Tag: Julian Castro

We’ve got three compelling martinis to help you ease back into that first day back at work or school.  Join Jim and Greg as they applaud comedian Ricky Gervais for hammering Hollywood for its hypocrisy and self-importance at the Golden Globe Awards Sunday evening on topics ranging from Harvey Weinstein to Jeffrey Epstein to Chinese sweat shops.  Jim also urges President Trump to stop threatening to strike cultural sites in Iran because military targets make much more sense and discussing cultural sites could turn other nations against us.  And they cringe as the video of Julian Castro endorsing Elizabeth Warren comes across as inauthentic, with Castro coming to Warren’s house, telling Warren how wonderful she is, and Warren agreeing with him.

Happy New Year! Grab a stool, as Jim and Greg return to their normal format for 2020. Today, they’re grateful that the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was successfully stopped and no one was hurt and they also hope there are severe repercussions for the attack’s Iranian sponsors. They’re happy to see Julian Castro exit the campaign trail after a campaign that was rich in pandering but never found much support. And they discuss President Trump’s $102 million cash on hand and the impact that could make in the campaign.

It’s all good martinis for us today!  Join Jim and Greg as they find endless entertainment in Hillary accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset and Gabbard going nuclear in response.  They’re also glad to see President Trump listening to those begging him to take one controversy off the table and scrapping the 2020 G-7 summit at Trump’s Doral resort in Florida.  And they have a lot of fun with Julian Castro becoming the latest Democrat to insist they are leaving the race unless they raise a large sum of money by the end of the month.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are pleased to see a high-ranking government official actually moving closer to facing the same type of prosecution most Americans would face for allegedly divulging sensitive information and then lying about it.  Jim also hilariously shreds CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin for acting like the allegations in the case are incredibly complicated.  They also size up the third Democratic presidential debate and hammer Julian Castro for his obvious suggestion that Joe Biden is too mentally fuzzy to be president.  And they roll their eyes as Andrew Yang vows to give ten Americans a thousand dollars a month over the next year.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America worry that Republicans and Democrats are underestimating Sen. Bernie Sanders’ chances in 2020 after the 77-year-old socialist from Vermont blew his competition out of the water by raising $18 million in his first six weeks. They also remember that Julian Castro is running after the former DNC darling from Texas called for decriminalizing illegal border crossings. And they unload on CNN’s Christiane Amanpour after she asks former FBI Director James Comey whether the federal government should have clamped down on chants of “lock her up” against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign.

Julián and Beto Cage Match

 

Texas has been blessed with having two Democratic presidential candidates representing us in the 2020 race: Julián Castro and Robert “Beto” O’Rourke. As a public service and after extensive research, I am going to present a side by side comparison of the two contenders.

Political Experience

Member Post

 

Short and sweet.  I haven’t been paying close (read: “any”) attention to the Member Feed lately, but I definitely haven’t read much anywhere else either about the field of choices for running mate for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Who does Hillary tap for Veep? Who IS there for her to tap? Is Julian Castro pretty much a sure […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

HUD Makes a Further Mess Out of Housing

 

shutterstock_170154509Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development released its final rule on “affirmatively furthering fair housing,” a regulation intended in part to advance HUD’s goal of making sure that government agencies that receive public funds take “meaningful actions” to eliminate “historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination.” As I note in my new column for Defining Ideas, the result is a mess:

The tedious Final Rule, which has been hailed as “historic and overdue,” is an intellectual shipwreck. Its empty and vacuous commands are incapable of rational implementation. Yet notwithstanding HUD’s pious denials, the department is sure to continue its history of contentious litigation brought to chastise and correct local governments whose actions have not met its standard. One inherent difficulty in both the previous and current versions of the Final Rule is that its objectives are often in deep conflict with one anther.

HUD gives backhanded recognition to this point when it notes: “The Fair Housing Act does not prohibit individuals from choosing where they wish to live, but it does prohibit policies and actions by covered entities and individuals that deny choice or access to housing or opportunity through the segregation of persons protected by the Fair Housing Act.” But it does not grasp the magnitude of this concession. It turns out, of course, that most individuals do not wish to live in communities that meet HUD’s sterile definitions of “truly balanced and integrated communities.” They often prefer to live with individuals with whom they share common values in neighborhoods that offer the social support and companionship that they so clearly want.