Saturday 28 September 2019

Escape from Egypt - Orangutan with human rights will move to Florida sanctuary

Orangutan with human rights will move to Florida sanctuary


By Eileen AJ Connelly , New York Post, September 28, 2019

Sandra the orangutan, AP photo 

An orangutan who was ruled Argentina’s “first non-human person” is moving to a sanctuary in Florida.
The 33-year-old primate named Sandra born in an East German zoo and sold to Buenos Aires Zoo in 1994. Lawyers won an appeal in 2015 arguing she was being detained illegally. The ruling by Argentine judge Elena Liberatori was in response to a complaint by an Argentine animal rights group that Sandra was living in inadequate conditions.
The zoo shut down in 2016, but Sandra remained there, alone in her concrete enclosure because setting her free in the wild would have endangered her life, because she had never lived outside of captivity and because she is a hybrid of two different types of orangutan, Sumatran and Bornean.
Sandra arrived in Kansas Thursday, the Associated Press reported. After a quarantine period, she’ll move to the Center for Great Apes near Wauchula, Florida.
The sanctuary, which has 21 orangutans and 31 chimpanzees, mainly provides a permanent home for orangutans and chimpanzees rescued or retired from the entertainment industry, research or the exotic pet trade.
It was chosen in part because it is in a more forested and humid area than Argentina’s capital, a more appropriate climate for an orangutan.
“There she will be able to spend the rest of her life in a more dignified situation,” said Liberatori, the judge, who has a large picture of Sandra hanging in her office
The center’s best-known resident is Bubbles, late singer Michael Jackson’s chimpanzee.
This has been an Escape from Egypt moment on the Coconut Whisperer  

🐪🗻 Please recommend this page & be sure to follow the Coconut Whisperer which continues the traditions of the Escape from Egypt channel, the weirdest, wackyest & strangest channel on Disqus 2018-2019🐪🗻





China confirms ‘considerable’ purchases of US soybeans and pork ahead of October’s trade war talks

Amanda Lee , Published: 26 Sep, 2019

- Ministry of Commerce spokesman Gao Feng says Beijing is ‘preparing for positive progress’ next month in Washington
- US President Donald Trump said that a deal ‘could happen sooner than you think’, just a day after blasting China in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly

China has bought a “considerable” amount of soybeans and pork from the United States ahead of high level talks aimed at ending the protracted trade war, the Ministry of Commerce confirmed on Thursday.

The ministry’s comments at its regular weekly press conference were generally upbeat but did not disclose any new information about the crucial trade talks expected to take place in Washington during the second week of October.

“China and the US are currently maintaining close communications and preparing for positive progress in the high-level economic and trade talks. The Chinese side has always been consistent in its negotiations. It is hoped that the two sides will meet half way and find a mutually beneficial and win-win approach based on equality and mutual respect,” said Ministry of Commerce spokesman Gao Feng

Gao described deputy-level trade talks that took place in Washington last week in preparation for the high level talks as “constructive” but did not elaborate further. He also did not disclose the exact date for the meeting, but did confirm that agricultural purchases are back underway.

“Recently Chinese enterprises have started, based on the markets and World Trade Organisation rules, price enquiries and purchases of US agricultural products, and have also completed considerable transactions for soybeans and pork,” said Gao.

It is hoped that the two sides will find a mutually beneficial and win-win approach based on equality and mutual respect Gao Feng.

On Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he and US trade representative Robert Lighthizer would host another round of trade negotiations with Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He in two weeks.

“I think it’s not next week but the following week we’ll be having those talks,” Mnuchin said in an interview with Fox Business Network, adding that negotiators had made some progress in easing the trade tensions in last week’s deputy-level meetings.

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that a deal to end the trade war “could happen sooner than you think”, just a day after blasting China in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

“China is starting to buy our agricultural product again,” Trump said. “They’re starting to go with the beef and all of the different things … pork, very big on pork. You know they want to make a deal and they should want to make a deal. The question is, do we want to make a deal?”
The US and China have traded other conciliatory gestures, raising hopes they can de-escalate a 15-month-old stand-off that has seen bilateral tariffs slapped on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of products.Trump said earlier this month that US had agreed to delay a tariff increase on US$250 billion worth of Chinese imports from October 1 to October 15 “as a gesture of goodwill.” 
October 1 is China’s National Day holiday, celebrating the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic.China also announced that it would exempt some US agricultural products, including soybeans and pork, from additional trade war tariffs, ahead of the resumption of purchases, which do not come as a surprise given the African swine fever crisis gripping the world’s most populous nation.
China is facing a severe shortage of pork – a staple food in the country – with African swine fever destroying between 40 and 60 per cent of the pig population in the world’s largest pork market, according to various estimates. China’s pork imports surged 76 per cent in August to 162,935 tonnes as Beijing scrambled to cover the shortfall in domestic supply. A need for pork imports is one reason underlying Beijing’s decision to exempt US pork from tariffs.

The ministry announced earlier on Thursday that it would auction a further 10,000 tonnes of pork from its frozen reserves, the second such auction in a month.“China’s market demand for high quality agricultural products is very large,” added Gao. “China and the US can complement each other in agriculture, there’s big room for collaboration. It is hoped that both sides can work together and take practical measures for the collaboration [to take place].”

Vids and more at China Post

Recommend this post and follow TCW

US NEWS - Controversial Supreme Court Gun Ordinance Case May Backfire On NYC In A Major Way




Controversial Supreme Court Gun Ordinance Case May Backfire on NYC in a Major Way

    ELAD HAKIM AUG 26, 2019 11:39 AM

In January of this year, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a gun rights case that was filed by three New York residents and New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate. Initially, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit and the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
The case revolved around New York City’s prohibition against carrying a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits and garnered national attention. On the one hand, those in favor of extended gun rights would welcome a broad Supreme Court ruling regarding the right to carry firearms outside the home. Conversely, the city would like to see this case dismissed on mootness grounds, likely because of the precedent the city could be setting should the court rule against it. Whether SCOTUS dismisses this case or ultimately moves forward could hinge on whether the court finds the city’s recent argument convincing.
At issue was a city ordinance that “allow[ed] people licensed to own handguns to carry the weapons, locked and unloaded, to and from one of the seven gun ranges in the five boroughs.” In their petition, petitioners claimed that the ordinance served to “prohibit the transport of handguns even when they are unloaded and locked up in a container separate from their ammunition.”

The purpose behind this ordinance was to keep people safe, yet some people found that it was too restrictive and that it did not make the city safer. In this case, for example, the plaintiffs wanted to practice shooting at ranges outside of the city and/or to take their guns elsewhere in the state but were not permitted to do so, in violation (allegedly) of their Second Amendment rights. Moreover, plaintiffs asserted that by restricting the flow of handguns in and out of the city, more people would transport handguns within the city.
The Second Amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms. Petitioners,citing the Heller case, assert that people have the right to defend themselves in their homes and to maintain proficiency in using firearms for defensive purposes. The transport ban, they argue, significantly impedes their right to keep arms in the home (since they are not permitted to transport them to/from secondary homes outside the city) and limits their rights to hone their skills (people won’t go to ranges if they only have seven ranges to choose from in such a large city).
In July 2019, the city tried to convince the Supreme Court that it should refuse to hear the case (dismiss the case) because the city was in the process of changing the relevant regulations in the ordinance, thereby rendering the case moot. Per the National Review:
On July 3, 2019, NYC tried to file a letter with the Supreme Court informing the Court that NYC officials were in the process of changing the underlying transportation regulations. The change would allow license holders to transport their handguns outside of city limits to other homes or nearby shooting ranges — exactly the relief requested by Petitioners in the underlying case. The letter specified that NYC was moving forward with the amendments and that there was also going to be a change at the state level.
The city also told the Supreme Court that if it would refuse to address any Second Amendment issues if a brief was required and would only address the issue of mootness. After the court rejected the city’s “letter,” the city filed a Suggestion of Mootness, arguing that, because the transportation ban had been amended, the case before the court was moot.
The issue of mootness is one that the Supreme Court will have to decide. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, the Supreme Court explained that a case is moot if it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” The court further noted that the “‘heavy burden of persua[ding]’ the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again lies with the party asserting mootness.” Friends of Earth, ante, at 189 (emphasis added) (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., supra, at 203).
As reported by USA Today, the transportation restriction was amended so as to allow people in the city to take licensed guns other places outside of the home:
“The change, posted on a city website without fanfare, allows gun owners to take their firearms to a home, business or shooting range outside city limits. Until now, the city had limited those with possession licenses to seven shooting ranges inside city limits.”
In light of this amendment, the city argues that the case is moot, as the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction stopping the enforcement of the city law in this case was no longer an issue. The libertarian and pro-gun rights Cato Institute disagreed, however, warning that the rules could be changed “just long enough for the case to be dismissed.”
The stakes are very high for the city, as an adverse ruling could end up being the catalyst for broader right-to-carry laws.
It will be interesting to see how the high court handles this very interesting and polarizing case.
Mr. Hakim is a political writer and commentator and an attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Algemeiner, The Western Journal, American Thinker and other online publications. Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP.

What Is Scarier Than A Black Hole In Space? Black Hole P3!


3 monster black holes are going to collide

Three supermassive black holes are poised to collide.
These three monsters stand near one another in a system of merging galaxies that's about a billion light-years from Earth, according to a new study published in The Astrophysical Journal.
"We were only looking for pairs of black holes at the time, and yet, through our selection technique, we stumbled upon this amazing system," said Ryan Pfeifle of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, the first author of the new study, in a statement. "This is the strongest evidence yet found for such a triple system of actively feeding supermassive black holes."
Researchers had to combine data from telescopes on the ground and in space in order to pinpoint this rare black hole trifecta, according to NASA.


This artistic interpretation shows two black holes on a collision course. In the newfound system, three supermassive black holes are going to merge.This artistic interpretation shows two black holes on a collision course. In the newfound system, three supermassive black holes are going to merge. (MARK GARLICK/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images)
One challenge in finding the three supermassive black holes, according to scientists, is that they are likely to be covered in gas and dust, which would block much of their light.
"Through the use of these major observatories, we have identified a new way of identifying triple supermassive black holes. Each telescope gives us a different clue about what's going on in these systems," said Pfeifle. "We hope to extend our work to find more triples using the same technique."
If you're keeping track: The system where the black holes are located is known as SDSS J084905.51+111447.2.

Complete List: Who Supports an Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump?





Support an impeachment inquiry
No, not now, or undecided
Awaiting response
Democrats223120
Independents100
Republicans114354
Total22515554
Note: Representative Sean Duffy, Republican of Wisconsin, left office earlier this week, leaving one vacancy in the House.
A majority of House members have now said they support an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, according to a New York Times survey and public statements. On Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House will begin such an inquiry.
More than 80 Democrats announced their support since Monday, as more details have emerged from Mr. Trump’s attemptthis summer to pressure the president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden. If the House votes on articles of impeachment, a simple majority, or 218 votes, would be needed to impeach.


Starting in May, The Times asked every representative for his or her position and has been updating this page with each response. Inclusion in the “support” category does not mean that the member supports impeachment, only that he or she has indicated support for a formal investigation into the president’s actions, which could lead to votes on articles of impeachment.
Email us at congress@nytimes.com with updated statements.


