freebeacon--2020-05-21--U.S. to Pull Out of Open Skies Treaty, Citing Russian Violations

WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) – The United States announced its intention on Thursday to withdraw from the 35-nation Open Skies treaty allowing unarmed surveillance flights over member countries , the Trump administration ’ s latest move to pull the country out of a major global treaty .
The administration said Russia has repeatedly violated the pact ’ s terms .
Senior officials said the pullout will formally take place in six months , based on the treaty ’ s withdrawal terms .
`` I think we have a very good relationship with Russia .
But Russia didn ’ t adhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adhere we will pull out , '' U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters .
He said there was a `` very good chance we ’ ll make a new agreement or do something to put that agreement back together . ''
In Moscow , RIA state news agency quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying that Russia has not violated the treaty and nothing prevents the continuation of talks on technical issues that the Washington calls violations .
NATO allies and other countries such as Ukraine have pressed Washington to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision could aggravate tensions within the alliance .
The administration also pulled the United States out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia last year .
The officials , speaking on condition of anonymity to a small group of reporters , said the Open Skies decision followed a six-month review that found multiple instances of Russian refusal to comply with the treaty .
`` During the course of this review it has become abundantly clear that it is no longer in America ’ s interests to remain a party to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the officials .
One administration official said extensive discussions were held with U.S. allies leading up to the decision but ultimately Washington decided `` it is no longer in our interest '' to participate in it .
At the same time , the official said U.S. officials had begun talks in recent days with Russian officials about a new round of nuclear arms negotiations to `` begin crafting the next generation of nuclear arms control measures . ''
`` The United States is committed to arms control .
We are committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a future that puts meaningful constraints on nuclear weapons , '' the official said .
The Open Skies treaty , proposed by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in 1955 , was signed in 1992 and took effect in 2002 .
The idea is to let member nations make surveillance flights over each other ’ s countries to build trust .
The officials cited a years-long effort by Russia to violate the terms , such as by restricting U.S. overflights of Russia ’ s neighbor Georgia and its military enclave in Kaliningrad .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using its own overflights of American and European territory to identify critical U.S. infrastructure for potential attack in a time of war .
Some experts worry that a U.S. exit from the treaty , which will halt Russian overflights of the United States , could prompt Moscow ’ s withdrawal , which would end overflights of Russia by the remaining members , weakening European security at a time that Russian-backed separatists are holding parts of Ukraine and Georgia .
Trump ’ s decision to leave the treaty is `` premature and irresponsible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Arms Control Association .
The 35 state parties to the Open Skies treaty are : Belarus , Belgium , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Bulgaria , Canada , Croatia , the Czech Republic , Denmark ( including Greenland ) , Estonia , Finland , France , Georgia , Germany , Greece , Hungary , Iceland , Italy , Kazakhstan , Latvia , Lithuania , Luxembourg , the Netherlands , Norway , Poland , Portugal , Romania , the Russian Federation , Slovakia , Slovenia , Spain , Sweden , Turkey , Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .

By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States announced its intention on Thursday to withdraw from the 35-nation Open Skies treaty allowing unarmed surveillance flights over member countries, the Trump administration’s latest move to pull the country out of a major global treaty.
The administration said Russia has repeatedly violated the pact’s terms. Senior officials said the pullout will formally take place in six months, based on the treaty’s withdrawal terms.
"I think we have a very good relationship with Russia. But Russia didn’t adhere to the treaty. So until they adhere we will pull out," U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters.
He said there was a "very good chance we’ll make a new agreement or do something to put that agreement back together."
In Moscow, RIA state news agency quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying that Russia has not violated the treaty and nothing prevents the continuation of talks on technical issues that the Washington calls violations.
NATO allies and other countries such as Ukraine have pressed Washington to remain in the treaty, and Trump’s decision could aggravate tensions within the alliance.
The administration also pulled the United States out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia last year.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to a small group of reporters, said the Open Skies decision followed a six-month review that found multiple instances of Russian refusal to comply with the treaty.
"During the course of this review it has become abundantly clear that it is no longer in America’s interests to remain a party to the Open Skies treaty," said one of the officials.
One administration official said extensive discussions were held with U.S. allies leading up to the decision but ultimately Washington decided "it is no longer in our interest" to participate in it.
At the same time, the official said U.S. officials had begun talks in recent days with Russian officials about a new round of nuclear arms negotiations to "begin crafting the next generation of nuclear arms control measures."
"The United States is committed to arms control. We are committed to European security. And we are committed to a future that puts meaningful constraints on nuclear weapons," the official said.
The Open Skies treaty, proposed by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in 1955, was signed in 1992 and took effect in 2002. The idea is to let member nations make surveillance flights over each other’s countries to build trust.
The officials cited a years-long effort by Russia to violate the terms, such as by restricting U.S. overflights of Russia’s neighbor Georgia and its military enclave in Kaliningrad.
In addition, they said Russia has been using its own overflights of American and European territory to identify critical U.S. infrastructure for potential attack in a time of war.
Some experts worry that a U.S. exit from the treaty, which will halt Russian overflights of the United States, could prompt Moscow’s withdrawal, which would end overflights of Russia by the remaining members, weakening European security at a time that Russian-backed separatists are holding parts of Ukraine and Georgia.
Trump’s decision to leave the treaty is "premature and irresponsible," said Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association.
The 35 state parties to the Open Skies treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark (including Greenland), Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
(Reporting By Steve Holland; additional reporting by Jonathan Landay and Doina Chiacu in Washington and Andrey Ostroukh in Moscow; editing by David Gregorio and Steve Orlofsky)


freebeacon--2020-05-21--Nevada Democrat Hit With Ethics Complaint Over Affair With Former Intern

A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Steven Horsford ( D. , Nev. ) on Wednesday alleging the congressman abused his position and potentially broke the law while concealing a decade-long affair with a former intern .
In a letter Americans for Public Trust , a nonpartisan government accountability organization , requested the House Office of Congressional Ethics ( OCE ) launch a full investigation into Horsford .
The investigation would determine whether he offered money to or used the power of his office on behalf of Gabriela Linder , an intern with whom the congressman admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steven Horsford 's concealment of an ongoing affair implicates an abuse of his official position and potentially federal law .
His use of financial payments , staff time , and repeated run-ins with legal obligations betray the public trust , '' the letter states .
`` Ultimately , his conduct for the past ten years destroys the credibility of his office and fails to maintain the integrity of the House .
Therefore , we respectfully urge OCE to investigate this matter and any potential violations of federal law and standards of House ethics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspects of Horsford ’ s history provide reason for an investigation .
`` Representative Horsford ’ s past behavior of unpaid debts , contractual violations , and traffic citations demonstrates a perpetual history of failing to abide by the law , '' it said .
`` His lack of transparency in his own life fails to reflect positively upon the House , warranting investigation . ''
Horsford 's office did not respond to a request for comment .
Americans for Public Trust 's executive director Caitlin Sutherland told the Washington Free Beacon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we encourage the Office of Congressional Ethics to review this matter . ''
Horsford 's staff told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Wednesday that the congressman never gave money to Linder from either his congressional or campaign funds .
The Review-Journal originally reported the congressman 's affair on Friday after interviewing Linder , who had previously described her affair with the congressman on a podcast in which she did not reveal her identity .

A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Steven Horsford (D., Nev.) on Wednesday alleging the congressman abused his position and potentially broke the law while concealing a decade-long affair with a former intern.
In a letter Americans for Public Trust, a nonpartisan government accountability organization, requested the House Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) launch a full investigation into Horsford. The investigation would determine whether he offered money to or used the power of his office on behalf of Gabriela Linder, an intern with whom the congressman admitted to having an affair.
"Representative Steven Horsford's concealment of an ongoing affair implicates an abuse of his official position and potentially federal law. His use of financial payments, staff time, and repeated run-ins with legal obligations betray the public trust," the letter states.
"Ultimately, his conduct for the past ten years destroys the credibility of his office and fails to maintain the integrity of the House. Therefore, we respectfully urge OCE to investigate this matter and any potential violations of federal law and standards of House ethics."
The letter also said other aspects of Horsford’s history provide reason for an investigation.
"Representative Horsford’s past behavior of unpaid debts, contractual violations, and traffic citations demonstrates a perpetual history of failing to abide by the law," it said. "His lack of transparency in his own life fails to reflect positively upon the House, warranting investigation."
Horsford's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Americans for Public Trust's executive director Caitlin Sutherland told the Washington Free Beacon, "These are very serious allegations, and we encourage the Office of Congressional Ethics to review this matter."
Horsford's staff told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Wednesday that the congressman never gave money to Linder from either his congressional or campaign funds. The Review-Journal originally reported the congressman's affair on Friday after interviewing Linder, who had previously described her affair with the congressman on a podcast in which she did not reveal her identity.


