Dem's plan to put Obama's name on Chicago's Dan Ryan Expressway irks Ryan's descendants

Former President Barack Obama should have his name on Chicago's Dan Ryan Expressway, says Bill Daley, a former Obama aide who's running for mayor of Chicago.

Former President Barack Obama may get a famous stretch of highway named for him, if a Chicago mayoral candidate -- who once worked for Obama -- gets his way. But the descendants of the late Dan Ryan, for whom the city expressway is named, are not happy about the idea.
Democratic candidate Bill Daley, who was Obama's White House chief of staff in 2011, proposed Friday that the Dan Ryan Expressway on Chicago's South Side be renamed for America's 44th president, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
“Barack Obama is from Chicago. He owns a home here. This is where the Obama library is based,” Daley said in a statement. “I’d like to see the legislature act on this early next year.”
A section of Interstate 55, leading in the direction of Springfield, the Illinois state capital, was already named for Obama last year, the report said. But Daley wants an additional roadway honor for the former president.
“Renaming the highway for President Obama will be a daily reminder for all of us that America’s first African-American president was shaped by Chicago,” Daley said. “We were part of history.”
History may also play a part Daley's decision to run for mayor. Daley's father was former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, who served as the 38th mayor of the city for 21 years from 1955 to 1976. Later, the current candidate's brother, Richard M. Daley, served as mayor for 22 years, from 1989 to 2011.
Democratic state Rep. La Shawn Ford of Chicago, who is also running for mayor and led part of the already passed legislation for I-55 to be named after Obama, said Daley's proposal was a "political stunt" and a "ploy to try to cater to black voters," according to the Sun-Times.
The Dan Ryan Expressway opened in 1961, not long after the death of its namesake, a longtime Cook County commissioner who worked to advance road projects in the city. Ryan's descendants, including grandson Dan Ryan III, were upset by Daley's idea, according to the Chicago Tribune.
“It was a very great honor for our family to have that name,” Ryan III told the paper. “And I can’t imagine why anyone would want to change part of his own father’s legacy to begin with, but also take away an honor from one person to honor another person.”

“It was a very great honor for our family to have that name. And I can’t imagine why anyone would want to change part of his own father’s legacy to begin with, but also take away an honor from one person to honor another person.”
— Dan Ryan III, descendant of man for whom Chicago expressway is named

The Dan Ryan Expressway is a freeway in Chicago that runs from the Circle Interchange with Interstate 290 (I-290) near Downtown Chicago through the South Side of the city. It is designated as both I-90 and I-94 south to 66th Street, a distance of 7.44 miles (11.97 km). South of 66th Street, the freeway meets the Chicago Skyway, which travels southeast; the I-90 designation transfers over to the Skyway, while the Dan Ryan Expressway retains the I-94 designation and continues south for 4.03 miles (6.49 km), ending at an interchange with I-57. This is a total distance of 11.47 miles (18.5 km).^[1] The freeway was named for Dan Ryan, Jr., a former president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) expressed concern about potentially having a second stretch of road named for Obama.
“As a general policy, IDOT discourages naming two roads near one another for the same person because it causes confusion for motorists,” IDOT spokeswoman Jessie Decker told the Sun-Times. “We are not aware of any existing resolutions or dedications being rescinded in order to rename a road.”
The Dan Ryan Expressway was chosen for the proposed Obama honor because of its association with racial segregation in the 1960s. It was also the location for a large anti-violence protest over the summer.
Thousands of protesters shut down lanes on the highway as part of a movement to increase pressure on public officials to address the gun violence that has claimed hundreds of lives in the city.

