News Domestic and International

Cross-Border Terrorism

FrontPageMag - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:45

As the Windsor Star reported last week, “A Canadian man convicted of terrorism for nearly killing a Michigan police officer while yelling ‘God is great’ in Arabic was sentenced to life in prison on Thursday, after boldly declaring that he only regretted not having a machine-gun during the knife attack.”

The Canadian man is Amor Ftouhi, 51, a Tunisian who moved to Montreal in 2007. In 2017, Fthouhi entered the United States at Champlain, NY, and drove 1,000 miles to the Bishop Airport in Flint, Michigan. There Ftouhi attacked police officer Lt. Jeff Neville, striking him the neck. As the Star reported, investigators found that “Ftouhi wanted to take Neville’s gun and start shooting people,” which the Muslim confirmed in court. 

“Do I regret what I did? Never,” Ftouhi told U.S District Judge Matthew Leitman. “I regret I didn’t get that machine-gun. I regret I didn’t kill that cop.” The man who yelled Allahu akbar as he attacked also spoke out on other themes. 

As his photo revealed, Ftouhi is as pale as Justin Trudeau, but he “felt discrimination in Canada because he wasn’t a white Christian.” Ftouhi pledged allegiance to his Muslim faith and said western countries and Arabic countries should be cursed if they “don’t rule according to Allah.”

Ftouhi’s attorney Joan Morgan claimed the attacker had mental health issues but “is more than what his actions were.”According to an Associated Press report, the lawyer claimed Ftouhi “wasn’t attempting to create mass casualties,” and “wanted to be killed so his family could collect life insurance and he could become a martyr.” Judge Leitman told the court that Ftouhi’s own remarks “persuaded me beyond any shadow of a doubt” that a life term was appropriate. 

Lt. Neville survived but a loss of feeling on the right side of his face forced the officer to retire.  Neville praised the fellow officers and bystanders who took down the attacker and said Ftouhi, “should never walk the streets as a free man again.”  The case invites comparisons to an attack across the border in Windsor, Ontario. 

On October 8, 2017, Anne Widholm, 75, was walking alone on the Ganatchio Trail when she suffered a vicious attack that left her near death. Windsor police arrested Habibullah Ahmadi, charging him with aggravated assault. The accused attacker, 21, was described as a “Windsor man” but unlike Ftouhi, his photo did not appear. 

News reports said Habibullah was also known as “Daniel” but provided no information about the accused attacker. Habibullah was not quoted and neither was any relative, friend, co-worker or fellow student in Windsor. 

On July 25, 2018, a Peter Langille story on Windsor’s AM800 radio said Widholm suffered “life threatening injuries” and the charges had been upgraded to attempted murder. More important, “Ahmadi’s trial will be before a judge alone and his trial will be set in January 2019.”

The report cited no police or court source for those claims. 

Anne Widholm died on December 15, 2018, a full 14 months after the October 8, 2017 attack but no trial date was set in January 2019. A January 21 story by the Windsor Star’s Dalson Chen touted plans for an Anne Widholm memorial, including a bench, a plaque and “possibly a floodlight.”

Such a memorial does not show up in the April 14, 2019, Windsor Star report by Taylor Campbell announcing a trash pickup on the Ganatchio Trail in memory of Anne Wildholm “the woman who was viciously attacked while walking there in 2017 and later succumbed to her injuries.” Readers might have noted something unusual about the story.

Seven photos show volunteers picking up trash, but not a single photo showed Anne Widholm, subject of the memorial. By all indications, the Star has never shown a photograph of the attack victim, nor that of Habibullah Ahmadi, the man accused of attacking her. 

The clearest information in the case came not from police or attorneys but Dr. Balraj Jhawar, the neurosurgeon who treated Anne Widholm for what he described as “the worst skull fractures I’ve seen in my 12 years here in Windsor” and “among the most brutal things I’ve seen in my career.” Police said the attack was “random,” but Dr. Jhawar wasn’t having it. 

“For all of us who live here in Windsor, we can’t tolerate this. This is not just another assault,” Jhawar explained. “This is concerning to me. This is maybe representing a new, dark side of Windsor that we can’t let propagate.”

Dr. Jhawar described victim Anne Widholm, as “a super good person. This is the calibre of woman we’re talking about here.” After two surgeries taking eight hours, Dr. Jhawar said, “I believe she will survive.” She didn’t. 

Anne Widholm slipped into a coma and died 14 months after the attack. More than four months later, in April of 2019, the accused murderer has still not come to trial and nothing has emerged about his motive. 

“Canadian man” Amor Ftouhi said he wanted to kill a cop to show that Allah is the greatest. Ftouhi was tried and sentenced, and as Lt. Neville said, “should never walk the streets again.” “Windsor man” Habibullah Ahmadi accused of the October 2017 attack is not on record about his motive. The major certainty in the case is that “super good person” Anne Widholm will never walk the Ganatchio Trail again.  

Bernie Sanders: Israel Run By A "Right-Wing Racist Government"

RealClear - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:41
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Democratic presidential candidate, is asked at a CNN town hall event what his relationship with Israel would be like if elected president. QUESTION, CNN TOWN HALL: Hi, Senator Sanders. You've been an outspoken critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yeah. QUESTION: Yet Israel is also one of America's most important allies in the world. Given the Prime Minister Netanyahu just won another term in office, how do you plan to maintain the strong U.S.-Israel relationship, despite those critiques? SANDERS: Look, what I have said over and over again -- and I repeat to you -- and I happen to -- as a young man about your age, I spent a number of months in Israel. I worked on a kibbutz for a while. I have family in Israel. I am not anti-Israel. But the fact of the matter is that Netanyahu is a right-wing politician who I think is treating the Palestinian people extremely unfairly. (APPLAUSE) So, you know, what I believe -- you know, and the United States gives billions of dollars in military aid to Israel. What I believe is not radical. I just believe that the United States should deal with the Middle East on a level playing field basis. In other words, the goal must be to try to bring people together and not just support one country, which is now run by a right-wing, you know, dare I say, racist government. So... (APPLAUSE) So I am not -- you know, I am 100 percent pro-Israel. Israel has every right in the world to exist and to exist in peace and security and not be subjected the terrorist attacks. But the United States needs to deal not just with Israel, but with the Palestinian people, as well. (APPLAUSE)

CNN Town Halls: 0 Questions On Anti-Christian Attack, 8 On Impeachment

CNS News - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:30
***To read the full blog, please check out the complete post on NewsBusters***

Woman to Bernie Sanders: My Family Fled Soviet Russia, Socialism Has Failed In Nearly Every Country

RealClear - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:29
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) is asked how he plans to rectify and implement democratic socialism in the United States even though socialism has failed in nearly every country that has tried it. "Hi, Senator Sanders. So my father's family left Soviet Russia in 1979 fleeing from some of the very same socialist policies that you seem eager to implement in this country. So my question is, how do you rectify your notion of democratic socialism with the failures of socialism in nearly every country that has tried it?" Samantha Frenkel-Popell asked. Sanders defends democratic socialism in a CNN town hall event on Monday: CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR:  All right, next question.  Samantha Frenkel-Popell.  Samantha is a sophomore at Harvard studying social studies from California.  I have a sneaking suspicion I didn't say your name right.  Did I get it right?   QUESTION:  It's Frenkel-Popell, but it's OK.   CUOMO:  It's not even close to what I said.     (LAUGHTER)    SANDERS:  But you got Samantha right.   CUOMO:  I did, I got that right, good.     QUESTION:  A lifetime of it.  It's OK.     CUOMO:  What's your question?   QUESTION:  Hi, Senator Sanders.  So my father's family left Soviet Russia in 1979 fleeing from some of the very same socialist policies that you seem eager to implement in this country.  So my question is, how do you rectify your notion of democratic socialism with the failures of socialism in nearly every country that has tried it?   SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  And do you think that...   (APPLAUSE)   Thank you for asking that question.  Is it your assumption that I supported or believe in authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union?  I don't and never have.  And I opposed it.    I believe in a vigorous democracy.  But you have asked me the question about democratic socialism.  Fair question.  And let me answer it.    I happen to believe that in the United States there is something fundamentally wrong when we have three families owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society, 160 million people.  Something wrong when the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent.  Something very wrong when 49 percent of all new income today is going to the top 1 percent.    And something is equally wrong when we have a corrupt political system made even worse by this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money to elect candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful.     So answer number one, to your question.  This is a radical idea.  Maybe not everybody agrees.  But I happen to believe we should have a government that represents working families and not just the 1 percent and powerful corporations.  All right?  That's point number one.     (APPLAUSE)   Point number two.  What do I mean when I talk about democratic socialism?  It certainly is not the authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union and in other communist countries.  This is what it means.    It means that we cherish, among other things, our Bill of Rights.  And Franklin Roosevelt made this point -- Chris, I don't know if you remember -- read about it, in 1944, in a State of the Union Address that never got a whole lot of attention, this is what he said basically.  It was a very profound speech toward the end of World War II.    He said, you know, we've got a great Constitution.  Bill of Rights protects your freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and all that stuff, great, but you know what it doesn't protect?  It doesn't protect and guarantee you economic rights.     So, Samantha, let me be very honest with you.  I believe in a democratic, civilized society, health care is a human right.  Government should make that happen.    (APPLAUSE)   I believe that every young person in this country, regardless of his or her income, has the right to get all of the education they need.  That's why I have fought hard with some success to move toward making public colleges and universities tuition free and very substantially reduce student debt.     (APPLAUSE)   And I believe that there is something wrong in America today when you got millions of families paying 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent of their limited incomes to put a roof over their heads, and that millions of working-class families, young parents, cannot find quality and affordable childcare.     So I happen to believe that we have to address the issue of grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality, very, very rich getting much richer, middle-class struggling, 40 million people living in poverty.  And what democratic socialism means to me is we expand Medicare, we provide educational opportunity to all Americans, we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.  In other words, government serves the needs of all people rather than just wealthy campaign contributors.  That's what that means to me.    (APPLAUSE)   CUOMO:  You were asked earlier on, as a quick follow on this, what do you feel differently about now?  I was reviewing what CNN's K-File had come up, taking a look at your evolution in politics.  You used to argue that you should have government control the means of capitalism, energy companies...   (CROSSTALK)    SANDERS:  When did I say that?     CUOMO:  In the '70s.     SANDERS:  OK, right.   CUOMO:  No, but hold on.   SANDERS:  What did you say in the '70s?     CUOMO:  Hold on.  Gaga goo-goo.     SANDERS:  That's right.   (LAUGHTER)    CUOMO:  What I'm saying is that you've changed.     SANDERS:  Well, wait a minute.  You know, first thought, you know, he hears me criticizing media all the time and he gets nervous about it, right?   CUOMO:  One of many things that makes me nervous.     SANDERS:  All right.   (LAUGHTER)    I was a mayor of a city for eight years.  Did I nationalize any of the industry in the city of Burlington, Vermont?  I don't think so.  Congressman for 16 years.   Look, I said what I said, and that is I want to live in a nation in which all people in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world can have a decent standard of living.  I'm not talking about everybody owning a big, fancy house or a Cadillac or anything like that.  But I think we can do what other nations in the world are already doing.   I mean, the ideas that I'm advocating for you tonight, you know, they're not so radical.  Health care -- you know, health care as a right exists in virtually every other major country on Earth.  How much -- does anyone here know how much it costs to go to college in Germany?  Anyone know?  Yeah, it's free.     I once was giving a speech, Chris, and I said that in Finland college is free.  And some guy jumped up and said, I'm from Finland, you're wrong, it's not free.  I said, oh.  He said, yeah, they pay us to go to college.    (LAUGHTER)    All right, you know, so these ideas about guaranteeing economic rights to working people rather than seeing in New Hampshire and in Vermont and all over this country people working two or three jobs, you know, for $8 or $9 bucks an hour, living under great stress, not having time for their kids, marriages dissolving as a result.  You know, that's what I believe.  I believe in a nation in which we guarantee fundamental economic rights, basic necessities of life to all of our people.

Illegal Alien Served In U.S. Navy & U.S. Border Patrol

FrontPageMag - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:05
One of the crimes that is rarely discussed in the media or acknowledged by our politicians is the crime of an alien making a false claim to U.S. citizenship a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 911:
 
Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
 
Illegal aliens may falsely claim to be United States citizens to evade detection by immigration law enforcement officers and hence, deportation (removal) from the United States but that crime is rarely prosecuted.
 
When I attended the U.S. Border Patrol Academy at the beginning of my career with the former INS was methods for breaking such false claims to U.S. citizenship.  To my knowledge no other law enforcement agencies provide instruction in this issue.
 
In an earlier aptly titled article, False Claims To U.S. Citizenship I noted that because of such false claims, particularly when aliens are incarcerated, it is impossible to know how many illegal alien criminals are actually incarcerated around the United States, particularly in “Sanctuary” jurisdictions, where the rule of the day for immigration issues can be summed up as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
 
Most illegal aliens use stolen identities or assume false identities in order to accept unlawful employment in the United States, usually working at relatively menial, economic bottom rung jobs that require little, if any formal education or skills. 
 
However, on March 28, 2019 the New York Times reported on an illegal alien who had become a member of the U.S. Border Patrol in an article, Border Officer’s Secret in Arizona: He Was Undocumented.
 
That article began with this excerpt:
 
Marco A. De La Garza Jr. spent nearly six years as a federal officer with Customs and Border Protection, working on the front lines of America’s southern border in Arizona and doing his best to keep undocumented immigrants out of the United States.
 
A Navy veteran, he was known for going the extra mile: One day, while off duty, he rushed out of a barbecue at his in-laws’ house in Sierra Vista, Ariz., when he spotted an undocumented man being chased by the Border Patrol. He tackled the runner and held him until the agents caught up.
 
Few knew Mr. De La Garza’s secret: He was undocumented, too.
 
The nation’s main border protection agency had hired an unauthorized immigrant to police the border — one of at least four cases of undocumented workers revealed to be working at federal immigration agencies in recent years.
 
Mr. De La Garza, 38, was born in Mexico, and had lied about his citizenship status and supplied his employer with a fraudulent Texas birth certificate that falsely said he was born in Brownsville, Tex.
 
“In retrospect, I fully understand now that I was being selfish in my desire to serve my country that I had so loved,” he wrote after he was indicted by a federal grand jury on three counts of passport fraud and making false statements on his application for a federal law enforcement background check.
 
Mr. De La Garza agreed to plead guilty to one count of passport fraud, and the other two counts were dropped. On Thursday he was sentenced in Federal District Court in Tucson to one year of probation and a $1,000 fine. Judge Raner C. Collins said his service to the country “ought to count for something.”
 
Let me make it clear from the outset that I have no knowledge about De La Garza’s character or his dedication to service in either the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Border Patrol.  That said, I am troubled by the judge’s findings and statements concerning an illegal alien who had entered the United States illegally and then repeatedly committed felonies by making a series of false statements to join the U.S. Navy and serve on a nuclear submarine and submit to followup security clearances.  
 
Mr. De La Garza lived and worked on a nuclear submarine as a trusted member of the crew although his very identity and background was a fabrication.
 
Nuclear submarines are among the most sensitive assets in our military’s arsenal.
 
On August 19, 2016 military.com published an AP article, Sailor Gets Year in Prison for Taking Photos in Nuclear Sub.  That President Trump subsequently pardoned the sailor in this case does not minimize how seriously our military takes breaches of security.
 
De La Garza then lied when he filed an application to become a member of the U.S. Border Patrol.  
 
Those highly sensitive positions have clear nexus to national security where the potential for harm to national security is inestimable and must be viewed from that perspective.
 
He additionally lied on his application for a U.S. passport with potential for further harm to national security.  A U.S. passport is truly the “gold key to the kingdom.”
 
His positions in both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Border Patrol involved in-depth background investigations, not merely “background checks” where a name and fingerprints are run through computer databases but actual field investigations are conducted to verify the information provided by the applicant seeking the job and the security clearance.  Yet he succeeded in deceiving these background investigations.  
 
An investigation into the way these investigations are conducted must be initiated.
 
As for his false application for a U.S. passport, the U.S. Department of State issues passports and has posted information about crimes involving passport and visa fraud on its website under the title, Passport and Visa Fraud: A Quick Course.  One of the crimes enumerated in that posting is: 
18 U.S. Code § 1542. False statement in application and use of passport which provides for a maximum of 25 years in prison if the crime was committed in conjunction with terrorism:
 
Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or
 
Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement
 
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.
 
We must not lose sight that his first violation of law was to enter the United States without inspection.  All other crimes he subsequently committed would not have been possible had he not been able to enter the U.S.
 
Perhaps the judge who decided to let the defendant off with probation did so because he, not unlike all too many other judges and politicians, doesn’t consider immigration law violations to be serious.  
 
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Academia and False Advertising

FrontPageMag - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 04:02

When famous and affluent Hollywood celebrities were exposed recently for bribing their children’s way into some of America’s most prestigious academic institutions, far too many observers seemed to have missed the fact that this episode is but a symptom of a cancer that has metastasized throughout the entire academic world.

To put it in its simplest terms, “the College Admissions Scandal” revealed that colleges and universities are guilty of false advertising insofar as they would have Americans believe that applicants are admitted as students on the basis of their qualifications—not the size of their parents’ bank accounts.

But these same colleges and universities have been engaged in false advertising for decades insofar as they have been deceiving the American public into thinking that they are educational institutions that, as such, provide an open market place of ideas.

They are no such thing, sadly.

