AOC says only a 'sea sponge' would believe her '12 years' doomsday remark, but most Dems bought it / Why Did Bar AOC Used to Work at Shut Down? Because of $15 Minimum Wage SHE Supports

What a put down for the dumb Dems that voted  her in :-)

AOC says only a 'sea sponge' would believe her '12 years' doomsday remark, but most Dems bought it

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats, even though she said herself that only those with the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” could actually believe it.
The New York Democrat drew mockery from Republicans after she made the doomsday warning in a bid to convince people that radical action against climate change is needed.
“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'” Ocasio-Cortez said. A few months later she repeated the claim again.
Earlier this month, however, Ocasio-Cortez backtracked on the gloomy forecast and instead blamed the Republican Party for taking her humor and sarcasm literally.
"This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and 'fact check' it," she wrote.
But it appears that more than two-thirds of surveyed Democrats took her literally.
A Rasmussen poll, conducted earlier this week, found 67 percent of Democrats believing that the U.S. has only 12 years to avert the “disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world” stemming from climate change. Out of all total likely voters, 48 percent of respondents believed the apocalyptic claim.
Ocasio-Cortez has emerged as the key Democratic voice on how to tackle climate change, proposing the Green New Deal resolution that seeks to radically reorganize the economy to ensure climate change is tackled.
The proposal was endorsed by a number of 2020 presidential candidates even before the disastrous rollout of the proposal, which included the now-infamous FAQ document that suggested making air travel obsolete and supporting those “unwilling to work.”
Senate Democrats in March failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to begin debate on the Green New Deal proposal, with 42 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voting “present.”
The lawmakers said they didn’t vote for the proposal because it was brought to a vote by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for political purposes.

Why Did Bar AOC Used to Work at Shut Down? Because of $15 Minimum Wage SHE Supports

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (shown) had been accused of stealing tips from a coworker at a bar where she once waitressed. Yet she also could perhaps be accused of helping steal the jobs, in a manner of speaking, from workers at its sister establishment, in which she also waitressed. This is because iconic New York City restaurant The Coffee Shop closed its doors forever — largely because of its state’s new $15 minimum wage — which Ocasio-Cortez supported.
The Coffee Shop was no failed business model. It was “frequented by A-list celebrities and featured on ‘Sex and the City,’” wrote Investor’s Business Daily. Opened by former Wilhelmina models Charles Milite, Eric Petterson, and Carolyn Benitez in 1990, “it quickly became a sceney fashion destination,” added Eater New York last year. “There was even a long-standing rumor that the restaurant only hired aspiring models as servers” (though Ocasio-Cortez’ employment apparently debunks this rumor).
What isn’t a rumor is that the minimum wage minimized the restaurant’s viability. “The times have changed in our industry,” owner Milite told the New York Post. “The rents are very high and now the minimum wage is going up and we have a huge number of employees.”
If it makes Milite and the 150 now unemployed feel any better, Ocasio-Cortez did stop by last year, one last time, to pay her respects, a bit like a mafia hit man attending his latest victim’s funeral.
It has long been known that minimum-wage laws cost jobs and hurt economies. Famed late economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman not only made this point, but also added in a 1966 op-ed:

The groups that will be hurt the most are the low-paid and the unskilled. The ones who remain employed will receive higher wage rates, but fewer will be employed. As Prof. James Tobin, who was a member of president [sic] Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisers, recently wrote: “People who lack the capacity to earn a decent living need to be helped, but they will not be helped by minimum-wage laws, trade-union wage pressures or other devices which seek to compel employers to pay them more than their work is worth. The more likely outcome of such regulations is that the intended beneficiaries are not employed at all.

This realization is what helped shake another famed economist, Professor Thomas Sowell, from his youthful Marxism. While doing a summer internship with the Department of Labor, he researched the minimum wage and not only discovered it cost jobs, but also something else: The labor-department bureaucrats didn’t even care. Their bureaucracy was getting a lot of money via administration of the minimum wage laws.
Friedman’s and Sowell’s position prevails in the wider economist community, too. As columnist Larry Elder noted Thursday, quoting from a survey of economists commissioned by the Employment Policies Institute:

“Nearly three-quarters of these US-based economists oppose a federal minimum wage of $15.00 per hour. [Does the last quarter work for the Department of Labor?]

