Connect with us

Politics

Partisan Theatrics Take Center Stage at President Trump’s State of the Union Address

Published

on

  • Topping off a night of partisan theatrics, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ripped President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address following the conclusion of his speech.
  • Pelosi’s move came after Trump broke years of tradition by not shaking the speaker’s hand before he began.
  • During Trump’s speech, the father of a Parkland shooting victim shouted at Trump after the president said he would protect the Second Amendment. That man was then escorted from the room.
  • Trump also awarded conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the SOTU. While not met with immediate controversy, the award sparked both criticism and applause on social media.

Pelosi Rips Trump’s Speech

Though Tuesday’s State of the Union was undoubtedly President Trump’s biggest night of the year to address American audiences, partisan theatrics were arguably the biggest headline by the end of the night.

From beginning to end, the address was capped with tense moments between Trump and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, culminating in Pelosi’s decision to rip Trump’s speech in two after he finished speaking. 

The tension began when Trump failed to shake Pelosi’s hand upon approaching the stage. After Trump handed her his speech, Pelosi then reached out her hand to shake his, however, she did so as Trump was in the process of turning away to face the podium. 

Trump also did not shake Vice President Mike Pence’s hand. As per tradition, the vice president and speaker both sit directly behind the president during his address.

The move by both has been interpreted a variety of ways on social media, with some saying that Trump deliberately ignored Pelosi because she launched the impeachment trial that began in the House of Representatives. Others noted how quickly Trump turned away, suggesting that he just didn’t see her hand.

While it is entirely possible Trump simply missed Pelosi’s gesture, his decision to not shake her hand breaks long-standing tradition. Last year, he shook both Pelosi and Pence’s hands. In 2018, he shook the hand of then-speaker Paul Ryan. Upon simple review of SOTU addresses from former presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr., all shook their respective speakers’ hands.

The tension between the two then escalated when Pelosi broke protocol in addressing Trump as he entered the room.

“Members of Congress, the President of the United States,” she said.

Notably, that line omits a key part of the phrase the speaker is supposed to say: “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.”

Following Trump’s address, reporters asked Pelosi why she decided to destroy Trump’s speech. 

“Because it was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative,” she responded. 

Also following the speech, many on social media felt divided by the move. By Wednesday morning, a large portion of the top trends concerned the moment, with people using hashtags like #PettyPelosi, #PelosiMeltdown, #NancytheRipper, and #NancyIsABadass.

On the president’s personal Twitter page, he’s retweeted nearly two dozen people, all of whom posted tweets critical of Pelosi. Likewise, Trump retweeted a message from the official White House Twitter that condemned Pelosi’s action.

“Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. A service member’s reunion with his family. That’s her legacy,” the tweet reads. 

On the other side of the debate, Freshman representative Rashida Tlaib gave her support for such a move.

“I would have shredded it,” she said on Twitter. 

Parkland Dad’s Outburst

Moments during Trump’s address were also met with controversy. Soon after finishing a statement about how he will protect the Second Amendment, Trump was met with an outburst from a person in the crowd. 

That man turned out to be Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed during the Parkland school shooting in 2018. Guttenberg had been invited to the address by Pelosi, and since his daughter’s death, he has become an active advocate for gun control. 

Following his outburst, Guttenberg was escorted from the House chamber by a plain-clothed police officer. During this time, Trump did not acknowledge Guttenberg and continued with his speech. 

Later Tuesday night, Guttenberg issued an apology via Twitter, where he said he was overcome with emotion in the moment.

“Tonight was a rough night,” he said. “I disrupted the State Of The Union and was detained because I let my emotions get the best of me. I simply want to be able to deal with the reality of gun violence and not have to listen to the lies about the 2A as happened tonight.”

“That said, I should not have yelled out,” he added. “I am thankful for the overwhelming support that I am receiving. However, I do owe my family and friends an apology. I have tried to conduct myself with dignity throughout this process and I will do better as I pursue gun safety.”

Guttenberg then received further support from people like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Parkland survivor David Hogg. Also on Twitter, #ImWithFred trended Tuesday night.

Limbaugh Awarded Medal of Freedom

In a move that wasn’t met with immediate controversy in the House chamber, Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, a conservative radio talk show host who’s been vocal about his support for Trump.

The award comes just a day after Limbaugh announced that he had been diagnosed with an advanced stage of lung cancer, 

“Almost every American family knows the pain when a loved one is diagnosed with a serious illness,” Trump said of Limbaugh during his address. “Here tonight is a special man, someone beloved by millions of Americans who just received a Stage 4 advanced cancer diagnosis. This is not good news, but what is good news is that he is the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet. Rush Limbaugh, thank you for your decades of tireless devotion to our country.” 

First Lady Melania Trump bestowed that medal upon a very ecstatic Limbaugh; however, others such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ihan Omar were critical of the award.

“The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an extraordinarily sacred award,” Osacio-Cortez said. “We’re talking about putting someone on the same level as Rosa Parks, you know, for example in terms of their contributions to American progress. Rush Limbaugh is a virulent racist.”

See what others are saying: (NBC News) (ABC News) (Fox News)

Politics

Republican Congressman Proposes Bill to Ban Anyone Under 16 From Social Media

Published

on

The proposal comes amid a growing push for social media companies to be stringently regulated for child and adolescent use.


The Social Media Child Protection Act

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Ut.) introduced legislation Thursday that would ban all Americans under the age of 16 from accessing social media.

The proposal, dubbed the Social Media Child Protection Act, would require social media companies to verify users’ ages and give parents and states the ability to bring legal actions against those platforms if they fail, according to a press release.

The legislation would also mandate that social media platforms implement “reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from users and perspective users.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be given the authority to enforce these regulations and implement fines for violations.

Stewart has argued that the move is necessary to protect children from the negative mental health impacts of social media.

“There has never been a generation this depressed, anxious, and suicidal – it’s our responsibility to protect them from the root cause: social media,”  he said in a statement announcing the bill.

“We have countless protections for our children in the physical world – we require car seats and seat belts; we have fences around pools; we have a minimum drinking age of 21; and we have a minimum driving age of 16,” the Congressman continued. 

“The damage to Generation Z from social media is undeniable – so why are there no protections in the digital world?”

While Stewart’s arguments are nothing new in the ongoing battle around children and regulating social media, his legislation has been described as one of the most severe proposals on this front.

The plan would represent a huge shift in verification systems that critics have long said fall short. Many social media sites like TikTok and Twitter technically ban users under 13 from joining, but there is no formal verification process or mechanisms for enforcement. Companies often just ask users to provide their birthdays, so those under 13 could easily just lie.

Backlash and Support

Stewart — who spent the weeks before the rollout of his bill discussing the matter with the media — has already gotten pushback from many who say the idea is too extreme and a bad approach.

Carl Szabo, the vice president and general counsel of the social media trade group NetChoice, told The Washington Post that such a decision should be left to parents.

“Rather than doomsaying or trying to get between parents and their families, the government should provide tools and education on how best to use this new technology, not demonize it,” he said.

Others have also argued that the move could cut off access to powerful and positive online resources for kids.

“For many kids, especially LGBTQ young people who may have unsupportive parents or live in a conservative area, the internet and social media are a lifeline,” Evan Greer, the director of the advocacy group Fight for the Future, told The Post. “We need better solutions than just cutting kids off from online community and educational resources.”

Lawmakers have also echoed that point, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.), who represents Silicon Valley. However, there also seems to be support for this measure. At least one Democratic Congressmember has told reporters they are open to the idea, and Stewart says he thinks the proposal will have broad bipartisan backing.

“This is bipartisan… There’s Democratic leaders who are actually maneuvering to be the lead co-sponsor on this,”  he told KSL News Radio, adding that President Joe Biden recently wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that referenced similar ideas.

A Growing Movement

Stewart is just one among the growing number of lawmakers and federal officials who have voiced support for keeping kids and younger teens off social media altogether.

In an interview with CNN Sunday, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy expressed concern regarding  “the right age for a child to start using social media.”

“I worry that right now, if you look at the guidelines from the platforms, that age 13 is when kids are technically allowed to use social media,” he said. “But there are two concerns I have about that. One is: I, personally, based on the data I’ve seen, believe that 13 is too early.” 

Murthy went on to say that adolescents at that age are developing their identity and sense of self, arguing that social media can be a “skewed and often distorted environment,” adding that he is also worried about the fact that the rules around age are “inconsistently implemented.”

His comments gained widespread backing. At least one Senator posted a tweet agreeing, and an FTC Commissioner also shared the remarks on the platform. Stewart, for his part, explicitly cited Murthy’s remarks in the press release announcing his bill. 

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (KSL News Radio) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Politics

Feds Investigate Classified Files Found in Biden’s Former Office

Published

on

The documents reportedly include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom


What Was in the Files?

President Biden’s legal team discovered about 10 classified files in his former office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington D.C., the White House revealed Monday.

The Department of Justice has concluded an initial inquiry into the matter and will determine whether to open a criminal investigation.

According to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, they include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom.

A source also told CBS News the batch did not contain nuclear secrets and had been contained in a folder in a box with other unclassified papers.

The documents are reportedly from Biden’s time as vice president, but it remains unclear what level of classification they are and how they ended up in his office.

Biden kept an office in the. Penn Biden Center, a think tank about a mile from the White House, between 2017 and 2020, when he was elected president.

On Nov. 2, his lawyers claim, they discovered the documents as they were clearing out the space to vacate it.

They immediately notified the National Archives, which retrieved the files the next morning, according to the White House.

What Happens Next?

Attorney General Merrick Garland must decide whether to open a criminal investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of the documents. To that end, he appointed John Lausch Jr., the U.S. attorney in Chicago and a Trump appointee, to conduct an initial inquiry.

Garland reportedly picked him for the role despite him being in a different jurisdiction to avoid appearing partial.

Lausch has reportedly finished the initial part of his inquiry and provided a preliminary report to Garland.

If a criminal investigation is opened, Garland will likely appoint an independent special counsel to lead it.

The case mirrors a similar DoJ special counsel investigation into former President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified materials and obstruction of efforts to properly retrieve them.

On Nov. 18, Garland appointed Jack Smith to investigate over 300 classified documents found at Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump resisted multiple National Archives requests for the documents for months leading up to the FBI’s raid on his property, then handed over 15 boxes of files only for even more to be found still at Mar-a-Lago.

“When is the FBI going to raid the many houses of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. “These documents were definitely not declassified.”

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the new chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters he will investigate the Biden files.

Republicans have been quick to pounce on the news and compare it to Trump’s classified files, but Democrats have pointed out differences in the small number of documents and Biden’s willingness to cooperate with the National Archives.

The White House has yet to explain why, if the files were first discovered six days before the midterm elections, the White House waited two months to reveal the news to the public.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The New York Times) (BBC)

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawmakers Propose Bill to Protect Fertility Treatments Amid Post-Roe Threats

Published

on

The move comes as a number of states are considering anti-abortion bills that could threaten or ban fertility treatments by redefining embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for IVF.


The Right To Build Families Act of 2022

A group of Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday that would codify the right to use assisted reproductive technologies like in-vitro fertility (IVF) treatments into federal law.

The legislation, dubbed the Right To Build Families Act of 2022, was brought forward by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Il) and Patty Murray (D-Wa.) alongside Rep. Susan Wild (D- Pa.). The measure would bar any limits on seeking or receiving IVF treatments and prohibit regulations on a person’s ability to retain their “reproductive genetic materials.” 

The bill would also protect physicians who provide these reproductive services and allow the Justice Department to take civil action against any states that try to limit access to fertility treatments.

The lawmakers argue it is necessary to protect IVF because a number of states have been discussing and proposing legislation that could jeopardize or even ban access to the treatments in the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal. 

“IVF advocates in this country today are publicly telling us, ‘We need this kind of legislation to be able to protect this,’” Murray told HuffPost. “And here we are after the Dobbs decision where states are enacting laws and we have [anti-abortion] advocates who are now starting to talk, especially behind closed doors, about stopping the right for women and men to have IVF procedures done.”

Fertility Treatments Under Treat

The state-level efforts in question are being proposed by Republican lawmakers who wish to further limit abortions by redefining when life begins. Some of the proposals would define embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for those that are created through IVF, where an egg is fertilized by a sperm outside the body and then implanted in a uterus.

For example, a bill has already been pre-filed in Virginia for the 2023 legislative session that explicitly says life begins at fertilization and does not have any specific language that exempts embryos made through IVF.

Experts say these kinds of laws are concerning for a number of reasons. In the IVF process, it is typical to fertilize multiple eggs, but some are discarded. If a person becomes pregnant and does not want to keep the rest of their eggs. It is also normal that not all fertilized eggs will be viable, so physicians will get rid of those.

Sometimes doctors will also implant multiple fertilized eggs to increase the likelihood of pregnancy, but that can result in multiple eggs being fertilized. In order to prevent having multiple babies at once and improve the chance of a healthy pregnancy, people can get a fetal reduction and lower the number of fetuses.

All of those actions could become illegal under proposals that do not provide exemptions. 

“In my case, I had five fertilized eggs, and we discarded three because they were not viable. That is now potentially manslaughter in some of these states,” said Duckworth, who had both of her daughters using IVF.

“I also have a fertilized egg that’s frozen. My husband and I haven’t decided what we will do with it, but the head of the Texas Right to Life organization that wrote the bounty law for Texas has come out and specifically said he’s going after IVF next, and he wants control of the embryos,” Duckworth added.

In a hearing after Roe was overturned, Murray also raised concerns about “whether parents and providers could be punished if an embryo doesn’t survive being thawed for implantation, or for disposing unused embryos.”

Experts have said that even if anti-abortion laws defining when life begins do provide exceptions, it would be contradictory and confusing, so providers would likely err on the side of caution and not provide services out of fear of prosecution.

“[Abortion bans] are forcing women to stay pregnant against their will and are, at the very same time, threatening Americans’ ability to build a family through services like IVF,” Murray said in a statement to Axios. “It’s hard to comprehend, and it’s just plain wrong.”

The federal legislation to combat these efforts faces an uphill battle. It is unlikely it will be passed in the last few days of lame duck session, and with control of Congress being handed to Republicans come January, movement in the lower chamber will be hard fought.

Duckworth, however, told Axios that she will keep introducing the legislation “until we can get it passed.” 

See what others are saying: (Axios) (HuffPost) (USA Today)

Continue Reading