News from the bizarre, criminal Trumpland that you will not hear on Fox

Nick Ayers dumped Trump — biggest humilitation ever for Trump — smart move for Ayers

President Donald Trump has been historically unpopular since taking office and is now even showing cracks in his core constituency.

The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin has argued Trump’s popularity is only going to wane as he spars with House Democrats as special counsel Robert Mueller unveils his findings.

In a new column, Rubin counts off the people Trump has lost support from—including one that’s simply “humiliating.”

“Now even Nick Ayers, one of the most ambitious hired guns in the business — a man who has made millions from politics — won’t serve as his chief of staff,” she writes. “Having Ayers turn him down with no Plan B may not have been the worst moment of Trump’s presidency, but it’s certainly one of the most humiliating. To be blunt, when someone of Ayers’s ilk figures out it’s not in his interest to take one of the most sought-after jobs (normally) in government, you know Trump has become toxic.”

Ayers is just 36 years old and is known for his willingness to push hard for unpopular positions.

Rubin runs through the coalition that carried Trump to an electoral college victory and argues that the numbers bode very poorly for him, especially now that suburban white women are defecting in droves.

“With each staff shuffle, Trump’s staff and senior advisers get less professional and less willing to level with him,” she argues, citing the loss of UN ambassador Nikki Haley and her replacement with a PR person. “The result likely will be even more missteps and episodes such as the COS search (i.e., instances of abject incompetence). As Trump ‘wins’ less, those who admired him for his management acumen or who merely wanted to blow up the system may drift off as well. In sum, it’s very likely that Trump’s political isolation will get worse.”

Read the column here.


Michael Cohen provided information linking Trump campaign to “a foreign government”

An attorney who works for special counsel Robert Mueller’s office on Wednesday revealed that former Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen had given them “credible” and “valuable” information about what she described as “links between a campaign and a foreign government.”

As reported by Courthouse News’ Adam Klasfeld, Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor Jeannie Rhee told the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that Cohen had given her office information about connections between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government.

“Mr. Cohen has sought to tell us the truth,” Rhee said, according to Klasfeld.

Rhee declined to offer the court further details about the information Cohen provided, however, and said that “there’s only so much we can say about the particulars at this time, given our ongoing investigation.”

Cohen is being sentenced on Wednesday after he pleaded guilty to committing multiple felonies, including making illegal contributions on behalf of the Trump campaign and lying under oath to Congress about President Donald Trump’s efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow while running for president.

Jared and Ivanka, in typical criminal fashion, are defrauding low-income housing program to enrich themselves

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle reported on Tuesday that the Trump family and its associates are trying to game the federal Opportunity Zone program, which is meant to help low-income neighborhoods attract investment, to further enrich themselves.

Ruhle called out Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has invested in one such area.

“The Kushner companies are investing big in an opportunity zone in New Jersey that, oddly enough, is beachfront property. Look how beautiful that is,” Ruhle said, cutting to shots of the magnificent New Jersey shore.”Certainly not a downtrodden area. And that area is all within the designated zone for these big old tax breaks.”

Ruhle also called out Trump associate and real estate developer Richard LeFrak, who has a $4 billion property in an opportunity zone in Miami.

“Here’s what I want you to pay attention to: this development, he started it several years ago,” Ruhle said. “Because the project’s not done and they’re still investing, he’s going to get massive tax benefits. That’s called a windfall.”

Ruhle named other Trump-owned developments located in opportunity zones, including a hotel in Mississippi and a golf course in New Jersey.

“With the right maneuvering, this existing property, that means they could reinvest, do some upgrades. It could benefit from these big old tax breaks,” she said. “This is exactly why we insist our leaders divest and disclose.”

House GOP cancels hearing against minimum wage when they discover one of their “expert witnesses” wanted to tax people for being homosexual

House Republicans this week were forced to cancel an anti-minimum wage hearing they had scheduled after learning that one of their star witnesses wants to level taxes against people just for being gay.

Politico reports that the House Education and Workforce Committee had originally planned a hearing this week to discuss the perils of raising the federal minimum wage to $15.

Among the featured witness was San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia, who wrote a blog post in 2002 that was titled, “Tax Gay Sex.”

In the post, Sabia falsely claimed that homosexuals were primarily responsible for the outbreaks of diseases, thus necessitating they pay a financial penalty for their behavior.

“Homosexual activity has been responsible for devastating health outcomes — deadly HIV, hepatitis B, and various other sexually transmitted diseases,” he wrote. “When two random men get together and choose to have sex, there is not an insignificant risk of infection and death. And if these infected men then go on to have sex with women, then you have women — and possibly children — who will be stricken with AIDS.”

In a separate post, Sabia wrote that college girls should be considered “unpaid whores,” while writing that feminism had “taught young women that equality is achieved by acting like promiscuous sluts.”

Is EVERY TeaPublican an imbecile? Certainly looks like it.

Democrats erupt into laughter after Google CEO has to explain to Rep. Steve King that the ‘iPhone is made by a different company’

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai was asked some difficult questions. None was more difficult than a question asked by Iowa Rep. Steve King, however, whose question was literally impossible for Pichai to answer.

King said his 7-year-old granddaughter was playing a game on her phone before an election — most likely King’s November 2018 reelection bid — and was shown a picture of the congressman that included some not-so-flattering language.

“I’m not going to say into the record what kind of language was used around that picture of her grandfather,” he said. Then, holding up his Apple device, King asked Pichai, “How does that show up on a 7-year-old’s iPhone who’s playing a kids game?”

The Google CEO answered the question by saying, “Congressman, iPhone is made by a different company.”  Google has nothing to do with the content on an iPhone.

Read more:

Pelosi and Schumer rip Trump and his lies into pieces, leave him quivering and sobbing on the floor

Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer went to the Oval Office Tuesday to serve notice to Donald Trump that the days of doing and saying whatever he damn well pleases with zero facts to back it up are done. Trump’s factless antics had worked fine with a complicit Republican party that did everything possible to keep their Dear Leader pampered and happy, but the pamper party is over.

The two Democrats went to the White House to “negotiate in good faith,” as Pelosi put it, over funding to keep the government open. Trump wants $5 billion for the border wall he originally pledged Mexico would pay for but is now demanding the American taxpayers fund. But pouring that much money into a border wall is a nonstarter for congressional Democrats, who will happily put more money into border security, but not a wall that experts say will accomplish very little, if anything.

Pelosi clearly went into the meeting hoping for decorum and, perhaps, even some progress in the negotiations. Schumer wanted to make it clear that Democrats hoped to avoid a shutdown, but not if the price tag was $5 billion for a wall. Trump planned to ambush them with all kinds of fantastically false statistics written on flash cards about how the border wall would solve nearly all of the nation’s immigration problems (the fact checks will be fun). That’s where the fun began.

After Trump said he could get his wall funding passed through the House “in two seconds,” Pelosi explained to Trump that, actually, he doesn’t have enough Republican votes in the House to pass $5 billion for the wall.

“There are no votes in the House—majority of votes—for a wall,” said Pelosi, widely known as the best vote counter in a generation of House speakers.

“Exactly right,” added Schumer.

Trump countered, saying that if he wanted, “in one session, it would be done.”

Pelosi: “Well then, go do it.”

Trump continued to insist he had the votes in the House, but the Senate was the real problem.”It doesn’t help because we need 10 Democrats in the Senate,” he said.

Before Schumer could jump in, Pelosi reiterated: “The fact is, you do not have the votes in the House.”

Here it’s important to note that Pelosi and Schumer have given Trump two ways to avoid shutting down the government: Pass a half dozen funding measures that have already been agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans and then do a one-year continuing resolution to fund Homeland Security; or do a one-year continuing resolution for all seven appropriations bills that will keep the government funded at its current level. Both options would punt on the biggest sticking points but would also avoid a shutdown.

Trump’s position is that, since neither of those options provides $5 billion in wall funding, they’re dead on arrival.

Back to the Oval. Trump claimed without any evidence that “terrorists” are “pouring into our country.” Schumer reminded Trump that the Washington Post just awarded Trump “a whole lot of Pinocchios” for his unfounded claims about the wall.

