Yabberz for AndroidDownload
Grassroots Trump Resistance News

Merkel Just Decided To Close All Of Germany's Coal Power Plants. All Of Them


      Coal bites the dust in Germany, Europe's greenest nation

      But this is not the first time German Chancellor Angela Merkel has pulled a stunt like this. In 2011, a few months after Japan's Fukushima disaster, she abruptly ordered the shutdown of almost half the country’s 27 nuclear reactors and set a timeline to take the rest offline by 2022.

      The loudest protests came from people who thought that wasn’t fast enough.

      This week some muttered about higher energy prices and energy security concerns over Merkel’s 2038 coal phase-out decision. But just as loud were complaints that it could all be done a decade faster if the government really put its mind to it.

      It’s not just in policy, but in politics too. Last year regional elections in Bavaria and Hesse, home to BMW and Deutsche Bank respectively, saw best-ever results for the Green Party. They are currently polling just a smidgen under 20 per cent in national surveys, second only to Angela Merkel’s centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU).

      Something is happening. But what, and why, and why now? Why, of all places, is Germany so green?

      “Coal was like gold,” recalls Friedbert Meurer, a correspondent for German national public radio and a child of Germany’s postwar industrial boom, known as the Wirtschaftswunder, the Miracle on the Rhine.

      “Lorries full of coal, trains full of coal were a symbol of the Wirtschaftswunder. The rise of Germany after the war and in the '50s and '60s was strongly linked to coal mining. Coal was the energy to boost modern Germany, to make Germany successful again.

      “In the '50s and '60s, and even '70s and '80s, that would have been unthinkable - to say ‘let’s phase out the coal industry’.”

      But in the 1990s, things began to change.

      “Germans have started to feel uncomfortable with coal,” says Meurer. “It’s a little bit weird because the Germans rely so very much on their industry sector - but they don’t like it. It’s dirty, it pollutes the environment.”

      He remembers the first Greens to enter parliament. They were, frankly, hippies. They arrived wearing jeans, carrying sunflowers in pots. They were ridiculed.

      But they married their environmentalism with pacifism, a movement with extra resonance in Germany, not just because of the war but also the knowledge that the country could have become a nuclear battleground at the height of the Cold War. They opposed the Iraq war, a move that garnered respect.

      Figures like Joschka Fischer, a popular, politically canny and endearingly outspoken Green who served as foreign minister and vice-chancellor in the cabinet of Gerhard Schroeder, helped move his party into the political mainstream. The sneakers he wore to his swearing-in are now in a museum.

      The Greens were even in power, in coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD), in North Rhine-Westphalia, the heart of the coal and steel industry. There were arguments over coal. At the time the Social Democrats, many of whose members came from the industrial working class, resisted the Greens’ moves to change the agenda.

      But the clock was ticking. In 1990 there were 115,000 employees in the brown coal sector of reunited Germany. Now there are only 20,000. And there are 330,000 workers in renewables.

      “Workers and their families are voters,” says Meurer.

      Angela Merkel, he says, has a very important skill: “She knows exactly when the time is ripe.”


      more less

      2020 Democratic Candidates Are Pushing For More Progressive Tax Proposals


          Times have changed! It used to be that making taxes more progressive was considered just a crazy left wing idea. No more.

          Ever since I can remember, Republicans have run their campaigns on reducing or claiming that they would reduce taxes. As we have seen, what they really do is reduce them for the very wealthy, while the middle class bears the "16 ton" tax burden.

          At the same time, any Democrat who proposed a more progressive tax policy was seen as a falling off the edge leftist with crazy ideas; but wow, how that has changed. Since voters have seen how Trump’s tax plan has actually worked out, many are wide open to looking at ways to make the economic stagnation and Right Wing tax pain stop.

          Today, Democrats and Republicans appear to be farther apart on taxation than ever. Candidates who are competing for the Democratic nomination for President of the United states are pushing some of the most progressive tax reforms Americans have seen in years.

          As a result, the campaigns seem to be shaping up into what tax plans each candidate is promoting, and how each plan is going to be financed.

          PBS has given us a snapshot of where 7 of the Democratic candidates stand in regards to the Republican tax cuts.


          2/18/19. PBS

          While there’s widespread consensus among 2020 Democrats that taxes on the wealthy should go up, there’s disagreement on the details and no two proposals look exactly alike, a sign that economic policy could dominate the Democratic primaries.

          “The whole window has moved,” said Morris Pearl, the chair of Patriotic Millionaires, an organization that supports more taxes on the wealthy. “It used to be that making taxes more progressive was considered the crazy left wing. Now that we have some very progressive plans in the left wing, restoring things to where they were two years ago ["before the Republican tax cuts] seems a middle of the road plan.”

          Image result for pictures of Elizabeth Warren

          Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has proposed a 2 percent annual “wealth tax” on Americans who have more than $50 million in assets, and a 3 percent tax on those with a net worth of more than $1 billion. That tax would be on top of any income taxes they already pay.

          Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, who announced his 2020 presidential campaign Tuesday, wants to increase the federal estate tax to 77 percent on the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans

          Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is sticking by the tax plan she proposed last fall. It would give middle-income households cash payments of up to $6,000 a year per family. The payments would be offset by repealing the 2017 GOP tax cuts and creating a fee on large financial institutions.

          Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., meanwhile, has proposed a bill that would create savings accounts for every American child, paid for by an increase in the capital gains and estate taxes.

          Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. - denounced the Republican tax cuts

          Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii,.- criticized the Republican tax cuts.

          Julian Castro, a former Obama administration cabinet official, has said he supports raising the corporate tax rate to make sure companies “pay their fair share.”


          The idea of raising taxes on the wealthy has gained ground with liberal voters — and unsurprisingly, Democrats overall are twice as likely as Republicans to say tax rates should be raised for corporations and high-income earners, Pew Research Center surveys show.

          There are also signs that the 2017 tax overhaul sharpened the partisan divide over taxes.

          The law doubled the standard deduction for individuals, gave tax write-offs to businesses that invested in the U.S., reduced the corporate income tax rate form 35 percent to 21 percent, and created a 20 percent deduction for small business owners who pay their taxes as individuals instead of through their companies.

          Republicans said the overhaul was a tax cut for the middle class and argued it would spur economic growth, but Democrats, and a number of nonprofit organizations, have labeled it a tax cut for the wealthy and some studies have shown companies are investing less in research and workers than GOP lawmakers predicted.

          Only 8 percent of Democrats approve of the law, according to Gallup, compared to 76 percent of Republicans and 34 percent of Independents.

          The polling underscores why raising taxes on the wealthy could help draw votes in the Democratic primaries. But the 2018 midterm elections proved that focusing too much on taxes could be risky.

          Only 11 percent of voters said tax cuts were an important issue in the midterms, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. At the same time, about 60 percent of respondents said they preferred reversing the tax cuts to reducing government spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

          Americans trust Republicans about as much as Democrats when it comes to taxes.

          Now, 2020 White House hopefuls need to figure out how to thread that needle, Democratic strategists said.


          (lightly edited; images added.)

          more less
          Pundit Post

          Trump Officials Tried To Rush Nuclear Technology To Saudis, House Panel Finds


              Trump Officials Tried To Rush Nuclear Technology To Saudis, House Panel Finds

              February 19, 201912:55 PM ET

              The Trump administration sought to rush the transfer of American nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the law, a new report from the House Oversight and Reform Committee alleges.

              Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings' staff issued an "interim staff" report Tuesday, citing "multiple whistleblowers" who raised ethical and legal concerns about the process.

              "They have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisers at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump administration officials to halt their efforts," the report states. "They have also warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes."

              The committee's report alleges that the major drivers behind the effort to transfer U.S. nuclear technology were retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who served as the president's national security adviser, and Thomas Barrack, who chaired Trump's inauguration committee. Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying about conversations with the Russian ambassador to Vice President Pence and the FBI.

              For about seven months in 2016, including during the presidential transition, Flynn served as an adviser to IP3 International, a private company seeking to build nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia.

              The whistleblowers told the committee that Flynn continued to advocate for IP3's plan even after he joined the White House as the president's national security adviser in 2017.

              The Atomic Energy Act requires that Congress approve any transfer of nuclear technology to a foreign country. The committee's report states that a senior director at the National Security Council (NSC), Derek Harvey, "reportedly ignored ... warnings and insisted that the decision to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia had already been made."

              The NSC's lawyers realized that Flynn had a possible conflict of interest that could violate the law, the whistleblowers said, and told NSC staff to stop working on the nuclear technology transfer plan. Despite Flynn's firing in February 2017, the plan appeared to continue to progress with Barrack's support.

              The committee announced that it intends to launch an investigation into this matter "to determine whether the actions being pursued by the Trump administration are in the national security interests of the United States, or, rather, serve those who stand to gain financially as a result of this potential change in U.S. foreign policy."

              Shortly after the release of the report, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced that his panel would be coordinating with Cummings' staff to explore these allegations.

              Tuesday's disclosure of a plan to sell nuclear technology comes as the United States considers its relationship with the Saudi government in the wake of the killing of writer Jamal Khashoggi.

              Following his death, the House and Senate have both passed resolutions to limit U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led coalition fighting in the Yemeni civil war. The Senate also passed a resolution by voice vote — reflecting unanimity — that was fashioned to "hold Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi."

              The report also comes as President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is scheduled to travel next week for a trip to the Middle East that includes a stop in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

              The White House did not immediately respond to a request to comment on the committee's report.


              more less

              Individuals In Government Cannot Be Trusted With Our Personal Information

              This is a perfect example of why most of us don't want the government to have any more information on any of us for whatever reason. Bureaucrats thinking of themselves as being super heroes with the right to release personal information they have been entrusted with to either frame, or bring down a person because they disagree with them politically. Not everyone in government are honest Abe Lincoln these days.


              more less

              Is Elizabeth Warren Making Child Care A 2020 Progressive Litmus Test?



                  “It’s something that’s often been described as family policy, but we have growing evidence that child care is an economic necessity.”

                  Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks at an organizing event on February 17 in Las Vegas.John Locher/AP


                  Senator Warren’s proposed child care plan took me by surprise. As many times as families - and especially single parents - have spoken up about how costly early child care is, and how it often means living at poverty level no matter how hard parents work, even though Democrats talk about it, this issue has mostly been given short shrift by politicians. But now, Americans have a Presidential candidate who has made it one of her priorities.

                  Warren’s plan is comprehensive, well thought out, and covers children until they are of school, age. The way this plan is funded is from what Warren calls the “ultra millionaire tax.”

                  According to reliable studies, lack of adequate child care depresses economic growth and hampers child development - our nations future workers - so even those who are not interested in helping American families and their children would see a benefit from our nation allowing for adequate universal child care, but unfortunately, America has fallen behind on this issue as on others such as heath care and infrastructure.

                  In the past we’ve seen candidates such as Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders propose ideas for child care, but Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan is the first universal child care plan to be proposed, and this is the first time Americans have seen anyone “coming out the gate” with a child care plan. As a result she is likely to get plenty of flak from RW commentators and Trump operatives.

                  Warren’s proposal could be the start of something big! Other Democratic candidates might consider this important enough to flesh out their own plans. I look forward to what might happen next!

                  Kara Voght gives us the story - from Mother Jones. 2/21/19

                  Senator Elizabeth Warren with her family


                  The early days of the 2020 Democratic primary have been defined by candidates rushing to embrace progressive policy ideas, with a string of candidates throwing their support behind leftist ideas on issues like climate change, tax policy, and health care. On Tuesday, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren added a new category to that leftward shift, releasing a proposal for universal child care, a commitment most of her fellow 2020 hopefuls have not yet made.

                  Warren’s new plan is a more fully fleshed-out and aggressive plan than what Democrats have proposed in the recent past. Under her proposal, the federal government would administer a network of existing locally run day care facilities for children who would be eligible to attend between birth and the time they start school. No family would pay more than 7 percent of their income for public child care, and families below 200 percent of the federal poverty line would pay nothing at all. According to an economic analysis conducted by Moody’s Analytics and provided by Warren’s office, the deal would give 12 million children access to child care—6.8 million more than currently receive formal child care. The revenue necessary to fund the program, which would cost an estimated $700 billion over 10 years, would come from an “ultra-millionaire tax” Warren has proposed on the richest 0.1 percent of Americans.

                  “I am so tired of hearing what the richest country on the face of this Earth just can’t afford to do,” Warren told a crowd in Los Angeles on Monday evening as she previewed her plan. “Invest in our babies, invest in our toddlers, invest in our preschoolers—that’s an investment that will pay off for generations to come.”

                  Child care as a Democratic campaign plank is nothing new. During the 2016 race, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton backed universal preschool and advocated affordable child care: Clinton proposed capping a family’s child care expenses at 10 percent of its household income, while Sanders shared Warren’s aspiration for government-backed universal care. But tackling child care has largely languished at the bottom of candidates’ wishlists, lacking either the airtime or details necessary to make it a major campaign issue. Clinton didn’t unveil her child care proposal until May 2016, only two months before the Democratic primary; Sanders, meanwhile, never filled in the specifics on his platform.

                  Both the scope and timing of Warren’s proposal set her apart from her 2016 predecessors—and the rest of the 2020 field. “This is the first time we’ve seen someone coming out of the gate with a child care plan,” says Katie Hamm, the vice president of early childhood policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the advocacy wing of the liberal think tank that provides policy advice to elected officials. CAP gave feedback to Warren’s staff on her proposal.

                  There’s been a struggle to get lawmakers to line up behind a universal plan. The most recent Democratic legislative effort, spearheaded by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in September 2017, similarly focused on access to quality child care and capped what families would pay, but higher-income families would not be eligible to participate. The last president to gain traction on the idea was Richard Nixon, whose White House worked with congressional Democrats to craft a proposal that, like Warren’s, would have established a national network of federally funded child care centers and subsidize costs based on family income. The bill passed both chambers of Congress, but Nixon ultimately vetoed the measure because of concerns about the “family-weakening” implications that “communal” approaches to child-rearing might have. (Nixon aide Pat Buchanan put it more bluntly, suggesting the policy would lead to the “Sovietization of American children.”).

                  The characterization stymied future efforts, though it’s not one most 2020 Democrats worry about—especially in a campaign largely defined by candidates’ willingness to move to the left on economic issues. In fact, economic gains played a prominent role in Warren’s unveiling, as she drew attention to how federal investment in the issue could be a big boost to child care workers, working parents, and the economy at large. “More than a million child-care workers will get higher wages and more money to spend,” Warren said in a blog post accompanying the release. “More parents can work more hours if they choose to, producing stronger economic growth.”

                  Indeed, the child care industry has its hand in economic stagnation: A CAP analysis of data from the National Survey of Children’s Health found that nearly 2 million parents of children under five left, turned down, or changed jobs to address a child care conflict. (Child care costs more than in-state tuition for public universities in many states.) Meanwhile, the median hourly wage of a child care worker, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $10.72—just a hair above the federal minimum wage.

                  That emphasis also distinguishes Warren’s proposal from past child care pushes, Hamm says, which have often focused more on the benefits to children and the families seeking support. “It’s something that’s often been described as family policy, but we have growing evidence that child care is an economic necessity,” Hamm explains. “It not only addresses family economic security, but it also contributes to macroeconomic growth.”

                  For Warren, elevating the issue is personal. In her blog post, the senator described the struggle she faced balancing her full-time job as a law professor with raising two little kids as a single mother. When babysitters and day care centers failed her, she contemplated quitting her job until her 78-year-old aunt moved in to take care of the kids. “Not everyone is lucky enough to have an Aunt Bee of their own,” she writes.

                  And for other candidates, the issue has been personal too. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a mother of two children, has been a vocal proponent of affordable child care since she was first elected to federal office more than a decade ago. Sen. Kamala Harris, a stepmother to two, talked about the need for affordable child care in her opening pitch to voters when she announced her candidacy in Oakland last month. But while these candidates and others have joined Warren on the left of some economic concerns, child care isn’t yet one of them. Harris and Gillibrand have stated support of universal preschool, but have not proposed policy as sweeping as Warren’s. Sanders, who officially entered the 2020 fray Tuesday, vowed to go as far as Warren, but has not put forward a proposal.

                  But just as faint cries for a public option turned into broad support for Medicare-for-all, there’s a chance Warren’s early move could force the hand of others, turning child care into a 2020 progressive litmus test, too. “A lot of issues have been discussed early on in the campaign, and it will be really important if all candidates talk about child care early on, too,” Helen Blank, the director of child care and early learning at the National Women’s Law Center, tells Mother Jones. “We’ll no doubt see many proposals as candidates make a commitment to this issue.”


                  more less
                  Pundit Post

                  Trump's War On California


                      The following, rather lengthy, article captures very well how our state is thriving and why Donald Trump hates it. The political divide is as basic as the Republicans claim that "Democrats want to turn America into California", which they consider a nightmare scenario.

                      Despite the state's problems, from the shortage of affordable housing, to drought, flooding and wildfires due to climate change, California has nonetheless grown to the world’s fifth-largest economy, up from eighth a decade ago.

                      "If it’s a socialist hellhole, it’s a socialist hellhole that somehow nurtured Apple, Google, Facebook, Tesla, Uber, Netflix, Oracle and Intel, not to mention old-economy stalwarts like Chevron, Disney, Wells Fargo and the Hollywood film industry."


                      more less
                      Pundit Post

                      Schiff Hits Back At Trump: He’s ‘terrified’ Of House Russia Probe


                          House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday fired back at President Trump after the president accused him of being a "political hack," saying that he could understand why Trump was scared of congressional oversight.

                          The comments from Schiff came just minutes after Trump denounced the California Democrat for opening a sweeping committee probe into Trump’s ties to Russia and his personal finances.

                          “He has no basis to do that. He’s just a political hack who’s trying to build a name for himself,” the president told reporters at the White House. “It’s just presidential harassment and it’s unfortunate and it really does hurt our country."

                          Schiff announced earlier Wednesday that the House Intelligence panel's investigation would extend beyond potential links between Russia and the Trump campaign. Among other things, Schiff said the probe would evaluate if Trump's decisions have been motivated by financial gain.

                          “The president’s actions and posture towards Russia during the campaign, transition, and administration have only heightened fears of foreign financial or other leverage over President Trump and underscore the need to determine whether he or those in his administration have acted in service of foreign interests since taking office,” he said in a statement.

                          Trump said during the State of the Union that an "economic miracle" was taking place in the U.S. and that the only thing that could stop it were "foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations.”

                          The remark was criticized by both Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

                          "You know what I think it shows, he’s scared," Schumer said on CNN's "New Day. "He’s got something to hide. Because if he had nothing to hide he’d just shrug his shoulders and let these investigations go forward."


                          more less

                          NC-09 - Day Four - A Compilation Of All Four Days, In Lowlights Form


                              So...I posted an article previously about Day One. But for the sake of getting this all in the same place, we will also recap Day One here.

                              DAY ONE LOWLIGHTS -

                              Star witness Lisa Britt testifies about going door to door in rural Bladen County to collect voter's absentee mail-in ballots (a felony in North Carolina)

                              Britt also testifies about taking ballots home with her to "help" voters by filling in votes in contests the voter had left blank (guess which candidate she would select)

                              Britt, self described "ex-stepdaughter" of none other than Leslie McCrae Dowless...testifies she was paid by Dowless $3 for every ballot collected.
                              Britt also admits to voting herself in 2018, despite being a convicted felon on probation (thus voting was yet another felony in her case)

                              Britt also admits to "witnessing" ballots she was not there for (signing as a witness as required for absentee ballots in NC...someone must witness) - and that, when told by Dowless to stop it because she had witnessed too many ballots..."witnessed" more ballots in her mother's name...signing her mother's name as ballot witness (forgery).

                              Dowless, himself, was released from subpoena by the Board, because, if they compelled him to testify, they would have had to give him immunity, per NC law (see more about this below.) Dowless then refused to testify and left.

                              DAY TWO LOWLIGHTS

                              Testimony of Andy Yates, CEO of the one-man political consulting group, Red Dome (which was in fact decertified as a corporation by the NC Secretary of State in 2017) - the reason being failure for two years to file required annual reports. (These are reports that every registered LLC in North Carolina must file annually...even I must file them for my home business.)

                              Turns out that Harris' campaign hired Dowless (more on this in Day Three lowlights) and THEN....hired Red Dome, and transferred management and payment of Dowless to Red Dome...to keep his campaign at an arm's length from Dowless. In legal terms, this is called "willful blindness" in which a person seeks to avoid criminal liability for a wrongful act, by deliberately keeping himself unaware of facts that would make them liable.

                              We then learn that Red Dome, and Yates...paid Dowless over $130,000 for his services over the course of the campaign...which amounts to over five percent of the entire Harris Campaign's budget...and for all that, Red Dome NEVER KEPT ANY RECORDS ON DOWLESS' ACTIVITIES!! Not only this, but Dowless, a contractor...was under no written contract, with no statement of work to be performed.

                              Dowless was reimbursed by Red Dome without being required to present any receipts to Red Dome. Red Dome had no record of how many employees Dowless used, not the identities of those employees...nor how many hours they worked...despite Dowless being paid by the person-hour!

                              Damn good work if you can get it for a man who is an ex-felon...

                              Dowless' previous crime? Purchasing a life insurance policy on an already-dead person, then attempting to collect on the policy!

                              DAY THREE LOWLIGHTS

                              John Harris, an attorney with the US Department of Justice - who also happens to be Candidate Mark Harris' son...TESTIFIES AGAINST HIS OWN FATHER...stating that before his father hired Dowless, he repeatedly warned his father against hiring Dowless...saying that his operation looked shady and probably involved illegal ballot-harvesting.
                              Candidate Harris weeps in the courtroom, as his own son testifies...reluctantly but forthrightly....against his own father.

                              NOTE: from attorney comments, it would seem a separate criminal investigation is now underway against Dowless...but for now, no details of this separate investigation are known. This explains the decision to release Dowless from subpoena, however. Likely he himself will now never testify before the Board of Elections - whether or not he will take the stand in a separate criminal trial, should one come of the ongoing investigation...is anyone's guess.

                              DAY FOUR LOWLIGHTS

                              A lawyer for Candidate Harris admits that documents were not turned over to the Board until testimony (from John Harris) that Candidate Harris had multiple warnings "a political operative" might be manipulating ballots. The attorney says that documents were not even reviewed when they received a subpoena from the Board for those very documents.

                              A new text message reveals Candidate Harris WANTED Dowless because of the results Dowless had produced for a GOP rival (Todd Johnson, a rival of then-incumbent Robert Pittenger...and a rival to Harris himself in that contested 2016 Primary.) The text message was between Harris and an unnamed political ally in Bladen County.

                              Mark Harris contends he took Dowless' word that his vote-collecting results were legal despite numerous warnings from his son, US Attorney John Harris. Candidate Harris further states he never independently confirmed claims by Dowless that he and his workers never handled ballots, again taking him at his word. Harris also never checked how Red Dome was managing or paying Dowless (even though Dowless alone got 5 percent of the entire campaign budget) - and was shocked to learn that Dowless had been paid $115,000 without requiring receipts - or proof that work was performed...or the nature of such work. Shocked I tell you....shocked!!

                              Candidate Harris himself now on the stand...and claims to have recently undergone a blood infection that led to sepsis and two strokes, and that he was not in a position to be clear on all the details (shades of Reagan here) - he then said he was suffering from confusion...but that he could clearly see that there were "substantial doubts" about fairness....and then himself called for a new election!!

                              Ex-candidate Harris could have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

                              It would seem that this is now a foregone conclusion, there will be a new election in NC-09. Likely they will coordinate with NC-03 where there is also now a vacancy due to the death of longtime Republican Representative Walter Jones.

                              However, the hearing is still ongoing...and no final decision has been made...though it would seem with ex-Candidate Harris statement, there would be little doubt as to the outcome.

                              I will add to this if anything else WOWSERS comes out, but in light of Harris' own call for a nee election, I think it is time to hit the POST button...

                              UPDATE: Verdict - unanimous vote of all five Board members of the NC BoE calls for new election in NC-09.

                              Now...because of the law that the outgoing supermajority GOP rammed through, it would seem there will also now need to be new Primaries also. This will likely be coordinated with Special elections in NC-03 to fill the seat of recently deceased long term Republican Congressman Walter Jones.

                              Undoubtedly, the Dem candidate will be McCready, and the GOP candidate will be anyone but Harris, who even in North Carolina...is now a dead man walking. My money is on former incumbent Robert Pittenger.

                              UPDATE 2:

                              @DallasWoodhouse says, re: the decision in the NC-09 #ElectionFraud case..."There are no winners..."

                              Wrong, Dallas. The winners here are #truth #ElectionIntegrity, and the people of NC-09. Just no winners among the @NCGOP#NC09 #NorthCarolina

                              — Madam Precinct Chair (@Angela4NCGA) February 21, 2019

                              There is a reason I have dubbed this guy "the Howard Cosell of the NCGOP"

                              more less

                              Yabberz Search

                              Topics Found



                              Load More Posts
                              Hi There,

                              Do you want to quickly add followers, meet new friends, or simply connect with existing contacts to discuss the news?

                              Do you have an email group that shares news items?

                              It's now super easy and rewarding to find and add friends on Yabberz.

                              This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home

                                  Click to confirm you are 18 yrs of age or older and open

                                  Click to confirm you want to see post

                                  more less

                                      more less
                                      Block User
                                      This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in. In order to later unblock this user, visit the blocked user tab found on your about me profile page. Click confirm block to complete.
                                      Last Heard: a minute ago
                                      Joined: Mar 4' 15
                                      Followers: 100
                                      Points: 100,000