Sunday, January 22, 2017

New York governor requires insurance companies to cover contraception

New York Governor Andrew Cuomoy says my hands are this big 😭
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Saturday that he was requiring health insurance companies to cover medically necessary abortions and most forms of contraception at no cost to women.
Cuomo’s announcement comes on the same day that over a million people around the world took to the streets to protest Donald Trump just hours into his presidency.
The ‘Women's March’ attracted protesters who mostly sported pro-women and anti-Trump messages. Hundreds of “sister marches” were held in cities across the U.S. and internationally.
Cuomo took to Twitter to talk about his effort to "firmly secure access to reproductive health services in New York State."
This move by Cuomo would further protect and safeguard coverage under the federal Affordable Care Act.
The state department of financial services is mandating that health insurers in New York provide for at least one form of FDA-approved contraception exceeding a month's supply at a time. Women would also be provided medically necessary abortions without co-pays or deductibles.
President Donald Trump and Republican members of Congress have said they will repeal the health care act as soon as possible, and that is why New York must act fast to ensure women's access to coverage and care, Cuomo said.
"These regulatory actions will help ensure that whatever happens at the federal level, women in our state will have cost-free access to reproductive health care and we hope these actions serve as a model for equality across the nation," Cuomo said. "Women deserve to make a fair wage and the same salary as any man, they deserve to work in an office free of sexual harassment, they deserve comprehensive paid family leave, and they deserve control over their health and reproductive decisions."
The regulations would make sure insurance companies would face steep fines if found to be violating the laws.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Is flag burning really protected speech?







"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.” -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
Is flag burning protected speech? This old issue returned front and center earlier this week after President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted that he found it so reprehensible, it should be criminal. He even suggested a punishment -- loss of citizenship or one year in jail. Is the President-Elect correct? Can the government punish acts that accompany the expression of opinions because the government, or the public generally, hates or fears the opinions?
Here is the backstory.
Last weekend, in a series of continued emotional responses to the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, and prodded by the death of Fidel Castro -- the long-time, brutal, profoundly anti-American dictator of Cuba -- students on a few American college campuses publicly burned American flags. These acts regenerated the generation-old debate about the lawfulness of this practice, with the president-elect decidedly on the side of those who condemn it.
For the sake of this analysis, like the U.S. Supreme Court, which has addressed this twice in the past 17 years, I am addressing whether you can burn your own American flag. The short answer is: Yes. You can burn your flag and I can burn mine, so long as public safety is not impaired by the fires. But you cannot burn my flag against my will, nor can you burn a flag owned by the government.
Before the Supreme Court ruled that burning your own flag in public is lawful, federal law and numerous state laws had made it criminal to do so. In analyzing those laws before it declared them to be unconstitutional, the Court looked at the original public understanding of those laws and concluded that they were intended not as fire safety regulations -- the same statutes permitted other public fires -- but rather as prophylactics intended to coerce reverence for the American flag by criminalizing the burning of privately owned pieces of cloth that were recognizable as American flags.
The First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing upon the freedom of speech, has consistently been interpreted in the modern era so as to insulate the public manifestation of political ideas from any government interference, whether the manifestation is by word or deed or both.
That is where the former statutes ran into trouble. Had they banned all public fires in given locations, for public safety sake, they probably would have withstood a constitutional challenge. But since these statutes were intended to suppress the ideas manifested by the public flag burning, by making the public expression of those ideas criminal, the statutes ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing upon the freedom of speech, has consistently been interpreted in the modern era so as to insulate the public manifestation of political ideas from any government interference, whether the manifestation is by word or deed or both. This protection applies even to ideas that are hateful, offensive, unorthodox and outright un-American. Not a few judges and constitutional scholars have argued that the First Amendment was written for the very purpose of protecting the expression of hateful ideas, as loveable or popular ideas need no protection.
The Amendment was also written for two additional purposes. One was, as Justice Jackson wrote as quoted above, to keep the government out of the business of passing judgment on ideas and deciding what we may read, speak about or otherwise express in public. The corollary to this is that individuals should decide for themselves what ideas to embrace or reject, free from government interference.
In the colonial era, the Founding Fathers had endured a British system of law enforcement that punished ideas that the King thought dangerous. As much as we revere the Declaration of Independence for its elevation of personal liberty over governmental orthodoxy, we are free today to reject those ideas. The Declaration and its values were surely rejected by King George III, who would have hanged its author, Thomas Jefferson, and its signers had they lost the American Revolutionary War. Thank God they won.
Justice Jackson also warned that a government strong enough to suppress ideas that it hates or fears was powerful enough to suppress debate that inconveniences it, and that suppression would destroy the purposes of the First Amendment. The Jacksonian warning is directly related to the Amendment’s remaining understood purpose -- to encourage and protect open, wide, robust debate about any aspect of government.
All these values were addressed by the Supreme Court in 1989 and again in 1990 when it laid to rest the flag burning controversies by invalidating all statutes aimed at suppressing opinions.
Even though he personally condemned flag burning, the late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority in both cases and actively defended both decisions. At a public forum sponsored by Brooklyn Law School in 2015, I asked him how he would re-write the flag burning laws, if he could do so. He jumped at the opportunity to say that if he were the king, flag burners would go to jail. Yet, he hastened to remind his audience that he was not the king, that in America we don’t have a king, that there is no political orthodoxy here, and that the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, leaves freedom of expression to individual choices, not government mandates.
The American flag is revered because it is a universally recognizable symbol of the human sacrifice of some for the human freedom of many. Justice Scalia recognized that flag burning is deeply offensive to many people -- this writer among them -- yet he, like Justice Jackson before him, knew that banning it dilutes the very freedoms that make the flag worth revering.

