nedboy7

And replace them with Republicans who have integrity? Sort of another draining of the swamp with even more idiotic creatures? Maybe even with some more christian nationalists? Nah.

Is Trump. Yes. Imagine where your panties would be if Biden had his kids in top level meetings. ***** Trump is still making money off lying about election fraud. Last week President Donald Trump ordered that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be given a top-secret security clearance, even after intelligence officials discovered problems with his background check. The F.B.I., White House counsel Don McGahn, and Chief of Staff John Kelly all expressed concerns, but Trump overruled them. Back in January, Trump had said he would never do such a thing. “I know that there was issues back and forth about security for numerous people, actually,” he said in an interview. “But I don’t want to get involved in that stuff.” After the Times report, the White House changed its tune. “We don’t discuss security clearances,” senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told Fox News. “But I will tell you that the president has the absolute right to do what was described.” Kushner’s security-clearance scuffle is far more contentious than Ivanka’s, given his numerous entanglements with Israel, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates, among others, as well as his presence at the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian agent promising “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. (Kushner also has displayed an unusual malleability in the hands of the Saudi Crown Prince, who once reportedly bragged that Kushner was “in his pocket.”) Last year, The Washington Post reported that at least four countries—including the U.A.E., China, Israel, and Mexico, had privately discussed ways to gain leverage over Kushner, given his international business dealings and lack of foreign-policy experience.

Good question Ja. I am pro capitalism. But this matter is way too complicated to blame one person weather it be Biden, Putin, Antifa or Exxon. Depending on how generous you’re feeling, these explanations are half truths, at best, or bald-faced lies, at worst. High gas prices are the result of a complex set of circumstances—including the Russian invasion of Ukraine, supply chain challenges, and other market dynamics—and can’t be easily boiled down into a talking point. Of course, it’s easy enough to understand why politicians, oil executives, and political commentators have relied on such rhetoric. Elected officials are jockeying for votes and political sway in the midst of a heated election year while fossil fuel companies are fighting to secure a profitable future amid the clean energy transition. With these stakes, it’s hard to imagine any player changing course and embracing nuanced, heady positions about the economic and political factors contributing to high gas prices. But details matter as we consider the challenges of transitioning our economy away from fossil fuels and addressing the now-inevitable and already unfolding impacts of climate change. And the current debate around gas prices tells us a lot about how policymakers can miss the forest for the trees. To understand the misrepresentations around gas prices, it’s helpful to look first to Republicans, who have been using climate as a political cudgel for decades. Republicans have repeatedly used the argument that climate policy will cost consumers to deflect any and every legislative attempt to reduce emissions. So it came as little surprise that they blamed Biden and his climate agenda when gas prices started to rise, in some cases asserting that his “Green New Deal” had driven up prices. “In some parts of the country, the price has crossed $6.90 a gallon. This was not an accident,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said during a meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. “This was the result of the Green New Deal zealots in the Biden Administration.” It almost goes without saying that this—especially in the most extreme version—is totally false. Biden has struggled to implement even basic climate policy, let alone anything close to a Green New Deal. Moreover, the Administration has been working furiously to find any policy lever to reduce gas prices, understanding that high gas prices portend poor political outcomes. If there is a small kernel of truth amid the unfounded rhetoric, it is that the Administration has sought from the very first days in office to send a market signal that fossil fuels broadly are not the future. Indeed, Biden and others in the Administration have argued that such a signal is among their greatest contributions to the climate fight. This dynamic, which is loose to say the least, is hard to quantify and certainly not a primary factor in the high gas price environment we find ourselves in, but it is part of the broader global consensus that money should be shifted away from fossil fuel investment. This is an important point. As the energy transition advances, policymakers pushing climate policy will need to be able to make the case for a continued shift of investment away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy—even amid volatile fossil fuel prices.The Democratic talking points take a bit more explanation. Activists who oppose the oil and gas industry have pointed to the fact that the industry is making record profits as evidence that executives are ripping off American consumers. Many Congressional Democrats have run with that line of reasoning, introducing anti-price gouging legislation. Meanwhile, President Biden called on the Federal Trade Commission to launch a consumer protection investigation last November as gas prices began to rise even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “The Federal Trade Commission has authority to consider whether illegal conduct is costing families at the pump,” Biden wrote in November. “I do not accept hard-working Americans paying more for gas because of anti-competitive or otherwise potentially illegal conduct.” It’s certainly true that energy companies are enjoying record profits this year as oil prices have soared. But generating a large profit doesn’t necessarily—or even usually—equal price gouging. Oil prices have risen because demand has risen (the economy continues to grow post-COVID) while supply has fallen (Russian oil is no longer welcome across much of the world). In this environment, U.S. producers are simply maintaining the course. This, some Democrats claim, is evidence of price gouging because, they say, companies should be responding to market pressures and produce more. It’s true that U.S. oil companies could plan to ramp up their production, though it would take months to years before this affects the market. Oil companies don’t want to do that out of fear that more production could lead to too much production and drive down prices—and profits. Indeed, overproduction led to years of losses for the industry in the last decade. So while it’s obvious that oil executives are looking after their profit, it’s unclear how that adds up to price gouging. A recent report from the Congressional Research Service boils down its definition of price gouging to “unfair” inflation of prices by companies to take advantage of an emergency situation. Why am I bothering to split hairs about this rhetoric? To my mind, not only do these talking points serve as a distraction, but they also misrepresent the nature of our energy and climate challenges. The Republican rhetoric is simply wrong, suggesting that Democrats have imposed draconian climate policies when in fact the world needs far more aggressive action. The higher-level problem with Democratic rhetoric is a little more subtle. The problem isn’t that companies are violating American laws and norms by engaging in practices like price gouging; the problem is that American laws and norms haven’t adjusted to the energy and climate challenges we face today. Not only is it perfectly legal to dump carbon pollution into the atmosphere while earning a massive profit, but the government supports and subsidizes the practice. The sooner we speak honestly about our challenges, the sooner we can solve them. I disagree with the idea that the gas companies are not price gauging however. There is not a gas shortage in reality but there are record profits. One final point: Oil prices as seen at the pump are only loosely correlated to actual supply and demand, whose nexus is something of a mystery box. The prices are set through oil futures, which represent educated guesses as to where the global economy, geopolitical rivalries, and supply and demand might be going. You can judge the firmness of the information on which these are based by taking a look at OPEC’s latest analysis. Prepare to get queasy. In the event, high gas prices will become a moot issue, as demand precipitously declines with a recession that was suspended via Covid-era monetary and fiscal policy. Now that these monetary and fiscal tools are being re-boxed in an attempt to rein in inflation, the recession brought on by overproduction will express itself. The real takeaway is how an intrinsically competitive system doesn’t yield rational results. The oil industry, better than others, demonstrates how much state support and monopolization are required to keep prices stable. The free market can’t and has never been able to achieve this with oil in the United States or internationally. The additional element of heightened geopolitical tension that has emerged since the ’70s has added a huge element of danger to the intrinsic irrationality of the capitalist system, as nuclear-armed states come head-to-head in increasingly acrimonious conflicts to protect their profit shares.

Adm. Steve Abbot, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Gen. John Jumper, Adm. James Loy, Adm. John Nathman, Adm. William Owens and Gen. Johnnie Wilson are retired four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. The inquiry by the House’s Jan. 6 committee has produced many startling findings, but none to us more alarming than the fact that while rioters tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power and ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the president and commander in chief, Donald Trump, abdicated his duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In the weeks leading up to that terrible day, allies of Mr. Trump also urged him to hold on to power by unlawfully ordering the military to seize voting machines and supervise a do-over of the election. Such an illegal order would have imperiled a foundational precept of American democracy: civilian control of the military. Americans may take it for granted, but the strength of our democracy rests upon the stability of this arrangement, which requires both civilian and military leaders to have confidence that they have the same goal of supporting and defending the Constitution. We hope that the country will never face such a crisis again. But to safeguard our constitutional order, military leaders must be ready for similar situations in which the chain of command appears unclear or the legality of orders uncertain. The relationship between America’s civilian leadership and its military is structured by an established chain of command: from unit leaders through various commanders and generals and up to the secretary of defense and the president. Civilian authorities have the constitutional and legal right and responsibility to decide whether to use military force. As military officers, we had the duty to provide candid, expert advice on how to use such force and then to obey all lawful orders, whether we agreed or not. The events of Jan. 6 offer a demonstration on how military and civilian leaders execute this relationship and what happens when it comes under threat. When a mob attacked the Capitol, the commander in chief failed to act to restore order and even encouraged the rioters. As Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to fill the void by calling on the National Guard to intervene. Given the urgent need to secure the Capitol, Mr. Pence’s request was reasonable. Yet the vice president has no role in the chain of command unless specifically acting under the president’s authority because of illness or incapacitation, and therefore cannot lawfully issue orders to the military. Members of Congress, who also pleaded for military assistance as the mob laid siege to the Capitol, are in the same category. In the end, the National Guard deployed not in response to those pleas but under lawful orders issued by the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller. Should civilians atop the chain of command again abandon their duties or attempt to abuse their authority, military ranks can and must respond in accordance with their oaths — without a lawful order from appropriate command authority, they cannot unilaterally undertake a mission. Concurrent with a duty to obey all lawful orders is a duty to question and disobey unlawful orders — those a person “of ordinary sense and understanding,” as a Court of Military Review ruling put it, would know to be wrong. Operations on U.S. soil must also specifically comply with the Standing Rules for the Use of Force, which limit use of force but explicitly authorize it to protect people from imminent threat of death or serious harm, to defend “assets vital to national security” and “to prevent the sabotage of a national critical infrastructure.” These are essential checks on civilian officials who would make unlawful use of U.S. military personnel. Governors, who possess broad command authority over our 54 National Guard organizations, for example, may face political pressure to deploy these forces to illegally interfere with elections or other democratic processes. To recognize these threats to our democracy, military leaders must continue to develop robust training, guidance and resources for service members in accordance with these safeguards, ensuring the integrity of the chain of command and effective operation of civil-military relations. But while such preparedness is necessary, it is not sufficient. We each took an oath as former leaders of the armed forces to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” We fulfilled that oath through service to civilian leadership elected by and accountable to the American people. This essential arrangement, however, is not self-executing; it relies on civilian leaders equally committed to protecting and defending the Constitution — including, most important, the commander in chief. The principle of civilian control of the military predates the founding of the Republic. In 1775, George Washington was commissioned as the military commander of the Continental Army under the civilian command authority of the Second Continental Congress. The next year, among the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence against King George III was his making “the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” The president’s dereliction of duty on Jan. 6 tested the integrity of this historic principle as never before, endangering American lives and our democracy. The lesson of that day is clear. Our democracy is not a given. To preserve it, Americans must demand nothing less from their leaders than an unassailable commitment to country over party — and to their oaths above all. The swamp!! So cute.

