On a positive note, here the GOP is avoiding the red herring of blaming the administration of President Joe Biden for what has been trumpeted, largely unfairly, as a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. On a negative note, the Party has a very bad memory.
“Ever since Afghanistan fell, we have projected weakness, not strength.”
A fact check conducted by the Annenberg Center on Public Policy in August, 2021 found
The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a
withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government,
freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021,
for the final withdrawal.
And the Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S.
troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued to
attack Afghan government forces and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists into the
Taliban leadership.
Biden delayed the May 1 withdrawal date that he inherited. But ultimately his administration pushed ahead with a plan to withdraw by Aug. 31, despite obvious signs that the Taliban wasn’t complying with the agreement and had a stated goal to create an “Islamic government” in Afghanistan after the U.S. left, even if it meant it had to “continue our war to achieve our goal.”
President Trump wanted to get the USA out of Afghanistan but advisers counseled against it. As a result, he split the baby, freeing Taliban soldiers, negotiating a withdrawal behind the back of Kabul, and reportedly "all but froze" the Special Immigrant Visa Program. Then he avoided withdrawing from Afghanistan, leaving a terrible situation for President Biden.... which for Donald J. Trump amounts to "mission accomplished."
In 2019, police arrested Jermarico Carter for Scheerhoorn's
killing. Carter, who was tracked down in Atlanta, confessed to the killing. He
pleaded guilty to murder in 2022 and was sent to prison.
However, now he has been
taken into custody Friday after a warrant was issued for his
arrest, police said. He remained jailed Sunday on $1 million bond. The attorney
for Grant listed in court records in this case could not immediately be reached
on Sunday.
The defendant "is accused of killing Edwin Arevalo, 33, following a minor
traffic collision Thursday night, Houston police said. Police said Grant got
out of his vehicle, shot Arvelo and then fled."
And why not? Presumably, Grant did not have the firearm for
hunting or target practice- and why waste good ammunition? There is little reason to have a weapon handy
unless it is used. Daniel Perry, also of Texas (call me shocked) would agree.
Less than 24 hours after a jury in Austin found Daniel Perry
guilty of shooting to death a protester, Gov. Greg Abbott announced on social
media Saturday that he would pardon the convicted killer as soon as a request
"hits my desk"....
“Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand your ground’ laws of
self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or progressive district
attorney,” Abbott said in a statement. “I will work as swiftly as Texas law
allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry.”
Abbott’s office did not return calls from the
American-Statesman on Saturday seeking additional comment. The two-week trial,
which included dozens of witnesses and much forensic evidence, was not
broadcast. Abbott attended no portion of the trial.
Perry, an Army sergeant, was working as an Uber driver in
Austin on the night of July 25, 2020, when he ran a red light at the
intersection of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue and drove into a Black Lives
Matter march before stopping.
Garrett Foster, carrying an AK-47 rifle, was among a group
of protesters who approached his car. Perry told police that Foster threatened
him by raising the barrel of his rifle at him, so he shot him five times with a
.357 revolver through the window of his car before driving away.
Perry’s defense team argued that he acted in self-defense,
but prosecutors contended that Perry instigated what happened. They highlighted
a series of social media posts and Facebook messages in which Perry made
statements that they said indicated his state of mind, such as he might “kill a
few people on my way to work. They are rioting outside my apartment complex.”
A friend responded, “Can you legally do so?” Perry replied,
“If they attack me or try to pull me out of my car then yes.”
A jury Friday unanimously convicted Perry.
State District Judge Clifford Brown is set to sentence him
to prison in the coming days. He faces up to life in prison.
it and planned on doing
it.... He wanted to kill a protester and saw somebody exercising their Second
Amendment right."
With all due respect to the brother of a man who did not
deserve to die, Garrett Foster was not exercising any Second Amendment right.
Foster- as with Perry- was not a member of
a militia. Nor was a musket capable of firing 600 rounds per minute. Nor
did the Founding Fathers account for the occurrence of road rage involving
vehicles with an internal combustion engine (or battery power).
Lydell Grant had a firearm. Daniel Perry had a firearm.
Garrett Foster had a firearm. If these three individuals were not
exercising their unfortunate and obscene right of open carry in Texas, two
persons now dead would be alive. The Second Amendment- or rather its misinterpretation-
has struck again.
The Tennessee House of Representative, with its overwhelmingly Republican majority, expelled two black male legislators on Thursday and rejected expulsion of a white female legislator. A two-thirds majority was needed to take such a radical action and the final vote in the case of Justin Jones, 72-25; with Justin Pearson, 69-26; and with Gloria Johnson, 63-34. She survived by one vote.
If you're like most Americans- even most Americans paying a great deal of attention to politics- you may not know that the votes for the three did not differ dramatically. And that, in a way, is why these two Republicans are spot-on in their analysis of the vote in Tennessee.
When a former Chairwoman of the TN GOP thinks this was a stupid move, it was definitely a stupid move. pic.twitter.com/sNcwFFylvD
— Blue Dot in Desantistanđź’™post.news/shesailsfl (@SheSailsFL) April 8, 2023
With all due respect to Chris Lehmann and Elie Mystal of The Nation, I don't believe race was the only factor in the choice to axe two black lawmakers and let the white one off the hook (sort of). And I don't believe racism was a major factor in the decisions.
Decisions is the operative term; as far as is known thus far, there was not a concerted, unified game plan on the part of the Republican caucus. If there were, they would not have thrown out both blacks and left the white in place, an act of political insanity. .
Rabidly anti-Democratic voters in the state probably would have preferred getting rid of all three Democrats because, well, Democrats. Moreover, the action will have only a temporary effect on composition of the legislature. The county commission in Jones' district and that in Pearson's district will promptly return each to the chamber, whereupon both Jones and Pearson likely will be emboldened, to the dismay of their colleagues who expelled them.
And the optics are terrible- white in, black out. Off to the back of the bus you go! Influential Democrats in the nation would have been mad if all three had been removed from office. Removing the black individuals while allowing the white individual to remain will make influential Democrats very, very mad.
It's political red meat. There is nothing more effective in stimulating the Democratic base than making race the paramount issue. Here, Republicans in the state own the burden of proof, which can be shifted the national Party., which already seems unmoved by this assault on democracy. And when, unlike with urban crime, the GOP is front and center- on the defensive- there is little downside for Democrats.
Now it is up to those same Democrats. They cannot wait for the media to take up the cause or even to avoid bothsiderism but must tie the charge of racial extremism around the necks of Republicans. They should do so while bypassing the terms of "racist(s)" or "racism" as much as possible. Non-blacks already believe they are haphazardly accused of being racist, and it's not Republicans they blame for that.
Whether or not racial animus was at the heart of this action by the GOP, it looks as if it was. Perception is not reality- but it seems like reality. And the burden of proof, given the optics recognized by the two Republicans in the video below, is on the GOP to demonstrate that their motives were honorable. The media is awaiting a story about race, with video of the Tennessee House readily available. It would be political malpractice for Democrats to let this moment pass.
There is bad timing, and then there is bad timing. They were there ostensibly to talk about the Twitter Files. However, at the
tail end of his Peacock show in which host Mehdi Hasan debated journalist Matt Taibbi on Thursday afternoon, this exchange took place
(Taibbi's words in bold, Hasan's in asterisk, beginning at 28:14 of the video
below):
This is the point, Matt, the context. We're out of time,sadly,but the context is that the Republicans- the Republicans are banning books and threatening the press. Ron DeSantis is trying to get rid of anonymous sources.
Again, you're mentioning something that I didn't write about.
Well, exactly, that's the problem, that you seem to think the Democrats, not the Republicans, are a big threat to speech and I just don't see it. I wish we had more time to get. We spent a lot of time-
Are you crazy? I mean, you don't think Democrats are a threat to speech?
Have you been paying attention?
Yes. I think all politicians are a threat to speech but in
this country, if you think the Republican Party is not the biggest threat to
speech, then I don't know what to say to you. Maybe you should logoff.
We have to disagree.
I think the black voter who was arrested in Florida or the
woman arrested for taking an abortion pill might not say that.
A mere few hours after Taibbi chose to disagree with Hasan,
two black male Democrats were expelled from the Tennessee House of
Representatives. The vote was 72-25 to throw out Justin Jones and 69-26 to toss
Justin Pearson while ally Gloria Johnson survived the expulsion effort by one vote.
The saga began when on March 30, hundreds of Tennesseans
protested at the Capitol in Nashville to urge their legislators to pass gun
safety legislation. After, they maintain, Republicans turned off their
microphones during debate, Jones and Pearson led chants with a bullhorn from
the floor of the House of Representatives.
Johnson stood by them in the front of the chamber and joined in the
chorus. The New York Times reports that in response
Within days of the protest, (Speaker Cameron) Sexton stripped
two of the lawmakers — Ms. Johnson and Mr. Jones — of their committee
assignments and revoked their legislative access. Mr. Pearson, who won a
special election in late January to represent his Memphis district, had not yet
received committee assignments.
Were he asked, even Matt Taibbi probably would acknowledge
that this is a very serious threat to freedom of speech. Constituents in the
urban districts represented by Jones and Pearson have had their votes neutered
and their voices silenced. The two Representatives could be reinstated by the
county commissions in their respective districts. However
A Shelby County commissioner told FOX13 on Friday that state
leaders in Nashville are threatening to take away funding from Memphis and
other Shelby County projects if the county commission decides to reinstate
expelled state Rep. Justin J. Pearson....
According to Shelby County Commissioner Erika Sugarmon,
leaders in Nashville threatened to without millions of dollars in state funding
for projects in the Memphis area if commissioners were to reappoint Pearson.
"We are also being threatened by the state to take away
funding, needed funding to run our schools, to run our municipalities,"
Sugarmon told FOX13. "You know, and so, for example, FedExForum, the promised
$350 million, they're talking about snatching that away. So, again, you know
this about bullying people into submission. And enough is enough. You know,
we've got to stand for something or fall for everything. And we've been bullied
by the state for too long now."
This is not coming from Democrats or liberals. This suppression of free speech by Republicans- which, as of this
moment, no prominent Republican has criticized- is far more important than
anything conservatives deride as "woke." Toe the line or we take you
out politically and economically. It
takes a narrow or biased mind to look at Tennessee- or Florida, or elsewhere-
and to conclude that it is Democrats who are the significant threat to free speech.
Watch what's happening in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho & other red states that are rapidly becoming fascist dystopias--denying women, people of color, voters, retirees, families, and children their rights. This is America's nightmare now. It is much bigger than Trump.
Nonetheless, there is another big problem, though far less obvious and immediate.
A survey conducted on a wide range of issues by Quinnipiac in March, 2023 found 73% of respondents believing abortion should be legal in "all" or "most cases (question #22). Only 25% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, with a mere 2% undecided.
That's a great and liberal response! But curtail they eagerness or, as Larry David would put, curb your enthusiasm. The same survey disturbingly found
Americans are divided on a nationwide ban on the sale of
assault weapons. Forty-seven percent support a ban, while 48 percent oppose it.
This compares to a Quinnipiac University poll in July 2022 when 49 percent
supported a ban and 45 percent opposed it.
As the cliche has it, "let that sink in." More Americans oppose a nationwide ban on assault weapons- which are easily trafficked from one state to another- than who favor it. Assault weapons. That's a firearm which refers
to a semi-automatic gun designed for military use and quick,
efficient killing. Assault weapons are uniquely lethal because of their rapid
rate of fire and high muzzle velocity — coupled with large-capacity magazines,
which attach to an assault weapon to allow dozens of gunshots without needing
to reload. A large-capacity magazine is typically defined as any magazine or
drum that is capable of holding more than either 10 or 15 rounds of ammunition.
Yet, respondents who on the whole overwhelmingly in favor of abortion rights were (albeit by a tiny margin) opposed to a nationwide ban on assault weapons.
It's speculation, but perhaps quite a few individuals may have been stuck on the "nationwide." This would be odd because it is illogical. Banning assault weapons is unlike some issues, such as marijuana legalization, which individuals may oppose nationwide on principle, but be supportive because of the economic benefits to their own state. By contrast, people armed with assault weapons and bent on murder are not discouraged from crime if they'd have to cross state lines and there is no rational reason to oppose a ban nationwide while supporting it locally.
There may be an instinct in that which is present in a new abortion law in Idaho, where Republican governor Brad Little on Wednesday
that bans minors from traveling out of state for abortions
without parental consent. The law creates a new felony crime called “abortion
trafficking,” which the legislation defines as an “adult who, with the intent
to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant,
unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion … or obtains an
abortion-inducing drug” for the minor.
“Recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor
within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking,” according to the
legislation. The crime of abortion trafficking carries a felony offense
punishable by two to five years in prison.
The law criminalizes anyone transporting a pregnant minor
without parental consent within Idaho to get an abortion or abortion pills,
which means it could apply to a grandmother driving a pregnant minor to the
post office to pick up a package holding medication abortion or target an older
brother driving a pregnant minor to a friend’s house to self-manage an abortion
at home...
Although the legislation does not specifically discuss
crossing state lines, most pregnant people in Idaho are not traveling in the
state to get an abortion. Most are traveling to get legal abortions in
neighboring states like Washington or Oregon. This law criminalizes the act of
anyone driving a minor without parental consent to the border of Idaho with the
intent of crossing state lines to get an abortion outside the state...
State Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R), one of the sponsors of the
abortion trafficking law, told HuffPost last month that the intent of the
legislation is to limit minors’ ability to travel out of state without parental
consent, despite the text of the bill only discussing intrastate travel.
“It’s already illegal to get an abortion here in the state
of Idaho,” Ehardt said. “So, it would be taking that child across the border,
and if that happens without the permission of the parent, that’s where we’ll be
able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent’s right."
Maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene is onto something, a bad policy
suggestion but in capturing a little of the mood of the country.
We need a national divorce.
We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government.
Everyone I talk to says this.
From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are…
We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Obviously, a nationwide ban on assault weapons, of which there are mixed opinions, would require an act of the federal government. Abortion legal "in all" or "in most" cases would not.
And more: we once tried separating by red states/blue states or, rather, slave and non-slave, states. It did not work out well. Yet, the squeamish about a national assault weapons ban, Greene's advocacy of a separation of states from each other, and the travel ban upon (some) pregnant women in Idaho suggest a weakening concept of union.
There is a trend toward localism reflecting a growing preference for insularity. Leave us alone, the sentiment runs, to implement a gun ban if we want; prohibiting the mobility of women; and, ultimately, carving out two countries from one. Even the support for the right to choose, a proper instinct, is one which has something in common with the other perspectives: leave us alone to do as we choose in response to our own values.
The inclination is constructive when when applied to a right to do as she wishes, within reason, with her own body. In most ways, however, it is damaging. A dystopian future, indeed.
Federal regulators took their eyes off the ball, focusing on progressive priorities, like climate change policy, instead of their mission: ensuring that Americans’ banks are safe and stable. pic.twitter.com/NDolWLDJmg
Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of Congress
approved a rollback of financial regulations in 2018 that may have contributed
to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank.
Bipartisan majorities in the House of Representatives and
the Senate approved S. 2155, which axed regulatory requirements for regional
banks with less than $250 billion in assets and was signed by then-President
Donald Trump, meaning such banks did not need to submit to stress testing.
Yes, those "socially moderate, economically conservative" members of Congress whom the mainstream media adores and were woke liberals when woke, corporate liberalism was politically expedient. That was before
There has been renewed focus on the bill after Silicon
Valley Bank (SVB), a regional bank based in California's Silicon Valley tech
corridor, collapsed on Friday after its customers initiated a run on their
deposits.
The bill made changes to the earlier Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which had been signed by then-President
Barack Obama in 2010, and required banks with more than $50 billion in assets
to submit to stress testing.
SVB had over $200 billion in assets by the end of 2022 and
was one of the 20 largest banks in the U.S.
While 17 Democrats voted in favor of bank run amok, most Democrats voted against it and every Republican voted in favor. Too often, that is what center-left media means when it pleads for bipartisanship- both parties striving to maintain the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of consumers or workers.
Well, what do you know? One of those GOP senators is the fellow who now says "federal regulators took their eyes off the ball," neglecting to acknowledge that he joined every other Republican (and seventeen Democrats) in helping prevent regulators from keeping their eyes on the ball. The junior senator from South Dakota joined his fellow Republicans in promoting the conditions leading to the run on Silicon Valley Bank.
Hypocrisy, or at least the effort to have things both ways, is nothing new for Senator Tim Scott, who when he gave the GOP rebuttal to President Biden's first State of the Union address, stated
I have experienced the pain of discrimination. I know what it feels like to be pulled over for no reason. To be followed around a store while I’m shopping. I remember, every morning, at the kitchen table, my grandfather would open the newspaper and read it — I thought....
I’ve also experienced a different kind of intolerance. I get called “Uncle Tom” and the n-word by progressives, by liberals.
Moments later he would declare "Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.... and we get to live in the greatest country on Earth." He did not explain what would make an America, in which such discrimination is common, actually racist.
If he currently is being called the "n-word," he needs to call people out. By name. And yet
Tim Scott is a complete phony but is rumored to believe he has a chance to become the 2024 Republican nominee for President. Make that Tim Scott is a complete phony and therefore believes he has a chance to become the 2024 Republican nominee for President."
On CNN'sState of the Union, U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas was asked by Dana Bash about school shootings and replied
... because it's so random and unexpected, it's hard to prevent.
And because -- and they seem like they happen a lot, but they're still anomalous events, and they're very difficult to build a pattern behind. It's not like criminal activity, which you can target and prevent through law enforcement. This is harder. It doesn't mean there's nothing we can do.
The truth of the matter is, if we had a minimum of two armed guards or police officers at every single school in America, you would probably prevent these from here on out.
There are good responses, very good responses, and then there is this:
How much are you going to pay for ongoing firearms and tactical training?
A $40k salary (lowball, but hey it’s just our kids) alone costs $10.4 BILLION. https://t.co/qvLgp2wmUM
To give Crenshaw his due, he adds the qualifier "probably"- but that still does a lot of work here. We know only that the percentage of shootings which would be prevented with a minimum of two armed guards or police officers in every school is somewhere between 0 and 100.
Strzok reminds us of the financial cost, which would be extremely high and is an underrated factor in the conversation. Acknowledging it is lowball, Strzok puts the salary cost at $40,000, which could not even be approximated if they were police officers.
Crenshaw's idea is, admittedly, much better than the harebrained scheme of arming teachers. Still, whatever the effectiveness of armed guards/police officers, it would be extraordinarily expensive.
Maybe Democrats should call the bluff of Republicans and submit a bill to arm schools as Representative Crenshaw and a few other conservatives have advocated. Propose that the cost be borne by an increase in the capital gains tax and a surtax on income above a certain level, perhaps $1,000,000, more or less in consideration of how much revenue would be necessary to pay armed guards or police officers handsomely.
In his interview with Bash, the Texas congressman stated "I think we should look at our school as a place that is precious and have the same kind of security that your corporate offices do, that we do in Congress." Democrats can give Republicans a chance to prove that the life of children is as important to them as maintaining the wealth and influence of the very wealthy. It never has been, and I think we all know how that would turn out even now.