“The majority of surveyed economists believe a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have negative effects on youth employment levels (83 percent), adult employment levels (52 percent), and the number of jobs available (76 percent).

“When economists were asked what effect a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on the skill level of entry-level positions, 8 out of 10 economists (80 percent) believe employers will hire entry-level positions with greater skills.

“When economists were asked what effect a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, nearly 7 out of 10 economists (67 percent) believe it would make it harder for them to stay in business.”

None of this is hard to understand. An employee brings a certain amount of value to a business. Now, if a worker’s labor will add $13-an-hour in value, can you pay him $15 hourly?
Creating a minimum wage above many existing workers’ value leaves employers only three choices:
• Fire those workers and, when possible, replace them with more skilled/more productive employees who yield greater value than the minimum-wage salaries you must pay.
• Fire those workers and, when economically feasible, automate.
• When neither of the first two is possible, close up shop — ergo, the erstwhile Coffee Shop.
Option one gets at why minimum-wage laws hurt low-skilled workers (who are inordinately young, black, and/or Hispanic). After all, if for $15 hourly you can hire a 23-year-old with some experience, why would you hire a green 17-year-old or a young inner-city fellow with no experience? You’re going to want to get what you’re paying for.
Thus, minimum-wage laws make it more difficult for young people to land that important first job and gain the experience that can lead to better employment. And without work, which “ennobles man” and can give life meaning, young people are more likely to be out on the streets causing trouble and joining gangs.
Yet as the Foundation for Economic Freedom put it last year, it can be argued that minimum-wage laws were actually designed to kick the “wrong people” out of work. In fact, it relates in the video below that “early 20^th-century socialist thought leader Sidney Webb wrote an article entitled ‘The Economic Theory of a Legal Minimum Wage,’ in which he described married women; the disabled; and other, quote, ‘invalids,’ unquote, as parasites who were taking work from able-bodied men. See, it was understood by many early on that minimum-wage laws were there to price the ‘less fit’ out of the marketplace.”
Apropos to this, note that prior to minimum-wage laws’ advent, the United States’ black unemployment was actually slightly lower than white unemployment — this reversed after these laws’ birth.
It’s not fair to say these laws are the only cause of higher minority unemployment or that all those advocating them today have bigoted motives. But many are demagogues who callously use minimum-wage appeals to gain power. Moreover, we could wonder if some understand the effect these laws have — but want higher minority unemployment so that they can blame “white supremacy” and portray themselves as saviors of minority America.
At best, reflected in minimum-wage laws is minimal thinking.

Kamala Harris tells Colbert that Senate panel will push on with Trump probe / Extramarital affair with Kamala Harris? Former San Francisco mayor, 84, admits it happened

Democrats voted her into office :-)

Willie Brown and Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris tells Colbert that Senate panel will push on with Trump probe

During Sen. Kamala Harris’ appearance on "Late Night with Stephen Colbert" on Wednesday, the 2020 presidential hopeful said the Senate Intelligence Committee will not stop its investigation into President Trump despite what Harris described as Trump's threats to “hold America’s infrastructure hostage.”
The California Democrat and other intelligence committee members have been investigating Russian election interference and Trump’s alleged ties to Russia for two years. The panel is expected to call on several witnesses to testify as it concludes the probe over the next few months.
Harris vowed that the committee would not stop investigating Trump. She argued the president's "self-interests" only hurt the American people.
When Colbert asked Harris if she would concede to Trump's demands, she flatly responded “No.”
“So he’s going to hold America’s infrastructure hostage -- right? -- over the issue of the investigation,” she continued.
Playing devil’s advocate, Colbert suggested that the intelligence committee could “halt” the investigation in order to work with the White House on the nation’s infrastructure, but Harris rejected the idea.
“This is a false choice,” Harris stated. “We cannot abandon our democracy for the sake of appeasing somebody who is completely focused on his interests only.”
Harris argued that Trump’s failure to work with Dems on infrastructure shows he does not represent most Americans.
“Almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval,” she said.
Earlier Wednesday, Trump said he told Congress’ top Democrats to “Get these phony investigations over with.” The president threatened not to cooperate with his political rivals on a massive infrastructure proposal if the probe continues.
“I told Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, I want to do infrastructure... but I can’t do it under these circumstances,” he told reporters during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden.
​​​​​​​The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Extramarital affair with Kamala Harris? Former San Francisco mayor, 84, admits it happened

