Tag: Democrats

Supreme Court: Democrats and Republicans seek hints for how Barrett will rule on health care law

For the second day of Barrett’s questioning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the health care law was a dominant topic on both sides of the aisle thanks to the looming November case the Supreme Court will hear on a Republican effort to strike down the law.

Both Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the panel’s top Democrat, asked President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee about the legal doctrine of “severability,” or whether the entire law can stand if one part of it is deemed unconstitutional, during Barrett’s second day of questions before the committee on Wednesday.

It’s a concept that could play a key factor in the case from Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration that seeks to strike down the Affordable Care Act case next month. They argue the entire law, commonly known as Obamacare, should be struck down because the law’s individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional.

Barrett explained to Feinstein, a California Democrat, that severability was like a game of “Jenga.”

“If you picture severability being like a Jenga game, it’s kind of like, if you pull one out, can you pull it out while it all stands? If you pull two out, will it all stand?” Barrett asked. “Severability is designed to say well would Congress still want the statute to stand even with the provision gone?”

Graham, during his questioning of Barrett, seemed to suggest he thought that the Affordable Care Act could be saved because of severability, saying the doctrine’s “goal is to preserve the statute if that is possible.”

“From a conservative point of view, generally speaking, we want legislative bodies to make laws, not judges,” Graham said, before asking Barrett, “Would it be further true, if you can preserve a statue you try to, if possible?”

“That is true,” Barrett said.

“That’s the law folks,” Graham responded.

The challenge to President Barack Obama’s health care law from Republican state attorneys general and the Trump administration has become a central issue in this year’s election in part due to Barrett’s confirmation. Democrats have focused their arguments during Barrett’s confirmation hearings on the way the law has provided care for individuals.

But Senate Republicans, who back the lawsuit to kill the law, have backed away from that implication in the lead-up to Election Day. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is also up for reelection, said during his debate Monday that “no one believes” the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law.
Graham, who is facing a tough reelection fight this year, raised the severability argument but also launched into another attack on the health care law, “Obamacare is on the ballot.”
How Jaime Harrison's campaign could spend $57 million before Election Day

The South Carolina Republican praised Barrett’s record, comparing her to Obama’s nominees Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, calling Barrett the first woman nominated to the high court who is “unashamedly pro-life.”

Just as they did during Tuesday’s lengthy questioning, Democrats sought to pin down Barrett on a number of topics she could hear in the future, including voting

Continue reading

Republicans defend Barrett confirmation hearing; Democrats warn she would overturn healthcare law

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned of a “long, contentious week” of confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, but pledged to try to deliver a fair process as Republicans aim to sprint President Trump’s nominee to the court by election day.



a group of people sitting at a table: Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett arrives for her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Monday. (Caroline Brehman/Pool via AP)


© Provided by The LA Times
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett arrives for her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Monday. (Caroline Brehman/Pool via AP)

“This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens,” Graham said, addressing the senators in the hearing room and those watching remotely. “All the Republicans will vote yes and all the Democrats will vote no,” he predicted.

Loading...

Load Error

Graham defended Republicans’ decision to move the nomination so close to the November election following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Graham previously promised twice that he would not fill a Supreme Court vacancy if it occurred in an election year. Those assurances came after Republicans in 2016 blocked President Obama from filling a vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, saying it was too close to the election.

“Republicans should honor this word,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) of Graham’s promise, “and let the American people be heard. Simply put, I believe we should not be moving forward on this nomination. Not until the election is ended and the next president has taken office.”

Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm Barrett just days before the election.

“There is nothing unconstitutional about this process,” Graham said.

Democrats are pinning their strategy to block the nomination on tying Barrett to the possible elimination of the Affordable Care Act. The fate of the law will be decided by a Supreme Court case to be heard shortly after the election.

“We can’t afford to back to those days when Americans were denied coverage,” Feinstein said, pointing to past comments by Barrett about problems with the 2010 law.

Republicans view Barrett’s nomination as a rare opportunity to create a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority as well as energize voters to turn out at the ballot box for the president and Senate Republicans in increasingly difficult races.

Two Senate Republicans have voiced opposition to confirming a nominee so close to the election after Republicans blocked President Obama’s pick to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, after Scalia died in February 2016.

Barrett, a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge and former professor at the University of Notre Dame, plans to tell the committee that “policy decisions and value judgments” should be made by elected officials, not the courts, according to her prepared remarks.

Her opening statement, released Sunday, emphasizes a respect for precedent and settled law, and a view that the courts are “not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.”

The tension around Barrett’s confirmation hearing has only increased in the wake of two Judiciary Committee Republicans coming down with COVID-19. Both senators could have

Continue reading

Democrat’s praise of strict gun law roils Kansas Senate race

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans on Sunday circulated a video of the Democrats’ candidate for an open U.S. Senate seat in Kansas praising strict Australian gun laws that she said “took them all away” to undercut her campaign as a political moderate in what’s been an unexpectedly tough red-state race for the GOP.



U.S. Rep. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., the Republican nominee for an open U.S. Senate seat in Kansas, speaks during a stop in a GOP bus tour of the state, Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2020, in Topeka, Kan. Asked about President Donald Trump's tweet after being treated for coronavirus that people should not fear COVID-19, Marshall told reporters, "Of course, I think everyone should respect the virus." (AP Photo/John Hanna)


© Provided by Associated Press
U.S. Rep. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., the Republican nominee for an open U.S. Senate seat in Kansas, speaks during a stop in a GOP bus tour of the state, Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2020, in Topeka, Kan. Asked about President Donald Trump’s tweet after being treated for coronavirus that people should not fear COVID-19, Marshall told reporters, “Of course, I think everyone should respect the virus.” (AP Photo/John Hanna)

Democrat Barbara Bollier’s spokeswoman accused Republican Roger Marshall’s campaign of being “duplicitous” in highlighting the video from an Oct. 3 “lawn chair chat” at a Kansas City-area park. Bollier’s campaign released longer audio from the same event that included moments in which Bollier said she supports the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting gun rights and recalled hunting with her father.

The race appears to be close between Marshall, a two-term congressman for western and central Kansas, and Bollier, a Kansas City-area state senator who was a lifelong moderate Republican before switching parties late in 2018. As the GOP fights to keep its 53-47 majority in the Senate, Marshall and his supporters have attacked Bollier on issues that favor Republicans in much of the state, including gun rights.

Both a 2 1/2-minute video clip provided to The Associated Press by the Marshall campaign and longer audio from Bollier’s show that she noted that an adult daughter lives in Australia and praised a law there that in the 1990s forced owners of 700,000 guns to sell them to the government as “this amazing thing.”

“They have no guns. They don’t allow them. They just took them all away,” Bollier told her audience. “And you know what? It’s pretty darn safe.”

Bollier also noted that Australia imposes licensing and training requirements for gun owners. Kansas law allows adults to carry weapons openly, and it allows them to carry concealed firearms without a permit — a policy Bollier opposed as a legislator when it was enacted in 2015.

“Who thinks you can just go out and have a gun? Seriously,” Bollier said. “You can’t drive a car without training. You can’t basically do anything without some kind of training. This is a lethal weapon.”

As the video clip began circulating, Bollier tweeted Sunday afternoon: “I do not support gun confiscation. I never have. I never will.”

Republicans have not lost a Senate race in Kansas since 1932, but Bollier has flooded the airwaves with ads that have included testimonials from former GOP state lawmakers.

The race had seen a Kansas record of $32 million in advertising as of last week, with Marshall and his allies being outspent, according to the media advertising firm Advertising Analytics.

Bollier’s campaign

Continue reading

Democrat’s Praise of Strict Gun Law Roils Kansas Senate Race | Political News

By JOHN HANNA, AP Political Writer

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans on Sunday circulated a video of the Democrats’ candidate for an open U.S. Senate seat in Kansas praising strict Australian gun laws that she said “took them all away” to undercut her campaign as a political moderate in what’s been an unexpectedly tough red-state race for the GOP.

Democrat Barbara Bollier’s spokeswoman accused Republican Roger Marshall’s campaign of being “duplicitous” in highlighting the video. Bollier’s campaign released longer audio from the same event that included moments in which Bollier said she supports the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting gun rights and recalled hunting with her father.

The race appears to be close between Marshall, a two-term congressman for western and central Kansas, and Bollier, a Kansas City-area state senator who was a lifelong moderate Republican before switching parties late in 2018. As the GOP fights to keep its 53-47 majority in the Senate, Marshall and his supporters have attacked Bollier on issues that favor Republicans in much of the state, including gun rights.

Both a 2 1/2-minute video clip provided to The Associated Press by the Marshall campaign and the longer audio from Bollier’s show that she noted that an adult daughter lives in Australia and praised a law there that in the 1990s forced owners of 700,000 guns to sell them to the government as “this amazing thing.”

“They have no guns. They don’t allow them. They just took them all away,” Bollier told her audience. “And you know what? It’s pretty darn safe.”

Bollier also noted that Australia imposes licensing and training requirements for gun owners. Kansas law allows adults to carry weapons openly, and it allows them to carry concealed firearms without a permit — a policy Bollier opposed a legislator when it was enacted in 2015.

“Who thinks you can just go out and have gun? Seriously,” Bollier said. “You can’t drive a car without training. You can’t basically do anything with some kind of training. This is a lethal weapon.”

As the video clip began circulating, Bollier tweeted Sunday afternoon: “I do not support gun confiscation. I never have. I never will.”

Republicans have not lost a Senate race in Kansas since 1932, but Bollier has flooded the airwaves with ads that have included testimonials from former GOP state lawmakers.

The race had seen a Kansas record of $32 million in advertising as of last week, with Marshall and his allies being outspent, according to the media advertising firm Advertising Analytics.

Bollier’s campaign had spent more than $9 million, with outside groups paying for about $8 million more. Nearly 90% of the roughly $14.5 million in ads for Marshall were covered by outside groups, with the Marshall campaign spending about $1.5 million, according to Advertising Analytics.

Bollier’s remarks on guns first were reported Sunday by The Washington Free Beacon conservative site. Marshall’s campaign manager, Eric Pahls, texted a 36-second excerpt to The Associated Press. He later provided a link to a longer

Continue reading

Ben Sasse: Democrats nixing filibuster ‘suicide bombing’ of government

  • Sen. Ben Sasse slammed Joe Biden and Senate Democrats for declining to state their position on expanding the Supreme Court and called out the party for considering an elimination of the filibuster, according to The Hill.
  • “What they’re really talking about — or refusing to talk about — is the suicide bombing of two branches of government,” Sasse said.
  • Joe Biden has stated that he’ll express his position on adding seats to the Supreme Court after the election.
  • Amid questions about how Judge Amy Coney Barrett would rule in major cases, Sasse defended her, saying that she was “very clear about her jurisprudence” as “an originalist and a textualist.”
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Sen. Ben Sasse on Sunday harshly criticized Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden for declining to state his position on expanding the Supreme Court and called out Senate Democrats for considering an elimination of the filibuster if they were to win a majority in November, according to The Hill.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” the first-term GOP senator said that any attempts to eliminate the 60-vote rule to advance legislation and add seats to the Supreme Court would amount to a “suicide bombing” of government. When asked about his position on “court packing,” Biden has consistently said that he didn’t want his decision to be a headline and would state his position after the November election.

“It’s grotesque that Vice President Biden won’t answer that really basic question,” Sasse said. “And it isn’t just one branch of government. What they’re really talking about — or refusing to talk about — is the suicide bombing of two branches of government.”

He added: “What they’re talking about is blowing up the deliberative structure of the United States Senate by abolishing the filibuster and making it possible to turn the Senate into just another House of Representatives where every two years, by a 51-49 or 49-51 majority, major portions of American life change. And they’re talking about doing that to pack the Supreme Court.”

 

Hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, are set to begin this week amid outcry from Democrats over her ideology and the accelerated timeline of the confirmation process.

Sasse expressed his support for Barrett in the interview, saying that she was “very clear about her jurisprudence, she’s an originalist and a textualist.”

Amid heavy speculation on how she would rule in cases threatening the Affordable Care Act or abortion, Sasse added that judges “don’t advocate for policy positions” and that “we shouldn’t have either Democrats or Republicans on the committee trying to figure out how can they divine the future of how they’re going to rule on particular cases.”

If Barrett were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, it would cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the bench. Biden has firmly maintained his stance that the winner of the November election should make the judicial nomination.

S

Continue reading

Sasse accuses Democrats of ‘suicide bombing of two branches of government’

Sen. Ben SasseBenjamin (Ben) Eric SasseSunday shows preview: Trump, top Republicans recover from COVID-19; stimulus bill remains in limbo GOP vows quick confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court pick amid coronavirus turmoil McConnell: Plan is to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court pick before election MORE (R-Neb.) said on Sunday that Democrats expanding the Supreme Court and ending the filibuster would be “suicide bombing” and called Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenDemocratic poll shows neck-and-neck race brewing in Florida House district Nebraska district could prove pivotal for Biden in November Bringing Black men back home MORE’s refusal to clarify whether he would expand the court “grotesque.”

“It’s grotesque that Vice President Biden won’t answer that very basic question,” Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The Nebraska Republican said an expansion of the court, combined with the elimination of the filibuster, would constitute a “suicide bombing” that would “blow up” their respective branches of government and “turn the Senate into just another House of Representatives.”

Sasse also defended Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President TrumpDonald John TrumpNorth Korea unveils large intercontinental ballistic missile at military parade Trump no longer considered a risk to transmit COVID-19, doctor says New ad from Trump campaign features Fauci MORE’s Supreme Court nominee, amid warnings that she would overturn Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act, saying she was “very clear about her jurisprudence, she’s an originalist and a textualist.”

Judges, Sasse claimed, “don’t advocate for policy positions … we shouldn’t have either Democrats or Republicans on the committee trying to figure out how can they divine the future of how they’re going to rule on particular cases.”

Host Chris WallaceChristopher (Chris) WallaceBob Dole claims no Republicans on debate commission support Trump Debate commission co-chair: ‘No evidence whatsoever’ Trump has tested negative Trump calls into Rush Limbaugh’s show for two hours MORE pushed back, saying Sasse, who is himself staunchly anti-abortion, was “being a little disingenuous here.”

“Aren’t you in fact counting on Justice Barrett to either end or restrict Roe v. Wade, and wouldn’t you be terribly disappointed if she failed to do that?” Wallace asked.

Sasse again denied that judicial originalists held policy positions, saying: “If Amy Barrett were running for the United States Senate from the state of Illinois, she would have policy positions that she would lay out to the American people, [but] that isn’t what a judge’s job is.”

As to the president saying he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would rule in his favor on issues like the ACA and Roe v. Wade, Sasse replied: “President Trump says a whole bunch of things, so he may say something that’s more outcomes-based.”

Source Article

Continue reading

Tech giants have skirted regulation because of how monopolies are defined by law. Democrats now want to rewrite those laws.



a close up of a logo: Business Insider


© Business Insider
Business Insider



Jeff Bezos standing in front of a television: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testifies via video conference during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing on Online Platforms and Market Power in the Rayburn House office Building, July 29, 2020. Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images


© Provided by Business Insider
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testifies via video conference during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing on Online Platforms and Market Power in the Rayburn House office Building, July 29, 2020. Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images

  • Now that House Democrats have completed a sweeping antitrust investigation into Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google, they’re prepared to introduce new laws to curb the tech giants’ power.
  • The 449-page report published by the House Antitrust Subcommittee on Tuesday, as well as public statements by Democrats on the heels of the report, signal how they might go about changing the laws.
  • Antitrust court decisions in recent decades have focused on consumer welfare, but Democrats say laws need to be updated given that many tech companies don’t charge consumers for their products and have wide-ranging impacts on workers and other businesses.
  • Meanwhile, Republicans have signaled that they’re on board for some — but not all — of Democrats’ plans for new antitrust laws.
  • Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

In their scathing report published on the heels of a 16-month investigation into Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, House Democrats concluded that the four companies are powerful monopolies the likes of which America hasn’t seen in over a century.

“Companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons,” they wrote.

But now, in order to regulate the companies, Democrats say the antitrust laws that were used to lasso robber barons of centuries past need to be majorly updated.

Lawmakers on the House Antitrust Subcommittee said they want to move quickly to introduce new laws in the coming weeks and months that could effectively break up the big tech companies and rewrite the rules that current dictate much of the US economy.

 

Not everyone agrees with Democrats’ conclusions — Republicans on the subcommittee signaled that they support tougher regulation but may resist the push to separate parts of the companies’ business. All four of the companies under investigation responded to the report by denying that they have monopoly power or unfair dominance.

Loading...

Load Error

Here’s how Democrats could rewrite antitrust law to restore competition in tech.

Democrats want to establish a definition of monopolies that extends beyond “consumer welfare”

Antitrust laws in the US haven’t been significantly changed in decades. The Sherman Act and the Clayton Act were passed in 1890 and 1914, respectively, granting the federal government authority to regulate monopolies and mergers.

Since 1914, most of US antitrust law has been determined by court precedent in lawsuits over those two laws. As antitrust experts testified before the subcommittee, court decisions in the 20th Century weakened the federal government’s ability to break up monopolies by focusing on “consumer welfare” as a test of unfair market power.

In other words, current US antitrust law hinges on the

Continue reading

House Democrats pushed through an aid package with little chance of becoming law.

House Democrats on Thursday pushed through a $2.2 trillion stimulus plan that would provide aid to families, schools, restaurants, businesses and airline workers, advancing a wish list with little chance of becoming law.

The pandemic relief measure passed the House on a 214-to-207 vote, with at least 17 Democrats joining Republicans in opposing it. The handful of moderate Democrats who bucked their party argued that with negotiations still taking place with the Trump administration, the chamber should vote on a bipartisan deal.

Republicans had already panned the relief bill as too large.

The decision to put it to a vote anyway on Thursday evening reflected mounting anxiety among some rank-and-file Democrats at the prospect of facing voters next month without being able to point to some action to provide relief. There was also a desire among some party members to formalize their latest offer.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted that there was still a chance that the talks would produce a deal, but the vote shined a light on the continued failure of Congress and the White House to come together on a new package, and the dwindling chances that they can do so before lawmakers scatter to campaign for re-election.

Earlier in the day, Ms. Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin spoke with each other for about 50 minutes, with Mr. Mnuchin taking an offer of a $1.6 trillion package to Ms. Pelosi’s Capitol Hill suite.

Ms. Pelosi told reporters that she did not expect a resolution on a stimulus package to emerge Thursday. But she said that she was reviewing documents sent by the Treasury Department and that “we’re going back and forth with our paper and conversation.”

During the stalemate, several industries, notably airlines, are running into severe financial constraints as the virus persists and people continue to shy away from traveling. United Airlines and American Airlines began furloughs of 30,000 workers on Thursday after Congress was unable to come up with a fresh aid package for the industry.

Source Article

Continue reading

House Democrats discuss tougher antitrust law, some Republicans agree

By Diane Bartz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel discussed ways to tighten antitrust laws on Thursday, with two Republicans on the Democrat-dominated panel indicating potential support for some changes.

The antitrust subcommittee, chaired by Representative David Cicilline, is expected to release a much-anticipated report into the four big tech companies — Amazon.com Inc <AMZN.O>, Facebook Inc <FB.O>, Apple <APPL.O> and Alphabet’s Google <GOOGL.O> — as soon as Monday.

In the hearing, Cicilline said the tech companies used strategies such as self-preferencing and predatory pricing to grow. “These once-scrappy, underdog startups have grown into the kinds of monopolies we last saw more than a century ago,” he said.

One witness, Bill Baer, who headed the Justice Department Antitrust Division during the Obama administration, argued to the committee that successive court rulings over the years have made it harder to block a merger.

“If courts are unwilling to step back from this overreach, legislation may well be needed to re-set the boundaries,” he said.

Representative Ken Buck, a Republican, appeared swayed by calls for tougher antitrust law, including giving more funding to the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission.

“We also need to seriously consider increasing scrutiny on big tech companies, including shifting the burden of proof required for a market dominant company to prove that a merger is not anti-competitive,” he said.

Representative Kelly Armstrong, a Republican, said he agreed with Buck on the need for “more money, more resources, (and) more enforcement.” He indicated he would be interested in discussing “tweaks” to antitrust law.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, repeated his concern that Big Tech firms were “out to get conservatives.”

The Justice Department is also probing the big four tech platforms, and is expected to file a lawsuit against Google next week.

Facebook and Amazon also face inquiries by the FTC, while U.S. state attorneys general are looking at Facebook and Google.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz; Additional reporting by Nandita Bose; editing by Richard Pullin)

Source Article

Continue reading

Americans want law and order, Democrats want to defund the police

Law and order has become one of the most important issues facing this year’s presidential election. Across the nation, we are seeing localities that have been completely taken over by radical groups because liberal politicians gave in to the demands of protestors and voted to defund the police.

Defunding the police is reckless and irresponsible. Yet several Democrats running for office are using this as a part of their platform, even though most Americans do not support abolishing police departments. Americans want law and order, and that is exactly what President Trump has promised to deliver.

Trump met with the brave members of the New York City Police Benevolent Association (PBA) who know firsthand the trials and tribulations that Law Enforcement Officers in America are currently facing. During this event, New York City’s PBA proudly endorsed President Trump’s re-election campaign, further proving that he is the only candidate running for president that is laser-focused on supporting the men and women in blue.

This monumental support marks the president’s sixth endorsement from America’s police associations. This speaks volumes about Trump’s dedication to protecting those who work on the front lines to protect us and our communities every day. And in today’s world, we must do everything we can to support these heroes.

On the other hand, we are seeing Democrats like former Vice President (VP) Joe Biden embrace the movement to defund the police and endanger our communities. Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats have turned their backs on the brave men and women of law enforcement during a time when we need them the most. It’s despicable, but it is not surprising.

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, is also no ally to law enforcement. She has said, “[W]e need to reimagine how we are achieving public safety” because “we have confused the idea that to achieve safety, you put more cops on the street instead of allocating resources to other services.” To make matters worse, in her home state of California, Harris proudly supported Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s $150 million cut in police funding.

Like Biden and Harris, Garcetti is extremely out of touch with Americans and Angelenos who want safer and more secure communities. While Garcetti pushes to defund the police, crime rates only continue to escalate in Los Angeles. Earlier this summer, homicides in Los Angeles skyrocketed 250 percent in one week under Garcetti’s watch. Instead of addressing this problem and supporting Law Enforcement Officers in the city, Garcetti turned a blind eye and focused on other “priorities” such as campaigning for the Biden-Harris ticket by doing national television appearances. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why many people are calling for Garcetti to resign from office.

Americans have a choice to make on Nov. 3 they can either re-elect President Trump, who has denounced the dangerous movement of defunding the police and who has proven to be a leader and ally to the law enforcement brother and sisterhood, or they can elect Joe

Continue reading