Wisc. Appeals Court Lets State Election Officials Delay Clean-Up of Voter Rolls

Contributing Author
-
0

‘I can’t be any clearer than this. They need to follow my order…’

Wisconsin Judge Finds State Election Commission in Contempt of Court for Refusing to Clean Its Voter Rolls
Leftist election commissioners in Wisconsin violated the law by refusing to clean inactive voter rolls, including many students who no longer resided in the state. / IMAGE: YTV CO | YOuniversityTV, Spokai

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) A Wisconsin appeals court ruled that the state election commissioners need not immediately begin cleaning the voter rolls after a lower-court ruling held them in contempt for their refusal.

Instead, it will allow the commission to delay the process while their appeal is being heard.

The conservative law firm that filed the complaint said that the ruling did nothing to change the facts of the case.

“What is true yesterday is true today,” said Rick Esenberg, president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

“The Wisconsin Elections Commission isn’t following state law and we look forward to making that case in the Court of Appeals,” he said, according to the Associated Press.

But the state’s Democratic attorney general, Josh Kaul, had previously urged the appeals court to overturn Malloy’s rulings.

“The outcome of this case will impact the voter registrations of well over 100,000 Wisconsinites,” Kaul said in a statement prior to the appeals court decision.

“Appellate review of such a consequential decision is clearly appropriate, and the Wisconsin Elections Commission has diligently sought such review,” he said.

Roughly 209,000 individuals who failed to respond to a deactivation notice sent by the elections commission are still on the state’s voter rolls.

Judge Paul Malloy had previously ordered the elections commission—which is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats—to immediately remove these individuals from the system, but three Democratic members refused and fought the order.

On Monday, Malloy began fining the commission $50 a day, while also fining its three Democratic members—Ann Jacobs, Julie Glancey and Mark Thomsen—$250 a day.

“I can’t be any clearer than this,” Malloy said, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. “They need to follow my order.”

The state’s Supreme Court rejected the case, leaving the final decision to the appeals courts. Its decision on Tuesday to accept the case came as the commission was meeting to decide whether it would comply with Malloy’s order.

“If we are going to treat voting as the central component of our democracy, we need to be far less cavalier about taking people off the rolls,” Jacobs said of her resistance efforts.

The Republican plaintiffs countered that it is not the role of the commissioners to act based on whether they agree or disagree with the existing voter laws—including both state laws and the National Voter Registration Act—which mandate that jurisdictions keep their rolls up to date.

They have criticized the Democrats for attempting to forestall the process by dragging out appeals as crucial election-year deadlines loom.

President Donald Trump won the state by a narrow margin in 2016. However, Democrats have pushed hard to prevent a repeat of that outcome, relying on the courts to intervene where voters failed them in areas such as legislative redistricting.

Wisconsin was among the first of many national cases where Democrats sought to use “sue till blue” efforts to force the electoral maps to be redrawn in more favorable ways.

After their coercive efforts in the state forced out Gov. Scott Walker last year, Walker became the face of Republican efforts to counteract the Democratic gerrymandering strategy.

The leftist resistance to maintaining the voter rolls themselves stems from the fact that many of the inactive voters come from places like college towns, where mostly left-leaning students reside temporarily while finishing their degrees before relocating elsewhere.

Democrats also theorize, without evidence, that the deactivation notices disproportionately affect minorities.

Liberty Headlines’ Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Meadows Wants Obama Hack OUT as FBI Overseer for FISA Reforms

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘We are also looking at this when it comes to renewing the FISA process within Congress…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC, said he plans to push back on a decision by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—colloquially known as the FISA court—to appoint a deep-state, partisan staffer from the Obama Justice Department to oversee FBI reforms mandated by the abuses of the Obama intelligence community.

David Kris, a former assistant attorney general under Eric Holder, was tapped to be amicus curiae in the reform oversight by presiding FISA judge James Boasberg—himself an Obama judicial appointee who was recently elevated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

But Kris immediately came under fire for past comments he made disparaging the FBI investigation led by former House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and for a series of tweets in which he downplayed FBI culpability following the release of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz‘s December report on the FISA abuses.

Meadows—one of President Donald Trump’s staunches defenders in the U.S. House of Representatives and a charter member of the Freedom Caucus—echoed concerns tweeted by the president himself after the announcement was made.

On Monday, Meadows reiterated on The Sara Carter Show that he and others planned to write a letter asking Boasberg to reconsider the choice of Kris—or risk having the politically compromised FISA court eliminated altogether.

“I can tell you that a few of us are not only appealing this to the judge, who has now taken over the FISA process, but we are also looking at this when it comes to renewing the FISA process within Congress,” he said, according to the Daily Caller.

The FISA law—first passed in 1978, and later amended by the PATRIOT Act and several others in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—includes several sunset clauses that must be renewed periodically.

While it has frequently been targeted by libertarians over its invasive authorization of domestic surveillance, the abuses during the Obama era—first revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, and later in the FBI’s RussiaGate scandal—have made even conservative national-defense hawks skeptical of its value.

Horowitz’s report disclosed how bad actors within the intelligence community were able to mislead the court with ease into authorizing and renewing warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and others using nothing more than the now-debunked Steele Dossier as their basis.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Horowitz during his congressional testimony that the report’s revelations had shaken his faith in the court.

“I’d hate to lose the ability of the FISA court to operate at a time probably when we need it the most,” Graham said, “but after your report, I have serious concerns about whether the FISA court can continue unless there’s fundamental reform.”

San Francisco’s Radical New Leftist D.A. Fires Seven Tough-on-Crime Attorneys

Contributing Author
-
0

‘This is a blow to the judicial system…’

San Francisco's Radical Leftist D.A. Fires Seven Tough-on-Crime Attorneys in Two Days
Chesa Boudin / IMAGE: KPIX CBS SF Bay Area via Youtube

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) In his first two days on the job, San Francisco’s new district attorney, Chesa Boudin, fired seven traditionally tough-on-crime prosecutors, keeping his campaign promise to promote a “different version of justice” and reduce the prosecution of “quality-of-life crimes.”

“I had to make difficult staffing decisions today in order to put in place a management team that will help me accomplish the work I committed to do for San Francisco,” Boudin said in a statement to KPIX-TV.

Mike Swart was one of the prosecutors fired after 10 years as an attorney in the San Francisco D.A.’s homicide unit.

Swart had helped bring to justice Pearla Ann Louis’s murderer after he killed her and stuffed her in a suitcase.

Louis’s daughter told NBC San Francisco that she was “appalled” by Boudin’s decision to fire Swart.

“This is a blow to the judicial system,” Ayesha Louis said.

Linda Allen, managing attorney, and Ana Gonzalez, head of the D.A. office’s gang unit, were also fired, along with four other trial attorneys.

“What’s strange is that these people aren’t being moved, they’re not being demoted, they’re being fired and they’re being told that essentially their services have no use in the office anymore,” Tony Brass, a former assistant D.A. in the city.

Boudin, who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, said after he was elected that San Francisco clearly wants “radical” and revolutionary change.

“When we started this campaign, we believed that the people of San Francisco wanted a different vision of justice,” Boudin told The Washington Post.

“We were right,” he continued. “In voting for this campaign, the residents of San Francisco have demanded radical change and rejected calls to go back to the tough-on-crime era that did not make us safer and destroyed the lives of thousands of San Franciscans.”

McCARTHY: Pelosi Withholding Impeachment Articles to Help Biden, Hurt Bernie

Contributing Author
-
0

‘It’s the exact same thing they did to him four years ago…’

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate could have been politically motivated, said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

Pelosi has delayed sending the House’s articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate in order to help former Vice President Joe Biden and hurt socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, McCarthy explained Sunday on Fox News.

The “dirty little secret” is that “the Iowa caucus is on Feb. 3,” McCarthy told host Maria Bartiromo. “Bernie Sanders is in first place. And what this does is, this benefits Joe Biden.”

Sanders is one of several senators running in the primary race who will likely be called away in the final weeks of the Iowa campaign to perform their constitutional duty in a Senate impeachment trial.

“He will be stuck in a chair, because Nancy Pelosi held the papers, different than what she said to the American public why she had to move so urgently,” McCarthy said.

Biden would only be called away if subpoenaed to testify about his role in the Ukraine conspiracy that Democrats used as pretense to impeach President Donald Trump. However, the GOP majority seems more keen to press for a quick dismissal without subpoenaing additional witnesses.

McCarthy accused Pelosi of doing what the Democratic National Committee did to Sanders during the 2016 race by intentionally rigging the primary to push him out and give the inside track to eventual nominee Hillary Clinton.

“She told the American public it was urgent. She had to move so fast,” McCarthy said.

“The only reason why she should be—that she is doing this that no one is talking about—it is harming Bernie Sanders … who could win Iowa and propel himself to be the nominee,” he continued. “It’s the exact same thing they did to him four years ago.”

Although Biden, long the frontrunner, is considered the “safe” alternative among many Democrats—despite being prone to gaffes and scandals—the politically radical Sanders has taken the lead in fundraising and in several polls.

Last week, a new Des Moines Register/CNN poll revealed that Sanders was in first place, with Warren trailing behind him in second, Buttigieg in third, and Biden in fourth.

“There’s no denying that this is a good poll for Bernie Sanders. He leads, but it’s not an uncontested lead,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “He’s got a firmer grip on his supporters than the rest of his compatriots.”

Following McCarthy’s statement, other GOP leaders echoed his theory, including Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who questioned her motives during a speech on the Senate floor.

“With Speaker Pelosi facing increased backlash from members of her own party, including rank-and-file Democrats, you can’t help but wonder who is winning this game that she’s playing,” Cornyn noted.

“… It’s remarkable that Democrats’ effort to impeach a president of the opposing party could end up having a negative impact on the presidential candidates in their own,” he said.

Pelosi is expected to relay the articles to the Senate as early as Tuesday, but given her history of backpedaling on impeachment-related matters, it remains uncertain what the next move will be.

Liberty Headlines’ Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Spoiled UK Royals Being Schmoozed by Corrupt Liberal Elites

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘I just have such respect for the queen. I don’t think this should be happening to her…’

Spoiled Royals Being Schmoozed by Corrupt Liberal Elites
Prince Harry and Barack Obama / IMAGE: On Demand News via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) While most Americans likely shrugged off reports of recent drama concerning the British monarchy, it has now spilled over to our own shores.

As Prince Harry confers with his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, and other royals on how to formalize an exit from his official duties, his wife, Meghan Markle, is already preparing the rebellious power-couple’s new home in Canada.

The Sussexes (pending the retention of their official titles) have indicated that they eventually wish to move to Los Angeles, but only after President Donald Trump leaves office, reported PJ Media.

Regardless, having surrounded themselves with an array of virtue-signaling, progressive elitists, they threaten to give yet another media foothold to the insipid leftist messaging that has been championed by the Obamas and Clintons, both objects of Hollywood‘s unwavering devotion.

Although the queen’s renowned diplomatic neutrality during her six-decade reign has conveyed a sense of national duty over personal allegiances, Harry—the son of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, himself once third in the line of succession for the throne—has become a symbol of spoiled entitlement, the antithesis of a public servant.

The enfant terrible, whose long list of scandals includes dressing as a Nazi while partying with fellow revelers dressed in blackface and KKK regalia, is unlikely to develop any humility in his bid to become financially “independent” of the crown.

That’s because he already is being courted by a parade of high-powered liberals seeking to capitalize on his name and media exposure alone.

From Regal to Illegal…

The duke and duchess are reportedly being advised by Barack Obama himself, as well as Oprah Winfrey, while charting a path to lucrative development deals similar to the reportedly eight-figure (tens of millions) Netflix deal that the Obamas got.

Already, Disney has announced a voiceover deal with Markle—a proposition that her husband pitched to Disney CEO Bob Iger previously during an official royal function.

Moreover, the Sussexes’ publicist, Sara Latham, is a former Hillary Clinton aide who facilitated a secretive meeting with the 2016 Democratic nominee at the couple’s British estate, Frogmore Cottage, last November.

Most alarmingly of all, several media sources report that the Vancouver mansion where the royal pair has been wintering to escape the palace intrigue belongs to former Lionsgate CEO Frank Giustra, who sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation and has been implicated in the Uranium One scandal.

Giustra allegedly used his influence with the Clintons to secure controlling stake of several Uranium mines in Kazakhstan, which he sold in 2007 to the Canadian mining company Uranium One.

Uranium One was subsequently acquired by Rosatom, a Russian state-owned nuclear corporation, with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helping to facilitate the takeover through a series of convoluted business deals.

The details of the quid-pro-quo arrangement, which involved substantial foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation prior to Clinton’s 2016 presidential run, were first broken by the New York Times in advance of conservative journalist Peter Schweizer‘s 2015 bombshell Clinton Cash.

The Crown’s Downfall?

1
Queen Elizabeth and Donald Trump / IMAGE: Fox News via Youtube

The chance that the profligate prince might, likewise, compromise the monarchy by granting access to Buckingham Palace to the highest bidder will depend on how thoroughly his uncoupling from the monarchy is enacted.

But with his father and brother next in line to assume the throne, the potential for influence-peddling has certainly landed on the radar of the American Left.

It is an ironic turn of events, given Obama’s past disdain for the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the United Kingdom. After he controversially removed a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, Trump famously replaced it within hours of being sworn in.

Harry’s and Meghan’s departure from their official duties follows closely after the unceremonious ouster of another royal black-sheep—Harry’s uncle, Prince Andrew—who was implicated alongside Bill Clinton and several other prominent Democrats in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Trump told Laura Ingraham on Friday that he found it “depressing” to see the vaunted monarchy, so long safeguarded by the queen, veer down a path of disrepute.

“She’s never made a mistake if you look,” he said of Queen Elizabeth, according to the Daily Mail. “I mean, she’s had like a flawless time.”

Trump, who previously incurred the wrath of Harry for referring to Markle as “nasty” prior to a state visit to England, said he was reluctant “to get into the whole thing.”

However, he added, “I just have such respect for the queen. I don’t think this should be happening to her.”

Obama Hack Tapped by FBI to Oversee FISA Reforms

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘How can he fix a problem he doesn’t even understand?’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) President Donald Trump and his congressional allies hammered the FISA court for appointing an Obama official who had downplayed FBI misconduct to oversee the reforms recommended in inspector general Michael Horowitz‘s recent report.

David Kris, an assistant attorney general who served under Eric Holder, was named amicus curiae to help the secretive court assess and implement the reforms, as mandated in December by former presiding FISA judge Rosemary Collyer in a four-page opinion that, nonetheless, glossed over the court’s culpability in the FBI’s Russiagate scandal.

Horowitz’s report identified a litany of troubling concerns, including the deliberate altering of an email and the failure to address questions surrounding the now-debunked Steele dossier, commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

A recent analysis of the report argues that, despite ample red-flag warnings, the FBI used disgraced former British spy Christopher Steele‘s salacious innuendo as its sole source of evidence in justifying the domestic surveillance of Trump adviser Carter Page and other top campaign staff.

While Collyer claimed to have been oblivious to the abuses orchestrated by leading FBI officials during and after the 2016 presidential election, new presiding FISA judge James Boasberg made clear in his appointment of Kris that the deep state had no intention of effecting meaningful change in the damning report’s aftermath.

Boasberg—who was an Obama appointee to the US District Court for the District of Columbia—had recently been appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to fill the open FISA spot.

The controversial appointment, at a critical time for the FISA court, helped add fuel to existing speculation from some conservative media that Roberts may be compromised.

David Kris / IMAGE: PBS NewsHour via Youtube

Likewise, the appointment of Kris cast aspersions over whether current FBI director Christopher Wray was truly committed to the task of reforming the rank corruption that enabled his predecessor, James Comey, and top surrogates to weaponize the investigative process in their effort to wage political warfare against Trump.

Wray signed off on an obsequious letter to the FISA court saying he “deeply regrets” the FBI abuses while outlining his reform plans on the cusp of the Jan. 10 deadline.

But Kris, now tasked with overseeing the plan’s implementation, is known to be a vocal critic of former House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who led early congressional probes into the FBI conspiracy.

Conservative investigative blogger Mike Cernovitch was among those who highlighted other examples of Kris’s hyper-partisan rhetoric.

Kris doubled down in December with a series of tweets claiming that Horowitz’s report largely exonerated the FBI—contrary to the widely accepted interpretation, which Horowitz himself reaffirmed during Senate testimony, that it did nothing of the sort.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC, one of Trump’s top congressional allies, denounced the “completely unacceptable choice” in a tweet of his own.

And Nunes told Fox News on Monday that appointing Kris was “like the fox guarding the hen house.”

A lack of commitment to overseeing the reforms could prove costly for the FISA court.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned during Horowitz’s testimony in December that even though he was a staunch defender of FISA’s role in fighting international terrorism, its rubber-stamping of approval that allowed the FBI to spy on Trump campaign officials had caused him to reassess the court’s benefit.

“I’d hate to lose the ability of the FISA court to operate at a time probably when we need it the most,” Graham told Horowitz, “but after your report, I have serious concerns about whether the FISA court can continue unless there’s fundamental reform.”

Massive Exodus from Blue States as Citizens Escape High Taxes, Poor Gov’t Management

Contributing Author
-
0

‘The housing market is booming. People are moving to the inner cities, as well as to the rural outskirts…’

Dem. Attorney Marc Elias Used Activist Court Rulings to Redraw GOP Districts 1
North Carolina’s 2011 Congressional map was forced to undergo a 2016 redraw after claims of racial gerrymandering. / IMAGE: USA Today via Youtube

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Ten states, most of them with Democratic state governments, have significantly fewer residents than last year, according to Scott Rasmussen, and the cause is likely high taxes, fiscal mismanagement, and the lack of opportunity.

While the population shift is sure to impact the political landscape in noticeable ways after next year’s redistricting, it remains to be seen whether it will benefit Democrats or Republicans more.

New York faced the biggest exodus, with 76,790 residents leaving the state to move to redder, friendlier states. Some, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, openly courted tech and financial companies from the Big Apple, while President Donald Trump goaded New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on the losses, even moving there himself.

Illinois, West Virginia, Louisiana, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii also lost thousands of residents, while Texas, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia gained hundreds of thousands.

North Carolina saw more than 100,000 new families move to the state last year, and now it’s a top destination for movers, according to a U-Haul analysis of U.S. migration trends.

“North Carolina is seeing growth in businesses coming in, which attracts new residents,” Jason Grider, president of U-Haul Co. of Central North Carolina, said in a statement.

“The housing market is booming,” he continued. “People are moving to the inner cities, as well as to the rural outskirts. With plenty of jobs to choose from, residents from every background are making North Carolina their home.”

In many cases, residents of blue states are becoming increasingly fed up with the high taxes, heavy regulation, and political correctness required by its Democratic politicians, and are leaving in search of business and family-friendly environments.

Big-Money Leftists Going After Control of Census
Photo by US Census Bureau (CC)

This trend could affect the nation’s electoral make-up, according to the latest Census Bureau report, which predicts that “the population projections point toward a ten [congressional] seat change over 17 states across the nation by year 2020.”

Seven states are projected to gain one or more congressional seats after the 2020 election and 10 states are projected to lose one seat.

Of the seven states gaining seats, five voted for Trump in 2016, and of the 10 states losing seats, half voted for Hillary Clinton. That bodes well for GOP delegations, unless the number of blue-state refugees results in a total realignment of the region’s political leanings.

However, the decennial population count is likely to be impacted by other factors, including both legal and illegal immigration, which stand to benefit California in particular.

Since the number of House seats remains 435 and is proportionately distributed, some estimate that California’s population increases over the last decade, which only recently approached critical mass, could result in its stealing 11 seats formerly held by red states.

Texas, meanwhile, which has been on the front-lines of a leftist incursion both from blue states like California and from immigration across the southern border with Mexico, recently announced it would stop accepting new asylum-seeking migrants for resettlement.

The short term effect of this may be to its disadvantage, helping to quell the population boom that would otherwise add congressional and electoral seats from residents who do not, themselves, have voting rights.

However, long-term it may help to stave off the steady purpling of the state, which has been a major goal of the Left.

Liberty Headlines’ Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Mike Lee Wants Abortion No Longer Classified as ‘Health Care’; Would End Tax Deductibility

Contributing Author
-
0

‘The government should not offer tax benefits for a procedure that kills hundreds of thousands of unborn children each year, nor should taxpayers subsidize such a practice…’

Alabama Court Allows Aborted Child to Be a Plaintiff in Father's Case Against Abortion Clinic 1
Photo by traveling.lunas (CC)

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced a bill last week that would permanently prevent taxpayer dollars from funding and subsidizing abortions.

The Abortion is Not Healthcare Act directly addresses the tax code, which lists abortion as “medical care” and allows taxpayers to include abortions was qualifying out-of-pocket medical expenses on their returns.

Lee said this is a violation of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the government from using taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions.

“The government should not offer tax benefits for a procedure that kills hundreds of thousands of unborn children each year, nor should taxpayers subsidize such a practice,” Lee said in a statement. “This undermines the truth that all human beings have dignity and worth, and that the purpose of healthcare is to heal and care for them—not kill them.”

If passed, the bill would amend Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code by adapt at the end a new subsection that reads, “An amount paid during the taxable year for an abortion shall not be taken into account under subsection (a).”

Sixteen other Republican senators have signed on to co-sponsor the bill, including Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., who recently led the fight to force the Department of Health and Human Services to end Obamacare’s abortion surcharge.

The Senate attempted to take up a bill similar to Lee’s last year, but it was blocked by a 48-47 procedural vote.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019 was more extensive than Lee’s, and sought to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., introduced a similar measure in the House last year, but it, too, was blocked almost immediately.

“The Hyde Amendment has saved at least 2 million lives,”Chris said in a statement. “[B]ecause public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise, these individuals survived.”

Smith noted that despite the fact that the government had not funded their abortions, the mothers were able to receive subsidies for prenatal health care and support.

“Two million survivors have had the opportunity to live and enjoy the first and most basic of all human rights—the right to life,” he continued. “It’s time to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law.”

Tulsi Gabbard: There’s ‘No Doubt’ Hillary Clinton is a ‘Warmonger’

Contributing Author
-
0

‘I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran…’

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, slammed failed 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton as a “warmonger” and “neocon.”

It is the latest in an ongoing war of words between the two Democrats. Clinton previously suggested, without evidence, that the moderate Gabbard was a “favorite of the Russians.”

During an interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, Gabbard agreed that Clinton, like much of the Democratic establishment, has been pro-intervention.

“So, whatever you think of Hillary, and … I think she’s capable in certain ways. I’m not—don’t think everything is about her is bad, but kind of a full-blown neocon, no? Or am I imagining that?” Carlson asked Gabbard.

“No, you’re not imagining,” Gabbard responded. “I think everybody knows and understands that she is a warmonger … And it is her record. There is proof of that.”

Gabbard’s comments were made in light of President Donald Trump’s recent decision to order the killing of Iranian general and terrorist Qassem Soleimani, a move that pushed the U.S. closer to war, according to Gabbard.

But if Clinton had been president, the result might have been even worse, Carlson pointed out, playing a 2008 clip in which Clinton said she’d be willing to go to war with Iran if the regime attacked Israel, a U.S. ally.

“If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said in the clip.

Gabbard said that one of the reasons she is running for president is to keep the U.S. out of unnecessary military conflicts in other parts of the world.

“I’m the only candidate running for president who served in uniform in Iraq—and understand very clearly the situation there,” she said.

“For days now, I’ve been calling for our troops from Iraq and Syria to come home, and here’s why: When we deploy our troops downrange … there has to be a very clear mission that is achievable … or that mission serves our country’s national security interest,” she continued, “but that is not happening now.”

Vermont Bill Would Ban Cell Phones for Those Under 21

Contributing Author
-
0

‘The Internet and social media, accessed primarily through cell phones, are used to radicalize and recruit terrorists, fascists, and other extremists…’

Vermont Bill Would Prohibit Individuals Under 21-Years-Old From Having a Cellphone 2
Teens using their cell phones / PHOTO: ghcassel (CC) via Pixabay

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Vermont individuals under the age of 21 would not legally be allowed to use or possess a cellular phone under a new bill introduced by Democratic state Sen. John Rodgers.

The bill says that because cell-phone use has been linked to distracted driving, cyber bullying and, thus, loss of life, the state has a responsibility to protect young persons.

“The Internet and social media, accessed primarily through cell phones, are used to radicalize and recruit terrorists, fascists, and other extremists,” the bill states, according to the Barre Montpelier Times Argus.

Moreover, “cell phones have often been used by mass shooters of younger ages for research on previous shootings,” it continues.

Violation would result in a misdemeanor charge punishable by a maximum of one year behind bars and a $1,000 fine.

Rodgers tied the bill back to an ongoing national effort to restrict gun rights, saying that the state legislature—which is largely controlled by his own party—is “bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights” despite the fact that cell phones are more dangerous than guns.

The bill is largely symbolic, and even Rodgers said he doesn’t expect it to get anywhere.

“I have no delusions that it’s going to pass,” Rodgers said. “I wouldn’t probably vote for it myself.”

Michelle Fay, executive director of Voices for Vermont’s Children, said the bill is a waste of time and that state representatives should focus on issues that matter.

“There are so many critical issues impacting the lives of working families in Vermont today, from increasing minimum wage to implementing equitable family and medical leave insurance programs to establishing an office of child advocate,” she said. “We urge the Legislature to focus on the important work at hand instead of getting tied up in hollow diversions.”

1...3,7493,7503,751...3,811Page 3,750 of 3,811