Ingredients
- 1 lb ground beef
- 1 small onion, diced finely
- 1 clove garlic, minced
- 1 (4 oz) can Old El Paso™ Chopped Green Chiles
- 1 (1 oz) package Old El Paso™ taco seasoning mix
- 1 (15 oz) can black beans, rinsed and drained
- 1 (12 oz) package frozen corn
- 3 cups shredded Mexican blend cheese
- 1 (28 oz) package frozen tater tots
- 1 (10 oz) can Old El Paso™ Red Enchilada Sauce
- Toppings: olives, cilantro, sour cream, tomatoes
Instructions
Step 1 Preheat oven to 375° and spray a 9x13 baking dish with cooking spray. For extra crispy tater tots, bake tater tots for about 10 minutes while preparing the beef mixture - otherwise prepare as follows.Step 2 In a large skillet, brown the beef and the onion. Add the garlic towards the end of the browning process and cook for 1 minute. Drain.
Step 3 Add the green chiles, taco seasoning mix, black beans, corn, and 2 cups of the cheese. Stir together to combine. If your skillet isn’t big enough you may need to stir it together in a bowl.
Step 4 Pour mixture into the prepared 9x13 pan. Arrange tater tots on top of the mixture in a single layer.
Step 5 Pour the enchilada sauce on top of the casserole as evenly as you can.
Step 6 Bake uncovered for 30-40 minutes or until tater tots are nice and crispy. Sprinkle the remaining 1 cup of cheese on top and place back in the oven for 2-3 minutes or until cheese has melted.
Step 7 Top with olives, cilantro, sour cream, tomatoes when serving if desired.
Now on the topic of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, David Walsh (WSWS) notes:
The financier counted among his friends many prominent figures, based on his ability to make more than a few of them tons of cash. To what extent Epstein might have entangled some of his powerful acquaintances in his sex activities and perhaps had a hold on them is unknown, but ill-gotten gains and “friendship” alone may not explain the extent to which very high-placed people protected Epstein.
And it was a bipartisan affair. Prior to Acosta’s resignation Friday, congressional Democrats postured as defenders of Epstein’s alleged victims and called for the labor secretary to step down. But Epstein had extensive ties to Clinton and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat, and was a generous contributor to primarily Democratic Party candidates, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Richard Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman.
Ironically, one of the members of Epstein’s heavy-hitting team of lawyers back in 2006, in addition to Dershowitz, was Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor who investigated Clinton’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and produced a prurient and detailed report to Congress, fueling the impeachment vote by the House in December of 1998.
In a statement, Senator Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican, asserted that Acosta’s plea deal with Epstein was reviewed when Trump nominated him to be labor secretary. The agreement “was a prosecutorial judgment that was made by Secretary Acosta and was vetted by our committee,” Alexander said in his statement. He added, pointedly, “The Justice Department under the last three presidents—Trump, Obama, and Bush—have all defended his handling of the case.”
The social and political implications of the Epstein case are making some people nervous. The New York Times on Thursday editorialized against making politics out of it. Prior to Acosta’s resignation, the newspaper criticized House Democrats for “bringing their oversight authority to bear,” which they described as a “mistake.”
The Times went on: “Congress digging into this case, however, is a poor use of lawmakers’ limited time and resources. More dangerous, in the midst of the Trump administration’s war on congressional oversight in general, such hearings carry a high risk of turning the Epstein case into a partisan battle—and Mr. Acosta into a political martyr around whom the president and his followers feel moved to rally.”
A peculiar and, taken at face value, thoroughly cowardly stance. “Some outrages are best kept as free of partisan politics as possible,” the Times lectured. This from a newspaper that published the most lurid accounts of Trump’s sexual adventures during the 2016 presidential campaign as a central theme in its drive to elect Hillary Clinton, and has authored and led the #MeToo witch-hunt as part of its promotion of Democratic Party identity politics.
The Times is clearly anxious about anyone looking too deeply into the Epstein affair and drawing political conclusions.
The Times’ Michelle Goldberg argues that the “Epstein case is a reminder of the depraved milieu from which our president sprang,” and that the “Caligula Administration Lives On,” forgetting that the disgraced financier is a Democrat and that Bill Clinton, according to flight logs obtained by Fox News, “took at least 26 trips aboard Epstein’s Boeing 727, nicknamed the ‘Lolita Express,’ from 2001 to 2003.”
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:
Friday, July 12, 2019. War Hawk Joe Biden's double-digit lead is a thing of the past as his campaign continues to struggle.
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was supposed to deliver a 'major address' on foreign policy. He did no such thing. He offered a critique of President Donald Trump. Some of it factual, some of it borderline and some of it just cheap rhetoric. The speech served to remind once again how hollow Joe Biden is. Marianne Williamson, like Joe, is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Had she delivered an address on foreign policy, it would have been major. Marianne knows that it takes more than finger pointing to change things. Change requires actions and new paths. Joe wants to be president so he can takes us back to the past -- when segregationist were 'cuddly' and 'warm' (to him anyway) and women who were sniffed and groped never complained publicly.
Joe has no brave, new ideas. He has nothing to offer. And a vague promise just reminds people they've heard it from him before.
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was supposed to deliver a 'major address' on foreign policy. He did no such thing. He offered a critique of President Donald Trump. Some of it factual, some of it borderline and some of it just cheap rhetoric. The speech served to remind once again how hollow Joe Biden is. Marianne Williamson, like Joe, is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Had she delivered an address on foreign policy, it would have been major. Marianne knows that it takes more than finger pointing to change things. Change requires actions and new paths. Joe wants to be president so he can takes us back to the past -- when segregationist were 'cuddly' and 'warm' (to him anyway) and women who were sniffed and groped never complained publicly.
Joe has no brave, new ideas. He has nothing to offer. And a vague promise just reminds people they've heard it from him before.
The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who helped George Bush pass the Iraq War resolution has now logged on
Obama and Biden campaigned on this, won twice, and didn’t do it once they were in office. He’s lying for cheap political gain.
he’s saying he wants to end “forever wars” so he has wiggle room
“what do you mean get out of Afghanistan??? i don’t wanna be there forever, just for 100 years!”
He'll fire the Permanent War and replace it with part-time Temporary Wars.
He also told the educator crowd at the NEA forum that he was for free college. Could not find that position on his webpage.
25 people are seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. One is Governor Jay Inslee. Ahead of Joe's speech, Jay Tweeted:
Joe Biden’s vote to authorize the Iraq War in 2002 was a failure of judgment. I voted against it because it was a unilateral, ill-timed, go-it-alone war.
VP Biden must address this enormous mistake in his foreign policy speech today.
0:24 / 1:02
Jay was in the US House of Representatives in 2002 and he voted against the Iraq War. Joe Biden was in the US Senate and Joe voted for it. And Joe continued to support it. And Joe is partly responsible for the rise of ISIS. ISIS took root in Iraq because Nouri al-Maliki was persecuting Sunnis. He persecuted many groups, but he persecuted Sunnis consistently. He persecuted Sunni politicians, Sunni activists, Sunni women and girls. It was already known that he was a thug in 2008 -- in fact, Hillary Clinton, then a US senator, rightly called him that in an April Senate hearing. That's why Hillary would not be placed over Iraq by Barack Obama. That's why she did not interact with Nouri. (Hillary's primary interaction with Iraq as Secretary of State was with Hoshyar Zebari who was then the Foreign Affairs Minister.) Despite the fact that Nouri was known to be a thug, known to be running secret prisons, etc., Joe and Barack backed Nouri.
How far did they back him? In March 2010, Iraq held elections. Nouri was supposed to glide to an easy win. He did not He did not win. Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya won. That's who the people voted for. And it would have been a different road for Iraq -- a focus on Iraq coming together and a future for all Iraqis regardless of belief, gender, you name it.
But Joe and Barack backed Nouri. Even after he lost. They brokered an agreement that tossed aside the votes of the people and gave Nouri a second term (The Erbil Agreement). They swore it was binding and would be honored. The contract gave various groups various concessions in order to get them to sign off on Nouri getting a second term. He used it to get that second term and then refused to honor it. And Joe and Barack? They didn't do a damn thing.
Despite their promises that the contract would be honored and was binding. Despite Barack personally calling Ayad Allawi and promising if Allawi called off Iraqiya's strike (they were walking out of Praliament) that the contract would be honored and Allawi had Barack's word. Despite everything nothing got honored.
And Joe gave Allawi and others some insipid speech where he tried to draw a comparison between Ireland and Iraq that no one got -- not even the Americans in the room.
This second term is when Nouri goes especially demented and attacks everyone. He'll, for example, deploy military tanks to circle the homes of Members of Parliament that he disagrees with. He'll accuse the Sunni vice president of being a terrorist and start a witch hunt. He'll send the military to invade the homes of Sunni politicians. Sunni people? The men he can't arrest? He has the police arrest their mother, their sister, anyone in the house. The women then disappear in the prison system and are beaten and raped.
All of this happens and the Iraqi people appeal to Barack. They carry signs at protests begging Barack to help them. No help comes.
But ISIS does rise up as a response to Nouri's attacks on the Sunnis.
So, by giving a thug a second term that the Iraqi people did not want him to have, Joe and Barack birthed ISIS. It's on them.
At JACOBIAN, Branko Marcetic offers a look at Joe's long standing support for the war and we'll note this section:
After playing a clip of then–presidential candidate Howard Dean boasting of his opposition to the war even at the height of its popularity, Snow asked Biden if Dean’s position should be the consensus view of the Democratic Party.
“No,” Biden flatly replied.
Even as the war effort rapidly went awry in the months that followed, with US soldier deaths continuing to climb after major combat operations were declared over on May 1 and terrorist attacks becoming a regular feature of Iraqi life, Biden continued to insist that war had been the right course of action.
“I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again,” he said at a July 2003 hearing.
As growing numbers of Democrats, and even members of the general public, turned against the war, Biden rebuked them, implicitly and explicitly.
“In my view, anyone who can’t acknowledge that the world is better off without [Hussein] is out of touch,” he said two days later.
“Contrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner rather than later,” he insisted.
An increasingly lonely voice in a party that would soon make common cause with the growing anti-war movement, Biden continued to back Bush.
“The president made [the case against Saddam] well,” he concluded on July 31. “I commend the president.”:
Joe was out of step throughout the '00s as public sentiment turned against the war. He was out of step as he kept insisting that Iraq be broken up into three sections. The Iraqi people were not making this demand and were opposed to it. But Joe kept trying to impose it on them. He received such push back over this -- even from an otherwise docile press -- that two weeks before he dropped out of the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he was saying that if he couldn't get Senate support for it this go round, he'd drop the idea of dividing Iraq.
Joe was out of step then, he's out of step now. While he continues to refuse to apologize for his vote and his actions regarding Iraq, while he continues to insist that the world is better off, the American people -- civilians and veterans -- disagree. As we noted yesterday, and
Nearly 18 years since the start of the war in Afghanistan and 16 years since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, majorities of U.S. military veterans say those wars were not worth fighting, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of veterans. A parallel survey of American adults finds that the public shares those sentiments.
Among veterans, 64% say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting considering the costs versus the benefits to the United States, while 33% say it was. The general public’s views are nearly identical: 62% of Americans overall say the Iraq War wasn’t worth it and 32% say it was. Similarly, majorities of both veterans (58%) and the public (59%) say the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting. About four-in-ten or fewer say it was worth fighting.
Veterans who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are no more supportive of those engagements than those who did not serve in these wars. And views do not differ based on rank or combat experience.
But Joe continues to insist it was the right thing to do and will not apologize -- not for his vote, not for his support of it, not for his selling of it, not for any of it.
Senator Kamala Harris is also seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. ABC NEWS notes:
ABC News gets an exclusive look at Sen. Kamala Harris' interview on @breakfastclubam, where she takes fresh aim at former VP Joe Biden over his remarks on busing in the first debate, calling his efforts to explain “revisionist history."
@MissBeaE reports abcn.ws/30yVrAz
Their wording's a little better there then it was in their original coverage which included "Sen. Kamala Harris attacks former Vice President Joe Biden on 'The Breakfast Club'."
Who attacked who?
Earlier this week, we noted Natasha Korecki (POLITICO) reporting:
Since Kamala Harris cold-cocked him on the debate stage two weeks ago, Biden has had to recalibrate. The former vice president, who rarely submits to TV news interviews, granted a sit-down to CNN. His surrogates have been unleashed to deliver more pointed attacks on Harris. In speeches, he’s now more directly referencing his eight years with Barack Obama as a defense.
Perhaps most revealing of all, after repeatedly insisting he said nothing wrong in his controversial comments about working with segregationist senators, Biden finally conceded — he offered an apology over the weekend for the “pain and misconception” his words caused.
“There are people that are all over Joe to get more aggressive,” according to a source who spoke with Biden in recent days. “People are very nervous.”
The source added that the debate will be Biden’s next big test. “If he doesn’t come out strong and swinging, you’re going to see a lot of people leaving him.”
His surrogates have been unleashed to deliver more pointed attacks on Harris.
So who attacked who?
Is this the sexist institution being uncomfortable when a woman stands up or, even worse, calls out a man?
Who knows but this notion that poor, little Joe got attacked and was innocent is a lie. He was a pice of crap who wouldn't fight his own fight -- and couldn't at the debate -- so he had others do it. And Kamala responded back.
I'm getting very angry over the sexist language used in the coverage of women. The adjectives applied to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand throughout this campaign season have frequently been appalling. US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard has been treated in much of the early coverage as little more than a Barbie doll. They've covered her in a way they'd never cover Iraq War veterans -- like Seth Moulton -- who are men.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is seeking the nomination as well.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released a plan on immigration Thursday that she says will “create a rules-based system that is fair, humane, and that reflects our values.”
In the latest poll -- this one an NBC-WALLSTREET JOURNAL poll -- likely Democratic voters are supporting Elizabeth Warren by 19%. Joe Biden's lead? It has fallen to 26%.
By this time next year, if not a month or two sooner, we'll know who got the nomination. Things will change month by month up through the Iowa caucus. And anything can happen.
But there is a message in the polling: Joe is not inevitable. He was the surge thing to beat Donald, the press told us and various 'experts.' And he maintained a double digit lead.
He maintained that lead as long as few were paying attention.
More people are paying attention and voters will follow the campaigns even closer in the next months. Joe's only a leader when the people aren't paying attention.
Let's wind down with this:
South Central Michigan Greens
=============================
Calhoun, Hillsdale, and Jackson Counties Local
People and planet over profit.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 10, 2019
For more information:
--------------------
Monika Dittmann Schwab, Local Contact/SCMiGreens
South Central Michigan Greens to Meet 1-3pm
Saturday, July 27 at Emmett Township Biggby's
=============================================
The South Central Michigan Greens local will hold its monthly meeting
1-3pm on Saturday, July 27 at Biggby's Coffee, 1125 East Michigan Avenue
in Emmett Township east of Battle Creek.
The meeting is an event on Facebook:
The local usually meets on third Saturdays, but this meeting is being
shifted to the fourth Saturday so co-founder John Anthony La Pietra of
Marshall can attend and report on last month's Green Party of Michigan
State Membership Meeting in Mount Pleasant, and the next one October 12
in Redford.
Co-founder Monika Dittman Schwab of Jackson will lead discussion of
activism in the county, including the Jackson city mayoral election and
a six-month moratorium on building fossil-fuel plants approved by the
Rives Township board thanks to the efforts of Citizens to Keep Rives
Rural (endorsed by the local and by GPMI).
La Pietra will also give an update on the next Labor History Walk in
Marshall, this one planned to share the Saturday after Labor Day --
September 7 -- with the town's Historic Home Tour.
Recruiting 2020 candidates in the local area (Jackson, Calhoun, and
Hillsdale Counties) will also be on the agenda. So will discussing
what's Green about the original Green New Deal -- the version Greens
have been running on for years -- and how that #realDeal can help real
people.
A map of the July 27 meeting's location is available at the coffeeshop's
Facebook page:
To discuss details and news about the local, please visit its Facebook page:
# # #
The Four Pillars of GPMI:
Grassroots Democracy
Social Justice
Ecological Wisdom
Non-Violence
For our Ten Key Values, add:
Community-Based Economics
Decentralization
Feminism
Future Focus/Sustainability
Personal and Global Responsibility
Respect for Diversity
The following sites updated:
