Recently Added Videos

What moral sacrifices should the U.S. be willing to make to secure North Korea’s effective denuclearization?

I ask that question in light of the uproar that has followed President Trump’s equivocation over Otto Warmbier. An American student who was imprisoned in North Korea, Warmbier died shortly after his return to the U.S. in 2017. But where Trump previously condemned Warmbier’s demise as evidence of Kim Jong Un’s barbarous regime, on Thursday the president changed tack. Referring to a discussion with Kim about what happened to Warmbier, Trump said, “He tells me that he didn’t know about it and I will take him at his word.”

I get why that comment greatly upsets some people. As my colleague Becket Adams notes, “Considering the Kim regime maintains an iron grip on all information that comes in and out of North Korea, and the fact that he has a murderous special police who are tasked specifically with keeping him informed of all goings on in the country, Trump’s suggestion that the North Korean despot wasn’t aware of what was happening to Warmbier beggars belief.”

He’s right. Kim Jong Un would have known what happened to Warmbier and would have been able to ensure his better treatment. Trump knows that Kim Jong Un would have known. Yet, while Trump’s words were poorly chosen, I have sympathy for his broader point that just about anything that can bring about North Korea’s denuclearization is worth doing.

The question is, where does the line lay? What sacrifice is too much?

That’s what we have to debate. Some, such as CNN’s Chris Cillizza, appears to believe Warmbier’s new treatment by Trump is too much. He asserts that the “question that has to be asked is, at what cost? How much of our moral principles and standing in the world are we willing to sacrifice to appease a dictator with a horrendous human rights record?”

It’s a legitimate question.

But if the benefit is a denuclearization deal, then the question must be judged against the counterpoint. The counterpoint here is a prospective war with North Korea.

That makes me accept Trump’s words. Because I do not want to see young Americans fight another bloody battle in defense of South Korea, not unless that battle is absolutely necessary. It’s a moral choice. My moral judgment is that such a war would be more “horrendous” than the “horrendous human rights record” of Kim Jong Un.

The history of the last Korean War suggests as much. In his history of the November-December 1950 Battle of Chosin Resevoir, On Desperate Ground, Hampton Sides records the brutal cold that the Marines suffered. “The cold seemed to come with only one upside: it had a cauterizing effect on wounds. Blood from bullet holes or shrapnel tears simply froze to the skin and simply froze to the skin and stopped flowing.”

I do not wish to see this suffering replicated in 2019 or another year yet to come. To prevent it, I am willing to stomach Kim Jong Un’s continued evisceration of his people. Yes, even his murderous brutality towards a young American.

As these negotiations go forward, we should always keep Otto Warmbier and the suffering North Korean people in our memory. But we must also remember Americans like Jesse Brown who died at Chosin in 1950.

The moral choices between war and peace may be clear, but they’re rarely simple.

[Related: Trump claim that Kim Jong Un ‘didn’t know’ about Otto Warmbier at odds with court testimony]

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/otto-warmbier-trump-and-the-moral-price-of-peace

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

(CNN)The chairman of the House Oversight Committee issued a stark warning Friday to White House counsel Pat Cipollone, demanding that the White House turn over documents and comply with interviews related to how the White House handled security clearances of some of the President’s closest advisers.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/congress-investigate-security-clearances/index.html

    WASHINGTON — The top tax-writing committee in the House is readying a request for years of President Donald Trump’s personal tax returns that is expected to land at the Internal Revenue Service as early as the next few weeks, according to congressional aides involved in the process. And Democrats are prepared to “take all necessary steps,” including litigation, in order to obtain them.

    Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has asked the committee’s attorneys to prepare the request, according to two aides involved in the process. Neal has also contacted the chairs of several other House investigative committees, including Oversight and Government Reform, Financial Services, Intelligence and Judiciary, asking them to provide detailed arguments for why they need the president’s tax returns to conduct their probes.

    “Every day the American people and Congress learn more about President Trump’s improprieties, from conflicts of interest to influence peddling, potential tax evasion and violations of the Constitution — all roads leading back to President Trump’s finances,” said Ashley Etienne, spokeswoman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    “These improprieties, and the lack of transparency around them, give the House legitimate legislative, oversight and legal reasons to review the President’s tax returns. We will take all necessary steps, including litigation, if necessary, to obtain them.” Etienne confirmed that the committees are working together to “ensure the House is able to present the strongest possible case.”

    Ways and Means is the only congressional committee with the authority to directly make the request for Trump’s returns. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whose department has authority over the IRS, will decide whether or not to grant the request.

    Neal had earlier said he might wait for the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia before making the request. The case to draw in multiple committee stakeholders was bolstered after Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee earlier this week, the aides said.

    There are several key pieces of information Cohen, Trump’s former personal “fixer” and attorney, provided in his testimony that strengthen the case for Congress to obtain the returns, according to the aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

    Among other things, Cohen testified that Trump, as head of the sprawling Trump Organization before his election in 2016, had at times deflated the value of his properties to lower his tax bill and called the government “stupid” for giving him a $10 million tax refund in 2008. Under questioning from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Cohen also said Trump had provided inflated assets to an insurance company.

    In a break with modern tradition, Trump has steadfastly refused to disclose his returns, suggesting they are under audit. Every U.S. president dating back to Richard Nixon has voluntarily disclosed his tax returns to the public.

    The U.S. tax code authorizes the Ways and Means Committee to obtain any U.S. taxpayers’ returns. Yet committee lawyers are expected to craft a request as precise as possible, aides said, in order to short circuit an all-but-certain legal challenge by the president that could draw the process out.

    Specifically, the committee is likely to focus on Trump’s personal returns versus his business filings, given the complex nature of the Trump Organization. According to his latest financial disclosure, the Trump Organization includes more than 500 different limited liability companies (LLCs) and shell companies that might take years to obtain and analyze.

    Trump uses LLCs to house and manage his assets, as many wealthy individuals and businesses do, particularly in real estate. Under this arrangement, business income can also “pass through” the LLC to the owner’s individual tax returns.

    The committee believes 10 years of his personal returns “can give a good sense of whether there is any evidence of tax fraud and numerous items of interest,” an aide said.

    Importantly, the aide said the committee also believes it also has the authority to obtain any correspondence between Trump and the IRS, including whether he’s been audited and the results of the audit, that might provide additional information. Cohen, for his part, testified that he didn’t actually think Trump’s tax returns were under audit during the 2016 election, contrary to what Trump has long claimed.

    Democrats will also use Trump’s tax returns to explore whether he sought to write off as a business expense the hush money payments Cohen said he made on behalf of the president to porn star Stormy Daniels.

    At a hearing Neal called last month laying the groundwork to request the president’s taxes, tax expert Steven Rosenthal said Trump had exhibited “aggressive tax planning” prior to his 2016 election and “could have eliminated his taxes for a couple of decades” by claiming millions in business-related losses.

    “There is a lot to find,” said Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center who scrutinized portions of Trump’s 1995 and 2005 returns last year in partnership with the New York Times.

    The Times reported in October that the president received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it by skirting U.S. tax laws.

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-prepare-effort-request-trump-tax-returns-n978246

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is becoming frustrated with centrist Democrats for casting votes that may suit their individual political considerations, but undermine the interest of the party as a whole. The difficulty she’s running into is complicated by the legacy of Obamacare.

    House Republicans have been wielding what little power they have in the minority to force Democrats to cast difficult votes that split their caucus. On Wednesday, Republicans employed a parliamentary tool known as a ” motion to recommit,” to get centrist Democrats to add an amendment to a gun control bill to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement if an illegal immigrant tries to purchase a gun. That meant the rest of the caucus had to vote for the ICE provision, which they hated, to secure passage of their gun control legislation.

    As my colleague Susan Ferrechio reported, Pelosi has now been telling her caucus to, as a rule, just vote against all Republican motions to recommit. Meanwhile, she is working with other party leaders to come up with a way to limit the ability of the minority party to offer such votes. But even if she succeeds in weakening this particular tactic, it doesn’t change the more fundamental problem facing Pelosi.

    Though Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has become the face of the party, the reality is that she isn’t the one that put Democrats in the majority. That is, Ocasio-Cortez and her young band of socialists, all represent districts that were already held by Democrats. Her district went 78 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and won’t ever be in danger. It was the dozens of Democrats flipping Republican seats in swing districts, some of which voted for President Trump, who gave Democrats their majority.

    It isn’t surprising then that Rep. Conor Lamb, a Pennsylvania Democrat representing constituents who voted for Trump, supported the ICE amendment, telling the Hill, “I vote my district.”

    So regardless of how Pelosi changes the rules, if Pelosi wants to move legislation supported by the liberal base, she’s going to have to convince centrists to take a plunge. This is where the bad experience of Obamacare comes in.

    In 2009 and 2010, when Pelosi was twisting arms of centrist Democrats to get them to vote for Obamacare, she insisted that it would be a political winner once it passed. When she said, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy” it was misrepresented as her calling for people to not bother reading the bill until after they voted for it. In reality, she was trying to argue that Obamacare would become popular once it passed.

    We all know how that turned out. In 2010, Democrats lost 63 seats and control of the House. It wouldn’t be until 2018 that Obamacare could be seen as a net vote-getter for Democrats, but before that point, the careers of dozens of centrist Democrats were destroyed because they listened to Pelosi instead of their constituents.

    As Pelosi tries to unite disparate factions within her caucus, the memory of Obamacare will make it a lot more difficult to convince Democrats in swing districts to vote for sweeping liberal legislation.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/how-the-ghost-of-obamacare-is-haunting-nancy-pelosis-speakership

    We’ve detected unusual activity from your computer network

    To continue, please click the box below to let us know you’re not a robot.

    Source Article from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/washington-governor-inslee-joins-democratic-presidential-field

    • Former Vice President Joe Biden said he believes that President Donald Trump was right to walk away from the second summit with North Korea.
    • “The president did the right thing by walking away,” Biden said while visiting the University of Nebraska at Omaha on Thursday.
    • However, the potential 2020 candidate also slammed the president on his approach to diplomacy.
    • “But diplomacy matters; preparation matters,” he continued. “The president treats everything like it’s a real-estate deal.”

    Former Vice President Joe Biden said that President Donald Trump was right to walk away from the second summit with North Korea. However, the potential 2020 candidate had sharp words for the president’s brand of diplomacy.

    Biden was speaking at the first Chuck Hagel Forum in Global Leadership at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, Nebraska on Thursday. He was in conversation with Hagel, who is not only a former Republican senator, but also served as US secretary of defense during the Obama administration.

    The two former, longtime Senate colleagues discussed the role of US leadership in global affairs.

    RELATED: Donad Trump – Joe Biden feud sparks savage meme




    “American leadership and engagement in the world is essential,” Biden said, according to the Lincoln Journal Star. “If the US fails to lead, who will take our place?”

    Biden also commented on the second US-North Korea summit, which took place this week in Vietnam and broke down on Thursday without an agreement between Trump and Kim Jong Un. The negotiations reportedly broke down over what sanctions would be lifted for what degree of denuclearization. 

    Read more:Trump’s second North Korea meeting ‘clearly is a failure’ as Kim Jong Un walks away with dangerous nuclear arsenal intact

    The former vice president said “hard, hard, hard and consistent diplomacy” was required for tough negotiations, but he gave the president props for walking away from the deal.

    “The president did the right thing by walking away,” Biden reportedly said.

    “But diplomacy matters, preparation matters,” he continued. “The president treats everything like it’s a real-estate deal.”

    He characterized the first summit, where Trump met with Kim in Singapore last year and the two signed a four-point agreement calling for peace on the Korean peninsula and denuclearization of North Korea, as a “great gift” to the North Korean dictator.

    “He was legitimized,” Biden said, according to the Journal Star. “This guy is a thug.”

    Biden is currently contemplating a run for the presidency in 2020, and recently he’s been making stops at universities in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Nebraska. 

    NOW WATCH: The top 15 presidents according to historians

    See Also:

    SEE ALSO: ‘I will take him at his word’: Trump sides with North Korea and says Kim Jong Un had no idea Otto Warmbier was in ‘horrible’ condition

    Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/03/01/biden-praises-trump-for-walking-away-from-n-korea-summit/23681481/

    The mayor of Ciudad Juárez, meanwhile, has threatened to sue a neighboring governor for shipping migrants to his town. It has become a game of political hot potato, with desperate Central Americans who are fleeing poverty and violence caught in the middle.

    Elsewhere along the border, shelter officials say they manage lists of asylum applicants by name, nationality, age and documentation to assist Mexican officials who are complying with American border patrol mandates.

    The Mexican government is resisting Mr. Trump in some ways, the official in Mr. López Obrador’s government insisted. Even acquiescing to the Trump administration on the Migrant Protection Protocols was done strategically, according to the official and two others briefed on the plan.

    By allowing the program to start in San Diego and Tijuana, the Mexican officials argued, legal challenges to it in the United States go to the federal courts in the Northern District of California, which are generally seen as liberal. This matters at a time when many Americans are focused on how to beat Mr. Trump in the 2020 elections, in particular by leveraging the Mexican-American vote.

    But many activists are far from confident that a legal challenge will put an end to the program.

    “I think it’s an incredibly risky move,” said Stephanie Leutert, the director of the Mexico Security Initiative at the University of Texas at Austin. “I don’t think you should put your country’s foreign and migratory policy in the hands of a civil society organization in another country.”

    Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/americas/mexico-migration-trump.html

    The parents of American college student Otto Warmbier, who died after his detention in North Korea, on Friday countered President Trump’s suggestion that Kim Jong Un was unaware of their son’s treatment – blaming the “evil regime” for Otto’s death and saying no amount of “lavish praise” can change that.

    The president drew bipartisan criticism for saying during Thursday’s summit in Hanoi that he takes Kim “at his word.”

    TRUMP CUTS SUMMIT SHORT

    “I believe something very bad happened to him,” Trump said. “I don’t think leadership knew about it.”

    Fred and Cindy Warmbier released a brief statement on Friday morning reiterating their long-held claim that the regime is responsible for their son’s death:

    “We have been respectful during this summit process.  Now we must speak out. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for the death of our son Otto. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity. No excuses or lavish praise can change that.”

    White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway clarified in an interview Friday on Fox News, however, that the president agrees with the family and holds North Korea “responsible.” She said Trump was only saying there’s no indication Kim knew what happened at the time.

    “Of course he holds North Korea responsible. He has deep affection and shares the grief of the Warmbier family. That will never end,” she said.

    The 22-year-old University of Virginia student died in June 2017 after being returned home in a vegetative state. His parents have said he was tortured. The suburban Cincinnati youth was visiting North Korea with a tour group when he was detained in 2016 for allegedly stealing a propaganda poster. North Korea has denied mistreating Warmbier.

    Trump’s comments on the case drew criticism back home, recalling moments like when he did not challenge Vladimir Putin’s denial of election meddling at their 2018 summit.

    “We shouldn’t be naive about this regime and about the way they mistreat their own people. And certainly the way they mistreated Otto Warmbier,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said Thursday.

    There have been conflicting reports over whether Warmbier was tortured. But Trump himself asserted in September 2017 that Warmbier was “tortured beyond belief by North Korea.”

    DETAILS EMERGE ON RACE TO SAVE WARMBIER

    Last summer, Warmbier’s parents praised Trump after he said the first summit with Kim might not have happened if not for Warmbier, and that “Otto did not die in vain.”

    Fox News’ Eric Shawn and Jason Donner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warmbiers-parents-push-back-on-trump-comments-blame-kims-evil-regime-for-sons-death

    White House senior adviser Jared Kushner has been at the center of a controversy over security clearances. The New York Times is now reporting that President Trump intervened to get Kushner clearance against his aides’ advice.

    Win McNamee/Getty Images


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    White House senior adviser Jared Kushner has been at the center of a controversy over security clearances. The New York Times is now reporting that President Trump intervened to get Kushner clearance against his aides’ advice.

    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    Updated at 11:39 a.m. ET

    The White House and the leader of the House oversight committee are squaring off for what could become a battle royale over security clearances within the Trump administration.

    Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., launched an investigation in January into the White House’s practices in awarding clearances to top aides. On Friday, he said he’s accelerating those efforts following a report that President Trump intervened personally to grant access to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, over aides’ objections.

    Cummings says the radio silence he’s gotten so far from the White House is unacceptable.

    “To date, the White House has not produced a single document or scheduled a single interview,” he said. “The committee expects full compliance with its requests as soon as possible, or it may become necessary to consider alternative means to compel compliance.”

    Translation: Cummings and majority Democrats may try to compel material from within the administration that tells the story of Trump’s clearance practices, especially two key memos that were described on Thursday in The New York Times.

    On the record

    Former chief of staff John Kelly and former White House counsel Don McGahn both went so far as to describe in writing their objections to Kushner getting a security clearance, the newspaper reported — but Trump overruled them and other national security officials and authorized one for him anyway.

    NPR has not independently confirmed the Times‘ report but Cummings said the story strengthens the case for his inquiry. He laid out his argument in a new letter to the White House on Friday:

    “If true, these new reports raise grave questions about what derogatory information career officials obtained about Mr. Kushner to recommend denying him access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets why President Trump concealed his role in overruling that recommendation, why General Kelly and Mr. McGahn both felt compelled to document these actions, and why your office is continuing to withhold key documents and witnesses from this committee.”

    Trump, Kushner’s attorney, and Trump’s daughter Ivanka, Kushner’s wife, have said the president wasn’t involved with arranging the clearances.

    A spokesman for Kushner’s attorney said on Friday that the explanations given about Jared and Ivanka’s clearances were accurate based on the information available then, suggesting that if Trump had intervened, they didn’t know that at the time they discussed it with reporters.

    “In 2018, White House and security clearance officials affirmed that Mr. Kushner’s security clearance was handled in the regular process with no pressure from anyone,” said Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Kushner attorney Abbe Lowell. “That was conveyed to the media at the time, and new stories, if accurate, do not change what was affirmed at the time.”

    The White House said it would not comment on security clearance matters.

    In the past, Trump has rejected the premise of Democrats’ investigations as “presidential harassment” and his administration isn’t expected to cooperate by providing witnesses or documents.

    In the event that Cummings tries to use a subpoena, Trump also could assert that the materials he wants are shielded by executive privilege, which permits an administration to keep some of its internal workings out of the public view.

    That would likely lead to a dispute in court.

    Plenary power

    National security authorities investigate people in the White House who are nominated for access to classified information, but the president retains the power to authorize whether or not they get it.

    The clearance issue has dogged Trump since the beginning of his presidency, partly because of a slow, backlogged investigation process and partly because of suggestions that he has overruled national security officials in the past.

    Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has argued that only people who merit access to sensitive information should get it.

    Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., asked him about that at a hearing in January following earlier reports that Trump has awarded clearances to people against the advice of the national security establishment.

    “Would you still recommend minimal access to classified documents to those White House officials since FBI experts recommended that they not be given those top-secret clearances?” Heinrich asked.

    Yes, Coats said: “I do support providing all the information necessary for not only the White House, but for all of our branches relative to providing security clearance,” he said. “They have the authority to do that. We issue guidelines in terms of what ought to be adhered to.”

    FBI Director Christopher Wray also was asked about the clearance process; he explained that the bureau simply serves as a vendor for its client — in this case, the White House — but one without the power to determine who should or should not gain access to secret information.

    “What we do is we assemble the information,” he said. “We provide the factual information. We do not actually make recommendations one way or the other about the clearances. The decision about what to do based on those facts is entrusted by long-standing process to the requesting entity. So we provide the information, but then they make the call.”

    Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/699317698/battle-over-security-clearances-accelerates-with-report-of-trump-intervention

    <!– –>

    Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced Friday he’s entering the 2020 presidential race as a climate change crusader but he’s facing risk given polls show the issue ranks near the bottom as an issue priority for adult Americans.

    “I’m running for president because I’m the only candidate who will make defeating climate change our nation’s number one priority,” Inslee said in a video released Friday.

    Inslee, 68, joins a crowded field of Democratic contenders who have announced or are considering running for president.

    He is the first governor enter the 2020 Democratic presidential contest while another Western governor also is considering a run — Montana Gov. Steve Bullock.

    In a Morning Consult survey last month, Inslee ranked 21st among Democratic primary voters. He was below Bullock and another potential contender, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

    Inslee has openly discussed his interest in a White House run for many months and from the start focused on climate change. The Democrat has already visited key early states, including Iowa and New Hampshire.

    “We’re the first generation to feel the sting of climate change,” Inslee said in Friday’s video. “And we’re the last that can do something about it.”

    The Washington governor is expected to make the White House bid official during an event Friday morning at a Seattle-area solar installation company. In a release, his campaign said Inslee’s policies have helped “grow Washington’s clean energy economy” and include signing a solar incentive jobs bill in 2017.

    But not everyone considers climate change a top priority issue, according to Pew Research Center.

    A Pew survey conducted in January found only 44 percent view climate change as a top priority of President Donald Trump and Congress, ranking it second lowest after global trade (39 percent). By comparison, 70 percent of those surveyed felt the economy should rank top as a policy priority and 69 percent identified health care costs.

    Climate policies

    In November, Inslee visited California after the Camp Fire destroyed most of the town of Paradise and later spoke about how climate change is contributing to more dangerous wildfires. Some of images in the launch video released Friday appear to show devastation from the Camp Fire, which destroyed more than 10,000 homes and killed 86 people.

    Inslee, a two-term governor who applauds the Green New Deal, has been outspoken on the environmental issues and the need for clean energy for more than a decade. Prior to becoming governor, he served in Congress and authored “Apollo’s Fire,” a 2007 book about how to reduce greenhouse gases and gain energy independence.

    Yet several other Democratic presidential contenders are also talking about climate change themes and a mix of ways to combat greenhouse gas emissions, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii. Also, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has weighed in on climate change as a human rights issue.

    Carbon tax defeat

    Inslee’s climate agenda suffered a setback last year when the oil industry funded a campaign to defeat a carbon emissions fee initiative the governor backed. The measure was seen as a way to raise revenue as well as to help the state achieve ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals.

    One way around the voter setback is a pending clean energy bill that would require the state’s utilities to be carbon-free by 2045. The state already gets the majority of its power from hydroelectricity sources.

    He also is a former criminal prosecutor and was a state legislator in Olympia before getting elected Washington’s 23rd governor in 2012 and re-elected in 2016. He could seek a third term if his presidential run isn’t successful.

    The Washington governor also has strong views on other issues, including gun control, health care, immigration and labor issues.

    Gun Control

    Inslee is an advocate for stricter gun control laws and in 1994 while in Congress voted for the 10-year assault weapons ban. He also challenged Trump at a White House event last year on the issue of arming teachers with firearms.

    Last year, Washington voters approved Initiative 1639, a measure Inslee supported that raised the age to purchase semiautomatic rifles to 21, from 18. The initiative also expanded background checks for rifles and added other new regulations, including firearm education and new standards for secured gun storage.

    Health Care

    Inslee backs a public health care option for the state that would compete with private insurers. The plan was proposed in January and promises that patients will spend no more than 10 percent of their income on premiums.

    The Democrat has criticized the “instability” in the health care system that was caused by undermining Obamacare. His plan would expand subsidies to private insurers but has generated criticism due to concerns about costs from some critics.

    Immigration

    Inslee has been critical of Trump’s immigration policies and signed an executive order in 2017 that limited the state’s role in enforcing immigration enforcement laws. He also pushed to increase the state’s emergency funding to support civil legal aid services for immigrant families.

    The governor also recently called Trump’s emergency declaration over the border wall “illegal” and last year slammed the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy of separating families as “an intentional infliction, abusive behavior to punish innocent children.”

    Labor

    While he’s been governor, Washington state’s minimum wage has increased and currently stands at $12 an hour and is scheduled to jump to $13.50 in 2020. Seattle’s minimum wage last year jumped to $15 for those employers offering paid medical benefits while smaller employers have a wage floor of $14 an hour.

    Inslee also has talked up progressive policies in the Evergreen State, including what he’s called one of nation’s “best paid family and medical leave” programs.

    Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/01/jay-inslee-faces-risk-in-2020-race-as-polling-shows-climate-not-top-issue.html

    ST. LOUIS, Mo. —  A winter storm will impact the region Saturday night and Sunday. A Winter Storm Watch has been issued. Snow will spread northward into the region late Saturday evening and Saturday night. Snow, heavy at times, will continue through Sunday morning, tapering off Sunday afternoon from west to east.

    Total accumulations of 4″ to 6″ look to be possible for most of the viewing area, including St. Louis. The snow forecast is very dependent on the track of the low-pressure system. If the track shifts, so will the area of heaviest snow. Stay tuned.

    Grab our app for updates: Android – Apple

    Source Article from https://fox2now.com/2019/03/01/storm-may-drop-4-to-6-of-snow-on-st-louis-this-weekend/

    Former Vice President Joe Biden isn’t even a candidate for president yet, and he’s already found himself apologizing. This time, the offense is the unconscionable act of saying his successor, Vice President Mike Pence, is a “decent guy.”

    If this is any indication of how a Biden candidacy is going to go, he may as well not bother running.

    For those who missed it, Biden came under fire from actress turned activist turned failed political candidate Cynthia Nixon, and the following exchange ensued:

    The problem this represents for Biden is two-fold.

    The root issue is that Biden has been involved in federal politics since joining the Senate in 1973. That means he spent most of his career in a totally different political and cultural era than the current one. Running for president now, he’ll be forced to explain past positions and statements that are out of sync with the current party. He’ll also need to answer for his willingness to get along with politicians on the other side.

    Before “decent-gate,” Biden had already been forced to apologize for supporting the 1994 crime bill, which liberals criticized for ushering in an era of mass incarceration. He’s also been put on the defensive for his handling of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    So Biden is going to be called on to apologize for all sorts of past statements and positions as well as current attitudes that will be portrayed as out of touch.

    One way to handle it would be to do so as he did in January. At that time, he joked about his friendly relations with Republicans. “I get in trouble,” Biden said at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. “I read in the New York Times today that one of my problems is if I were ever to run for president is I like Republicans. OK, well bless me, Father, for I have sinned.”

    Essentially, under this model, Biden will carve out a position for himself as somebody who is closer to the center-left, as an adult in the room who is able to work with Republicans to get things done. He may ultimately lose, but this is the only path to victory that’s open to him.

    If Biden enters the race only to spend the next year apologizing for being insufficiently “woke,” he’ll just look like a complete buffoon, without convincing any skeptics who will have plenty of alternatives to choose from who are younger and more in touch with contemporary sensibilities on the Left.

    If he isn’t going to run his race, he may as well recognize that his time has passed, and instead step aside and make room for the new crop of politicians.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/joe-biden-in-apologizing-for-calling-mike-pence-a-decent-guy-shows-why-he-shouldnt-bother-running-for-president

    Michael Cohen was supposed to provide “bombshell” testimony against President Trump. Well, the bombshell didn’t explode.

    Not long ago, many were speculating that Cohen might have recorded conversations with Trump admitting that he had made payments to Stormy Daniels for political purposes, instructed Cohen to lie to Congress, colluded with Russia or knew in advance about the infamous Trump Tower meeting. It turns out Cohen didn’t have anything like that. His testimony was certainly embarrassing for the president, but Cohen offered no evidence to advance the cause of impeachment.

    To the contrary, some of his testimony was exculpatory. While Cohen testified that Trump ordered him to pay off Stormy Daniels “as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws,” elsewhere in his testimony he declared that Trump did not care about winning the election. He said Trump saw the campaign as an “infomercial” for the Trump brand, adding that “He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign — for him — was always a marketing opportunity.”

    HERE’S WHY WHAT MICHAEL COHEN IS DOING IS SO DAMAGING TO EVERYDAY AMERICANS

    Well, if Trump didn’t care about winning, that undermines the case that the payments were a campaign finance violation. Indeed, Cohen offered evidence that Trump’s motivation was in fact keeping his affair from his wife. “He asked me to pay off an adult film star with whom he had an affair, and to lie to his wife about it,” Cohen said. “Lying to the first lady is one of my biggest regrets. … She did not deserve that.” Paying hush money because he did not want his wife to find out he was having an affair with a porn star is sleazy, but it is not a crime.

    Cohen also cleared Trump of the charge that he had directed Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Trump Tower project. Cohen declared that “I lied to Congress” and Trump “did not directly tell me to lie.” Cohen said he assumed Trump wanted him to lie, so he did what he thought Trump wanted. Sorry, that’s not evidence of a crime.

    Nor did Cohen provide proof of collusion with Russia. Indeed, he told the committee “I wouldn’t use the word ‘colluding'” though he thought there was “something odd about the back-and-forth praise with President [Vladimir] Putin.” So did many of us. But while saying nice things about the Russian dictator may be evidence of bad judgment, it is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy to collude with Putin to steal the election.

    Cohen provided no evidence that Trump knew about the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Last July, CNN breathlessly reported that Cohen had told Mueller that “Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in which Russians were expected to offer his campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton” and that “he was present, along with several others, when Trump was informed of the Russians’ offer by [Donald] Trump Jr.” That’s not what Cohen told Congress on Wednesday. He testified he didn’t know about the Trump Tower meeting in advance — he “read all over the media” about it — but that in retrospect he thought that Trump Jr. might have been telling Trump about the Russia meeting when he walked into Trump’s office and whispered into Trump’s ear in front of Cohen “the meeting is all set.” Big difference.

    Cohen testified he was in the room when Roger Stone called Trump and told him that WikiLeaks was going to release emails damaging to Hillary Clinton, and that Trump “responded by stating to the effect of ‘wouldn’t that be great.'” Trump knowing in advance that WikiLeaks, acting on its own, was going to put out dirt on Clinton is not illegal.

    In other words, Cohen’s testimony was a dud. That does not exonerate Trump, not by a long shot. The Mueller report is still yet to come, and Cohen testified there were elements of his cooperation with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York that he could not discuss.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    But we did learn something disturbing at Wednesday’s hearing — how shameless the new Democratic House majority will be in their efforts to undermine the Trump presidency. Democrats scheduled the Cohen hearing on the very same day the president was in Vietnam trying to broker a deal on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We all had a stake in the president’s success. They could have waited one day to avoid creating a distraction during a critical diplomatic moment. But they didn’t, because for Democrats it seems that embarrassing Trump is more important than disarming a tyrant.

    Talk about sleazy.

    CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MARC THIESSEN

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-this-is-the-most-disturbing-thing-we-learned-from-the-cohen-hearing

    Friday, March 01, 2019

    View Larger +

    Photo: GoFundMe Page

    Louis Coleman, III, a systems engineer at Raytheon who lived in an upscale apartment in Providence’s Jewelry District, was captured by police in Delaware on Thursday and he is the leading suspect in the kidnapping and death of 23-year-old Jassy Correia, according to police.

    Corriea’s family first told the Boston media that her death is confirmed.

    “A body has been recovered and we are awaiting a positive identification at this time,” Boston Police said. “The cause and manner of death are pending.”

    Correia’s body was found in the trunk of the car being driven by Coleman, according to Correia’s family.

    According to witnesses in Boston and surveillance tapes — Coleman and Correia meet at the Boston club Venue and left together late Saturday night/Sunday morning.

    “We conducted a search warrant of the apartment here, inside 95 Chestnut, but I cannot talk about the details about what was uncovered,” said Providence Police Chief Hugh Clements Jr. “We are treating it as a homicide investigation.”

    Donations can be made at the GoFundMe page to support Correia’s daughter — CLICK HERE.

    Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

    Source Article from https://www.golocalprov.com/news/ri-engineer-captured-tied-to-death-of-23-year-old-boston-mother

    HANOI, Vietnam — President Donald Trump said he walked away from his second summit with Kim Jong Un because the North Korean leader demanded the U.S. lift all of its sanctions, a claim that Kim’s delegation called a rare news conference in the middle of the night to deny.

    So who’s telling the truth? In this case, it seems that the North Koreans are. And it’s a demand they have been pushing for weeks in lower-level talks.

    Trump’s much-anticipated meeting with Kim, held in the Vietnamese capital Wednesday and Thursday, ended abruptly and without the two leaders signing any agreements. Trump spoke with reporters soon after the talks broke down and said the dispute over sanctions was the deal breaker.

    “Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that,” he said. “We had to walk away from that.”

    Hours later, two senior members of the North’s delegation told reporters that was not what Kim had demanded. They insisted Kim had asked only for partial sanctions relief in exchange for shutting down the North’s main nuclear complex. Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho said the North was also ready to offer in writing a permanent halt of the country’s nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests.

    Vice Foreign Minister Choe Sun Hui said Trump’s reaction puzzled Kim and added that Kim “may have lost his will (to continue) North Korea-U.S. dealings.”

    The State Department then clarified the U.S. position.

    According to a senior official who briefed the media on condition he not be named because he was not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly, the North Koreans “basically asked for the lifting of all sanctions.”

    But he acknowledged the North’s demand was only for Washington to back the lifting of United Nations Security Council sanctions imposed since March 2016 and didn’t include the other resolutions going back a decade more.

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-overstated-kim-s-demand-sanctions-state-department-says-n978016

    CLOSE

    White House Senior Adviser and son-in-law to the president, Jared Kushner has been given permanent security clearance to the white House. Veuer’s Sam Berman has the full story.
    Buzz60

    WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump personally ordered his former chief of staff John Kelly to grant a top-secret security clearance to his son-in-law Jared Kushner despite concerns from officials, according to media reports. 

    The New York Times and Washington Post reported Thursday that Kelly documented Trump’s request in a memo. Both outlets cited unnamed sources. USA TODAY has not verified the claims and White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said “we don’t comment on security clearances.”

    Trump’s directive reportedly took place last year amid concerns from White House officials about Kushner’s clearance level. The reports starkly contradict comments the president has made, in which Trump declared he had nothing to do with Kushner’s clearance. 

    The Times reported that former White House Counsel Don McGahn documented his concerns with Kushner’s clearance in a memo. The paper said it is unclear exactly what resulted in such concern relating to Kushner’s security level.

    Kushner, a senior advisor to the president, was granted a permanent clearance in May of last year after almost three months in security limbo. 

    Related: Security clearance info on Jared Kushner, John Bolton and Michael Flynn sought by House panel

    More Jared Kushner: Trump’s son-in-law, has White House security clearance restored

    Responding to the reports of Trump’s conduct on Thursday, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of House Committee on Oversight and Reform, issued a warning to the White House. 

    He said the committee, which is investigating the security clearance process at the White House, had not received any of the documents they had requested about the security clearances.

    “The Committee expects full compliance with its requests a soon as possible, or it may become necessary to consider alternative means to compel compliance,” Cummings said.

    Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also commented late Thursday, saying in a statement that the reports showed Trump’s “utter disregard for our national security.” 

    “There is no nepotism exception for background investigations,” he said. 

    Kushner’s lawyer has said previously that his client completed the background check process and that it was held up in part because he neglected to fully account for his contacts with foreign nationals.

    “His application was properly submitted, reviewed by career officials and went through the normal process,” attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement at the time. “Having completed these processes, Mr. Kushner is looking forward to continuing the work the president has asked him to do.”

    Kushner’s permission to view top secret information was revoked in February 2018 after Kelly declared a moratorium on temporary security clearances. 

    Kushner was the most high-profile of several top White House staffers caught in the aftermath of a scandal involving Rob Porter, the White House staff secretary accused by former wives of domestic violence. Porter’s security clearance was held up for almost a year while he worked on an interim clearance — though he continued to have access to almost every classified and unclassified document coming in and out of the Oval Office.

    Kelly left his position as Trump’s chief of staff at the beginning of the year after a series of internal tensions spilled into public view.

    Trump on Kushner: Security clearance is up to his chief of staff

    Related: John Kelly, hired to restore order for President Donald Trump, is out as chief of staff

    Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/28/trump-john-kelly-jared-kushner-security-clearance/3022935002/

    After more than two dozen moderate Democrats broke from their party’s progressive wing and sided with Republicans on a legislative amendment Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly sounded the alarm in a closed-door meeting Thursday and said those Democrats were “putting themselves on a list.”

    The legislation that prompted the infighting was a bill that would expand federal background checks for gun purchases, the Washington Post reported. But a key provision requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified if illegal immigrants attempt to purchase guns saw 26 moderate Democrats side with Republicans.

    CUOMO URGING AMAZON FOR SECOND CHANCE, DESPITE OCASIO-CORTEZ VICTORY LAP

    According to the Post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scolded her wayward center-leaning colleagues, telling them: “We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision.”

    But Ocasio-Cortez reportedly took it a step further. She said she would help progressive activists unseat those moderates in their districts in the 2020 elections, the report said. Her spokesman Corbin Trent told the paper that she made the “list” comment during the meeting.

    GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them,” Trent said, referring to ICE.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-moderate-democrats-who-vote-with-republicans-are-putting-themselves-on-a-list

    Less than a day after a heated exchange about race, Reps. Mark Meadows and Rashida Tlaib reconciled on the House floor.

    Tlaib, a freshman Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, had criticized Meadows for using a black administration official as a “prop” at the House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday. Meadows was attempting to discredit testimony by Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, that the president was a “racist.”

    The official, Lynne Patton, a regional administrator of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, formerly worked for the Trump Organization and a foundation established by Eric Trump, the president’s son. She stood behind Meadows during his remarks but did not speak.

    “Just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them does not mean they aren’t racist,” said Tlaib, who is a Palestinian-American and one of two Muslim women in Congress. “And it is insensitive, and some would even say that the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee is alone racist in itself.”

    Meadows expressed outrage and asked for Tlaib’s comments to be stricken from the record. Committee Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., who is black, tried to smooth over the confrontation, calling Meadows one of his best friends. He offered Tlaib the opportunity to clarify her statement and she said that she was not calling Meadows a racist, but that it was a “racist act” to use Patton in that way.

    RELATED: Michael Cohen testifies before the House

    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, listens during a House Oversight Committee hearing with Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer to U.S. President Donald Trump, not pictured, in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019. Cohen plans to tell a congressional committee about alleged misdeeds by his former boss, claiming that Trump knew during the 2016 presidential election that his ally Roger Stone was talking to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks about a release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, pauses while speaking during a hearing with Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer to U.S. President Donald Trump, not pictured, in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019. Cohen plans to tell a congressional committee about alleged misdeeds by his former boss, claiming that Trump knew during the 2016 presidential election that his ally Roger Stone was talking to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks about a release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    UNITED STATES – FEBRUARY 27: From left, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., are seen during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing in Rayburn Building featuring testimony by Michael Cohen, former attorney for President Donald Trump, on Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, February 27, 2019. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)




    Meadows, with tears in his eyes, thanked Cummings and Tlaib.

    “To my colleague, Mr. Meadows, that was not my intention,” Tlaib said. “And I do apologize if that’s what it sounded like. But I said ‘someone’ in general.”

    Late Thursday morning, the Washington Post’s Paul Kane reported that Tlaib and Meadows had hugged on the floor and engaged in a long, cordial discussion.

    “She said she didn’t mean it yesterday, so there was no need to apologize,” Meadows told reporters afterwards. “I wanted her to know and she wanted me to know that our relationship is one that will hopefully provide real good results going forward.”

    “I believe that moment as a person of color and not only myself, two, three other of my colleagues had mentioned how insensitive that act was. I think all of us, even folks at home, kind of gasped when that actually happened,” said Tlaib in a CNN interview Thursday when asked if she felt what Meadows had done was a racist act. “I think if we want to talk about race in this country, that’s not the way to do it.”

    Before Tlaib spoke, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., who is also black, asked Cohen about Trump’s history.

    “Would you agree that someone could deny rental units to African-Americans, lead the birther movement, referred to the diaspora as ‘shithole countries,” and refer to white supremacists as ‘fine people,’ have a black friend and still be racist?” asked Pressley.

    “Yes,” said Cohen.

    “I agree,” said Pressley.

    Meadows, leader of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, had previously endorsed the “birther” conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not a native U.S. citizen. “We’ll send him back home to Kenya or wherever it is,” said Meadows in a 2012 video.

    When asked about the comments Thursday, Meadows told reporters that it was “old news” and that he had said it while trying to win an election.

    “I’ve addressed that dozens of times and candidly apologized for that a number of times,” said Meadows. “It was when I was running for office and answered a question — I actually had just gotten back from Kenya. We had been doing mission work in Kenya, so anybody who knows me knows that I really show respect regardless of race or gender,” Meadows told reporters outside the House chamber.

    Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/02/28/meadows-and-tlaib-hug-on-house-floor-after-racist-charges/23680904/

    Democrats like Sen. Kamala Harris and the media are spreading hysteria over smaller tax refunds this year and painting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 as the Grinch that stole your tax refund. The real problem is the lack of financial education among Americans that allows lawmakers to hoodwink taxpayers.

    Harris, a presidential candidate, tweeted recently that the average tax refund is down $170 according to IRS data on the early tax filing season. She claimed that the Republican-passed tax cut was a hike for the middle class and boon for the wealthy.

    She couldn’t have been more wrong.

    Her tweet earned an embarrassing four Pinocchios from the Washington Post for combining two factoids into a “misleading package.” “Misleading” is the same word that the Treasury Department used to call out media reporting about the smaller refunds. Despite the angst-inducing headlines, taxpayers should not take this as a bad omen.

    The IRS data was based on a small sample size, likely smaller than the typical, non-shutdown year sample. There were fewer returns submitted and processed than during the same period a year prior.

    Also, early tax filers tend to have just wage income and simple returns. They may be accustomed to a big refund and get less this year, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t benefit from the tax cuts. The tax cuts allowed taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned income all year long in bigger paychecks.

    Lawmakers who oppose the tax cuts are now banking on Americans accustomed to receiving big returns not understanding the basics about taxes and mistaking smaller refunds for paying higher taxes overall.

    A big tax refund is not a windfall like winning the lottery or finding a wad of cash in the street. It’s money that you overpaid to Uncle Sam, who held it hostage all year long and finally released back to you the following year after you file tax returns.

    If you earn wages, your federal taxes are withheld from your paycheck each week depending on the number of allowances you claim on your W-4 form. If too much tax is withheld then you can expect a refund, but if you had about the right amount of taxes withheld all year then you should just about break even, and not owe more, but also not get a big refund.

    Yet, many Americans are in love with tax refunds, as Gallup found in 2007. Although half would rather break even, 45 percent would prefer to get a refund. The primary reason they said was that it’s like getting a bonus, reward, or extra money. That may be how a refund feels, but it’s a misunderstanding of the system and overlooks the economic benefits of proper tax planning.

    Paying the right amount in taxes throughout the course of the year makes it easier for people to budget accurately, plan for expenses, and, ideally, make room for savings. Instead of banking on a big lump sum to pay a major bill, which was the most popular reported use of tax refunds, a person could pay it down consistently over time, reducing interest or fees incurred along the way. For lower-income Americans, who incur late fees or rely on expensive emergency loans, the added income from each paycheck could be a better path to economic stability.

    [Read more: Tax refunds are down, but not necessarily because people are paying more]

    Despite how critics like Harris try to mischaracterize them, the 2017 tax cuts were beneficial.

    Working and middle-class families enjoyed bigger paychecks last year. Income tax rates were cut across the board, the standard deduction and child tax credit were doubled, and there were other positive changes. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, taxes fell for all income groups on average last year and their after-tax income rose by more than 2 percent.

    More Americans are able to find jobs and most report being optimistic about their financial futures. That’s also in part a result of the tax cuts, and far more valuable than a one-time tax rebate.

    Now is the time to change the mindset that a big, fat tax refund is Christmas come early. If policymakers truly want to empower people, they would quell the angst over smaller refunds and educate citizens on how taxes work, rather than contributing to a partisan misinformation campaign.

    Patrice Lee Onwuka (@PatricePinkFile) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a senior policy analyst with the Independent Women’s Forum.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-tax-cuts-didnt-steal-your-tax-refund

    Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign may have illegally paid her boyfriend through a political action committee during her congressional race, a Republican group alleges in a new complaint with the FEC.

    The Coolidge Reagan Foundation alleged in the complaint that Brand New Congress PAC paid Ocasio-Cortez’s boyfriend, Riley Roberts, for marketing services after the PAC was hired by her campaign.

    Using the third-party PAC to pay her boyfriend may have violated campaign-finance laws, a lawyer for the Coolidge Reagan Foundation told The Post.

    “It is totally legal, as a candidate, to hire family members, people you know to work for you. But they didn’t do that,” said Attorney Dan Backer.

    “Instead of paying him directly, they paid him through an intermediary — in order to obscure the fact that they paid him. The FEC should investigate and find out if that’s the case. That’s the allegation,” Backer added.

    The Coolidge Reagan Foundation is seeking the FEC to investigate if the campaign violated finance laws that state campaign contributions “shall not be converted by any person to personal use.”

    But the PAC that hired Roberts told Fox News, who first reported the story, that all the payments were legally sound.

    “[Roberts] is a professional digital marketing and growth consultant who specializes in social media presence and subscriber engagement,” a spokeswoman for Brand New Congress PAC told Fox.

    “He was hired through a two-month trial period, beginning on August 3, 2017, and worked through the end of September 2017,” the spokeswoman added. “Services to the Brand New Congress PAC consisted of advertising strategies for potential growth, developing metrics, and aiding in execution of strategy to increase brand awareness for the PAC as a whole.”

    Ocasio-Cortez’s office did not immediately respond.

    Source Article from https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-campaign-may-have-illegally-paid-her-boyfriend-complaint/

    NEW DELHI — He parachuted out over enemy territory. Fired in the air to keep back angry locals. Jumped into a pond and then destroyed documents by eating them.

    That’s what Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, an Indian fighter jet pilot, reportedly did after his plane crashed in Pakistan on Wednesday. He also may have helped defuse one of the worst crises between the two nuclear armed neighbors in decades.

    Varthaman’s plane was hit in the first aerial dogfight between India and Pakistan in nearly 50 years. He was subsequently captured by the Pakistani military in a particularly dramatic development to an already volatile conflict.

    In a scene that could have been out of a movie, Varthaman parachuted out of his flaming plane and then asked the gathering crowd where he was. Upon finding out he was in Pakistan, he ran backward, firing his pistol in the air to keep back the angry young locals.

    When they got too close, he jumped into a pond and destroyed sensitive documents and maps by swallowing some and soaking others before he was captured.

    Now the pilot Indians consider a hero is set to come home. After two tense days, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan announced Thursday that his country would return Varthaman on Friday as a “peace gesture.” The move lowered immediate tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

    Hundreds of Indians gathered early in the morning at the Wagah border crossing between India and Pakistan in the state of Punjab where Varthaman is expected to be released later Friday afternoon. They waved Indian flags and beat drums as they awaited the pilot’s arrival.

    Experts said a detailed debrief and medical check would be conducted once Varthaman, a 38 year-old from the city of Chennai, is returned.

    Indians have watched every twist and turn in Varthaman’s saga this week. An alleged video of his initial capture shows him being dragged from the crash site as enraged locals attempt to hit him. A Pakistani soldier is heard asking people to stop.

    A second, more controversial video that may run afoul of Geneva Conventions was tweeted by Pakistan’s Information Ministry. The clip showed the blindfolded pilot with a bloodied face, answering questions calmly while in Pakistani custody.

    After the Foreign Ministry in India “strongly objected to Pakistan’s vulgar display of an injured personnel,” the Pakistan military posted a fresh video saying the pilot was being treated “as per norms of military ethics.”

    Seen sipping a cup of tea, Varthaman declines to answer any question on his operation or aircraft details, while praising his treatment by the Pakistan Army. Spoken like a “true soldier,” his father Simhakutty Varthaman said in a statement.

    Flying runs in the family: the elder Varthaman, now retired, was a decorated senior officer in the Indian Air Force who reached the rank of air marshal. In an ironic twist, Simhakutty Varthaman once advised a filmmaker who made a movie about a pilot jailed in Pakistan after being captured in war. In the movie, the hero is ultimately reunited with his family.

    After the capture, Simhakutty Varthaman expressed hope for his son’s safe return and said the family was praying that he “does not get tortured.” On Thursday night, the pilot’s parents flew to Delhi ahead of their son’s release. As passengers on the flight realized who the couple was, they burst out in applause and cheers.

    Varthaman, the son, appeared on a popular Indian television show eight years ago with several other fighter pilots. The hosts asked the guests what the main prerequisite was to be a fighter pilot. “Attitude,” said one. “Bad attitude,” added Varthaman with a smile.

    Even as India and Pakistan traded charges over the last two days, Varthaman’s behavior in captivity united people from both sides of the border, mostly in praise. Videos of his capture and questioning were shared by thousands on social media. Pakistani citizens joined the chorus asking their government to return Varthaman as a gesture of peace.

    This is not the first time that an Indian pilot has been taken hostage by Pakistan. In 1999, the rivals fought a brief but intense conflict high in the Himalayas. In that clash, known as the Kargil conflict, India deployed fighter jets but Pakistan did not.

    During the fighting, an Indian fighter pilot named Kambampati Nachiketa was captured by Pakistani forces after his plane crashed. Nachiketa said he was tortured during his eight days of captivity, after which he was released.

    In the war of 1971, the two countries fought over the liberation of Bangladesh, India had taken over 90,000 prisoners of war including many security personnel. They were repatriated to Pakistan after an agreement between the two countries the following year.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/01/meet-pilot-may-have-averted-an-india-pakistan-war/