The wall fight should go into January. This is the GOP's last best chance to push for border security

President  Trump correctly opposed the continuing resolution that slithered out of the Senate on Thursday night. Instead, he should tell members of the 115th Congress to keep voting until they send him a budget that funds a southern border wall.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must have fallen into a barrel. Only that could explain the Kentucky Republican’s belief that kicking the budget can into next February would simplify matters for President Trump and the GOP. Alas, McConnell would have kicked that can right into hell.
If things are tough in Washington with a unified Republican government, just wait until San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi controls the House on January 3. She will lead a far-left caucus interested in resisting President Trump’s every move, at best, and jailing him, at worst. Such über-liberals as California’s Maxine Waters and New York’s Jerrold Nadler — and such full-on socialists as New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — will salivate over President Trump’s impeachment, not funds for his signature border wall.
“Punting to Feb. 8 on a CR not only gives Democrats a Christmas present, it offers them a Valentine’s Day gift,” House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) said via Twitter. “No more excuses. No more games. Stand up and fight.”
President Trump should sign a measure to fund the government through December 31. He then should keep Congress in town, voting around the clock except for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Postmen deliver the mail throughout the Yuletide. Members of Congress should labor at least as hard. If a solution is not reached by New Year’s Eve, another continuing resolution should fund the government through January 3, giving the Republican Congress three more days to fix this mess, before Pelosi and the Resistance take over.
If this seems unfair to Republican lawmakers, remember that Senate Democrats voted for ObamaCare on Christmas Eve 2009. While Democrats and the left have horrible, destructive policies, Republicans and the right should admire and emulate their focus, dedication, and discipline. While Republicans scatter like chickens in a barnyard struck by lightning, Democrats march in lockstep, like parading North Korean soldiers.
The House should pass an array of spending plans, with wall money, and give the Senate ample options to concur.
The first vote should be the Freedom Caucus’ amendment for $5 billion in border wall funds. On Thursday morning, Freedom Caucus members begged House speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for such a vote. This is mind-blowing. Why on earth was this vote not held — a week ago? A month ago?
If the Senate defeats a House bill with $5 billion in wall money, the House should transmit a separate bill with $4.5 billion, and then another $4 billion, etc. At some point, public pressure, fatigue, and homesickness should trigger Senate consent.
The House also should pass a bill co-sponsored by Representative Mo Brooks, R., Ala. and Senator Ted Cruz, R., Texas. The three-page EL CHAPO Act — or Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order — would finance the border wall with any money recovered from jailed Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, and other narco-traffickers. The U.S. government seeks some $14 billion in Guzman’s illicit cash. Republicans should dare House and Senate Democrats to oppose such common-sense and, essentially, no-cost wall funds.
Another relevant idea — President Trump should offer Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer of New York this simple deal: In exchange for Democrat support of the House’s $5.7 billion in wall funds, President Trump will back the Gateway Tunnel to augment today’s dilapidated, leaky trans-Hudson River passage between New York and New Jersey.  This federal expenditure can be justified on the basis of interstate commerce. If the old tunnel were to close (or collapse catastrophically, drowning thousands), this would be a devastating blow to rail service up and down the Eastern Seaboard. A wall-tunnel swap would be a perfect compromise that could satisfy both sides of the aisle.

