Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 1

sJfVGcfW6vWo04q7

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/15/ignorant-media

Has the Ignorant Media Gotten Worse?

2017-03-15

John Stossel, Peter Suderman, Noah Shepardson, Jonathan H. Adler, Mike Riggs, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Shikha Dalmia, Eugene Volokh

Has the media gotten worse ? Or am I just grouchier ? Every day I see things that are wrong or that so miss the point I want to scream . As this week 's storm approached the East Coast , the media reverted to breathless hype : `` monster storm … very dangerous . '' Here I blame my beloved free market : Predicting scary weather works . Viewers tune in . What galls me more is the reporters ' government-centric thinking . `` Everything is closed , '' they say . `` Employees ca n't get to work . '' But the corner grocery stayed open . So did many gas stations and restaurants . Why is it that when government buildings close , so many private businesses stay open ? Because their own money is at stake . The store 's employees probably make less money than government workers . They are less likely to own all-wheel-drive cars . But they get to work . Some sleep there . Their own money is on the line . Monday , The New York Times ran the headline `` What Happens When You Fight a 'Deep State ' that Does n't Exist ? '' The article explained that unlike Egypt or Pakistan , America does n't really have a powerful deep state , and to claim that it does `` presents apolitical civil servants as partisan agents . '' A deep state absolutely exists . Some call it `` administrative state '' or `` regulatory state . '' These are the people who crush innovation and freedom by issuing hundreds of new rules . Regulators , if they do n't pass new rules , think they 're not doing their jobs . Even `` anti-regulator '' President George W. Bush hired 90,000 new regulators . Calling them `` nonpartisan '' does n't make them harmless—it just means we put up with them through multiple administrations . Even if you exclude the military and post office , more than 20 million Americans work for the government . Because of civil service rules , it 's almost impossible to fire them . The Times calls these 20 million people `` apolitical '' . Please . Most are just as partisan as you or I . Maybe more so , as leaks and signs of bureaucratic resistance to presidential edicts demonstrate . People who choose to work for , say , the EPA , tend to be environment zealots . This should surprise no one . Somehow , New York Times reporters do n't see it . Speaking of the EPA and The Times , their front page claimed President Donald Trump appointee Scott Pruitt is `` at odds with the established scientific consensus . '' That makes Pruitt sound like an anti-science idiot . But the headline is bunk . Pruitt only said that he does not agree that man is `` the primary contributor to global warming . '' That 's `` at odds '' with Times reporters and government flunkies on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , but many scientists say there is so much uncertainty to climate measurements that no one can know if man 's greenhouse gases are the `` primary '' cause of warming . The earth warmed similarly last century , well before we emitted so much carbon dioxide . British comedian John Oliver hosts one of the better political talk shows . He 's like Bill Maher but funnier and not as mean . Yesterday , on an airplane , I watched an episode that led with a report on the chaos in Venezuela . I perked up , expecting Oliver to at least mention Venezuela 's caps on corporate profits , abolition of property rights , media censorship , regulation of car production `` from the factory door to the place of sale , '' etc . In other words : socialism . He mocked President Maduro 's speeches but said Venezuela was in trouble because its economy depends on oil and oil prices dropped . What ? Kuwait , Nigeria , Angola and other countries exported more oil than Venezuela . But they survived the price drop without experiencing the misery that Venezuela suffers . The suffering was created by socialism . America 's leftists can not see the horrors of socialism even when they are right in front of them .

Has the media gotten worse? Or am I just grouchier? Every day I see things that are wrong or that so miss the point I want to scream. Four examples: Storm Coverage As this week's storm approached the East Coast, the media reverted to breathless hype: "monster storm … very dangerous." Here I blame my beloved free market: Predicting scary weather works. Viewers tune in. What galls me more is the reporters' government-centric thinking. "Everything is closed," they say. "Employees can't get to work." But the corner grocery stayed open. So did many gas stations and restaurants. Why is it that when government buildings close, so many private businesses stay open? Because their own money is at stake. The store's employees probably make less money than government workers. They are less likely to own all-wheel-drive cars. But they get to work. Some sleep there. Their own money is on the line. Reporters don't think about the distinction. The Deep State Monday, The New York Times ran the headline "What Happens When You Fight a 'Deep State' that Doesn't Exist?" The article explained that unlike Egypt or Pakistan, America doesn't really have a powerful deep state, and to claim that it does "presents apolitical civil servants as partisan agents." Give me a break. "Apolitical civil servants"? A deep state absolutely exists. Some call it "administrative state" or "regulatory state." These are the people who crush innovation and freedom by issuing hundreds of new rules. Regulators, if they don't pass new rules, think they're not doing their jobs. Even "anti-regulator" President George W. Bush hired 90,000 new regulators. Calling them "nonpartisan" doesn't make them harmless—it just means we put up with them through multiple administrations. Even if you exclude the military and post office, more than 20 million Americans work for the government. Because of civil service rules, it's almost impossible to fire them. The Times calls these 20 million people "apolitical". Please. Most are just as partisan as you or I. Maybe more so, as leaks and signs of bureaucratic resistance to presidential edicts demonstrate. People who choose to work for, say, the EPA, tend to be environment zealots. This should surprise no one. Somehow, New York Times reporters don't see it. "Chief of EPA Bucks Studies" Speaking of the EPA and The Times, their front page claimed President Donald Trump appointee Scott Pruitt is "at odds with the established scientific consensus." That makes Pruitt sound like an anti-science idiot. But the headline is bunk. Pruitt only said that he does not agree that man is "the primary contributor to global warming." That's "at odds" with Times reporters and government flunkies on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but many scientists say there is so much uncertainty to climate measurements that no one can know if man's greenhouse gases are the "primary" cause of warming. The earth warmed similarly last century, well before we emitted so much carbon dioxide. John Oliver British comedian John Oliver hosts one of the better political talk shows. He's like Bill Maher but funnier and not as mean. Yesterday, on an airplane, I watched an episode that led with a report on the chaos in Venezuela. I perked up, expecting Oliver to at least mention Venezuela's caps on corporate profits, abolition of property rights, media censorship, regulation of car production "from the factory door to the place of sale," etc. In other words: socialism. But no, Oliver didn't mention any of that. He mocked President Maduro's speeches but said Venezuela was in trouble because its economy depends on oil and oil prices dropped. What? Kuwait, Nigeria, Angola and other countries exported more oil than Venezuela. But they survived the price drop without experiencing the misery that Venezuela suffers. The suffering was created by socialism. America's leftists cannot see the horrors of socialism even when they are right in front of them. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

www.reason.com

right

sJfVGcfW6vWo04q7

test

8ptGcrLGCDVZwd8S

culture

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/818bb5b1758a6c37c0c56d8f8b0ee452

Americans snap to attention on virus as big events canceled

2020-03-12

Michelle R. Smith, Gillian Flaccus

Fort Worth ISD employee Yolanda Cintron assists with a deep cleaning at the Leadership Academy at John T. White Elementary School in Fort Worth , Texas on Thursday , March 12 , 2020 . ( Lawrence Jenkins/The Dallas Morning News via AP ) Fort Worth ISD employee Yolanda Cintron assists with a deep cleaning at the Leadership Academy at John T. White Elementary School in Fort Worth , Texas on Thursday , March 12 , 2020 . ( Lawrence Jenkins/The Dallas Morning News via AP ) Workers lost their jobs , parents came up with impromptu home lesson plans for children kept home from shuttered schools . Families fretted over dwindling retirement accounts , the health of elderly parents , and every cough and sneeze in their midst . Millions of people settled into new and disrupted routines Thursday as the coronavirus began to uproot almost every facet of American life . The spate of event cancellations that drove home the gravity of the outbreak a day earlier only intensified Thursday , with Disney and Universal Orlando Resort shutting down theme parks , the NCAA calling off March Madness and Broadway theaters closing their doors in Manhattan . All the major professional sports announced they are halting play , and officials ordered a shutdown of every school in the state of Ohio for three weeks . And with the cascade of closures , a new reality set in for American households . In the Pacific Northwest , parents scrambled to devise homeschooling using library books or apps . Others , desperate to get to work , jumped on social media boards to seek child care or exchange tips about available babysitters . Parents rushed to college campuses and drove away with their children ’ s belongings and bags of their clothing . College officials scrambled to pay for plane tickets home for others . A mother in Seattle organized small outdoor play dates where the kids are told not to get too close to one another . The parents stood awkwardly , several feet apart . Most big tech companies in San Francisco and Seattle have told employees to work from home , emptying out the downtown neighborhoods that are a hub for tech and venture capital firms . The restaurants , food trucks and other businesses that thrive off lunchtime crowds say that businesses has pretty much ground to a halt . Keny and Nancy Pham own a pair of businesses outside of the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco — a nail salon and a Vietnamese Banh Mi restaurant — where they say sales have dropped more than 50 percent this week . The salon was empty Thursday at the usually busy lunch time . Nobody wants to get manicures — because that involves hand touching . The salon typically gets about 100 clients a day and this week is down to about 10 a day , said Nancy Pham , co-owner of the Pampered Hands Nail Spa . Keny Pham says he is concerned about finances and paying their $ 10,000 monthly rent , but he has other worries as well . They have a child and live with Keny ’ s elderly parents , whose health he is most worried about . And it ’ s hard not to look at customers as potential germ carriers . Pham has asked his half dozen employees to rotate shifts and work alternate days , for now . “ We don ’ t want to lay anyone off , ” he said . “ We have to come up with a way to survive . ” In Las Vegas , where so much of the economy is wedded to big crowds from concerts , tournaments , conventions and tourists , many suddenly found themselves out of work . Las Vegas bartender Rique Rose works part-time at three different locations on the Las Vegas Strip , tending bar in event centers at the MGM Grand , the Mandalay Bay and in the T-Mobile arena , where the Las Vegas Golden Knights play . First , he lost Friday and Saturday shifts with the cancellation of the Pac-12 men ’ s college basketball tournament . Then , he saw that the NHL was suspending the rest of its season . He ’ s still waiting to see if the Post Malone concert he was scheduled to work Saturday night will be canceled . Every cancellation means more than missing out on his $ 8.25 minimum wage pay ; he also loses approximately $ 200 in tips . He wonders how he will pay his bills . “ I guess we ’ re just going to have to endure it , ” he sighed . And American Airlines announced Thursday that one of its pilots based at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport tested positive for the virus . More than 1,300 people have tested positive for coronavirus in the United States , and 40 people have died as of Thursday evening . About 128,000 people have been infected globally . For most people , the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms , such as fever and cough . For some , especially older adults and people with existing health problems , it can cause more severe illness , including pneumonia . The vast majority of people recover from the new virus . In every state , officials were taking dramatic new measures each day to keep the virus from spreading deeper into the country . And with each shuttered school , canceled outing , lost shift and work-from-home directive , people ’ s lives were being transformed in profound ways . Mom Natasja Billiau came up with a quick homeschooling plan for 8-year-old Victor and 5-year-old Anna Laura after their public school in Seattle closed for the first full day Thursday . They kept as close to their regular school schedule as possible , she said , with recess times and lunch built in . Billiau ’ s husband has been working from home since last week , and the family is moving to a new house in two weeks . “ Everything ’ s up in the air . I don ’ t know how I ’ m going to get it done , we ’ ll see , ” she said . “ It ’ s a day-by-day situation . ” She went forward with play dates , but everyone kept apart at a safe distance . “ And of course , as soon as we get home everybody has to wash hands , ” she said . Despite the scrambling and closures , for many people , life continued as usual . Hours after Brown University in Providence , Rhode Island , announced it was sending students home and would complete the semester online , customers stood in a busy line and ate lunch elbow-to-elbow at a crowded taqueria not far from campus . Many were working to see the upside of hunkering down and “ social distancing , ” swapping recommendations for Netflix shows or good books . Students at the University of Maryland in College Park are heading off to spring break this week and classes are moving online . On Thursday , students were packing up their belongings on a campus that was noticeably emptier than usual . Signs posted on the front doors of the University of Maryland ’ s journalism school said , “ If you are sick , please go home . ” Mike Davis , 60 , drove over from Annapolis , Maryland , to help his son Nick , a 22-year-old senior , pack up his stuff . Davis said the school ’ s decision to keep students off campus for several weeks make sense . Besides , he was looking forward to having his son around the house : “ I ’ ve got three bags of mulch ready for him to spread . ” The ███ receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute ’ s Department of Science Education . The AP is solely responsible for all content . Follow AP coverage of the virus outbreak at https : //apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https : //apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak

Fort Worth ISD employee Yolanda Cintron assists with a deep cleaning at the Leadership Academy at John T. White Elementary School in Fort Worth, Texas on Thursday, March 12, 2020. (Lawrence Jenkins/The Dallas Morning News via AP) Fort Worth ISD employee Yolanda Cintron assists with a deep cleaning at the Leadership Academy at John T. White Elementary School in Fort Worth, Texas on Thursday, March 12, 2020. (Lawrence Jenkins/The Dallas Morning News via AP) Workers lost their jobs, parents came up with impromptu home lesson plans for children kept home from shuttered schools. Families fretted over dwindling retirement accounts, the health of elderly parents, and every cough and sneeze in their midst. Millions of people settled into new and disrupted routines Thursday as the coronavirus began to uproot almost every facet of American life. The spate of event cancellations that drove home the gravity of the outbreak a day earlier only intensified Thursday, with Disney and Universal Orlando Resort shutting down theme parks, the NCAA calling off March Madness and Broadway theaters closing their doors in Manhattan. All the major professional sports announced they are halting play, and officials ordered a shutdown of every school in the state of Ohio for three weeks. And with the cascade of closures, a new reality set in for American households. In the Pacific Northwest, parents scrambled to devise homeschooling using library books or apps. Others, desperate to get to work, jumped on social media boards to seek child care or exchange tips about available babysitters. Parents rushed to college campuses and drove away with their children’s belongings and bags of their clothing. College officials scrambled to pay for plane tickets home for others. A mother in Seattle organized small outdoor play dates where the kids are told not to get too close to one another. The parents stood awkwardly, several feet apart. Most big tech companies in San Francisco and Seattle have told employees to work from home, emptying out the downtown neighborhoods that are a hub for tech and venture capital firms. The restaurants, food trucks and other businesses that thrive off lunchtime crowds say that businesses has pretty much ground to a halt. Keny and Nancy Pham own a pair of businesses outside of the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco — a nail salon and a Vietnamese Banh Mi restaurant — where they say sales have dropped more than 50 percent this week. The salon was empty Thursday at the usually busy lunch time. Nobody wants to get manicures — because that involves hand touching. The salon typically gets about 100 clients a day and this week is down to about 10 a day, said Nancy Pham, co-owner of the Pampered Hands Nail Spa. Keny Pham says he is concerned about finances and paying their $10,000 monthly rent, but he has other worries as well. They have a child and live with Keny’s elderly parents, whose health he is most worried about. And it’s hard not to look at customers as potential germ carriers. Pham has asked his half dozen employees to rotate shifts and work alternate days, for now. “We don’t want to lay anyone off,” he said. “We have to come up with a way to survive.” In Las Vegas, where so much of the economy is wedded to big crowds from concerts, tournaments, conventions and tourists, many suddenly found themselves out of work. Las Vegas bartender Rique Rose works part-time at three different locations on the Las Vegas Strip, tending bar in event centers at the MGM Grand, the Mandalay Bay and in the T-Mobile arena, where the Las Vegas Golden Knights play. First, he lost Friday and Saturday shifts with the cancellation of the Pac-12 men’s college basketball tournament. Then, he saw that the NHL was suspending the rest of its season. He’s still waiting to see if the Post Malone concert he was scheduled to work Saturday night will be canceled. Every cancellation means more than missing out on his $8.25 minimum wage pay; he also loses approximately $200 in tips. He wonders how he will pay his bills. “I guess we’re just going to have to endure it,” he sighed. And American Airlines announced Thursday that one of its pilots based at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport tested positive for the virus. More than 1,300 people have tested positive for coronavirus in the United States, and 40 people have died as of Thursday evening. About 128,000 people have been infected globally. For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia. The vast majority of people recover from the new virus. In every state, officials were taking dramatic new measures each day to keep the virus from spreading deeper into the country. And with each shuttered school, canceled outing, lost shift and work-from-home directive, people’s lives were being transformed in profound ways. Mom Natasja Billiau came up with a quick homeschooling plan for 8-year-old Victor and 5-year-old Anna Laura after their public school in Seattle closed for the first full day Thursday. They kept as close to their regular school schedule as possible, she said, with recess times and lunch built in. Billiau’s husband has been working from home since last week, and the family is moving to a new house in two weeks. “Everything’s up in the air. I don’t know how I’m going to get it done, we’ll see,” she said. “It’s a day-by-day situation.” She went forward with play dates, but everyone kept apart at a safe distance. “And of course, as soon as we get home everybody has to wash hands,” she said. Despite the scrambling and closures, for many people, life continued as usual. Hours after Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, announced it was sending students home and would complete the semester online, customers stood in a busy line and ate lunch elbow-to-elbow at a crowded taqueria not far from campus. Many were working to see the upside of hunkering down and “social distancing,” swapping recommendations for Netflix shows or good books. Students at the University of Maryland in College Park are heading off to spring break this week and classes are moving online. On Thursday, students were packing up their belongings on a campus that was noticeably emptier than usual. Signs posted on the front doors of the University of Maryland’s journalism school said, “If you are sick, please go home.” Mike Davis, 60, drove over from Annapolis, Maryland, to help his son Nick, a 22-year-old senior, pack up his stuff. Davis said the school’s decision to keep students off campus for several weeks make sense. Besides, he was looking forward to having his son around the house: “I’ve got three bags of mulch ready for him to spread.” ___ Associated Press Writers Jocelyn Gecker in San Francisco, Michelle Price in Las Vegas, Mike Kunzelman in College Park, Maryland, and Airlines Writer David Koenig in Dallas contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Follow AP coverage of the virus outbreak at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak

www.apnews.com

center

8ptGcrLGCDVZwd8S

test

MOJs1mj4jCG673Si

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-heading-government-shutdown-spending-talks-drag/story?id=53880685

Congress heading toward government shutdown as spending talks drag on

With Congress heading toward another government shutdown , House Speaker Paul Ryan says he is “ hoping today ” that negotiators will finalize an agreement Tuesday , and said congressional leaders are not yet discussing a continuing resolution as a backup plan . Interested in Government Shutdown ? Add Government Shutdown as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Government Shutdown news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest “ There 's some unresolved issues . We 're working through them as we speak and we 're hoping to post it today , ” Ryan , R-Wis. , said . Appropriators are working nearly around the clock to finish the $ 1.3 trillion spending bill . One top GOP aide close to the negotiations said appropriators worked past 1 a.m. Tuesday , before calling it a night and picking back up at 7:30 a.m . The agreement requires bipartisan agreement from the White House and all four corners of Congress — Senate and House Democrats as well as Senate and House Republicans . A top Democratic aide says `` there are something like 20 riders still in play and at least a dozen other major issues still being discussed '' at the negotiations . `` This process just takes time , '' the aide added . Ryan signaled that Republicans appear ready to attach the Fix NICs gun purchase background checks bill , a move that could help build bipartisan consensus around the package . “ That 's something we 're discussing with our colleagues , ” Ryan said . “ I think we should do Fix NICS . I agree with Fix NICS . That 's something we 're discussing with our friends on the other side of the aisle . ” Rep. Dan Donovan , a New York Republican hoping to attach the Gateway Tunnel project to the spending bill , believes President Trump could be backing off his veto threat if the omnibus helps fund the project . “ This is important . It 's important to the nation . It 'd be an economic stimulus , ” Donovan said . “ Certainly after Hurricane Sandy , our two tunnels were deteriorating because of the storm and building two new ones and retrofitting those two old ones will be an incredible boom to the country . ” Rep. Dave Brat , a Virginia Republican and member of the Freedom Caucus , said he will vote no because of the $ 1.3 trillion price tag . “ I 'm not happy with the product that 's going to be there in four days , but we can get there . That 's the problem is we 're going to get there , ” Brat said . “ I 'm a no on just the spending piece alone , ” he added . For Donovan and the rest of Congress time is running out . Government funding lapses at the end of the day on Friday . “ We have to keep our government open , ” Donovan said . “ Nobody sent us to Washington to shut their government down . They sent us to make it work better for them . ”

With Congress heading toward another government shutdown, House Speaker Paul Ryan says he is “hoping today” that negotiators will finalize an agreement Tuesday, and said congressional leaders are not yet discussing a continuing resolution as a backup plan. Interested in Government Shutdown? Add Government Shutdown as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Government Shutdown news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest “There's some unresolved issues. We're working through them as we speak and we're hoping to post it today,” Ryan, R-Wis., said. Appropriators are working nearly around the clock to finish the $1.3 trillion spending bill. One top GOP aide close to the negotiations said appropriators worked past 1 a.m. Tuesday, before calling it a night and picking back up at 7:30 a.m. The agreement requires bipartisan agreement from the White House and all four corners of Congress — Senate and House Democrats as well as Senate and House Republicans. A top Democratic aide says "there are something like 20 riders still in play and at least a dozen other major issues still being discussed" at the negotiations. "This process just takes time," the aide added. Ryan signaled that Republicans appear ready to attach the Fix NICs gun purchase background checks bill, a move that could help build bipartisan consensus around the package. “That's something we're discussing with our colleagues,” Ryan said. “I think we should do Fix NICS. I agree with Fix NICS. That's something we're discussing with our friends on the other side of the aisle.” Rep. Dan Donovan, a New York Republican hoping to attach the Gateway Tunnel project to the spending bill, believes President Trump could be backing off his veto threat if the omnibus helps fund the project. “This is important. It's important to the nation. It'd be an economic stimulus,” Donovan said. “Certainly after Hurricane Sandy, our two tunnels were deteriorating because of the storm and building two new ones and retrofitting those two old ones will be an incredible boom to the country.” Rep. Dave Brat, a Virginia Republican and member of the Freedom Caucus, said he will vote no because of the $1.3 trillion price tag. “I'm not happy with the product that's going to be there in four days, but we can get there. That's the problem is we're going to get there,” Brat said. “I'm a no on just the spending piece alone,” he added. For Donovan and the rest of Congress time is running out. Government funding lapses at the end of the day on Friday. “We have to keep our government open,” Donovan said. “Nobody sent us to Washington to shut their government down. They sent us to make it work better for them.”

www.abcnews.go.com

left

MOJs1mj4jCG673Si

test

FnJaFur3so9MXu7a

opioid_crisis

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-opioid-commission-asks-trump-declare-national/story?id=48961153

White House opioid commission asks Trump to declare ‘national emergency’ to combat overdoses

Meridith Mcgraw

The White House Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis has asked President Donald Trump to “ declare a national emergency ” to help fight the deadly opioid epidemic . Interested in Opioid Epidemic ? Add Opioid Epidemic as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Opioid Epidemic news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest “ The first and most urgent recommendation of this Commission is direct and completely within your control . Declare a national emergency under either the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act , ” wrote the committee , which is led by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie , in its interim report released on Monday . “ Our nation is in a crisis , ” said the report . “ Our citizens are dying . We must act boldly to stop it . The opioid epidemic we are facing is unparalleled . The average American would likely be shocked to know that drug overdoses now kill more people than gun homicides and car crashes combined . ” Gov . Christie led a public conference call with the commission on Monday to discuss their findings and vote on their interim report . Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts was not able to join Christie , North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper , former Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy and Professor Bertha Madras , Ph.D. on the call but the members present voted unanimously to move their report forward . The report underscores the grim toll being taken by the crisis , saying that with the 142 deaths per day blamed on opioids , `` America is enduring a death toll equal to September 11th every three weeks . ” The idea quickly gained support from Sen. Joe Manchin , whose constituents have been among the hardest hit . “ When I ’ m on the ground in my home state of West Virginia and when I hear the stories of those struggling with opioid addiction it ’ s obvious our country is in crisis , ” Manchin said in a statement . “ Declaring a national emergency will allow the Administration and Congress to act with the immediacy that ’ s needed to end this epidemic . The commission hopes that by declaring a national emergency , the federal government will be able to do things like negotiate pricing on naloxone for governmental units and grant waivers to states to increase treatment availability . Other recommendations in the report include mandating prescriber education initiatives , equipping more members of law enforcement with naloxone , developing ways to detect fentanyl , and combating the stigma that is often associated with addiction . One member of the commission , former congressman Patrick Kennedy , has been outspoken about both his struggles with addiction and his passion for removing addiction stigma . “ These diseases are really shunned and shamed by society , ” said Kennedy . “ And I appreciate you Gov . Christie speaking out so well on trying to address this issue of stigma which underlies all the issues as to why we got into this situation that we 're in today . ” Trump established the bipartisan commission in March and charged it with finding “ ways to combat and treat the scourge of drug abuse , addiction , and the opioid crisis . ” Out on the campaign trail , then-candidate Trump frequently remarked on the epidemic that has crippled communities across the country . “ As I campaign across this country , I hear so many stories and pleas , from women especially , about drug addiction and opioid use , ” said Trump at a rally in Chester Township , Pennsylvania . “ Even the best-laid plans can not always protect our youth , and increasingly , many adults , from the scourge of drugs . We lose thousands of our fellow Americans every year to opioid use . I will stop the drug inflow from our borders , ” vowed Trump . The commission has been criticized for missing deadlines for key reports . The interim report release on Monday came over a month late after missing two self-mandated deadlines . Before the commission releases their final report , they plan on traveling across the country to meet with communities and learn from successful treatment programs . “ We 're going to travel to meet with treatments across the country to try to replicate those on a national scale , ” said Christie . Their final report is scheduled to be released “ later in the Fall of 2017 . ” “ I 'm convinced that the president is committed to this , I look forward to his and his administrations reaction to the draft report , ” said Christie . “ And I look forward to continuing to work with the members of the commission to make sure that we 're giving the president and his administration the very best information we can to deal with this crisis . ”

The White House Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis has asked President Donald Trump to “declare a national emergency” to help fight the deadly opioid epidemic. Interested in Opioid Epidemic? Add Opioid Epidemic as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Opioid Epidemic news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest “The first and most urgent recommendation of this Commission is direct and completely within your control. Declare a national emergency under either the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act,” wrote the committee, which is led by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, in its interim report released on Monday. “Our nation is in a crisis,” said the report. “Our citizens are dying. We must act boldly to stop it. The opioid epidemic we are facing is unparalleled. The average American would likely be shocked to know that drug overdoses now kill more people than gun homicides and car crashes combined.” Gov. Christie led a public conference call with the commission on Monday to discuss their findings and vote on their interim report. Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts was not able to join Christie, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, former Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy and Professor Bertha Madras, Ph.D. on the call but the members present voted unanimously to move their report forward. The report underscores the grim toll being taken by the crisis, saying that with the 142 deaths per day blamed on opioids, "America is enduring a death toll equal to September 11th every three weeks.” The idea quickly gained support from Sen. Joe Manchin, whose constituents have been among the hardest hit. “When I’m on the ground in my home state of West Virginia and when I hear the stories of those struggling with opioid addiction it’s obvious our country is in crisis,” Manchin said in a statement. “Declaring a national emergency will allow the Administration and Congress to act with the immediacy that’s needed to end this epidemic. The commission hopes that by declaring a national emergency, the federal government will be able to do things like negotiate pricing on naloxone for governmental units and grant waivers to states to increase treatment availability. Other recommendations in the report include mandating prescriber education initiatives, equipping more members of law enforcement with naloxone, developing ways to detect fentanyl, and combating the stigma that is often associated with addiction. One member of the commission, former congressman Patrick Kennedy, has been outspoken about both his struggles with addiction and his passion for removing addiction stigma. “These diseases are really shunned and shamed by society,” said Kennedy. “And I appreciate you Gov. Christie speaking out so well on trying to address this issue of stigma which underlies all the issues as to why we got into this situation that we're in today.” Trump established the bipartisan commission in March and charged it with finding “ways to combat and treat the scourge of drug abuse, addiction, and the opioid crisis.” Out on the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump frequently remarked on the epidemic that has crippled communities across the country. “As I campaign across this country, I hear so many stories and pleas, from women especially, about drug addiction and opioid use,” said Trump at a rally in Chester Township, Pennsylvania. “Even the best-laid plans cannot always protect our youth, and increasingly, many adults, from the scourge of drugs. We lose thousands of our fellow Americans every year to opioid use. I will stop the drug inflow from our borders,” vowed Trump. The commission has been criticized for missing deadlines for key reports. The interim report release on Monday came over a month late after missing two self-mandated deadlines. Before the commission releases their final report, they plan on traveling across the country to meet with communities and learn from successful treatment programs. “We're going to travel to meet with treatments across the country to try to replicate those on a national scale,” said Christie. Their final report is scheduled to be released “later in the Fall of 2017.” “I'm convinced that the president is committed to this, I look forward to his and his administrations reaction to the draft report,” said Christie. “And I look forward to continuing to work with the members of the commission to make sure that we're giving the president and his administration the very best information we can to deal with this crisis.”

www.abcnews.go.com

left

FnJaFur3so9MXu7a

test

GeVwAZrcB2KmFHbt

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-last-daze-of-conservative-democrats/

The Last Daze of Conservative Democrats

George Neumayr, William Murchison, Larry Alex Taunton, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Brandon J. Weichert

In 2004 , after the open secularism of John Kerry sunk his chances of defeating George W. Bush , it became briefly popular in Democratic circles to talk about renewed outreach to “ values voters. ” Bill Clinton had advised Kerry to fake up opposition to gay marriage in Ohio , but Kerry rejected his counsel , saying he didn ’ t want to appear “ intolerant. ” Even liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi browbeat Kerry for adopting a strategy that excluded the religious . “ Certainly Democrats are faith-filled , ” she said , “ but somehow or other that did not come across when 61 % of those who are regular churchgoers voted Republican . ” Out of these complaints came various con jobs : Hillary Clinton for a time revived her husband ’ s “ safe , legal , and rare ” hedging about abortion ( which vanished during her 2016 run ) , Barack Obama delivered windy “ post-partisan ” speeches about a “ new ” relationship between politics and religion , “ chaplains ” would pop up at Democratic events to try and give a religious flavor to the proceedings , “ people of faith ” tabs were added to party Web pages , and so on . But it didn ’ t take long for secularized Dems to grow tired of the posturing . By 2012 , liberals had pressured Obama into giving up his phony temporizing about gay marriage and were demanding that any mention of God be stripped from the party ’ s platform . At its convention in Charlotte that year , delegates booed after party hacks restored the deleted line about God . Obama , even as declared that America is “ not a Christian nation ” and persecuted the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious groups , kept up his quasi-religious uplift and his attempts to shoehorn Scripture into this or that progressive cause . But it was all a charade , which has now been confirmed by his own 2012 “ faith-outreach ” director , Michael Wear . Wear has said that he almost quit after Obama dropped a pastor from his Inauguration for disagreeing with the Democratic line on gay marriage . In an interview with the Atlantic , Wear unloads on the Democrats for their indifference to Christians . Asked why Trump swept evangelicals , he responded , “ Liberals have been trying to convince Americans , and evangelicals in particular , that America is not a Christian nation . The 2016 election was evangelicals saying , ‘ Yeah , you ’ re right ! We can ’ t expect to have someone who is Christian like us . We can ’ t expect to have someone with a perfect family life . What we can expect is someone who can look out for us , just like every other group in this country is looking for a candidate who will look out for them . ’ ” Wear acknowledges that the party is staffed by secularists for whom Christianity is an annoying impediment to their policy agenda and culturally incomprehensible : “ …there ’ s a religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party . It ’ s tied to the demographics of the country : More 20- and 30-year-olds are taking positions of power in the Democratic Party . They grew up in parts of the country where navigating religion was not important socially and not important to their political careers. ” When Wear once tried to sprinkle a little Scripture into a faith-outreach document for Obama , White House staffers were too clueless to catch the reference , wondering what he meant by the “ least of these. ” He got an edit back from a White House official , saying , “ Is this a typo ? It doesn ’ t make any sense to me . Who/what are ‘ these ’ ? ” Wear ’ s comments are likely to generate nothing but a shrug from Democrats , who recognize that the party ’ s commitment to secularism , moral relativism , and Islamophilia are too deep to permit any serious Judeo-Christian outreach . To Wear or Alan Dershowitz , the message from the party is essentially the same : The exits of the party are clearly marked . The Dems have become the party of transgender bathrooms and Ramadan dinners , which explains why Congressman Keith Ellison is even in the running to head up the Democratic National Committee . Ties to the Nation of Islam are less fatal to a Democratic leader ’ s career than mild opposition to abortion or gay marriage . In 2008 , Obama played the pensive pol , pretending to care “ about how to reconcile ” America ’ s Judeo-Christian traditions “ with our modern , pluralistic democracy. ” He was advising his party not to moderate its positions but its rhetoric — a balancing act in which he quickly lost interest . He spent eight years in effect calling Christians bigots . The door to the party for them had few cracks in it anyways , but Obama made sure to slam it shut , and it is too late to open it again .

In 2004, after the open secularism of John Kerry sunk his chances of defeating George W. Bush, it became briefly popular in Democratic circles to talk about renewed outreach to “values voters.” Bill Clinton had advised Kerry to fake up opposition to gay marriage in Ohio, but Kerry rejected his counsel, saying he didn’t want to appear “intolerant.” Even liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi browbeat Kerry for adopting a strategy that excluded the religious. “Certainly Democrats are faith-filled,” she said, “but somehow or other that did not come across when 61% of those who are regular churchgoers voted Republican.” Out of these complaints came various con jobs: Hillary Clinton for a time revived her husband’s “safe, legal, and rare” hedging about abortion (which vanished during her 2016 run), Barack Obama delivered windy “post-partisan” speeches about a “new” relationship between politics and religion, “chaplains” would pop up at Democratic events to try and give a religious flavor to the proceedings, “people of faith” tabs were added to party Web pages, and so on. But it didn’t take long for secularized Dems to grow tired of the posturing. By 2012, liberals had pressured Obama into giving up his phony temporizing about gay marriage and were demanding that any mention of God be stripped from the party’s platform. At its convention in Charlotte that year, delegates booed after party hacks restored the deleted line about God. Obama, even as declared that America is “not a Christian nation” and persecuted the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious groups, kept up his quasi-religious uplift and his attempts to shoehorn Scripture into this or that progressive cause. But it was all a charade, which has now been confirmed by his own 2012 “faith-outreach” director, Michael Wear. Wear has said that he almost quit after Obama dropped a pastor from his Inauguration for disagreeing with the Democratic line on gay marriage. In an interview with the Atlantic, Wear unloads on the Democrats for their indifference to Christians. Asked why Trump swept evangelicals, he responded, “Liberals have been trying to convince Americans, and evangelicals in particular, that America is not a Christian nation. The 2016 election was evangelicals saying, ‘Yeah, you’re right! We can’t expect to have someone who is Christian like us. We can’t expect to have someone with a perfect family life. What we can expect is someone who can look out for us, just like every other group in this country is looking for a candidate who will look out for them.’” Wear acknowledges that the party is staffed by secularists for whom Christianity is an annoying impediment to their policy agenda and culturally incomprehensible: “…there’s a religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party. It’s tied to the demographics of the country: More 20- and 30-year-olds are taking positions of power in the Democratic Party. They grew up in parts of the country where navigating religion was not important socially and not important to their political careers.” When Wear once tried to sprinkle a little Scripture into a faith-outreach document for Obama, White House staffers were too clueless to catch the reference, wondering what he meant by the “least of these.” He got an edit back from a White House official, saying, “Is this a typo? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Who/what are ‘these’?” Wear’s comments are likely to generate nothing but a shrug from Democrats, who recognize that the party’s commitment to secularism, moral relativism, and Islamophilia are too deep to permit any serious Judeo-Christian outreach. To Wear or Alan Dershowitz, the message from the party is essentially the same: The exits of the party are clearly marked. The Dems have become the party of transgender bathrooms and Ramadan dinners, which explains why Congressman Keith Ellison is even in the running to head up the Democratic National Committee. Ties to the Nation of Islam are less fatal to a Democratic leader’s career than mild opposition to abortion or gay marriage. In 2008, Obama played the pensive pol, pretending to care “about how to reconcile” America’s Judeo-Christian traditions “with our modern, pluralistic democracy.” He was advising his party not to moderate its positions but its rhetoric — a balancing act in which he quickly lost interest. He spent eight years in effect calling Christians bigots. The door to the party for them had few cracks in it anyways, but Obama made sure to slam it shut, and it is too late to open it again.

www.spectator.org

right

GeVwAZrcB2KmFHbt

test

sM2D4yHJqVtnx1BS

media_bias

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/ecbf188e7e200f6215e75f9fb5d6fa55

Did Fox’s Tucker Carlson play role in calming Iran pressure?

2020-01-09

David Bauder

FILE - In this March 2 , 2017 file photo , Tucker Carlson , host of `` Tucker Carlson Tonight , '' poses for photos in a Fox News Channel studio , in New York . Carlson has advocated restraint in dealing with Iran , and resisted cheerleading the Trump-ordered drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani . ( AP Photo/Richard Drew , File ) FILE - In this March 2 , 2017 file photo , Tucker Carlson , host of `` Tucker Carlson Tonight , '' poses for photos in a Fox News Channel studio , in New York . Carlson has advocated restraint in dealing with Iran , and resisted cheerleading the Trump-ordered drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani . ( AP Photo/Richard Drew , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — Here ’ s a point to ponder : To what extent is Fox News Channel ’ s Tucker Carlson responsible for President Donald Trump stepping away from a potential war with Iran ? From his prime-time perch on the top-rated cable network , Carlson has advocated restraint in dealing with Iran , and resisted cheerleading the Trump-ordered drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani . Shortly after the story of Iran ’ s counter-attack broke on Tuesday , Carlson hosted a show that mixed coverage of the story as details became known , emphasizing early reports of a lack of American casualties , and interviews with experts on the Middle East . Some of those guests pointed out the dangers of spiraling escalation . “ I continue to believe the president doesn ’ t want a full-blown war , ” Carlson said . “ Some around him might , but I think most sober people don ’ t want that . ” Trump , who announced his decision not to retaliate against Iran ’ s missile strikes in a nationally televised address 14 hours later , told some close to him that he watched Carlson ’ s show , according to BuzzFeed News . He told confidants in recent days that Carlson ’ s strong advocacy not to escalate the situation in Iran played a role in his decision-making , two White House officials and Republicans close to the West Wing told The ███ on Thursday . Trump keeps a close eye on how his base responds to policy decisions , feeling their beliefs are often reflected and influenced by Fox News hosts . His Twitter feed reflects how he keeps close tabs on Fox , and he tweeted a link to a Carlson piece on Monday night . The president often consults with Fox News hosts off-air , including Carlson . Carlson was seen among the president ’ s entourage this past summer when he visited the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea . He conducted an interview with Trump that was later shown on Fox . Following Trump ’ s announcement on Wednesday , Carlson said that “ we ’ re back from the brink. ” He played a clip of the president ’ s speech where he said that a pause in hostilities between Iran and the United States was a very good thing for the world . “ That ’ s a big claim but in this case it is not an overstatement , ” Carlson said . His show moved on to a new cause , in this case encouraging the U.S. to leave neighboring Iraq . He was calm on Tuesday ’ s show , at a time there was breathless coverage elsewhere of the missile attack . A succession of guests threw cold water on the idea of further retaliation . Gil Barndollar of Defense Priorities suggested Americans were kidding themselves if they expected to incite a regime-change movement in Iran . With Kelley Vlahos , executive editor of The American Conservative magazine , they speculated on the role of Democrats and Trump staffers who didn ’ t have the president ’ s best interests in mind in advocating war with Iran . Trump was reminded that he was elected on a pledge to get Americans out of foreign entanglements . A frequent Carlson guest , retired Army Col. Douglas MacGregor , said a war without public support could not succeed . He said further destabilization in the Middle East would have disastrous effects . “ If you destroy Iran , you will get ISIS times one hundred , ” he said . Fox News anchor Bret Baier came on Carlson ’ s show to suggest that the moment was Trump ’ s biggest test as a leader . Carlson ’ s show contrasted with a more bellicose approach by the Fox personality who followed him on the air , Sean Hannity . Hannity , a more loyal Trump supporter , backed the attack that killed Soleimani . While Hannity didn ’ t advocate all-out war with Iran , he suggested that nation was about to be hit with the full force of the American military . “ You don ’ t get to do what they did tonight , ” Hannity said on Tuesday ’ s show . A.J . Bauer , a New York University professor who is an expert on conservative media , said he could not judge what kind of impact Carlson ’ s program had on Trump ’ s decision . He noted that it was consistent with other times where Trump had resisted more extensive foreign entanglements . Instead , Bauer found the different opinions expressed by Hannity and Carlson to exemplify how Fox must step carefully with an audience that reflects conflicting strains within the conservative movement , between a hawkish military approach and an “ America first ” attitude that resists overseas adventurism .

FILE - In this March 2, 2017 file photo, Tucker Carlson, host of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," poses for photos in a Fox News Channel studio, in New York. Carlson has advocated restraint in dealing with Iran, and resisted cheerleading the Trump-ordered drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File) FILE - In this March 2, 2017 file photo, Tucker Carlson, host of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," poses for photos in a Fox News Channel studio, in New York. Carlson has advocated restraint in dealing with Iran, and resisted cheerleading the Trump-ordered drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File) NEW YORK (AP) — Here’s a point to ponder: To what extent is Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson responsible for President Donald Trump stepping away from a potential war with Iran? From his prime-time perch on the top-rated cable network, Carlson has advocated restraint in dealing with Iran, and resisted cheerleading the Trump-ordered drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Shortly after the story of Iran’s counter-attack broke on Tuesday, Carlson hosted a show that mixed coverage of the story as details became known, emphasizing early reports of a lack of American casualties, and interviews with experts on the Middle East. Some of those guests pointed out the dangers of spiraling escalation. “I continue to believe the president doesn’t want a full-blown war,” Carlson said. “Some around him might, but I think most sober people don’t want that.” Trump, who announced his decision not to retaliate against Iran’s missile strikes in a nationally televised address 14 hours later, told some close to him that he watched Carlson’s show, according to BuzzFeed News. He told confidants in recent days that Carlson’s strong advocacy not to escalate the situation in Iran played a role in his decision-making, two White House officials and Republicans close to the West Wing told The Associated Press on Thursday. Trump keeps a close eye on how his base responds to policy decisions, feeling their beliefs are often reflected and influenced by Fox News hosts. His Twitter feed reflects how he keeps close tabs on Fox, and he tweeted a link to a Carlson piece on Monday night. The president often consults with Fox News hosts off-air, including Carlson. Carlson was seen among the president’s entourage this past summer when he visited the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea. He conducted an interview with Trump that was later shown on Fox. Following Trump’s announcement on Wednesday, Carlson said that “we’re back from the brink.” He played a clip of the president’s speech where he said that a pause in hostilities between Iran and the United States was a very good thing for the world. “That’s a big claim but in this case it is not an overstatement,” Carlson said. His show moved on to a new cause, in this case encouraging the U.S. to leave neighboring Iraq. He was calm on Tuesday’s show, at a time there was breathless coverage elsewhere of the missile attack. A succession of guests threw cold water on the idea of further retaliation. Gil Barndollar of Defense Priorities suggested Americans were kidding themselves if they expected to incite a regime-change movement in Iran. With Kelley Vlahos, executive editor of The American Conservative magazine, they speculated on the role of Democrats and Trump staffers who didn’t have the president’s best interests in mind in advocating war with Iran. Trump was reminded that he was elected on a pledge to get Americans out of foreign entanglements. A frequent Carlson guest, retired Army Col. Douglas MacGregor, said a war without public support could not succeed. He said further destabilization in the Middle East would have disastrous effects. “If you destroy Iran, you will get ISIS times one hundred,” he said. Fox News anchor Bret Baier came on Carlson’s show to suggest that the moment was Trump’s biggest test as a leader. Carlson’s show contrasted with a more bellicose approach by the Fox personality who followed him on the air, Sean Hannity. Hannity, a more loyal Trump supporter, backed the attack that killed Soleimani. While Hannity didn’t advocate all-out war with Iran, he suggested that nation was about to be hit with the full force of the American military. “You don’t get to do what they did tonight,” Hannity said on Tuesday’s show. A.J. Bauer, a New York University professor who is an expert on conservative media, said he could not judge what kind of impact Carlson’s program had on Trump’s decision. He noted that it was consistent with other times where Trump had resisted more extensive foreign entanglements. Instead, Bauer found the different opinions expressed by Hannity and Carlson to exemplify how Fox must step carefully with an audience that reflects conflicting strains within the conservative movement, between a hawkish military approach and an “America first” attitude that resists overseas adventurism. ___ Associated Press White House correspondent Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

sM2D4yHJqVtnx1BS

test

r6RPZk04oboqmF6C

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/06/15/how-anti-trump-republicans-can-change-th

How Anti-Trump Republicans Can Change the President's Behavior

2018-06-15

Matt Welch, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

Is there a character more derided in modern American politics than the anti-Trump Republican ? Consider soon-to-retire Sen. Jeff Flake ( R-Ariz. ) , a possible primary challenger to Donald Trump in 2020 and author of a bestseller attacking the president 's America-first ideology . When Flake responded to the administration 's brutish comments about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by tweeting `` Fellow Republicans , this is not who we are , '' the condemnation was swift and brutal — from the left . `` This is exactly who you are , '' the Splinter 's Emma Roller snapped back . `` Flake 's criticism of Trump 's G-7 antics is a sham , '' hissed Think Progress . Hand-wringing GOP senators such as Flake , John McCain and Susan Collins , charged the activists at Blue Virginia , are just a bunch of melodramatic Democracy Peacocks — all plume , no teeth . The best version of these critiques is that Flake and his cohort should , you know , do something . So it 's interesting to examine the successful tactics of a Republican senator who did just that — Colorado 's first-term Sen. Cory Gardner . Gardner , 43 , is a former House GOP `` Young Gun '' known for being more problem-solver than bomb-thrower . He displayed both talents , however , in managing to convince a law-and-order president who appointed a drug-warrior attorney general to come out in favor of leaving legal marijuana alone . In a wide-ranging back-and-forth with reporters at the end of last week , President Trump was asked whether he supported a bipartisan bill introduced by Gardner and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . ) — the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States ( STATES ) Act — which would make the federal Controlled Substances Act inapplicable in states where pot-related activity has been legalized . `` I really do , '' Trump said . `` I support Sen. Gardner . I know exactly what he 's doing . We 're looking at it , but we 'll probably end up supporting that , yes . '' While nothing in Trumpworld is guaranteed until the ink is dry , this could be a huge turning point against the long-ruinous drug war . How did Gardner work this magic ? By doing something Republicans excelled at when Barack Obama was president but which they have largely ignored since : Using every bit of leverage they command to frustrate a power-wielding president . Gardner went berserk in January when Atty . Gen. Jeff Sessions announced in January that he was rescinding the Justice Department 's 2013 memo guiding U.S. attorneys to de-prioritize federal enforcement against state-legal marijuana operations . Colorado had voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2012 , and had begun legal sales in January 2014 . Gardner was n't in favor of legalization in 2012 , but in 2018 he was ready to defend his state 's law . `` I believe that what happened today is a trampling of Colorado 's rights , '' he said in a podium-thumping speech after Sessions ' decision was made public . Prior to the attorney general 's confirmation , Gardner charged , he had promised that the 2013 memo would not be rescinded and that pot enforcement would not be an administration priority . `` Until he lives up to that commitment , '' Gardner said , `` I will be holding all nominations to the Department of Justice . '' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) likes to say that the world 's greatest deliberative body is largely in the `` personnel business , '' moving briskly through the confirmation of judges , Cabinet members and lower-level executive branch appointments . Gardner gummed up that machinery for three months by using his parliamentary ability to place a hold on a nomination , a barrier that can only be overcome through a time-sapping cloture vote . It took about 20 holds for Trump to crack . In April , Gardner issued a news release saying he had obtained a verbal commitment from the president to support legislation protecting states that legalized marijuana from federal drug law enforcement , despite his attorney general 's proclivities . The president 's comment last week was an indication that the promise will have more staying power than , say , Trump 's `` firm commitment '' to Flake to work together on a solution to the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program in exchange for Flake 's yes-vote on last year 's tax cut . So is Gardner 's form of hostage-taking scalable ? It 's certainly worth a try among Trump-averse Republicans in the Senate , given that chamber 's slim 51-47-2 GOP majority ( with the two independents caucusing with Democrats ) . But there are some unique aspects to the presidential buy-in on pot legalization . First , Trump favored state decision-making about marijuana when he was on the campaign trail . Second , keeping the feds out of the enforcement business in pot-legal states is widely popular — 70 % in an April Quinnipiac poll . ( Straight-up legalization is now polling at 63 % , a percentage no president has ever achieved in the popular vote . ) And finally , let 's not forget that Trump is n't exactly shy about tweaking Jeff Sessions . Favorable conditions aside , Gardner clearly forced the issue . The Senate is designed to be obstructionist , to thwart the ambitions of presidents and House members who want to get things done fast . For those senators who consider the president a challenge to the fundamental ideas of conservatism , Gardner 's example is instructive . Instead of merely standing athwart C-SPAN 's view of history yelling `` stop , '' they should use the power the Constitution and the Senate 's rule book gives them and stick out a foot when the president walks by .

Is there a character more derided in modern American politics than the anti-Trump Republican? Consider soon-to-retire Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a possible primary challenger to Donald Trump in 2020 and author of a bestseller attacking the president's America-first ideology. When Flake responded to the administration's brutish comments about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by tweeting "Fellow Republicans, this is not who we are," the condemnation was swift and brutal — from the left. "This is exactly who you are," the Splinter's Emma Roller snapped back. "Flake's criticism of Trump's G-7 antics is a sham," hissed Think Progress. Hand-wringing GOP senators such as Flake, John McCain and Susan Collins, charged the activists at Blue Virginia, are just a bunch of melodramatic Democracy Peacocks — all plume, no teeth. The best version of these critiques is that Flake and his cohort should, you know, do something. So it's interesting to examine the successful tactics of a Republican senator who did just that — Colorado's first-term Sen. Cory Gardner. Gardner, 43, is a former House GOP "Young Gun" known for being more problem-solver than bomb-thrower. He displayed both talents, however, in managing to convince a law-and-order president who appointed a drug-warrior attorney general to come out in favor of leaving legal marijuana alone. In a wide-ranging back-and-forth with reporters at the end of last week, President Trump was asked whether he supported a bipartisan bill introduced by Gardner and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act — which would make the federal Controlled Substances Act inapplicable in states where pot-related activity has been legalized. "I really do," Trump said. "I support Sen. Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing. We're looking at it, but we'll probably end up supporting that, yes." While nothing in Trumpworld is guaranteed until the ink is dry, this could be a huge turning point against the long-ruinous drug war. How did Gardner work this magic? By doing something Republicans excelled at when Barack Obama was president but which they have largely ignored since: Using every bit of leverage they command to frustrate a power-wielding president. Gardner went berserk in January when Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions announced in January that he was rescinding the Justice Department's 2013 memo guiding U.S. attorneys to de-prioritize federal enforcement against state-legal marijuana operations. Colorado had voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2012, and had begun legal sales in January 2014. Gardner wasn't in favor of legalization in 2012, but in 2018 he was ready to defend his state's law. "I believe that what happened today is a trampling of Colorado's rights," he said in a podium-thumping speech after Sessions' decision was made public. Prior to the attorney general's confirmation, Gardner charged, he had promised that the 2013 memo would not be rescinded and that pot enforcement would not be an administration priority. "Until he lives up to that commitment," Gardner said, "I will be holding all nominations to the Department of Justice." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) likes to say that the world's greatest deliberative body is largely in the "personnel business," moving briskly through the confirmation of judges, Cabinet members and lower-level executive branch appointments. Gardner gummed up that machinery for three months by using his parliamentary ability to place a hold on a nomination, a barrier that can only be overcome through a time-sapping cloture vote. It took about 20 holds for Trump to crack. In April, Gardner issued a news release saying he had obtained a verbal commitment from the president to support legislation protecting states that legalized marijuana from federal drug law enforcement, despite his attorney general's proclivities. The president's comment last week was an indication that the promise will have more staying power than, say, Trump's "firm commitment" to Flake to work together on a solution to the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program in exchange for Flake's yes-vote on last year's tax cut. So is Gardner's form of hostage-taking scalable? It's certainly worth a try among Trump-averse Republicans in the Senate, given that chamber's slim 51-47-2 GOP majority (with the two independents caucusing with Democrats). But there are some unique aspects to the presidential buy-in on pot legalization. First, Trump favored state decision-making about marijuana when he was on the campaign trail. Second, keeping the feds out of the enforcement business in pot-legal states is widely popular — 70% in an April Quinnipiac poll. (Straight-up legalization is now polling at 63%, a percentage no president has ever achieved in the popular vote.) And finally, let's not forget that Trump isn't exactly shy about tweaking Jeff Sessions. Favorable conditions aside, Gardner clearly forced the issue. The Senate is designed to be obstructionist, to thwart the ambitions of presidents and House members who want to get things done fast. For those senators who consider the president a challenge to the fundamental ideas of conservatism, Gardner's example is instructive. Instead of merely standing athwart C-SPAN's view of history yelling "stop," they should use the power the Constitution and the Senate's rule book gives them and stick out a foot when the president walks by. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

www.reason.com

right

r6RPZk04oboqmF6C

test

pwBIHt7JrS4SzbKO

politics

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6

After lobbying, Catholic Church won $1.4B in virus aid

2020-07-10

Reese Dunklin, Michael Rezendes

FILE - In this Sunday , April 12 , 2020 file photo , Cardinal Timothy Dolan , right , delivers his homily over mostly empty pews as he leads an Easter Mass at St. Patrick 's Cathedral in New York . Due to coronavirus concerns , no congregants were allowed to attend the Mass which was broadcast live on local TV . The Archdiocese of New York received 15 loans worth at least $ 28 million just for its top executive offices . St. Patrick ’ s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was approved for at least $ 1 million . ( AP Photo/Seth Wenig ) FILE - In this Sunday , April 12 , 2020 file photo , Cardinal Timothy Dolan , right , delivers his homily over mostly empty pews as he leads an Easter Mass at St. Patrick 's Cathedral in New York . Due to coronavirus concerns , no congregants were allowed to attend the Mass which was broadcast live on local TV . The Archdiocese of New York received 15 loans worth at least $ 28 million just for its top executive offices . St. Patrick ’ s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was approved for at least $ 1 million . ( AP Photo/Seth Wenig ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $ 1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid , with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups . The church ’ s haul may have reached -- or even exceeded -- $ 3.5 billion , making a global religious institution with more than a billion followers among the biggest winners in the U.S. government ’ s pandemic relief efforts , an ███ analysis of federal data released this week found . Houses of worship and faith-based organizations that promote religious beliefs aren ’ t usually eligible for money from the U.S. Small Business Administration . But as the economy plummeted and jobless rates soared , Congress let faith groups and other nonprofits tap into the Paycheck Protection Program , a $ 659 billion fund created to keep Main Street open and Americans employed . By aggressively promoting the payroll program and marshaling resources to help affiliates navigate its shifting rules , Catholic dioceses , parishes , schools and other ministries have so far received approval for at least 3,500 forgivable loans , AP found . The Archdiocese of New York , for example , received 15 loans worth at least $ 28 million just for its top executive offices . Its iconic St. Patrick ’ s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was approved for at least $ 1 million . In Orange County , California , where a sparkling glass cathedral estimated to cost over $ 70 million recently opened , diocesan officials working at the complex received four loans worth at least $ 3 million . And elsewhere , a loan of at least $ 2 million went to the diocese covering Wheeling-Charleston , West Virginia , where a church investigation revealed last year that then-Bishop Michael Bransfield embezzled funds and made sexual advances toward young priests . Simply being eligible for low-interest loans was a new opportunity . But the church couldn ’ t have been approved for so many loans -- which the government will forgive if they are used for wages , rent and utilities -- without a second break . Religious groups persuaded the Trump administration to free them from a rule that typically disqualifies an applicant with more than 500 workers . Without this preferential treatment , many Catholic dioceses would have been ineligible because -- between their head offices , parishes and other affiliates -- their employees exceed the 500-person cap . “ The government grants special dispensation , and that creates a kind of structural favoritism , ” said Micah Schwartzman , a University of Virginia law professor specializing in constitutional issues and religion who has studied the Paycheck Protection Program . “ And that favoritism was worth billions of dollars . ” The amount that the church collected , between $ 1.4 billion and $ 3.5 billion , is an undercount . The Diocesan Fiscal Management Conference , an organization of Catholic financial officers , surveyed members and reported that about 9,000 Catholic entities received loans . That is nearly three times the number of Catholic recipients the AP could identify . The AP couldn ’ t find more Catholic beneficiaries because the government ’ s data , released after pressure from Congress and a lawsuit from news outlets including the AP , didn ’ t name recipients of loans under $ 150,000 -- a category in which many smaller churches would fall . And because the government released only ranges of loan amounts , it wasn ’ t possible to be more precise . Even without a full accounting , AP ’ s analysis places the Catholic Church among the major beneficiaries in the Paycheck Protection Program , which also has helped companies backed by celebrities , billionaires , state governors and members of Congress . The program was open to all religious groups , and many took advantage . Evangelical advisers to President Donald Trump , including his White House spiritual czar , Paula White-Cain , also received loans . There is no doubt that state shelter-in-place orders disrupted houses of worship and businesses alike . Masses were canceled , even during the Holy Week and Easter holidays , depriving parishes of expected revenue and contributing to layoffs in some dioceses . Some families of Catholic school students are struggling to make tuition payments . And the expense of disinfecting classrooms once classes resume will put additional pressure on budgets . But other problems were self-inflicted . Long before the pandemic , scores of dioceses faced increasing financial pressure because of a dramatic rise in recent clergy sex abuse claims . The scandals that erupted in 2018 reverberated throughout the world . Pope Francis ordered the former archbishop of Washington , Cardinal Theodore McCarrick , to a life of “ prayer and penance ” following allegations he abused minors and adult seminarians . And a damning grand jury report about abuse in six Pennsylvania dioceses revealed bishops had long covered for predator priests , spurring investigations in more than 20 other states . As the church again reckoned with its longtime crisis , abuse reports tripled during the year ending June 2019 to a total of nearly 4,500 nationally . Meanwhile , dioceses and religious orders shelled out $ 282 million that year — up from $ 106 million just five years earlier . Most of that went to settlements , in addition to legal fees and support for offending clergy . Loan recipients included about 40 dioceses that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years paying victims through compensation funds or bankruptcy proceedings . AP ’ s review found that these dioceses were approved for about $ 200 million , though the value is likely much higher . One was the New York Archdiocese . As a successful battle to lift the statute of limitations on the filing of child sexual abuse lawsuits gathered steam , Cardinal Timothy Dolan established a victim compensation fund in 2016 . Since then , other dioceses have established similar funds , which offer victims relatively quick settlements while dissuading them from filing lawsuits . Spokesperson Joseph Zwilling said the archdiocese simply wanted to be “ treated equally and fairly under the law. ” When asked about the waiver from the 500-employee cap that religious organizations received , Zwilling deferred to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops . A spokesperson for the bishops ’ conference acknowledged its officials lobbied for the paycheck program , but said the organization wasn ’ t tracking what dioceses and Catholic agencies received . “ These loans are an essential lifeline to help faith-based organizations to stay afloat and continue serving those in need during this crisis , ” spokesperson Chieko Noguchi said in a written statement . According to AP ’ s data analysis , the church and all its organizations reported retaining at least 407,900 jobs with the money they were awarded . Noguchi also wrote the conference felt strongly that “ the administration write and implement this emergency relief fairly for all applicants . ” Not every Catholic institution sought government loans . The Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy based in Stamford , Connecticut , told AP that even though its parishes experienced a decline in donations , none of the organizations in its five-state territory submitted applications . Deacon Steve Wisnowski , a financial officer for the eparchy , said pastors and church managers used their rainy-day savings and that parishioners responded generously with donations . As a result , parishes “ did not experience a severe financial crisis . ” Wisnowski said his superiors understood the program was for “ organizations and businesses truly in need of assistance . ” The law that created the Paycheck Protection Program let nonprofits participate , as long as they abided by SBA ’ s “ affiliation rule. ” The rule typically says that only businesses with fewer than 500 employees , including at all subsidiaries , are eligible . Lobbying by the church helped religious organizations get an exception . The Catholic News Service reported that the bishops ’ conference and several major Catholic nonprofit agencies worked throughout the week of March 30 to ensure that the “ unique nature of the entities would not make them ineligible for the program ” because of how SBA defines a “ small ” business . Those conversations came just days after President Trump signed the $ 2 trillion Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act , which included the Paycheck Protection Program . In addition , federal records show the Los Angeles archdiocese , whose leader heads the bishops ’ conference , paid $ 20,000 to lobby the U.S. Senate and House on “ eligibility for non-profits ” under the CARES Act . The records also show that Catholic Charities USA , a social service arm of the church with member agencies in dioceses across the country , paid another $ 30,000 to lobby on the act and other issues . In late April , after thousands of Catholic institutions had secured loans , several hundred Catholic leaders pressed for additional help on a call with President Trump . During the call , Trump underscored the coming presidential election and touted himself as the candidate best aligned with religious conservatives , boasting he was the “ best ( president ) the Catholic church has ever seen , ” according to Crux , an online publication that covers church-related news . Catholic Charities USA and its member agencies were approved for about 110 loans worth between $ 90 million and $ 220 million at least , according to the data . In a statement , Catholic Charities said : “ Each organization is a separate legal entity under the auspices of the bishop in the diocese in which the agency is located . CCUSA supports agencies that choose to become members , but does not have any role in their daily operations or governance . ” The Los Angeles archdiocese told AP in a survey that reporters sent before the release of federal data that 247 of its 288 parishes -- and all but one of its 232 schools -- received loans . The survey covered more than 180 dioceses and eparchies . Like most dioceses , Los Angeles wouldn ’ t disclose its total dollar amount . While the federal data doesn ’ t link Catholic recipients to their home dioceses , AP found 37 loans to the archdiocese and its affiliates worth between $ 9 million and $ 23 million , including one for its downtown cathedral . In 2007 , the archdiocese paid a record $ 660 million to settle sex abuse claims from more than 500 victims . Spokespeople for Los Angeles Archbishop Jose M. Gomez did not respond to additional questions about the archdiocese ’ s finances and lobbying . In program materials , SBA officials said they provided the affiliation waiver to religious groups in deference to their unique organizational structure , and because the public health response to slow the coronavirus ’ spread disrupted churches just as it did businesses . A senior official in the U.S. Department of the Treasury , which worked with the SBA to administer the program , acknowledged in a statement the wider availability of loans to religious organizations . “ The CARES Act expanded eligibility to include nonprofits in the PPP , and SBA ’ s regulations ensured that no eligible religious nonprofit was excluded from participation due to its beliefs or denomination , ” the statement said . Meanwhile , some legal experts say that the special consideration the government gave faith groups in the loan program has further eroded the wall between church and state provided in the First Amendment . With that erosion , religious groups that don ’ t pay taxes have gained more access to public money , said Marci Hamilton , a University of Pennsylvania professor and attorney who has represented clergy abuse victims on constitutional issues during bankruptcy proceedings . “ At this point , the argument is you ’ re anti-religious if in fact you would say the Catholic Church shouldn ’ t be getting government funding , ” Hamilton said . After its lobbying blitz , the Catholic Church worked with parishes and schools to access the money . Many dioceses -- from large ones such as the Archdiocese of Boston to smaller ones such as the Diocese of La Crosse , Wisconsin -- assembled how-to guides to help their affiliates apply . The national Catholic fiscal conference also hosted multiple webinars with legal and financial experts to help coach along local leaders . Federal data show that the bulk of the church ’ s money was approved during the loan program ’ s first two weeks . That ’ s when demand for the first-come , first-served assistance was so high that the initial $ 349 billion was quickly exhausted , shutting out many local businesses . Overall , nearly 500 loans approved to Catholic entities exceeded $ 1 million each . The AP found that at least eight hit the maximum range of $ 5 million to $ 10 million . Many of the listed recipients were the offices of bishops , headquarters of leading religious orders , major churches , schools and chapters of Catholic Charities . Also among recipients was the Saint Luke Institute . The Catholic treatment center for priests accused of sexual abuse and those suffering from other disorders received a loan ranging from $ 350,000 to $ 1 million . Based in Silver Spring , Maryland , the institute has at times been a way station for priests accused of sexual abuse who returned to active ministry only to abuse again . Perhaps nothing illustrates the church ’ s aggressive pursuit of funds better than four dioceses that sued the federal government to receive loans , even though they entered bankruptcy proceedings due to mounting clergy sex-abuse claims . Small Business Administration rules prohibit loans to applicants in bankruptcy . The Archdiocese of Santa Fe , New Mexico -- once home to a now-closed and notorious treatment center for predator priests -- prevailed in court , clearing the way for its administrative offices to receive nearly $ 1 million . It accused the SBA of overreaching by blocking bankruptcy applications when Congress didn ’ t spell that out . Yet even when a diocese has lost in bankruptcy court , or its case is pending , its affiliated parishes , schools and other organizations remain eligible for loans . On the U.S. territory of Guam , well over 200 clergy abuse lawsuits led church leaders in the tiny Archdiocese of Agana to seek bankruptcy protection , as they estimated at least $ 45 million in liabilities . Even so , the archdiocese ’ s parishes , schools and other organizations have received at least $ 1.7 million as it sues the SBA for approval to get a loan for its headquarters , according to bankruptcy filings . The U.S. church may have a troubling record on sex abuse , but Bishop Lawrence Persico of Erie , Pennsylvania , pushed back on the idea that dioceses should be excluded from the government ’ s rescue package . Approximately 80 organizations within his diocese received loans worth $ 10.3 million , the diocese said , with most of the money going to parishes and schools . Persico pointed out that church entities help feed , clothe and shelter the poor -- and in doing so keep people employed . “ I know some people may react with surprise that government funding helped support faith-based schools , parishes and dioceses , ” he said . “ The separation of church and state does not mean that those motivated by their faith have no place in the public square . ” Contact the reporters on Twitter at https : //twitter.com/ReeseDunklin or https : //twitter.com/MikeRezendes .