A recent illustration from my home state of New Jersey is representative of both the ideological fervor and historical illiteracy that pervades the academy.  Brittany Cooper, Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Africana Studies at Rutgers University, has discovered a new villain in her campaign against “racism.”  This academic who once characterized Jesus as “potentially queer,” blasted black politicians with whom she had disagreements as “white supremacists in Blackface,” and launched a profanity-ridden tirade after the Supreme Court recognized religious-based exemptions to the Obamacare mandate, now declares as racist none other than…time.

During an interview with National Public Radio (NPR), Cooper insisted that “time has a race” in that “the way that we position ourselves in relationship to time comes out of histories of European and Western thought.”

To be exact, it isn’t time per se to which Cooper takes exception but the linear conception of time that has informed European civilization for millennia. “And so if you’re white in the U.S. context, typically you’re taught that time is linear, that every day is a progression beyond the past [and] that we are not today where we were 50 years ago.”

However, “if you are African-American in this country, time doesn’t exactly work that way.” After all, black Americans “are, you know, living often with the residue of past historical trauma” and “in a present-day system that is filled with racial animus, which often is overlooked by many white Americans.”

This in turn means that black Americans are “living with a sort of notion of a precarious future [.]”

Professor Cooper’s commentary on the prevailing Western understanding of time invites several responses.

First, she is indeed correct to note the link between the dominant Western conception of time as linear and the equally Western idea of progress.

She doesn’t mention, though, that this view of time, like the idea of progress that it entails, are the legacy of monotheism, by far and away the Jews’ single greatest contribution to the world and, in the estimation of a not insignificant number of observers, the single greatest contribution to the human race for which any group of people can take credit.

That the Jewish idea of God was radical is gotten from the complex of ways in which it revolutionized the world.  Unlike their contemporaries, including those of their contemporaries who, at the time of the emergence of Judaism, constituted the most sophisticated of civilizations and powerful of empires, the Jews envisioned the divine in terms of one, single, Supreme Being.  Yahweh wasn’t a god that belonged to nature.  He was the God Who created nature.

And it was precisely because God created the world, the world of time and matter, that the world was good. 

For other ancient peoples, the universe was treated as a brute fact that had always existed.  As such, time was thought to be cyclical.  This being so, it shouldn’t be hard to see how this frame of reference precluded a place for progress.  Indeed, the cyclical view of time bred fatalism.

Given the conceptual resources of the Jews, however, belief in moral progress—and, with it, the ability for self-criticism—became inescapable. 

Christianity, being the offspring of Judaism that it is, not only didn’t abandon the metaphysical suppositions of its progenitor; through its unique doctrine of the Incarnation of God and its anticipation of the Second Coming of Christ, Christianity underscored these suppositions and used them to create over the millennia a civilization that would become distinguished on account of its unprecedented technological, scientific, intellectual, cultural, and, yes, moral achievements.

Second, whether it is inadvertent or willful, Professor Cooper’s ignorance of this cultural inheritance isn’t just obvious, but painfully so: The very conception of time that she cavalierly dismisses as a racially oppressive construct is intrinsic to a Euro-Christian worldview that, given her condemnation of racial oppression, Cooper must endorse.

Only within a worldview in which the notion of moral progress is intelligible, a worldview spawned by Judaism and adopted and revised by Christianity and that is unique in conceiving of time in linear terms, could the insight that racial oppression is immoral and the hope that it can be overcome ever arise.   

This is true both philosophically and historically.  Hinduism, the world’s oldest set of religious traditions, regards the world of human experience as maya, illusion. Ultimately, there is but one thing, one substance: Brahman, or God.  But Brahman is not a personal creator, for there is no creation.  All things are but manifestations of this one trans-personal being.  Buddhism, which spun out of Hinduism, also treats the world as something from which to escape by way of Nirvanna, the extinguishing of the illusion of the self.  Taoism affirms nature, but views it as something to be accepted, whatever the circumstances; nature, or the world, is not a thing to be changed, for it is what it is.

Within each of these traditions, time is resolutely non-linear.

Neither did the ancient Romans and Greeks—the two other groups in the absence of whose contributions the European civilization that we’ve known would be unimaginable—envision time in a linear way. 

This is why Brittany Cooper’s twofold belief that racial oppression is a moral evil and that it can be defeated could have originated only within the worldview spearheaded by Judaism and adopted, revised, and promulgated by Christianity.

In other words, Cooper implicitly affirms—she vitally needs—the very linear conception of time that she explicitly rejects. 

From the union of historical ignorance and ideological obsession springs a litter of self-contradictions.

Yet parents shouldn’t expect to learn this from the colleges and universities to which they are planning upon sending their children.    

