#National Health Insurance Law of 1994 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

plsbyallmeans · 4 years ago

Photo

14 of Hillary Clinton's Major Accomplishments

Hillary Clinton's accomplishments have been centered around health care, the military, and families, especially women and children. The first two affect the economy because health care and defense are the two biggest expenses in the federal budget. The combined costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending are $1.757 trillion or 42% of total government spending.

Key Takeaways

As First Lady, Hilary Clinton worked tirelessly to introduce legislation helping at risk populations

As a Senator, she helped give health benefits to the first responders of the 9/11 attacks and those serving in the National Guard.

As Secretary State was instrumental in getting the raid to go after Osama bin Laden approved.

First Lady

Hillary chaired the Task Force on Health Care Reform that drafted the 1993 Health Security Act. Although Congress didn't pass it, it laid the groundwork for the Affordable Care Act. It also cleared the way for the Children's Health Insurance Program.1 She worked with Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch who sponsored the bill. It received $24 billion, paid for by a 15-cent tax on cigarettes. She added $1 billion for an outreach program to help states publicize the program and sign up recipients. It provides health care to more than eight million children.

In 1994, she championed the Violence Against Women Act.2 That provides financial and technical assistance to states to help them develop programs that stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. In 1995, she also helped create the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women.

She supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Representative Nancy Johnson, a Republican, sponsored the bill. It facilitates the adoption of foster children.3 It also allows states and local agencies greater flexibility on how to spend federal funds.

She lobbied Congress for the 1999 Foster Care Independence Act.4 Senators John Chafee, R-RI, and Tom DeIay, R-TX, sponsored the bill. The Act almost doubled federal spending for programs that help teenagers leave foster care after they turn 18. The programs help them complete their education, find jobs, and become self-sufficient.

U.S. Senator

Urged ratification of the START treaty in 2010.5 The treaty limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 strategic deployed nuclear warheads.6 That's down from 2,200. It limits the number of deployed heavy nuclear bombers and missiles to 800. That's down from 1,600. Russia was already within those limits, but the United States was not. The treaty went into effect in 2011, will be fully implemented by 2018, and will remain in force until 2028.

Introduced the Pediatric Research Equity Act with Senator Mike DeWine, R-OH.7 This law requires drug companies to research how their products affect children. The Act changed drug labeling to disclose safety and dosage for children. That's lowered the danger of over-dosage for children with chronic diseases like epilepsy and asthma.

Worked with fellow New York Democrat, Senator Chuck Schumer, to get $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after the 9/11 attacks.8 She wrote the bill to get health care coverage for 9/11 first responders. That included health research related to the attacks. The rescue operations forced many police and firefighters into early retirement with debilitating chronic injuries and illnesses. Her successor, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, got the bill passed.

Worked with Republicans to achieve full military health benefits to National Guard members and reservists.9 Expanded Family Medical Leave Act to families with wounded veterans.

Secretary of State

Took the lead on drafting and negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Once ratified, it would increase U.S. exports by $123.5 billion annually by 2025.10 Industries that benefit the most include electrical, autos, plastics, and agriculture.

Successfully concluded bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama in 2011. The Korea agreement removed almost 80% of tariffs and increased exports by $10 billion. The Colombia agreement expanded U.S. exports by $1.1 billion.

Negotiated ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012.11

Called for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.12 Sided with CIA Director Leon Panetta who first told her it was possible. Overcame opposition from Vice-President Biden and Defense Secretary Robert Gates who were worried about political backlash if the raid failed.

Pushed the United Nations to impose sanctions on Iran in 2010. That created a recession in Iran. The economy shrank 6.6% in 2012 and 1.9% in 2013. That's because they cut Iran's oil exports in half. Clinton was personally involved in these diplomatic efforts and pushed them publicly.13 The sanctions made Iran agree to stop building nuclear weapons in 2015.

Instrumental in negotiating the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Accord.14 15 The developed and major developing nations agreed to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial level. They also agreed to pay $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor countries affected the most by climate change.

Timeline and Additional Accomplishments

1977: Founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.16 It did research and educate the public on children's issues. Joined Rose Law Firm. Appointed by President Carter to chair the board of the Legal Services Corporation.

1979 to 1982: First Lady of Arkansas during Governor Clinton's Administration. Became first woman partner of Rose Law Firm.

1982 to 1992: First Lady of Arkansas. Chaired Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, which created new state school standards. Founded Arkansas Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youth. Helped created Arkansas' first neonatal intensive care unit. On the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the Legal Services and Children's Defense Fund. Corporate board member of TCBY and Lafarge. First female board member of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992. Chaired American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession from 1987 to 1991. Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983. Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

1993 to 2001: First Lady during the Clinton administration. Chair of the Task Force on National Healthcare Reform. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage, ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues. She was the first First Lady with a postgraduate degree.

2000 to 2008: U.S. Senator from New York. Senate Committees: Armed Services; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Environment and Public Works; Budget; Aging. Member of Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act.

2009 to 2013: U.S. Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Opened Chinese markets to U.S. companies.

Amadeo, Kimberly. "14 of Hillary Clinton's Major Accomplishments." ThoughtCo, Aug. 26, 2020, thoughtco.com/hillary-clinton-s-accomplishments-4101811.

#Hillary Clinton #The Clintons #Clinton Accomplishments #US politics

10 notes · View notes

hillaryisaboss · 3 years ago

Text

CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND

Investigated African American juveniles being placed in South Carolina adult prisons, and posed as a racist housewife to expose segregation throughout schools in the South.

FIRST LADY OF ARKANSAS

Hillary successfully reformed the entire K-12 Arkansas educational system, expanded healthcare for those in rural Arkansas, worked at the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services, and co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. First female partner of the Rose Law Firm.

The joke in Arkansas was that they “hired the wrong Clinton.”

FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES

Hillary spearheaded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Foster Care Independence Act, Office on Violence Against Women, the Campaign Against Teenage Pregnancy (lowering abortion and teenage pregnancy rates), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program — providing 8.9 million low-income children with healthcare access.

In 1994, Hillary proclaimed on the world stage in Beijing, China:

“If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all.”

TWO-TIME NEW YORK SENATOR

Hillary secured 20 billion in federal funds to rebuild downtown New York City after 9/11. She also secured healthcare for 9/11 First Responders and expanded access to care for the National Guard, Reservists, and their families.

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE

Passed the first-ever U.N Resolution on gay rights (proclaiming: “human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights” on the world stage), and made it so trans Americans can legally change their gender on their passport. Hillary also rebuilt relations with every nation after the disastrous Bush Administration, traveling to 112 countries — more than any other Secretary of State. Our worldwide favorability rose 20% during Hillary’s tenure. Her primary focus was on women’s rights and health, bringing up issues such as forced abortion and maternal mortality rates. Hillary re-opened relations with Burma, enacted a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and killed Osama Bin Laden. She also was instrumental in putting together the Paris Climate Agreement, something Trump has since removed us from.

FIRST-FEMALE NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF A MAJOR U.S. PARTY

2016 popular vote winner — 3 million more votes!

FOUNDER OF “ONWARD TOGETHER”

An organization supporting progressive candidates nationwide.

“I’m not going to mislead anybody. Politics is really hard. And it is harder for women. There’s a double standard, and you can’t complain about it. You just have to accept it, and be smart enough to navigate it. And you have to have a pretty tough skin. To paraphrase a favorite quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: If a woman wants to be in politics, she has to have the skin of a rhinoceros. So occasionally I’ll be sitting somewhere and I’ll be listening to someone perhaps not saying the kindest things about me. And I’ll look down at my hand and I’ll sort of pinch my skin to make sure it still has the requisite thickness I know Eleanor Roosevelt expects me to have.”

~Hillary Rodham Clinton

"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been."

~Hillary Rodham Clinton

"When you stumble, keep faith. And when you're knocked down, get right back up, and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on."

~Hillary Rodham Clinton

"I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about what people think about me...I would be totally paralyzed. How could you get up in the morning if you worried about some poll or what somebody said about you? That's giving up power over your life to somebody else, and I don't intend to do that."

~Hillary Rodham Clinton

#hillary clinton #bill clinton #joe biden #bernie sanders #donald trump

4 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 4 years ago

Text

Monday, October 19, 2020

As the Coronavirus Surges, a New Culprit Emerges: Pandemic Fatigue (NYT) When the coronavirus began sweeping around the globe this spring, people from Seattle to Rome to London canceled weddings and vacations, cut off visits with grandparents and hunkered down in their homes for what they thought would be a brief but essential period of isolation. But summer did not extinguish the virus. And with fall has come another dangerous, uncontrolled surge of infections that in parts of the world is the worst of the pandemic so far. The virus has taken different paths as leaders have tried to tamp down the spread with a range of restrictions. Shared, though, is a public weariness and a growing tendency to risk the dangers of the coronavirus, out of desire or necessity: With no end in sight, many people are flocking to bars, family parties, bowling alleys and sporting events much as they did before the virus hit, and others must return to school or work as communities seek to resuscitate economies. And in sharp contrast to the spring, the rituals of hope and unity that helped people endure the first surge of the virus have given way to exhaustion and frustration. Researchers from the World Health Organization estimate that about half of the population is experiencing “pandemic fatigue.” One New Yorker summed it up: “I am so tired of everything. Is it going to be over? I want it to be over.”

Biden and Trump Say They’re Fighting for America’s ‘Soul.’ (NYT) It is a phrase that has been constantly invoked by Democratic and Republican leaders. It has become the clearest symbol of the mood of the country, and what people feel is at stake in November. Everyone, it seems, is fighting for it. “This campaign isn’t just about winning votes. It’s about winning the heart and, yes, the soul of America,” Joseph R. Biden Jr. said in August at the Democratic National Convention, not long after the phrase “battle for the soul of America” appeared at the top of his campaign website, right next to his name. Picking up on this, a recent Trump campaign ad spliced videos of Democrats invoking “the soul” of America, followed by images of clashes between protesters and the police and the words “Save America’s Soul,” with a request to text “SOUL” to make a campaign contribution. That the election has become a referendum on the soul of the nation, suggests that in an increasingly secular country, voting has become a reflection of one’s individual morality—and that the outcome hinges in part on spiritual and philosophical questions that transcend politics: What, exactly, is the soul of the nation? What is the state of it? And what would it mean to save it?

Spanish demonstrators call for prosecution of former king (Reuters) Waving red, purple and yellow republican flags, demonstrators in 24 Spanish cities on Sunday called for the prosecution of the former king Juan Carlos who left Spain embroiled in controversy. The 82-year-old former monarch has been living in the United Arab Emirates since leaving Spain in August to avoid further embarrassing his son, King Felipe VI. While not formally under investigation, Juan Carlos could become a target in two inquiries in Spain and Switzerland into alleged corruption associated with a 6.7-billion-euro (£6.1 billion), high-speed Saudi train contract won by Spanish firms.

Covid-19’s first wave largely missed southern Italy. The second wave is hitting it hard. (Washington Post) When northern Italy became the epicenter of the pandemic in the spring, one urgent concern was that the country’s coronavirus outbreak would quickly spread to the less-prosperous south and overwhelm under-resourced regional health systems. That fear wasn’t realized. A strict nationwide lockdown largely contained the virus in the north and brought the outbreak under control. But now the virus is raging again, through Europe and through Italy, with a spike that is again hitting the north but this time also the south. In Campania, which includes Naples, the daily number of detected new cases is five times larger than March’s peak. Compared with six months ago, there is more space to accommodate critical patients in southern Italy. There are more ventilators. Still, many hospitals in the south remain understaffed and have fewer beds per capita than those in the north. They could reach a breaking point if the number of critical patients soars.

Tens of thousands march in Belarus despite firearms threat (Reuters) Tens of thousands of people marched through the streets of the Belarusian capital Minsk on Sunday to demand the resignation of veteran president Alexander Lukashenko, despite a threat by officials to use firearms against protesters. Belarus, a former Soviet republic closely allied with Russia, has been rocked by strikes and weekly street protests since authorities announced that Lukashenko, who has ruled in authoritarian fashion since 1994, had secured re-election on Aug. 9 with 80% of votes. The Interfax news agency put the number of protesters at over 30,000. It said about 50 had been detained by the police, and that the mobile broadband signal had been disrupted in parts of the city. It also said loud noises that sounded like stun grenades had been heard close to the march. A senior police official said last week that officers would reserve the right to use firearms against demonstrators.

Russia shuns tough restrictions even as infections soar (AP) It’s Friday night in Moscow, and popular bars and restaurants in the city center are packed. No one except the staff is wearing a mask or bothers to keep their distance. There is little indication at all that Russia is being swept by a resurgence of coronavirus infections. “I believe that everyone will have the disease eventually,” says Dr. Alexandra Yerofeyeva, an internal medicine specialist at an insurance company, while sipping a cocktail at The Bix bar in Moscow. She adds cheerfully: “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” The outbreak in Russia this month is breaking the records set in the spring, when a lockdown to slow the spread of the virus was put in place. But, as governments across Europe move to reimpose restrictions to counter rising cases, authorities in Russia are resisting shutting down businesses again. The spring lockdown hurt the country’s already weakened economy and compounded Russians’ frustration with plummeting incomes and worsening living conditions, driving Putin’s approval rating to a historic low of 59% in April, according to the Levada Center, Russia’s top independent pollster. Analysts say his government doesn’t want to return to those darks days. “They know that people have just come to the end of their tolerance of the lockdown measures that would be hugely unpopular if they got imposed again,” said Judy Twigg, a professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University, specializing in global health.

China Warns U.S. It May Detain Americans in Response to Prosecutions of Chinese Scholars (WSJ) Chinese government officials are warning their American counterparts they may detain U.S. nationals in China in response to the Justice Department’s prosecution of Chinese military-affiliated scholars, according to people familiar with the matter. The Chinese officials have issued the warnings to U.S. government representatives repeatedly and through multiple channels, the people said, including through the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. The Chinese message, the people said, has been blunt: The U.S. should drop prosecutions of the Chinese scholars in American courts, or Americans in China might find themselves in violation of Chinese law. China started issuing the warning this summer after the U.S. began arresting a series of Chinese scientists, who were visiting American universities to conduct research, and charged them with concealing from U.S. immigration authorities their active duty statuses with the People’s Liberation Army, the people said. Chinese authorities have on occasion detained foreign nationals in moves seen by their governments as baseless, or in some instances as diplomatic retaliation, a tactic that many in Washington policy circles have referred to as “hostage diplomacy.”

Thailand’s king faces trouble on two continents (Los Angeles Times) The scion of one of the world’s most privileged families, he wrapped himself in the trappings of royalty, wealth and a comfortable hideaway thousands of miles from his subjects. For Thailand’s King Maha Vajiralongkorn, the cocoon has come undone with remarkable speed. Last week in Berlin, the German government faced questions in Parliament over the king’s legal status in Bavaria, where he resides. Then, visiting Thailand this week to mark the fourth anniversary of his father’s death, the king’s family came face-to-face with pro-democracy protesters agitating for limits on his power. The reverence long demanded of Thailand’s monarchy is breaking down in ways big and small. Thais are refusing to stand for the royal anthem in movie theaters, lampooning the king in Facebook groups and openly questioning his immense wealth and spending. The scrutiny he is now facing in Germany is an added nuisance for a 68-year-old king who has long treated his adopted home as a playground. As the only son of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who reigned for 70 years, Vajiralongkorn was destined to inherit the throne. But since about 2007 he has spent most of his time in Germany, where the tabloid press has followed his exploits with relish. He was pictured wearing a tight-fitting crop top over an otherwise bare torso while getting on a ski lift, and covered in temporary tattoos during an excursion to a Munich mall.

New Zealand’s Ardern credits virus response for election win (AP) A day after winning a second term in a landside victory, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Sunday she sees the election result as an endorsement of her government’s efforts to stamp out the coronavirus and reboot the economy. In the election, Ardern’s liberal Labour Party got 49% of the vote, crushing the conservative National Party, which got 27%. Ardern said the margin of the victory exceeded their expectations. Asked what she would say to those Americans who may draw inspiration from her win ahead of the U.S. elections, Ardern said she hoped people globally could move past the partisan divisions that elections often accentuate. “That can be damaging for democracy, regardless of the side of the House that you sit on,” she said.

As lockdown eases, Israelis again gather against Netanyahu (AP) Thousands of Israelis demonstrated outside the official residence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday night, resuming the weekly protest against the Israeli leader after emergency restrictions imposed as part of a coronavirus lockdown were lifted. The protesters gathered in central Jerusalem and marched to Netanyahu’s official residence, holding banners calling on him to go and shouting “Revolution!” Many blew horns and pounded on drums, while others hoisted Israeli flags. Scores of smaller demonstrations were held across the country, and organizers claimed some 260,000 people participated nationwide. The protesters say Netanyahu must resign, calling him unfit to lead the country while he is on trial for corruption charges. They also say he has mishandled the virus crisis, which has sent unemployment soaring. Netanyahu is on trial for fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes for his role in a series of scandals. He has denied the charges and said he is the victim of a conspiracy by overzealous police and prosecutors and a liberal media.

Uganda’s ‘taxi divas’ rise from COVID-19’s economic gloom (AP) Uganda’s new all-female ride-hailing service is called Diva Taxi. The taxi service, dreamed up by a local woman who lost her logistics job at the start of the coronavirus outbreak, was launched in June and has recruited over 70 drivers. They range from college students to mothers hoping to make good use of their secondhand Toyotas. “It started off as a joke, supported by close friends and family, but eventually the idea picked up,” said company spokeswoman Rebecca Makyeli. “They said, ‘Why not? As ladies, you know we can no longer slay on Instagram on the outside, so why don’t we slay as divas with a cause.’ So we called it Diva Taxi.” It’s uncommon to find women taxi drivers in Uganda, a socially conservative East African country where most women labor on farms or pursue work in the informal sector. Diva Taxi believes countless women are looking for job opportunities at a time of severe economic distress. The Diva Taxi app has been downloaded at least 500 times, and each of the company’s 72 drivers makes an average of 30 rides each week. The company expects to have 2,000 active users by the end of this year, a modest target in a city of over 3 million people where taxis and passenger motorcycles are the main means of transport for the working class. “We love what we are doing and it’s really fun,” said founder Kobusingye, an occasional driver herself. “I can’t wait to partner with every woman out there that’s willing to be part of Diva Taxi.”

Nigerian army plans nationwide exercise as protests rock country (Reuters) The Nigerian army will begin a two-month national exercise, it said on Saturday, while denying the move was part of any security response to recent widespread demonstrations against alleged police brutality. Operation Crocodile Smile would run across the country from Oct. 20 to Dec. 31, the first time the annual exercise, typically concentrated in the Delta region, will be nationwide, army spokesman Sagir Musa said. The move comes just days after the army said it was ready to step in and restore order, but Musa said in a statement that the exercise “has no relationship with any lawful protest under any guise whatsoever”. Nigerians demanding an end to the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) police unit and pressing for reforms and accountability have been rallying across the country. The army had on Wednesday issued a statement warning what it termed “subversive elements and trouble makers” that it was “ready to fully support the civil authority in whatever capacity to maintain law and order and deal with any situation decisively”.

#headlines #news

1 note · View note

dragoni · 5 years ago

Link

🌊 Vote out #DoNothingMcConnell 🌊 Vote out #DoNothingRepublicans ☑️ #VoteDemocrat #VoteBlue

Trump may want to look to the Republican-controlled Senate instead. Democrats in the House have been passing bills at a rapid clip; as of November 15, the House has passed nearly 400 bills, not including resolutions. But the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee estimates 80 percent of those bill have hit a snag in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is prioritizing confirming judges over passing bills.

Congress has passed just 70 bills into law this year. Granted, it still has one more year in its term, but the number pales in comparison to recent past sessions of Congress, which typically see anywhere from 300-500 bills passed in two years (and that is even a diminished number from the 700-800 bills passed in the 1970s and 1980s).

This has led to House Democrats decrying McConnell’s so-called “legislative graveyard,” a moniker the Senate majority leader has proudly adopted. McConnell calls himself the “grim reaper” of Democratic legislation he derides as socialist, but many of the bills that never see the Senate floor are bipartisan issues, like a universal background check bill, net neutrality, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

U.S. House Bills that will help ALL Americans!

Here’s a list of major bills the House has passed since January

Health care

H.R.259 — Medicaid Extenders Act of 2019

House Resolution 271 — Condemning the Trump Administration’s Legal Campaign to Take Away Americans’ Health Care

H.R.986 — Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019

H.R.987 — Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act

H.R.1520, the Purple Book Continuity Act (bill aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs)

H.R.1503, the Orange Book Transparency Act of 2019 (bill aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs)

Civil rights

H.R.1 — For the People Act of 2019

H.R.5 — Equality Act

H.R.6 — American Dream and Promise Act

H.R.7 — Paycheck Fairness Act

H.R.124 — Expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals

Gun control

H.R.8 — Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019

H.R.1112 — Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019

Environment

H.R.9 — Climate Action Now Act

H.R.1331 — Local Water Protection Act

S.47 — National Resources Management Act

H.R.2578 — National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2019

H.R.205, 1146, 1941 — Banning Offshore Drilling on Atlantic, Pacific, Eastern Gulf and ANWR Coasts

Military/foreign affairs

H.R.840 — Veterans’ Access to Child Care Act

HJ Res. 37 — Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress

SJ Res. 7 — To direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress

H.R.31 — Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019

HJ Res. 30 — Disapproving the President’s proposal to take an action relating to the application of certain sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation

H.R.4695 — Protect Against Conflict by Turkey Act

H.R.676 — NATO Support Act

H.R.549 — Venezuela TPS Act

Mueller report

H.Con.Res. 24 — Expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress

Other major legislation

H.R.1585 — Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019

H.R.987 — Raise the Wage Act

H.R.1500 — Consumers First Act

H.R.1994 — SECURE Act/Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act

H.R.2722 — Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act

H.R.4617 — Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy (SHIELD) Act

H.R.1644 — Save the Internet Act of 2019

H.R.2157 — Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019

H.R.397 — Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act (The Butch Lewis Act)

H.R.2513 — The Corporate Transparency Act

H.R.269 — Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019

H.R.251 — Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act

S.24 — Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019

H.R.430 — TANF Extension Act of 2019

Concurring in the Senate Amendments to HR 251 — Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard Program Extension Act

H.R.790 — Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019

HJ Res. 46 — Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019

H Res. 183 — Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States, as amended

H Res. 194 — Rule Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2021

H.R.2480 — Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

H.R.375 — To amend the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian Tribes (also known as the “Carcieri Fix”)

8 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 6 years ago

Link

via FiveThirtyEight

The 2020 Democratic primary is really an electoral story. Nothing the candidates say about policy on the campaign trail will become law during the campaign.1 But the language of presidential primaries is not electoral — candidates tend not to say, “people of The Left, vote for me, I’m very liberal” or, “Democrats, pick me; sure, I’m progressive, but I’m not so progressive that it ruins my appeal with Republican-leaning independents in the Midwest.”

Instead, the language of presidential primaries is largely one of policy. Sen. Elizabeth Warren proposes a tax on wealth over $50 million and defends that policy on its merits. She doesn’t say out loud the real, immediate goal of the proposal for her — wooing liberal Democratic primary voters concerned about growing income inequality.

The 2020 candidates are likely to talk a lot about policy over the next year — it’s basically how you run for president. And you should pay attention to what they say, but not for the reasons you might think. Here’s a guide to the “policy primary,” with some thoughts from academics and one-time advisers to presidential candidates.2

1. Most importantly, policy proposals matter because the winning candidate will try to implement them as president.

There is a common view that candidates just promise whatever it takes to win and then abandon all those pledges once in office. But political science research has shown over and over again that politicians, including presidents, try to implement their campaign promises, even the more outlandish ones. We just had a record-long partial government shutdown over a campaign pledge that President Trump has unsuccessfully tried to implement — the border wall.3

So, all else being equal, you can expect follow-through from whoever is elected president on many of the policies he or she put forth during the campaign.

2. Even so, pay more attention to broad goals than fine print.

During the 2008 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both came up with proposals to vastly increase the number of Americans with health insurance. They disagreed on the how: Clinton said a comprehensive new health insurance law should require everyone to have insurance or pay a fine; Obama had no such mandate. You know how this turned out — the law now known as Obamacare included an individual mandate.4 Somewhat similarly, during the 2016 race, Trump’s campaign named 21 people that he would consider appointing to the U.S. Supreme Court. Eventual Trump nominee and now Justice Brett Kavanaugh was not among the 21.

That said, one of the 21 was Neil Gorsuch. And the overall group was full of white, male and fairly conservative legal figures — the exact kind of people Trump has appointed to the Supreme Court and lower courts as president.

“One big takeaway from my research is that the ‘policy primary’ gives us less information about the specifics of the plans that might be on the agenda than it does about what issues are likely to be at the top of the agenda,” said Philip Rocco, a political scientist professor at Marquette University who specializes in research on the policymaking process, in an e-mail message.

Looking forward, therefore, I think it’s safe to assume the Democratic candidates running on Medicare-for-all, if elected, will at the very least push for some kind of program in which uninsured Americans can enroll in a public plan along the lines of Medicare. It’s likely Warren will try to implement some kind of new tax on the very wealthy if she is elected.

3. Rank-and-file voters probably aren’t choosing candidates based on their policy plans.

Generally, “the differences on issues [among candidates] in primaries are not huge,” said Elaine Kamarck, who was a top policy adviser to Al Gore during his 2000 presidential run. So most voters probably will not be able to assess subtle differences on policy issues among the 2020 Democratic contenders. After all, political scientists have found American voters broadly know little about politics and policy.

However, Kamarck argued that voters are often well-informed and passionate about issues that particularly affect their regions or states. So a Democratic primary candidate might do poorly in the primaries in Kentucky or West Virginia if he or she has a plan that voters in those states think will severely harm the coal industry.

4. But the policy plans tell voters about a candidate’s priorities and values — and that probably does matter electorally.

“People are not voting for a package of policy preferences, they’re voting for an individual, and the policies or issues help mark out the kind of person they are,” Mark Schmitt, who was a policy adviser on Bill Bradley’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, said in an e-mail message.