Biden’s Progressive Gamble

A few hours after this column appears on the internet , more than 30 liberal activists will meet online to plan your future .
The gathering is called the `` Friday Morning Group . ''
It comprises , according to the New York Times , `` influential figures at labor unions , think tanks , and other progressive institutions . ''
These influential figures , the Times goes on , believe that when Democrats last had full control of the federal government , between 2009 and 2010 , they did not `` take the initiative in specifying plans for achieving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct this mistake .
What happens on November 3 might give them the chance .
Buoyed by polls that show Joe Biden consistently leading President Trump , and jarred by the economic and social toll of the coronavirus , Democrats have become more ambitious .
A `` return to normalcy '' no longer suits them .
What is normal , anyway ?
It sounds privileged .
Better to be bold .
The digital headline of the article where I learned of the Friday Morning Group was , `` Seeking : Big Democratic Ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It will be awhile before Ahab finds that White Whale . )
The title of a recent New York magazine profile says `` Biden Is Planning an FDR-Size Presidency . ''
Nancy Pelosi gave a hint of what might be in store with the $ 3 trillion spending bill she pushed through the House on May 15 .
Its cost and scope were too much for 14 House Democrats .
They joined every Republican but one in voting against it .
Most of the defectors hail from swing districts that backed Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years later .
It is no stretch of the imagination to read their votes as a warning to House leadership : The ambivalence that characterized much of the country 's attitude toward impeachment also applies to coronavirus relief measures that are more about setting party priorities than resolving the crisis .
Neither Pelosi nor Biden , however , has given any indication that the message was received .
Pelosi 's cluelessness I can understand .
She abandoned the center long ago .
More puzzling is Biden 's sudden-onset FDR syndrome .
The presumptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his primary victory .
Biden won the nomination by assembling a coalition that looked a lot like the voters who empowered the House Democratic majority : suburban women , moderates , African Americans .
He did so by emphasizing his experience and steadfastness and by framing the election as a referendum on President Trump 's behavior in office .
But he has spent the last several weeks moving toward the same woke progressives who collapsed after Bernie Sanders 's sweep of New Hampshire and Nevada .
Biden now promises `` not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transform it . ''
He says he is compelled to `` rewrite the social contract . ''
This is the same man who does n't know if his computer is on .
Biden speaks often with Elizabeth Warren from his basement shelter .
Last week he invited Bernie Sanders to appoint co-chairs , including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , to six `` unity task forces '' that will recommend policies for a Biden administration .
Recently he went out of his way to reiterate support for college sexual assault policies under which he would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to pledge that he would revoke the permit that Donald Trump granted to the Keystone XL pipeline .
He is , says the Times , `` eager for new ideas . ''
It does not bother progressives that these `` new ideas '' are quite old .
They consist of more regulation , more taxation , more spending , and more giveaways to powerful interest groups , public sector unions in particular , in pursuit of a chimerical standard of equality .
Been there , done that .
Still , one does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive agenda that he deems most viable .
And it is ( grudgingly ) to the progressives ' credit that they are thinking of policy at all .
Some of us would like to hear Republican plans for the next four years .
Own the libs , of course .
But how exactly ?
Perhaps the chest-thumping should not be taken too seriously .
Perhaps it is part of a strategy to guarantee unity ahead of the Democratic National Convention , and to motivate left-wing voters who are not thrilled about Biden 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to repeat the scenes outside of the Wells Fargo Center four years ago .
They do not want young people to be tempted by the siren song of Jill Stein .
Coalition management is part of the job—a part that the incumbent has done well .
The test will be Biden 's vice-presidential selection .
He can go one of two ways .
A candidate from the Midwest or South will signal that Biden is more interested in the middle of the country than the middle of the Democratic Party .
One from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that not only is Biden worried about his left flank , he also intends to make good his promise of national transformation .
In such a scenario Pelosi and Schumer would take the lead on domestic policy while Biden concentrates on foreign affairs .
He would be there to cut the ribbon at the opening of a solar farm , but otherwise mark time until he announces he will not run for a second term .
This is a pleasant vision if you are a Democrat .
It is also an elusive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help quell the virus and restore some version of regular economic life .
It has given no indication that it endorses Elizabeth Warren 's agenda .
The activists detailing grand plans to national newspapers and magazines forget what happened a decade ago .
It was n't a failure of `` initiative '' that stopped them .
It was voters .
Americans elected Barack Obama to handle the financial crisis , end the Iraq war , and express their sense of national unity .
They started to rebel when he announced his goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Foundation . ''
By the end of his presidency , the Democrats had been routed .
It is the same old cycle .
Every majority mistakes its electoral mandate for an ideological one .
Every majority overreaches .
Every majority is rebuked at the polls .
If they win—and if we take them at their word—Joe Biden and the Democrats are setting themselves up for one heck of a fall .

A few hours after this column appears on the internet, more than 30 liberal activists will meet online to plan your future. The gathering is called the "Friday Morning Group." It comprises, according to the New York Times, "influential figures at labor unions, think tanks, and other progressive institutions." These influential figures, the Times goes on, believe that when Democrats last had full control of the federal government, between 2009 and 2010, they did not "take the initiative in specifying plans for achieving large-scale change." They hope to correct this mistake. What happens on November 3 might give them the chance.
Buoyed by polls that show Joe Biden consistently leading President Trump, and jarred by the economic and social toll of the coronavirus, Democrats have become more ambitious. A "return to normalcy" no longer suits them. What is normal, anyway? It sounds privileged. Better to be bold. The digital headline of the article where I learned of the Friday Morning Group was, "Seeking: Big Democratic Ideas That Make Everything Better." (It will be awhile before Ahab finds that White Whale.) The title of a recent New York magazine profile says "Biden Is Planning an FDR-Size Presidency." Nancy Pelosi gave a hint of what might be in store with the $3 trillion spending bill she pushed through the House on May 15. Its cost and scope were too much for 14 House Democrats. They joined every Republican but one in voting against it.
Most of the defectors hail from swing districts that backed Trump in 2016 but sent Democrats to Congress two years later. It is no stretch of the imagination to read their votes as a warning to House leadership: The ambivalence that characterized much of the country's attitude toward impeachment also applies to coronavirus relief measures that are more about setting party priorities than resolving the crisis. Neither Pelosi nor Biden, however, has given any indication that the message was received.
Pelosi's cluelessness I can understand. She abandoned the center long ago. More puzzling is Biden's sudden-onset FDR syndrome. The presumptive nominee seems to be forgetting the lessons of his primary victory. Biden won the nomination by assembling a coalition that looked a lot like the voters who empowered the House Democratic majority: suburban women, moderates, African Americans. He did so by emphasizing his experience and steadfastness and by framing the election as a referendum on President Trump's behavior in office.
But he has spent the last several weeks moving toward the same woke progressives who collapsed after Bernie Sanders's sweep of New Hampshire and Nevada. Biden now promises "not just to rebuild the economy, but to transform it." He says he is compelled to "rewrite the social contract." This is the same man who doesn't know if his computer is on.
Biden speaks often with Elizabeth Warren from his basement shelter. Last week he invited Bernie Sanders to appoint co-chairs, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to six "unity task forces" that will recommend policies for a Biden administration. Recently he went out of his way to reiterate support for college sexual assault policies under which he would be found guilty of harassing Tara Reade, and to pledge that he would revoke the permit that Donald Trump granted to the Keystone XL pipeline. He is, says the Times, "eager for new ideas."
It does not bother progressives that these "new ideas" are quite old. They consist of more regulation, more taxation, more spending, and more giveaways to powerful interest groups, public sector unions in particular, in pursuit of a chimerical standard of equality. Been there, done that. Still, one does expect the Democratic nominee to advance the progressive agenda that he deems most viable. And it is (grudgingly) to the progressives' credit that they are thinking of policy at all. Some of us would like to hear Republican plans for the next four years. Own the libs, of course. But how exactly?
Perhaps the chest-thumping should not be taken too seriously. Perhaps it is part of a strategy to guarantee unity ahead of the Democratic National Convention, and to motivate left-wing voters who are not thrilled about Biden's candidacy. The Democrats do not want to repeat the scenes outside of the Wells Fargo Center four years ago. They do not want young people to be tempted by the siren song of Jill Stein. Coalition management is part of the job—a part that the incumbent has done well.
The test will be Biden's vice-presidential selection. He can go one of two ways. A candidate from the Midwest or South will signal that Biden is more interested in the middle of the country than the middle of the Democratic Party. One from Massachusetts or California or the media will suggest that not only is Biden worried about his left flank, he also intends to make good his promise of national transformation. In such a scenario Pelosi and Schumer would take the lead on domestic policy while Biden concentrates on foreign affairs. He would be there to cut the ribbon at the opening of a solar farm, but otherwise mark time until he announces he will not run for a second term.
This is a pleasant vision if you are a Democrat. It is also an elusive one. The public wants the government to help quell the virus and restore some version of regular economic life. It has given no indication that it endorses Elizabeth Warren's agenda. The activists detailing grand plans to national newspapers and magazines forget what happened a decade ago. It wasn't a failure of "initiative" that stopped them. It was voters.
Americans elected Barack Obama to handle the financial crisis, end the Iraq war, and express their sense of national unity. They started to rebel when he announced his goal of setting the country on a "New Foundation." By the end of his presidency, the Democrats had been routed.
It is the same old cycle. Every majority mistakes its electoral mandate for an ideological one. Every majority overreaches. Every majority is rebuked at the polls. If they win—and if we take them at their word—Joe Biden and the Democrats are setting themselves up for one heck of a fall.


freebeacon--2020-05-22--Iowa Dem Criticized by Fellow Dems for Violating Corporate PAC Pledge

Iowa Senate hopeful Theresa Greenfield dismissed criticism from fellow Democrats on her campaign finance hypocrisy as `` Republican talking points '' during a primary debate Thursday .
`` You ca n't smile at people and tell them you 're not taking corporate PAC money when you 're taking tens of thousands of dollars of corporate PAC money , leadership PAC money that 's full of pharmaceutical money , fossil fuel money , and Wall Street money , '' primary opponent Eddie Mauro said .
`` Ms. Greenfield must be very well coached because she does keep saying it … she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but she 's taking corrupt money , so there 's an issue there . ''
Mauro was not the only Democrat to question Greenfield 's pledge during the debate .
Attorney Kimberly Graham noted that Greenfield has `` taken $ 153,000 from corporate lobbyists during this campaign '' and asked `` why that money could n't have been refused . ''
Navy veteran Mike Franken said Greenfield was benefiting from attack ads bankrolled by `` lobbyists and corporate PACS and Bain Capital and businesses , and frankly a lot of it is dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the backing of national party leaders , often claims she is not accepting `` one dime in corporate PAC money '' on the campaign trail and has repeatedly denounced dark money .
Her campaign is largely shaped around ridding Washington of the `` corrupting '' influence of money in politics .
But the Iowa Democrat has benefited from millions in corporate PAC money and dark money through outside groups supporting her bid for the nomination to unseat Sen. Joni Ernst ( R. ) .
Greenfield dismissed the attacks on her hypocrisy as `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts are the facts .
I have n't taken one dime in corporate PAC money , and I 'm not going to , '' Greenfield said .
`` It 's unfortunate that these kinds of false attacks—they sound like Republican talking points , '' she added .
Debate moderator Dave Price noted that Greenfield benefits greatly `` by having $ 7 million on the air '' in ads from pro-choice activist group EMILY 's List and Senate Majority PAC , a Chuck Schumer-aligned group backed by some of the nation 's wealthiest liberals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't disassociate from the groups given her `` anticorruption '' pledge .
Hours before the debate , WOMEN VOTE !
, an EMILY 's List affiliate , announced an ad buy backing Greenfield that will begin airing tomorrow .
Schumer has pledged to spend at least $ 13.1 million in Iowa this year .
`` You could just say , ‘ Do n't do that , ' but you have n't , '' Price said .
`` You could just say , ‘ Please take those things off the air .
They 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of it . '
'' `` Dave , I do n't control those groups .
I do n't even know who they are .
I would n't even know who to call , '' Greenfield said , despite the fact that she has repeatedly touted the endorsement of EMILY 's List during her campaign .
When Price suggested that Greenfield denounce the groups on the debate stage , the Iowa Democrat instead repeated her pledge to `` not take one dime in corporate PAC donations . ''
The four Democrats will square @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the winner facing Ernst in November .

Iowa Senate hopeful Theresa Greenfield dismissed criticism from fellow Democrats on her campaign finance hypocrisy as "Republican talking points" during a primary debate Thursday.
"You can't smile at people and tell them you're not taking corporate PAC money when you're taking tens of thousands of dollars of corporate PAC money, leadership PAC money that's full of pharmaceutical money, fossil fuel money, and Wall Street money," primary opponent Eddie Mauro said. "Ms. Greenfield must be very well coached because she does keep saying it … she says she wants to end corruption, but she's taking corrupt money, so there's an issue there."
Mauro was not the only Democrat to question Greenfield's pledge during the debate. Attorney Kimberly Graham noted that Greenfield has "taken $153,000 from corporate lobbyists during this campaign" and asked "why that money couldn't have been refused."
Navy veteran Mike Franken said Greenfield was benefiting from attack ads bankrolled by "lobbyists and corporate PACS and Bain Capital and businesses, and frankly a lot of it is dark money."
Greenfield, who has the backing of national party leaders, often claims she is not accepting "one dime in corporate PAC money" on the campaign trail and has repeatedly denounced dark money. Her campaign is largely shaped around ridding Washington of the "corrupting" influence of money in politics.
But the Iowa Democrat has benefited from millions in corporate PAC money and dark money through outside groups supporting her bid for the nomination to unseat Sen. Joni Ernst (R.).
Greenfield dismissed the attacks on her hypocrisy as "Republican talking points."
"The facts are the facts. I haven't taken one dime in corporate PAC money, and I'm not going to," Greenfield said. "It's unfortunate that these kinds of false attacks—they sound like Republican talking points," she added.
Debate moderator Dave Price noted that Greenfield benefits greatly "by having $7 million on the air" in ads from pro-choice activist group EMILY's List and Senate Majority PAC, a Chuck Schumer-aligned group backed by some of the nation's wealthiest liberals. He asked Greenfield why she doesn't disassociate from the groups given her "anticorruption" pledge.
Hours before the debate, WOMEN VOTE!, an EMILY's List affiliate, announced an ad buy backing Greenfield that will begin airing tomorrow. Schumer has pledged to spend at least $13.1 million in Iowa this year.
"You could just say, 'Don't do that,' but you haven't," Price said. "You could just say, 'Please take those things off the air. They're dirty and I don't want any part of it.'"
"Dave, I don't control those groups. I don't even know who they are. I wouldn't even know who to call," Greenfield said, despite the fact that she has repeatedly touted the endorsement of EMILY's List during her campaign. When Price suggested that Greenfield denounce the groups on the debate stage, the Iowa Democrat instead repeated her pledge to "not take one dime in corporate PAC donations."
The four Democrats will square off in a June 2 primary, with the winner facing Ernst in November.


freebeacon--2020-05-22--CNBC Reporter: Biden Tax Plan ‘Most Expensive’ in Recent History

CNBC reporter Robert Frank said Friday that presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden is putting forward the most burdensome tax plan in years .
`` The truth is that Joe Biden , even though he 's portrayed as a moderate , is offering the most expensive Democratic tax plan that we 've seen from any Democratic candidate in recent history , '' Frank said in an interview .
`` Hillary Clinton 's total plan was $ 1.5 trillion .
Biden 's plan is $ 4 trillion . ''
Biden has been courting a number of progressives in advisory roles to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he announced his new `` unity task forces '' with rival primary candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) .
The group , which includes freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D. , N.Y. ) and top economic advisers to the Sanders campaign , will collectively develop the Democratic Party 's 2020 platform .
Frank noted that Biden 's proposed raise to the capital gains tax rate by almost 20 percentage points would be the largest ever and that Biden 's corporate income tax rate would see a 7 percentage point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising , Frank said , they do raise questions as to whether they are prudent during a time of economic recession .
`` The question is not so much ‘ is this what the Democratic Party wants ?
'—because of course it is—but ‘ is this the right time to do it ? '
'' Biden 's comments come as the Labor Department reported Friday that 43 of 50 states saw their highest rate of unemployment since 1976 .
Frank said he was `` surprised '' to see that Biden 's economic proposals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wealthy and corporations … no matter what 's happening in the economy . ''
The former vice president continues to campaign remotely from his Delaware home 's basement , where it has been reported he speaks frequently with Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass. )
.
Warren spearheaded the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is well known for her criticism of Wall Street .

CNBC reporter Robert Frank said Friday that presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden is putting forward the most burdensome tax plan in years.
"The truth is that Joe Biden, even though he's portrayed as a moderate, is offering the most expensive Democratic tax plan that we've seen from any Democratic candidate in recent history," Frank said in an interview. "Hillary Clinton's total plan was $1.5 trillion. Biden's plan is $4 trillion."
Biden has been courting a number of progressives in advisory roles to his campaign in recent weeks. Last Wednesday, he announced his new "unity task forces" with rival primary candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). The group, which includes freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and top economic advisers to the Sanders campaign, will collectively develop the Democratic Party's 2020 platform.
Frank noted that Biden's proposed raise to the capital gains tax rate by almost 20 percentage points would be the largest ever and that Biden's corporate income tax rate would see a 7 percentage point increase. While these suggestions are not surprising, Frank said, they do raise questions as to whether they are prudent during a time of economic recession.
"The question is not so much 'is this what the Democratic Party wants?'—because of course it is—but 'is this the right time to do it?'"
Biden's comments come as the Labor Department reported Friday that 43 of 50 states saw their highest rate of unemployment since 1976.
Frank said he was "surprised" to see that Biden's economic proposals all aim to "raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations ... no matter what's happening in the economy."
The former vice president continues to campaign remotely from his Delaware home's basement, where it has been reported he speaks frequently with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). Warren spearheaded the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is well known for her criticism of Wall Street.


freebeacon--2020-05-22--Who’s Afraid of Ilhan Omar?

Who’s Afraid of Ilhan Omar?

Congresswoman 's refusal to answer questions about a big book advance that may violate House rules is just the latest media stonewall Rep Ilhan Omar 's ( D. , Minn. ) new memoir , This Is What America Looks Like : My Journey From Refugee to Congresswoman is out next week .
Among the questions it leaves unanswered is whether Omar complied with House rules governing the big advance she reportedly received on the book .
House rules prohibit `` the receipt of any advance payment on copyright royalties '' unless the contract has been approved by the House Ethics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported in December .
At the time , neither Omar nor her publisher responded to repeated requests for comment about when , exactly , Omar signed her book contract and received the advance , which Forbes put at between $ 100,000 and $ 250,000 .
Omar may have received the royalty payment before she was sworn in on Jan. 3 , 2019 , but her 2018 financial disclosure listed no book advance .
We would like to see her 2019 disclosure , but Omar has filed for a 90-day extension .
Ninety days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary that she faces back home in Minnesota this August—by two days , to be exact .
We 'll have to check back then .
In the meantime , we will wait , almost certainly in vain , for the armies of investigative reporters attuned to the release of Republican financial disclosures to find the time and care to ask these straightforward questions .
It 's not hard to predict how the congresswoman would respond given that accusations of bigotry have become her standard defense against what most might call public accountability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriages have received from the news media .
When the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board released a report on its year-long investigation of Omar last June , it revealed tax returns illegally filed with her husband , to whom she was not legally married , while she was legally married to another man .
The board 's findings , which covered Omar 's 2016 race for a state legislative seat , also included several penny-ante campaign finance infractions representative of the congresswoman 's carefree approach to American laws .
When her hometown paper made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speak to her husband and other relatives , her spokesman called the questions `` conspiracy theories , '' accusing the paper of insinuating that Omar `` is somehow illegitimate or not fully American . ''
In fact , her flack continued , Omar had `` shared more than most public officials ever do about the details of her personal life . ''
That sort of gaslighting has become a standard response when Omar faces scrutiny .
Most recently , the congresswoman disputed on-the-record accusations—from a local Imam—that she was improperly routing contributions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her campaign account .
That one was a `` ‘ scary , lying immigrant ' smear . ''
Omar 's approach to public relations has served her well , but her approach to accounting has already led to one rebuke from regulators .
Surely her constituents deserve to know—before they vote—if she 's done it again .

Congresswoman's refusal to answer questions about a big book advance that may violate House rules is just the latest media stonewall
Rep Ilhan Omar's (D., Minn.) new memoir, This Is What America Looks Like: My Journey From Refugee to Congresswoman is out next week. Among the questions it leaves unanswered is whether Omar complied with House rules governing the big advance she reportedly received on the book.
House rules prohibit "the receipt of any advance payment on copyright royalties" unless the contract has been approved by the House Ethics Committee, as the Washington Free Beacon reported in December. At the time, neither Omar nor her publisher responded to repeated requests for comment about when, exactly, Omar signed her book contract and received the advance, which Forbes put at between $100,000 and $250,000.
Omar may have received the royalty payment before she was sworn in on Jan. 3, 2019, but her 2018 financial disclosure listed no book advance. We would like to see her 2019 disclosure, but Omar has filed for a 90-day extension.
Ninety days takes Omar just past the contested Democratic-Farmer-Labor primary that she faces back home in Minnesota this August—by two days, to be exact. We'll have to check back then.
In the meantime, we will wait, almost certainly in vain, for the armies of investigative reporters attuned to the release of Republican financial disclosures to find the time and care to ask these straightforward questions. It's not hard to predict how the congresswoman would respond given that accusations of bigotry have become her standard defense against what most might call public accountability.
Take the minor scrutiny her infamously mixed-up marriages have received from the news media. When the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board released a report on its year-long investigation of Omar last June, it revealed tax returns illegally filed with her husband, to whom she was not legally married, while she was legally married to another man.
The board's findings, which covered Omar's 2016 race for a state legislative seat, also included several penny-ante campaign finance infractions representative of the congresswoman's carefree approach to American laws.
When her hometown paper made inquiries about her marital arrangements and asked to speak to her husband and other relatives, her spokesman called the questions "conspiracy theories," accusing the paper of insinuating that Omar "is somehow illegitimate or not fully American." In fact, her flack continued, Omar had "shared more than most public officials ever do about the details of her personal life."
That sort of gaslighting has become a standard response when Omar faces scrutiny. Most recently, the congresswoman disputed on-the-record accusations—from a local Imam—that she was improperly routing contributions for a local charity meals program to her campaign account. That one was a "'scary, lying immigrant' smear."
Omar's approach to public relations has served her well, but her approach to accounting has already led to one rebuke from regulators. Surely her constituents deserve to know—before they vote—if she's done it again.


freebeacon--2020-05-22--Pittsburgh County Settles Lawsuit Over Dead, Duplicate Voter Registrants

Allegheny County , home to the city of Pittsburgh and its surrounding suburbs , settled a lawsuit over the numerous instances of dead voters and duplicate registrants on its voter rolls .
The county entered into a settlement on Monday with the Public Interest Legal Foundation , an election integrity group , after its manager of elections and three members of its board of elections were sued .
The election watchdog found that the county 's voter rolls contained nearly 1,600 dead registrants , close to 7,500 with erroneous information , and more than 1,500 aged 100 or above ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The suit accused the officials of failing to reasonably maintain the rolls .
As part of the settlement , the county has agreed to turn over records related to the dead registrants , send letters to registrants with incorrect dates of birth on file , inspect registrations of individuals aged 110 years or older to determine whether death notices were overlooked , and to accept `` list maintenance leads '' from the watchdog over the course of the next year .
The voter roll cleanup comes six months ahead of the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pivotal role in determining which presidential contender will take Pennsylvania .
President Donald Trump won the state by fewer than 45,000 votes in 2016 .
J. Christian Adams , president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation , said the county deserves credit for agreeing to fix the `` serious problem with elections there . ''
He said some Allegheny County residents have been registered `` two , three , four , even seven times to vote . ''
`` We found those problems , and the County agreed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` This settlement demonstrates what can be accomplished when good government groups work with election officials in good faith without the interference of ideologically driven activists who oppose such measures .
Those same activists push radical changes to vote by mail , which shows how important this settlement was for a clean election in Pennsylvania . ''
Adams 's group also has an identical lawsuit in Detroit over the city 's voter roll irregularities , which also include thousands of dead people registered to vote .

Allegheny County, home to the city of Pittsburgh and its surrounding suburbs, settled a lawsuit over the numerous instances of dead voters and duplicate registrants on its voter rolls.
The county entered into a settlement on Monday with the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity group, after its manager of elections and three members of its board of elections were sued. The election watchdog found that the county's voter rolls contained nearly 1,600 dead registrants, close to 7,500 with erroneous information, and more than 1,500 aged 100 or above (including 49 born in the 1800s). The suit accused the officials of failing to reasonably maintain the rolls.
As part of the settlement, the county has agreed to turn over records related to the dead registrants, send letters to registrants with incorrect dates of birth on file, inspect registrations of individuals aged 110 years or older to determine whether death notices were overlooked, and to accept "list maintenance leads" from the watchdog over the course of the next year.
The voter roll cleanup comes six months ahead of the 2020 elections in a region that will play a pivotal role in determining which presidential contender will take Pennsylvania. President Donald Trump won the state by fewer than 45,000 votes in 2016.
J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said the county deserves credit for agreeing to fix the "serious problem with elections there." He said some Allegheny County residents have been registered "two, three, four, even seven times to vote."
"We found those problems, and the County agreed to fix them," Adams said. "This settlement demonstrates what can be accomplished when good government groups work with election officials in good faith without the interference of ideologically driven activists who oppose such measures. Those same activists push radical changes to vote by mail, which shows how important this settlement was for a clean election in Pennsylvania."
Adams's group also has an identical lawsuit in Detroit over the city's voter roll irregularities, which also include thousands of dead people registered to vote.


freebeacon--2020-05-22--GOP Lawmakers Demand FBI Briefing on Chinese Hacking of U.S. Coronavirus Research

Republican lawmakers are demanding the FBI and other federal officials provide them with information about recent disclosures that China hacked U.S. coronavirus research .
A group of lawmakers on the House Science , Space , and Technology Committee wrote to leaders of the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) asking them to provide details about China 's efforts to steal American health data and intellectual property belonging to U.S. organizations currently conducting research on the coronavirus .
`` Taking into consideration the vital research these U.S. institutions are conducting in order to develop vaccines and treatments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire world , such malicious targeting is reprehensible , '' wrote the lawmakers , including Reps. Brian Babin ( R. , Texas ) , Ralph Norman ( R. , S.C. ) , Jim Baird ( R. , Ind . )
, Bill Posey ( R. , Fla. ) , among others .
The FBI warned earlier this month that China was targeting U.S. research institutes for cyber attacks and urged them to maintain dedicated cybersecurity to prevent hacks .
The notice further disclosed that `` these actors have been observed attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( IP ) and public health data related to vaccines , treatments , and testing from networks and personnel affiliated with COVID-19-related research .
The potential theft of this information jeopardizes the delivery of secure , effective , and efficient treatment options . ''
CISA estimates that China steals up to $ 400 billion worth of U.S. intellectual property each year .

Republican lawmakers are demanding the FBI and other federal officials provide them with information about recent disclosures that China hacked U.S. coronavirus research.
A group of lawmakers on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee wrote to leaders of the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) asking them to provide details about China's efforts to steal American health data and intellectual property belonging to U.S. organizations currently conducting research on the coronavirus.
"Taking into consideration the vital research these U.S. institutions are conducting in order to develop vaccines and treatments for the novel coronavirus that is devastating the entire world, such malicious targeting is reprehensible," wrote the lawmakers, including Reps. Brian Babin (R., Texas), Ralph Norman (R., S.C.), Jim Baird (R., Ind.), Bill Posey (R., Fla.), among others.
The FBI warned earlier this month that China was targeting U.S. research institutes for cyber attacks and urged them to maintain dedicated cybersecurity to prevent hacks.
The notice further disclosed that "these actors have been observed attempting to identify and illicitly obtain valuable intellectual property (IP) and public health data related to vaccines, treatments, and testing from networks and personnel affiliated with COVID-19-related research. The potential theft of this information jeopardizes the delivery of secure, effective, and efficient treatment options."
CISA estimates that China steals up to $400 billion worth of U.S. intellectual property each year.


freebeacon--2020-05-22--NBC News Mum on Contributor Headlining Fundraiser for Biden

NBC News has refused to say whether network president Noah Oppenheim granted legal analyst and former Robert Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann permission to headline a virtual fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
Weissmann 's participation in the event without the express permission of Oppenheim is a violation of a network policy that prohibits activities `` that may create the appearance of a conflict of interest . ''
`` Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions , '' the network 's policy states , according to its own reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must obtain prior approval of the president of NBC News or his designee '' before participating in any overt political activity .
Weissmann is slated to participate in the virtual fundraiser Tuesday , according to an invitation circulated by the Biden campaign .
Guests who want to hear from Weissmann will receive instructions on how to log on to the Zoom fundraiser after making a contribution to the campaign .
NBC did not respond to numerous inquiries on whether Oppenheim granted Weissmann permission to participate in the fundraiser .
Weissmann joined NBC as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down as lead prosecutor for Robert Mueller 's special counsel investigation .
The network has n't been shy about enforcing its prohibition on political activity in the past .
It suspended top anchors Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann in 2010 for making contributions to political candidates .
The network also forced former MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz to back out of an appearance at a Democratic Party fundraising dinner in 2014 .
At the time of Scarborough 's suspension , MSNBC president Phil Griffin said , `` It is critical that we enforce our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weissmann 's involvement in the Biden campaign fundraiser led to immediate criticism from President Donald Trump 's reelection campaign , which saw it as validation of their longstanding charge that Weissmann had an axe to grind against the president .
`` It 's no surprise that a guy who tried to take down the president through the sham impeachment would also help Joe Biden ’ s campaign , '' said Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh .
`` It doesn ’ t get any swampier than this : trying to stage a partisan coup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his political opponent . ''
Weissmann appeared frequently on MSNBC throughout the impeachment proceedings against Trump , but has seen less airtime since Trump was acquitted by the U.S. Senate .
His last appearance came on Feb. 26 , when he was introduced by primetime host Rachel Maddow as `` an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst . ''

NBC News has refused to say whether network president Noah Oppenheim granted legal analyst and former Robert Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann permission to headline a virtual fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Weissmann's participation in the event without the express permission of Oppenheim is a violation of a network policy that prohibits activities "that may create the appearance of a conflict of interest."
"Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions," the network's policy states, according to its own reporting. The policy states that employees "must obtain prior approval of the president of NBC News or his designee" before participating in any overt political activity.
Weissmann is slated to participate in the virtual fundraiser Tuesday, according to an invitation circulated by the Biden campaign. Guests who want to hear from Weissmann will receive instructions on how to log on to the Zoom fundraiser after making a contribution to the campaign.
NBC did not respond to numerous inquiries on whether Oppenheim granted Weissmann permission to participate in the fundraiser.
Weissmann joined NBC as a legal commentator last November after stepping down as lead prosecutor for Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation.
The network hasn't been shy about enforcing its prohibition on political activity in the past. It suspended top anchors Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann in 2010 for making contributions to political candidates. The network also forced former MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz to back out of an appearance at a Democratic Party fundraising dinner in 2014.
At the time of Scarborough's suspension, MSNBC president Phil Griffin said, "It is critical that we enforce our standards and policies."
Reports of Weissmann's involvement in the Biden campaign fundraiser led to immediate criticism from President Donald Trump's reelection campaign, which saw it as validation of their longstanding charge that Weissmann had an axe to grind against the president.
"It's no surprise that a guy who tried to take down the president through the sham impeachment would also help Joe Biden’s campaign," said Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh. "It doesn’t get any swampier than this: trying to stage a partisan coup against the president and then raising money for his political opponent."
Weissmann appeared frequently on MSNBC throughout the impeachment proceedings against Trump, but has seen less airtime since Trump was acquitted by the U.S. Senate. His last appearance came on Feb. 26, when he was introduced by primetime host Rachel Maddow as "an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst."


freebeacon--2020-05-22--U.S., Iran Approach Showdown Over Oil Tankers Headed for Venezuela

The United States `` will not tolerate continued meddling '' by Iran in Venezuelan affairs , a senior Trump administration official told the Washington Free Beacon , bringing nearer the possibility of a naval confrontation between the United States and Tehran over its shipment of oil to the heavily sanctioned Maduro regime .
Five Iranian oil tankers are currently making their way to Venezuela , where they intend to bust an economic blockade established by the Trump administration on President Nicolas Maduro , whose regime has teetered on the brink of collapse since the United States deemed him the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sanctions on the regime .
The tankers included in Iran 's fleet are already subject to U.S. sanctions , as is the oil transported on the ships .
The situation puts the administration in a tight spot : Either it enforces its `` maximum pressure '' campaign on both nations or avoids sparking a wider military conflict in American waters .
President Trump has been clear about his intent to enforce the Monroe Doctrine—a policy of not permitting foreign nations to intervene in the Americas—but he has not yet been confronted with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to U.S. soil .
`` The president has made clear the United States will not tolerate continued meddling by supporters of an illegitimate regime that oppresses its people , denies basic human rights , and engages in violence and repression , '' a senior administration official told the Free Beacon , speaking only on background about the developing conflict .
Iranian military leaders said their oil tankers would reach the Caribbean in the coming days .
In response , the U.S. Navy has already deployed several ships to the area .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States intercedes in the shipment .
And while the Trump administration would not telegraph any actions it may be planning , U.S. officials made clear the United States does not intend to let Iran expand its malign influence into Latin America .
Iran has emerged as one of Maduro 's chief allies as U.S. economic sanctions cripple both regimes .
The Iranian tankers are carrying much-needed fuel for Venezuela , which has experienced severe shortfalls due to American sanctions .
Iranian military leaders have said that they will not shy away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seeks to interfere in the oil shipment .
`` We will not tolerate any harassment , '' Brigadier General Amir Hatami , Iran 's defense minister , said Thursday .
`` The Americans and others know that we will certainly not hesitate to react to this issue , and if the harassment intensifies and continues , it will certainly face a decisive response . ''
The United States now faces a tipping point in its standoff with both regimes as it deals for the first time with the threat of a joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus told the Free Beacon the Iranian-Venezuelan partnership highlights the corruption rampant in both regimes .
`` Venezuela used to produce a million barrels a day of gasoline , but now has to import it week by week from Iran , '' Ortagus said .
`` This is a sad reminder of Maduro 's hopeless mismanagement .
In return for Iran 's assistance , Maduro 's criminal organization reportedly looted nine tons of gold bars and sent them to Tehran .
Venezuelans need free and fair presidential elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not Maduro 's expensive deals with another pariah state . ''
The senior administration official quoted above emphasized the severity of Iran carrying out operations close to American borders .
`` Iran , Cuba , Russia , and the People 's Republic of China are engaged in malign activities and meddling around the world , '' the senior administration official said .
`` The United States denounces their actions everywhere but especially in the Western Hemisphere , and we will not abide by their support of the illegitimate and tyrannical regime of Nicolas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tankers are legally sanctioned and meant to provide aid to the Venezuelan people as they experience a significant fuel shortage .
`` We hope that America would not commit any stupid act , otherwise , it will receive our strong response , '' Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said this week .
Proponents of the administration 's tough stance on Iran said the president must act decisively to deter Iran from increasing its footprint in Latin America .
`` Iran 's decision to send a five-strong fleet of sanctioned tankers carrying sanctioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brazen attempt to push the limits of U.S. patience , '' said Daniel Roth , research director at United Against Nuclear Iran , a watchdog group with close ties to the administration .
`` With a potential reactivation of Tehran 's network of South American terror sleeper cells , now is the time to build a strong and unified coalition in the Americas against the deadly Iranian regime . ''

The United States "will not tolerate continued meddling" by Iran in Venezuelan affairs, a senior Trump administration official told the Washington Free Beacon, bringing nearer the possibility of a naval confrontation between the United States and Tehran over its shipment of oil to the heavily sanctioned Maduro regime.
Five Iranian oil tankers are currently making their way to Venezuela, where they intend to bust an economic blockade established by the Trump administration on President Nicolas Maduro, whose regime has teetered on the brink of collapse since the United States deemed him the country's illegitimate leader and placed a bevy of sanctions on the regime. The tankers included in Iran's fleet are already subject to U.S. sanctions, as is the oil transported on the ships.
The situation puts the administration in a tight spot: Either it enforces its "maximum pressure" campaign on both nations or avoids sparking a wider military conflict in American waters. President Trump has been clear about his intent to enforce the Monroe Doctrine—a policy of not permitting foreign nations to intervene in the Americas—but he has not yet been confronted with a high-stakes challenge from hostile regimes so close to U.S. soil.
"The president has made clear the United States will not tolerate continued meddling by supporters of an illegitimate regime that oppresses its people, denies basic human rights, and engages in violence and repression," a senior administration official told the Free Beacon, speaking only on background about the developing conflict.
Iranian military leaders said their oil tankers would reach the Caribbean in the coming days. In response, the U.S. Navy has already deployed several ships to the area.
Both Iran and Venezuela have threatened violence if the United States intercedes in the shipment. And while the Trump administration would not telegraph any actions it may be planning, U.S. officials made clear the United States does not intend to let Iran expand its malign influence into Latin America.
Iran has emerged as one of Maduro's chief allies as U.S. economic sanctions cripple both regimes. The Iranian tankers are carrying much-needed fuel for Venezuela, which has experienced severe shortfalls due to American sanctions.
Iranian military leaders have said that they will not shy away from a military conflict with America if it seeks to interfere in the oil shipment.
"We will not tolerate any harassment," Brigadier General Amir Hatami, Iran's defense minister, said Thursday. "The Americans and others know that we will certainly not hesitate to react to this issue, and if the harassment intensifies and continues, it will certainly face a decisive response."
The United States now faces a tipping point in its standoff with both regimes as it deals for the first time with the threat of a joint Iranian-Venezuelan flotilla, which includes military vessels.
State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus told the Free Beacon the Iranian-Venezuelan partnership highlights the corruption rampant in both regimes.
"Venezuela used to produce a million barrels a day of gasoline, but now has to import it week by week from Iran," Ortagus said. "This is a sad reminder of Maduro's hopeless mismanagement. In return for Iran's assistance, Maduro's criminal organization reportedly looted nine tons of gold bars and sent them to Tehran. Venezuelans need free and fair presidential elections leading to democracy and economic recovery, not Maduro's expensive deals with another pariah state."
The senior administration official quoted above emphasized the severity of Iran carrying out operations close to American borders.
"Iran, Cuba, Russia, and the People's Republic of China are engaged in malign activities and meddling around the world," the senior administration official said. "The United States denounces their actions everywhere but especially in the Western Hemisphere, and we will not abide by their support of the illegitimate and tyrannical regime of Nicolas Maduro."
Iran maintains that the tankers are legally sanctioned and meant to provide aid to the Venezuelan people as they experience a significant fuel shortage.
"We hope that America would not commit any stupid act, otherwise, it will receive our strong response," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said this week.
Proponents of the administration's tough stance on Iran said the president must act decisively to deter Iran from increasing its footprint in Latin America.
"Iran's decision to send a five-strong fleet of sanctioned tankers carrying sanctioned petroleum to the Maduro regime is a brazen attempt to push the limits of U.S. patience," said Daniel Roth, research director at United Against Nuclear Iran, a watchdog group with close ties to the administration. "With a potential reactivation of Tehran's network of South American terror sleeper cells, now is the time to build a strong and unified coalition in the Americas against the deadly Iranian regime."


freebeacon--2020-05-22--WATCH: Confused Old Codger Joe Biden Will Agree to Anything

Joe Biden does n't always speak coherently , but when he 's asked to commit to something , the former vice president typically responds with an emphatic `` yes . ''
It 's not always clear if Biden is aware of what he 's agreeing to do or if he understands the implications , but the 77-year-old has demonstrated a willingness to say `` yes '' to almost anything you ask of him .
`` Absolutely yes , I commit , '' Biden said last week during a virtual town hall on MSNBC .
In this particular case , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter who asked whether he would commit to `` not pulling a President Ford '' and issuing a pardon to President Trump `` under the pretense of healing the nation . ''
As usual , it was n't entirely clear whether Biden understood the question .
Over the course of his improbably successful presidential campaign , Biden has made numerous on-the-spot pledges in response to questions from journalists and voters .
For example , Biden has promised to `` sacrifice '' economic growth to fight climate change , punish `` senior Saudi leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fossil fuel production , '' and never fire an inspector general as president .
Free health care for illegal immigrants ?
Sure , why not .
Biden is also partial to answering multi-part questions with multiple uses of the word `` yes . ''
It 's clearly one of his favorite words—easy to remember and pronounce .
He 's committed—to commitment .
He 'll agree so long as the questions are easy .
If they 're not , Biden has a tendency to get cranky and lash out , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't black '' unless they support him .

Joe Biden doesn't always speak coherently, but when he's asked to commit to something, the former vice president typically responds with an emphatic "yes." It's not always clear if Biden is aware of what he's agreeing to do or if he understands the implications, but the 77-year-old has demonstrated a willingness to say "yes" to almost anything you ask of him.
"Absolutely yes, I commit," Biden said last week during a virtual town hall on MSNBC. In this particular case, the former vice president was responding to a voter who asked whether he would commit to "not pulling a President Ford" and issuing a pardon to President Trump "under the pretense of healing the nation." As usual, it wasn't entirely clear whether Biden understood the question.
Over the course of his improbably successful presidential campaign, Biden has made numerous on-the-spot pledges in response to questions from journalists and voters. For example, Biden has promised to "sacrifice" economic growth to fight climate change, punish "senior Saudi leaders," oversee a "responsible phase-out of fossil fuel production," and never fire an inspector general as president. Free health care for illegal immigrants? Sure, why not.
Biden is also partial to answering multi-part questions with multiple uses of the word "yes." It's clearly one of his favorite words—easy to remember and pronounce. He's committed—to commitment. He'll agree so long as the questions are easy. If they're not, Biden has a tendency to get cranky and lash out, for example, by telling black voters they "ain't black" unless they support him.


freebeacon--2020-05-22--Biden: I’m Going to Beat Joe Biden

Biden: I’m Going to Beat Joe Biden

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Friday appeared to tell CNBC he will defeat himself in the November election .
`` I ’ m prepared to say that I have a record of over 40 years and that I ’ m going to beat Joe Biden , '' Biden said .
`` Look at my record . ''
Biden 's campaign did not reply by press time to a request for clarification .
The candidate was responding to an interview question about whether he plans to govern as a progressive `` in the mold of '' Sens .
Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass. )
.
Biden noted his record and opposition to progressive policies like Medicare for All .
Gaffes are common for the former vice president to make .
During an earlier interview , Biden told The Breakfast Club radio host Charlamagne tha God that he is n't `` black '' if he ca n't decide between voting for him or for Donald Trump .
`` If you have a problem figuring out whether you 're for me or Trump , then you ai n't black , '' Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with another racial comment when he said , `` Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids . ''
`` We have this notion that somehow if you 're poor you can not do it , '' Biden said at the time .
`` Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids .
Wealthy kids , black kids , Asian kids .
No , I really mean it . ''

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Friday appeared to tell CNBC he will defeat himself in the November election.
"I’m prepared to say that I have a record of over 40 years and that I’m going to beat Joe Biden," Biden said. "Look at my record."
Biden's campaign did not reply by press time to a request for clarification.
The candidate was responding to an interview question about whether he plans to govern as a progressive "in the mold of" Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). Biden noted his record and opposition to progressive policies like Medicare for All.
Gaffes are common for the former vice president to make. During an earlier interview, Biden told The Breakfast Club radio host Charlamagne tha God that he isn't "black" if he can't decide between voting for him or for Donald Trump.
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black," Biden said.
Last August Biden raised eyebrows with another racial comment when he said, "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."
"We have this notion that somehow if you're poor you cannot do it," Biden said at the time. "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids. No, I really mean it."


freebeacon--2020-05-22--Biden: If You Don’t Vote for Me, ‘You Ain’t Black’

Presumptive Democratic nominee and former vice president Joe Biden told radio host Charlamagne tha God that he `` ai n't black '' if he is having trouble choosing between Biden and President Donald Trump .
`` If you have a problem figuring out whether you 're for me or Trump , then you ai n't black , '' Biden said Friday morning during an appearance on The Breakfast Club .
Charlamagne responded that he 's not considering Trump , but he wants more from Biden for the black community , such as the selection of an African-American woman as vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Biden adviser trying to end the interview , saying , `` You ca n't do that to black media . ''
Biden argued his record proves he is the only choice for black voters .
`` Take a look at my record , man .
I extended the Voting Rights Act 25 years , '' Biden responded .
`` I have a record that is second to none .
The NAACP has endorsed me every time I 've run .
I mean , come on .
Take a look at the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cohost Angela Yee asked Charlamagne if he ’ s going to vote for Biden .
He said he ’ s unsure and then criticized Biden for his comment about black voters .
`` If his reasoning for people like me that still might be skeptical [ is ] ‘ if you vote for Trump over me , you ’ re not black ’ that ’ s kinda crazy , '' he said .
`` I ’ m not voting for Trump , but I don ’ t know if I ’ m voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Charlamagne said Sen. Amy Klobuchar 's ( D. , Minn. ) prosecutorial record disqualifies her as a potential running mate for Biden .
They said her history as a prosecutor was even more problematic than that of Sen. Kamala Harris ( D. , Calif. ) , who has faced criticism from the left over her time as California 's attorney general .
Charlamagne brought up Klobuchar when interviewing Biden , telling the former vice president that picking her as a running mate would be disappointing to black voters .
`` A lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're not too happy about that , '' Charlamagne said .
`` It 's because they want your running mate to be a black woman . ''
He pointed out that the support of black voters helped save Biden 's primary campaign by giving the former vice president a resounding victory in South Carolina , propelling him to a successful Super Tuesday in which he took the delegate lead .
`` I do n't know if you saw the op-ed in the Washington Post by some of the leading black women voices in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black women are such a loyal voting block and black people saved your political life in the primaries this year , they have things they want from you , '' he said .
`` And one of them is a black woman running mate .
What do you say to them ? ''
`` What I say to them is I 'm not acknowledging anybody who is being considered but I guarantee you , there are multiple black women who are being considered .
Multiple , '' Biden responded .
Biden 's vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Harris , and Rep. Val Demings ( D. , Fla. ) , alongside other women such as Klobuchar and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass. )
.
Biden has used similar arguments in the past to describe the prospect of black voters choosing to vote Republican .
He told a predominately black crowd at a rally in 2012 that GOP nominee Mitt Romney would `` put y ’ all back in chains '' while he was criticizing Republicans ' budget proposals .
Updated 11:58 a.m. : This post was updated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's episode of The Breakfast Club .

