Tag Archives : Build House

Banks leading GOP meeting with Trump in New Jersey day after raid

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chair of the Republican Study Committee, is leading a group of the conservative House caucus’s members for a meeting with former President Donald Trump on Tuesday in Bedminster, N.J.

The trip was planned several weeks ago, but happens to fall just one day after the FBI executed a search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

It is likely members will discuss the FBI search, which has enraged Republicans and prompted House Republicans to vow investigations into the Department of Justice if they win the House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

A Republican Study Committee spokesperson confirmed the meeting.

Banks told Breitbart about the planned trip to meet with Trump last month, praising him as “the​​ most effective president in a lifetime or more.”

“We fully endorse the Trump agenda, and we’ll be having a conversation with him soon about ways that we can work together to advance it,” Banks said at the time.

The meeting also comes just weeks after members of the Republican Study Committee met with former Vice President Mike Pence and applauded him for showing courage on Jan. 6, 2021 despite Trump’s pressure campaign to make Pence unilaterally reject electoral votes that certified Joe Biden’s presidential win.

It won’t be the first time the committee has met with Trump. Caucus members had a similar visit with Trump at his New Jersey residence last summer.

The Republican Study Committee under Banks has also brought a broad slate of speakers, including potential 2024 presidential contenders like former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as well as figures like psychologist and author Jordan Peterson.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fewer synthetic cannabinoid poisonings seen in states with legalized cannabis

A review of National Poison Data System (NPDS) data collected between 2016 and 2019 found states with legalized recreational cannabis had 37 percent fewer poisoning reports for synthetic cannabinoids compared with states with restrictive laws. 

Findings were published in the journal Clinical Toxicology. States with restrictive laws were any that considered cannabis illegal or had limited legislation in place for medical use. 

The chemicals in synthetic cannabinoids are similar to those found in marjuana but the products are illegal and do not contain any mediating constituents of whole plant cannabis. Their high toxicity can result in severe impairment and sometimes death.

Although some synthetic cannabinoids are used for medical purposes, illicit versions are illegal. The products also typically do not show up in standard urine drug tests.

Of the 7,600 exposures reported in the NPDS throughout the study period, around 65 percent required medical attention and 61 deaths occurred. However, reported exposures decreased over time, while state-level medical cannabis laws were associated with 13 percent fewer annual exposures. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

“This study shows some potential public health benefits to the legalization and regulation of adult use of cannabis,” said study co-author Tracy Klein of Washington State University in a statement. 

“Based on both past research and this current study, it’s evident that users who have a choice to use a less toxic product would potentially do so,” said Klein, who is also assistant director of the University’s Center for Cannabis Policy, Research and Outreach.

States with permissive laws also saw 22 percent fewer quarterly exposures to synthetic cannabinoids. Those with retail markets had 36 percent less reported exposures compared with states where only medical use was permitted, researchers wrote. 

Authors estimate around 0.2 to 4 percent of the U.S. population uses synthetic cannabinoids, while use is more common among those in their late teens and early twenties.

However, “defining synthetic cannabinoids and their constituents are challenging due to variable and illicit production, and synthetic cannabinoid poisonings can often overlap with other drug poisonings.” 

Cases reported to the NPDS—either by clinicians or the general public— rely on self-reported consumption and analytical data, but authors caution that more research is needed to better understand the prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use, and that the current study likely underestimates use. 

“We know that there are many cannabinoids being developed and on the market – and the regulators are struggling to catch up,” Klein added.

“You can’t easily test for illicit cannabinoids. A lot of times, we only find out if a patient has been using them because they’re hospitalized or because they’re dead.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Older Americans ready for fall COVID-19 boosters, poll finds

Most older adults who have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine will likely get an updated booster shot when they are available this fall.  

Overall, 61 percent of adults over 50 are very likely to do so, according to a new national survey from the University of Michigan. 

The number is higher among particularly vulnerable groups as 68 percent of people over 65, Black adults over 50 and people with low incomes are very likely to get a COVID-19 booster.  

About 17 percent of adults over 50 said they are not likely to get a booster this fall.  

“The vaccines we’ve had since late 2020 have saved countless lives and made COVID-19 much less serious for millions worldwide. We also know that those who got at least one booster dose have done better than others in the Omicron variant era,” the poll’s director and infectious disease physician Preeti Malani said in a media release. 

“But if we’re going to drive down deaths, hospitalizations, serious illness and long-term effects even further, we will need to get as many people vaccinated with these new formulations as possible,” Malani added.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The poll also found that doctors play a vital role in patients’ decision making with 77 percent of those surveyed saying their provider’s recommendation is important. This was especially important to individuals over the age of 65, those who are Black and people whose incomes are below $30,000 per year. 

Two-thirds of those surveyed who were previously vaccinated but had not test positive for the virus were likely to get a booster. Around 56 percent of vaccinated people who had had COVID-19 once said the same.  

The poll results are based on responses in late July from a nationally representative sample of 1,024 adults over 50 from the Foresight 50+ Omnibus panel, which draws from the Foresight 50+ Panel by AARP and NORC at the University of Chicago. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows more than 70 percent of fully vaccinated individuals over the age of 65 have received at least one booster.

Source: TEST FEED1

Schumer: Senate will vote again on $35 insulin cap after GOP blocked it

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday night that he is going to bring a $35 cap on patients’ insulin costs back up for a vote this fall after Republicans blocked it over the weekend.  

“They blocked a $35 price for insulin for non-Medicare people,” Schumer said on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.” “We’re going to come back and make them vote on that again.” 

The move can help put pressure on Republicans and highlight what Democrats view as a winning issue ahead of November’s midterm elections.  

Democrats hammered Republicans for voting against the $35 cap over the weekend.  

That vote came up in the context of overruling the parliamentarian’s decision that applying the $35 cap to people with private health insurance violated the complicated Senate rules Democrats were using to bypass a GOP filibuster.

Seven Republicans still voted with all 50 Democrats, three short of the 60 votes needed, and it is possible more Republicans would support it if it came up as a standalone measure, not in the context of a Senate rules vote.  

“We got all 50 Democrats,” Schumer said in a separate interview Monday on NPR. “We did get seven Republicans. We’re going to bring that back in the fall, because there’s going to be huge heat on Republicans.” 

Schumer did not specify whether he would bring the $35 cap up by itself or as part of a larger, bipartisan insulin measure from Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), which had previously faced difficulties gaining enough GOP support.  

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested Monday he would support a $35 cap if it came up again.  

“Vote on the cap was not [about] insulin It was [about] Dems ignoring budget rules,” he tweeted. “Dear colleagues join me in supporting the Collins-Shaheen bill to cap insulin at $35 & enact [pharmacy benefit manager] reforms in bipartisan way.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Does the House of Representatives need so many rules?

The other week I found myself testifying before the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. Someone on the committee had seen my column grousing about the crazy process used to pass a half billion debt increase last autumn. I was asked to show up and discuss why I thought the People’s House was drowning in a surfeit of legislative procedure rules.

Before it was time for me or the other witnesses to speak, Chairman Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) deftly made my point by referencing “clause 2(J)(2) of Rule 11” of the House of Representatives, which declares: 

“(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness.” 

Take that all in for a moment. Kilmer was referencing the second subpart of the tenth subpart of the second clause of a rule. And he was doing it because that is what a chairman of a committee does as a matter of course when commencing a hearing.

To be sure, there is nothing inherently wrong with complex rules. One need only think of the complex protocols of etiquette that have evolved over the centuries, including the recent emergence of the use of pronouns in interpersonal addresses in some parts of our country. And, yes, since politicians are crafty it makes sense to have plenty of rules to curb them from engaging in misbehaviors that hobble the carrying out of the public’s business.

Yet, ultimately, the rules governing any human actions need to serve the ultimate objectives of the institution, embody shared values of the institution and be readily understandable by participants in the enterprise and the public. By these standards, I believe we see signs that the House’s rules have grown overly complex.

Indubitably, the House’s rules are prolix. They begin on page 345 of the House Rules and Manual and conclude some 700 pages later. Admittedly, various chunks are devoted to non-procedural matters, such as broadcasting in the House and media in the galleries. Make no mistake, though: The manual holds a lot of rules and explications thereof. Approximately 130 pages are devoted to committee procedures, 56 address motions and amendments, 86 pages relate to the budget process and so forth. As a point of comparison, consider that the legislator’s guidebook for the lower chamber of the Ohio statehouse has only 200 pages, many of which are devoted to other matters (like ethics).

Adding to the complexity is that some standing rules are dead letters. Calendar Wednesday, for example, “allows each committee in turn to call up bills not otherwise privileged that have been reported but have not reached the House floor through a more conventional route.” No committee chairman has invoked the procedure in decades, presumably due to concern about upsetting House leadership, who prefers to set the agenda. 

The costs of complexity are substantial. The more complex the rules are, the more difficult it is for the average legislator to work the process on behalf of his constituents or, for that matter, the national good. A baroque system of rules naturally creates a caste system, with a handful of super savvy, long-in-the-tooth mavens who exert disproportionate influence over the legislative agenda. (Which is one of the rifts one sees among House Democrats.)  

The existence of oodles of byzantine chamber rules also incentivizes bad behavior. Really, ask yourself: If you were a legislator and felt helpless to move legislation, wouldn’t you be tempted to spend your time doing things other than governing, like stoking the culture wars on Twitter? 

Anyone doubting there is a problem need only consider how frequently the House waves some of the rules near the end of the legislative process. It has become the norm. When legislation clears a committee and reaches the Rules Committee, an Alice in Wonderland-type process ensues. A resolution is drafted that sets limits on legislators’ authority to debate and amend the legislation and then to wave various standing rules. 

I am thankful the select committee afforded me the opportunity to flag this problematic situation. Hopefully, sufficient legislators will decide that enough is enough and demand changes. Certainly, another select committee could be established to study the rules. Or the Rules Committee could be directed to simplify the procedure with an aim toward enabling more deliberation and legislator participation in the chamber.  

And, certainly, this December when a new Congress is forming, members of the majority can demand changes to the rules in exchange for their votes for the new speaker. The House Freedom Caucus already has issued demands for rules changes. The more legislators who do so, the higher the odds of success.

Kevin R. Kosar (@kevinrkosar) is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the coeditor of “Congress Overwhelmed: Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform“ (University of Chicago Press, 2020). He hosts the Understanding Congress podcast. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Lady Gaga prays country will 'speak up' on abortion rights

Lada Gaga says she’s praying abortion rights supporters will “speak up” after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Kicking off the American leg of her “Chromatica Ball” concert tour in Washington on Monday, the 36-year-old singer dedicated her song, “Edge of Glory,” to “every woman in America who now has to worry about her body if she gets pregnant.”

The outspoken Grammy Award winner and “Star is Born” actor, born Stefani Germanotta, continued to the crowd, “I pray that this country will speak up.”

“That we will stick together, and that we will not stop until it’s right!” she exclaimed to cheers.

“They better not mess with gay marriage in this country!” Gaga, who campaigned for Joe Biden during the 2020 White House race and performed at his presidential inauguration last year, said at another point during the concert, according to USA Today.

The entertainer’s comments came following the Supreme Court’s June ruling that struck down the landmark 1973 decision that had granted a constitutional right to an abortion.

During the show at Nationals Park in D.C., Gaga — a critic of former President Trump — reportedly described the last few years as being very painful.

“We wish we could go back and change what happened, but I want to remember your bravery,” she said.

“I think the world is pretty special,” she said, “even though it’s f—ed up, too.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Recall boomerang? How Georgia prosecutor could benefit from a Trump-backed recall effort

Facing significant legal trouble in Georgia for their efforts to overturn the vote in the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump’s supporters have looked west for a new line of attack on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is leading the investigation — an attempt to recall her from office. Due to Georgia law, there is only a very slim chance that such an effort would even get to the ballot. But if it does, Willis, rather than her opponents, may be the one who has reason to celebrate. 

The effort appears to borrow from the widely-followed and successful recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, as well as the ongoing attempt against Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon. Additionally,a Colorado District Attorney resigned after a recall got on the ballot. But none of those efforts had a particularly partisan bent to them. Instead, they were based on policy issues — namely the effectiveness of a new breed of progressive prosecutors who are accused of being soft on criminals. These recalls do not have much risk that the other party will take charge. Notably, Boudin’s replacement was selected by London Breed, the Mayor of San Francisco, who herself is a Democrat.  

A recall against Willis in George, which may use the same “soft-on-crime” excuse, is unlikely to get a similar response; instead, it will appear to be a clear partisan effort. 

That difference is not even the most important distinction. 

California and Colorado have what is called a “Political Recall” law; namely, recalls can be launched against officials for practically any reason. There is no need to provide a showing of misconduct or incompetence. Instead, the recalls can be based on policy, partisanship or even personal pique. The result is that almost all of the notable recalls that have taken place in the U.S. have occurred in political recall jurisdictions. 

Georgia is one of eight states that use what is called a “malfeasance or judicial recall” standard. These recall laws demand that any petition cite either a specific legal violation or a vague, but almost always extremely strictly defined lack of fitness or showing of incompetence. Each of these states has a great deal of variety in how the laws are written and how the recalls take place. But they all require either the courts or a governmental actor to rule that a statutorily delineated law was violated before a recall election can be held. 

As a result, Georgia has seen very few recall elections.  

Since 2008, there have only been two that I’ve tracked that have gone to the ballot: Blackshear Councilmember Shawn Godwin in 2020, who was ousted over complaints about opposition to the hiring of a city clerk (and a host of other complaints) and Meigs Mayor Linda Eason-Harris in 2016, who was kicked out after a theft of funds indictment. Additionally, Hoschton Mayor Theresa Kenerly and City Councilman Jim Cleveland resigned rather than face the voters over complaints about racially provocative comments and discriminatory hiring practices. 

It is possible that the courts could allow a recall to go forward. The Blackshear councilmember recall did not seem to fit into the traditional malfeasance standard limitation. And courts have been willing to change the law. In 2021, an Alaska Supreme Court decision allowing a gubernatorial recall effort to proceed may result in pushing that state to a political recall law. Georgia’s own law was originally limited by a 1988 decision, with two notable dissents, that pushed the state into a malfeasance requirement. 

But surmounting that challenge is not enough. Petitioners would still need to get close to 242,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot — a very challenging feat, especially in an extremely Democratic county. 

Even if they manage to clear those hurdles, the result could be quite poor for the recall supporters.  

Most recalls succeed in removing officials. Since 2011, we’ve seen that about 60 percent of recalls succeed — but with such a Democratic area and with such a clear partisan bent, Willis would probably not be facing much of a challenge. Instead, she could be the prime beneficiary of the “recall boomerang.” 

Numerous officials have seen their career get a boost from fighting a recall campaign. After defeating a recall in 2021, California Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to have a gilded path to reelection and is now being talked about as a future presidential contender; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker became a Republican star after beating back a 2012 recall vote; San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein went from a recall victory in 1983 to the short list for vice president in 1984 and now the longest serving U.S. Senator in California history; State Senator Jeff Denham beat a recall in 2008 and then won a Congressional seat. Even a loss is not necessarily a career ender: North Dakota Gov. Lynn Frazier lost a recall in 1921 and then was elected to three U.S. Senate terms starting in 1922. 

A prominent recall campaign could boost Willis as a Democratic star, gain her a national following and — perhaps more importantly — create a huge list of potential donors that could be tapped for future runs for higher office. 

A recall effort against Willis may seem like a distraction or a threat for Trump forces looking to ward off a serious investigation into their post-election behavior. But for Willis, the recall should not be a cause for concern. It should instead be seen as an opportunity.

Joshua Spivak is the author of “Recall Elections: From Alexander Hamilton to Gavin Newsom.” He is a senior fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College and a senior research fellow at the Berkeley’s Law California Constitution Center. He also writes the Recall Elections Blog.

Source: TEST FEED1

4 in 10 have returned to 'normal, pre-COVID-19 life': survey

Four in ten Americans surveyed in a new poll said that they have returned to their “normal, pre-COVID-19 life.”

The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) conducted the survey of 1,580 American adults from July 12 to 18, finding that 41 percent have returned to pre-COVID-19 lives and 36 percent expect to return to “normal” lives within the next few months, the next year or following years.

Almost a quarter — 23 percent — said they expect that they will “never” return to a pre-COVID-19 rhythm.

The percentage of Americans who said they have returned to their pre-pandemic lifestyles is almost 10 higher than in April. Just 16 percent said the same thing in January.

Respondents in the new survey were split when asked if they are worried about a family member’s health being seriously affected by COVID-19, with 49 percent saying they are not worried and 48 percent saying they are.

A majority — 59 percent — said that they are not worried about their own health, however 39 percent maintained that they are still worried about contracting the virus.

Fifty-four percent also said that they had COVID-19 or are “pretty sure they had it” in the months since early April.

And over half of the Americans questioned — 54 percent — said that they personally know someone who has died from COVID-19, and the same percentage said that they rarely or never wear a mask inside around people who are not a part of their household.

The new survey has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi: China’ Xi ‘acting like a scared bully’

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Chinese President Xi Jinping is behaving like a “scared bully” and is in a “fragile crisis” in the wake of her visit to Taiwan.

“I think that he’s in a fragile crisis … he has problems with his economy. He’s acting like a scared bully,” Pelosi said early Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when asked what she had learned by Xi’s reaction to trip.

“We met with every speaker in all five countries, and their members of parliament, so it’s very productive. And in terms of Taiwan, we were not going to take Taiwan off our list because the president of Taiwan has invited us. President of China does not do our schedule,” she added.

Pelosi became the highest-ranking U.S. official in 25 years to visit Taiwan with a stop last week, drawing ire of China, which interprets international leaders’ visits to Taiwan as recognition of the island’s sovereignty, according to The Associated Press. 

While Taiwan views itself as independent of China, Beijing considers it part of the mainland.

Since Pelosi’s visit, China has ramped up military drills near the self-governing democratic island, including flying dozens of planes past Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, escalating fears about military confrontation. 

The drills come against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, and Moscow attempts to make inroads in the neighboring country’s south and east regions. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Grisham denies she was source of Haberman's White House toilet photos

Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham on Monday denied that she leaked photos of a White House toilet containing ripped up documents to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.

A pro-Trump Twitter account tweeted out a screenshot of a tabloid story showing Grisham laying on the floor during election night 2020 and alleged “this sweetie is the source” of the toilet photos leaked to Haberman.

“Lol I assure you I’m not,” Grisham wrote Monday night in response to the tweet. “I would def not have followed that guy into the bathroom after he used it.”

Grisham’s denial comes after Haberman shared the photos with Axios, which published them on Monday. The photos were shared with Haberman for a new book on former President Trump’s life she is publishing this fall.

Since leaving Trump’s White House, Grisham has emerged as a prominent critic of the former president, at times appearing on cable news to blast her onetime boss.

Grisham published her own book on her experience working for Trump last fall.

Source: TEST FEED1