So a candidate like Warren or Bernie Sanders with proposals to vastly increase taxes on the wealthy is communicating to voters a persona — “fighting for the little guy,” “taking on the establishment” — that might resonate with voters who are liberal or anti-establishment, even if these voters don’t really know much about, say, marginal tax rates.

Lee Drutman, a scholar at the think tank New America, concluded based on polling data that 2016 Democratic primary voters who preferred Sanders were not significantly more liberal on policy issues than those who backed Hillary Clinton. (Sanders himself certainly was to the left of Clinton.) Instead, voters’ views of the American political system and whether they thought it was fundamentally “rigged” was a strong predictor of which candidate they supported. More anti-establishment Democrats strongly preferred Sanders. That is probably, in part, because his policy proposals, like a single-payer health care system, communicated a break from the more establishment politics of Clinton.

5. Policy details matter to important groups that can offer endorsements — and those endorsements can matter electorally.

In 2016, the National Nurses Association backed Sanders over Clinton, and this wasn’t much of a surprise. The NNA has long pushed for single-payer health care, and Sanders favored that idea and Clinton did not. In making its endorsement, NAA’s leadership specifically noted Sanders’s support of single-payer and his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an Obama-era trade agreement that Clinton did not oppose as forcefully as Sanders.

So specific issue stands do really matter to key activist groups making endorsements. And that can make an impact electorally. Unions, for example, can organize their members to back candidates. When a Democratic candidate comes out with an education policy plan, that may be an appeal to parents, but it is also likely signaling to teacher unions, a powerful, organized liberal constituency in some states.

“Activists do pay attention” to specific policy ideas and stances, said Andrew Dowdle, a political science professor at the University of Arkansas who has written extensively about the presidential nomination process.

6. Pay more attention to the “flop” than the “flip.”

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been criticized for supporting overly punitive approaches to criminal justice in the past, Cory Booker for promoting charter schools, Kirsten Gillibrand for backing conservative immigration legislation, Sanders for opposing some gun control measures earlier in his career. I could go on. The Democratic Party has moved decidedly to the left in recent years, so many of the 2020 presidential candidates have, in their past, violated some of the party’s new tenets.

Scrutinizing candidate’s past records is a big part of any nomination contest. But it may not be a particularly useful exercise in predicting what these candidates would do on policy if elected president. (Note the emphasis on policy — Bill Clinton’s philandering and Trump’s lying before entering office were fairly useful predictors of what came later.)

These candidates are politicians, after all. They probably were taking stands in the past that reflected a mix of conviction and political expediency. Biden likely believed that the “crime bill” he sponsored in 1994 (and is now slammed as helping lead to the over-incarceration of African-Americans) was good policy (it was endorsed by a lot of black political leaders too). I suspect he also thought the legislation was in the political mainstream, helping him to rise up the ranks of the Democratic Party.

David Karol, an expert on the presidential nomination process who teaches at the University of Maryland, told me these “flip-flops” by candidates are often explained by their changing constituencies. He referred specifically to Gillibrand, who was first elected in 2006 in a relatively moderate district in upstate New York before becoming the senator for the entire state, which is fairly liberal-leaning.

“It’s hard to know whether the politician ‘really’ believed in their position at Time 1 or Time 2,” Karol said.

Either way, Democratic elected officials have moved away from a tough-on-crime approach and the party’s voters are now very pro-immigration . I have no doubt a President Biden would govern on criminal justice policy more like how he sounds in 2019 than he did in 1994, and that a President Gillibrand would be more pro-immigration than Candidate Gillibrand in 2006.

The obvious example here is Trump, who took some fairly liberal stands in earlier phases of his life but has generally followed GOP orthodoxy as president, as he promised to do on many issues during his 2016 campaign.

President Ronald “Reagan’s promises on abortion were far better predictors of his policies than his more pro-choice past as California’s governor were. Al Gore was pro-gun and anti-abortion at one point in his career when it made sense for a white southern Democrat to be so. But his campaign promises were better predictors,” Seth Masket, a University of Denver political scientist who is currently writing a book about presidential primaries, said in an e-mail message.

So the bottom line: Take what the presidential candidates are saying on the campaign trail seriously and literally. But more seriously than literally.

#IFTTT #FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

4 notes · View notes

xhxhxhx · 7 years ago

Text

The Hopeless Labour Party

On the eve of the Great War, the Labour Party appeared to have failed.

Britain had the largest industrial working class and the largest trade union movement in Europe. There were 647,000 unionized employees in Britain in 1887 and only 146,000 in Germany, and despite rapid trade union organizing in Germany, Britain still had more unionized employees than Germany on the eve of the Great War: 4,107,000 to 3,928,900. On the eve of the Great War, 22.6 percent of British workers were unionized, but only 11.4 percent of the Germans, 7.1 percent of the Swedes, and 1.9 percent of the Finns.

But despite the successes of its industrial economy and the strengths of its trade union movement, Britain had one of Europe’s smallest social democratic parties. In Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the Czech lands of Austria-Hungary, social democrats won more than thirty percent of the vote in the 1910s. In Britain, they won less than ten.

Why had the Labour Party failed to break through?

Britain had an accommodating attitude towards its unions. The United States had destroyed workers’ control and the national labor movement, but Britain had not. “There is no party which does not recognize to the full all that trade unions have done,” Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour declared. “[T]rade disputes in this country have been carried on with a wisdom and a moderation on both sides which cannot be paralleled in another industrial country.” Balfour was not wrong: Britain’s trade unionists were less militant than their European counterparts.

But there was perhaps a deeper problem: British workers appeared to be less attached to socialism than they were to liberalism.

“I must confess it seems hopeless to attempt to found a Labour party here,” the founder of the Social-Democratic Federation told Marx in 1881. “The men are so indifferent, so given over to beer, tobacco, and general laissez-faire.” There had been a moment of optimism in the 1890s. Ramsay MacDonald and Keir Hardie’s Programme of the Independent Labour Party (1899) was premised on the idea that the Liberal Party had “collapsed.” That collapse did not last long. In the Programme, MacDonald had repudiated any alliance with the Liberals. In 1903, he brought Labour into one.

As Britain went to war in 1914, Labour was small, a minority party in a coalition government, and it was not clear if that would ever change.

In the Edwardian era, the British working class voted for the Liberal Party. Nowhere else in Europe did the national working class fit comfortably within a liberal politics. This was partially because of the Liberals shared Labour’s class interests, but more often because Liberals represented their religious interests: Anglicans were Conservatives and nonconformists Liberals.

The Anglicans were members of the Church of England, which had broken from the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century and remained the established Church of England. It was a Protestant Church, at least in name, but it asked little of its members that was particularly Protestant. It did not demand a commitment to Calvinism or to any other system of doctrinal Protestantism. It was as Catholic or as Protestant as its members made it.

The nonconformists had broken from the Established Church because its establishment had made it more Catholic than their consciences could tolerate. During the seventeenth century, the more Protestant members of what was a decreasingly Protestant Church faced an increasingly Catholic hierarchy and an increasingly Catholic Crown. The consequence was a Civil War, and ultimately a division between England’s Established Church and the nonconformists of the Free Churches: Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists.

British Liberals never converged on a utilitarian or natural-law understanding of the world, or on republican principles. What they shared was a certain understanding of English history. Their historical memory was shaped by the English Civil War. The Liberals remembered their martyrs, and made Cromwell and Milton their cult heroes. Their statesman John Bright called Cromwell “the greatest man who ever lived.” The nonconformists were inclined to agree.

In the 1906 election, 100 percent of Baptist parliamentary candidates were Liberal or Labour, as were 98 percent of Congregationalists and 83 percent of Presbyterians. Labour was a secular party, with few connections to religious institutions and little to say on religious issues. The Liberals were embedded in the chapels of western and northern England. They were, as a contemporary observer remarked, “highly sensitive to the appeals of the Nonconformist conscience.” A Sheffield prayer of 1910 read:

Take my vote and let it be   Consecrated Lord to thee.  Guide my hand that I may trace  Crosses in the proper place.

By contrast, the Conservatives were the party of the Church of England. At least 90 percent of Conservative MPs were Anglican. In 1902, the Conservative government passed a law funding denominational religious instruction in voluntary schools over deep nonconformist opposition. Catholics and Anglicans would enjoy private education, administered by their church, and subsidized by British ratepayers. The Conservatives lost the 1906 election in a landslide, and denomination instruction is one reason why.

The Liberals submerged the differences between labor and capital beneath the old differences between Anglican and nonconformist, the countryside and the towns, and England and the British nations. British Liberalism had not converged on a common understanding of the world, but the Liberals understood who their friends were.

Three ironies: First, Liberalism was still the politics of labor. In Edwardian England, Liberals and Labour were united. The Balfour government had upset the working class by challenging the Victorian order of free trade, free churches, and free collective bargaining. The Liberals stood with the workers, while Labour took the backseat.