Let's not pretend you losers who hate half the country actually care about the USA. You care about your cult. Go censor some Republicans who dont fall in line boy!

Go post some more fake news boy.

That’s fake news. See how it works? This is a planted story by the GOP. convenient right before primaries. LOL.

Listen to the little pro capitalism ***** whine about gas prices.

Whining about BLM? Hey what happened to antifa?

It's amazing people think environmental issues are part of the elite agenda. The elite are the ones who can actually avoid environmental issues. It is the poor that take the brunt of a toxic environment. The elite have been setting their agenda for couple hundred years, NOT since covid began or Gates was in the picture. Glad some folks have woken up.

Yes eventually the left will learn to act like a cult and never question the supreme leader. They aren’t playing the same game as the GOP yet.

BTW what is misinformation? You claiming her quote on camera is fake news. You ######s are weird man.

You are very dumb I guess. The point is not that she won. That she wants to join state and church. So you can take your bible and stick it up there.

The party of freedom and big business..... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republican-led-states-targeting-wall-100420462.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

I remember when Hillary was going to jail. People still believe the propaganda machine? Some real news... Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers. Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.” She added: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.” Her comments were first reported by the Denver Post. The Constitution’s First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been widely interpreted to mean the separation of church and state — although the phrase is not explicitly used.

Abortion: Solidly Rooted in America’s History Leaders didn’t outlaw abortion in America until the mid-1800s. From colonial days until those first laws, abortion was a regular part of life for women. Common law allowed abortion prior to “quickening” — an archaic term for fetal movement that usually happens after around four months of pregnancy. Medical literature and newspapers in the late 1700s and early 1800s regularly referred to herbs and medications as abortion-inducing methods, since surgical procedures were rare. Reproductive care including abortion was unregulated in those days; it was provided by skilled midwives, nurses, and other unlicensed women’s health care providers. Midwives were trusted, legitimate medical professionals who provided essential reproductive health care. Prior to the Civil War, white men were not generally involved in the kind of gynecological or obstetric, or OB/GYN, practices we know today. Half of the women who provided reproductive care were Black women, some of whom were enslaved; midwives also included Indigenous and white women, according to an essay by Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine. Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions... During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. It is clear to see how deeply abortion bans are rooted in white supremacy and patriarchal strongholds when we look at the history of Black women in this country. The tradition of disregarding the humanity of Black people is part of more than 400 years of white supremacist systems in America. Although abortion was legal throughout the country until after the Civil War, there were different rules for enslaved Black women than for white women. Enslaved Black women were valuable property. They didn’t have the freedom to control their bodies, and slave owners prohibited them from having abortions. Under the law, white men owned Black women’s bodies. So, enslaved women who had access to emmenagogic herbs — plants used to stimulate menstruation — had to make remedies to induce their own abortions in secret. When slavery was abolished in 1865, the societal control over Black women’s bodies remained. Today, our white supremacist culture judges Black women for both having children and for having abortions — besetting them with blame for virtually any decision they make and any form of agency they take about their bodies. The wording varies slightly from state to state. Texas allows abortion for “a medical emergency”; Louisiana’s bill makes an exception to prevent “death or substantial risk of death,” or “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ”; and Idaho permits abortion “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” On Thursday, Oklahoma legislators approved a bill that would ban nearly all abortions starting from fertilization, with an exception to save the life of the mother “in a medical emergency.” Those exceptions are so vaguely defined, and with such harsh penalties for providers deemed to have violated the terms, physicians say they will be effectively unable to provide proper medical care or even discuss abortion with patients. “We take an oath to do no harm,” said Amanda Horton, a perinatologist in Texas who treats high-risk pregnancies. “I can’t do my job, I can’t provide ideal care if there are things I’m not allowed to talk about. That ultimately harms patients.” The mental health consequences of being forced to carry an unviable pregnancy, for example, can be deadly. “Especially in the cases of psychotic illness, risk of suicide or infanticide is pretty high,” said Nichelle Haynes, a perinatal psychiatrist from the Reproductive Psychiatry Clinic of Austin. Studies show suicide is a leading cause of postpartum death. If someone previously had severe postpartum