Angelos launched the Mission Green initiative to bring attention to those imprisoned for cannabis offenses and to assist in getting them released through executive clemency from the president or the governor if they are state offenders. “We’ve got a few prisoners released from federal prison via executive clemency and compassionate release that was amended with the First Step Act.”

The Mission Green team brought a list of offenders that they believe deserve to be commuted to the White House. Angelos tells me that one of them is, “my friend Luke Scarmazzo.”

Scarmazzo is serving a 22-year sentence in prison for owning and operating a cannabis dispensary in California. Angelos adds, “he was following state law.” He notes that Scarmazzo’s operation was similar to many others in the area that were not targeted by law enforcement.

The team was well received by the White House when they hand delivered the list in February. They established a good rapport with senior advisor Jared Kushner. Angelos points to Kushner as one of the best hopes for the future of criminal justice reform. “This administration is being pulled in different directions by different individuals in the law and order Republicans and this Attorney General; Jared Kushner has a tough job balancing that out and getting more reforms.”

The fact that Mission Green is necessary shows that reforms are still necessary. The system now leaves room for extreme discrepancy based on judges’ personal beliefs. According to Angelos, one of the major flaws with the First Step Act is that it allows a judge to be merciful if they want to, but “when it comes to people applying for release, they should be released on a consistent basis rather than having judges in California and New York granting many releases whereas, judges in Texas grant few even though the cases are similar.”

Some opposed the First Step Act because it would give politicians an excuse to not advance any further on criminal justice reform. Angelos admits that concerns about progress slowing have come to fruition, but he still firmly supports the initial reform. “Thousands of people have been released because of it.”

“What we really need is cannabis reform; we need an end to prohibition”, says Angelos. However, not everyone feels that way and some of the disagreement about what should be the next legislative target is why progress has slowed. “No one agrees on what needs to be changed next.” But he is hopeful. “I think new reforms will happen in the next 2-4 years.”

Regardless of who is President, Angelos knows that states will keep legalizing cannabis and will take the lead in reform. He adds, “I’m not particularly confident in either candidate” because of Biden’s past of worsening the system and Trump’s inconsistencies on the subject. But his positivity is due to reform progressing through the states and Congress no matter who is in the White House.

The problem, as he sees it, is that federal cannabis prohibition gives authorities an excuse across the country to abuse their power. Angelos tells me that until cannabis is removed from the federal code of illegal drugs, “police are going to continue to use the odor of cannabis to justify exploratory searches. They’re going to continue wasting money in arresting people for cannabis where one state over, you’re an entrepreneur and the next you’re a criminal.”

Weldon Angelos was an emerging and compelling music producer when charged with selling marijuana in 2002. He suspects that authorities in Salt Lake City, Utah investigated and prosecuted him because of his connections to celebrities like Snoop Dogg. “They thought it would lead to an arrest of a famous rapper, which didn’t happen.”

Angelos hesitates when asked if he has any qualms with his defense attorney. “Here’s the thing: the government made it tough for us to mount an effective defense because they suppressed evidence that we didn’t see until years later; they indicted me on one factual narrative and we prepared a very effective defense to that narrative.”

The narrative was changed unexpectedly as they entered court. Under normal circumstances, he tells me, for 900 dollars of marijuana being sold over 3 transactions, “I wouldn’t have got any prison time.”

After the stacking and enhancement provisions, Angelos was facing 105 years in prison. His defense fought some of those and won, “we got it down to 55 years.”

The prosecution trumped up the charge with “gunstacking” enhancements. Something that Angelos adamantly argues was based on “fabricated” evidence. The original reports never said he had a gun on him during the drug trade and he says that is the truth. The legally owned firearm was found in a locked safe when the police raided his home.

He laments, “Although I wished it would’ve gone better, my attorney didn’t have much to work with.” Angelos is confident that if his trial hadn’t been manipulated, he would have walked out as a free man.

Angelos’ assets and money were seized by authorities shortly after charging him. “They took all my stuff that I had bought with my music industry money.” It left him with little to pay for his legal defense and the lawyer finished by working for free.

The prosecution was so aggressive, it caught the ire of a fellow attorney in the Utah DA’s office, Mike Lee. “When Mike Lee was elected to the Senate in 2010, he became one of my number one advocates.”

Angelos gives Senator Lee (R-UT) much credit for getting him released and helping pass criminal justice reform so far. Senator Lee and Koch Industries were instrumental in changing the political landscape of criminal justice reform and enlightening conservatives on the need for change on the issue.

Early into his appeals process, the only hope for legislation that would free him was Democrat control of both houses of Congress and the White House because Republicans were not allies of criminal justice reform. Angelos recounts, “In 2009, we got that and we didn’t get a thing; we got a band-aid approach.” It wasn’t until Republicans began to consider criminal justice reform as a conservative issue that substantial progress started. “Were it not for Republicans coming over on the issue, we would not have had criminal justice reform.”

Weldon Angelos has seen the progression of criminal justice reform from the inside of a prison cell and as a free man. He has been a benefactor of advancement on the issue, but he has been an advocate for those who are still hurt by the system. The First Step Act was a step in the right direction, but Angelos realizes that more is needed and he plans on being part of the progression.

Weldon Angelos – New Beginning from Arnold Enrique Huaiquil on Vimeo.

Image: screenshot from Weldon Angelos – New Beginning

The post Inmate to Advocate: One Man’s Fight For Victims of The War On Drugs appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Absolutely, I would fight a war against an American version of The Great Leap Forward. That may be an extreme case, but don’t slippery slopes tend to slide down to extremes?

Just to give you an idea of scale, in 2017 when people were pushing to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee, President Donald Trump asked in a press conference if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were next, as they were slave owners.

Watch below:

The New York Time ran an article immediately in response to these 2017 comments entitled Historians Question Trump’s Comments on Confederate Monument.

The article offers a very one-sided narrative against Trump’s comments. From the article:

Mr. Witt called Mr. Trump’s warning of a slippery slope a ‘red herring.’ There have been, after all, no calls to tear down the Washington Monument.

Annette Gordon-Reed, a professor of history and law at Harvard who is credited with breaking down the wall of resistance among historians to the idea that Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings, said that the answer to Mr. Trump’s hypothetical question about whether getting rid of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson also meant junking Washington and Jefferson was a simple ‘no.'”

Business Insider called Trump’s idea bizarre in a piece called Trump Equates Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stone Wall Jackson With George Washington in Bizarre Press Conference.

John Oliver aired a segment mocking the notion that Washington and Jefferson would be targeted next, implying it would stop before then. Watch the clip below (language warning):

You Are Here.

In 2009, MSNBC ran a segment (during the Obama Presidency) stating the word Socialist was code for the N Word.

Fast forward beyond the Bernie Sanders Primary Campaigns of 2016 and 2020, it’s no longer a dirty word.

You Are Here.

The media and the left used to shun Anarcho-Communists and their riots. They would say things like the left hates those people more than I did, because it made them look bad. Today, they are openly embraced by both the media and the Left under the brand Antifa, though aside from a rebranding of Anarchist to Antifa, nothing else has changed.

You Are Here.

Free College. Free Healthcare. Free Housing (Rent is Theft).

You are here.

This brings us to a Tweet from The Libertarian Republic Founder and KWOS Jefferson City Morning Radio Host Austin Petersen.

So what are the Black Lives Matter demands? Fox News compiled a list from various chapters.

Out of this list of ten demands, I can only jump on board with three of them.

#3 Release All Prostitutes From Jail

#4 No Death Penalty

#8 Cut The Military Budget

As far as Defunding The Police, there doesn’t appear to be consensus as to what that actually means. I would be happy to start with eliminating No Knock Warrants, Civil Asset Forfeiture, The War on Drugs, and Militarization. That seems to fit a few people’s definitions, and I am fine with those steps. If we’re talking about abolishing the police, which a growing number of people are saying “Yes, that’s what we mean,” then that’s going to be a Hard No from me.

However many of the demands listed here are Marxist demands. Government involvement in financing college education through Federal Student Loans, and guaranteeing the cost of tuition, is why college costs have skyrocketed. They can charge what they want, the loan will be guaranteed by the government, and the student is on the hook for it. 

Giving colleges a blank check at the expense of every American taxpayer is a disaster of an idea. If the government simply ended this practice, private loans would take over and cap the loan amount based on default risk. It wouldn’t come anywhere close to guaranteeing full tuition. Colleges would be forced to lower tuition to an affordable level and actually work on a budget instead of operating on a seemingly endless cash flow.

This idea is not a racist one.

People like to admire Japan’s healthy populace and their successful healthcare program, and believe that the former is a product of the latter. In reality, their culturally healthy diet, low obesity rate, higher exercise rate, and extraordinarily low level of violent crimes allow that system to feasibly function and be sustained, whether moral or not. America could never sustain this system without a change drawing us more in line with the factors that allow this system to economically function in Japan.

This idea is not a racist one.

Redistributing the wealth and reparations I see as being tied together. But individuals are entitled to the fruits of their labor. This is the same reason why I oppose the federal income tax. Capitalism and private innovation have lifted people out of poverty and increased our standard of living. Government interference in the market has only stifled prosperity. The Jim Crow Laws were Laws.

FDR is credited with pulling America out of the Great Depression, but only because we eventually got out of it. In reality, his interference in market recovery actually prolonged it. Ending occupational licensing would be a great first step for black-owned businesses. Removing regulations that make it difficult for small businesses to start, let alone compete with larger businesses would be a great first step for smaller black owned businesses. Providing Economic Freedom Zone tax credits for smaller black owned businesses would be a good first step. I am for that.

This idea is not a racist one.

Bail cannot be easily eliminated as it is authorized in the Constitution. Some people are flight risks. Some people are likely to reoffend. I’m not a fan of the #AllLivesMatter hashtag because I believe pedophiles’ lives don’t matter. The idea that everyone should walk until their court date just doesn’t do it. Perhaps this wouldn’t be a surprisingly hot issue if we simply ended the enforcement of victimless crimes.

This idea is not a racist one.

I felt compelled to tell you that these ideas are not racist, as the merging of economic Marxism into the Black Lives Matter demands is a seeming continuation of the slippery slope. A slope that white leftists will happily push people down. It creates the idea that in order to support black lives, you must subscribe to economic ideologies, in particular ones that have been historically oppressive. Ideas that while good intentioned, lead to disastrous outcomes and the systemic genocide of lower class, lower producers, or not able bodied. People who push for such a system, their lives don’t matter.

You are here.

The post Black Lives Matter. Marxist Lives Do Not. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

We’re still not far enough removed from Obama’s presidency to get a true grasp on how he’ll be remembered in the annals of history, but there seems to be a general feeling among many that Obama was a good president—especially when it came to civil rights. And from a glance, it’s easy to see why: gay marriage became legal during Obama’s presidency, marijuana was legalized in eight states during that time, and DACA protected roughly 700,000 immigrants from being deported.

But when it comes to these civil rights achievements, I have to use Obama’s own words against him: “You didn’t build that.”

While Obama did speak in favor of gay marriage during the 2008 Democratic primary, he didn’t do anything to legalize it; instead, it was the Supreme Court case Obergefell v Hodges. As he left office, Obama said that marijuana should be treated like “cigarettes or alcohol,” yet he refused to take action to do so while in office. The states that legalized marijuana did so of their own volition, and Obama even waged a private war on medical marijuana. As for DACA—that was an executive order Obama signed after failing to get the DREAM Act passed despite having a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress.

Not surprisingly, the temporary nature of the DACA executive order made it incredibly easy for President Trump to eviscerate, whereas having a codified law on the books like the DREAM Act may have made it more permanent. The same can be said for Obama’s general practice of allowing states more authority when it came to legalizing marijuana: it wasn’t codified into law, and it wasn’t a surprise when Attorney General Jeff Sessions started talking about using federal law to overrule state laws on legalization.

In many ways, Obama’s legacy can be characterized as applying a lot of band-aids but not fixing the actual injury. For instance, his high level of commutations (mostly for non-violent drug offenses) made him the first president since the 60’s to see a decrease in the federal prison population. But the laws that created the era of mass incarceration in the first place remained on the books.

A lot of these laws revolve around the War on Drugs, which is steeped in racism and has (to no one’s surprise) had a racist impact in the disproportionate ways it’s been enforced. Obama did nothing to confront this, and he did very little to address the issues of race and police brutality that are manifesting in worldwide protests today.

Let’s not forget that the Black Lives Matter movement began during Obama’s presidency, a direct response to the murders of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. And Brown’s murder led to massive protests in Ferguson, Missouri that are very similar to what we’re seeing now, albeit on a more isolated scale. There were protests, riots, clashes between protesters and police, and a very tangible frustration with the lack of accountability for the officer who killed an unarmed black man.

Obama’s response? He criticized the police response to the protesters, as he should have, and ordered a review of the use of military equipment by the police. It seemed like a promising first step towards demilitarizing the police, but as we can see six years later, that review changed nothing.

Not only did that review not actually lead to any form of demilitarization of the police, but Obama’s criticisms of the police response, in which he said “There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests,” never manifested into any action. There was a slight uptick in the amount of body cameras used by police around the nation, but no structural changes to require them across the board. And obviously qualified immunity was not struck down, or even looked at, despite the fact that it empowered police to get violent with peaceful protesters in Ferguson, just as they’re doing now.

It’s great that Obama is speaking out against this now – it really is – but this man was president for eight years, during which he witnessed the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement, and did nothing to prevent it from happening again. That kind of inaction cannot be excused, especially now that we’re seeing the results of said inaction.

The post Obama’s Words Now Don’t Make Up For 8 years of Inaction Then appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

What has come to be colloquially known as the ‘anti-war left’ arguably saw its rise during the Vietnam War. Protesters were usually more left-leaning populations such as college students, African-Americans, women, and the arts community. The movement was so broad-sweeping that public opinion quickly turned against the Vietnam War. It all hit a fever pitch when Alaska Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers to the press for a subcommittee he chaired.

The anti-war left endured through the end of the Cold War and helped, in part, to elect Bill Clinton. While Clinton was no exemplar for non-interventionism, he rarely deployed troops and came closer than any other president to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And while a good portion of Democratic congressmen and women voted for the Iraq War, the anti-war left soon reemerged.

It was this wave that Barack Obama rode to the 2008 Democratic nomination. Of course, Obama’s actual foreign policy agenda was more akin to George W Bush’s than Clinton’s. And ever since then, the anti-war left has been fading away.

The United States now has a president who is sometimes anti-war. In other words, he seems to be inclined to avoid military force, but occasionally Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton convince him otherwise.

Yet, while President Trump is doing what no other president has done by stepping foot in North Korea, Democrats are sharply criticizing him for it. Sure, Trump doing everything short of tweeting kissy face emojis at Kim Jong-Un is concerning given what the North Korean dictator has done. But that doesn’t change how monumental it is that US-North Korean relations have improved so much in a relatively short period of time.

It seems like forever ago when Trump called Kim “rocketman”, but it has actually been less than two years. Some people (myself included) might object to the very notion of carrying out foreign policy by tweet, but it’s undeniable that the US has a better relationship with North Korea than it ever has.

Apparently that’s not good enough, though.

Several Democratic presidential candidates have taken the opportunity to slam Trump for the meeting. Julian Castro said, “It’s worrisome that this president erratically sets up a meeting without the staff work being done, it seems like it’s all for show, it’s not substantive.” Kamala Harris used the meeting as an excuse to call Trump the biggest national security threat to the US.

A Joe Biden’s spokesman said, “President Trump’s coddling of dictators at the expense of American national security and interests is one of the most dangerous ways he’s diminishing us on the world stage and subverting our values as a nation.” Even Bernie Sanders, who has a well-established anti-war record, was critical of the meeting, stating, “We need real diplomacy. What’s going to happen tomorrow and the next day?”

Of course, all of these individuals were quick to criticize Trump for antagonizing Kim two years ago.

This all goes to show that, sadly, the anti-war left is dead and gone. All it takes to see this is a look at the 2020 candidates.

The only candidates to make non-interventionist foreign policy a core part of their platform are Tulsi Gabbard and the aforementioned Gravel. I’ve already talked about how Gabbard is being sidelined in the race., and Gravel couldn’t even qualify for the first two debates despite the integral role he played in opposing the Vietnam War.

Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both say they’re against military interventions, but rarely speak about it. The rest of the candidates have varying degrees of history in supporting interventionist practices, but haven’t really taken a stand one way or the other for their campaigns. It seems as if the approach is just “Whatever Trump is doing is bad.”

While that might play to the base, it’s lacking any real foreign policy. To quote a certain democratic socialist, “What’s going to happen tomorrow and the next day?”

Cindy Sheehan, a notable anti-war activist, echoed this idea during the Obama years in saying, “The ‘anti-war left’ was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the ‘anti-Republican War’ movement.”

It’s not really surprising that Trump has these inclinations of anti-war sentiment. He was a registered Democrat all the way up until 1987, and then again from 2001 to 2009. That overlaps with two of the biggest eras of the anti-war left: opposition to the Vietnam War and the broader Cold War, and opposition to the Iraq War.

While Trump’s party affiliation has been malleable, so too has the left’s dedication to their anti-war principles. Democrats in Congress didn’t seem to care when the Obama administration destabilized Libya or killed thousands of civilians via drone strikes.

Now, it seems that Democrats don’t care about South Korean President Moon Jae-in declaring a new “era of peace,” or that North Korean media described the DMZ meeting as “a new history of reconciliation and peace.”

It’s clear that the anti-war left is gone. As Sheehan said, it’s now all about opposing the Republicans, even if that means opposing peace.

In the words of George Orwell, “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. “

The post Democrats’ Criticism of Trump-Kim Meeting Confirms It: The Anti-War Left is Dead appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Robert Mueller concluded his investigation and turned his final report into Attorney General Barr. While we haven’t seen the report yet, we have seen the Attorney General’s summary, stating there was no evidence of collusion. This is substantiated by Mueller’s statement that the investigation is over, and there will be no further indictments. That’s it. No collusion.

To say the mainstream liberal media has egg all over their faces is an understatement. Virtually overnight, Fox News became the most credible outlet in America. The mainstream outlets spent the last 2 years calling every development the beginning of the end, and often teased that the walls were closing in [on Trump].

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald tweeted out a Greatest Hits reel.

Some Congressional Democrats have insisted they will continue investigating Trump as long as it takes, for the sake of trying to drag out a scandal that is no longer a scandal.

Unfortunately for them, it appears the momentum has quickly shifted.

There will indeed be investigations, but of Democrats.

Republicans have started the calls for Adam Schiff to resign from his role as the Chair of the Intelligence Committee. This is following Schiff’s regular media appearances over the course of the investigation promising evidence of collusion.

Senator Rand Paul tweeted a call to investigate the perpetrators of the collusion hoax.

It appears the bugs have been fixed with Lindsey Graham 2.0 and he is back, newer than ever. In an interview, Graham backed Paul’s motion to investigate Obama administration Democrats and went into further detail.

The Hill reports:

“Graham also said the Senate Judiciary Committee should look into a controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump.

‘When it comes to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA warrant, the Clinton campaign, the counterintelligence investigation, it’s pretty much been swept under the rug. … Those days are over,’ Graham told reporters during a press conference.”

What Paul and Graham are calling for is an investigation into collusion, and conspiracy to undermine and sway the election. This isn’t a new investigation into Trump, but rather into the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The very nature of Robert Mueller’s investigation finding no collusion immediately bolsters the plausibility of election fraud by the Democrats and makes this investigation necessary.

The now defunct and salacious Steele Dossier was the product of opposition research paid for by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC. They hired the firm Fusion GPS who obtained the Steele Dossier from the former British MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who now runs a private intelligence firm Orbis Business Intelligence. It is run jointly with Christopher Burrows, also a former MI6 agent.

Orbis Business Intelligence bills itself as a corporate investigation firm, specializing in uncovering money laundering, IP fraud, and so forth. Most notably Orbis Business Intelligence received over $1 million in payments from the FBI by supplying them with information regarding FIFA corruption.

These types of agencies are intelligence contractors, and their customers are typically governments. In the United States for example, 70% of our intelligence budget is paid to private intelligence or private security firms (mercenaries). You know, for deniability when diplomacy is at stake.

Opposition research is a standard practice in political campaigns, even if the information turns out to be illegitimate like the dossier contained. What makes the Steele Dossier remarkable however, is that it was a foreign report paid for by the Clinton Campaign, which was used for the Obama [ScAnDaL fReE] Administration to obtain a secret FISA Warrant, and to spy on the Trump Campaign during the election. This is an egregious attack on our election process.

Now, after more than 2 years into Trump’s first term we have learned there was no collusion. This is following 2 years of Democrats working to oust our sitting President over a conspiracy theory based on a wild fabrication paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and used by the Obama administration to spy.

If the Democrats want new investigations, I say lets launch them. But launch them into how it was actually the Democrats who threatened our Republic and committed crimes during the election.

But what about the people charged in the Trump probe? The answer is that those individuals were indicted for their own wheelings and dealings, and had nothing to do with Russia Collusion.

Perhaps the most notable indictment was Paul Manafort, arrested for wire fraud and tax evasion for the period of 2010 through 2014 during his time in Ukraine (not Russia). Ukraine, as it turns out, may very well have been trying to influence the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. Let’s talk about it.

Judgement Day is coming, and the timing couldn’t possibly be worse for the Democrats ramping up for 2020.

The post Judgment Day Is Coming For Dems Now That Mueller Probe Has Ended appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

During an interview on Friday, Omar criticized the policy of former President Barack Obama, referencing the “droning of countries around the world” and the “caging of kids” along the Mexican border.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman congresswoman remarked.

“His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was, and that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”

She clarified her statements Friday afternoon in a tweet.

The following is a screenshot of her tweet regarding Israel, which would eventually lead to a House vote to condemn anti-semitism.

The post Ilhan Omar: Obama Got Away With Murder appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Brad Sylvester on February 26, 2019 

President Donald Trump claimed Feb. 15 that former President Barack Obama “put on more debt on this country than every president in the history of our country combined.”

Verdict: True

Public debt more than doubled in the eight years of Obama’s presidency, rising from $6.3 trillion to $14.4 trillion. Gross federal debt – which includes the amount owed to Social Security and other government accounts – nearly, but did not quite, double.

Fact Check: 

Trump held a press conference Feb. 15 at the White House to declare a national emergency at the southern border. After his remarks, Trump took questionsfrom reporters, including one about his plan to combat the growing national debt.

Trump said economic “growth will straighten it out” and criticized Obama’s management of the debt. “When I took over, we had one man that put on more debt than every other president combined,” he said.

The national debt can be divided into two parts – the amount owed to the public, including private citizens, foreign governments and international investors, and what’s known as intragovernmental holdings, the amount owed to the Social Security Trust Fund and other government accounts.

While the national debt has been increasing for decades due to near-annual budget deficits, it grew dramatically under Obama, increasing from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $19.9 trillion in January 2017, according to Treasury Department figures.

This is the largest dollar increase under any one president by a considerable margin, but not quite as large as the debt Obama inherited. The U.S. added $9.3 trillion over his eight years in office, $1.3 trillion short of doubling. Under President George W. Bush, the debt rose by just under $5 trillion – the second-largest increase of any president.

The public debt, which accounts for nearly three-quarters of the national debt, did double under Obama, increasing from $6.3 trillion to $14.4 trillion.

When asked for comment, the White House did not specify what measure of debt Trump was citing, but economists often speak of public, as opposed to total, debt. “We and other economists tend to prefer ‘debt held by the public,’ which excludes debts the government owes to itself,” Patrick Newton, a spokesperson for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

What caused the national debt to balloon under Obama?

Besides wartime spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Great Recession took a major toll. As tax revenues declined and federal spending rose on safety-net programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps, the deficit regularly topped $1 trillion a year.

Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a financial stimulus package that increased the deficit by $827 billion between 2009 and 2014 through a combination of tax cuts and federal spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Bush-era tax cuts, extended and then made largely permanent under Obama, also contributed to the debt. The Budget Control Act, on the other hand, reigned in deficit spending.

Newton said that Congress shares responsibility for the debt incurred under Obama. “It’s unfair to attribute the increase entirely to Obama. It’s Congress that writes tax and spending laws. The President has little power on their own to affect the debt,” he told TheDCNF in an email.

He pointed out that the debt was already projected to increase before Obama assumed office. Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a group that advocates for fiscal responsibility, made the same point, citing federal spending on baby boomers as one example. “During Obama’s first term, the baby boomer generation begin[s] to qualify for full Social Security benefits and Medicare at age 65. Spending on these programs went up as more beneficiaries began to qualify for benefits,” he told TheDCNF in an email.

While Trump has been critical of Obama’s management of the debt, it has continued to grow rapidly under his watch. In Trump’s first two years in office, the debt has grown from $19.9 trillion to $22 trillion. The CBO projects that the debt will grow to $23.5 trillion by 2020 and will exceed $30 trillion by 2026.

The CRFB warns that if the debt continues to rise, the U.S. will be at risk of a fiscal crisis and may be forced to make significant tax hikes and spending cuts.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued a similar warning last year while testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “This situation is unsustainable as I think we all know, and represents a dire threat to our economic and national security,” he said.

Follow Brad on Twitter

Have a fact check suggestion? Send ideas to brad@dailycallernewsfoundation.orgClick here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post FACT CHECK: Did The National Debt Double Under Obama? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Fleshjack, a gay sex toy manufacturer as well as an account called StudJulian are both followed by the news outlet and the former President.

It’s unclear why they would be following these accounts, or if they were previously a different account whose handles and account ownership were changed.

We know Barack Obama flip-flopped multiple times on the LGBTQ issues for political expediency, but this seems pretty darn committed.

It is also worth noting that most political figures have staffers manage their Social Media accounts. This makes the link between NPR and Barack Obama all the more interesting, as this is a possible indicator that the same person had access to both NPR and Barack Obama’s Twitter accounts.

This presents a seeming conflict of interest where both the media and government are concerned. It opens up the possibility for Executive direction of the media, where NPR may not only be publicly funded, but also was a form of State Run Media under the Obama Administration.

Either way, it sent Twitter into an uproar.

The post Why do NPR and Barack Obama Follow Gay Sex Toy Twitter Accounts? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Peter Hasson on January 1, 2019

Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s website for her presidential exploratory committee attempts to link questions about her claims of Native American heritage to people who questioned whether former President Barack Obama was born in the United States.

Warren launched the committee Monday, including a website with a “fact squad” meant to push back against criticisms of the senator.

Warren’s website blames “the right-wing machine” for scrutiny of her heritage claims.

“They have called Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ and used racist depictions of Native American history, culture, and people to make Elizabeth the butt of a joke,” the website states.

“These actions not only dishonor Native people and their many contributions to this country, but perpetuate harmful stereotypes that Native communities continue to fight against.”

“Show us your papers. Release your birth certificate. It’s all part of the right’s disgusting effort to use race-baiting and fear-mongering to distract our country and divide our people while they rig the system for the rich and powerful,” Warren’s site claims.

It also displays a photoshopped image of Obama behind Warren that reads: “Don’t worry Liz, I think we fooled them.”

Warren’s campaign didn’t return a request for comment on the comparison between Warren’s heritage claims and Obama’s birth certificate.

Trump was among those who questioned whether Obama had actually been born in the United States, an issue Obama put to rest in April 2011 by releasing his long form birth certificate.

Warren in October 2018 released the results of a DNA test indicating she likely has a small fraction of Native American ancestry.

The Cherokee Nation sharply criticized Warren’s use of the DNA test to support her claimed links to the tribe.

Harvard Law School used Warren’s claims of Native American heritage to label her a “Native American professor” and racial minority in the 1990s.

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post Elizabeth Warren Compares Scrutiny Of Native American Heritage Claim To Obama Birtherism appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Molly Prince on December 26, 2018

Former President Barack Obama has been reportedly upsetting his two-time running-mate Joe Biden as he meets with other potential Democratic presidential candidates.

Obama has been sitting down with prospective Democrats over the past few months as the party searches for a strong challenger to emerge to face President Donald Trump in 2020. He met with Biden as early on as June to discuss his presidential ambitions, reported Politico.

In addition to his former vice president, Obama has had one-on-one meetings with a host of other possible contenders including Democrats Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and defeated Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum. He also notably met with Democratic Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke shortly after his defeat to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz — only a week later, O’Rourke publicly revealed he was considering a presidential run despite consistently claiming he definitely will not be running for president.

Biden has not yet officially announced his candidacy, but he reignited speculation in December when he referred to himself as the “most qualified person” to take on Trump.

“I’ll be as straight with you as I can. I think I’m the most qualified person in the country to be president,” Biden said. “The issues that we face as a country today are the issues that have been in my wheelhouse, that I’ve worked on my whole life.”

Biden, a close ally to Obama, is reportedly displeased he is so inclined to talk to his potential primary challengers while he is still mulling over his own presidential run, according to Vanity Fair.

Obama has not yet endorsed any 2020 candidate and is not expected to do so in the near future. The meetings are reported to be more of a sounding board rather than a blueprint.

However, a spokesman for Biden denied the accusation, telling Vanity Fair the report is “unequivocally false. Period.” Regardless, he refused to comment on how Biden feels about Obama’s discussion with other Democrats.

Follow Molly @mollyfprince

Send tips to molly@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2018 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post Obama’s Flirtation With Potential 2020 Presidential Challengers Is Upsetting Biden: Report appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.