Second, even as the differences made salient in British Liberalism became the differences sublimated in British Labour, the differences remained. In the England of Blair and Brown, Anglicans were Conservative, and nonconformists Labour. The nonconformist heartlands of Wales, Scotland, and outer England became Labour heartlands, and when Conservatism was reduced to its lowest ebb, the Conservatives held the most Anglican constituencies of the English countryside.

Third, the Liberals are remembered as friends of the working class because they expanded the welfare state, but that is not why the working class voted for them. In March 1906, the new Liberal Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, told the House of Commons that “The policy upon which the Government has taken office and upon which they have been supported by their friends is the policy of retrenchment.” If anything, the working class had voted for austerity.

The British working class disliked welfare until the moment they received it. They believed in independence and self-help, and party from a suspicion of the state. They hated the poor law, compulsory education, and local authority housing and clearance. They opposed compulsory vaccination. In 1909, 151,000 of the 185,000 voting members of the Cotton Operatives’ Amalgamation voted against raising the compulsory education age to thirteen.

In 1902, the socialist and secularist F. J. Gould, a schoolteacher in London and then a member of the Leicester school board, met a mother who had her daughter home to help with the house. That would have to end, he thought: “The mother must yield; and the mother must suffer.”

Nonetheless, Liberal and Labour MPs did support the welfare state. Labour backbenchers introduced measures for school meals and compulsory school medical inspection. The Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 was supported by the labor movement. The Liberal leadership believed that social welfare would be popular. They were not wrong, but that was not why the Liberals or Labour had been elected. “In so far as the Labour Party won seats at the 1906 election,” the historian Henry Pelling observed, “it did so by sharing [the Liberal] programme, which was almost an antithesis of the objects of Socialism.”

“It is time we did something that appealed straight to the people – it will, I think, help to stop the electoral rot, and that is most necessary,” David Lloyd George told his brother in May 1908, as he steered the pensions bill through the House. The Liberals built the British welfare state: introducing school meals and compulsory school medical inspection in 1906 and 1907, old age pensions and a progressive income tax in 1908, labor exchanges and trade boards for the sweated trades in 1909, and national health and unemployment insurance in 1911. If the Liberals’ welfare state ever helped to stop the electoral rot, however, it did not last.

After the Great War, the progressive alliance came apart. The war split the Liberals in two, but it also split the Free Churches, and weakened the ties of organized religion. Labour replaced the Liberals as the party of the working class, as class became the most salient difference in British politics. Labour embraced Fabian socialism and discarded liberalism. The Liberals went into the wilderness.

Labour never became the party of government. The Conservatives held power for seventy of the hundred years after 1895. During that century, Labour held a significant majority for less than a decade, and less than that in fragile minority or coalition governments. The Labour Party did not win power on its own until July 1945.

That was the moment when the labor movement began its long decline, and Labour began its slow transformation into something else.

This topic was suggested by a Patreon backer.

Colin Crouch, Industrial Relations and European State Traditions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 73, 100; Martin Daunton, Wealth and Welfare: An Economic and Social History of Britain, 1851–1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 93, 101; Geoff Eley, Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe, 1850–2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 65, 66, 514 n. 24; Henry Pelling, “The Working Class and the Origins of the Welfare State,” in Popular Politics and Society in Late Victorian Britain (London: Macmillan, 1979), 1–2, 4–5, 14, 17; Ross McKibbin, Parties and People: England, 1914–1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 5, 6, 23–24; Adrian Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 1920–1985 (London: Fount, 1987), 31–32; John F. Glaser, “English Nonconformity and the Decline of Liberalism,” American Historical Review 63:2 (Jan. 1958): 352–363; Kenneth D. Wald, Crosses on the Ballot: Patterns of British Voter Alignment since 1885 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 3, 197; John Russell Vincent, The Formation of the British Liberal Party (New York: Scribner’s, 1966), xxix; K. D. M. Snell and Paul S. Ell, Rival Jerusalems: The Geography of Victorian Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 77, 171; Pat Thane, “The Working Class and State ‘Welfare’ in Britain, 1880–1914,” Historical Journal 27:4 (1984): 895–896; G. R. Searle, A New England? Peace and War, 1886–1918 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), 371; Anthony Seldon and Stuart Ball, Conservative Century: The Conservative Party since 1900 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 1.

#effortpost

83 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

How Many Presidents Were Democrats And Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-presidents-were-democrats-and-republicans/

How Many Presidents Were Democrats And Republicans

The Party Thats Actually Best For The Economy

Many analyses look at which party is best for the economy. A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Democratic presidents since World War II have performed much better than Republicans. On average, Democratic presidents grew the economy 4.4% each year versus 2.5% for Republicans.

A study by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found that the economy performs better when the president is a Democrat. They report that by many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large. Between Truman and Obama, growth was 1.8% higher under Democrats than Republicans.

A Hudson Institute study found that the six years with the best growth were evenly split between Republican and Democrat presidents.

Most of these evaluations measure growth during the presidents term in office. But no president has control over the growth added during his first year. The budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous president, so you should compare the gross domestic product at the end of the presidents last budget to the end of his predecessors last budget.

For Obama, that would be the fiscal year from October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2018. Thats FY 2010 through FY 2017. During that time, GDP increased from $15.6 trillion to $17.7 trillion, or by 14%. Thats 1.7% a year.

The chart below ranks the presidents since 1929 on the average annual increase in GDP.

President

1.4%

A president would have better growth if he had no recession.

The Issue Of Slavery: Enter Abraham Lincoln

In the mid-nineteenth century, slavery was a widely discussed political issue. The Democratic Partys internal views on this matter differed greatly. Southern Democrats wished for slavery to be expanded and reach into Western parts of the country. Northern Democrats, on the other hand, argued that this issue should be settled on a local level and through popular referendum. Such Democratic infighting eventually led to Abraham Lincoln, who belonged to the Republican Party, winning the presidential election of 1860. This new Republican Party had recently been formed by a group of Whigs, Democrats and other politicians who had broken free from their respective parties in order to form a party based on an anti-slavery platform.

Adams And The Revolution Of 1800

Shortly after Adams took office, he dispatched a group of envoys to seek peaceful relations with France, which had begun attacking American shipping after the ratification of the Jay Treaty. The failure of talks, and the French demand for bribes in what became known as the XYZ Affair, outraged the American public and led to the Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war between France and the United States. The Federalist-controlled Congress passed measures to expand the army and navy and also pushed through the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted speech that was critical of the government, while also implementing stricter naturalization requirements. Numerous journalists and other individuals aligned with the Democratic-Republicans were prosecuted under the Sedition Act, sparking a backlash against the Federalists. Meanwhile, Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which held that state legislatures could determine the constitutionality of federal laws.

Confirming The Numbers Who Was Counted And Why

One approach to comparing malfeasance by administration might be to include only positions designated in 28 USC § 591. This section of the US Code lists government officers who are the direct concern of an independent counsel starting with the President and Vice President. We use broader criteria. Other lists likewise dont appear to use this act as their basis for comparison. Further, 28 USC 591 is applicable to the Independent Counsel Law, but not to other special prosecutor or special counsel investigations.

Some sources report 76 Watergate indictments, 55 convictions, and 15 served time. One source had 69 Watergate indictments of government figures. There is no path to that many government figures indicted. We report 26 government and former government figures. We find total 85 Nixon administration indictments, 78 convictions, and 24 with prison time. Figure 4 lists them. Some sources list two indictments for Clinton administration officers. However, we assign to the Clinton administration 5 indictments, counting his impeachment as an indictment, and involving the Departments of Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development. Other lists show no Obama administration indictees. We include one, General David Petraeus.

To see our criteria for inclusion in the corruption numbers, check out . It is possible and reasonable to arrive at different numbers using different criteria. This article and the tables provide the data to support our conclusions.

Bill Clinton: Impeached In 1998

President Clinton walking to the podium to deliver a short statement on the impeachment inquiry, apologizing to the country for his conduct in the Monica Lewinsky affair and that he would accept a congressional censure or rebuke.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Clinton was plagued by legal troubles and scandals from the moment he entered the White House. In 1993, Clinton and his First Lady, Hillary, were the subject of a Justice Department investigation into the so-called Whitewater controversy, a botched business deal from their days in Arkansas. And in 1994, Clinton was sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones, who claimed Clinton exposed himself to her in a hotel room in 1991.

Interestingly, it was a combination of both legal cases that would ultimately lead to Clintons impeachment. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr was appointed by the Justice Department to investigate the Whitewater affair, but he couldnt find any impeachable evidence. Meanwhile, lawyers for Jones got a tip that Clinton had an affair with a 21-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, a claim that both Lewinsky and Clinton denied under oath.

When the story went public, Clinton was forced to address the accusations on national television.

I want you to listen to me, Clinton famously said. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.

Andrew Johnson: Impeached In 1868

The 1868 impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson.

