bonginoreport--2020-01-21--West Virginia Lawmakers Pushing Pro-Gun Virginia Counties to Join Them

West Virginia lawmakers are scrambling to let rural Virginia counties join the Mountain State amid conservative voter anger with the new Democratic majority in Richmond and its push for gun control and other liberal initiatives .
In a building fight that echoes the Civil War-era split of the Old Dominion that created West Virginia in 1863 , 40 of 100 West Virginia House delegates have signed on to legislation that would accept revolting Virginia counties and towns .
The effort began after the November elections when urban and suburban voters put the Virginia General Assembly into Democratic hands .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of restricting and banning guns .
“ We ’ re starting to get some phone calls from friends on the border who say these folks want to leave , ” said West Virginia Del .
Gary Howell .
Howell , a Republican , told Secrets that what started off as a long-shot effort “ has turned into a real thing.
” He said that Virginia lawmakers and officials along the West Virginia border have cited the Democratic drive for gun control and desire to shift spending to the urban areas near Washington as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In his bill , HCR 8 , Howell and his team wrote about the urban-rural battle .
“ These tensions have been compounded by a perception of contempt on the part of the government at Richmond for the differences in certain fundamental political and societal principles which prevail between the varied counties and cities of that Commonwealth.
” He also cited gun control , a huge fight on display in Richmond Monday when some 22,000 gun owners protested restrictions sweeping through the state Senate .
There is no new push for gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest , and most evident , in this string of grievances , the government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth , ” said the Howell legislation , now before the rules committee .
Howell is on the rules committee and is also the chairman of Government Organization Committee .
The bottom line in the legislation : “ In a spirit of conciliation , the legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so , to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond ; and , we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the body politic of the state of West Virginia.
” One county that could lead the way with or without the legislation is Frederick , some 70 miles from Washington .
It still has an open invitation from the 1800s to join West Virginia , and some members of the county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vote to leave .
In the West Virginia Senate , Sen. Charles Trump has offered a resolution urging Frederick County to join West Virginia .
Closer to D.C. , Loudoun County was recently home to a short-lived effort to split , with some in the more rural and conservative western half — which borders West Virginia — bidding to create their own county called Catoctin for the mountains that provide a border .
Howell said that he has a team working on how any merger would work .
He said that since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be easy to merge police and infrastructure .
He also said that border shifts do not need federal approval .
“ We ’ ve been looking way down the road .
Once we realized that this was getting very real , we figured that we have to have answers for this , we have to have a plan in place , that ’ s what we ’ ve been discussing , ” he told Secrets .

West Virginia lawmakers are scrambling to let rural Virginia counties join the Mountain State amid conservative voter anger with the new Democratic majority in Richmond and its push for gun control and other liberal initiatives.
In a building fight that echoes the Civil War-era split of the Old Dominion that created West Virginia in 1863, 40 of 100 West Virginia House delegates have signed on to legislation that would accept revolting Virginia counties and towns.
The effort began after the November elections when urban and suburban voters put the Virginia General Assembly into Democratic hands. Many of those Democrats ran on a platform of restricting and banning guns.
“We’re starting to get some phone calls from friends on the border who say these folks want to leave,” said West Virginia Del. Gary Howell.
Howell, a Republican, told Secrets that what started off as a long-shot effort “has turned into a real thing.”
He said that Virginia lawmakers and officials along the West Virginia border have cited the Democratic drive for gun control and desire to shift spending to the urban areas near Washington as reasons to leave for West Virginia.
In his bill, HCR 8, Howell and his team wrote about the urban-rural battle: “These tensions have been compounded by a perception of contempt on the part of the government at Richmond for the differences in certain fundamental political and societal principles which prevail between the varied counties and cities of that Commonwealth.”
He also cited gun control, a huge fight on display in Richmond Monday when some 22,000 gun owners protested restrictions sweeping through the state Senate. There is no new push for gun control in West Virginia.
“In the latest, and most evident, in this string of grievances, the government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth,” said the Howell legislation, now before the rules committee. Howell is on the rules committee and is also the chairman of the Government Organization Committee.
The bottom line in the legislation: “In a spirit of conciliation, the legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so, to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond; and, we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the body politic of the state of West Virginia.”
One county that could lead the way with or without the legislation is Frederick, some 70 miles from Washington. It still has an open invitation from the 1800s to join West Virginia, and some members of the county board of supervisors have expressed support for a vote to leave.
In the West Virginia Senate, Sen. Charles Trump has offered a resolution urging Frederick County to join West Virginia.
Closer to Washington, Loudoun County was recently home to a short-lived effort to split, with some in the more rural and conservative western half, which borders West Virginia, bidding to create their own county called Catoctin for the mountains that provide a border.
Howell said that he has a team working on how any merger would work. He said that since West Virginia operates much like Virginia, it would be easy to merge police and infrastructure.
He also said that border shifts do not need federal approval.
“We’ve been looking way down the road. Once we realized that this was getting very real, we figured that we have to have answers for this, we have to have a plan in place. That’s what we’ve been discussing,” he told Secrets.


bonginoreport--2020-01-21--The Fate of the Iran Nuclear Deal: What’s Next?

Britain , France and Germany , the three European signatories of the Iran nuclear deal , formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) , have activated the agreement 's dispute mechanism in an effort to force Tehran into compliance with its commitment to curb its nuclear program .
The three European countries — also known as the E3 — triggered the so-called Dispute Resolution Mechanism ( DRM ) on January 14 , a week after Iranian authorities announced that they would no longer be bound by any of the agreement 's restrictions in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can operate or the level of uranium enrichment that they can pursue .
The DRM ( Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the JCPOA ) starts the clock on a process that could result in the return of international sanctions on Iran .
The deal 's signatories now have up to 30 days to resolve their differences , although that time period can be extended by consensus .
If the dispute can not be solved , the matter could be brought before the UN Security Council and could result in the re-imposition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal .
That effort , however , could also easily be blocked by a Chinese or Russian veto .
Iranian authorities said that they were justified in violating the deal because the United States broke the July 2015 agreement by withdrawing in May 2018 .
In a statement , the E3 foreign ministers rejected Tehran 's argument : The E3 stressed that their objective was to save the JCPOA : Reactions to the E3 's decision to activate the DRM have been mixed .
Some analysts argue that the E3 's move will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save the JCPOA .
Others believe that the decision brings the JCPOA closer to collapse and the possible , if improbable , return of UN sanctions .
Regardless of what happens , short of the threat of regime change , Iranian authorities are unlikely to abandon their nuclear ambitions .
Following is a selection of transatlantic commentary and analysis about the future of the nuclear deal with Iran : Addressing the British Parliament , Britain 's First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs , Dominic Raab , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pattern of non-compliance by the regime that left us with no credible alternative .
Since last May , Iran has step by step reduced its compliance with critical elements of the JCPOA , leaving it a shell of an agreement .
On July 1 , 2019 , the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had exceeded key limits on low enriched uranium stockpile limits .
On July 8 , the IAEA reported that Iran had exceeded its 3.67 % enriched uranium production limit .
On November 5 , the IAEA confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research and development limits .
On November 7 , the IAEA confirmed that Iran had restarted enrichment activities at the Fordow facility — a clear violation of JCPOA restrictions .
On November 18 , the IAEA reported that Iran had exceeded its heavy water limits .
On January 5 this year , Iran announced that it would no longer adhere to JCPOA limits on centrifuge numbers .
`` Each of those actions was serious .
Together , they now raise acute concerns about Iran 's nuclear ambitions .
Iran 's breakout time — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon — is now falling , which is an international concern .
Time and time again , we have expressed our serious concerns to Iran and urged it to come back into compliance .
Time and time again , in its statements and more importantly through its actions , it has refused , undermining the very integrity of the deal and flouting its international commitments . ''
Writing for the Washington Examiner , columnist Tom Rogan noted that by triggering the DRM , the European Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its current incarnation , is dead : '' The European Union 's big three have awoken from their slumber to recognize that the 2015 Iran nuclear accord is dying .
Britain , France , and Germany made this admission Tuesday by triggering a dispute mechanism within that accord ... .
It 's unlikely that the parties will be able to reach a serious resolution , and the EU knows it ... .
This is a pretty remarkable policy shift on the nuclear agreement .
`` Up until now , Western Europe 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were fully committed to the deal .
Rather than respond to Iran 's breaches of the agreement with punitive responses , the EU tried to find ways to provide Tehran with increased sanctions relief .
`` So , what changed all of a sudden ?
Put simply , the European powers have now recognized two obvious truths .
First , U.S. sanctions against Iran have been effectively deterring European businesses from making investments in Iran for fear of losing access to the U.S. economy ... .
Second , Iran 's breaches of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security .
Iran 's ongoing crackdown against its own people also gives the EU domestic cover to act more forcefully ... .
`` Next , Trump should continue to dangle the carrot , offering sanctions relief in return for an agreement from Iran concerning restrictions on its ballistic missile program , more intrusive inspections , and an open-ended compliance timeline .
That approach would generate a deal worth signing — one that the EU would get behind . ''
The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal agreed : '' For months Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while promising to comply again if President Trump abandons his 'maximum pressure ' campaign .
Germany , France and the UK have criticized Tehran and Washington while trying to save the accord , but on Tuesday the Europeans took a major step toward finally siding with the U.S ... .
`` The conventional wisdom has been that Iran is slowly escalating , and Europe is n't pushing back hard , in case Mr. Trump is n't re-elected and a Democratic President returns to the nuclear deal .
The latest move is Europe 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be able to wait out Mr. Trump ... .
`` It 's unlikely the formal mechanism will resolve anything , as Iran has ignored European requests to return to compliance in the past .
The better option would be to join the American sanctions campaign .
This may have seemed unthinkable a year ago , but European unity is showing more signs of stress ... .
`` Tehran 's rulers are more politically vulnerable now than at any time since the 2009 protests over stolen elections . ''
German Foreign Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective was to preserve the JCPOA : In what would appear to signal a rupture of European unity regarding efforts to preserve the JCPOA , British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that he is open to replacing the existing deal with a new agreement negotiated by U.S. President Donald J. Trump .
In a January 14 interview with the BBC , Johnson said : Writing for the European Leadership Network , Tarja Cronberg , a member of its executive board , admitted : Analyst Richard Goldberg , a former member of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That Iran is able to breach its JCPOA nuclear limits — enriching uranium above 3.67 % , increasing its low enriched uranium stockpile , testing advanced centrifuges , restarting enrichment at Fordow & increasing its heavy water stockpile — tells us how horrible the JCPOA was .
`` Leaving Iran with turnkey nuclear capabilities ready to emerge at any moment to threaten international peace and security was a fatal mistake of the JCPOA .
The sunsets were pouring lemon juice on an open cut , as if the deal could n't have gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed by a credible military deterrent remains the only way to force this regime to permanently dismantle all its enrichment & reprocessing related capabilities ... .
`` Why did the E3 wait since June 2019 to start a process to push Iran back inside its nuclear commitments or else end its precious sunsets ?
Weakness , appeasement , personal investments in JCPOA and an initial belief that Iran would outlast Trump .
They were wrong and look feckless ... .
`` The JCPOA echo chamber , like Iran itself , is freaking out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the end of the worst deal in history . ''
Meanwhile , Israeli military intelligence estimated that Iran could have enough enriched uranium to produce one nuclear bomb by the end of 2020 .
Writing for Tablet magazine , author Lee Smith explained the original purpose of the JCPOA : In an interview with the German newspaper Bild , Iranian exile Mina Ahadi , Chairwoman of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany , summed it up : Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute .

What's Next for the Iran Nuclear Deal? "It's unlikely that the parties will be able to reach a serious resolution, and the EU knows it...." — Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner , January 17, 2020.
"Trump has distinguished himself from his predecessor. The world's most famous dealmaker appears not to be angling for a deal, and for good reason — there's no deal to be had because there's nothing left to negotiate. [Former U.S. President Barack] Obama set it up that way." — Lee Smith, Tablet Magazine , January 13, 2020.
"The JCPOA guaranteed that the Iranians would all but have a bomb within 10 years — or by the end of the second term of Obama's successor.... The point of the deal was not to stop Iran from ever building a bomb but to prevent the Iranians from doing so until Obama left office." — Lee Smith, Tablet Magazine , January 13, 2020.
"The nuclear deal with Iran is over — it failed. You cannot and must not continue to negotiate with the Islamic regime, you cannot trust it. Such talks are useless. Governments should stop defending the regime through such talks, keeping it alive." — Mina Ahadi, Chairwoman of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany, Bild, January 14, 2020. In what would appear to signal a rupture of European unity regarding efforts to preserve the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that he is open to replacing the existing deal with a new agreement negotiated by U.S. President Donald J. Trump. (Photo by Peter Summers/Getty Images) Britain, France and Germany, the three European signatories of the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), have activated the agreement's dispute mechanism in an effort to force Tehran into compliance with its commitment to curb its nuclear program. The three European countries — also known as the E3 — triggered the so-called Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) on January 14, a week after Iranian authorities announced that they would no longer be bound by any of the agreement's restrictions in terms of the numbers or type of centrifuges that they can operate or the level of uranium enrichment that they can pursue. The DRM (Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the JCPOA) starts the clock on a process that could result in the return of international sanctions on Iran. The deal's signatories now have up to 30 days to resolve their differences, although that time period can be extended by consensus. If the dispute cannot be solved, the matter could be brought before the UN Security Council and could result in the re-imposition of sanctions that had been lifted under the deal. That effort, however, could also easily be blocked by a Chinese or Russian veto. Iranian authorities said that they were justified in violating the deal because the United States broke the July 2015 agreement by withdrawing in May 2018. In a statement, the E3 foreign ministers rejected Tehran's argument: "We do not accept the argument that Iran is entitled to reduce compliance with the JCPOA. Contrary to its statements, Iran has never triggered the JCPOA Dispute Resolution Mechanism and has no legal grounds to cease implementing the provisions of the agreement." The E3 stressed that their objective was to save the JCPOA: "We do this in good faith with the overarching objective of preserving the JCPOA and in the sincere hope of finding a way forward to resolve the impasse through constructive diplomatic dialogue, while preserving the agreement and remaining within its framework. In doing so, our 3 countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran. Our hope is to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA." Reactions to the E3's decision to activate the DRM have been mixed. Some analysts argue that the E3's move will bring Tehran back into compliance and thereby save the JCPOA. Others believe that the decision brings the JCPOA closer to collapse and the possible, if improbable, return of UN sanctions. Regardless of what happens, short of the threat of regime change, Iranian authorities are unlikely to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Following is a selection of transatlantic commentary and analysis about the future of the nuclear deal with Iran: Addressing the British Parliament, Britain's First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Dominic Raab, said: "Let me set out the pattern of non-compliance by the regime that left us with no credible alternative. Since last May, Iran has step by step reduced its compliance with critical elements of the JCPOA, leaving it a shell of an agreement. On July 1, 2019, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had exceeded key limits on low enriched uranium stockpile limits. On July 8, the IAEA reported that Iran had exceeded its 3.67% enriched uranium production limit. On November 5, the IAEA confirmed that Iran had crossed its advanced centrifuge research and development limits. On November 7, the IAEA confirmed that Iran had restarted enrichment activities at the Fordow facility — a clear violation of JCPOA restrictions. On November 18, the IAEA reported that Iran had exceeded its heavy water limits. On January 5 this year, Iran announced that it would no longer adhere to JCPOA limits on centrifuge numbers. "Each of those actions was serious. Together, they now raise acute concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran's breakout time — the time that it would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon — is now falling, which is an international concern. Time and time again, we have expressed our serious concerns to Iran and urged it to come back into compliance. Time and time again, in its statements and more importantly through its actions, it has refused, undermining the very integrity of the deal and flouting its international commitments." Writing for the Washington Examiner, columnist Tom Rogan noted that by triggering the DRM, the European Union had admitted that the Iran deal, in its current incarnation, is dead: "The European Union's big three have awoken from their slumber to recognize that the 2015 Iran nuclear accord is dying. Britain, France, and Germany made this admission Tuesday by triggering a dispute mechanism within that accord.... It's unlikely that the parties will be able to reach a serious resolution, and the EU knows it.... This is a pretty remarkable policy shift on the nuclear agreement. "Up until now, Western Europe's three big powers had insisted that they were fully committed to the deal. Rather than respond to Iran's breaches of the agreement with punitive responses, the EU tried to find ways to provide Tehran with increased sanctions relief. "So, what changed all of a sudden? Put simply, the European powers have now recognized two obvious truths. First, U.S. sanctions against Iran have been effectively deterring European businesses from making investments in Iran for fear of losing access to the U.S. economy.... Second, Iran's breaches of the agreement pose an intolerable threat to international security. Iran's ongoing crackdown against its own people also gives the EU domestic cover to act more forcefully.... "Next, Trump should continue to dangle the carrot, offering sanctions relief in return for an agreement from Iran concerning restrictions on its ballistic missile program, more intrusive inspections, and an open-ended compliance timeline. That approach would generate a deal worth signing — one that the EU would get behind." The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal agreed: "For months Iran has been violating the 2015 nuclear deal while promising to comply again if President Trump abandons his 'maximum pressure' campaign. Germany, France and the UK have criticized Tehran and Washington while trying to save the accord, but on Tuesday the Europeans took a major step toward finally siding with the U.S....
"The conventional wisdom has been that Iran is slowly escalating, and Europe isn't pushing back hard, in case Mr. Trump isn't re-elected and a Democratic President returns to the nuclear deal. The latest move is Europe's most significant because it seems the Continent may not be able to wait out Mr. Trump.... "It's unlikely the formal mechanism will resolve anything, as Iran has ignored European requests to return to compliance in the past. The better option would be to join the American sanctions campaign. This may have seemed unthinkable a year ago, but European unity is showing more signs of stress.... "Tehran's rulers are more politically vulnerable now than at any time since the 2009 protests over stolen elections." German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas tweeted that the E3's objective was to preserve the JCPOA: "Our goal is clear: we want to preserve the agreement and come to a diplomatic solution within the agreement." In what would appear to signal a rupture of European unity regarding efforts to preserve the JCPOA, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that he is open to replacing the existing deal with a new agreement negotiated by U.S. President Donald J. Trump. In a January 14 interview with the BBC, Johnson said: "If we're going to get rid of it, let's replace it, and let's replace it with the Trump deal — that's what we need to see. I think that would be a great way forward.... Let's work together to replace the JCPOA and get the Trump deal instead." Writing for the European Leadership Network, Tarja Cronberg, a member of its executive board, admitted: "The end result of the DRM...will most likely be the final collapse of the deal. Where will this leave Europe?... Twelve years of coordinating the superpowers in negotiations to ensure that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons will be lost." Alexander Sarovic, political editor of the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, agreed: "The Europeans are being made aware of their impotence.... The attempt to enable European companies to trade with Iran bypassing the US sanctions, among other things by founding the Instex special purpose vehicle, has failed. European banks refused to do business with Iran." Analyst Richard Goldberg, a former member of the U.S. National Security Council, wrote: "That Iran is able to breach its JCPOA nuclear limits — enriching uranium above 3.67%, increasing its low enriched uranium stockpile, testing advanced centrifuges, restarting enrichment at Fordow & increasing its heavy water stockpile — tells us how horrible the JCPOA was. "Leaving Iran with turnkey nuclear capabilities ready to emerge at any moment to threaten international peace and security was a fatal mistake of the JCPOA. The sunsets were pouring lemon juice on an open cut, as if the deal couldn't have gotten worse but did. "Maximum pressure backed by a credible military deterrent remains the only way to force this regime to permanently dismantle all its enrichment & reprocessing related capabilities.... "Why did the E3 wait since June 2019 to start a process to push Iran back inside its nuclear commitments or else end its precious sunsets? Weakness, appeasement, personal investments in JCPOA and an initial belief that Iran would outlast Trump. They were wrong and look feckless.... "The JCPOA echo chamber, like Iran itself, is freaking out. They know this is the beginning of the end of the worst deal in history." Meanwhile, Israeli military intelligence estimated that Iran could have enough enriched uranium to produce one nuclear bomb by the end of 2020. Writing for Tablet magazine, author Lee Smith explained the original purpose of the JCPOA: "Trump has distinguished himself from his predecessor. The world's most famous dealmaker appears not to be angling for a deal, and for good reason — there's no deal to be had because there's nothing left to negotiate. [Former U.S. President Barack] Obama set it up that way. The JCPOA guaranteed that the Iranians would all but have a bomb within 10 years — or by the end of the second term of Obama's successor.... "The point of the deal was not to stop Iran from ever building a bomb but to prevent the Iranians from doing so until Obama left office. "The Obama administration went to extravagant lengths to hide the obvious, hidden in plain sight. It's all spelled out in the JCPOA's so-called 'sunset' clauses, the restrictions on the nuclear program that were designed to evaporate after Obama moved into private life.... "Now three years after Obama left the White House, it's clear why the former president's party is worried about the fate of his signature foreign policy initiative. By killing the Iranian commander [Qassem Soleimani] Obama officials were sending messages to, Trump has shown his fiercest critics to be right — he's nothing like Obama. In an interview with the German newspaper Bild, Iranian exile Mina Ahadi, Chairwoman of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany, summed it up: "The nuclear deal with Iran is over — it failed. You cannot and must not continue to negotiate with the Islamic regime, you cannot trust it. Such talks are useless. Governments should stop defending the regime through such talks, keeping it alive. If nothing changes, relations with the regime have to be broken off completely." Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. © 2023 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. Related Topics: Iran, Iranian Nuclear Program Recent Articles by Soeren Kern Belgium's Prisoner Swap Treaty with Iran: "A Deal with the Devil", 2022-08-12
EU: Last-Ditch Effort to Salvage Iran Nuclear Deal, 2022-08-04
Australia: New Government Maintains Hardline Stance on China, 2022-07-22
Russia Gives NATO New Lease on Life, 2022-07-14
EU Signs Deal with Egypt and Israel to Boost Gas Exports to Europe, 2022-06-30 receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list en 18 Reader Comments Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply-> Reply->


bonginoreport--2020-01-21--PAC Linked to AOC Blasts “Out of Touch” Hillary Clinton Over Sanders Criticism

A left-wing political group linked to Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ripped into Hillary Clinton Tuesday , after Clinton said she wouldn ’ t commit to backing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders if he wins the 2020 Democratic primary .
Justice Democrats slammed Clinton ’ s refusal to back Sanders as “ unacceptable , out-of-touch ” and dangerous .
“ I ’ m not going to go there yet , ” Clinton told the Hollywood Reporter in an interview , when asked if she would support Sanders in a general election match-up against Trump .
The outlet published the interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a forthcoming documentary where she sharply criticizes Sanders .
“ He was in Congress for years .
He had one senator support him .
Nobody likes him , nobody wants to work with him , he got nothing done .
He was a career politician .
It ’ s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it , ” Clinton reportedly says of Sanders in the film .
“ Defeating Trump is more important than settling old scores , ” Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Hillary Alumni Swipe At Bernie Right As He Launches 2020 Presidential Campaign ) “ Secretary Clinton ’ s statement is unacceptable , out-of-touch , and dangerous .
We ’ re calling on her to do the right thing and immediately say that she ’ ll do everything she can to support whomever becomes the Democratic nominee , ” Rojas added .
The left-wing group , which Ocasio-Cortez controlled with a top aide until June 2018 , is launching a petition demanding Clinton commit to supporting Sanders if he ’ s the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in October , and has become a top campaign surrogate for the socialist senator .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

A left-wing political group linked to Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ripped into Hillary Clinton Tuesday, after Clinton said she wouldn’t commit to backing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders if he wins the 2020 Democratic primary.
Justice Democrats slammed Clinton’s refusal to back Sanders as “unacceptable, out-of-touch” and dangerous.
“I’m not going to go there yet,” Clinton told the Hollywood Reporter in an interview, when asked if she would support Sanders in a general election match-up against Trump.
The outlet published the interview with Clinton on Tuesday in advance of a forthcoming documentary where she sharply criticizes Sanders.
“He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it,” Clinton reportedly says of Sanders in the film.
“Defeating Trump is more important than settling old scores,” Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas said in a press release. (RELATED: Hillary Alumni Swipe At Bernie Right As He Launches 2020 Presidential Campaign)
“Secretary Clinton’s statement is unacceptable, out-of-touch, and dangerous. We’re calling on her to do the right thing and immediately say that she’ll do everything she can to support whomever becomes the Democratic nominee,” Rojas added.
The left-wing group, which Ocasio-Cortez controlled with a top aide until June 2018, is launching a petition demanding Clinton commit to supporting Sanders if he’s the Democratic nominee.
Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Sanders for president in October, and has become a top campaign surrogate for the socialist senator.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--Steve Mnuchin Ready to Listen to Greta Thunberg – After She Graduates From College

Treasury Sec .
Steve Mnuchin on Greta Thunberg 's continuing climate change lectures : After she goes to college , @ @ @ @ @ to us

Treasury Secretary Steve Munchin suggested that teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg should study economics before lecturing people on climate change.
What are the details?
Mnuchin made the remarks Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, according to The Guardian, where he initially joked that he had no idea who the teen is.
"Is she the chief economist?" he joked. "Who is she, I'm confused."
Turning more serious, Mnuchin added, "After she goes and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us."
"Many economies are transitioning to a more efficient and cleaner energy," he continued. "That doesn't have to be all renewables."
Calling issues of the environment "clearly complicated," Mnuchin added, "When I was allowed to drive I had a Tesla. I drove in California. I liked it. But nobody focuses on how that electricity is made and what happens to the storage and the environmental issues on all these batteries."
www.youtube.com
What else?
Thunberg, who also took part in a climate-related forum at the Davos forum on Tuesday, insisted that world leaders are simply "fueling the flames" of climate change by doing nothing.
"You might think we're naive, but if you won't do it, you must explain to your children why you've given up on the Paris Agreement goals and knowingly created a climate crisis," the teen said in dramatic remarks.
www.youtube.com
President Donald Trump, who also appeared at the annual forum on Tuesday, said, "To embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday's foolish fortunetellers."