Schumer then clarified that Democrats disagree with him about the wall, but not about border security.

“We do not want to shut down the government,” Schumer told Trump, before reminding him of his consistent fervor over a government shutdown. “You have called 20 times to shut down the government,” Schumer recalled, “You say, ‘I want to shut down the government!’ We don’t—we want to come to an agreement. […] We have solutions that will pass the House and the Senate right now and will not shut down the government. And that’s what we’re urging you to do—not threaten to shut down the government because you can’t get your way.”

Trump rejected the path laid out by Schumer, saying, “If it’s not good border security, I won’t take it.”

Trump and Schumer at this point, seated about five feet from each other, were about as close to going to blows from a political standpoint as it gets.

Pelosi then tried to intervene. “Let’s call a halt to this,” she said, adding that she and Schumer had come to the White House to negotiate “’in good faith’ about how we can keep the government open.”

Instead of taking the invitation to call a temporary truce, Trump replied, “We’re going to keep it open, if we have border security.”

Pelosi responded, “I’m with you, we are going to have border security.”

Schumer took that momentary Kumbaya moment over having “border security” to box Trump in. “You’re bragging about what has been done,” Schumer remarked. “By us,” Trump added, declaring credit, but also boxing himself in further.

“We want to do the same thing we did last year, this year,” Schumer explained. In other words, if what you did was so great last year, let’s do it again and avoid the shutdown. “If it’s good then, it’s good now, and it won’t shut down the government,” Schumer explained, offering to have further “debate in private.” (Note: This is the second time the Democratic leaders try to move to a private debate so, as Pelosi explained, they wouldn’t have to publicly tell the president, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

A reporter then asked Trump if it’s possible to have border security “without the wall.”

“You need the wall—the wall is a part of border security,” Trump said, digging in his heels before reporters could be ushered out of the room. “You can’t have very good border security without the wall—no,” Trump reiterated, punctuating his point.

Pelosi wasn’t having it. “That’s just absolutely not true—that is a political promise,” Pelosi said, reducing Trump’s supposed point of fact down to exactly what it is, rhetoric.

Schumer quickly jumped in with, “The experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn’t solve the problem.”

Trump couldn’t stand it. “It totally solves the problem,” he parried.

At that point, Pelosi noted the debate had “spiraled downward.” She and Schumer, she said, had come to meet with Trump in order to figure out how “to meet the needs of the American people.” Pelosi added, “This is most unfortunate.”

Trump countered, “But it’s not bad, Nancy, it’s called transparency.”

“It’s not transparency when we’re not stipulating to a set of facts,” Pelosi responded, noting that they had hoped to have a more clear-eyed discussion about the issues.

“You know what,” Trump said interrupting Pelosi, “we need border security—that’s what we’re going to be talking about—border security. If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

Finally, Pelosi had had enough. If Trump was going to insist on prosecuting a bogus case publicly, Pelosi was going to call B.S.

“Let me just say this, what the president is representing in terms of his cards over there, are not factual. We have to have an evidence-based conversation about what does work, what money has been spent, and how effective it is,” Pelosi explained. “This is about the security of our country, we take an oath to protect and defend, and we don’t want to have that mischaracterized by anyone,” she stated.

On that last part, Trump finally conceded, “I agree with that.”

Pelosi once again tried for a wrap, suggesting they have a private conversation where “we don’t have to contradict in public the statistics that you put forth,” instead allowing them to have an unfettered conversation about both what might work and what the nation actually needs.

Schumer took the moment to once again voice Democrats’ opposition to a shutdown. “The one thing I think we can agree on is, we shouldn’t shut down the government over a dispute—and you want to shut it down,” he said looking at Trump, “You keep talking about it.”

That drew Trump back in. “Last time,” Trump said, “you shut it down.”

Schumer stuck to his point. “20 times, 20 times, 20 times you have called for: ‘I will shut down the government if I don’t get my wall.'”

“You want to know something,” Trump started, trying to get a point in.

Schumer interrupted. “You’ve said it, you’ve said it,” he reiterated, goading Trump.

“Okay,” Trump said, bucking up, “I’ll take it.”