Johnson was elected as Abraham Lincolns vice president in 1864. The toughest decision facing Lincolns second term was how to reestablish ties with the Confederate states now that the Civil War was over. Lincolns plan for Reconstruction favored leniency while so-called Radical Republicans in his party wanted to punish Southern politicians and extend full civil rights to freed slaves.

Lincoln was assassinated only 42 days into his second term, leaving Johnson in charge of Reconstruction. He immediately clashed with the Radical Republicans in Congress, calling for pardons for Confederate leaders and vetoing political rights for freedmen. In 1867, Congress retaliated by passing the Tenure of Office Act, which barred the president from replacing members of his cabinet without Senate approval.

Believing the law to be unconstitutional, Johnson went ahead and fired his Secretary of War, an ally of the Radical Republicans in Congress. Johnsons political enemies responded by drafting and passing 11 articles of impeachment in the House.

“Sir, the bloody and untilled fields of the ten unreconstructed States, the unsheeted ghosts of the two thousand murdered negroes in Texas, cry for the punishment of Andrew Johnson,” wrote the abolitionist Republican Representative William D. Kelley from Pennsylvania.

READ MORE: 150 Years Ago, a President Could Be Impeached for Firing a Cabinet Member

Acting President Of The United States

An acting president of the United States is an individual who legitimately exercises the powers and duties of the president of the United States even though that person does not hold the office in their own right. There is an established presidential line of succession in which officials of the United States federal government may be called upon to take on presidential responsibilities if the incumbent president becomes incapacitated, dies, resigns, is removed from office during their four-year term of office; or if a president-elect has not been chosen before Inauguration Day or has failed to qualify by that date.

If the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the vice president automatically becomes president. Likewise, were a president-elect to die during the transition period, or decline to serve, the vice president-elect would become president on Inauguration Day. A vice president can also become the acting president if the president becomes incapacitated. However, should the presidency and vice presidency both become vacant, the statutory successor called upon would not become president, but would only be acting as president. To date, two vice presidentsGeorge H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney have served as acting president. No one lower in the presidential line of succession has so acted.

C Republicans Vs Democrats

Minneapolis Star-Tribune

It seemed like Bill Clinton had everything going for him. He defeated an incumbent President and became the first Democrat to win the White House since Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford. He had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate to work with him.

One of the first major initiatives he began was health care reform. Many Americans were concerned about spiraling medical costs. Medicare did not cover prescription drugs and only paid a portion of health care costs. Over 20 million Americans had no health insurance whatsoever. Clinton assembled a task force to study the problem and assigned his wife Hillary to head the committee. She became the most politically active first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt.

Eventually Clinton presented a plan to limit costs and insure each American citizen to the Congress. Powerful interest groups representing doctors and insurance companies opposed Clinton. Many in the Congress thought the program too costly. Conservatives compared the plan to socialized medicine. Despite a “friendly” Democratic Congress, the Clintons’ proposal was defeated.

The Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives since 1954. Many Republicans had gotten used to acting like an opposition party. When the votes were counted, Republicans outscored Democrats in House seats 230-205. Gingrich was rewarded for his efforts by being named Speaker of the House.

The White House Store

Political Gifts Collectibles Republican & Democrat

891-8261

Democratic Party:

The democratic party was originally founded in 1792 by anti-federalist sect. At first, the party was created by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and named as Democrat-Republican Party. The first president of Democratic-Republican was Thomas Jefferson elected in the year 1801. By 1820 this party was at its peak and considered as the sole major party. When various states passed legislation in voting rights for the election of presidential electors by voters around 1820s. these legislations lead to separation of the party into different sects. After splitting up the party was dissolved in 1825 which lead to the foundation of the new Democratic party in 1928 with Andrew Jackson as the first Democratic President. Democratic party has deep roots and is the oldest U.S Political Party. Democrats represent a progressive attitude and works for the social and economic equality with in the country. Up to 2018, there are 15 democratic presidents who lived in White House.

Policies of Democratic Presidents:

Republican Party:

Policies of RepublicanPresidents:

The Philosophy Behind Democratic Economic Policy

Democrats gear their economic policies to benefit low-income and middle-income families. They argue that reducing income inequality is the best way to foster economic growth. Low-income families are more likely to spend any extra money on necessities instead of saving or investing it. That directly increases demand and spurs economic growth. Democrats also support a Keynesian economic theory, which says that the government should spend its way out of a recession.

One dollar spent on increased food stamp benefits generates $1.73 in economic output.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt first outlined the Economic Bill of Rights in his 1944 State of the Union address. It included taxes on war profiteering and price controls on food costs. President Harry Trumans 1949 Fair Deal proposed an increase in the minimum wage, civil rights legislation, and national health care. President Barack Obama expanded Medicaid with the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

If Convicted Removal From Office Possible Disqualification From Government Service

If a president is acquitted by the Senate, the impeachment trial is over. But if he or she is found guilty, the Senate trial moves to the sentencing or punishment phase. The Constitution allows for two types of punishments for a president found guilty of an impeachable offense: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

The first punishment, removal from office, is automatically enforced following a two-thirds guilty vote. But the second punishment, disqualification from holding any future government position, requires a separate Senate vote. In this case, only a simple majority is required to ban the impeached president from any future government office for life. That second vote has never been held since no president has been found guilty in the Senate trial.

Political Parties Of The Presidents

Republican

Andrew Johnson

Note: The Republican party was renamed the Union party for the 1864 election. Therefore, Lincoln also served under the Union party label. For Washington’s initial election, political parties were not in existence. He became associated with the Federalist party after he was in office.

The purpose of this site is to provide researchers, students, teachers, politicians, journalists, and citizens a complete resource guide to the US Presidents. You may link to this or any other page on PresidentsUSA.net.

How Did This Switch Happen

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government’s role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power traditionally, a Republican stance.

But Republicans didn’t immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government.

Related: 7 great congressional dramas

“Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice,” Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party’s small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government?

According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Related: Busted: 6 Civil War myths

Additional resources:

/11 Terrorist Attack Bill Of Rights

Why did 9/11 occur? The search does not end until the truth is exposed and those that died are allowed to rest. We hold that the lies about Ground Zero are clearly evident and that all victims are created equal, even those forced to lie. Not every victim of September 11th, 2001 died during the collapsing of the twin towers; there are more victims being created everyday.

Gallup: Democrats Now Outnumber Republicans By 9 Percentage Points Thanks To Independents

“I think what we have to do as a party is battle the damage to the Democratic brand,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Jamie Harrison said on The Daily Beast‘s latest New Abnormal podcast. Gallup reported Wednesday that, at least relatively speaking, the Democratic brand is doing pretty good.

In the first quarter of 2021, 49 percent of U.S. adults identified as Democrats or independents with Democratic leanings, versus 40 percent for Republicans and GOP leaders, Gallup said. “The 9-percentage-point Democratic advantage is the largest Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012. In recent years, Democratic advantages have typically been between 4 and 6 percentage points.”

New Gallup polling finds that in the first quarter of 2021, an average of 49% of Americans identify with/lean toward the Democratic Party, versus 40 percent for Republicans.

That’s the largest gap since 2012:https://t.co/YpUvqBKxLx

Greg Sargent April 7, 2021

Party identification, polled on every Gallup survey, is “something that we think is important to track to give a sense to the relevant strength of the two parties at any one point in time and how party preferences are responding to events,”Gallup senior editor Jeff Jones told USA Today.

More stories from theweek.com

Other Presidents Threatened With Impeachment

A significant number of U.S. presidents have faced calls for impeachment, including five of the past six Republican presidents. But few of those accusations were taken seriously by Congress.

There were even rumblings about impeaching the nation’s first president, George Washington, by those who opposed his policies. Those calls, however, did not reach the point of becoming formal resolutions or charges.

John Tyler was the first president to face impeachment charges. Nicknamed His Accidency for assuming the presidency after William Henry Harrison died after just 30 days in office, Tyler was wildly unpopular with his own Whig party. A House representative from Virginia submitted a petition for Tylers impeachment, but it was never taken up by the House for a vote.

Between 1932 and 1933, a congressman introduced two impeachment resolutions against Herbert Hoover. Both were eventually tabled by large margins.

More recently, both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were the subject of impeachment resolutions submitted by Henry B. Gonzales, a Democratic representative from Texas, but none of the resolutions were taken up for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

First Elections And First Presidency

On February 4, 1789, electors chose George Washington to be the first president of the United States. Washingtons term would prove to be a critical six decades in American history. Washington, who obtained power after the approval of the Constitution, the oldest written constitution that is still in force. During this period only men over 21 years of age and with certain wealth could vote.