Soros says he would like to see Trump fail as president


Billionaire investor and Democratic donor George Soros said in an interview Thursday that "people like me" would like President-elect Donald Trump to fail as president.
He made the comment during an interview with Bloomberg News at his annual media dinner at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The 86-year-old was recently in the news when he reportedly lost nearly $1 billion after Trump's election over a too-cautious approach to the market.
“I personally am convinced that he is going to fail,” Soros said. “Not because of people like me who would like him to fail. But because his ideas that guide him are inherently self-contradictory and the contradictions are actually already embodied by his advisers…and his cabinet.”
Soros Fund Management LLC has about 250 traders and manages about $30 billion. The billionaire took a more active role in the company in anticipation of turmoil in China and the European Union, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter.
Soros, who last year, called on a “global system of political decision-making,” came out strongly against Trump during the campaign. He reportedly contributed  $7 million to Priorities USA Action and gave Clinton’s campaign the maximum $2,700 donation. He also contributed $5 million to a super PAC aimed at mobilizing Latinos and other immigrants in hopes to stop the Trump campaign.
Soros has a long history of contributing millions to liberal political causes, and pockets don't get much deeper than his. He ranked No. 23 in the latest Forbes richest men list.
The Wall Street Journal reported that overall, Soros’ fund is up about 5 percent on the year.

Historic presidency, controversial legacy: What Obama leaves behind


When he took the stage last Wednesday night for his farewell address, Barack Obama made his case for the agenda he doggedly pursued these past eight years – touting gains in the job market, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, legalized gay marriage and breakthroughs in foreign affairs stretching from Cuba to Iran.
“By almost every measure, America is a better, stronger place than it was when we started,” Obama told the audience in hometown Chicago.
While Obama’s pronouncements were met with applause from the friendly crowd, several of his policies now face an uncertain future as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office Friday. The legacy of the 44th president stands to be shaped almost as much by the man who will follow him into the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress as it was by him.
“His legacy is really in the hands of his successor,” Patrick Maney, a presidential historian and professor at Boston College, told FoxNews.com.
No matter what comes next, Obama’s two terms will go down as some of the most active – and controversial – in modern times.
As the first black president, Obama already had claimed his place in history in January 2009. But the ensuing eight years were consequential – whether that was for better, or for worse, is a matter for the historians to decide.
The Economy
Maney argued Obama will be graded on “the degree of difficulty of when he took office.” When it comes to the economy, Obama entered office at a period of immense challenge.
He took the oath of office just as the country was embroiled in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. After the outgoing George W. Bush administration kick-started a contentious auto bailout package, Obama oversaw the financial lifeline that helped Detroit rebound -- and was able to push through the equally contentious stimulus, which many Republican saw as wasteful but some economists credited with cushioning the blow from the recession.
Over the course of Obama’s two terms in office, U.S. employers added more than 11 million jobs and, following almost a decade of stagnant wages, median household income jumped in 2015.
Despite his administration’s work, the job market for the last two presidential election cycles still has served as a Republican rallying cry. They point to a shrinking labor force due in part to more American retirees and to younger Americans heading back to school, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor amid globalization and technological change.
Some historians say Obama did not get the credit extended to other presidents who faced similar economic crises.
“It was an economic success, but a political failure,” Maney said. “In the 1930s, when people saw bridges and roads being built, they said that was because of [President Franklin Delano Roosevelt]. With the stimulus jobs of the last eight years, nobody said that was because of Obama.”
ObamaCare
Whether history will give Obama more credit than the present on the economy is up for debate, but there is one contentious policy that will be forever attached to his name: The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.
The law passed with no Republican support in 2010 and has since expanded health coverage to an estimated 20 million people, with the help of subsidies and additional Medicaid coverage. The law’s core consumer protections required insurers to cover people who are already ill, and placed limits on the amount the sick and elderly can be billed for health care.
But the ACA also has been saddled with problems including rapidly rising premiums, particularly for those unable to qualify for subsidies, and a decrease in coverage options in some markets.
Some still warn about a “death spiral” leading to an eventual collapse in the insurance market.
Amid such warnings, Trump and his congressional allies are determined to “repeal and replace” the law.
Many want to end the “mandate” to buy coverage – but how they do that while still preserving other politically popular benefits remains to be seen. Lawmakers are at sharp odds over how to proceed, and Obama has openly challenged them to come up with a better plan if they can.
Trump recently told the Washington Post he is close to finishing a plan to replace ObamaCare.
Foreign Affairs
Inheriting two wars from the previous administration, Obama came into office promising to wind those down and keep American troops out of conflicts abroad.
But the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize will now leave a foreign policy record under fire from both sides of the aisle – to his liberal critics, Obama wrongly continued a state of perpetual war, expanding the U.S. drone campaign to no fewer than seven countries; to hawkish conservatives, his restraint in deploying American military power elsewhere allowed bloody conflicts to worsen.
The president, per his campaign promises, was able to draw down the number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But critics argue the withdrawal in the former ultimately left a power vacuum that led to the rise of the Islamic State and the return of U.S. forces to the region.
Perhaps the biggest blotch on his record is the still-raging civil war in Syria. He did not follow through on enforcing the so-called “red line” after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons. And the administration was criticized for taking only modest steps to nudge Assad out of power. Russia’s more recent military support has only strengthened Assad’s position, while the war itself created a refugee crisis that has overwhelmed Europe and Syria’s neighbors.
“Syria is a demonstration of how international action does not occur without the U.S. getting involved,” Jeffrey Engel, the director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, told FoxNews.com.
Obama’s decision last month not to have the U.S. veto a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank -- and Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech two days later accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of undermining the possibility of a two-state solution – also created even more tension in the already-rocky relationship between his administration and the Israeli government.
While Israeli-Palestinian peace was never realized in Obama’s term, the president did log two major diplomatic breakthroughs. He quarterbacked the thaw between the U.S. and Cuba that led to the restoration of diplomatic relations after more than 50 years, and his administration helped broker the Iran nuclear deal that granted the Islamic Republic sanctions relief in exchange for strict monitoring and limits on the country’s nuclear program.
The Iran deal, though, also fueled tensions with Israel and is another policy that could be revisited under the Trump administration.
There is one bold-print, all-caps entry in Obama’s national security legacy, though, that no successor will be able to touch: He green-lighted the U.S. Navy SEAL raid that killed Usama bin Laden.
Regulations
The Obama administration set records for the sheer number of pages in the Federal Register, which lists federal regulations. The Register stood at the end of 2016 at a whopping 97,110 pages – shattering the previous record of 81,405, also set by Obama in 2010.
Many of these regulations were enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of the administration’s plans to curb carbon emissions and combat climate change. The coal industry, which has been on the wane for a number of years as Americans move toward cheaper, cleaner alternatives like natural gas, was hit hard by tighter regulations.
Here, too, Trump has promised to rescind many of those programs including the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.
Unfinished Business
All presidents leave office with campaign promises they failed to meet, policies that got shelved and projects left half-done.
And Obama had his share.
While comprehensive immigration reform took on greater political importance over the last eight years as the U.S. Latino population grew at record rates, no major legislation was passed. Obama’s executive actions helped keep some young immigrants in the country, but his most recent actions were also blocked in the courts. Obama’s hardly alone, however, in struggling with the issue.
“Given that George W. Bush couldn’t solve it, especially with the advantages he had,” Engel said, “I’m not surprised that Obama couldn’t do it.”
Strong opposition from Republicans and the National Rifle Association also frustrated Obama’s moves to set stricter controls on firearms amid a slew of mass shootings from Newtown and Charleston to Aurora and San Bernardino.
He also was unable to achieve one of his biggest campaign promises: shutting down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. He has significantly reduced the prisoner population there from the 242 when he took office, but he leaves office with 41 still remaining at the camp.
When Obama entered office in 2009, there also was a great deal of talk about how the country’s first black president would usher in a new “post-racial America.” But during his farewell address, the president acknowledged that “however well-intended,” that idea “was never realistic.”
“Race remains a potent and often divisive force in our society,” Obama said.