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown addressed his past extramarital relationship with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris in his weekly column Saturday, saying he may have boosted the presidential hopeful's career.
"Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago," Brown wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.
"Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was [California] Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco."
Brown, 84, pointed out that he also helped the careers of other prominent California Democrats, such as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
"The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.,” Brown wrote. "That's politics for ya."
Brown appointed Harris -- about 30 years younger than Brown and just a few years out of law school – to two well-paid state commission assignments on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
"Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work," Harris said in a 2003 interview with SF Weekly. "I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs."

"The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.”
— Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco

The former mayor also connected Harris with campaign donors, which helped her outraise her opponent for San Francisco district attorney, Business Insider reported. Brown's involvement in her election raised questions as to how Harris would remain impartial, given his enormous political clout.
Questions about Brown’s relationship with Harris began anew after she announced her 2020 presidential bid on Martin Luther King Day.
During his two terms as mayor of San Francisco, Brown was known for his charm, arrogance and ego, according to a 1996 profile in People magazine.
Named one of the world’s 10 sexiest men by Playgirl magazine in 1984, Brown sometimes attended parties with his wife on one arm and a girlfriend on the other, according to a reporter quoted by the magazine.
Brown and Harris broke up in 1995 but remained political allies. In Saturday's column, Brown said Harris is "riding a buzz wave the likes of which we haven’t seen in years."
Fox News contacted Harris' office for a response to Brown's claims but did not receive a response.
For the past decade or so, Brown has reportedly been linked with Sonya Molodetskaya, a Russian refugee and socialite. He is said to be separated from wife Blanche Vitero, whom he married in 1958.
Brown and Vitero have three children, while Brown also fathered a child in 2001 with his former fundraiser, Carolyn Carpeneti, according to the Chronicle.

 

Rep. Tlaib Taliban tells Mnuchin to get lawyer after Treasury's refusal to turn over Trump tax returns

Rep. Taliban Tlaib

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin

Michigan Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib told Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin at a testy hearing on Wednesday that he should seek "personal" legal advice, effectively issuing a thinly veiled threat following his refusal to turn President Trump's personal tax information over to Congress.
"I would be remiss, as somebody that truly believes in the rule of law, as somebody that has practiced law and is an attorney, I would advise you, secretary, to get personal legal advice," Tlaib said, smirking slightly. "The cover-up by this administration, it goes beyond just providing the taxes.
"You can consult the Department of Justice but you, personally, making decisions – not on the best part of the American people, but to cover up the occupant of the White House – I think you need to be very, very clear about what your role is and what your responsibility is to the American people," she continued.
Tlaib added: "So, secretary, please seek out legal advice, personally, of what your obligations are, because the Department of Justice is not protecting you, it's protecting the president."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed Tlaib's remarks, charging later Wednesday that the president was "engaged in a cover-up." Responding to Pelosi's claim in a fiery Rose Garden press conference, Trump said simply, "I don't do cover-ups," and called for an end to "phony investigations."
Trump added that he had walked out of a meeting with Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and he asserted that pursuing infrastructure legislation would be impossible while he was still under aggressive investigation.
Mnuchin, for his part, testified he has no idea who wrote a confidential Internal Revenue Service legal memo that says that tax returns must be given to Congress unless the president asserts executive privilege.
Appearing before the House Financial Services Committee, Mnuchin said he was not aware of the existence of the memo until reporters from The Washington Post asked about it.
Mnuchin said it was a draft document. He told the committee he believed he was following the law by refusing to turn over six years of Trump's tax returns, which have been requested by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass.
Mnuchin said he expected the dispute to ultimately be decided by the courts.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifies before the House Committee on Financial Services on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Mnuchin has refused to turn over the tax returns despite a 1924 law that gives the chairs of the tax-writing committees in Congress the power to request the returns of any taxpayer.
Mnuchin last Friday refused to obey a congressional subpoena to turn over the returns, saying the request "lacks a legitimate legislative purpose."
Mnuchin told lawmakers that he had not had any discussions on the issue with Trump, who has said repeatedly that he can't turn over his taxes because he is under IRS audit. Trump has not asserted executive privilege to protect the returns.
Neal has said he expects to bring a lawsuit to force the administration to comply with his subpoena.
When a number of Democrats pressed Mnuchin on the 1924 law, Mnuchin said that "weaponizing the IRS is a major concern of ours which affects taxpayers of both parties."