Andrew Jackson was the first frontier president. Unlike previous presidents from wealthy, well-educated families, Andrew Jackson grew up in relative poverty in a log cabin in the Appalachian mountains of Tennessee. He had little formal education, but rose to national fame after leading the US to victory in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. Jackson is the founder of the modern-day Democratic Party. After a bitter loss to John Quincy Adams in the 1824 presidential election, Jackson and his followers broke away from the Republican Party and formed a new party called the Democrats. Republicans who disliked Jackson began to call themselves Whigs. Jackson was a controversial figure, he supported states rights and slaverys expansion into new western territories and used the power of presidential veto more than any previous president. He vetoed 12 bills, more than the first six presidents combined.

How The Democrats Became Liberals And How The Republicans Became Conservatives

February 14, 2016

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was Americas staunch defender of conservatism, and the Republican Party was the upstart champion of liberalism. And then, one day, they switched.

Seriously.

1860 Presidential Election Results

For the first half of the 19th century, the American political process revolved around the Democratic-Republican and Whig parties, with the Federalists, Know-Nothings and other groups playing smaller roles. The dominant political issue throughout this entire period was of course slavery, and by 1853 most Americans were polarized into the pro- and anti-slavery camps.

In 1824, the Democratic Party was born out of the more conservative elements of the Democratic-Republican Party. Three decades later, the Republic Party was established, with its membership largely made up of former Whigs and the more liberal members of the Democratic-Republic party in the North. The Democrats, especially in the South, became the primary haven of the pro-slavery elements of society, and by extension the states rights party when the federal government became increasingly likely to abolish slavery. The Republicans became the haven of the abolitionists, and by extension the party of strong central government.

2012 Presidential Election Results

Presto-chango, the transformation was complete.

Filed Under: Random Ramblings

Where would you like to go?

About the Author

Richard Nixon: Resigned In 1974

People read about President Nixon’s resignation outside the gate of the White House in August, 1974.

Despite being complicit in one of the greatest political scandals in U.S. presidential history, Richard Nixon was never impeached. He resigned before the House of Representatives had a chance to impeach him. If he hadnt quit, Nixon would likely have been the first president ever impeached and removed from office, given the crimes he committed to cover up his involvement in the Watergate break-ins.

On July 27, 1974, after seven months of deliberations, the House Judiciary Committee approved the first of five proposed articles of impeachment against Nixon, charging the president with obstruction of justice in an effort to shield himself from the ongoing Watergate investigation. Only a handful of Republicans in the judiciary committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment, and it was unclear at the time if there would be enough votes in the full House to formally impeach the president.

But everything changed on August 5, 1974, when the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release unedited tapes of his Oval Office conversations with White House staffers during the Watergate investigation. The so-called smoking gun tapes included Nixon proposing the use of the CIA to obstruct the FBI investigation, and paying hush money to the convicted Watergate burglars. The transcript included the following:

NIXON: How much money do you need?

NIXON: We could get that.

The Parties Change Course

After the war, the Republican Party became more and more oriented towards economic growth, industry, and big business in Northern states, and in the beginning of the 20th century it had reached a general status as a party for the more wealthy classes in society. Many Republicans therefore gained financial success in the prosperous 1920s until the stock market crashed in 1929 initiating the era of the Great Depression.

Now, many Americans blamed Republican President Herbert Hoover for the financial damages brought by the crisis. In 1932 the country therefore instead elected Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt to be president.

The Democratic Party largely stayed in power until 1980, when Republican Ronald Reagan was elected as president. Reagans social conservative politics and emphasis on cutting taxes, preserving family values, and increasing military funding were important steps in defining the modern Republican Party platform.

President Of The United States

The president of the United States has been chief of the executive branch of the United States of America since 1789.

Various other countries that are or were known as the United States have or had a presidential system:

President of the United StatesIf an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

This page was last edited on 2 January 2021, at 00:59 .

Text is available under the ;additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

List Of Republican Us Presidents

Abraham Lincoln

Ulysses S. Grant

Rutherford B. Hayes

James Garfield

Chester A. Arthur

Benjamin Harrison

William McKinley

Theodore Roosevelt

William H. Taft

Warren G. Harding

Calvin Coolidge

Herbert C. Hoover

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Richard M. Nixon

Gerald R. Ford

Ronald W. Reagan

George H. W. Bush

George W. Bush

Donald Trump

Many More Criminal Indictments Under Trump Reagan And Nixon Than Under Obama Clinton And Carter

A Facebook post claimed that there have been 317 criminal indictments in the administrations of three recent Republican presidents Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and only three indictments under three recent Democratic presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Heres what the post said about those presidents, whose terms date back to 1969 when Nixon was in office:

“Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments:

Trump 215

“Recent administrations with the LEAST criminal indictments:

Obama 0

Clinton 2

“Notice a pattern?”

Unless an administration official is charged with a crime for acts while in office, its not always easy to identify which indictments can be connected to a presidential administration; some administration officials have been indicted for acts in the private sector, some indicted people were involved in presidential campaigns but didnt work in the administration, etc.

This claim exaggerates the number of indictments under Trump, in particular, by counting the number of criminal charges filed, rather than the number of people indicted; and it includes the indictments of people who are not part of his administration, such as 25 Russians.

On the whole, however, the indictments under the three GOP presidents do dwarf those under the three Democrats.

An indictment is essentially a two-step process in the federal system:

Featured Fact-check

Only six of the 34 indicated are in Trumps orbit:

Obama: None.

0 notes

hillaryisaboss · 6 years ago

Photo

10/26/18

Happy birthday to the woman held to impossible standards.

Here’s to all you have accomplished:

CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND:

Investigated African American juveniles being placed in South Carolina adult prisons, and posed as a racist housewife to expose segregation throughout schools in the South.

FIRST LADY OF ARKANSAS:

The joke in Arkansas was that they “hired the wrong Clinton.”

FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES:

In 1994, Hillary proclaimed on the world stage in Beijing, China:

“If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all.”

TWO-TIME NEW YORK SENATOR:

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE:

FIRST-FEMALE NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF A MAJOR U.S. PARTY:

2016 popular vote winner — 3 million more votes!

FOUNDER OF “ONWARD TOGETHER”:

An organization supporting progressive candidates nationwide.

youtube

"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." ~Hillary Rodham Clinton

"When you stumble, keep faith. And when you're knocked down, get right back up, and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on." ~Hillary Rodham Clinton

youtube

#hillary clinton #bill clinton #barack obama #bernie sanders #donald trump

132 notes · View notes

gravitascivics · 4 years ago

Text

WE ARE ALL IN THIS SANS TOGETHERNESS

In a former life, this writer taught the high school course, American Government. And before the term or course began, he knew that one lesson was already lodged into his schedule. That lesson would be toward the beginning of the term, and it was noted as the “political spectrum” lesson.

He would draw on the board a single horizontal line and that image was to communicate a continuum. Vertically, he would place a line in the middle. Then going to the right, more or less at equal distances, he would add three more vertical lines with the last one at the end of the horizontal line. The same would go to the left of the middle line. Below these vertical lines, he would entitle each.

The middle line would be titled neutral and/or moderate. Then going right, each of the lines, in turn, would be titled conservativism, nationalism, and fascism/Nazism. To the left of the middle, the titles liberalism, socialism, and communism would be placed.

Surely, recurring readers of this blog will know to what all this refers; i.e., the right, to increasing degrees, indicates belief in conservatism (belief in traditional, national values) to increasing degrees of intensity. Left of center, one has belief in liberal/progressive values (belief in social/economic/political experimentation or change). As to the “extreme” terms at the ends of the horizontal line, they indicate approaching and then arriving at totalitarian rule, as exhibited by Hitler’s rule in Germany or Communist Party rule (especially under Stalin) in the Soviet Union.

This former teacher, during the lesson, would indicate how the American population was distributed along this graph with a bell-shaped curve. This curve sort of explained why the US has a two-party system. It’s a math thing. He would toward the end of the lesson superimpose a curve with a number of “bumps,” the bumps growing in height as it approached short of and just beyond the center of the horizontal but with the curve almost at zero point in the moderate or neutral range. This would demonstrate why Europe has multi-party arrangements.

Another point was made, that as one found oneself toward the extremes, one would be more motivated to be involved in politics and to even secure more claimed knowledge about it (symbolized on the graph with plus signs and minus signs). Of course, this described amounts of knowledge acquisition did not insure one was open to true knowledge.

As one observes among Americans today, that attraction could very well be toward desired “knowledge.” Of course, such affected people are subject to propaganda lies or misunderstandings if those beliefs further support established biases. Today, by the way, the role that social media plays in promulgating such misinformation is well documented.

This political spectrum can be applied to political populations from around the world, and if one were to go online and inquire the term “political spectrum,” one would find more involved representations of this distribution of political sentiment. But all this is offered here as merely context.

Daniel J. Elazar offers a spectrum of sorts that distributes American political thinking and sentiments. He doesn’t use the term spectrum, but as with the spectrum described above, his terms can be (and are described) as points on a continuum. His terms are “individualism,” “collectivism,” “corporatism,” and “federalism.” This posting will begin an overview of his “spectrum” by describing the first of these terms, individualism. But his offering begs the questions, why offer this set and why are they offered in the order they are described?

In way of answering these concerns, he writes:

American history can be understood as a struggle between four major orientations toward the relationship between the individual and civil society (that by-now-slightly archaic early modern term which conveys so well the way in which all comprehensive societies necessarily have a political form and the way all good societies keep that political form from becoming all-embracing totalitarian).[1]

He further points out that each of the terms refers to a political tradition in American culture that stretches back to the nation’s beginning. While Elazar makes the case that the last view, federalism, was dominant during all those years, the other three can find their American origins during the nation’s founding.

And with that introduction, he begins a rundown of these terms beginning with individualism. Of the four, individualism is probably the best known and most talked about. According to this writer, it is dominant today, but Elazar thought otherwise. This despite the fairly shared opinion that America, through the years, has been probably one of the most individualistic nations in the world.

As such, they are categorized as Lockean men and women. Each is pictured as a solitary entity contracting him/herself with other solitary actors through the arrangements spelled out in contracts – legally recognized agreements which are specific in their elements and reflecting transactional obligations. Within these agreements an assumed motivation of self-interest prevails.

With such a basic understanding, the role of government is limited to protecting the rights of each actor to be so engaged freely and hampered only by limitations that would undermine the actualization of such a system. For example, that government would legitimately issue laws and accompanying policing powers to make robbery punishable upon being found guilty of such behavior.

Short of such actions, individualism leads to a reality in which those who are most successful in the entailed competition of interests, can exert more influence – the rich tend to rule. History provides sufficient evidence to this consequence when individualism is dominant. American history offers such evidence and, one can argue, no less evidence than what the more recent years has demonstrated since the individualistic bias of the prevailing Reagan policy era which started in the 1980s still prevails.

Today, as a consequence, one reads such headlines as “Top 1% of U.S. Households Hold 15 Times More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Combined.”[2] Along with this level of what many consider irresponsibility by the rich and others, is the psychological reaction to this “everyone is his/her own domain.” That is a resulting, prevalent levels of alienation among the American populous.

As individualism increases and has been dominant since the years after World War II, there have been increased cases of anti-social activities and personal depression that one associates with an alienated social environment.[3] Interestingly, even the staunches individualists do seem to make exceptions to this more general view by allowing for kinship and friendships. Some of this can be found in the most individualistic hobs of social life, those being country clubs, fraternities/sororities on colleges campuses, and religious congregations, parishes, or temples (although this last religious category is not noted for being so individualistic).

The next posting will move on to collectivism – admittedly, a big conceptual jump from individualism. But one should keep in mind that this individualism does not lose its influence as one might be caught up in collectivist, corporative, and even federalist allegiances.

[1] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution? Thoroughly,” in a booklet of readings, Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute (conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994), 1-30, 12.

[2] Tommy Beer, “Top 1% of U.S. Households hold 15 Times More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Combined,” Forbes (October 8, 2020), accessed April 9, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/10/08/top-1-of-us-households-hold-15-times-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-combined/?sh=506a9c815179 .

[3] For example, “Alienation,” Healthline (n.d.), accessed April 9, 2021, https://www.healthline.com/health/alienation .

#political spectrum #individualism #Daniel J. Elazar #civics education #social studies

0 notes

theliterateape · 4 years ago

Text

Ten Things Harder to Acquire Than an Assault Weapon in America

by Don Hall

I woke up furious. Maybe it was the dreams I could vaguely remember. Perhaps it was my overwhelming sense of shame and guilt for being a white male who owns the Harry Potter books and likes to read Quillette. There is a possibility it was the recollection of that one time I told a beautiful woman she looked nice and was then hauled into HR for sexual harassment.

Whatever it was, I was enraged. I wanted to hurt people, hurt myself. I looked around and realized I had no weapons. Nothing to inflict the kind of damage I decided the rest of the world deserved.

I got busy.

"Lawn darts," I thought. "With. Like, thirty lawn darts I could wound a lot of people."

I went to Walmart. No lawn darts. I went to a few sporting goods stores. Not a single fucking lawn dart to be had. Not even one that I could get stabby with or re-use thirty or forty times.

A guy at the counter of the Home Depot told me that they were called "Jarts" and they were illegal for purchase. Turns out a couple of kids got injured by lawn darts and they were banned for sale.

What the H, E, double hockey sticks!?

What was deadly and available? Roquefort cheese. I could force-feed Roquefort down the throats of some people. They'd die of excessive cheese (especially if I found a movie theater or school for lactose-intolerant people). Fuck, yeah!

Except that Roquefort cheese is illegal in the U.S. Something about the FDA banning it because of concerns about harmful bacteria like E. coli and salmonella.

This is nuts!?

I suppose I could go get a car and drive through a Dairy Queen at a high speed but buying a car takes weeks and you have to have a driver's license. Also money. Getting a license is like living in a third world country trying to buy a goat. The freaking lines are ridiculous and the goats are notoriously uncooperative.

Sudafed? Nope. Something about meth.

I hunkered down and started to look into what someone, filled with rage and a desire for destruction and murderous intent, might do to maximize my lust for killing.

Imagine my surprise when I found out how flipping' easy is was to buy a high capacity automatic rifle. I mean, in Florida, it takes a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun but I can buy an AR-15 with nothing but cash and an ID.

Apparently, back in 1994, President Bill Clinton banned assault weapons but in 2004 the GOP controlled Senate let that order expire. Funny that in 1994, mass shootings went down dramatically but in 2004, they went up 290%. Thank you, GOP, right?

For a few thousand bucks, I can go to SportsmanOutdoorSuperstore.com and order a Savage MSR 15 Recon 2.0 5.56mm NATO AR-15 Rifle with M-LOK Rail just like I could buy a Cactus Back Scratcher from Amazon. Free shipping, too!

In April 1996, a 28-year-old man armed with semi-automatic rifles entered a cafe in the small Australian town of Port Arthur, shot and killed 35 people and injured 23 others. It was the worst mass shooting in Australian history.

The day after the massacre, the country’s prime minister, John Howard (a newly elected leader), started to put together the most sweeping gun control reforms ever contemplated by any Australian government.

The country passed the National Firearms Agreement, which banned automatic, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. It also introduced a stricter system for licensing and owning guns. The agreement is considered one of the strictest gun laws in the world.

SOURCE

Freaking commies. They have almost no mass shootings at all now.

Turns out ten days before the dude popped a cap in random strangers in Boulder, CO, Boulder County District Court Judge Andrew Hartman ruled that a 2018 ban, which outlawed the possession, sale or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (LCMs), was invalid because it ran contrary to state law. Four days later, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa grabbed himself one.

I smacked myself in the forehead. "Lawn darts!" I laughed. "I went shopping for lawn darts when I could get a portable murder machine without even law enforcement doing anything to stop me."

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

How Many Presidents Were Democrats And Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-presidents-were-democrats-and-republicans/

How Many Presidents Were Democrats And Republicans

The Party Thats Actually Best For The Economy

A Hudson Institute study found that the six years with the best growth were evenly split between Republican and Democrat presidents.

The chart below ranks the presidents since 1929 on the average annual increase in GDP.

President

1.4%

A president would have better growth if he had no recession.

The Issue Of Slavery: Enter Abraham Lincoln

Adams And The Revolution Of 1800

Confirming The Numbers Who Was Counted And Why

Bill Clinton: Impeached In 1998

J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

When the story went public, Clinton was forced to address the accusations on national television.

I want you to listen to me, Clinton famously said. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.

Andrew Johnson: Impeached In 1868

The 1868 impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson.

READ MORE: 150 Years Ago, a President Could Be Impeached for Firing a Cabinet Member

Acting President Of The United States

C Republicans Vs Democrats

Minneapolis Star-Tribune

The White House Store

Political Gifts Collectibles Republican & Democrat

891-8261

Democratic Party:

Policies of Democratic Presidents:

Republican Party:

Policies of RepublicanPresidents:

The Philosophy Behind Democratic Economic Policy

One dollar spent on increased food stamp benefits generates $1.73 in economic output.

If Convicted Removal From Office Possible Disqualification From Government Service

Political Parties Of The Presidents

Republican

Andrew Johnson

How Did This Switch Happen

But Republicans didn’t immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government.

Related: 7 great congressional dramas

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government?

Related: Busted: 6 Civil War myths

Additional resources:

/11 Terrorist Attack Bill Of Rights

Gallup: Democrats Now Outnumber Republicans By 9 Percentage Points Thanks To Independents

New Gallup polling finds that in the first quarter of 2021, an average of 49% of Americans identify with/lean toward the Democratic Party, versus 40 percent for Republicans.

That’s the largest gap since 2012:https://t.co/YpUvqBKxLx

Greg Sargent April 7, 2021