Trump takes charge: 45th president vowing 'robust' first 100 days


The moment Donald Trump swears the oath of office and lifts his hand from the Bible as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, the clock begins on his first 100 days.
And within hours, the man who campaigned as an outsider vowing to shake up Washington will have his chance to start rolling back his predecessor's legacy while forging his own.
The president-elect is set to take the oath shortly before noon, after spending Thursday meeting with supporters and getting his team in place. Incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer would not give specific details about the extent and timing of Trump's promised actions to turn back some of President Obama's policies -- but he promised a "robust" start.
"Make no mistake, we’re ready to go on Day One," he said Thursday. Spicer said earlier that Trump has a "few" executive actions, "probably in the area of four to five, that we're looking at on Friday."
From there, Trump will be under pressure to begin working on his 100 days bucket list, which he detailed in a speech delivered in Gettysburg, Pa., last October.
Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" outlines his plans for the “kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime” -- including 18 major action items. Based on that contract, here's some of the more significant changes the 45th president could have in store for America:
Health Care 
Trump wants to "fully" repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it -- with what, is not yet entirely clear. His campaign plan called for using "Health Savings Accounts," and allowing insurance to be bought across state lines. Trump says he's still working out the details and will soon have a new proposal, which based on recent interviews also could include taking on the pharmaceutical industry.
Immigration
Trump has vowed to cancel "all federal funding" for so-called sanctuary cities as he moves to toughen immigration enforcement. He's vowed to "begin removing" the "criminal illegal immigrants" from the country at the start of his term, and to suspend immigration from "terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur."
Trump also promised to work with Congress to introduce a so-called "End Illegal Immigration Act," which would seek a range of changes including setting a two-year minimum federal prison sentence for illegaly re-entering the country after a prior deportation. The legislation, according to his campaign document, also would "fully" fund a U.S.-Mexico border wall, with the understanding that Mexico would reimburse the money -- something Mexican politicians say they won't do.
Trump also could move to turn back some of Obama's executive actions that gave a deportation reprieve to some illegal immigrants.
Government Reform
Trump has vowed a set of ethics measures as part of his "drain the swamp" mantra.
While Democrats have accused Trump of not living up to that pledge given the connections of some of his Cabinet nominees, he set ambitious targets during the campaign. This included a constitutional amendment to set term limits on members of Congress; a hiring freeze on federal employees; a requirement that any new regulation be offset by the elimination of two existing regulations; a five-year ban on White House officials becoming lobbyists after leaving government; and a permanent ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
American Workers
Trump talked tough on trade even before he was a candidate, and is vowing to turn those words into action in the White House.
He has said he'd direct his Treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator; remove restrictions on American energy production; allow projects like the Keystone pipeline to move forward; and direct certain U.N. funding toward American infrastructure projects.
Trump also said he'd work with Congress on legislation meant to grow the economy 4 percent per year and create at least 25 million jobs. The package would include tax reforms, trade reforms and regulatory relief, as well as help for the energy industry. On taxes, his campaign vowed to cut the number of tax brackets from seven to three and lower the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15 percent.
Further Trump says he'd establish tariffs to discourage companies from offshoring.
Expectations 
Trump would hardly be alone in turning back some of his predecessor's policies.
According to the website FiveThirtyEight, Obama signed 19 new executive orders and reversed nine of the orders signed by President George W. Bush in his first 100 days. Eight years earlier, Bush signed 11 new executive orders and revoked 4 Clinton-era actions.
The 100-day benchmark dates back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who came into office in 1933 and unleashed a flurry of activity. Over the course of 105 days, Congress passed 76 bills – far exceeding current trends.
By contrast, statistics compiled by Govtrack show just seven bills were passed during George W. Bush’s first 100 days in 2001, and 11 in Obama’s in 2009.
“I am not sure it is as relevant as it once was in this age of new media and increased partisanship. The historical comparison to FDR is not a good gauge since he came into office at a time of national crisis with Democratic control of Congress and a mandate to act,” said Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, agrees that the measure is out of step with current legislative and political realities.
“The whole idea of 100-day agenda is fundamentally at odds with the political reality of 2017 and actually has the potential to undermine the presidency if [Trump] chooses to run roughshod over the Congress,” he told FoxNews.com.
The 100 days may not be important in historical terms, but it is important in setting a tone.
“While Trump needs to get off to a clean start and take quick, decisive action, I think he would be well-advised to break his agenda into three parts – a hundred hours, weeks and months,” said Bill Whalen, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution.
In the meantime, Whalen suggests the new administration address the issues most important to his base – repealing ObamaCare and the Supreme Court.
A Politico/Harvard University poll found Trump voters rank ObamaCare as their top priority. However, it is only the second priority for the general public.
Several political and policy obstacles lie in the administration’s path starting with the confirmation of Rep. Tom Price as secretary of Health and Human Services, noted Paul Howard, director of health policy at the Manhattan Institute.
“The good thing is that the last administration has left behind a lot of administrative flexibility to lay the groundwork for repealing ObamaCare, but it is crucial they get Price confirmed and get some victories behind him,” he said.
According to Howard, if the intention is to simultaneously repeal and replace the law, Trump will need to cut some deals with moderate Democrats to avoid the mistake Obama made in passing it.
The self-professed dealmaker also promised action on jobs by either withdrawing from or renegotiating NAFTA and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both efforts may set up an early battle with the pro-free trade GOP leadership in Congress.
“The president has wide latitude to act on trade issues, so one of the significant early questions will be how willing Congress will be to accept his authority on trade,” Grumet said.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Obama Pardon Cartoons








After hinting support, McCain says he's undecided on Trump's pick for Secretary of State


Sen.  John McCain said in an interview Wednesday that he is undecided about supporting President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.
“I am very concerned about someone who took a friendship award from Vladimir Putin, who’s a butcher,” McCain told CBS. McCain called Putin a KGB agent and said “I’ve had concerns and I’ve had several conversations with him.”
Earlier this week, McCain told Fox News that he was leaning toward supporting the former ExxonMobil CEO. When pressed about his support, McCain said, “Barely, yes. I think [Tillerson] is a good man; I think he is aware of Vladimir Putin.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that three Republican senators have expressed concern over Tillerson. Sen. Marco Rubio is reportedly undecided on his vote and said he will not discuss the matter until he comes to a decision.
During the tense back-and-forths at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing last week, Rubio, R-Fla., cross-examined Tillerson on policy regarding Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines. At the end of Rubio's second questioning period, Tillerson sought to allay any concerns the aggressive Rubio may have had.
"There seems to be some misunderstanding that I see the world through a different lens, and I do not," Tillerson said. "...But I'm also clear-eyed and realistic about dealing with cultures."
Tillerson's statement followed a heated initial session during which the ExxonMobil CEO refused to specifically call Putin a "war criminal."
"I find it discouraging your ability to cite that, which I think is globally accepted," Rubio said.

Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, former assistant US attorney says


A New York lawyer appealed to President Obama Wednesday in an opinion piece to pardon former-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and others who may be “potential targets” of an investigation into the use of the private email server.
Robert Begleiter, a partner at Constantine Cannon LLP and former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York, wrote in The Daily News that the Constitution permits a president to pardon someone who has not been charged with a crime.
President-elect Donald Trump has said he has no intention of investigating Clinton, despite the familiar chant by supporters at his primary rallies, “Lock her up.” He even refered to her as “Crooked Hillary.”
“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Trump told editors at The New York Times shortly after the election. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I’m not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”
Begleiter wrote that he wishes Trump well as president, but said it would be a gamble in the event Clinton ever criticized Trump during his presidency. He called it “sideways” to believe that a person who accepted a pardon is admitting guilt.
He wrote that a pardon for Clinton could, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, “restore tranquility to the commonwealth”
John Crudele, a financial columnist with The New York Post, wrote that Obama is the most forgiving president in U.S. history, and commuted the sentences of 1,000. He theorized that Obama likely does not personally like Clinton very much and the email scandal put him in an “embarrassing” situation.
“But the best reason for not giving a pardon is simple: Obama doesn’t really know what kind of trouble Hillary might be in. And she would have to admit to things she might not be ready to reveal to get completely out of trouble,” he wrote.

'Hamilton's' Lin-Manuel Miranda 'sobbing' over Obama's decision to commute Oscar Lopez Rivera's sentence


"Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda was brought to tears by President Obama's decision to commute the sentence of Oscar Lopez Rivera.
"Sobbing with gratitude here in London," Miranda wrote on Twitter. He was so moved he agreed to play Alexander Hamilton at a Chicago performance of "Hamilton" in honor of Obama's decision.
Lopez Rivera, who grew up in Chicago, was convicted of seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government in 1981 while leading the Puerto Rican independence group FALN. The group bombed buildings in the 1970s. With Obama's action Tuesday, he is slated to be released May 17.
Miranda, who is of Puerto Rican descent, tweeted he "wished he was with every Puerto Rican in Chicago right now."
Miranda last played the title role in New York In July 2016. "Hamilton" opened in October in Chicago, led by Miguel Cervantes.

Obama decision to free FALN terror group leader sparks outrage


He was convicted of trying to overthrow the government, and named a leader of a terrorist group that bombed public buildings and killed people.
Now, President Obama's decision to commute the sentence of FALN member Oscar Lopez Rivera has sparked outrage from terror victims.
"I'm disgusted by what the president did. It's a travesty," said Joe Connor, whose father was killed in an infamous FALN terrorist bombing in Manhattan.
"The enemies of our country are being rewarded, and being treated as if they are heroes. What we hear is that Oscar Lopez Rivera did not get to know his family. Well, neither did my father. The victims and the Americans get pushed aside."
Rivera has been serving a 55-year federal prison sentence for being a leader of the Puerto Rican terrorist group, which sought independence for the U.S. island territory. The FALN claimed responsibility for over 70 bombings in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago from 1974 to 1983. The attacks killed five people and wounded dozens more, including police officers.
In 1981, Lopez Rivera was convicted of seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government and arms trafficking. He was later sentenced to serve 15 more years behind bars for trying to escape twice, and he never renounced his radical cause.
In 1999, on the eve of Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate run in New York, her husband, President Clinton, commuted the sentences of 16 imprisoned FALN members. But Lopez Rivera reportedly turned the offer down, refusing to be released unless all of his comrades were released from prison.
Now, 18 years later, he will be walking out of the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., a free man, his sentence cut short by 34 years.
"I went to his parole hearing in 2011," said Connor. "We were looking for some sort of reconciliation, some sort of admission, some sort of atonement. We didn't get any of that. He is a sworn terrorist, and for the president to release a sworn terrorist for political reasons, or whatever reason, is a disgrace."
Joe was only 9 years old when his father Frank went to have lunch at the historic Fraunces Tavern, near Wall Street, on Jan. 24, 1975. The colonial landmark is where President George Washington bid farewell to his troops on Dec. 4, 1783. That is why the symbol of the nation was targeted.
As Frank had lunch, a bomb suddenly exploded, killing him and three others. More than 60 people were injured. Frank Connor was 33 years old, and since then his son has taken up the crusade to speak out against terrorism and freedom for the killers. He says Lopez Rivera never admitted or accepted responsibility for his acts, never expressed any remorse, and that the president's decision sends a horrible message.
"It does nothing but encourage terrorism, it makes you think that at some point, terrorism will be forgiven," he said.
Lopez Rivera has become a cause célèbre among some Latino officials and celebrities, who have claimed he is a freedom fighter unfairly imprisoned for his political beliefs. His supporters range from Broadway's "Hamilton" creator Lin Manuel Miranda to several members of Congress, the mayor of San Juan, the speaker of the New York City Council, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. More than 100,000 people signed a petition urging Obama to grant the clemency.
“I think it is an historic moment for the Puerto Rican people," said Lopez Rivera's brother, Jose, who lives in Chicago.
"It's a moment where we can say the president of the United States, this President Obama, has really shown that we have to reach a level of reconciliation. My brother went to prison and charged with seditious conspiracy for exposing the fact that the U.S. is a colonial power in Puerto Rico," he said.
Connor countered, "There are no political prisoners, the United States does not hold political prisoners, these were terrorists."
Connor is also calling for the extradition of American fugitives from Cuba, including convicted cop killer and Black Liberation Army member Joanne Chesimard and FALN chief bomb maker Willie Morales. Morales has been called the suspected mastermind of the Fraunces Tavern bombing that killed Joe's father and he remains protected by the Castro regime even as he is on the FBI's Most Wanted List with a $100,000 reward offered for his capture.
"We have 70 or 80 fugitives in Cuba, and we have to now look to the Trump administration and say, hey we have to bring back Willie Morales," Connor said.
"We need justice, and my father deserved that justice. He was a good man, and the rest of the people who were murdered by the FALN deserve justice."
Lopez Rivera will walk out of prison a free man on May 17, and President Trump, by U.S. law, will not be able to reverse the decision.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Democrats Demonstrating Cartoons





