Some People Did Something Cartoons

Trump calls US the 'piggy bank that everybody wants to rob'

President Trump said Wednesday that America is the "the piggy bank that everybody wants to rob," and that his administration is helping the country's economy excel.
Speaking at a rally in the Florida Panhandle, Trump said that the United States lost many manufacturing jobs during the Obama administration.
"They let other countries raid our factories, steal our jobs and rob us blind," Trump said. "Other than that, they were very nice."
Trump said that previous administrations "allowed China to freely loot our economy" and steal intellectual property.
He said that although he considers President Xi Jinping a "friend," he knows that Xi is in favor of China winning any economic rivalry.
Trump said that under his leadership, America's market is "the thing that everybody wants."
Appearing to refer to 2016 campaign rival Hillary Clinton, Trump added that if "another person" were in the White House, that would not be the case -- and the night's rally attendance would total "like 10 people."
In a Tuesday interview on Fox News' "America's Newsroom," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said that Trump "indicated that ... the Chinese were starting to get cold feet and move away a little bit from some of the things they agreed upon" in regard to purported "trade abuses."
"He felt was necessary to take a stronger position relative to what we have so far," said Thune, the Senate majority whip.
Fox News' Anna Hopkins contributed to this report.

Is it huge news that Trump once lost money and took tax writeoffs?

The dense and lengthy New York Times report says a great many things about Donald Trump's finances, but it does not say one potentially damaging thing: that he broke the law.
Instead, it is a portrait of a high-flying developer who lost a whole lot of money at times — mostly other people's money — while at times also making money.
It is a portrait of a businessman who often avoided paying taxes — legally — just like most entrepreneurs in the loophole-ridden real estate business.
I'm not defending his conduct. I think he should have released his tax returns as a presidential candidate, just like every other nominee of the past 40 years. Trump's refusal to do so has opened the door to endless speculation and leaked material as journalists and others ask what he's got to hide.
But I don't think the Times opus is going to cost him political support. For one thing, his backers will continue to view him as a successful mogul, and his detractors will continue to see him as a scam artist.
What's more, we generally knew that Trump used a mountain of debt and lots of tax writeoffs in building his empire and that he lost zillions on such ventures as the bankrupt casinos and an airline shuttle. Even the Times says the disclosures do not "offer a fundamentally new narrative of his picaresque career."
And while anchors and pundits keep pronouncing Trump "the biggest loser," he's still got a plane, Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago and, oh right, the presidency.
The Times obtained printouts from Trump's IRS transcripts for the tax years 1985 to 1994, when he surged to national prominence. These are not the most recent returns that the Democratic House is demanding from the Treasury.
The red-ink revelation: "The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade. In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer."
And something no politician wants to advertise: "Overall, Mr. Trump lost so much money that he was able to avoid paying income taxes for eight of the 10 years."
Trump bragged about using depreciation to cut his taxes in his 1987 book "The Art of the Deal." And the Times acknowledges that "the tax code also lets business owners like Mr. Trump use losses to avoid paying tax on future income — a lucrative deduction intended to help troubled businesses get back on their feet." (Ordinary taxpayers can also write off property depreciation and losses, but this is a pittance compared to what big-time developers do.)
The Times quoted Trump lawyer Charles Harder as calling the story "demonstrably false," and saying the paper’s assertions "about the president's tax returns and business from 30 years ago are highly inaccurate."
Then came the inevitable Trump tweets:
"Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s…were entitled to massive write offs [sic] and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. [sic] Sometimes considered 'tax shelter,' you would get it by building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes....almost all real estate developers did - and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport. Additionally, the very old information put out is a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!"
So he acknowledges and justifies the practices — all true — and then calls it "fake news."
By the way, candidate Trump bragged about his big writeoffs in a 2016 fall debate, declaring, "I love depreciation!"
One side note is Trump's brief moonlighting as a corporate raider. From 1986 through 1988, Trump "made millions of dollars in the stock market by suggesting that he was about to take over companies. But the figures show that he lost most, if not all, of those gains after investors stopped taking his takeover talk seriously."
So what's the bottom line, to use a green-eyeshade term?
It may well be that Donald Trump lost far more money than he wanted us to know, paid far less in taxes than he wanted us to know, and was far more aggressive in exploiting the tax system than he wanted us to know.
But there's no requirement that a businessman not take every available deduction to avoid paying taxes. And we've known that Trump went through boom-and-bust cycles, including the Atlantic City casinos that went belly-up, in the past. A report that he was doing these things 30 years ago, without any evidence of improper conduct, isn't going to change many minds.

CNN's Don Lemon agrees US faces 'constitutional crisis,' views Trump impeachment as 'remedy'

Idiot

"CNN Tonight" anchor Don Lemon seemed to board the impeachment train Wednesday, predicting that Democratic lawmakers will actually go after President Trump and suggesting it could be the "remedy" for what some Democrats have called a "constitutional crisis."
"Ever wonder what a constitutional crisis looks like? Well, open your eyes," Lemon began his monologue, echoing the declaration of House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. "The president of the United States is just blowing right through our system of checks and balances, the very thing that is supposed to keep our Congress, the Judicary, and the Executive Branch working, which means our country working. He is engaging in an ongoing coverup by defying at every turn the representatives of you, the American people, the very people who are supposed to be investigating fact-finding on our behalf."

Lemon then interviewed Nadler about his committee's vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with their requests regarding further disclosure of the Mueller report and asked what was the "remedy" to a constitutional crisis.
"Well, we don't exactly know what the remedy to [a] constitutional crisis [is,] other than the application of law," Nadler responded before listing all the ways he believed the Trump administration was being "lawless."
"Why is that remedy not impeachment?" Lemon asked.
"It may come to that if the president keeps up with this conduct, but we'll see," Nadler answered.
During a panel discussion, Lemon congratulated himself for predicting that Democrats would eventually pursue impeachment.
"I hate to pat myself on the back, but I've said since pretty early on -- a couple of weeks ago -- it appears that ... the ball is rolling toward impeachment, that the Democrats have no other choice and do this," Lemon said. "They either ignore the rule of law or -- because then they too may look like they're allowing the president to just run roughshod over them and over the Constitution."
"How can Democrats like Nadler say that this is a constitutional crisis, but then not use the tool they have to stop a constitutional crisis?" Lemon later asked.
Lemon went on to clarify that he thought the "momentum" was heading toward impeachment but did not specifically predict that Democrats would be successful.

California OKs new sex-ed guidelines for teachers despite objections from parents, protesters

The California Department of Education approved controversial sex education guidelines for public school teachers Wednesday that encourage classroom discussions about gender identity and LGBT relationships, but removed five resources and books, including one that explains sex to students as young as kindergarten.
LGBT advocates praised the new recommendations for giving attention to a community that is often left out of sex education policies.
But some parents and conservative groups assailed the more than 700-page document as an assault on parental rights, claiming it exposes children to ideas about sexuality and gender that should be taught at home.

Opponents of a proposal to make changes to the sex education guidance for California's teachers rallied Wednesday at the Capitol in Sacramento. (Associated Press)

"It's just scary what they are going to be teaching. It's pornography," said Patricia Reyes, 45, a mother of six who traveled more than 400 miles to attend Wednesday's hearing in Sacramento, the state capital. "If this continues, I'm not sending them to school."
"Not everything under the sun needs to be taught to our kids, with no moral judgment," Greg Burt, director of the California Family Council, told the Sacramento Bee.

"Not everything under the sun needs to be taught to our kids, with no moral judgment."
— Greg Burt, director, California Family Council

But department administrators explained their view.
“Our priority is to make all children feel comfortable at school,” the Department of Education said in a statement. “Dispelling myths, breaking down stereotypes and linking students to resources can help prevent bullying, self-harm, feelings of hopelessness, and serious considerations of suicide.”

"Dispelling myths, breaking down stereotypes and linking students to resources can help prevent bullying, self-harm, feelings of hopelessness, and serious considerations of suicide."
— California Department of Education statement

The department considered changes to the state’s Health Education Framework during a public hearing in Sacramento on Wednesday, the Sacramento Bee reported. More than 120 people registered to speak at the hearing to support or oppose the new guidelines for K-12 health curriculum, as nearly 200 protesters rallied outside.
After several organizations pushed back on “sexually explicit” and “offensive, reckless and immoral” books included in the document, the board decided to remove five books from the new framework.
One book, titled, “Changing You,” which shows cartoon illustrations of male and female genitals and described what “having sex is” was originally recommended for transitional kindergarten through third-grade students, the Bee reported.
"It's important to know the board is not trying to ban books. We're not saying that the books are bad," board member Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon told the Associated Press. "But the removal will help avoid the misunderstanding that California is mandating the use of these books."

"It's important to know the board is not trying to ban books. We're not saying that the books are bad. But the removal will help avoid the misunderstanding that California is mandating the use of these books."
— Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon, member of California State Board of Education

An earlier draft of the guidelines also suggested high schoolers read the book: “S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties,” which includes descriptions of anal sex, bondage and other sexual activity.
Ultimately, California’s finalized framework tells teachers that students in kindergarten can identify as transgender and offers tips for how to talk about that, adding “the goal is not to cause confusion about the gender of the child but to develop an awareness that other expressions exist.”
The document also gives tips for discussing masturbation with middle-schoolers, including telling them it is not physically harmful, and for discussing puberty with transgender teens that creates “an environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about gender.”
Schools are not mandated to use the new framework in their curricula. The framework serves as a way to educate teachers and administrators on state standards about a wide range of health education topics, including nutrition, physical activity, combating alcohol and drug abuse in addition to sexual health.
Students are able to opt-out from lessons about sexual health, the Bee reported. But the state requires students to attend lessons that explain gender identity, discrimination and social issues such as the Supreme Court ruling of same-sex marriage.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Townhall Cartoons https://politicspresumptuous.blogspot.com/

Mom praying with teens outside abortion clinic tells of clash with Dem: 'I was concerned for my girls'

Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims, real tough guy picks on women and children.

 

A mother of two teenage daughters, who was seen in a confrontation with a Democrat state lawmaker outside a Pennsylvania abortion clinic last month, told her side of the story Tuesday night on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight."
"I was concerned for my girls, you can see me speaking in that video," Ashley Garecht told host Tucker Carlson. "I was genuinely trying to enter into just a dialogue with him to try to bring the situation, calm it down a little bit and say to him on film we are really here just praying for these women and babies."
Garecht, along with her two teenage daughters and their teenage friend, say they were praying outside a southeastern Pennsylvania Planned Parenthood clinic on April 18 when Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims, whose district is in Philadelphia, began confronting them "aggressively" and accusing them of protesting the clinic.
According to Garecht, Sims then briefly left, but returned with a camera and filmed Garecht and the girls. He then offered viewers money if anyone would reveal the teens' identities.
“So, here’s the deal," Sims is heard saying in the video. "I’ve got $100 to anybody who will identify these three, and I will donate to Planned Parenthood."
Sims had posted the video on his Facebook page, but then posted a statement Tuesday, saying " I can do better."
"‪I will fiercely protect a woman’s right to make the best choices for her health & her body, unimpeded. I also know that two wrongs don’t make a right, especially on the front lines of a civil rights battle. I can do better, and I will do better, for the women of Pennsylvania," Sims wrote in a message accompanying the video.
Garecht told Carlson she had no intention of getting involved in an altercation.
"I never come to a clinic looking for a fight," she said. "It's always just with peaceful, prayerful intent. Yes, I was concerned that he said multiple times that he wanted the identities of my daughters. We were, at that point, already done. We had finished our prayers."
"We were leaving and so when I realized he was not going to enter into any kind of productive dialogue I thought we will just continue our exit and we will just leave," she said.
Just last week, Sims went on an eight-minute video rant, verbally harassing an elderly woman protesting outside a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.
The state representative recorded the woman outside the same clinic in Philadelphia, which is in his district, telling her to pray at home, calling her an "old white lady" and lecturing her about her Christian beliefs on the Periscope app.
Fox News' Caleb Parke contributed to this report.

Appeals court allows Trump administration to send back asylum seekers to Mexico to wait out court process

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals late Tuesday granted the Trump administration's request to send asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait out court proceedings temporarily.
The court order reversed a decision by a San Francisco judge that would have blocked the policy — giving President Trump a temporary victory on immigration.
The case must still be considered on its merits at a lower court in San Francisco and could end up at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled April 8 that the policy should be halted while a lawsuit, filed on behalf of 11 asylum applicants and several other organizations, proceeds.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, said that despite the ruling, "there is good reason to believe that ultimately this policy will be put to a halt."
“Asylum seekers are being put at serious risk of harm every day that the forced return policy continues," Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. "Notably, two of the three judges that heard this request found that there are serious legal problems with what the government is doing."
The lawsuit on behalf of 11 asylum seekers from Central America and legal advocacy groups says the Trump administration is violating U.S. law by failing to adequately evaluate the dangers that migrants face in Mexico.
It also accuses Homeland Security and immigration officials of depriving migrants of their right to apply for asylum by making it difficult or impossible for them to do so.
The Trump administration says the policy responds to a crisis at the southern border that has overwhelmed the ability of immigration officials to detain migrants. Growing numbers of families are fleeing poverty and gang violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
Last year, the Justice Department eliminated gang violence and domestic abuse as a possible justification for seeking asylum.
The so-called "Remain in Mexico" policy was one of the primary innovations of former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who left her role with the Trump administration last month.
Asylum law, conservatives point out, is intended to shield individuals from near-certain death or persecution on account of limited factors like religious or political affiliation — not poor living conditions and economic despair.
Most asylum applicants are ultimately rejected for having an insufficient or unfounded personalized fear of persecution, following a full hearing of their case before an asylum officer or an immigration judge.
Fox News' Raymond Bogan, Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.