Here's the first:
A Democratic lawmaker issued a startling warning to government officials involved in “illegal” deportations that they “will not be safe” from future punishment when Donald Trump is no longer president.
“If you are a US government official and you are deporting Americans be warned,” Arizona Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego tweeted early Thursday. “When the worm turns you will not be safe because you were just following orders. You do not have to take part in illegal acts ordered by this President's administration.”
1. Higher taxes.
2. Lower property values.
3. High unemployment.
4. Open borders.
5. Denial of 2A rights to Americans.
Go ahead, give Trump another SCOTUS pick.
A Massachusetts Democrat has added a plank to her campaign platform: Impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Barbara L’Italien, a state senator running in a crowded field to replace retiring Rep. Niki Tsongas, is declaring her intention to file an impeachment resolution against Thomas as part of an effort to address sexual assault if elected to Congress...
Does the board member have to been born a female or wait to decide?
State legislators passed a bill Wednesday that would require publicly-traded companies headquartered in California to place at least one woman on their board by the end of next year — or face a penalty.
Research shows that female representation on boards is key for women’s advancement in corporate America. Women on boards are more likely to consider female leaders for the C-suite and choose more diverse candidates for the board itself.
If the bill is signed into law by California governor Jerry Brown, it would be the first state to take such a step. Unlike some European countries, the United States doesn’t mandate female representation on company boards. A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only 25% have more than two, according to a study from PwC.
But setting quotas for representation can be controversial, says Vicki W. Kramer, lead author of the landmark 2006 study, “Critical Mass on Corporate Boards.” Opponents argue that pressure from quotas will lead to unqualified female members and potential discrimination against male candidates.
When quotas are not set, however, companies fail to diversify their ranks enough, Kramer says. She points to more “aspirational” legislation in other states, like in Pennsylvania, where a 2017 resolution urged both public and private companies to have a minimum of 30% women on their boards by 2020. But without teeth in the law, Kramer says, better numbers won’t follow.
“That’s the big thing: will it change the numbers?” Kramer says. “It takes a lot of pressure, but that has to be sustained pressure and so far, it hasn’t been enough.”
Kramer cautions this legislation — if it passes — is only a starting point and it’s a weak one compared to the laws in Norway and other European countries, which require a certain percentage of women on boards. For larger Norwegian companies, the legislation requires that women make up as much as 40% of the board.
“What we see in Europe is once these mandatory quotas have been in place, there’s been a significant increase,” says Anna Beninger, senior research director and corporate engagement partner at Catalyst, a nonprofit studying women and work. “In essence, when organizations are required to make progress, required to follow these regulations, they do — and the progress happens.”
Keep reading… (continued at link)
Typical...great promises and nary a clue how to pay for them other than finding more ways to extract money from the American worker/taxpayer. And remember: IT'S FREE!!
This Texan Has Had Enough sent in a story about Beto O’Rourke’s campaign requesting American flags be removed from a rally at a VFW.
From the Navasota Examiner:
“I do not normally attend rental events, but I attended Saturday to make sure things ran smoothly,” said Dry, who noted there were only two requests he could not allow at the VFW Post. “They wanted to open the doors (to the Flight Deck Lounge) and I couldn’t allow that and they wanted to take the flags down, I didn’t only say no, I said hell no, you don’t take the flags off the wall. I can’t believe any American would ask us to do that and I don’t know why he wanted them down or what he was going to put up instead.”
I wanted to see if there were any other outlets that had more of the story. Lo and Behold, in record time, Snopes jumped in trying to run defense for Beto. (When have they ever don that for someone on the right?)
We reached out by email to Joe Cunningham, the managing editor of RedState.com (we were unable to locate contact information for TheResurgent.com). Cunningham said that with the information currently available, they were standing by the story:
Based on your email and the story itself, I don’t see enough evidence to make a decision one way or the other (because we don’t know who said it doesn’t mean that the O’Rourke campaign did not, and if recent events have taught us anything, it’s that campaigns and politicians may not always be on the up-and-up) but I do trust [writer] Brandon Morse’s news judgment.
He invited the O’Rourke campaign to contact him with further evidence.
Alas, the best Snopes could do for Beto was to say the story was “unproven.” (Which means they couldn’t prove the story to be false.)
An examination of expense reports reveal gun control Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) received taxpayer-funded armed protection from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in 2017 and 2018 at events throughout the state.
NBC 4 reports that the protection was “unprecedented” in that it went beyond the security which the LAPD usually provides “for dignitaries and officials visiting LA.” Taxes from residents of Los Angeles funded armed security personnel to protect Harris not only in LA but in other cities throughout the state as well.
Taxpayers even paid for armed security to go with Harris to a party.
The rest of us can go pound salt as far as they're concerned, because THEY are special and deserve TAXPAYER funded, ARMED protection, while we on the other hand, are dogsh*t.
Molon labe MFer's, molon labe.
Who needs the Constitution as a guideline when one can operate of emotions and feelings.
Annony Mouse's Link
“I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”
The joke is that liberals are not yet mature enough to control themselves.
Annony Mouse's Link
Once Democrats have power, they can use it to rig the system to secure that power by ensuring that the right kind of people do the voting — i.e., illegal aliens and felons, both of whom can be counted on to support a party with a criminal ideology that steals from those who create wealth to buy votes from those who don’t. New York serves as a warning example.
Regarding illegal aliens:
New legislation is being pushed that would give illegal aliens the right to vote in New York City’s 2017 elections for mayor, comptroller, public advocate, borough president and City Council…
The proposal — which is winning support from the city’s black and Hispanic activists — was recently discussed at a Black and Latino Legislative Caucus event in Albany.
There are an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens in NYC. Approximately none of them would vote for a party that defends property rights, so Democrats want them voting, even if that reduces elections to a sham.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio approved an initiative that will help incarcerated New Yorkers cast their ballots this year. During previous elections the ballots of incarcerated New Yorkers would frequently get delayed by the jail’s mail system with its many security checks, resulting in ballots arriving to precincts too late to be counted. De Blasio’s initiative will instead have government officials pick up the ballots directly from the jails.
While New York state still bans those convicted of felonies from voting if they are incarcerated or on parole, that too may also change. Earlier this year, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo passed an executive order granting conditional pardons to New Yorkers on parole to restore their voting rights. Of the roughly 35,000 New Yorkers on parole who could not vote prior to this executive order, about 24,000 have received pardons thus far.
These “public servants” aren’t there to serve you. But they are willing to serve illegal aliens and felons — at the expense of law-abiding Americans. The more power progressives acquire, the worse the situation will get.
And his possible replacement? Another Daley.
Via NY Post:
‘It’s the Lord of the Flies on LaSalle Street,” wrote columnist John Kass. In case the references are unclear, whether because high schools haven’t been assigning the William Golding novel in the last few decades or because out-of-towners unaccountably don’t realize that Chicago’s City Hall front is on LaSalle Street, Kass was writing about Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s announcement that he won’t run for a third term next February.
Should readers from outside Chicagoland care? Yes, because Emanuel’s surprise exit is a sign of the unworkability of policies that will go national if Resistance Democrats oust Donald Trump, and indeed of some policies embraced by Trump as well.
Emanuel will be leaving office as a frustrated and unsuccessful mayor, even though he is one of the great political talents of his generation. Former Clinton fundraiser and White House staffer, Chicago congressman and chairman of House Democrats’ campaign committee when they overturned a Republican majority in 2006: He’s done it all.
He gave up a House leadership post to be Barack Obama’s first White House chief of staff; he gave that up to run for mayor — the job that every traditional Chicago politician considers far more important than anything “out of town” (said with a derisive curl of lip).
Keep reading… (link at link)
If you want proof that Elizabeth Warren is planning to run for president in 2020, look no further than her actions.
She has been busy for months with tons of progressive busy work which is likely to go nowhere, but that’s not the point. She’ll likely use it to distinguish herself from the other 30 people vying for the Democratic nomination.
Her latest plan is to try to force public companies to disclose threats to the climate. We already have laws which protect the environment from pollution, so this is something different.
Francine McKenna reports at Market Watch:
Elizabeth Warren leads push by Democrats to force public companies make climate-risk disclosures
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is spearheading an effort by Democratic senators to bring a bill that would require public companies to disclose more information about their exposure to climate-related risks.
The bill, called the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, would direct the SEC, in consultation with climate experts at other federal agencies, to issue rules within one year that require every public company to disclose:
• Direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions
• All fossil-fuel related assets it owns or manages
• The effect on the company’s market valuation if climate change continues at its current pace or if greenhouse gas emissions were restricted in compliance with the Paris accord goal; and
• What strategies are in place to address the physical and transition risks posed by climate change.
Al Gore just loves the idea:
“Senator Warren is demonstrating strong leadership by introducing legislation to assess the financial risks of climate change and require that they be disclosed to the public. This is a critical step toward breaking our addiction to fossil fuels and accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy,” Gore wrote in a press release issued by Warren.
As I said, this isn’t likely to go anywhere. It’s progressive resume padding. She has already joined the left wing chorus calling for the abolishing of ICE and she is suddenly interested in being seen helping Native Americans.
This newest initiative is very similar to her recent attempt to inject social justice into corporate America.
My colleague Mary Chastain wrote about it last month:
Elizabeth Warren wants to weaponize and federalize corporations for social justice activism
Sen. Elizabeth Warren hates capitalism and has never made an effort to hide it. Now she’s taken that hatred a step further and introduced a bill (pdf.) that would literally nationalize all the things. The government must step in and tell CEOs how to run their companies.
Warren penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about her “Accountable Capitalism Act” to sell it to the public. She gushes over how the bill would help workers and give more power to them.
That sounds familiar…*cough*VladimirLenin*cough*
In reality, the bill gives more power to the government because Warren’s bill tells a company EXACTLY how it should run. In other words, capitalism is accountable to the government, not the people or workers. Reason summed it up:
Warren’s “Accountable Capitalism Act” would require that corporations that earn more than $1 billion in revenue a year (note “revenue,” not “profits”) would need a federal “charter” in order to operate. This charter would obligate these companies to consider all “stakeholders,” not just shareholders, when making decisions. The bill would also require these corporations to permit employees to elect 40 percent of the company’s board of directors; a super majority of 75 percent of directors and shareholders would have to approve political donations. (Gee, I wonder if somebody will propose something similar for unions?) Shareholders would be permitted to sue the company if they felt its actions were driven purely by profit and did not reflect the desires of its many “stakeholders.”
You can already see her on a debate stage saying something like: Look at all the great things I’m trying to get done.
The number one plank in the Democrats quiver is FEAR OF:(fill in blank).
Kyrsten Sinema: “It Would Be Inappropriate to Ask Someone to Not Destroy Property”
The vandalism-prone Antifa thugs who have been running rampant lately will have a more powerful ally in Washington if Arizona elevates Kyrsten Sinema to the Senate. She has stated that it would be “inappropriate” to condemn the destruction of property by anarchists. An email she sent in 2002 when she worked as a community organizer for Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice reveals her mentality:
“When AAPJ attended May Day (sponsored by the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition), we knew that their guidelines differ from ours,” Sinema emailed a fellow protester. “They are okay with weapons and property destruction in some instances, and so those of us who chose to attend the event knew that it would be inappropriate to ask someone to not destroy property or to carry a weapon.”
At least Sinema didn’t personally advocate vandalism. She just wouldn’t disapprove of other people engaging in it. They say a moderate Muslim is one who lets other Muslims commit the murder and mayhem. That would make Sinema a moderate moonbat.
The proREgressive liberal agenda cannot be implemented by law, instead it MUST be done by judicial fiat. For the Putz-zeidan nation, the Constitution is just a paper impediment that has no meaning.
Annony Mouse's Link
Bill de Blasio Proposes Rent Control on Steroids
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has done his best to erode the right of private property, the foundation of any free society. His latest proposal to effectively expropriate property from landlords is a great leap forward toward straightforward Marxism:
Commercial landlords would no longer have the power to set their own rents, to evict undesirable tenants, to determine deposit amounts, etc. The property would remain formally titled to them, but they would in effect lose control of it.
Rent control was always a catastrophe, allowing the ultrarich to live as parasites at the expense of their landlords while making housing unavailable for many others. De Blasio wants to put rent control on steroids.
In the long term, this is a step in the progressive march through fascism toward Soviet-style communism. In the short term, it will make it even more impossible to find affordable housing in New York, as landlords are driven out of the city. In the medium term, undermining the concept of ownership creates regime uncertainty, which could have economic effects beyond housing.
Regime uncertainty means that investors are unable to make long-term plans for their property, because the nature of rights to that property is not securely established. Often, this has the perverse effect of raising prices that regulation had been meant to lower or to stabilize: If an investment involves a higher degree of risk, then investors will demand higher returns to put their money behind it.
If landlords have no property rights, how does anyone else know that de Blasio won’t decide to effectively expropriate their business, leaving them as owners only in a narrow technical sense? This is a red flag in more than one sense that investors would be wise to acknowledge before sinking a penny into a city that would elect a Hugo Chavez type like de Blasio.
Chuck Schumer Smiling
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/10/democrats-want-trillion-tax-increase/#ixzz5UQaLXRfX Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Why is that man smiling? He proposed a $1 TRILLION tax increase!
Here are the specifics.
Increase the top marginal income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent.
Increase the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 25 percent.
Bring back the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 4 million families.
Cut the “death tax” standard deduction in half.
The effect will be to blow a hole in the economy and drop economic growth back to anemic Obama era numbers. That is the Democrats plan, you know… destroy the economy so they can win in 2020.
So the next line I get when I mention this fact is that it is fake news intended just to scare votes.
Well I’d suggest you simply search for it on Bing (I am not using Google any longer). For those of you who may doubt me here is a link. So why Forbes? Because the MSM liberal news outlets don’t want you to know about the Democrats’ plans!