California Governor Cartoons

Conservative media challenge Trump on border wall, Syria pullout

In the space of 48 hours, President Trump has got some of his conservative supporters pretty riled up.
His tentative decision to punt for now on funding for the border wall — the Senate passed a kick-the-can stopgap measure on Wednesday — triggered a backlash on the right that threatened to blow up the deal yesterday.
"It's what the drive-by media calls compromise," Rush Limbaugh declared. "Trump gets nothing and the Democrats get everything, including control of the House in a few short weeks."
Ann Coulter, a fierce supporter of a tougher approach to immigration, told The Daily Caller that without the wall Trump's tenure was a "joke presidency who scammed the American people." She said she wouldn't be voting for Trump again because the only reason was for Jared and Ivanka to make more money.
In breaking Twitter news, @realDonaldTrump promptly unfollowed her.
Then the president stunned many of his own aides, congressional supporters and overseas allies by announcing that the U.S. is pulling its troops out of Syria.
On his favorite show, "Fox & Friends," co-host Brian Kilmeade called the decision "stunning and irresponsible ... Nobody thinks that ISIS is defeated. Nobody who understands who was born after 2000 who sees what's happened after 9/11, understands."
On the Hill, Lindsey Graham, usually Trump's closest ally, denounced the decision, calling it a "stain" on America's honor, and saying Republicans would be going "nuts" if Barack Obama had done this.
Some were going nuts anyway.
And in a coda to the day, the president announced that Jim Mattis, who opposed the Syria pullout, is retiring. While several outlets say the Pentagon chief quit in protest, my own reporting is that Trump forced him out.
Both episodes marked a rare revolt by Trump's base, underscoring how the president is sometimes squeezed between his conservative campaign promises and the realities of governing. We saw similar tensions in the failed attempts to repeal ObamaCare.
But it also underscores the zig-zag nature of Trump's decision-making. He is the one who threatened a government shutdown in that televised session with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, only to quietly agree to a stopgap funding measure after Democrats dug in on the wall funding.
After an uproar by Mark Meadows and the House Freedom Caucus group, Trump hastily called a meeting with House Republicans, tweeting: "When I begrudgingly signed the Omnibus Bill, I was promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership. Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen! We foolishly fight for Border Security for other countries - but not for our beloved U.S.A. Not good!"
The problem is that Trump has little leverage on this one because even a shutdown at midnight tonight would stretch into the Democrats taking over the House in a couple of weeks. Still, Congress is famous for declaring victory with papered-over compromises, such as one that might allow Trump to draw wall funding from the military construction budget.
On Syria, the president overruled Mattis (prompting stories about the Pentagon chief's declining influence), blindsided some White House aides and stunned the western alliance. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, applauded the move.
But it was, as Trump says, no surprise. He had long argued against endless military entanglements in the Middle East. As he tweeted:
"I've been campaigning on it for years, and six months ago, when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer. Russia, Iran, Syria & others are the local enemy of ISIS. We were doing there work. Time to come home & rebuild…Do we want to be there forever?"
Where the president got major pushback, especially from conservative foreign policy types, is in declaring ISIS to be defeated. While the caliphate no longer controls large swaths of land, experts say it remains a force for terror. Another point of criticism, from Graham and others, is that this amounts to an abandonment of the Kurds, our allies, who were not given a heads-up.
David Sanger, in an even-handed analysis in The New York Times, said "even Mr. Trump’s biggest critics, the Democrats, will have a hard time going after him on this decision.
"Mr. Trump’s view that American forces cannot alter the strategic balance in the Middle East, and should not be there, was fundamentally shared by his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama. It was Mr. Obama who, at almost the exact same moment in his presidency, announced the removal of America’s last troops in Iraq — fulfilling a campaign promise."
The right spent years ripping Obama for pulling the remaining U.S. troops out of Iraq, which didn't want us there. And Obama had run against George W. Bush's war.
It's now an established fact that Trump delights in doing what the elites say is imprudent, and surprising even his own staff with abrupt decisions. But I suspect that many Trump supporters, whose kids may be more likely to fight these wars, will shed no tears over the Syrian pullout.
Still, this is the first time in his presidency that Trump is facing serious blowback from the conservative media on two highly significant issues. Maybe the airing of these differences is healthy for both sides.

North Carolina voter ID law faces court challenge -- immediately after GOP overrides Dem governor's veto

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper's veto of a new voter ID bill was overridden by the state's Republican lawmakers on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina completed an override of Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a new voter ID law this week -- and immediately faced a challenge in court.
Six voters described as either black or biracial residents filed the lawsuit Wednesday, mere minutes after the state House voted to override the veto 72-40. The state Senate had voted to override Tuesday, the News & Observer of Raleigh reported.
Republicans have blasted Cooper, who last week had said no to the legislation even though more than 55 percent of the state’s voters had approved it in a recent referendum.
"You have betrayed the majority of the hard-working, honest people of North Carolina who put this provision into our constitution," Republican state Rep. Jimmy Dixon said of Cooper. "You should hang your head in shame."