FILE - In this Sunday, April 12, 2020 file photo, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, right, delivers his homily over mostly empty pews as he leads an Easter Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. Due to coronavirus concerns, no congregants were allowed to attend the Mass which was broadcast live on local TV. The Archdiocese of New York received 15 loans worth at least $28 million just for its top executive offices. St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was approved for at least $1 million. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig) FILE - In this Sunday, April 12, 2020 file photo, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, right, delivers his homily over mostly empty pews as he leads an Easter Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. Due to coronavirus concerns, no congregants were allowed to attend the Mass which was broadcast live on local TV. The Archdiocese of New York received 15 loans worth at least $28 million just for its top executive offices. St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was approved for at least $1 million. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig) NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups . The church’s haul may have reached -- or even exceeded -- $3.5 billion, making a global religious institution with more than a billion followers among the biggest winners in the U.S. government’s pandemic relief efforts , an Associated Press analysis of federal data released this week found. Houses of worship and faith-based organizations that promote religious beliefs aren’t usually eligible for money from the U.S. Small Business Administration. But as the economy plummeted and jobless rates soared, Congress let faith groups and other nonprofits tap into the Paycheck Protection Program , a $659 billion fund created to keep Main Street open and Americans employed. By aggressively promoting the payroll program and marshaling resources to help affiliates navigate its shifting rules, Catholic dioceses, parishes, schools and other ministries have so far received approval for at least 3,500 forgivable loans, AP found. The Archdiocese of New York, for example, received 15 loans worth at least $28 million just for its top executive offices. Its iconic St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue was approved for at least $1 million. In Orange County, California, where a sparkling glass cathedral estimated to cost over $70 million recently opened, diocesan officials working at the complex received four loans worth at least $3 million. And elsewhere, a loan of at least $2 million went to the diocese covering Wheeling-Charleston, West Virginia, where a church investigation revealed last year that then-Bishop Michael Bransfield embezzled funds and made sexual advances toward young priests. Simply being eligible for low-interest loans was a new opportunity. But the church couldn’t have been approved for so many loans -- which the government will forgive if they are used for wages, rent and utilities -- without a second break. Religious groups persuaded the Trump administration to free them from a rule that typically disqualifies an applicant with more than 500 workers. Without this preferential treatment, many Catholic dioceses would have been ineligible because -- between their head offices, parishes and other affiliates -- their employees exceed the 500-person cap. ADVERTISEMENT “The government grants special dispensation, and that creates a kind of structural favoritism,” said Micah Schwartzman, a University of Virginia law professor specializing in constitutional issues and religion who has studied the Paycheck Protection Program. “And that favoritism was worth billions of dollars.” The amount that the church collected, between $1.4 billion and $3.5 billion, is an undercount. The Diocesan Fiscal Management Conference, an organization of Catholic financial officers, surveyed members and reported that about 9,000 Catholic entities received loans. That is nearly three times the number of Catholic recipients the AP could identify. The AP couldn’t find more Catholic beneficiaries because the government’s data, released after pressure from Congress and a lawsuit from news outlets including the AP, didn’t name recipients of loans under $150,000 -- a category in which many smaller churches would fall. And because the government released only ranges of loan amounts, it wasn’t possible to be more precise. Even without a full accounting, AP’s analysis places the Catholic Church among the major beneficiaries in the Paycheck Protection Program, which also has helped companies backed by celebrities, billionaires, state governors and members of Congress. The program was open to all religious groups, and many took advantage. Evangelical advisers to President Donald Trump, including his White House spiritual czar, Paula White-Cain, also received loans . ___ ‘TRULY IN NEED’ There is no doubt that state shelter-in-place orders disrupted houses of worship and businesses alike. Masses were canceled, even during the Holy Week and Easter holidays, depriving parishes of expected revenue and contributing to layoffs in some dioceses. Some families of Catholic school students are struggling to make tuition payments. And the expense of disinfecting classrooms once classes resume will put additional pressure on budgets. But other problems were self-inflicted. Long before the pandemic, scores of dioceses faced increasing financial pressure because of a dramatic rise in recent clergy sex abuse claims. The scandals that erupted in 2018 reverberated throughout the world. Pope Francis ordered the former archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick , to a life of “prayer and penance” following allegations he abused minors and adult seminarians. And a damning grand jury report about abuse in six Pennsylvania dioceses revealed bishops had long covered for predator priests, spurring investigations in more than 20 other states. As the church again reckoned with its longtime crisis, abuse reports tripled during the year ending June 2019 to a total of nearly 4,500 nationally. Meanwhile, dioceses and religious orders shelled out $282 million that year — up from $106 million just five years earlier. Most of that went to settlements, in addition to legal fees and support for offending clergy. Loan recipients included about 40 dioceses that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years paying victims through compensation funds or bankruptcy proceedings. AP’s review found that these dioceses were approved for about $200 million, though the value is likely much higher. One was the New York Archdiocese. As a successful battle to lift the statute of limitations on the filing of child sexual abuse lawsuits gathered steam, Cardinal Timothy Dolan established a victim compensation fund in 2016. Since then, other dioceses have established similar funds, which offer victims relatively quick settlements while dissuading them from filing lawsuits. Spokesperson Joseph Zwilling said the archdiocese simply wanted to be “treated equally and fairly under the law.” When asked about the waiver from the 500-employee cap that religious organizations received, Zwilling deferred to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. A spokesperson for the bishops’ conference acknowledged its officials lobbied for the paycheck program, but said the organization wasn’t tracking what dioceses and Catholic agencies received. “These loans are an essential lifeline to help faith-based organizations to stay afloat and continue serving those in need during this crisis,” spokesperson Chieko Noguchi said in a written statement. According to AP’s data analysis, the church and all its organizations reported retaining at least 407,900 jobs with the money they were awarded. Noguchi also wrote the conference felt strongly that “the administration write and implement this emergency relief fairly for all applicants.” Not every Catholic institution sought government loans. The Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy based in Stamford, Connecticut, told AP that even though its parishes experienced a decline in donations, none of the organizations in its five-state territory submitted applications. Deacon Steve Wisnowski, a financial officer for the eparchy, said pastors and church managers used their rainy-day savings and that parishioners responded generously with donations. As a result, parishes “did not experience a severe financial crisis.” Wisnowski said his superiors understood the program was for “organizations and businesses truly in need of assistance.” ___ LOBBYING FOR A BREAK The law that created the Paycheck Protection Program let nonprofits participate, as long as they abided by SBA’s “affiliation rule.” The rule typically says that only businesses with fewer than 500 employees, including at all subsidiaries, are eligible. Lobbying by the church helped religious organizations get an exception. The Catholic News Service reported that the bishops’ conference and several major Catholic nonprofit agencies worked throughout the week of March 30 to ensure that the “unique nature of the entities would not make them ineligible for the program” because of how SBA defines a “small” business. Those conversations came just days after President Trump signed the $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, which included the Paycheck Protection Program. In addition, federal records show the Los Angeles archdiocese, whose leader heads the bishops’ conference, paid $20,000 to lobby the U.S. Senate and House on “eligibility for non-profits” under the CARES Act. The records also show that Catholic Charities USA, a social service arm of the church with member agencies in dioceses across the country, paid another $30,000 to lobby on the act and other issues. In late April, after thousands of Catholic institutions had secured loans, several hundred Catholic leaders pressed for additional help on a call with President Trump. During the call, Trump underscored the coming presidential election and touted himself as the candidate best aligned with religious conservatives, boasting he was the “best (president) the Catholic church has ever seen,” according to Crux, an online publication that covers church-related news. The lobbying paid off. Catholic Charities USA and its member agencies were approved for about 110 loans worth between $90 million and $220 million at least, according to the data. In a statement, Catholic Charities said: “Each organization is a separate legal entity under the auspices of the bishop in the diocese in which the agency is located. CCUSA supports agencies that choose to become members, but does not have any role in their daily operations or governance.” The Los Angeles archdiocese told AP in a survey that reporters sent before the release of federal data that 247 of its 288 parishes -- and all but one of its 232 schools -- received loans. The survey covered more than 180 dioceses and eparchies. Like most dioceses, Los Angeles wouldn’t disclose its total dollar amount. While the federal data doesn’t link Catholic recipients to their home dioceses, AP found 37 loans to the archdiocese and its affiliates worth between $9 million and $23 million, including one for its downtown cathedral. In 2007, the archdiocese paid a record $660 million to settle sex abuse claims from more than 500 victims. Spokespeople for Los Angeles Archbishop Jose M. Gomez did not respond to additional questions about the archdiocese’s finances and lobbying. In program materials, SBA officials said they provided the affiliation waiver to religious groups in deference to their unique organizational structure, and because the public health response to slow the coronavirus’ spread disrupted churches just as it did businesses. A senior official in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which worked with the SBA to administer the program, acknowledged in a statement the wider availability of loans to religious organizations. “The CARES Act expanded eligibility to include nonprofits in the PPP, and SBA’s regulations ensured that no eligible religious nonprofit was excluded from participation due to its beliefs or denomination,” the statement said. Meanwhile, some legal experts say that the special consideration the government gave faith groups in the loan program has further eroded the wall between church and state provided in the First Amendment. With that erosion, religious groups that don’t pay taxes have gained more access to public money, said Marci Hamilton, a University of Pennsylvania professor and attorney who has represented clergy abuse victims on constitutional issues during bankruptcy proceedings. “At this point, the argument is you’re anti-religious if in fact you would say the Catholic Church shouldn’t be getting government funding,” Hamilton said. ___ CASHING IN FAST After its lobbying blitz, the Catholic Church worked with parishes and schools to access the money. Many dioceses -- from large ones such as the Archdiocese of Boston to smaller ones such as the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin -- assembled how-to guides to help their affiliates apply. The national Catholic fiscal conference also hosted multiple webinars with legal and financial experts to help coach along local leaders. Federal data show that the bulk of the church’s money was approved during the loan program’s first two weeks. That’s when demand for the first-come, first-served assistance was so high that the initial $349 billion was quickly exhausted, shutting out many local businesses. Overall, nearly 500 loans approved to Catholic entities exceeded $1 million each. The AP found that at least eight hit the maximum range of $5 million to $10 million. Many of the listed recipients were the offices of bishops, headquarters of leading religious orders, major churches, schools and chapters of Catholic Charities. Also among recipients was the Saint Luke Institute. The Catholic treatment center for priests accused of sexual abuse and those suffering from other disorders received a loan ranging from $350,000 to $1 million. Based in Silver Spring, Maryland, the institute has at times been a way station for priests accused of sexual abuse who returned to active ministry only to abuse again. Perhaps nothing illustrates the church’s aggressive pursuit of funds better than four dioceses that sued the federal government to receive loans, even though they entered bankruptcy proceedings due to mounting clergy sex-abuse claims. Small Business Administration rules prohibit loans to applicants in bankruptcy. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico -- once home to a now-closed and notorious treatment center for predator priests -- prevailed in court, clearing the way for its administrative offices to receive nearly $1 million. It accused the SBA of overreaching by blocking bankruptcy applications when Congress didn’t spell that out. Yet even when a diocese has lost in bankruptcy court, or its case is pending, its affiliated parishes, schools and other organizations remain eligible for loans. On the U.S. territory of Guam, well over 200 clergy abuse lawsuits led church leaders in the tiny Archdiocese of Agana to seek bankruptcy protection, as they estimated at least $45 million in liabilities. Even so, the archdiocese’s parishes, schools and other organizations have received at least $1.7 million as it sues the SBA for approval to get a loan for its headquarters, according to bankruptcy filings. The U.S. church may have a troubling record on sex abuse, but Bishop Lawrence Persico of Erie, Pennsylvania, pushed back on the idea that dioceses should be excluded from the government’s rescue package. Approximately 80 organizations within his diocese received loans worth $10.3 million, the diocese said, with most of the money going to parishes and schools. Persico pointed out that church entities help feed, clothe and shelter the poor -- and in doing so keep people employed. “I know some people may react with surprise that government funding helped support faith-based schools, parishes and dioceses,” he said. “The separation of church and state does not mean that those motivated by their faith have no place in the public square.” ___ Data journalist Justin Myers contributed from Chicago. ___ Contact AP’s global investigative team at investigative@ap.org. ___ Contact the reporters on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ReeseDunklin or https://twitter.com/MikeRezendes .

www.apnews.com

center

pwBIHt7JrS4SzbKO

test

kKpMHkcRYhNVdGg7

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/06/journalists-struggle-to-define-fake-news-even-as-they-declare-war-on-it/

Journalists Struggle To Define ‘Fake News’ Even As They Declare War On It

2016-12-06

In the weeks following Donald Trump ’ s unexpected victory in last month ’ s election , liberal journalists have launched an all-out assault on “ fake news , ” which some have blamed for the disconnect between political journalists and everyday Americans . But many of those same journalists seem unable to agree on a consistent definition of what “ fake news ” is , oftentimes pushing leading conservative and alternative media organizations that provide ideological balance in the public forum under the same “ fake news ” umbrella alongside websites whose entire purpose is generating viral hoaxes . Left-leaning BuzzFeed News ’ coverage of “ fake news ” — which has been subject to accusations of misleading the public in service of a narrative — has focused on hoax websites run by teenagers in Macedonia pushing out lies like “ Pope Francis endorses Donald Trump. ” ( RELATED : CNN President Says Buzzfeed Not ‘ Legitimate ’ News Organization ) Other left-leaning news organizations , meanwhile , have lumped in legitimate news organizations alongside objectively fake sources . A list of “ fake news ” sites compiled by a liberal college professor — a list that was uncritically accepted and distributed by some liberal journalists — included top right-of-center sites like Independent Journal Review ( IJR ) and The Blaze alongside objectively fake sites . Left-leaning media organizations like the Los Angeles Times and New York magazine distributed the list to their readers . One website that the Washington Post labeled “ fake news ” — without providing a single piece of evidence — is threatening to sue the Post for defamation , after being included on a similar list . In an article last summer , liberal New York Magazine writer Brian Feldman tried to argue that “ conservative news ” and “ fake news ” are the same thing . ( RELATED : Journalist Tricked Into Spreading Hoax Trump-Inspired Attack ) That some liberal journalists are lumping in legitimate news organizations alongside objectively false sites while at the same time calling for censorship of fake news has lead to concerns that the crackdown on fake news sites — the actual influence of which remains unknown — will be used by liberals to censor their conservative competitors . ( RELATED : The Media Is Consolidating Power After A Disastrous Election ) Forbes contributor Frank Miniter argued that some liberals are using the “ fake news ” controversy to invite “ government control over First Amendment-protected speech or by asking Facebook and Twitter to become even bigger censors of certain views. ” ( RELATED : Former Facebook Insider : We Buried Conservative News ) In an interview with conservative site LifeZette , Media Research Center director of media analysis Tim Graham warned , “ The danger here is that when liberals try to define ‘ fake news , ’ it can be defined as ‘ fake angles , ’ as in ‘ things that should not be explored , ’ like paying for protesters. ” ( RELATED : Anti-Trump Protests Funded By Left-Wing Charity ) The sub-headline for that article read , “ Liberals take aim at right-leaning media outlets under the guise of taking down ‘ fake ’ news. ” ( RELATED : Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention ) After conservative website The Daily Wire was listed as “ fake news ” without justification , contributor John Nolte warned that the “ fake news ” label is being used by frustrated liberal journalists to censor conservative viewpoints . ( RELATED : NBC News Complains About Fake News And Then Posts The Misleading Headline ) “ The mainstream media put itself on the 2016 presidential ballot , lost , ” Nolte wrote , “ and now they want to silence competing ideas by smearing , marginalizing and , yes , blacklisting us as spreaders of Fake News . ”

In the weeks following Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in last month’s election, liberal journalists have launched an all-out assault on “fake news,” which some have blamed for the disconnect between political journalists and everyday Americans. But many of those same journalists seem unable to agree on a consistent definition of what “fake news” is, oftentimes pushing leading conservative and alternative media organizations that provide ideological balance in the public forum under the same “fake news” umbrella alongside websites whose entire purpose is generating viral hoaxes. Left-leaning BuzzFeed News’ coverage of “fake news” — which has been subject to accusations of misleading the public in service of a narrative — has focused on hoax websites run by teenagers in Macedonia pushing out lies like “Pope Francis endorses Donald Trump.” (RELATED: CNN President Says Buzzfeed Not ‘Legitimate’ News Organization) Other left-leaning news organizations, meanwhile, have lumped in legitimate news organizations alongside objectively fake sources. A list of “fake news” sites compiled by a liberal college professor — a list that was uncritically accepted and distributed by some liberal journalists — included top right-of-center sites like Independent Journal Review (IJR) and The Blaze alongside objectively fake sites. Left-leaning media organizations like the Los Angeles Times and New York magazine distributed the list to their readers. One website that the Washington Post labeled “fake news” — without providing a single piece of evidence — is threatening to sue the Post for defamation, after being included on a similar list. In an article last summer, liberal New York Magazine writer Brian Feldman tried to argue that “conservative news” and “fake news” are the same thing. (RELATED: Journalist Tricked Into Spreading Hoax Trump-Inspired Attack) That some liberal journalists are lumping in legitimate news organizations alongside objectively false sites while at the same time calling for censorship of fake news has lead to concerns that the crackdown on fake news sites — the actual influence of which remains unknown — will be used by liberals to censor their conservative competitors. (RELATED: The Media Is Consolidating Power After A Disastrous Election) Forbes contributor Frank Miniter argued that some liberals are using the “fake news” controversy to invite “government control over First Amendment-protected speech or by asking Facebook and Twitter to become even bigger censors of certain views.” (RELATED: Former Facebook Insider: We Buried Conservative News) In an interview with conservative site LifeZette, Media Research Center director of media analysis Tim Graham warned, “The danger here is that when liberals try to define ‘fake news,’ it can be defined as ‘fake angles,’ as in ‘things that should not be explored,’ like paying for protesters.” (RELATED: Anti-Trump Protests Funded By Left-Wing Charity) The sub-headline for that article read, “Liberals take aim at right-leaning media outlets under the guise of taking down ‘fake’ news.” (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention) After conservative website The Daily Wire was listed as “fake news” without justification, contributor John Nolte warned that the “fake news” label is being used by frustrated liberal journalists to censor conservative viewpoints. (RELATED: NBC News Complains About Fake News And Then Posts The Misleading Headline) “The mainstream media put itself on the 2016 presidential ballot, lost,” Nolte wrote, “and now they want to silence competing ideas by smearing, marginalizing and, yes, blacklisting us as spreaders of Fake News.” Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

www.dailycaller.com

right

kKpMHkcRYhNVdGg7

test

O4oEezlauFtHdzrO

federal_budget

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/caeb6d6c4eff45e4bc5da12db06004bc

US deficit hits nearly $1 trillion. When will it matter?

2019-10-25

Martin Crutsinger

This Sept. 18 , 2019 , photo shows the view of the U.S. Capitol building from the Washington Monument in Washington . The federal deficit for the 2019 budget year is expected to have soared to near $ 1 trillion , up more than $ 200 billion from last year and the largest such gap in seven years . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) This Sept. 18 , 2019 , photo shows the view of the U.S. Capitol building from the Washington Monument in Washington . The federal deficit for the 2019 budget year is expected to have soared to near $ 1 trillion , up more than $ 200 billion from last year and the largest such gap in seven years . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Trump administration reported a river of red ink Friday . The federal deficit for the 2019 budget year surged 26 % from 2018 to $ 984.4 billion — its highest point in seven years . The gap is widely expected to top $ 1 trillion in the current budget year and likely remain there for the next decade . The year-over-year widening in the deficit reflected such factors as revenue lost from the 2017 Trump tax cut and a budget deal that added billions in spending for military and domestic programs . Forecasts by the Trump administration and the Congressional Budget Office project that the deficit will top $ 1 trillion in the 2020 budget year , which began Oct. 1 . And the CBO estimates that the deficit will stay above $ 1 trillion over the next decade . Those projections stand in contrast to President Donald Trump ’ s campaign promises that even with revenue lost initially from his tax cuts , he could eliminate the budget deficit with cuts in spending and increased growth generated by the tax cuts . Here are some questions and answers about the current state of the government ’ s finances . The deficit has been rising every year for the past four years . It ’ s a stretch of widening deficits not seen since the early 1980s , when the deficit exploded with President Ronald Reagan ’ s big tax cut . For 2019 , revenues grew 4 % . But spending jumped at twice that rate , reflecting a deal that Trump reached with Congress in early 2018 to boost spending . Fiscal hawks have long warned of the economic dangers of running big government deficits . Yet the apocalypse they fear never seems to happen , and the government just keeps on spending . There have been numerous attempts by presidents after Reagan to control spending . President George H.W . Bush actually agreed to a tax increase to control deficits when he was in office , breaking his “ Read my lips ” pledge not to raise taxes . And a standoff between President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich did produce a rare string of four years of budget surpluses from 1998 through 2001 . In fact , the budget picture was so bright when George W. Bush took office in 2001 that the Congressional Budget Office projected that the government would run surpluses of $ 5.6 trillion over the next decade . That didn ’ t happen . The economy slid into a mild recession , Bush pushed through a big tax cut and the war on terrorism sent military spending surging . Then the 2008 financial crisis erupted and triggered a devastating recession . The downturn produced the economy ’ s first round of trillion-dollar deficits under President Barack Obama and is expected to do so again under Trump . As far as most of us can tell , the huge deficits don ’ t seem to threaten the economy or elevate the interest rates we pay on credit cards , mortgages and car loans . And in fact , the huge deficits are coinciding with a period of ultra-low rates rather than the surging borrowing costs that economists had warned would likely occur if government deficits got this high . There is even a new school of economic theory known as the “ modern monetary theory. ” It argues that such major economies as the United States and Japan don ’ t need to worry about running deficits because their central banks can print as much money as they need . Yet this remains a distinctly minority view among economists . Most still believe that while the huge deficits are not an immediate threat , at some point they will become a big problem . They will crowd out borrowing by consumers and businesses and elevate interest rates to levels that ignite a recession . What ’ s more , the interest payments on the deficits become part of a mounting government debt that must be repaid and could depress economic growth in coming years . In fact , even with low rates this year , the government ’ s interest payments on the debt were one of the fastest growing items in the budget , rising nearly 16 % to $ 375.6 billion . Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell says the day of reckoning is still coming but isn ’ t here yet . Most analysts think any real solution will involve a combination of higher taxes and cost savings in the government ’ s huge benefit programs of Social Security and Medicare . ANY SIGN THAT WASHINGTON MAY TAKE THE POLITICALLY PAINFUL STEPS TO CUT THE DEFICIT ? In short , no . There has been a major change since the first round of trillion-dollar deficits prompted the Tea Party revolt . This shift brought Republicans back into power in the House and incited a round of fighting between GOP congressional leaders and the Obama administration . A result was government shutdowns and near-defaults on the national debt . But once Trump took office , things changed : The president focused on his biggest legislative achievement , the $ 1.5 trillion tax cut passed in 2017 . This appeared to satisfy Republican lawmakers and quelled concerns about rising deficits . Democratic presidential candidates have for the most part pledged to roll back Trump ’ s tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals . But they would use the money not to lower the deficits but for increased spending on expensive programs such as Medicare for All . It doesn ’ t seem likely , though former Rep. Mark Sanford , who has mounted a long-shot Republican campaign against Trump , is urging Republican voters to return to their historic concerns about the high deficits . And economists note that today ’ s huge deficits are occurring when the economy is in a record-long economic expansion . This is unlike the previous stretch of trillion-dollar deficits , which coincided with the worst recession since the 1930s . But analysts warn that if the economy does go into a recession , the huge deficits projected now will expand significantly — possibly to a size that would send interest rates surging . Such a development , if it sparked worries about the stability of the U.S. financial system , might produce the type of deficit crisis they have been warning about for so long .

This Sept. 18, 2019, photo shows the view of the U.S. Capitol building from the Washington Monument in Washington. The federal deficit for the 2019 budget year is expected to have soared to near $1 trillion, up more than $200 billion from last year and the largest such gap in seven years. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) This Sept. 18, 2019, photo shows the view of the U.S. Capitol building from the Washington Monument in Washington. The federal deficit for the 2019 budget year is expected to have soared to near $1 trillion, up more than $200 billion from last year and the largest such gap in seven years. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration reported a river of red ink Friday. The federal deficit for the 2019 budget year surged 26% from 2018 to $984.4 billion — its highest point in seven years. The gap is widely expected to top $1 trillion in the current budget year and likely remain there for the next decade. The year-over-year widening in the deficit reflected such factors as revenue lost from the 2017 Trump tax cut and a budget deal that added billions in spending for military and domestic programs. Forecasts by the Trump administration and the Congressional Budget Office project that the deficit will top $1 trillion in the 2020 budget year, which began Oct. 1. And the CBO estimates that the deficit will stay above $1 trillion over the next decade. Those projections stand in contrast to President Donald Trump’s campaign promises that even with revenue lost initially from his tax cuts, he could eliminate the budget deficit with cuts in spending and increased growth generated by the tax cuts. Here are some questions and answers about the current state of the government’s finances. ___ WHAT HAPPENED? The deficit has been rising every year for the past four years. It’s a stretch of widening deficits not seen since the early 1980s, when the deficit exploded with President Ronald Reagan’s big tax cut. For 2019, revenues grew 4%. But spending jumped at twice that rate, reflecting a deal that Trump reached with Congress in early 2018 to boost spending. ___ WHY DOESN’T WASHINGTON DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? Fiscal hawks have long warned of the economic dangers of running big government deficits. Yet the apocalypse they fear never seems to happen, and the government just keeps on spending. There have been numerous attempts by presidents after Reagan to control spending. President George H.W. Bush actually agreed to a tax increase to control deficits when he was in office, breaking his “Read my lips” pledge not to raise taxes. And a standoff between President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich did produce a rare string of four years of budget surpluses from 1998 through 2001. In fact, the budget picture was so bright when George W. Bush took office in 2001 that the Congressional Budget Office projected that the government would run surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. That didn’t happen. The economy slid into a mild recession, Bush pushed through a big tax cut and the war on terrorism sent military spending surging. Then the 2008 financial crisis erupted and triggered a devastating recession. The downturn produced the economy’s first round of trillion-dollar deficits under President Barack Obama and is expected to do so again under Trump. ___ SHOULD WE WORRY? As far as most of us can tell, the huge deficits don’t seem to threaten the economy or elevate the interest rates we pay on credit cards, mortgages and car loans. And in fact, the huge deficits are coinciding with a period of ultra-low rates rather than the surging borrowing costs that economists had warned would likely occur if government deficits got this high. There is even a new school of economic theory known as the “modern monetary theory.” It argues that such major economies as the United States and Japan don’t need to worry about running deficits because their central banks can print as much money as they need. Yet this remains a distinctly minority view among economists. Most still believe that while the huge deficits are not an immediate threat, at some point they will become a big problem. They will crowd out borrowing by consumers and businesses and elevate interest rates to levels that ignite a recession. What’s more, the interest payments on the deficits become part of a mounting government debt that must be repaid and could depress economic growth in coming years. In fact, even with low rates this year, the government’s interest payments on the debt were one of the fastest growing items in the budget, rising nearly 16% to $375.6 billion. ___ HAVEN’T ECONOMISTS BEEN MAKING THESE WARNING FOR DECADES? Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell says the day of reckoning is still coming but isn’t here yet. Most analysts think any real solution will involve a combination of higher taxes and cost savings in the government’s huge benefit programs of Social Security and Medicare. ___ ANY SIGN THAT WASHINGTON MAY TAKE THE POLITICALLY PAINFUL STEPS TO CUT THE DEFICIT? In short, no. There has been a major change since the first round of trillion-dollar deficits prompted the Tea Party revolt. This shift brought Republicans back into power in the House and incited a round of fighting between GOP congressional leaders and the Obama administration. A result was government shutdowns and near-defaults on the national debt. But once Trump took office, things changed: The president focused on his biggest legislative achievement, the $1.5 trillion tax cut passed in 2017. This appeared to satisfy Republican lawmakers and quelled concerns about rising deficits. Democratic presidential candidates have for the most part pledged to roll back Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals. But they would use the money not to lower the deficits but for increased spending on expensive programs such as Medicare for All. ___ SO THE DEFICITS WON’T ANIMATE THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN? It doesn’t seem likely, though former Rep. Mark Sanford, who has mounted a long-shot Republican campaign against Trump, is urging Republican voters to return to their historic concerns about the high deficits. And economists note that today’s huge deficits are occurring when the economy is in a record-long economic expansion. This is unlike the previous stretch of trillion-dollar deficits, which coincided with the worst recession since the 1930s. But analysts warn that if the economy does go into a recession, the huge deficits projected now will expand significantly — possibly to a size that would send interest rates surging. Such a development, if it sparked worries about the stability of the U.S. financial system, might produce the type of deficit crisis they have been warning about for so long.

www.apnews.com

center

O4oEezlauFtHdzrO

test

oymZt4UyhuXqrVFW

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/27/trump-2018-lowlights-kavanaugh-government-shutdown

From Kavanaugh to the government shutdown – Trump's 2018 lowlights

2018-12-27

Tom Mccarthy

Part two : Trump praises Putin in Helsinki , Manafort is convicted , Cohen pleads guilty , Democrats win House of Representatives , Sessions and Mattis out , and more … Donald Trump nominates circuit court judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy . The pick is opposed by Democrats but hailed in conservative circles as a centrist choice . Nooruddean ( @ BeardedGenius ) HOW IS HE STRUGGLING TO WALK THE BIG FUCKING WEIRDO pic.twitter.com/dUpemhRpk4 Trump meets the Russian president in Helsinki and publicly declares Russia innocent of election tampering : “ I have great confidence in my intelligence people , but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today . ” Only 364 of the more than 2,500 children separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border had been reunited , days before a reunification deadline , officials disclosed in court documents . Trump denies a Cohen allegation that he , Trump , knew in advance about and approved a June 2016 meeting between top Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives at Trump Tower . Trump tweets that the special counsel has created “ a terrible situation ” and “ attorney general Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now , before it continues to stain our country any further . Bob Mueller is totally conflicted ... ” Trump tweets that he will postpone his military parade , accusing “ the local politicians who run Washington DC ( poorly ) ” of inflating expenses . From ‘ shithole countries ’ to ‘ a private agreement ’ – Trump ’ s 2018 lowlights Read more Manafort is found guilty on eight fraud charges in a resounding victory for special counsel Robert Mueller and his team in the first trial arising from their investigation . On the same day as the Manafort conviction , Cohen pleads guilty to eight federal crimes and says Trump had directed him to make two hush money payments to women in violation of campaign finance laws . The journalist Bob Woodward publishes an exposé claiming that the military and Trump ’ s staff ignore presidential orders , that the defense secretary called Trump a “ fifth- or sixth-grader ” and the chief of staff called Trump an “ unhinged ” “ idiot ” . Trump calls the book “ lies ” . Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort agrees to cooperate with federal prosecutors , in a deal that will later fall apart when Manafort , prosecutors allege , continues to lie to them . Dr Christine Blasey Ford tells the Senate judiciary committee that Trump ’ s pick for supreme court justice , Brett Kavanaugh , assaulted her . Asked if she was sure her attacker was Kavanaugh , she replied : “ 100 % . ” Kavanaugh denies the allegations , and his confirmation to the supreme court goes ahead . Trump deems as “ credible ” a Saudi explanation that journalist Jamal Khashoggi , who had disappeared inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul , died in a fistfight . Later Trump blames “ rogue killers ” and denies a US intelligence conclusion that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was directly involved in the killing . At a Mississippi rally , Trump mocks Christine Blasey Ford , delivering a crude imitation of Ford from her testimony , in which she vividly described a violent sexual assault she alleged Brett Kavanaugh committed against her in the early 1980s . At a rally , Trump blames media “ hostility ” after a wave of pipe bombs were sent to senior Democrats , prominent critics and the broadcaster CNN . After 11 worshippers are killed at a synagogue in Pittsburgh , experts warn that Trump had “ dramatically elevated the level of rhetorical tension in ways that do not discourage people from acting out their terrifying views ” . Despite the demonstrable dangers associated with his inflammatory rhetoric , Trump resumes calling the media the “ enemy of the people ” and blames “ the Fake News Media ” for the “ great anger in our Country ” . Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate , and even fraudulent , reporting of the news . The Fake News Media , the true Enemy of the People , must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly . That will do much to put out the flame ... Days before the midterm elections , Trump deploys more than 5,200 troops to the border with Mexico in what a rights organization described as an abuse of the military and what Senator Claire McCaskill later called “ made-for-TV bullshit ” . Democrats win at least 39 seats in the House of Representatives , seizing control of the body ; flip multiple state legislatures ; swipe governorships ; and avoid losses in the Senate in an election that saw historic voter turnout . “ Tremendous success tonight , ” Trump tweeted . “ Thank you all ! ” In a news conference after the election , Trump threatens a “ warlike ” response if Democrats investigate him and yelled down multiple journalists . The White House suspends CNN ’ s Jim Acosta ’ s credentials , but is later forced to reinstate them . A day after the election , Trump fires the attorney general , Jeff Sessions , and installs Matt Whitaker , who had come to Trump ’ s attention through fawning appearances on cable television , as acting attorney general . Trump challenges multiple election results on Twitter , including in Arizona – “ Electoral corruption – Call for a new Election ? ” ; in Florida – “ An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected ” ; and in Georgia – “ It is time to move on ! ” Trump submits written replies to the special counsel ’ s office , in a move that is followed in short order by a flood of new moves in the special counsel investigation . Cohen pleads guilty to a new set of charges including lying to Congress about Trump Organization plans to build a tower in Moscow . Those plans were still active in the summer of 2016 , after Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination , Cohen revealed . Trump travels to Paris to mark the centenary of the end of first world war but he skips a ceremony at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial near Paris “ due to scheduling and logistical difficulties caused by the weather ” . The next day he misses a procession of world leaders to mark the occasion . Trump defends the use of teargas against migrants , including many young children , at the southern border after some migrants attempted to cross the border . “ They had to be used because they were being rushed by some very tough people , ” Trump said . Trump blames poor “ forest management ” in his first comments on the deadliest wildfires in California history . Local elected officials and agencies fighting the fires call the comment “ inane ” , “ uninformed ” and “ dangerously wrong ” . Prosecutors and lawyers for Paul Manafort announce that an agreement between the sides has crumbled . Prosecutors accuse Manafort of continued lying which he denies . In a heavily redacted court filing , Mueller shields the details of former national security adviser Michael Flynn ’ s cooperation because they include “ sensitive information about ongoing investigations ” . He recommends no prison time for Flynn . Federal prosecutors in New York say Trump directed Cohen to make hush payments that resulted in felony campaign finance convictions for Cohen . Trump denies any criminality . A federal judge sentences Michael Cohen to three years in prison and three years of supervised release for campaign finance violations , bank fraud , tax evasion and lying to Congress . Cohen says Trump directed him to violate campaign finance laws . Prosecutors in New York are investigating donations to Trump ’ s inaugural committee , which totaled $ 107m , and investigating how that money was spent , the Wall Street Journal is first to report . Without warning or much of an explanation , Trump announces the withdrawal of the US military and state department employees from Syria , asserting on Twitter that “ we have defeated ISIS ” . Two days later Trump announces US forces in Afghanistan will be halved . The defense secretary , Jim Mattis , resigns in protest . Goaded by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter , Trump makes a last-minute declaration he won ’ t sign Republican legislation to keep the government open and demands $ 5bn for a border wall . The lame-duck House Republican majority passes a bill that dies in the Senate . Trump blames Democrats for the shutdown .

Part two: Trump praises Putin in Helsinki, Manafort is convicted, Cohen pleads guilty, Democrats win House of Representatives, Sessions and Mattis out, and more … July Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh for supreme court justice Donald Trump nominates circuit court judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy. The pick is opposed by Democrats but hailed in conservative circles as a centrist choice. Confuses Queen Elizabeth II Nooruddean (@BeardedGenius) HOW IS HE STRUGGLING TO WALK THE BIG FUCKING WEIRDO pic.twitter.com/dUpemhRpk4 Putin’s friend in Helsinki Trump meets the Russian president in Helsinki and publicly declares Russia innocent of election tampering: “I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.” Child reunification deadline passes Only 364 of the more than 2,500 children separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border had been reunited, days before a reunification deadline, officials disclosed in court documents. Denies knowledge of Trump Tower meeting Trump denies a Cohen allegation that he, Trump, knew in advance about and approved a June 2016 meeting between top Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives at Trump Tower. August Tells Sessions to stop Mueller Trump tweets that the special counsel has created “a terrible situation” and “attorney general Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted...” Cancels military parade plan Trump tweets that he will postpone his military parade, accusing “the local politicians who run Washington DC (poorly)” of inflating expenses. From ‘shithole countries’ to ‘a private agreement’ – Trump’s 2018 lowlights Read more Manafort convicted Manafort is found guilty on eight fraud charges in a resounding victory for special counsel Robert Mueller and his team in the first trial arising from their investigation. Cohen pleads guilty On the same day as the Manafort conviction, Cohen pleads guilty to eight federal crimes and says Trump had directed him to make two hush money payments to women in violation of campaign finance laws. September Woodward book Fear The journalist Bob Woodward publishes an exposé claiming that the military and Trump’s staff ignore presidential orders, that the defense secretary called Trump a “fifth- or sixth-grader” and the chief of staff called Trump an “unhinged” “idiot”. Trump calls the book “lies”. Manafort plea deal Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort agrees to cooperate with federal prosecutors, in a deal that will later fall apart when Manafort, prosecutors allege, continues to lie to them. Ford testifies Dr Christine Blasey Ford tells the Senate judiciary committee that Trump’s pick for supreme court justice, Brett Kavanaugh, assaulted her. Asked if she was sure her attacker was Kavanaugh, she replied: “100%.” Kavanaugh denies the allegations, and his confirmation to the supreme court goes ahead. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in before testifying the Senate judiciary committee on Capitol Hill on 27 September. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images October Khashoggi cover-up Trump deems as “credible” a Saudi explanation that journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who had disappeared inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, died in a fistfight. Later Trump blames “rogue killers” and denies a US intelligence conclusion that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was directly involved in the killing. Mocks Ford At a Mississippi rally, Trump mocks Christine Blasey Ford, delivering a crude imitation of Ford from her testimony, in which she vividly described a violent sexual assault she alleged Brett Kavanaugh committed against her in the early 1980s. Attacks media after bombings At a rally, Trump blames media “hostility” after a wave of pipe bombs were sent to senior Democrats, prominent critics and the broadcaster CNN. Pittsburgh synagogue shooting After 11 worshippers are killed at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, experts warn that Trump had “dramatically elevated the level of rhetorical tension in ways that do not discourage people from acting out their terrifying views”. ‘Enemy of the people’ Despite the demonstrable dangers associated with his inflammatory rhetoric, Trump resumes calling the media the “enemy of the people” and blames “the Fake News Media” for the “great anger in our Country”. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent, reporting of the news. The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly. That will do much to put out the flame... Deploys troops to border Days before the midterm elections, Trump deploys more than 5,200 troops to the border with Mexico in what a rights organization described as an abuse of the military and what Senator Claire McCaskill later called “made-for-TV bullshit”. November Blue wave sweeps midterms Democrats win at least 39 seats in the House of Representatives, seizing control of the body; flip multiple state legislatures; swipe governorships; and avoid losses in the Senate in an election that saw historic voter turnout. “Tremendous success tonight,” Trump tweeted. “Thank you all!” Hostile press conference In a news conference after the election, Trump threatens a “warlike” response if Democrats investigate him and yelled down multiple journalists. The White House suspends CNN’s Jim Acosta’s credentials, but is later forced to reinstate them. Trades in Sessions for Whitaker A day after the election, Trump fires the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and installs Matt Whitaker, who had come to Trump’s attention through fawning appearances on cable television, as acting attorney general. Calls for ‘new election’ Trump challenges multiple election results on Twitter, including in Arizona – “Electoral corruption – Call for a new Election?”; in Florida – “An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected”; and in Georgia – “It is time to move on!” Submits answers to Mueller Trump submits written replies to the special counsel’s office, in a move that is followed in short order by a flood of new moves in the special counsel investigation. New Cohen guilty plea Cohen pleads guilty to a new set of charges including lying to Congress about Trump Organization plans to build a tower in Moscow. Those plans were still active in the summer of 2016, after Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination, Cohen revealed. Skips first world war events Trump travels to Paris to mark the centenary of the end of first world war but he skips a ceremony at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial near Paris “due to scheduling and logistical difficulties caused by the weather”. The next day he misses a procession of world leaders to mark the occasion. Teargas attack on migrants Trump defends the use of teargas against migrants, including many young children, at the southern border after some migrants attempted to cross the border. “They had to be used because they were being rushed by some very tough people,” Trump said. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A migrant family, part of a caravan from Central America, run away from teargas in front of the US-Mexico border wall in Tijuana on 25 November. Photograph: Kim Kyung Hoon/Reuters ‘Dangerously wrong’ on California fires Trump blames poor “forest management” in his first comments on the deadliest wildfires in California history. Local elected officials and agencies fighting the fires call the comment “inane”, “uninformed” and “dangerously wrong”. Manafort plea deal crumbles Prosecutors and lawyers for Paul Manafort announce that an agreement between the sides has crumbled. Prosecutors accuse Manafort of continued lying which he denies. December Mueller describes Flynn cooperation In a heavily redacted court filing, Mueller shields the details of former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s cooperation because they include “sensitive information about ongoing investigations”. He recommends no prison time for Flynn. Trump ‘directed’ Cohen – prosecutors Federal prosecutors in New York say Trump directed Cohen to make hush payments that resulted in felony campaign finance convictions for Cohen. Trump denies any criminality. Cohen sentenced to three years A federal judge sentences Michael Cohen to three years in prison and three years of supervised release for campaign finance violations, bank fraud, tax evasion and lying to Congress. Cohen says Trump directed him to violate campaign finance laws. Inaugural committee under investigation Prosecutors in New York are investigating donations to Trump’s inaugural committee, which totaled $107m, and investigating how that money was spent, the Wall Street Journal is first to report. Precipitous troop drawdowns, Mattis resignation Without warning or much of an explanation, Trump announces the withdrawal of the US military and state department employees from Syria, asserting on Twitter that “we have defeated ISIS”. Two days later Trump announces US forces in Afghanistan will be halved. The defense secretary, Jim Mattis, resigns in protest. Government shutdown Goaded by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Trump makes a last-minute declaration he won’t sign Republican legislation to keep the government open and demands $5bn for a border wall. The lame-duck House Republican majority passes a bill that dies in the Senate. Trump blames Democrats for the shutdown.

www.theguardian.com

left

oymZt4UyhuXqrVFW

test

jXfgzJDqplvbimZ5

education

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/october/anti-religion-group-says-public-school-mentoring-program-by-christians-unconstitutional

Anti-Religion Group Says Public School Mentoring Program By Christians Unconstitutional

2019-10-16

Officials from the Kingsport , Tennessee City Schools are reviewing the charge by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation ( FFRF ) that their mentoring program in partnership with a local church is `` unconstitutional . '' The FFRF , which describes its members as `` free-thinkers ( atheists and agnostics ) '' , alleges in a letter to the school district that its mentoring program with Christ Fellowship Church `` impermissibly advances religion '' and that the district `` can not allow its schools to be used as recruiting grounds for churches . '' As evidence that this is happening , FFRF cites the church 's Facebook page where it tries to recruit volunteers for the mentoring program and where current mentors describe their work as a type of `` missionary work '' and `` an opportunity to share Jesus 's love . '' `` They 're saying this is a proselytizing situation . This is not , '' Assistant Superintendent for Administration Andy True told the Kingsport Times-News . `` It 's not anything where religion is being brought into the school . '' The `` free thinker '' group does not cite a specific incident in the warning letter where a mentor has tried to proselytize a student . It does complain , however , that the program uses church people at all , saying ominously that it `` allows church personnel to come into the school during the school day to interact with students . '' `` Religious organizations should never be allowed access to such young public school children , '' FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said , according to the newspaper . Joe Gervais is a mentor from Christ Fellowship Church at Kingsport 's John Adams Elementary School . According to the Times-News , Gervais told a School Board meeting that mentors spend 45 minutes to an hour each week with assigned students , often eating breakfast or lunch with them , as well as playing games or reading to them . Gervais said he asks his student , whom he says does not have a father at home and who reminds him of his grandson , how his day and week have gone , about problems he might be having , about life in general and about what 's going on at home . School superintendent Jeff Moorhouse said churches as well as other groups participate in the mentoring program and described it as `` just having more hands grabbing an oar '' to help students in school and in life . According to Adams Elementary school counselor Ashley Marlowe , fifteen students were mentored under the program at Adams last year and just eight this year due to a shortage of volunteers . This is not the first time the Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken issue with some of the practices and traditions of communities , particularly in the Bible Belt , far from their Wisconsin base . Recently , the group complained that the governor of Oklahoma was mingling religion and state because of a speaking engagement he had at his own church . It also objected on so-called constitutional grounds to prayer before various football games and to the baptizing of football players in a tub on the school playing field after hours , to name just a few . But their stance is not surprising when the group states clearly its disdain for religious belief on its website , claiming – many would say erroneously – that `` most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion . '' The argument raises a defining question : if FFRF 's version of history and the Constitution is accurate , can Christians , acting from faith , ever be allowed to help with `` social and moral progress '' in their communities without leaving their religiously-motivated conviction to `` love their neighbors '' outside the door ? More narrowly , can a public school mentoring program keep going even though it 's staffed by Christian volunteers ?

Officials from the Kingsport, Tennessee City Schools are reviewing the charge by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that their mentoring program in partnership with a local church is "unconstitutional." The FFRF, which describes its members as "free-thinkers (atheists and agnostics)", alleges in a letter to the school district that its mentoring program with Christ Fellowship Church "impermissibly advances religion" and that the district "cannot allow its schools to be used as recruiting grounds for churches." As evidence that this is happening, FFRF cites the church's Facebook page where it tries to recruit volunteers for the mentoring program and where current mentors describe their work as a type of "missionary work" and "an opportunity to share Jesus's love." "They're saying this is a proselytizing situation. This is not," Assistant Superintendent for Administration Andy True told the Kingsport Times-News. "It's not anything where religion is being brought into the school." The "free thinker" group does not cite a specific incident in the warning letter where a mentor has tried to proselytize a student. It does complain, however, that the program uses church people at all, saying ominously that it "allows church personnel to come into the school during the school day to interact with students." "Religious organizations should never be allowed access to such young public school children," FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said, according to the newspaper. Joe Gervais is a mentor from Christ Fellowship Church at Kingsport's John Adams Elementary School. According to the Times-News, Gervais told a School Board meeting that mentors spend 45 minutes to an hour each week with assigned students, often eating breakfast or lunch with them, as well as playing games or reading to them. Gervais said he asks his student, whom he says does not have a father at home and who reminds him of his grandson, how his day and week have gone, about problems he might be having, about life in general and about what's going on at home. School superintendent Jeff Moorhouse said churches as well as other groups participate in the mentoring program and described it as "just having more hands grabbing an oar" to help students in school and in life. According to Adams Elementary school counselor Ashley Marlowe, fifteen students were mentored under the program at Adams last year and just eight this year due to a shortage of volunteers. This is not the first time the Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken issue with some of the practices and traditions of communities, particularly in the Bible Belt, far from their Wisconsin base. Recently, the group complained that the governor of Oklahoma was mingling religion and state because of a speaking engagement he had at his own church. It also objected on so-called constitutional grounds to prayer before various football games and to the baptizing of football players in a tub on the school playing field after hours, to name just a few. But their stance is not surprising when the group states clearly its disdain for religious belief on its website, claiming – many would say erroneously – that "most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion." The argument raises a defining question: if FFRF's version of history and the Constitution is accurate, can Christians, acting from faith, ever be allowed to help with "social and moral progress" in their communities without leaving their religiously-motivated conviction to "love their neighbors" outside the door? More narrowly, can a public school mentoring program keep going even though it's staffed by Christian volunteers?

www1.cbn.com

right

jXfgzJDqplvbimZ5

test

4YGKWconCsWwzxJn

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/29/again-anthony-weiner-deletes-twitter-after-embarrassing-clinton-campaign-with-more-racy-photos/

Again?! Anthony Weiner Deletes Twitter After Embarrassing Clinton Campaign With More Racy Photos

2016-08-29

Charlie Spiering

Former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner deleted his Twitter account this morning , after his racy online behavior was again splashed on the front pages of the New York tabloids . This time Weiner was caught sending racy pictures to a woman while his son was in bed with him — a new low for the man married to Hillary Clinton ’ s top aide , Huma Abedin . EXCLUSIVE : Anthony Weiner sexted a busty brunette while his son was in bed with him https : //t.co/amX1TJIFn7 pic.twitter.com/qlJ8O22UvO — New York Post ( @ nypost ) August 29 , 2016 EXCLUSIVE : Anthony Weiner sexted a busty brunette while his son was in bed with him https : //t.co/f2C7tn1yoy pic.twitter.com/JNmerTREKD — New York Post ( @ nypost ) August 29 , 2016 Weiner ’ s account was active early this morning before disappearing altogether , suggesting that there is an organized effort to stem the damage . One of his last tweets featured Weiner joking that his behavior on Twitter caused the company to release a “ quality filter ” to filter out bad tweets . Abedin , the focus of a recent Vanity Fair profile , can ’ t shake the ongoing scandalous behavior of her husband , despite several attempts to reboot her image . She cited her Muslim faith giving her strength to move on , despite repeated embarrassing scandals . “ I tried to block out all the noise and move on with my life , ” Abedin said citing her faith and a “ a really supportive group of friends and colleagues . ” Weiner initially lied to Abedin after the photo was posted , claiming that he was hacked , before coming clean about his behavior . During his failed New York City mayoral run , Abedin again stood by Weiner in 2013 , as he admitted that his racy online behavior with other women continued . “ I love him . I have forgiven him . I believe in him . And , as we have said from the beginning , we are moving forward , ” Abedin said at the time . She also cited “ therapy ” for helping the couple stay together , and the future of their son . “ Our marriage like many others has had its ups and its downs , ” she said . “ It took a lot of work , and a whole lot of therapy , to get to a place where I could forgive Anthony . ” The Clinton campaign has been silent in response to the new photos .

Former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner deleted his Twitter account this morning, after his racy online behavior was again splashed on the front pages of the New York tabloids. This time Weiner was caught sending racy pictures to a woman while his son was in bed with him — a new low for the man married to Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin. EXCLUSIVE: Anthony Weiner sexted a busty brunette while his son was in bed with him https://t.co/amX1TJIFn7 pic.twitter.com/qlJ8O22UvO — New York Post (@nypost) August 29, 2016 EXCLUSIVE: Anthony Weiner sexted a busty brunette while his son was in bed with him https://t.co/f2C7tn1yoy pic.twitter.com/JNmerTREKD — New York Post (@nypost) August 29, 2016 Weiner’s account was active early this morning before disappearing altogether, suggesting that there is an organized effort to stem the damage. One of his last tweets featured Weiner joking that his behavior on Twitter caused the company to release a “quality filter” to filter out bad tweets. Abedin, the focus of a recent Vanity Fair profile, can’t shake the ongoing scandalous behavior of her husband, despite several attempts to reboot her image. She cited her Muslim faith giving her strength to move on, despite repeated embarrassing scandals. “I tried to block out all the noise and move on with my life,” Abedin said citing her faith and a “a really supportive group of friends and colleagues.” Weiner initially lied to Abedin after the photo was posted, claiming that he was hacked, before coming clean about his behavior. During his failed New York City mayoral run, Abedin again stood by Weiner in 2013, as he admitted that his racy online behavior with other women continued. “I love him. I have forgiven him. I believe in him. And, as we have said from the beginning, we are moving forward,” Abedin said at the time. WATCH: She also cited “therapy” for helping the couple stay together, and the future of their son. “Our marriage like many others has had its ups and its downs,” she said. “It took a lot of work, and a whole lot of therapy, to get to a place where I could forgive Anthony.” The Clinton campaign has been silent in response to the new photos.

www.breitbart.com

right

4YGKWconCsWwzxJn

test

Mrs8HKuViJkiZJyz

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/15/stephanopoulos-fails-to-disclose-full-truth-in-on-air-apology/

Stephanopoulos Fails to Disclose Full Truth in On-Air Apology

2015-05-15

John Nolte

After failing to disclose $ 75,000 in Clinton Foundation donations to both his employer and his viewers , ABC News ’ chief anchor and political correspondent George Stephanopoulos tried to contain the ongoing fallout Friday morning with an on-air apology . Rather than explain why he withheld disclosure and , more importantly , why he felt the Clinton Foundation was best suited to deal with his pet causes , Stephanopoulos used the “ Good Morning America ” apology to puff himself up as a big charitable giver : I want to address some news you may have seen about me . Over the last several years I ’ ve made substantial donations to dozens of charities , including the Clinton Global Foundation . Those donations were a matter of public record but I should have made additional disclosures on-air hen we covered the Foundation . And I now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake . Even though I made them strictly support work done to stop the spread of AIDS , help the children , and protect the environment in poor countries , I should ’ ve gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict . I apologize to all of you for failing to do that . Note how Stephanopoulos uses the weasel word “ we ” when referring to coverage of the Clinton Foundation scandals . “ We ” did not cover Clinton Foundations scandals — George Stephanopoulos did . “ We ” did not go to bizarre lengths to defend the Clintons from this scandal on “ This Week ” and “ The Daily Show ” — George Stephanopoulos did . By using the word “ we , ” Stephanopoulos is again deceiving his viewers . According to The New York Times , Stephanopoulos violated ABC News rules by not disclosing the donations . Nevertheless , the network says it stands behind its chief anchor . The sometimes-underhanded way ABC News has handled this scandal stands in stark contrast to NBC News , a network that suspended its “ Nightly News ” anchor Brian Williams for deceiving viewers , and suspended then-MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann for not disclosing a $ 2400 political donation . That ’ s twice NBC News dropped disciplinary action on its most popular anchors at their respective networks . ABC News has also come under scrutiny for its initial handling of the scandal . After the Washington Free Beacon found the Stephanopoulos donations , the Beacon contacted ABC News for comment . Like a sleazy , dishonest politician , ABC News then ran to the left-wing Politico to spin the disclosure of the donations as pro-active .

— After failing to disclose $75,000 in Clinton Foundation donations to both his employer and his viewers, ABC News’ chief anchor and political correspondent George Stephanopoulos tried to contain the ongoing fallout Friday morning with an on-air apology. Rather than explain why he withheld disclosure and, more importantly, why he felt the Clinton Foundation was best suited to deal with his pet causes, Stephanopoulos used the “Good Morning America” apology to puff himself up as a big charitable giver: I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years I’ve made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record but I should have made additional disclosures on-air hen we covered the Foundation. And I now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help the children, and protect the environment in poor countries, I should’ve gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that. Note how Stephanopoulos uses the weasel word “we” when referring to coverage of the Clinton Foundation scandals. “We” did not cover Clinton Foundations scandals — George Stephanopoulos did. “We” did not go to bizarre lengths to defend the Clintons from this scandal on “This Week” and “The Daily Show” — George Stephanopoulos did. By using the word “we,” Stephanopoulos is again deceiving his viewers. According to The New York Times, Stephanopoulos violated ABC News rules by not disclosing the donations. Nevertheless, the network says it stands behind its chief anchor. The sometimes-underhanded way ABC News has handled this scandal stands in stark contrast to NBC News, a network that suspended its “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams for deceiving viewers, and suspended then-MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann for not disclosing a $2400 political donation. That’s twice NBC News dropped disciplinary action on its most popular anchors at their respective networks. ABC News has also come under scrutiny for its initial handling of the scandal. After the Washington Free Beacon found the Stephanopoulos donations, the Beacon contacted ABC News for comment. Like a sleazy, dishonest politician, ABC News then ran to the left-wing Politico to spin the disclosure of the donations as pro-active. John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

www.breitbart.com

right

Mrs8HKuViJkiZJyz

test

CtXSMLHEKSBoMQqD

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/eda3ffe8fbfcf7727270e67bba1c9566

John Lewis’ legacy shaped in 1965 on ‘Bloody Sunday’

2020-07-18

Jay Reeves

FILE - In this March 7 , 1965 , file photo , a state trooper swings a billy club at John Lewis , right foreground , chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee , to break up a civil rights voting march in Selma , Ala. Lewis sustained a fractured skull . Lewis , who carried the struggle against racial discrimination from Southern battlegrounds of the 1960s to the halls of Congress , died Friday , July 17 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/File ) FILE - In this March 7 , 1965 , file photo , a state trooper swings a billy club at John Lewis , right foreground , chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee , to break up a civil rights voting march in Selma , Ala. Lewis sustained a fractured skull . Lewis , who carried the struggle against racial discrimination from Southern battlegrounds of the 1960s to the halls of Congress , died Friday , July 17 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/File ) SELMA , Ala. ( AP ) — John Lewis saw the line of Alabama state troopers a few hundred yards away as he led hundreds of marchers to the apex of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma on March 7 , 1965 . Armed with gas canisters and nightsticks , the troopers were flanked by horse-riding members of the sheriff ’ s posse . A crowd of whites milled around nearby . Lewis , who died Friday at age 80 , was just 25 at the time . He had been leading voting rights demonstrations for months in the notoriously racist town , and he and the others were trying to take a message of freedom to segregationist Gov . George C. Wallace in Montgomery . That seminal step propelled him on to a global stage as a hero of the U.S. civil rights movement . The ensuing confrontation helped lead to the passage of the federal Voting Rights Act . With fellow civil rights activist Hosea Williams at his side , Lewis finally stopped a few feet away from the phalanx of troopers commanded by Maj. John Cloud of the Alabama Department of Public Safety . Other marchers stopped behind them , shifting their feet uncomfortably on the bridge shoulder . Williams asked Cloud whether they could talk . There would be none of that , said Cloud . Acting on Wallace ’ s order , he said the march was illegal and gave the group two minutes to leave . Seconds later , Cloud unleashed a spasm of state-sanctioned violence that shocked the nation for its sheer brutality . “ Troopers , here , advance toward the group . See that they disperse , ” he said through a bullhorn . Lewis stood motionless with his hands in the pockets of his raincoat , a knapsack on his back . Archival film footage and photos show a line of roughly two dozen troopers wearing gas masks as they approach the long , peaceful line led by Lewis . A trooper jabbed the butt of a nightstick toward Lewis and officers quickly pushed into the group . Feet became tangled and bodies hit both the grass roadside and the asphalt road . Screams rang out . Lewis , in sworn court testimony five days later before U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. , recalled being knocked to the ground . A state trooper standing upright hit him once in the head with a nightstick ; Lewis shielded his head with a hand . The trooper hit Lewis again as he tried to get up . The officer was never publicly identified ; Lewis testified he didn ’ t know who it was , and a gas mask shielded the man ’ s identity . Others were beaten even worse as whites cheered from nearby . Amelia Boynton Robinson , who was in the line behind Lewis , was tear-gassed and beaten so badly she had to be carried away unconscious . Others were clubbed by the sheriff ’ s posse members on horseback . Lewis testified he never lost consciousness , but he also didn ’ t remember how he got back to a church where he was taken before being admitted to a hospital . He got out in time for a hearing before Johnson , who overturned Wallace ’ s order and ruled demonstrators could march to Montgomery . Lewis was just a few feet away from the Rev . Martin Luther King Jr. at the front of more than 3,000 marchers when they left Selma on March 21 , 1965 , for the epic 52-mile walk to Montgomery . Wallace , who had vowed “ segregation forever ” during his 1963 inaugural and served four terms as governor , refused to meet with them . Lewis outlived other key players in what came to be known as Bloody Sunday by many years . He addressed a throng atop the bridge in March , after his cancer diagnosis , to mark the 55th commemoration of the day . “ Speak up , speak out , get in the way , ” said Lewis , who appeared frail but spoke in a strong voice . “ Get in good trouble , necessary trouble , and help redeem the soul of America . ” Wallace died in 1998 , five years after Cloud , and Judge Johnson died in 1999 . Hosea Williams , the other march leader who was beside Lewis that day on the bridge , died in 2000 . Robinson , who recovered from her injuries and crossed the Selma bridge with Lewis and then-President Barack Obama during the 50th anniversary commemoration , died in 2015 .

FILE - In this March 7, 1965, file photo, a state trooper swings a billy club at John Lewis, right foreground, chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, to break up a civil rights voting march in Selma, Ala. Lewis sustained a fractured skull. Lewis, who carried the struggle against racial discrimination from Southern battlegrounds of the 1960s to the halls of Congress, died Friday, July 17, 2020. (AP Photo/File) FILE - In this March 7, 1965, file photo, a state trooper swings a billy club at John Lewis, right foreground, chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, to break up a civil rights voting march in Selma, Ala. Lewis sustained a fractured skull. Lewis, who carried the struggle against racial discrimination from Southern battlegrounds of the 1960s to the halls of Congress, died Friday, July 17, 2020. (AP Photo/File) SELMA, Ala. (AP) — John Lewis saw the line of Alabama state troopers a few hundred yards away as he led hundreds of marchers to the apex of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma on March 7, 1965. Armed with gas canisters and nightsticks, the troopers were flanked by horse-riding members of the sheriff’s posse. A crowd of whites milled around nearby. Lewis, who died Friday at age 80, was just 25 at the time. He had been leading voting rights demonstrations for months in the notoriously racist town, and he and the others were trying to take a message of freedom to segregationist Gov. George C. Wallace in Montgomery. ADVERTISEMENT So, rather than stopping, Lewis put another foot forward. That seminal step propelled him on to a global stage as a hero of the U.S. civil rights movement. The ensuing confrontation helped lead to the passage of the federal Voting Rights Act. With fellow civil rights activist Hosea Williams at his side, Lewis finally stopped a few feet away from the phalanx of troopers commanded by Maj. John Cloud of the Alabama Department of Public Safety. Other marchers stopped behind them, shifting their feet uncomfortably on the bridge shoulder. Williams asked Cloud whether they could talk. There would be none of that, said Cloud. Acting on Wallace’s order, he said the march was illegal and gave the group two minutes to leave. Seconds later, Cloud unleashed a spasm of state-sanctioned violence that shocked the nation for its sheer brutality. “Troopers, here, advance toward the group. See that they disperse,” he said through a bullhorn. Lewis stood motionless with his hands in the pockets of his raincoat, a knapsack on his back. Archival film footage and photos show a line of roughly two dozen troopers wearing gas masks as they approach the long, peaceful line led by Lewis. A trooper jabbed the butt of a nightstick toward Lewis and officers quickly pushed into the group. Feet became tangled and bodies hit both the grass roadside and the asphalt road. Screams rang out. Lewis, in sworn court testimony five days later before U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr., recalled being knocked to the ground. A state trooper standing upright hit him once in the head with a nightstick; Lewis shielded his head with a hand. The trooper hit Lewis again as he tried to get up. The officer was never publicly identified; Lewis testified he didn’t know who it was, and a gas mask shielded the man’s identity. Others were beaten even worse as whites cheered from nearby. Amelia Boynton Robinson, who was in the line behind Lewis, was tear-gassed and beaten so badly she had to be carried away unconscious. Others were clubbed by the sheriff’s posse members on horseback. ADVERTISEMENT Lewis testified he never lost consciousness, but he also didn’t remember how he got back to a church where he was taken before being admitted to a hospital. He got out in time for a hearing before Johnson, who overturned Wallace’s order and ruled demonstrators could march to Montgomery. Lewis was just a few feet away from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at the front of more than 3,000 marchers when they left Selma on March 21, 1965, for the epic 52-mile walk to Montgomery. Wallace, who had vowed “segregation forever” during his 1963 inaugural and served four terms as governor, refused to meet with them. Lewis outlived other key players in what came to be known as Bloody Sunday by many years. He addressed a throng atop the bridge in March, after his cancer diagnosis, to mark the 55th commemoration of the day. “Speak up, speak out, get in the way,” said Lewis, who appeared frail but spoke in a strong voice. “Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.” Wallace died in 1998, five years after Cloud, and Judge Johnson died in 1999. Hosea Williams, the other march leader who was beside Lewis that day on the bridge, died in 2000. Robinson, who recovered from her injuries and crossed the Selma bridge with Lewis and then-President Barack Obama during the 50th anniversary commemoration, died in 2015.

www.apnews.com

center

CtXSMLHEKSBoMQqD

test

INc7mFQWqmaE6GRy

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/b33f9d6420d570ab3f3f7afece67b6bb

Prosecutors charge 3 more officers in George Floyd’s death

2020-06-03

Amy Forliti, Steve Karnowski, Tim Sullivan

This combination of photos provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff 's Office in Minnesota on Wednesday , June 3 , 2020 , shows Derek Chauvin , from left , J. Alexander Kueng , Thomas Lane and Tou Thao . Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder of George Floyd , a black man who died after being restrained by him and the other Minneapolis police officers on May 25 . Kueng , Lane and Thao have been charged with aiding and abetting Chauvin . ( Hennepin County Sheriff 's Office via AP ) This combination of photos provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff 's Office in Minnesota on Wednesday , June 3 , 2020 , shows Derek Chauvin , from left , J. Alexander Kueng , Thomas Lane and Tou Thao . Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder of George Floyd , a black man who died after being restrained by him and the other Minneapolis police officers on May 25 . Kueng , Lane and Thao have been charged with aiding and abetting Chauvin . ( Hennepin County Sheriff 's Office via AP ) MINNEAPOLIS ( AP ) — Prosecutors charged three more police officers Wednesday in the death of George Floyd and filed a new , tougher charge against the officer at the center of the case , delivering a victory to protesters who have filled the streets from coast to coast to fight police brutality and racial injustice . The most serious charge was filed against Derek Chauvin , who was caught on video pressing his knee to Floyd ’ s neck and now must defend himself against an accusation of second-degree murder . The three other officers at the scene were charged for the first time with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter . All four were fired last week . If convicted , they could be sentenced to up to four decades in prison . Chauvin was initially charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter . Those charges still stand . The new second-degree murder charge alleges that Chauvin caused Floyd ’ s death without intent while committing another felony , namely third-degree assault . It carries a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison , compared with a maximum of 25 years for third-degree murder . The other officers — Thomas Lane , J. Kueng and Tou Thao — face the same maximum penalties for aiding and abetting . All three men were in custody by Wednesday evening . Chauvin was arrested last week and is still being held . The multiple charges against each officer would offer a jury more options to find them guilty . The charges were sought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison , who called the protests unleashed by the death “ dramatic and necessary ” and said Floyd “ should be here and he is not . ” “ His life had value , and we will seek justice , ” said Ellison , who cautioned that winning convictions would be hard and said that public pressure had no bearing on his decisions . Hundreds of protesters were in New York City ’ s Washington Square Park when the charges were announced . “ It ’ s not enough , ” protester Jonathan Roldan said , insisting all four officers should have been charged from the start . “ Right now , we ’ re still marching because it ’ s not enough that they got arrested . There needs to be systematic change . ” Ben Crump , an attorney for Floyd ’ s family , called it “ a bittersweet moment ” and “ a significant step forward on the road to justice. ” Crump said Elison had told the family he would continue his investigation into Floyd ’ s death and upgrade the charge to first-degree murder if warranted . The move by prosecutors punctuated an unprecedented week in modern American history , in which largely peaceful protests took place in communities of all sizes but were rocked by bouts of violence , including deadly attacks on officers , rampant thefts and arson in some places . Nationwide , more than 9,000 have been arrested in connection with unrest . At least 12 deaths have been reported , though the circumstances in many cases are still being sorted out . Minnesota Gov . Tim Walz , speaking after the new charges were announced , said the state and nation need to “ seize the moment ” and use the wrenching events of the past week to confront the effects of racism , including unequal educational and economic opportunities . “ I think this is probably our last shot , as a state and as a nation , to fix this systemic issue , ” he said at a news conference . Also Wednesday , the Hennepin County Medical Examiner ’ s Office released the full autopsy report on Floyd , which noted he had previously tested positive for COVID-19 , but was apparently asymptomatic . The report was released with the family ’ s permission after summary findings Monday that said he had a heart attack while being restrained by officers . President Donald Trump has pushed the nation ’ s governors to take a hard line against the violence . He again tweeted Wednesday : “ LAW & ORDER ! ” An overpowering security force — including officers from the FBI Hostage Rescue Team , the Secret Service , the Drug Enforcement Administration , the Bureau of Prisons and , according to a senior defense official , at least 2,200 National Guard soldiers — was out in force Wednesday as thousands of peaceful protesters demonstrated in the nation ’ s capital . Some remained near the White House while others marched toward the Capitol building . Military vehicles were parked on streets near the White House , and an array of agencies kept watch from the air . An FBI plane , an Army surveillance plane and a Park Police helicopter circled overhead . At one point near the White House , protesters began singing “ Amazing Grace ” as they knelt in view of law enforcement officers in riot gear . “ We are not going anywhere ! ” they chanted . There were no signs of confrontations . Protester Jade Jones , 30 , said the demonstrations would continue despite the new charges . “ That ’ s the least they could do , ” said Jones , who had been attending Washington protests for days . “ It ’ s not going to wipe away 400 years of pain . ” “ We are glad there are additional charges , but that doesn ’ t mean justice has been served , ” she said . More than 20,000 National Guard members have been called up in 29 states to deal with the violence . In New York City , where high-end stores were looted in earlier days , some retailers fortified their property . At the luxury department store Saks Fifth Avenue , windows were boarded up , then covered in chain-link fencing and razor wire . The front of the store was guarded by a line of tattooed men with dogs . There was scuffling in some parts of the city Wednesday night , but no signs of major clashes between protesters and police . In Greece , police fired tear gas after young people attacked them Wednesday outside the U.S. Embassy in Athens . Some 4,000 protesters had been peaceful until near the end of the demonstration , when some threw gasoline bombs and stones at police . No injuries or arrests were reported . Other protests were held Wednesday in London , Helsinki , Rotterdam and Bogota , among other cities . The anger over Floyd ’ s death has spilled into an array of racial issues across the U.S . In Philadelphia , for example , a statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo was removed by the city Wednesday after repeatedly being targeted by vandals . Rizzo presided over a police force widely accused of racism and brutality in the 1970s . In Virginia , Gov . Ralph Northam was expected to announce plans Thursday for the removal of an iconic statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Richmond ’ s prominent Monument Avenue , a senior administration official told The ███ . The statue in the former Confederate capital has been the target of vandalism during the protests .

This combination of photos provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in Minnesota on Wednesday, June 3, 2020, shows Derek Chauvin, from left, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao. Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after being restrained by him and the other Minneapolis police officers on May 25. Kueng, Lane and Thao have been charged with aiding and abetting Chauvin. (Hennepin County Sheriff's Office via AP) This combination of photos provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in Minnesota on Wednesday, June 3, 2020, shows Derek Chauvin, from left, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao. Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after being restrained by him and the other Minneapolis police officers on May 25. Kueng, Lane and Thao have been charged with aiding and abetting Chauvin. (Hennepin County Sheriff's Office via AP) MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Prosecutors charged three more police officers Wednesday in the death of George Floyd and filed a new, tougher charge against the officer at the center of the case, delivering a victory to protesters who have filled the streets from coast to coast to fight police brutality and racial injustice. The most serious charge was filed against Derek Chauvin, who was caught on video pressing his knee to Floyd’s neck and now must defend himself against an accusation of second-degree murder. The three other officers at the scene were charged for the first time with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. ADVERTISEMENT All four were fired last week. If convicted, they could be sentenced to up to four decades in prison. Chauvin was initially charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Those charges still stand. The new second-degree murder charge alleges that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death without intent while committing another felony, namely third-degree assault. It carries a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison, compared with a maximum of 25 years for third-degree murder. The other officers — Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao — face the same maximum penalties for aiding and abetting. All three men were in custody by Wednesday evening. Chauvin was arrested last week and is still being held. The multiple charges against each officer would offer a jury more options to find them guilty. The charges were sought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who called the protests unleashed by the death “dramatic and necessary” and said Floyd “should be here and he is not.” “His life had value, and we will seek justice,” said Ellison, who cautioned that winning convictions would be hard and said that public pressure had no bearing on his decisions. Hundreds of protesters were in New York City’s Washington Square Park when the charges were announced. “It’s not enough,” protester Jonathan Roldan said, insisting all four officers should have been charged from the start. “Right now, we’re still marching because it’s not enough that they got arrested. There needs to be systematic change.” Ben Crump, an attorney for Floyd’s family, called it “a bittersweet moment” and “a significant step forward on the road to justice.” Crump said Elison had told the family he would continue his investigation into Floyd’s death and upgrade the charge to first-degree murder if warranted. ADVERTISEMENT The move by prosecutors punctuated an unprecedented week in modern American history, in which largely peaceful protests took place in communities of all sizes but were rocked by bouts of violence, including deadly attacks on officers, rampant thefts and arson in some places. Nationwide, more than 9,000 have been arrested in connection with unrest. At least 12 deaths have been reported, though the circumstances in many cases are still being sorted out. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, speaking after the new charges were announced, said the state and nation need to “seize the moment” and use the wrenching events of the past week to confront the effects of racism, including unequal educational and economic opportunities. “I think this is probably our last shot, as a state and as a nation, to fix this systemic issue,” he said at a news conference. Also Wednesday, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office released the full autopsy report on Floyd, which noted he had previously tested positive for COVID-19, but was apparently asymptomatic. The report was released with the family’s permission after summary findings Monday that said he had a heart attack while being restrained by officers. President Donald Trump has pushed the nation’s governors to take a hard line against the violence. He again tweeted Wednesday: “LAW & ORDER!” An overpowering security force — including officers from the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Prisons and, according to a senior defense official, at least 2,200 National Guard soldiers — was out in force Wednesday as thousands of peaceful protesters demonstrated in the nation’s capital. Some remained near the White House while others marched toward the Capitol building. Military vehicles were parked on streets near the White House, and an array of agencies kept watch from the air. An FBI plane, an Army surveillance plane and a Park Police helicopter circled overhead. At one point near the White House, protesters began singing “Amazing Grace” as they knelt in view of law enforcement officers in riot gear. “We are not going anywhere!” they chanted. There were no signs of confrontations. Protester Jade Jones, 30, said the demonstrations would continue despite the new charges. “That’s the least they could do,” said Jones, who had been attending Washington protests for days. “It’s not going to wipe away 400 years of pain.” “We are glad there are additional charges, but that doesn’t mean justice has been served,” she said. More than 20,000 National Guard members have been called up in 29 states to deal with the violence. In New York City, where high-end stores were looted in earlier days, some retailers fortified their property. At the luxury department store Saks Fifth Avenue, windows were boarded up, then covered in chain-link fencing and razor wire. The front of the store was guarded by a line of tattooed men with dogs. There was scuffling in some parts of the city Wednesday night, but no signs of major clashes between protesters and police. The protests have also taken root overseas. In Greece, police fired tear gas after young people attacked them Wednesday outside the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Some 4,000 protesters had been peaceful until near the end of the demonstration, when some threw gasoline bombs and stones at police. No injuries or arrests were reported. Other protests were held Wednesday in London, Helsinki, Rotterdam and Bogota, among other cities. The anger over Floyd’s death has spilled into an array of racial issues across the U.S. In Philadelphia, for example, a statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo was removed by the city Wednesday after repeatedly being targeted by vandals. Rizzo presided over a police force widely accused of racism and brutality in the 1970s. In Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam was expected to announce plans Thursday for the removal of an iconic statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Richmond’s prominent Monument Avenue, a senior administration official told The Associated Press. The statue in the former Confederate capital has been the target of vandalism during the protests. ___ Full Coverage: Days of Unrest Associated Press journalists across the U.S. contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

INc7mFQWqmaE6GRy

test

f6vM8PRx2lc8yVbk

environment

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/45ffaf65b4f0301a41c4db02fa0ad2c7

Temperature hits 100 F degrees in Arctic Russian town

2020-06-21

In this handout photo provided by Olga Burtseva , children play in the Krugloe lake outside Verkhoyansk , the Sakha Republic , about 4660 kilometers ( 2900 miles ) northeast of Moscow , Russia , Sunday , June 21 , 2020 . A Siberian town that endures the world 's widest temperature range has recorded a new high amid a hear wave that is contributing to severe forest fires . Russia 's meteorological service said the thermometer hit 38 Celsius ( 100.4 F ) on Saturday in Verkhoyansk , in the Sakha Republic about 4660 kilometers ( 2900 miles ) northeast of Moscow . ( Olga Burtseva via AP ) In this handout photo provided by Olga Burtseva , children play in the Krugloe lake outside Verkhoyansk , the Sakha Republic , about 4660 kilometers ( 2900 miles ) northeast of Moscow , Russia , Sunday , June 21 , 2020 . A Siberian town that endures the world 's widest temperature range has recorded a new high amid a hear wave that is contributing to severe forest fires . Russia 's meteorological service said the thermometer hit 38 Celsius ( 100.4 F ) on Saturday in Verkhoyansk , in the Sakha Republic about 4660 kilometers ( 2900 miles ) northeast of Moscow . ( Olga Burtseva via AP ) MOSCOW ( AP ) — A Siberian town with the world ’ s widest temperature range has recorded a new high amid a heat wave that is contributing to severe forest fires . The temperature in Verkhoyansk hit 38 degrees Celsius ( 100.4 F ) on Saturday , according to Pogoda i Klimat , a website that compiles Russian meteorological data . The town is located above the Arctic Circle in the Sakha Republic , about 4,660 kilometers ( 2,900 miles ) northeast of Moscow . The town of about 1,300 residents is recognized by the Guinness World Records for the most extreme temperature range , with a low of minus-68 degrees C ( minus-90 F ) and a previous high of 37.2 C ( 98.96 F .. ) Much of Siberia this year has had unseasonably high temperatures , leading to sizable wildfires . In the Sakha Republic , more than 275,000 hectares ( 680,000 acres ) are burning , according to Avialesokhrana , the government agency that monitors forest fires . An earlier version of this story was corrected to attribute the temperature reading to a website that compiles data , not Russia ’ s meteorological service .

In this handout photo provided by Olga Burtseva, children play in the Krugloe lake outside Verkhoyansk, the Sakha Republic, about 4660 kilometers (2900 miles) northeast of Moscow, Russia, Sunday, June 21, 2020. A Siberian town that endures the world's widest temperature range has recorded a new high amid a hear wave that is contributing to severe forest fires. Russia's meteorological service said the thermometer hit 38 Celsius (100.4 F) on Saturday in Verkhoyansk, in the Sakha Republic about 4660 kilometers (2900 miles) northeast of Moscow. (Olga Burtseva via AP) In this handout photo provided by Olga Burtseva, children play in the Krugloe lake outside Verkhoyansk, the Sakha Republic, about 4660 kilometers (2900 miles) northeast of Moscow, Russia, Sunday, June 21, 2020. A Siberian town that endures the world's widest temperature range has recorded a new high amid a hear wave that is contributing to severe forest fires. Russia's meteorological service said the thermometer hit 38 Celsius (100.4 F) on Saturday in Verkhoyansk, in the Sakha Republic about 4660 kilometers (2900 miles) northeast of Moscow. (Olga Burtseva via AP) MOSCOW (AP) — A Siberian town with the world’s widest temperature range has recorded a new high amid a heat wave that is contributing to severe forest fires. The temperature in Verkhoyansk hit 38 degrees Celsius (100.4 F) on Saturday, according to Pogoda i Klimat, a website that compiles Russian meteorological data. The town is located above the Arctic Circle in the Sakha Republic, about 4,660 kilometers (2,900 miles) northeast of Moscow. The town of about 1,300 residents is recognized by the Guinness World Records for the most extreme temperature range, with a low of minus-68 degrees C (minus-90 F) and a previous high of 37.2 C (98.96 F..) ADVERTISEMENT Much of Siberia this year has had unseasonably high temperatures, leading to sizable wildfires. In the Sakha Republic, more than 275,000 hectares (680,000 acres) are burning, according to Avialesokhrana, the government agency that monitors forest fires. ___ An earlier version of this story was corrected to attribute the temperature reading to a website that compiles data, not Russia’s meteorological service. ___ Follow AP climate coverage at https://apnews.com/Climate

www.apnews.com

center

f6vM8PRx2lc8yVbk

test

u5PkZccufb0lb9Mm

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2020/february/church-of-england-apologizes-for-saying-only-married-heterosexuals-should-have-sex

Church of England Apologizes for Saying Only Married Heterosexuals Should Have Sex

2020-02-03

ABOVE : Conservative commentator Todd Starnes appeared on the Friday afternoon edition of ███ 's Newswatch to talk about the recent apology by archbishops of Canterbury and York after the Church of England announced biblical guidelines for sexuality which said only heterosexual married couples should have sex . Newswatch is seen weekdays on the ███ News Channel . For a programming schedule , click here . The archbishops of Canterbury and York have apologized after the Church of England ( CofE ) recently announced biblical guidelines for sexuality that said only heterosexual married couples should have sex . The Belfast Telegraph reports pastoral guidance was issued to CofE clergy last week after a change in UK law that allows straight couples to get married in a civil ceremony instead of a traditional marriage ceremony usually officiated by a parish priest or pastor . `` With opposite sex civil partnerships , and with those for same-sex couples , the church 's teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged . For Christians , marriage , that is the lifelong union between a man and a woman , contracted with the making of vows , remains the proper context for sexual activity . In its approach to civil partnerships the Church seeks to uphold that standard , to affirm the value of committed , sexually abstinent friendships and to minister sensitively and pastorally to those Christians who conscientiously decide to order their lives differently . '' The House of Bishops also released a pastoral statement , adding , `` Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God 's purposes for human beings . '' The archbishops Justin Welby and John Sentamu apologized for issuing the guidance . `` We as Archbishops , alongside the bishops of the Church of England , apologize and take responsibility for releasing a statement last week which we acknowledge has jeopardized trust , '' Welby and Sentamu said in a statement . `` We are very sorry and recognize the division and hurt this has caused , '' they said . As society 's views have become more liberal , the church has struggled with how it addresses LGBT rights . The Telegraph reports the CofE is conducting a `` major study '' on human sexuality which is to be published later this year . Welby and Sentamu said they were committed to the study called Living in Love and Faith . The CofE allows clergy to be in homosexual civil partnerships if they are sexually abstinent .

ABOVE: Conservative commentator Todd Starnes appeared on the Friday afternoon edition of CBN's Newswatch to talk about the recent apology by archbishops of Canterbury and York after the Church of England announced biblical guidelines for sexuality which said only heterosexual married couples should have sex. Newswatch is seen weekdays on the CBN News Channel. For a programming schedule, click here. The archbishops of Canterbury and York have apologized after the Church of England (CofE) recently announced biblical guidelines for sexuality that said only heterosexual married couples should have sex. The Belfast Telegraph reports pastoral guidance was issued to CofE clergy last week after a change in UK law that allows straight couples to get married in a civil ceremony instead of a traditional marriage ceremony usually officiated by a parish priest or pastor. The church's statement released last week said: "With opposite sex civil partnerships, and with those for same-sex couples, the church's teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged. For Christians, marriage, that is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows, remains the proper context for sexual activity. In its approach to civil partnerships the Church seeks to uphold that standard, to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships and to minister sensitively and pastorally to those Christians who conscientiously decide to order their lives differently." The House of Bishops also released a pastoral statement, adding, "Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God's purposes for human beings." The archbishops Justin Welby and John Sentamu apologized for issuing the guidance. "We as Archbishops, alongside the bishops of the Church of England, apologize and take responsibility for releasing a statement last week which we acknowledge has jeopardized trust," Welby and Sentamu said in a statement. "We are very sorry and recognize the division and hurt this has caused," they said. As society's views have become more liberal, the church has struggled with how it addresses LGBT rights. The Telegraph reports the CofE is conducting a "major study" on human sexuality which is to be published later this year. Welby and Sentamu said they were committed to the study called Living in Love and Faith. The CofE allows clergy to be in homosexual civil partnerships if they are sexually abstinent.

www1.cbn.com

right

u5PkZccufb0lb9Mm

test

A6FEYvZUKwiP1fBX

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/02/george-w-bush-gushes-over-his-genuine-affection-for-michelle-obama/

George W. Bush Gushes Over His ‘Genuine’ Affection for Michelle Obama

2017-03-02

Warner Todd Huston

In an interview , former President George W. Bush gushed about how much “ genuine ” affection he has for former first lady Michelle Obama . Despite that her husband , Barack , spent eight years blaming every problem in America on President Bush , George W. says he really likes the former first lady . “ She kind of likes my sense of humor . Anybody who likes my sense of humor , I immediately like , ” Bush said in a recent interview published by People Magazine . The 70-year-old ex-president commented on the numerous photos depicting himself and Obama in affectionate poses — especially of the pair ’ s meeting at the 2016 opening of the Smithsonian ’ s National Museum of African American History and Culture . “ I can ’ t remember where else I ’ ve sat next to her , but I probably have a few wise cracks and she seemed to like it okay , ” “ W ” said . “ I needle her a little bit and around her , I ’ m fairly lighthearted . [ The Obamas ] are around serious people all the time and we just took to each other . ” Of their meeting at the Smithsonian event , Bush said , “ When I saw her , it was a genuine expression of affection . ” Michelle Obama made herself infamous in 2008 when she exclaimed that for the fist time in her “ adult life ” she was “ proud of the country ” when her husband was elected to the White House . W concluded his remarks on Michelle and Barack by noting that he heard they may want to start “ doing things for our troops. ” He also said that it will “ take them a while to find their footing ” after leaving the White House . The Texan may not have to worry over much about Michelle and Barack ’ s presidential “ afterlife , ” though . News broke this week that the former first couple had invited former presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett to live with them in their new Washington D.C. home ( a report later denied ) in order to gear up for a permanent political campaign aimed at undermining President Donald Trump ’ s presidency .

In an interview, former President George W. Bush gushed about how much “genuine” affection he has for former first lady Michelle Obama. Despite that her husband, Barack, spent eight years blaming every problem in America on President Bush, George W. says he really likes the former first lady. “She kind of likes my sense of humor. Anybody who likes my sense of humor, I immediately like,” Bush said in a recent interview published by People Magazine. The 70-year-old ex-president commented on the numerous photos depicting himself and Obama in affectionate poses — especially of the pair’s meeting at the 2016 opening of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. “I can’t remember where else I’ve sat next to her, but I probably have a few wise cracks and she seemed to like it okay,” “W” said. “I needle her a little bit and around her, I’m fairly lighthearted. [The Obamas] are around serious people all the time and we just took to each other.” Of their meeting at the Smithsonian event, Bush said, “When I saw her, it was a genuine expression of affection.” Michelle Obama made herself infamous in 2008 when she exclaimed that for the fist time in her “adult life” she was “proud of the country” when her husband was elected to the White House. W concluded his remarks on Michelle and Barack by noting that he heard they may want to start “doing things for our troops.” He also said that it will “take them a while to find their footing” after leaving the White House. The Texan may not have to worry over much about Michelle and Barack’s presidential “afterlife,” though. News broke this week that the former first couple had invited former presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett to live with them in their new Washington D.C. home (a report later denied) in order to gear up for a permanent political campaign aimed at undermining President Donald Trump’s presidency. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com.

www.breitbart.com

right

A6FEYvZUKwiP1fBX

test

j5YW146Ydf579X32

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/25/cruz-not-enough-votes-now-for-obamacare-shutdown-threat/

Cruz: Not enough votes now for Obamacare shutdown threat

2013-08-25

( CNN ) – Sen. Ted Cruz , who has crafted a plan to put the government 's finances on the line if President Barack Obama 's health care plan is n't stripped of its funding , said in an interview this week there are n't enough Republicans on board currently to make his idea a reality . `` We do not have the votes right now , '' Cruz said , noting that to succeed , he 'd need 41 senators or 218 representatives to get behind his legislation - which would provide a year of funding for the federal government , minus Obamacare . But the Texas Republican , speaking with CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on `` State of the Union , '' argued a coming `` grass-roots tsunami '' would bring over fellow conservatives to his side in the next month . `` I 'm convinced there 's a new paradigm in politics , that actually has Washington very uncomfortable . And it has politicians in both parties very uncomfortable , '' he said . `` And that new paradigm is the rise of the grass roots , the ability of grass-roots activists to demand of their elected officials they do the right thing . '' Opponents of Cruz 's effort say he 's risking a government shutdown in order to repeal Obama 's health law , and argue the president would never sign a measure defunding the signature legislation of his five years in office . But Cruz casts the effort differently : Democrats , he said , would be the ones shutting the government down if they refuse to support a measure that funds all federal programs except Obamacare . `` President Obama , Harry Reid , will scream and holler that the mean , nasty Republicans are threatening to shut down the government . And at that point , Republicans have to do something we have n't done in a long time - stand up and win the argument , '' he said . `` We have voted to keep the government open , to fund the government , '' Cruz continued . `` Why is President Obama threatening to shut the government down to force Obamacare down the the throats of the American people ? '' Cruz has support for his plan from a handful of Republicans in Congress , including Sens . Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah , but many others in his party have said the plan risks alienating Americans who are tired of seeing the federal government 's finances put in the middle of partisan bickering . Establishment figures like Sen. John McCain and last year 's GOP presidential nominee , Mitt Romney , have voiced opposition to the plan , as has Sen. Rand Paul , a tea party-backed Kentucky senator who has aligned with Cruz in the past . Democrats also fiercly oppose the tactic , including former Vermont Gov . Howard Dean , who appeared on `` State of the Union '' Sunday . `` These are crazy ideas from the far right , '' Dean said , calling Cruz `` a slick spokesman . '' `` God help us if he gets to be anything more than the senator from Texas , '' he added . Cruz was speaking with CNN in Houston , where he appeared at a town hall meeting that was part of a tour sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation meant to build support for the effort to defund Obamacare . `` Obamacare was passed under false pretenses , '' Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint , a former senator , said on `` State of the Union '' Sunday . `` The American people were lied to and they have every right to demand that their representatives stop this unfair and un-American law . '' Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET . For the latest from State of the Union click here .

6 years ago Updated at 10:16 a.m. ET on 8/25 (CNN) – Sen. Ted Cruz, who has crafted a plan to put the government's finances on the line if President Barack Obama's health care plan isn't stripped of its funding, said in an interview this week there aren't enough Republicans on board currently to make his idea a reality. "We do not have the votes right now," Cruz said, noting that to succeed, he'd need 41 senators or 218 representatives to get behind his legislation - which would provide a year of funding for the federal government, minus Obamacare. But the Texas Republican, speaking with CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on "State of the Union," argued a coming "grass-roots tsunami" would bring over fellow conservatives to his side in the next month. "I'm convinced there's a new paradigm in politics, that actually has Washington very uncomfortable. And it has politicians in both parties very uncomfortable," he said. "And that new paradigm is the rise of the grass roots, the ability of grass-roots activists to demand of their elected officials they do the right thing." Opponents of Cruz's effort say he's risking a government shutdown in order to repeal Obama's health law, and argue the president would never sign a measure defunding the signature legislation of his five years in office. But Cruz casts the effort differently: Democrats, he said, would be the ones shutting the government down if they refuse to support a measure that funds all federal programs except Obamacare. "President Obama, Harry Reid, will scream and holler that the mean, nasty Republicans are threatening to shut down the government. And at that point, Republicans have to do something we haven't done in a long time - stand up and win the argument," he said. "We have voted to keep the government open, to fund the government," Cruz continued. "Why is President Obama threatening to shut the government down to force Obamacare down the the throats of the American people?" Cruz has support for his plan from a handful of Republicans in Congress, including Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah, but many others in his party have said the plan risks alienating Americans who are tired of seeing the federal government's finances put in the middle of partisan bickering. Establishment figures like Sen. John McCain and last year's GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, have voiced opposition to the plan, as has Sen. Rand Paul, a tea party-backed Kentucky senator who has aligned with Cruz in the past. Democrats also fiercly oppose the tactic, including former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who appeared on "State of the Union" Sunday. "These are crazy ideas from the far right," Dean said, calling Cruz "a slick spokesman." "God help us if he gets to be anything more than the senator from Texas," he added. Cruz was speaking with CNN in Houston, where he appeared at a town hall meeting that was part of a tour sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation meant to build support for the effort to defund Obamacare. "Obamacare was passed under false pretenses," Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, a former senator, said on "State of the Union" Sunday. "The American people were lied to and they have every right to demand that their representatives stop this unfair and un-American law." Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

j5YW146Ydf579X32

test

oHYfoGCYjgjqes9A

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/if-only-trump-haters-could-realize-how-dangerously-our-democracy-is-being-threatened/

If Only Trump Haters Could Realize How Dangerously Our Democracy Is Being Threatened

Dov Fischer, Jeffrey Lord, R. Emmett Tyrrell, William Murchison

Politics is cyclical . Republicans will not always hold the White House . Democrats will be back . If only they realized now the threats to our democracy that presently are being institutionalized . Threats that will endanger them and their future leaders terribly — and all of us . When “ progressives ” had Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in power , did they ever imagine a Reagan Revolution ? During Reagan ’ s fabulously successful conservative presidency , could anyone have imagined a radical-left Wasted Obama Decade ? When Obama was at his height , with commanding control of the House and a filibuster-proof Senate , could anyone have predicted fearlessly that America would be in deeply conservative hands by the very next cycle ? That is how politics is . As T.S . Eliot observed , there are no lost causes because there are no gained causes . It all is cyclical . The Public Liar Harry Reid believed that , with the Democrats in power and Obama filling court vacancies , the time had come to end the Senate ’ s filibuster rule for approving federal judges . And so he did . But cycles come and cycles go . Soon enough , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were being confirmed to the United States Supreme Court with fewer than 60 Senate votes . These past two years , Trump haters have been enjoying the spectator sport of watching the Federal Bureau of Investigation top brass go after the President . New players emerge every day with all but uniform numbers : James Comey behind the plate , with Andrew McCabe up short . Peter Strzok apparently getting past third base . Lisa Page from out of left field . Rod Rosenstein , a switch hitter able to go both ways as his interests dictate , on the bench . Mueller on the sidelines sending the signals . It is a game . But it is not a game . It is our democracy . We Americans soon will mark the day we set aside to honor the Rev . Dr. Martin Luther King . Perhaps some of us will use the time to listen again to his greatest speech , “ I Have a Dream. ” However , there was someone who believed falsely during his lifetime that Dr. King was colluding with the Russians , was a Communist operative . It was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover . Because of a confluence of historical factors , Hoover wielded inordinate power at the zenith of his career at the FBI ’ s helm . To compare Hoover at his height to FBI director Comey at his , would be like comparing the Empire State Building to half a leftover sour pickle . Hoover was determined to destroy the Rev . Dr. King . Towards that end , it unfolded that the FBI began monitoring King surreptitiously , recording his private moments . In time , they learned of King ’ s secret extramarital sexual affairs . Much too much of this information unnecessarily was released to the public . None of that released information ultimately has changed the underlying core perceptions of the Rev . Dr. King these decades later . Moreover , there is something disgusting in a society ’ s need to tear down its greatest people by exposing their personal flaws and foibles . None of us knows what went on in King ’ s marriage , his private life , what issues may have existed between him and Coretta Scott King , his wife , another iconic hero . In like manner , none among us knows what went on in Gen. David Petraeus ’ s marriage , what discussions he may have had with his wife about the way she speaks to him or what she may have said about how he speaks to her , or what he or she wears , or how he or she grooms , or otherwise why he was drawn to another woman , a homecoming queen and valedictorian , who admiringly was writing his biography . Americans ultimately have no idea what went on behind closed doors between John Kennedy and Jackie because “ handsome ” and “ lovely ” and “ Camelot ” are not synonyms for “ loving ” or “ compatible. ” All the more so with Bill Clinton and Hillary , John Edwards and Elizabeth , Donald Trump and Ivana/Marla/Melania . In almost all those cases , Americans not only do not know , but also can spend the limited time given in this life with better things than wanting to know . It cheapens a society ’ s pursuit of holiness and higher foci . Perhaps the only justification for such concern by the public with a public figure ’ s private peccadilloes is when , as with the ever-unfolding series of Clinton affairs , a President is so busy fooling around during his presidency with every woman he safely can assault that he apparently loses focus on his job from time to time . The Monica Lewinsky escapade indeed may have contributed to Clinton missing the opportunity to eliminate Osama bin Laden years before 9/11 . Why did the FBI allow King ’ s extramarital affairs to be disclosed ? Because the “ people have a right to know ” ? No . Hoover did it to destroy King . Hoover believed King was colluding with the Russians through the American Communists , and he was determined to take King down . In the end , King ’ s name has endured . As for Hoover , by happenstance we associate his surname nowadays with a suction device that immerses into dirt . Moreover , as part of the measure-for-measure by which G-d rules the world ( or , for non-believers , call it “ karma ” ) , Hoover also is recalled now for rampant rumors , all probably apocryphal , depicting him as a transvestite , a cross-dresser , and what-not . With each passing day , he is forgotten a bit more , although perhaps he yet will iconized by the transsexual community . How fascinating that a single controversial source has destroyed a significant part of his legacy , much as his FBI later would use a discredited Steele to try destroying a new FBI target , President Trump . What Democrats and other Trump haters do not grasp is that everything the FBI top brass has done to President Trump is being tested now : Will our society tolerate such FBI behavior aimed at our freely elected national leader ? Is it OK to run wildcat operations within the FBI aimed at destroying a President whom the FBI leadership detests ? More than whether Strzok and Page had a “ secret society ” and “ insurance policy ” to prevent Trump from governing , more than whether Comey deserved to be fired by Trump for being the dishonest and untrustworthy snake he is , more than whether the Mueller Investigation has gone completely off the rails after two years of searching for collusion that did not exist , we face a serious and much more threatening Constitutional crisis for the future : Do we have systems in place to deter the FBI from doing yet even worse to a future President ? If the FBI had hated Obama the way their inner circle detested Trump , how hard would it have been for them to obtain Obama ’ s college application to Columbia University , his application to Harvard Law School , his transcripts — and then to have leaked them to the media , as Comey leaked to the New York Times ? Did Obama engage in sexual improprieties in college , in law school , or since ? Has he cheated on Michelle ? Has he done drugs ? Did he collude with the Iranians to allow them to develop nuclear weapons , while secretly sending them $ 1.7 billion in cold cash ? Was he an Iranian operative colluding with the Mullahs to repress the “ Green Movement ” that he would not endorse , or to refuse to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel ? Are these conspiratorial questions any less believable than those suggesting , with far less evidence , the kinds of Trump collusion fantasies that have launched secret FBI probes ? Had the FBI leadership hated Obama the way they hate Trump , they could have launched a “ Mullah Investigation ” and leaked that to interested media . If the New York Times and WaPo would have embargoed it , other sources gladly would have bannered it . Today those kinds of stories of FBI secret dossiers and investigations can not be suppressed by the Left media , not when there are Matt Drudge , Rush , and all the other serious alternative outlets on talk radio , online publications , even on television . If John Kennedy could stumble , and Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart and Clinton and Edwards and Trump and Petraeus and the Rev . Dr. Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson and so very many others — not to mention Kamala Harris and the married Willie Brown , and Cory Booker and so many others in government , where the mix of power , money , and constant business travel away from the spouse leads to problems — so it can be that a future American President on the Democrat side of the aisle can stumble and potentially can be destroyed by an FBI under different leadership . We are learning that our system does not really have a mechanism for deterring FBI misbehavior on the highest levels . Andrew McCabe , Peter Strzok , Lisa Page , Jim Comey all may be out of the FBI today , but none has been indicted for crimes . Our system does not punish FBI directors who leak secrets from internal FBI notes to the New York Times , nor other FBI top heads who leak to the Washington Post , nor others who plant stories and pursue “ insurance plans ” within “ secret societies ” to sabotage political leaders they despise . One day it may be a Democrat who is toppled . What if the FBI next time , when the cycle changes , has photos of a naked Kamala Harris in bed with Willie Brown ? What if , on the eve of a Presidential race in which she is a candidate , they leak such hypothetical photos and audio recordings to the media ? Perhaps the New York Times and WaPo will not run with those stories , but the National Enquirer and TMZ may . And once that stuff hits the internet , it will get more hits than Pete Rose and Ty Cobb . Nor will CNN be able to resist the advertising revenue it can garner by making such video and recorded bedroom moans part of their nightly programming , now that they no longer have a missing Malaysian airliner or Anthony Bourdain to occupy the minds of their average viewer who otherwise must watch Ana Navarro pseudo-filing her nails while a person describes the tragic murder of an innocent American by an illegal alien in the United States . Does the FBI have nothing salacious and defamatory on Booker ? On Gillibrand ? On Sanders ? And if they have nothing on them today , what happens when the FBI top brass no longer are James Comey , McCabe , Strzok — oh wait , they no longer are there . Cycles . One day Trump haters in the driver ’ s seat , the next day Dem haters . If today ’ s outrages against Trump are accepted by the Left , it all will be done again — only not to Trump next time . From the day that the Democrats destroyed Richard Nixon , Republicans waited for their day to impeach and destroy a Democrat President . Clinton just made it easier . From the day the Democrats destroyed Robert Bork and tried doing so to Clarence Thomas , the Republicans waited to sabotage a Merrick Garland nomination they could not even have anticipated . And , as sure as the sun rises each morning , you can bet the family farm that , even if it takes waiting a decade or two , the Republicans never will allow another Democrat nominee for the Supreme Court to get the respectful treatment they accorded Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor until they have had a chance to settle scores over the Kavanaugh hearings . That is how it works . No lost causes , no won causes . Just cycles . And so it will be when the FBI turns . If Democrats and Trump haters do not wake up now to the deeper ramifications of what the FBI has done to Donald Trump these past two years , they will pay even worse than Trump has paid because Trump not only was defamed by Steele , but Trump also is made of steel . By contrast , most politicians are made of plastic or clay , little dreidels relying purely on spin . One of these days the FBI will set about to destroy a President across the aisle . Josef Stalin , when he was head of Soviet secret intelligence , had files on his enemies as he rose to the top of the USSR . Recep Erdogan came to tighten his grip on power in 2011 after surreptitiously taped video revealed a sex scandal that forced the resignation of ten members of a leading party that opposed him . It works that way in societies where protections from secret police encroachments are not enforced . If the Steele Dossier fabrication and far-fetched FBI investigations into Donald Trump ’ s American loyalties could proceed without a single FBI leader paying a penalty so severe that it would deter others , other FBI top brass can and will do it again another time , during another cycle , to another President . That will be perilous for all , regardless of party .

Politics is cyclical. Republicans will not always hold the White House. Democrats will be back. If only they realized now the threats to our democracy that presently are being institutionalized. Threats that will endanger them and their future leaders terribly — and all of us. When “progressives” had Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in power, did they ever imagine a Reagan Revolution? During Reagan’s fabulously successful conservative presidency, could anyone have imagined a radical-left Wasted Obama Decade? When Obama was at his height, with commanding control of the House and a filibuster-proof Senate, could anyone have predicted fearlessly that America would be in deeply conservative hands by the very next cycle? That is how politics is. As T.S. Eliot observed, there are no lost causes because there are no gained causes. It all is cyclical. The Public Liar Harry Reid believed that, with the Democrats in power and Obama filling court vacancies, the time had come to end the Senate’s filibuster rule for approving federal judges. And so he did. But cycles come and cycles go. Soon enough, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were being confirmed to the United States Supreme Court with fewer than 60 Senate votes. These past two years, Trump haters have been enjoying the spectator sport of watching the Federal Bureau of Investigation top brass go after the President. New players emerge every day with all but uniform numbers: James Comey behind the plate, with Andrew McCabe up short. Peter Strzok apparently getting past third base. Lisa Page from out of left field. Rod Rosenstein, a switch hitter able to go both ways as his interests dictate, on the bench. Mueller on the sidelines sending the signals. It is a game. But it is not a game. It is our democracy. We Americans soon will mark the day we set aside to honor the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Perhaps some of us will use the time to listen again to his greatest speech, “I Have a Dream.” However, there was someone who believed falsely during his lifetime that Dr. King was colluding with the Russians, was a Communist operative. It was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Because of a confluence of historical factors, Hoover wielded inordinate power at the zenith of his career at the FBI’s helm. To compare Hoover at his height to FBI director Comey at his, would be like comparing the Empire State Building to half a leftover sour pickle. Hoover was determined to destroy the Rev. Dr. King. Towards that end, it unfolded that the FBI began monitoring King surreptitiously, recording his private moments. In time, they learned of King’s secret extramarital sexual affairs. Much too much of this information unnecessarily was released to the public. None of that released information ultimately has changed the underlying core perceptions of the Rev. Dr. King these decades later. Moreover, there is something disgusting in a society’s need to tear down its greatest people by exposing their personal flaws and foibles. None of us knows what went on in King’s marriage, his private life, what issues may have existed between him and Coretta Scott King, his wife, another iconic hero. In like manner, none among us knows what went on in Gen. David Petraeus’s marriage, what discussions he may have had with his wife about the way she speaks to him or what she may have said about how he speaks to her, or what he or she wears, or how he or she grooms, or otherwise why he was drawn to another woman, a homecoming queen and valedictorian, who admiringly was writing his biography. Americans ultimately have no idea what went on behind closed doors between John Kennedy and Jackie because “handsome” and “lovely” and “Camelot” are not synonyms for “loving” or “compatible.” All the more so with Bill Clinton and Hillary, John Edwards and Elizabeth, Donald Trump and Ivana/Marla/Melania. In almost all those cases, Americans not only do not know, but also can spend the limited time given in this life with better things than wanting to know. It cheapens a society’s pursuit of holiness and higher foci. Perhaps the only justification for such concern by the public with a public figure’s private peccadilloes is when, as with the ever-unfolding series of Clinton affairs, a President is so busy fooling around during his presidency with every woman he safely can assault that he apparently loses focus on his job from time to time. The Monica Lewinsky escapade indeed may have contributed to Clinton missing the opportunity to eliminate Osama bin Laden years before 9/11. Why did the FBI allow King’s extramarital affairs to be disclosed? Because the “people have a right to know”? No. Hoover did it to destroy King. Hoover believed King was colluding with the Russians through the American Communists, and he was determined to take King down. In the end, King’s name has endured. As for Hoover, by happenstance we associate his surname nowadays with a suction device that immerses into dirt. Moreover, as part of the measure-for-measure by which G-d rules the world (or, for non-believers, call it “karma”), Hoover also is recalled now for rampant rumors, all probably apocryphal, depicting him as a transvestite, a cross-dresser, and what-not. With each passing day, he is forgotten a bit more, although perhaps he yet will iconized by the transsexual community. How fascinating that a single controversial source has destroyed a significant part of his legacy, much as his FBI later would use a discredited Steele to try destroying a new FBI target, President Trump. What Democrats and other Trump haters do not grasp is that everything the FBI top brass has done to President Trump is being tested now: Will our society tolerate such FBI behavior aimed at our freely elected national leader? Is it OK to run wildcat operations within the FBI aimed at destroying a President whom the FBI leadership detests? More than whether Strzok and Page had a “secret society” and “insurance policy” to prevent Trump from governing, more than whether Comey deserved to be fired by Trump for being the dishonest and untrustworthy snake he is, more than whether the Mueller Investigation has gone completely off the rails after two years of searching for collusion that did not exist, we face a serious and much more threatening Constitutional crisis for the future: Do we have systems in place to deter the FBI from doing yet even worse to a future President? If the FBI had hated Obama the way their inner circle detested Trump, how hard would it have been for them to obtain Obama’s college application to Columbia University, his application to Harvard Law School, his transcripts — and then to have leaked them to the media, as Comey leaked to the New York Times? Did Obama engage in sexual improprieties in college, in law school, or since? Has he cheated on Michelle? Has he done drugs? Did he collude with the Iranians to allow them to develop nuclear weapons, while secretly sending them $1.7 billion in cold cash? Was he an Iranian operative colluding with the Mullahs to repress the “Green Movement” that he would not endorse, or to refuse to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel? Are these conspiratorial questions any less believable than those suggesting, with far less evidence, the kinds of Trump collusion fantasies that have launched secret FBI probes? Had the FBI leadership hated Obama the way they hate Trump, they could have launched a “Mullah Investigation” and leaked that to interested media. If the New York Times and WaPo would have embargoed it, other sources gladly would have bannered it. Today those kinds of stories of FBI secret dossiers and investigations cannot be suppressed by the Left media, not when there are Matt Drudge, Rush, and all the other serious alternative outlets on talk radio, online publications, even on television. If John Kennedy could stumble, and Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart and Clinton and Edwards and Trump and Petraeus and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson and so very many others — not to mention Kamala Harris and the married Willie Brown, and Cory Booker and so many others in government, where the mix of power, money, and constant business travel away from the spouse leads to problems — so it can be that a future American President on the Democrat side of the aisle can stumble and potentially can be destroyed by an FBI under different leadership. We are learning that our system does not really have a mechanism for deterring FBI misbehavior on the highest levels. Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Comey all may be out of the FBI today, but none has been indicted for crimes. Our system does not punish FBI directors who leak secrets from internal FBI notes to the New York Times, nor other FBI top heads who leak to the Washington Post, nor others who plant stories and pursue “insurance plans” within “secret societies” to sabotage political leaders they despise. One day it may be a Democrat who is toppled. What if the FBI next time, when the cycle changes, has photos of a naked Kamala Harris in bed with Willie Brown? What if, on the eve of a Presidential race in which she is a candidate, they leak such hypothetical photos and audio recordings to the media? Perhaps the New York Times and WaPo will not run with those stories, but the National Enquirer and TMZ may. And once that stuff hits the internet, it will get more hits than Pete Rose and Ty Cobb. Nor will CNN be able to resist the advertising revenue it can garner by making such video and recorded bedroom moans part of their nightly programming, now that they no longer have a missing Malaysian airliner or Anthony Bourdain to occupy the minds of their average viewer who otherwise must watch Ana Navarro pseudo-filing her nails while a person describes the tragic murder of an innocent American by an illegal alien in the United States. Does the FBI have nothing salacious and defamatory on Booker? On Gillibrand? On Sanders? And if they have nothing on them today, what happens when the FBI top brass no longer are James Comey, McCabe, Strzok — oh wait, they no longer are there. Cycles. One day Trump haters in the driver’s seat, the next day Dem haters. If today’s outrages against Trump are accepted by the Left, it all will be done again — only not to Trump next time. From the day that the Democrats destroyed Richard Nixon, Republicans waited for their day to impeach and destroy a Democrat President. Clinton just made it easier. From the day the Democrats destroyed Robert Bork and tried doing so to Clarence Thomas, the Republicans waited to sabotage a Merrick Garland nomination they could not even have anticipated. And, as sure as the sun rises each morning, you can bet the family farm that, even if it takes waiting a decade or two, the Republicans never will allow another Democrat nominee for the Supreme Court to get the respectful treatment they accorded Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor until they have had a chance to settle scores over the Kavanaugh hearings. That is how it works. No lost causes, no won causes. Just cycles. And so it will be when the FBI turns. If Democrats and Trump haters do not wake up now to the deeper ramifications of what the FBI has done to Donald Trump these past two years, they will pay even worse than Trump has paid because Trump not only was defamed by Steele, but Trump also is made of steel. By contrast, most politicians are made of plastic or clay, little dreidels relying purely on spin. One of these days the FBI will set about to destroy a President across the aisle. Josef Stalin, when he was head of Soviet secret intelligence, had files on his enemies as he rose to the top of the USSR. Recep Erdogan came to tighten his grip on power in 2011 after surreptitiously taped video revealed a sex scandal that forced the resignation of ten members of a leading party that opposed him. It works that way in societies where protections from secret police encroachments are not enforced. If the Steele Dossier fabrication and far-fetched FBI investigations into Donald Trump’s American loyalties could proceed without a single FBI leader paying a penalty so severe that it would deter others, other FBI top brass can and will do it again another time, during another cycle, to another President. That will be perilous for all, regardless of party.

www.spectator.org

right

oHYfoGCYjgjqes9A

test

gu4Ky56MVlUk7eMP

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/06/08/bernie-sanders-pulls-within-8-points-of-hillary-in-wisconsin-straw-poll/

Bernie Sanders Puls Within 8 Points of Hillary in Wisconsin Straw Poll

2015-06-08

John Nolte

Eight years later and it is déjà vu all over again for Hillary Clinton . Only this time it isn ’ t a young , charismatic Barack Obama creeping up on her inevitability ; it is old , eccentric Bernie Sanders who came out of nowhere to come within 8 points of Clinton in a weekend Wisconsin straw poll : Wisconsin Democrats might not be ready for Hillary Clinton , as Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) finished just 8 points behind Clinton in a new Badger State straw poll . Clinton finished with 49 percent of voters at the state party convention , with Sanders in second place with 41 percent of the vote . … The surprise showing is a boost for Sanders , who regularly polls about 40 percentage points behind Clinton in national poll and rarely finishes within striking distance to Clinton . The left-wing Nation looked at the crowds Sanders has attracted and called the results of this straw poll “ significant “ : Last week , in Minnesota , Sanders attracted thousands to a hastily scheduled town-hall meeting . The size of the crowd certainly suggested that the senator ’ s economic-populist message is getting through . At the same time , it offered an indication that Sanders has , through decades of work in Washington and travel around the country , forged a connection with the grassroots activists who are especially engaged with the nominating process in a state that will never get the attention accorded the first-caucus state of Iowa and the first-primary state of New Hampshire—but that will send a substantial bloc of delegates to the July 2016 Democratic National Convention . Now , in another state , Wisconsin , Sanders has gained another sign of unexpected and significant support . It is doubtful Sanders could upset Clinton in a Democrat primary . What is not in doubt is that Democrats are looking for an alternative to Clinton , and are from falling into unified love for their likely nominee . There is also the matter of the Clinton Foundation scandals , which loom large , even as Hillary successfully dodges a mainstream media that doesn ’ t appear all that interested in cornering her . Clinton won ’ t , however , be able to dodge hundreds of millions of dollars in GOP campaign ads , and Democrats know in their hearts that the scandals are legitimate , easy for the public to understand , and in this age of New Media , out of the hands of Clinton ’ s allies in the mainstream media . Democrats are worried , and sending a bat signal that they are open to an alternative .

Eight years later and it is déjà vu all over again for Hillary Clinton. Only this time it isn’t a young, charismatic Barack Obama creeping up on her inevitability; it is old, eccentric Bernie Sanders who came out of nowhere to come within 8 points of Clinton in a weekend Wisconsin straw poll: Wisconsin Democrats might not be ready for Hillary Clinton, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) finished just 8 points behind Clinton in a new Badger State straw poll. Clinton finished with 49 percent of voters at the state party convention, with Sanders in second place with 41 percent of the vote. … The surprise showing is a boost for Sanders, who regularly polls about 40 percentage points behind Clinton in national poll and rarely finishes within striking distance to Clinton. The left-wing Nation looked at the crowds Sanders has attracted and called the results of this straw poll “significant“: Last week, in Minnesota, Sanders attracted thousands to a hastily scheduled town-hall meeting. The size of the crowd certainly suggested that the senator’s economic-populist message is getting through. At the same time, it offered an indication that Sanders has, through decades of work in Washington and travel around the country, forged a connection with the grassroots activists who are especially engaged with the nominating process in a state that will never get the attention accorded the first-caucus state of Iowa and the first-primary state of New Hampshire—but that will send a substantial bloc of delegates to the July 2016 Democratic National Convention. Now, in another state, Wisconsin, Sanders has gained another sign of unexpected and significant support. It is doubtful Sanders could upset Clinton in a Democrat primary. What is not in doubt is that Democrats are looking for an alternative to Clinton, and are from falling into unified love for their likely nominee. There is also the matter of the Clinton Foundation scandals, which loom large, even as Hillary successfully dodges a mainstream media that doesn’t appear all that interested in cornering her. Clinton won’t, however, be able to dodge hundreds of millions of dollars in GOP campaign ads, and Democrats know in their hearts that the scandals are legitimate, easy for the public to understand, and in this age of New Media, out of the hands of Clinton’s allies in the mainstream media. Democrats are worried, and sending a bat signal that they are open to an alternative. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

www.breitbart.com

right

gu4Ky56MVlUk7eMP

test

AM1IDzz6sn0aTsZN

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/confessions_of_a_recovering_libertarian_how_i_escaped_a_world_of_ron_paul_hero_worship/

Confessions of a recovering Libertarian: How I escaped a world of Ron Paul hero worship

2014-09-03

Dustin Petzold

A photo of the author Confessions of a recovering Libertarian : How I escaped a world of Ron Paul hero worship In the right hands , libertarianism could be a middle-of-the-road philosophy . Instead , here 's what turned me away When I was 15 , I was that kid people wanted to punch in the face . I sent emails to Wolf Blitzer and Glenn Beck asking them just how in the world they could ’ ve said the Libertarian Party was “ fringe. ” I booed when my classmate mentioned the New Deal in a presentation on `` The Great Gatsby . '' When my Ron Paul 2008 sweat shirt went missing on a family vacation , I immediately implicated the CIA in the abduction . I am not that kid anymore , which bodes well for the continued integrity of my facial structure . My views haven ’ t changed as much as you might expect ; I maintain that centralized government power , whether in the economic or social sphere , results in corruption and abuse more often than not . But when people ask me where I stand ideologically , I cringe at the thought of responding with “ freedom ” or “ limited government , ” phrases that I once seemed destined to have tattooed on my forehead . Now , I ’ m more likely to stammer for a few seconds before coming up with something like , “ Hey , uh , it ’ s pretty sunny out there today , no ? ” People always told me that my staunch libertarianism would erode when I went to college and saw the world through a wider lens . I didn ’ t believe them , just like I didn ’ t believe their claims that Ron Paul would fall short of the presidency , but we know how that turned out . Contrary to how the story often goes , there was no professor , classmate or piece of reading that exhorted me toward neoconservatism or Marxism . Instead , it was consorting with my fellow libertarians that drove me away . My realization of the libertarian tragedy began , as most tragedies do , with social media . I attended college in Washington , D.C. , a place that may not appeal to libertarians as much as it does to mainstream partisans , but still has a fair number of freedom-minded folks who call it home . When I was accepted for study , I connected with my school ’ s College Libertarians Facebook group . They were a tight-knit bunch , but they embraced my eagerness to join their ranks . Soon , my Facebook feed was filled with all kinds of Ayn Rand quotes and Gadsden flags . Posts like the one claiming that public schools , the very institutions that employed many of my family members , were “ replete with agents of state-orchestrated indoctrination ” ( good job with the SAT words there , guys ) were enough to keep me from ever showing up to a College Libertarians meeting . Still , a few crazy Facebookers weren ’ t going to douse my political aspirations . I made my way through a revolving door of internships on Capitol Hill and at nonprofits . It was in a congressional office that I became acutely aware of a group of people I call “ Discipauls , ” and learned just how troublesome they could be . I want to be clear that a mere Ron Paul supporter is often completely different from a Discipaul . Plenty of people are sympathetic to the anti-establishment former congressman , and with good reason , but few of them reach the Discipauls ’ level of kookery . The Discipauls could not go a day without bringing their faxes and phone calls to the interns ’ attention . Their messages of “ Hey , vote for this bill because Ron Paul supports it ! ” or “ All of the presidential candidates not named Ron Paul are guilty of treason ! ” were relentless . Sometimes , on rare days when internship-related drudgery hadn ’ t caused me to glaze over , I would challenge and debate the Discipauls ( this was explicitly not to be part of my job description – oops ) . There was a consistent lack of constitutional literacy and current events knowledge emanating from their end of the phone line . One lady called me , practically out of breath over the fact that Obamacare would “ mandate microchip implantation for all citizens. ” When I asked her where she found this information , she referred me to a YouTube video called “ 666 Mark of the Beast. ” The Discipauls ’ approach toward gathering information seemed to be “ if Ron or someone supporting him says something , take their word for it , ” which , interestingly , is the exact opposite of what Paul himself preached about activism on the campaign trail . One would think that the craziest Discipauls would be limited to the type of people who had nothing better to do but call their representative on weekday afternoons , but a surprising number of these people showed up in nonprofit offices and at professional networking events . Young and naive as I was , the dogmatism of these libertarians surprised me . One of the reasons I was drawn to the liberty movement in the first place was its purported aversion to dogma . Libertarians rejected the two major-party platforms that Americans are expected to conform to , and instead took the initiative to seek out a more obscure way of thinking . There is a long tradition of skepticism among libertarian thinkers , so it ’ s maddening to see this skepticism disappear when it comes to Ron Paul and his closest allies . The Discipauls engage in the same unquestioning hero worship that causes them to deride equally enthusiastic Barack Obama supporters as “ zombies , ” or the particularly vomit-inducing “ sheeple . ” The high-school me viewed libertarianism as a middle-of-the-road philosophy . Those “ What Are Your Political Views ? ” quizzes always placed me smack in the center of the left-right spectrum . My favorite libertarians always seemed to combine the best elements of conservatism and liberalism ; I was concerned about the effects of deficit spending and inflation , but I was equally interested in gay rights and the many costs of war . This particular blend of ideology went down smoothly with many people I talked to , so it seemed to me then that it would only be a matter of time before libertarianism would take hold with the non-Guy-Fawkes-mask-wearing crowd . Of course , libertarianism has not taken hold in any meaningful way , because it is not a middle-of-the-road philosophy at all . In the right hands , it could be , but its current practitioners are keeping it on the margins of political discourse . The two best descriptors that come to mind are “ extreme ” and “ rigid. ” Libertarians could build up quite a bit of goodwill with their fiscally conservative and socially liberal leanings , if they didn ’ t insist on leaning so damn far . Bullheaded , reductive platitudes like “ taxation is theft ” instantly alienate people who , say , are victims of actual theft . Knee-jerk anti-government sentiment is not a viable political philosophy . It doesn ’ t work in theory , and is a disaster in practice , but it ’ s what libertarians have allowed their movement to become . The traditions of questioning authority and thinking rationally don ’ t apply when it comes to their own authority figures and policy prescriptions . Cost-benefit analysis can provide a much more nuanced argument than “ all government is EVIL , ” but it ’ s all too rare to see a libertarian making use of statistical diagnostics . My recovery accelerated earlier this year , when I received an internship with the help of an organization whose very name would send most of this site ’ s readers into anaphylactic shock . I was already grappling with serious reservations about continuing my career in politics , but as a freshly graduated English major with a liberty-heavy résumé , I couldn ’ t afford to turn away from those who somehow found it wise to pay me money for my services . Here I was surrounded by the type of people who wore suits to work daily , thrilled to one-up the business-casual dress code . My co-workers awoke in the mornings thinking about liberty , went to their offices and worked on liberty , took lunch breaks to talk about liberty , and then left work and volunteered at soup kitchens in the evenings . I ’ m just kidding about that last one ; they went home and made Facebook posts about liberty , of course ! They were the most paranoid , humorless and obsessive people I ’ d ever been around -- the perfect example of the kinds of people hijacking what could be a reasonable philosophical movement . They would return to work on Mondays talking about the Super Freedom Voluntarist America conference they had all attended over the weekend . When I told them that I ’ d attended a Nationals game with some liberal friends instead , their faces looked as if I had made them eat live snails with smallpox sauce . It wasn ’ t terribly surprising behavior from people who felt that the whole world was against them , and didn ’ t own a book without the phrase “ anarcho-capitalist ” in it . Of course , while wading through the sea of interns , I met a handful of exceptionally kind , open-minded and compassionate people , the type of people who reminded me why I used to be so proud to call myself a libertarian . These people were more than willing to listen to arguments and read books by those they disagreed with . They were far more concerned by the effects of drug laws on minority populations than they were by a couple of extra percentage points ' worth of corporate taxes for big businesses . Most important , they were eager to take breaks from politics outside of work hours , knowing that if they spent a few hours watching movies or playing in bands , America wouldn ’ t turn into North Korea overnight . The problem is that their movement has been largely co-opted by zealots and politicians who are doing it harm . I only hope that the rest of the libertarians learn that this brand of unrelenting , self-serious extremism isn ’ t helping their cause .

A photo of the author Confessions of a recovering Libertarian: How I escaped a world of Ron Paul hero worship In the right hands, libertarianism could be a middle-of-the-road philosophy. Instead, here's what turned me away When I was 15, I was that kid people wanted to punch in the face. I sent emails to Wolf Blitzer and Glenn Beck asking them just how in the world they could’ve said the Libertarian Party was “fringe.” I booed when my classmate mentioned the New Deal in a presentation on "The Great Gatsby." When my Ron Paul 2008 sweat shirt went missing on a family vacation, I immediately implicated the CIA in the abduction. I am not that kid anymore, which bodes well for the continued integrity of my facial structure. My views haven’t changed as much as you might expect; I maintain that centralized government power, whether in the economic or social sphere, results in corruption and abuse more often than not. But when people ask me where I stand ideologically, I cringe at the thought of responding with “freedom” or “limited government,” phrases that I once seemed destined to have tattooed on my forehead. Now, I’m more likely to stammer for a few seconds before coming up with something like, “Hey, uh, it’s pretty sunny out there today, no?” Advertisement: People always told me that my staunch libertarianism would erode when I went to college and saw the world through a wider lens. I didn’t believe them, just like I didn’t believe their claims that Ron Paul would fall short of the presidency, but we know how that turned out. Contrary to how the story often goes, there was no professor, classmate or piece of reading that exhorted me toward neoconservatism or Marxism. Instead, it was consorting with my fellow libertarians that drove me away. My realization of the libertarian tragedy began, as most tragedies do, with social media. I attended college in Washington, D.C., a place that may not appeal to libertarians as much as it does to mainstream partisans, but still has a fair number of freedom-minded folks who call it home. When I was accepted for study, I connected with my school’s College Libertarians Facebook group. They were a tight-knit bunch, but they embraced my eagerness to join their ranks. Soon, my Facebook feed was filled with all kinds of Ayn Rand quotes and Gadsden flags. Posts like the one claiming that public schools, the very institutions that employed many of my family members, were “replete with agents of state-orchestrated indoctrination” (good job with the SAT words there, guys) were enough to keep me from ever showing up to a College Libertarians meeting. Still, a few crazy Facebookers weren’t going to douse my political aspirations. I made my way through a revolving door of internships on Capitol Hill and at nonprofits. It was in a congressional office that I became acutely aware of a group of people I call “Discipauls,” and learned just how troublesome they could be. I want to be clear that a mere Ron Paul supporter is often completely different from a Discipaul. Plenty of people are sympathetic to the anti-establishment former congressman, and with good reason, but few of them reach the Discipauls’ level of kookery. The Discipauls could not go a day without bringing their faxes and phone calls to the interns’ attention. Their messages of “Hey, vote for this bill because Ron Paul supports it!” or “All of the presidential candidates not named Ron Paul are guilty of treason!” were relentless. Advertisement: Sometimes, on rare days when internship-related drudgery hadn’t caused me to glaze over, I would challenge and debate the Discipauls (this was explicitly not to be part of my job description – oops). There was a consistent lack of constitutional literacy and current events knowledge emanating from their end of the phone line. One lady called me, practically out of breath over the fact that Obamacare would “mandate microchip implantation for all citizens.” When I asked her where she found this information, she referred me to a YouTube video called “666 Mark of the Beast.” The Discipauls’ approach toward gathering information seemed to be “if Ron or someone supporting him says something, take their word for it,” which, interestingly, is the exact opposite of what Paul himself preached about activism on the campaign trail. One would think that the craziest Discipauls would be limited to the type of people who had nothing better to do but call their representative on weekday afternoons, but a surprising number of these people showed up in nonprofit offices and at professional networking events. Young and naive as I was, the dogmatism of these libertarians surprised me. One of the reasons I was drawn to the liberty movement in the first place was its purported aversion to dogma. Libertarians rejected the two major-party platforms that Americans are expected to conform to, and instead took the initiative to seek out a more obscure way of thinking. There is a long tradition of skepticism among libertarian thinkers, so it’s maddening to see this skepticism disappear when it comes to Ron Paul and his closest allies. The Discipauls engage in the same unquestioning hero worship that causes them to deride equally enthusiastic Barack Obama supporters as “zombies,” or the particularly vomit-inducing “sheeple.” The high-school me viewed libertarianism as a middle-of-the-road philosophy. Those “What Are Your Political Views?” quizzes always placed me smack in the center of the left-right spectrum. My favorite libertarians always seemed to combine the best elements of conservatism and liberalism; I was concerned about the effects of deficit spending and inflation, but I was equally interested in gay rights and the many costs of war. This particular blend of ideology went down smoothly with many people I talked to, so it seemed to me then that it would only be a matter of time before libertarianism would take hold with the non-Guy-Fawkes-mask-wearing crowd. Advertisement: Of course, libertarianism has not taken hold in any meaningful way, because it is not a middle-of-the-road philosophy at all. In the right hands, it could be, but its current practitioners are keeping it on the margins of political discourse. The two best descriptors that come to mind are “extreme” and “rigid.” Libertarians could build up quite a bit of goodwill with their fiscally conservative and socially liberal leanings, if they didn’t insist on leaning so damn far. Bullheaded, reductive platitudes like “taxation is theft” instantly alienate people who, say, are victims of actual theft. Knee-jerk anti-government sentiment is not a viable political philosophy. It doesn’t work in theory, and is a disaster in practice, but it’s what libertarians have allowed their movement to become. The traditions of questioning authority and thinking rationally don’t apply when it comes to their own authority figures and policy prescriptions. Cost-benefit analysis can provide a much more nuanced argument than “all government is EVIL,” but it’s all too rare to see a libertarian making use of statistical diagnostics. Advertisement: My recovery accelerated earlier this year, when I received an internship with the help of an organization whose very name would send most of this site’s readers into anaphylactic shock. I was already grappling with serious reservations about continuing my career in politics, but as a freshly graduated English major with a liberty-heavy résumé, I couldn’t afford to turn away from those who somehow found it wise to pay me money for my services. Here I was surrounded by the type of people who wore suits to work daily, thrilled to one-up the business-casual dress code. My co-workers awoke in the mornings thinking about liberty, went to their offices and worked on liberty, took lunch breaks to talk about liberty, and then left work and volunteered at soup kitchens in the evenings. I’m just kidding about that last one; they went home and made Facebook posts about liberty, of course! They were the most paranoid, humorless and obsessive people I’d ever been around -- the perfect example of the kinds of people hijacking what could be a reasonable philosophical movement. They would return to work on Mondays talking about the Super Freedom Voluntarist America conference they had all attended over the weekend. When I told them that I’d attended a Nationals game with some liberal friends instead, their faces looked as if I had made them eat live snails with smallpox sauce. It wasn’t terribly surprising behavior from people who felt that the whole world was against them, and didn’t own a book without the phrase “anarcho-capitalist” in it. Advertisement: Of course, while wading through the sea of interns, I met a handful of exceptionally kind, open-minded and compassionate people, the type of people who reminded me why I used to be so proud to call myself a libertarian. These people were more than willing to listen to arguments and read books by those they disagreed with. They were far more concerned by the effects of drug laws on minority populations than they were by a couple of extra percentage points' worth of corporate taxes for big businesses. Most important, they were eager to take breaks from politics outside of work hours, knowing that if they spent a few hours watching movies or playing in bands, America wouldn’t turn into North Korea overnight. The problem is that their movement has been largely co-opted by zealots and politicians who are doing it harm. I only hope that the rest of the libertarians learn that this brand of unrelenting, self-serious extremism isn’t helping their cause.

www.salon.com

left

AM1IDzz6sn0aTsZN

test

d5AMDQfYxSpYp5hI

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/a-tale-of-two-budgets-the-note/

A Tale Of Two Budgets

Michael Falcone

President Barack Obama , escorted by House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving , right , arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington , March 13 , 2013 , for closed-door talks with House Speaker John Boehner and the House Republican Conference to discuss the budget . J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo A LITTLE HELP ON THE HILL : Another day , another set of meetings on Capitol Hill . ABC 's Mary Bruce notes that today President Obama makes his third and final trip to the Capitol this week . At 12:45 p.m . ET he meets with the Senate Republican conference , followed by a 2:15 p.m . ET meeting with the House Democrats . This afternoon Vice President Joe Biden delivers remarks at a welcome ceremony for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon . WHY BUDGETS ARE LIKE DREAMS : ABC 's Chris Good notes that when conservative House Republicans and liberal Democrats in the House Progressive Caucus each released their broad budget plans this week , what we really saw was a window into two drastically different visions of the future . Republicans , led by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan , issued a 91-page doctrine of fiscal conservatism that claims to balance the budget in 10 years . The House Progressive Caucus , led by Reps. Raul Grijalva , D-Ariz. , and Keith Ellison , D-Minn. , released their own 19-page blueprint that lowers the deficit ( but does n't eliminate it ) by raising taxes while pumping investments into all the infrastructure , education , and public welfare programs liberals love . It 's a tale of two budgets , and America 's alternate futures could n't be more different . Read more : http : //abcn.ws/X9H3r5 A PAPAL WELCOME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE : President Obama yesterday issued the following statement after the election of Pope Francis : `` On behalf of the American people , Michelle and I offer our warm wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis as he ascends to the Chair of Saint Peter and begins his papacy . As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us , he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than two thousand years-that in each other we see the face of God . As the first pope from the Americas , his selection also speaks to the strength and vitality of a region that is increasingly shaping our world , and alongside millions of Hispanic Americans , those of us in the United States share the joy of this historic day . '' ABC 's JONATHAN KARL : Talk about white smoke : I am told , by Republican sources , that President Obama got standing ovations at the beginning and end of his meeting yesterday with House Republicans on Capitol Hill - his first such meeting in four years . There were tough questions and no breakthroughs , but a source inside the closed-door meeting called it `` very cordial '' and told me that virtually every House Republican who stood up to ask a question began by saying , `` Thank you for coming '' and `` You are welcome here anytime . '' Some added , `` We need to work together . '' The biggest laugh line : The president informed the group that there was white smoke at the Vatican , and Rep. Billy Long of Missouri yelled out , `` Does that mean the White House is open for tours ? '' Obama responded : `` No , but the Vatican is . '' This was Obama 's first visit to Capitol Hill to meet with House Republicans in four years . He has met with them a total of four times , the most recent being at the White House 2011 . Here 's more about yesterday 's big meeting : http : //abcn.ws/Ybx2ts ABC 's RICK KLEIN : There they will all be ( mostly ) in one place , several generations lost about the next race . Perhaps the only thing attendees at this year 's Conservative Political Action Conference can agree on is the `` conservative '' label . Beyond that , question about who 's not there ( Chris Christie , Bob McDonnell , GOP gay-rights groups ) are competing with questions about who is ( lots of future stars , sure , though nobody figures to get more coverage than Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin ) . Attention and talk will turn to 2016 , including the straw poll winner who almost certainly wo n't be the party nominee . But of more immediate concern to the gathered conservative flock is how attendees interact with their allies on Capitol Hill . The red meat is set to be served at the first time in the Obama presidency that Republicans are breaking bread with the president . The message coming from CPAC is highly unlikely to involve bargains with President Obama , grand or otherwise . ABC 's DEVIN DWYER : Behind closed doors , deep in the Capitol crypt , President Obama on Wednesday offered a rare glimpse at his conflicted feelings ahead of a final decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline . Obama said his ruling on the project would come `` soon , '' according to House Republican sources in the meeting . But despite some recent signs and speculation that he may be inclined to green-light the deal , Obama reportedly recited a litany of reasons to reject it . `` He said there were no permanent jobs , and that the oil will be put on ships and exported and that the only ones who are going to get wealthy are the Canadians , '' Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska told AP . Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana , another pipeline supporter , said Obama also questioned overall job-creation estimates for pipeline construction , saying it `` is not going to create as many jobs as you hope . '' The president is expected to receive a formal recommendation on the project from the State Department later this spring . Then it 's all up to him . ABC 's ARLETTE SAENZ : The Senate Judiciary Committee considers its final gun measure - the assault weapons ban - today . But if the controversial bill passes committee , likely on a party-line vote , it faces an uphill battle in the full Senate just like the background check bill the committee voted for on Tuesday . If they want any chance to pass the Senate , both bills will require changes in language in order to get Republicans and moderate Democrats on board . And will President Obama step in to help push the bills through ? The president , who has focused on the budget and sequester in recent weeks , has remained relatively silent on guns while the measures have been developed and debated in committee , instead deploying Vice President Joe Biden to make the pitch on guns . At least one leading Democrat on the gun front wants more assistance from the president . `` I 'd like to see everybody doing more , '' Sen. Dianne Feinstein , sponsor of the assault weapons ban , told the AP when asked if she 'd like to see the president help out more . `` Yes , absolutely , we need help . '' ABC 's SHUSHANNAH WALSHE : How involved will the president be in the 2014 political cycle ? According to at least one top Democrat he 's already helping . At a presentation to Democratic allies and the press Wednesday , Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel , D-N.Y. , had this to say : `` He made commitments that he would help us raise the resources we need , '' Israel said . `` The White House is very good on the president 's commitment…And the president is very good on the president 's commitment . '' Israel added that President Obama has asked the DCCC to `` keep him apprised on some of our recruiting priorities and we 've been sharing that information with the White House and they have been very receptive . '' More on Israel 's remarks : http : //abcn.ws/ZIXnAw `` OBAMA 'S OUTREACH IS NICE , BUT WHERE 'S THE LEADERSHIP ? '' a Washington Post Op-Ed by House Speaker John Boehner . `` So it was a good meeting . House Republicans welcomed the chance for a frank exchange of ideas with President Obama on Wednesday . Outreach is always positive , and more Republicans in this town need the opportunity to have an open dialogue with our president . I hope these discussions continue . Yet , while this may have been the first time some of my colleagues have heard the president 's arguments so personally and directly , I 've heard them all many times before . If we 're going to find bipartisan solutions , the president will have to move beyond the same proposals and Democratic dogma . For all of Washington 's focus on the president 's outreach to Republicans , it 's his engagement with members of his own party that will determine whether we succeed in dealing with the challenges facing our economy . '' http : //wapo.st/Z3oo2G -THE FUTURE , ACCORDING TO THE GOP : Under Paul Ryan 's plan , most people take some kind of a hit , and the government survives to serve future generations because it 's restrained in the near term , reports ABC 's Chris Good . Tax reform lowers rates on people and corporations ( including high incomes ) while stripping out deductions and credits . National defense remains fully funded , but Medicare is essentially voucherized for people turning 55 now ; Medicare survives and health-care costs are restrained , as patients turn down unnecessary procedures , saving the system from fiscal ruin . Medicare is block-granted , giving states more flexibility to do with the funds as they please . `` Obamacare '' is repealed , meaning no one has to buy health insurance , but also that the government spends a lot less helping people buy it . Tort reform means doctors do n't get sued as often , the government only gives welfare to people meeting the full set of work requirements ; job-training programs and `` career scholarships '' help people get to work , and the federal government accounts more accurately for the money it loans out . http : //abcn.ws/X9H3r5 -THE FUTURE , ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATS : In the future according to the House Progressive Caucus , the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone making over $ 250,000 , and millionaires and billionaires see their tax rates jump from 45 percent . The federal government invests more in infrastructure , creating jobs , and unemployment claims can be made for almost two years ( 99 weeks ) . A public-option health system is adopted , while no benefits are cut in Medicare , Medicaid , or Social Security . Generic drugs become more available , as name-brand drug companies are barred from paying generic makers to delay sales in patent settlements . States receive more money through block grants to hire police , firefighters , and teachers , and states also get more money for Medicaid . A new cap-and-trade system limits greenhouse-gas emissions on a large scale . Corporate tax credits that can benefit oil and gas production are rolled back . America swiftly withdraws from Afghanistan , eliminating emergency war funding and saving billions from the federal budget , while the military cuts contractors , spends less on bases , and slowly shrinks its force through attrition . http : //abcn.ws/X9H3r5 CPAC PRIMER : Today marks the start of a three-day gathering of conservative leaders and activists from around the country . The Conservative Political Action Conference - CPAC , for short - is organized by the American Conservative Union and has become an annual focal point bringing together establishment figures , new leaders , grassroots types and , in particular , the younger generation of conservatives . It kicks off this morning at the Gaylord National Hotel in National Harbor , Md . just outside Washington , DC . -WHO 'S GOING : A whole lot of big-name speakers like Mitt Romney , Sarah Palin , Jeb Bush , Marco Rubio , Donald Trump , Rick Perry , Bobby Jindal , Newt Gingrich , Michele Bachmann , Rick Santorum , Paul Ryan Rand Paul and many more . Numerous other lawmakers from Capitol Hill will also address the gathering and attendees will also have a chance to hear from a host of unelected officials who have a prominent role on policy and other matters within the conservative orbit : the National Rifle Association 's Wayne LaPierre , American Crossroads head Steven Law , American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas , Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and Heritage Foundation president and former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint . -WHO 'S NOT GOING : The two most-talked-about names who do n't have speaking slots at this year 's CPAC conference are New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie and Virginia Gov . Bob McDonnell ( although McDonnell plans to participate in a prayer breakfast associated with the conference on Friday morning ) . American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas did not mince words about why Christie was not invited this year : `` This past year he strongly advocated for the passage of a $ 60-plus billion pork barrel bill , containing only $ 9 billion in disaster assistance and he signed up with the federal government to expand Medicaid at a time when his state can ill afford it , so he was not invited to speak … Hopefully he will be back in top form next year . We would be delighted to invite him again in that case . '' Nevertheless , the exclusion of politicians like Christie and McDonnell and the inclusion of someone like Donald Trump has already led some conservative pundits to declare that `` CPAC is dead . '' There are other big names who will be absent too , including House Speaker John Boehner , Arizona senator and former GOP nominee John McCain , New Mexico Gov . Susana Martinez and more . ABC 's Chris Good compiled a list of the `` 13 Top Republican You Wo n't See At CPAC '' : http : //abcn.ws/WmHmBu -MITT 'S MOMENT : Mitt Romney has chosen this year 's conference as the venue for his first major speech since losing the 2012 election . He offered a preview of his post-election thoughts during a recent interview on Fox News Sunday , but his remarks to the gathering ( scheduled for 1 p.m . ET on Friday ) will be his chance to set a tone for his future role within the Republican Party . Everyone will be watching to see whether he focuses on lessons learned from 2012 , what he would be doing differently if he were in the White House , his vision for the future or all of the above . Recall that in his Mar . 3 Fox interview , he said : `` As the guy who lost the election , I 'm not in a position to tell everyone else how to win , '' but added : `` I 'm not going to disappear . '' Notably , CPAC is something of a fraught venue for Romney . It was at the same conference in 2008 that he dropped out of that year 's Republican presidential primary . And last year it was at CPAC where he declared himself `` a severely conservative Republican governor '' - a comment that did not win him much praise on the right . -ON THE LIGHTER SIDE : CPAC is not just about serious speechmaking and politicking . This year 's conference , for example , features a panel called `` Fight Club 2013 , '' a debate between liberal heavyweight Paul Begala and conservative pundit Tucker Carlson . There 's another panel titled : `` How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Plastic Water Bottles , Fracking , Genetically Modified Food , and Big Gulp Sodas , '' and yet another called `` Getting Hollywood Right . '' One attendee has even released a helpful guide for fellow conference-goers , `` What to Wear at CPAC '' ( business suits , button-downs , pumps and loafers are in ; rompers , halter-tops , tee-shirts and Tom 's shoes are out ) . And the nightlife should prove interesting too : on Friday , for example , CPAC is hosting what they are calling the Obama Zombie Apocalypse Party . The motto : `` First they come for your brains , then they come for your ballots . '' MCCONNELL AD TARGETS WOMEN . There 's nothing like getting a head start . His re-election contest may be 20 months away , but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , possibly fearing an Ashley Judd candidacy , already has an ad targeted specifically at women voters that will run this week in his home state . ABC 's Shushannah Walshe reports that the ad , which includes a television , radio and online component , includes McConnell 's wife , former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao , looking directly into the camera as she criticizes `` far left special interests . '' `` You 've seen the ads attacking my husband , '' Chao says in the 30-second spot , which will begin running Thursday in Lexington and Louisville . `` As Mitch McConnell 's wife , I 've learned to expect them . Now , far-left special interests are also attacking my ethnicity , even attacking Mitch 's patriotism , because he 's married to me . '' Chao is hitting back after a group called Progress Kentucky , a super PAC aimed at defeating McConnell , posted tweets last month that highlighted Chao 's Chinese ancestry . After first defending the tweets , criticism from both sides of the aisle ( including possible candidate Judd ) led them to apologize and delete the tweets . http : //abcn.ws/WaUs69 @ newtgingrich : The Obama proposal to reopen only for school groups is absurd . Children visiting with their parents do n't count ? @ DonGonyea : At @ CPAC2013 ACU 's Cardenas says inspiration during current tough times for GOP found in speeches Reagan delivered to CPAC in 70s , 80s . @ robertcostaNRO : Ken Cuccinelli is n't an upbeat speaker . Very focused on history , principles . Little talk ( so far ) of his GOV race . @ ron_fournier : Boehner story : `` Talk about passive aggressive . You can almost picture Boehner smoking and yawning '' over charm offnsiv http : //bit.ly/Z5Nwpz @ samsteinhp : John McCain on the 40th anniversary of his release from prison in North Vietnam http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578356004118901318.html …

President Barack Obama, escorted by House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, right, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 13, 2013, for closed-door talks with House Speaker John Boehner and the House Republican Conference to discuss the budget. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo By MICHAEL FALCONE ( @michaelpfalcone ) NOTABLES A LITTLE HELP ON THE HILL: Another day, another set of meetings on Capitol Hill. ABC's Mary Bruce notes that today President Obama makes his third and final trip to the Capitol this week. At 12:45 p.m. ET he meets with the Senate Republican conference, followed by a 2:15 p.m. ET meeting with the House Democrats. This afternoon Vice President Joe Biden delivers remarks at a welcome ceremony for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon. WHY BUDGETS ARE LIKE DREAMS: ABC's Chris Good notes that when conservative House Republicans and liberal Democrats in the House Progressive Caucus each released their broad budget plans this week, what we really saw was a window into two drastically different visions of the future. Republicans, led by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, issued a 91-page doctrine of fiscal conservatism that claims to balance the budget in 10 years. The House Progressive Caucus, led by Reps. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Keith Ellison, D-Minn., released their own 19-page blueprint that lowers the deficit (but doesn't eliminate it) by raising taxes while pumping investments into all the infrastructure, education, and public welfare programs liberals love. It's a tale of two budgets, and America's alternate futures couldn't be more different. Read more: http://abcn.ws/X9H3r5 A PAPAL WELCOME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama yesterday issued the following statement after the election of Pope Francis: "On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I offer our warm wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis as he ascends to the Chair of Saint Peter and begins his papacy. As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us, he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than two thousand years-that in each other we see the face of God. As the first pope from the Americas, his selection also speaks to the strength and vitality of a region that is increasingly shaping our world, and alongside millions of Hispanic Americans, those of us in the United States share the joy of this historic day." THE ROUNDTABLE ABC's JONATHAN KARL: Talk about white smoke: I am told, by Republican sources, that President Obama got standing ovations at the beginning and end of his meeting yesterday with House Republicans on Capitol Hill - his first such meeting in four years. There were tough questions and no breakthroughs, but a source inside the closed-door meeting called it "very cordial" and told me that virtually every House Republican who stood up to ask a question began by saying, "Thank you for coming" and "You are welcome here anytime." Some added, "We need to work together." The biggest laugh line: The president informed the group that there was white smoke at the Vatican, and Rep. Billy Long of Missouri yelled out, "Does that mean the White House is open for tours?" Obama responded: "No, but the Vatican is." This was Obama's first visit to Capitol Hill to meet with House Republicans in four years. He has met with them a total of four times, the most recent being at the White House 2011. Here's more about yesterday's big meeting: http://abcn.ws/Ybx2ts ABC's RICK KLEIN: There they will all be (mostly) in one place, several generations lost about the next race. Perhaps the only thing attendees at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference can agree on is the "conservative" label. Beyond that, question about who's not there (Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, GOP gay-rights groups) are competing with questions about who is (lots of future stars, sure, though nobody figures to get more coverage than Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin). Attention and talk will turn to 2016, including the straw poll winner who almost certainly won't be the party nominee. But of more immediate concern to the gathered conservative flock is how attendees interact with their allies on Capitol Hill. The red meat is set to be served at the first time in the Obama presidency that Republicans are breaking bread with the president. The message coming from CPAC is highly unlikely to involve bargains with President Obama, grand or otherwise. ABC's DEVIN DWYER: Behind closed doors, deep in the Capitol crypt, President Obama on Wednesday offered a rare glimpse at his conflicted feelings ahead of a final decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Obama said his ruling on the project would come "soon," according to House Republican sources in the meeting. But despite some recent signs and speculation that he may be inclined to green-light the deal, Obama reportedly recited a litany of reasons to reject it. "He said there were no permanent jobs, and that the oil will be put on ships and exported and that the only ones who are going to get wealthy are the Canadians," Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska told AP. Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, another pipeline supporter, said Obama also questioned overall job-creation estimates for pipeline construction, saying it "is not going to create as many jobs as you hope." The president is expected to receive a formal recommendation on the project from the State Department later this spring. Then it's all up to him. ABC's ARLETTE SAENZ: The Senate Judiciary Committee considers its final gun measure - the assault weapons ban - today. But if the controversial bill passes committee, likely on a party-line vote, it faces an uphill battle in the full Senate just like the background check bill the committee voted for on Tuesday. If they want any chance to pass the Senate, both bills will require changes in language in order to get Republicans and moderate Democrats on board. And will President Obama step in to help push the bills through? The president, who has focused on the budget and sequester in recent weeks, has remained relatively silent on guns while the measures have been developed and debated in committee, instead deploying Vice President Joe Biden to make the pitch on guns. At least one leading Democrat on the gun front wants more assistance from the president. "I'd like to see everybody doing more," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, sponsor of the assault weapons ban, told the AP when asked if she'd like to see the president help out more. "Yes, absolutely, we need help." ABC's SHUSHANNAH WALSHE: How involved will the president be in the 2014 political cycle? According to at least one top Democrat he's already helping. At a presentation to Democratic allies and the press Wednesday, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel, D-N.Y., had this to say: "He made commitments that he would help us raise the resources we need," Israel said. "The White House is very good on the president's commitment…And the president is very good on the president's commitment." Israel added that President Obama has asked the DCCC to "keep him apprised on some of our recruiting priorities and we've been sharing that information with the White House and they have been very receptive." More on Israel's remarks: http://abcn.ws/ZIXnAw WHAT WE'RE READING "OBAMA'S OUTREACH IS NICE, BUT WHERE'S THE LEADERSHIP?" a Washington Post Op-Ed by House Speaker John Boehner. "So it was a good meeting. House Republicans welcomed the chance for a frank exchange of ideas with President Obama on Wednesday. Outreach is always positive, and more Republicans in this town need the opportunity to have an open dialogue with our president. I hope these discussions continue. Yet, while this may have been the first time some of my colleagues have heard the president's arguments so personally and directly, I've heard them all many times before. If we're going to find bipartisan solutions, the president will have to move beyond the same proposals and Democratic dogma. For all of Washington's focus on the president's outreach to Republicans, it's his engagement with members of his own party that will determine whether we succeed in dealing with the challenges facing our economy." http://wapo.st/Z3oo2G BUZZ BUDGET BATTLES: -THE FUTURE, ACCORDING TO THE GOP: Under Paul Ryan's plan, most people take some kind of a hit, and the government survives to serve future generations because it's restrained in the near term, reports ABC's Chris Good. Tax reform lowers rates on people and corporations (including high incomes) while stripping out deductions and credits. National defense remains fully funded, but Medicare is essentially voucherized for people turning 55 now; Medicare survives and health-care costs are restrained, as patients turn down unnecessary procedures, saving the system from fiscal ruin. Medicare is block-granted, giving states more flexibility to do with the funds as they please. "Obamacare" is repealed, meaning no one has to buy health insurance, but also that the government spends a lot less helping people buy it. Tort reform means doctors don't get sued as often, the government only gives welfare to people meeting the full set of work requirements; job-training programs and "career scholarships" help people get to work, and the federal government accounts more accurately for the money it loans out. http://abcn.ws/X9H3r5 -THE FUTURE, ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATS: In the future according to the House Progressive Caucus, the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone making over $250,000, and millionaires and billionaires see their tax rates jump from 45 percent. The federal government invests more in infrastructure, creating jobs, and unemployment claims can be made for almost two years (99 weeks). A public-option health system is adopted, while no benefits are cut in Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Generic drugs become more available, as name-brand drug companies are barred from paying generic makers to delay sales in patent settlements. States receive more money through block grants to hire police, firefighters, and teachers, and states also get more money for Medicaid. A new cap-and-trade system limits greenhouse-gas emissions on a large scale. Corporate tax credits that can benefit oil and gas production are rolled back. America swiftly withdraws from Afghanistan, eliminating emergency war funding and saving billions from the federal budget, while the military cuts contractors, spends less on bases, and slowly shrinks its force through attrition. http://abcn.ws/X9H3r5 CPAC PRIMER: Today marks the start of a three-day gathering of conservative leaders and activists from around the country. The Conservative Political Action Conference - CPAC, for short - is organized by the American Conservative Union and has become an annual focal point bringing together establishment figures, new leaders, grassroots types and, in particular, the younger generation of conservatives. It kicks off this morning at the Gaylord National Hotel in National Harbor, Md. just outside Washington, DC. -WHO'S GOING: A whole lot of big-name speakers like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan Rand Paul and many more. Numerous other lawmakers from Capitol Hill will also address the gathering and attendees will also have a chance to hear from a host of unelected officials who have a prominent role on policy and other matters within the conservative orbit: the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre, American Crossroads head Steven Law, American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and Heritage Foundation president and former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint. -WHO'S NOT GOING: The two most-talked-about names who don't have speaking slots at this year's CPAC conference are New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (although McDonnell plans to participate in a prayer breakfast associated with the conference on Friday morning). American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas did not mince words about why Christie was not invited this year: "This past year he strongly advocated for the passage of a $60-plus billion pork barrel bill, containing only $9 billion in disaster assistance and he signed up with the federal government to expand Medicaid at a time when his state can ill afford it, so he was not invited to speak … Hopefully he will be back in top form next year. We would be delighted to invite him again in that case." Nevertheless, the exclusion of politicians like Christie and McDonnell and the inclusion of someone like Donald Trump has already led some conservative pundits to declare that "CPAC is dead." There are other big names who will be absent too, including House Speaker John Boehner, Arizona senator and former GOP nominee John McCain, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and more. ABC's Chris Good compiled a list of the "13 Top Republican You Won't See At CPAC": http://abcn.ws/WmHmBu -MITT'S MOMENT: Mitt Romney has chosen this year's conference as the venue for his first major speech since losing the 2012 election. He offered a preview of his post-election thoughts during a recent interview on Fox News Sunday, but his remarks to the gathering (scheduled for 1 p.m. ET on Friday) will be his chance to set a tone for his future role within the Republican Party. Everyone will be watching to see whether he focuses on lessons learned from 2012, what he would be doing differently if he were in the White House, his vision for the future or all of the above. Recall that in his Mar. 3 Fox interview, he said: "As the guy who lost the election, I'm not in a position to tell everyone else how to win," but added: "I'm not going to disappear." Notably, CPAC is something of a fraught venue for Romney. It was at the same conference in 2008 that he dropped out of that year's Republican presidential primary. And last year it was at CPAC where he declared himself "a severely conservative Republican governor" - a comment that did not win him much praise on the right. -ON THE LIGHTER SIDE: CPAC is not just about serious speechmaking and politicking. This year's conference, for example, features a panel called "Fight Club 2013," a debate between liberal heavyweight Paul Begala and conservative pundit Tucker Carlson. There's another panel titled: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Plastic Water Bottles, Fracking, Genetically Modified Food, and Big Gulp Sodas," and yet another called "Getting Hollywood Right." One attendee has even released a helpful guide for fellow conference-goers, "What to Wear at CPAC" (business suits, button-downs, pumps and loafers are in; rompers, halter-tops, tee-shirts and Tom's shoes are out). And the nightlife should prove interesting too: on Friday, for example, CPAC is hosting what they are calling the Obama Zombie Apocalypse Party. The motto: "First they come for your brains, then they come for your ballots." MCCONNELL AD TARGETS WOMEN. There's nothing like getting a head start. His re-election contest may be 20 months away, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., possibly fearing an Ashley Judd candidacy, already has an ad targeted specifically at women voters that will run this week in his home state. ABC's Shushannah Walshe reports that the ad, which includes a television, radio and online component, includes McConnell's wife, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, looking directly into the camera as she criticizes "far left special interests." "You've seen the ads attacking my husband," Chao says in the 30-second spot, which will begin running Thursday in Lexington and Louisville. "As Mitch McConnell's wife, I've learned to expect them. Now, far-left special interests are also attacking my ethnicity, even attacking Mitch's patriotism, because he's married to me." Chao is hitting back after a group called Progress Kentucky, a super PAC aimed at defeating McConnell, posted tweets last month that highlighted Chao's Chinese ancestry. After first defending the tweets, criticism from both sides of the aisle (including possible candidate Judd) led them to apologize and delete the tweets. http://abcn.ws/WaUs69 WHO'S TWEETING? @newtgingrich: The Obama proposal to reopen only for school groups is absurd. Children visiting with their parents don't count? @DonGonyea: At @CPAC2013 ACU's Cardenas says inspiration during current tough times for GOP found in speeches Reagan delivered to CPAC in 70s, 80s. @robertcostaNRO: Ken Cuccinelli isn't an upbeat speaker. Very focused on history, principles. Little talk (so far) of his GOV race. @ron_fournier: Boehner story: "Talk about passive aggressive. You can almost picture Boehner smoking and yawning" over charm offnsiv http://bit.ly/Z5Nwpz @samsteinhp: John McCain on the 40th anniversary of his release from prison in North Vietnam http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578356004118901318.html …

www.abcnews.go.com

left

d5AMDQfYxSpYp5hI

test

xrOWMKafOV1SlsuC

politics

American Spectator

http://spectator.org/public-and-press-outrage-depends-on-your-politics/

Public and Press Outrage Depends on Your Politics

Abraham H. Miller, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

After perjuring himself in the Lewinsky scandal and unhesitatingly lying to the American people about having sex with a twenty-year-old White House intern , Bill Clinton became not a source of scorn and derision but the highest paid and most sought after speaker on the Democratic Party ’ s circuit . Clinton didn ’ t merely engage in locker room banter about women , he actually did the things that , in Trump ’ s case , liberal analysts transformed , by rhetorical hocus pocus , from ugly words to actual assault . In sharp contrast , Clinton ’ s parsing that he did not have sex with Lewinsky because he was a passive recipient ( also a lie ) of sex acts and did not participate in intercourse was readily lapped up by true believers . Feminists who had years earlier stood like a solid wall behind Anita Hill ’ s account of sexual harassment were nowhere to be found when it came to the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment and sexual abuse . Uber feminist Betty Friedan toed the Hillary Clinton party line that it was Bill Clinton who was the victim of some amorphous and vast right-wing conspiracy . Freidan , with uncharacteristic dismissiveness of the women accusing the president , noted that his “ enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about dalliance with an intern . … Whether it ’ s a fantasy , a set-up or true , I simply don ’ t care . ” Feminists , when they did care , were using their verbal talents to mock Lewinsky as the looney tunes piece of trash Hillary had characterized . Erica Jong had joked , “ My dental hygienist pointed out that [ Lewinsky ] had third-stage gum disease . ” None of this should excuse Donald Trump ’ s descent into vulgarities , but it does show that our sense of morality , outrage , and common decency is not immune from the political outcomes they can serve . We are a nation of selective moralists . I am reminded of one of my feminist colleagues who said that if Clinton ’ s needs were so great , women volunteers should have been recruited to satisfy them . So much for protecting the virtues of American womanhood and not objectifying women as sex objects . As the Middle East continues to explode in violence , as Syrian civilians are caught in the crossfire between sadistic Islamist fanatics and a ruthless dictator clinging to power , as China rises as a strategic threat and our economy is mired in what seems to be endless stagnation , the major issue of our presidential campaign is about locker room banter ? It ’ s a “ gotcha moment ” for the mainstream media . Indeed , there is more replay of Trump ’ s juvenile comments than of the issue of Hillary Clinton ’ s security-corrupted servers , Benghazi , or her policies that resulted in the collapse of Libya , and the perpetuation of the war without end in Syria . We would respect the mainstream media more if they were as concerned about the Arab governments that treat women like chattel and expect a return on their donations to the Clinton Foundation , as they are about Trump ’ s indefensible vulgarities . There is across the West a growing economic inequality both within and between nations . We are confronting an economic and political disaster , one in which an elite that has benefited from globalization has shown a disregard for the rest of its fellow citizens , if not for humanity in general . Such inequality will inevitably lead to a rapid delegitimacy of political and economic institutions . How Mr. Trump or Secretary Clinton will deal with this and other critical issues should be the focus of this election . Instead we are caught in the quagmire of selective outrage over the insipid . That should be far more frightening and threatening than the next replay of Donald Trump ’ s indulgence in locker room banter or reminders of Bill Clinton ’ s perjury .

After perjuring himself in the Lewinsky scandal and unhesitatingly lying to the American people about having sex with a twenty-year-old White House intern, Bill Clinton became not a source of scorn and derision but the highest paid and most sought after speaker on the Democratic Party’s circuit. Clinton didn’t merely engage in locker room banter about women, he actually did the things that, in Trump’s case, liberal analysts transformed, by rhetorical hocus pocus, from ugly words to actual assault. In sharp contrast, Clinton’s parsing that he did not have sex with Lewinsky because he was a passive recipient (also a lie) of sex acts and did not participate in intercourse was readily lapped up by true believers. Feminists who had years earlier stood like a solid wall behind Anita Hill’s account of sexual harassment were nowhere to be found when it came to the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment and sexual abuse. Uber feminist Betty Friedan toed the Hillary Clinton party line that it was Bill Clinton who was the victim of some amorphous and vast right-wing conspiracy. Freidan, with uncharacteristic dismissiveness of the women accusing the president, noted that his “enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about dalliance with an intern. … Whether it’s a fantasy, a set-up or true, I simply don’t care.” Feminists, when they did care, were using their verbal talents to mock Lewinsky as the looney tunes piece of trash Hillary had characterized. Erica Jong had joked, “My dental hygienist pointed out that [Lewinsky] had third-stage gum disease.” None of this should excuse Donald Trump’s descent into vulgarities, but it does show that our sense of morality, outrage, and common decency is not immune from the political outcomes they can serve. We are a nation of selective moralists. I am reminded of one of my feminist colleagues who said that if Clinton’s needs were so great, women volunteers should have been recruited to satisfy them. So much for protecting the virtues of American womanhood and not objectifying women as sex objects. As the Middle East continues to explode in violence, as Syrian civilians are caught in the crossfire between sadistic Islamist fanatics and a ruthless dictator clinging to power, as China rises as a strategic threat and our economy is mired in what seems to be endless stagnation, the major issue of our presidential campaign is about locker room banter? It’s a “gotcha moment” for the mainstream media. Indeed, there is more replay of Trump’s juvenile comments than of the issue of Hillary Clinton’s security-corrupted servers, Benghazi, or her policies that resulted in the collapse of Libya, and the perpetuation of the war without end in Syria. We would respect the mainstream media more if they were as concerned about the Arab governments that treat women like chattel and expect a return on their donations to the Clinton Foundation, as they are about Trump’s indefensible vulgarities. There is across the West a growing economic inequality both within and between nations. We are confronting an economic and political disaster, one in which an elite that has benefited from globalization has shown a disregard for the rest of its fellow citizens, if not for humanity in general. Such inequality will inevitably lead to a rapid delegitimacy of political and economic institutions. How Mr. Trump or Secretary Clinton will deal with this and other critical issues should be the focus of this election. Instead we are caught in the quagmire of selective outrage over the insipid. That should be far more frightening and threatening than the next replay of Donald Trump’s indulgence in locker room banter or reminders of Bill Clinton’s perjury.

www.spectator.org

right

xrOWMKafOV1SlsuC

test

mgfgdMIamdCB8Jye

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/08/national-center-for-medical-intelligence-director-counters-abc-coronavirus/

NCMI Director Counters ABC Story Claiming November Intelligence Document Laid Out Coronavirus Concerns

2020-04-08

Dr. R. Shane Day , Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency ’ s National Center for Medical Intelligence ( NCMI ) , issued a statement on Wednesday countering ABC News ’ claim that his agency laid out coronavirus concerns in a November intelligence report . The report , released by ABC News Wednesday morning , claimed : “ U.S . intelligence officials were warning that a contagion was sweeping through China ’ s Wuhan region , changing the patterns of life and business and posing a threat to the population , according to four sources briefed on the secret reporting . ” “ Two officials familiar with the document ’ s contents ” reportedly told ABC that those concerns “ were detailed in a November intelligence report by the military ’ s National Center for Medical Intelligence ( NCMI ) . ” The report was the result of analysis of wire and computer intercepts , coupled with satellite images . It raised alarms because an out-of-control disease would pose a serious threat to U.S. forces in Asia — forces that depend on the NCMI ’ s work . And it paints a picture of an American government that could have ramped up mitigation and containment efforts far earlier to prepare for a crisis poised to come home . ‘ Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event , ’ one of the sources said of the NCMI ’ s report . ‘ It was then briefed multiple times to ’ the Defense Intelligence Agency , the Pentagon ’ s Joint Staff and the White House . The sources told the news outlet that a “ detailed explanation of the problem ” appeared in President Donald Trump ’ s “ Daily Brief of intelligence matters in early January . ” “ The timeline of the intel side of this may be further back than we ’ re discussing , ” a source reportedly told ABC . “ But this was definitely being briefed beginning at the end of November as something the military needed to take a posture on. ” ( RELATED : FLASHBACK Jan. 14 : WHO Tells Everyone Don ’ t Worry Because China Says Coronavirus Isn ’ t Contagious ) Day , however , disputed the entire story Wednesday afternoon with what Time ’ s W.J . Hennigan called a “ rare , unrequested statement . ” JUST IN : Director of DIA ’ s National Center for Medical Intelligence issues rare , unrequested statement regarding COVID . pic.twitter.com/tCw0GRchJ6 — W.J . Hennigan ( @ wjhenn ) April 9 , 2020 “ As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters , ” the statement read . “ However , in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis , we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct . No such NCMI product exists . ”

Dr. R. Shane Day, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), issued a statement on Wednesday countering ABC News’ claim that his agency laid out coronavirus concerns in a November intelligence report. The report, released by ABC News Wednesday morning, claimed: “U.S. intelligence officials were warning that a contagion was sweeping through China’s Wuhan region, changing the patterns of life and business and posing a threat to the population, according to four sources briefed on the secret reporting.” “Two officials familiar with the document’s contents” reportedly told ABC that those concerns “were detailed in a November intelligence report by the military’s National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI).” From the ABC News story: The report was the result of analysis of wire and computer intercepts, coupled with satellite images. It raised alarms because an out-of-control disease would pose a serious threat to U.S. forces in Asia — forces that depend on the NCMI’s work. And it paints a picture of an American government that could have ramped up mitigation and containment efforts far earlier to prepare for a crisis poised to come home. ‘Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event,’ one of the sources said of the NCMI’s report. ‘It was then briefed multiple times to’ the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s Joint Staff and the White House. The sources told the news outlet that a “detailed explanation of the problem” appeared in President Donald Trump’s “Daily Brief of intelligence matters in early January.” “The timeline of the intel side of this may be further back than we’re discussing,” a source reportedly told ABC. “But this was definitely being briefed beginning at the end of November as something the military needed to take a posture on.” (RELATED: FLASHBACK Jan. 14: WHO Tells Everyone Don’t Worry Because China Says Coronavirus Isn’t Contagious) Day, however, disputed the entire story Wednesday afternoon with what Time’s W.J. Hennigan called a “rare, unrequested statement.” JUST IN: Director of DIA’s National Center for Medical Intelligence issues rare, unrequested statement regarding COVID. pic.twitter.com/tCw0GRchJ6 — W.J. Hennigan (@wjhenn) April 9, 2020 “As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters,” the statement read. “However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

mgfgdMIamdCB8Jye

test

gYKaZGjLCYdEghTZ

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/20/seven-times-president-trump-upset-jared-ivanka-media-found/

Six Times President Trump Upset Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump … and the Media Found Out

2017-08-20

Adam Shaw

President Trump ’ s fiery response to the events in Charlottesville , Virginia , had a lot of media outlets and Democrats upset . Apparently , this also included Ivanka Trump and White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner — whose displeasure is regularly leaked to the media . The New York Times ’ Glenn Thrush reported this week , via an anonymous source , that Kushner and Ms. Trump had urged the president to denounce the white nationalist protesters “ more forcefully. ” Thrush reported the news just after Trump had defended his recent statements . “ You look at both sides . I think there is blame on both on both sides . I have no doubt about it … if you reported it accurately , you would say that , ” Trump said to an angry media scrum . However , it isn ’ t the first time President Trump has upset his daughter and son-in-law –only for it to inexplicably find its way to the media . Here are five other times Trump has upset the power couple . When tapes emerged in October of President Trump talking crudely about women in 2005 was leaked to the Washington Post , it nearly derailed Trump ’ s campaign . It also upset Ivanka Trump — who , according to the New York Times , ” made an emphatic case for a full-throated apology . ” “ [ Trump ’ s ] daughter ’ s eyes welled with tears , her face reddened , and she hurried out in frustration , ” the Times reported in May . When President Trump announced that the U.S. would pull back from the Paris climate agreement , it soon found its way to the media that Ivanka and Jared were not too pleased . Politico , while reporting that it was surely a “ loss ” for the happy couple , cited sources saying that the pair were taking it in their stride . “ Their view of their roles in the White House is that they ’ re playing the long game , helping the president to be successful . And they don ’ t tally their own influence day by day or bill by bill , ” the outlet reported . According to high-society Vanity Fair in January , Kushner was “ furious ” that his efforts were being “ undermined ” by the President of the United States . The outlet pointed to a meeting between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto , which Kushner was trying to arrange . When Trump tweeted that it would be better to cancel the meeting if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the wall , the meeting was canceled . of jobs and companies lost . If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall , then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) January 26 , 2017 “ Kushner was fucking furious , ” an anonymous source told the outlet . “ I ’ d never once heard him say he was angry throughout the entire campaign . But he was furious . ” In February , news reached Politico that the pair helped kill off an order that would have overturned a 2014 Obama-era executive order preventing LGBT discrimination in the workplace . The White House downplayed the move , saying it was one of hundreds of draft orders being considered . When President Trump tweeted that he would not allow trans-identifying people to serve in the military , a number of people within the White House were reportedly shocked . Again , it didn ’ t take long for news to hit mainstream media outlets that Kushner and Ms. Trump were shocked also . According to Politico , Kushner and Ms. Trump were “ blindsided ” by the tweet — with Ivanka reportedly learning of the decision “ when she saw her father ’ s tweet on her phone . ” Adam Shaw is a ███ politics reporter based in New York . Follow Adam on Twitter : @ AdamShawNY

President Trump’s fiery response to the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, had a lot of media outlets and Democrats upset. Apparently, this also included Ivanka Trump and White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner — whose displeasure is regularly leaked to the media. The New York Times’ Glenn Thrush reported this week, via an anonymous source, that Kushner and Ms. Trump had urged the president to denounce the white nationalist protesters “more forcefully.” Thrush reported the news just after Trump had defended his recent statements. “You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both on both sides. I have no doubt about it … if you reported it accurately, you would say that,” Trump said to an angry media scrum. However, it isn’t the first time President Trump has upset his daughter and son-in-law –only for it to inexplicably find its way to the media. Here are five other times Trump has upset the power couple. Access Hollywood When tapes emerged in October of President Trump talking crudely about women in 2005 was leaked to the Washington Post, it nearly derailed Trump’s campaign. It also upset Ivanka Trump — who, according to the New York Times, ”made an emphatic case for a full-throated apology.” “[Trump’s] daughter’s eyes welled with tears, her face reddened, and she hurried out in frustration,” the Times reported in May. Paris Climate Agreement When President Trump announced that the U.S. would pull back from the Paris climate agreement, it soon found its way to the media that Ivanka and Jared were not too pleased. Politico, while reporting that it was surely a “loss” for the happy couple, cited sources saying that the pair were taking it in their stride. “Their view of their roles in the White House is that they’re playing the long game, helping the president to be successful. And they don’t tally their own influence day by day or bill by bill,” the outlet reported. Trump ‘Undermines’ Kushner on Mexico According to high-society Vanity Fair in January, Kushner was “furious” that his efforts were being “undermined” by the President of the United States. The outlet pointed to a meeting between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, which Kushner was trying to arrange. When Trump tweeted that it would be better to cancel the meeting if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the wall, the meeting was canceled. of jobs and companies lost. If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2017 “Kushner was fucking furious,” an anonymous source told the outlet. “I’d never once heard him say he was angry throughout the entire campaign. But he was furious.” Jared and Ivanka Work to Kill LGBT Rights Order In February, news reached Politico that the pair helped kill off an order that would have overturned a 2014 Obama-era executive order preventing LGBT discrimination in the workplace. The White House downplayed the move, saying it was one of hundreds of draft orders being considered. Transgender Military Ban When President Trump tweeted that he would not allow trans-identifying people to serve in the military, a number of people within the White House were reportedly shocked. Again, it didn’t take long for news to hit mainstream media outlets that Kushner and Ms. Trump were shocked also. According to Politico, Kushner and Ms. Trump were “blindsided” by the tweet — with Ivanka reportedly learning of the decision “when she saw her father’s tweet on her phone.” Adam Shaw is a Breitbart News politics reporter based in New York. Follow Adam on Twitter: @AdamShawNY

www.breitbart.com

right

gYKaZGjLCYdEghTZ

test

XQmYfsxF1uo8WfoO

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41808283

George Papadopoulos: Biggest Trump-Russia news wasn't about Manafort

Anthony Zurcher, North America Reporter

On Monday morning Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates were charged with 12 counts of money laundering , undisclosed foreign lobbying , lying to government investigators , and various and sundry other serious-sounding offences . It turned out that was n't the biggest news of the day . Indictments had been telegraphed since news reports on Friday evening mentioned they were signed , sealed and soon-to-be-delivered . Manafort 's name was at the top of most lists of possible targets . It was the follow-up revelation from Robert Mueller 's independent counsel team , however , that caught most of Washington by surprise . George Papadopoulos - hardly a household name - had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian nationals and connected individuals while he was serving as a foreign policy with the Trump campaign . Where the Manafort indictment was somewhat expected and covered business dealings prior to his time as head of the Trump campaign , the Papadopoulos news sits at the heart of Mr Mueller 's investigation into possible Trump team collusion with Russia . Here are three reasons why Papadopoulos is a key piece of the puzzle . And lest we give the Manafort case short shrift , here are three more reasons why it could end up being even more explosive . Per details of the indictment and plea agreement , Papadopoulos has revealed that he was in contact with individuals - a London professor , a female Russian national , a Russian foreign affairs ministry official - either directly or tangentially connected to the Russian government . He was passing along details of conversations he had to senior members of the Trump presidential campaign team including , reportedly , Manafort . At one point , a `` campaign supervisor '' , responding to one of Papadopoulos 's emails , replied `` good work '' . While not evidence of collusion , this is clear indication that the Russian government was seeking back channels to the Trump campaign - and were finding at least some success . The White House has diminished Papadopoulos 's role within the campaign , noting he was an unpaid adviser and that his efforts to set up a senior-level meeting between the Trump team and Russian officials were rebuffed . Papadopoulos did have a sit-down conference on 31 March 2016 , with Mr Trump and the rest of the foreign policy team . Candidate Trump also mentioned Papadopoulos , whom he called an `` excellent guy '' , as an adviser in a 21 March interview with the Washington Post . Papadopoulos may have been on the campaign periphery , but he was far from a total unknown . On April 26 , 2016 , Papadopoulos 's professor contact told him he had just returned from Moscow and learned from `` high-level Russian government officials '' that they possessed `` dirt '' on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of `` thousands of emails '' . It 's unclear from the indictment whether Papadopoulos passed this bit of information on to his campaign contacts , although it notes he `` continued to correspond '' with them . What is clear , however , is that there is now evidence that individuals with Russian government connections on two separate occasions tried to let the Trump campaign know that they had information they thought was damaging to the Democratic candidate . Papadopoulos was the first . The second was when the president 's eldest son , Donald Trump Jr , heard a similar line from his publicist-friend Rob Goldstone in June 2016 . Trump Jr responded by writing `` if it 's what you say I love it especially later in the summer '' . Later that month , Trump Jr , Manafort and Donald Trump 's son-in-law , Jared Kushner , met a group of Russian nationals . In July , embarrassing emails that were hacked from the Democratic National Committee were published by Wikileaks . In October , the contents of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta 's personal email inbox were released . If there 's anyone in Trump 's campaign circle with something to hide , they should be concerned that Papadopoulos was arrested back on 27 July . He struck a plea agreement with the Mueller team on 5 October . That was nearly four weeks ago and , according to the court documents , Papadopoulos has been co-operating with government investigators ever since . In fact , Mr Mueller told the relevant court he did not want the arrest made public because it would `` significantly undermine his ability to serve as a proactive co-operator '' . So who has Papadopoulos spoken to since his arrest ? And what sorts of topics could he have discussed ? According to Dan Dale of the Toronto Star , a former prosecutor told him the term `` proactive co-operator '' can indicate someone who is willing to wear a wire tap . HotAir Blog goes through an extended what-if scenario that envisions how Papadopoulos could go about surreptitiously gathering incriminating details from members of Trump 's campaign inner circle . He could ask for their `` advice '' on how to disrupt Mr Mueller 's investigation after disclosing that he had been arrested . `` Suddenly those people woke up this morning and realised they 'd had conversations with Papadopoulos recently about how to throw Mueller off the trail and only now do they realise he 's been in cahoots with Mueller for three months , '' the theory goes . `` Hoo boy . '' Even if , as Mr Trump writes in a tweet , Manafort 's alleged illegal activities occurred `` years ago '' , before he took a senior position in the Trump campaign , it still reflects poorly on the then-candidate 's personnel choices . It was clear at the time Manafort came on board with Mr Trump that he had some questionable dealings in his past - including work for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians , Philippine ex-leader Ferdinand Marcos and a group with ties to Pakistani intelligence . Like many politicos in Mr Trump 's orbit , Manafort was thrust into the campaign spotlight with little background vetting because more established hands wanted nothing to do with the upstart candidate 's presidential efforts . The decision to run with Manafort , who was backed by Trump confidante Roger Stone , has come back to haunt his presidency . Part of the case against Manafort - that he was operating as an undisclosed agent for a foreign government - echoes similar allegations made against another Trump associate , former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . Flynn resigned his White House post after revelations that he had lied about discussing US sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016 . It was later disclosed that Flynn was also working for the Turkish government - something he did n't disclose on his relevant government forms . If Manafort can face charges for his Ukrainian involvement , Flynn may be in jeopardy as well . Slate 's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern also theorise that Mr Mueller 's case against Manafort for financial misdeeds relating to foreign income could serve as a blueprint for a future case against Mr Trump 's own business organisation , which also brings in a fair amount of revenue from foreign sources . `` This is an indictment that should terrify Trump in that it shadows and hints at his own unlawful conduct , '' they write . Mr Trump was n't named in the Manafort indictment , but the message may have been sent nevertheless . Then there 's the million-dollar question . If Manafort and Gates are each staring at double-digit prison terms if convicted , might they follow Papadopoulos 's lead and seek to strike a deal with Mr Mueller in exchange for leniency ? Papadopoulos , of course , is a figure from the edges of the Trump campaign . Manafort , for months , was at the heart of it . Mr Mueller and his veteran team of prosecutors know how to build a case against a large enterprise . Start with the easy targets , then offer a deal . Work your way up from the bottom . Reward those who co-operate early , and throw the book at the hold-outs . Turn the screws , and have your targets constantly looking over their shoulders . Manafort and Gates may have nothing to bargain with - the White House insists that there is nothing there . If they do , however , this rollercoaster ride is only just beginning .

Image copyright Reuters On Monday morning Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates were charged with 12 counts of money laundering, undisclosed foreign lobbying, lying to government investigators, and various and sundry other serious-sounding offences. It turned out that wasn't the biggest news of the day. Indictments had been telegraphed since news reports on Friday evening mentioned they were signed, sealed and soon-to-be-delivered. Manafort's name was at the top of most lists of possible targets. It was the follow-up revelation from Robert Mueller's independent counsel team, however, that caught most of Washington by surprise. George Papadopoulos - hardly a household name - had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian nationals and connected individuals while he was serving as a foreign policy with the Trump campaign. Where the Manafort indictment was somewhat expected and covered business dealings prior to his time as head of the Trump campaign, the Papadopoulos news sits at the heart of Mr Mueller's investigation into possible Trump team collusion with Russia. Here are three reasons why Papadopoulos is a key piece of the puzzle. And lest we give the Manafort case short shrift, here are three more reasons why it could end up being even more explosive. Papadopoulos was an intermediary Per details of the indictment and plea agreement, Papadopoulos has revealed that he was in contact with individuals - a London professor, a female Russian national, a Russian foreign affairs ministry official - either directly or tangentially connected to the Russian government. He was passing along details of conversations he had to senior members of the Trump presidential campaign team including, reportedly, Manafort. At one point, a "campaign supervisor", responding to one of Papadopoulos's emails, replied "good work". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption White House: "Today's announcement has nothing to do with the president" While not evidence of collusion, this is clear indication that the Russian government was seeking back channels to the Trump campaign - and were finding at least some success. The White House has diminished Papadopoulos's role within the campaign, noting he was an unpaid adviser and that his efforts to set up a senior-level meeting between the Trump team and Russian officials were rebuffed. Papadopoulos did have a sit-down conference on 31 March 2016, with Mr Trump and the rest of the foreign policy team. Candidate Trump also mentioned Papadopoulos, whom he called an "excellent guy", as an adviser in a 21 March interview with the Washington Post. Papadopoulos may have been on the campaign periphery, but he was far from a total unknown. Papadopoulos heard about Clinton "dirt" On April 26, 2016, Papadopoulos's professor contact told him he had just returned from Moscow and learned from "high-level Russian government officials" that they possessed "dirt" on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails". It's unclear from the indictment whether Papadopoulos passed this bit of information on to his campaign contacts, although it notes he "continued to correspond" with them. What is clear, however, is that there is now evidence that individuals with Russian government connections on two separate occasions tried to let the Trump campaign know that they had information they thought was damaging to the Democratic candidate. Papadopoulos was the first. The second was when the president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, heard a similar line from his publicist-friend Rob Goldstone in June 2016. Trump Jr responded by writing "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer". Later that month, Trump Jr, Manafort and Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met a group of Russian nationals. In July, embarrassing emails that were hacked from the Democratic National Committee were published by Wikileaks. In October, the contents of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's personal email inbox were released. It makes for an interesting timeline. Papadopoulos is co-operating If there's anyone in Trump's campaign circle with something to hide, they should be concerned that Papadopoulos was arrested back on 27 July. He struck a plea agreement with the Mueller team on 5 October. That was nearly four weeks ago and, according to the court documents, Papadopoulos has been co-operating with government investigators ever since. In fact, Mr Mueller told the relevant court he did not want the arrest made public because it would "significantly undermine his ability to serve as a proactive co-operator". So who has Papadopoulos spoken to since his arrest? And what sorts of topics could he have discussed? Image copyright Reuters According to Dan Dale of the Toronto Star, a former prosecutor told him the term "proactive co-operator" can indicate someone who is willing to wear a wire tap. HotAir Blog goes through an extended what-if scenario that envisions how Papadopoulos could go about surreptitiously gathering incriminating details from members of Trump's campaign inner circle. He could ask for their "advice" on how to disrupt Mr Mueller's investigation after disclosing that he had been arrested. "Suddenly those people woke up this morning and realised they'd had conversations with Papadopoulos recently about how to throw Mueller off the trail and only now do they realise he's been in cahoots with Mueller for three months," the theory goes. "Hoo boy." Hoo boy, indeed. Manafort hire shows bad judgement Image copyright Reuters Image caption Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as his campaign manager Paul Manafort and daughter Ivanka look on during Trump's walk through at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland Even if, as Mr Trump writes in a tweet, Manafort's alleged illegal activities occurred "years ago", before he took a senior position in the Trump campaign, it still reflects poorly on the then-candidate's personnel choices. It was clear at the time Manafort came on board with Mr Trump that he had some questionable dealings in his past - including work for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians, Philippine ex-leader Ferdinand Marcos and a group with ties to Pakistani intelligence. Like many politicos in Mr Trump's orbit, Manafort was thrust into the campaign spotlight with little background vetting because more established hands wanted nothing to do with the upstart candidate's presidential efforts. The decision to run with Manafort, who was backed by Trump confidante Roger Stone, has come back to haunt his presidency. Manafort move could set stage for more indictments Part of the case against Manafort - that he was operating as an undisclosed agent for a foreign government - echoes similar allegations made against another Trump associate, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn resigned his White House post after revelations that he had lied about discussing US sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. It was later disclosed that Flynn was also working for the Turkish government - something he didn't disclose on his relevant government forms. If Manafort can face charges for his Ukrainian involvement, Flynn may be in jeopardy as well. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How Michael Flynn became entangled in Russia probe Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern also theorise that Mr Mueller's case against Manafort for financial misdeeds relating to foreign income could serve as a blueprint for a future case against Mr Trump's own business organisation, which also brings in a fair amount of revenue from foreign sources. "This is an indictment that should terrify Trump in that it shadows and hints at his own unlawful conduct," they write. Mr Trump wasn't named in the Manafort indictment, but the message may have been sent nevertheless. Will Manafort co-operate? Image copyright Reuters Then there's the million-dollar question. If Manafort and Gates are each staring at double-digit prison terms if convicted, might they follow Papadopoulos's lead and seek to strike a deal with Mr Mueller in exchange for leniency? Papadopoulos, of course, is a figure from the edges of the Trump campaign. Manafort, for months, was at the heart of it. Mr Mueller and his veteran team of prosecutors know how to build a case against a large enterprise. Start with the easy targets, then offer a deal. Work your way up from the bottom. Reward those who co-operate early, and throw the book at the hold-outs. Turn the screws, and have your targets constantly looking over their shoulders. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Manafort's indictment: Where did all the money go? Manafort and Gates may have nothing to bargain with - the White House insists that there is nothing there. If they do, however, this rollercoaster ride is only just beginning.

www.bbc.com

center

XQmYfsxF1uo8WfoO

test

mLs58sF4TmANlEYq

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/US/gay-marriage-same-sex-constitution-poll/2015/06/01/id/647886/

56 Percent of Voters Favor Right to Same-Sex Marriage: Poll

2015-06-01

Melissa Clyne

By a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent , American voters favor a constitutional right to same-sex marriage , according to a new Quinnipiac University National Poll The results come as the country awaits the Supreme Court ’ s decision on the controversial issue , which is expected sometime this month . The Court ’ s ruling will address `` the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state , '' a January posting on the Supreme Court ’ s official blog said.Political party affiliation greatly influences voters ' opinions , according to Quinnipiac , which found that Democrats favor same-sex by a margin of 70 percent to 24 percent and independents by 61 percent to 34 percent . Republicans oppose same-sex marriage 62 percent to 34 percent.Slightly more women than men support gay marriage ( men 55 percent to 41 percent ; women 57 percent to 35 percent ) .GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Sunday on NBC ’ s `` Meet the Press '' that he ’ d fight the high court ’ s decision if it legalizes same-sex marriage . `` Roe versus Wade was decided 30 some years ago , and I continue to fight that , because I think the court got it wrong , '' he said . `` And I think if the court decides this case in error , I will continue to fight , as we have on the issue of life ... We 're not bound by what nine people say in perpetuity . `` While the Supreme Court ’ s `` word has validity , '' the role of Congress and the president , Santorum continued , is to `` push back '' when the high court makes a wrong decision . `` I think it 's important to understand that the Supreme Court does n't have the final word . It has its word , '' he said.By a margin of 53 percent to 40 percent , voters oppose allowing individual states to prohibit same-sex marriage , according to the Quinnipiac results , and 57 percent to 36 percent support requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states . `` Democrats , independent voters , men and women back same-sex marriage in these questions , with Republicans opposed , '' according to the poll.Overall , the survey found , voters support same-sex marriage by a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent.The poll also measured voters ' feelings about the death penalty and President Barack Obama.Support for the death penalty is dying , according to the survey results.Forty-eight percent of American voters support life without parole for convicted murderers , while 43 percent support the death penalty . Those figures change when a person is convicted of murder during a terrorist act.In that case , 58 percent of American voters say a person convicted of terrorist-related murder deserves the death penalty , compared with 36 percent who support life without parole.In the case of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , 62 percent of voters supported death with 34 percent favoring life without parole . `` American voters may be moving away from the death penalty , but in general , there is absolutely no ambivalence '' about executing Tsarnaev , said the poll ’ s assistant director , Tim Malloy.Obama ’ s disapproval ratings have risen slightly since an April 27 Quinnipiac survey , according to the poll results , which found American voters disapprove of the job he ’ s doing by 50 percent to 43 percent . In the earlier poll , 49 percent of voters disapproved of the president ’ s job performance.Voters continue to disapprove of Congress . Republicans fared worse than Democrats , with the Democrats receiving a disapproval rating of 61 percent to 30 percent , and their GOP counterparts getting a 73 percent to 17 percent score .

By a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent, American voters favor a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, according to a new Quinnipiac University National Poll The results come as the country awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on the controversial issue, which is expected sometime this month. The Court’s ruling will address "the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state," a January posting on the Supreme Court’s official blog said.Political party affiliation greatly influences voters' opinions, according to Quinnipiac, which found that Democrats favor same-sex by a margin of 70 percent to 24 percent and independents by 61 percent to 34 percent. Republicans oppose same-sex marriage 62 percent to 34 percent.Slightly more women than men support gay marriage (men 55 percent to 41 percent; women 57 percent to 35 percent).GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Sunday on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that he’d fight the high court’s decision if it legalizes same-sex marriage."Roe versus Wade was decided 30 some years ago, and I continue to fight that, because I think the court got it wrong," he said. "And I think if the court decides this case in error, I will continue to fight, as we have on the issue of life ... We're not bound by what nine people say in perpetuity."While the Supreme Court’s "word has validity," the role of Congress and the president, Santorum continued, is to "push back" when the high court makes a wrong decision."I think it's important to understand that the Supreme Court doesn't have the final word. It has its word," he said.By a margin of 53 percent to 40 percent, voters oppose allowing individual states to prohibit same-sex marriage, according to the Quinnipiac results, and 57 percent to 36 percent support requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states."Democrats, independent voters, men and women back same-sex marriage in these questions, with Republicans opposed," according to the poll.Overall, the survey found, voters support same-sex marriage by a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent.The poll also measured voters' feelings about the death penalty and President Barack Obama.Support for the death penalty is dying, according to the survey results.Forty-eight percent of American voters support life without parole for convicted murderers, while 43 percent support the death penalty. Those figures change when a person is convicted of murder during a terrorist act.In that case, 58 percent of American voters say a person convicted of terrorist-related murder deserves the death penalty, compared with 36 percent who support life without parole.In the case of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 62 percent of voters supported death with 34 percent favoring life without parole."American voters may be moving away from the death penalty, but in general, there is absolutely no ambivalence" about executing Tsarnaev, said the poll’s assistant director, Tim Malloy.Obama’s disapproval ratings have risen slightly since an April 27 Quinnipiac survey, according to the poll results, which found American voters disapprove of the job he’s doing by 50 percent to 43 percent. In the earlier poll, 49 percent of voters disapproved of the president’s job performance.Voters continue to disapprove of Congress. Republicans fared worse than Democrats, with the Democrats receiving a disapproval rating of 61 percent to 30 percent, and their GOP counterparts getting a 73 percent to 17 percent score.

www.newsmax.com

right

mLs58sF4TmANlEYq

test

c3vIk0qs0RZJeVxZ

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/06/08/floridas-school-resource-officers-police-reform-protests/

Florida's Schools Have Become a High-Stakes Experiment in Classroom Policing

2020-06-08

C.J. Ciaramella, Ilya Somin, Eugene Volokh, Scott Shackford, Brian Doherty, Eric Boehm, Billy Binion, J.D. Tuccille, Christian Britschgi, John Stossel

On the morning of Aug. 30 , 2019 , as Hurricane Dorian was bearing down on Florida 's Treasure Coast , Jamie Seiler was at the hospital where she worked , preparing for the storm 's approach . Then her cellphone rang . On the other end was the principal of her son 's school . The principal said her son had been escorted out of the school in handcuffs and was being taken to a psychiatric hospital in a police car . Getting such a call is a nightmare for any parent , but Seiler 's son had n't threatened to shoot up the school or commit suicide . He had several developmental disorders and had thrown a tantrum . He was just 9 years old . `` I flipped out , I broke down , '' Seiler says . She sat in her boss 's office , `` hysterical to the point they did n't think that I would be able to drive . '' A professional therapist would later tell Seiler that a school resource officer ( SRO ) had tackled her autistic 80-pound son while he was sitting on a bench—a use of force that the therapist , who was in the room at the time , said was unnecessary . One teacher who was present cried , according to an incident report filed by the therapist . Seiler 's son Evan is only one of thousands of small children who are led out of schools in handcuffs every year around the country . Juvenile arrests in Florida have been steadily declining over the last decade , as they have been more generally across the U.S. , but for the next few years the state will be a bellwether for school safety and juvenile justice . After the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida , the state embarked on an aggressive plan to `` harden '' its schools against shooting threats , including putting at least one SRO or armed guardian in every K-12 school in the state . However , civil liberties groups , disability rights advocates , and lawyers for parents say the state overcorrected , and that students , especially minorities and those with disabilities , are now bearing the brunt of new zero tolerance policies and heavy-handed discipline . As arrests of small children make national headlines , and legislators and parents debate how far is too far when it comes to school safety , Florida 's schools have become a high-stakes experiment in policing . Amid a nationwide debate on law enforcement violence following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , school resource officers have flown somewhat under the radar . But it 's clear that education officials are already rethinking police presence in classrooms : In Minneapolis , where Floyd was killed after an officer pressed a knee into his neck for nearly nine minutes , the school board recently voted in favor of a resolution ending a $ 1 million partnership with city police . Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland , Oregon , announced last week that he would disband the city 's school resource officers , putting a million dollars from the SRO budget toward counselors , social workers , and `` culturally specific partnerships . '' Other states and cities appear to be considering similar measures . In Florida , the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) warned in a report last June that the new laws could reverse years of progress in reducing school arrests . While juvenile arrests both in and out of Florida schools continued to fall in the 2017–2018 fiscal year , according to state law enforcement data , `` the percentage of youth arrests for misdemeanors that occurred at schools , rather than in the community , increased to 20 % , the first increase in a decade , '' the Florida ACLU wrote . Meanwhile , attorneys , disability rights advocates , and media investigations say that there 's been a spike in the use of involuntary psychiatric commitments against kids like Evan , thanks to an existing Florida mental health law that gives police authority to temporarily lock up both children and adults against their will . Shahar Pasch is a Florida attorney who represents children with disabilities and their parents , including Seiler . `` Since Parkland , it 's gone through the roof , '' Pasch says . `` I had another young , elementary-aged kid who was handcuffed and hobbled , which means his legs were tied together . '' Last year , an SRO in Orlando , Florida sparked public outrage after he arrested a 6-year-old girl , Kaia Rolle , for misdemeanor battery . A small child , handcuffed and arrested , booked and given a mugshot ? The arrest made national news and led to the officer 's firing . It was n't an isolated incident , though . Stories like that pop up every few years . In 2006 , it was a St. Petersburg 5-year-old who was handcuffed and arrested in school . ABC News reported that , according to FBI crime data , 30,467 children under the age of 10 were arrested in the United States between 2013 and 2018 . During the same period , 266,000 children between the ages of 10 and 12 were arrested . The good news is that the rate of juvenile arrests in the U.S. has dropped significantly since its peak in 1996 , from roughly 8,500 arrests per 100,000 individuals between the ages of 10 and 17 to 2,400 in 2016 . This mirrors the nationwide trend of declining crime throughout the 2000s and 2010s . But in most places , there is no minimum age at which a child can be arrested and charged with a crime—34 states have no lower age limit for delinquency , while 11 states place the floor at 10 years old . According to data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice , Florida police arrested 2,781 children between the ages of 5 and 12 in fiscal year 2018–2019 , the latest year for which data are available . The youngest was a 5-year-old Hispanic boy . He was charged by the Osceola County Sheriff 's Office with felony aggravated assault . The data were anonymized , though , and ███ could not obtain more information about the case from the sheriff 's office . In an effort to see how common allegations of excessive force like Seiler 's are against the approximately 1,800 SROs in Florida , and whether those complaints are substantiated by police departments , ███ filed public records requests for a decade 's worth of disciplinary records against SROs in numerous Florida counties , including Palm Beach . In most cases , sheriff 's departments charged several hundred dollars for the records . However , the Palm Beach Public School District responded with an estimated fee invoice for $ 20,060 to complete the request . Other large agencies , like the Broward Sheriff 's Office and the Orlando Police Department , rejected the requests because they do n't track SROs separately in their systems . Pasco County , however , a rural-suburban county of about 550,000 people north of Tampa Bay , is illustrative of some of the concerns that civil liberties groups have about expanding police presence in schools . In December , a Pasco deputy threatened to shoot a high school student who was attempting to leave the campus in his car . The deputy and a school staffer had blocked the student from leaving , leading to a long standoff between both parties . `` You 're gon na get shot you come another fucking foot closer to me , '' the deputy says at one point as the student tries to maneuver around him . `` You run into me , you 'll get fucking shot . '' The student 's mother , who obtained body camera footage of the exchange , said her son had an orthodontist appointment that she 'd notified the school of weeks in advance . Last October , an SRO in the county was fired after he accidentally fired his gun in a middle school cafeteria . According to Pasco Sheriff 's Office disciplinary records , `` Video surveillance captured him mishandling his agency issued firearm , which caused an accidental discharge . The projective entered and exited his uniform pants leg and struck the wall behind him ; bullet fragments were located on the ground adjacent to the lunch line where students were standing at the time of the discharge . '' The Pasco Sheriff 's Office terminated another SRO , Milton Arroyo , in 2017 after an investigation found he was sending inappropriate text messages to several female students at the high school he patrolled . He was technically fired for a different offense , however : misusing a Florida state law enforcement database to search for confidential information on women he was interested in . Local news outlets and the public did n't know , though , that several months before Arroyo was fired , the Pasco Sheriff 's Office reprimanded him after he was caught on camera flipping someone off in the school cafeteria . Several parents filed a complaint against him , according to a disciplinary report . The office reprimanded another Pasco SRO in 2019 after he physically restrained a student but failed to turn on his body camera or file an incident report . ███ also obtained disciplinary records from Miami-Dade Schools Police Department . In 2014 , officer Juan Cecchinelli was removed from his position after he sent sexually explicit texts to a teenage girl at the school he policed . An internal affairs summary notes that , during the department 's investigation , Cecchinelli `` refused to answer why he had sex toys in his department assigned vehicle . '' Other incidents have popped up around the state . In February , a Miami-Dade Schools officer was caught on camera cursing at and threatening to shoot high school students . She has been placed on administrative leave while the department investigates . Last November , an Orange County SRO was fired after video emerged of him pulling a middle school student 's hair . That same month , a Broward County sheriff 's deputy was arrested and charged with child abuse after video showed him body-slamming a 15-year-old girl at a school for children with special needs . In March 2019 , Duval County School Police ( DCSP ) fired an SRO after video showed him grabbing a high school girl by the neck and throwing her to the ground . According to public records obtained by ███ , three other DCSP members resigned in 2019 for `` unbecoming conduct , '' `` failure to write a report , '' and `` actions or which may bring the DCSP into disrepute or ridicule . '' One of them pointed a fake gun at a student with special needs . Three other DCSP members resigned in 2018 after one pawned his service weapon and the other two failed to report it . It 's notable that in most of these incidents the officers were fired . Departments appear to have little stomach for such cases . Although the Florida Department of Law Enforcement keeps records on decertified police officers , it does not track officers by role , so it 's unknown how many SROs have had their law enforcement license revoked over the years . However , using a USA Today database of decertified police officers , ███ identified 18 officers from Florida departments that exclusively police schools , such as the Miami-Dade Schools Police . They were decertified for offenses including cocaine possession , witness-dissuading , perjury , aggravated assault , and sexual harassment . In 2007 , a Palm Beach School District police officer was arrested and decertified for allegedly handcuffing and sexually assaulting a woman . `` If You 're Going To Act Like a Fool , I 'm Going To Treat You Like a Fool . '' In many ways , Evan is a typical 9-year-old boy . He likes riding his BMX bike , swimming , and surfing , and he has a menagerie of pets—four cats , a guinea pig , and three fish . Seiler says that if you passed her son on the street , the only thing you would notice about him would be his bright red hair . But Evan is also on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum . He 's been diagnosed with Asperger 's syndrome , attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) , and dyslexia . Evan attended Acreage Pines Elementary School , a public school in Palm Beach County , where he was in a classroom specifically for children with autism . Seiler also paid a private applied behavior analysis ( ABA ) therapist to work with Evan 20 hours a week , including at school . On August 30 of last year , Evan had a meltdown at school . He began throwing items and ripping up his schoolwork . Jennifer Borr , a South Florida ABA specialist , says ABA therapists work to reinforce good behavior and decision making skills with young children . Borr says children on the autism spectrum often have trouble communicating and struggle with what 's called `` executive function skills '' —things like regulating emotions and dealing with changes in routines . They 're also often sensitive to sensory stimuli like noises , lights , and touch . This combination can lead to behavior seen as aggressive or dangerous by others , such as `` stimming '' —repetitive movements like banging their head—or acting out and hitting other people . However , Sam Crane , legal director for the Autistic Self Advocacy Network , says the behavior , especially when physical boundaries are broached , is perfectly logical from the student 's point of view . `` A student might try to leave a classroom if it 's overstimulating , '' she says . `` The teacher might block them . The student panics and tries to push past the teacher , and then that 's seen as an assault or something along those lines . '' Evan 's ABA therapist took him outside the classroom , and eventually to the office , where the therapist and the school behavior counselor tried to calm him down . In an internal company report filed after the incident , the therapist wrote that Evan `` punched me in the chest and kicked me in the shin , threw chairs , [ and ] then sat down on green couch after [ being ] placed in a 'bear hug . ' '' At this point , Evan was sitting on a couch , and his tantrum was waning , according to the therapist . `` Heavy breathing is an indicator of cooling down , '' the report notes . School administrators were discussing filing a report on Evan 's physical outburst toward the therapist when things abruptly escalated . According to the ABA therapist 's report , an SRO `` tackled Evan to the ground and stated , 'If you are going to act like a fool I am going to treat you like a fool ' and then said 'you are coming with me ' while holding handcuffs , trying to place them around Evan 's wrists . '' The incident report says a teacher in the room `` started to cry when Evan was brought to the ground by the officer , and she started to cover her face by holding a piece of paper while stating ' I do n't understand why they are doing this . ' '' Palm Beach County School District policies , as laid out in a `` Baker Act decision tree protocol , '' require that a student having a mental health crisis `` remains in crisis and continues to exhibit behaviors which potentially meet Baker Act criteria '' before escalating the situation further . `` I feel that the way the officer dealt with this situation was unnecessary because the tantrum behavior had ceased and was under control , '' the therapist concluded . Florida law enforcement arrested 8,153 students at K-12 schools in the 2018–2019 school year , according to state data , a small increase over the previous year . Although Evan was led out of school in handcuffs and placed in the back of a police cruiser , his case would not appear in any state data on juvenile arrests , because rather than arrest him , the SRO attempted to involuntarily commit him to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation . Evan was detained under the Florida Health Act of 1971 , commonly called the Baker Act . Under the law , a judge , doctor , or police officer can commit someone to an involuntary psychiatric evaluation for up to 72 hours . Use of the Baker Act is common enough that , over the decades , the name has also become a verb—as in , to Baker Act someone , or get Baker Acted . Disability rights advocates allege use of the Baker Act against children has spiked since the Parkland shooting . `` We noticed that we 're getting a lot more calls from families of children who 've been Baker Acted at school , '' says Ann Siegel , an attorney with Disability Rights Florida . Siegel and other advocates also say that , crucially , parents are n't being given the opportunity to intervene before their children are removed from school . `` The parent is not called , '' Siegel says . `` If you look at the Baker Act statute , there 's a provision in there where you 're supposed to see if family intervention is a possibility . '' The Baker Act statute authorizes police to commit someone when their mental state makes them a threat to themselves or others . It also includes the clause , `` and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services . '' Palm Beach County School District 's protocols also recommend that schools `` make every effort to include the parents/guardians in all phases of the process . '' But Seiler says she was n't contacted by Evan 's school until her son was already en route to a hospital . When the SRO finally called her , Seiler says he initially would n't say where he was taking her son and told her not to come , since she would n't be able to see him anyway . When Florida resident William Terry 's autistic 11-year-old son was Baker Acted after hitting a teacher at Boca Raton Community Middle School while having a meltdown , Terry says his wife showed up at the school minutes after she was called but was not allowed to see her child . `` My wife , as you can imagine with a special needs kid , has got a very special bond with him , and she can usually calm him down , '' Terry says . `` All of his teachers know that , but they separated her from him . '' Instead , Terry 's son was handcuffed , sent to a hospital , and held for psychiatric evaluation for the full 72 hours allowed under the law . Terry says he and his wife were only allowed to visit their son for an hour a day during that time . In March , school officials at Belcher Elementary School in Clearwater , Florida , called Tyeisha Harmon to tell her that her 7-year-old son , who has ADHD and a mental health disorder , was having a meltdown . He 'd walked out into the parking lot after being moved into a new classroom—a change in routine that upset him . `` It took me about 20 minutes to get there , '' Harmon says . `` When I got there , I asked for my son , and they told me that he had been taken away about 15 minutes prior . '' Harmon says the SRO called her while she was en route to the hospital . When Harmon asked the officer why she 'd Baker Acted the boy , the officer said that he had scratched her , and that her only options were to either charge him with a crime or commit him . Harmon says her son was handcuffed so tightly that it left marks on his wrists that were still visible when she got him out of the psychiatric hospital four hours later . `` Part of the Baker Act says that a person has to be a danger to himself and others , '' Harmon says . `` My son was in a parking lot with a police officer and adults . What harm could he really do to call for a Baker Act ? '' As for the rise in the number of Baker Act commitments , data back up what lawyers and advocates are seeing anecdotally . A Tampa Bay Times investigation found that children had been removed from Tampa-area schools via the Baker Act more than 7,500 times over the past seven years . A database built by the Times showed that the rate of commitments for local students rose 35 percent in just the last five years . Overall , the investigation found `` glaring weaknesses in the system—from a lack of parental consent , to students being wrongly committed , to facilities that put students in harm 's way . '' The Times found cases like a sixth grader who was Baker Acted for joking to his friends , `` Oh look , ropes . Time to hang myself . '' Or a 13-year-old girl who was Baker Acted by an SRO for telling her friend she had argued with her mother and wanted to throw herself off the school bus . In February , a 6-year-old girl in Duval County was Baker Acted after allegedly destroying school property and attacking staff . The girl has been previously diagnosed with a disruptive mood disorder . Her family claims she was injected with the antipsychotic drug Thorazine while committed . A similar investigation last year by the Ft. Myers News-Press reported that there were a record 32,763 Baker Act commitments of children in 2017 . About a quarter of those were removals from schools , according to a Florida Department of Children and Families report . The data are incomplete , though . Unlike juvenile arrests , it 's unknown exactly how many Florida children are committed through the Baker Act because of disturbances at schools . `` The problem with [ the ] Baker Act is the schools do n't have to report those numbers , '' Seigel says . `` They do n't even keep track of them . '' A Florida state legislator introduced a bill in January that would require schools to accurately report Baker Act commitments and require parents to be notified prior to a child 's removal . The data that are available , though , suggest that while school arrests in Florida have been trending down , administrators and law enforcement are in many cases just substituting one mechanism for removing a child from school for another . `` Autistic kids are facing widespread problems with schools that are trying to find ways to segregate them and deny them the educational services that they 're entitled to , '' says Crane . Seiler finally arrived at the Palm Beach hospital where Evan had been taken . She says he was sitting quietly and repeating , `` I want to go home . '' Seiler says a psychiatrist came and talked to Evan for a few minutes about cars—another of Evan 's interests—and concluded that he was just having a bad day . Evan was released back to his mother , and Seiler was charged a $ 250 copay for the involuntary emergency room visit . Terry says he received a hospital bill for $ 5,000 for his son 's three-day commitment . Why a police officer would tackle and handcuff a third grader is one question . Another question is why the officer was in the school in the first place . Police have been in American schools since the 1950s , but never with the frequency that they are now . Armed police officers were in just 1 percent of public schools in the 1970s , according to The Trace , a nonprofit newsroom that covers firearms . Federal data show that by the 2015–16 school year they were in 43 percent of all public schools and 71 percent of high schools . National Association of School Resource Officers ( NASRO ) executive director Mo Canady says being an SRO is `` the most unique assignment in law enforcement . '' `` Officers that are going to be assigned in this particular field have got to be carefully selected , '' Canady says . `` It 's not for every officer . As a matter of fact , I might argue it 's not for most officers . '' The number of SROs in Florida has dramatically increased over the past two years , following the passage of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act in 2018 . The new law requires at least one police officer or armed guardian in every public elementary , middle , and high school in Florida . Most districts have opted for police , which has led to an expensive hiring rush for qualified officers in school districts across the state . There are no national certification requirements for SROs . Standards vary from state to state , although NASRO offers best practices and training . Several states , such as Pennsylvania , require prospective officers to go through NASRO 's training . In Florida , potential SROs are required to undergo a criminal background check , drug testing , and a psychological evaluation , in addition to being a state-certified law enforcement officer . The state 's attorney general 's office and several other organizations offer SRO training classes , starting at a basic 40-hour course , but there is no statute or state-level rule regarding SRO certification . The level of required training is left to individual police departments . The police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota has intensified scrutiny of police hiring and qualification standards , and some districts are reconsidering their use of SROs entirely . HuffPost reported that , in addition to the Minneapolis school board severing its relationship with the city 's police department , a school board member in Denver plans on introducing a similar resolution , and officials are considering similar plans in `` Arizona , North Carolina , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Washington , Oregon , New York , and Illinois . '' A HuffPost investigation last year found that children have been tasered by SROs in at least 143 incidents since 2011 . SROs do n't write the laws , though . Throughout the 1980s and '90s , zero tolerance policies spread through schools across the country—first in response to drugs , then mass shootings—and Florida passed some of the harshest laws in the country . After the passage of the federal Gun-Free School Act of 1994 , Florida required all school districts to enforce zero tolerance policies for students who bring weapons to school , requiring students who violate the policy to be expelled for at least a year or referred to law enforcement . In 2000 , the state legislature passed another package of juvenile justice bills , known as the `` tough love '' plan , that further reinforced this punitive model . School districts began to expand the scope of their zero tolerance policies beyond drugs and guns to petty misbehavior . While juvenile arrest rates in general were falling in the state—mirroring a nationwide drop—there were persistent and troubling racial disparities in school discipline and arrests , not to mention kids being charged with battery for shooting spitballs , or being expelled for bringing nail clippers to school , or dying at a military-style juvenile boot camp . After a decade , Florida lawmakers reconsidered the wisdom of using the criminal justice system to dispense love . In 2009 , the state legislature loosened those zero tolerance policies , amending the statutes to clarify that they `` are not intended to be rigorously applied to petty acts of misconduct and misdemeanors , including , but not limited to , minor fights or disturbances . '' School districts also began softening their disciplinary practices as backlash against the so-called school-to-prison pipeline grew . Now the pendulum has swung back the other way again . Last year , as part of a bill codifying the recommendations of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission , Florida lawmakers edited the statute yet again to remove the prohibition on using zero tolerance policies to police misdemeanors and minor disturbances . The Orlando Sentinel reported that Osceola County school officials now report all minor fights to police as a result of the changes . Civil liberties groups argue the new laws and the safety commission 's recommendations threaten to bring back the bad days of zero tolerance , ushering in unproven safety policies and ignoring funding for things like more mental health services . `` We 've heard , for instance , that down in Miami-Dade County there are over a dozen officers in the same school , while there 's only one or two mental health care providers , '' says Bacardi Jackson , managing attorney for children 's rights at the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) , a nonprofit legal advocacy and civil rights organization . Jackson says her organization put together a focus group of young women from about 10 different Miami-Dade high schools to talk about their experience with police on campus . `` It was very , very troubling , '' she says . `` A number of the girls expressed how powerless they felt when they felt that they had been mistreated by an SRO . When someone made an inappropriate comment , when someone looked at them in a way that made them feel very uncomfortable , they did not believe they had the ability to report that without having some severe consequences . '' The SPLC released a report in October arguing the commission 's recommendations `` will place students at greater risk of getting shot and/or wrongfully arrested ; put their privacy and liberty in jeopardy ; strip them of civil rights ; create school environments that are more tense , anxiety-provoking and traumatic ; breed distrust between students and faculty ; and absorb funds that could be used on programs that are actually shown to make schools safer for all students . '' Canady calls arguments that more SROs will necessarily result in more arrests `` hogwash . '' `` NASRO stands firmly on this , '' he says . `` Every school in this country could greatly benefit from a carefully selected , specifically trained SRO . '' In fact , Canady argues that well-trained SRO with a good relationship among students and staff act as `` filters '' that reduce the number of arrests . `` They are the ones who have built relationships in that school , and they recognize they have a lot of other resources around them , '' Canady says . `` Instead of having to arrest everybody for misdemeanors like disorderly conduct , there would be that relationship where the SRO can step back and allow the school to take action . That is by and large what good SROs do . '' One thing Canady and the SPLC do agree on , however , are zero tolerance policies . `` I 've never been a fan of them because what they do , at best , is remove discretion for good administrators and for good law enforcement officers , '' he says . `` I ca n't imagine being able to be productive as a law enforcement officer if I 'm always faced with zero tolerance . '' While schools may voluntarily or involuntarily report misbehavior to police , Florida police do have discretion to issue civil citations to juveniles for first-time misdemeanor offenses . A civil citation funnels the case into diversion programs rather than the local prosecutor 's office . Florida is a national leader in pre-arrest diversion for youths . But there is no uniformity . A December report from the Caruthers Institute found that , while police issued civil citations in 68 percent of juvenile cases involving first-time misdemeanors statewide—keeping thousands of kids out of the juvenile justice system—some counties used citations in less than half of eligible cases . Others , like Miami-Dade and Pinellas counties , issue civil citations to students in more than 90 percent of cases . The report says this results in `` unequal justice by geography . '' An investigation by the Orlando Sentinel also reported wide racial disparities in school arrests and citations . For example , the newspaper found that black students in Seminole County made up 15 percent of the student population , but they represented 80 percent of the school-related disorderly conduct incidents involving first-time offenders and 41 percent of misdemeanor assaults and batteries . And it found that the trend of declining in-school arrests had reversed in several central Florida counties , with Lake County posting a five-year high for school-related arrests in the 2018–2019 school year . No police department or school wants to be accused of not doing enough to prevent a mass shooting , especially after Parkland . In February , school officials in Seminole County subjected a 5-year-old boy to a threat assessment after he allegedly told a classmate , `` I wish someone killed you . '' Although they determined the threat was n't credible , the incident will stay in the county 's threat assessment database for 25 years . Last October , a police officer in Overland Park , Missouri , handcuffed and arrested an eighth grader who had formed her fingers into a pretend gun and pointed them at her classmates . Overland Park 's police chief put it bluntly to The Kansas City Star : `` I 'll take the heat all day long for arresting a 13-year-old . I 'm not willing to take the heat for not preventing a school tragedy . '' The Florida Sheriffs Association and the Florida Association of School Resource Officers did not respond to requests for comment for this story . In March , 6-year-old Kaia Rolle , whose arrest at school sparked national outrage , watched from the gallery of the Florida House of Representatives as lawmakers unanimously passed legislation inspired by her ordeal . The law would n't have banned the arrests of small children , though . Instead , it would have required police departments to create policies surrounding arrests of children under 10 . The legislation died in the state Senate anyway . `` I 'm extremely disappointed , '' Rolle 's grandmother , Meralyn Kirkland , told the Orlando Sentinel . `` My family went through so much when Kaia was arrested…and we 're still going through it . One of the biggest passions for me right now is seeing that no other family , no other child goes through what Kaia 's going through and what we 're going through . '' Today 's school discipline often shifts wildly from crisis to crisis . A more tenable solution would be to strike a balance that keeps schools safe without militarizing them . Schools should stop treating misbehavior that used to warrant a trip to the principal 's office like criminal offenses . Borderline cases should n't be punished out of fear or absurd zero tolerance policies . And the effects of any such changes should be rigorously tracked , with an eye on how they are used on the most vulnerable students . Neither Evan nor Terry 's son returned to their schools after they were Baker Acted . Both started sleeping in their parents ' beds again . Terry 's son is homeschooled now . Evan attends a private school , where his mother says he is doing well . `` He does n't talk about a whole lot of things , so we do n't really know what he 's carrying in there in his brain , '' Seiler says . `` We 'll get past this , but this should never have happened . '' Seiler filed a complaint against the SRO who allegedly tackled Evan . According to Seiler 's attorney , Palm Beach Schools Police Department launched an internal affairs investigation into the incident , but Seiler is still waiting for the results . Terry says the teacher pressed assault charges against his son , who received a deferred adjudication in youth court , meaning the case will be dismissed if his son stays out of trouble for a certain amount of time . Harmon has retained a lawyer and is planning to sue . Seiler 's lawyer says that children with disabilities who are Baker Acted often have nightmares and regress in terms of behavior , not to mention the blow they take to their perception of themselves . `` When you are 9 years old and you 've been told all your life that police officers arrest the bad people , and suddenly you find yourself in the back of a police car for behavior that you could n't control because you 're a child with a disability , what do you think about yourself now ? '' Palm Beach Schools Police Department did not respond to a request for comment for this story . The principal of Acreage Pines Elementary directed a request for comment to Palm Beach School District 's director of communications , who declined to comment , citing federal privacy laws for students . Both Seiler and Terry struggled with the decision to share their stories and attach their names to them , but in the end , they both did it for the same ███ . `` The real ███ I picked up the call is I said , if my experience can help just one family , it 'd be worth it , '' Terry says . `` So that 's my hope . '' `` It 's appalling , just appalling that this stuff goes on and no one seems to care , '' Seiler says . `` These kids are falling through the cracks . If this prevents any other kid and family from going through this , then yeah , that 's worth it . ''

On the morning of Aug. 30, 2019, as Hurricane Dorian was bearing down on Florida's Treasure Coast, Jamie Seiler was at the hospital where she worked, preparing for the storm's approach. Then her cellphone rang. On the other end was the principal of her son's school. The principal said her son had been escorted out of the school in handcuffs and was being taken to a psychiatric hospital in a police car. Getting such a call is a nightmare for any parent, but Seiler's son hadn't threatened to shoot up the school or commit suicide. He had several developmental disorders and had thrown a tantrum. He was just 9 years old. "I flipped out, I broke down," Seiler says. She sat in her boss's office, "hysterical to the point they didn't think that I would be able to drive." A professional therapist would later tell Seiler that a school resource officer (SRO) had tackled her autistic 80-pound son while he was sitting on a bench—a use of force that the therapist, who was in the room at the time, said was unnecessary. One teacher who was present cried, according to an incident report filed by the therapist. Seiler's son Evan is only one of thousands of small children who are led out of schools in handcuffs every year around the country. Juvenile arrests in Florida have been steadily declining over the last decade, as they have been more generally across the U.S., but for the next few years the state will be a bellwether for school safety and juvenile justice. After the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the state embarked on an aggressive plan to "harden" its schools against shooting threats, including putting at least one SRO or armed guardian in every K-12 school in the state. However, civil liberties groups, disability rights advocates, and lawyers for parents say the state overcorrected, and that students, especially minorities and those with disabilities, are now bearing the brunt of new zero tolerance policies and heavy-handed discipline. As arrests of small children make national headlines, and legislators and parents debate how far is too far when it comes to school safety, Florida's schools have become a high-stakes experiment in policing. Amid a nationwide debate on law enforcement violence following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, school resource officers have flown somewhat under the radar. But it's clear that education officials are already rethinking police presence in classrooms: In Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed after an officer pressed a knee into his neck for nearly nine minutes, the school board recently voted in favor of a resolution ending a $1 million partnership with city police. Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon, announced last week that he would disband the city's school resource officers, putting a million dollars from the SRO budget toward counselors, social workers, and "culturally specific partnerships." Other states and cities appear to be considering similar measures. In Florida, the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned in a report last June that the new laws could reverse years of progress in reducing school arrests. While juvenile arrests both in and out of Florida schools continued to fall in the 2017–2018 fiscal year, according to state law enforcement data, "the percentage of youth arrests for misdemeanors that occurred at schools, rather than in the community, increased to 20%, the first increase in a decade," the Florida ACLU wrote. Meanwhile, attorneys, disability rights advocates, and media investigations say that there's been a spike in the use of involuntary psychiatric commitments against kids like Evan, thanks to an existing Florida mental health law that gives police authority to temporarily lock up both children and adults against their will. Shahar Pasch is a Florida attorney who represents children with disabilities and their parents, including Seiler. "Since Parkland, it's gone through the roof," Pasch says. "I had another young, elementary-aged kid who was handcuffed and hobbled, which means his legs were tied together." Do We Really Handcuff Children? Last year, an SRO in Orlando, Florida sparked public outrage after he arrested a 6-year-old girl, Kaia Rolle, for misdemeanor battery. A small child, handcuffed and arrested, booked and given a mugshot? The arrest made national news and led to the officer's firing. It wasn't an isolated incident, though. Stories like that pop up every few years. In 2006, it was a St. Petersburg 5-year-old who was handcuffed and arrested in school. ABC News reported that, according to FBI crime data, 30,467 children under the age of 10 were arrested in the United States between 2013 and 2018. During the same period, 266,000 children between the ages of 10 and 12 were arrested. The good news is that the rate of juvenile arrests in the U.S. has dropped significantly since its peak in 1996, from roughly 8,500 arrests per 100,000 individuals between the ages of 10 and 17 to 2,400 in 2016. This mirrors the nationwide trend of declining crime throughout the 2000s and 2010s. But in most places, there is no minimum age at which a child can be arrested and charged with a crime—34 states have no lower age limit for delinquency, while 11 states place the floor at 10 years old. According to data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Florida police arrested 2,781 children between the ages of 5 and 12 in fiscal year 2018–2019, the latest year for which data are available. The youngest was a 5-year-old Hispanic boy. He was charged by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office with felony aggravated assault. The data were anonymized, though, and Reason could not obtain more information about the case from the sheriff's office. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer In an effort to see how common allegations of excessive force like Seiler's are against the approximately 1,800 SROs in Florida, and whether those complaints are substantiated by police departments, Reason filed public records requests for a decade's worth of disciplinary records against SROs in numerous Florida counties, including Palm Beach. In most cases, sheriff's departments charged several hundred dollars for the records. However, the Palm Beach Public School District responded with an estimated fee invoice for $20,060 to complete the request. Other large agencies, like the Broward Sheriff's Office and the Orlando Police Department, rejected the requests because they don't track SROs separately in their systems. Pasco County, however, a rural-suburban county of about 550,000 people north of Tampa Bay, is illustrative of some of the concerns that civil liberties groups have about expanding police presence in schools. In December, a Pasco deputy threatened to shoot a high school student who was attempting to leave the campus in his car. The deputy and a school staffer had blocked the student from leaving, leading to a long standoff between both parties. "You're gonna get shot you come another fucking foot closer to me," the deputy says at one point as the student tries to maneuver around him. "You run into me, you'll get fucking shot." The student's mother, who obtained body camera footage of the exchange, said her son had an orthodontist appointment that she'd notified the school of weeks in advance. Last October, an SRO in the county was fired after he accidentally fired his gun in a middle school cafeteria. According to Pasco Sheriff's Office disciplinary records, "Video surveillance captured him mishandling his agency issued firearm, which caused an accidental discharge. The projective entered and exited his uniform pants leg and struck the wall behind him; bullet fragments were located on the ground adjacent to the lunch line where students were standing at the time of the discharge." The Pasco Sheriff's Office terminated another SRO, Milton Arroyo, in 2017 after an investigation found he was sending inappropriate text messages to several female students at the high school he patrolled. He was technically fired for a different offense, however: misusing a Florida state law enforcement database to search for confidential information on women he was interested in. Local news outlets and the public didn't know, though, that several months before Arroyo was fired, the Pasco Sheriff's Office reprimanded him after he was caught on camera flipping someone off in the school cafeteria. Several parents filed a complaint against him, according to a disciplinary report. The office reprimanded another Pasco SRO in 2019 after he physically restrained a student but failed to turn on his body camera or file an incident report. Reason also obtained disciplinary records from Miami-Dade Schools Police Department. In 2014, officer Juan Cecchinelli was removed from his position after he sent sexually explicit texts to a teenage girl at the school he policed. An internal affairs summary notes that, during the department's investigation, Cecchinelli "refused to answer why he had sex toys in his department assigned vehicle." Other incidents have popped up around the state. In February, a Miami-Dade Schools officer was caught on camera cursing at and threatening to shoot high school students. She has been placed on administrative leave while the department investigates. Last November, an Orange County SRO was fired after video emerged of him pulling a middle school student's hair. That same month, a Broward County sheriff's deputy was arrested and charged with child abuse after video showed him body-slamming a 15-year-old girl at a school for children with special needs. In March 2019, Duval County School Police (DCSP) fired an SRO after video showed him grabbing a high school girl by the neck and throwing her to the ground. According to public records obtained by Reason, three other DCSP members resigned in 2019 for "unbecoming conduct," "failure to write a report," and "actions or which may bring the DCSP into disrepute or ridicule." One of them pointed a fake gun at a student with special needs. Three other DCSP members resigned in 2018 after one pawned his service weapon and the other two failed to report it. It's notable that in most of these incidents the officers were fired. Departments appear to have little stomach for such cases. Although the Florida Department of Law Enforcement keeps records on decertified police officers, it does not track officers by role, so it's unknown how many SROs have had their law enforcement license revoked over the years. However, using a USA Today database of decertified police officers, Reason identified 18 officers from Florida departments that exclusively police schools, such as the Miami-Dade Schools Police. They were decertified for offenses including cocaine possession, witness-dissuading, perjury, aggravated assault, and sexual harassment. In 2007, a Palm Beach School District police officer was arrested and decertified for allegedly handcuffing and sexually assaulting a woman. "If You're Going To Act Like a Fool, I'm Going To Treat You Like a Fool." In many ways, Evan is a typical 9-year-old boy. He likes riding his BMX bike, swimming, and surfing, and he has a menagerie of pets—four cats, a guinea pig, and three fish. Seiler says that if you passed her son on the street, the only thing you would notice about him would be his bright red hair. But Evan is also on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum. He's been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and dyslexia. Evan attended Acreage Pines Elementary School, a public school in Palm Beach County, where he was in a classroom specifically for children with autism. Seiler also paid a private applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapist to work with Evan 20 hours a week, including at school. On August 30 of last year, Evan had a meltdown at school. He began throwing items and ripping up his schoolwork. Jennifer Borr, a South Florida ABA specialist, says ABA therapists work to reinforce good behavior and decision making skills with young children. Borr says children on the autism spectrum often have trouble communicating and struggle with what's called "executive function skills"—things like regulating emotions and dealing with changes in routines. They're also often sensitive to sensory stimuli like noises, lights, and touch. This combination can lead to behavior seen as aggressive or dangerous by others, such as "stimming"—repetitive movements like banging their head—or acting out and hitting other people. However, Sam Crane, legal director for the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, says the behavior, especially when physical boundaries are broached, is perfectly logical from the student's point of view. "A student might try to leave a classroom if it's overstimulating," she says. "The teacher might block them. The student panics and tries to push past the teacher, and then that's seen as an assault or something along those lines." Evan's ABA therapist took him outside the classroom, and eventually to the office, where the therapist and the school behavior counselor tried to calm him down. In an internal company report filed after the incident, the therapist wrote that Evan "punched me in the chest and kicked me in the shin, threw chairs, [and] then sat down on green couch after [being] placed in a 'bear hug.'" At this point, Evan was sitting on a couch, and his tantrum was waning, according to the therapist. "Heavy breathing is an indicator of cooling down," the report notes. School administrators were discussing filing a report on Evan's physical outburst toward the therapist when things abruptly escalated. According to the ABA therapist's report, an SRO "tackled Evan to the ground and stated, 'If you are going to act like a fool I am going to treat you like a fool' and then said 'you are coming with me' while holding handcuffs, trying to place them around Evan's wrists." The incident report says a teacher in the room "started to cry when Evan was brought to the ground by the officer, and she started to cover her face by holding a piece of paper while stating 'I don't understand why they are doing this.'" Palm Beach County School District policies, as laid out in a "Baker Act decision tree protocol," require that a student having a mental health crisis "remains in crisis and continues to exhibit behaviors which potentially meet Baker Act criteria" before escalating the situation further. "I feel that the way the officer dealt with this situation was unnecessary because the tantrum behavior had ceased and was under control," the therapist concluded. Florida law enforcement arrested 8,153 students at K-12 schools in the 2018–2019 school year, according to state data, a small increase over the previous year. Although Evan was led out of school in handcuffs and placed in the back of a police cruiser, his case would not appear in any state data on juvenile arrests, because rather than arrest him, the SRO attempted to involuntarily commit him to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. How the Baker Act Enables Police in Schools Evan was detained under the Florida Health Act of 1971, commonly called the Baker Act. Under the law, a judge, doctor, or police officer can commit someone to an involuntary psychiatric evaluation for up to 72 hours. Use of the Baker Act is common enough that, over the decades, the name has also become a verb—as in, to Baker Act someone, or get Baker Acted. Disability rights advocates allege use of the Baker Act against children has spiked since the Parkland shooting. "We noticed that we're getting a lot more calls from families of children who've been Baker Acted at school," says Ann Siegel, an attorney with Disability Rights Florida. Siegel and other advocates also say that, crucially, parents aren't being given the opportunity to intervene before their children are removed from school. "The parent is not called," Siegel says. "If you look at the Baker Act statute, there's a provision in there where you're supposed to see if family intervention is a possibility." The Baker Act statute authorizes police to commit someone when their mental state makes them a threat to themselves or others. It also includes the clause, "and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services." Palm Beach County School District's protocols also recommend that schools "make every effort to include the parents/guardians in all phases of the process." But Seiler says she wasn't contacted by Evan's school until her son was already en route to a hospital. When the SRO finally called her, Seiler says he initially wouldn't say where he was taking her son and told her not to come, since she wouldn't be able to see him anyway. When Florida resident William Terry's autistic 11-year-old son was Baker Acted after hitting a teacher at Boca Raton Community Middle School while having a meltdown, Terry says his wife showed up at the school minutes after she was called but was not allowed to see her child. "My wife, as you can imagine with a special needs kid, has got a very special bond with him, and she can usually calm him down," Terry says. "All of his teachers know that, but they separated her from him." Instead, Terry's son was handcuffed, sent to a hospital, and held for psychiatric evaluation for the full 72 hours allowed under the law. Terry says he and his wife were only allowed to visit their son for an hour a day during that time. In March, school officials at Belcher Elementary School in Clearwater, Florida, called Tyeisha Harmon to tell her that her 7-year-old son, who has ADHD and a mental health disorder, was having a meltdown. He'd walked out into the parking lot after being moved into a new classroom—a change in routine that upset him. "It took me about 20 minutes to get there," Harmon says. "When I got there, I asked for my son, and they told me that he had been taken away about 15 minutes prior." Harmon says the SRO called her while she was en route to the hospital. When Harmon asked the officer why she'd Baker Acted the boy, the officer said that he had scratched her, and that her only options were to either charge him with a crime or commit him. Harmon says her son was handcuffed so tightly that it left marks on his wrists that were still visible when she got him out of the psychiatric hospital four hours later. "Part of the Baker Act says that a person has to be a danger to himself and others," Harmon says. "My son was in a parking lot with a police officer and adults. What harm could he really do to call for a Baker Act?" As for the rise in the number of Baker Act commitments, data back up what lawyers and advocates are seeing anecdotally. A Tampa Bay Times investigation found that children had been removed from Tampa-area schools via the Baker Act more than 7,500 times over the past seven years. A database built by the Times showed that the rate of commitments for local students rose 35 percent in just the last five years. Overall, the investigation found "glaring weaknesses in the system—from a lack of parental consent, to students being wrongly committed, to facilities that put students in harm's way." The Times found cases like a sixth grader who was Baker Acted for joking to his friends, "Oh look, ropes. Time to hang myself." Or a 13-year-old girl who was Baker Acted by an SRO for telling her friend she had argued with her mother and wanted to throw herself off the school bus. In February, a 6-year-old girl in Duval County was Baker Acted after allegedly destroying school property and attacking staff. The girl has been previously diagnosed with a disruptive mood disorder. Her family claims she was injected with the antipsychotic drug Thorazine while committed. A similar investigation last year by the Ft. Myers News-Press reported that there were a record 32,763 Baker Act commitments of children in 2017. About a quarter of those were removals from schools, according to a Florida Department of Children and Families report. The data are incomplete, though. Unlike juvenile arrests, it's unknown exactly how many Florida children are committed through the Baker Act because of disturbances at schools. "The problem with [the] Baker Act is the schools don't have to report those numbers," Seigel says. "They don't even keep track of them." A Florida state legislator introduced a bill in January that would require schools to accurately report Baker Act commitments and require parents to be notified prior to a child's removal. The data that are available, though, suggest that while school arrests in Florida have been trending down, administrators and law enforcement are in many cases just substituting one mechanism for removing a child from school for another. "Autistic kids are facing widespread problems with schools that are trying to find ways to segregate them and deny them the educational services that they're entitled to," says Crane. Seiler finally arrived at the Palm Beach hospital where Evan had been taken. She says he was sitting quietly and repeating, "I want to go home." "I was absolutely terrified for him," she says. Seiler says a psychiatrist came and talked to Evan for a few minutes about cars—another of Evan's interests—and concluded that he was just having a bad day. Evan was released back to his mother, and Seiler was charged a $250 copay for the involuntary emergency room visit. Terry says he received a hospital bill for $5,000 for his son's three-day commitment. "The Most Unique Assignment in Law Enforcement" Why a police officer would tackle and handcuff a third grader is one question. Another question is why the officer was in the school in the first place. Police have been in American schools since the 1950s, but never with the frequency that they are now. Armed police officers were in just 1 percent of public schools in the 1970s, according to The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom that covers firearms. Federal data show that by the 2015–16 school year they were in 43 percent of all public schools and 71 percent of high schools. National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) executive director Mo Canady says being an SRO is "the most unique assignment in law enforcement." "Officers that are going to be assigned in this particular field have got to be carefully selected," Canady says. "It's not for every officer. As a matter of fact, I might argue it's not for most officers." The number of SROs in Florida has dramatically increased over the past two years, following the passage of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act in 2018. The new law requires at least one police officer or armed guardian in every public elementary, middle, and high school in Florida. Most districts have opted for police, which has led to an expensive hiring rush for qualified officers in school districts across the state. There are no national certification requirements for SROs. Standards vary from state to state, although NASRO offers best practices and training. Several states, such as Pennsylvania, require prospective officers to go through NASRO's training. In Florida, potential SROs are required to undergo a criminal background check, drug testing, and a psychological evaluation, in addition to being a state-certified law enforcement officer. The state's attorney general's office and several other organizations offer SRO training classes, starting at a basic 40-hour course, but there is no statute or state-level rule regarding SRO certification. The level of required training is left to individual police departments. The police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota has intensified scrutiny of police hiring and qualification standards, and some districts are reconsidering their use of SROs entirely. HuffPost reported that, in addition to the Minneapolis school board severing its relationship with the city's police department, a school board member in Denver plans on introducing a similar resolution, and officials are considering similar plans in "Arizona, North Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, New York, and Illinois." A HuffPost investigation last year found that children have been tasered by SROs in at least 143 incidents since 2011. Zero Tolerance SROs don't write the laws, though. Throughout the 1980s and '90s, zero tolerance policies spread through schools across the country—first in response to drugs, then mass shootings—and Florida passed some of the harshest laws in the country. After the passage of the federal Gun-Free School Act of 1994, Florida required all school districts to enforce zero tolerance policies for students who bring weapons to school, requiring students who violate the policy to be expelled for at least a year or referred to law enforcement. In 2000, the state legislature passed another package of juvenile justice bills, known as the "tough love" plan, that further reinforced this punitive model. School districts began to expand the scope of their zero tolerance policies beyond drugs and guns to petty misbehavior. While juvenile arrest rates in general were falling in the state—mirroring a nationwide drop—there were persistent and troubling racial disparities in school discipline and arrests, not to mention kids being charged with battery for shooting spitballs, or being expelled for bringing nail clippers to school, or dying at a military-style juvenile boot camp. After a decade, Florida lawmakers reconsidered the wisdom of using the criminal justice system to dispense love. In 2009, the state legislature loosened those zero tolerance policies, amending the statutes to clarify that they "are not intended to be rigorously applied to petty acts of misconduct and misdemeanors, including, but not limited to, minor fights or disturbances." School districts also began softening their disciplinary practices as backlash against the so-called school-to-prison pipeline grew. Now the pendulum has swung back the other way again. Last year, as part of a bill codifying the recommendations of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, Florida lawmakers edited the statute yet again to remove the prohibition on using zero tolerance policies to police misdemeanors and minor disturbances. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Osceola County school officials now report all minor fights to police as a result of the changes. Civil liberties groups argue the new laws and the safety commission's recommendations threaten to bring back the bad days of zero tolerance, ushering in unproven safety policies and ignoring funding for things like more mental health services. "We've heard, for instance, that down in Miami-Dade County there are over a dozen officers in the same school, while there's only one or two mental health care providers," says Bacardi Jackson, managing attorney for children's rights at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit legal advocacy and civil rights organization. Jackson says her organization put together a focus group of young women from about 10 different Miami-Dade high schools to talk about their experience with police on campus. "It was very, very troubling," she says. "A number of the girls expressed how powerless they felt when they felt that they had been mistreated by an SRO. When someone made an inappropriate comment, when someone looked at them in a way that made them feel very uncomfortable, they did not believe they had the ability to report that without having some severe consequences." The SPLC released a report in October arguing the commission's recommendations "will place students at greater risk of getting shot and/or wrongfully arrested; put their privacy and liberty in jeopardy; strip them of civil rights; create school environments that are more tense, anxiety-provoking and traumatic; breed distrust between students and faculty; and absorb funds that could be used on programs that are actually shown to make schools safer for all students." Canady calls arguments that more SROs will necessarily result in more arrests "hogwash." "NASRO stands firmly on this," he says. "Every school in this country could greatly benefit from a carefully selected, specifically trained SRO." In fact, Canady argues that well-trained SRO with a good relationship among students and staff act as "filters" that reduce the number of arrests. "They are the ones who have built relationships in that school, and they recognize they have a lot of other resources around them," Canady says. "Instead of having to arrest everybody for misdemeanors like disorderly conduct, there would be that relationship where the SRO can step back and allow the school to take action. That is by and large what good SROs do." One thing Canady and the SPLC do agree on, however, are zero tolerance policies. "I've never been a fan of them because what they do, at best, is remove discretion for good administrators and for good law enforcement officers," he says. "I can't imagine being able to be productive as a law enforcement officer if I'm always faced with zero tolerance." While schools may voluntarily or involuntarily report misbehavior to police, Florida police do have discretion to issue civil citations to juveniles for first-time misdemeanor offenses. A civil citation funnels the case into diversion programs rather than the local prosecutor's office. Florida is a national leader in pre-arrest diversion for youths. But there is no uniformity. A December report from the Caruthers Institute found that, while police issued civil citations in 68 percent of juvenile cases involving first-time misdemeanors statewide—keeping thousands of kids out of the juvenile justice system—some counties used citations in less than half of eligible cases. Others, like Miami-Dade and Pinellas counties, issue civil citations to students in more than 90 percent of cases. The report says this results in "unequal justice by geography." An investigation by the Orlando Sentinel also reported wide racial disparities in school arrests and citations. For example, the newspaper found that black students in Seminole County made up 15 percent of the student population, but they represented 80 percent of the school-related disorderly conduct incidents involving first-time offenders and 41 percent of misdemeanor assaults and batteries. And it found that the trend of declining in-school arrests had reversed in several central Florida counties, with Lake County posting a five-year high for school-related arrests in the 2018–2019 school year. No police department or school wants to be accused of not doing enough to prevent a mass shooting, especially after Parkland. In February, school officials in Seminole County subjected a 5-year-old boy to a threat assessment after he allegedly told a classmate, "I wish someone killed you." Although they determined the threat wasn't credible, the incident will stay in the county's threat assessment database for 25 years. Last October, a police officer in Overland Park, Missouri, handcuffed and arrested an eighth grader who had formed her fingers into a pretend gun and pointed them at her classmates. Overland Park's police chief put it bluntly to The Kansas City Star: "I'll take the heat all day long for arresting a 13-year-old. I'm not willing to take the heat for not preventing a school tragedy." The Florida Sheriffs Association and the Florida Association of School Resource Officers did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Keeping Schools Safe Without Militarization In March, 6-year-old Kaia Rolle, whose arrest at school sparked national outrage, watched from the gallery of the Florida House of Representatives as lawmakers unanimously passed legislation inspired by her ordeal. The law wouldn't have banned the arrests of small children, though. Instead, it would have required police departments to create policies surrounding arrests of children under 10. The legislation died in the state Senate anyway. "I'm extremely disappointed," Rolle's grandmother, Meralyn Kirkland, told the Orlando Sentinel. "My family went through so much when Kaia was arrested…and we're still going through it. One of the biggest passions for me right now is seeing that no other family, no other child goes through what Kaia's going through and what we're going through." Today's school discipline often shifts wildly from crisis to crisis. A more tenable solution would be to strike a balance that keeps schools safe without militarizing them. Schools should stop treating misbehavior that used to warrant a trip to the principal's office like criminal offenses. Borderline cases shouldn't be punished out of fear or absurd zero tolerance policies. And the effects of any such changes should be rigorously tracked, with an eye on how they are used on the most vulnerable students. Neither Evan nor Terry's son returned to their schools after they were Baker Acted. Both started sleeping in their parents' beds again. Terry's son is homeschooled now. Evan attends a private school, where his mother says he is doing well. "He doesn't talk about a whole lot of things, so we don't really know what he's carrying in there in his brain," Seiler says. "We'll get past this, but this should never have happened." Seiler filed a complaint against the SRO who allegedly tackled Evan. According to Seiler's attorney, Palm Beach Schools Police Department launched an internal affairs investigation into the incident, but Seiler is still waiting for the results. Terry says the teacher pressed assault charges against his son, who received a deferred adjudication in youth court, meaning the case will be dismissed if his son stays out of trouble for a certain amount of time. Harmon has retained a lawyer and is planning to sue. Seiler's lawyer says that children with disabilities who are Baker Acted often have nightmares and regress in terms of behavior, not to mention the blow they take to their perception of themselves. "When you are 9 years old and you've been told all your life that police officers arrest the bad people, and suddenly you find yourself in the back of a police car for behavior that you couldn't control because you're a child with a disability, what do you think about yourself now?" Palm Beach Schools Police Department did not respond to a request for comment for this story. The principal of Acreage Pines Elementary directed a request for comment to Palm Beach School District's director of communications, who declined to comment, citing federal privacy laws for students. Both Seiler and Terry struggled with the decision to share their stories and attach their names to them, but in the end, they both did it for the same reason. "The real reason I picked up the call is I said, if my experience can help just one family, it'd be worth it," Terry says. "So that's my hope." "It's appalling, just appalling that this stuff goes on and no one seems to care," Seiler says. "These kids are falling through the cracks. If this prevents any other kid and family from going through this, then yeah, that's worth it."

www.reason.com

right

c3vIk0qs0RZJeVxZ

test

RQLyETED1hMrZvea

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-democrats-the-party-of-resistance/

The Democrats: The Party of Resistance

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, Debra J. Saunders, Brian Mcnicoll, Aymenn Al-Tamimi, Jared Whitley

One explanation for the ferocity of modern politics is that The Political Party That Is Never Wrong is getting a frightful drubbing today . Moreover , it is coming from a man who has only sought political office once in his life , our president , Donald J. Trump . Congratulations , Donald ! He is beating the Democrats with policies that have revived the economy and rendered laughable Ex-President Barack Obama ’ s pathetic claim that the “ new normal ” is someplace around 2 percent growth . President Trump responds that his economy is now growing at a rate of some 4.2 percent , most likely even higher . President Trump is also beating The Political Party That Is Never Wrong with his judicial appointees . He has had confirmed 67 to the courts . More than any of his predecessors at this stage in their presidencies , and if all goes well he will have landed two appointees on the Supreme Court shortly . Finally , he is beating The Political Party That Is Never Wrong by rolling back that party ’ s stifling regulations and antiquated procedures . The party is desperate . The Political Party That Is Never Wrong is led by septuagenarians who are exhausted and feckless , and they are about to be replaced by greenhorns who are self-proclaimed Socialists . That is to say , the septuagenarians are about to be replaced by Machiavels whose politics are at best lifted from the European left or at worst lifted from Venezuelans , some of whom have to stand in line for toilet paper . The Democrats , at various times in our history , have called themselves Liberals , Progressives , the left , and now Socialists . They claim that history has been on their side since at least the French Revolution . Every major achievement by mankind in such areas as philosophy , science , government , warfare , and — forget not — women ’ s studies and sex hygiene have been achieved by the American left . That is why they are so furious today . In last week ’ s grilling of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh , they threatened to break the law . Some actually did break the law , and they all charged Judge Kavanaugh with barbaric beliefs , grievous wrongs , and writing for The ███ , which was one of their few accurate observations . Judge Kavanaugh ’ s wife had to remove his children from the hearing rooms . Possibly she removed them from the entire city of Washington , D.C. and surroundings . Accepting defeat is quite incomprehensible to the left . That is why every contested presidential election of the modern era — in fact , every contested presidential election in any era — has been contested by the left , not the right . Interestingly , in recent years , as the left ’ s power dwindles , the number of contested elections has increased and grown more rancorous . Nineteen-sixty was a very close election , but if it were to be contested Richard Nixon would have had to do it . He would not put the country through the ordeal of a recount . His reelection of 1972 was one of the greatest landslides in American history , and The Political Party That Is Never Wrong immediately put our country through the travail of Watergate . Few claimed the 1972 election was stolen by the fiendish Nixon — though I recall one or two fanatics — but by 1974 The Political Party That Is Never Wrong had come to the realization that there is more than one way to challenge an election . Nixon went quietly and with dignity . He had after all lied . When Bill Clinton faced impeachment in 1998 there was no dignity . There was in 1998 , as Clinton ’ s wife is demonstrating today , only “ resistance . ” The elections of 1980 through 1996 were pretty much normal , though The Party That Is Never Wrong did sense a glimmer of hope in 1986 when Iran-Contra inspired dark murmurings about President Ronald Reagan ’ s possible impeachment and , who knows , possible incarceration for life without parole ? Then came the election of 2000 with all the left ’ s talk of “ hanging chads , ” replacing the Electoral College , and , in Florida , dark cabals . Suffice to say that in Florida George W. Bush won by 537 votes and with it won in the Electoral College . To this day there are Democrats who will tell you that their candidate won , but not according to the Constitution , which is still in effect . In 2016 as in 2000 The Party That Is Never Wrong won the popular vote , but it lost in the Electoral College by 304 to 227 . Two years later we are still wrangling about the outcome with Democrats in the FBI , the CIA , the Democratic National Committee , British Intelligence , a law firm hired by the Clintons , and the mysterious Fusion GPS claiming Russian collusion though no Russian has been found . Once again there is talk from the Democrats of a Republican president ’ s impeachment , though this time the Republican President might not be as nice as Richard Nixon in 1960 and 1974 . This time the Republican is Donald Trump , who has his finger on the atomic bomb .

Washington One explanation for the ferocity of modern politics is that The Political Party That Is Never Wrong is getting a frightful drubbing today. Moreover, it is coming from a man who has only sought political office once in his life, our president, Donald J. Trump. Congratulations, Donald! He is beating the Democrats with policies that have revived the economy and rendered laughable Ex-President Barack Obama’s pathetic claim that the “new normal” is someplace around 2 percent growth. President Trump responds that his economy is now growing at a rate of some 4.2 percent, most likely even higher. President Trump is also beating The Political Party That Is Never Wrong with his judicial appointees. He has had confirmed 67 to the courts. More than any of his predecessors at this stage in their presidencies, and if all goes well he will have landed two appointees on the Supreme Court shortly. Finally, he is beating The Political Party That Is Never Wrong by rolling back that party’s stifling regulations and antiquated procedures. The party is desperate. The Political Party That Is Never Wrong is led by septuagenarians who are exhausted and feckless, and they are about to be replaced by greenhorns who are self-proclaimed Socialists. That is to say, the septuagenarians are about to be replaced by Machiavels whose politics are at best lifted from the European left or at worst lifted from Venezuelans, some of whom have to stand in line for toilet paper. The Democrats, at various times in our history, have called themselves Liberals, Progressives, the left, and now Socialists. They claim that history has been on their side since at least the French Revolution. Every major achievement by mankind in such areas as philosophy, science, government, warfare, and — forget not — women’s studies and sex hygiene have been achieved by the American left. That is why they are so furious today. In last week’s grilling of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, they threatened to break the law. Some actually did break the law, and they all charged Judge Kavanaugh with barbaric beliefs, grievous wrongs, and writing for The American Spectator, which was one of their few accurate observations. Judge Kavanaugh’s wife had to remove his children from the hearing rooms. Possibly she removed them from the entire city of Washington, D.C. and surroundings. Accepting defeat is quite incomprehensible to the left. That is why every contested presidential election of the modern era — in fact, every contested presidential election in any era — has been contested by the left, not the right. Interestingly, in recent years, as the left’s power dwindles, the number of contested elections has increased and grown more rancorous. Nineteen-sixty was a very close election, but if it were to be contested Richard Nixon would have had to do it. He would not put the country through the ordeal of a recount. His reelection of 1972 was one of the greatest landslides in American history, and The Political Party That Is Never Wrong immediately put our country through the travail of Watergate. Few claimed the 1972 election was stolen by the fiendish Nixon — though I recall one or two fanatics — but by 1974 The Political Party That Is Never Wrong had come to the realization that there is more than one way to challenge an election. Nixon went quietly and with dignity. He had after all lied. When Bill Clinton faced impeachment in 1998 there was no dignity. There was in 1998, as Clinton’s wife is demonstrating today, only “resistance.” The elections of 1980 through 1996 were pretty much normal, though The Party That Is Never Wrong did sense a glimmer of hope in 1986 when Iran-Contra inspired dark murmurings about President Ronald Reagan’s possible impeachment and, who knows, possible incarceration for life without parole? Then came the election of 2000 with all the left’s talk of “hanging chads,” replacing the Electoral College, and, in Florida, dark cabals. Suffice to say that in Florida George W. Bush won by 537 votes and with it won in the Electoral College. To this day there are Democrats who will tell you that their candidate won, but not according to the Constitution, which is still in effect. In 2016 as in 2000 The Party That Is Never Wrong won the popular vote, but it lost in the Electoral College by 304 to 227. Two years later we are still wrangling about the outcome with Democrats in the FBI, the CIA, the Democratic National Committee, British Intelligence, a law firm hired by the Clintons, and the mysterious Fusion GPS claiming Russian collusion though no Russian has been found. Once again there is talk from the Democrats of a Republican president’s impeachment, though this time the Republican President might not be as nice as Richard Nixon in 1960 and 1974. This time the Republican is Donald Trump, who has his finger on the atomic bomb.

www.spectator.org

right

RQLyETED1hMrZvea

test

YQcb5tMRoK1dHfHP

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/impeaching-americas-future/

Impeaching America’s Future

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Dov Fischer, John C. Wohlstetter, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

What does the future have in store for us if Congress succeeds in impeaching President Donald Trump , the president who presides over the best economy America has had in the last 50 years ? I think you can look to South America for a glimpse of the Great Republic that will be vouchsafed us by the congressgirls from what is called “ the Squad ” and from the most foul-mouthed field of Democratic candidates ever to run for the presidency . Already the Democratic National Committee has asked the candidates to avoid crude back-alley language in their debates , and NBC News has requested that they abide by the guidelines of the FCC . Last week as many as a million Chileans poured into the streets of Santiago demanding that President Sebastián Piñera step down and that someone confect a new constitution for the country that a generation ago was saved from communism by the dictator Augusto Pinochet . Irving Kristol , the wise 20th-century political commentator , was given to saying that the problem with South America was that its leaders could not govern themselves . The Latin Americans now swarming over our southern border and rampaging through the streets of Santiago are still more evidence of Kristol ’ s wisdom . A former Chilean government minister , Sergio Bitar , who is trying to bring the political parties together in Chile , last week expressed his frustration , saying , “ There ’ s no political or social rationality ” for the protests . Viewing the destruction , he explained , “ It ’ s a sickness of destruction. ” It seems that way to me , Mr. Bitar , but now the Colossus to the North is on a similar path . The Squad ( the synonyms of which , for instance “ gang ” or “ mob , ” bring to mind fascism ) and the foul-mouthed politicians seeking the Democratic nomination want our fairly elected president removed from office one year before the citizenry holds another election . Moreover , they are very impatient with the Constitution that has governed our country for more than 200 years . Already Congressgirl Ocasio-Cortez has denounced the Electoral College as a “ scam. ” I think she thinks its tuition is exorbitant . Peter J. Wallison , one of the most astute political observers today , has written that if the Squad and the Democrats have their way and President Trump is impeached — even if he is acquitted — the strength of the presidency and the steadiness and reliability of our government are finished . If this impeachment succeeds , we are on our way to becoming a country with the fixity of South American countries . Wallison writes , “ If Congress could remove a president from office — in other words , overturn an election — for insubstantial reasons , it will destroy the stability of the presidential office in the future . Any time that Congress is controlled by an opposing political party , the president will be in danger of impeachment for some minor offense . ” The Constitution requires that the president commit “ Treason , Bribery , or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors ” to be impeached . An impeachable act has to be equivalent to treason or bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors . For the duly elected president to talk to a foreign leader in the course of a wide-ranging conversation about foreign aid in July and do nothing to stop that foreign aid shipment in September is not a high crime . It might be a sign of lapsed judgment , especially when the president knows that other White House staffers of questionable loyalty are listening in on the telephone call . But it is not a crime . Yet such heretofore minor lapses are going to hamstring our presidents for years to come . It will be a new day for America . Get used to the tumult of the last few years to continue for years to come . It is a great irony to see the Democratic Party , the party that has long favored a strong president capable of taking on powerful enemies of the people — the giant corporations ! the health-care industry ! the National Rifle Association ! — in the future being hampered by fears of impeachment threats . Either that or our presidents will be met by riots in the street when they want to do the really grand thing . And the Republican Party — what will it favor ? Probably the strong chief executive . If this impeachment comes about , we are about to see the parties change their roles : the Democrats for an easily impeached president and the Republicans for a strong president . Change is in the air .

Washington What does the future have in store for us if Congress succeeds in impeaching President Donald Trump, the president who presides over the best economy America has had in the last 50 years? I think you can look to South America for a glimpse of the Great Republic that will be vouchsafed us by the congressgirls from what is called “the Squad” and from the most foul-mouthed field of Democratic candidates ever to run for the presidency. Already the Democratic National Committee has asked the candidates to avoid crude back-alley language in their debates, and NBC News has requested that they abide by the guidelines of the FCC. Last week as many as a million Chileans poured into the streets of Santiago demanding that President Sebastián Piñera step down and that someone confect a new constitution for the country that a generation ago was saved from communism by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. Irving Kristol, the wise 20th-century political commentator, was given to saying that the problem with South America was that its leaders could not govern themselves. The Latin Americans now swarming over our southern border and rampaging through the streets of Santiago are still more evidence of Kristol’s wisdom. A former Chilean government minister, Sergio Bitar, who is trying to bring the political parties together in Chile, last week expressed his frustration, saying, “There’s no political or social rationality” for the protests. Viewing the destruction, he explained, “It’s a sickness of destruction.” It seems that way to me, Mr. Bitar, but now the Colossus to the North is on a similar path. The Squad (the synonyms of which, for instance “gang” or “mob,” bring to mind fascism) and the foul-mouthed politicians seeking the Democratic nomination want our fairly elected president removed from office one year before the citizenry holds another election. Moreover, they are very impatient with the Constitution that has governed our country for more than 200 years. Already Congressgirl Ocasio-Cortez has denounced the Electoral College as a “scam.” I think she thinks its tuition is exorbitant. Peter J. Wallison, one of the most astute political observers today, has written that if the Squad and the Democrats have their way and President Trump is impeached — even if he is acquitted — the strength of the presidency and the steadiness and reliability of our government are finished. If this impeachment succeeds, we are on our way to becoming a country with the fixity of South American countries. Wallison writes, “If Congress could remove a president from office — in other words, overturn an election — for insubstantial reasons, it will destroy the stability of the presidential office in the future. Any time that Congress is controlled by an opposing political party, the president will be in danger of impeachment for some minor offense.” The Constitution requires that the president commit “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” to be impeached. An impeachable act has to be equivalent to treason or bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. For the duly elected president to talk to a foreign leader in the course of a wide-ranging conversation about foreign aid in July and do nothing to stop that foreign aid shipment in September is not a high crime. It might be a sign of lapsed judgment, especially when the president knows that other White House staffers of questionable loyalty are listening in on the telephone call. But it is not a crime. Yet such heretofore minor lapses are going to hamstring our presidents for years to come. It will be a new day for America. Get used to the tumult of the last few years to continue for years to come. It is a great irony to see the Democratic Party, the party that has long favored a strong president capable of taking on powerful enemies of the people — the giant corporations! the health-care industry! the National Rifle Association! — in the future being hampered by fears of impeachment threats. Either that or our presidents will be met by riots in the street when they want to do the really grand thing. And the Republican Party — what will it favor? Probably the strong chief executive. If this impeachment comes about, we are about to see the parties change their roles: the Democrats for an easily impeached president and the Republicans for a strong president. Change is in the air.

www.spectator.org

right

YQcb5tMRoK1dHfHP

test

ihU2MowwVJv1mTFn

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/june/amazon-blocks-ads-for-book-highlighting-how-transgender-movement-damages-young-women

Amazon Blocks Ads for Book Highlighting How Transgender Movement Damages Young Women

2020-06-23

The world 's largest online retailer Amazon is preventing a publisher from advertising a new book that exposes the dangers posed by the transgender movement that 's been sweeping the nation . Abigail Shrier wrote the book `` Irreversible Damage : The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters '' to highlight how the transgender movement is hurting women by trying to normalize the idea of girls and young women having life-changing surgeries . Amazon just blocked my publisher from advertising my book , IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE . Apparently , you 're allowed to promote gender ideology ; you 're just not allowed to question it.https : //t.co/29MxHi07Ln — Abigail Shrier ( @ AbigailShrier ) June 21 , 2020 Amazon reportedly told Shrier 's publisher , Regnery Publishing , that the book `` may not be appropriate for all audiences . This campaign will not be allowed to be advertised . '' Regnery said in a recent statement on Twitter , `` The cancel culture has made it clear that it despises diversity of opinion , and it will not tolerate science , data , facts , or anything that contradicts the approved narrative . '' Our full statement : The cancel culture has made it clear that it despises diversity of opinion , and it will not tolerate science , data , facts , or anything that contradicts the approved narrative . If you ’ re not on board , you ’ ll have your head handed to you . 1/3 https : //t.co/1EiH8EzE19 — Regnery Publishing ( @ Regnery ) June 21 , 2020 But if you ’ re a college fball coach who wears a conservative tshirt , an editor at the @ nytimes who runs an opinion piece by a Rep senator , or a respected journalist who writes for @ WSJ investigating a serious social issue affecting young women in America , you will be silenced 3/3 — Regnery Publishing ( @ Regnery ) June 21 , 2020 The publisher points out that other resources , products , and books that promote this same issue are sponsored on the website . Shrier 's book dives into the dark side of gender dysphoria and how unsuspecting parents can respond . The author previously told ███ News that she does hear from parents on this serious issue of young females who suddenly want a new gender identity , but that some do n't acknowledge it enough . `` I do hear from parents , but to be honest , I do n't hear from enough to some extent , '' she said . `` I do n't think Democrats particularly are awake to the issue . '' In many ways , the movement appears unstoppable , with support from schools , the media , doctors , therapists , and their professional organizations . Regnery added that `` Amazon is one of our most important ad platforms . It would be a significant hit to our promotional efforts to lose this opportunity . ''

The world's largest online retailer Amazon is preventing a publisher from advertising a new book that exposes the dangers posed by the transgender movement that's been sweeping the nation. Abigail Shrier wrote the book "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters" to highlight how the transgender movement is hurting women by trying to normalize the idea of girls and young women having life-changing surgeries. Amazon just blocked my publisher from advertising my book, IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE. Apparently, you're allowed to promote gender ideology; you're just not allowed to question it.https://t.co/29MxHi07Ln — Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) June 21, 2020 Amazon reportedly told Shrier's publisher, Regnery Publishing, that the book "may not be appropriate for all audiences. This campaign will not be allowed to be advertised." Regnery said in a recent statement on Twitter, "The cancel culture has made it clear that it despises diversity of opinion, and it will not tolerate science, data, facts, or anything that contradicts the approved narrative." Our full statement: The cancel culture has made it clear that it despises diversity of opinion, and it will not tolerate science, data, facts, or anything that contradicts the approved narrative. If you’re not on board, you’ll have your head handed to you. 1/3 https://t.co/1EiH8EzE19 — Regnery Publishing (@Regnery) June 21, 2020 But if you’re a college fball coach who wears a conservative tshirt, an editor at the @nytimes who runs an opinion piece by a Rep senator, or a respected journalist who writes for @WSJ investigating a serious social issue affecting young women in America, you will be silenced 3/3 — Regnery Publishing (@Regnery) June 21, 2020 The publisher points out that other resources, products, and books that promote this same issue are sponsored on the website. Shrier's book dives into the dark side of gender dysphoria and how unsuspecting parents can respond. The author previously told CBN News that she does hear from parents on this serious issue of young females who suddenly want a new gender identity, but that some don't acknowledge it enough. "I do hear from parents, but to be honest, I don't hear from enough to some extent," she said. "I don't think Democrats particularly are awake to the issue." In many ways, the movement appears unstoppable, with support from schools, the media, doctors, therapists, and their professional organizations. Regnery added that "Amazon is one of our most important ad platforms. It would be a significant hit to our promotional efforts to lose this opportunity."

www1.cbn.com

right

ihU2MowwVJv1mTFn

test

gWbrNAoT4s3hAU27

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/08/covfefe-livewire-comey-crazy-sweeps-washington-breitbart-live-union-pub/

Comey Crazy Sweeps Washington

2017-06-08

Matthew Boyle

Former FBI Director James Comey , who was fired by President Donald J. Trump , will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning–and Washington , D.C. , elites are gathered at their favorite watering holes throughout the city to watch the giant nothing-burger testimony . ███ will be covering the political class celebration from here , with this livewire including updates on Comey ’ s testimony and the reaction of the crowd of Washington elites . Union Pub , a landmark Washington , D.C. , bar across the street from the Heritage Foundation on Capitol Hill , is offering all patrons who come here to watch the testimony free drinks whenever President Trump Tweets about the Comey hearing throughout its duration until 4 p.m . UPDATE 12:54 P.M. President Trump did not Tweet throughout the entire event , but Union Pub is still giving out a few round of America-themed Budweisers to everyone here ! The specialty Budweiser cans , which servers are passing out now , have the special “ America ” name in place of “ Budweiser ” on the label and a camouflage design instead of the traditional red cans . Cheers ! Comey reveals he 's a leaker and New York Times pushes FAKE NEWS ! @ BreitbartNews # comey pic.twitter.com/cmJ8DST0QP — Penny Starr ( @ PennyStarrDC ) June 8 , 2017 That ’ s all folks , we ’ ll leave it there for today . COVFEFE to everyone and thanks for tuning in ! UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned , and Comey has completely vindicated Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified information he could not bring up during the televised hearing , the whole thing turned out exactly like ███ Network told you it would : A giant nothing-burger . Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker , has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump . Oh , and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today . Meanwhile , White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders–from the podium at the press briefing–has told reporters that President Trump is not , despite what the leaker James Comey says , a liar . . @ SHSanders45 : `` No , I can definitively say the president is not a liar . It 's frankly insulting that that question would be asked . '' — Zeke Miller ( @ ZekeJMiller ) June 8 , 2017 And , of course , nevertheless President Trump persisted . He ’ s right back out there fighting for American workers while Democrats waste their time on evidence-less nonsense . Trump takes the stage at Faith and Freedom conference “ It ’ s wonderful to be here with all of my friends ” pic.twitter.com/xi7Gbo4x3G — Charlie Spiering ( @ charliespiering ) June 8 , 2017 “ You fought for me , now I will fight for you ” Trump tells Faith and Freedom audience — Charlie Spiering ( @ charliespiering ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 12:40 P.M. Sen. John McCain ( R-AZ ) , a grumpy old anti-Trump Republican , made no sense during his questioning of Comey . Breitbart ’ s own Curt Schilling , the host of Whatever It Takes , questions whether everyone else had trouble following along with McCain ’ s nonsensical line of questioning : Am I the only one not able to follow along with senator McCain 's line of questioning ? ? ? ? — Curt Schilling ( @ gehrig38 ) June 8 , 2017 Even the New York Times ’ people questions whether McCain is losing his mind : McCain seems to be confusing the Clinton email case with the Russia investigation . — Peter Baker ( @ peterbakernyt ) June 8 , 2017 Trump , who has not Tweeted during the hearing at all , apparently made the decision to avoid Tweeting last night . Politico ’ s Tara Palmeri has the scoop of why the President would not Tweet today , infuriating all the Union Pub bar-goers who did not get any free drinks since President Trump did not Tweet . Trump decided the night before # comeyhearings that he would not live-tweet his rebuttal https : //t.co/P0SouqYAja — Tara Palmeri ( @ tarapalmeri ) June 8 , 2017 “ Why would I ? ” Trump apparently told White House aides about live-Tweeting Comey ’ s appearance before Congress , according to a “ senior White House official ” who spoke with Politico ’ s Palmeri . Read the whole thing , including the details on how the president ’ s mood is “ light ” during the Comey testimony . UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open hearing , and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) . This line of questioning from @ SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked — Matt House ( @ mattwhouse ) June 8 , 2017 Here ’ s video of her comparing Trump to an armed robber though , so take whatever she says with a grain of salt : But MSNBC leftist media star Andrea Mitchell loves Kamala Harris , heavily highlighting the rookie Democrat Senator ’ s questions : . @ KamalaHarris asks series of q 's about possible secret contacts between Trump camp and Russia # Comey declines to answer in open hearing — Andrea Mitchell ( @ mitchellreports ) June 8 , 2017 Meanwhile , anti-Trump Never Trumper Max Boot is in an alternate reality , saying Comey was fantastic as a witness . Bottom line for # ComeyDay : Comey a highly credible witness . Trump is n't . Comey makes damning accusations . Trump denials unconvincing . — Max Boot ( @ MaxBoot ) June 8 , 2017 Flashback , though , to when Comey was fired and Boot with some bold predictions back on May 9 : Congress needs to ask Comey to testify & he needs to tell all he knows about Kremlingate . If he does Trump may regret firing him . — Max Boot ( @ MaxBoot ) May 10 , 2017 Don ’ t tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him . Seriously . “ KREMLINGATE ” ? What is wrong with these people ? Anyway , another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper from when Comey was fired in May : Prediction : If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018 , the firing of Comey will form one of the articles of impeachment . — Max Boot ( @ MaxBoot ) May 10 , 2017 UPDATE 12:24 P.M. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is calling for the Senate to officially subpoena the documents James Comey ordered leaked through his network of leakers . Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him . — Alan Dershowitz ( @ AlanDersh ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 12:21 P.M. Loretta Lynch is in serious trouble right now . Looks like the Democrats ’ efforts may have backfired . Loretta Lynch is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony — Chris Cillizza ( @ CillizzaCNN ) June 8 , 2017 If it was n't for Trump becoming president , the corruption with Obama 's Department of Justice would be a major story . https : //t.co/Pc3ZTYTtaN — Josh Kraushaar ( @ HotlineJosh ) June 8 , 2017 Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could “ credibly deny ” the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation , and that she had a serious conflict of interest . He also testified in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) , the Senate Majority Whip , that it is possible a special prosecutor was needed for the email scandal . He said he considered calling for appointing a special counsel in the scandal , but decided against it . UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my . Now confirmed leaker James Comey ’ s leak network has been outed , or at least part of it has : Only in Washington : Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar : `` Daniel Richman of Columbia '' https : //t.co/hNXVbfBe8r — Alexander Panetta ( @ Alex_Panetta ) June 8 , 2017 So the collusion involves former FBI director , mainstream media , and the left-wing academy to bring down the elected president # ComeyHearing https : //t.co/sVWKpajWw9 — Joel B. Pollak ( @ joelpollak ) June 8 , 2017 And now Comey ’ s anti-Trump leak network is confirming to the media that Comey is a leaker : Columbia Law Prof Daniel Richman confirms to @ ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters . — Ryan Nobles ( @ ryanobles ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 12:05 P.M . There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch , the former Attorney General from the Obama administration , will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing where Comey has implicated her . Legit question : is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony ? — Mike Shields ( @ mshields007 ) June 8 , 2017 Meanwhile , Comey ’ s admission he is a leaker serious hurts him . Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble : Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to force Special Counsel . Yet , that raises questions — Jonathan Turley ( @ JonathanTurley ) June 8 , 2017 Comey is doing well but leaking info runs against Comey 's image , particularly in light of the leak controversy hoiunding the Administration — Jonathan Turley ( @ JonathanTurley ) June 8 , 2017 The memos could be viewed as gov't material and potential evidence . Leaking to a friend for disclosure can raise serious questions . — Jonathan Turley ( @ JonathanTurley ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 12:02 P.M. Donald Trump , Jr. , highlights an excellent question from Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-MO ) to Comey . Comey did not have a great answer . Sen Blunt : If you told Sessions you did n't want to be alone with Trump again , why did you continue to take his calls ? — Donald Trump Jr. ( @ DonaldJTrumpJr ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends , here ’ s video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media narrative during his questioning of Comey . Basically , Comey was so concerned about President Trump ’ s conversations with him that he alerted exactly nobody who could do anything about it . In other words , this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger . Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker . UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing . He admitted he ’ s a leaker , and has an actual network through which he leaks information to the press . In addition , he withheld from leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago . White House social media director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter : Because if it was leaked that @ realDonaldTrump was personally not under investigation- it would have crushed the entire narrative . pic.twitter.com/drFcCxin5M — Dan Scavino Jr. ( @ DanScavino ) June 8 , 2017 President Trump still has yet to Tweet , so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub . Looks like the owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now . UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh , man , this keeps getting better and better . Comey just shredded the Democrats AND now the fake news media . Oh Boy . Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about Russia that are just `` dead wrong '' — Maeve Reston ( @ MaeveReston ) June 8 , 2017 I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will check their reporting again or correct it if they ’ re wrong . Not holding my breath . UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking very much like a drama queen . One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him to ask him if he was free for dinner , he had to break a date with his wife . Comey says Trump called him at his desk . `` Free for dinner tonight ? '' `` I said yessir…I had to call my wife and break a date with her . '' — Jennifer Jacobs ( @ JenniferJJacobs ) June 8 , 2017 COMEY JUST QUOTES HENRY 11 on what he thought Trump meant : 'Will no one rid me of this toublesome priest '' — Trip Gabriel ( @ tripgabriel ) June 8 , 2017 Meanwhile , even CNN ’ s Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition party ’ s mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun . Giving info to media `` like feeding seagulls at the beach ? '' Fact check : True . — Jim Acosta ( @ Acosta ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:48 A.M . The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump , despite the fact Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks . Senate R aide : Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators — and they will demand some kind of repayment… — Glenn Thrush ( @ GlennThrush ) June 8 , 2017 The fact that Swamp Creatures on the “ Republican ” side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their own president , and party , as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today ’ s masquerade mostly out of the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising . Swamp Things are going to Swamp . UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey ’ s open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in serious potential trouble , the New York Times people note . That ’ s the story folks . He vindicated Trump , and implicated himself . Wow , what a day . Can ’ t remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak — and without any senator having even asked . — Peter Baker ( @ peterbakernyt ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN ’ s Dan Merica says that President Trump ’ s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will make a statement at the end of Comey ’ s public testimony . Marc Kasowitz , Trump 's lawyer outside the White House , will make a statement at the end of James Comey 's Senate testimony — Dan Merica ( @ merica ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch , Obama , and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington , D.C. , daydrinking party scene is in full swing : `` Comey is my homey . '' pic.twitter.com/kvGuaqEqsd — Sharon Nunn ( @ sharonmnunn ) June 8 , 2017 Her “ homey ” James Comey , meanwhile , has actually admitted he is a leaker . Flag : Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully prompt the appointment of a special counsel . pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te — Kyle Griffin ( @ kylegriffin1 ) June 8 , 2017 Comey admits to @ SenatorCollins that he asked a friend to leak the contents of his memo to NYT to prompt the appointment of Special Counsel . — Joel B. Pollak ( @ joelpollak ) June 8 , 2017 Here ’ s video of Comey admitting he has been leaking information to the media : Here 's how I leaked my Trump memo after Trump 's “ tapes ” tweet by : James Comey pic.twitter.com/9Z1QPPdcKD — Bradd Jaffy ( @ BraddJaffy ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:32 A.M . While obstruction is now off the table for Trump , as Breitbart ’ s Joel Pollak detailed , Breitbart ’ s John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading officials from now former President Barack Obama ’ s administration . Hayward says Congress needs to investigate Loretta Lynch , the former Attorney General , as well as Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice . Big takeaway from the Comey hearing : urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch , Barack Obama , and Hillary Clinton for obstruction — John Hayward ( @ Doc_0 ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this hearing has shattered the media ’ s and the Democrats ’ efforts to taint President Trump with “ obstruction of justice . ” “ Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment — and reversing the 2016 elections — on the idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice . That case has now been smashed beyond repair , ” Pollak writes , pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch ( R-ID ) . UPDATE 11:26 A.M. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox , who has trolled Trump as much as he possibly can over the campaign and since , is joining with Union Pub patrons–who get free drinks if President Trump Tweets about the Comey hearing–in raising concerns with the lack of Tweets today from President Trump . . @ realDonaldTrump 's silence on # ComeyDay concerns me . What 's going on , Don ? I hope you do n't hurt your fingers ranting against Comey later . — Vicente Fox Quesada ( @ VicenteFoxQue ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:25 A.M . Entirely unsurprising , but leading Never Trumper Ana Navarro bashes the president–again–and praises Comey . Lot of time left , but so far , Comey is coming across as the consummate professional . A man who loves his country , colleagues & agency . — Ana Navarro ( @ ananavarro ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:24 A.M . Since Comey has blown up the entire media narrative , essentially , Ric Grenell–a leading conservative pro-Trump advocate–notes that the media is only using “ facts ” that fit their worldview . Breaking : DC reporters are NOT tweeting the line where Comey destroys their anonymous sourced narratives . — Richard Grenell ( @ RichardGrenell ) June 8 , 2017 Kayleigh McEnany , one of the only pro-Trump voices on the opposition party network CNN , Tweets another homerun : Of all the leaks , the one thing that never leaked was that the President was NOT under investigation . -Rubio Very suspicious ! # ComeyDay — Kayleigh McEnany ( @ kayleighmcenany ) June 8 , 2017 OBVIOUSLY Trump 's request re : Flynn was to “ let go ” of Trump 's firing of him . MSM was falsely claiming reason 4 firing was contacts w Russia — Ann Coulter ( @ AnnCoulter ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:21 A.M. from this morning ’ s ███ Daily on SiriusXMTom Fitton of Judicial Watch , , says there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by President Trump or his team . And he called the special counsel “ wasteful. ” If Robert Mueller , the special counsel , comes up with nothing as every one of his contemporaries has before him , it will be the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars–and of Americans ’ time–in a long time . Listen to the audio here , or at the link to the story from our own Dan Riehl : UPDATE 11:16 A.M. James Comey finally confirms before a congressional committee in a public setting–on video–that President Donald Trump is not under FBI investigation . James Comey confirms President Trump was not under investigation while he was FBI director https : //t.co/ZqRwwAcU1i https : //t.co/3lU7Yysw1B — CNN Breaking News ( @ cnnbrk ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:15 A.M. During Comey ’ s back and forth with Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) , the former 2016 Trump GOP primary rival astutely noted that basically the only thing that did not leak to the press is the one fact that would have helped Trump–that Trump himself was not under investigation . That is despite the fact that Congressional leaders were briefed on that point . Rubio Comey back forth indicates Gang of 8 was briefed that Trump was not personally under investigation . — Laura Rozen ( @ lrozen ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:11 A.M. Donald Trump , Jr. , joins the fray on Twitter , defending his father–the president–from Comey ’ s ambiguous claims . 1/3 Flynn stuff is BS in context 2 guys talking about a guy they both know well . I hear `` I hope nothing happens but you have to do your job '' — Donald Trump Jr. ( @ DonaldJTrumpJr ) June 8 , 2017 2/3 very far from any kind of coercion or influence and certainly not obstruction ! — Donald Trump Jr. ( @ DonaldJTrumpJr ) June 8 , 2017 Trump , Jr. , says there is no way Comey would have misunderstood the president . 3/3 Knowing my father for 39 years when he `` orders or tells '' you to do something there is no ambiguity , you will know exactly what he means — Donald Trump Jr. ( @ DonaldJTrumpJr ) June 8 , 2017 He also notes that Comey has testified that he could be “ wrong . ” Comey `` I could be wrong '' — Donald Trump Jr. ( @ DonaldJTrumpJr ) June 8 , 2017 Donald Trump , Jr. ’ s Tweets come as many here at Union Pub–who will get free drinks if the president himself Tweets about Comey–are disappointed that President Trump himself is not Tweeting . This is probably the first time ever that people in Washington , D.C.–the Swamp–are upset that President Donald Trump is NOT Tweeting . UPDATE 11:10 A.M. Video of Comey wishing there are tapes of his conversations with Trump : Comey : `` I 've seen the tweet about tapes . Lordy , I hope there are tapes . '' ( via @ MSNBC ) pic.twitter.com/uSCsAqTHAK — Kyle Griffin ( @ kylegriffin1 ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 11:07 A.M. Breitbart ’ s Joel Pollak has an excellent piece up already on how Comey ’ s opening statement to the Committee this morning is all about him . “ Former FBI director James Comey opened his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday by complaining about ‘ shifting explanations ’ for why he had been fired , and by attacking the Trump administration , ” Pollak writes . “ Comey said that he had originally intended to accept his firing quietly , but then found that the administration ’ s statements about the matter ‘ confused me and increasingly concerned me. ’ He said that President Donald Trump had assured him that he was doing a good job , and that he had assured the president in return that he intended to stay . ” Also , it ’ s worth noting that even the Wall Street Journal–not some rightwing blog by any stretch–even says that Comey ’ s written opening statement proves that President Trump should have fired him . Which is exactly what President Trump did . Read the Journal ’ s editorial board piece here . UPDATE 11 : 00 A.M . The GOP war room is up and running . Our friends over at the Republican National Committee are cutting videos that shows Comey ’ s testimony actually fully vindicates President Trump , despite whatever the opposition party media and congressional Democrats say : Politico has an RNC talking points document circulated this morning . Read the whole thing here . Politico also has a story on how the RNC is taking the lead on pushing back on the highly discredited Comey ’ s testimony . “ The RNC ’ s role is to support and defend the president and this White House and this week is no different , ” Ryan Mahoney , the RNC communications director , told Politico . “ And we prepare for everything , and we ’ re prepared for the hearing this week . ” UPDATE 10:59 A.M . Despite the fact there have been a number of inaccurate pieces throughout the establishment media , the establishment media is celebrating itself . Most interesting part of Comey memo : How damn good the reporting has been . On . The . Nose . — Jennifer Rubin ( @ JRubinBlogger ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:57 A.M. Feinstein tells Comey he ’ s “ big ” and “ strong , ” then asks him if he was overwhelmed by the Oval Office and wonders why he did not tell the president he was wrong when he brought this subject up with him . He questions whether he would have handled himself the same way if given a second chance . “ I hope there are tapes , ” Comey also said of his meetings with Trump , noting he has seen the president ’ s Tweet about the possibility of tapes . UPDATE 10:55 A.M. Comey , under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) , says his relationship with Trump got off to a rocky start . He also embarrasses her when she asks him if the reason he was fired had anything to do with the Russia investigation , and he said “ yes , because the President said so. ” Here in Union Pub , the over-capacity crowd broke out into laughter . UPDATE 10:53 A.M. Comey just killed the case against Trump over “ obstruction of justice ” that the media is building , as fast as they began building it . He said Trump saying he hopes Comey lets the investigation of Flynn go was not an order to drop the investigation . UPDATE 10:51 A.M . The media is highlighting two separate things early on in the Comey bonanza : The fired former FBI director ’ s use of the word “ lie ” twice , and him being concerned about meetings with President Trump . Establishment media going to do their thing . 1 . Referring to WH defaming him and the FBI : `` those were lies '' : 2 . His concern POTUS might `` lie '' about mtg — Katy Tur ( @ KatyTurNBC ) June 8 , 2017 `` I was honestly concerned [ Pres . Trump ] might lie about the nature of our meeting . '' – James Comey on why he kept records of his meetings pic.twitter.com/ErJrULEjYZ — Good Morning America ( @ GMA ) June 8 , 2017 Flag : Comey does n't want to opine on Trump trying to obstruct , but says `` That 's a conclusion I 'm sure the special counsel will work toward . '' pic.twitter.com/0WVe6dTN8t — Kyle Griffin ( @ kylegriffin1 ) June 8 , 2017 An extraordinary thing for an ex-FBI director to say about the President of the United States https : //t.co/enD0NBCpSn — Bradd Jaffy ( @ BraddJaffy ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:48 A.M . Since Comey has nothing , and the whole case is falling apart , Hillary Rodham Clinton ’ s ex-spokesman Brian Fallon is sadly offering up that special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating Trump . WH plan of declaring victory because Trump was not being investigated in January is now moot . Comey made clear Mueller is investing him now — Brian Fallon ( @ brianefallon ) June 8 , 2017 But , sadly , if they have no evidence Trump colluded with the Russians–probably because it is likely no evidence even exists–then the special prosecutor will find the same thing that Comey found : NOTHING . But , nevertheless Hillary Clinton ’ s acolytes persisted : Comey said he expects Mueller to assess , as part of his investigation , whether Trump obstructed justice . That would mean he 's a subject now . — Brian Fallon ( @ brianefallon ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:40 A.M. Comey testified that he was “ confused ” about being fired by President Trump . And he said Trump spread “ lies ” about the FBI . Comey describes being “ confused ” by firing , “ lies ” about FBI being in disarray pic.twitter.com/EEDkxhKwvN — The Washington Post ( @ washingtonpost ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:38 A.M . Since Comey believes that no votes were altered in the 2016 presidential election–he testified he is “ confident ” none were–then what is the point of this hearing ? # Comey says that he is `` confident '' that no votes in 2016 were altered # ComeyHearing — Brooke Singman ( @ brookefoxnews ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:32 A.M . Despite the fact that Comey has nothing , but instead actually ended up in his written opening statement vindicating President Trump , the media elites in Washington are celebrating Comey ’ s “ poker face ” –as if it means something substantive . James Comey 's poker face is savage . # ComeyTestimony — Michelle Ruiz ( @ michelleruiz ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:30 A.M. As Comey comes under questions from Burr , our very own Joel Pollak notes that Comey ’ s altered opening statement was a deeply personal statement furthering the giant nothingburger he put out last night through the committee . Comey failing again so far , just like he did when he was working on the Hillary Clinton email scandal last year . So far the Comey testimony is all about him & all about political retribution against the president for firing him . Disgraceful performance — Joel B. Pollak ( @ joelpollak ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:26 A.M. Washington , D.C. , elites are having a ball for themselves . But Union Pub is hardly the only place off the hook with the parties : We moved to another bar in DC . It is packed to capacity for Comey . People are WHISPERING to order their drinks so they can hear the TV . pic.twitter.com/xoFUcEHgun — Ryan Struyk ( @ ryanstruyk ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:20 A.M. Audible gasps of disappointment were heard throughout Union Pub as Comey said he will not re-read his opening statement published online last night , a statement that completely vindicated President Trump . Comey , however , admits that the President can fire him whenever he wants . He also says that he heard Donald Trump thought he was doing a “ great job . ” But here in Union Pub , cheers erupted as a champagne bottle was popped open for more Washington , D.C. , mimosas . UPDATE 10:17 A.M. As Warner wraps his righteous opening statement , in which he stated “ this is not a witch hunt ” and “ this is not fake news , ” the STANDING ROOM ONLY crowd at Union Pub laughs as Comey is forced by the chairman to stand and be sworn in under oath for his testimony . UPDATE 10:15 A.M . This real life parody is getting more and more out of control . Fired ex-U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara is joining Comey in the hearing room . Yes , that is Preet Bharara sitting behind James Comey . Banquo 's ghost . — Charles P. Pierce ( @ CharlesPPierce ) June 8 , 2017 Meanwhile , our COVFEFE LIVEWIRE has earned the attention of New York Times media correspondent Michael Grynbaum . Breitbart ’ s @ mboyle1 is at Union Pub in DC to cover “ the reaction of the crowd of Washington elites ” https : //t.co/RcRAohgI6N — Michael M. Grynbaum ( @ grynbaum ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:12 A.M. Mark Warner , the leading Democrat on the Senate committee , opens up with his opening statement saying that this hearing has drawn focus from a lot of Washington , D.C. , and that ordinary Americans really don ’ t care and aren ’ t paying attention . Maybe Congress could focus on real policy issues when this charade is over , but that would probably be asking too much of our elected representatives . UPDATE 10:11 A.M. Fox News is reporting that President Trump is expected to issue a statement disputing parts of Comey ’ s testimony . UPDATE 10:10 A.M. Burr to Comey : “ The American people need to hear your side of the story . ” UPDATE 10:04 A.M. As Chairman Richard Burr , a North Carolina Republican , opens the hearing , a hush comes over the crowd inside Union Pub . COVFEFE everyone ! Here we go . UPDATE 10:03 A.M. James Comey has walked into the room where is going to testify in the Senate Intelligence Committee . Folks at Union Pub don ’ t really seem to care much as they are engaged in deep conversation , very loudly , so loud one can not hear the television . UPDATE 10:02 A.M. Comey ’ s written testimony published last night basically proved he had nothing on Trump , and this whole case is going nowhere . Even anti-Trump Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) admits that , saying none of this makes any sense on TV this morning . `` Nobody in their right mind who believed they had a case , would take their star witness & allow them to go before the nation '' — Sen. Graham pic.twitter.com/Si1UAziuZm — CBS This Morning ( @ CBSThisMorning ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE 10:00 A.M. Union Pub is up and running as the Comey hearing is about to begin . All the TV ’ s in the bar are carrying Fox News live . If you 're wondering , # ComeyHearing will be in Senate Hart Office Building tomorrow , only 1000 feet from @ UnionPub . Guaranteed DC celebs — Barred in DC ( @ barredindc ) June 8 , 2017 Yes , our White House correspondent Charlie Spiering is correct ! ███ will be running this COMEY CRAZY COVFEFE LIVEWIRE live throughout the hearing and festivities all day from Union Pub ! Our Pentagon Correspondent Kristina Wong is here with us , as well as our intern Alex Clark . More Breitbart staff are expected to join throughout the day ! * Confirmed * Matt Boyle will be watching the Comey hearing live at Union Pub — Charlie Spiering ( @ charliespiering ) June 8 , 2017 Breitbart Live From Union Pubhttps : //t.co/zrcTQsYnGp — Charlie Spiering ( @ charliespiering ) June 8 , 2017 UPDATE : 9:52 A.M. Owen , a federal government employee who did not want us to publish his last name but is here partying as Comey is set to testify , said about the crowd size here “ it ’ s about what you ’ d expect–people here [ in Washington ] are easily more engaged than everyone else in the country . It ’ s a symbol of a healthy , vibrant democracy. ” Bloody Mary ’ s and Mimosos and beers by the pint are being poured by the hundreds already and Comey has not yet taken the stand . UPDATE 9:50 A.M. Breitbart ’ s summer intern Alex Clark joins us here and spoke with Union Pub ’ s general manager Ashley Saunders who told us “ I ’ m way too busy–I ’ m swamped ” when he asked if she could do a brief interview before the hearing begins . Union Pub is packed to the brim with Washingtonians celebrating Comey ’ s testimony .