“Okay, good,” Schumer said, nodding in agreement.

Trump continued, “You know what I’ll say: Yes, if we don’t get what we want, one way or the other—whether it’s through you, through military, through anything you want to call—I will shut down the government, absolutely.” Trump then added, puffing out his chest a little further, “And I’ll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck. […] I will take the mantle, I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. […] and I’m going to shut it down for border security. Okay.”

Schumer was fine with that point of agreement, offering, “But we believe you shouldn’t shut it down.”

By the time Trump had stopped talking and reporters were ushered out, he had promised to shut down the government over his wall at least another half dozen times. Back on Capitol Hill, Pelosi broke down Trump’s braggadocio over the wall for her Democratic colleagues.

“It’s like a manhood thing for him. As if manhood could ever be associated with him. This wall thing,” said the California congresswoman.


Trump stormed out of his meeting with Pelosi and Schumer, raving, foaming at the mouth, unhinged

Los Angeles Times White House reporter Eli Stokols said Tuesday that President Trump “stormed out” of the Oval Office after a meeting Tuesday with key Democrats (Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer) and threw a folder full of papers out of frustration.

“He stormed out of the Oval, walked into an anteroom just off the Oval Office and had in his hand a folder of briefing papers. And he just scattered them out of frustration – threw them across the room,” Stokols said on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” citing his own reporting with White House officials.

Stokols, the Los Angeles Times reporter, also said Tuesday on “Hardball” that Trump was frustrated with Schumer following the meeting.

“His old New York sparring buddy, he felt, got the better of him,” Stokols said.

Read more:

How and why the Republican Party became the party of white supremacists, Nazis, and Donald Trump

At what point in the historical development of today’s Republican Party did it move to the “dark side?”

Does this question appear to be nothing but a partisan slur? If so, then consider a different sort of question: why do all the neo-Nazis take their “alt-right” principles in the Republican direction instead of peddling them to the Democrats? What is it about the Republican Party that attracts them?

In Lincoln’s time, it was the other way around: it was the nineteenth-century Democrats who touted race theory and prided themselves on their “whiteness.” True, there were bigots in the early Republican Party, but the Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner were visionary advocates of racial equality and for years it was the “Lincoln Republicans” who held the allegiance of blacks.

Blacks quite properly regarded the Democratic Party as bad news for them.

The Democrats remained the “white man’s party” for the rest of the nineteenth century — and indeed through the age of Woodrow Wilson. But in the 1930s a tremendous change was ushered in through the leadership of people like Eleanor Roosevelt. By 1948, the Democrats were beginning to embrace civil rights, and by the sixties, racist southerners were leaving. By the twenty-first century the Democrats, and not the Republicans, would be the party to put the first African American president in office.

And so our parties changed and evolved.

In our own generation, the Republican Party has changed and transformed itself beyond recognition: it has moved in a direction that is overwhelmingly and catastrophically sinister. But perhaps it can still be redeemed.

Millions of Republicans today remain decent, rational, and ethical. The Republican governor of my own state, Maryland, provides a good example of their leadership. He is friendly to those who disagree with him. He prides himself on working cooperatively “across the aisle.” He was just re-elected with strong bipartisan support. His name is Larry Hogan and his counterparts exist all over the country.

But do people like my governor typify the way that the Republican Party is projecting itself to America — and the world?

The Republican Party put Donald Trump in the Oval Office and there is no use mincing any words about what that has meant for millions of us.

Nothing like this has ever happened in America before. We have had some bad presidents, mediocre presidents, crooked presidents, but never before has the White House occupant given us a daily torrent of hallucinatory abuse, spewing insults in every direction. It is almost as if a cave man — a Stone Age man — had been placed in the presidency, a position that requires the utmost tact, the most delicate finesse, the most exquisite poise to calibrate the interests of all the millions of people who depend upon the United States of America for protection.

Protection? It is almost laughable to think about America playing that role any longer in the age of Donald Trump.