"You have betrayed the majority of the hard-working, honest people of North Carolina who put this provision into our constitution. You should hang your head in shame."
— State Rep. Jimmy Dixon

The referendum called for the state’s constitution to add an amendment requiring in-person voter photo ID, expanding the number of qualifying forms of ID and exceptions compared to legislation blocked earlier this decade. Republicans say the changes will ensure that everyone lawfully registered to vote can cast a ballot.
Permitted IDs would include traditional driver's licenses and military identification, student IDs from colleges and universities, and employee ID cards for state and local governments. Those IDs must meet certain security thresholds.
The voters who filed the lawsuit Wednesday said the restrictions will disproportionately and unduly burden the right to vote for African-American and American Indian residents. The suit claims the bill will add a financial cost to voting in the form of lost work hours and the need to find transportation to obtain an ID.
State Democrats have said the law was meant to suppress votes.
“You don’t have a right to take away my right or anybody else’s right because they can’t supply you with a photo ID,” Democratic state Rep. Mickey Michaux told the News & Observer. “It looks like history is going to repeat itself.”
But Republicans rebuffed such claims, saying Democrats were responsible for slavery and Jim Crow, the paper reported.
“The Republicans are the party of emancipation,” Republican state Rep. Jeff Collins said. “I get tired of getting blamed for things the Democrats have done.”

“The Republicans are the party of emancipation. I get tired of getting blamed for things the Democrats have done.”
— State Rep. Jeff Collins

The lawsuit also asks that a three-judge panel of state judges prevent the law from being enforced during the litigation. Any appeals would go to the state Supreme Court.

California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom will put wineries, hotels in blind trust

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, addresses an election night crowd after he defeated Republican John Cox to become the 40th governor of California Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2018, in Los Angeles. (Associated Press)

California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom will place his collection of wineries, hotels, restaurants and other holdings into a blind trust, he announced Thursday.
Newsom, who takes office Jan. 7 and has made millions from his investments, also promised to disclose his personal and business holdings each year in addition to this tax returns, the Sacramento Bee reported.
His array of hospitality businesses, known as the PlumpJack group, grew out of a wine shop he owned in San Francisco in 1992, the Los Angeles Times reported. Newsom, 51, is a former mayor of San Francisco, having held that office from 2004 to 2011.
“Governor-elect Gavin Newsom is announcing today that he will be the first governor in the history of California to release his tax returns every year, just as he has done as a candidate,” Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Click said in a statement. “Newsom will also disclose his personal and business holdings each year on his statement of economic interest and separate himself from the PlumpJack Group wine and hospitality businesses that he has built.”

FILE - In this Monday, Oct. 22, 2018 file photo shows the Plumpjack Wine & Spirits store, in San Francisco, part of the Plumpjack Group collection of wineries, bars, restaurants, hotels and liquors stores. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File)

Shyla Hendrickson, an attorney and Newsom family friend, will manage his businesses while he is governor. She will be legally barred from sharing business information with Newsom and his representatives, Click told the Bee.

FILE - In this June 3, 2004, file photo, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, from left, Gordon Getty and Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown enjoy a pre-dinner glass of wine during a hospitality event of the Napa Valley Wine Auction at the PlumpJack Winery in Oakville, Calif. (Associated Press)

Newsom will also issue an executive order barring state executive branch agencies from doing business with PlumJack, according to the paper.
Bob Stern, author of California’s conflict-of-interest laws, commended Newsom’s actions.
“That’s as much as anybody could ask him to do, except for selling all the properties, which I wouldn’t recommend him doing,” Stern told the L.A. Times Thursday.
Newsom's moves, perhaps deliberately, are in contrast to those of President Trump, who has refused to divest from his real estate holdings or put them into a blind trust. Trump has put his children in charge of his businesses instead.
Walter Shaub, director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, has blasted Trump's decision to maintain his business empire instead of selling of his corporate assets and placing remaining profits in a blind trust.
State law doesn’t require Newsom to divest from PlumpJack and he can still sign bills or take executive action that would benefit his companies if his decision would affect all Californians in the same way it would affect him.

