Quantcast
Connect with us

WATCH: Van Jones dismantles Lord’s bizarre claim that sanctuary cities could become ‘abortion-free zones’

Published

on

CNN’s Van Jones schooled Jeffrey Lord over Donald Trump’s executive order revoking federal funds for sanctuary cities—a move a federal judge in California blocked on Tuesday,

Lord was arguing it’s “interesting to hear my liberal friends think that this is a victory” because “apparently … a mayor of any city could declare—let’s say they’re pro-life—they could declare their city to be an abortion-free zone, an abortion-free sanctuary.”

Jones pointed out that’s “not a good example,” reminding Lord “there’s a constitutionally protected right that a woman has [to have an abortion].”

“The reason that mayors don’t want to be turned into arms and agents of the federal government … is because you have whole communities who would just stop cooperating with law enforcement or may not be willing to come forward,” Jones explained, noting mayors need to be able to determine “what they’re going to prioritize.”

“Where were you when the Justice Department went into Ferguson, Missouri?” Lord asked Jones, who appeared shocked by Lord’s challenged.

“What do you mean where was I?” Lord replied. “I was right there in Ferguson getting tear gassed with half of everybody else at CNN.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“And you wanted the federal government to come in and stop it!” Lord shot back.

Jones tried to explain that he wanted the Justice Department to enforce the Constitutionally-protected rights of a free assembly and press, but Lord cut him off.

“When there’s a cause you favor, you want the federal government to clamp down. When there’s a cause that you don’t favor, you want the federal government to butt out!” Lord charged.

“It’s actually not true,” Jones said. “You have a Constitutional right as an American citizen to, for instance, choose abortion. That’s actually been litigated.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The federal government should defend civil and Constitutional rights, that’s part of its role, but it should not deputize every law enforcement agent in the country to do its bidding,” Jones added.

Lord dismissed Jones for “being selective, as my liberal friends often are.”

Watch the video below, via CNN:

Report typos and corrections to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

A historian explains why 2019 marks the beginning of the next 74-year cycle of American history

Published

on

A century ago, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. argued that history occurs in cycles. His son, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., furthered this theory in his own scholarship. As I reflect on Schlesinger’s work and the history of the United States, it seems clear to me that American history has three 74-year-long cycles. America has had four major crisis turning points, each 74 years apart, from the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to today.

The first such crisis occurred when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787 to face the reality that the government created by the Articles of Confederation was failing. There was a dire need for a new Constitution and a guarantee of a Bill of Rights to save the American Republic. The founding fathers, under the leadership of George Washington, were equal to the task and the American experiment successfully survived the crisis.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Self-preservation fuels the Democratic base’s lurch to the left — before the rich take it all

Published

on

In 2016 all the corporate news media outlets, NPR included, predicted that Trump would lose. They just did not recognize the discontent in America’s rust belt because the economic dislocation that had, and continues to define life there, was just not part of their personal frame of reference.

They thought the country was several years into a recovery and the national aggregate unemployment data they had commissioned confirmed it. But nobody lives or votes in the aggregate. And it wasn’t until Trump flipped the 200 counties that Obama had carried twice, that the corporate news media started paying some attention.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Experts discuss the distorted impeachment debate at a propaganda forum — and how real debate can untangle it

Published

on

“Would you be upset if the Democratic nominee called on China to help in the next presidential election?” That’s the concrete question we should ask ourselves about Robert Mueller's report and the issue of impeachment, according to University of California, Santa Cruz, social psychologist Anthony Pratkanis, speaking at a recent Zócalo Public Square event, “Is Propaganda Keeping Americans From Thinking for Themselves?

This was a week before President Trump’s interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, apparently welcoming foreign interference in the 2020 election. Impeachment wasn’t the ostensible subject of the event — which also featured Texas A&M historian of rhetoric Jennifer Mercieca and UCLA marketing scholar and psychologist Hal Hershfield — but it was never far from mind.

Continue Reading
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected].com.

I need your help.

Investigating Trump's henchmen is a full time job, and I'm trying to bring in new team members to do more exclusive reports. We have more stories coming you'll love. Join me and help restore the power of hard-hitting progressive journalism.

TAKE A LOOK
close-link

Investigating Trump is a full-time job, and I want to add new team members to do more exclusive reports. We have stories coming you'll love. Join me and go ad-free, while restoring the power of hard-hitting progressive journalism.

TAKE A LOOK
close-link