Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republican House Candidate Body-Slams Reporter

A Republican candidate running for Congress in a Montana special election has been charged with misdemeanor assault for body-slamming a reporter from the Guardian. He also broke the reporter’s glasses and shouted, “Get the hell out of here.” Greg Gianforte, a millionaire who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, seems to have lost his temper when political reporter Ben Jacobs asked him about the Republican health care plan. There is an audio recording of the incident, but no video. However, three Fox News journalists also witnessed the assault. “Faith, Keith, and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’” said reporter Alicia Acuna, adding that Jacobs had not shown any form of aggression.

Montana GOP candidate Greg Gianforte allegedly “body slammed” a reporter, according to audio and witness accounts https://t.co/Y3hQofhQ8C pic.twitter.com/l0ZfXAfw3p

— CNN (@CNN) May 25, 2017

Gianforte’s campaign spokesman blamed Jacobs and said that he was the aggressive one, contrary to the Fox News account. In a statement, the campaign claimed that Jacobs grabbed Gianforte’s wrist and spun away, “pushing them both to the ground.” “It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ,” the statement read. But this account was contradicted by eyewitnesses and the audio recording, in which Gianforte is heard asking whether Jacobs is with the Guardian, and saying, “The last guy did the same damn thing.” Voting for the special election is today, and we’ll have to see if this incident has any impact on Gianforte’s chances.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Seriously, Sean Spicer?

Sean Spicer has done it again. At the daily press briefing yesterday, while criticizing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people, he referenced World War II. “You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons,” he said, implying that Assad is worse than Hitler while somehow forgetting that Hitler killed millions of Jews via gas chambers.

I hope @PressSec takes time to visit @HolocaustMuseum. It’s a few blocks away. https://t.co/24fNoMUyS8

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) April 11, 2017

When trying to clarify his comments, Spicer continued to flub, saying, “He was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.” But between 160,000 and 180,000 Jews that the Nazis killed were from Germany, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The comparison drew immediate backlash on social media and elsewhere, and Spicer later apologized on CNN.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republicans Finally Introduce Their Obamacare Replacement

Yesterday, House Republicans presented their draft version of a replacement of the Affordable Care Act, which was one of President Donald Trump’s most ardent campaign promises. The new law would keep some of the ACA’s key components, such as prohibiting companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents’ health plan. However, it would reverse the expansion of Medicaid and drop the requirement that bigger companies must provide health insurance for full-time employees. It also does away with the provision that requires Americans to either have health insurance or pay a penalty fee. And it would get rid of federal subsidies for low-income individuals and, as many people have feared, defund Planned Parenthood for one year (more on that below).

According to Republicans, the ACA is “a sinking ship.” But Democrats are highly critical of this new plan. “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage–and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. And some on social media were also critical of the language used to refer to the new plan, claiming it was out of touch and didn’t acknowledge the real costs of care in the U.S.

Yes, the reason poor have trouble affording health care is all the new iPhones they’re buying. https://t.co/EJsZaejOH1 pic.twitter.com/SWoUp2nvAe

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump made his first visit to the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday. After a morning tour of the museum, which opened last September, Trump spoke about the need to “fight bigotry and hatred and intolerance.” He decried the divisions that exist in America and, after weeks of prodding from lawmakers and Jewish leaders, denounced the spate of bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers across the country since the election.

After his tour, which he said was “a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry and hatred and intolerance,” Trump gave a brief speech. “Today and every day of my presidency I pledge to do everything I can to continue that promise of freedom for African-Americans and for every American,” he said, flanked by his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development nominee Ben Carson–whose life is captured in an exhibit at the museum–and Carson’s wife.

“We’re going to bring this country together. We have a divided country that’s been divided for many, many years, but we’re going to bring it together,” Trump added. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and his aide (and former “Apprentice” contestant) Omarosa Manigault also accompanied Trump to the museum. Rep. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) was also there. Trump, it seemed, sought to add legitimacy to his remarks by surrounding himself with black aides and lawmakers.

But what Trump has said, and did not say, during the campaign and his presidency regarding the black community has drawn criticism. At speeches and rallies, in stadiums packed primarily with white supporters, Trump was fond of painting inner cities as dens of violence and decay that only afflict black people. Most recently, at a lengthy press conference last week, Trump asked April Ryan, a White House reporter who is black, if she is “friends” with the Congressional Black Caucus. After Ryan asked if Trump would meet with the CBC, he replied: “Do you want to set up the meeting?”

During Trump’s visit to the museum, a line of dump trucks was deployed on Constitution Avenue, as an extra layer of security:

Dump trucks stand guard outside the museum on Tuesday. Image courtesy of Anja Poradzisz.

Law enforcement agencies have employed similar tactics in the past, both for Trump and previous presidents. On Election Day, for instance, the New York Police Department placed 10 Sanitation Department trucks in front of Trump Tower in Manhattan, where Trump was staying. This barrier is a response to the increased threat of truck attacks, which have been used by Islamic State sympathizers in Nice, France, and Berlin.

In 1970, in response to anti-Vietnam War protests, President Richard Nixon’s staff deployed a similar security tactic. Nixon’s advisers decided to surround the White House with school buses. “To me, it’s different looking at a bus than it is looking at a cordon of SWAT-clad policemen, which to me invites a confrontation,” said Egil Krogh, a Nixon adviser who helped devise the bus buffer. “You have to provide the protection, but you do it in a way that is the least provocative, and likely to [provoke] an attack.”

In his remarks, Trump responded to the rise in reported anti-Semitic incidents since the election–just last week, 100 headstones were vandalized at a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis. Leaders of Jewish groups and many lawmakers have been calling for Trump to forcefully respond in recent weeks. On Tuesday, he called the incidents “horrible and painful and a very sad reminder of the work that must still be done to root out hate and prejudice.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Pledges to Fight Bigotry During African American History Museum Visit appeared first on Law Street.

All eyes are on President-elect Donald Trump as he begins to build his Cabinet and staff other key positions essential to his administration. While his rumored short list varies, one thing is certain: it’s definitely aimed at “shaking up” Washington. Here are a few of the biggest highlights so far:

Dr. Ben Carson Turned Down Secretary of Health and Human Services

On Tuesday it was reported that Dr. Ben Carson rejected Trump’s offer to serve as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Carson’s business manager and personal confidant Armstrong Williams told “The Hill”:

Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.

That’s pretty awkward given that Carson thought he was qualified to run the entire country just a few months ago.

Rudy Giuliani Favored to be Secretary of State

After reportedly shooting down rumors that he’d be the next Attorney General, New York’s former mayor and Trump loyalist, Rudy Giuliani, is now considered to be the top pick for Trump’s Secretary of State. Giuliani is being considered alongside former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, a hawkish conservative who advocated for the U.S. to bomb Iran to halt the country’s nuclear program.

Jeff Sessions as Possible Attorney General or Secretary of Defense

Originally it was speculated that Chris Christie would be Trump’s first choice for leader of the Department of Justice, but the New Jersey Governor has been losing steam in the Trump camp as of late. On Friday he was replaced abruptly by Vice President-elect Pence as head of the transition team. With Giuliani probably out, Sen Jeff Session [R-AL] is the new leading contender for Attorney General, and is being considered for Secretary of Defense as well. Sessions is known for his hardline positions on immigration, and supported Trump’s proposed wall along the Mexico border.

What About His Non-Cabinet Positions?

Unlike Cabinet positions, these positions don’t require confirmation from the Senate, but they’re still important.

Reince Priebus Will Be Chief of Staff

On Sunday, Trump named RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff. Priebus will be in charge of the day-to-day operations in the White House. This was probably one of Trump’s safest decisions, given that it’s clearly an olive branch to establishment Republicans. During the election Priebus criticized Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, but later helped rally support for the party nominee during the campaign’s final weeks.

Steve Bannon Will Be Chief Strategist

However, Trump’s next pick was much more controversial. On Sunday Trump also named Breitbart News’ executive chairman, Steve Bannon, as his Chief Strategist. The alt-right media exec has been called racist, anti-Semetic, and a White Nationalist, and has supported Trump wholeheartedly through the election. Bannon even took a leave of absence from his Breitbart role to help manage Trump’s campaign.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid delivered a speech before Congress denouncing Bannon. Reid pleaded for trump to rescind his nomination, adding: “Rise to the dignity of the office – president of the United States – instead of hiding behind your Twitter account.”

When Will We Learn More?

Other recognizable Republicans rumored to be on Trump’s short list include: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin, and Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, just to name a few. There are predictions galore for the rest of Trump’s Cabinet, but it may be several more days, or weeks even, before he announces his picks.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Cabinet: What We Know So Far appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the second day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Kevin Rizzo and Alec Siegel:

There Was Some High Quality Merch for Sale

Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Ben Carson Talks About Hillary Clinton and the Devil

Tuesday night’s theme was “Make America Work Again” and although many speakers veered off topic during their remarks, Ben Carson may have also deviated from his prepared remarks. He appeared to make an association between Hillary Clinton, and well, the devil.

Carson notes that Clinton wrote her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky and he went as far as saying that Alinsky was a mentor of hers. As Politifact notes, Clinton did write her senior thesis about Alinsky and Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” does include an epigraph referencing Lucifer, but the rest of the connection appears to be tenuous. Ultimately, Clinton disagreed with Alinsky’s goal of changing the system from outside, and as for Lucifer, I’m not really sure where Carson was going with that.

Here’s a clip from Carson’s speech:

Even More Plagiarism? Not Quite

Donald Trump Jr. gave the strongest speech of the night on Tuesday and possibly the strongest speech in the first two days of the convention. He invoked traditional Republican themes of hard work and the American Dream with a forceful eloquence that moved the crowd. However, just as plagiarism became the topic of conversation last night, one of Trump Jr.’s lines appears to have been lifted from a recent essay. But it’s a little more complicated than that. Here’s a tweet from the “Daily Show” pointing out the similarity:

pic.twitter.com/QEftnTTwy3

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) July 20, 2016

As is the case for nearly every major speech (although possibly not Melania Trump’s), the speaker didn’t write the actual speech. Or they at least had some help from a professional speechwriter. That appears to explain what happened last night. And the essay that the piece was taken from? The speechwriter wrote that too. The author of the American Conservative essay said that he simply recycled his own material rather than copying someone else’s.

We Did Some Snapchat Evangelism

I explained Snapchat to a Texas delegate. He was rightly baffled. #RNCinCLE

— Alec Siegel (@beardedbard92) July 20, 2016

There Were a Ton of Protestors and Vendors and Local Flavor

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Covered by a slice of shade under a small tree, a woman quietly practiced yoga. A sign at her side read: “Pro police, anti brutality.” In the middle of the square surrounding the monument, a man hawked “Trump whoopie cushions.” Another man–in a red, white and blue tie dye shirt and shoulder length hair–sat on the steps and strummed his guitar, a tin can at his side printed with the words, “make America free again.”

Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media

And on East 4th Street, an alleyway filled with restaurants and bars that juts out from the “Q,” people of all stripes expressed themselves in a myriad number of ways. One woman stood still and silent, in an olive green headscarf and a black shirt (“As-salamu Alaykum” printed on the front), next to a table selling tie dyed Trump t-shirts.

A young man walked his bicycle along the narrow street, under a blazing afternoon sun. A light blue crate was tied to the back of his bike, filled with books. “Make America read again,” he said as he paced the alleyway. Others held dueling signs promoting two wildly different (and at the moment, wildly trendy) societal systems: “I <3 Capitalism” and “Jesus was a Socialist.”

And Donald Trump Became the Official Republican Nominee

Regardless of what happens in November, this movement is real. The passion is palpable in Cleveland. #RNCinCLE

— Alec Siegel (@beardedbard92) July 20, 2016

Trump is officially the Republican nominee. This is not a drill #RNCinCLE

— Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) July 19, 2016

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the RNC?: Law Street’s Day 2 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Everybody’s got their ‘guy.’ He’s the first person to take your side when the going gets tough, and your intermediary with all the people you just don’t have time for. For Donald Trump, Ben Carson is that guy, and somehow, he’s the guy Trump trusts with his secrets. The trouble is, Carson might not be exercising the caution a campaign surrogate usually needs to.

Ben Carson was riding in a car with his wife Candy on his way to an interview, when the reporter who was along for the ride told him about a poll stacking up the favorability rankings of potential vice presidential picks. The reporter told Carson the names on the list, in order of favorability. After Ben Carson, who was seen as the most favorable vice presidential pick, the list included John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie.

After stating that he was not interested in being a part of Donald Trump’s administration, Carson did what no nominee’s spokesperson should do: he told the press about the short list. When asked about those five names, Carson said “Those are all people on our list.”

The media will endlessly speculate about potential vice presidential nominees, but until the announcement is made, campaigns are usually tight-lipped about who their candidate is actually considering. Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential choices are under tight wraps, with pundits’ speculations spanning from Elizabeth Warren to John Kasich. Closely guarding the decision-making process keeps the campaign’s final selection exciting, and insures against a bombshell found during the vetting process.

Of course, Carson tried to walk back his statement, calling the Washington Post to explain. “When it comes to who could be the vice president and you name a list of people, I’m going to say yes to everybody, everybody could potentially be considered, doesn’t mean they are on the shortlist.” So when Ben Carson says “Those are all people on our list” that doesn’t mean they are actually on the list.”

The candidates mentioned in the poll do present a VP Vexing Problem–the candidates are either unknown to the public, or they are highly unfavorable, with ratings like Palin’s and Cruz’s around 50 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s camp has a different problem–their choices aren’t too strongly unfavorable, but most of them are unknown to the general public. Likely choices such as Tim Kaine, Sherrod Brown, and Julian Castro are unknown by 30 to 40 percent of voters. The good news for Clinton is that no one–not Huma, not Bill, not anyone–is dishing out her tightly-held list of candidates.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ben Carson May Or May Not Have Leaked Trump’s VP List appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend on Saturday Night Live, Larry David once again reprised his role as Bernie Sanders–a role that, as the weeks go by, it truly seems like he was born to play. SNL’s cold open, which also satirized Ben Carson and Donald Trump, hit some of this week’s increasingly bizarre primary stories head on.

Here’s the full skit:

While the skit made fun of Carson’s creepiness and Trump’s racism and the violence against protestors at his rallies, the real butt of the skit’s joke seemed to be Sanders’ supporters. The skit particularly hit hard on how young and white those supporters are. Some of the standout quotes to that effect included:

My message is resonating with a very diverse group of white people. And I’ve got supporters of all ages — 18-year olds, 19-year olds … That’s it.

I want to thank everyone who voted for me, and apologize to everyone else for making your Facebook feeds so, so annoying. I mean, I love my supporters, but they’re too much, right? I’m great, but I’m not five-posts-a-day great. With all due respect to my supporters, get a life.

The young people love me, Tapper, because I’m like them: I’ve got a lot of big plans and absolutely no idea how to achieve them.

SNL did take a couple shots at Sanders himself too–for example at one point “Jake Tapper” circles back to “Sanders” for a comment, to discover that the Democratic candidate is in his pajamas. When asked how he got into his pajamas so quickly, David’s Sanders character discloses that he wears the pajamas under his suit at all points, hence the bagginess of his suits.

SNL also took on Hillary Clinton later in the episode, once again played by the fantastic Kate McKinnon. In that skit, Clinton attempts to appeal to millennial voters, and decides the best way to do so is just to turn into Bernie Sanders. Throughout the course of the “campaign ad” she imitates Sanders’ Brooklyn accent and eventually ends up looking like him.

As this election cycle continues on and on, it’s nice to know that SNL will probably be around to add some great, and much-needed, levity.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Larry David Wins SNL With Bernie Sanders Impression…Again appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend, the remaining GOP candidates had what felt like the 876th debate of this election cycle (it was actually the ninth). The first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, did their job and made the field much smaller, leaving just Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and Governor John Kasich. But the smaller field didn’t lead to a smaller amount of BS being flung around the debate stage; check out the top five craziest moments of this weekend’s GOP debate below:

Everyone Was Confused About Supreme Court Nominations

Saturday’s debate was certainly affected by the fact that just a few hours earlier, the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was announced. It’s obviously a sitting president’s job to nominate a replacement, but that’s not what Senator Mitch McConnell said after Scalia’s death was announced:

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

So, naturally, the candidates were asked about what they thought of Obama nominating a replacement. Every candidate on the stage essentially said that Obama shouldn’t nominate a new justice–despite the fact that that would guarantee an empty seat on the bench for at least a year, and there’s not some footnote in the Constitution that says that a President can only nominate a Supreme Court justice when he’s not a lame duck president. That didn’t stop multiple Republican candidates from speaking incorrectly about the U.S.’s history when it comes to nominating SCOTUS candidates. For example Ted Cruz incorrectly stated that “we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming justices in an election year,” despite the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and confirmed in 1988, while Reagan was a lame duck president.

This Confusion Led to Fact Checking by the Moderator

.@jdickerson tries to correct Cruz on Kennedy appointment, gets booed by audience for facts. #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/31bdGQoE7a

— Mashable News (@MashableNews) February 14, 2016

John Dickerson, the moderator, even pointed out that Cruz was wrong. The issue was that Cruz was conflating the terms nominating and confirming–and Dickerson sparred with Cruz over that issue, explaining that he just wanted “to get the facts straight for the audience.” At this point the audience decided to boo Dickerson, leading to a decidedly messy exchange all around.

But There Was a Lot of Booing on Saturday Night

Dickerson wasn’t the only one who got booed–much of the audience’s ire appeared to be aimed at Trump. Trump had a theory for why this kept happening–and turns out his theory might not be that off–that the crowd was packed with  “Jeb [Bush]’s special interests and lobbyists.” Turns out the crowd had a lot of moderate Republicans, due to the fact that the RNC gave tickets to local supporters, and people actively involved in RNC work are probably less likely to be big Trump fans. So, Trump got pretty heavily booed, but unfortunately it probably won’t diminish his still pretty solid poll numbers.

One of the Biggest Boos Was About 9/11

Jeb! Bush and Donald Trump had a pretty tense exchange over 9/11–Trump essentially blamed the terror attack on Bush’s brother, George W. Bush. Trump claimed that George W. didn’t keep America safe because he wasn’t able to prevent 9/11. Bush responded that he was pretty tired of Trump going after his family, and then to complicate things more, Rubio jumped into the mix to exclaim he was glad it wasn’t Al Gore in the White House during 9/11. The entire thing turned into a mess–check out the exchange: 

But One of the Biggest (and Weirdest) Fights of the Night was Rubio v. Cruz

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz got into an interesting spat over their shared Cuban heritage, stemming, as many criticisms of Rubio have, from his role in the Gang of Eight immigration bill. Cruz accused Rubio of contradicting his platform when he appeared on Univision and spoke in Spanish about immigration and amnesty. Rubio fired back by saying: “I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish.” So then Cruz responded in Spanish (although a bit shakily) to prove Rubio wrong:

WATCH: Cruz replies to Rubio in Spanish after Rubio said he “doesn’t speak Spanish.” #SCPrimary https://t.co/xGmJKNSzup — Good Morning America (@GMA) February 15, 2016

For a party that has taken an almost methodical approach to alienating Hispanic voters during this year’s election cycle, it was incredibly odd to see the debate devolve into a pissing contest over who speaks Spanish better.

A Final Takeaway

With Scalia’s recent death, it’s almost certain that the question of who will replace him will probably become cemented on the hot list of 2016 issues–immigration, Planned Parenthood funding, and how to deal with ISIS, among others. Saturday night’s debate has been referred to by many observers as the nastiest one yet, and given that the primaries are just starting to heat up, future exchanges will probably follow suit. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Craziest Moments from this Weekend’s GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump finished second in Iowa, no one knew what to expect as he reacted. Would he accept the democratic outcome of the election? Would he lash out at the people of Iowa, which he’s momentarily done in the past? By the end of the night, everyone’s questions were answered when Trump took the stage. Surprising many, Trump’s reaction came across, well, classy. But that wasn’t his last word on the subject; after he had a little more time it seems like he changed his mind.

Here’s his speech in Iowa:

“We finished second and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored. I’m really honored. And I want to congratulate Ted [Cruz] and I want to congratulate all of the incredible candidates including Mike Huckabee who’s become a really good friend of mine,” Trump said in his speech after Cruz was declared the winner. In the speech, he thanked his opponents, he praised his staff, and congratulated the winner. To finish off, he even said he’d consider coming back to Iowa to buy a farm.

But Trump’s good will and acceptance didn’t last long. Naturally, Trump’s first inclination was to go after the media. After tweeting about his great experience in Iowa and how he was satisfied with the outcome, he tweeted, “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!” To be fair, he is right that turnout was very high on Monday–almost 40 percent higher than in 2012–and that he fared best among first-time voters.

Trump’s usual assault on the media continued on Twitter, but he eventually shifted focus to Ted Cruz. Once Cruz gave his 32-minute victory speech, Trump quickly shifted tact:

Anybody who watched all of Ted Cruz’s far too long, rambling, overly flamboyant speech last nite would say that was his Howard Dean moment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2016

On Wednesday, Trump began an all-out assault on Cruz, accusing him of cheating and stealing the election.

Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

And finally, Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and “choice” – a total lie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Believe it or not, Trump again has a couple fair points. Cruz was responsible for a legitimately nefarious direct mailer that his campaign sent out to essentially scare people into voting. Many Iowans received a letter from the Cruz campaign with their voting “scores” (which aren’t a real thing) as well as the scores of their neighbors. This strategy is based on a piece of political science research about direct mail and voter turnout, but the Cruz campaign took it to a new extreme. The letters were intended to pressure voters to turn out to improve their “voting score” and it even alleged that the recipients committed some sort of “voting violation.”

The Iowa Secretary of State quickly denounced the mailers, issuing a statement saying,

Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

He went on to note that caucuses are not even conducted by the state government, rather they are under the control of political parties. It is also important to note, however, that Cruz is not alone in his use of extremely misleading mailers, Marco Rubio sent a equally dubious letter to voters as well.

Trump also criticized Cruz’s response to news that Ben Carson was not going to travel directly to New Hampshire after the caucuses. The Carson campaign alleged that Cruz spun the news as if Carson was dropping out of the race in an effort to change the minds of caucus-goers. Cruz eventually apologized saying that spreading the news was fair game, but that a clarification should have been sent out when it was clear that Carson was not leaving the race.

While Trump’s criticism of Cruz has some surprisingly reasonable points, it’s unlikely that his tactics shifted the balance of the elections. As the Washington Post points out, Carson actually outperformed polling predictions and Bloomberg notes that Cruz sent the mailers out to about 3,000 potential voters yet won by more than 6,000 votes.  Ultimately, Trump went so far as to call for a new election, or at least for the existing results to be invalidated.

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Over the course of a few days, Donald Trump went from congratulating Ted Cruz on his win to outright calling him a liar and a cheater. But then again, did we really expect anything else?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Might Not be a Gracious Loser After All appeared first on Law Street.

The two recent debates–the Republican debate on Thursday, January 14, and the Democratic debate from Sunday, January 17, were chock-full of strange exchanges and bizarre declarations. They were also strangely poetic; and the perfect reason to create some found poetry based on the standout performances from the debates.

For the uninitiated, Found Poetry occurs when a poet “select a source text […] then excerpt words and phrases from the text to create a new piece.” Politics and found poetry have been bedfellows before, such as when Donald Rumsfeld waxed philosophical about the essence of war in a series of found poems written by Slate’s Hart Seely. For the following found poems, all of the contents come directly from the listed speaker, and were spoken in that order. The titles, however, are of my own creation.

I Have Never Heard of the Geneva Convention

by Dr. Ben Carson

“We’re not going to bomb a tanker

because there might be a person in it”

Give me a break.

 

Just tell them that,

you put people in there,

we’re going to bomb them.

 

So don’t put people in there

if you don’t want them bombed.

You know, that’s so simple.

I Once Saw A Jewish Man on Television

by Ted Cruz

There are many, many

wonderful, wonderful

working men and women

in the state of New York

 

The values in New York City

are socially liberal or

pro-abortion or

pro- gay-marriage,

focused around money and the media.

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want

by John Ellis Bush!

Donald, Donald — can I —

I hope you reconsider this.

 

So I hope you’ll reconsider.

I hope you’ll reconsider.

 

The better way of dealing with this

the better way of dealing with this

is recognizing that there are people in,

you know, the — Islamic terrorists inside,

embedded in refugee populations.

I Know They Talk About Me In The Back Of P. F. Chang’s

by Donald Trump

China —

they send their goods

and we don’t tax it —

 

they do whatever they want to do.

They do whatever what they do, OK.

 

When we do business with China,

they tax us.

You don’t know it,

they tax us.

 

I love China.

I love the Chinese people

but they laugh themselves,

they can’t believe how stupid

the American leadership is.

I Respect That You’re Taking My Lunch Money

By H. Rodham Clinton

Well, my relationship with him,

it’s — it’s interesting.

 

It’s one, I think, of respect.

We’ve had some very tough dealings

with one another.

 

He’s someone that you have to

continuingly stand up to because,

like many bullies,

he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can

unless you do.

I Don’t Know How To Use My Daughter’s iPhone

by Martin O’Malley

I believe

whether it’s a back door

or a front door

that the American principle of law

should still hold

 

that our federal government

should have to get a warrant,

whether they want to come

through the back door

or your front door.

Wall Street Has More Puppeteers Than Sesame Street

by Bernard Sanders

I do believe

we have to deal

with the fundamental issues

of a handful of billionaires

who control economic

and political life

of this country.

 

Nothing real will get happened

 

Unless we have a political revolution

Where millions of people finally stand up.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Found Poetry From Last Week’s Republican and Democratic Debates appeared first on Law Street.

Well, it’s been a crazy year. Despite the fact that we will not vote for the next president of the United States until November of 2016, the primaries are in full swing, and Law Street’s been there to provide you coverage of every minute of it. ICYMI, check out our top 10 election posts from 2015.

#1 Top Five Funniest Hillary Clinton Emails from the Recent Release

Image courtesy of Paul Cohn/US Consulate Chennai via Flickr

Hillary Clinton’s emails have become a weird point of contention in the 2016 Presidential primaries. After it was discovered that she had sent emails from a private email address while serving as Secretary of State, many critics clamored for her to release them. Slowly, they’ve been declassified, and we’ve truly gotten to see some gems along the way. Check out the top five funniest Hillary Clinton emails from the most recent declassification here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Election Posts of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

In Tuesday night’s Republican debate, the candidates focused most of their attention on foreign policy, specifically what needs to be done to protect the American people. While the candidates ended up agreeing on many ideas, the clearest sense of unity on the stage was behind the notion that the United States needs to be tougher. We need to have a tougher immigration policy, we need to move away from the “feckless weakling president” in the oval office, and most importantly we need to be “tough” on ISIS.

Senator Ted Cruz started off by upping the standards for toughness. When asked about his previous call to “carpet bomb” ISIS, Cruz doubled down. He referenced the first Persian Gulf War, noting that the United States conducted around 1,100 airstrikes a day. But when Wolf Blitzer, the debate’s moderator, pressed Cruz on how that would affect civilians, he gave a rather bizarre response:

You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed — and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.

Now on its face, that might sound like a sensible policy; few people would argue against a decisive bombing campaign that only killed terrorists. But that’s simply not the reality on the ground. There isn’t a huge group of ISIS soldiers standing around in the middle of the desert. They are deeply embedded in civilian populations, primarily in cities where indiscriminate bombing campaigns would kill massive amounts of civilians.

Cruz faced questions like that before, yet he has maintained his view that his policy wouldn’t kill civilians. In a recent interview with NPR, Cruz even noted that “no reasonable military endeavor targets civilians.” But looking at the reality in Iraq and Syria, what Cruz is calling for would have a massive civilian casualty toll. There are only a few conclusions available here–Cruz is either fine with more civilian deaths than he is letting on, doesn’t actually realize how ISIS is operating, or is intentionally misleading people–all three seem troubling.

Not to mention that carpet bombing, a term Cruz has repeatedly used when talking about ISIS, hasn’t been used since the Vietnam war. As Politifact points out, the main tenet of carpet bombing is that it is indiscriminate and not targeted. Even in the Gulf War, which Cruz regularly cites as an example, the military used targeted bombs. Moreover, the practice of carpet bombing may also violate the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention. What is true about carpet bombing? It sounds tough.

To be sure, the current U.S.-led bombing campaign has caused a large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria despite taking some precautions. While that is, by itself, worthy of debate, the debate on Tuesday night changed the way foreign policy is discussed in the Republican campaign. It seems as if the proposed policies are no longer about helping solve an already impossibly complicated situation, rather they are simply a way to display America’s, and by extension the candidate’s, toughness.

So what exactly does this toughness entail? Toughness, while often vague and said without further explanation, means being willing to act regardless of the consequences. That concept was even baked into the questions given to the candidates. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt questioned whether being a kind, evangelical neurosurgeon would prevent Ben Carson from doing what ‘needs to be done.’ Hewitt asked,

We’re talking about ruthless things tonight — carpet bombing, toughness, war… Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?

In response, Carson reflected on the tough decisions he had to make as a surgeon, noting the firmness with which he dealt with his patients. “You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks,” he said. But what he was saying did become clear until his next exchange with Hewitt:

Hewitt: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian? [The crowd boos]

Carson: You got it.

Carson was not alone in his disregard for civilian casualties. The sentiment was largely popularized by the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who recently said that the United States should go after terrorists’ families. My colleague Anneliese Mahoney has already noted that Trump is, quite plainly, advocating for war crimes, but he pressed on in Tuesday night’s debate. He said, “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” Trump later asked, “So, they can kill us, but we can’t kill them?” He was seemingly arguing that the U.S. response should play at the same level as the Islamic State.

By the end of the night, only Rand Paul managed to create a compelling contrast to his competitors:

If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America. So when you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you’re going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?

Paul’s questions, and the extent to which we are okay killing civilians, are worth further consideration from the candidates and voters alike.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate: Candidates Fight Over Who is the Toughest appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is know for touting the most controversial comments while on the campaign trail, but his November declaration that “thousands” of New Jersey Muslims celebrated on 9/11 continues to gain traction with fellow Republicans–despite evidence disputing it.

Trump claims that he saw “with his own eyes” on television thousands of people cheering as the buildings came down. Yet experts have combed through news clips from that time period and found nothing. There were, however, several news clips from that time of people celebrating the attack overseas in Muslim countries. Some people have chalked Trump’s comments up to a misrepresentation of those videos, while others think he just pulled the memory out of thin air.

Needless to say, controversy over the comment has caused a division within the Republican party. Some GOP members agree with Trump, and others condemn the political ploy, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who said it just “didn’t happen” and “I don’t believe it,” respectively. So if you’re looking to keep tabs, here is a list of  the people who have so far chosen to hop on Trump’s Muslim-partying-bandwagon.

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson was one of the first people to support Trump’s claims by saying that he also saw a video of thousands of Muslims partying on 9/11–in New Jersey. But when reporters began to hound him he opted to clarify his statement saying, “I did see the film. I don’t know where they were, but I did see the film.”

Rudy Giuliani

The former mayor of New York City who was in office during the 9/11 attacks should be a reputable source–right? Well, when questioned by CNN Giuliani said “we did have some celebrating, that is true.” However, he rebuked claims that it was “thousands,” but more like “10, 20, 30, 40” people. Giuliani then recounted a story of a Muslim-owned candy shop he’d heard about where some Muslims celebrating in the streets that day were beaten up by local school children.

On the other hand George Pataki, the governor of New York at the time of the attack, disagreed.

Not sure what luxury spider-hole @realDonaldTrump was hiding in on Sept11 but I saw Americans come together that day @GStephanopoulos

— George E. Pataki (@GovernorPataki) November 22, 2015

Debbie Schussel

Schussel, a controversial anti-Muslim right-winged columnist, wrote a column swearing that “thousands of Palestinian Muslims outside Paterson’s town hall” celebrated that day, and even referred to an MTV news report in Paterson, NJ from that time as proof. MTV has since debunked these claims  by digging up the clip in question, which can be watched below. They edited it to add in new footage where they reinterviewed the main witness from that day, then-high school senior Emily Acevedo, who claimed to see kids rioting. Fourteen years later Acevedo says what she saw that night “would have happened any other summer night.”  

Ann Coulter

The controversial commentator claimed to have proof that Muslims did celebrate on 9/11 when she tweeted out a video featuring a Howard Stern taping, where callers claimed to have seen Muslims celebrating in Paterson. Again these claims have not been substantiated.

WOW – THIS MAKES IT 10 PIECES OF PROOF OF MUSLIMS CELEBRATING 9/11 ATTACK IN NJ! @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/3v21LUJyWI — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) December 2, 2015

So are all of these people flat out liars, or could they just be exaggerating or remembering what happened that day wrong? Well according to Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist and expert on the ways the mind concocts memories at the University of California, that very well could be the case. She claims Trump may be just misremembering rather than lying saying,” just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence, detail and emotion, it doesn’t mean it really happened.” Whether it’s misremembering or lying, it unfortunately appears to be spreading around.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s The Growing List of People Who Swear NJ Muslims Celebrated on 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s true–the Syrian refugee crisis is a tough situation to handle. There are a lot of questions, few answers, and overall there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. But there have also been some truly horrifying responses from Republicans on the issue (and a Democrat as well), from state level politicians, to governors, to current presidential contenders. Check out the top five most terrifying Republican responses to the Syrian refugee crisis below:

Senator Ted Cruz: Let’s Only Allow in Christian Refugees, No Muslims

Somewhat uniquely, Ted Cruz does say that he would let refugees in, but only if they are Christian. He backs up this startling show of intolerance by saying that it’s only Christians who are being persecuted by ISIS and in Syria.

Christians are being persecuted by ISIS, there’s no doubt about that. But so are Shiite Muslims, and so are Yazidis, and so are a whole bunch of other people. In fact, pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with ISIS is being persecuted–and that includes a whole bunch of Muslims as well. There are a lot of other things wrong with Cruz’s plan when it comes to Syrian refugees as–including the fact that he’s used completely incorrect facts about the demographics of refugees in Europe–but blatantly mischaracterizing the situation in Syria is probably the worst.

Senator David Vitter: Using Lies About a Missing Refugee for Cheap Political Points

David Vitter, who is currently running for governor of Louisiana (and losing) is now using total fear-mongering to attempt to get a bump in the polls. This week, the Louisiana Republican Party sent out an email and in support of Vitter, slamming Obama’s approach to dealing with the refugees, which Vitter tweeted about as well. The message was also posted on the LA GOP’s website. It read:

Just yesterday, David Vitter had to notify the Obama Administration that a Syrian refugee who had been living in Baton Rouge has gone missing. What kind of accountability is that? There is an unmonitored Syrian refugee who is walking around freely, and no one knows where he is.

Republicans also claimed that the refugee was “heading to Washington D.C.” Let’s just set the disgustingly xenophobic language aside, if only because it’s a common thread running through all of these examples, and point out that the Syrian refugee wasn’t actually ever “missing” or “unmonitored.” The Louisiana police knew exactly where the refugee was–he was moving to DC because his family lived there and had to fill out many, many forms in order to be able to do so, including filing paperwork with the federal government. Fantastic job, David Vitter.

Donald Trump: Creating a Muslim Registry

While this one is only tangentially related–Trump actually calls for a complete refusal of Syrian refugees–it’s been worked into the overall debate enough I had to include it. Donald Trump, a man who is leading some Republican polls, said that he would support the creation of a registry with which to keep track of our nation’s Muslims. Although there’s been some arguments over what exactly he did mean–in one of the most damning clips he at one point appears to think he’s talking about border security–he didn’t flat out deny the proposal when asked a question about it, and that’s scary in and of itself. He was given the opportunity to clear up any confusion (if there was any) when asked how a registry of America’s Muslims would be different than the registration of Jews under Nazi Germany. But as the New York Times pointed out:

Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, ‘You tell me,’ until he stopped responding to the question.

Here’s the full clip, if you want to watch for yourself:     Bonus points: Trump has also said that we have no choice but to close certain mosques earlier this week.

Ben Carson Compares Refugees to Dogs

   Ben Carson compared some refugees to “rabid dogs.” Do I even have to explain why this is offensive? Carson’s point–that we need good screening–is fine, but was there really a need to compare refugees to “mad dogs?” Not only is that dehumanizing, it implies that the refugees are diseased and have no autonomy over their own actions. But, what else can we expect from the man whose campaign is so messy that it actually misplaced New England earlier this week?

.@RealBenCarson‘s campaign redraws its map of the U.S. https://t.co/rGCSZDhG8c via @GregJKrieg pic.twitter.com/qCPzydrZCC — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 18, 2015

A Whole Bunch of People Suggesting Internment Camps

This is a fun one, because I get to highlight stupidity from multiple different people! Let’s start this with a history lesson: remember that time during World War II when we rounded up a bunch of Japanese-Americans and put them in internment camps? And if you paid attention in middle school, remember how we now view that a massive human rights failure and total usurpation of their Constitutional rights? Remember how in 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was signed, compensating those Japanese-Americans who were held in internment camps and offering a formal apology? Here’s what Ronald Reagan (the president who so rightfully signed that bill) said:

The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.

Now, some people want to create similar camps for the Syrian refugees.

Let’s actually start with a Democrat–after all, ignorance and stupidity is certainly bipartisan: Roanoke Mayor David Bowers. After Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe said that Virginia is open to refugees, Bowers called for all local government agencies to stop assisting refugees. He stated:

I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.

So Bowers apparently missed history class. Who else?

State Senator Elaine Morgan of Rhode Island made a similar suggestion, saying that if we have to take refugees in: “we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous.”

Great! Any more?

Sure–there’s also Tennessee GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada who suggested using the National Guard to round up any refugees allowed in Tennessee and sending them back to the ICE Detention Centers.

Great work all around–I’m super proud to be an American today.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Five Most Horrifying Republican Responses to the Syrian Refugee Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve all heard Donald Trump say some off-color things–after all he kicked off his campaign that way– but lately it seems like he’s getting more and more fed up with the way things are going, and refuses to apologize for it. In a 95-minute speech to a large crowd in Davenport, Iowa, Trump went on his most recent, and quite possibly his most exasperated rant yet.

Trump, who showed up to the event 40 minutes late, sounded like he lost his voice and at times ran out of breath while ranting about the state of the Republican primary and the United States in general. He began his speech on Thursday with the topic of illegal immigration, a subject that has become central to his campaign, but he didn’t stop there.

Over the course of his speech he touched on several classic Trump themes and sayings. “We don’t win anymore,” he lamented and “I’ll be the best jobs president that God ever created.” He also called several politicians “stupid,” for negotiating bad deals, most notably President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

While most of these antics seem like the standard practice for the colorful real estate mogul, he continued for over an hour and a half on arguably his most intense rant of the campaign. Much of his discussion focused on the military, specifically the United States’ involvement in the Middle East. At one point he claimed that he would have stopped the 9/11 attacks:

I wrote a book, ‘The America We Deserve’–in 2000–where I said there’s a guy named Osama Bin Laden, in my book! And we better watch him… I said, ‘there’s a guy, Osama bin Laden, and we better do something about him because he’s gonna go under a rock’–and this is what I said in the book–and three years later the World Trade Center came down with him.

He also talked about more contemporary military challenges, notably how he would deal with the Islamic State. After recanting his initial reluctance to divulge the details of his grand strategy (so as not to inform the enemy) he laid out a bold plan:

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, they have certain areas of oil that they took away, some in Syria some in Iraq, I would bomb the shit out of ’em. I would just bomb those suckers. I’d blow up the pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, I’d blow up every single inch, there’d be nothing left.

At the beginning of Trump’s speech, the crowd fed off of his enthusiasm, cheering when Trump refused to be “politically correct.” But as he went on, the crowd’s applause became less frequent and more tepid. Those standing in the bleachers behind his podium started to sit down after about an hour and 20 minutes of talking. When he started discussing his competition in the primary race, the audience appeared to become somewhat uncomfortable. The Washington Post notes, “As Trump attacked Carson using deeply personal language, the audience grew quiet, a few shaking their heads. A man sitting in the back of the auditorium loudly gasped.”

Trump became particularly animated, and at times distraught, when he discussed his opponents. He first teed off on Hillary Clinton, claiming that she is “playing the women’s card,” and argued that her gender is the limit of her appeal. After Clinton, he moved on to his competition in the Republican primary. The most notable attack, however, was saved for Ben Carson, who has become his most significant challenger in the polls.

He started by saying, “now Carson’s an enigma to me,” and he continued to note that “he wrote a book, and in the book he said terrible things about himself. He said he’s pathological and that he’s got, basically, pathological disease.” He continued to rip into Carson exclaiming,

I don’t want a person whose got pathological disease… I’m not saying it! He said he’s got pathological disease… If you’re pathological, there’s no cure for that, folks.

Next, he referenced an interview that he did on CNN earlier that day. In the interview, he essentially compared Carson to a child molester, a claim that despite there being no evidence to back up, he repeated in Davenport.

If you’re a child molester, a sick puppy, there’s no cure for that… if you’re a child molester, there’s no cure. Pathological–there’s no cure… So he’s a pathological, damaged, temper, a problem.

At one point when discussing Carson’s life story–which involved him attempting to stab one of his friends at a young age only to be stopped by his friend’s belt buckle–Trump stepped away from the mic to demonstrate with his own belt.

“How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?” Trump bemoaned. He finished his analysis of Carson’s story saying, “And he goes into the bathroom for a couple of hours and he comes out and now he’s religious… And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break.”

Trump is generally pessimistic about the current state of the country, after all, he wants to “make America great again,” but this time it seemed like he had just about had enough. He couldn’t understand Carson’s surge in the polls, he thinks American politicians are stupid, and he just can’t quite figure out why everyone doesn’t love him.

I don’t want to be the 100th person to mark “the beginning of the end” for Donald Trump’s presidential bid, but it’s becoming clear that campaigning is wearing on him. Truthfully, it’s impossible to say what’s next for Trump, but if his campaign does end prematurely, he might actually be fine with that. “I go back to my life,” he said, “I don’t have to do interviews, which I don’t like doing to be honest with you,” and “I can leave the scum back here, the press, alone… I don’t need them anymore.”

If you want to subject yourself to the pain, here’s the full video:

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Goes on Bizarre and Exasperated Rant in Iowa appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was yet another installment of the GOP circus–also known as a Republican primary debate. Hosted by Fox Business, the debate was supposed to be focused on economic issues, with a bit of domestic and international policy thrown in. This debate field was smaller than the last three–Governors Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie were moved down to the kiddie stage. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t still plenty of crazy to go around–check out the top seven funniest, strangest, and most memorable moments from the 4th GOP debate below:

Is China Part of the TPP?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, has been a hot topic in the political sphere as of late. Check out Law Street’s explainer on it here, if you’re not caught up. Last night at one point, the discussion on stage devolved into a talk about the TPP, and Trump went on a nice ramble about how the deal is “designed for China to come in as they always do through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone.” Senator Rand Paul was quick to interject, pointing out that China isn’t part of the deal. It was an embarrassing moment for Trump, to be sure.

Everyone Was Kind of Mean to Philosophers

Last night, “philosophers” became a weirdly maligned group of people. It started when Marco Rubio talked about a need to destigmatize  trade education, arguing that “welders make more money than philosophers.” Then, Ted Cruz called the Fed “philosopher kings.” Then, John Kasich, when talking about economic concerns, stated: “philosophy doesn’t work when you run something.”

I’m not sure why everyone was being so mean about philosophy, but it’s worth noting that Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major.

Kasich Gets a Little too Excited about our Friendship with Jordan

John Kasich got a little too into the King of Jordan last night, when he stated: “Jordan, we want the king to reign for 1,000 years.” While he might have just been being a little hyperbolic, it seems pretty extreme. I don’t know that we should be wishing immortality on any other country’s leader.

Literally No One Paid Attention to the Bell

Fox Business’s poor “time is up” bell-ringer was the least respected person on stage last night. The bell was constantly rung to signal “time is over” and every candidate completely ignored it. While that meant that the candidates had a more open discourse than the previous debate, it was still pretty pathetic that no one even tried to stay within their allotted time.

The World’s Biggest Over-Simplification of Israeli-Palestinian Relations

We need someone who knows diplomacy, not name-calling & green rooms #DonaldTrump #RepublicanDebate #GOPDebate #Putin pic.twitter.com/yrjPcyPojp

— Law Street (@LawStreetMedia) November 11, 2015

When talking about a desire to build a wall on the American-Mexico border, Trump brought up the wall between Israel and Palestine on the West Bank. This is an incredibly controversial project, which was at one point ruled to have violated international law, so maybe not something that a presidential candidate wants to compare their future strategy to.

Jeb Bush Thanks Trump for Letting him Talk

Jeb! proved he can’t “fix” his debate performances last night, all epitomized by a fantastically awkward moment in which he thanked Trump for letting him talk. After a messy back-and-forth involve Kasich, Bush stated: “Thank you, Donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate. That’s really nice of you. Really appreciate that.” Jeb, unfortunately, total passive-aggression isn’t going to help with your quickly falling poll numbers.

The Department of Commerce: So Bad, We’ll Get Rid of it Twice

If you’re from Texas and decide to run for President, never try to explain what departments you’d cut during the debate, because y’all are 0/2 in recent years. When talking about his tax plan, Ted Cruz stated:

$500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD — and then 25 specific programs.

That’s right, he mentioned the Department of Commerce twice. While it was less noticeable and embarrassing than Rick Perry’s “oops” moment back in 2012, it would have been nice if he could have really told us what five agencies he wants to eliminate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Seven Most Memorable Moments from the 4th GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

A whole lot of bullshit happened this week, from a subset of Christians becoming outraged about the new, plainer, less-Christmasy Starbucks holiday cup, to finding out Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson doesn’t think the pyramids were used as royal burial grounds.

Seriously, who is supporting that guy?

But let’s talk about Ariana Grande for a second. Yes, the Ariana Grande who faced some legal trouble after licking those doughnuts.

At least she apologized? But anyway, there are many better things about the actress/singer to focus on.

For example, her recent interview at Power 106 FM, where, toward the end of a roughly twenty minute-long talk, the DJs asked her what she would choose between giving up her phone and giving up make-up.

She, rightfully, questioned the motives behind the question, and the DJs responded with sexist stereotyping and disbelief that a girl could go without her cell phone for hours. The sexist comments continued through talking about emojis, because apparently a unicorn can’t be unisex. Finally, when asked about what she would change in the world, she dropped this on them:

I have a long list of things I’d like to change. I think, judgement in general; intolerance, meanness, double standards, misogyny, racism, sexism. You know, all that shit. There’s lots we’ve got to get started on…We’ll start with you, though.

Feminists everywhere agree, Ms. Grande.

But even though the topics covered in their conversation were somewhat trivial, and Ariana’s message of equality was friendly and absolutely justified in this context, the response from social media was overwhelmingly negative. Many referenced her doughnut-licking fiasco as a reason not to take her seriously, and still others knocked her for what she wears onstage and in music videos, going so far as to suggest that she deserves such sexist degradation because of her persona.

No.

Ariana Grande, along with several other female celebrities who don’t dress according to what society thinks is “appropriate,” has long stood for equality and loving yourself the way you are. Take her recent reaction to someone comparing her to Modern Family‘s Ariel Winter:

here we go again…. Sure I’m not the only 1 feeling this way today!! in case you need a reminder, you’re beautiful pic.twitter.com/OPQIgzroEI

— Ariana Grande (@ArianaGrande) November 2, 2015

So just because you don’t like the music she creates, or you disagree with something she has done in the past, does that really justify shaming her when she makes absolute sense? No. Past performance is no indication of future performance, and anyone–celebrity or non-celebrity, woman or man–is absolutely allowed to change their minds, views, or opinions. But people don’t live by that rule, which is why we run into things like Hillary Clinton’s many, many Benghazi hearings.

If a person like Ariana Grande, who you may not particularly like or respect, says something that is absolutely true, your opinion of her should not devalue her message. Sexism, whenever it appears, should always be questioned and shut down.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ariana Grande is a Doughnut Licker, and a Feminist appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb Bush was once viewed as a serious potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination. But his campaign has languished in recent months, especially after some truly lackluster debate performances. So, today, Bush launched a revamp, with a new slogan “Jeb can fix it.” But will it work, or is Bush’s campaign already as good as dead?

There have been a lot of signs lately that Bush’s campaign isn’t doing well. Polls aren’t looking too good for Bush–a recent NBC poll last week had him at 5 percent nationally, behind Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. In Florida, his home state, he comes in at 4th, according to a ViewPoint Florida poll.

On the organizational front, Bush also isn’t doing so hot. Last week, the news broke that Bush’s campaign was slashing its budget across the board due to money struggles. The campaign is removing senior staff from the payroll and downsizing office space. Overall, the campaign is attempting to cut payroll by 40 percent and the overall budget (with some exceptions) by 45 percent. Combine these polling and payroll issues with the fact that Bush had yet another less-than-stellar performance at the most recent debate, and he’s not looking so good.

It’s in this context that Bush’s team is attempting to revamp his campaign strategy. In a press conference today he spoke about his new vision. Bush explained that the advice he’s gotten from critics ranges from the aesthetic, such ditching his glasses, to the strategic, such as being more passionate. But, as Bush stated:

But I have learned two important things from my time serving the people of Florida: One, I can’t be someone I’m not. And, two, getting things done isn’t about yelling into a camera, or regurgitating sound bites free of substance.

His speech also included some pretty unsubtle references to two of the candidates polling ahead of him–Donald Trump and fellow Floridian Marco Rubio. Clearly talking about Trump, he stated that you can’t just tell Congress they’re fired and then go to commercial break. In a more veiled reference seemingly to the language Rubio has been using in his campaign,  Bush stated:

The challenges we face as a nation are too great to roll the dice on another presidential experiment. To trust the rhetoric of reform over a record of reform.

Bush also unveiled the new theme of his campaign: “Jeb can fix it.” However, as often happens on the internet, there have already been plenty of riffs about the new slogan.

♪♫ Jeb the Builder ♪♫ ♪♫ Can he fix it? ♪♫ ♪♫ Jeb the Builder ♪♫ ♪♫♪♫ No ♪♫♪♫ #JebCanFixIt pic.twitter.com/UDnBK312sp

— Ponta [¬º-°]¬ (@typicalfeminist) November 2, 2015

The “it” in “Jeb can fix it” apparently does not refer to campaign slogans. — Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) November 2, 2015

Oh Lord. This is just pathetic & sad now. ‘Jeb Can Fix It’ sounds like a book for preschoolers. Feeling second hand embarrassment #facepalm

— jennifer (@jenilynn1001) November 2, 2015

Jeb Can Fix It. pic.twitter.com/rTuSWMa7dN — Jeff Tiedrich (@jefftiedrich) November 2, 2015

So with this revamp, Bush has gotten a little bit of extra attention–although not necessarily the kind of attention he wants. We’ll have to see if Bush can “fix” his campaign, but if things keep heading the same direction for him poll-wise, and cash-wise, it’s looking unlikely. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Jeb Actually Fix it?: Bush Looks to Revamp His Struggling Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s horrific mass shooting that left nine dead at an Oregon community college exemplified escalating concerns over the state of gun safety in this nation. While for many it has sparked outcries for stricter gun control laws, others have responded to the deaths with a variety of excuses that aim to point the finger at the assailant rather than the flawed system.

Republican primary candidates in particular have gone on the defensive post-Oregon, with a number of comments that at many times come across as dismissive, arrogant, and/or utterly ridiculous. So we’ve decided to compile a list of the top five worst Republican responses to the Oregon shooting and present them to you below. We ask that you prepare yourselves now for some head scratching reactions to these nonsensical comments made by contenders vying for the POTUS position.

5. Marco Rubio: “Gun Control Would Not Have Prevented That Attack”

During a “Today Show” interview Florida Senator Marco Rubio responded to Matt Lauer’s questions about the shooting saying, “Many of the proposals that are out there on gun control would not have prevented that attack.” He then said, “We need to start examining why people are taking violent action not what they’re using to commit the violent act with.”

Clearly Rubio’s tactic is to put all the focus on mental illness rather than the concerning accessibility of these firearms. But saying stricter gun laws would have had zero effect on this tragedy is just presumptuous and idiotic.

4. Bobby Jindal: Blames Shooting on Single Mothers

In a bulleted sermon that debuted on his personal website, Louisiana governor and ghost-like candidate Bobby Jindal attempted to make himself relevant by discussing the “cultural rot” he believes contributed to the shooting. However, Jindal’s most offensive critique came in a long-winded rant that insinuated single mothers’ inability to parent young boys is to blame for mass shootings. Jindal said:

And who is it that generally commits these evil acts of mass murder that are becoming routine? It’s almost always young men who have either no father figure in their lives, or a broken relationship with their father. Is this just a coincidence? Of course not.

Now, let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.

Of course he doesn’t know. You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.

Sorry Jindal, but insinuating that one parent households are potential mass murder breeding camps isn’t going to win you any votes with the millions of single parents in the U.S.

3. Donald Trump: Armed Teachers Could Have Stopped the Oregon Shooting

We can always count on Donald Trump for his loquacious political theatrics, but him claiming that arming teachers is the solution to school shootings is just asinine. At a campaign event in Franklin, Tennessee, Trump criticized the fact that the school was a gun-free zone saying, “Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.”

2. Ben Carson: “I Would Not Just Stand There and Let Him Shoot Me”

Dr. Ben Carson did Trump one better when he claimed that he could have stopped the shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer, had he been in the Snyder Hall classroom that day. Carson said, “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.”He continued telling Fox News, “I would say: ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.’”

Well at least you’ve got some pretty big kahunas, Carson.

1. Jeb Bush: “Stuff Happens”

Bush shrugged off the issue of gun control when he responded to the shooting saying, “stuff happens”, during a campaign event in Greenville, South Carolina. Bush’s full quote was, “Look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

Point taken, but Jeb I’m pretty sure that the families of the victims wouldn’t appreciate you dismissing the death of their loved ones as “stuff happens.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Worst Republican Responses to the Oregon Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

Last week the story of 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed and his clock shed a sickening light on the prevalence of Islamophobia and racial profiling in our country. And while so many chose to #StandWithAhmed, others continued the anti-Muslim rhetoric throughout the rest of the week. The biggest culprits of this were perhaps none other than Republican primary frontrunners Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump.

During Sunday’s taping of “Meet the Press” Carson was asked if the United States should ever elect a Muslim president. He responded saying, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

However when it came to electing a Muslim to Congress, Carson was a little more lenient with his bigotry saying,

Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just like it depends on what anybody else is. If there’s somebody who is of any faith but they say things and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them.

You can watch that portion of the interview in full in the video below:

Carson’s unmistakably offensive remarks were prompted in response to some anti-Muslim comments made by an audience goer during a Trump campaign rally just a few days prior that came under fire. The unidentified audience member stood up during the Rochester, New Hampshire town hall Q&A to tell Trump the following:

We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims. You know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American.

To which Trump jokingly responded, “We need this question. This is the first question.” The man continued saying,

Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question: When can we get rid of them?

Trump’s only response was,

We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things. You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We’re going to be looking at that and many other things.

But at no point did he correct the audience member’s flawed and offensive comments.

The exchange acted as a throwback to Trump’s 2011 crusade against Obama’s heritage, where he championed the push to see the president’s birth certificate and repeatedly accused him of secretly being a Muslim. Even though the White House eventually released the president’s birth certificate to the public, showing for a fact that Obama was born in the United States, 20 percent of Americans still believe he was born outside the country and 29 percent of Americans say that they think the President is a Muslim, including 43 percent of Republicans.

Trump has never apologized.

In many respects Trump played a critical role in many American’s misperceptions about the President’s identity, so by not correcting a clearly prejudiced supporter’s offensive “Muslim question” he’s only perpetuating the problem.

When Trump was asked why he didn’t make the correction he told the Today Show,

Why should I come to the defense of the president? He’s not going to come to my defense and I think most people agreed with what I did.

The comments from both of these commander-in-chief hopefuls represent an unsettling irony among Republicans who argue in support of religious freedom, while condemning Islam in the same breath. It seems like the debate over religious freedom is fundamentally a fight for Christian freedom and nothing else. If all faiths were truly given the same respect, Islamophobia wouldn’t be running rampant in Republican ranks.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Week in Islamophobia: Carson, Trump, and Ahmed Mohamed appeared first on Law Street.

The second Republican primary debate of the year was aired last night by CNN and took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It was a three hour debate that left me with more questions than answers–for example, did they really all go that entire stretch without having to use the bathroom? But, tradition dictates that we boil down those three hours into some gifable snapshots, so without further ado, check out the top ten moments from the second Republican debate.

10. Mike Huckabee Appealed to Millennials with a Reference from the ’80s

Mike Huckabee referred to the Republican field as the “A Team” and decided that Donald Trump was Mr. T, saying:

I think we are in fact The A-Team. We have some remarkable people. We even have our own Mr. T, who doesn’t mind saying about others, ‘you’re cool.’

Pop culture references are a great way to appeal to the masses–and if he had picked something less than 30 years old (we’re not counting the horrible 2010 remake) it might have been successful.

9. Marco Rubio Made a Fun Reference

One of Marco Rubio’s early introductions to the national stage was when he gave the Republican response to the State of the Union back in 2013. During the speech he took a fantastically awkward sip of water:

But last night, Rubio paid homage to that really awkward moment by bringing his own water to the debate. It was a sweet and dad-joke like, but I’m not sure how much of a splash it made.

We’re entering the next phase of the #GOPdebate. Anyone need refreshments? http://t.co/tdQhhyEBDb pic.twitter.com/ki3fr601BE

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) September 17, 2015

8. Donald Trump Proves his Mature Rhetorical Mastery

Trump, on immigration: “First of all, I want to build a wall-a wall that works. We have a lot bad dudes, from outside, in this country.” So eloquently put, Trump, although I do have to admit “bad dudes” is a bit more PC than calling swarths of the population “rapists.”

7. Carly Fiorina Makes Things Up

Carly Fiorina went on a weird, grisly rant about Planned Parenthood that would have been strategically powerful if it was in any way true. She stated–presumably in reference to the much-edited Planned Parenthood hit videos created by the Center for Medical Progress:

I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

The videos were disturbing to be sure, even though they were patently fiction. But at no point did those videos even come to close to portraying a fully formed fetus kicking its legs–Fiorina at this point was over-exaggerating exaggerations in an incredibly upsetting way. It’s one thing to be anti-choice, it’s another thing altogether to use lies and fear-mongering to prove your point.

6. Everyone Got Handsy with Donald Trump

Donald Trump was flanked on stage by Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, and at various points he exchanged really awkward high fives/handshakes with each of them. First was Ben Carson, who was very reluctant to get involved in the entire situation: But Jeb Bush got a little too enthusiastic, and actually appeared to make Trump flinch: 

Here you go Twitter pic.twitter.com/9wfzAQGftg — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) September 17, 2015

5. Winner of the Happy Hour Debate (Literally): Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham had my favorite quote of the earlier happy hour debate, which featured the candidates who aren’t polling well enough to make it to the main stage. Graham, who has his priorities in order, stated: “That’s the first thing I’m going to do as president. We’re going to drink more.”

He was referring to Ronald Reagan’s tradition of drinks with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, but it still makes for an awesome one-liner, and I wholeheartedly approve.

4. Chris Christie Gets Fed Up

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina got into a spat back-and-forth about their business records, and Christie got really damn tired of listening to it. He eventually said:

 The fact is that we don’t want to hear about your careers. Back and forth and volleying back and forth about who did well and who did poorly. You’re both successful people. Congratulations. You know who is not successful? The middle class in this country who’s getting plowed over by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let’s start talking about those issues tonight and stop this childish back and forth between the two of you.

While I’m normally not a Christie fan, and I don’t agree with the claims in his comment, here’s some well-deserved applause for shutting up that annoying Trump and Fiorina spat:

3. Jeb Bush Tries to Prove He’s a Cool Kid

Jeb Bush attempted to get some street cred in the lamest way possible–by admitting he had smoked  marijuana 40 years ago and his mom doesn’t approve:

So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.

 

2. Fiorina Takes Down Trump

You can watch this one yourself:

.@CarlyFiorina responds to @realDonaldTrump‘s comment about her face #CNNDebate http://t.co/jcEf6bW9ja #GOPDebate http://t.co/m0eDU5NvhT

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 17, 2015

Ok, now we actually do have a bad ass over here.

1. Some Really Lame Answers to the “Which Women You’d Put on the $10 Bill Question”

As a fun, easy question toward the end, the moderators asked each of the debaters “Which woman would you put on the $10 bill?” Some answers were fine–Susan B. Anthony,  Rosa Parks, Clara Barton, and Abigail Adams are all admirable American women. But some of them were flat-out ridiculous. For example, three of the candidates–Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson–all cited female family members. Huckabee chose his wife, Donald Trump chose his daughter, and Ben Carson named his mother. While those are nice answers and may have been good responses to “who inspires you,” they’re also total cop-outs and a bit insulting. Women have done so many great things for this country and none are included on our paper currency–yet three of the eleven candidates couldn’t even name one.

Then, Jeb Bush gave arguably the weirdest answer all night–put Margaret Thatcher on the $10 bill. Alright Jeb Bush, please do remember that if you want a fighting chance, some American women will have to vote for you. Although at this point, I haven’t the foggiest why we would.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Moments from the Second Republican Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Political newcomers Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have formally announced their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election, adding more diversity to the growing cast of GOP contenders. However their chances of becoming the Republican nominee may be slim to none, seeing as both candidates have never held public office or had military experience. So, in an effort to learn what would possess a famous retired neurosurgeon and a former CEO to run for president, here’s a bit of backstory on these conservative POTUS hopefuls.

Dr. Ben Carson

Oddly enough, it was a Lifetime movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr. that first introduced me to Dr. Ben Carson. The inspiring yet cheesy biopic modeled after his autobiography entitled “Gifted Hands” chronicled the former pediatric neurosurgeon’s life and the events leading up to the 1987 surgery that made him famous. In that operation, he became the first surgeon to separate a pair of conjoined twins joined at the head.

In 2013 Carson decided to retire as a surgeon and begin inserting himself into the political realm, in what many accurately guessed was the makings of a presidential run. However since then, Carson’s political experience can be pretty much be summed up with his bashing of Obamacare and government intrusion in healthcare at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.

At his campaign kickoff Monday in his home town of Detroit, Carson chose not to shy away from his inexperience, instead opting to capitalize on it, telling voters he is not a politician, reports the Atlantic. He stated:

I don’t want to be a politician because politicians do what is politically expedient. I want to do what’s right.

But before Carson educated voters about his conservative platform he decided to start things off with what may be the most unusual campaign launch/mini-concert ever. The strange highlights included his wife Candy playing the “National Anthem” on the violin and an evangelical choir singing a rendition of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” which is now available for download on iTunes.

Despite having zero experience or political clout, Carson claims he’s ready to go up against the crowded pack of Republican candidates. If he somehow manages to accomplish that, it will be one long uphill battle for the controversial hopeful, especially since he’s been quoted saying Obamacare is the “worst thing since slavery.” He also claims homosexuality is a choice, citing people who go to prison identifying as straight and end up having gay sex as proof.

I’m in it!

— Dr. Ben Carson (@RealBenCarson) May 4, 2015

Carly Fiorina

Unlike Carson, Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign announcement strategically went without the theatrics, but she did throw a bit of shade at fellow female campaigner and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In her campaign ad’s opening statement, Fiorina plays up her inexperience saying, “our founders never intended for us to have a professional political class” as she turns away from an image of Clinton.

Fiorina is a retired business executive who served as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) before being forced out in 2005 after a botched merger, lackluster revenues, falling stock prices, and innovation struggles. She’s also credited with laying off 30,000 HP and Compaq employees during her time as CEO, a fact not forgotten by one site using the domain name carlyfiorina.org, which Fiorina regrettably failed to register. The site called out Fiorina with thousands of frowny faces and the message:

Carly Fiorina failed to register this domain. So I’m using it to tell you how many people she laid off at Hewlett-Packard. That’s 30,000 people she laid off. People with families.

But Fiorinia wasn’t the only presidential candidate to make that mistake. Ted Cruz also failed to procure the domain name tedcruz.com, which now shows the message “Support President Obama. Immigration Reform Now!” 

Running for president? Buy ALL your domains. Otherwise: http://t.co/cQx6Fw6hGw, http://t.co/9k3UPHQEBT #2016Election pic.twitter.com/yyACnGe94N

— Amina Khan (@aminawrite) May 5, 2015

On a more serious note, like Carson, Fiorina has no political experience and has never held elected office, even though she did make a failed Senate run in 2010. Fiorina did serve as an aide to John McCain during the 2008 presidential elections, but failed miserably when she dissed his running mate Sarah Palin saying she didn’t think she could run a major corporation like HP. Then she dug herself in a bigger hole with these follow up comments:

Well, I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation, I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation, I don’t think Joe Biden could run a major corporation.

Fiorina’s biggest challenge, besides overcoming her vast political shortcomings, may be avoiding chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome.

Newcomers to the political arena aren’t that surprising–we all remember Herman Caine from 2012. But whether or not Republican newbies Carson or Fiorina will actually have a chance with their outsider statuses will be up to the voters.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Republican Newbies Have Any Chance in the GOP Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event that occurs every February in Washington D.C. As part of the event, speakers are invited to share encouraging words of faith. The National Prayer Breakfast was especially visible in the news recently as a result of controversy over a recent speech by President Obama. Read on to learn about the history, inception, and purpose of the event.

What is the National Prayer Breakfast?

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event held in Washington, D.C. on the first Thursday of February. This year the event celebrated its sixty-second anniversary. Among the 3,200 people in attendance, guests from all fifty states and 140 countries were represented. One of the most high-profile attendees is the president of the United States who gives a speech, as well as a designated keynote speaker whose identity is kept confidential until that morning. The event has had many notable speakers including Mother Teresa, Bono, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and NASCAR legend Darrell Waltrip. Some have garnered national attention for speeches that they have made at the Breakfast, including Doctor Ben Carson, whose speech is in the video below.

Who is invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast?

People from all walks of life are invited. This list includes the President and First Lady, members of Congress, visiting heads of state, and a myriad of ambassadors representing scores of countries, many of them adherents of other religions or non-theist.

What is the purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast?

The purpose of the National Prayer Breakfast is two-fold, but the main intention is quite simple: to come together in prayer and thanksgiving. Non-Christians attend the breakfast, but the event is designed to make sure that everyone is respectful whenever possible. The second purpose is to hear from the prominent speakers who offer words of encouragement and/or challenge the audience to live their lives in fuller service to Christ’s teachings.

History of the National Prayer Breakfast

The first National Prayer Breakfast took place in 1953 when the houses in the United States Congress joined together to establish it during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Since then not only has the National Prayer Breakfast become a yearly tradition, there are also smaller versions that occur in cities and states across the country and around the world.

The concept of the event actually began in the 1930s when a young man named Abraham Vereide began to meet  with the leaders in his home area of Seattle and counseled them to study Jesus and his teachings, especially with regard to the poor and disenfranchised. As the 1940s progressed, Vereide began to meet with members of Congress for the exact same reason. The results of these meetings moved Congress to start the breakfast and invite the president to partake in the event, as well.

Is the National Prayer Breakfast a partisan or denominational event?

All members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, are invited to put aside their jobs as politicians and for that brief time come together as one. This is regardless of denomination as well as religion. One will see Lutherans sitting next to Evangelicals and those who are not Christian at all. The Dali Llama was also present at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast as a guest of President Obama.

Who organizes the National Prayer Breakfast?

There are many religious groups that help to put on the event, whether it is getting the venue set up, arranging for the speakers, or providing other forms of support; however, the organization that takes the leading role is a group called Fellowship Foundation. This group, which started in 1929, is framed as a network of friends from all walks of life joined together by an interest in the power of Jesus.

How is the National Prayer Breakfast similar to and different from other national religious events?

The National Prayer Breakfast is similar to other events such as the National Day of Prayer, in that both are a nationwide call for Prayer; however, these events differ because the breakfast is not mandated by law, but rather is sustained by private individuals. They also differ in their focus, as the National Day of Prayer is designed to be a call for Americans to humbly come before God, seeking his guidance and grace and the National Prayer Breakfast is designed as an event  to hear words of wisdom, inspiring testimony, or to give those who attend and those read about it on social media afterward something to think about in order to help to bring their own lives closer to Christ.

What topics are covered in the speeches given at the National Prayer Breakfast?

The topics have been as varied as the speakers. When Mother Teresa spoke, her topic was abortion. She condemned the procedure, stating that “any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” When Doctor Carson was the speaker in 2013 he spoke about fixing America using principles from the Bible itself. Eric Metaxas, who spoke in 2012, discussed the topic of dead religion. Finally Darrell Waltrip spoke this year on his own conversion, stating that:

Good guys go to hell. If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, if you don’t have a relationship, if He’s not the master of your life, if you’ve never gotten on your knees and asked Him to forgive you of your sins, you’re just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal, you’re gonna to go to hell.

Watch the video below for more on Waltrip’s speech.

Is there opposition to the National Prayer Breakfast?

Most of the dislike for the event comes from secularists and more liberal forces. Groups such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have opposed it on a number of grounds, ranging from their opposition to the group that sponsors it–the Fellowship Foundation–which is a fundamentalist group, to wishing that those who attended the event better understood the need for separation between church and state.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the National Prayer Breakfast shouldn’t exist, at least not in its present form. In addition to the critiques that the it receives from the non-religious community, it is also no stranger to political controversy. One such controversy occurred in 2012, when the National Prayer Breakfast had additional competition from the Occupy Faith DC protest, which was set up to proptest the breakfast as an event for the rich and famous only. Other controversies included when Mother Teresa called out then-President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary on their stances on abortion; and  most recently critiques point to President Obama’s remarks at this year’s event. He was accused of comparing historical Christianity and modern extremist Islam.

Resources

Primary

National the Day of Prayer

Additional

Priests For Life: Mother Teresa’s Speech

Huffington Post: Occupy National Prayer Breakfast

American’s United Blog: Breakfast Club: Obama Endorses Seperation at Evangelical Event

America Blog: The National Prayer Breakfast Shouldn’t Exist

Americans United Blog: Doubting Thomas: Prayer Breakfast Theocrats Try to Baptize Jefferson

Doctor Ben Carson: National Prayer Breakfast Speech Transcript

Fellowship Foundation: History

Faith and Action: Salvation and Damnation in DC

Freedom Outpost: The Message You Didn’t Hear About at the National Prayer Breakfast: Without Christ, You Will Go to Hell

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Prayer Breakfast: History and Controversies appeared first on Law Street.