Trump shrugs off Dems' inauguration boycott: 'I hope they give me their tickets'

Ainsley Earhardt previews her exclusive interview with Trump
EXCLUSIVE: President-elect Donald Trump has told 'Fox & Friends' co-host Ainsley Earhardt that he doesn't mind Democratic members of Congress boycotting his inauguration, saying "I hope they give me their tickets."
At least 60 Democratic members of the House of Representatives have opted to miss Friday's ceremonies, most notably Georgia Rep. John Lewis, who said last week that he did not consider Trump a "legitimate" president.
WATCH AINSLEY EARHARDT'S INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP ON 'FOX & FRIENDS' BEGINNING AT 6 A.M. ET WEDNESDAY
"I think he just grandstanded, John Lewis, and then he got caught in a very bad lie, so let’s see what happens," said Trump, referencing Lewis' previous boycott of George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration. "As far as other people not going, that’s OK, because we need seats so badly, I hope they give me their tickets."
Trump spoke exclusively to Earhardt in an interview that will air Wednesday morning on "Fox & Friends." Earhardt joined "Hannity" Tuesday night to preview the sit-down.
"Immediately when I sat down, I said ‘How are you doing?’ because we’d been with him on the campaign trail for basically two years," Earhardt told Sean Hannity, "and he said, ‘It’s been exhausting, it’s been hard because I’ve had to hire a lot of people.’"
Earhardt said she and Trump ran through the president-elect's plans to tackle a variety of issues, including ObamaCare.
"He said repeal and replace will happen at the same time, and that he doesn’t want anyone to be sick. He wants to provide insurance to everyone," Earhardt said. "I said ‘You have a lot of critics that are wondering how you’re going to pay for this.’ He said insurance companies, the big insurance companies, will help him pay for this."
The president-elect also addressed his use of social media, which he says he will continue after he is sworn in as the 45th president.
"Look, I don’t like tweeting. I have other things I could be doing," Trump told Earhardt. "But I get very dishonest media, very dishonest press, and it’s my only way that I can get out and correct.
"Now, I’m going to be close to 50 million people – including Facebook and Instagram and things, I’m going to be close to 50 million people," Trump added. "So when people misrepresent me ... I have at least a way of saying it’s a false statement. Now, if the press were honest, which it’s not, I would absolutely not use Twitter. I wouldn’t have to."

San Francisco sued by car-theft victim for allegedly violating its sanctuary city ordinance

Paul Ryan condemns sanctuary cities
A 32-year-old is suing San Francisco, alleging that the city violated its sanctuary city ordinance by reporting him to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after reporting his car stolen in 2015.
Pedro Figueroa Zarceno, who is from El Salvador and lives in the Mission District, was in federal immigration custody for two months. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that it is prohibited in the city to use local resources to help federal law enforcement.
“With an incoming federal administration threatening mass deportations and targeting sanctuary cities, we must hold SFPD and the Sheriff’s Department accountable and ensure that every single officer is following the city’s due process protections,” Saira Hussain, an attorney representing Figueroa, told the paper.
The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, seeks an unspecified amount and calls on police to admit that he was a “victim of false imprisonment.”
A spokesman from the city reportedly said that San Francisco has “strong policies in place to encourage victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of being deported.” The report pointed out that in February, then-Police Chief Greg Suhr acknowledged that the man should not have ended up in custody.
The report said that Figueroa reported the car stolen in November 2015.
Authorities eventually found the car, and when he filled out the paper work to pick up the car, he was arrested.
Homeland Security told the paper that police ran the background check and learned that he had a 10-year-old, outstanding warrant for deportation after failing to appear at an immigration hearing in Texas in 2005, and a 2012 conviction for drunken driving, authorities told the paper.
His attorneys told the paper that he planned to file for asylum and intended to go through the hearing process. He reportedly did not hear from authorities about the matter again. And his attorneys told the paper he had no idea there was an outstanding warrant.

Interior nominee Zinke disputes Trump on climate change


Donald Trump's choice to head the Interior Department on Tuesday rejected the president-elect's claim that climate change is a hoax, saying it is indisputable that environmental changes are affecting the world's temperature and human activity is a major reason.
"I don't believe it's a hoax," Rep. Ryan Zinke told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at his confirmation hearing.
"The climate is changing. The debate is what is that influence and what can we do," said the Montana Republican.
Trump has suggested in recent weeks he's keeping an open mind on the issue and may reconsider a campaign pledge to back away from a 2015 Paris agreement that calls for global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
In contradicting Trump, Zinke cited Glacier National Park in his home state as a prime example of the effects of climate change, noting that glaciers there have receded in his lifetime and even from one visit to the next.
Still, he told Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that there is debate about how much humans have influenced the climate.
Likely to win Senate confirmation, Zinke sketched out a variety of purposes for the nation's vast federal lands, from hiking, hunting, fishing and camping to harvesting timber and mining for coal and other energy sources.
An admirer of President Theodore Roosevelt, Zinke said management of federal lands should be done under a "multiple-use" model set forth by Gifford Pinchot, a longtime Roosevelt associate and the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
Zinke also pledged to tackle an estimated $12 billion backlog in maintenance and repair at national parks, saying parks and other public lands should be a key part of Trump's infrastructure improvement plan.
Zinke has said he would never sell, give away or transfer public lands -- a crucial stance in his home state of Montana and the rest of the West where access to hunting and fishing is considered sacrosanct.
Zinke feels so strongly that he resigned as a delegate to the Republican National Convention last summer because of the GOP's position in favor of land transfers to state or private groups. But Zinke's commitment to public lands has come into question in recent weeks.
The Interior Department and other U.S. agencies control almost a third of land in the West and even more of the underground "mineral estate" that holds vast amounts of coal, oil and natural gas.
Zinke's position on public lands came under fire after he voted in favor of a measure from House Republicans that would allow federal land transfers to be considered cost-free and budget-neutral, making it easier for drilling and development.
Zinke "says he's against transfer of federal lands, but there's a big gap between what he says and what he does in that regard," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, the nation's oldest and largest environmental group.
Zinke told senators Tuesday that he flatly opposes all sales or transfer of federal lands.
Indeed, his support for public lands was a crucial reason why Zinke was chosen by Trump. The president-elect and son Donald Trump Jr. both oppose sale of federal lands. The younger Trump, an avid hunter, has taken a keen interest in Interior Department issues and played a key role in Zinke's selection.
Zinke also reiterated his support for coal production on federal lands as part of an all-of-the above energy strategy
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state, the top Democrat on the energy panel, asked Zinke about modernizing the federal coal program, saying it was important "to make sure American taxpayers aren't short-changed for the benefit of corporate interests
Zinke promised to review the coal program and said he thinks taxpayers "should always get fair value," whether it's coal, wind power or other energy sources.

Trump education pick DeVos promotes school choice at confirmation hearing


Education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos voiced strong support for public school alternatives at her confirmation hearing Tuesday, telling senators that "parents no longer believe that a one-size-fits-all model of learning fits the needs of every child."
DeVos told the Senate Health, Education and Pensions Committe that she would be "a strong advocate for great public schools" if confirmed, but added that "if a school is troubled, or unsafe, or not a good fit for a child ... we should support a parent's right to enroll their child in a high-quality alternative."
DeVos, 59, also said she will seek to address rising higher education costs and massive student debt, but also advance trade and vocational schools as well as community colleges because "craftsmanship is not a fallback — but a noble pursuit."
President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of DeVos to lead the Department of Education was harshly criticized by teacher's unions, who have claimed that DeVos wants to undermine the public education system, which provides instruction to more than 90 percent of the country's students.
In his opening statement, committee chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., himself a former secretary of education, said DeVos is "on our children's side."
"I believe she is in the mainstream of public opinion, and her critics are not," said Alexander. That praise was echoed by Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who introduced DeVos to the committee by calling her "a champion of education, and specifically a champion of education for poor kids."
Former Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman also appeared before his onetime colleagues to introduce DeVos.
"We just can't accept the status quo in education anymore," Lieberman said. "We need a change agent and an education reformer to be education secretary ... and that is exactly the kind of education secretary I believe Betsy DeVos can and will be."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the committee's ranking member, expressed concern that lawmakers had not received an ethics review for the nominee.
"I am extremely disappointed that we are moving forward with this hearing without receiving the proper paperwork from the Office of Goverment Ethics," Murray said.
Murray also told DeVos that federal policy should be focused on strengthening public schools, "and certainly not toward diverting taxpayer dollars to fund vouchers that don't work for unaccountable private schools." She asked DeVos point-blank to pledge that she would not seek to privatize public schools or take money away from them.
DeVos, whose husband is the heir to the Amway marketing fortune, has for decades used the family’s influence and wealth in her home state of Michigan to advocate for charter schools and promote conservative religious values. Critics of DeVos have expressed concerns about her financial contributions and possible conflicts of interest.
The nominee attempted to assuage those concerns during the question-and answer period, pledging that she "will not be conflicted. Period." DeVos also said that she will take a government salary of $1 if confirmed.
Asked outright by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., if she got the job because of her family's political contributions, DeVos said: "As a matter of fact I do think that there would be that possibility. I have worked very hard on behalf of parents and children for the last almost 30 years."
On tuition-free public colleges and universities, DeVos said: "I think we also have to consider the fact that there is nothing in life that is truly free. Somebody is going to pay for it."

She skirted Sanders' question on whether she would support making child care free or much more affordable for low-income families as is the case in many countries around the world, saying only that she feels strongly about "parents having an opportunities for child care for their children."

"But it's not a question of opportunity," Sanders fired back, raising his voice. "It's a question of being able to afford it!"

As the hearing dragged on into its fourth hour, Democratic senators made repeated requests with Chairman Alexander to allow them to pose another round of questions to DeVos, but he refused, citing procedures at previous hearings.
DeVos is expected to get enough votes in the committee and before the full Senate to be confirmed, considering she needs only a simple majority, with Republicans having 52 senators and Democrats having 48.
In a letter addressed to the committee, 38 prominent education groups and teachers' organizations expressed concern that DeVos' track record bodes ill for public education.

"Over the course of her career as a major campaign contributor, soft-money donor and lobbyist, DeVos has used her considerable wealth to influence legislation and the outcomes of elections to advance policies that have undermined public education and proved harmful to many of our most vulnerable students," the letter said.

LGBT groups also have protested Trump's choice of DeVos, saying she has funded conservative religious groups that promote what they consider to be traditional family values, including one organization that supports conversion therapy -- counseling of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people with the aim of changing their sexual orientation.

DeVos repeatedly disavowed any support for conversion therapy Tuesday, saying in her opening statement that "every child in America deserves to be in a safe environment that is free from discrimination."
Under questioning from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., DeVos said that "I have never believed in" conversion therapy and "I believe in the innate value of every single human being."  Alexander later read into the record a letter of support from the Log Cabin Republicans, a Republican organization pushing for LGBT rights.

DeVos supporters, meanwhile, applauded her nomination. Eva Moskowitz, CEO of Success Academy Charter Schools, said that American public education "is in deep crisis," with 35 countries outranking American schools in math and 20 in reading.

"I believe Betsy DeVos has the talent, commitment and leadership capacity to revitalize our public schools and deliver the promise of opportunity that excellent education provides, and I support her nomination as U.S. secretary of education," Moskowitz said in a statement.
DeVos has also garnered strong backing from two dozen state governors, as well as another former education secretary, William Bennett.
It’s time we take a major turn in American education,” Bennett told Fox News Channel’s “Happening Now” on Tuesday. “Betsy DeVos represents a change. She is experienced in the field with children from all over the country. … She understands what the problems with education are.”

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

political protests cartoons





Pro-life group dropped from list of partners for inauguration protest march

Protesters protesting the protesters?                               





The organizers of a women's protest march set to hit the streets of Washington D.C. the day after Donald Trump's inauguration said Monday it had dropped one of its partner organizations because the group opposes abortion.
The nonprofit group, New Wave Feminists, vowed to take part in the protest anyway.
"We will definitely be there with our pro-life, pro-woman message," group leader Destiny Hernon-De La Rosa told FoxNews.com. "These are the women we would be trying to reach, anyway."
On Sunday, New Wave Feminists announced on its Facebook page that it had been chosen as an official partner of the Jan. 21 Women's March on Washington, putting them on a par with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
On its website, New Wave Feminists decry that their "womanhood [has been] traded in for a handful of birth control pills, the 'privilege' to degrade ourselves in playboy [sic], and the 'right' to abort our children." The group calls for "the return of common sense feminism that refuses to exploit women in the name of liberation."
The group's partnership status was mentioned in a story published Monday on the Atlantic magazine's website and drew outrage from several left-wing writers.
Soon after, New Wave Feminists was removed from the partner list.
"The Women's March platform is pro-choice and has been from day one," the march organizers said in a statement. "We look forward to marching on behalf of individuals who share the view that women deserve the right to make their own reproductive decisions.
"The anti-choice organization in question," the statement added, "is not a partner of the women's March on Washington. We apologize for the error."
The head of New Wave Feminists, Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa told the website Newsbusters that she had not heard from the march organizers about the group's demotion.
"I can only assume," she said, "they caved to the backlash on social media after the Atlantic piece came out saying we were listed as partners."

Mayor quits golf club as members try to block Obama's entry


The local mayor and member of the exclusive Maryland country club whose members are preemptively trying to keep President Obama out over his stance on Israel announced that he was dropping out over the controversy.
Jeffrey Slavin, the mayor of the Montgomery County town of  Somerset, said he could no longer belong to a community at Woodmont Country Club with such “intolerance,” The New York Post reported.
The Washington Post reported that some members of the historically Jewish club were bothered by Obama’s recent decision not to vote on a U.N. resolution criticizing Israeli settlements.
“[President Obama] has created a situation in the world where Israel’s very existence is weakened and possibly threatened,” longtime member Faith Goldstein wrote in a Dec. 26 email obtained by the Washington Post. “He is not welcome at Woodmont. His admittance would create a storm that could destroy our club. "
There has been no official indication Obama plans to apply for membership at Woodmont, but he has played at least four rounds at the course during his presidency and reports from last summer indicate Woodmont would be his club of choice when he leaves the Oval Office.
The Washington Post reported that Slavin signed his email to the club, “Thanks for many great memories” and quoted “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” with the words, “stay woke.”

CartoonsDemsRinos