Where Democrats Stand So Far

Judiciary
Member of House Judiciary Committee
Response since Ukraine allegations emerged
Democrats
223 support
Sylvia R. Garcia Tex. 29 Judiciary
Sheila Jackson Lee Tex. 18 Judiciary
Hakeem Jeffries N.Y. 8 Judiciary
Ted Lieu Calif. 33 Judiciary
Jerrold Nadler N.Y. 10 Judiciary
Jamie Raskin Md. 8 Judiciary
Cedric L. Richmond La. 2 Judiciary
Mary Gay Scanlon Pa. 5 Judiciary
Nanette Barragán Calif. 44
Joyce Beatty Ohio 3
Lloyd Doggett Tex. 35
Adriano Espaillat N.Y. 13
Marcia L. Fudge Ohio 11
John Garamendi Calif. 3
Jimmy Gomez Calif. 34
Steven Horsford Nev. 4
Jared Huffman Calif. 2
Robin Kelly Ill. 2
Al Lawson Fla. 5
Barbara Lee Calif. 13
Susie Lee Nev. 3
John Lewis Ga. 5
Dave Loebsack Iowa 2
Tom Malinowski N.J. 7
Doris Matsui Calif. 6
Gwen Moore Wis. 4
Grace F. Napolitano Calif. 32
Donald M. Payne Jr. N.J. 10
Kathleen Rice N.Y. 4
Lucille Roybal-Allard Calif. 40
Bobby L. Rush Ill. 1
Donna E. Shalala Fla. 27
Brad Sherman Calif. 30
Jackie Speier Calif. 14
Bennie Thompson Miss. 2
Mike Thompson Calif. 5
Rashida Tlaib Mich. 13
Norma J. Torres Calif. 35
Juan C. Vargas Calif. 51
Filemon Vela Tex. 34
Maxine Waters Calif. 43
Susan Wild Pa. 7
12 not now or undecided
“Congress has a responsibility to further investigate the president’s obstructive conduct outlined in Special Counsel Mueller’s report.”
“We cannot play politics with our national security. We need to know the facts to fulfill our Constitutional duty.”
“I’ve warned members of my own party that a partisan rush to impeach the President would be bad for the country.”
“The House of Representatives must take every action necessary to combat this administration’s stonewalling of the rule of law.”
“We need all of the facts. This should be a detailed and responsible investigation and not one conducted in a media circus.”
If the president withholds information or allegations are substantiated, “I must fulfill my constitutional duty and support impeachment proceedings.”
“The administration must hand over the whistleblower report, as required by law, so Congress can investigate these claims as part of its constitutional duties.”
“Before making any judgments, I want to know the facts of what occurred between the president and Ukraine.“
“Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment proceedings will be a lengthy and divisive action with no resolution.”
“I’m calling on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and my Republican colleagues to put country over party and join me in demanding that the Trump Administration release all documents related to the whistleblower case.”
“I will act to support and defend our Constitution by insisting on a transparent process.”
“If something else comes up that is really clear high crimes and misdemeanors it will be so bad the majority of times you are going to have bipartisan support.”
awaiting response

Where Independents Stand So Far

Judiciary
Member of House Judiciary Committee
Response since Ukraine allegations emerged
supports
0
awaiting response

Where Republicans Stand So Far

Judiciary
Member of House Judiciary Committee
Response since Ukraine allegations emerged
Republicans
supports
In a call with reporters, Mr. Amodei indicated support for an inquiry, saying, “Let’s put it through the process and see what happens.” He later released a statement that said, “In no way, shape, or form, did I indicate support for impeachment.”
143 do not support
“Speaker Pelosi’s statement makes a good headline, but it changes nothing.”
“The American people are tired of the Democrats’ antics and insatiable desire to impeach President Trump.”
“based solely on rumors & hearsay”
Steve Chabot Ohio 1 Judiciary
“political games”
“a false and feeble decree”
“ridiculous”
“division politics“
“Dems are already moving forward with impeachment. They're just not calling it that because the American people don't want it and there's no basis for it.”
Debbie Lesko Ariz. 8 Judiciary
Tom McClintock Calif. 4 Judiciary
“After changing the Judiciary Committee rules to circumvent the Constitution on the initiation of impeachment proceedings, Democrats are still failing miserably.”
Guy Reschenthaler Pa. 14 Judiciary
Greg Steube Fla. 17 Judiciary
“Rep. Abraham is opposed to impeachment and believes that any move forward on impeachment would be strictly political and a waste of time.”
“I think most Americans want Congress to focus on issues that help families and strengthen the economy, rather than impeaching this President.”
“grasping for straws”
“bloodlust for impeaching our President”
Brian Babin Tex. 36
“The rashness to pronounce guilt without facts is shameful and does not serve the interest of the nation.”
“based off a rumor”
“obstructionist and politically motivated witchhunt”
“not sufficient evidence”
Dan Bishop N.C. 9
“Hell NO!”
“The American people have had enough.”
“Democrats are only creating a constitutional crisis for pure political gain.”
“Democrats have yet to produce any credible evidence”
“a radical step”
“incredibly reckless”
“premature and hypocritical”
Michael C. Burgess Tex. 26
“Democrats have put all their eggs in the impeachment basket.”
“Democrats are losing focus” on important issues
Earl L. “Buddy” Carter Ga. 1
“I vehemently oppose opening an impeachment inquiry of the President of the United States.”
John Carter Tex. 31
Liz Cheney Wyo.
Michael Cloud Tex. 27
“an alarming disservice to the American people”
Chris Collins N.Y. 27
“The Congressman does not support impeachment since there was no collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, nor was there evidence to support an obstruction charge against the President.”
James Comer Ky. 1
“Congressman Comer does not support an open impeachment inquiry. He and his colleagues on the House Oversight and Reform Committee will continue to conduct important oversight, and as always, work to ensure that the executive branch adheres to the highest standards of ethics and accountability.”
“charade”
“irresponsible”
“Great leaders don't seek to overturn elections.”
Scott DesJarlais Tenn. 4
“Emphatically, no. He’s focused on stopping illegal immigration, improving trade deals, continuing economic growth and rebuilding the U.S. military,” said a spokesman.
“speculation & conjecture”
“Democrats have simply wasted everyone’s time”
Neal Dunn Fla. 2
“baseless”
Ron Estes Kan. 4
“With no evidence of collusion, it’s past time Congress returns its focus to priorities like trade, the crisis at our border, health care, infrastructure and growing our economy.”
“It is sad, it is not good governance, and it is dividing our country.”
“At best, Pelosi's actions are a sham, and at worst, they undermine our Constitutionally based rule of law.”
“My advice to Congress: less drama, more work”
“partisan speculation”
Russ Fulcher Idaho 1
Mike Gallagher Wis. 8
“House Democrats have misplaced priorities and suffer from impeachment fever.”
“just another in a long list of fake controversies”
Lance Gooden Tex. 5
“Democrats will pay the price for impeachment at the ballot box in 2020.”
“Democrats care more about tearing @realDonaldTrump down than building America up!”
Garret Graves La. 6
“sham impeachment charade”
Tom Graves Ga. 14
“Reckless”
“laughable”
“If the Democrats are willing to investigate the allegations regarding Mr. Biden, then my hat is off to them, but I would be surprised.”
“Dems have showed their inability to lead.”
“This is selective outrage targeted towards the President and deflects from former Vice President Joe Biden’s egregious involvement in Ukrainian affairs.”
Kevin Hern Okla. 1
“Members of Congress calling for impeachment should be ashamed of themselves.”
“abrupt and absurd decision”
“No facts and zero evidence”
“Congressional Democrats care more about undermining the president than finding the truth.”
“circus”
“political vendetta”
“a craven political move”
“Continuing to waste time on this rather than other important issues is embarrassing.”
Bill Johnson Ohio 6
“Come on! Impeach him for what?”
Dusty Johnson S.D.
John Joyce Pa. 13
“The effort to impeach President Trump is baseless and does not have my support.“