depression and was hospitalized after a suicide attempt, there’s a good chance of that happening again, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, added Haynes. From her perspective as a physician, that qualifies as a medical emergency: “The emergency is preventing that now.” But such a decision won’t be legally recognized in Texas, she said. Even in more straightforward situations, where patients are in imminent physical danger, doctors are already struggling to provide care. Natalie Crawford, a fertility physician in Austin, said a pharmacy recently refused to fill a prescription for methotrexate, which treats an ectopic pregnancy by stopping the growth of the fertilized egg. The pregnancy would never have resulted in the birth of a child, but was a serious risk to the mother. The embryo had attached in the patient’s fallopian tube which, if left untreated, would rupture and cause extensive internal bleeding. Emergency surgery could save the woman’s life if she were able to get to an emergency room fast enough but, if not, she would die from the blood loss. “We told [the pharmacist] it’s a life-of-the-mother situation,” said Crawford. But they believed their employer wouldn’t permit the prescription. “They felt they would get in trouble.” And so Crawford’s team spent a day calling other pharmacies to find the medication for their patient. “It took extra manpower and time and it made me nervous about where we’re going to find this,” she said. Doctors’ abilities to interpret medical exemptions, however they’re worded, are significantly limited when they face potential harsh punishment, said Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler, who has written extensively on reproductive law. “States are so determined to make it a serious crime, in some instances murder, the act of interpretation changes,” she said. “The more vague the language is, the more chilling effect that could have, because physicians don’t want to roll the dice.” No body of law or precedents lay out what medical exemptions are permissible grounds for abortion. The procedure is considered life-saving treatment for several conditions, such as incomplete miscarriages, which can lead to sepsis and ultimately death if left untreated. But the political environment is so hostile, doctors say they will inevitably be afraid to respond in time. “The more states are worried about exceptions slipping through the cracks, the more likely they are to put doctors in situations with people dying after incomplete miscarriages,” said Ziegler. “People will die.” Potentially fatal pregnancies are relatively unusual, but still amount to thousands of patients a year in the U.S. Horton sees half a dozen high-risk cases a month, she said. Patients must be treated with an abortion if they develop profuse bleeding, caused by the placenta growing in the wrong location, or preeclampsia, a potentially fatal rise in blood pressure, that doesn’t respond to medication. And non-pregnancy related health conditions can present serious risks to pregnant patients. Leukemia, for example, must be quickly treated with a form of chemotherapy that no fetus could survive. “It would be unwise and medically unsafe to allow a woman to experience chemotherapy, then have a pregnancy loss, then induce her,” said Horton. “It would seem cruel and unusual to receive chemotherapy and know that same medication is costing her unborn fetus its life.” Physicians will inevitably be forced to wait for patients’ health to deteriorate to the point that their lives are clearly threatened, she said. “There are all kinds of situations where you’re in a gray zone by 1 p.m., and things will be worse by 5 p.m.,” said Wendy Parmet, director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University. “How much worse do you have to let it be? How much danger to the patient?” Physicians are often wary of performing complex procedures during pregnancy, especially if they haven’t done so before. One of Horton’s patients a few years ago suffered heart failure when she was 17 weeks pregnant. “What was just terrible was no cardiac surgeon would offer her an operation to save her life, because she was pregnant,” she said. And so the patient needed an abortion before she could have her heart valve replaced. “My concern is, in very restrictive states, that would not be enough to be considered maternal life at risk,” said Horton. “It would require continued escalation and deterioration of her own health before it’s deemed a medical emergency.” These consequences will be worse for patients who are already marginalized, such as those who can’t afford to take time off work or travel to receive health care. Maternal mortality in the U.S. is significantly worse for Black women, and restrictions on abortion will only worsen that disparity, said Horton. Preeclampsia, one of the leading health risks in pregnancy, is more common in Black women, and symptoms are more likely to be dismissed in Black patients. One study estimates that if all abortions were banned in the U.S., there would be a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths overall, and a 33% increase among Black women. Parmet noted that the political environment today is more hostile toward abortion than in earlier decades. Even pre-Roe, she said, law enforcement was unlikely to intervene if a hospital committee said an abortion was performed for a patient’s health. “The pendulum has swung in such a striking direction. The needs of mothers and pregnant people have been placed on a backburner, with the intent that we’re a vessel to continue humanity,” said Horton. “The needs and wants of the mother are less important than the fetus.”

For decades, the anti-choice movement has attempted to brand itself as “pro-life,” but it’s not hard to see through their charade. As “pro-life” Republicans remain focused on criminalizing abortion, it’s not lost on Americans that this is the exact same Republican party that is hellbent on harming women and families with their regressive policies. It’s pretty hard to call yourself “pro-life” when you’re actively working to: Imprison or execute women who access safe abortion care. Tear babies away from their parents and lock them in cages, with no plan to reunite them. Silence doctors and strip reproductive healthcare away from millions of low-income people. Stand by while the maternal mortality rates skyrocket and women—especially Black women—die in childbirth. Deny affordable healthcare coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Cut programs that feed hungry kids. Block access to HIV testing and treatment across the globe. Incite far-right violence with lies about abortion.

To morons anyone who doesn't hate like them is a liberal. So predictably stupid. Isnt it time for you to grab your tiki torch and scream "We wont be replaced" or some other Nazi slogan then attack others of being a nazi turdball.

Is this where B-man and DR suck each others loads? What a pathetic thread. You guys should be on Breitbart. Getting your brainwashing.

The trauma Donald Trump’s administration caused to young children and parents separated at the US-Mexico border constitutes torture, according to evaluations of 26 children and adults by the group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The not-for-profit group’s report provides the first in-depth look at the psychological impact of family separation, which the US government continued despite warnings from the nation’s top medical bodies. “As a clinician, nobody was prepared for this to happen on our soil,” the report co-author Dr Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser at PHR, told the Guardian. “It is beyond shocking that this could happen in the United States, by Americans, at the instruction and direct intention of US government officials.” Legal experts have argued family separation constituted torture, but this is the first time a medical group has reached the determination.

Why dont we all meet at the 4seasons for happy hour.

You get back to your QAnon briefing load boy.

The Supreme Court’s Faux ‘Originalism’ The conservative Supreme Court's favorite judicial philosophy requires a very, very firm grasp of history — one that none of the justices seem to possess. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/26/conservative-supreme-court-gun-control-00042417

You serious? What an argument. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for one, allowed that a national abortion ban was “possible” after the initial leak of the Supreme Court’s draft decision. Last week, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) he would back a federal ban because “any of us that believe this is wrong, it’s wrong, period.” House Republican leaders — including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Republican Study Committee chair Jim Banks, and Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan — are already lining up to support legislation that would impose a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy Republicans have also indicated that they plan to reintroduce the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” if they recapture the House majority. That bill would put in place requirements for the care of infants born after failed, late-term abortions and could send doctors to prison if they fail to comply. Reproductive rights and physician groups have previously opposed the legislation on the basis that it could criminalize doctors and is duplicative of existing laws that already support infants in these very rare cases. You weirdos are even against contraception. That's next. What you think of the Supreme Court wanting to go after gay marriage next.

I am not aware of such a thing during covid and no I do not support getting private citizens to spy on others. I also am against vaccine mandates.