San Francisco declares state of emergency over coronavirus

The mayor of San Francisco declared a state of emergency over coronavirus fears on Tuesday shortly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning that the U.S. will likely see more cases.
CORONAVIRUS INFECTS US SOLDIER
There are 57 known cases in the U.S. and no cases in San Francisco, but Mayor London Breed pointed to the virus’ unpredictability and troubling global growth.
TUCKER CARLSON: US NOT READY
"We see the virus spreading in new parts of the world every day, and we are taking the necessary steps to protect San Franciscans from harm," Breed said. She said many of the city's residents travel to mainland China, so it is not far-fetched to suspect cases in the future.
SFGate reported that U.C. San Francisco two cases successfully earlier this month. The declaration is effective immediately and will be voted on early next month. The Los Angeles Times reported that San Diego and Santa Clara counties have made similar declarations.
China, by far, still has the most cases and deaths from the illness, though its numbers have slowed recently. Chinese officials Wednesday reported another 406 cases and 52 additional deaths, all of them in hard-hit Hubei province and all but 10 in the epicenter of the city of Wuhan.
China has recorded 2,715 deaths from COVID-19 and 78,064 confirmed cases of the virus on the mainland since the illness emerged in December.
New outbreaks occurring in far-flung places were raising concerns about containing the illness and what will happen when it reaches new places.
"It's not so much a question of if this will happen anymore, but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen -- and how many people in this country will have severe illness," Dr. Nancy Messonnier of the CDC said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report

Ilhan Omar’s GOP challenger tweets ‘I am an American’ after Omar describes herself 6 other ways

One of at least eight candidates aiming to unseat U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., gave a brief reply this week after Omar posted six ways that she identifies herself.
“I am an American,” wrote Republican Dalia al-Aqidi, a former Iraqi refugee who hopes to replace Omar in representing Minnesota’s 5th  Congressional District.
“That’s why I’m running for Congress,” al-Aqidi added.
The response came shortly after Omar’s Twitter message late Sunday, in which the freshman congresswoman listed ways that she describes herself.
“I am, Hijabi, Muslim, Black, Foreign born, Refugee, Somali,” Omar wrote.
Then, appearing to provoke her critics, Omar added, “Easily triggering conservatives, Right wing bloggers, anti Muslim bigots, tinfoil conspiracy theorists, birthers, pay me a [dollar] to bash Muslims fraudsters, pro-occupation groups and every single xenophobe since 2016.”
Omar ended the post with a laughing-face emoji and a GIF showing her addressing an audience, saying “Hello Hello!”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also blasted the Omar post, writing, "in today's Leftist world of intersectionality, 'American' is deemed embarrassing & gauche."
During an appearance on “Fox & Friends” in January, al-Aqidi, a journalist, spoke out against what she described as “hateful rhetoric” coming from Omar since she took office.
“As an American citizen, my duty is to defend my country and my duty is to stand up to her hatred and racism that she's spreading within her community, within the country, and even worldwide,” al-Aqidi said. “Ilhan Omar is harming every American with her hatred, her standing against what we believe in, [and] against our own Constitution.”
Like Omar, al-Aqidi came to the U.S. with her family to flee a nation ravaged by war. But unlike Omar, al-Aqidi said she has stopped considering herself a refugee.
“I came to the U.S. more than 25 years ago. So, basically, I'm not a refugee anymore. I'm not an Iraqi anymore. I'm an American. Period,” she said on “Fox & Friends.”
Omar’s comments about Israel have frequently drawn accusations that she is anti-Semitic. But the congresswoman has insisted she opposes all forms of bigotry.
Like al-Aqidi, many commenters on social media this week were quick to notice that Omar had opted not to describe herself as an American.
“Hmm. I don’t see that you identify as a US citizen???” one commenter wrote. “You should not be in Congress!”
“Not surprising that you didn’t identify at all as American,” another wrote. “I have no problems with any of the above except that. You were elected by Americans to serve Americans. Thank goodness you don’t purport to represent me.”
“She leaves out American,” another Twitter user wrote. “Doesn’t even occur to her.”
Others offered other suggestions that Omar could add to her description list.
“And a one and done congressperson,” one commenter wrote.
Still others reacted by saying Omar’s attention seems directed away from her Minnesota constituents.
“That’s a lot about you,” one person wrote. “Can we talk about our state of Minnesota now and what we are working on here? I really tire of how much you focus on… well, you.”
According to the election website Ballotpedia, at least three Democrats will challenge Omar in the party’s primary election Aug. 11. They are community organizer John Mason, lawyer Antone Melton-Meaux and community clinic founder Leila Shukri Adan.
At least five Republicans are vying for Omar’s House seat as well. They are al-Aqidi and technology professional Lacy Johnson, special education professional Danielle Stella, minister Lucia Vogel, activist Alley Waterbury and former sales manager Brent Whaley.

Mary Anne Marsh: In Democratic debate, 3 winners and 4 losers in a two-hour street fight

There was a two-hour street fight in South Carolina Tuesday night that turned into something that resembled a debate between the seven leading Democratic presidential candidates.
The only way to view this final debate before the South Carolina primary Saturday and Super Tuesday March 3 is whether it changed the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. The answer that it did not.
That means that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. is still the front-runner. Some other candidates had good performances, especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Vice President Joe Biden. Other candidates had a bad night, especially former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
But the only measure that matters is how the debate affects the race – especially when it could be over on Super Tuesday. The debate didn’t change anything for Sanders. And that made it a very good night for him.
It is remarkable that Sanders, on his second run for president, has hardly been vetted to this day. A series of interviews and articles leading up to the debate served to underscore that fact, as did his performance Tuesday night.
Sanders had trouble answering a number of questions about socialism, authoritarianism, guns, and how to pay for his costly health care and education plans. At one point he was booed and that rattled him more than any question.

More from Opinion

But to stop Sanders from securing an insurmountable delegate lead on Super Tuesday, the competing candidate needed to derail or disqualify him in the debate. That didn’t happen. And that means it’s more likely than not that Sanders could wrap up the race for the Democratic presidential nomination next week when California – the most delegate-rich of the 14 Super Tuesday states – finishes counting its ballots.
Warren had another strong performance in the debate, making her case against Sanders and Bloomberg as well as for herself. While her attacks didn’t spark the fireworks of the debate last week, Tuesday marked the first time she drew strong contrasts between herself and Sanders.
Warren was very effective and very deft, but it is late in the primary campaign. Better late than never. But Warren will wish she had taken this approach a month ago. It would have served her well.
There’s no one better prepared with better plans and clearer ideas to do a good job as president than Warren. Unfortunately for her, that won’t get her enough delegates in the upcoming contests.
Biden had his best performance of late. He showed a lot of fight and that’s what his supporters needed to see – especially in South Carolina. No doubt Biden shored up his support going into the primary Saturday when he needs it most, leaning on his relationship with former President Barack Obama and his own record to make the case.
The fact is that the biggest threat to Joe Biden throughout this race has been Joe Biden. He didn’t sabotage himself Tuesday night and did what he needed to do. But that’s not likely to get him enough delegates to catch Sanders, even with a win Saturday.
Finally, it was another bad night for Bloomberg. It’s clear he went to debate camp to prepare for this one – but it didn’t work.
Yes, a few of Bloomberg’s lines were better than when he debated for the first time last week. But his canned jokes failed and his lack of awareness about his treatment of women was fatal.
Warren’s continued attacks on Bloomberg – specifically about his treatment of women – were met with more dismissive responses that were not only tone deaf but also wrong. In addition, the Bloomberg campaign ran ads during the debate that served to remind voters that the guy on the stage isn’t the guy in the ads.
Bloomberg is 0-2 in the debates and all the money in the world can’t fix it.
Here are the night’s biggest winners and losers:
WINNERS
BIGGEST WINNER: Bernie Sanders
Sanders walked into the debate as the front-runner and walked out as the front-runner. And that makes him the likely nominee if he does well, as expected, on Super Tuesday.                                                             
What should trouble many Democrats about Sanders is his continued inability or unwillingness to address how he’s going to pay the $60 trillion for his promises and programs, including “Medicare-for-all.” Sanders is using the same answer he’s been using for weeks – ducking the details, joking about how much time it would take, referring to nickels and dimes in a condescending manner.
The lack of response to that question raises questions about Sanders’ unwillingness to release his medical records. In many way he’s much like Trump with a lack of transparency about matters that matter. Yet Sanders is on his way to the nomination to face Trump.
WINNER: Elizabeth Warren
The strategy Warren employed Tuesday night is the one she should have been using for the past month: saying that while she holds similar positions to Sanders, she can turn those ideas into reality and get the job done.
With more time that approach could take a good number of votes from Sanders. And that could put Warren in the hunt for the nomination again.
There was no better debater on the stage than Warren as she made her case with substance and style that she employed once again in devastating fashion with Bloomberg.
In addition to raising more questions about Bloomberg’s treatment of women, Warren pointed out all the Republicans whose campaigns he contributed to, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. She noted that Bloomberg also made campaign contributions to former Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who was defeated by Warren.
No one has hurt Bloomberg more than Warren in the two debates he participated in and in the nomination race.
But it all may be too little too late for Warren. Barring a cataclysmic event in the next week or on route to the convention, Warren is unlikely to catch Sanders.
WINNER: Joe Biden
Biden had his best debate performance when he needed it the most. His performance should reassure South Carolina voters and that will help Biden in the primary Saturday.
South Carolina is considered a must-win state for Biden and he has said he will win. But even a big win in South Carolina isn’t likely to enable Biden to gain ground on Sanders, and that’s the name of the game.
LOSERS
BIGGEST LOSER: Mike Bloomberg
At one point during the debate as it went to the first commercial break, Bloomberg checked his watch. This was reminiscent of President George H.W. Bush during a debate that marked the end of his chances to defeat challenger Bill Clinton.
The same could be true of Bloomberg. All the money in the world isn’t going to help Bloomberg win this race because in the end, you can’t hide the real Bloomberg.
The ads are a great substitute for Bloomberg. But the real Bloomberg has been revealed in these debates. Warren has shown him to be the antithesis of how he is portrayed in his nearly half-billion dollars of advertising.
It is the real-life person voters are casting their ballots for – not the one portrayed in ads. That’s the real problem for Bloomberg and it was on full display again Tuesday night.
LOSER: Pete Buttigieg
Once again, Buttigieg -- the former mayor of South Bend., Ind.,-- delivered a serviceable debate performance with his well-packaged talking points and lines. But it didn’t change the challenges he faces in the upcoming contests with voters of color.
Instead, Buttigieg rang the alarm throughout the debate about the risks that face the country and the Democratic Party if Sanders is nominated. However, raising these concerns fell woefully short of what was necessary for him to be successful.
This adds to Buttigieg’s woes in the remainder of this campaign and keeps him in the cycle of moderate voter cannibalism that could deny all of the moderates the nomination.
LOSER: Amy Klobuchar
The New Hampshire debate is now officially a one-hit-wonder for Sen. Klobuchar of Minnesota. Her performance in the two debates since that night fell short of that one, and so too will her prospects in the remaining contests as a result.
 LOSER: Tom Steyer
Like his fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg, Tom Steyer has an endless reservoir of money to stay in the race. It has done little to improve his debate performance but it has put him in contention for third place in the South Carolina primary. That hurts Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and it doesn’t help Steyer – but it does help Sanders.

Sotomayor Cartoons

Trump says Sotomayor, Ginsburg should recuse themselves from cases dealing with his administration

In a remarkable public rebuke, President Trump late Monday called on Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from any cases involving his administration over their past comments.
Trump has proven in the past that he is not bashful about criticizing justices, but he seemed to be particularly bothered by a recent dissent by Sotomayor hinting that conservative-leaning justices have a bias towards Trump.
The president's tweet cited Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, "The Ingraham Angle," and he accused Sotomayor of attempting to shame other justices to vote with her.
Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Obama in 2009, issued the blistering dissent Friday after a ruling in the case of Wolf v. Cook County.
The case dealt with the Trump administration's expansion of situations where the government can deny visas to non-citizens looking to enter the U.S.
Federal law already says that officials can take into account whether an applicant is likely to become a "public charge," which government guidance has said refers to someone "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.
Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, "It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it."
Vox pointed out what appeared to be the crux of Sotomayor's argument: the Trump administration has a practice of using a favorable Supreme Court to bypass lower courts still considering cases. The report pointed to a paper written by Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor. Vladeck wrote that Trump's solicitor general has filed at least 21 stay applications in the Supreme Court and compared that number to the combined eight times the applications were used during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
"Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court resources in each," Sotomayor wrote in the dissent. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much its own definition of irreparable harm has shifted.”
Trump supporters say the administration has good reason to take its cases to the Supreme Court.
Carrie Severino, the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, told Ingraham that Sotomayor's concern is misplaced. She said lower-court judges are repeatedly issuing nationwide injunctions at a quantity never before seen -- that is, ruling that their decision affects the entire country rather than the jurisdiction wherein it was brought.
Trump, once again, brought up the time Ginsburg called him a "faker" during the 2016 presidential campaign. She told CNN at the time that Trump has "no consistency about him. He says whatever comes to his head at the moment."
She apologized shortly thereafter, but Trump brought the slight up during a later interview, while Ginsburg was recovering from a health issue two years later.
"I wish her well. She said something very inappropriate during the campaign, but she apologized for it," he said.
Fox News' Ronn Blitzer and Charles Creitz contributed to this report

Sanders doubles down on his Fidel Castro praise amid criticism: 'Teaching people to read and write is a good thing'

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., doubled down on his remarks praising former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during a televised town hall on Monday night after he raised eyebrows for complimenting the brutal leader's education reforms.
"When Fidel Castro first came into power ... you know what he did? He initiated a major literacy program. It was a lot of folks in Cuba at that point who were illiterate and he formed the Literacy Brigade ... and they went out and they helped people learn to read and write  You know what? I think teaching people to read and write is a good thing," Sanders said in response to criticism.
He continued, "I have been extremely consistent and critical of all authoritarian regimes all over the world including Cuba, including Nicaragua, including Saudi Arabia, including China, including Russia. I happen to believe in democracy, not authoritarianism. ... China is an authoritarian country ... but can anyone deny, I mean the facts are clear, that they have taken more people out of extreme poverty than any country in history. Why you criticize when I say that -- that's the truth. So that is the fact. End of discussion."
When CNN anchor Chris Cuomo echoed critics who said you don't give Castro a "pat on the back for anything," Sanders pushed back, saying "truth is truth," which was welcomed by applause from the South Carolina audience.
Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, was criticized for remarks he said during a "60 Minutes" interview over the weekend.
"We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba," Sanders said, "but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?"
Several Democratic lawmakers, many of them who represent Cuban-Americans in Florida, blasted Sanders for his remarks.

Bernie Sanders reveals 'major plans' to be funded by new taxes, massive lawsuits, military cuts

Idiot

Bernie Sanders unexpectedly released a fact-sheet Monday night explaining that he'd pay for his sweeping new government programs through new taxes and massive lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, as well as by slashing spending on the military, among other methods.
The move sought to head off complaints from Republicans and some rival Democrats that his plans were economically unrealistic, especially after a head-turning CBS News interview in which the frustrated Vermont senator said he couldn't "rattle off to you every nickle and every dime" about his proposed expenditures.
He released his plan on his website just minutes after promising to do so during a CNN town hall.
However, the fact-sheet highlighted for the first time that many of Sanders' expected cost-saving measures relied on conjecture and best-case scenarios. For example, Sanders' document asserts that a "modest tax on Wall Street speculation ... will raise an estimated $2.4 trillion over ten years" and, in one fell swoop, make all "public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free ... and cancel all student debt over the next decade."
The proposal specifically would place a "0.5 percent tax on stock trades – 50 cents on every $100 of stock – a 0.1 percent fee on bond trades, and a 0.005 percent fee on derivative trades."
The National Review has likened a tax on so-called "Wall Street speculation" to a de facto tax on savings, saying the Sanders plan "would mean paying $25 to the federal government every time you traded $5,000 worth of stock — or five times what you’d pay the typical online brokerage in fees. ... Over the long term, that imposes serious costs on actively traded funds such as the ones containing many Americans’ retirement funds."
Meanwhile, housing for everyone would cost $2.5 trillion over ten years, and would be paid entirely by a "wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent," raising a total of $4.35 trillion, according to Sanders' fact-sheet. Similarly, "universal childcare and pre-school to every family in America" would be provided with a wealth tax on the "top 0.1 percent," again raising more than $4 trillion.
Sanders' plan did not discuss the possible stock market ramificiations of a major seizure of some of this wealth, much of which is held in markets and other investments. The plan also did not discuss how the government would be able to reliably obtain the money, given that many investments could simply be liquidated or transferred elsewhere before his administration took office.
BLOOMBERG STAGING MASSIVE AD, SURROGATE BLITZ AGAINST SANDERS 
Instead, Sanders' proposal said only that it would eventually establish a "national wealth registry and significant additional third party reporting requirements," buff up IRS funding and, and "include enhancements to the international tax enforcement." The plan would require the IRS "to perform an audit of 30 percent of wealth tax returns for those in the 1 percent bracket and a 100 percent audit rate for all billionaires," and would include a "40 percent exit tax on the net value of all assets under $1 billion and 60 percent over $1 billion for all wealthy individual seeking to expatriate to avoid the tax."
A new "income inequality tax on large corporations that pay CEOs at least 50 times more than average workers" would take care of $81 billion in past-due medical debt, Sanders further claimed.
Sanders' projections also stated without providing details that his Green New Deal plan would create "20 million new jobs," thus ensuring $2.3 trillion in "new income tax revenue."
Additionally, Sanders cited "economists" as he promised that by "averting climate catastrophe we will save: $2.9 trillion over 10 years, $21 trillion over 30 years and $70.4 trillion over 80 years."
FACT CHECK: WERE SANDERS' REMARKS ON CUBAN LITERACY PROGRAMS OFF-BASE?
No information was provided to validate that assertion, although the Trump administration's National Climate Assessment found that it was possible climate change could reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 10 percent by the end of the century, assuming no substantial changes in technology (including carbon-reducing innovations) or policy occur in the meantime.
Sanders claimed to be able to raise "$3.085 trillion by making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies." He has repeatedly suggested on the campaign trail that he would direct the Justice Department to pursue the fossil fuel industry, although it was unclear how successful that legal strategy would be.
"If we do not act, the U.S. will lose $34.5 trillion by the end of the century in economic productivity," Sanders alleged -- putting the consequences of climate change in stark economic terms.
On health care, Sanders has previously vowed to provide benefits, including health care, even to illegal immigrants. It's unclear how many people that unprecedented proposal would cover, especially given that such a plan would likely lead to a rise in immigration to the United States and that the number of illegal immigrants presently in the country is unknown. The issue is not mentioned at all in Sanders' fact-sheet.
BLOOMBERG OFFICES ALLEGEDLY VANDALIZED WITH ANTI-RICH GRAFFITI; ARE WE SURE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
Instead, although some nonpartisan estimates have put the cost of Sanders' "Medicare-for-all" proposal at over $32 trillion, Sanders' fact-sheet simply doubled down on a "proposed a menu of financing options that would more than pay" for the program.
Among the available options: "creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four," as well as imposing a 7.5 percent "income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses."

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt. speaks at a campaign event in El Paso, Texas, Saturday, Feb. 22, 2020. Sanders urged his supporters to vote in the primary, which is already underway. Democratic primary voting in Texas ends March 3, along with other states who, all together, will decide one third of the delegates in the contest. (AP Photo/Cedar Attanasio)

Other savings would come from eliminating "health tax expenditures, which would no longer be needed under Medicare for All," and "raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million."
Reducing defense spending by "$1.215 trillion" would be achievable by "scaling back military operations on protecting the global oil supply," Sanders' fact-sheet continued. Defense spending is slated to total $934 billion from Oct. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021.
As the numbers were released, Sanders doubled down on his comments praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's "literacy program," saying it was a positive outcome from the violent Cuban Revolution that literacy rates quickly rose.
The pro-Castro remarks had drawn scrutiny even from Democratic lawmakers, especially in Florida, which has a large Cuban-American population.
"As the first South American immigrant member of Congress who proudly represents thousands of Cuban Americans, I find Senator Bernie Sanders’ comments on Castro’s Cuba absolutely unacceptable," wrote Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. "The Castro regime murdered and jailed dissidents, and caused unspeakable harm to too many South Florida families. To this day, it remains an authoritarian regime that oppresses its people, subverts the free press, and stifles a free society."
Other Democrats pointed out that Cuba's literacy was on the rise pre-Castro, and asserted that the literacy program amounted to an indoctrination effort. Even so, on Monday, Sanders refused to apologize for his remarks at the CNN town hall, when pressed by moderator Chris Cuomo.
"Truth is truth," Sanders said to applause. "If you want to disagree with me, if somebody wants to say -- and by the way, all of those congresspeople that you mention, just so happen to be supporting other candidates -- accidentally no doubt, coincidentally. But, you know, the truth is the truth. And that's what happened in the first years of the Castro regime."
Also at the town hall, after arguing that people should not be judged solely by their skin color, Sanders promised that his vice president "definitively" would not be an "old white guy."

2020 Cartoons