Bernie Sanders refuses to call Venezuela's Maduro 'dictator,' says 'democratic operations taking place'

Crash and Burn Bernie.

2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Monday night refused to call Venezuela's disputed President Nicolás Maduro a “dictator,” saying “there are still democratic operations taking place” in the war-torn country.
Sanders' comments in a CNN town hall came as Univision reported that anchor Jorge Ramos and his television crew were detained in Caracas following an interview with Maduro.
Univision said Ramos and his team were “arbitrarily detained” in the Miraflores Palace because the anchor asked Maduro questions “he didn’t like.” The network’s president of news, Daniel Coronell, later confirmed that Ramos and his crew were released, but that the Maduro regime still confiscated their equipment and the interview footage.
Sanders was asked about his opposition to U.S. intervention in Venezuela. He responded by saying he believed there should be an “international humanitarian effort” to improve the lives of Venezuelans and expressed that their last election was “not free and fair.” He also invoked the Vietnam War and his opposition to the Iraq War.
However, Sanders was pressed by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer about his previous rhetoric toward Maduro. The senator quickly pivoted to focus on President Trump.
“Why have you stopped short of calling Maduro of Venezuela a dictator?” Blitzer asked.
“I think it’s fair to say that the last election was undemocratic, but there are still democratic operations taking place in that country. The point is, what I’m calling for right now is internationally supervised fair elections,” Sanders responded.
“And, I do find it interesting that Trump is very concerned about what goes on in Venezuela, but what about the last election that took place in Saudi Arabia? Oh, there wasn’t any election in Saudi Arabia. Oh, women are treated as third-class citizens. So, I find it interesting that Trump is kind of selective as to where he is concerned about democracy. My record is to be concerned about democracy all over the world, so we’ve got to do everything we can but at the end of the day, it’s gonna be the people of Venezuela who determine the future of their country, not the United States of America.”
Sanders later referred to Trump as “authoritarian” for declaring a national emergency in order to get funding for the wall. The president and White House have said border security is an urgent issue requiring immediate solutions.

Rep. Omar deletes tweets that sparked political firestorm

Minnesota ( Canada ) Democrats voted her in.

Freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn, has deleted her controversial tweets that triggered bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill.
Washington Examiner’s Jerry Dunleavy first noted that representative erased three posts that were considered by some as anti-Semitic. Fox News has confirmed that those tweets have been deleted.
Omar’s Twitter troubles date back to 2012 when she claimed that Israel has “hypnotized the world” regarding the Jewish state’s ongoing conflict with Palestinians.
The Minnesota Democrat then reignited accusations of anti-Semitism when she suggested that the GOP’s support of Israel is bought, saying that its stance is “all about the Benjamins.” She later named AIPAC as a group that pays pro-Israel politicians despite the fact they don’t make financial contributions to campaigns.
Amid uproar, Omar issued an apology.
"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole," Omar stated. "We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize."
Many in the GOP called Democratic leadership to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. President Donald Trump slammed her “lame” apology and called on her to resign from Congress.

Democratic debate: Can an increasingly left-wing party win elections?