Presumptive Democratic nominee and former vice president Joe Biden told radio host Charlamagne tha God that he "ain't black" if he is having trouble choosing between Biden and President Donald Trump.
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black," Biden said Friday morning during an appearance on The Breakfast Club.
Charlamagne responded that he's not considering Trump, but he wants more from Biden for the black community, such as the selection of an African-American woman as vice president. He also took issue with a Biden adviser trying to end the interview, saying, "You can't do that to black media."
Biden argued his record proves he is the only choice for black voters.
"Take a look at my record, man. I extended the Voting Rights Act 25 years," Biden responded. "I have a record that is second to none. The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run. I mean, come on. Take a look at the record."
Later in the show, cohost Angela Yee asked Charlamagne if he’s going to vote for Biden. He said he’s unsure and then criticized Biden for his comment about black voters.
"If his reasoning for people like me that still might be skeptical [is] ‘if you vote for Trump over me, you’re not black’ that’s kinda crazy," he said. "I’m not voting for Trump, but I don’t know if I’m voting for Biden either."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNLhw8Tvg-s&feature=youtu.be
Both Yee and Charlamagne said Sen. Amy Klobuchar's (D., Minn.) prosecutorial record disqualifies her as a potential running mate for Biden. They said her history as a prosecutor was even more problematic than that of Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), who has faced criticism from the left over her time as California's attorney general.
Charlamagne brought up Klobuchar when interviewing Biden, telling the former vice president that picking her as a running mate would be disappointing to black voters.
"A lot of people on social media, they're not too happy about that," Charlamagne said. "It's because they want your running mate to be a black woman."
He pointed out that the support of black voters helped save Biden's primary campaign by giving the former vice president a resounding victory in South Carolina, propelling him to a successful Super Tuesday in which he took the delegate lead.
"I don't know if you saw the op-ed in the Washington Post by some of the leading black women voices in this country. And they feel since black women are such a loyal voting block and black people saved your political life in the primaries this year, they have things they want from you," he said. "And one of them is a black woman running mate. What do you say to them?"
"What I say to them is I'm not acknowledging anybody who is being considered but I guarantee you, there are multiple black women who are being considered. Multiple," Biden responded.
Biden's vice presidential shortlist reportedly includes Stacey Abrams, Sen. Harris, and Rep. Val Demings (D., Fla.), alongside other women such as Klobuchar and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.).
Biden has used similar arguments in the past to describe the prospect of black voters choosing to vote Republican. He told a predominately black crowd at a rally in 2012 that GOP nominee Mitt Romney would "put y’all back in chains" while he was criticizing Republicans' budget proposals.
Updated 11:58 a.m.: This post was updated with further discussion of Biden later in Friday's episode of The Breakfast Club.


freebeacon--2020-05-23--First-Time Gun Buyers Explain How Coronavirus Changed Their Politics

Scott Kane went 38 years without ever touching a gun .
That streak would have continued had it not been for the coronavirus .
In March , fearful of the harassment his wife and child experienced over their Asian ancestry , Kane found himself in a California gun shop .
His March 11 purchase of a 9mm would have been the end of the story , were it not for a political standoff over shutdown orders and background checks .
Now Kane , a former supporter of gun-control measures and AR-15 bans , is frustrated by the arduous process that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security .
The pandemic has made the soft-spoken software engineer an unlikely Second Amendment supporter .
`` This has taken me , a law-abiding citizen with nary an unpaid parking ticket to my name , over a month , '' he told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` Meanwhile Joe Bad Guy has probably purchased several fully automatic AK-47s out of the back of an El Camino in a shady part of town with zero background checks . ''
Receipts reviewed by the Free Beacon show Kane first purchased a firearm on March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Calif. Santa Clara County shut down the shop before Kane 's 10-day waiting period was complete .
No end date was given for the order , but a California law giving buyers just 30 days to pick up a gun remained in effect .
Kane was stuck in a legal limbo that only grew worse .
Unable to do business , the store went belly-up in May .
Kane had no way to pick up his gun .
He started the process over again at another store in a neighboring county .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9mm and a biometric safe on April 29 , 50 days after he first passed a background check and paid for a gun .
`` I 'm seriously thinking of running for office or something , '' Kane said .
`` This state 's gun laws are insane . ''
Kane is not alone .
An influx of new gun owners has the potential to permanently alter the politics surrounding guns in the United States .
If industry estimates are correct , millions of Americans across the country have become first-time gun buyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their minds about the ongoing debate over gun control it could tip the balance of political power toward pro-gun activists and politicians .
It is not that the new buyers were unaware of the politics of gun control .
Several new gun owners who spoke to the Free Beacon—some of whom requested anonymity citing safety concerns—generally leaned toward enhanced restrictions , their positions informed mostly by major news stories .
But as they have become more personally invested in the debate , they find themselves more skeptical of gun control .
Brian , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy a Smith & Wesson M & P Shield in March after being laid off—the experience changed his entire approach to Second Amendment issues .
`` In the past , I was n't against owning a gun .
However , I did think that we had suffered enough as a country from school shootings , and something needed to be done .
I was for stricter gun laws—no ARs , close the gun-show loophole , better mental health regulations , etc.
, '' he said .
`` I would now oppose stricter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first-time buyers who spoke to the Free Beacon cited safety concerns stemming from the pandemic as their top reason for buying a gun , some said the politics of the moment played a significant role in their decision .
But they held differing and even opposing viewpoints on which politicians concerned them the most—suggesting the group of new owners represents a fairly diverse political spectrum .
Aaron Eaton , a former Army MP and current sewer company technician in Alabama , said the increasingly hostile stance many in the Democratic Party have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make his first purchase .
`` I figured now 's the time to buy before , God help us , a Democrat becomes president again , '' he said .
`` Then I would probably never get that chance again .
The only view that has changed , and solely because I got into politics because of Donald Trump , is [ what I think of ] the stance Democrats have regarding guns .
I do not find it funny how Democrats are trying to interpret the Second Amendment . ''
Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his wife , bought a Heckler & Koch VP9 on March 21 in Virginia , said the state 's Democrat-controlled legislature pursuing a package of gun-control laws this winter in the face of unprecedented opposition directly contributed to his purchase .
He said he and his wife are currently considering buying a number of other firearms they worry state Democrats will try to ban—or even confiscate—in the next legislative session despite those bills being defeated in the last session .
`` These are just the first two purchases—sidearms—and when things settle down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns too , '' he said .
`` We know we want a shotgun and an AR ( or similar ) platform before the progressives in the Virginia legislature ultimately prevail ( as I expect they ultimately will ) in tightening up regulations on ownership . ''
Kane , on the other hand , said his gun-buying ordeal has n't moved him closer to supporting the president but has moved him to consider the California Republican Party—perhaps even as a candidate .
Brian from Florida said he was concerned less about the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competence in handling the coronavirus outbreak .
`` I 'm just concerned , as is my wife , about what the future holds , '' he said .
For others , the coronavirus has not changed their views on gun control or either political party .
Instead , it pushed them to make a purchase earlier than they otherwise would have or act on pro-gun views they 'd already held .
Jake Wilhelm , an environmental consultant in Virginia , said he had `` always been a staunch 2A supporter . ''
Mathew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shotgun for himself and another for his wife last month , said he believes what he always has .
`` I 'm generally conservative and believe the Second Amendment is clear , '' he said .
`` If you are a citizen that is not a criminal/prohibited by law or has not been adjudicated a danger to yourself or others you should be able to own a gun if you want to . ''
Still , for those who have experienced a political change of heart , the effect has been dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Springfield XD 9mm on May 15 .
`` Now I 'm 100 percent converted , '' he said .
`` I got one of my Asian-American friends to take the NRA basic pistol class with me , '' Kane said .
`` Signed my wife up too for a later session so we can tag-team it .
Never thought I 'd be that guy taking his clueless-about-guns buddy to the gun store . ''
After firing his first shots , Kane bought two more guns—a Smith & Wesson .357 revolver and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think should be banned .
He 's hoping this time he wo n't have to wait more than two months to actually shoot them .

Scott Kane went 38 years without ever touching a gun. That streak would have continued had it not been for the coronavirus. In March, fearful of the harassment his wife and child experienced over their Asian ancestry, Kane found himself in a California gun shop. His March 11 purchase of a 9mm would have been the end of the story, were it not for a political standoff over shutdown orders and background checks. Now Kane, a former supporter of gun-control measures and AR-15 bans, is frustrated by the arduous process that has denied his family a sense of security. The pandemic has made the soft-spoken software engineer an unlikely Second Amendment supporter.
"This has taken me, a law-abiding citizen with nary an unpaid parking ticket to my name, over a month," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "Meanwhile Joe Bad Guy has probably purchased several fully automatic AK-47s out of the back of an El Camino in a shady part of town with zero background checks."
Receipts reviewed by the Free Beacon show Kane first purchased a firearm on March 11 from Sportsman's Warehouse in Milpitas, Calif. Santa Clara County shut down the shop before Kane's 10-day waiting period was complete. No end date was given for the order, but a California law giving buyers just 30 days to pick up a gun remained in effect. Kane was stuck in a legal limbo that only grew worse.
Unable to do business, the store went belly-up in May. Kane had no way to pick up his gun. He started the process over again at another store in a neighboring county. He returned home with a Springfield XD 9mm and a biometric safe on April 29, 50 days after he first passed a background check and paid for a gun.
"I'm seriously thinking of running for office or something," Kane said. "This state's gun laws are insane."
Kane is not alone. An influx of new gun owners has the potential to permanently alter the politics surrounding guns in the United States. If industry estimates are correct, millions of Americans across the country have become first-time gun buyers since March. If the experience changes their minds about the ongoing debate over gun control it could tip the balance of political power toward pro-gun activists and politicians.
It is not that the new buyers were unaware of the politics of gun control. Several new gun owners who spoke to the Free Beacon—some of whom requested anonymity citing safety concerns—generally leaned toward enhanced restrictions, their positions informed mostly by major news stories. But as they have become more personally invested in the debate, they find themselves more skeptical of gun control. Brian, a 40-year-old Floridian, used his savings to buy a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield in March after being laid off—the experience changed his entire approach to Second Amendment issues.
"In the past, I wasn't against owning a gun. However, I did think that we had suffered enough as a country from school shootings, and something needed to be done. I was for stricter gun laws—no ARs, close the gun-show loophole, better mental health regulations, etc.," he said. "I would now oppose stricter gun laws."
While all of the first-time buyers who spoke to the Free Beacon cited safety concerns stemming from the pandemic as their top reason for buying a gun, some said the politics of the moment played a significant role in their decision. But they held differing and even opposing viewpoints on which politicians concerned them the most—suggesting the group of new owners represents a fairly diverse political spectrum.
Aaron Eaton, a former Army MP and current sewer company technician in Alabama, said the increasingly hostile stance many in the Democratic Party have taken toward gun ownership helped push him to make his first purchase.
"I figured now's the time to buy before, God help us, a Democrat becomes president again," he said. "Then I would probably never get that chance again. The only view that has changed, and solely because I got into politics because of Donald Trump, is [what I think of] the stance Democrats have regarding guns. I do not find it funny how Democrats are trying to interpret the Second Amendment."
Andrew, a federal contractor who, along with his wife, bought a Heckler & Koch VP9 on March 21 in Virginia, said the state's Democrat-controlled legislature pursuing a package of gun-control laws this winter in the face of unprecedented opposition directly contributed to his purchase. He said he and his wife are currently considering buying a number of other firearms they worry state Democrats will try to ban—or even confiscate—in the next legislative session despite those bills being defeated in the last session.
"These are just the first two purchases—sidearms—and when things settle down, we'll likely get into long guns too," he said. "We know we want a shotgun and an AR (or similar) platform before the progressives in the Virginia legislature ultimately prevail (as I expect they ultimately will) in tightening up regulations on ownership."
Kane, on the other hand, said his gun-buying ordeal hasn't moved him closer to supporting the president but has moved him to consider the California Republican Party—perhaps even as a candidate.
Brian from Florida said he was concerned less about the gun debate and more about President Trump's competence in handling the coronavirus outbreak. "I'm just concerned, as is my wife, about what the future holds," he said.
For others, the coronavirus has not changed their views on gun control or either political party. Instead, it pushed them to make a purchase earlier than they otherwise would have or act on pro-gun views they'd already held. Jake Wilhelm, an environmental consultant in Virginia, said he had "always been a staunch 2A supporter."
Mathew Rosky, a North Carolinian who bought a shotgun for himself and another for his wife last month, said he believes what he always has.
"I'm generally conservative and believe the Second Amendment is clear," he said. "If you are a citizen that is not a criminal/prohibited by law or has not been adjudicated a danger to yourself or others you should be able to own a gun if you want to."
Still, for those who have experienced a political change of heart, the effect has been dramatic. Kane fired the first shots with his Springfield XD 9mm on May 15.
"Now I'm 100 percent converted," he said.
He's already begun recruiting others.
"I got one of my Asian-American friends to take the NRA basic pistol class with me," Kane said. "Signed my wife up too for a later session so we can tag-team it. Never thought I'd be that guy taking his clueless-about-guns buddy to the gun store."
After firing his first shots, Kane bought two more guns—a Smith & Wesson .357 revolver and a California-legal model of the AR-15 he used to think should be banned. He's hoping this time he won't have to wait more than two months to actually shoot them.


freebeacon--2020-05-23--I Forced a Bot to Read 1,000 Max Boot Columns and Write a Max Boot Column of Its Own

The Washington Free Beacon analytics bureau used a proprietary algorithm to program a bot to read 1,000 Max Boot columns and write its very own Max Boot column based on its analysis .
If Trump had been in charge of Indian Removal , this column would be in Navajo This opinion has been updated .
The 75th anniversary of Hitler 's suicide got me thinking about how much more terrifying President Donald J. Trump would be if he shared the late Führer ‘ s charisma and willingness to think outside the box .
I 'm not saying I 'd definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I would n't abstain either .
Fortunately , Joe Biden is a modern-day FDR .
In 2018 , I wrote in War Fancy : `` President Trump 's xenophobic blitzkrieg makes 9/11 look like S Club 7 . ''
I do not cite my earlier article as a way of celebrating achievements in correct punditry .
Just to highlight the dangerous extent to which American voters have disappointed people like me , who voted for losing candidate Hillary Clinton .
Suffice it to say , Trump 's supporters are the real Nazis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on `` American Indian Wars . ''
President Trump has not .
I probably would have served with honor if given the chance .
Trump , on the other hand , probably would have fled to Spanish Florida , aka `` La Florida . ''
That 's the modus operandi of our dufus propagandi-in-chief .
According to a Rand Corporation analysis , the successful American war effort required leadership , courage , and determination to commit racism .
Trump has only one of those qualities .
I want to scream : Nativism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a toxic slew of perilous misconceptions fueled by epic incompetence .
The danger is exacerbated by right-wing crackpots and `` pro-life '' lunatics .
He has already surrendered U.S. sovereignty to coronavirus , thanks to a lack of leadership and paid family leave .
If Trump had been in charge of fighting Indians , this column would be in Navajo .
No one is suggesting killing Indians was an honorable thing .
But sometimes honorable men must take action to preserve the soul of a nation—by taking up arms , marching in protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post .
ISIS , you got ta hand it to 'em .
Brave leaders such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the departed general Qassem Soleimani were willing to die as heroes for a cause .
Trump is only willing to kill—with cowardice , braggadocio , and bluster .
He makes common cause with the terrorists by abdicating American hegemony in crisis .
Trump did n't invent coronavirus , but he is a super-spreader of another virulent contagion : Shamelessness .
Talk about false equivalency .
The conspiracy-mongering , hostility to science , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his loudmouth media enablers are the definition of `` alternative facts . ''
Even I am astonished at the callous disregard .
To quote Rep. Adam B. Schiff ( D. , Calif. ) , `` The evidence is clear . ''
I weep in anger and frustration imagining what might have been if Hillary Clinton—a sane , benevolent queen—had served in Vietnam .
Instead , the Graft Opportunity Party wages guerrilla warfare against democracy itself , victimizing experts and elite alike .
I weep in sorrow and despair for my former party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murder American Knowledge , Kill Kindness Aggressively .
Max Boot is the senior large boy affiliate at the Sidney S. Blumenthal Institute for Elite Punditry and Penetrating Thought .
He is the best-selling author of Epic War Tales : Military Cosplay in the Age of Trump .
MORE : I Forced A Bot to Read 1,000 Jennifer Rubin Columns And Write A Jennifer Rubin Column of Its Own

The Washington Free Beacon analytics bureau used a proprietary algorithm to program a bot to read 1,000 Max Boot columns and write its very own Max Boot column based on its analysis.
If Trump had been in charge of Indian Removal, this column would be in Navajo
By Max Boot
This opinion has been updated.
The 75th anniversary of Hitler's suicide got me thinking about how much more terrifying President Donald J. Trump would be if he shared the late Führer's charisma and willingness to think outside the box. I'm not saying I'd definitely vote for reincarnated Hitler over Trump, but I wouldn't abstain either. Fortunately, Joe Biden is a modern-day FDR.
In 2018, I wrote in War Fancy: "President Trump's xenophobic blitzkrieg makes 9/11 look like S Club 7." I do not cite my earlier article as a way of celebrating achievements in correct punditry. Just to highlight the dangerous extent to which American voters have disappointed people like me, who voted for losing candidate Hillary Clinton. Suffice it to say, Trump's supporters are the real Nazis.
I have read the Wikipedia entry on "American Indian Wars." President Trump has not. I probably would have served with honor if given the chance. Trump, on the other hand, probably would have fled to Spanish Florida, aka "La Florida." That's the modus operandi of our dufus propagandi-in-chief.
According to a Rand Corporation analysis, the successful American war effort required leadership, courage, and determination to commit racism. Trump has only one of those qualities. I want to scream: Nativism is the core!
Trump's depravity is a toxic slew of perilous misconceptions fueled by epic incompetence. The danger is exacerbated by right-wing crackpots and "pro-life" lunatics. He has already surrendered U.S. sovereignty to coronavirus, thanks to a lack of leadership and paid family leave. If Trump had been in charge of fighting Indians, this column would be in Navajo.
No one is suggesting killing Indians was an honorable thing. But sometimes honorable men must take action to preserve the soul of a nation—by taking up arms, marching in protest, or writing columns for the Washington Post.
ISIS, you gotta hand it to 'em. Brave leaders such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the departed general Qassem Soleimani were willing to die as heroes for a cause. Trump is only willing to kill—with cowardice, braggadocio, and bluster. He makes common cause with the terrorists by abdicating American hegemony in crisis. Trump didn't invent coronavirus, but he is a super-spreader of another virulent contagion: Shamelessness.
(The above paragraph was revised because a previous version unintentionally conveyed the impression that I considered Baghdadi to possess "big dick energy.")
Talk about false equivalency. The conspiracy-mongering, hostility to science, and outright irrationality promulgated by President Trump and his loudmouth media enablers are the definition of "alternative facts." Even I am astonished at the callous disregard. To quote Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D., Calif.), "The evidence is clear."
I weep in anger and frustration imagining what might have been if Hillary Clinton—a sane, benevolent queen—had served in Vietnam. Instead, the Graft Opportunity Party wages guerrilla warfare against democracy itself, victimizing experts and elite alike. I weep in sorrow and despair for my former party, whose only surviving principle is MAKKKA: Murder American Knowledge, Kill Kindness Aggressively.
Max Boot is the senior large boy affiliate at the Sidney S. Blumenthal Institute for Elite Punditry and Penetrating Thought. He is the best-selling author of Epic War Tales: Military Cosplay in the Age of Trump.
MORE: I Forced A Bot to Read 1,000 Jennifer Rubin Columns And Write A Jennifer Rubin Column of Its Own