COVFEFE from Union Pub on Capitol Hill! Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Donald J. Trump, will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning–and Washington, D.C., elites are gathered at their favorite watering holes throughout the city to watch the giant nothing-burger testimony. Breitbart News will be covering the political class celebration from here, with this livewire including updates on Comey’s testimony and the reaction of the crowd of Washington elites. Union Pub, a landmark Washington, D.C., bar across the street from the Heritage Foundation on Capitol Hill, is offering all patrons who come here to watch the testimony free drinks whenever President Trump Tweets about the Comey hearing throughout its duration until 4 p.m. UPDATE 12:54 P.M. President Trump did not Tweet throughout the entire event, but Union Pub is still giving out a few round of America-themed Budweisers to everyone here! The specialty Budweiser cans, which servers are passing out now, have the special “America” name in place of “Budweiser” on the label and a camouflage design instead of the traditional red cans. Here’s a photo from Breitbart’s Kristina Wong: And another from Breitbart News’ Penny Starr: Cheers! Comey reveals he's a leaker and New York Times pushes FAKE NEWS! @BreitbartNews #comey pic.twitter.com/cmJ8DST0QP — Penny Starr (@PennyStarrDC) June 8, 2017 That’s all folks, we’ll leave it there for today. COVFEFE to everyone and thanks for tuning in! UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger. Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. Meanwhile, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders–from the podium at the press briefing–has told reporters that President Trump is not, despite what the leaker James Comey says, a liar. .@SHSanders45: "No, I can definitively say the president is not a liar. It's frankly insulting that that question would be asked." — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) June 8, 2017 And, of course, nevertheless President Trump persisted. He’s right back out there fighting for American workers while Democrats waste their time on evidence-less nonsense. Trump takes the stage at Faith and Freedom conference “It’s wonderful to be here with all of my friends” pic.twitter.com/xi7Gbo4x3G — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) June 8, 2017 “You fought for me, now I will fight for you” Trump tells Faith and Freedom audience — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 12:40 P.M. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a grumpy old anti-Trump Republican, made no sense during his questioning of Comey. Breitbart’s own Curt Schilling, the host of Whatever It Takes, questions whether everyone else had trouble following along with McCain’s nonsensical line of questioning: Am I the only one not able to follow along with senator McCain's line of questioning???? — Curt Schilling (@gehrig38) June 8, 2017 Even the New York Times’ people questions whether McCain is losing his mind: McCain seems to be confusing the Clinton email case with the Russia investigation. — Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 8, 2017 Trump, who has not Tweeted during the hearing at all, apparently made the decision to avoid Tweeting last night. Politico’s Tara Palmeri has the scoop of why the President would not Tweet today, infuriating all the Union Pub bar-goers who did not get any free drinks since President Trump did not Tweet. Trump decided the night before #comeyhearings that he would not live-tweet his rebuttal https://t.co/P0SouqYAja — Tara Palmeri (@tarapalmeri) June 8, 2017 “Why would I?” Trump apparently told White House aides about live-Tweeting Comey’s appearance before Congress, according to a “senior White House official” who spoke with Politico’s Palmeri. Read the whole thing, including the details on how the president’s mood is “light” during the Comey testimony. UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). This line of questioning from @SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked — Matt House (@mattwhouse) June 8, 2017 Here’s video of her comparing Trump to an armed robber though, so take whatever she says with a grain of salt: https://twitter.com/MikeCiandella/status/872848958451838977 But MSNBC leftist media star Andrea Mitchell loves Kamala Harris, heavily highlighting the rookie Democrat Senator’s questions: .@KamalaHarris asks series of q's about possible secret contacts between Trump camp and Russia #Comey declines to answer in open hearing — Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) June 8, 2017 Meanwhile, anti-Trump Never Trumper Max Boot is in an alternate reality, saying Comey was fantastic as a witness. Bottom line for #ComeyDay: Comey a highly credible witness. Trump isn't. Comey makes damning accusations. Trump denials unconvincing. — Max Boot (@MaxBoot) June 8, 2017 Flashback, though, to when Comey was fired and Boot with some bold predictions back on May 9: Congress needs to ask Comey to testify & he needs to tell all he knows about Kremlingate. If he does Trump may regret firing him. — Max Boot (@MaxBoot) May 10, 2017 Don’t tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. “KREMLINGATE”? What is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper from when Comey was fired in May: Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one of the articles of impeachment. — Max Boot (@MaxBoot) May 10, 2017 UPDATE 12:24 P.M. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is calling for the Senate to officially subpoena the documents James Comey ordered leaked through his network of leakers. Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him. — Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 12:21 P.M. Loretta Lynch is in serious trouble right now. Looks like the Democrats’ efforts may have backfired. Loretta Lynch is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony — Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) June 8, 2017 If it wasn't for Trump becoming president, the corruption with Obama's Department of Justice would be a major story. https://t.co/Pc3ZTYTtaN — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) June 8, 2017 Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could “credibly deny” the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special counsel in the scandal, but decided against it. UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey’s leak network has been outed, or at least part of it has: Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r — Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) June 8, 2017 So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy to bring down the elected president #ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9 — Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017 And now Comey’s anti-Trump leak network is confirming to the media that Comey is a leaker: Columbia Law Prof Daniel Richman confirms to @ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters. — Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing where Comey has implicated her. Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony? — Mike Shields (@mshields007) June 8, 2017 Meanwhile, Comey’s admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble: Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017 Comey is doing well but leaking info runs against Comey's image, particularly in light of the leak controversy hoiunding the Administration — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017 The memos could be viewed as gov't material and potential evidence . Leaking to a friend for disclosure can raise serious questions. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 12:02 P.M. Donald Trump, Jr., highlights an excellent question from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) to Comey. Comey did not have a great answer. Sen Blunt: If you told Sessions you didn't want to be alone with Trump again, why did you continue to take his calls? — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here’s video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media narrative during his questioning of Comey. Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump’s conversations with him that he alerted exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger. Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker. UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he’s a leaker, and has an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter: Because if it was leaked that @realDonaldTrump was personally not under investigation- it would have crushed the entire narrative. pic.twitter.com/drFcCxin5M — Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) June 8, 2017 President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now. UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats AND now the fake news media. Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about Russia that are just "dead wrong" — Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) June 8, 2017 I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will check their reporting again or correct it if they’re wrong. Not holding my breath. UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife. Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?" "I said yessir…I had to call my wife and break a date with her." — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 8, 2017 That’s not the only drama-filled Comey testimony: COMEY JUST QUOTES HENRY 11 on what he thought Trump meant: 'Will no one rid me of this toublesome priest" — Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) June 8, 2017 Meanwhile, even CNN’s Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition party’s mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun. Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True. — Jim Acosta (@Acosta) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks. Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators — and they will demand some kind of repayment… — Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) June 8, 2017 The fact that Swamp Creatures on the “Republican” side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today’s masquerade mostly out of the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp. UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey’s open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That’s the story folks. He vindicated Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day. Can’t remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak — and without any senator having even asked. — Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN’s Dan Merica says that President Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will make a statement at the end of Comey’s public testimony. Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of James Comey's Senate testimony — Dan Merica (@merica) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama, and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is in full swing: Spotted at Duffy's Irish Pub in North DC: "Comey is my homey." pic.twitter.com/kvGuaqEqsd — Sharon Nunn (@sharonmnunn) June 8, 2017 Her “homey” James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker. Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully prompt the appointment of a special counsel. pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017 Comey admits to @SenatorCollins that he asked a friend to leak the contents of his memo to NYT to prompt the appointment of Special Counsel. — Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017 Here’s video of Comey admitting he has been leaking information to the media: Here's how I leaked my Trump memo after Trump's “tapes” tweet by: James Comey pic.twitter.com/9Z1QPPdcKD — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart’s Joel Pollak detailed, Breitbart’s John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading officials from now former President Barack Obama’s administration. Hayward says Congress needs to investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice. Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for obstruction — John Hayward (@Doc_0) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this hearing has shattered the media’s and the Democrats’ efforts to taint President Trump with “obstruction of justice.” “Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment — and reversing the 2016 elections — on the idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair,” Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID). Read his whole story here. UPDATE 11:26 A.M. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who has trolled Trump as much as he possibly can over the campaign and since, is joining with Union Pub patrons–who get free drinks if President Trump Tweets about the Comey hearing–in raising concerns with the lack of Tweets today from President Trump. .@realDonaldTrump's silence on #ComeyDay concerns me. What's going on, Don? I hope you don't hurt your fingers ranting against Comey later. — Vicente Fox Quesada (@VicenteFoxQue) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:25 A.M. Entirely unsurprising, but leading Never Trumper Ana Navarro bashes the president–again–and praises Comey. Lot of time left, but so far, Comey is coming across as the consummate professional. A man who loves his country, colleagues & agency. — Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:24 A.M. Since Comey has blown up the entire media narrative, essentially, Ric Grenell–a leading conservative pro-Trump advocate–notes that the media is only using “facts” that fit their worldview. Breaking: DC reporters are NOT tweeting the line where Comey destroys their anonymous sourced narratives. — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) June 8, 2017 Kayleigh McEnany, one of the only pro-Trump voices on the opposition party network CNN, Tweets another homerun: Of all the leaks, the one thing that never leaked was that the President was NOT under investigation. -Rubio Very suspicious! #ComeyDay — Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) June 8, 2017 And Ann Coulter for the win: OBVIOUSLY Trump's request re: Flynn was to “let go” of Trump's firing of him. MSM was falsely claiming reason 4 firing was contacts w Russia — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:21 A.M. from this morning’s Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXMTom Fitton of Judicial Watch, , says there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by President Trump or his team. And he called the special counsel “wasteful.” If Robert Mueller, the special counsel, comes up with nothing as every one of his contemporaries has before him, it will be the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars–and of Americans’ time–in a long time. Listen to the audio here, or at the link to the story from our own Dan Riehl: UPDATE 11:16 A.M. James Comey finally confirms before a congressional committee in a public setting–on video–that President Donald Trump is not under FBI investigation. James Comey confirms President Trump was not under investigation while he was FBI director https://t.co/ZqRwwAcU1i https://t.co/3lU7Yysw1B — CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:15 A.M. During Comey’s back and forth with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the former 2016 Trump GOP primary rival astutely noted that basically the only thing that did not leak to the press is the one fact that would have helped Trump–that Trump himself was not under investigation. That is despite the fact that Congressional leaders were briefed on that point. Rubio Comey back forth indicates Gang of 8 was briefed that Trump was not personally under investigation. — Laura Rozen (@lrozen) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:11 A.M. Donald Trump, Jr., joins the fray on Twitter, defending his father–the president–from Comey’s ambiguous claims. 1/3 Flynn stuff is BS in context 2 guys talking about a guy they both know well. I hear "I hope nothing happens but you have to do your job" — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017 2/3 very far from any kind of coercion or influence and certainly not obstruction! — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017 Trump, Jr., says there is no way Comey would have misunderstood the president. 3/3 Knowing my father for 39 years when he "orders or tells" you to do something there is no ambiguity, you will know exactly what he means — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017 He also notes that Comey has testified that he could be “wrong.” Comey "I could be wrong" — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017 Donald Trump, Jr.’s Tweets come as many here at Union Pub–who will get free drinks if the president himself Tweets about Comey–are disappointed that President Trump himself is not Tweeting. This is probably the first time ever that people in Washington, D.C.–the Swamp–are upset that President Donald Trump is NOT Tweeting. UPDATE 11:10 A.M. Video of Comey wishing there are tapes of his conversations with Trump: Comey: "I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes." (via @MSNBC) pic.twitter.com/uSCsAqTHAK — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 11:07 A.M. Breitbart’s Joel Pollak has an excellent piece up already on how Comey’s opening statement to the Committee this morning is all about him. “Former FBI director James Comey opened his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday by complaining about ‘shifting explanations’ for why he had been fired, and by attacking the Trump administration,” Pollak writes. “Comey said that he had originally intended to accept his firing quietly, but then found that the administration’s statements about the matter ‘confused me and increasingly concerned me.’ He said that President Donald Trump had assured him that he was doing a good job, and that he had assured the president in return that he intended to stay.” Read the whole thing. Also, it’s worth noting that even the Wall Street Journal–not some rightwing blog by any stretch–even says that Comey’s written opening statement proves that President Trump should have fired him. Which is exactly what President Trump did. Read the Journal’s editorial board piece here. UPDATE 11: 00 A.M. The GOP war room is up and running. Our friends over at the Republican National Committee are cutting videos that shows Comey’s testimony actually fully vindicates President Trump, despite whatever the opposition party media and congressional Democrats say: Politico has an RNC talking points document circulated this morning. Read the whole thing here. Politico also has a story on how the RNC is taking the lead on pushing back on the highly discredited Comey’s testimony. “The RNC’s role is to support and defend the president and this White House and this week is no different,” Ryan Mahoney, the RNC communications director, told Politico. “And we prepare for everything, and we’re prepared for the hearing this week.” Read the whole piece here. UPDATE 10:59 A.M. Despite the fact there have been a number of inaccurate pieces throughout the establishment media, the establishment media is celebrating itself. Most interesting part of Comey memo: How damn good the reporting has been. On. The. Nose. — Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) June 8, 2017 Also, fun: Sen. Feinstein wearing a seersucker: UPDATE 10:57 A.M. Feinstein tells Comey he’s “big” and “strong,” then asks him if he was overwhelmed by the Oval Office and wonders why he did not tell the president he was wrong when he brought this subject up with him. He questions whether he would have handled himself the same way if given a second chance. “I hope there are tapes,” Comey also said of his meetings with Trump, noting he has seen the president’s Tweet about the possibility of tapes. UPDATE 10:55 A.M. Comey, under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), says his relationship with Trump got off to a rocky start. He also embarrasses her when she asks him if the reason he was fired had anything to do with the Russia investigation, and he said “yes, because the President said so.” Here in Union Pub, the over-capacity crowd broke out into laughter. UPDATE 10:53 A.M. Comey just killed the case against Trump over “obstruction of justice” that the media is building, as fast as they began building it. He said Trump saying he hopes Comey lets the investigation of Flynn go was not an order to drop the investigation. UPDATE 10:51 A.M. The media is highlighting two separate things early on in the Comey bonanza: The fired former FBI director’s use of the word “lie” twice, and him being concerned about meetings with President Trump. Establishment media going to do their thing. Comey has now used "lie" twice. 1. Referring to WH defaming him and the FBI: "those were lies": 2. His concern POTUS might "lie" about mtg — Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) June 8, 2017 "I was honestly concerned [Pres. Trump] might lie about the nature of our meeting." – James Comey on why he kept records of his meetings pic.twitter.com/ErJrULEjYZ — Good Morning America (@GMA) June 8, 2017 Flag: Comey doesn't want to opine on Trump trying to obstruct, but says "That's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work toward." pic.twitter.com/0WVe6dTN8t — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017 An extraordinary thing for an ex-FBI director to say about the President of the United States https://t.co/enD0NBCpSn — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:48 A.M. Since Comey has nothing, and the whole case is falling apart, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ex-spokesman Brian Fallon is sadly offering up that special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating Trump. WH plan of declaring victory because Trump was not being investigated in January is now moot. Comey made clear Mueller is investing him now — Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) June 8, 2017 But, sadly, if they have no evidence Trump colluded with the Russians–probably because it is likely no evidence even exists–then the special prosecutor will find the same thing that Comey found: NOTHING. But, nevertheless Hillary Clinton’s acolytes persisted: Comey said he expects Mueller to assess, as part of his investigation, whether Trump obstructed justice. That would mean he's a subject now. — Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:40 A.M. Comey testified that he was “confused” about being fired by President Trump. And he said Trump spread “lies” about the FBI. Comey describes being “confused” by firing, “lies” about FBI being in disarray pic.twitter.com/EEDkxhKwvN — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:38 A.M. Since Comey believes that no votes were altered in the 2016 presidential election–he testified he is “confident” none were–then what is the point of this hearing? #Comey says that he is "confident" that no votes in 2016 were altered #ComeyHearing — Brooke Singman (@brookefoxnews) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:32 A.M. Despite the fact that Comey has nothing, but instead actually ended up in his written opening statement vindicating President Trump, the media elites in Washington are celebrating Comey’s “poker face”–as if it means something substantive. James Comey's poker face is savage. #ComeyTestimony — Michelle Ruiz (@michelleruiz) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:30 A.M. As Comey comes under questions from Burr, our very own Joel Pollak notes that Comey’s altered opening statement was a deeply personal statement furthering the giant nothingburger he put out last night through the committee. Comey failing again so far, just like he did when he was working on the Hillary Clinton email scandal last year. So far the Comey testimony is all about him & all about political retribution against the president for firing him. Disgraceful performance — Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:26 A.M. Washington, D.C., elites are having a ball for themselves. Our intern Alex Clark with these photos: https://twitter.com/alexcla59967291/status/872815560442228737 https://twitter.com/AlexCla59967291/status/872820653140975616 https://twitter.com/AlexCla59967291/status/872821025003778048 https://twitter.com/AlexCla59967291/status/872821340662886400 But Union Pub is hardly the only place off the hook with the parties: We moved to another bar in DC. It is packed to capacity for Comey. People are WHISPERING to order their drinks so they can hear the TV. pic.twitter.com/xoFUcEHgun — Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) June 8, 2017 There are many more. We’ll get updates up soon. UPDATE 10:20 A.M. Audible gasps of disappointment were heard throughout Union Pub as Comey said he will not re-read his opening statement published online last night, a statement that completely vindicated President Trump. Comey, however, admits that the President can fire him whenever he wants. He also says that he heard Donald Trump thought he was doing a “great job.” But here in Union Pub, cheers erupted as a champagne bottle was popped open for more Washington, D.C., mimosas. UPDATE 10:17 A.M. As Warner wraps his righteous opening statement, in which he stated “this is not a witch hunt” and “this is not fake news,” the STANDING ROOM ONLY crowd at Union Pub laughs as Comey is forced by the chairman to stand and be sworn in under oath for his testimony. UPDATE 10:15 A.M. This real life parody is getting more and more out of control. Fired ex-U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara is joining Comey in the hearing room. Yes, that is Preet Bharara sitting behind James Comey. Banquo's ghost. — Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 8, 2017 Meanwhile, our COVFEFE LIVEWIRE has earned the attention of New York Times media correspondent Michael Grynbaum. Breitbart’s @mboyle1 is at Union Pub in DC to cover “the reaction of the crowd of Washington elites” https://t.co/RcRAohgI6N — Michael M. Grynbaum (@grynbaum) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:12 A.M. Mark Warner, the leading Democrat on the Senate committee, opens up with his opening statement saying that this hearing has drawn focus from a lot of Washington, D.C., and that ordinary Americans really don’t care and aren’t paying attention. Maybe Congress could focus on real policy issues when this charade is over, but that would probably be asking too much of our elected representatives. UPDATE 10:11 A.M. Fox News is reporting that President Trump is expected to issue a statement disputing parts of Comey’s testimony. UPDATE 10:10 A.M. Burr to Comey: “The American people need to hear your side of the story.” UPDATE 10:04 A.M. As Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, opens the hearing, a hush comes over the crowd inside Union Pub. COVFEFE everyone! Here we go. UPDATE 10:03 A.M. James Comey has walked into the room where is going to testify in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Folks at Union Pub don’t really seem to care much as they are engaged in deep conversation, very loudly, so loud one cannot hear the television. UPDATE 10:02 A.M. Comey’s written testimony published last night basically proved he had nothing on Trump, and this whole case is going nowhere. Even anti-Trump Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) admits that, saying none of this makes any sense on TV this morning. "Nobody in their right mind who believed they had a case, would take their star witness & allow them to go before the nation" — Sen. Graham pic.twitter.com/Si1UAziuZm — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) June 8, 2017 UPDATE 10:00 A.M. Union Pub is up and running as the Comey hearing is about to begin. All the TV’s in the bar are carrying Fox News live. If you're wondering, #ComeyHearing will be in Senate Hart Office Building tomorrow, only 1000 feet from @UnionPub. Guaranteed DC celebs — Barred in DC (@barredindc) June 8, 2017 The place is packed. Yes, our White House correspondent Charlie Spiering is correct! Breitbart News will be running this COMEY CRAZY COVFEFE LIVEWIRE live throughout the hearing and festivities all day from Union Pub! Our Pentagon Correspondent Kristina Wong is here with us, as well as our intern Alex Clark. More Breitbart staff are expected to join throughout the day! *Confirmed* Matt Boyle will be watching the Comey hearing live at Union Pub — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) June 8, 2017 Breitbart Live From Union Pubhttps://t.co/zrcTQsYnGp — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) June 8, 2017 UPDATE: 9:52 A.M. Owen, a federal government employee who did not want us to publish his last name but is here partying as Comey is set to testify, said about the crowd size here “it’s about what you’d expect–people here [in Washington] are easily more engaged than everyone else in the country. It’s a symbol of a healthy, vibrant democracy.” Bloody Mary’s and Mimosos and beers by the pint are being poured by the hundreds already and Comey has not yet taken the stand. UPDATE 9:50 A.M. Breitbart’s summer intern Alex Clark joins us here and spoke with Union Pub’s general manager Ashley Saunders who told us “I’m way too busy–I’m swamped” when he asked if she could do a brief interview before the hearing begins. Union Pub is packed to the brim with Washingtonians celebrating Comey’s testimony.

www.breitbart.com

right

gWbrNAoT4s3hAU27

test

MTmhAeCitH1INHRK

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/january/trump-points-to-border-crisis-drug-epidemic-women-and-children-victimized-dems-say-hes-just-holding-americans-hostage

Trump Points to Border Crisis, Drug Epidemic, Women and Children Victimized; Dems Say He's Just Holding Americans 'Hostage'

2019-01-09

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said the border wall stalemate could all be worked out in a 45-minute meeting . Now he could have the chance to do just that . Democratic lawmakers have been invited to the White House Wednesday to try and make a deal , fund the wall and reopen the government . The news comes after Trump took his case for border security directly to the American public in a nine-minute prime-time address delivered from the White House Tuesday . Sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office , the president declared , `` This is a humanitarian crisis , a crisis of the heart , a crisis of the soul . '' Trump said the southern border is a pipeline for illegal drugs , gangs and human traffickers . The commander in chief stopped short of declaring a national emergency but demanded $ 5 billion for a border wall as well as additional funds for more agents , judges and humanitarian aid . `` Democrats in Congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis and they have refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they desperately need to protect our families and our nation , '' the president said . Democrats , however , pushed back on that claim , saying a wall is not the answer . `` Most presidents have used Oval Office addresses for noble purposes . This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis , stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration , '' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) said in his rebuttal to the president 's Oval Office address Tuesday night . Meanwhile , the fight is hitting home for some 800,000 federal employees either furloughed or working without pay as a result of the partial government shutdown . `` The fact is President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage – stop manufacturing a crisis and must reopen the government , '' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) charged . But Trump said the federal government remains shut down because Democrats wo n't fund border security , noting that `` women and children '' are the biggest victims of the broken system . `` I 've met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration , '' Trump said . `` I 've held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers . So sad . So terrible . I will never forget the pain in their eyes , the tremble in their voices , and the sadness gripping their souls . '' `` Imagine if it was your child , your husband or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken . To every member of Congress – pass a bill that ends this crisis , '' he said . President Trump will travel to America 's southern border Thursday to see what he is a calling a `` crisis '' firsthand .

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said the border wall stalemate could all be worked out in a 45-minute meeting. Now he could have the chance to do just that. Democratic lawmakers have been invited to the White House Wednesday to try and make a deal, fund the wall and reopen the government. The news comes after Trump took his case for border security directly to the American public in a nine-minute prime-time address delivered from the White House Tuesday. Sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, the president declared, "This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart, a crisis of the soul." Trump said the southern border is a pipeline for illegal drugs, gangs and human traffickers. The commander in chief stopped short of declaring a national emergency but demanded $5 billion for a border wall as well as additional funds for more agents, judges and humanitarian aid. "Democrats in Congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis and they have refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they desperately need to protect our families and our nation," the president said. Democrats, however, pushed back on that claim, saying a wall is not the answer. "Most presidents have used Oval Office addresses for noble purposes. This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in his rebuttal to the president's Oval Office address Tuesday night. Meanwhile, the fight is hitting home for some 800,000 federal employees either furloughed or working without pay as a result of the partial government shutdown. "The fact is President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage – stop manufacturing a crisis and must reopen the government," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) charged. But Trump said the federal government remains shut down because Democrats won't fund border security, noting that "women and children" are the biggest victims of the broken system. "I've met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration," Trump said. "I've held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers. So sad. So terrible. I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, and the sadness gripping their souls." "Imagine if it was your child, your husband or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken. To every member of Congress – pass a bill that ends this crisis," he said. President Trump will travel to America's southern border Thursday to see what he is a calling a "crisis" firsthand.

www1.cbn.com

right

MTmhAeCitH1INHRK

test

bpBR5GntXLmkYjDz

media_bias

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/5041444839d34f9eb91a78168f93ee02

MSNBC contributor apologizes, deletes tweet about Fox

2019-07-22

FILE - This May 29 , 2019 file photo shows special counsel Robert Mueller speaking about the Russia investigation at the Department of Justice in Washington . MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance , a former federal prosecutor , apologized and deleted a tweet that appeared to confuse readers about Fox News Channel ’ s plans to cover Mueller ’ s testimony before Congress this week . Vance said on Twitter Sunday , July 21 , that Fox isn ’ t airing Mueller ’ s testimony because President Donald Trump is afraid of what will happen to his supporters if they heard Mueller . But Fox is airing the testimony Wednesday , along with ABC , CBS , NBC and the cable new news networks . Vance tweeted that while she meant it ironically , “ my apologies to anyone I confused. ” ( AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster , File ) FILE - This May 29 , 2019 file photo shows special counsel Robert Mueller speaking about the Russia investigation at the Department of Justice in Washington . MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance , a former federal prosecutor , apologized and deleted a tweet that appeared to confuse readers about Fox News Channel ’ s plans to cover Mueller ’ s testimony before Congress this week . Vance said on Twitter Sunday , July 21 , that Fox isn ’ t airing Mueller ’ s testimony because President Donald Trump is afraid of what will happen to his supporters if they heard Mueller . But Fox is airing the testimony Wednesday , along with ABC , CBS , NBC and the cable new news networks . Vance tweeted that while she meant it ironically , “ my apologies to anyone I confused. ” ( AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — An MSNBC contributor apologized and deleted a tweet that appeared to confuse readers about Fox News Channel ’ s plans to cover special prosecutor Robert Mueller ’ s testimony before Congress this week . Joyce Vance , a former federal prosecutor , said Sunday on Twitter that Fox isn ’ t airing Mueller ’ s testimony because President Donald Trump is afraid of what will happen to his supporters if they heard Mueller . But Fox is airing the testimony Wednesday , along with ABC , CBS , NBC and the cable news networks . Vance tweeted later Sunday that while she meant it ironically , “ my apologies to anyone I confused . ” MSNBC had no comment Monday . Fox noted it had been running promos of its Mueller coverage since Friday .

FILE - This May 29, 2019 file photo shows special counsel Robert Mueller speaking about the Russia investigation at the Department of Justice in Washington. MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, apologized and deleted a tweet that appeared to confuse readers about Fox News Channel’s plans to cover Mueller’s testimony before Congress this week. Vance said on Twitter Sunday, July 21, that Fox isn’t airing Mueller’s testimony because President Donald Trump is afraid of what will happen to his supporters if they heard Mueller. But Fox is airing the testimony Wednesday, along with ABC, CBS , NBC and the cable new news networks. Vance tweeted that while she meant it ironically, “my apologies to anyone I confused.” (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File) FILE - This May 29, 2019 file photo shows special counsel Robert Mueller speaking about the Russia investigation at the Department of Justice in Washington. MSNBC contributor Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, apologized and deleted a tweet that appeared to confuse readers about Fox News Channel’s plans to cover Mueller’s testimony before Congress this week. Vance said on Twitter Sunday, July 21, that Fox isn’t airing Mueller’s testimony because President Donald Trump is afraid of what will happen to his supporters if they heard Mueller. But Fox is airing the testimony Wednesday, along with ABC, CBS , NBC and the cable new news networks. Vance tweeted that while she meant it ironically, “my apologies to anyone I confused.” (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File) NEW YORK (AP) — An MSNBC contributor apologized and deleted a tweet that appeared to confuse readers about Fox News Channel’s plans to cover special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress this week. Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, said Sunday on Twitter that Fox isn’t airing Mueller’s testimony because President Donald Trump is afraid of what will happen to his supporters if they heard Mueller. But Fox is airing the testimony Wednesday, along with ABC, CBS , NBC and the cable news networks. Vance tweeted later Sunday that while she meant it ironically, “my apologies to anyone I confused.” MSNBC had no comment Monday. Fox noted it had been running promos of its Mueller coverage since Friday. Vance’s original message had been retweeted nearly 10,000 times.

www.apnews.com

center

bpBR5GntXLmkYjDz

test

8VeVzE9v9gv9G7ja

race_and_racism

Newsmax - News

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zimmerman-juror-race-trayvon/2013/07/15/id/515186

Zimmerman Juror: Race Played No Role

2013-07-15

Greg Richter

In the first vote of the jury in the George Zimmerman murder trial , three voted not guilty , two voted manslaughter and one voted second-degree murder , but none of the jurors believed race played a role in the incident , a juror said on CNN Monday . `` I think his heart was in the right place , but it just went terribly wrong , '' Juror B-37 said on CNN 's `` Anderson Cooper 360 '' Monday night.Five of the six jurors believed it was Zimmerman 's voice screaming for help on the 911 recordings played in his murder trial , Juror B-37 said . The sixth juror was n't necessarily positive the shooting victim , Trayvon Martin , was making the pleas , but she simply was n't sure , the juror told Cooper.The woman appeared in silhouette and her name was not used on the news show , but her voice was not noticeably distorted.She told Cooper she found the original investigator , Christopher Serino , to be truthful . Serino testified he believed Zimmerman to be not guilty , but the prosecution successfully had that remark stricken the next day . `` It made a big impression on me , '' the juror said . `` He deals with this all the time . He deals with murder , robberies . He 's in it all the time and he has a knack to pick out who 's lying and who 's not lying . `` She was skeptical of the prosecution 's presentation . Prosecution witnesses and some of the defense witnesses knew what had happened , she told Cooper . `` Some of it was taped , so they could n't rebuke any of that , '' she said , referring to 911 calls recording the incident.One tape was the most significant , she said , because it recorded the incident `` before the struggle , during the struggle , the gunshot , and then after . `` She did not find the so-called `` star witness '' for the prosecution very credible . Rachel Jeantel was on the phone with Martin just before the attack . `` I did n't think it was very credible , but I felt very sorry for her , '' the juror said . Jeantel seemed to feel inadequate because of her lack of education and communication skills , the anonymous juror said.Jeantel was difficult to understand sometimes , the juror said , because she used phrases the juror was unfamiliar with . But she did n't think the term `` creepy-ass cracker , '' used by Martin to describe Zimmerman on the phone , was racial . `` I just think it 's everyday life . The type of life that they live and how they 're living . `` Zimmerman 's `` heart was in the right place , but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood , '' the juror said . He wanted to catch people so badly `` he went above and beyond what he should have done . `` Zimmerman should never have gotten out of his car that night , she said , but she felt like the 911 dispatcher egged him on . `` I think he 's guilty of not using good judgment , '' she said.She does believe , however , Zimmerman had a right to have a gun with him.She said the videotapes of Zimmerman 's accounts did n't carry much weight . But she said other evidence proved he was telling the truth , though there likely were some `` fabrications , enhancements . `` `` But I think it happened pretty much the way George said it happened , '' she said.It did n't matter to her whether Martin reached for Zimmerman 's gun , as Zimmerman claimed , `` because George had a right to protect himself at that point . `` She also thinks Martin threw the first punch . Asked if Martin was the aggressor , she said , `` I think the roles changed . I think George got in a little bit too deep … but Trayvon decided he was n't going to let him scare him and get one over on him . I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him . `` She said racial profiling played no role in the event . She believes Zimmerman would have acted the same way with a white , Hispanic , or Asian person . `` I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anybody that came in acting strange . `` She did n't buy the prosecution 's argument that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop . Instead , she believes he is just an overly helpful person , as was seen when he offered a new lock to the victim of a break-in and gave his and his wife 's phone number to her.The juror would be comfortable having Zimmerman on her own neighborhood watch , she said , as long as he did n't go too far . `` I would be comfortable having George , '' she said , `` but I think he 's learned a good lesson . ''

Editor's Note: Weird Trick Adds $1,000 to Your Social Security Checks Editor's Note: ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared? In the first vote of the jury in the George Zimmerman murder trial, three voted not guilty, two voted manslaughter and one voted second-degree murder, but none of the jurors believed race played a role in the incident, a juror said on CNN Monday."I think his heart was in the right place, but it just went terribly wrong," Juror B-37 said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" Monday night.Five of the six jurors believed it was Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on the 911 recordings played in his murder trial, Juror B-37 said. The sixth juror wasn't necessarily positive the shooting victim, Trayvon Martin, was making the pleas, but she simply wasn't sure, the juror told Cooper.The woman appeared in silhouette and her name was not used on the news show, but her voice was not noticeably distorted.She told Cooper she found the original investigator, Christopher Serino, to be truthful. Serino testified he believed Zimmerman to be not guilty, but the prosecution successfully had that remark stricken the next day."It made a big impression on me," the juror said. "He deals with this all the time. He deals with murder, robberies. He's in it all the time and he has a knack to pick out who's lying and who's not lying."She was skeptical of the prosecution's presentation. Prosecution witnesses and some of the defense witnesses knew what had happened, she told Cooper."Some of it was taped, so they couldn't rebuke any of that," she said, referring to 911 calls recording the incident.One tape was the most significant, she said, because it recorded the incident "before the struggle, during the struggle, the gunshot, and then after."She did not find the so-called "star witness" for the prosecution very credible. Rachel Jeantel was on the phone with Martin just before the attack."I didn't think it was very credible, but I felt very sorry for her," the juror said. Jeantel seemed to feel inadequate because of her lack of education and communication skills, the anonymous juror said.Jeantel was difficult to understand sometimes, the juror said, because she used phrases the juror was unfamiliar with. But she didn't think the term "creepy-ass cracker," used by Martin to describe Zimmerman on the phone, was racial."I just think it's everyday life. The type of life that they live and how they're living."Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood," the juror said. He wanted to catch people so badly "he went above and beyond what he should have done."Zimmerman should never have gotten out of his car that night, she said, but she felt like the 911 dispatcher egged him on."I think he's guilty of not using good judgment," she said.She does believe, however, Zimmerman had a right to have a gun with him.She said the videotapes of Zimmerman's accounts didn't carry much weight. But she said other evidence proved he was telling the truth, though there likely were some "fabrications, enhancements.""But I think it happened pretty much the way George said it happened," she said.It didn't matter to her whether Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun, as Zimmerman claimed, "because George had a right to protect himself at that point."She also thinks Martin threw the first punch. Asked if Martin was the aggressor, she said, "I think the roles changed. I think George got in a little bit too deep … but Trayvon decided he wasn't going to let him scare him and get one over on him. I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him."She said racial profiling played no role in the event. She believes Zimmerman would have acted the same way with a white, Hispanic, or Asian person."I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anybody that came in acting strange."She didn't buy the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop. Instead, she believes he is just an overly helpful person, as was seen when he offered a new lock to the victim of a break-in and gave his and his wife's phone number to her.The juror would be comfortable having Zimmerman on her own neighborhood watch, she said, as long as he didn't go too far."I would be comfortable having George," she said, "but I think he's learned a good lesson."

www.newsmax.com

right

8VeVzE9v9gv9G7ja

test

0nwAeG4KYUg9to8X

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/july/media-research-center-calls-bias-on-mainstream-coverage-of-scotus-nomination-nbsp

Media Research Center Calls Bias on Mainstream Coverage of SCOTUS Nomination

2018-07-11

WASHINGTON – Brett Kavanaugh 's nomination to the United States Supreme Court is being met with mixed reaction , and while most conservatives are pulling for President Donald Trump 's pick , many liberals are voicing their disapproval – including some members of the mainstream media . From the Supreme Court to Trump Tower , protesters railed against the announcement of Kavanaugh 's nomination Monday night . `` We should do everything we can to fight back , to speak out , to never give up , to never give in , '' Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ( D-NY ) shouted from the steps of the Supreme Court . And it was n't just Democrats and liberal activists who were upset . The Media Research Center is calling bias on some members of the mainstream media . `` You had Nina Totenberg on NPR who 's supposed to be a correspondent for that publically subsidized network saying she thought that whoever Trump picked was going to lead to the end of the world as we know it , '' Rich Noyes , research director at MRC , told ███ News , `` That 's hyperbole . That is way outside the role of a correspondent . '' On MSNBC that night , Noyles also noted there were no conservative guests . `` From eight o'clock until midnight , the only guest that had a point of view were liberal activist groups , Democratic-elected politicians , opponents of Brett Kavanaugh , '' he said . Protests at the Supreme Court were so disruptive , one Fox News anchor decided not to do her show there . `` We did plan to have our show out there live , '' Shannon Bream , host of `` Fox News @ Night , '' told viewers . `` It got so volatile at points that we ultimately did n't feel like it would be safe to do an hour of live television out there . '' Noyes said it has n't always been like this and pointed to coverage of past nominations . `` We went back and looked at how they covered the nominations of liberal court nominees , such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan . You did n't have this tremendous labeling of them as liberal or left-wing , '' he said . And , unfortunately , Noyes does n't see it getting better any time soon . `` It 's a meltdown that they have n't had since the last meltdown , and they 're going to have another meltdown in the coming days , '' he said . `` They had a meltdown just two or three weeks ago over immigration . Now they 're in meltdown over this . ''

WASHINGTON – Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the United States Supreme Court is being met with mixed reaction, and while most conservatives are pulling for President Donald Trump's pick, many liberals are voicing their disapproval – including some members of the mainstream media. From the Supreme Court to Trump Tower, protesters railed against the announcement of Kavanaugh's nomination Monday night. "We should do everything we can to fight back, to speak out, to never give up, to never give in," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) shouted from the steps of the Supreme Court. And it wasn't just Democrats and liberal activists who were upset. The Media Research Center is calling bias on some members of the mainstream media. "You had Nina Totenberg on NPR who's supposed to be a correspondent for that publically subsidized network saying she thought that whoever Trump picked was going to lead to the end of the world as we know it," Rich Noyes, research director at MRC, told CBN News, "That's hyperbole. That is way outside the role of a correspondent." On MSNBC that night, Noyles also noted there were no conservative guests. "From eight o'clock until midnight, the only guest that had a point of view were liberal activist groups, Democratic-elected politicians, opponents of Brett Kavanaugh," he said. Protests at the Supreme Court were so disruptive, one Fox News anchor decided not to do her show there. "We did plan to have our show out there live," Shannon Bream, host of "Fox News @ Night," told viewers. "It got so volatile at points that we ultimately didn't feel like it would be safe to do an hour of live television out there." Noyes said it hasn't always been like this and pointed to coverage of past nominations. "We went back and looked at how they covered the nominations of liberal court nominees, such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. You didn't have this tremendous labeling of them as liberal or left-wing," he said. And, unfortunately, Noyes doesn't see it getting better any time soon. "It's a meltdown that they haven't had since the last meltdown, and they're going to have another meltdown in the coming days," he said. "They had a meltdown just two or three weeks ago over immigration. Now they're in meltdown over this."

www1.cbn.com

right

0nwAeG4KYUg9to8X

test

NKJ6V0XWVQQEEp8A

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rand-paul-pitches-pathway-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=18764277

Paul Pitches Immigration Pathway

Shushannah Walshe

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky today endorsed a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants , adding his voice to the debate as separate groups on Capitol Hill search for a way forward on the thorny political issue and beginning `` a dialogue between the GOP and Latinos . '' In his first major speech on the subject , Paul did not use the word `` citizenship '' in remarks before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington , but the libertarian suggested that people who are in the country illegally should be able to stay without returning to their home countries . He sought to clarify his remarks in a conference call with reporters this later this afternoon , saying , `` If they want to be citizens , I am open to debate as to what we do to move forward . '' But Paul admitted that he was shying away from `` pathway to citizenship '' language because it 's polarizing and detrimental to the debate . `` I think we are trapped , '' Paul said . `` The immigration debate has been trapped and it 's been polarized by two terms : 'path to citizenship ' and amnesty . `` So everybody who does n't want anything to move forward calls every proposal that somebody else wants 'pathway to citizenship ' or 'you are granting amnesty . ' Ca n't we have reform and just not call them by certain names that discourage the process from going forward ? '' When asked on the call whether he would support a Senate bill to give a pathway for current undocumented immigrants to get a green card , he said , `` Yeah , I would , as long as they do n't get in a new line . '' `` They would just get in the current line , '' Paul said . `` As long as those here want to work , I would get them work visas . And as long as they want to apply , then you would get in the normal line for citizenship that 's already available so it 's not a new pathway . It 's an existing pathway and then what we have to figure out is if the existing pathway is n't working ; how do we fix the existing pathway and I 'm willing to look at all of those things . '' Under his framework , undocumented immigrants who earn legal status would be permitted eventually to apply for citizenship , as long as they are in the back of the line of people seeking permanent residency and citizenship in the United States . The issue of citizenship has been a thorny one throughout the immigration overhaul debate . Bipartisan negotiators in the Senate , including Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida and John McCain of Arizona , have agreed that undocumented immigrants should have the ability , after a long wait , to become citizens . But some conservatives like former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush have suggested that the undocumented be allowed to stay in the United States and not be able to become citizens unless they first return to their home country . While Paul danced around the use of the term `` a path to citizenship , '' he said his speech today was the start of a conversation on the topic . It could be key to passing a comprehensive bill . President Obama has said any bill must include a pathway to full citizenship . Some advocates for a pathway to citizenship took Paul 's remarks to mean he was endorsing a path to full legal citizenship . `` I applaud and appreciate @ SenRandPaul support for a path to citizenship . This is an important piece of immigration reform , '' Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , tweeted . The plan Paul laid out includes a probationary period for those who come to the United States illegally . It was a significant move for the Tea Party conservative , one day after the Republican National Committee laid out its `` autopsy '' with calls for a strong push toward attracting Hispanics to the party . `` If you wish to work , if you wish to live and work in America , then we will find a place for you , '' Paul told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce , stressing that before there can be any kind of permanent legal status , the border must be secured . That is how the conservative wing of the party will become part of the conversation , he said . `` In order to bring conservatives to this cause , however , those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure , '' Paul said . `` But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion without unduly rewarding them for coming here illegally . '' Paul said that once the border is secure , on which Congress would have to agree , progress could then be made on a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country , making the process a long one for those already here . His plan begins with giving work visas to those already here `` who are willing to come forward and work . '' A bipartisan panel would decide on the number of visas per year . `` Fairness is a key in any meaningful immigration reform , but this fairness would cut both ways : The modernization of our visa system and our border security would allow us to accurately track immigration , '' Paul said . `` It would also enable us to let more people in and allow us to admit we are not going to deport the millions of people who are already here . '' Paul noted that conservatives like him are `` wary of amnesty '' and his `` plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line . '' `` But what we have now is de facto amnesty , '' Paul said , before calling for a `` probationary period '' for those who came here illegally to become legal , calling it a `` middle ground '' between amnesty and deportation . Paul , 50 , said the second year of the program would `` begin expanding probationary work visas to immigrants who are willing to work '' and Congress would vote every five years on a report that looks at whether the border is secure . In Paul 's proposal , high-tech visas would be increased and a special visa for entrepreneurs would also be issued . Paul 's speech was peppered with Spanish phrases from his childhood in Texas and his love of Hispanic culture , which were well-received by the audience , and his tone was welcoming , just what the RNC report called for Monday in its report on the 2013 presidential election loss . `` Republicans have been losing both the respect and votes of a group of people who already identify with many of our belief in family , faith and conservative values , '' Paul said . `` Hispanics should be a natural and sizable part of the Republican base . But they have steadily drifted away from the GOP in each election [ and that ] says more about Republicans than it does about Hispanics . '' And just as the report laid out Monday , Paul admitted that `` Republicans need to become parents of a new future with Latino voters or we will need to resign ourselves to permanent minority status . '' The move is also interesting in light of his possible 2016 presidential aspirations and the reality that GOP Republican presidential candidates will need to attract Hispanic voters if they are to get elected . The son of former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul , he spoke of his own German immigrant family and how when they came to this country they spoke both German and English . `` Republicans who criticize the use of two languages , I think , make a great mistake , '' he said to applause , adding that his party `` must embrace more legal immigration , '' not always a familiar refrain , especially in the more conservative wing of the party . Paul 's speech has some overlap with the proposal by the Senate 's bipartisan Gang of Eight , which is hoping to release legislation just month . The group also wants to secure the border , boost legal immigration , as well as create a pathway to citizenship . One difference is he is not calling for a national ID card , or mandatory e-verify , saying that forces `` business to become policeman . '' Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw-poll vote last week after his 13-hour filibuster of CIA Director John Brennan two weeks ago .

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky today endorsed a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, adding his voice to the debate as separate groups on Capitol Hill search for a way forward on the thorny political issue and beginning "a dialogue between the GOP and Latinos." In his first major speech on the subject, Paul did not use the word "citizenship" in remarks before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington, but the libertarian suggested that people who are in the country illegally should be able to stay without returning to their home countries. He sought to clarify his remarks in a conference call with reporters this later this afternoon, saying, "If they want to be citizens, I am open to debate as to what we do to move forward." But Paul admitted that he was shying away from "pathway to citizenship" language because it's polarizing and detrimental to the debate. "I think we are trapped," Paul said. "The immigration debate has been trapped and it's been polarized by two terms: 'path to citizenship' and amnesty. "So everybody who doesn't want anything to move forward calls every proposal that somebody else wants 'pathway to citizenship' or 'you are granting amnesty.' Can't we have reform and just not call them by certain names that discourage the process from going forward?" When asked on the call whether he would support a Senate bill to give a pathway for current undocumented immigrants to get a green card, he said, "Yeah, I would, as long as they don't get in a new line." "They would just get in the current line," Paul said. "As long as those here want to work, I would get them work visas. And as long as they want to apply, then you would get in the normal line for citizenship that's already available so it's not a new pathway. It's an existing pathway and then what we have to figure out is if the existing pathway isn't working; how do we fix the existing pathway and I'm willing to look at all of those things." Under his framework, undocumented immigrants who earn legal status would be permitted eventually to apply for citizenship, as long as they are in the back of the line of people seeking permanent residency and citizenship in the United States. The issue of citizenship has been a thorny one throughout the immigration overhaul debate. Bipartisan negotiators in the Senate, including Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida and John McCain of Arizona, have agreed that undocumented immigrants should have the ability, after a long wait, to become citizens. But some conservatives like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have suggested that the undocumented be allowed to stay in the United States and not be able to become citizens unless they first return to their home country. Read More: Immigration Overhaul While Paul danced around the use of the term "a path to citizenship," he said his speech today was the start of a conversation on the topic. It could be key to passing a comprehensive bill. President Obama has said any bill must include a pathway to full citizenship. Some advocates for a pathway to citizenship took Paul's remarks to mean he was endorsing a path to full legal citizenship. "I applaud and appreciate @SenRandPaul support for a path to citizenship. This is an important piece of immigration reform," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., tweeted. The plan Paul laid out includes a probationary period for those who come to the United States illegally. It was a significant move for the Tea Party conservative, one day after the Republican National Committee laid out its "autopsy" with calls for a strong push toward attracting Hispanics to the party. "If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you," Paul told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, stressing that before there can be any kind of permanent legal status, the border must be secured. That is how the conservative wing of the party will become part of the conversation, he said. "In order to bring conservatives to this cause, however, those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure," Paul said. "But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion without unduly rewarding them for coming here illegally." Paul said that once the border is secure, on which Congress would have to agree, progress could then be made on a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country, making the process a long one for those already here. His plan begins with giving work visas to those already here "who are willing to come forward and work." A bipartisan panel would decide on the number of visas per year. "Fairness is a key in any meaningful immigration reform, but this fairness would cut both ways: The modernization of our visa system and our border security would allow us to accurately track immigration," Paul said. "It would also enable us to let more people in and allow us to admit we are not going to deport the millions of people who are already here." Related: Conservatives Wrestle With Immigration Divide Paul noted that conservatives like him are "wary of amnesty" and his "plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line." "But what we have now is de facto amnesty," Paul said, before calling for a "probationary period" for those who came here illegally to become legal, calling it a "middle ground" between amnesty and deportation. Paul, 50, said the second year of the program would "begin expanding probationary work visas to immigrants who are willing to work" and Congress would vote every five years on a report that looks at whether the border is secure. In Paul's proposal, high-tech visas would be increased and a special visa for entrepreneurs would also be issued. Paul's speech was peppered with Spanish phrases from his childhood in Texas and his love of Hispanic culture, which were well-received by the audience, and his tone was welcoming, just what the RNC report called for Monday in its report on the 2013 presidential election loss. "Republicans have been losing both the respect and votes of a group of people who already identify with many of our belief in family, faith and conservative values," Paul said. "Hispanics should be a natural and sizable part of the Republican base. But they have steadily drifted away from the GOP in each election [and that] says more about Republicans than it does about Hispanics." And just as the report laid out Monday, Paul admitted that "Republicans need to become parents of a new future with Latino voters or we will need to resign ourselves to permanent minority status." The move is also interesting in light of his possible 2016 presidential aspirations and the reality that GOP Republican presidential candidates will need to attract Hispanic voters if they are to get elected. Related: Rand Paul's Filibuster The son of former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, he spoke of his own German immigrant family and how when they came to this country they spoke both German and English. "Republicans who criticize the use of two languages, I think, make a great mistake," he said to applause, adding that his party "must embrace more legal immigration," not always a familiar refrain, especially in the more conservative wing of the party. Paul's speech has some overlap with the proposal by the Senate's bipartisan Gang of Eight, which is hoping to release legislation just month. The group also wants to secure the border, boost legal immigration, as well as create a pathway to citizenship. One difference is he is not calling for a national ID card, or mandatory e-verify, saying that forces "business to become policeman." Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw-poll vote last week after his 13-hour filibuster of CIA Director John Brennan two weeks ago. Fusion's Jordan Fabian contributed to this report

www.abcnews.go.com

left

NKJ6V0XWVQQEEp8A

test

R2qyP9IRxaXEjd6V

fbi

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/why-the-fbi-is-dodging-nunes/

Why the FBI Is Dodging Nunes

George Neumayr, Wesley J. Smith, Robert Stacy Mccain, Jeffrey Lord, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jed Babbin

The left used to get very worked up about the CIA ’ s interference in foreign elections . Liberals would quote solemnly the work of Philip Agee , a CIA turncoat who wrote articles and books about the agency ’ s manipulation of this or that foreign election . But these days ACLU-style liberals shrug at the meddling of John Brennan ’ s CIA in the 2016 American election , mischief that the FBI is still trying to conceal . It was reported recently that the FBI refuses to show Congressman Devin Nunes an unredacted copy of the origination document that triggered the probe into the Trump campaign . What is the FBI hiding ? Paradoxically , nothing — that is , no classified information showing collusion between Trump and Russia . The FBI is simply trying to hide the embarrassingly partisan origins of its spying on the Trump campaign . Were the redactions covering material harmful to Trump , that material would have been leaked by now . So the redactions can only be concealing the fingerprints of Hillary ’ s partisans in the Obama administration . The FBI will eventually have to fess up to the politicization to which it succumbed — that the most virulent Hillary partisan imaginable , John Brennan , had put pressure on FBI officials to start the probe , that a Trump hater , Peter Strzok , formally opened up the probe , that the smears of a paid opposition researcher for Hillary , Christopher Steele , contributed to the probe , that scandalous “ intelligence-sharing ” between Brennan and foreign intelligence agencies shaped the probe , and that FBI officials suspected the probe was unfounded but pursued it anyways at the insistence of Obama officials . The FBI says it is redacting “ sensitive information. ” That ’ s true in an ironic sense : the FBI is very sensitive about the information , in that it illuminates the agency ’ s transformation into an opposition research shop for the Hillary campaign . Take her partisans out of the picture and the probe would never have started . In an attempt to sanitize the probe , the media has attributed its origin to a drunken conversation between an Aussie diplomat and a minor Trump campaign volunteer . But that ’ s a joke . Maybe the FBI threw that into the pot at the last minute , but John Brennan had been stirring it for months before then . As Brennan told Congress , “ we were uncovering information intelligence about interactions and contacts between U.S. persons and the Russians . And as we came upon that , we would share it with the bureau. ” Notice his use of “ we ” in that statement . By “ we , ” Brennan meant his retinue of Hillary partisans at the CIA who had been shaking foreign intelligence agencies down for any dirt on Trump . The British intelligence , in cahoots with Brennan and Christopher Steele ( who was on Hillary ’ s payroll ) , figured largely into this mischief . In all likelihood it will come out that the “ information ” British intelligence shared with Brennan was just recycled Steele material . The “ allies tipped us off to Trump-Russian collusion ” storyline is a sham , designed to distract attention from a chain of Hillary partisans who in the thick of a campaign were circulating smears among themselves and calling it “ intelligence sharing . ” It was the blinding , viscerally personal hatred of Brennan for Trump , perhaps more than anything else , that turned all those phony “ tips ” into a counterintelligence probe . In the grip of that kind of feverish antipathy , combined with his desire to continue as CIA director under Hillary , Brennan could convince himself of any Trump monstrosity and made it his mission to prod the FBI into harassing him . Anyone who doubts that hatred should just take a look at Brennan ’ s Twitter account these days . This week he is rattling on about Trump ’ s “ self adoration. ” Also take a look at the people he is following on Twitter . They make up most of the cast of Obamagate , from James Comey to Samantha Power to Sally Yates to Susan Rice , not to mention the newest cast member , Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough , whose exposure is yet another product of Nunes ’ s refusal to accept redacted material from the FBI/Justice Department . But it wasn ’ t enough for Brennan to push the FBI investigation . He also had to publicize it , which he achieved through another person in Christopher Steele ’ s orbit , Senator Harry Reid , whose Super PAC , as the Daily Caller reports , was run by the very Hillary lawyer who hired Steele ’ s services . Brennan briefed Reid on the beginnings of the FBI investigation he instigated , knowing that Reid would leak the contents of the briefing to the press . About this astounding meddling in an election by a CIA director , the Philip Agees of the left have fallen completely silent . But that makes sense . After all , how can old radicals inveigh against the CIA as a “ wilderness of mirrors ” when it is John Brennan ’ s reflection in it ?

The left used to get very worked up about the CIA’s interference in foreign elections. Liberals would quote solemnly the work of Philip Agee, a CIA turncoat who wrote articles and books about the agency’s manipulation of this or that foreign election. But these days ACLU-style liberals shrug at the meddling of John Brennan’s CIA in the 2016 American election, mischief that the FBI is still trying to conceal. It was reported recently that the FBI refuses to show Congressman Devin Nunes an unredacted copy of the origination document that triggered the probe into the Trump campaign. What is the FBI hiding? Paradoxically, nothing — that is, no classified information showing collusion between Trump and Russia. The FBI is simply trying to hide the embarrassingly partisan origins of its spying on the Trump campaign. Were the redactions covering material harmful to Trump, that material would have been leaked by now. So the redactions can only be concealing the fingerprints of Hillary’s partisans in the Obama administration. The FBI will eventually have to fess up to the politicization to which it succumbed — that the most virulent Hillary partisan imaginable, John Brennan, had put pressure on FBI officials to start the probe, that a Trump hater, Peter Strzok, formally opened up the probe, that the smears of a paid opposition researcher for Hillary, Christopher Steele, contributed to the probe, that scandalous “intelligence-sharing” between Brennan and foreign intelligence agencies shaped the probe, and that FBI officials suspected the probe was unfounded but pursued it anyways at the insistence of Obama officials. The FBI says it is redacting “sensitive information.” That’s true in an ironic sense: the FBI is very sensitive about the information, in that it illuminates the agency’s transformation into an opposition research shop for the Hillary campaign. Take her partisans out of the picture and the probe would never have started. In an attempt to sanitize the probe, the media has attributed its origin to a drunken conversation between an Aussie diplomat and a minor Trump campaign volunteer. But that’s a joke. Maybe the FBI threw that into the pot at the last minute, but John Brennan had been stirring it for months before then. As Brennan told Congress, “we were uncovering information intelligence about interactions and contacts between U.S. persons and the Russians. And as we came upon that, we would share it with the bureau.” Notice his use of “we” in that statement. By “we,” Brennan meant his retinue of Hillary partisans at the CIA who had been shaking foreign intelligence agencies down for any dirt on Trump. The British intelligence, in cahoots with Brennan and Christopher Steele (who was on Hillary’s payroll), figured largely into this mischief. In all likelihood it will come out that the “information” British intelligence shared with Brennan was just recycled Steele material. The “allies tipped us off to Trump-Russian collusion” storyline is a sham, designed to distract attention from a chain of Hillary partisans who in the thick of a campaign were circulating smears among themselves and calling it “intelligence sharing.” It was the blinding, viscerally personal hatred of Brennan for Trump, perhaps more than anything else, that turned all those phony “tips” into a counterintelligence probe. In the grip of that kind of feverish antipathy, combined with his desire to continue as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan could convince himself of any Trump monstrosity and made it his mission to prod the FBI into harassing him. Anyone who doubts that hatred should just take a look at Brennan’s Twitter account these days. This week he is rattling on about Trump’s “self adoration.” Also take a look at the people he is following on Twitter. They make up most of the cast of Obamagate, from James Comey to Samantha Power to Sally Yates to Susan Rice, not to mention the newest cast member, Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough, whose exposure is yet another product of Nunes’s refusal to accept redacted material from the FBI/Justice Department. But it wasn’t enough for Brennan to push the FBI investigation. He also had to publicize it, which he achieved through another person in Christopher Steele’s orbit, Senator Harry Reid, whose Super PAC, as the Daily Caller reports, was run by the very Hillary lawyer who hired Steele’s services. Brennan briefed Reid on the beginnings of the FBI investigation he instigated, knowing that Reid would leak the contents of the briefing to the press. About this astounding meddling in an election by a CIA director, the Philip Agees of the left have fallen completely silent. But that makes sense. After all, how can old radicals inveigh against the CIA as a “wilderness of mirrors” when it is John Brennan’s reflection in it?

www.spectator.org

right

R2qyP9IRxaXEjd6V

test

yDKByS6CF0S0Gn2p

lgbt_rights

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48199835

Cuba cancels annual Conga Against Homophobia march

The Cuban government has cancelled the country 's 12th annual march against homophobia . In a Facebook post , the state-run National Centre for Sex Education ( CENESEX ) blamed `` new tensions in the international and regional context '' for the cancellation . Activists have condemned the move and questioned the government 's motives . Cuba was set to approve same-sex marriage under a new constitution , but removed the clause after protests . President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly backed the change in September , saying it was `` part of eliminating any type of discrimination in society '' . But the government backtracked after an outcry from religious groups . Cuba holds events at this time every year to mark the International Day Against Homophobia on 17 May . CENESEX posted on Facebook that it was officially cancelling the Cuban Conga against Homophobia and Transphobia `` in compliance with the policy of the Party , the State and the Revolution '' . The group is led by Mariela Castro , daughter of the Communist Party of Cuba 's leader Raúl Castro . No specific reasons were given for the change , with the post blaming `` certain circumstances that do not help [ the march 's ] successful development '' . However , only the conga itself is cancelled , with other events going ahead as planned to mark LGBT rights . Activist Norge Espinosa Mendoza called the move `` a new step backwards '' . `` The enemies of a more diverse and progressive Cuba will be happier now , '' he wrote on Facebook . `` Not allowing [ the parade ] is a signal that ... we are not welcome . '' Another campaigner , Isbel Diaz Torres , told Reuters news agency the government could be `` once more ceding to pressure from religious fundamentalism that has shown itself to be quite active recently '' . New Facebook groups have been set up calling for people to `` march for our rights '' . Discrimination due to someone 's sex or gender is illegal in Cuba .

Image copyright AFP/Getty Image caption Cuba has held parades against homophobia for the last 11 years The Cuban government has cancelled the country's 12th annual march against homophobia. In a Facebook post, the state-run National Centre for Sex Education (CENESEX) blamed "new tensions in the international and regional context" for the cancellation. Activists have condemned the move and questioned the government's motives. Cuba was set to approve same-sex marriage under a new constitution, but removed the clause after protests. President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly backed the change in September, saying it was "part of eliminating any type of discrimination in society". But the government backtracked after an outcry from religious groups. Cuba holds events at this time every year to mark the International Day Against Homophobia on 17 May. Why has the march been cancelled? CENESEX posted on Facebook that it was officially cancelling the Cuban Conga against Homophobia and Transphobia "in compliance with the policy of the Party, the State and the Revolution". The group is led by Mariela Castro, daughter of the Communist Party of Cuba's leader Raúl Castro. No specific reasons were given for the change, with the post blaming "certain circumstances that do not help [the march's] successful development". However, only the conga itself is cancelled, with other events going ahead as planned to mark LGBT rights. What have activists said? Activist Norge Espinosa Mendoza called the move "a new step backwards". "The enemies of a more diverse and progressive Cuba will be happier now," he wrote on Facebook. "Not allowing [the parade] is a signal that... we are not welcome." Image copyright AFP/Getty Image caption Other events to mark the Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia are still scheduled to go ahead Another campaigner, Isbel Diaz Torres, told Reuters news agency the government could be "once more ceding to pressure from religious fundamentalism that has shown itself to be quite active recently". New Facebook groups have been set up calling for people to "march for our rights". Discrimination due to someone's sex or gender is illegal in Cuba.

www.bbc.com

center

yDKByS6CF0S0Gn2p

test

X9Kp8nCYD3GRRZtv

politics

Newsmax - Opinion

https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbuchanan/covid-nato-china/2020/04/21/id/963840/

Post Pandemic, What Will Be America's Cause?

