Author: Ebony Trumble


Animal welfare activists in America are now focused on the country’s horse racing meets, as they are seeking political support to have the sport abolished. The movement began in California last year when a significant number of horse deaths transpired at the Santa Anita Park.

 

Horse Racing and Horse Deaths as a Result of Racing Injury

Horseracing Wrong a New-York based animal rights group has started calling for a nationwide ban on horse racing sport. The calls began when they started looking into the 2018-2019 6-months winter meet in Santa Anita Park, which resulted in the deaths of 30 horses. The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) said it already had the Santa Anita race track in its radars, because at an average, 50 horse deaths per year has been occurring at the track since 2008 to 2018.

Immediately when “American Currency” the 30th race horse was euthanized after suffering a leg injury in Santa Anita’s race track, the CHRB called for an inspection of the race course. Events during the first 3 weeks of March had to be suspended in order to make way for renovations. In addition, several safety protocols were introduced at the park in order to address the increasing number of equine fatalities.

In reacting to the series of horse deaths at the Santa Anita Park, California Governor Gavin Newsom directed the Santa Anita owners and the CHRB to create a 5-member “safety review team.” The team comprises veterinarians and stewards tasked to evaluate all horses participating in Santa Anita’s races. The review team has been conferred with the authority to exclude or scratch a horse from a race event, in case concerns arise over the animal’s conditions and fitness to participate.

Yet Horseracing Wrong said that they have their sight set on the abolition of the sport, and not only in the races being held by the Santa Anita Park. Animal activist April Montgomery said they intend to end horse racing, starting with California. The plan is to bring the issue to the ballot box, which suggests convincing Californians to give their votes to public officials and lawmakers who will legislate laws that will abolish horse racing sport.

It Might Take Long for the Advocacy to Gain Traction

Many opine that the abolition of horse racing in California or throughout the country has far reaching effects, which will make it difficult for the movement to garner support and gain traction. Shutting down the industry will leave many race track workers without jobs, while state governments will have to deal with diminished sources of tax revenues. More so now that state governments are reeling from the devastating economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The publisher of the article BloodHorse – From Print to Digital Masterpiece – Past The Wire, which also sponsored this guest post, had recently reported that Santa Anita Park has already been cleared by the LA Dept. of Public Health, as testing of workers and jockeys have yielded negative results.

Since May 15, horse racing events have already resumed after the LA County Dept. of Public Health shut race tracks down last March 27, 2020. However, the resumed race events took place without spectators. That alone already reduced the pool of prizes at stake, which also meant the government will get to collect reduced taxes.


Former Democratic presidential candidates in the likes of Mayor Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke, now support Joe Biden.

Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar announced their Biden-endorsement after withdrawing their bid for presidential nomination a day or two before this week’s Super Tuesdays. O’Rourke, who withdrew his candidacy early in the race, appeared at Biden’s rally in Dallas, Texas.

The unanimous endorsements in favor of Biden, were reportedly part of the Democratic Party’s concerted efforts to consolidate votes that will nominate a moderate presidential candidate who they deem has better chances of beating Donald Trump

The endorsements of the four dropouts have given Joe Biden’s bid a boost, enabling the former vice president to capture the nominations 9 states.Biden even won in Massachusetts, Senator Warren’s own home state and in states that he did not spend time campaigning..So far, Joe Biden has won 573 delegates.

In fact many perceive that Senator Sanders’ biggest opposition is the Democratic Party itself. More so now that the former independent has demonstrated great chances of winning not only the nomination but also the U.S. presidency without the machineries of the Democratic Party.

Democratic Party Never Gave Its Support to a Bernie Sanders Candidacy

Actually, even at the start of Bernie’s campaign, there were already reports that the Democratic Party does not support Senator Sanders’ candidacy. Mainly because of his so-called radical views and stance, which the Democratic Party says will not sit well with moderate or progressives Democratic voters.

Nonetheless, despite the endorsements of the four former Democratic contenders, Sanders still won the nominations in Vermont (as expected), Colorado and Utah. The most recent, according to the Associated Press, is in the state of California, touted as the most delegate-rich region. Senator Sanders’ delegate count to date is 501,

Will Senator Sanders Ask Senator Elizabeth Warren to Drop Out and Endorse Him?

The contest for the presidential election is now, clearly between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders’ since Elizabeth Warren’s bid dimmed with the most recent Super Tuesday results. Senator Sanders, though, has no plan to ask Senator Warren to drop her candidacy; saying she must have time to make her own decisions.

Although the two were known to be friends, their relationship was marred by the hatefulness spread against Warren, by some of Sanders’ supporters. To which the senator from Vermont said, was disgusting.

Still, the two Senators share the same visions and more or less, the same policies; both relying on grassroots support and both fighting for the rights and welfare of the low-income and middle class people.

As for Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement, the potential impact is not as heavy-hitting as that of Buttigieg’s and Klobuchar’s. After all, with the former New York mayor’s late start, and his not so impressive debate performances, the billionaire failed to attract, if not capture votes he needed to topple Sanders or Biden out of the Democratic nomination race.


The House impeachment proceedings led by Representative Adam Schiff has advanced to the stage of releasing transcripts of testimonies provided by witnesses via closed-door hearings; setting the stage for a public hearing in which Republicans will have a chance to question witnesses.

Trump’s “Read the Transcript” call could backfire against him, since his message may very well apply to the witness transcripts freshly released by the Schiff-led House Intelligence Committee.

Now Senator Lindsey Graham is trying to correct the potential damage that the “Read the Transcript” slogan could create on their attempt to defend Donald Trump. Senator Graham is now insisting that the transcripts are products of an illegal impeachment proceeding, and therefore not worth reading.

To substantiate his refusal to read the witness transcripts, Graham introduced a resolution stating that the ongoing impeachment proceeding is a witch hunt being carried out by Democrats to remove Trump from the Oval Office.

GOP Senators’ Backing of Lindsey Graham’s Resolution May Have Given Trump the Jitters

Graham’s resolution could have put Trump’s mind at rest, if all 53 Republican Senators signed the resolution, in the same way all Republican Representatives voted against the House’s impeachment resolution. However, it was not the case, since only 44 affixed their signature to Graham’s resolution.

The outcome means nine (9) Republican Senators are starting to “Read the Transcripts” of the impeachment witnesses rather than make final judgments based mainly on blind obedience to Donald Trump.

What Constitutional Scholars are Saying about Graham’s Resolution

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserts, the impeachment proceeding was launched to defend the United States Constitution, which Donald Trump undermines by trying to legalize his abuse of presidential powers.

It is of interest therefore, to know what Constitutional Scholars are saying about Senator Graham’s resolution, to understand why nine GOP Senators refused to support it.

Laurence Tribe, a Professor of Constitutional Law and the Carl M. Loeb Professor of Harvard University told Newsweek that he has carefully examined the resolution to assess if any of Graham’s process complaints made historical, legal or moral sense. Yet he could not find anything in it that indicates defense of what the incumbent U.S. President has done; therefore, not worth being taken seriously

“Senator Graham’s resolution has absolutely no substance”

Harold Hongju Koh, Yale University’s Sterling Professor of International Law also told Newsweek that the due process protection being demanded by Graham, is attached only to the imminent Senate impeachment trial. Professor Koh continued by saying that since everyone knows that president Trump and his GOP loyalists will have ample opportunity to rebut the information gathered during the closed door hearings, he called Graham’s resolution

“A legally ignorant red herring.”

Frank Bowman, University of Missouri’s Floyd R. Gibson Endowed Professor of Law refuted in the Newsweek interview, Graham’s claim that the impeachment inquiry is not valid because the hearings are being carried out in secret. In truth, 40 Republican House members were in attendance during the hearings, all entitled to ask questions, all given equal time and allowed to bring along their staff members to assist them in asking questions.

“What Trump and the concurring Republican Senators are asking for, are procedural rights that are beyond those given to a defendant facing lengthy incarceration


After returning from the August recess, House Democrats through New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) immediately announced that impeachment proceedings will start rolling not as a political move but as a “Call of Duty”.

About 134 Democrats, more than half of the caucus will be throwing votes favoring the start of the impeachment process, with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and other Democratic leaders, throwing in their support for the move.

 

There are those who are still not in favor of doing so; arguing that even if the lower house succeeds in passing a resolution that seeks to impeach and remove Donald Trump from office, the Republican majority at the Senate will only vote it down.

The feisty New York Representative was unperturbed, as she dared Republican Senators to block the move once the ball is at their end. That way, they will go on record and down in history with the stain of having a hand in protecting a corrupt and lawless presidency.

Apparently, Republican congressmen and senators are now in that precarious position of getting their political careers tarnished under Trump’s leadership, whichever way they vote. It is not just about Trump’s less than 40% approval rating during the past months that can hurt their political future. .

Impeachment Actions Will be for a Multitude of Malfeasance; Not Purely Based on the Mueller Report

Decisions to proceed with impeachment measures are no longer centered on the multiple obstruction cases cited by special counsel Mueller in his report. As more evidence of Trump’s past and present transgressions pile up, it has become necessary for the House of Representative to carry out their duty to file impeachment charges.

After all, the House of Representatives has a constitutional mandate to stop endless cases of high crimes and misdemeanors that include abuse of authority</strong<, bribery, dereliction of duty, intimidation, failure to supervise, perjury of oath, misuse of assets, tax evasion and unbecoming conduct.

Tax evasion schemes, insurance fraud, money laundering, and Trump’s use of his presidency to boost his businesses, are only some of the issues that Republican Senators will have to support and defend once they go on the floor to officially vote against impeachment.

In doing so, Republicans should take into consideration that even if Trump is no longer in office, charges can still be filed against him in judicial courts. Now if a court finds Trump guilty, Republican Congressmen and Senators who voted against the impeachment actions, will go down in history as politicians who gave more value to their political careers over their constitutional duty to end a corrupt presidency.


U.S. president Donald Trump branded Republican Representative Justin Amash (R-Mi) as the “dumbest and most disloyal man in Congress” Amash is the only GOP member calling for Trump’s impeachment after the Mueller Report was made public. In being aware that his stance has hurt his chances of being nominated as Republican Congressional Representative for Michigan, in the 2020 Presidential Election, Rep. Amash did what was expected —announced his resignation from the Republican Party.

Trump of course rejoiced and made it clear that Rep. Amash’s seat as Republican representative is already up for grabs to those who want it, whilst further branding Amash as a “total loser.”

Now that his breakaway from GOP is official, Representative Amash has given the real reason why he was perceived as “disloyal° to the party, particularly to the Republican U.S. president.

Discorded GOP and Trump’s Demand for Personal Loyalty

According to Rep. Amash, discord among GOP members and Trump’s unwarranted demand for personal loyalty, made him him reach a final decsion to leave the party. Still, he reasons that he would have cut ties with the Republican Party, even if Trump is not the president.

Now an independent from Michigan, Amash said he held hopes that he could change things while serving as a member. Yet the disagreements have been ongoing for years, and had worsened in recent years under Donald Trump’s leadership, who fueled the discord and made it difficult for people to maintain independence in Congress.

In an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” host, Jake Tapper, the 5-term legislator voiced his opinion, saying

“Over the years, I have seen people just falling in line behind leaders, including people in my own caucus.””So much so, it has gotten worse and worse …I think this term in Congress really broke it for me.”

In an op-ed he wrote, the Michigan lawmaker said the thing that bothered him the most about Trump, is that the latter expects every Republican to be loyal to him and not the Republican Party. He asserts that

“People are elected to Congress with an oath to defend and support the Constitution, and not an oath to defend and support and defend just one person, particularly the president, just because he happens to be a member of your own party.”


Last May 13, 2019, Vermont state legislators approved and passed Bill H.57, a law seeking to make abortion a constitutional right that gives women of reproductive age the freedom of choice, as well as bar public entities from interfering or limiting the right to terminate pregnancy any time and for any reason.

Republican Vermont Governor. Phil Scott supports the legislation of comprehensive abortion rights law and is expected to affix his signature of approval in order to fully enact Bill H 57.

Vermont’s passing of Bill H 57, is regarded as a proactive measure against movements seeking to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal throughout the country. Other Republican-led states across the nation have recently introduced, if not passed legislation aimed at restricting abortion procedures.

Alabama recently enacted a controversial abortion law that could imprison for life, doctors found to have performed abortions. Earlier this month, the state of Georgia enacted a law that prohibits abortion once fetal heartbeats have been detected — a condition that may take place by as early as six weeks, when most women are still unaware of their pregnancy.

About the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Ruling

The Roe v. Wade is  ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in January 22, 1973, stating that

”Unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional.”

.

Justice Harry A. Blackmun cited and wrote a majority opinion that a set of Texas state laws that criminalize abortion in most instances is a violation of a woman’s constitutional right of privacy;a right that is found implicit in the liberty guarantee of giving every person the right to seek due process as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the event that the Roe v. Wade is overturned or eroded, women of reproductive age in America stand to lose the ability to resort to abortion in their state.