"So, Secretary, please seek out legal advice, personally, of what your obligations are."
— Michigan Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib

Mnuchin's appearance Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee was a continuation of a hearing that had ended with a tense standoff earlier in the month. Back then, Mnuchin complained to Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., that the hearing was going on too long and forcing him to miss a meeting with the head of a foreign country.
Waters and Mnuchin were cordial with each other during Wednesday's hearing. Mnuchin stayed until all lawmakers on the panel had the chance to ask their questions, which covered a number of issues -- from Trump's taxes to the status of the redesign of the $20 bill and the trade dispute with China.
The administration increased tariffs on an initial $200 billion of Chinese goods last week from 10 percent to 25 percent. But broadening the tariffs to another $300 billion in goods will not go into effect until after public hearings and a final decision by the administration.
Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Townhall Political Cartoons

Trump impeachment call from Rep. Amash 'very disturbing,' Kevin McCarthy says

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is disputing five-term U.S. Rep. Justin Amash’s call for President Trump’s impeachment.
Joining a growing chorus of Republicans, McCarthy said Tuesday that Rep. Amash, R-Mich., was out of step with others in the Republican Party and with the American people.
On “Sunday Morning Futures” this past weekend McCarthy told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, “What he wants is attention in this process. He’s not a criminal attorney. He’s never met Mueller. He’s never met Barr. And now he’s coming forward with this?”
“It’s very disturbing,” McCarthy remarked. “This is exactly what you would expect from Justin. He never supported the president. And I think he’s just looking for attention.”
“Mr. Amash always has a different voting record than most of us, anyway,” McCarthy told reporters Tuesday.
In a series of tweets Saturday, Amash said attempts to obstruct justice as outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election were “impeachable conduct.” He also accused Attorney General William Barr of misleading the public, prompting swift backlash from his fellow party-members. Amash is the first Republican to call for President Trump’s impeachment.
“While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances,” he tweeted, saying that unlike many of his colleagues he had read the Mueller report in full, “the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.”
Amash, who is a founding member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told the Associated Press, “Their pressure doesn't have influence on me. I really am not concerned about what Kevin McCarthy thinks about it."
On Monday, the caucus voted to condemn Amash’s call for impeachment by a show of hands.
Representative Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee and a former chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said that every member in attendance was unified in their opposition toward Amash’s comments. Jordan tweeted in a response Tuesday: “The @freedomcaucus is about FREEDOM. This isn’t not about Amash. It’s not even about the President. It’s about what Emmet Flood said: if the intel community can target the President for political reasons, imagine what they can do to any one of us.”
President Trump also fired back Sunday, tweeting: “Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy.”
“If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, “composed” by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump, he would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION...” said Trump. “Anyway, how do you Obstruct when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents (sic) hands!”
National GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel accused Amash of “parroting Democrats' talking points on Russia.”
Closer to home, Michigan state representative Jim Lowe said that he would run for Amash’s seat in the Republican primary next year. While Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox attacked Amash's lack of loyalty tweeting, "Now, in a desperate attempt to grab headlines and advance his own presidential ambitions, Amash is peddling a narrative that has repeatedly been proven false. Shameful."
Any moves on impeachment would be a formal charge by the House. The Senate would then hold a trial on whether to strip President Trump of his office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding her increasingly restless caucus to a step-by-step process and say it would take more Republicans than just Amash and broad public sentiment to trigger impeachment proceedings.

Russian 'bear' bombers intercepted near Alaska for second time in two days

Russian “Bear” bombers flew near Alaska under fighter escort for the second time in two days.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said that it had to scramble two pair of U.S. F-22 fighter jets to intercept the Russian formation on Tuesday.
“The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace and at no time entered U.S. or Canadian sovereign airspace,” NORAD said in a statement posted on social media.
It’s not immediately clear how close the Russian bombers came to the United States.
The incident occurred just a day after four nuclear-capable Russian bombers and two Russian fighter jets were intercepted off the west coast of Alaska by U.S. aircraft.
NORAD said Monday that its early warning system identified the four Tupolev Tu-95 bombers and two Su-35 fighters entering the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone, but noted that the Russian aircraft never entered American or Canadian airspace.
The statement said two of the Russian bombers initially were intercepted by one pair of F-22 fighter jets, while another pair of F-22s intercepted the other two bombers and the Su-35s later on. Further details of the encounter were not provided.
Russia's Ministry of Defense said on Twitter Tuesday that the U.S. planes accompanied the Russian aircraft along part of their route.
Russia resumed long-range bomber patrols in 2007 and has averaged up to 7 flights a year, according to NORAD.
The U.S. Air Forde regularly flies bombers and reconnaissance aircraft near Russia throughout the year. In March, four B-52 bombers flew over the Baltic Sea in Europe.
Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson and Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.

Nadler's subpoenas are evidence Dems don't know what to do next: attorney

The subpoenas that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issued Tuesday represent a miscalculation at best, a former deputy independent counsel for Ken Starr said Tuesday evening on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle."
“I just think that Nadler doesn’t know exactly what to do,” Solomon Wisenberg told host Laura Ingraham, referring to the subpoenaing of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and former White House deputy counsel Annie Donaldson. The latest subpoenas came after former White House counsel Don McGhan defied his subpoena, opting not to appear at Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing.
“I mean, I think they’ve terribly misplayed their hand here," Wisenberg said, referring to House Democrats. "These battles – these checks-and-balances battles – have gone on throughout the history of the republic."
Wisenberg explained that Congress has the right to subpoena and, in most cases, the president can invoke executive privilege in order to prevent a member of his administration from testifying before lawmakers.
A previous subpoena issued to Attorney General William Barr was “improper” and "demagogic,” Wisenberg said, adding that there is a “statute” covering the subpoena sent to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
“It says Congress can do this. Congress can go to the IRS and say, ‘Give us a tax return,’” Wisenberg said.
“You’ve got to tell me if you’re talking to me about something, what’s the particular thing you’re subpoenaing the person for? What are you trying to do and what are they claiming. That doesn’t lend itself easily to gross generalizations,” he added.

Trump's agenda hampered by troubling number of lower court injunctions, Barr says

Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday said he has noticed a troubling trend of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts that have taken their toll on President Trump’s agenda and threaten the political process for future administrations.
Barr, who has been accused by Democrats of protecting Trump after the release of the Mueller report, told the American Law Institute that there is a new trend of judicial "willingness" to review executive action, which injects courts into the political process.
He pointed to the district court in California that in January 2018 issued a temporary injunction to block the Trump administration from ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
DACA has protected about 800,000 people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families who overstayed visas. The Obama-era program includes hundreds of thousands of college-age students.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said at the time that lawyers in favor of DACA demonstrated that the immigrants “were likely to suffer serious, irreparable harm” without court action. The judge also said the lawyers have a strong chance of succeeding at trial.
The White House was swift to criticize these lower court injunctions and called this particular decision “outrageous.” Vice President Mike Pence recently said the administration will ask the Supreme Court to bar them.
"So what have these nationwide injunction wrought? Dreamers remain in limbo, the political process has been pre-empted, and we have had over a year of bitter political division that included a government shutdown of unprecedented length," Barr said.
Barr said nationwide injunctions violate the separation of powers. He said that since Trump took office, there have been 37 nationwide injunctions — more than one a month -- against his office and he said there is likely no end in sight. He said, by comparison, there were two instances where district courts issued an injunction in President Obama’s first two years. 
The Associated Press wrote that this is “the latest example of Barr moving to embrace Trump’s political talking points.” Its report pointed out the Trump criticized these rulings at a rally earlier this month, saying, “activist judges who issue nationwide injunctions based on their personal beliefs, which undermine democracy and threaten the rule of law.”
Barr has brushed aside criticism from Democrats that he is in the president’s pocket. He told the Wall Street Journal in a recent interview that he is defending the presidency, not Trump.
“If you destroy the presidency and make it an errand boy for Congress, we’re going to be a much weaker and more divided nation,” he said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.