Bernie Sanders: I Plead Guilty To Being a Millionaire

RealClear - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 03:09
CNN: During a CNN town hall, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) addresses concerns that his financial status as a millionaire undermines his credibility as someone who rails against the wealthy in America. CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST:  Senator Sanders, you recently released 10 years of your tax returns.     SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT):  I did.     CUOMO:  Let's talk about that topic.  We'll start with Ellen Burstein.  She's a freshman at Harvard and grew up in Massachusetts.  What's your question for the senator?   QUESTION:  Senator Sanders, thank you for being here.  Your tax returns recently revealed that you are, in fact, a millionaire.  How would you respond to concerns that your financial status undermines your authority as someone who has railed against millionaires and billionaires?     SANDERS:  OK.  Well, that's a good question.  And here it is, all right?  You ready to have me plead guilty.  I plead guilty to have written a book which was an international best-seller, OK?  And when you write a book that makes it to the top of the New York Times best-seller list, you make money.  And I made money.  I suspect that in a couple of years my salary will go back to $173,000, which is what a member of Congress gets.     But I think your question should ask, well, now that you wrote a book, you made money, is that going to mean that you change your policies?  Well, you're looking at somebody who not only voted against Trump's disastrous tax plan -- 83 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent -- but I have and will continue in this campaign to fight for progressive taxation.    In other words, whether it is Bernie Sanders or your family or anybody else in America, when we have so much income and wealth inequality, when the people on top are doing phenomenally well, yeah, if you are doing very, very well in our economy, you should be paying your fair share of taxes.     We will raise those taxes for the upper income people.  We will do away with the tax loopholes and the tax breaks that large private corporations currently receive.  Do you happen to know -- anybody here happen to know how much Amazon paid in taxes last year?  Zero.  All right?  Owned by the wealthiest guy in America.  That is an absurd tax system, a regressive tax system.  And if elected president, I will change that tax system.    CUOMO:  All right, two quick follow ups.  One, you said you expect your salary to go back down to...   SANDERS:  Unless I write another best-seller.  I don't know.     (LAUGHTER)   CUOMO:  Or, who makes more than that?  What does the president of the United States make?    SANDERS:  You're right.  What does he make?  I don't even...   CUOMO:  $400,000.  So are you saying that you're not going to win?     (LAUGHTER)   SANDERS:  No, I'm not saying that.     CUOMO:  All right.  I just want to be clear.   SANDERS:  All that I'm saying -- you know, all that I'm saying is I don't think anyone seriously believes that because I wrote a best-selling book, it made money...   CUOMO:  It changed you?   SANDERS:  ... that I've change my views, and you'll now hear me saying, gee, maybe we want to give tax breaks to millionaires.  I don't think you've heard me say that.

Graham: Democratic Party Stampede To Impeach Trump Will Get Him Reelected

RealClear - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 03:01
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) predicted there will be a stampede to impeach President Trump in the House and Democrats will use the Mueller report and "anything they can find" to try to destroy his presidency. Graham told FOX News' Sean Hannity he thought that "we all trusted Mueller" and it is news to him that the Mueller report "is not the final word on all things Trump, Russia collusion, [and] obstruction." "Nancy Pelosi is not in charge of the Democratic Party," Graham said. "The radical left is in charge. So, I will expect that there will be impeachment proceedings against President Trump, and the Mueller report to me is vindication of President Trump." "Mueller was the guy that I was going to let look at, make sure he looked at the idea of Trump working with the Russians and the verdict is in," Graham told Hannity. "There was no collusion. There's no obstruction of a crime that never occurred. The obstruction thing was bizarre to me to begin with... The Democratic Party doesn't accept the fact that President Trump won. So, at the end of the day, we're just going to have to deal with this in 2020 at the ballot box." "They're going to be stampeded to impeach Trump because they hate him so much, and I hate it for the country, I hate it for the president, but it's going to result in him getting reelected," Graham said. Graham also explained his plan to investigate the investigators: GRAHAM:  Well, there's before and after the campaign.     Before the campaign, I want to find out did that George Papadopoulos, was he working with the Russians, or did they plant in his mind that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's email?  In other words, do the knowledge about Russia and the Clinton emails come from somebody other than Russia?     How could you use a dossier four different times to get a warrant against American citizen when it's a bunch of garbage?  Why didn't they tell the court that it was a politically motivated document?     I'm going to try to find out about the counterintelligence investigation, about how the FISA warrant was obtained against Carter Page.     Was there an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment?  Who is telling the truth?  McCabe or Rosenstein?     The person who leaked to "The Washington Post" that General Flynn was being surveilled during the transition period, if you can find out that person, that's probably the one who started all of this.     HANNITY:  It might be long -- it might be a lot earlier than the date we were told which is July 31st.     GRAHAM:  A lot earlier.

Bernie Sanders: Convicts Should Be Allowed To Vote From Prison, Even The Boston Marathon Bomber

RealClear - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 02:43
Sen. Bernie Sanders said although people commit serious crimes like sexual assault and murder, they should be allowed to vote from prison because the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. "I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy," Sanders said at a CNN town hall. "Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away, you're running down a slippery slope." "I believe even if they are in jail, they're paying the price to society, that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy," Sanders added. "This is what I believe," the presidential candidate said. "Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe every single American 18 years of age or older who is an American citizen should have the right to vote?"

At CNN Town Hall Cuomo Tries to Cover For Sanders; ‘You’ve Changed’

Federalist Papers - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 02:32

At a CNN Town Hall Monday night CNN host Chris Cuomo tried to cover for Bernie Sanders, claiming he’s changed from the days when he was a full blown communist. Get a load of this: CUOMO: “You were asked earlier on as a quick follow up on this, what do you feel differently about now?…

The post At CNN Town Hall Cuomo Tries to Cover For Sanders; ‘You’ve Changed’ appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Case For Impeaching President Trump