2020-04-21

After the Great Pandemic has passed and we emerge from Great Depression II , what will be America 's mission in the world ? But we put aside our nation-building to face the challenge of a malevolent Stalinist empire dominant from the Elbe river to the Barents Sea . We alienated Russia by moving our NATO military alliance into the Baltic and Black Seas . We launched bloody , costly crusades for democracy in the Mideast that , invariably , failed . We exported a huge slice of our manufacturing capacity and economic independence to a coddled China . Even before COVID-19 , Americans had begun to realize the folly of decades of mindless interventionism over matters irrelevant to our vital interests . `` Unsustainable '' was the word commonly associated with our foreign policy . But if our foreign policy was unsustainable during President Trump 's economic boom , with unemployment at record lows and a bull market to rival the Roaring 1920s , can an interventionist foreign policy be sustained after the losses of this major depression we have induced to kill the pandemic ? If the Democrats win in November , we know their priorities : national health insurance , carbon taxes , the Green New Deal , open borders , amnesty , reparations and wealth redistribution to reduce social and economic inequality — an agenda costing trillions of dollars . And Democrats will be looking at the defense budget as a slush fund to finance this new progressive era . If the Republicans win , given the influence of hawks and neocons among the party elite , interventionism may get another run in the yard . Having been exposed as naive beyond belief for their indulgence of China from the Bush I days to 2016 , some Republicans are looking to make amends by casting China in the Soviet role in Cold War II . There is talk on Capitol Hill of refusing to pay off U.S. bonds that Beijing holds and of suing China for the damages done by the coronavirus , as China failed to alert the world the pathogen was loose . Americans should think long and hard before defaulting on U.S. government debt and consider the consequences if we open a door to claims against sovereign nations for past sins . Iraq was invaded in 2003 to force it to give up illicit weapons of mass destruction it did not have . Baghdad could have a case in international court against America for the unprovoked war waged against that country . While the U.S. appears determined to bring back manufacturing — especially of products critical to the health , safety and defense of our nation — there seems to be no stomach among the public for a war with China . But again , with the democracy crusades now repudiated , what is America 's cause , what is America 's mission in the world ? Preventing climate change , say our liberal elites . Yet , even before the pandemic , global warming ranked near the bottom of national concerns . The situation in which America will find herself after the virus passes and depression lifts will be almost unprecedented . We will have the same treaty obligations to go to war on behalf of dozens of nations in Europe and Asia and at the same time , we will be running deficits on the order of $ 3 trillion a year with a shrunken economic base . The U.S. withdrawal from the Mideast will continue . U.S. manufacturing will begin to be repatriated . Transnational institutions will be downgraded , ignored and superseded . The watchword will be what it has lately been : `` America First . '' In a second Trump presidency , there would likely be even less concern for how other nations rule themselves . Does it matter to us if Russia is led by an autocrat not unlike a Romanov czar , that Hindu nationalism wields the whip hand in India or that Hungarians have rejected Earl Warren 's ideas about liberal democracy ? In recent decades , the U.N. General Assembly has seemed to resemble the bar scene in `` Star Wars . '' But is how other nations choose to rule themselves any business of ours , if those nations do not threaten us ? In the 19th century , when the Hungarians had risen up against the Hapsburg Empire and sought U.S. intervention , Henry Clay opposed it : `` Far better is it for ourselves . . . and for the cause of liberty . . . that we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore , as a light to all nations , than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of falling or fallen republics in Europe . '' Not only President Trump 's preferences but also events seem to be driving us toward such a destiny . To borrow from the title of historian Walter A. McDougall 's classic work , America 's future is as a promised land , not a crusader state . Patrick Buchanan has been an adviser to three presidents , a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination , and the nominee for the Reform Party in 2000 . He was also a founding member of `` The McLaughlin Group , '' which began on NBC , and CNN 's `` Capital Gang '' and `` Crossfire . '' His latest book is : `` The Greatest Comeback : How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority . '' Read Patrick Buchanan 's Reports — More Here .

After the Great Pandemic has passed and we emerge from Great Depression II, what will be America's mission in the world? What will be America's cause? We have been at such a turning point before. After World War II, Americans wanted to come home. But we put aside our nation-building to face the challenge of a malevolent Stalinist empire dominant from the Elbe river to the Barents Sea. And after persevering for four decades, we prevailed. What, then, did we do with our epochal victory? We alienated Russia by moving our NATO military alliance into the Baltic and Black Seas. We launched bloody, costly crusades for democracy in the Mideast that, invariably, failed. We exported a huge slice of our manufacturing capacity and economic independence to a coddled China. Historically, blunders of such magnitude have undone great powers. Even before COVID-19, Americans had begun to realize the folly of decades of mindless interventionism over matters irrelevant to our vital interests. "Unsustainable" was the word commonly associated with our foreign policy. But if our foreign policy was unsustainable during President Trump's economic boom, with unemployment at record lows and a bull market to rival the Roaring 1920s, can an interventionist foreign policy be sustained after the losses of this major depression we have induced to kill the pandemic? If the Democrats win in November, we know their priorities: national health insurance, carbon taxes, the Green New Deal, open borders, amnesty, reparations and wealth redistribution to reduce social and economic inequality — an agenda costing trillions of dollars. And Democrats will be looking at the defense budget as a slush fund to finance this new progressive era. If the Republicans win, given the influence of hawks and neocons among the party elite, interventionism may get another run in the yard. Having been exposed as naive beyond belief for their indulgence of China from the Bush I days to 2016, some Republicans are looking to make amends by casting China in the Soviet role in Cold War II. There is talk on Capitol Hill of refusing to pay off U.S. bonds that Beijing holds and of suing China for the damages done by the coronavirus, as China failed to alert the world the pathogen was loose. Americans should think long and hard before defaulting on U.S. government debt and consider the consequences if we open a door to claims against sovereign nations for past sins. Iraq was invaded in 2003 to force it to give up illicit weapons of mass destruction it did not have. Baghdad could have a case in international court against America for the unprovoked war waged against that country. While the U.S. appears determined to bring back manufacturing — especially of products critical to the health, safety and defense of our nation — there seems to be no stomach among the public for a war with China. But again, with the democracy crusades now repudiated, what is America's cause, what is America's mission in the world? Preventing climate change, say our liberal elites. Yet, even before the pandemic, global warming ranked near the bottom of national concerns. The situation in which America will find herself after the virus passes and depression lifts will be almost unprecedented. We will have the same treaty obligations to go to war on behalf of dozens of nations in Europe and Asia and at the same time, we will be running deficits on the order of $3 trillion a year with a shrunken economic base. If Trump wins, borders will be tightened. The U.S. withdrawal from the Mideast will continue. U.S. manufacturing will begin to be repatriated. Transnational institutions will be downgraded, ignored and superseded. The watchword will be what it has lately been: "America First." In a second Trump presidency, there would likely be even less concern for how other nations rule themselves. Does it matter to us if Russia is led by an autocrat not unlike a Romanov czar, that Hindu nationalism wields the whip hand in India or that Hungarians have rejected Earl Warren's ideas about liberal democracy? In recent decades, the U.N. General Assembly has seemed to resemble the bar scene in "Star Wars." But is how other nations choose to rule themselves any business of ours, if those nations do not threaten us? In the 19th century, when the Hungarians had risen up against the Hapsburg Empire and sought U.S. intervention, Henry Clay opposed it: "Far better is it for ourselves . . . and for the cause of liberty . . . that we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of falling or fallen republics in Europe." Not only President Trump's preferences but also events seem to be driving us toward such a destiny. To borrow from the title of historian Walter A. McDougall's classic work, America's future is as a promised land, not a crusader state. Patrick Buchanan has been an adviser to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the nominee for the Reform Party in 2000. He was also a founding member of "The McLaughlin Group," which began on NBC, and CNN's "Capital Gang" and "Crossfire." His latest book is: "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." Read Patrick Buchanan's Reports — More Here.

www.newsmax.com

right

X9Kp8nCYD3GRRZtv

test

NJY7khiJerKpxmJc

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/11/colin_quinn_on_race_comedy_and_political_correctness_people_should_stop_lying_and_pretending_theres_a_racial_dialogue/

Colin Quinn on race, comedy and political correctness: ?People should stop lying and pretending there?s a racial dialogue?

2015-06-11

David Daley

Colin Quinn Colin Quinn on race , comedy and political correctness : `` People should stop lying and pretending there 's a racial dialogue '' EXCLUSIVE : Colin Quinn tells ███ we need to talk about race -- but we might not be smart enough to pull it off Maybe Colin Quinn is the last honest man . Or maybe he has a Twitter death wish . His new memoir -- `` The Coloring Book : A Comedian Solves Race Relations in America '' -- is smart , funny and brave . Quinn does n't just touch the third rail of race and comedy ; like Flick in `` A Christmas Story '' he puts his tongue right on it -- only no triple-dog dare is necessary . Quinn begins with what is almost a standard critique of politically correct culture : `` I 'm tired of humorless activist people decreeing that we only use these words and never those , and that we `` check our privilege , '' in case we say the wrong thing and `` trigger '' someone , '' he writes . `` Across the country , the sexist office asshole has been replaced by the flat-affect , dead-eyed , modern-day Puritan . Both groups -- the old-school assholes and the neo-Puritans -- share a common goal : to wipe the smile off everyone 's faces . '' But the rest of the book is playing a subtler and more sophisticated game . Quinn wants to talk about race . He 's outraged that there 's no dialogue -- or that the dialogue veers only to the extreme poles of either angry or pandering . And he wants to tell his personal story of growing up in a multi-ethnic New York as an example of how people can get along when they talk openly with each other . His frustration seems less with p.c . culture than with anything that stands between a problem and honest conversation about it . His real war is against papering over words and pretending we 've fixed a problem . This is a decent and no-bullshit guy . `` Maybe we need to admit the sad truth , '' he says , over coffee last week in lower Manhattan , `` which is that we are not smart enough to solve any of these things . '' Give this guy a Sunday morning talk show and you get the feeling he 'd unfreeze the conversation in a really provocative way -- or go down trying . We spoke before Quinn 's good friend Jerry Seinfeld talked about `` creepy '' p.c . culture in interviews . Quinn 's take is more nuanced : That there has been political correctness on campus for decades , and that it 's the comedians ' job to make an audience uncomfortable and to think . He 's not a defender of the cheap provocation and understands that people can take offense at a joke , but he sees through easy outrage as well -- and sees it as getting in the way of really talking to each other . ( If you watched him on `` Fox and Friends '' yesterday deftly deflecting Steve Doocy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck , you only come away with more respect . ) We talked about all of this and more -- including his `` Girls '' colleague Lena Dunham , his thoughts on Bill Maher and religion , and memories of his years on `` Saturday Night Live . '' The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity . And sorry , but the amazing story he told about Sam Kinison , `` Remote Control '' host Ken Ober , strippers , Las Vegas and cocaine came after we turned the recorder off . So are you ready to be the most hated man on Twitter ? Comedy , race , humor , outrage – it ’ s a recipe for becoming a trending topic , or like Trevor Noah , landing on the front page of the New York Times . Why is this a third rail you want to leap on top of right now ? Third rail . I like that phrase . I don ’ t really know why exactly . It just feels like everything has always pointed that way to me . I ’ ve always been into discussing race . The conversation has been in neutral since I was a little kid . Since the ‘ 60s , it ’ s been in neutral . This conversation doesn ’ t exist . So at least people should stop lying and pretending there ’ s a racial dialogue . That would make me happy . And I like to joke . I don ’ t like how the climate has gone joke-wise . I understand totally when people are offended by jokes . I get it . I don ’ t like when people make blanket statements . For instance , the whole rape joke controversy . But nobody admits , nobody even discusses , that most rape jokes are made by female comedians . I don ’ t like comedy being determined by people who are not comedians . It was becoming a situation where whoever is the fastest typist decides what ’ s offensive and what ’ s not with comedy . It ’ s just too much . It ’ s too much . Don ’ t step in and start telling me what humor is . It ’ s like any job : Everyone wants to second-guess . I do the same thing to politics , to everything . Comedy has become that sort of thing – but with humorless people . Why is it that everyone who second-guesses a joke is immediately branded humorless ? Sometimes what I see from comedians , watching this , is a defensiveness after being told , “ Hey , maybe that ’ s not funny. ” Or that a joke failed . Is it possible that comedians have their backs up in such a way that that ’ s stopping a dialogue that might be useful ? Because sometimes it seems to me that we are having a conversation about race and other topics when people say , “ Hey , I ’ m not sure that ’ s funny and let me tell you why. ” That leads to honest conversation – and maybe it is the joke that started the conversation . There is no conversation about race . There is no conversation . That ’ s the first lie , that there is a conversation . All there is is a point of view that you are supposed to have -- and if you deviate from that point of view , people go , “ Whoa whoa whoa. ” That ’ s not what humor is . And punching up , punching down ! Once again , these terms were not created by humorous people . Activists are activists . They are great and a big part of American society . Humorists and activists don ’ t very often meld . Humorists and activists have two very different mentalities . Activists are very sincere , very positive . That ’ s how activists should be . Humorists are supposed to look at everything and see the bullshit in all sides . This is my opinion . We are not supposed to see 100 percent right and wrong . Everything is middle ground . Everything is hypocrisy in all people and all situations . I feel like people get on Twitter , and they get gripped by self-righteous indignation -- which is fine . It ’ s just not becoming in my opinion . Punching up and punching down . That seems like a fair point to me , keeping the target In mind . I ’ m not suggesting anyone impose rules on comedy , of course , or that anyone is off-limits for a joke . But it does seem like there ’ s humanity in at least thinking before making a punchline out of a victim . So let ’ s say you make fun of a white plumber or Kanye West . Which is punching up and which is punching down ? Societally , historically , context is everything . That ’ s another annoying statement . But if it ’ s Trevor Noah making a dumb fat joke on Twitter . That ’ s punching down . Does that line of cruelty matter ? Or is it the comedians ’ job to poke through bullshit somehow free of someone turning around and calling bullshit on them ? No . That ’ s what we would like to be , of course ! Ideally . I ’ d love it ! At the same time , what is the biggest argument ? It ’ s over free speech . Is Trevor Noah making a fat joke yelling fire at a crowded movie theater ? Then people go , “ We are not the government oppressing people. ” No , but if you still get people fired from their job , that ’ s also a certain amount of power . There ’ s a difference between getting someone fired from their job and saying , “ That ’ s kind of an asshole joke . ” Right , but some people do get fired . Trevor Noah , some people wanted him to get fired . All I ’ m saying is there is a certain amount of power that comes on . It ’ s not just an average Joe Citizen . There are things that go on on social media in general . Let 's not pretend it ’ s just outrage . What the right-wing fundamentalists were throughout the history of our country from the time of the Puritans to the 1980s -- the left is becoming . I ’ m with you on about two-thirds of this : our frozen racial conversation , the lack of context and history from some in the politically correct crowd . And on the important role satirists and humorists play – imagine the Bush years without Stewart and Colbert . But F it . And the other piece of it that to me feels like people have the same First Amendment rights that Trevor Noah ’ s got to make that joke , to speak up and say , “ Not really funny . ” The other side is people saying , “ Can ’ t you do better ? You are better than that. ” There ’ s so many lines to be drawn . The day any artist -- dare I call comedians artists -- but the day that anybody starts deciding that ( people can draw those lines ) how are we different from pandering , from the old idea that you have to please the crowd ? I thought the whole point was that you don ’ t please the crowd ; you please yourself artistically . Let me throw this out there . If you listen to the comedy podcasts , sometimes you can get the sense that comedians are trying to out-outrage each other . But then you also follow comedians on Twitter or read interviews , and it also sounds like there ’ s a lot of fear that if they say one wrong thing , their career could be ruined . Is there a chilling effect going on right now that is affecting writers ’ rooms ? Is all of this affecting the way comedians think and work ? Oh yeah . I think so . I don ’ t have any particular examples of it , but a lot of people are scared of their career or that people will take what they say out of context or in context . It manifests itself across the board , but it ’ s interesting to watch these unspoken elephant-in-the-room situations that people accept . I said it 11 years ago on NPR . It ’ s called substitute shock . The audience wants to feel edgy . People don ’ t want to feel like Puritans . So people make disabled jokes , or rape jokes , or child molester jokes . But if you bring up race , there is a silence in the room . So it ’ s like where is this coming from ? I ’ m trying to be funny . That ’ s my goal . It ’ s definitely a weird time , as far as more and more things are being determined by people who don ’ t necessarily have a great sense of humor . It was bad enough when we had these asshole executives . It ’ s not even that I ’ m disagreeing with a lot of what people are saying ( online ) . I just disagree that they are pretending to be an average person . No . You are coordinating efforts all the time to stop people that are not necessarily harmful to the United States . First of all , if they want to say we are not going to have a discussion -- and that they believe in oppressing people and admit that -- I will feel better . “ I ’ m the kind of person that believes in suppressing thought I believe is offensive. ” Admit you are that kind of person . That ’ s all I mean . Let ’ s all put it out there . That ’ s why I think a racial discussion will be great . If we had a racial show every week it ’ ll bring it on board . Some of it . But if you want to bring it on board , let ’ s bring it on board . Like I said , racially , in terms of personalities , black and white in particular . This book all about black and white . There ’ s a chapter on every other ethnic group , but no one is going to care about anything except black and white . Either way , the fact is -- and it ’ s been in neutral since the ‘ 60s -- no interaction . People just want to change the subject . It ’ s just the way it is . And it ’ s probably never going to change . It hasn ’ t so far . But I just don ’ t like that people act like they are having these conversations . These might be two different things . But so much of what gets written off as politically correct outrage culture is a really interesting conversation . The outrage over Bill Cosby , for example… Yes , but those things are things . I ’ m talking about words . The Duggars , Cosby , those are actions . Not words . Neither of those is part of anything I do for a living . Bill Cosby ’ s actions are rape . It ’ s not rape culture . It ’ s actual rape . I ’ m not saying there aren ’ t interesting behavioral things being brought up . I would never say that . But in the grand scheme of things , there ’ s still a thing going on -- since I started comedy -- where there is a tendency that used to come from fundamentalist , right-wing attitudes . Now it comes from the left . Mostly . If the right had cultural power , they would be doing it too , in a different way . ( Liberals ) are being Puritans . There ’ s no other way to describe it . All the things you are talking about I agree with -- except for the fact that the people making these decisions are starting minor digital hysteria . Digital hysteria . I want people to be honest and say , “ I don ’ t like it and we are going to put a stop to it. ” Admit it . I talk to people who monitor websites . And I ’ m like , “ Really ? That ’ s interesting . You fucking monitor with your free time ? ” This is what people do . That ’ s all I ’ m saying . When I was doing “ Tough Crowd ” we had racial discussions every day . We got nothing accomplished in the long run , but it was the beginning of something interesting . You talk in the book about “ Tough Crowd ” getting you branded as a conservative and that hurting you career-wise . You can ’ t prove anything , but I would say it did . Anyway , that discussion ended when it ended and it ’ s one of those things . ( Blacks and whites ) got off on a bad foot , to put it mildly , and now it ’ s never going to be fixed . Either way , it ’ s fine if people don ’ t want to discuss it , but don ’ t pretend we need a race dialogue . There is none . That ’ s what people say about absolutely everything . It ’ s like politicians saying we are going to have a blue-ribbon panel on something . It ’ s a way of acting like you are serious about something without actually having to do anything . Or maybe we need to admit the sad truth , which is that we are not smart enough to solve any of these things . None of us has solutions . Nobody has solutions to any of these problems . How can comedians help ? The subtitle of the book is a comedian solves race relations . I don ’ t know if we can . Obviously when you discuss things with humor , interesting thoughts come out . People say interesting things with comedy -- not big consequential things -- but things I didn ’ t think of in a certain way . Ultimately , comedians aren ’ t going to solve the world ’ s problems , but it ’ s hard to say . I feel like we intuitively want to do this , but we are just not bright enough . It ’ s depressing , but we are not that swift . So many of the stories in the book are about the way different ethnic and racial groups got along in New York when you were growing up in Brooklyn . As you describe it , people were really direct with each other and made jokes and knew how to get along . They maybe did n't like or trust each other , but they said so to each others ' face . Less so now , you suggest . So are things better or worse than they were when you were growing up ? There was just as much racial tension in many ways . It wasn ’ t some idyllic thing . But , because Park Slope was so mixed , we were much more racially mixed . People aren ’ t racially mixed now . In the ‘ 70s , maybe people had more hope . People now are hardened . I guess it wasn ’ t that different . It really wasn ’ t . We got along a little better because we were in close proximity . Like I said , everyone started to move away from each other in high school and that was a thing . It wasn ’ t because of an incident . There should be a once a week racial summit , but people would be afraid to say how they really felt . Lena Dunham is back in the middle of controversy right now with Sarah Palin going after her and tying her into the Duggar scandal . You ’ ve been on “ Girls. ” Have you ever seen a young writer and actress be turned into a lightning rod like this ? Do you have any idea how she handles it ? I was just thinking about her today . She ’ s one of those people that seems like a “ light ” person . She ’ s always got a light to her , an energy . She made the mistake of telling the truth . I made a whole routine about how when you ’ re little kids it can be like a Roman orgy . I noticed that a few people were shocked , but most people laughed . But the right and the left , there is a war going on . It ’ s constant . It ’ s every day , everything . It ’ s terrible , but this is how ignorant we are . All it shows is our ignorance as a society . We ’ ve got these great technological things and people articulate better than they did 30 years ago , but it ’ s the same thing . People love to hate . People love to fight . You like to feel like you are on the right side of history , of things . It ’ s just terrible . So the role for comedians is to be a reality check . Exactly . In an ideal world we are a reality check . In the best of circumstances . That ’ s what we are supposed to be in an ideal world . You write in the book that perhaps it ’ s OK to be a little bit racist . The example you use is of an older woman clutching her purse tighter if she sees a young black person . Explain that to me . It depends on their experience as a person -- if she ever got robbed , if she got robbed by a black guy , she is going to clutch her wallet . It doesn ’ t make her racist . I saw so many people growing up that would be circumstantially racist and have black friends . And their black friends would tell them to watch out for the black kids when going down to a certain neighborhood . We knew it wasn ’ t everyone . Now , if you speak some kind of shorthand you are automatically racist . And like I said , if the past 20 years of whitewashing on language -- excuse the expression -- if that had actually had an effect of society ’ s racial ills , I guess I ’ d say it does work . But it ’ s bullshit . It ’ s just childish . It has nothing to do with people ’ s interactions . That ’ s just linguistic bullshit . That ’ s the problem . It ’ s getting to be another surface layout , another laminated layer of bullshit . Tell me about “ SNL 40 ” and the moment where most of the Weekend Update anchors reunited . Not a lot of people have had that desk . It wasn ’ t about the desk . It wasn ’ t about the show . It was about my memories of how much -- it ’ s all delayed reaction for me . Life is like delayed reaction . I was like , fuck , man . That was such a great time and I guess I sort of knew it . That ’ s how everything is in life . I sort of knew it then , but I was sitting there the whole night so overwhelmed by everybody that I worked with . Jesus . It brought back all these memories . It was like a high school reunion in the sense that it was really powerful . The show itself , it was fine . The power came from everyone in that room . It was very emotional for me . I was struck in the book that you sound very at ease with your years there . Sometimes people look back and they ’ re bitter . But your take is interesting : You say that everything gets a shot on Wednesday in read-through . And if it can ’ t make a room of smart people and comedians laugh , well , it gets cut – but it had a chance . At the time I didn ’ t appreciate Lorne Michaels . I was like everyone else . That ’ s the posture you take with anyone in charge of everything . Nobody else in show business would let you come that close to democracy . I don ’ t care who it is . Nobody in the history of show business . I look back wistfully because I wasn ’ t one of those people who went back . I should have , but that ’ s just my nature . When I ’ m done , I ’ m never thinking about coming back and doing a sketch . It ’ s not for me . Back to the book : What would you do , if you were in charge , to unstick the race conversation . If there was a real show on every week where you can have these interactions , some of them funny , some of them serious , discussing black and white , that would be an interesting thing to do for a couple of years . To have forums . That would be good . Only comedians . Political people have to be more careful than comedians because they really have to answer for the rest of their lives . With comedians it ’ s different , you are expected to be provocative . Provocative is part of the game . You are supposed to have a little conflict with comedians . The worst insult in comedy used to be the crowd pleaser . That ’ s the hack . Sometimes the people that are attacking comedians are the very people that should understand that we are supposed to be a little provocative . I don ’ t excuse a lot of horseshit . I ’ m not trying to get away with something . Whatever I have to say , I will say upfront . I ’ m not trying to slip one by anybody . It ’ s a muddled line right now . Hopefully it will work out , but it ’ s a muddled line with social media . What do you think about what Bill Maher is up to with religion ? With the Muslims ? Islam is a weird religion , but that being said there ’ s billions of Islamic people that don ’ t do anything wrong . But I have no problem with him saying it . It ’ s direct . It ’ s not racially direct . If that was talked about in Europe , that would be an interesting show . There ’ s no Muslims here . If you do that show in France or England , that ’ s provocative .. It ’ s not our thing as much . It doesn ’ t feel like it to me at least . Maybe it is .

Colin Quinn Colin Quinn on race, comedy and political correctness: "People should stop lying and pretending there's a racial dialogue" EXCLUSIVE: Colin Quinn tells Salon we need to talk about race -- but we might not be smart enough to pull it off Maybe Colin Quinn is the last honest man. Or maybe he has a Twitter death wish. His new memoir -- "The Coloring Book: A Comedian Solves Race Relations in America" -- is smart, funny and brave. Quinn doesn't just touch the third rail of race and comedy; like Flick in "A Christmas Story" he puts his tongue right on it -- only no triple-dog dare is necessary. Quinn begins with what is almost a standard critique of politically correct culture: "I'm tired of humorless activist people decreeing that we only use these words and never those, and that we "check our privilege," in case we say the wrong thing and "trigger" someone," he writes. "Across the country, the sexist office asshole has been replaced by the flat-affect, dead-eyed, modern-day Puritan. Both groups -- the old-school assholes and the neo-Puritans -- share a common goal: to wipe the smile off everyone's faces." Advertisement: But the rest of the book is playing a subtler and more sophisticated game. Quinn wants to talk about race. He's outraged that there's no dialogue -- or that the dialogue veers only to the extreme poles of either angry or pandering. And he wants to tell his personal story of growing up in a multi-ethnic New York as an example of how people can get along when they talk openly with each other. His frustration seems less with p.c. culture than with anything that stands between a problem and honest conversation about it. His real war is against papering over words and pretending we've fixed a problem. This is a decent and no-bullshit guy. "Maybe we need to admit the sad truth," he says, over coffee last week in lower Manhattan, "which is that we are not smart enough to solve any of these things." Give this guy a Sunday morning talk show and you get the feeling he'd unfreeze the conversation in a really provocative way -- or go down trying. We spoke before Quinn's good friend Jerry Seinfeld talked about "creepy" p.c. culture in interviews. Quinn's take is more nuanced: That there has been political correctness on campus for decades, and that it's the comedians' job to make an audience uncomfortable and to think. He's not a defender of the cheap provocation and understands that people can take offense at a joke, but he sees through easy outrage as well -- and sees it as getting in the way of really talking to each other. (If you watched him on "Fox and Friends" yesterday deftly deflecting Steve Doocy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck, you only come away with more respect.) Advertisement: We talked about all of this and more -- including his "Girls" colleague Lena Dunham, his thoughts on Bill Maher and religion, and memories of his years on "Saturday Night Live." The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity. And sorry, but the amazing story he told about Sam Kinison, "Remote Control" host Ken Ober, strippers, Las Vegas and cocaine came after we turned the recorder off. So are you ready to be the most hated man on Twitter? Comedy, race, humor, outrage – it’s a recipe for becoming a trending topic, or like Trevor Noah, landing on the front page of the New York Times. Why is this a third rail you want to leap on top of right now? Third rail. I like that phrase. I don’t really know why exactly. It just feels like everything has always pointed that way to me. I’ve always been into discussing race. The conversation has been in neutral since I was a little kid. Since the ‘60s, it’s been in neutral. This conversation doesn’t exist. So at least people should stop lying and pretending there’s a racial dialogue. That would make me happy. Advertisement: And I like to joke. I don’t like how the climate has gone joke-wise. I understand totally when people are offended by jokes. I get it. I don’t like when people make blanket statements. For instance, the whole rape joke controversy. But nobody admits, nobody even discusses, that most rape jokes are made by female comedians. I don’t like comedy being determined by people who are not comedians. It was becoming a situation where whoever is the fastest typist decides what’s offensive and what’s not with comedy. It’s just too much. It’s too much. Don’t step in and start telling me what humor is. It’s like any job: Everyone wants to second-guess. I do the same thing to politics, to everything. Comedy has become that sort of thing – but with humorless people. Advertisement: Why is it that everyone who second-guesses a joke is immediately branded humorless? Sometimes what I see from comedians, watching this, is a defensiveness after being told, “Hey, maybe that’s not funny.” Or that a joke failed. Is it possible that comedians have their backs up in such a way that that’s stopping a dialogue that might be useful? Because sometimes it seems to me that we are having a conversation about race and other topics when people say, “Hey, I’m not sure that’s funny and let me tell you why.” That leads to honest conversation – and maybe it is the joke that started the conversation. There is no conversation about race. There is no conversation. That’s the first lie, that there is a conversation. All there is is a point of view that you are supposed to have -- and if you deviate from that point of view, people go, “Whoa whoa whoa.” That’s not what humor is. And punching up, punching down! Once again, these terms were not created by humorous people. Activists are activists. They are great and a big part of American society. Humorists and activists don’t very often meld. Humorists and activists have two very different mentalities. Activists are very sincere, very positive. That’s how activists should be. Humorists are supposed to look at everything and see the bullshit in all sides. This is my opinion. We are not supposed to see 100 percent right and wrong. Everything is middle ground. Everything is hypocrisy in all people and all situations. Advertisement: I feel like people get on Twitter, and they get gripped by self-righteous indignation -- which is fine. It’s just not becoming in my opinion. Punching up and punching down. That seems like a fair point to me, keeping the target In mind. I’m not suggesting anyone impose rules on comedy, of course, or that anyone is off-limits for a joke. But it does seem like there’s humanity in at least thinking before making a punchline out of a victim. So let’s say you make fun of a white plumber or Kanye West. Which is punching up and which is punching down? Societally, historically, context is everything. That’s another annoying statement. Advertisement: But if it’s Trevor Noah making a dumb fat joke on Twitter. That’s punching down. There are the lines of cruelty, right. It’s asinine. Does that line of cruelty matter? Or is it the comedians’ job to poke through bullshit somehow free of someone turning around and calling bullshit on them? Advertisement: No. That’s what we would like to be, of course! Ideally. I’d love it! At the same time, what is the biggest argument? It’s over free speech. Is Trevor Noah making a fat joke yelling fire at a crowded movie theater? Then people go, “We are not the government oppressing people.” No, but if you still get people fired from their job, that’s also a certain amount of power. There’s a difference between getting someone fired from their job and saying, “That’s kind of an asshole joke.” Right, but some people do get fired. Trevor Noah, some people wanted him to get fired. All I’m saying is there is a certain amount of power that comes on. It’s not just an average Joe Citizen. There are things that go on on social media in general. Let's not pretend it’s just outrage. What the right-wing fundamentalists were throughout the history of our country from the time of the Puritans to the 1980s -- the left is becoming. I’m with you on about two-thirds of this: our frozen racial conversation, the lack of context and history from some in the politically correct crowd. And on the important role satirists and humorists play – imagine the Bush years without Stewart and Colbert. But F it. And the other piece of it that to me feels like people have the same First Amendment rights that Trevor Noah’s got to make that joke, to speak up and say, “Not really funny.” Advertisement: The other side is people saying, “Can’t you do better? You are better than that.” There’s so many lines to be drawn. The day any artist -- dare I call comedians artists -- but the day that anybody starts deciding that (people can draw those lines) how are we different from pandering, from the old idea that you have to please the crowd? I thought the whole point was that you don’t please the crowd; you please yourself artistically. Let me throw this out there. If you listen to the comedy podcasts, sometimes you can get the sense that comedians are trying to out-outrage each other. But then you also follow comedians on Twitter or read interviews, and it also sounds like there’s a lot of fear that if they say one wrong thing, their career could be ruined. Is there a chilling effect going on right now that is affecting writers’ rooms? Is all of this affecting the way comedians think and work? Oh yeah. I think so. I don’t have any particular examples of it, but a lot of people are scared of their career or that people will take what they say out of context or in context. It manifests itself across the board, but it’s interesting to watch these unspoken elephant-in-the-room situations that people accept. I said it 11 years ago on NPR. It’s called substitute shock. The audience wants to feel edgy. People don’t want to feel like Puritans. So people make disabled jokes, or rape jokes, or child molester jokes. But if you bring up race, there is a silence in the room. So it’s like where is this coming from? I’m trying to be funny. That’s my goal. It’s definitely a weird time, as far as more and more things are being determined by people who don’t necessarily have a great sense of humor. It was bad enough when we had these asshole executives. It’s not even that I’m disagreeing with a lot of what people are saying (online). I just disagree that they are pretending to be an average person. No. You are coordinating efforts all the time to stop people that are not necessarily harmful to the United States. First of all, if they want to say we are not going to have a discussion -- and that they believe in oppressing people and admit that -- I will feel better. “I’m the kind of person that believes in suppressing thought I believe is offensive.” Admit you are that kind of person. That’s all I mean. Let’s all put it out there. That’s why I think a racial discussion will be great. If we had a racial show every week it’ll bring it on board. Advertisement: Larry Wilmore is doing some of it. Some of it. But if you want to bring it on board, let’s bring it on board. Like I said, racially, in terms of personalities, black and white in particular. This book all about black and white. There’s a chapter on every other ethnic group, but no one is going to care about anything except black and white. Either way, the fact is--and it’s been in neutral since the ‘60s--no interaction. People just want to change the subject. It’s just the way it is. And it’s probably never going to change. It hasn’t so far. But I just don’t like that people act like they are having these conversations. These might be two different things. But so much of what gets written off as politically correct outrage culture is a really interesting conversation. The outrage over Bill Cosby, for example… Yes, but those things are things. I’m talking about words. The Duggars, Cosby, those are actions. Not words. Neither of those is part of anything I do for a living. Advertisement: Bill Cosby’s actions are rape. It’s not rape culture. It’s actual rape. I’m not saying there aren’t interesting behavioral things being brought up. I would never say that. But in the grand scheme of things, there’s still a thing going on--since I started comedy--where there is a tendency that used to come from fundamentalist, right-wing attitudes. Now it comes from the left. Mostly. If the right had cultural power, they would be doing it too, in a different way. (Liberals) are being Puritans. There’s no other way to describe it. All the things you are talking about I agree with --except for the fact that the people making these decisions are starting minor digital hysteria. Digital hysteria, that’s good. Digital hysteria. I want people to be honest and say, “I don’t like it and we are going to put a stop to it.” Admit it. I talk to people who monitor websites. And I’m like, “Really? That’s interesting. You fucking monitor with your free time?” This is what people do. That’s all I’m saying. When I was doing “Tough Crowd” we had racial discussions every day. We got nothing accomplished in the long run, but it was the beginning of something interesting. You talk in the book about “Tough Crowd” getting you branded as a conservative and that hurting you career-wise. You can’t prove anything, but I would say it did. Anyway, that discussion ended when it ended and it’s one of those things. (Blacks and whites) got off on a bad foot, to put it mildly, and now it’s never going to be fixed. Either way, it’s fine if people don’t want to discuss it, but don’t pretend we need a race dialogue. There is none. That’s what people say about absolutely everything. It’s like politicians saying we are going to have a blue-ribbon panel on something. It’s a way of acting like you are serious about something without actually having to do anything. Or maybe we need to admit the sad truth, which is that we are not smart enough to solve any of these things. None of us has solutions. Nobody has solutions to any of these problems. How can comedians help? The subtitle of the book is a comedian solves race relations. I don’t know if we can. Obviously when you discuss things with humor, interesting thoughts come out. People say interesting things with comedy--not big consequential things--but things I didn’t think of in a certain way. Ultimately, comedians aren’t going to solve the world’s problems, but it’s hard to say. I feel like we intuitively want to do this, but we are just not bright enough. It’s depressing, but we are not that swift. So many of the stories in the book are about the way different ethnic and racial groups got along in New York when you were growing up in Brooklyn. As you describe it, people were really direct with each other and made jokes and knew how to get along. They maybe didn't like or trust each other, but they said so to each others' face. Less so now, you suggest. So are things better or worse than they were when you were growing up? There was just as much racial tension in many ways. It wasn’t some idyllic thing. But, because Park Slope was so mixed, we were much more racially mixed. People aren’t racially mixed now. In the ‘70s, maybe people had more hope. People now are hardened. I guess it wasn’t that different. It really wasn’t. We got along a little better because we were in close proximity. Like I said, everyone started to move away from each other in high school and that was a thing. It wasn’t because of an incident. There should be a once a week racial summit, but people would be afraid to say how they really felt. Lena Dunham is back in the middle of controversy right now with Sarah Palin going after her and tying her into the Duggar scandal. You’ve been on “Girls.” Have you ever seen a young writer and actress be turned into a lightning rod like this? Do you have any idea how she handles it? I was just thinking about her today. She’s one of those people that seems like a “light” person. She’s always got a light to her, an energy. She made the mistake of telling the truth. I made a whole routine about how when you’re little kids it can be like a Roman orgy. I noticed that a few people were shocked, but most people laughed. But the right and the left, there is a war going on. It’s constant. It’s every day, everything. It’s terrible, but this is how ignorant we are. All it shows is our ignorance as a society. We’ve got these great technological things and people articulate better than they did 30 years ago, but it’s the same thing. People love to hate. People love to fight. You like to feel like you are on the right side of history, of things. It’s just terrible. So the role for comedians is to be a reality check. Exactly. In an ideal world we are a reality check. In the best of circumstances. That’s what we are supposed to be in an ideal world. You write in the book that perhaps it’s OK to be a little bit racist. The example you use is of an older woman clutching her purse tighter if she sees a young black person. Explain that to me. It depends on their experience as a person--if she ever got robbed, if she got robbed by a black guy, she is going to clutch her wallet. It doesn’t make her racist. I saw so many people growing up that would be circumstantially racist and have black friends. And their black friends would tell them to watch out for the black kids when going down to a certain neighborhood. We knew it wasn’t everyone. Now, if you speak some kind of shorthand you are automatically racist. And like I said, if the past 20 years of whitewashing on language--excuse the expression--if that had actually had an effect of society’s racial ills, I guess I’d say it does work. But it’s bullshit. It’s just childish. It has nothing to do with people’s interactions. That’s just linguistic bullshit. That’s the problem. It’s getting to be another surface layout, another laminated layer of bullshit. Tell me about “SNL 40” and the moment where most of the Weekend Update anchors reunited. Not a lot of people have had that desk. It wasn’t about the desk. It wasn’t about the show. It was about my memories of how much--it’s all delayed reaction for me. Life is like delayed reaction. I was like, fuck, man. That was such a great time and I guess I sort of knew it. That’s how everything is in life. I sort of knew it then, but I was sitting there the whole night so overwhelmed by everybody that I worked with. Jesus. It brought back all these memories. It was like a high school reunion in the sense that it was really powerful. The show itself, it was fine. The power came from everyone in that room. It was very emotional for me. I was struck in the book that you sound very at ease with your years there. Sometimes people look back and they’re bitter. We all had our conflicts there. But your take is interesting: You say that everything gets a shot on Wednesday in read-through. And if it can’t make a room of smart people and comedians laugh, well, it gets cut – but it had a chance. At the time I didn’t appreciate Lorne Michaels. I was like everyone else. That’s the posture you take with anyone in charge of everything. Nobody else in show business would let you come that close to democracy. I don’t care who it is. Nobody in the history of show business. I look back wistfully because I wasn’t one of those people who went back. I should have, but that’s just my nature. When I’m done, I’m never thinking about coming back and doing a sketch. It’s not for me. Back to the book: What would you do, if you were in charge, to unstick the race conversation. If there was a real show on every week where you can have these interactions, some of them funny, some of them serious, discussing black and white, that would be an interesting thing to do for a couple of years. To have forums. That would be good. Who would you put on that show? Only comedians. Political people have to be more careful than comedians because they really have to answer for the rest of their lives. With comedians it’s different, you are expected to be provocative. Provocative is part of the game. You are supposed to have a little conflict with comedians. The worst insult in comedy used to be the crowd pleaser. That’s the hack. Sometimes the people that are attacking comedians are the very people that should understand that we are supposed to be a little provocative. I don’t excuse a lot of horseshit. I’m not trying to get away with something. Whatever I have to say, I will say upfront. I’m not trying to slip one by anybody. It’s a muddled line right now. Hopefully it will work out, but it’s a muddled line with social media. What do you think about what Bill Maher is up to with religion? With the Muslims? Islam is a weird religion, but that being said there’s billions of Islamic people that don’t do anything wrong. But I have no problem with him saying it. The conversation is certainly direct. It’s direct. It’s not racially direct. If that was talked about in Europe, that would be an interesting show. There’s no Muslims here. If you do that show in France or England, that’s provocative.. It’s not our thing as much. It doesn’t feel like it to me at least. Maybe it is.

www.salon.com

left

NJY7khiJerKpxmJc

test

Bibgl0yEW87TxoyE

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/09/republicans-divided-on-filibuster-front/

Republicans divided on filibuster front

2013-04-09

( CNN ) - The Republican Party appears split over whether to block gun legislation in the Senate . While more than a dozen GOP senators have stated they plan to block the proposed bill from proceeding , a number of Republicans are saying the public deserves to hear debate over the legislation . Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also vowed to oppose the bill as it now stands . Both senators from Georgia , Sen. Johnny Isakson and Sen. Saxby Chambliss said Tuesday they wo n't join those in their party who may stall the bill . `` I do n't think I 'm going to support that , '' Chambliss told the Chattanooga Times Free Press . `` I just do n't think it 's the right thing to do . '' `` I think it deserves a vote up or down , '' Isakson said on CBS . On Tuesday , Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a vote on whether to open debate on the bill come Thursday . Reid needs 60 votes to begin consideration and prevent a filibuster . There are 55 Democrats in the Senate ( including two independents who caucus with the party ) and 45 Republicans , meaning if all Senate Democrats vote to proceed , Reid will need at least five Republicans to do so , as well . Though he 's not in the Senate , Rep. Peter King of New York took a similar stance , saying Tuesday the upper chamber should allow a vote to go through . `` The American people are entitled to a debate . And to me , to use Senate rules to block a debate on an issue of this importance is just wrong , '' King said on CNN 's `` Starting Point . '' At issue is a bill that includes calling for a universal background check system . However , CNN reported that recent talks in the Senate indicate the system may be expanded to include purchases at gun shows and online , but would not be universal in covering private sales between individuals , as backed by President Barack Obama and many Democrats . A trio of first-term GOP senators - Rand Paul of Kentucky , Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas - stated in a letter last month that they will block any gun control legislation that they consider a threat to Second Amendment rights . Several other Republican senators joined in , and in an expanded letter sent Monday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , they wrote they would oppose a bill that `` would infringe on the American people 's constitutional right to bear arms , or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance . '' Sen. John McCain questioned why some in his party were trying to stand in the way of a vote . `` I do n't understand it , '' he said Sunday on CBS . `` What are we afraid of ? '' Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed with McCain , saying Monday on CNN 's `` Piers Morgan Live '' there 's no point for Republicans to try to obstruct the bill , when it 's almost certain the bill will fail in the GOP-controlled House . `` ( The Senate ) should vote up or down on this , '' he said . `` I do n't understand why the Republican Party is creating this problem for themselves about filibustering . If they want to block this legislation , they have a House of Representatives in which to do it . I do n't know why they 're creating this sort of additional political issue that is n't required . '' Recent polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans favor making a change to the background check system – a fact President Barack Obama raised Monday in his speech near Newtown , Connecticut . `` If our democracy 's working the way it 's supposed to , and 90 % agree on something , in the wake of a tragedy , you would think this would not be a heavy lift , '' Obama said , saying the Republicans who were vowing the filibuster the bill were , in essence , telling Americans that their `` opinion does n't matter . '' This week , CNN TV and CNN.com will take an in-depth look at “ Guns Under Fire : A CNN Special Report On Background Checks. ” On Tuesday night at 8 p.m. , AC360 will debut an exclusive interview with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , who was shot in the head two years ago in Arizona . On Wednesday , the network will look at gun control and background checks as Congress is expected to tackle the issue head-on in the coming days . Watch CNN TV and follow online at CNN.com or via CNN 's apps for iPhone , iPad and Android .

6 years ago (CNN) - The Republican Party appears split over whether to block gun legislation in the Senate. While more than a dozen GOP senators have stated they plan to block the proposed bill from proceeding, a number of Republicans are saying the public deserves to hear debate over the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also vowed to oppose the bill as it now stands. Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN Both senators from Georgia, Sen. Johnny Isakson and Sen. Saxby Chambliss said Tuesday they won't join those in their party who may stall the bill. "I don't think I'm going to support that," Chambliss told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. "I just don't think it's the right thing to do." "I think it deserves a vote up or down," Isakson said on CBS. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a vote on whether to open debate on the bill come Thursday. Reid needs 60 votes to begin consideration and prevent a filibuster. There are 55 Democrats in the Senate (including two independents who caucus with the party) and 45 Republicans, meaning if all Senate Democrats vote to proceed, Reid will need at least five Republicans to do so, as well. Though he's not in the Senate, Rep. Peter King of New York took a similar stance, saying Tuesday the upper chamber should allow a vote to go through. "The American people are entitled to a debate. And to me, to use Senate rules to block a debate on an issue of this importance is just wrong," King said on CNN's "Starting Point." At issue is a bill that includes calling for a universal background check system. However, CNN reported that recent talks in the Senate indicate the system may be expanded to include purchases at gun shows and online, but would not be universal in covering private sales between individuals, as backed by President Barack Obama and many Democrats. A trio of first-term GOP senators - Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas - stated in a letter last month that they will block any gun control legislation that they consider a threat to Second Amendment rights. Several other Republican senators joined in, and in an expanded letter sent Monday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, they wrote they would oppose a bill that "would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance." Sen. John McCain questioned why some in his party were trying to stand in the way of a vote. "I don't understand it," he said Sunday on CBS. "What are we afraid of?" Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed with McCain, saying Monday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Live" there's no point for Republicans to try to obstruct the bill, when it's almost certain the bill will fail in the GOP-controlled House. "(The Senate) should vote up or down on this," he said. "I don't understand why the Republican Party is creating this problem for themselves about filibustering. If they want to block this legislation, they have a House of Representatives in which to do it. I don't know why they're creating this sort of additional political issue that isn't required." Recent polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans favor making a change to the background check system – a fact President Barack Obama raised Monday in his speech near Newtown, Connecticut. "If our democracy's working the way it's supposed to, and 90% agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy, you would think this would not be a heavy lift," Obama said, saying the Republicans who were vowing the filibuster the bill were, in essence, telling Americans that their "opinion doesn't matter." This week, CNN TV and CNN.com will take an in-depth look at “Guns Under Fire: A CNN Special Report On Background Checks.” On Tuesday night at 8 p.m., AC360 will debut an exclusive interview with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head two years ago in Arizona. On Wednesday, the network will look at gun control and background checks as Congress is expected to tackle the issue head-on in the coming days. Watch CNN TV and follow online at CNN.com or via CNN's apps for iPhone, iPad and Android.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

Bibgl0yEW87TxoyE

test

P3n9mnvKc382qoLX

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2016/12/04/trumps-war-on-the-media

Why Trump’s War on the Media Matters

2016-12-04

Trevor Thrall, Peter Suderman, Noah Shepardson, Jonathan H. Adler, Mike Riggs, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Shikha Dalmia, Eugene Volokh

Throughout his presidential campaign Donald Trump complained extensively about biased news coverage , singled out individual journalists for criticism , challenged the very foundations of freedom of the press , and called for loosening of the libel laws . Now as president-elect , Trump 's war on the media continues . At a recent meeting with top television executives , for example , Trump berated the networks for their `` outrageous '' and `` dishonest '' coverage and , according to a source , he told CNN chief Jeff Zucker that `` everyone at the network is a liar and you should be ashamed . '' The same day , rather than holding a press conference where journalists might ask him difficult or uncomfortable questions , Trump instead released a YouTube video updating the public on the White House transition , which he said had proceeded `` very smoothly , efficiently , and effectively . '' As president , Trump 's mistrust of the media will certainly make life difficult for journalists trying to provide the public with a clear view of presidential decision-making . To be clear , presidential animosity toward the press is nothing new . All presidents get frustrated by what they view as an unsympathetic press corps that mangles and reinterprets their words for the news , making it difficult to communicate clearly to the American public . As a result , presidents have long sought to reduce the number of press conferences they hold while increasing the amount of communication they do through other means . The emergence of social media has simply allowed Trump to take that trend to the next level . Though distasteful and dysfunctional , the Republic wo n't fall just because journalists have to watch YouTube like the rest of us to learn what Trump 's been up to . But the deeper danger is that Trump 's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation . By avoiding engagement with journalists and by stifling media critics through public shaming and other strong-arm tactics , Trump will weaken the ability of the press to play the role of watchdog and critic envisioned by the Founders and embodied in the First Amendment . By attacking the media 's objectivity and credibility , the Trump administration will weaken what 's left of public confidence in the public sphere and , by extension , in the entire project of democratic self-governance . Trump already enjoys a disturbing level of support for his assault on the news media . In a post-election Pew survey , for example , just 22 percent of Americans gave the press either an A or B for its campaign coverage , with 59 percent giving it a D or F. A September 2016 Gallup poll found that just 32 percent of the public trust the press a fair amount or a great deal to report news `` fully , accurately , and fairly , '' the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976 . Nor is the timing of Trump 's war on the media an accident . The media have become an arena of conflict in the partisan battles of an increasingly polarized political system . To those who believe that the media exhibits a liberal bias , Trump is a welcome corrective . Not surprisingly then , the recent collapse of trust has been driven primarily by Republicans , just 14 percent of whom now believe the mass mews media deserves even a fair amount of trust compared to 30 percent of independents and 51 percent of Democrats . A related trend is the increasing Balkanization of news audiences around competing news sources . As a 2014 Pew study showed , for example , 47 percent of `` consistent conservatives '' name Fox News as their primary ( and trusted ) source of news about politics , while almost completely avoiding other major news outlets like The New York Times . Even more frightening is the fact that the trend appears most pronounced among younger Americans , who tend to be somewhat more liberal than their parents . In 2016 just 26 percent of those under the age of 50 trusted the news media compared to 38 percent of those age 50 or older . Nor does the advent of the social media help . Just 34 percent of American adults who use the web trust the information they get from social media sources . How Trump will deal with the media seems clear . Less clear , however , is how the media will respond to Trump . The past 30 years or so do not provide much ███ for optimism . The news industry has been pummeled by the fragmentation of the news audience and the emergence of the Internet . In the difficult economic environment they face , news organizations have shown little stomach for increasing hard news budgets or supporting much in the way of investigative journalism . Instead , a good deal of what passes for American journalism today is simply information recycled straight from government sources . There are exceptions , of course , as well as newer , non-traditional sources of news and opinion that provide alternative narratives to the mainstream media accounts . Most encouraging , perhaps , are the emerging signs that Trump 's election may lead to a reinvigorated sense of duty on the part of journalists , news organizations , and NGOs . Whether these initial responses add up to an effective counterpoint to Trump 's bully pulpit , however , remains to be seen . Trevor Thrall is a senior fellow for the Cato Institute 's Defense and Foreign Policy Department .

Throughout his presidential campaign Donald Trump complained extensively about biased news coverage, singled out individual journalists for criticism, challenged the very foundations of freedom of the press, and called for loosening of the libel laws. Now as president-elect, Trump's war on the media continues. At a recent meeting with top television executives, for example, Trump berated the networks for their "outrageous" and "dishonest" coverage and, according to a source, he told CNN chief Jeff Zucker that "everyone at the network is a liar and you should be ashamed." The same day, rather than holding a press conference where journalists might ask him difficult or uncomfortable questions, Trump instead released a YouTube video updating the public on the White House transition, which he said had proceeded "very smoothly, efficiently, and effectively." As president, Trump's mistrust of the media will certainly make life difficult for journalists trying to provide the public with a clear view of presidential decision-making. To be clear, presidential animosity toward the press is nothing new. All presidents get frustrated by what they view as an unsympathetic press corps that mangles and reinterprets their words for the news, making it difficult to communicate clearly to the American public. As a result, presidents have long sought to reduce the number of press conferences they hold while increasing the amount of communication they do through other means. The emergence of social media has simply allowed Trump to take that trend to the next level. Though distasteful and dysfunctional, the Republic won't fall just because journalists have to watch YouTube like the rest of us to learn what Trump's been up to. But the deeper danger is that Trump's war will undermine the media as an effective forum for debate and deliberation. By avoiding engagement with journalists and by stifling media critics through public shaming and other strong-arm tactics, Trump will weaken the ability of the press to play the role of watchdog and critic envisioned by the Founders and embodied in the First Amendment. By attacking the media's objectivity and credibility, the Trump administration will weaken what's left of public confidence in the public sphere and, by extension, in the entire project of democratic self-governance. Trump already enjoys a disturbing level of support for his assault on the news media. In a post-election Pew survey, for example, just 22 percent of Americans gave the press either an A or B for its campaign coverage, with 59 percent giving it a D or F. A September 2016 Gallup poll found that just 32 percent of the public trust the press a fair amount or a great deal to report news "fully, accurately, and fairly," the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976. Nor is the timing of Trump's war on the media an accident. The media have become an arena of conflict in the partisan battles of an increasingly polarized political system. To those who believe that the media exhibits a liberal bias, Trump is a welcome corrective. Not surprisingly then, the recent collapse of trust has been driven primarily by Republicans, just 14 percent of whom now believe the mass mews media deserves even a fair amount of trust compared to 30 percent of independents and 51 percent of Democrats. A related trend is the increasing Balkanization of news audiences around competing news sources. As a 2014 Pew study showed, for example, 47 percent of "consistent conservatives" name Fox News as their primary (and trusted) source of news about politics, while almost completely avoiding other major news outlets like The New York Times. Even more frightening is the fact that the trend appears most pronounced among younger Americans, who tend to be somewhat more liberal than their parents. In 2016 just 26 percent of those under the age of 50 trusted the news media compared to 38 percent of those age 50 or older. Nor does the advent of the social media help. Just 34 percent of American adults who use the web trust the information they get from social media sources. How Trump will deal with the media seems clear. Less clear, however, is how the media will respond to Trump. The past 30 years or so do not provide much reason for optimism. The news industry has been pummeled by the fragmentation of the news audience and the emergence of the Internet. In the difficult economic environment they face, news organizations have shown little stomach for increasing hard news budgets or supporting much in the way of investigative journalism. Instead, a good deal of what passes for American journalism today is simply information recycled straight from government sources. There are exceptions, of course, as well as newer, non-traditional sources of news and opinion that provide alternative narratives to the mainstream media accounts. Most encouraging, perhaps, are the emerging signs that Trump's election may lead to a reinvigorated sense of duty on the part of journalists, news organizations, and NGOs. Whether these initial responses add up to an effective counterpoint to Trump's bully pulpit, however, remains to be seen. Trevor Thrall is a senior fellow for the Cato Institute's Defense and Foreign Policy Department.

www.reason.com

right

P3n9mnvKc382qoLX

test

hYxXQ1i83Vgdqg7I

fbi

Newsmax - News

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/comeyfbifisapage/2019/12/15/id/945993/

Comey: 'I Was Wrong' 'Over Confident' About FBI Procedures

2019-12-15

Cathy Burke

Former FBI Director James Comey on Sunday admitted he was “ wrong ” and “ over confident ” about the FBI procedures used during the investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia meddling in the 2016 election . In an interview on “ Fox News Sunday , ” Comey was grilled about the damning report on the FBI ’ s procedures that was delivered by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz . “ I ’ m responsible , ” he declared . “ I was wrong , I was over confident on our procedures , ” he said . Comey then said he would say exactly what current FBI Director Christopher Wray has said about the IG report , “ We are going to get to the bottom of this . ” `` The most important thing '' is to determine is whether the procedural errors are “ systemic . '' But host Chris Wallace called out Comey on once calling the unsubstantiated dossier put together by former British spy Christopher Steele — which was used to get a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page — as merely part of the reason for the application . Horowitz , in his report , called it a “ central ” component of the application . “ I ’ m not sure [ Horowitz ] and I are saying dfferent things , ” Comey said , adding : “ The FBI thought it was a close call… I don ’ t think we ’ re saying different things . ” Wallace dismissed his rationale , and said the Horowitz conclusion essentially refutes Comey 's excuse that the application was merely part of a “ broader mosaic ” of reasons for seeking permission to surveil Page . Wray told The Associated Press last week that the report identified problems that the report found problems that are “ unacceptable and unrepresentative of who we are as an institution . '' The FBI is taking more than 40 steps to fix those problems , he said . Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that no one who was involved in the warrant application process should feel vindicated , rejecting claims of vindication that Comey had made in an opinion piece earlier in the week . Comey said Sunday that he simply meant that the report had debunked some of the gravest allegations that Trump and his supporters had made . “ All of that was nonsense . I think it 's really important that the inspector general looked at that and that the American people , your viewers and all viewers , understand that 's true , '' Comey said . He also criticized Attorney General William Barr for saying in a separate interview last week that the many errors by the FBI left open the possibility that agents may have acted in bad faith . “ The facts just aren ’ t there , full stop , '' Comey said , when asked whether Barr has a valid point . “ That doesn ’ t make it any less consequential , any less important , but that ’ s an irresponsible statement . '' Material from the Associated Press was used in this story .

Former FBI Director James Comey on Sunday admitted he was “wrong” and “over confident” about the FBI procedures used during the investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia meddling in the 2016 election. In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Comey was grilled about the damning report on the FBI’s procedures that was delivered by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. “I’m responsible,” he declared. “I was wrong, I was over confident on our procedures,” he said. Comey then said he would say exactly what current FBI Director Christopher Wray has said about the IG report, “We are going to get to the bottom of this.” "The most important thing" is to determine is whether the procedural errors are “systemic." But host Chris Wallace called out Comey on once calling the unsubstantiated dossier put together by former British spy Christopher Steele — which was used to get a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page — as merely part of the reason for the application. Horowitz, in his report, called it a “central” component of the application. “I’m not sure [Horowitz] and I are saying dfferent things,” Comey said, adding: “The FBI thought it was a close call… I don’t think we’re saying different things.” Wallace dismissed his rationale, and said the Horowitz conclusion essentially refutes Comey's excuse that the application was merely part of a “broader mosaic” of reasons for seeking permission to surveil Page. Wray told The Associated Press last week that the report identified problems that the report found problems that are “unacceptable and unrepresentative of who we are as an institution." The FBI is taking more than 40 steps to fix those problems, he said. Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that no one who was involved in the warrant application process should feel vindicated, rejecting claims of vindication that Comey had made in an opinion piece earlier in the week. Comey said Sunday that he simply meant that the report had debunked some of the gravest allegations that Trump and his supporters had made. “All of that was nonsense. I think it's really important that the inspector general looked at that and that the American people, your viewers and all viewers, understand that's true," Comey said. He also criticized Attorney General William Barr for saying in a separate interview last week that the many errors by the FBI left open the possibility that agents may have acted in bad faith. “The facts just aren’t there, full stop," Comey said, when asked whether Barr has a valid point. “That doesn’t make it any less consequential, any less important, but that’s an irresponsible statement." Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.

www.newsmax.com

right

hYxXQ1i83Vgdqg7I

test

IVLlsEYiE32cppKf

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41826022

The time when America stopped being great

Nick Bryant, New York

A year ago Donald Trump produced the biggest political upset in modern-day America , but were there historical clues that pointed to his unexpected victory ? Flying into Los Angeles , a descent that takes you from the desert , over the mountains , to the outer suburbs dotted with swimming pools shaped like kidneys , always brings on a near narcotic surge of nostalgia . This was the flight path I followed more than 30 years ago , as I fulfilled a boyhood dream to make my first trip to the United States . America had always fired my imagination , both as a place and as an idea . So as I entered the immigration hall , under the winsome smile of America 's movie star president , it was hardly a case of love at first sight . My infatuation had started long before , with Westerns , cop shows , superhero comic strips , and movies such as West Side Story and Grease . Gotham exerted more of a pull than London . My 16-year-old self could quote more presidents than prime ministers . Like so many new arrivals , like so many of my compatriots , I felt an instant sense of belonging , a fealty borne of familiarity . Eighties America lived up to its billing , from the multi-lane freeways to the cavernous fridges , from the drive-in movie theatres to the drive-through burger joints . I loved the bigness , the boldness , the brashness . Coming from a country where too many people were reconciled to their fate from too early an age , the animating force of the American Dream was not just seductive but unshackling . Upward mobility was not a given amongst my schoolmates . The absence of resentment was also striking : the belief success was something to emulate rather than envy . The sight of a Cadillac induced different feelings than the sight of a Rolls Royce . It was 1984 . Los Angeles was hosting the Olympics . The Soviet boycott meant US athletes dominated the medals table more so than usual . McDonald 's had a scratch-card promotion , planned presumably before Eastern bloc countries decided to keep their distance , offering Big Macs , Cokes and fries if Americans won gold , silver or bronze in selected events . So for weeks I feasted on free fast food , a calorific accompaniment to chants of `` USA ! USA ! '' This was the summertime of American resurgence . After the long national nightmare of Vietnam , Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis , the country demonstrated its capacity for renewal . 1984 , far from being the dystopian hell presaged by George Orwell , was a time of celebration and optimism . Uncle Sam - back then , nobody gave much thought to the country being given a male personification - seemed happy again in his own skin . For millions , it really was `` