What Joe Biden Knows About America

Old Brandon would have been laughed out of Washington if the media didn't spend it's resources covering up for his mental issues. You almost have to vomit when nobody in the mainstream media thought it was strange when Biden went off script the other day and commented about the physical attributes of some Russian "guy".
 
Nobody has underestimated the Vegetable in Chief!

It is what it is.


1668726677353.png
 
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) (Pub.L. 109–8 (text)(PDF), 119 Stat. 23, enacted April 20, 2005) is a legislative act that made several significant changes to the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Referred to colloquially as the "New Bankruptcy Law", the Act of Congress attempts to, among other things, make it more difficult for some consumers to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7; some of these consumers may instead utilize Chapter 13.

It was passed by the 109th United States Congress on April 14, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005. Provisions of the act apply to cases filed on or after October 17, 2005.

(full article online)

 
Biden got the Recovery Act passed and oversaw it's implementation,which brought us out of the 2008 recession

 
Oversaw infrastructure spending to counteract the Great Recession


It was by far the largest enterprise Joe Biden had ever led: a nearly $800 billion government-spending program intended to rescue the country from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. It involved more than 100,000 projects—275 programs within 28 federal agencies. “If we do everything right, there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong,” Biden himself said at the time.

But in overseeing the 2009 Recovery Act as Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden shepherded an effort now seen as an effective and remarkably fraud-free response to the financial crisis, even if it won little praise or political credit at the time. If Biden has the good—or bad—luck to win the presidency in November, his first task will be to perform an encore on an even more daunting scale.

(full article online)


 
[Helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011]


President Joe Biden agreed on Monday to formally conclude the US combat mission in Iraq by the end of the year, another step toward winding down the two prolonged military engagements that began in the years following the September 11 terror attacks.

Biden told reporters in the Oval Office alongside Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi that the US mission in Iraq will shift.

“I think things are going well. Our role in Iraq will be … to be available to continue to train, to assist, to help, and to deal with ISIS – as it arrives. But we’re not going to be, by the end of the year, in a combat mission,” the President later said.

“We support strengthening Iraq’s democracy and we’re anxious to make sure the election goes forward in October,” Biden added alongside the politically embattled prime minister. “And we’re also committed to our security cooperation, our shared fight against ISIS. It’s critical for the stability of the region and our counter-terrorism cooperation will continue, even as we shift to this new phase we’re going to be talking about.”

Unlike Biden’s decision to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan, the end of the combat mission comes at Iraq’s urging. The country is caught in a balancing act between anti-American factions in the country, Iranian-backed militias and the stabilizing presence of the American military.

t will also not result in the withdrawal of US troops from the country, as has happened in Afghanistan. There are currently 2,500 US troops in Iraq, and officials declined to say how that number would change following Monday’s announcement. The US and Iraq are expected to announce the US mission will fully shift to an advisory role by year’s end – meaning some of the changes to the current levels could come on paper only.

Still, the two decisions are the best illustrations of Biden’s effort to shift American foreign policy away from decisions made nearly two decades ago. Instead, he wants to focus on threats from China, where a top American diplomat traveled this week for a tense set of meetings.


(full article online)


 
On Tuesday, Joe Biden signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I enjoyed his speech; he was in full Dark Brandon mode in his mirrored sunglasses. The Act itself is not the full-throated protection for marriage equality many people would like to see, but it does draw a line in the sand if Obergefell, the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, falls prey to the same line of reasoning about privacy rights the Supreme Court used to reverse 50 years of precedent on legal abortion. That is the logical endpoint of the argument Justice Clarence Thomas made in his concurrence in Dobbs, the case that reversed Roe v. Wade and ended women’s right to choose.

Biden handed the pen he used to sign the Act to Kamala Harris, whose marriage to a white man would have been illegal before Loving v. Virginia, also potentially under attack if the Court lets its decision in Dobbs fall off the slippery slope to its logical endpoint.

Loving is a relatively recent case—states were not required to permit interracial marriages before 1967, when a unanimous Supreme Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally “odious to a free people” and that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving involved two Virginia residents, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who went to the District of Columbia to get married. Upon their return to Virginia, they were charged with violating the state’s anti-miscegenation statute, which banned interracial marriage, and were each sentenced to spend one year in custody.

The nine white men on the Supreme Court in 1967 understood, in this case, how important their role in protecting people’s rights was. Virginia argued that the law applied equally to Blacks and whites, so it passed muster under a rational purpose test. But the court, conservatives and liberals, held that the law’s sole purpose was “invidious” racial discrimination and that it could not withstand the strict scrutiny the Court was required to subject it to in making its decision.

Today, that sort of moral certainty no longer exists on the Court. So passing a law that backstops Obergefell and Loving, requiring states to respect marriages if they were legally entered into in another state, is a last-ditch effort to make sure rights are protected. Sometimes a thing is bigger than what it appears to be. Despite the criticism that it doesn’t go far enough, this Act, in the final analysis, likely will be a big deal.

Biden admonished the crowd that it was all the same—attacks on Jews, Muslims, Blacks, the LGBTQ community—and that protecting these rights isn’t a partisan act but one that is fundamentally American. It’s fitting that this step was taken by Joe Biden, who, as Vice President, “accidentally” got ahead of Obama on marriage equality before Obergefell was the law. Hearing Biden lecturing the country on the importance of this law, as well as additional steps he’s taking to tackle other types of hate like antisemitism and animus against Muslims, underlined the interconnectedness Biden sees between these issues and his commitment to confronting them. It was a big day.

This administration is doing things, both big and small, to protect civil rights. Small, unsung advances like Tuesday’s from DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which convicted a 61-year-old Michigan man of hate crimes after he made death threats to Starbucks employees who wore Black Lives Matter T-shirts and placed a noose in a vehicle with an attached handwritten note that read, “An accessory to be worn with your ‘BLM’ t-shirt. Happy protesting!” On Wednesday, the Civil Rights Division extracted a settlement from the Southern California city of Hesperia, to end practices that discriminated against Blacks and Latinos in housing.

You probably won’t read a lot about either one of these cases in the news. But that’s all the more reason to have confidence in a Justice Department that does the right thing to little or no fanfare. It’s not the public spotlight that matters. This administration is making lots of “good trouble.” John Lewis would be proud.

(full article online)


 

Forum List

Back
Top