“dramatic overstep”
“The American people are tired of this charade.”
Steve King Iowa 4
“@SpeakerPelosi has betrayed an indefensible rush to judgement”
Adam Kinzinger Ill. 16
David Kustoff Tenn. 8
“reckless and irresponsible”
“wasting more taxpayer dollars”
Doug LaMalfa Calif. 1
“baseless accusations”
Doug Lamborn Colo. 5
“Democrats have jumped to their next partisan accusation.”
“partisan hackery at its worst”
“imaginary impeachment”
“grasping at straws”
“Democrats will stop at nothing to impeach our President.”
Thomas Massie Ky. 4
Brian Mast Fla. 18
Kevin McCarthy Calif. 23
“a disappointing rush to judgment”
“tremendous waste of time”
Cathy McMorris Rodgers Wash. 5
“They are an angry mob in search of validation.”
“Since Democrats were unable to defeat @realDonaldTrump in a lawfully conducted election, they are now focused on trying to unlawfully remove him from office.”
“misguided”
“nothing new”
Alex X. Mooney W.Va. 2
“witch hunt”
“reckless”
“Imagine how much further along our country would be if Democrats weren't actively trying to destroy him at every turn.”
“The Democrats have found their latest shiny object in Ukraine.”
“baseless political attacks”
“This is not about high crimes & misdemeanors, but politics.”
Greg Pence Ind. 6
“No. Speaker Pelosi should spend more time on ensuring USMCA comes to the floor for a vote.”
“It's about political power and undermining the will of the American People”.
“rushing to impeachment”
Tom Rice S.C. 7
“political distraction”
Phil Roe Tenn. 1
Mike D. Rogers Ala. 3
“purely political stunt”
“a response to a rumor campaign”
“a partisan maneuver by Speaker Pelosi & the Squad”
“no amount of transparency will satisfy Democrats”
Steve Scalise La. 1
“still nothing new”
“Speaker Pelosi has succumbed to the belligerent left and their media allies”
“To date, I have seen nothing that warrants impeachment.”
Jason Smith Mo. 8
“Absolutely not. The people of southern Missouri want their Representative to work with President Trump to reduce the size of government, protect their Constitutional rights, and secure the southern border,” said a spokesman.
“an extreme rush to judgement”
“Democrats are rushing to impeachment without the facts -- and the facts are currently unclear.”
Ross Spano Fla. 15
“The Mueller report findings speak for themselves. It’s time for House Democrats to start working with all Republicans on the priorities of the American people instead of focusing on an impeachment that only serves their personal agendas.”
Elise Stefanik N.Y. 21
Chris Stewart Utah 2
Glenn Thompson Pa. 15
“the definition of political theater”
“impeachment theater”
“Efforts to remove the elected President of the United States with no evidence of wrongdoing would leave the country even more divided and polarized.”
“This impeachment obsession does a disservice to the American people.”
Michael Waltz Fla. 6
“a three-year witch-hunt”
“The progressive left-wing’s obsession with impeachment is overshadowing any respect for due process.”
Roger Williams Tex. 25
“divisive, baseless attack”
“House Democrats chose to rely on unconfirmed, secondhand accusations.”
“Fueling hysteria and spreading unsubstantiated narratives is dangerous.”
“Impeachment for political reasons is an attempted coup d'etat.”
“complete waste of our time”
“a waste of time”
“Dems declaring POTUS should be impeached based on a whistleblower complaint they haven't read reportedly from a person w/ZERO 1st hand knowledge.”
54 awaiting response
Mike Johnson La. 4 Judiciary
Martha Roby Ala. 2 Judiciary
Jim Sensenbrenner Wis. 5 Judiciary
Jim Baird Ind. 4
Troy Balderson Ohio 12
Jack Bergman Mich. 1
Gus Bilirakis Fla. 12
Susan W. Brooks Ind. 5
Vern Buchanan Fla. 16
K. Michael Conaway Tex. 11
Paul Cook Calif. 8
John Curtis Utah 3
Rodney Davis Ill. 13
Tom Emmer Minn. 6
Drew Ferguson Ga. 3
Brian Fitzpatrick Pa. 1
Anthony Gonzalez Ohio 16
Kay Granger Tex. 12
Glenn Grothman Wis. 6
Brett Guthrie Ky. 2
Jim Hagedorn Minn. 1
Andy Harris Md. 1
Jaime Herrera Beutler Wash. 3
Trey Hollingsworth Ind. 9
Will Hurd Tex. 23
David Joyce Ohio 14
Trent Kelly Miss. 1
Mike Kelly Pa. 16
Barry Loudermilk Ga. 11
Frank D. Lucas Okla. 3
Kenny Marchant Tex. 24
David B. McKinley W.Va. 1
John Moolenaar Mich. 4
Greg Murphy N.C. 3
Devin Nunes Calif. 22
Bill Posey Fla. 8
Francis Rooney Fla. 19
Chip Roy Tex. 21
John Shimkus Ill. 15
Christopher H. Smith N.J. 4
Pete Stauber Minn. 8
Bryan Steil Wis. 1
Steve Stivers Ohio 15
Van Taylor Tex. 3
Mac Thornberry Tex. 13
Scott Tipton Colo. 3
Michael R. Turner Ohio 10
Fred Upton Mich. 6
Ann Wagner Mo. 2
Greg Walden Ore. 2
Daniel Webster Fla. 11
Brad Wenstrup Ohio 2
Bruce Westerman Ark. 4
Rob Woodall Ga. 7
Note: Positions are based on comments and public statements by members, and may change. The Times began surveying representatives on Thursday, May 30.
Correction: June 4, 2019 
An earlier version of this article miscategorized the position of Representative Darren Soto, Democrat of Florida, on whether to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Soto is undecided, not supportive.