What a shame that someone - anyone - gets chastised like this. Seems that fanatics will only allow their version of free speech as they condemn someone who is exercising the right to free speech. The worst part of the whole thing is the people who OVERREACT (when company's removed products from her husband’s shelves from his store, for example). My point is this: Both sides could have valid ideas/issues/points - why not listen and allow the ideas/issues/points to percolate - i.e., think about them and ponder their logic or validity before reacting one way or another. THEN if there is a need to protest, do so. Instead, there was an immediate over reaching, over reaction from the left/liberal viewpoint in this instance that is a dull-witted, obtuse response that only serves to enhance and set in stone the right/conservatives/libertarian view that the lefty/liberals are fanatical lunatics.

When I was a young boy, my father advised me that whenever there was a need, I should count to 10 before reacting or responding to a situation. This usually helped me to provide a response in a more cogent and controlled manner, and one that was met with respect and an equal amount of control. I don’t see much of that happening today and leads to the question:
Does this type of reaction usually come from the right/conservative/libertarians in response to an opposite viewpoint? An emphatic NO!

I'd rather have her spout her drivel and have it reported - no matter how much I disagree - for two reasons: 1) I don't want my ideas to be ignored as drivel (if I were in or running for a political office I wouldn't want my ideas shut down and not reported). I.E., I AOC case, FREE SPEECH means even stupidity is free
2) I want to be hear what her ideas are and formulate a reason for NOT agreeing with her but doing so from understanding what she wants to do, I.E., I want to be able to answer the question WHY DON'T YOU AGREE WITH COMRADE AOC? - I can provide a cogent, well thought out answer other than that she's a fruitcake loony loghead coocoo. The latter sounds exactly like what the liberals/democrats usually do to conservative/republican/libertarian and I NEVER want to sound like that.

Some interesting observations.
To prove the 700,000 number formula: Multiplying 53 (the number of House members for California) by 700,000 = 37.1 million. California's 2010 population was 37.27. The population in 2018 is estimated to be about 39.56. Looks like California will be getting an additional 3 to 56 (39,560,000 / 700,000 = 56.514). Note: The population numbers are taken from #3 & 4 below.

Florida & New York are both at 27 House members. So, 27 X 700,000 = 18.9 million (New York’s 2010 population was 19.58). Note: 2018 population is 19.54 so a slight decrease (does that mean people are moving out because of all the taxes? Hmmmm!) Florida will get an increase to 30 based on the population estimate of 21.29 as in 2018. I wonder all those people who lived in New York moved to Florida.

The population in the U.S. in 2010 was 308,745,538, an increase of 9.7% from 2000 as per this link: https://tinyurl.com/2010-Population
The projected population in the U.S. in 2020 is 334,500,000. For projected population estimates through 2060 go to this link: https://tinyurl.com/projections-to-2060

REMEMBER: By law, the maximum number in the House is set at 435; so if California and Florida INCREASE their number of Representatives after the 2020 Census, they’ve got to be taken from somewhere. By law, each state MUST have at least one member in the House, which means smaller populated states like New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, South & North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming all have a population of less that 1.4 million, so each only get/have one Representative. (Each state has two Senators, again a fixed number by law). So how House of Representatives are proportionately divvied up after the 2020 Census is another matter, which if you really want to know how it’s done, see the links in #3 & 4 below. A point of interest is that in 2060, the projected population is 416.8 million, which is about 100 million in the next 40 years (OOPs! that an increase of 1/3 of the current population).

Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives. That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth in the United States. ... The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. The House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435 (see this link: https://tinyurl.com/yyvapw4z).

1. For the population by state from the 2010 Census, go to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census
2. For the most current census figures by state are from 2018 along with the population from 2010, as well as the total of House seats by state see this link: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

3. Federal law, passed on Aug. 8, 1911, determines how many members are in the House of Representatives. That measure raised the number of representatives to 435 from 391 because of population growth in the United States. ... The law that set the current number of seats at 435 took effect in 1913. The House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435 (see this link: https://tinyurl.com/yyvapw4z). If you’re interested in doing some (dry and boring) reading about the proportional representation, go to the following link:
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/.

It seems to me that the House is due to change the formula soon because the population is going to explode in the next 40 years.

4. If you’re into all the mumbo-jumbo of how the numbers are computed (please somebody tell me it ain’t so hard), go to the U.S. Census Bureau website for Congressional Apportionment at the following link: https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/computing.html

5. For a list of the configuration of the House of Representative by state go to this link: https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-House-of-Representatives-Seats-by-State-1787120

Quack! Quack!

IMHO - They are one in the same. Hear a talking point from a MSM commentator/reporter, and you hear the same talking point - down to the last comma and period - from a Democrat Politician.

CNN will follow the money. It follows that since FOX has higher ratings, they charge more per commercial. So, with that said, wherever the money is, that's where CNN will try to be. Does that mean making a turn from liberal to conservative? I don't think so. What I want is EVEN HANDED REPORTING! I don't care who does the reporting either and which network provides it - just don't give me all one-sided one way or the other. Allow me to be the judge of how I view the news - don't tell me how I should think - the American public is not stupid. Even we deplorable species have have enough brain power and common sense to make our own decisions. I'm married to a deplorable and I know she can make her own decisions. If CNN follows this logic, it will send them directly to the bank with tons more money.

In 2017, the Washington Examiner reported that CNN and NBC had 93% negativity reporting on Trump. See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative. MEDIAite.com at https://www.mediaite.com/online/majority-of-fox-news-trump-coverage-has-been-negative-according-to-harvard-media-study/ reports that of all the outlets studied, FOX network’s coverage has been mostly negative, however although Fox News provided the most positive reporting on Trump among the outlets studied, it still provided less positive coverage than unfavorable stories.

Why do you care how much money Trump and his family make? They were billionaires before he became President. PLUS, my recollection from grammar school is that it was the intent of our founders that people holding political office not be professional politicians. They would be businessmen, farmers, merchants, etc while in office. That may have been possible in the early days of our nation. So, technically, President Trump can also run his own company or work a second job for another firm such as a bank (although due to security reasons that couldn't be done, plus today POTUS is a 24/7 job so that would mean that it is virtually impossible).

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Roger Sherman of Connecticut -- a signer of the Declaration of Independence -- opined that "Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents." See this link https://www.npr.org/2010/12/28/132294306/hey-congress-dont-keep-your-day-jobs for a good article written in 2010 titled "Hey, Congress: Keep Your Day Jobs".

Also from this article: "When Members Didn't Stick Around So Much". The quote is: From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress couldn't afford to stay year-round in Washington because they were paid so poorly. Senators and representatives made just a few dollars a day. In 1815, they began receiving $1,500 a year salary. In 1855 that doubled. By 1935, they were making $10,000 a year. But most members of Congress still needed day jobs.

So, to at least 1935, members of Congress worked two jobs - which sounds like it was the norm.

Today, the House has restrictions on outside employment. See https://ethics.house.gov/outside-employment-income/restrictions-outside-employment (Poor guys and gals only make $174K per year). The Senate has some really complicated rules and restrictions. See https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/conflictsofinterest

So I go back to my original thoughts: Why does anyone care how much money Trump makes from being President of the United States? It wasn't a problem when Carter (a wealthy peanut farmer), or both Bushes (inherited money and money made from oil) were worth when the were POTUS, so why all the hullabaloo about Trump?

Here's the net worth of every President from George Washington on: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/13/donald-trump-george-washington-net-worth-us-presidents/39011559/.
In today's terms,
. George Washington would have a peak net worth (in current dollars): $587.0 million. (Not bad. Not a pauper for sure.)
. Andy Jackson was worth $132.0 million and throughout his lifetime also owned 300 s***es (oops!).
. William Henry Harrison squandered his fortune of $6.1 million and dying penniless, so Congress created a special pension for his widow.
. Old Abe Lincoln at his peak net worth (in current dollars) < than $1 million. OOPs! LESS that $1.0 million!!!!! Don't you think he deserved more than that? I mean, the guy freed the s***es and saved the country. No Abe, no USA.
. William McKinley, our turn of the century President who served from 1897-1901, went bankrupt during the depression of 1893 while he was Governor of Ohio. Yet, his peak net work in today's term would be a paltry $1.0 million (what a poor fellow!)
. FDR, our only more than 2-term P**********l office holder, was worth only half of what his cousin, former President Teddy Roosevelt, at $66.8 million. Come on man - you're worth $66.8 million during what historians call The Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in the history of the industrialized world! See https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/great-depression-history
. JFK, our first billionaire President had a peak net worth of $1.1 billion. (Not bad for a Catlic kid whose father was a bootlegger during the depression).
. Gerald R. Ford, our only NON-ELECTED President had a peak net worth $8.1 million (Ford spent virtually his entire adult life in public service. Over the course of his lifetime, he owned properties in Michigan, Rancho Mirage, and Beaver Creek, Colorado. After he left the White House in 1976, he made nearly $1 million a year from book advances and from serving on the boards of several prominent American companies). NOT BAD FOR A CAREER POLITICIAN
. Now comes the two DPPBs (Democrat Party Poster Boys), Bill Clinton and then our first President of color, Barack Obama.
. Clinton had peak net worth of $75.9 million. Wild Bill was not wealthy before or even during his time in the White House, but he and his wife, Hillary, have made substantial money through book deals and paid speeches. Bill Clinton received $15 million for his book “My Life,” and Hillary was paid a $14 million advance for her book “Hard Choices.” Clinton has made the most of any modern president on the speaking circuit. He gives dozens of speeches a year and each brings in between $250,000 and $500,000 per engagement, according to published reports. He also earned $750,000 for a single speech in Hong Kong in 2011. From 2001 through 2012, he made at least $104 million in speaking fees, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. See this link: https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127
. Obama, who many wonder if he really is our first black President (lots of people wonder what his ethnicity is. See http://www.arogundade.com/is-barack-obama-black-or-mixed-race.html) - It’s difficult to know exactly how much wealth Barack Obama actually has this soon after he left office, but he is certainly well off. Obama and his wife, Michelle, reportedly signed a $65 million deal for the rights to their memoir, but it is unclear how much of that money they have received, if any. Former presidents often make six figures for paid speeches, and since Obama is known as a great orator, many organizations are likely be lining up for his services. While Obama’s net worth is somewhat unclear, it will certainly continue to climb. American University estimates the Obama's could earn up to $242 million in the coming years.
. Lastly, it must be noted that Ronald Reagan received $1.0 million over the years for making speeches. Per the Washington Post from an article written in the 1980, at https://tinyurl.com/RR-speeches, even the Boy Scouts had to pay $5,000.00 for a speech, about 15K today. He was heavily criticized by Jimmy Carter for taking so much money over the years for speeches. $1.0 million in 1980 is equal to $3,275,528 in 2019.

In 2014 per https://tinyurl.com/networth-congress the median net worth of Congresspersons was $456,522. Not overly rich, but far better off than a lot of us.

For a list of wealthy politicians, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_American_politicians

Whereas - The t***h, the whole t***h and nothing but the t***h. For six months members of the Democrat Party in the Senate and House of Representatives (plus the chairman of the DNC) have tried to persuade and condition the American public into believing that there is no problem at our southern border.

Whereas - Trump was elected to do what is out of the ordinary. And he has! Nixon was afraid to challenge the "out of the tool box" claptrap democrats spew, while Trump loves the challenge of the same old garbage talking points of the democrats. Trump is the "Head Lion in the Jungle" while in comparison Nixon and presidents following him "the cowardly lions".

Whereas- Trump has:
. challenged the ChiComs exposing their predatory economic policy toward U.S. citizens and is willing to place tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S. (something administrations going back to Eisenhower never did, each acting like cowering school children instead - includes Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and especially the DPPBs democrat party poster boys Clinton and Obama);
. brought NOK to the negotiating table - calling Kim Jong Un "a friend" - something no other sitting president has ever done (as a result, the North Koreans no longer send missiles flying over Japan and Guam);
. set foot on NOK soil (something no other president has EVER done or even considered);
. put the world, especially Iran, on notice that he is willing to take retaliatory military action if necessary but has the sense enough to ensure it is a direct equal measure (cancelled a military attack 10 minutes before execution);
. exposed the mainstream media as members of the Washington, D.C. swamp (which has never been a strong point past presidents were willing to expose - mainstream media has always acted as if the American public is stupid and that they only know what is best for the American public to know following which follows the lead of democrats, people who always think they know what is best for the American public.) If you need an example, listen to the current 25 candidates who are running for nomination as the Democrat Party 2020 P**********l E******n - all endorse one payer health care which eliminates individual freedom of choice and the right to pursue happiness independently.

So, what do you expect Trump to do - roll over for a little criticism from the democrats and msm? Never! It is not in his DNA. His answer to all of this is - why not extend the new and different method of doing things (my way) into our celebration of the birth of our nation? Come on - Let's really celebrate the 4th differently. We have a whole new way of communicating through apps like FB and Twitter (plus home phone lines and public phone booths have disappeared replaced by individual hand-held smartphones that can be used anywhere), so let's continue to celebrate the birth of our nation with the usual concert and fireworks, but also add some pizazz and bright lights with a parade honoring our military, the people who allow us to write on OPP and who never get enough credit.

Note: What do you expect the elite leadership of the Pentagon to say about the military marching in a parade. Their answer is the politically correct response to a question that is a drenched in a political minefield possibly ruffling the feathers of politicians who h**e the military (h**e which usually is a liberal mainstay and core dogma). Beside, the Pentagon elite don't understand that the THE TROOPS LOVE TO MARCH AND SHOW OFF THEIR STUFF IN A PARADE (and in getting the handshakes, thank you's,love, hugs and kisses from the American people afterward)!

So Woodguru (what are you a guru of?) - HEY Man - It's a BIRTHDAY PARTY! So we should all celebrate! Unless, like you - who will drown in your sorrow about what Trump is perceived by you to be doing, which in your eyes (as well as others like yourself) not correctly.

Whereas- The Democrat Party (the political party full of political correctness) that for 365 days a year does everything and anything to impinge on individual and independent rights using msm as the main tool to persuade and condition the public;
Whereas - Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives have done nothing which would allow us to close our border,
Whereas- Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representative as a result of not doing anything in a legislative manner that would provide relief at our southern border, ARE FOR OPEN BORDERS - thereby supporting and endorsing the flood of i*****l a***ns into our country.

Nevertheless- Don't let the bastards get you down. AND FOR YOU DEMOCRATS - When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.

No you don't. Believe it or not - I had a distant (fuzzy) recollection of the appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court from my grammar school days of over 60 years ago. Soooooooooo, I had a need to "close the loop" (so to speak) about what I knew as fact and what may not be fact. Now I know the t***h, the whole t***h, and nothing but the t***h.

President Eisenhower appointed his political opponent, Republican Govenator Earl Warren and lawyer from California, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. See these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren and https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/earl-warren. Plus I did a google search: "What are the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice?" and received the following as an answer -
There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree. Mar 19, 2019 See this link:
https://tinyurl.com/y55ealcm

No, I haven't read the book. I probably won't for quite some time. However, I have read in other places similar comments to what Levin writes about. The press/media/msm is supposed to be "above the fray" so to speak - i.e., Report the facts, explore notions, probe, etc in a NON-JUDGEMENTAL, neutral manner. However, in our history, that has NOT always been the case as cited by Levin. In the MSM reporting in Trump era, it is probably the most bias against any President whereas the press was OVERLY optimistic - always painting the bright and shinny picture, sort of protecting like a mother hen - of Barack Obama. Maybe he got a break because he was the first black-American elected to be our President - who knows. The question I have is what will happen when the 1st women is elected President? During the Obama Era when anyone disagreed or criticized him the r****t label was used, so when a women is President will anyone who disagrees or criticizes her be labeled a misogynist? I believe that Bush II and Clinton both got hammered by the media, but each received a high number of platitudes as well, certainly a much more fair and neutral attitude and demeanor than the outright h**e President Trump receives today.

Hey linda - I get the picture. Keep hangin' in there and fightin' the good fight. That's all any of us can do. Good to have such a great response. Best wishes! Thanks. d

I want a r********n because I'm a 72-year old white 20-year U.S. Navy Veteran - WHO IS SICK AND FRIGGIN' TIRED OF HEARING ELIZABETH WARREN'S (along with her i***tic partner, Bernie Sanders) LOONEY TUNES, LOGHEAD SPEWING OF STUPID FRIGGIN' IDEAS. Please, someone - somebody - (I don't care about the color of your skin or your sexual preference) REPARATE me and put me out of my friggin' mysery. Note: This has been inspired by being told since I became an adult that as a white guy to move over because we need to level the playing field for b****s (back in the 60's & 70's the manipulative game that we played was to give equal opportunity to everyone using a quota system); then, after the b****s got their free pass, I'm told again, hey you white guy who has been sucking up all the space, to move over for females (now, to level the playing field the quota system got more complicated) - BUT, as a good white guy I didn't do any complaining because, well it was true that women had been messed over in the work place, so I did my duty and slid over; NOW I'm being told we gotta give r********ns to gay couples who got hosed over at tax time. I'VE FRIGGIN' HAD IT UP TO MY OLD WHITE ASS!

Deportation and removal from the United States at taken from Wikipedia
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_and_removal_from_the_United_States

Deportation and removal from the United States occurs when the U.S. government orders a person to leave the country. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted 315,943 removals. Criteria for deportations are set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1227.

In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people.

Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States.

Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States.

Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 2.9 million people were deported from the United States.

According to this link https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-still-isnt-deporting-as-many-immigrants-as-obama-did-2019-6, President Trump isn't deporting as many as Crown Prince Obama did. This article points out that "A key factor in Trump's relatively slow rate of deportations is the limited resources of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, particularly as the influx of migrants at the southern border consumes the administration's time and energy."

Our C*******t Senator from Vermont, Senator Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate (actually forgive or write off) the debt attributed to student loans. See the below from the foxnews.com article. (Our Massachusetts C*******t Senator Elizabeth Warren also wants to eliminate/forgive/write off the debt as well).

As a cold-hearted ass-hole, I believe this to be a BAD MOVE. Sorry all my lefty loony loghead liberal friends, but I don’t have it in me to let the younger generation off the hook for WHAT THEY WANTED! I worked full time and my wife worked a 2nd job to pay off any college tuition (I never took out a student loan but paid $18,500 per year at the University of San Francisco from 1992 to 1995 - BTW, graduating at age 49).

My proposal would be - Hey Bernie, if you’re gonna propose to forgive student loans, why not go all the way and propose to forgive mortgage loans? Bernie says, “ it’s an absurdity of sentencing an entire generation to a lifetime of debt for the ‘crime’ of getting a college education.” So, AS A HOMEOWNER, why can’t I be forgiven a lifetime of debt for owning a home.

For some good info about Student Loans click this link https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/ and https://tinyurl.com/y3c85oqb One fact that was interesting to me was that the loan payback expectation was only 17%. So, before the loan is even made, 4 of 5 people are expected TO NOT payback their student loans. Who’s the dumb ass here?

Sanders to propose eliminating all $1.6T of student debt in US: report. To read this article from foxnews.com, click on this link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-to-propose-eliminating-all-1-6-trillion-of-student-debt-in-america