He is interested in protecting certain kinds of people — himself, the members of his selfish family, the rich, the powerful, the tyrants like Vladimir Putin who subvert the democratic process. But the weak — the victims of hurricanes in Puerto Rico, the refugees who come here seeking asylum, a haven, a chance to contribute to America — he subjects to a level of abuse that is completely insane. He ridicules, vilifies, persecutes, and demonizes them with a sadistic kind of relish that is almost in itself demonic. And the members of his “base” just love it.

Republican leaders in general are terrified of this “base,” so they conform and evade their civic duty.

There have been some notable exceptions, of course: conservatives like George F. Will who have left the Republican Party, patriots like the late John McCain who refused to participate in Trumpism, Jeff Flake and some other Republican mavericks who have been honest enough to see Trump for what he is, and some moderates like Susan Collins who dissent in meek and quiet ways.

But the “base” and the politicians who stoke its appetites continue to define the Republican agenda.

What is it that motivates this “base?” Mindless power lust mostly, along with the hellish satisfaction of cruelty. Domination gets the members of Trump’s base excited, especially when they get to watch the lives of helpless people ruined. The militant so-called “evangelicals” within the movement take particular pleasure in turning the principles of the Sermon on the Mount upside down and then feeling self-righteous. Like Milton’s Satan, their motto appears to be “Evil, be thou my good.” Roy Moore was their poster boy last year. “Christians” they call themselves.

These are the kinds of people who would like to make the social and political rules for the rest of us. Donald Trump is what they want to be themselves. They believe that they and their hero are entitled to order the rest of us around.

They are turning the party whose leaders once portrayed it as the party of wholesome traditional values — of motherhood and apple pie, as it were — into the party of the thug in the alley and the vengeful kick below the belt.

How on earth did such a thing happen?

It took a long time. It started in the nineties when Republicans like Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Dick Armey tried to nullify the presidency of Bill Clinton with their scorched-earth tactics. The same thing was done to the presidency of Obama by the so-called “Freedom Caucus” in the House. Sarah Palin made far-right lunacy a breakthrough force in American politics when John McCain made the dreadful mistake of putting her on his ticket in 2008. It started a contagion: suddenly conspiracy theorists and crackpots of all descriptions were spreading their sickness.

In the Senate, Ted Cruz made the politics of far-right extremism so corrosive that he became a pariah. But that didn’t really matter to him since he represented the force that was taking over the Republican Party. The Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner said that Cruz was “Lucifer incarnate.” That was after Boehner had decided to resign and give up on politics.

Scores of Republican moderates began to give up on politics — in despair. As they did so, the Koch Brothers poured their endless millions into targeted campaigns to get rid of the moderates who were left.

Fox and Breitbart “News” provided powerful platforms for strange new fanatics like Sean Hannity and Steve Bannon. Meanwhile, the first African American presidency triggered a reflex in thousands of racists, who emerged from deep in the woodwork. The “alt right” began a revival of neo-Nazi ideas. They took over from the isolated “skinheads” who had pioneered the work in the nineties.

The trend reached critical mass in election year 2016 when a rich degenerate with no inhibitions showed the world what a strategy composed of shameless ranting can do to the electoral process — ranting that continues without intermission and that ramifies day after day through the new technological catastrophe known as “social media.” An eruption of primitivism from nameless underground sources began to contaminate our public life. “Trolls,” as people called them, were empowered and began to call the shots.

And so America was given a president who in other circumstances would have had all the credentials for becoming a fascist dictator. He was fenced in quickly by our long-entrenched system of checks and balances, augmented and supported by the patriotic sacrifice of people like James Mattis and John Kelly, who occupied some key power positions to keep them out of the hands of others.

Trump was fenced in, so his explosive frustration and rage — his rage at being unable to act out every brutal whim — was poured into a never-ending torrent of moronic “tweets” that rubbed salt in the wound of every civilized person in America. And now he has an assistant, an echo, a shadow: after his first press secretary left, that job was taken over by the zombie who is currently the mouthpiece of Trump: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who indignantly defends the indefensible.

And the rest of us? For two miserable years we have simply prayed for relief — prayed that the incubus lurking in the White House will shut his stupid mouth for a while so the nation can heal.

We have seethed and suffered for two wretched years, but at last the Republicans have lost control of the House. So impeachment is now a real option. The Senate, of course, will refuse to convict — unless the Mueller probe reveals such a shocking abundance of criminality (or treason, if Trump’s secret deals with Vladimir Putin crossed a fundamental line) that even the most amoral of the Republican power brokers, the ruthless Mitch McConnell for example, will see the advantage of dumping this berserker.

If Trump can be impeached, removed, and sent to prison — yeah, lock him up — what future awaits the Republicans?

The decent members of the party — and there are millions of them, ordinary people who refuse to believe that such degeneration can happen in a party that they and their families have supported over so many years — may awaken, rub their eyes, and see that only people like themselves can give us back the party of Abraham Lincoln, of Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Do they feel powerless? If so, they must begin to consider all the ways in which decent people can empower themselves.

Stranger things have happened in America. But the cleansing of the once-magnificent Republican Party may take a long time.

Trump — AKA “Individual 1” — feels the noose tightening; no one wants to work for him

Donald Trump was ‘humiliated’ after his first choice for White House chief of staff, Nick Ayers, turned turned him down.

Ayers, 36, the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence and Trump’s first choice to replace John Kelly, turned down the position to return to Georgia with his family, a senior official claimed.

Trump has now been forced to restart the search process with uncertainty looming as he begins the 2020 campaign with pressure from the FBI’s Russia Investigation.

He must also contend with Democrats who will take over the House next moth and who have promised tougher oversight – and may even pursue impeachment.

Read more:

Making America Great Again:  Verizon to shed 10,000 workers

Verizon said Monday that about 10,400 employees will be leaving the U.S. wireless carrier by mid next year as part of the company’s voluntary separation program.

The New York company has been looking at cutting costs as it ramps up investment in its next generation 5G network, which is expected to fuel growth. The company has said it was on track to reach $10 billion in cumulative cash savings by 2021.

As part of the separation program, the employees will get a salary of up to 60 weeks, bonus and benefits, depending on the length of their service, Verizon said.

“This program coincides with Verizon’s recently announced realigned organization structure designed to optimize growth opportunities in the 5G era,” the company said. The company said it had 152,300 employees at the end of the third-quarter ending Sept. 30. -END.

Read more:


Trump is cornered . . . no way he’s getting out of this

Special counsel Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, according to a journalist who helped expose wrongdoing by former President Richard Nixon that helped lead to the only White House resignation in history.

CNN’s Carl Bernstein, who with Washington Post colleague Bob Woodward in the early 1970s broke a series of key stories on Watergate, on Sunday cited a recent sentencing memo regarding Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer. That could prompt impeachment proceedings against the president, Bernstein said. Federal prosecutors in New York filed the document last week.

[But] there’s something much more important than just impeachment going on, and that is the fact that Donald Trump for the first time in his life is cornered,” Bernstein said on CNN’s “Reliable Sources”. “As a businessman, he always could bully his way out of a corner, he always could buy his way out, cheat his way out. He is boxed in by [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller and the people around him know that he is.”

Cohen, who was also Trump’s longtime personal attorney, pleaded guilty in August to a range of charges. That included two related to efforts made ahead of the 2016 election to silence two women, including porn star Stormy Daniels, about their alleged extramarital affairs with the president more than a decade ago. The case by the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York case emanated from a referral by Mueller.

Image result for trump cornered rat photo

Newly-elected Muslim woman slaps the shit out of “Bishop” EW Jackson

E.W. Jackson, a self-proclaimed “bishop” from Virginia Beach, VA, who claims he is not Islamaphobic, expressed his horror that Democratic legislators are hoping to reverse a ban prohibiting headwear from being worn on the House floor in his radio show. For people who wear headwear for religious reasons, this rule creates an obvious problem. But as The Hill first reported, Jackson expressed his concerns on his radio program and, well, they’re pretty Islamaphobic.

“The floor of Congress is now going to look like an Islamic republic,” Jackson said. “We are a Judeo-Christian country. We are a nation rooted and grounded in Christianity and that’s that.”

Representative-elect Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women to enter Congress, has become the face of the movement to have this rule reversed. So it’ s no surprise she responded to Jackson’s comments.

Well sir, the floor of Congress is going to look like America… And you’re gonna have to just deal


“It’s very simple. Just go live somewhere else,” Jackson continued in his radio show. “Don’t try to change our country into some sort of Islamic republic or try to base our country on Sharia law.”

As Bustle points out, the origins of the ban (which includes the phrase: “every member shall remain uncovered during the sessions of the House”) don’t seem to have much to do with religion to begin with.

In fact, it seems that lawmakers were more concerned with men’s hats than someone’s religious headwear. But regardless to what lawmakers were thinking at the time, our current representatives should never be in a position where they have to choose between wearing garb that aligns with their religious beliefs and appearing on the House floor. 

Beyond just the individual lawmaker’s comfort, seeing religious diversity represented in our government is also significant. Omar, who defeated Republican Jennifer Zielinski in November, is being celebrated for a lot of important reasons. She’ s not only the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in Congress, but she’ s also the first Somali-American woman elected to a governing body here in the United States. Alongside Rashida Tlaib, she is the first Muslim woman serving in Congress.

“Now, don’t get me wrong,” Jackson said. “I believe in the freedom of religion, I believe in the First Amendment, but I’ll tell you what, I’m not voting for a Muslim to serve in any office. Me, personally, I’m not doing it. I’m not doing it. Period. I’m not doing it.”

And Jackson? He lost a Republican primary in May, where he attempted to represent Virginia in the Senate. 

Trump stock market continues to drop like a rock

U.S. stock futures fell on Sunday night as traders feared an intensifying trade war between the United States and China.

Dow Jones Industrial Average futures dropped 260 points, implying a decline of 236.95 points at Monday’s open. S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 futures also declined. The losses would add to a steep decline from last week.

Read more:

Trump nothing but a slick used car salesman

President Donald Trump has been tweeting that the recent sentencing memos vindicate him of all involvement in the Russia scandal. It isn’t clear if Trump is being fed false information or is trying to convince himself that everything is OK. Former Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio, however, thinks Trump is nothing more than a shady car salesman trying to feed a line to the American people. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley thinks this might be a major reason Trump can’t get a chief of staff to commit to work with him.

In a Sunday CNN panel discussion, host Ana Cabrera wondered if Trump was intentionally staying in the dark so he could have plausible deniability about special counsel Robert Mueller’s memos.

D’Antonio didn’t think Trump was likely to be able to not know what was happening.

“I think he is alert to what is in the newspapers,” D’Antonio explained. “I think the Washington Post and New York Times are on his bed every morning as he is tuning into Fox News. So, he is aware of what is going on. he is just trying to persuade us and persuade himself that it is not as bad as it really is.”

Brinkley noted that it isn’t necessary for Mueller to indict Trump to be impeached, but the president will try and claim that it’s all political if Congress files impeachment charges. The investigation in the Senate will likely be a joke if Congress moves forward with impeachment.

When it came to a brief discussion about Nick Ayers turning down the chief of staff gig, D’Antonio said the only person that gets along with Trump at this point is Mike Pence, but it might just be because he stays out of Trump’s way.

“I think if he could appoint Mike Pence, that might be a good choice because he is about the only one that seems to be able to get along with the president consistently,” the biographer said. “And he may do that just by staying out of his way. It is hard to say that there is one personality type that would work here. Kelly and Reince Priebus were very different, but they both failed. For all the wonderful things that people were saying about Kelly, now that he is a dead man walking, he was not able to bring order to the White House. He wasn’t able to get over the tweeting, and he wasn’t able to get control or access to the president.”

D’Antonio said that Ayers seems to understand that it’s a “losing proposition” to even try to go up against Trump.

Cabrera wondered if it was all simply typical changing of the guard, but Brinkley said no.

“This is a Trump administration unraveling,” he said. “Nobody wants to have the name Donald Trump next to them on their resume. We just had multiple felony charges against the president by the Department of Justice. And it will only get worse. Who wants to go sit in the White House with Donald Trump fuming and tweeting as this were in a crisis mode, perhaps Constitutional crisis, in the coming months?”

He assumed that Ayers thought he could do it for a few months to give the White House some time, but he doesn’t want to be the one to handle Trump through the next two years of legal nightmares.