Confused by what people are saying about H.R. 1, the hotly contested voting and elections bill?

We can’t blame you. The 791-page Democratic-backed bill — which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on a mostly party-line vote and awaits action in the Senate — is complex and wide-ranging. It combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance, and ethics related to federal elections.

It has also been hit by a torrent of false and exaggerated claims from politicians and social media users, such as that H.R. 1 lets non-citizens and minors vote and provides lawmakers a second salary. Some go as far as to claim that it would “permanently destroy voting in America.” (It wouldn’t.)

Over the past few weeks we’ve checked about 20 statements related to H.R. 1. A few of them are accurate, but most of them exaggerate or otherwise misrepresent aspects of the bill. Here’s a rundown of what we found.

If H.R. 1 is passed, “absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter’s identity.” — Facebook posts

This is False.

A few states already do send ballots to all registered voters, but their process would not be changed by the bill. In every other state, registered voters would typically have to request a mail ballot to receive one. The bill would require all states to make it easier for voters to do that.

The bill would require states to send mail ballot applications to all registered voters before federal elections, but sending an application is not the same thing as sending an actual ballot, and these would go to registered voters only, whose identity and eligibility to vote are known.

H.R. 1 has provisions “banning voter ID” requirements. — Facebook posts

This is partially accurate.

The legislation doesn’t expressly ban voter ID requirements, but it does call for a workaround for voters that already exists in some states.

The bill says that if a state requires voters to show an ID to cast a ballot, it must also allow them to instead present election officials a sworn written statement attesting to their identity and their eligibility to vote.

“This alternative can be important for those few eligible voters that might have difficulty meeting restrictive identification requirements,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told PolitiFact.

H.R. 1 “allows minors to vote.” — Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C.

This is False.

The bill would allow people who are 16 to preregister to vote when they turn 18. That’s not the same thing as allowing them to cast a vote.

Under H.R. 1, a person can still vote if they are 16, in the U.S. illegally, have no ID and have not registered to vote. — Facebook posts

This is Mostly False.

It is wrong on the first two points. It would allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote, but not to cast ballots. And only eligible citizens can vote, as is the case today.

The statement leaves out important context on the other two points: The bill would allow a voter without ID to present a sworn statement instead, and it would allow same-day registration. Many states already have these provisions.

Meanwhile, the claim ignores the security provisions and eligibility checks in the bill.

H.R. 1 would mean “that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.” — Former Vice President Mike Pence​

This rates False.

The bill does not permit voting by noncitizens in U.S. elections, whether they’re in the country legally or not. Pence was referring to a provision that would require automatic voter registration for people using services at government agencies. But that section says government agencies would pass along a person’s information for voter registration only if they are citizens. People would still be attesting that they are eligible to vote, with penalties for lying, and it would still be up to election officials to verify eligibility.

Says H.R. 1 gives immigrants illegally in the country the right to vote. — Instagram posts

We covered this. This is False.

H.R. 1 keeps in place federal and state criminal laws that prohibit noncitizens from voting or registering to vote.

H.R. 1 “would force states to restore the voting rights of convicted felons — including violent felons convicted of murder or rape.” — U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.

This is Half True.

The proposed legislation would restore voting rights for all people convicted of a crime once they’ve been released from incarceration. The vast majority of states, including California, already restore voting rights for people convicted of a felony, either automatically upon their release or after a period of time.

H.R. 1 “would allow the Boston bomber to have a right to vote.” — Charlie Kirk

This is False.

The proposed legislation would restore federal voting rights for felons only once they’ve completed their sentence and been released from incarceration. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the convicted bomber, is serving a life sentence in prison.

In Massachusetts, voting rights for felons are already restored when they’re released; H.R. 1 would not affect Tsarnaev’s eligibility.

H.R. 1 “automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote.” — Former President Donald Trump

This is Mostly False.

H.R. 1 includes an automatic voter registration provision under which government agencies, including those that provide public assistance, would pass along to election officials information about people who are eligible to vote.

But Trump’s statement creates a misleading impression that people on welfare will have a special path to voter registration, regardless of eligibility. The legislation says that government offices that help people with other services, such as veterans or gun owners, would also get the same assistance in registering to vote. Under the bill, applicants could opt out, and election officials will still review applications for eligibility requirements before moving them to the voter rolls.

H.R. 1 “prohibits attempts to clean voter rolls” — Facebook posts

This is incorrect.

Nationwide, election officials regularly remove voters from the rolls who are ineligible, in part with help from a national consortium that shares information with states about voters who moved, died or have duplicate registrations. But some ineligible voters have remained on the rolls, and in other cases election officials have wrongly purged otherwise valid voters.

The bill attempts to standardize the process of maintaining accurate lists. The legislation calls for “standards governing the comparison of data for voter registration list maintenance purposes” and that standards must be public and applied in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.

The legislation also states that no person, other than a state or local election official, shall submit a formal challenge to an individual’s eligibility to vote unless that challenge is supported by personal knowledge.

H.R. 1 would “prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.” — Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

We rated this False.

No section of the bill prevents an election official from removing an ineligible person on the voting rolls. One section of H.R. 1 details rules that states must follow for removing ineligible voters, including a requirement that they notify the registrants.

H.R. 1 requires “internet-only registration with electronic signature.” — Facebook posts

This is incorrect.

The bill does not mandate internet-only registration, but it does promote the option. The bill would require each state to offer an online application for voter registration. The majority of states already offer online voter registration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

For signatures, the legislation states that an individual who has a signature on file with a state agency, such as the motor vehicle office, could consent to transfer that electronic signature. Otherwise, the person would submit an electronic copy of their handwritten signature.

H.R. 1 bans “voter registration requirement of full” Social Security Number. — Facebook posts

This needs context.

The bill calls for amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require only the last four digits of an individual’s Social Security Number to register to vote. Most states’ voter registration forms do this already.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires new registrants to provide either their drivers license number or the last four digits of their Social Security Number, to confirm their identity. If a registrant offers neither, they are required to offer another form of identification when voting for the first time, said Becker of the Center for Election Innovation & Research.

H.R. 1 allows “nationwide same-day registration.” — Facebook posts

This is accurate.

Some states already offer same-day voter registration, which allows eligible individuals to cast a ballot on the same day they register. The bill would require all states to allow it. A registered voter could also modify their registration and vote on the same day.

H.R. 1 “gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees” to take over the redistricting process. — Turning Point the USA

This is Mostly False.

H.R. 1 would overhaul how congressional redistricting works in the states that do not already have independent redistricting commissions. States currently without one would have to appoint a 15-member panel composed of equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The law also says, broadly, that lines should not be drawn for partisan gain and that communities, if possible, should not be divided.

However, the bill says states, not the federal government, would choose the commissioners and equip them for the task.

H.R. 1 “legalized limitless ballot harvesting” —Facebook post

This is misleading.

“Ballot harvesting” generally refers to someone collecting absentee ballots on behalf of others and then submitting them. Many states already allow individuals to collect ballots on behalf of others, although some impose certain restrictions.

The bill says that states “shall permit a voter to designate any person” to return their sealed absentee ballot, as long as the person doesn’t get paid based on the number of ballots returned. It would prevent states from putting a limit on how many ballots any person could return on behalf of others.

H.R. 1 “would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots.” —Pence

This is False.

Several states currently conduct elections almost entirely by mail, sending ballots automatically to every registered voter. But H.R. 1 would not force every state to conduct elections this way.

Rather, the bill would ease the process of voting by mail for those who want to use it, by lifting rules that require an excuse to vote absentee. It would not require anyone to stop voting in person, either early or  on Election Day.

H.R. 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary “worth an estimated $600,000 per year!”— Act for America

This is False.

Nothing in the legislation would allow members of Congress to earn a second salary. There is a provision that allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds to pay for expenses such as child care so that they are able to run for office.

H.R. 1 does not change an existing policy that allows candidates to draw a salary of up to $174,000 from campaign funds. That policy doesn’t apply to those who are already in Congress.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes H.R. 1 on grounds that “it threatens our freedom of speech.” — Ronna McDaniel

This is Half True.

The ACLU opposed the 2019 version of H.R. 1, saying multiple campaign finance provisions would limit free speech. When Democrats unveiled the bill again in January, ACLU said it still held many of its earlier concerns and called some sections “onerous and dangerous.” But the ACLU has stopped short of opposing the bill in 2021.

“There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws.” — Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.

This is False.

Clyburn’s office acknowledged that he misspoke in making this justification for H.R. 1. In reality, bills to restrict voting procedures have been proposed in 43 states, according to one public tally at the time. That’s not the same thing as such laws being passed in 43 states.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/apr/05/claims-about-hr-1-keep-pouring-here-are-all-our-fa/

The post Claims about HR 1 keep pouring in. Here are all of our fact-checks in one place first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Fresh off a week-long tour of security installations along Arizona’s border with Mexico, Montana congressman Matt Rosendale blasted the Biden administration’s actions halting construction of former President Donald Trump’s southern border wall.

“The first thing that became extremely clear was the policies of the Biden administration are already, right now, having impact and not in a positive way,” Rosendale said. “It’s compromising our national security, it’s hurting the economy. There’s just a whole host of problems that are already beginning to show up.”

Last week’s journey to the Arizona desert was Rosendale’s first congressional trip as the newly elected Representative for Montana. He was joined by eight additional Republican House members including Arizona congressman Andy Biggs, co-chair of the Border Security Caucus, who organized the event.

“If the Biden administration persists with its open-borders policies, the United States will be overrun with a historic surge of illegal aliens, who are chasing amnesty and sanctuary from the rule of law,” Biggs said in a news release on Monday.. “I hope this administration will stop pandering to the radical left when it comes to securing our border and enforcing our laws.”

Building a wall on the U.S border with Mexico was one of former President Trump’s most divisive campaign promises. Supporters assert that a physical barrier is necessary to bolster national security and halt the flow of undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs into the United States.

While a majority of Americans favor increased security at the southern border, many argue that building a 1,954-mile-long wall would be enormously expensive, would trample on private property rights, cause vast ecological damage, and would ultimately prove ineffective in halting illegal traffic into the United States.

Montana Representative Matt Rosendale walks with a U.S. Border Patrol agent at a port of entry on the Arizona/Mexico border. Photo: U.S. Representative Matt Rosendale

Thus far about 475-miles of wall has been completed along the southern border, the majority replacing pre-existing barriers with 30-foot tall, steel bollard fencing. A recent story in the Arizona Republic newspaper reports that construction includes new roads, lighting, and sensors to help agents better patrol areas at a cost of roughly $24.4 million per mile to U.S. taxpayers.

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed an executive order halting construction on the wall and redirecting funds that had been set aside for its construction.

Rosendale said that during his four-da-long trip to the Arizona border he spoke with Border Patrol agents, members of local law enforcement, customs officials, and government contractors about the construction shutdown, and warned that dire consequences were already apparent.

“Right now, with construction shut down, there is a hole in this barrier 150 miles wide, from Sasabe, Arizona to Yuma, and there are people putting together caravans right now that are starting to come north because they hear that the new administration’s policies are going to be a lot more lax on illegal immigration. Thousands and thousands and thousand of people,” Rosendale said.

“They’ve already, since the election seen a 15% increase in illegal crossings,” he added. “Only 30% of the detainees are from Mexico. We also have folks that are coming in that they are detaining from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, India. This is a really, really big problem for our national security.”

President Joe Biden signs his first executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Six of Biden’s 17 first-day executive orders dealt with immigration, such as halting work on a border wall in Mexico and lifting a travel ban on people from several predominantly Muslim countries. Photo: Evan Vucci, AP

A 2019 report by the Associated Press shows that nearly ¾ of all detainees at the southern border come from just four countries; Guatemala (21%), Mexico (19%), El Salvador (18%) and Honduras (16%). Additionally, the number of southwest border detentions has tripled during Trump’s four years in office as tens of thousands have headed north hoping to enter the U.S. before the crossing becomes more tenuous and escape from the poverty and violence of their home countries.

About 10.5 million people currently reside in the U.S. illegally according to a 2017 report from the Pew Research Center. Of these, roughly 40% did not cross into the United States illegally, but simply remained after their legally issued student or work visas expired, that according to a recent article in The New York Times.

“More than 60 percent have resided in the country for more than a decade, and they have more than four million U.S.-born children,” the Times article reads. “They account for 5 percent of the work force, representing the backbone of the agriculture, construction and hospitality sectors.”

The American Immigration Council reports that fewer than 5,000 undocumented immigrants currently reside in Montana, constituting less than ½ of 1% of the state’s total population.

Rosendale emphasized the increase in illegal drug seizures documented at border crossings at the Arizona border in the past year.

“There was 1,300 pounds of heroin that got across that border last year,” he said. “There were 8,600 pounds of meth that came across that border last year. There was 3½ million tabs of fentanyl that came across that border last year, and these guys are talking about increases. When those increases take place they don’t just land in Arizona. When the border becomes that porous every town across this country has the potential to become a border town.”

As security measures along the southern border have become more stringent, undocumented immigrants have increasingly been willing to risk crossings at more remote and hazardous locations.

File – In this June 23, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump tours a section of the border wall in San Luis, Ariz. President Donald Trump is expected to travel to the U.S. Mexico border on Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2021 to highlight his administration’s work on the border wall, the White House said Saturday, (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) – Evan Vucci, AP

“Children, infants and the elderly attempt to cross,” a story from the C/NET news website reports. “The conditions are extreme and some people will go for days without food or water. According to the Human Rights National Commission of Mexico and the American Civil Liberties Union, almost 5,000 people died attempting to cross the border between 1994 and 2007.”

Rosendale cited these humanitarian costs as an added motivation for his support for continuing border wall construction.

“They’re being sexually molested, they’re being physically abused, they’re forcing these women into prostitution, they’re taking those children and abusing them and forcing them to carry drugs across the border,” he said of the human smugglers paid to transport illegal immigrants into the U.S.

“If they in fact survive that area between the crossing and when they finally get picked up –  which could be anywhere from 10 miles to 60-miles traversing some very bad country – if they’re not killed by the severe exposure of the elements, then many of these folks are forced into servitude to pay off that debt – and if they’re not paying that debt off then guess what, they’ve got family members back in Nicaragua or El Salvador or Mexico that are at incredible risk. Anyone who walks around this country and thinks we’re helping these folks – we are not helping people when we expose them to that kind of treatment.”

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the current price migrants pay to get themselves smuggled from Central America ranges between $5000 and $12,000. Mexican drug cartels control routes along the Mexican portion of the journey, and are known to charge fees to smugglers and migrants who use them. The cartels are also known to kidnap and kill smugglers and migrants who fail to pay these fees.

Rosendale also highlighted the economic impact a cancellation of government contracts would have on local economies.

“When you see millions of dollars worth of heavy equipment; excavators and bulldozers parked on the lay-down yards, and the materials that they were actually constructing the wall with setting there on the side – it is very, very troubling,” he said. “In talking to the contractors they say, look, we’ve got about a 60-day window here where … we would be able to commence work again if we were able to get some authority and direction, but after 60 days, then people start pulling out.”

The Arizona Republic estimates the Trump administration secured about $16.3 billion for border wall construction, based upon congressional appropriations, reprogramming notices and contract award data. Of that, perhaps $8 billion has already been spent.

In 2017 the Washington Post estimated that completing the wall would take three and a half years and cost roughly $25 billion – enough to hire 50,000 teachers for 10 years.

President Donald Trump tours a section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall under construction Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2021 in Alamo, Texas. Photo: Alex Brandon, AP

In early January the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Mark Morgan, criticized any effort to stop construction, claiming it would cost taxpayers even more money to cancel the contracts.

“If the Biden team implements the immigration policies that they have campaigned on, that they promised the American people on Day One, they will create an unmitigated crisis in the first few weeks,” he said in a telephone interview with reporters.

However, contracting experts quoted by the Arizona Republic said Biden will have various legal options to stop construction, including the termination for convenience clauses built into federal contracts that allows the government to cancel them any time and provide adequate compensation to contractors.

“There is an established regulatory process to stop these contracts, if the president should so decide, in an efficient and orderly manner that will also fairly compensate the contractors for the work that has been performed,” said John Horan, a professor on government procurement law at Georgetown University Law Center.

In the final months before Biden assumed the presidency, contractors along the Arizona border proceeded at a break-neck pace, completing approximately 1.5 miles of construction a day with limited expectation that the project would ultimately be completed.

“Every single day, the Department of Homeland Security continues to dynamite, to blow up these rugged mountains in order to clear a path for a wall that, in all likelihood, will never be built,” Laiken Jordahl from the Center for Biological Diversity told National Public Radio in November, 2020  “It’s just destruction for destruction’s sake.”

Most environmental organizations oppose the wall’s construction, which has already cut paths across the Coronado National Memorial and Guadalupe Canyon, a wildlife corridor for Mexican gray wolves and endangered jaguars.

Environmentalists claim that existing walls have already blocked off or divided the habitats of several rare animals, including the jaguar, ocelot, mountain lions, desert big horn sheep, and low-flying pygmy owls.

Montana Representative Matt Rosendale speaks with a contractor near the Arizona/Mexico border. Photo: U.S. Representative Matt Rosendale

However, Rosendale continues to emphasize the importance of seeing the project through to some form of completion.

“We have to continue this construction,” he said. “We have to continue to raise the awareness and work with the administration to help them see the errors in his ways.”

Montana’s lone congressman in the House of Representatives said he his working on several pieces of legislation “to help sort out some of this immigration issue and stem some of these problems.”

David Murray is Natural Resources/Agriculture reporter for the Great Falls Tribune. To contact him with comments or story ideas; email dmurray@greatfallstribune.com or call (406) 403-3257. To preserve quality, in-depth journalism in northcentral Montana subscribe to the Great Falls Tribune.

Source: https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2021/02/04/montana-congressman-promotes-completion-southern-border-wall/4357546001/

The post Rosendale warns of dire consequences if southern border wall is not completed first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 Wednesday, calling it a “gift” to U.S. adversaries China and Russia and making good on a promise to veto if it did not repeal a law that shields certain Big Tech companies from liabilities.

“My Administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security,” the president wrote to House members after vetoing the bill. “Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.”

TRUMP SAYS HE’LL VETO DEFENSE BILL UNLESS SECTION 230 IS TERMINATED

In his letter, he singled out Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act as a reason for the veto, arguing that failing to terminate it “will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct.”

In this Nov. 5 photo, President Trump speaks at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

Section 230 grants Internet companies liability shielding not available to other forms of media. It says they cannot be considered publishers or speakers of information posted to their platforms by third-parties.

It protects platforms, including Facebook and Parler, from lawsuits if they allow controversial or critical speech to be shared by their users, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. It does not protect users from being accountable for their own posts.

Trump warned on Dec. 1 that he would veto the bill if it did not include a repeal of Section 230.

He also took issue with language in the NDAA that would require “the renaming of certain military installations.” Those provisions would phase out facilities named after Confederate military figures.

Additionally, he argued that the NDAA directly opposes one of his major foreign policy goals – bringing more U.S. troops home, calling it “unconstitutional” to supersede his authority as commander-in-chief.

TULSI GABBARD URGES TRUMP NOT TO ‘BACK DOWN’ AGAINST BIG TECH

“I oppose endless wars, as does the American public. Over bipartisan objections, however, this Act purports to restrict the President’s ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea,” the president continued.

High-ranking Democrats blasted the veto.

“Donald Trump just vetoed a pay raise for our troops so he can defend dead Confederate traitors,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tweeted. “Democrats will vote to override it.”

The post President Trump vetoes National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Arrests along Mexico border jumped 40% last month amid Trump administration immigration crackdown first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

San Francisco is a city of extremes.

It has more billionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world, but it also has a homeless problem so severe that it rivals some third-world nations. On any given day you can see souped-up Lamborghinis and blinged-out trophy wives in one part of the city, then walk over a few blocks and see piles of human feces, puddles of urine and vomit caked on the sidewalks. The misery of homelessness, mental illness, and drug addiction hits deep in San Francisco and has turned parts of a beautiful city into a public toilet.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN FECES MAP SHOWS WASTE BLANKETING THE CALIFORNIA CITY 

As the problem grows, residents are finding themselves at a crossroads. The compassion for those struggling is constantly being challenged by a fear for their own safety and quality of life. It never had to get this bad, say, critics, who are appalled that it’s getting worse every day.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed says it’s inhumane to let addicts languish on the streets, but homeless advocates say the measure to force mentally ill drug addicts into housing and treatment for up to a year is extreme and a violation of civil rights. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

“I won’t visit my son who lives out there again,” Amelia Cartwright told Fox News. “It’s disgusting. I went there a few months ago for the first time and this guy who looked homeless and really beat up spit on me. Can you imagine? He spit on me!”

While it might be a shock to the system for some, residents say such interactions are common.

One cleaning woman who works downtown told Fox News a homeless woman comes by every day, curses at her and spits on the window.

SAN FRANCISCO PLANS TO RESERVE PARKING LOT FOR HOMELESS LIVING OUT OF VEHICLES: REPORTS 

Lately, the cases of citizens being harassed by mentally ill street people has taken a dangerous turn.

Last week, Austin Vincent, a homeless man, was caught on camera attacking a 26-year-old woman outside her condo complex. As he threw Paneez Kosarian on the ground, he allegedly talked about saving her from robots and offered to kill another woman nearby so he could earn her trust.

Vincent was arrested and pleaded not guilty to a false imprisonment charge and two counts of battery and attempted robbery. Instead of being thrown in jail, Superior Court Judge Christine Van Aken released Vincent over the objections of the district attorney’s office. Her decision caused a huge backlash in the community and was slammed by Mayor London Breed and other city officials. The judge eventually ordered Vincent to wear an ankle monitor.

On Monday, Vincent was arrested again for an alleged assault that occurred in February. The police said he was armed with a knife and approached a woman and her friends as they waited for a ride. Vincent allegedly threatened to kill the woman and lunged at the group.

The controversy over Vincent’s initial release is just the latest example prompting people in the City by the Bay to say they don’t feel safe on the streets. Outraged residents Fox News spoke to in late June said they’re tired of waiting for their elected officials to come up with a plan and complain no one ever seems to be on the same page.

What’s equally frustrating is that the city still manages to blow through hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year to address the crisis and blames everyone but themselves when the homeless count rises.

“It’s not as though we don’t see the problem,” a former Apple employee told Fox News. “There’s no way to escape it.”

“It’s not as though we don’t see the problem. There’s no way to escape it.”

— Former Apple employee 

In May, city officials braced themselves when a preliminary homeless count was released. They expected the numbers to rise and they were right. Initial data showed that it had jumped 17 percent from 2017. The double-digit growth was bad enough but then it got a whole lot worse.

When the final report was released a couple of months later, it showed the street count increase would have been 30 percent if the city had stuck to the same definition of homelessness as they had in the past. This year, San Francisco opted to use the federal definition instead of the one they wrote themselves.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of homelessness includes people who are living on the streets, in cars or in shelters. San Francisco’s own definition widens the category to people without a permanent address who are in prison, rehab or hospitalized. If the city used the same measurement it had in years past, the numbers would show an increase from 7,400 to 9,784 — or 30 percent in 2019.

A person pushes a cart past parked RVs along a street in San Francisco on June 27, 2019. A federally mandated count of homeless in San Francisco increased 17 percent in two years, driven in part by a surge of people living in RVs and other vehicles. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

City spokesman Jeff Cretan explained the change by saying San Francisco is “looking at the HUD numbers because it helps us work in collaboration with other places like Los Angeles or our neighboring counties.”

Some homeless advocates weren’t on board with that logic and accused the city of manipulating the findings to make it seem as though more progress had been made when, in fact, the numbers showed the opposite.

The city has also blamed the rise in homelessness on big tech companies that have moved to the area, including Twitter, Salesforce, NVIDIA and Eventbrite. They say the businesses have brought high-paying jobs with them, which has caused housing prices to soar and pushed people who can’t afford to keep up financially out of the area or onto the streets.

TOP TECH CEOS BICKER OVER CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS

Jose, a Bay Area Rapid Transit worker who has been living in San Francisco for more than 20 years, told Fox News he fears he too could be homeless one day.

“What’s happening is that they are building too many condominiums and kicking the people out,” he said. “I’m lucky they haven’t kicked me out yet.”

According to a 2018 report from HUD, a family of four living in San Francisco making $117,422 a year qualifies as “low income.” For singles, a salary of $82,000 or less puts them in the bracket. In comparison, “low income” for a family of four in New York is  $83,450 per year.

In his 2019 report on housing affordability in the San Francisco Bay Area, Compass economist Patrick Carlisle said: “affordability percentages remain low by historical standards, and the Bay Area typically has among the lowest in the nation.”

According to data from the California Association of Realtors, only 17 percent of households can afford to buy a median-priced home. In San Francisco, that’s $1.7 million.

“It’s impossible to buy a home here,” resident Doug Stall told Fox News. “You’ve got these ridiculous housing prices, crime and these people crapping on the streets. Why would anyone want to stay?”

But to say the city hasn’t tried to address the problem would be wrong. It has. The problem is that it has backfired spectacularly.

One of the biggest statewide blunders is Proposition 47.

Supported by the California Democratic Party and championed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the referendum was passed by a wide margin in 2014. The idea behind it was to reduce certain non-violent felonies to misdemeanors in order to free up resources for cops and prosecutors to go after serious, violent offenders. This included downgrading fraud, forgery, shoplifting, and grand theft as long as the total value of the stolen property was less than $950.

It also included illegal drugs.

“The goal was to be more helpful to society, helpful to the homeless issue, helpful to the police department and the court system. But as we saw, it’s a total failure at this point,” Richie Greenberg, a former mayoral candidate, told Fox News.

He added: “The intention was to help, of course, but what it really wound up doing is that it made San Francisco more attractive to those who are both homeless and those who are drug addicts to move here. We are now finding that homelessness is increasing. Drug addiction is increasing and the number of people here — the numbers are increasing, as well.”

A man stands outside his tent on Division Street in San Francisco. (AP)

The post San Francisco homeless stats soar: city blames big business, residents blame officials first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Trump’s tweet came minutes after “Fox & Friends” aired a segment Monday morning on pending legislation in six states — Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia — that would allow Bible literacy courses to become a part of a public school education.

“Nothing beats the Bible,” Trump famously said on the campaign trail in 2015 — not even “The Art of the Deal.”

The Christian activists who crafted the template for inserting the Bible into public school curricula celebrated the president’s endorsement of the idea.

“We were excited to see it happen,” Steven Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation, told Yahoo News. “The model bill that we were involved with is for the state level, but we were excited to see him use his bully pulpit, so to speak.”

Fitschen said the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation — a nonprofit group formed by former Virginia Republican Congressman J. Randy Forbes to promote “restoring Judeo-Christian principles” — hired him to help draft the text of legislation that could withstand First Amendment challenges to teaching the Bible in schools.

“We looked at what was already in existence and tried to craft a model bill so we could eliminate any constitutional problems, so there could be a course that taught about Islam or Buddhism or any other religion. Many other schools already have comparative religion courses,” Fitschen said. “The reason we centered in on the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the history of the country, how much of our idiom and our political framework, all these things that were biblically derived because of the historical situation with many of the early colonists.”

The American Civil Liberties Union blasted both the attempt to infuse Bible literacy courses in public schools and Trump’s support of it. Its concern is that, notwithstanding Fitschen’s self-proclaimed commitment to religious neutrality, in practice the courses could, at least in some states, amount to a form of Christian evangelism.

“Yet again, President Trump is exploiting religious divisions to score political points. Public school Bible courses are rarely taught neutrally and objectively as required by the Constitution,” Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, told Yahoo News in an email. “Instead, these courses usually resemble Sunday school classes that blatantly violate students’ and parents’ First Amendment rights. Religious education is best left to families and faith communities, not public school officials.”

Just as the pro-business American Legislative Exchange Council crafts model bills that can be adapted and introduced in states across the country, the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation’s blueprint for inserting the Bible into public schools follows a similar starter-kit approach.

“We don’t get involved with the legislative battles,” Fitschen said. “Instead what we do is we put together model bills that we think would work in any of the 50 states, and it’s up on the foundation website.”

While bills following the foundation’s template failed to pass in Alabama, Iowa and West Virginia last year, Kentucky passed its version, House Bill 128, in 2017, over objections from the ACLU, and it was signed into law by Republican Gov. Matt Bevin.

Supporters of Bible literacy classes say the text is being taught as a historical and cultural document, but the ACLU contends that including it in the curriculum is a way to promote religion.

Source: https://www.theisraelwire.com/2019/03/24/trump-boosts-bills-to-teach-his-favorite-book-the-bible-in-public-schools.html

The post Trump boosts bills to teach his favorite book — the Bible — in public schools first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

For the second time in days, a federal judge issued an order temporarily blocking a new Kentucky law aimed at imposing more abortion restrictions. The latest order temporarily stopped a measure that would ban abortion if a woman wants to end her pregnancy because of race or gender as well as the diagnosis of a disability in the fetus.

U.S. District Judge David J. Hale granted the second temporary restraining order Wednesday. The order was sought by the American Civil Liberties Union in its legal feud with the state over abortion.

Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed the bill Tuesday.

“The notion that Roe v. Wade protects race-based, gender-based, and disability-based abortions is disturbing. This is but the opening salvo of this legal battle,” said Bevin’s spokesman.

MISSISSIPPI GOV. BRYANT SIGNS ‘HEARTBEAT BILL,’ ENACTING ONE OF THE STRICTEST ABORTION LAWS IN NATION 

According to the bill, doctors performing abortions would have to verify in writing that, to their knowledge, their patient did not want to end her pregnancy because of concern over her unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin or disability.

The pregnant women would not face penalties but doctors violating the measure would face felony prosecution and the loss of their medical license. Any clinic where a violation occurred would lose its license as well.

The federal judge temporarily blocked another new Kentucky law last week that would ban abortions in the state after a fetal heartbeat is detected which can happen as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy.

The measure, which was poised to become one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country, was signed into law Friday by Bevin and was set to take effect immediately.

A few hours later, Hale halted enforcement for at least two weeks to “prevent irreparable harm” until he could hold a hearing, according to the New York Times.

Attorneys with The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of EMW Women’s Surgical Center, the only remaining abortion clinic in Kentucky. The lawsuit was filed in an attempt to block both measures passed by Kentucky’s Republican-dominated legislature.

Kentucky is just the latest in a growing list of Republican-led states considering similar actions, known as heartbeat bills.

OHIO ‘HEARTBEAT’ ABORTION BAN PASSES SENATE AS GOVERNOR VOWS TO SIGN IT

On Thursday, Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the “heartbeat” abortion bill, outlawing most procedures once a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

The Center for Reproductive Rights called the bill “blatantly unconstitutional,” and has threatened to sue the state to block the law from going into effect on July 1.

The Ohio legislature proposed a similar measure during former Gov. John Kasich’s term. Kasich vetoed the proposal, but the new Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, has indicated he will support the bill. The measure passed the Ohio Senate last week.

Meanwhile, states like New York, Virginia, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington have either passed new laws expanding abortion access, or are moving toward stripping old laws from the books that limit abortions.

The Associated Press Contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/federal-judge-blocks-another-kentucky-abortion-law-within-days

The post Federal judge for second time blocks Kentucky abortion law first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

A closely divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in its efforts to combat illegal immigration in a 5-4 ruling Tuesday.

In the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that split along ideological lines, the high court held that federal immigration authorities can detain illegal immigrants released from prison or jail pending their deportation, even if it’s not immediately upon, or shortly after, their release.

Alito was joined in his ruling by fellow conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

Breyer, writing for the court’s liberal bloc, warned that the “greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.”

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

“It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,” he wrote.

The court ruled on arguments in two separate class-action cases from green-card holders from California and Washington state.

Alito wrote that “neither the statute’s text, nor its structure” backed up the plaintiffs’ arguments that immigrants facing deportation should get a hearing before being detained, unless they were picked up immediately after a prison sentence.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the immigrants, criticized Tuesday’s ruling.

“For two terms in a row now, the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration-detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge,” Cecillia Wang, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight the gross overuse of detention in the immigration system.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with the plaintiffs against the Trump administration, which appealed the ruling.

“Once again, the Supreme Court overturned a 9th Circuit’s decision that was completely outside the plain text of federal immigration law,” said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation. “This provision ensures that dangerous criminals and dangerous terrorists won’t be let out into the streets of America.”

@FredLucasWH

The post Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Overturning 9th Circuit on Illegal-Immigrant Detention first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The US state of Iowa on Wednesday passed the country’s most restrictive abortion ban, outlawing the procedure after a fetal heartbeat is detected — sometimes even before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

The legislation has been widely criticized by civil liberties groups as taking women’s rights in the state back 50 years.

What does the new law say?

• It prohibits abortions once a fetal heartbeat is picked up on an ultrasound — usually at around six weeks.
• A few exceptions are permitted, if the woman was raped or a victim of incest.
• It grants immunity to women receiving abortions but doctors who perform them could have their licenses revoked.
• A provision requiring a three-day waiting period for an abortion is on hold, amid a legal challenge.

Read more: Isle of Man votes to decriminalize abortion, aligning with British mainland

Republicans seek nationwide abortion reform 

Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa said the ‘heartbeat’ law could “set the stage” to “question abortion nationally.”

“A baby has become something we can throw away. This bill says it’s time to change the way we think about unborn life,” said Representative Sandy Salmon, a Republican from Janesville.

The American Civil Liberties Union condemned the bill’s passage in comments to Agence France-Presse: “It is clearly unconstitutional and it effectively blocks the right (to) an abortion for most women,” said the group’s Iowa spokeswoman Veronica Fowler.

Erin Davison-Rippey, from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that Iowa Republicans “do not care how much taxpayer money will be spent on a lawsuit … or how many families may choose to go elsewhere because Iowa is no longer a state where they are safe to live and work.”

Read more: Thousands in Poland protest stricter abortion laws

US split over whether a woman has a right to choose: Abortion remains a deeply divisive issue in the US, despite the 1973 Supreme Court ruling (Roe vs Wade) that women have a constitutional right to a termination. Several states have tried to toughen their abortion laws, only to be met with legal challenges. However, conservative politicians in Iowa believe even if the new law is contested in the Supreme Court, an influx of right-leaning judicial appointments under US President Donald Trump could block any objection.

Read more: US judge orders government to allow abortion for undocumented teen

When is pregnancy known about? Women typically sense that they may be pregnant at around five or six weeks, around the same time a fetal heartbeat would show up on an ultrasound.

Other state laws have failed The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected as unconstitutional the ‘heartbeat’ bills from North Dakota and Arkansas. Mississippi passed a law earlier this year banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but it is also subject to a legal challenge.

Read more: Would you have an abortion if you knew your baby had Down syndrome?

mm/aw (AFP, AP, Reuters)

Source: http://www.dw.com/en/iowa-approves-americas-toughest-abortion-law/a-43631392

The post Iowa approves America’s ‘toughest’ abortion law first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.