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--Liberal Hacks at CNN Only Fact Checking Republicans at Senate Trial

CNN fact check reporter Daniel Dale fact checked claims made by President Donald Trump ’ s lawyers during the first day of the Senate ’ s impeachment trial that occurred Tuesday , but did not fact check any of the Democratic impeachment managers .
Dale critiqued the president ’ s attorneys Wednesday for , among other things , not saying the precise number of days the House held onto the two articles of impeachment before transmitting the articles to the Senate .
( RELATED : The Tide Is Turning Against Democrats On Impeachment ) “ While House Democrats did wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they took 28 days , not 33 , ” Dale wrote .
“ The House voted to impeach Trump on December 18 , Democrats sent over the articles on January 15.
” Dale also dinged Trump ’ s personal attorney Jay Sekulow for claiming that Trump ’ s counsel was denied the right to participate in the House impeachment process , and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone for claiming that Republicans were not allowed in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ( SCIF ) during the beginning of House Democrats ’ impeachment inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House impeachment manager Adam Schiff or any of the other managers .
Dale spent four years fact checking Trump as The Toronto Star ’ s Washington bureau chief before being hired by CNN last summer .
Dale has been a staunch critic of the president since he came into office , and said last year that “ there is no equivalence ” between Trump and leading Democratic presidential candidates when it comes to the Truth .

CNN fact check reporter Daniel Dale fact checked claims made by President Donald Trump’s lawyers during the first day of the Senate’s impeachment trial that occurred Tuesday, but did not fact check any of the Democratic impeachment managers.
Dale critiqued the president’s attorneys Wednesday for, among other things, not saying the precise number of days the House held onto the two articles of impeachment before transmitting the articles to the Senate. (RELATED: The Tide Is Turning Against Democrats On Impeachment)
“While House Democrats did wait before they transmitted the articles of impeachment, they took 28 days, not 33,” Dale wrote. “The House voted to impeach Trump on December 18, Democrats sent over the articles on January 15.”
Dale also dinged Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow for claiming that Trump’s counsel was denied the right to participate in the House impeachment process, and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone for claiming that Republicans were not allowed in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) during the beginning of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. Dale did not fact check lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff or any of the other managers.
Dale spent four years fact checking Trump as The Toronto Star’s Washington bureau chief before being hired by CNN last summer. Dale has been a staunch critic of the president since he came into office, and said last year that “there is no equivalence” between Trump and leading Democratic presidential candidates when it comes to the Truth.


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--Warren Confronted on Student Loan Forgiveness: “Can I Have My Money Back?”

The father of a college student was seen confronting Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren about her plan to cancel student loan debt in a video that went viral earlier this week .
The dad chastised Warren over her plan , and got especially heated after the senator and 2020 presidential candidate told him he could not get the money back that he saved to pay for his daughter ’ s school .
( RELATED : Colleges And Universities Are Creating A Lost Generation Of Americans ) “ My daughter is in school .
I saved all my money .
Am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” the dad asked .
“ So you ’ re gon na pay for people who didn ’ t save any money , but those of us who did the right thing get screwed ?
” the man asked .
The man mentioned that he worked a “ double shift ” to pay for his daughter ’ s education , and accused Warren of mocking his life story .
( RELATED : Flashback : Elizabeth Warren Became Rich By Defending The Rich ) “ You ’ re laughing at me !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was laughing , but the dad was not buying her explanation .
“ That ’ s exactly what you ’ re doing !
” he said .
“ We did the right thing and we get screwed !
” Warren unveiled a $ 640 billion plan last year to eliminate student loan debt , a plan that would be funded by a tax on the ultra wealthy .

The father of a college student was seen confronting Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren about her plan to cancel student loan debt in a video that went viral earlier this week.
The dad chastised Warren over her plan, and got especially heated after the senator and 2020 presidential candidate told him he could not get the money back that he saved to pay for his daughter’s school. (RELATED: Colleges And Universities Are Creating A Lost Generation Of Americans)
“My daughter is in school. I saved all my money. Am I gonna get my money back?” the dad asked.
“Of course not,” Warren replied.
“So you’re gonna pay for people who didn’t save any money, but those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” the man asked.
A Father confronts @SenWarren Father : My daughter is in school, I saved all my money just to pay student loans Can I have my money back? Warren: of course not Father: so you want to help those who don’t save any money and the ones that do the right thing get screwed? pic.twitter.com/EY8M57tj9F — JiveBunny (@JiveBunnyMuzik) January 21, 2020
The man mentioned that he worked a “double shift” to pay for his daughter’s education, and accused Warren of mocking his life story. (RELATED: Flashback: Elizabeth Warren Became Rich By Defending The Rich)
“You’re laughing at me!” the man said.
Warren denied that she was laughing, but the dad was not buying her explanation.
“That’s exactly what you’re doing!” he said. “We did the right thing and we get screwed!”
Warren unveiled a $640 billion plan last year to eliminate student loan debt, a plan that would be funded by a tax on the ultra wealthy.


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--Michael Bloomberg Unveils Plan to Help Black America With Liberal Policies That Have Already Failed

Michael Bloomberg 's new plan is a perfect example of the failure of center-left policy concoctions meant to help black Americans , invariably cooked up by rich liberals .
Perhaps for the first time in many years , politicians are directly competing for black votes .
This goes hand-in-hand with signs that black America is no longer monolithically supporting Democrats .
For example , President Donald Trump ’ s approval rating among black Americans is in the mid-30s .
Enter Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg , who just launched his new plan for black America , the Greenwood Initiative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black achievement and pain .
Bloomberg , speaking to a mostly white audience of only several hundred in Tulsa , Oklahoma , unveiled his plan ’ s three points .
The plan is a perfect example of the failure of center-left policy concoctions meant to help black Americans , invariably cooked up by rich liberals .
First , Bloomberg plans to create “ one million new Black homeowners.
” To accomplish this , Bloomberg would have the federal taxpayer offer “ down-payment assistance , ” and bring millions into the banking and credit-score @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcing fair lending laws , reducing foreclosures and evictions and increasing the supply of affordable housing.
” Too bad we ’ ve already tried this , and it terribly hurt black Americans .
Starting in the 1990s , under a dubious legal theory called “ disparate impact , ” so-called affordable housing advocates successfully sued banks when different racial groups received differing loan offers and rates .
It didn ’ t matter that the underlying incomes or credit scores completely explained the racial disparity .
As long as an overall racial disparity existed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For home mortgages , for example , law requires lenders to report race and sex data .
All the trial lawyers had to do was dig through the data , and they had a lucrative lawsuit .
Even when the law doesn ’ t require loan applications to collect racial data , lenders are at risk .
Most recently , the Obama administration ’ s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) sought to go after auto dealers using disparate impact theory .
But since auto loans don ’ t collect racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a loan applicant ’ s race by guessing based on a person ’ s name .
The Trump administration put an end to the CFPB ’ s auto loan shenanigans , but that 1990s affordable housing push , heavily based on race , still ended in misery .
To avoid a costly suit and bad publicity , lenders gave home loans to people who couldn ’ t afford them .
People plugged a load of money into payments they could barely afford , and when the downturn hit , they had to walk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piled up and went into disrepair , hurting the home values of non-overstretched black residents in those neighborhoods .
Because of this , the 2008 housing bust hit black Americans and mostly black neighborhoods the hardest .
Worse , the same idiots who engineered the massive “ affordable housing ” push turned around and blamed “ predatory lending ” when their plans hurt others .
Of course , the government ’ s push for low-cost loans and predatory lending are two sides of the same coin .
And the Dodd-Frank bill , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the creation of the CFPB , was written by the very people who had pushed for unaffordable loans before the crisis and took money from groups and companies that benefitted from the “ affordable lending ” push .
To avoid lawsuits or lending to people who are less likely to pay the money back , some banks avoid black areas altogether , which is called “ redlining.
” Redlining is illegal , but it can be hard to prove .
So the disparate impact legal theory , heavily supported by Democrats and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be one reason black America lacks access to reputable financial institutions .
Bloomberg has clearly never thought of the fact that if you give someone down payment assistance , they might not be able to afford the loan either .
He also apparently ignored the effects of the 1990s affordable housing push .
What would help ?
The United States desperately needs less-restrictive zoning laws and the building of more starter homes .
The homes built as of late have been disproportionately larger , partly due to the incentives builders face from regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions .
Instead , Bloomberg ’ s plan doubles down on something that has already been tried , and failed .
In the same vein , Bloomberg ’ s plan says he would fight “ discriminatory practices by requiring companies to report on hiring , pay and procurement and collecting more complete lending data.
” This sounds an awful lot like bringing disparate impact into businesses ’ hiring and buying decisions .
That would lead to reduced black employment opportunities and increased racial discord in the workplace — the primary area where Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interact , albeit imperfectly .
Some would wrongly see black men who earned their status as the beneficiaries of firmwide affirmative action .
Companies would do all sorts of crazy things internally to avoid reporting embarrassing data , while actual racism or achievement gaps would remain .
The billionaire candidate would also make federal contractors and public servants , including police , take “ implicit bias training , ” and crack down on conservative states ’ efforts to fight against voter fraud .
Next , Bloomberg ’ s plan aims to “ boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ user-friendly one-stop shops for entrepreneurs across the country.
” He would also “ expand mentorships and incubators , increase access to capital ( both debt and equity ) , support Black-owned banks and expand procurement from Black-owned businesses.
” The plan says these efforts would be “ aimed particularly at benefitting Black female entrepreneurs , the fastest growing group of new entrepreneurs.
” But the federal government already has myriad programs aimed at minority and female business owners , and their efficacy is poor .
What would Bloomberg do differently that isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that most small-business owners are too busy running their business to navigate federal applications or the various programs available , which means these programs probably go to the connected .
Government is best suited to create an environment where businesses can succeed .
If crime is out of control in black areas , entrepreneurs will suffer or stay away .
If the infrastructure surrounding an area is dilapidated or there are no broader employment opportunities , such as a factory that offers middle-class wages , the entire business climate in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg does propose “ $ 70 billion in funding and technical support towards a national initiative to turn around 100 of the country ’ s most disadvantaged communities , with a relentless focus on evaluation to expand programs that work.
” That sounds good , but then the plan says , “ Mike ’ s national initiative will offer communities a menu of evidence-based programs in areas including health , education , infrastructure and justice.
” In other words , poor minority urban areas will get another fancy government or nonprofit building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Dads The plan is remarkable not for what it includes , but for what it doesn ’ t mention .
The two things any community needs — white , black , or otherwise — is stable employment and good wages , especially for young men , and intact families headed by both a mother and a father .
Racism exists , and it holds black Americans back , but the United States ’ black community uniquely suffers because of the deficit of these two key ingredients to community success .
Where strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — from 1890 to 1950 , black American women had a higher marriage rate than white women — the black family has been decimated .
In 1950 , only 1 in 10 black children faced fatherlessness .
Today , more than half of black children suffer from fatherlessness .
Yet a father in the home is one of the greatest indicators of future economic and social success .
One cause of fatherlessness among America ’ s working class , which disproportionately affects black Americans , is welfare ’ s steep marriage penalties , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 70s .
Policymakers who deeply care about the racial gaps in our country should address these penalties .
About the same time the black family was falling apart , America was also rapidly de-industrializing , especially in the ’ 70s .
This de-industrialization disproportionately hurt black men , because black men were disproportionately working class .
Evidence suggests that among factory towns , black communities were the first to de-industrialize as crime spiked and families fractured .
One must only drive through the historically black areas in cities such as Detroit or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de-industrialization many decades later .
Business parks are empty .
Young men , warehouses , and factories stand hollowed out and idle .
Yes , these communities need more infrastructure , but the type that makes it easier once again to produce goods in black areas — not another fancy , government-funded nonprofit .
The bottom line is that not every young man should go to college , and where many white , rural areas have at least some middle-class opportunities for these young men — in agriculture or construction , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban , black neighborhoods .
In addition , because of the lack of dads , too many American men lack the soft skills needed to obtain and hold these limited jobs .
Without employment opportunities for young men , a community will always suffer .
The men will be less marriageable .
Lawbreaking , systemic poverty , and fatherlessness will vastly increase .
This is true for black America , but it ’ s also increasingly true for pockets of white , working-class America .
Bloomberg and the modern day Democratic Party clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the politician and party that figures it out will obtain not just the black vote , but command the American political landscape for decades to come .

Perhaps for the first time in many years, politicians are directly competing for black votes. This goes hand-in-hand with signs that black America is no longer monolithically supporting Democrats. For example, President Donald Trump’s approval rating among black Americans is in the mid-30s.
Enter Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg, who just launched his new plan for black America, the Greenwood Initiative, named after a site of both incredible black achievement and pain.
Bloomberg, speaking to a mostly white audience of only several hundred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, unveiled his plan’s three points. The plan is a perfect example of the failure of center-left policy concoctions meant to help black Americans, invariably cooked up by rich liberals.
Doubling Down on ‘Affordable Housing’
First, Bloomberg plans to create “one million new Black homeowners.” To accomplish this, Bloomberg would have the federal taxpayer offer “down-payment assistance,” and bring millions into the banking and credit-score system. He would also start “enforcing fair lending laws, reducing foreclosures and evictions and increasing the supply of affordable housing.”
Too bad we’ve already tried this, and it terribly hurt black Americans. Starting in the 1990s, under a dubious legal theory called “disparate impact,” so-called affordable housing advocates successfully sued banks when different racial groups received differing loan offers and rates. It didn’t matter that the underlying incomes or credit scores completely explained the racial disparity. As long as an overall racial disparity existed, lenders and insurers faced legal liability.
For home mortgages, for example, law requires lenders to report race and sex data. All the trial lawyers had to do was dig through the data, and they had a lucrative lawsuit.
Even when the law doesn’t require loan applications to collect racial data, lenders are at risk. Most recently, the Obama administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sought to go after auto dealers using disparate impact theory. But since auto loans don’t collect racial data, the CFPB planned to estimate a loan applicant’s race by guessing based on a person’s name.
The Trump administration put an end to the CFPB’s auto loan shenanigans, but that 1990s affordable housing push, heavily based on race, still ended in misery. To avoid a costly suit and bad publicity, lenders gave home loans to people who couldn’t afford them. People plugged a load of money into payments they could barely afford, and when the downturn hit, they had to walk away. The empty or foreclosed houses piled up and went into disrepair, hurting the home values of non-overstretched black residents in those neighborhoods. Because of this, the 2008 housing bust hit black Americans and mostly black neighborhoods the hardest.
Worse, the same idiots who engineered the massive “affordable housing” push turned around and blamed “predatory lending” when their plans hurt others. Of course, the government’s push for low-cost loans and predatory lending are two sides of the same coin. And the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed after the housing bust and included the creation of the CFPB, was written by the very people who had pushed for unaffordable loans before the crisis and took money from groups and companies that benefitted from the “affordable lending” push.
To avoid lawsuits or lending to people who are less likely to pay the money back, some banks avoid black areas altogether, which is called “redlining.” Redlining is illegal, but it can be hard to prove. So the disparate impact legal theory, heavily supported by Democrats and a boon to rich trial lawyers, may be one reason black America lacks access to reputable financial institutions.
Bloomberg has clearly never thought of the fact that if you give someone down payment assistance, they might not be able to afford the loan either. He also apparently ignored the effects of the 1990s affordable housing push.
What would help? The United States desperately needs less-restrictive zoning laws and the building of more starter homes. The homes built as of late have been disproportionately larger, partly due to the incentives builders face from regulatory, environmental, and zoning costs and restrictions. Instead, Bloomberg’s plan doubles down on something that has already been tried, and failed.
Empowering Trial Lawyers and Democrat Politicians
In the same vein, Bloomberg’s plan says he would fight “discriminatory practices by requiring companies to report on hiring, pay and procurement and collecting more complete lending data.” This sounds an awful lot like bringing disparate impact into businesses’ hiring and buying decisions. That would lead to reduced black employment opportunities and increased racial discord in the workplace — the primary area where Americans of different identities most often intermingle and interact, albeit imperfectly.
Some would wrongly see black men who earned their status as the beneficiaries of firmwide affirmative action. Companies would do all sorts of crazy things internally to avoid reporting embarrassing data, while actual racism or achievement gaps would remain.
The billionaire candidate would also make federal contractors and public servants, including police, take “implicit bias training,” and crack down on conservative states’ efforts to fight against voter fraud.
Hard-to-Navigate Programs in Black Communities
Next, Bloomberg’s plan aims to “boost Black-owned businesses” by setting up “user-friendly one-stop shops for entrepreneurs across the country.” He would also “expand mentorships and incubators, increase access to capital (both debt and equity), support Black-owned banks and expand procurement from Black-owned businesses.” The plan says these efforts would be “aimed particularly at benefitting Black female entrepreneurs, the fastest growing group of new entrepreneurs.”
But the federal government already has myriad programs aimed at minority and female business owners, and their efficacy is poor. What would Bloomberg do differently that isn’t being done now? Never mind the fact that most small-business owners are too busy running their business to navigate federal applications or the various programs available, which means these programs probably go to the connected.
Government is best suited to create an environment where businesses can succeed. If crime is out of control in black areas, entrepreneurs will suffer or stay away. If the infrastructure surrounding an area is dilapidated or there are no broader employment opportunities, such as a factory that offers middle-class wages, the entire business climate in that area will suffer.
On this note, Bloomberg does propose “$70 billion in funding and technical support towards a national initiative to turn around 100 of the country’s most disadvantaged communities, with a relentless focus on evaluation to expand programs that work.” That sounds good, but then the plan says, “Mike’s national initiative will offer communities a menu of evidence-based programs in areas including health, education, infrastructure and justice.” In other words, poor minority urban areas will get another fancy government or nonprofit building.
The Importance of Dads and Jobs for Dads
The plan is remarkable not for what it includes, but for what it doesn’t mention. The two things any community needs — white, black, or otherwise — is stable employment and good wages, especially for young men, and intact families headed by both a mother and a father. Racism exists, and it holds black Americans back, but the United States’ black community uniquely suffers because of the deficit of these two key ingredients to community success.
Where strong black families used to be the norm — from 1890 to 1950, black American women had a higher marriage rate than white women — the black family has been decimated. In 1950, only 1 in 10 black children faced fatherlessness. Today, more than half of black children suffer from fatherlessness. Yet a father in the home is one of the greatest indicators of future economic and social success.
One cause of fatherlessness among America’s working class, which disproportionately affects black Americans, is welfare’s steep marriage penalties, which took off in the 1960s and ’70s. Policymakers who deeply care about the racial gaps in our country should address these penalties.
About the same time the black family was falling apart, America was also rapidly de-industrializing, especially in the ’70s. This de-industrialization disproportionately hurt black men, because black men were disproportionately working class. Evidence suggests that among factory towns, black communities were the first to de-industrialize as crime spiked and families fractured.
One must only drive through the historically black areas in cities such as Detroit or Milwaukee to see the effects of this de-industrialization many decades later. Business parks are empty. Young men, warehouses, and factories stand hollowed out and idle. Yes, these communities need more infrastructure, but the type that makes it easier once again to produce goods in black areas — not another fancy, government-funded nonprofit.
The bottom line is that not every young man should go to college, and where many white, rural areas have at least some middle-class opportunities for these young men — in agriculture or construction, for example — these opportunities are even fewer in urban, black neighborhoods. In addition, because of the lack of dads, too many American men lack the soft skills needed to obtain and hold these limited jobs.
Without employment opportunities for young men, a community will always suffer. The men will be less marriageable. Lawbreaking, systemic poverty, and fatherlessness will vastly increase. This is true for black America, but it’s also increasingly true for pockets of white, working-class America. Bloomberg and the modern day Democratic Party clearly haven’t figured this out. But the politician and party that figures it out will obtain not just the black vote, but command the American political landscape for decades to come.
Willis Krumholz is a writer for The Federalist who lives in Minnesota. You can follow Willis on Twitter @WillKrumholz


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--Big Government is Bad for Business

Big Government is Bad for Business

When I did this video about public-sector compensation almost 10 years ago , I focused on why it is unfair that bureaucrats get much higher levels of compensation than people working the private sector .
Today , let ’ s consider the economic consequences of excessive bureaucracy .
And what will make this column particularly interesting is that I ’ ll be citing some research from economists at the International Monetary Fund ( a bureaucracy which is definitely not an outpost of libertarian thinking ) .
The two authors , Alberto Behar and Junghwan Mok , investigated whether nations lowered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The contribution of this paper is to investigate the effects of public hiring of workers on labor market outcomes , specifically unemployment and private employment .
In particular , does public hiring increase ( “ crowd in ” ) private employment or decrease ( “ crowd out ” ) private employment ?
…It is arguably the case that a private-sector job is more desirable than a public-sector job from a public policy point of view…there is evidence that a large government share in economic activity can be negative for long-term growth because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government spending due in part to rent-seeking or lower worker productivity , and the crowding out of private investment .
…Crowding out could occur through a number of channels .
Derived labor demand can be affected through crowding out of the product market , possibly via higher taxes , higher interest rates , and competition from state-owned enterprises .
It can occur through the labor market , where higher wages , more job security , or a higher probability of finding a public-sector job can make an individual more likely to seek or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for or accept a job in the private sector… Finally , it can occur in the education market , where individuals seek qualifications appropriate for entering the public sector rather than skills needed for productive employment As you can see , the authors sensibly consider both the direct and indirect effects of public employment .
Yes , hiring someone to be a bureaucrat obviously means that person is employed , but it also means that resources are being diverted to government .
And that imposes costs on the economy ’ s productive sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net impact .
In their study for the IMF , the authors cite other academic research suggesting that government employment crowds out ( i.e.
, reduces ) private employment .
… there is prior evidence that crowding-out effects are sufficiently large to increase unemployment in a number of advanced countries .
However , there has hitherto not been a thorough investigation of how public employment affects labor market outcomes in developing countries .
We fill this gap in the literature by investigating the effects of public employment on both private employment and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution lies in the assembly of the dataset to expand the number of non-OECD countries… The most related and relevant work to this paper is by Algan et al .
( 2002 ) , who explore the consequences of public-sector employment for labor market performance .
Using pooled cross-section and annual time-series data for 17 OECD countries from 1960 to 2000 , they run regressions of the unemployment rate and/or the private-sector employment rate on the public-sector employment rate .
Empirical evidence from the employment equation suggests that the creation of 100 public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the study , the authors look at two main measures of public sector employment .
And , as you can see in Figure 4 , they look at data for nations in different regions .
They wisely utilize the broader measure of public employment , which includes the people employed by state-owned enterprises .
We have collected data for up to 194 countries over the period 1988–2011 .
…Our contribution to the literature includes the assembly of data on public and private employment and other indicators for a wide range of developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public sector ” are different across countries and organizations , so we choose two definitions and generate corresponding public employment datasets , namely a “ narrow ” measure also referred to as “ public administration ” and a “ broad ” measure .
…This dataset includes not only governmental agencies but also state-owned enterprises ( SOEs ) .
We call this the ‘ broad ’ measure of public employment , preserving the term ‘ public sector ’ .
In Figure 7 , they use a scatter diagram to show some of the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most relevant since it shows that private employment ( vertical axis ) declines as government jobs ( horizontal axis ) increase .
And when they do the statistical analysis , we get confirmation that government jobs displace employment in the economy ’ s productive sector .
…all coefficients indicate a very strong negative relationship between public- and private-sector employment rates .
For example , 100 new public jobs crowd out 98 private job… Taken together with the unemployment results , public employment just about fully crowds out private-sector employment regardless of the definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hiring would be offset by decreases in private employment… Regressions of unemployment on public employment and of private employment on public employment , each of which is based on two definitions of public employment , find robust evidence that public employment crowds out private employment .
…Public-sector hiring : ( i ) does not reduce unemployment , ( ii ) increases the fiscal burden , and ( iii ) inhibits long-term growth through reductions in private-sector employment .
Together , this would imply that public hiring is detrimental to long term fiscal sustainability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excerpt is critical .
In addition to not increasing overall employment , government jobs also increase the fiscal burden of government and undermine long-run growth .
So the long-term damage is even greater than the short-run damage .
P.S .
The IMF isn ’ t the only international bureaucracy to conclude that government employment is bad for overall prosperity .
A few years ago , I shared research from the European Central Bank which also showed negative macroeconomic consequences from costly bureaucracy .
P.P.S .
While I ’ m usually critical of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda , it ’ s not uncommon for the professional economists who work there to produce good research .
In the past , I ’ ve highlight some very good IMF studies on topics such as spending caps , the size of government , taxes and business vitality , fiscal decentralization , the Laffer Curve , and class-warfare taxation .

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.
Copyright © Townhall.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--NJ Gun Laws Somehow Get Stricter As “Realistic Toy Guns” Are Banned

The state of New Jersey has a lot of problems .
Then again , what state doesn ’ t ?
They all have their challenges , to be sure .
However , it seems New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has all of his state ’ s problems beaten .
No , really , that must be it .
All of its problems must have gone up in a puff of smoke and now legislators can focus on the little things .
How little ?
Well , it seems the state is banning “ realistic ” toy guns .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t due to the lack of legislation , but a lack of understanding .
No , I ’ m not bagging on the cops here .
In those cases , they did precisely what I would have done under the circumstances .
No , the problem was that no one taught these children that if a police officer tells you to drop something , you drop it .
Also , you don ’ t point a gun at someone who has a real one .
The question for toy manufacturers is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market to bother with trying to comply .
If not , the supply of toy guns will be greatly reduced to the Garden State .
That might be a bigger problem in the long run .
While the deaths of Tamir Rice and Tyre King were legitimate tragedies , I can ’ t help but wonder how many other parents use toy guns to teach their children gun safety as I do with mine and like my father did with me .
It ’ s a good way to learn the Four Rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimal risk .
How many children will be denied this kind of opportunity ?
Then again , this is Phil Murphy we ’ re talking about here .
He probably prefers the kids not to learn gun safety because if they did , they might become gun people and then have this pesky insistence on maintaining their gun rights .
Folks are weird this way .
There is a very real possibility that this is an effort to dissuade people from becoming gun folks .
Toy guns are a way of life , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get toy guns , then it ’ s possible they might not grow up to buy real ones .
Frankly , none of that matters .
What matters is that this is a stupid bill that never should have seen the light of day , much less been turned into law .
Then again , what else should I expect from New Jersey at this point ?
It ’ s simply what they do up that way , apparently .

The state of New Jersey has a lot of problems. Then again, what state doesn’t? They all have their challenges, to be sure.
However, it seems New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has all of his state’s problems beaten.
No, really, that must be it. All of its problems must have gone up in a puff of smoke and now legislators can focus on the little things. How little?
Well, it seems the state is banning “realistic” toy guns.
Governor Murphy signed a bill on Tuesday that would restrict the sale of realistic toy guns and ammunition, in response to the fatal police shootings of Tamir Rice and Tyre King several years ago. … The bill has several stipulations for toy gun manufacturers, which say toy guns cannot be blue, black, silver, or aluminum, the barrel of the gun must have an orange stripe on it, and the barrel of the gun must be made with the same material as the rest of the toy gun.
The problem with the shootings of Rice and King aren’t due to the lack of legislation, but a lack of understanding. No, I’m not bagging on the cops here. In those cases, they did precisely what I would have done under the circumstances.
No, the problem was that no one taught these children that if a police officer tells you to drop something, you drop it.
Also, you don’t point a gun at someone who has a real one.
The question for toy manufacturers is whether New Jersey represents a large enough market to bother with trying to comply. If not, the supply of toy guns will be greatly reduced to the Garden State. That might be a bigger problem in the long run.
While the deaths of Tamir Rice and Tyre King were legitimate tragedies, I can’t help but wonder how many other parents use toy guns to teach their children gun safety as I do with mine and like my father did with me. It’s a good way to learn the Four Rules in a way where violating them has minimal risk.
How many children will be denied this kind of opportunity?
Then again, this is Phil Murphy we’re talking about here. He probably prefers the kids not to learn gun safety because if they did, they might become gun people and then have this pesky insistence on maintaining their gun rights.
Folks are weird this way.
There is a very real possibility that this is an effort to dissuade people from becoming gun folks. Toy guns are a way of life, of course, but if people don’t get toy guns, then it’s possible they might not grow up to buy real ones.
Frankly, none of that matters. What matters is that this is a stupid bill that never should have seen the light of day, much less been turned into law. Then again, what else should I expect from New Jersey at this point? It’s simply what they do up that way, apparently.


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--DHS Praises Mexico for Stopping Thousands From Migrant Caravan

The Trump administration applauded Mexico for using its military like a human wall along its southern border with Guatemala to block several thousand people in a caravan from passing through this week .
“ The efforts by the Mexican National Guard and other officials have thus far been effective at maintaining the integrity of their border , despite outbreaks of violence and lawlessness by people who are attempting to illegally enter Mexico on their way to the United States , ” acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in a statement issued Wednesday .
“ DHS is monitoring the caravan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ground in Central America assisting local immigration and security officials , which have already led to hundreds of individuals being stopped , apprehended and sent back to their home countries.
” Mark Morgan , the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection , also praised Mexico for its role in denying entry to those who sought to move through the country and toward the U.S. southern border .
“ Appreciate the Government of Mexico ’ s commitment to enforcing safe , orderly and lawful migration .
Mexico continues to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m confident they will continue to stop , deny and impede the caravan , ” Morgan tweeted .
A large group of an estimated 4,000 people , referred to as the caravan , attempted to pass from Guatemala into Mexico on Monday .
Video taken by reporters traveling with the group showed a chaotic and violent encounter between some in the group and the Mexican military .
One reporter on the scene said the caravan members had submitted a petition at an official crossing point requesting the ability to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mexico .
Mexico ’ s National Institute of Migration issued a release denying the request .
Some in the group responded by trying to cross illegally through the river and into Mexico .
Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said approximately 1,000 people did cross , Reuters reported .
Mexico ’ s INM said 500 got through .
Mexican National Guard sprayed tear gas at people as they went through the river and came up on the banks .
The military and migrants threw rocks at one another , though the guards had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexican immigration office said on Wednesday it had taken into custody more than 2,000 people who entered its two southern border states of Chiapas and Tabasco without permission and began flying hundreds back to Honduras , where most of the caravan is from , though it is not clear if all of those returned crossed during the Monday melee .
Wolf insisted those who were able to evade Mexican authorities would not be admitted into the United States but returned home instead .

The Trump administration applauded Mexico for using its military like a human wall along its southern border with Guatemala to block several thousand people in a caravan from passing through this week.
“The efforts by the Mexican National Guard and other officials have thus far been effective at maintaining the integrity of their border, despite outbreaks of violence and lawlessness by people who are attempting to illegally enter Mexico on their way to the United States,” acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in a statement issued Wednesday. “DHS is monitoring the caravan closely, we have dozens of personnel on the ground in Central America assisting local immigration and security officials, which have already led to hundreds of individuals being stopped, apprehended and sent back to their home countries.”
Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, also praised Mexico for its role in denying entry to those who sought to move through the country and toward the U.S. southern border.
“Appreciate the Government of Mexico’s commitment to enforcing safe, orderly and lawful migration. Mexico continues to be a true partner in addressing this regional crisis. I’m confident they will continue to stop, deny and impede the caravan,” Morgan tweeted.
Appreciate the Government of Mexico’s commitment to enforcing safe, orderly and lawful migration. Mexico continues to be a true partner in addressing this regional crisis. I’m confident they will continue to stop, deny and impede the caravan. pic.twitter.com/998fFOx1ha — Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan (@CBPMarkMorgan) January 21, 2020
A large group of an estimated 4,000 people, referred to as the caravan, attempted to pass from Guatemala into Mexico on Monday. Video taken by reporters traveling with the group showed a chaotic and violent encounter between some in the group and the Mexican military. One reporter on the scene said the caravan members had submitted a petition at an official crossing point requesting the ability to pass through despite not intending to seek asylum in Mexico. Mexico’s National Institute of Migration issued a release denying the request. Some in the group responded by trying to cross illegally through the river and into Mexico.
Hundreds of mostly Honduran migrants travelling in a caravan to the U.S. try to enter Mexico by crossing the Suichate River that divides the country from Guatemala 📷: @johanordonez, Isaac Guzman/@AFP pic.twitter.com/2plVfjHGfX — Getty Images News (@GettyImagesNews) January 20, 2020
Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said approximately 1,000 people did cross, Reuters reported. Mexico’s INM said 500 got through. Mexican National Guard sprayed tear gas at people as they went through the river and came up on the banks. The military and migrants threw rocks at one another, though the guards had plastic shields to protect themselves.
Mis compañeros de video de @Pajaropolitico han agarrado mi mal grabado material y han sido capaces de montar esta pieza. #CaravanaMigrante2020 https://t.co/AvGavReZrZ — Alberto Pradilla (@albertopradilla) January 20, 2020
The Mexican immigration office said on Wednesday it had taken into custody more than 2,000 people who entered its two southern border states of Chiapas and Tabasco without permission and began flying hundreds back to Honduras, where most of the caravan is from, though it is not clear if all of those returned crossed during the Monday melee.
Wolf insisted those who were able to evade Mexican authorities would not be admitted into the United States but returned home instead.


bonginoreport--2020-01-23--Obama Does Not Believe That Bernie Sanders Can Defeat Trump – And He May Say So Publicly

Former President Barack Obama has remained mostly silent through the early stages of the Democratic race to unseat Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election but that may soon change , friends and associates tell FOX Business , as avowed socialist Bernie Sanders gains in national polls and seems poised to obtain front-runner status .
The people who spoke on the condition of anonymity say Obama 's preference had always been to lay low through the primaries aside from making some broad comments as he did in November of last year when , according to a report in The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , best known for expanding the size of government and his eponymous health care mandate , appeared genuinely worried about some of the increasingly leftist proposals being touted on the campaign trail from Sanders , the US senator from Vermont , and to some extent , Elizabeth Warren , the US senator from Massachusetts .
`` The average American does n't think we have to completely tear down the system to remake it , '' the Times quoted Obama , who was speaking at a gathering of Democratic donors .
People close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that he will support the Democratic nominee , whoever that may be .
They also point out that Obama 's opinion of Warren has softened since November , and he is said to be growing comfortable with endorsing her fully if she should win the nomination .
But , these people add , he has recently grown even more wary of Sanders as the Vermont senator appears to be gaining momentum in polls and the Democratic primaries begin to heat up with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary both in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private that Sanders is both temperamentally and politically unfit to beat Trump in the 2020 general election , these people say .
Among his concerns are Sanders ’ strident form of politics and confrontational manners where he was known not to seek compromise during his long years in the US senate .
Meanwhile , Obama is said to worry that Sanders ’ far-left policies , which include massive tax increases , free college tuition and massive student debt forgiveness , would alienate even traditional Democratic voters .
And may alienate them enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second term despite historically low favorability ratings given his own bombastic style , these people tell FOX Business .
With that , Obama is weighing a more forceful rebuke of Sanders as the candidate to lead the Democrats in 2020 , according to people who have spoken to the former president .
It ’ s unclear if Obama will name Sanders specifically if he does indeed decide to make a statement or if he will address the matter in more general terms as he did in November .
Obama may also decide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his former vice president , or Warren begin to overtake Sanders in the early primaries and in polling .
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE A spokeswoman for Obama declined to comment but would not deny his concerns .
When asked to comment on the story , Sanders ’ spokesman Mike Casca replied tersely , “ Nope.
” Obama , despite his liberal credentials , often angered the far left of his party during his two terms as president for seeking compromise in policymaking .
He took over as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refrained from nationalizing the ailing banks , choosing instead to continue the bail-out policies of the Bush administration .
His signature piece of legislation — Obamacare — fell short of socialized medicine and was instead a mandate to provide health insurance for every American .
FORMER OBAMA AIDE SUPPORTING BUTTIGIEG , NOT BIDEN .
HERE 'S WHY And he is n't the only establishment Democrat scrambling to counter the Sanders surge in which recent national polling shows him pulling ahead of Biden , the nominal front-runner , and Warren , who has vacillated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In recent weeks , some polling shows that not only is Sanders doing well nationally , but that he could also win the first primary contest , the Iowa caucuses , and snap up the New Hampshire primary later that month .
Earlier in the week , former first lady , Secretary of State and the party 's 2016 nominee , Hillary Clinton , in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter , attacked Sanders ’ style , though she stopped short of saying she wouldn ’ t endorse him if he emerged as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress for years ... Nobody likes him , nobody wants to work with him , he got nothing done , ” she said .
“ He was a career politician .
It 's all baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it . ''
Clinton , of course , was mired in a brutal primary challenge with Sanders in 2016 and has never forgiven him for his late endorsement of her candidacy -- a factor she believes contributed to her loss to Trump in that year 's general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close with Biden as the two have remained friends since their days serving in the White House .
But Democratic Party insiders say the concern among party elders with Sanders ’ recent ascendance goes beyond rivalries and friendship .
Both Obama and Clinton believe it would be a mistake for the party to openly embrace socialism as opposed to more progressive policies on taxes , government assistance and even addressing environmental issues that could appeal to a broader swath of the electorate .
SANDERS GETTING SUPPORT FROM LARGER DONATIONS DESPITE BILLIONAIRE CONTEMPT ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are wary of any direct confrontation with Sanders , who has tapped into the changing demographics of the party .
The coalition that got Obama elected two terms – African Americans , women and working-class whites — has been disrupted by the emergence of young , white progressives who are attracted to Sanders ’ far-left agenda .
Working-class whites have largely defected to Trump , who has campaigned on nationalist issues , such as immigration control , and against free trade .
By attacking Sanders , Obama may alienate this growing block of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out what could be a close contest with Trump , who despite his low approval ratings , will run in 2020 on a strong economy .
“ It would be surprising if Obama did anything upfront because Dems would splinter between Sanders ’ faction and Obama ’ s faction , ” said veteran Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf .
“ Don ’ t underestimate the Bernie faction ; otherwise he wouldn ’ t be surging in polls.
” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS Others say by allowing Sanders to continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be doomed at a time when it faces a vulnerable incumbent in Trump .
“ Sanders is widely disliked by Democrats over 30 , ” said David Brand , a long-time Democratic strategist based in Atlanta , who is supporting Biden .
“ He doesn ’ t work well with others , has no significant legislative records , and only a few people support him other than his die-hard following .
He can ’ t win a general election .
”

Former President Barack Obama has remained mostly silent through the early stages of the Democratic race to unseat Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election but that may soon change, friends and associates tell FOX Business, as avowed socialist Bernie Sanders gains in national polls and seems poised to obtain front-runner status.
The people who spoke on the condition of anonymity say Obama's preference had always been to lay low through the primaries aside from making some broad comments as he did in November of last year when, according to a report in The New York Times, the former two-term president, best known for expanding the size of government and his eponymous health care mandate, appeared genuinely worried about some of the increasingly leftist proposals being touted on the campaign trail from Sanders, the US senator from Vermont, and to some extent, Elizabeth Warren, the US senator from Massachusetts.
"The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system to remake it," the Times quoted Obama, who was speaking at a gathering of Democratic donors.
MICHELLE OBAMA AND WALL STREET FAT CATS COLLIDE AT MALIBU SPA
People close to Obama point out that he has always said that he will support the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be. They also point out that Obama's opinion of Warren has softened since November, and he is said to be growing comfortable with endorsing her fully if she should win the nomination.
But, these people add, he has recently grown even more wary of Sanders as the Vermont senator appears to be gaining momentum in polls and the Democratic primaries begin to heat up with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary both in February.
TULSI GABBARD, AMID HILLARY CLINTON TUSSLE, HITS WALL STREET FAT CAT SYNDICATE
Obama has told people in private that Sanders is both temperamentally and politically unfit to beat Trump in the 2020 general election, these people say. Among his concerns are Sanders’ strident form of politics and confrontational manners where he was known not to seek compromise during his long years in the US senate. Meanwhile, Obama is said to worry that Sanders’ far-left policies, which include massive tax increases, free college tuition and massive student debt forgiveness, would alienate even traditional Democratic voters. And may alienate them enough to re-elect Trump, who is seeking a second term despite historically low favorability ratings given his own bombastic style, these people tell FOX Business.
With that, Obama is weighing a more forceful rebuke of Sanders as the candidate to lead the Democrats in 2020, according to people who have spoken to the former president. It’s unclear if Obama will name Sanders specifically if he does indeed decide to make a statement or if he will address the matter in more general terms as he did in November. Obama may also decide to remain silent, particularly if Joe Biden, his former vice president, or Warren begin to overtake Sanders in the early primaries and in polling.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
A spokeswoman for Obama declined to comment but would not deny his concerns. When asked to comment on the story, Sanders’ spokesman Mike Casca replied tersely, “Nope.”
Obama, despite his liberal credentials, often angered the far left of his party during his two terms as president for seeking compromise in policymaking. He took over as president amid the financial crisis, but refrained from nationalizing the ailing banks, choosing instead to continue the bail-out policies of the Bush administration. His signature piece of legislation — Obamacare — fell short of socialized medicine and was instead a mandate to provide health insurance for every American.
FORMER OBAMA AIDE SUPPORTING BUTTIGIEG, NOT BIDEN. HERE'S WHY
And he isn't the only establishment Democrat scrambling to counter the Sanders surge in which recent national polling shows him pulling ahead of Biden, the nominal front-runner, and Warren, who has vacillated in the polling of top candidates. In recent weeks, some polling shows that not only is Sanders doing well nationally, but that he could also win the first primary contest, the Iowa caucuses, and snap up the New Hampshire primary later that month.
Earlier in the week, former first lady, Secretary of State and the party's 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton, in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, attacked Sanders’ style, though she stopped short of saying she wouldn’t endorse him if he emerged as the Democratic nominee. "He was in Congress for years...Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done,” she said. “He was a career politician. It's all baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it."
Clinton, of course, was mired in a brutal primary challenge with Sanders in 2016 and has never forgiven him for his late endorsement of her candidacy -- a factor she believes contributed to her loss to Trump in that year's general election. Obama, meanwhile, is close with Biden as the two have remained friends since their days serving in the White House.
But Democratic Party insiders say the concern among party elders with Sanders’ recent ascendance goes beyond rivalries and friendship. Both Obama and Clinton believe it would be a mistake for the party to openly embrace socialism as opposed to more progressive policies on taxes, government assistance and even addressing environmental issues that could appeal to a broader swath of the electorate.
SANDERS GETTING SUPPORT FROM LARGER DONATIONS DESPITE BILLIONAIRE CONTEMPT?
That said, some Democratic political advisers are wary of any direct confrontation with Sanders, who has tapped into the changing demographics of the party. The coalition that got Obama elected two terms – African Americans, women and working-class whites — has been disrupted by the emergence of young, white progressives who are attracted to Sanders’ far-left agenda. Working-class whites have largely defected to Trump, who has campaigned on nationalist issues, such as immigration control, and against free trade.
By attacking Sanders, Obama may alienate this growing block of Democratic base voters causing them to sit out what could be a close contest with Trump, who despite his low approval ratings, will run in 2020 on a strong economy. “It would be surprising if Obama did anything upfront because Dems would splinter between Sanders’ faction and Obama’s faction,” said veteran Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf. “Don’t underestimate the Bernie faction; otherwise he wouldn’t be surging in polls.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS
Others say by allowing Sanders to continue to gain momentum, the Democratic Party might be doomed at a time when it faces a vulnerable incumbent in Trump. “Sanders is widely disliked by Democrats over 30,” said David Brand, a long-time Democratic strategist based in Atlanta, who is supporting Biden. “He doesn’t work well with others, has no significant legislative records, and only a few people support him other than his die-hard following. He can’t win a general election.”