If you pulled a Rip Van Winkle last fall and woke up today, you'd be stunned by the new Democratic Party and its sudden embrace of uber-liberal ideas.
Suddenly, it seems, much of the party is championing radical-sounding proposals with cool slogans, gargantuan price tags and little chance of becoming law.
I happen to think this is a major miscalculation, not because I'm taking a stand on this or that policy but because it tees things up for Donald Trump and the GOP to paint them as the party of socialism.
And this progressive branding, which is what it's becoming, makes life difficult for the more moderate Democrats who led the charge in the 40-seat pickup in the House.
Both parties face this dilemma at the start of the primary process. What excites the base (left or right) can become an albatross during the general, when candidates usually pivot to the center.
But the complicating factor for the Democrats is that their social-media stars, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are also grabbing all sorts of attention, even though they wield little power in Washington.
And make no mistake, we're talking about policies that were too far left for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here's the lead of a Washington Post piece on the "head-snapping list" embraced by the 2020 Democrats: "Tear down the border wall. Pay slavery reparations. Upgrade every building in America. Tax the assets of rich people, and pack the Supreme Court with four new liberal judges."
Kamala Harris, seeking to solidify her African-American base, has come out for slavery reparations, and Elizabeth Warren matched that and said Native Americans should also be included. Most of them are signing onto the Green New Deal. And with a few exceptions like Amy Klobuchar, they love Medicare for All, with Harris saying it should replace all private health insurance plans.
KAMALA HARRIS DISMISSES CONCERNS ABOUT GREEN NEW DEAL PRICE TAG: 'IT'S NOT ABOUT A COST'
It doesn't take much to imagine the 30-second ads.
The New York Times finds Democratic lawmakers in conservative districts fending off questions from voters about whether they stand with the "socialism" and "anti-Semitism" they see coming out of the House.
And in a geographical piece on whether the Dems should focus on the Midwest or the Sun Belt, the Times says "there is a growing school of thought that Democrats should not spend so much time, money and psychic energy tailoring their message to a heavily white, rural and blue-collar part of the country when their coalition is increasingly made up of racial minorities and suburbanites." In short, focus on more liberal areas.
They may be taking a leaf from the Trump playbook, using bombastic rhetoric and sweeping promises as an alternative to Clintonian incrementalism. But there's a price to be paid for that.
I suppose there's an argument that galvanizing a surge of liberal voters in such states as Arizona and Georgia would be the party's best bet. But the Democrats lost to Donald Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and given the vagaries of the Electoral College, I doubt they can win the White House without getting at least two of those states back. Why surrender their claim as the blue-collar party?
While AOC is only 29, she generates so much media attention, positive and negative, that she's become a definite factor in this national debate.
As Jim Geraghty writes in National Review, "There is ample evidence that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is over-covered by both the mainstream media and conservative media ... But she embodies what a loud section of the online Left wants to see and what a loud section of the online Right loves to denounce and probably fears."
Conservatives don’t need to pick a fight with her on every little issue. AOC recently announced that to pay her staff a good wage, no employee will make less than $52,000 and none more than $80,000 — meaning she'll probably hire fewer workers and forego the highly paid chief of staff types.
On "Fox & Friends," Pete Hegseth called this "socialism and communism on display." That enabled AOC to fire back that "the GOP is so disconnected from the basic idea that people should be paid enough to live that Fox actually thinks me paying a living wage in my office is 'communism.'"
Such spats will be quickly forgotten, but unless there's a course correction, the debate over the Democrats' image as an increasingly left-wing party will echo for a long time to come.

Dems block 'born alive' bill to provide medical care to infants who survive failed abortions

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don't try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing "infanticide" to appeal to left-wing voters.
All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics -- seven votes short of the 60 needed.
Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays -- including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."
The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital." It prescribed a possible term of imprisonment of up to five years for violations, not including penalties for first-degree murder that could have applied.
In response, President Trump tweeted late Monday that "This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress."
"Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children," Trump wrote. "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth."
Other Republicans were also incredulous. "I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we're OK with infanticide," said the measure's chief sponsor, Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.
Speaking to Fox News' "The Story" after the vote, Sasse said he was "surprised" at each vote against the bill, and charged that opponents had lied "constantly" with "blatant nonsense" about the legislation -- specifically, by claiming the bill "would end abortion" entirely.
"This is about the most simple thing you can say, which is that a baby is a baby, and they have dignity and worth," Sasse said. "And it's not because they're powerful. It's because they're babies. Today is a sad day in the United States Senate."
Sasse added, "This shouldn't be about politics. ... This should be about having heart."
Other pro-life activists called on the 44 senators who voted against Sasse's bill to resign immediately.
“Senators who could not bring themselves to vote to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act should reconsider whether or not they have what it takes to serve," March for Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement. "Senator Sasse’s common sense bill would merely require doctors assist a newborn struggling to survive after a failed attempt on her life. Anyone who lacks the basic level of human compassion needed to vote in favor of this should quickly find another job. We look forward to a vote in the House of Representatives so that Chamber can get on record as well.”
Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws already making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the bill was unnecessary. They said it was part of a push by abortion opponents to curb access to the procedure and intimidate doctors who perform it, and said late-term abortions generally occur when the infant is considered incapable of surviving after birth.
“This bill is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women’s health,” New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said on the Senate floor.
Sasse's bill would have faced an uphill battle in the House, where Democrats hold the majority.

Pro-life activists protesting outside of the U.S. Supreme Court during the March for Life in Washington last month. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

A similar 2002 bill, called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, was passed unanimously by the Senate in 2002 and signed by then-President George W. Bush.
Sasse attempted to pass the new bill by unanimous consent earlier this month but was blocked. Unanimous consent requires all 100 senators to agree, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., objected to Sasse's bill, saying the legislation was unnecessary and amounted to a political stunt.
The legislation was introduced after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, endorsed post-birth abortions while discussing The Repeal Act, a state bill which sought to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions. Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, a sponsor of that bill, was asked at a hearing if a woman about to give birth and dilating could still request an abortion.
"My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran said. Northam, in a later interview with a radio station, backed up Tran.
"When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And, it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable."
Northam continued: "So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So, I think this was really blown out of proportion."