House approves spending bill with $5.7B for border wall

The House of Representatives Thursday approved a bill that would fund most of the federal government through early February -- and provides $5.7 billion for President Trump's long-promised border wall, increasing the chances of a partial government shutdown later this week.
Eight Republicans joined all 177 voting Democrats to oppose the measure, which passed 217-185. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it is certain to fall short of the 60 votes needed for passage since the chamber's 49 Democrats are against funding the wall. That, in turn, makes it more likely that parts of the federal government, including nine of 15 Cabinet-level departments and dozens of agencies, will cease operations at midnight Friday.
The vote came hours after Trump told House GOP leaders that he would not enact a Senate-passed package that does not provide money for the barrier.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, whose leaders had pushed the hardest for Trump to stand his ground on the wall issue, said in a statement: "Republicans in Congress have continually told the American people that we would fight for wall funding, and today the House of Representatives took its first step toward fulfilling that promise. The Senate must follow our lead. It’s time we do what we said and work with President Trump and the American people to secure our borders."
Trump congratulated Republican House members in a tweet late Thursday, saying he was "so proud of you all."
"Thank you to our GREAT Republican Members of Congress for your VOTE to fund Border Security and the Wall," he wrote. "The final numbers were 217-185 and many have said that the enthusiasm was greater than they have ever seen before ... Now on to the Senate!"
In a subsequent tweet, Trump took a shot at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who he said had claimed that "Republicans didn’t have the votes for Border Security."
"Nancy does not have to apologize," Trump said. "All I want is GREAT BORDER SECURITY!"
The Senate measure, which passed by voice vote late Wednesday, provided a total of $1.6 billion for border security but did not include funding for a border wall. Trump's allies had warned him that he would have even less leverage to demand wall funding after Democrats take control of the House on Jan. 3 and worried that Trump's failure to make good on his signature campaign promise could hamper his re-election campaign.
After meeting with Trump at the White House earlier Thursday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters that Trump had told them he would not sign the measure out of "legitimate concerns for border security."
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Trump had "gotten word" to him that he would either be "getting funding to the border or he's shutting the whole thing down." A day earlier, Limbaugh complained that it appeared "Trump gets nothing and the Democrats get everything, including control of the House."
The president issued threatening tweets and a stern statement from his press secretary before calling Republican lawmakers to the White House, where he told them he wasn't on board with the Senate measure, which would fund much of the government through Feb. 8.
"I am asking Congress to defend the border of our nation," Trump said at a White House event. "Walls work, whether we like it or not."
 Ratcheting up the suspense, Trump added: "I look forward to signing a bill that fulfills our fundamental duty to the American people ... we'll see what we can do."
Democratic leaders were incredulous Thursday evening, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., saying the president was throwing a "temper tantrum."
"Today's events have made one thing clear: President Trump is plunging the country into chaos," said Schumer, referencing the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis in addition to the pending shutdown. " ... The  Trump temper tantrum may produce a government shutdown. It will not get him his wall ... Donald Trump wants a shutdown and [Republicans] seem to be so afraid that they're going to go along. We'll see."
Pelosi said the measure to fund a border wall was "a shameful bill that is unworthy of this House of Representatives and certainly of the American people."
On the House floor, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., accused Republicans of "playing political games ... to pander to the president of the United States."
"How sad it is that the Republican leadership of this Congress ... have consistently been unable to meet their fiscal responsibilities," Hoyer said. " ... This bill is going nowhere. The Senate won't accept it. Now perhaps the Senate will send it back amended. Perhaps."
Despite his line in the sand, Trump appeared to float one possible path to compromise, referring to "steel slats" at the border rather than the concrete barrier he'd talked about during the campaign. With that phrasing, Trump appeared to be describing fencing, to which Congress is more amenable.
The White House had previously floated another possible workaround, suggesting Trump would approve a deal with no wall dollars and pursue other funding options. Trump said he would use the military to fund and build the wall, while White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump had directed all his Cabinet secretaries to look for usable funds.

Democrat America Cartoons