[guest post by Dana]

President Trump, during an interview with The Hill, was asked about the recent rape allegation made by writer E. Jean Carroll:

“I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?” the president said while seated behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

When asked if Carroll was lying, Trump on Monday repeated his assertion that he had never met her.

“Totally lying. I don’t know anything about her,” he said. “I know nothing about this woman. I know nothing about her. She is — it’s just a terrible thing that people can make statements like that.”

If it were any other president facing an accusation of rape, I would think it bizarre of him to use his accuser’s looks to bolster his claims of innocence. How could I possibly be guilty? I mean, have you seen her?? But given that it’s Trump we’re talking about, and given that we’ve been down this rabbit hole for two years now, it’s actually the exact sort of thing I would expect him to say.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

[Headline from DRJ]

Houston Chronicle: Worst I’ve ever seen’, claims Texas Republican congressman about conditions for detained migrants

In recent days, there has been increased attention to the living, health and safety conditions at migrant detention facilities located near the U.S.-Mexico border. On Sunday, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) stated that the conditions were the worst he’s ever seen.

“I’ve been down there throughout my 15 years in Congress and before that, as a federal prosecutor. This is the worst I’ve ever seen it, and it has to be taken care of,” McCaul said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

— DRJ

[guest post by Dana]

Of course they can just send a check to the US Treasury anytime they want, but hey, given how the federal government consistently pays off its debts and regularly balances the budget through disciplined and restrained spending, why not ask them to mandate the collection of more American dollars, am I right!

In a letter sent to candidates Monday, 18 members of some of the nation’s wealthiest families advocated for a wealth tax on people who amassed great personal fortunes, including themselves.

“We are writing to call on all candidates for president, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, to support a moderate wealth tax on the fortunes of the richest one-tenth of the richest 1% of Americans — on us,” said the letter, which was first published in the New York Times Monday.

It said that millions of middle-class Americans already pay a wealth tax annually on their primary form of wealth: property taxes on their homes. The letter points out that Democratic candidates Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg have proposed a wealth tax. But the letter’s writers said, “Some ideas are too important for America to be part of only a few candidates’ platforms.”

…

The letter said the wealth of the top 1/10th of 1% is nearly equal to the wealth of the lowest 90% of American households. “Those of us signing this letter enjoy uncommon fortunes, but each of us wants to live in an America that solves the biggest challenges of our common future,” it said.

The letter lists six key reasons for the wealth tax, and how it can be used in a positive way: It can help fight climate change; would be an economic winner for all Americans; it will make Americans healthier; it is the fair thing to do; it would strengthen American freedom and democracy, and it would be the patriotic thing to do.

Apparently there are not all Democrats are happy about the plan:

The wealth tax isn’t embraced by all Democrats, though, with some arguing it would be difficult to objectively assess the value of wealth like artwork and jewels or illiquid assets. There are also concerns that such a tax is unconstitutional because the federal government is prohibited from taxing property, only income.

And again, the uber-wealthy don’t seem to understand that they don’t have to be compelled by the strong arm of government to give their money to any institution they choose:

“If we don’t do something like this, what are we doing, just hoarding this wealth in a country that’s falling apart at the seams?” Pritzker Simmons said. “That’s not the America we want to live in.”

Of course, now that Bernie has proposed his massive, self-described “revolutionary” plan to erase the country’s $1.6 trillion outstanding student loan debt, those billionaires are really going to need to pony up:

The Democratic presidential candidate’s legislation — dubbed “The College for All Act” — will release all 45 million Americans from their student debt and be paid for with a new tax on Wall Street transactions.

The proposal goes further than fellow Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren’s plan, which caps student debt forgiveness at $50,000 and offers no relief to borrowers who earn more than $250,000.

…

The $2.2 trillion plan would be paid for by a new tax on financial transactions, including a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds. That levy would raise up to $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the senator’s office.

…

Sanders’ plan would make two- and four-year public colleges and universities tuition- and debt-free. Trade schools and apprenticeship programs would be tuition-free, as well.

It’s funny how working to fix the basic problems of overspending and overcharging never enter the equation.

No, these people aren’t exhausting at all.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

From the Catholic News Agency:

A controversial UK court decision to force a disabled woman to have an abortion has been overturned on appeal.

In a decision reportedly reached June 24, the English Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson, overturned the previous ruling of the Court of Protection.

According to Press Association reports, the judges said they would issue a full explanation of their decision at a later date, but that the circumstances of the case were “unique.”

This follows Justice Nathalie Lieven’s outrageous decision to force a mentally disabled woman to have an abortion at 22 weeks pregnant. As you recall, the disabled woman’s mother, who is a member of the Nigerian Igbo community, devout Catholic, and former midwife told the court that the decision violated her religious and cultural beliefs, and that she would raise the baby. But Lieven did not consider that a compelling enough reason to allow the baby to live, believing that the trauma of giving birth, or putting the baby up for adoption or into foster care would be worse for the young woman to experience than having an abortion.

The grandmother’s legal team appealed the decision:

Barrister John McKendrick QC, who is leading the woman’s mother’s legal team, told the judge: “It is accepted that (the woman) lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings and to make a decision in respect of whether or not to consent to a termination and associated ancillary treatment.

“That being said, (her mother) considers that the applicant has underestimated (her) ability and understanding, and that more weight should be place on her wishes and feelings.”

Mr McKendrick said “Termination is not in (the woman’s) best interests.”

He also said that the judge had “no proper evidence” to show that allowing the pregnancy to continue would put the woman’s life or long-term health at grave risk.

“The applicants have failed to carry out a proper best interests analysis,” he said.“Their evidence is premised on a narrow clinical view. The application must be dismissed.”

As a result of Lieven’s decision, “thousands signed a petition pushing for U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Matthew Hancock to intervene in the case”. Also, the report notes that a UK Right to Life group had 75,000 signatures protesting the decision. Additionally, two Catholic bishops from the UK spoke out against the decision:

“Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes upon her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for the child,” said Bishop John Sherrington, an auxilary bishop of the Archdiocese of Westminster.

Sherrington serves as the designated spokesman on life issues for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

“In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state,” he added. “This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers. This case, for which all information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of ‘best interests’ when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”

This, this, this:

We should be outraged that a government-affiliated health establishment is fighting to kill a fully developed baby against the wishes of the mother and grandmother, and also that Justice Nathalie Lieven—who has admitted that all evidence indicates the disabled woman wants to keep her baby—has ruled that the child should be aborted. This case exposes how far the tyranny of the abortion regime extends. In a society that has decided the unborn have no rights, the worth and life of the unborn are determined by the most powerful.

Score 1 for life.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana