web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Obama"

Hoo boy: If you like your plan you can keep your plan, says Joe Biden of new health-care proposal

Westlake Legal Group b-1 Hoo boy: If you like your plan you can keep your plan, says Joe Biden of new health-care proposal The Blog private Obamacare Obama medicare for all insurance Health exchanges biden Bernie Sanders

I realize that his whole thing is convincing Dem voters that they’ll be getting Obama’s third term if they nominate him.

But does he have to mimic O right down to his most egregious and notorious lies?

I mean, he’s really committed to this Obama 2.0 thing if he’s bent on reviving the worst aspects of O’s presidency too. Soon he’ll be vowing to make sure Iran gets a nuclear weapon.

The funny thing about this is that it would be a terrific talking point with which to counter Medicare for All if not for the fact that errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr it’s the most famous falsehood his ex-boss told while in office. American voters *do* like their private insurance plans, polls show; the whole reason Kamala Harris has been cagey by claiming that she supports MFA but also sees a role for private insurance is that she knows nuking the entire health-insurance industry in the United States is a dicey proposition even for a Democratic primary. By going all-in on ObamaCare and adding a public option, Biden may well have the most broadly popular health-care platform in the field. (Never mind that the Biden plan would lead in the long term to Medicare for All anyway. Lefties aren’t playing for the long term anymore.) Of course he should want a pithy, memorable way to convey to voters that his plan, unlike Bernie’s plan, will give them the option of staying with their current coverage instead of accepting government coverage if they prefer.

But … c’mon, man. C’mon, man. As Joe Biden himself might say.

I’m eager to see how MFA fans like Bernie and Kamala Harris play this. On the one hand, one of the selling points for Medicare for All is to make sure that people never lose coverage. If you like your plan but it turns out you can’t keep your plan because it’s too expensive or because some private insurers can’t profitably comply with the ObamaCare requirements for comprehensive coverage, MFA solves the “keep your plan” problem forever. On the other hand, how do Sanders and Harris broach that subject and attack Biden without needling him about O’s big lie? They don’t want to piss off Obama fans by reminding them of ObamaCare’s flaws, but they need to remind them of those flaws in order to build party-wide support for their own socialist proposal. Thin ice for both sides of the issue.

Here’s Biden making the pitch at an AARP event today, via the Free Beacon. He makes another potent point here aimed directly at his base of senior citizens: Medicare for All might mean less robust Medicare for senior citizens, so maybe those already enrolled in the program shouldn’t be so eager to share. Lefties are going to go ballistic at that, remembering how Republicans used fears about Medicare being underfunded to build opposition to ObamaCare 10 years ago. Biden’s behaving like a right-winger again, Berniebros will say. The next debate will be ugly. And by “ugly” I of course mean awesome.

The post Hoo boy: If you like your plan you can keep your plan, says Joe Biden of new health-care proposal appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-1-300x159 Hoo boy: If you like your plan you can keep your plan, says Joe Biden of new health-care proposal The Blog private Obamacare Obama medicare for all insurance Health exchanges biden Bernie Sanders   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

McConnell on his family’s past: Like Obama, my family owned slaves, and like Obama, I oppose reparations

Westlake Legal Group mm-2 McConnell on his family’s past: Like Obama, my family owned slaves, and like Obama, I oppose reparations The Blog slavery slave reparations Obama Mitch McConnell Family descended

The guy’s pretty good.

I mean, love him or hate him, he knows what he’s doing.

He can barely suppress a smile here:

The snark about him once again finding himself in the same position as Obama is icing on the cake, a kick aimed right at the left’s collective ass.

Is it true that Obama’s ancestors owned slaves? It is — more than one ancestor, in fact. It may also be true, though, that not only was Obama descended from American slaves, he was descended from the first American slave. The very first one, again on his mother’s side (his father was from Africa):

President Obama is the 11th great-grandson of John Punch, a black man who came to America in the 1600s as an indentured servant and was enslaved for life in 1640 after trying to escape his servitude, according to a two-year Ancestry.com study of thousands of records from colonial Virginia.

Although Obama’s father was a black man from Kenya, his ties to slavery stem instead from his white mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Harman said. The enslaved, black Punch had children with a free white woman. Because their mother was free, Punch’s mixed-race kids were born free and went on to become “prominent” land owners in Virginia, Harman said.

A complicated family tree, but that’s how American family trees tend to be. As for Obama opposing reparations, I’m not sure “oppose” is the right word. O’s view of that seems to track with his view of passing single-payer circa 2010. It’s not that he’s against it in theory, it’s that he just doesn’t see how it can be done realistically:

Theoretically, you can make, obviously, a powerful argument that centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination are the primary cause for all those gaps. That those were wrongs done to the black community as a whole, and black families specifically, and that in order to close that gap, a society has a moral obligation to make a large, aggressive investment, even if it’s not in the form of individual reparations checks, but in the form of a Marshall Plan, in order to close those gaps. It is easy to make that theoretical argument. But as a practical matter, it is hard to think of any society in human history in which a majority population has said that as a consequence of historic wrongs, we are now going to take a big chunk of the nation’s resources over a long period of time to make that right…

And what makes America complicated as well is the degree to which this is not just a black/white society, and it is becoming less so every year. So how do Latinos feel if there’s a big investment just in the African American community, and they’re looking around and saying, “We’re poor as well. What kind of help are we getting?” Or Asian Americans who say, “Look, I’m a first-generation immigrant, and clearly I didn’t have anything to do with what was taking place.”

Good luck trying to get it passed even if a majority of the country supported it, Obama added: “I have much more confidence in my ability, or any president or any leader’s ability, to mobilize the American people around a multiyear, multibillion-dollar investment to help every child in poverty in this country than I am in being able to mobilize the country around providing a benefit specific to African Americans as a consequence of slavery and Jim Crow.” The cleverness of McConnell’s answer today, of course, is that it pits Obama’s perfectly sensible view of the politics of reparations — and his authority on the issue as America’s first black president — against the panderfest happening in the Democratic primary. Your argument isn’t with me, McConnell’s saying to reparations advocates, your argument is with the most popular man in your own party. Let Democratic candidates take a deep sniff of Obama’s reality check and see what they think then. If they want to call O a sellout on racial justice, by all means have at it.

Oh — if you’re wondering why he’s being asked about this at all, it’s because NBC went digging through his family tree to see if they could nail him with a gotcha on the issue. The first argument typically offered against reparations is the fact that not all whites directly benefited from slavery. (Supporters would counter that all whites *indirectly* benefited from it in the form of white privilege.) The McConnells did directly benefit, though, which makes Cocaine Mitch’s recent statement of opposition a bit stickier than the average white American’s. Knowing that the debate over this issue is entirely academic, NBC’s genealogical investigation of him is their version of a consolation prize to lefties, I guess.

The post McConnell on his family’s past: Like Obama, my family owned slaves, and like Obama, I oppose reparations appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mm-2-300x159 McConnell on his family’s past: Like Obama, my family owned slaves, and like Obama, I oppose reparations The Blog slavery slave reparations Obama Mitch McConnell Family descended   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Advisor to Rouhani warns Trump: We’ve ended U.S. presidencies before — so listen to Tucker Carlson

Westlake Legal Group tc Advisor to Rouhani warns Trump: We’ve ended U.S. presidencies before — so listen to Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson Trump The Blog rouhani Obama nuclear keane Iran hesameddin ashena Bolton

Just a normal day in geopolitics in 2019, with an apparatchik in a fundamentalist Muslim regime publicly trolling the president of the United States by warning him to listen to Fox News’s peacenik 8 p.m. host instead of to his cabinet.

Coming tomorrow: The North Koreans call for urgent trilateral high-level denuclearization talks between Kim Jong Un, Trump, and Judge Jeanine.

God, Hannity must have seen this and been so jealous. And John Bolton must have seen it and felt vindicated in believing that Tucker is a useful idiot.

The president they allegedly “unseated” was Carter by refusing to release American hostages until Reagan had already been safely elected. Trump has been trolling them today too in response to the news this morning that Iran might begin enriching uranium beyond the low levels needed to merely power a reactor.

If Iran were to go from 3.67 percent enrichment to 20 percent, the risk of an Iranian “breakout” to weapons-grade uranium would rise dramatically, probably forcing the U.S. and/or Israel to act. They’re threatening him now to try to get him to lift some of the sanctions that are choking off their economy as a prelude to talks, but he’s refused thus far. If he won’t budge, what do they do next to pressure him? Attacking American assets would ignite a war. Ratcheting up enrichment might be their only “peaceful” way of getting his attention and showing they mean business.

By the way, if they’re looking to influence Trump by encouraging him to listen to certain advisors, Tucker’s probably not the person they should be touting. The man they should be looking to is Gen. Jack Keane. Per Politico, a segment he did on Fox on the day Trump was mulling whether to attack Iran for downing a U.S. drone hugely influenced Trump’s thinking:

“Our viewers may have forgotten, but during the tanker war in the late ‘80s when Reagan did take some action, we actually made a mistake,” Keane said, referring to President Ronald Reagan. “We had a USS warship shoot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace. Two-hundred ninety people killed. Sixty-six of them were children. And we took that for a Tomahawk F-14. That was clearly a mistake by the ship’s crew in doing that. And we acknowledged that we made a horrific mistake.”

Keane’s reference to the United States’ accidental downing of an Iranian commercial airliner in 1988 made a profound impact on the president, who was “spooked” when he learned of the incident, according to two sources briefed on his reaction. The president made repeated comments about the tragedy on the evening of the 20th, leading aides to believe that Keane’s brief history lesson exacerbated Trump’s pre-existing doubts about carrying out the strike.

The good news: Trump ended up making a good call, one which a huge majority of voters support. The bad news: Whether we end up starting a major Middle East war with Iran may depend on whoever Fox News happens to have on during a given day and whether Trump happens to be watching at a particular moment.

Nothing to worry about.

Exit question: Has Tucker explained his view on the air yet of what the U.S. should do about Iran’s nuclear program? He’s been clear on the “no war” part. Would he drop sanctions as well and revert to the terms of the Obama nuclear deal? If he supports Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign in hopes of squeezing Iran until they agree to denuclearize, what should we do if they make good on their threat to start escalating enrichment instead?

The post Advisor to Rouhani warns Trump: We’ve ended U.S. presidencies before — so listen to Tucker Carlson appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group tc-300x153 Advisor to Rouhani warns Trump: We’ve ended U.S. presidencies before — so listen to Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson Trump The Blog rouhani Obama nuclear keane Iran hesameddin ashena Bolton   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Obama’s DHS chief: Dem candidates’ immigration plans are “tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders”

Westlake Legal Group jj Obama’s DHS chief: Dem candidates’ immigration plans are “tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders” The Blog open Obama jeh johnson homeland security DHS decriminalization borders asylum

This feels like a Republican debating point come to life. You can imagine Trump saying, “Democrats have moved so far left on immigration, even the Obama people would be shocked!”

But it’s not a hypothetical. The Obama people, specifically the head of Homeland Security under O, are actually shocked at how nutty their party has become on this issue in just a few years.

This is the curse of both sides now, it seems — to lament the radicalism of the current administration when the other party’s in charge, only to find afterward that the next administration is prepared to go much further.

[S]ome Democrats are questioning the basic legal underpinnings of U.S. immigration enforcement and challenging the long-held consensus that a robust detention and deportation system is necessary to prevent an even bigger wave of illegal border crossings into the United States.

On Tuesday, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he would “virtually eliminate immigration detention” by executive order. During last week’s debate, presidential candidate Julián Castro proposed decriminalizing illegal border crossings — a position other Democrats in the race rapidly adopted…

“That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” said Jeh Johnson, who ran the Department of Homeland Security during President Barack Obama’s second term. “That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.”

That’s the point, Jeh. That is literally the goal of the do-nothing-complain-loudly approach to funding immigration enforcement and reforming asylum laws. Although I don’t think lefties are imagining hundreds of thousands of apprehensions per month; rather, they’re imagining the system becoming so stressed that Trump and DHS have no choice but to resort to catch-and-release in toto. That’s not me indulging in a partisan hyperbolic worst-case scenario of what happens if the dastardly opposing party gets its way. To all appearances, this really is what progressives, at least, have in mind: Since they lack the numbers to pass a law that would formally open America’s borders to whoever wants to come, they’ll focus on undermining and overloading border enforcement to whatever extent they can so that we end up with open borders de facto, just not de jure.

And because Democratic presidential candidates are terrified of being seen as impure on this issue among the minority of the party that sets its ideological litmus tests, they have to play along. For Castro, this is a candidacy-making issue. He can’t compete with Bernie or Warren on economic populism, he can’t top Biden on perceived “electability,” but he can at least try to set the pace on immigration. Booker seems to be trying to play the same game. He’s struggled to find a logic for his campaign, starting with a weird “fight hate with love” message, then trying to pick a fight with Biden on his racial record only to find himself outdone by Harris. So now he’s pandering to open-borders nuts. Apart from the Biden/Harris exchange, the single most stunning moment of the first debate was the entire field on night two raising their hands in unison when asked if their universal health care plan would cover illegal immigrants. That’s a policy so radical, notes Philip Klein, that even many of our statist betters abroad don’t countenance it:

The Commonwealth Fund notes that in Japan, “undocumented immigrants and visitors are not covered” and that even in the Canadian system, “Temporary legal visitors, undocumented immigrants, those who stay in Canada beyond the duration of a legal permit, and those who enter the country ‘illegally,’ are not covered by any federal or provincial program, although provinces and territories provide some limited services.”

In 2017, Britian’s cherished National Health Service, to combat health tourism, started requiring proof of residence for free care and upfront payment from overseas patients. Britain also requires payment of a “healthcare surcharge” when filling out an immigration application. The government’s immigration website says that people can start using the NHS once they’ve paid the surcharge and their “visa or immigration application is granted.”

When they say “Medicare for All,” they mean Medicare for All. Funded by American taxpayers, without regard for how that might further incentivize new asylum claims and illegal crossings. Again, to them, this seems to be a feature of their plan, not a bug.

This isn’t the first time recently that Johnson has knocked his party for being unrealistic about immigration. “Chain link barriers, partitions, fences, cages — whatever you want to call them — were not invented on January 2017,” he said a few days ago in Aspen. “During that 72 hour period, when you have something that is a multiple — like four times of what you’re accustomed to in the existing infrastructure, you’ve got to find places quickly to put kids.” The upset goes both ways, though: Via the Examiner, watch below as fringe-left Ilhan Omar laments the enforcement measures taken by the Obama administration on grounds that they provided a foundation for a “monster” to build on. Only through zero enforcement, it seems, can America avoid a new Trumpy nightmare down the road. Johnson and the left wing of the Democratic Party really are poles apart now. Someone ask Obama what he thinks.

I’m not sure I’ve experienced a major policy debate in my lifetime in which one side wants to do X, Y, and Z and the other side generally doesn’t want to enforce law at all, but here we are. In lieu of an exit question, read David Frum today on the urgent need to reform America’s asylum laws. Frum is anti-Trump in *almost* all things, but not this. His piece is insightful in noting the perverse incentives current asylum law creates for further immigration. Not only does it often take years to resolve an applicant’s appeal (six years and counting in one case he cites), but applicants enjoy legal status while they’re here and are free to work. Which means they can earn money inside the United States and send it back home to family to fund the next wave of asylum-seekers, and on and on as the community of immigrants inside the United States grows. It’s time to stop processing asylum claims with endless adjudications, says Frum. Especially since the vast, vast, vast majority of asylum-seekers clearly aren’t fleeing from systematic persecution but from a lower quality of life — a standard that would make virtually the entirety of the third world eligible for admission.

The post Obama’s DHS chief: Dem candidates’ immigration plans are “tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jj-300x153 Obama’s DHS chief: Dem candidates’ immigration plans are “tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders” The Blog open Obama jeh johnson homeland security DHS decriminalization borders asylum   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy

Westlake Legal Group b-14 Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy Vice The Blog President Obama Media kamala harris constitutional busing biden amendment

The response here will be that “news outlets” didn’t decide anything. Kamala Harris decided that Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy and made major national news by attacking him for it at the debate. And the only reason Harris attacked, she would say, is because Joe Biden decided to stupidly tout his cordial relations with segregationists like James Eastland as a young senator a few weeks earlier. Straight-line cause and effect: Biden made himself sound soft on segregation, Harris saw an opportunity in that and used his stance on busing to litigate the point, and the media simply followed up by looking into what Biden’s said about busing in the past. For instance, here’s NPR spelunking through its archives yesterday to find Biden circa 1975 in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban busing:

ENSOR: What about a constitutional amendment, I asked Biden. Isn’t that what you’re going to end up supporting if you want to stop court ordered busing too?

BIDEN: That would clearly do it. We are trying to figure out whether or not we can come up with an innovative piece of legislation which would limit the remedy and I don’t honestly don’t know whether we can come up with something constitutional. And if we can’t I will not in an attempt to eliminate busing violate the Constitution. I won’t do that. The only way if I’m going to go at it, I’m going to go at it through a constitutional amendment if it can’t be done through a piece of legislation.

Today it’s CNN that’s digging through its own tapes to find Biden saying in 1981 that busing is “the least effective remedy” to segregation:

But the 1981 CNN interview illustrates that Biden’s objections to busing to end segregation in schools were much broader than he casts them today.

“I happen to be one of those so-called people that are labeled as a liberal on civil rights, but oppose busing,” Biden said. “And I support the effort to curtail the ability of courts to bus.”

“What I have argued as one who grew up in the civil rights movement and ran for office as a public defender and a member of an active participant in civil rights cases, I have argued that the least effective remedy to be imposed is the busing remedy,” Biden said at another point in the interview.

Don’t blame NPR and CNN for making this newsworthy, blame Harris and ultimately Biden — or so the defense goes. But that’s too pat. For one thing, stories about Biden’s record on busing were trickling into the media long before he made his comments about Eastland a few weeks ago. Here’s WaPo in March serving notice to the political world that This Will Be An Issue. CNN was on the busing beat in April. Biden’s allies in Congress were being challenged about his record on busing in May. The subject has turned up in mainstream sites’ op-ed pages as well. And of course various progressive activists have been jabbing at him online over it for months, hoping to dent the centrist Biden’s support among Obama’s base of black voters.

The deeper question is why Biden’s record on busing and other racial issues, like the crime bill, weren’t “problematic” to the media when he was nominated for vice president in 2008. Overlooking racial politics that year might have been understandable, if not excusable, had the candidates been uniformly white. They were not, rather famously. Race was front and center in that year’s presidential election in a way that it had never been before in the entirety of American history. And Joe Biden ended up on the ballot of that election, on the winning side thanks to historic turnout among African-American voters. It would have been asking too much to ask the media to delve into Biden’s racial record after he’d already been named VP, as our very impartial press wasn’t about to create a headache for Obama en route to a likely victory. But what’s the excuse for not investigating Biden’s — and every other VP hopeful’s — civil-rights credentials in depth while the party’s first black nominee was mulling whom to choose as his running mate?

Did Team Obama, at least, do that investigation? Vice presidents are normally vetted within an inch of their lives before being selected. Presumably O and his team knew all about Biden’s view of busing, the crime bill, and so on and determined that they were collectively not so problematic that they should look elsewhere for a running mate. But the media was free to render a different verdict, as it’s now in the process of doing, and to challenge Obama aggressively on it. They didn’t. And it’s no mystery why.

I think the most charitable explanation for this oversight is simple laziness. They didn’t give Biden the kid-gloves treatment in 2008 because they were in the tank and determined not to make trouble for a historic Democratic nominee, one might say. They gave him the kid-gloves treatment because they don’t do much investigating themselves, even of their own archives. Even this year, it may be the case that most of the media reports about Biden’s history with busing have been spoonfed to them by rival campaigns like Sanders’s or Harris’s. The reason Uncle Joe didn’t get dinged for this a decade ago might be as simple as the RNC’s oppo team having either dropped the ball or concluded that there was little to be gained by feeding the press stories about Biden’s opposition to busing (a position overwhelmingly shared by Republicans). But again: If you prefer this theory, you’re stuck believing that the press is uninterested in doing the basics of its own job, even when there are potentially high-stakes consequences in a national election.

There is, I suppose, another possibility. Maybe America’s just woker now than it was in 2008, when it, uh, elected the first black president. Certainly the white progressive activist class is more influential and more ostentatiously woke than it was then, and our very impartial media pays a lot of attention to that class. So do candidates, which I suppose explains why Kamala Harris is claiming to be pro-busing even in 2019:

Here’s what national polls on busing look like, though, at least circa 1999:

Westlake Legal Group b-15 Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy Vice The Blog President Obama Media kamala harris constitutional busing biden amendment

NPR notes that a Gallup poll taken in 1973, back when Biden was in full anti-busing swing, found that just five percent thought busing was the best way to achieve integration, including a mere nine percent of blacks. I think the partisan split would be *somewhat* more balanced today since the subject of busing is now largely academic and hyper-partisanship has encouraged people to support whatever it is that the other party opposes. But unquestionably, Biden’s position is still the position of a heavy majority. It’s probably also the position of a majority of the Democratic Party. But whether it’s the position of a majority of black Democrats is an open question. And in the end, black Democrats are the key to whether Biden or Harris is the frontrunner in this race.

Here’s a very cynical Cory Booker, the odd man out in the Biden/Harris battle for black voters, doing his best to muscle his way in. It is … quite a theory that Uncle Joe, the person in the race with the most obvious appeal to both working-class Rust Belt whites and southern black Obama voters, is the candidate who has a problem bringing people together while Kamala Harris is out there demanding that America relitigate busing.

The post Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-14-300x153 Ten years after he became VP, news outlets decide Biden’s track record on busing is noteworthy Vice The Blog President Obama Media kamala harris constitutional busing biden amendment   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Poll: Pretty much no one cares that Biden was chummy with segregationists in the Senate

Westlake Legal Group b-11 Poll: Pretty much no one cares that Biden was chummy with segregationists in the Senate warren The Blog talmadge south carolina segregationists Obama morning consult eastland booker black biden

Nate Silver’s wry response to this new Morning Consult poll showing Biden’s lead holding steady made me laugh.

Surely a guy whose support rests on a diminishing cohort of working-class Boomers can’t get elected president in America. Anyway, the new numbers:

Westlake Legal Group mc-1 Poll: Pretty much no one cares that Biden was chummy with segregationists in the Senate warren The Blog talmadge south carolina segregationists Obama morning consult eastland booker black biden

Uncle Joe hasn’t lost so much as a point after days of media coverage of his “civility” as a young senator towards segregationist colleagues like James Eastland and Herman Talmadge. He’s actually gained a few points in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, rising from 40 percent last week to 43 percent now with Bernie Sanders a very distant second at 21 percent. A larger share of likely primary voters said Biden’s comments made them *more* likely to vote for him (29 percent) than less likely (18 percent) — and that includes black voters (30/20). America loves legislative compromise, even with farking segregationists! The only sign of slippage for Biden is in net favorability, where he’s lost five points or so since June 10th. But given that his lead over the field hasn’t declined, those points must have come from voters who were already leaning in another direction or are so pro-Joe that they’re sticking with him even though their personal views of him have slipped a bit.

Steve Kornacki dug even deeper into the data. Last week, before the kerfuffle about segregationists, Biden stood at 45 percent support with black voters. This week, after attacks by Kamala Harris and Cory Booker and days of unflattering news reports, his support with black voters is at … 46 percent. They don’t care. And they’re willing to tell reporters who come asking:

“They need to leave it be,” said Cheri Reed, a 66-year-old Democrat from Columbia as she waited in line with friends for fish at Clyburn’s event on Friday night. She chided Democrats like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who criticized Biden for his remarks and called on him to apologize.

We don’t need a rookie in the game right now. Because it’s the anti-Christ that we’re up against,” Reed said, referring to President Donald Trump. “He’s despicable. He’s destructive. He’s a liar. He’s trigger-happy. He’s everything that you don’t want in a President.”…

“Like Biden said, you’ve got to work with everybody to get along,” [Isaac] Moore said. “Back in those days, that’s all there was — segregationists. So what he’s saying is perfectly all right with me, because it’s still that way. You still have to go across the aisle and work with those types of people today to get anything done.”

Bloomberg got same of the same responses in interviewing black South Carolinians (“You have to be able to work with everybody”) and noted, as CNN did, an age gap in views of Biden. Older black voters who experienced segregation seem more willing to shrug off Biden’s comity with segregationists than younger black voters do. Which is good news for Biden on balance: “[T]he generational split may not matter much in South Carolina, where primary voters skew older, according to exit polls from 2016, which show that 47% of voters were between the ages of 45 and 64. The next largest group, 20%, was between the ages of 30 and 44, while voters 65 and older accounted for 19%.” Whoever ends up as the alternative to Uncle Joe in SC will need to turn out younger Democrats en masse or they’re on track to get crushed.

Exit question: Will political media, me included, learn anything from this latest reminder that the only Democratic subgroup that seems to care much about crimes against wokeness is educated white progressives who are Very Online? Exit answer: No way. There’s too much easy bloggy content to write about by pretending otherwise!

The post Poll: Pretty much no one cares that Biden was chummy with segregationists in the Senate appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-11-300x153 Poll: Pretty much no one cares that Biden was chummy with segregationists in the Senate warren The Blog talmadge south carolina segregationists Obama morning consult eastland booker black biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Viral Photo of Children at Detention Facilities Got Blamed on Trump, Reality Tells a Different Story

Westlake Legal Group border-patrol-human-trafficking-620x413 A Viral Photo of Children at Detention Facilities Got Blamed on Trump, Reality Tells a Different Story unaccompanied minors Politics photo Obama Misrepresentation lying Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump Dishonest Detention Facilities democrats children CBP border

CREDIT: US Customs and Border Protection via Flickr.com. Public domain.

This is what, the 4th or 5th time a photo of kids at the border has gone viral that ended up not telling the real story? In this case, the misleading was clearly intentional though, as you’ll see.

A picture of children sleeping with aluminum thermal blankets on the floor of a CBP detention facility made the rounds this weekend. It was posted by someone named Nancy Lee Grahn. Apparently I’m supposed to know who she is because she’s on TV and has a blue check-mark, but admittedly, I’ve never heard of her.

Here’s the original tweet, which is still up.

The immediate judgement was that Donald Trump personally drove there and forced the kids to sleep on the floor just because he’s that evil. The left exploded over the photos and it’s still going today. She even pinned it on her timeline.

The problem? This was once again a picture from the Obama administration. In fact, the date stamp is in the picture but Grahn cropped it out.

Have you every noticed that almost every problematic photo of the border situation that’s went viral in the last year has ended up being from the Obama administration? Funny how that works. Yet, time and time again, the media and Twitter-verse outright lie about the genesis to throw partisan mud.

To be fair to Obama though, it’s hardly “torture” to give thermal blankets to children after they’ve been apprehended as unaccompanied minors. What else is CBP supposed to do with them initially? Put them up at a Holiday Inn in Phoenix? They are caught on the border, away from civilization and have to be cared for immediately. Bunk beds and playgrounds aren’t readily available at that point in the process. That’s not initial, it’s just the reality on the ground.

The lack of rationality in this debate is just mind-numbing. CBP is doing everything it can with the resources it has to take care of illegal immigrants who are caught. You can not simply dump children on the street corner in the interior. They have to be held, checked out, and placed in homes. That means time in a detention facility. It’s not ideal, but it’s the reality of the situation. No one is purposely hurting kids. These are caring, career law enforcement officials that are on the front lines. They aren’t the Waffen SS running “concentration camps” or any other ridiculous nonsense that’s been propagated lately.

That’s not to say today’s facilities aren’t having issues. these facilities are waning in quality because of a lack of funding, which Democrats steadfastly refuse to provide while they virtue signal their disapproval of the conditions. The game they are playing is simply perverse and no one but right-wing outlets will even bother to call them on it.

This problem could be fixed next week if the mainstream media stopped playing politics and started actually holding Democrats accountable for their obstruction on this. But they won’t. We’ll instead continue to go around in circles because this is too politically advantageous of an issue for Democrats to actually do their jobs.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post A Viral Photo of Children at Detention Facilities Got Blamed on Trump, Reality Tells a Different Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-3-300x152 A Viral Photo of Children at Detention Facilities Got Blamed on Trump, Reality Tells a Different Story unaccompanied minors Politics photo Obama Misrepresentation lying Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump Dishonest Detention Facilities democrats children CBP border   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden: If you think you can’t work with the other side, you might as well start a physical revolution

Westlake Legal Group b-10 Biden: If you think you can’t work with the other side, you might as well start a physical revolution The Blog Revolution poor people's Obama Filibuster Elizabeth Warren campaign bipartisan biden Bernie Sanders

Literally every liberal and conservative activist watching this clip is thinking, “Time for a revolution then, I guess.”

Biden has given variations of this answer repeatedly over the last month, insisting that bipartisanship in Washington is still possible, all conventional wisdom to the contrary notwithstanding. I … kind of think he believes it. It’s the sort of thing he would say even if he didn’t believe it since he’s counting on centrists to be his base and centrists love hearing well-meaning claptrap about reaching across the aisle. But after decades of writing legislation in the Senate and buddying up to Republicans to do it in a past era, he may really believe that his dealmaking prowess and friendly relationships with the GOP on the Hill make him the man to end the new era of fierce of negative hyperpartisanship.

His former boss famously believed this too. Win reelection, Obama thought in 2012, and the Republican resistance would crack and finally get down to the hard business of compromising with him on policy. He did win reelection — but the GOP dug in and won a Senate majority in 2014 which they have yet to relinquish. I bet Trump believes the same thing about 2020. Democrats won the midterms and are confident about their chances next year, so they’re waiting him out on major policy deals right now. But once he’s safely reelected and Pelosi realizes he’s the only game in town until 2024, she’ll come around.

She won’t. Activist organizing and partisan media cocooning on both sides in the Internet age are irresistible forces.

I think Biden’s going to get shredded for this at the debates. There are all sorts of policy issues he can and will be challenged on, but policy is complicated. His apparent belief that Republicans are basically good at heart and want to compromise is, by contrast, very easy for the average left-wing voter to grasp and verrrrrry likely to elicit a strong reaction. “You can shame people to do things the right way,” he insists at the very end of his answer here, ignoring the fact that the very first commandment in the modern Democratic creed is that Republicans are shameless.

The smart answer here, which he should have given, happens also to be the truth: The filibuster is not long for this world regardless of how the 2020 elections turn out. Elizabeth Warren gave that answer at this same event this afternoon, in fact, not long after Biden spoke.

It’s a mortal lock that the filibuster will be scrapped if either party ends up with total control of government next year. Each side has been frustrated legislatively for too long by the 60-vote rule. It must and will change.

I wonder if it might change even if government stays divided. What I mean is that right now seems like an opportune moment for both sides to agree to nuke the rule, sparing themselves from having to take sole responsibility down the road for a raw power grab aimed at ramming their agenda through. Odds are good that the House will stay Democratic and that the Senate will remain Republican on Election Day next year, with the presidency a question mark. As such, with Pelosi enjoying currently veto power over Republican legislation, the stakes are relatively low for Democrats in scrapping the filibuster. If they agreed to do so and then electoral fortunes shifted their way next year, they’d be in position to retake government and enact ambitious programs with the filibuster already long gone by the time they’re sworn in. Same goes, of course, for the GOP if Trump is reelected and they reclaim the House majority.

If Biden were wise, he’d push that idea now. “I believe in bipartisanship,” he might say, “but bipartisanship shouldn’t demand supermajority thresholds. As president, I can bring together majorities in the House and Senate. Let’s move America forward by moving past the filibuster.” Instead Warren’s going to end up saying that at the debates. And it’ll be a big hit when she does.

Exit question: What planet is Uncle Joe on here when he insists that Obama had no time to explain ObamaCare? He explained it for literally six years, bro. His “explanation” was the 2013 lie of the year!

The post Biden: If you think you can’t work with the other side, you might as well start a physical revolution appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-10-300x159 Biden: If you think you can’t work with the other side, you might as well start a physical revolution The Blog Revolution poor people's Obama Filibuster Elizabeth Warren campaign bipartisan biden Bernie Sanders   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Iran: You have 10 days until we pass the limit of uranium we’re allowed to stockpile under the nuclear agreement

Westlake Legal Group r-1 Iran: You have 10 days until we pass the limit of uranium we’re allowed to stockpile under the nuclear agreement uranium enrichment Trump The Blog stockpile Obama nuclear Iran instex highly enriched Europe Bolton

This threat is aimed at Europe more so than at the U.S., although their problem will become our problem if they can’t reach some economic accommodation with Iran quickly. If not, what does Trump propose to do? Both he and Khamenei have ruled out talks, and I suspect Khamenei’s less willing to budge on that than Trump is. (Even John Bolton is willing to entertain diplomacy with Iran now, for cripes sake.) Meanwhile, Trump has reportedly all but ruled out war, recognizing that it would betray his pledge in 2016 to put America first by reducing foreign entanglements.

So if Iran starts to increase enrichment again, what’s the plan to make them stop? More sanctions? Hand the baton to the IAF and wish them luck? Look the other way and hope that a diplomatic breakthrough will arrive before Iran has a stash of weapons-grade uranium?

Remember, although Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from Obama’s nuclear deal and ramped up sanctions, the deal remains in effect momentarily between Iran and the European signatories. America’s sanctions were aimed at bringing “maximum pressure” on Iran, and they’re succeeding; the economic pain has driven Iran to demand that Europe provide some relief ASAP or else it’ll quit the deal too. That helps explain the spate of mysterious tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman lately, as well as the news last week that Iran has increased production of low-enriched uranium. They’re saber-rattling, warning the Europeans that they might go rogue — including on nuclear development — if the money doesn’t start flowing soon. Today’s news is the latest rattle:

Iran is ramping up enrichment of low-grade uranium and will pass the limit it is allowed to stockpile under the nuclear deal in 10 days, a spokesman for the Iranian atomic agency announced Monday…

After exceeding the limit, Iran will accelerate uranium enrichment to 3.7%, Kamalvandi said — above the 3.67% mandated by the nuclear deal. Enrichment at this percentage is enough to continue powering parts of the country’s energy needs, but not enough to ever build a nuclear bomb…

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is perhaps the most outspoken critic of the nuclear deal, called on the international community to immediately impose sanctions on Iran if it violates the 2015 agreement.

Netanyahu wants “snapback sanctions” applied under the terms of the deal if Iran violates it, but of course Iran will claim that America violated the deal first by withdrawing, before Iran began to increase enrichment. Europe will be sympathetic to that argument since it fears Iran going rogue and wants to keep the deal intact to discourage that. In fact, the European signatories have already created a financial mechanism called Instex that aims to enable trade with Iran while evading U.S. sanctions — although, per the Atlantic, the U.S. has threatened to sanction Instex too. (Iran’s counterpart to Instex is also under threat of sanction, of course.) That’s a threshold gut-check question for Trump and Congress: Are they inclined to look the other way at Instex if it begins trading with Iran? If they’re serious about “maximum pressure,” they should sanction it and try to choke Iran off completely from trade with the west — although in that case, a desperate Iran might seek a nuclear “breakout,” enriching uranium to high levels and maybe trying to build a bomb.

If instead the U.S. allows Instex to trade with Iran without sanction, then the “maximum pressure” campaign has a giant loophole. Iran’s economy will be bolstered, not crushed. But that’ll also likely convince Tehran to dial back enrichment and maybe calm down in the Gulf, averting a giant foreign-policy headache before the election. Which way does Trump want to go on this?

Note that Iran’s not just threatening to produce more low-enriched uranium beyond the 300 kg they’re allowed under the terms of the nuclear deal. They’re threatening to refine the uranium they’ve already stockpiled to higher levels, a prerequisite to building a bomb:

He also raised the specter of increasing its enrichment levels, saying Iran needs 5% enriched uranium for its nuclear power plant in southern Iranian port of Bushehr and 20% enriched fuel for its Tehran research reactor…

The danger, nuclear nonproliferation experts warn, is that at 20% enrichment, only a fraction of atoms need to be removed to enrich up to weapons-grade levels of 90%.

Assume Instex is sanctioned, Europe decides that it would rather trade with the U.S. than Iran, and Iran ends up without an economic lifeline. In Bolton’s dream scenario, the Iranian people revolt over their sudden economic hardship, the mullahs are deposed, the new liberal interim Iranian government agrees to give up nukes forever, and Trump hosts the interim president for a grip-and-grin and KFC at the White House. In the nightmare scenario, the economic hardship begins to tilt more Iranians towards the hardliners within the regime, the hardliners insist on more provocations in the Gulf and higher levels of enrichment, and Iran sets out to amass enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb. The good news is that, even in the nightmare scenario, this can’t happen overnight: Last year the Times spoke to experts and estimated that it would take Iran at least a year, perhaps considerably longer, to first stockpile enough low-enriched uranium and then to refine it to bomb-grade levels. The bad news is that U.S. intelligence about Middle Eastern countries’ nuclear capabilities has traditionally been, well, problematic.

But maybe that’s the plan. Isolate Iran economically, let ’em attempt a nuclear breakout, and trust that the economic pain will lead them to beg for mercy and negotiations before they have the HEU they need in hand. (Or before Israel acts.) How lucky do you feel?

The post Iran: You have 10 days until we pass the limit of uranium we’re allowed to stockpile under the nuclear agreement appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group r-1-300x153 Iran: You have 10 days until we pass the limit of uranium we’re allowed to stockpile under the nuclear agreement uranium enrichment Trump The Blog stockpile Obama nuclear Iran instex highly enriched Europe Bolton   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states

Westlake Legal Group t-4 ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states Trump The Blog swing state suppression romney polls Obama Michigan internal biden

It makes me laugh how sensitive people get about bad polling this far out, and by “people” I mean you-know-who. A few days ago the Times reported that “After being briefed on a devastating 17-state poll conducted by his campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win, even though he is also trailing in public polls from key states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania.” He didn’t like that:

At first glance, by “Suppression Polls” I thought he meant that the media was trying to suppress his turnout by publishing discouraging information — 17 months before Election Day, when there’ll be literally thousands of domestic and foreign developments between now and then that ultimately determine how people vote. That would be inane. But no, what he meant (I think?) is that the press has the “real” polls and is suppressing them in order to … make him feel bad, I guess? I don’t know. If you’re going to invent a narrative, “Tight race between Trump and Biden in battlegrounds” sounds juicier than “Biden leading Trump by margins that’ll never, ever hold up in reality.”

But Trump has been consistent about this. From the first few weeks of his administration, any news that might reflect badly on him is necessarily “fake news.” And that definitely includes polling.

The wrinkle in this new ABC report is that his own campaign manager has confirmed that these polls are real — or were. They’re now outdated, says Brad Parscale. And wouldn’t you know it, he says that in the latest internal polling Trump has zoomed ahead.

The polling data, revealed for the first time by ABC News, showed a double-digit lead for Biden in Pennsylvania 55-39 and Wisconsin 51-41 and had Biden leading by seven points in Florida. In Texas, a Republican stronghold, the numbers showed the president only leading by two points…

“These leaked numbers are ancient, in campaign terms, from months-old polling that began in March before two major events had occurred: the release of the summary of the Mueller report exonerating the President, and the beginning of the Democrat candidates defining themselves with their far-left policy message,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale told ABC News in a statement. “Since then, we have seen huge swings in the President’s favor across the 17 states we have polled, based on the policies now espoused by the Democrats. For example, the plan to provide free health care to illegal immigrants results in an 18-point swing toward President Trump.”

Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary of special counsel Robert Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election was released on March 24. While the Trump campaign’s full poll, which canvassed 17 states, was already in the field, it was well underway for four additional days after the release of Barr’s letter to the public.

Recently, said Parscale, the campaign has begun to conduct polling keyed to specific issues that Democrats are running on and those polls are much more encouraging, with Trump allegedly leading in Florida by eight points. (Spoiler: He will not win Florida by anything like eight points, just like Biden won’t win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin by double digits.) The trouble with his broader argument, that the March data is outdated because it doesn’t include voter reaction to Mueller clearing Trump of collusion, is that there have been lots of public polls since then showing that Mueller’s conclusions didn’t move the needle much for Trump. His average job approval on March 24 was 43.1; today it’s 44.1. That’s a good number for him and shows promise, but a one-point average gain isn’t going to completely turn around a race like the Pennsylvania one where Biden is supposedly up by 15.

Plus, Parscale neglects to mention that Biden got a big bounce when he finally entered the race in late April, a month after the internal poll described above was completed. He went from 30 percent or so in the Democratic primary average all the way up to 41 percent before cooling off and returning to the 32.3 percent support he currently enjoys. It’s highly unlikely that Biden’s announcement triggered rising support for him in various public polls and distinguished him as the clear frontrunner in the Democratic field and yet, simultaneously, saw him tank against Trump in various battleground states where he had been leading big. Even Parscale’s point about polling on the issues doesn’t really add up for Biden. It may be that some of Bernie Sanders’s more wild-eyed plans poll poorly when tested, but Biden’s guaranteed to embrace a more moderate agenda if he’s the nominee. If it’s true that even Biden’s platform is toxic to American voters than what Parscale means to say is that no Democrat can win. Trump’s victory is assured. No one believes that.

Here’s a more convincing explanation for why this internal poll can be safely regarded, from the pollster himself:

That would explain the ludicrous 16-point Biden lead Fabrizio found in Pennsylvania. But this too comes with a grain of salt: Per the Times excerpt up top, Trump instructed his aides to simply lie about the results when asked. Would Fabrizio tell us the truth about the results if they were unflattering to POTUS, knowing his job might be on the line if he did? And what does he mean specifically when he mentions that Democrats were “defined”? Defined how? If he asked voters, “Do you prefer Donald Trump or Joe Biden, who’s a plagiarist, a China dove, and a cuck?”, he might indeed have seen more voters favor Trump. But that wouldn’t be a very useful poll.

Anyway. The proper response to bad early internal polls is not to make up some nonsense about how they’ve completely turned around in the span of 10 weeks, it’s to point to the track record of polling this early and say, “Who cares?” The early general-election polls tell us nothing. They’re fun for bloggy water-cooler conversation but they’re nothing to worry about yet, let alone lie about.

In the runup to the 2016 presidential election, this same question came up, and FiveThirtyEight analyzed general election polls from 1944 to 2012 that tested the eventual nominees and were conducted in the last two months of the year before the election (so for 2012, that would be November and December of 2011). On average, these polls missed the final result by 11 percentage points.

Jump back to roughly this point in the 2016 cycle, for example, and Clinton was ahead of all eight of her hypothetical GOP opponents in a May 2015 Quinnipiac poll, with a whopping 50-32 advantage over Trump.

It’s especially foolish to invest in early general-election polls this year when Democrats are split not just among candidates but among ideologies. Is Trump going to face Obama’s VP or an avowed socialist? That’ll matter in swing states, a lot. And yet it’s a complete mystery and will remain so for months.

There’s no reason to sweat the numbers now but there’s no reason to be in denial about them either. Lots of public polling shows that Trump has work to do in battleground states, with the most recent survey dropping just this afternoon. He has a good economic argument for reelection. That may be all he needs.

The post ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-4-300x153 ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states Trump The Blog swing state suppression romney polls Obama Michigan internal biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com