliminating a penalty for not having coverage. The rest of the law cannot be separated from that provision and is therefore invalid, he wrote.
The decision came on the evening before the Dec. 15 deadline for Americans.
The spokesperson from CMS told Fox that the judge’s decision, which was applauded by President Trump, is still working its way through the courts and is not the final word on the matter.
"There is no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan," the spokesperson said.
Congress is unlikely to act while the case remains in the courts. Numerous high-ranking Republican lawmakers have said they did not intend to also strike down popular provisions such as protection for people with pre-existing medical conditions when they repealed the ACA's fines for people who can afford coverage but remain uninsured.
Xavier Becerra, the California attorney general, vowed to appeal the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.
"Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the A.C.A.’s consumer protections for health care, on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans," Becerra said in a statement, obtained by The New York Times.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is expected to become House speaker in January, vowed to fight what she called an "absurd ruling."
Trump tweeted his support for the ruling, saying, "Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster!" He continued, "Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions."
About 20 million people have gained health insurance coverage since the ACA passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote. Currently, about 10 million have subsidized private insurance through the health law's insurance markets, while an estimated 12 million low-income people are covered through its Medicaid expansion.
The White House said late Friday that it expects the ruling to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The five justices who upheld the health law in 2012 in the first major case -- Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberals -- are all still serving.

Elizabeth Warren admits she's not 'a person of color' during commencement speech

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday said she is "not a person of color," during a commencement speech at a historically black college.
“As a country, we need to stop pretending that the same doors open for everyone, because they don’t,” she said during a commencement speech at Morgan State University in Baltimore, according to the Washington Post.
“I’m not a person of color,” she continued. “And I haven’t lived your life or experienced anything like the subtle prejudice, or more overt harm, that you may have experienced just because of the color of your skin.”

"I’m not a person of color. And I haven’t lived your life or experienced anything like the subtle prejudice, or more overt harm, that you may have experienced just because of the color of your skin."
— Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren

The acknowledgment from the Democrat, who’s been making concrete steps to prepare for her 2020 presidential run, came after a months-long agony of trying to refute criticism that she falsely claimed Native American heritage.
Warren insists she never used Native American heritage to gain advantage, though she listed herself as a “minority” before the University of Pennsylvania offered her a job, according to the Boston Globe. She later asked the university to change her listed identity as “Native American.”
In October, she released her DNA analysis results that showed “strong evidence” that she has a Native American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations.
The analysis claims that if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, Warren would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, the senator would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
WARREN RELEASES DNA ANALYSIS ON NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE, FIRING BACK AT TRUMP ATTACKS
But the DNA analysis results only emboldened Warren’s critics, who say President Trump and the nickname he gave to the senator – “Pocahontas” – was apt because the results didn’t prove Warren was really a Native American.
“To put that in perspective, Warren might even be less Native American than the average European American,” Republican National Committee Deputy Communications Director Mike Reed told Fox News in October, while saying this would “not give you the right to claim minority status.”
The Cherokee Nation also criticized Warren.

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong."
— Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr., said. “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.”
The DNA results rollout reportedly irked Warren who now may be regretting the move as rather than closing the matter, it only invited more attacks against her, according to the New York Times.
Warren reportedly expressed concerns that the stunt only ruined her relationship with the Native American community. Outside advisers also told the newspaper that the issue won’t go away and she will have to tackle it again on the campaign trail.
WARREN MAY BE REGRETTING DNA ANALYSIS ON NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE, REPORT SAYS
Yet Warren’s chances of having a viable path to presidency in 2020 appear to be dwindling after the Boston Globe’s editorial board said the Democrat is too divisive to run for president.
“While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a divisive figure,” the editorial stated. “A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics of Donald Trump.”

Kamala Harris’ DOJ received misconduct claim involving aide months before she left: report

Sen. Kamala Harris insisted earlier this month that she was “unaware” of the harassment allegations against her top aide during her time as California’s Attorney General, but the agency that she oversaw: California's Department of Justice was informed about the complaint three months before she exited in early 2017, according to the Sacramento Bee.
Larry Wallace, the longtime aide who went to Washington with Harris, resigned earlier this month after the newspaper asked about the 2017 settlement with Danielle Hartley, a woman who made the accusations. Harris’ senate office said the senator had no knowledge of the alleged harassment.

"We were unaware of this issue and take accusations of harassment extremely seriously. This evening, Mr. Wallace offered his resignation to the senator, and she accepted it."
— Sen. Kamala Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams

“We were unaware of this issue and take accusations of harassment extremely seriously,” Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams said. “This evening, Mr. Wallace offered his resignation to the senator, and she accepted it.”
KAMALA HARRIS AIDE RESIGNS OVER $400G HARASSMENT SETTLEMENT
On Friday, Harris – who’s mulling her 2020 presidential run – told the newspaper that she took “full responsibility for what happened in my office.”
She went on to reiterate that she wasn’t aware of the allegations against Wallace and said she was “frustrated” by the “breakdown” in the system.
“That’s what makes me upset about this. There’s no question I should have been informed about this. There’s no question. And there were ample opportunities when I could have been informed,” she added.

"That’s what makes me upset about this. There’s no question I should have been informed about this. There’s no question. And there were ample opportunities when I could have been informed."
— Sen. Kamala Harris

But some expressed skepticism that Harris had no idea of the harassment caused by Wallace. GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel wrote in a tweet that the senator was either “lying or grossly incompetent.”
“No one is buying Kamala Harris’s claim she didn’t know her top aide of 14 yrs was accused of sexual harassment, resulting in a $400K settlement,” she wrote.
According to the report, an intake form from the Equal Employment Rights and Resolution Office, which administers the issues concerning discrimination at the state DOJ, reveals that the department was alerted on Oct. 3, 2016 that Hartley will pursue legal action.
Hartley had also already requested the right to sue from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Bee reported. Her complaint, filed a month earlier, detailed the allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation – naming Wallace and “those who worked for him” as the culprit.
KAMALA HARRIS TO KEEP SEAT ON SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BOOSTING POTENTIAL 2020 BID
The lawsuit filed by the woman alleged that Wallace demeaned her based on her gender while she worked for him as his assistant.
She said Wallace placed his computer printer under his desk and often asked her to crawl under and refill it with paper as he sat and watched, sometimes with other men in the room. Wallace refused to move the printer to another location when Hartley asked him to do so, according to the suit.
The lawsuit also claims Wallace instructed Hartley to run his personal errands such as booking flights for his children and washing and performing maintenance on his car. When she would return from the assigned tasks, the lawsuit states, “co-workers would make hostile comments to her including, ‘Are you walking the walk of shame?’”
Hartley claims she tried to solve the matter internally, reporting the harassment allegations in 2011, but this only prompted retaliations against her. She was involuntarily transferred to another office at the state Department of Justice at the end of 2014, the suit said.
The lawsuit was settled for $400,000 in May 2017, just two months after Wallace went to work for Harris as her senior adviser.