RealClear - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 02:30
CNN: Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren lays out why calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump is important to the future of democracy, following the release of the redacted Mueller report. "If any other human being in this country had done what's documented in the Mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail," Warren said. From Monday night's CNN town hall event: ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: We're going to have questions from the audience in a minute.  I do just want to ask you, you have called for impeachment proceedings to be initiated against President Trump.  What do you say to those Democrats who say, look, this is not the time, it's going to take away the focus from winning in 2020?  Speaker Pelosi told her caucus again just today that she no plans to immediately initiate impeachment proceedings.   SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA):  So, there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution.     (APPLAUSE)   WARREN:  This one is -- if I can, I want to take a little time on this because I think this is really important.     Last Thursday, I had been out -- I had been to South Carolina.  This was all about climate change.  That's where I was, South Carolina, coastal communities protesting off shore drilling.     I then came to Colorado, the biggest drought in 1,200 years.  And then to Utah where they had one of the worst wildfire seasons in a generation.     I'm on an airplane and the Mueller report drops.  And so, I start reading it on the airplane, I read it on through the evening, I read it into the wee hours of the morning.  And when I get to the end, three things just jump off the page.     I don't care if you're a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, a libertarian, a vegetarian.   (LAUGHTER)   WARREN:  Three things just totally jump off the page.  The first is that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election in order to help Donald Trump.  The evidence is just there.  Read it, footnote after footnote, page after page documentation.     Part two, Donald Trump welcomed that help.     So, on the first one about what they did, understand, this was a sophisticated attack.  They attacked part of voting system.  That's going to be an ongoing federal investigation.  They hacked into more than 50 computers at the DNC, the DCCC, a very serious attack.     And Donald Trump welcoming it -- in the Mueller report, just read it.  He gets off the phone from an unnamed caller and looks up and says to the other person on the phone, there are more leaks coming.     The idea that he was welcoming what was happening from the Russian government, and by the summer of 2016, the report documents that by that point, the Trump adminis -- the Trump campaign actually had a worked out formal process for dealing with the leaks that were coming in from the Russians.  So that's part two.     Part three is when the federal government starts to investigate part one and part two, Donald Trump took repeated steps aggressively to try to halt the investigation, derail the investigation, push the investigation somewhere else, but otherwise keep that investigation from going forward and turning into a serious investigation about a hostile foreign government that it attacked us and about his own personal interests.     So, here's how I see this: if any other human being in this country had done what's documented in the Mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail.  Obstruction of justice is a serious crime in this country, but --      XXX  they would be arrested and put in jail.    Obstruction of justice is a serious crime in this country.  But Mueller believed because of the directions from Donald Trump's Justice Department that he could not bring a criminal indictment against a sitting president.  I think he's wrong on that, but that's what he believed.     So he serves the whole thing up to the United States Congress and says, in effect, if there's going to be any accountability, that accountability has to come from the Congress.  And the tool that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process.     This is not about politics.  This is about principle.  This is about what kind of a democracy we have.  In a dictatorship, everything in government revolves around protecting the one person at the center, but not in our democracy and not under our Constitution.     We have checks and balances, and we have to proceed here in a way understanding our place in history that not only protects democracy now, but protects democracy when the next president comes in and the next president and the president after that.     COOPER:  But you...   WARREN:  That's our responsibility.     (APPLAUSE)   COOPER:  But you started off by saying -- by talking about some of your travels and people talking about climate change and their concerns and tabletop issues.     WARREN:  Yes.  Yes.     COOPER:  Doesn't putting a lot of Democrats' focus on impeaching the president, which is not going to pass in the Senate, it's not really going to go anywhere in that sense, doesn't that take away focus from the tabletop issues that you and other Democrats say they want to run on?     WARREN:  So, you know, let me just say, if you've actually read the Mueller report, it's all laid out there.  It's not like it's going to take a long time to figure this out.  It's there.  It's got the footnotes.  It's got the points.  It connects directly to the law.     But this really is fundamentally -- I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and so did everybody else in the Senate and in the House.  And I believe that every person in the Senate and the House ought to have to vote and to say either, yeah, that's OK with me, yeah, let a president just step in the way he did when he told the White House counsel to go fire Mueller, and then told the White House counsel to go lie about having told the White House counsel to go fire Mueller, and then told the White House counsel to write a letter saying that Donald Trump had not told him to go fire Mueller, and then to say, why on Earth would you take notes about what I said to you?  The lawyers I deal with never put anything in writing.     If there are people in the House or the Senate who want to say that's what a president can do when the president is being investigated for his own wrongdoings or when a foreign government attacks our country, then they should have to take that vote and live with it for the rest of their lives.  

Poll: Plurality of Republicans Say Immigration Hurts the United States

Breitbart - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 02:21
A plurality of Republican voters, more than 3-in-7, say illegal and legal immigration hurt the United States and make the country a "worse place to live," a new poll finds.

Boeing Denies NYT Report's Claims Of Production Issues At SC Plant

Newsy - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 02:17

Watch Video

Boeing has rejected allegations that its South Carolina plant is overrun with poor production and weak oversight.

The Charleston, South Carolina, plant produces the company's 787 Dreamliners, and was touted as "a state-of-the-art manufacturing hub" when it first opened in 2009. But some current and former Boeing workers told The New York Times that company managers "sometimes played down or ignored problems" during production "in the interest of meeting deadlines." Some also alleged they had been punished or fired when they voiced concerns.

According to a message sent to employees by the general manager of Boeing's 787 program, the Times story "paint[ed] a skewed and inaccurate picture of the program" and "features distorted information, rehashing old stories and rumors that have long ago been put to rest." He also said the newspaper was invited to check out the facility but declined the offer.

The report comes amid a troubled period of time for the aircraft manufacturer. Boeing is still dealing with the fallout from two deadly crashes involving its 737 Max jets. Those crashes have led to widespread groundings of the aircraft, as well as scrutiny over Boeing's production standards.  

Warren: Stop Student Loan Crisis From Happening Again By Making College Available For Free

RealClear - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 02:12
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) shared her two-part plan to combat the student debt crisis Monday night at a CNN town hall event. Warren called for a two-cent wealth tax that would "knock back" 95% of student loan debt. DENA MILLER, STUDENT, ST. ANSELM COLLEGE:  Hi, Senator.   I like so many other students had to take out loans to pay for my education that I will be paying for years.  What is your plan to deal with student debt and the rising cost of education?     WARREN:  OK, thanks for the question, Dena.     You know, this is the America we live in now.  Basically to get a shot at a middle class life, you've got to have some post high school technical training, two-year college, four-year college, maybe graduate school, depending on who you are and what you're ending up doing.     The position of the federal government has been, good luck to you, you're on your own.  The one thing they've done is they've lent tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, billions of dollars to our students.  And it is now crushing them.  So, my proposal is to say, this my proposal is to say, this isn't right.     What we have to do as a country is roll back that debt.  And so, I have two parts to the proposal.  Part one is that we say that we're going to roll back student loan debt for about 95 percent of students who have debt.  That's part one.     And part two is to make sure that we never get in this mess again on student loan debt and that is to make college universally available with free tuition and fees, and to put more money into Pell grants so that students of color, so that our poorest students have real access to college and that we put real money into our historically black colleges and universities.     This is about opportunity for everyone.     (APPLAUSE)   WARREN:  And can we talk about how to pay for it?     COOPER:  I was just about to ask for it.     WARREN:  Just for a minute, you want to ask?   COOPER:  Well, that is the criticism obviously from Republicans who say how you're going to pay for it, and even from centrist Democrats who say doesn't this feed the narrative that Democrats want to give everything away for free.     WARREN:  So, let's remember where this all started.  I started several months ago about a wealth tax, an ultra millionaire's tax.  It's 2 cents on every dollar of the great fortunes above $50 million.  So, your 50 millionth and first dollar, you've got to pay 2 cents and 2 cents on all of the dollars after that.     And here's the stunning part.  If we ask the great fortunes in this country, understand, this isn't about trying to be nasty or say you've done anything wrong, what it's about is saying, look, you had a great idea.  You got out there.  You worked hard or you inherited well, whichever one it was.     (LAUGHTER)   (APPLAUSE)   WARREN:  But now that you've got that great fortune, spend just a minute to remember how you got it.  You built that great business or your ancestors did using workers that all of us helped pay to educate.  You got your goods to market using roads and bridges that all of us helped pay to build.  You are protected in your factories with firefighters and police officers that all of us helped to pay.     And we say, good for you, that you have now gotten this great fortune, but 2 cents.  You've got to pay something back so everybody else gets a chance.     And here's how the money works out.  If we put that 2 cent wealth tax in place on the 75,000 largest fortunes in this country, 2 cents, we can do universal child care for every baby zero to 5, universal pre-K, universal college and knock back the student loan debt burden for 95 percent of our students and still have nearly a trillion dollars left over. 

Pelosi takes go-slow approach toward impeachment

Hot Air - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 02:01

Democrats held a conference call today to discuss the prospect of impeaching President Trump in light of the Mueller report. Politico reports that Nancy Pelosi continued to suggest a go-slow approach:

“We can investigate Trump without drafting articles,” she said during a call with HouseDemocrats, referring to articles of impeachment,according to sources on the call. “We aren’t going to go faster, we are going to go as fast as the facts take us.”

Pelosi has been consistent on this for months. Just last month she said didn’t think impeachment was “worth it,” telling the Washington Post: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

But while Pelosi seems to see the downside to getting out on a limb, some in her caucus were interested in taking action:

“Mueller didn’t do us any favors,” [Rep. Val] Demings added, noting that “he left us bread crumbs to follow.”

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who has supported beginning impeachment proceedings in the past, said Democrats must consider the downside “of the not [pursuing] impeachment in the face of this lawlessness.”

When one lawmaker, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) raised the prospect of a censure, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) — who is firmly in Pelosi’s one-step-at-a-time camp — said censure would be possible but legally meaningless.

The problem is that Democrats spent two years raising expectations that the president would be found to have colluded with Russia. But Mueller’s report didn’t find evidence of that. It did find some evidence that Trump was interested in obstructing the investigation, but ultimately no obstruction took place. So Democrats are left with a difficult choice. Do they pursue the obstruction charge without an underlying crime or do they try to settle it at the ballot box next November?

I’m not sure if Pelosi knows it but the window to pursue this is closing. If Democrats don’t act now then it will be difficult to claim they are acting on the Mueller report months after it was released. Also, if they wait another six months until we’re well into the 2020 election cycle, it’s going to be hard to convince anyone but their own rabid base that impeachment is anything but a partisan stunt. Do they want to put their leading candidates into the position of defending that? I don’t think so but as we saw in 2016, there are two wings to the Party and there’s no guarantee they are going to cooperate now any more than they did then.

The post Pelosi takes go-slow approach toward impeachment appeared first on Hot Air.

Muslim ‘asylum seeker’ in Canada since 2015 complicit in Islamic State crimes against humanity, tribunal says

Geller Report - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 01:57

President Trump is shielding us from this scourge. This migrant made a “knowing and significant contribution to ISIS,” the Refugee Appeal Division ruled, noting the terror group needed his high-level expertise in auto electrical systems.

Refugee claimant, in Canada since 2015, complicit in ISIS crimes against humanity, tribunal says

A mechanic who came to Canada in 2015 has been found complicit in crimes against humanity for repairing vehicles for the so-called Islamic State, Global News has learned.

By Stewart Bell National Online Journalist, Investigative Global News April 19, 2019:

Before arriving in Canada and claiming refugee status, the Lebanese national made several trips to Syria to work on ISIS military vehicles and also supervised other ISIS mechanics.

As such, he made a “knowing and significant contribution to ISIS,” the Refugee Appeal Division ruled, noting the terror group needed his high-level expertise in auto electrical systems.

READ MORE: Deadly export: Canadians responsible for hundreds of terrorism deaths and injuries overseas

The ruling means he is ineligible for refugee status, but federal officials would not say if he was detained or had been deported. Even his name was removed from the decision.

His lawyer declined to comment.

The case is a rare confirmation that a refugee claimant who successfully entered Canada had been involved with ISIS, although his past was quickly detected through security screening.

The Canadian embassy in Beirut approved his visa on May 5, 2015 after his wife’s sister, who lives in Canada, sent a letter of invitation. He made a refugee claim in September 2015.

WATCH: U.S.-backed Syrian forces declare victory over Islamic State

Three months later, federal officials intervened in his case, arguing he was disqualified from seeking refugee status because he was complicit in the crimes of ISIS.

The Immigration and Refugee Board agreed, and the decision was recently upheld by Patricia O’Connor of the Refugee Appeal Division, who rejected his claim that he had only worked for ISIS briefly and under duress.

According to the decision, the man was employed as a mechanic in Zahlé, a Lebanese city close to the Syrian border, when a customer asked him to repair vehicles at a location 30 to 40 minutes away.

He was eventually taken during the night to a hangar in a Sunni area where he was patted down for weapons. A Christian, he was forced to remove his cross and his cell phone was taken away.

Inside the hangar were 15 to 20 vehicles of the type ISIS used. When he touched one vehicle, it was still wet with blood.

Foreigners with long beards who spoke with Syrian or Iraqi accents were installing metal armor on jeeps and trucks that had no licence plates.

The vehicles had been repainted and fitted with metal bars to reinforce them “for military conflict,” according to the decision, which said he knew on his first visit that he was involved with ISIS.

Armed men escorted him repeatedly to the hangar to work on vehicles, and on three occasions he was taken across the border to Syria to do repairs. He was close enough to the fighting to see shelling.

“While ISIS had its own mechanics, he was needed to fix vehicles with problematic issues that no one else could repair,” the decision read. “He also supervised other mechanics and gave instruction on how to repair the vehicles which were used for military purposes.”

He was paid “a lot of cash,” the IRB said. “He said that they treated him well, paid him generously and trusted him to the extent that he was brought to ISIS locations in Lebanon and Syria.”

At one point, a Chinese visa was placed in his passport and he was told he was being sent to China to acquire materials, since ISIS thought “no one would suspect that a Christian would import things on their behalf.”

But the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah found out what he was doing and approached him at work, offering $1,000 a night to spy on ISIS. He said Hezbollah also threatened him.

He ended his involvement with ISIS in May 2015 and came to Canada. While he said he had no other option but to work for ISIS, the IRB rejected that.

“He returned voluntarily over and over again to work on ISIS vehicles because he did not flee or attempt to flee ISIS,” the Refugee Board wrote in its decision.

“Instead of fleeing, he returned at least four to six more times to work for ISIS before he left the country. He returned to work for ISIS even when he touched blood in the vehicle and knew it was ISIS.”

The Canada Border Services Agency is also trying to deport a Jordanian who came to British Columbia and obtained refugee status, but in 2015 began posting ISIS propaganda online.

Prosecutors: Militia group plotted to assassinate Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

UPI - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 01:57
A member of an anti-migrant militia in New Mexico pleaded not guilty Monday in a case that federal agents say involved plots to assassinate former President Barack Obama and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Arizona Governor Signs Bill To Ban Texting While Driving

Newsy - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 01:54

Watch Video

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed a law Monday that would make holding a phone behind the wheel illegal. Arizona's the 48th state to ban texting while driving. 

Ducey signed the legislation while surrounded by law enforcement officials and advocates, including Toni Townsend. Townsend's son, Salt River tribal police officer Clayton Townsend, was hit and killed by a driver who was texting. 

In a statement, Ducey said: "I called on legislators to provide a solution that will save lives — and I am grateful for their efforts to do just that. This legislation takes important, clear and common sense steps to prevent texting and driving." 

The new law doesn't ban the use of devices altogether. Drivers can make calls if they use earpieces, headphones or another voice communication device. They can also send texts if they do so using voice commands.

Montana and Missouri are the only states that haven't banned texting behind the wheel for all ages, but Missouri has banned texting for drivers 21 and younger.

Arizona's new law will take effect on Jan. 1, 2021. 

From Barbers To Dentists: Why There's Different Insurance For Teeth

Newsy - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 01:49

Watch Video

When you had a toothache in the 1800s, you didn't have to go far. Most barbers would take a gander and even pull a tooth — for a fee. 

Back then, being a barber was a catch-all profession. And when it comes to dental insurance, we still live with the relics of barbers' professional versatility today. Mary Otto, author of the book "Teeth," told The Atlantic: "In the barber-surgeon days, dentist skills were among one of the many personal services that barber surgeons provided, like leeching and cupping and tooth extractions. They approached it as a mechanical challenge, to repair and extract teeth."

A dentist, William T. G. Morton, was the first to use anesthesia in the U.S. in 1846 to remove a tumor during a public surgery. Extended surgeries were soon absorbed into a regular medical practice. 

At the time, dentists struggled to gain public trust, like medical doctors who carried the air of intellectuals.  

Dentists, for all their usefulness, were barbers, usually self-taught and not terribly consistent across the board.

In 1850, the first school for dentistry was founded in Baltimore through a charter from the state of Maryland. Dentists couldn't secure funding from the University of Maryland in Baltimore to join its medical school.

Today, a professional and insurance schism persists when it comes to medicine and dentistry. 

Medical insurance in America sprang from a need to make factories more productive. The Blue Cross Association in Texas promised blue-collar workers a total of 21 paid hospital days a year if they were injured. By the 1950s, insured rates grew from 10% nationally to 60%.

All the while, dentists were restricted to private practices. Patients had to pay out of pocket for dental procedures. In the 1940s, clothing stores were offering dental procedures at a discount to customers.

That changed in 1954, when the International Longshoreman's and Warehouseman's union established the first dental insurance. But it was an ongoing fight for unions to keep dental plans covered at work.

The new plans were clearly needed. According to the CDC, in 1960, the average American over 65 only had seven of their original teeth. 

But when Medicare was created in 1965, it also codified the divide, covering medical issues and leaving out dental.  Most insurance companies followed suit. 

Now, 77% of Americans have dental insurance but 90% get the coverage from their job, compared to the 91% of Americans with medical insurance and 49% who get medical insurance from their employer.

The Affordable Care Act provided some change. It mandated that a child’s health insurance include dental. But as we live longer, we're finding dental health is critical to overall wellness, especially as a Surgeon General report has found substantial links between oral health and everything from heart attacks to stroke and premature births. 

Tucker Destroys Elizabeth Warren’s Plan For Student Loan Forgiveness

Federalist Papers - Tue, 04/23/2019 - 01:42

Tonight, Tucker Carlson destroyed Elizabeth Warren who earlier called for forgiving all student loan debt for those earning less than $100,000 per year. He had an even better idea. Take a look at this: “Only rich countries can afford to be this decadent. Thank you very much. Overwhelmingly speaking of kids, Americans want to have…

The post Tucker Destroys Elizabeth Warren’s Plan For Student Loan Forgiveness appeared first on The Federalist Papers.

Pages

Subscribe to RoderickE aggregator - News Domestic and International