Crazy Democrats Cartoons

President Trump to Hold ‘Salute to America’ Event on July 4th, at Lincoln Memorial

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:53 PM PT — Sun. Feb. 24, 2019

President Trump wants Americans to hold the date as Washington is set host what he says is one of the biggest Independence Day gatherings in history.
In a tweet on Sunday, the President announced his administration will be holding a Fourth of July “Salute to America” event.

HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called “A Salute To America” and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2019

The gathering will be held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., and is slated to include a major firework display, live entertainment and a presidential address.

Trump delays China tariff hike, announces Xi summit, citing 'substantial progress' in trade talks

President Trump announced Sunday that he would hold off on implementing planned tariff hikes on hundreds of goods imported from China, citing "substantial progress" in high-level trade talks between the two nations.
The president also tweeted he would hold a summit meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to finalize an agreement "assuming both sides make additional progress."
"A very good weekend for the U.S. & China!" Trump wrote at the conclusion of the two-part Twitter message.
"We're doing very well with China," Trump told an assortment of governors at the White House for a black-tie event Sunday evening. "If all works well, we’re going to have some very big news over the next week or two, and it’s really been terrific. We’ve put ourselves into a position of strength for the first time in about 35 years or probably a lot more than that, but China’s been terrific. We want to make a deal that’s great for both countries and that’s really what we’re going to be doing."
Trump originally had warned he would escalate the tariffs imposed on $200 billion in Chinese imports, from 10 to 25 percent, if the U.S. and China failed to reach a deal by March 2. Negotiators held two days of talks starting Thursday in Washington and agreed to extend the negotiations through the weekend.
"We're making a lot of progress," Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. "I think there's a very good chance that a deal can be made."
The Trump administration has argued that Beijing uses predatory tactics -- including cyber-theft and unfair use of government subsidies and regulations-- in a drive to make Chinese companies world leaders in such advanced industries as robotics and driverless cars.
The administration also has argued that Beijing repeatedly has failed to live up to its past commitments to open its markets and to treat foreign companies more fairly.
Trump previously imposed 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports and 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion worth. China has responded with import taxes of its own on $110 billion in U.S. goods. These tariffs have been aimed largely at soybeans and other agricultural products in an effort to pressure Trump supporters in the U.S. farm belt. In the first 10 months of 2018, U.S. soybean exports to China dropped to 8.2 million metric tons from 21.4 million metric tons a year earlier — a 62 percent freefall, according to the Agriculture Department.
On Friday, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue tweeted that Beijing had agreed to buy 10 million metric tons of American soybeans, adding: "Hats off to @POTUS for bringing China to the table."
The president said Friday the two sides had reached some agreement on currency manipulation but offered no specifics. The administration has shown concerns that Beijing would blunt the impact of Trump's sanctions by manipulating its currency down to give Chinese companies a competitive edge in international markets.
Trump also raised the possibility that the U.S. would drop criminal charges against Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, saying the issue would be discussed with Attorney General Bill Barr and U.S. attorneys. The Justice Department has charged the company with lying about violating sanctions against Iran and with stealing trade secrets.

Ocasio-Cortez says she moved to new Bronx apartment

Freshman New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday night confirmed The Post’s reporting that she’s relocated to a new Bronx apartment in her neighborhood.
A day after residents at the Democratic congresswoman’s listed address told The Post they’d never seen her around, her spokesman on Sunday said she moved recently to a larger apartment “a block and a half away” with her boyfriend.
In a tweet, the left-wing darling also said she remained a Bronx resident.
“I still live in my hood and literally instagrammed from my apartment tonight,” Ocasio-Cortez, 29, wrote in response to The Post’s reporting.
On Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez ducked questions about her living situation after an appearance.
Her spokesman, Corbin Trent, claimed she relocated to a two-bedroom apartment with her beau earlier this month.
Trent claimed that Ocasio-Cortez was at her new home Sunday afternoon, although he wouldn’t identify the address.
“A man was just arrested last week with a stockpile of guns specifically trying to kill me & others,”Ocasio-Cortez added in her tweet. “So yeah I’m not gonna disclose my personal address or tell people when I move. Sorry!.”
Ocasio-Cortez was referring to US Coast Guard Lt. Cristopher Paul Hasson who was allegedly plotting to murder Democrats and journalists when he was arrested on drugs and guns charges this month.
The rep’s recent move still doesn’t explain why residents at her previous digs — a condo owned by her mom — insisted they had never seen her there.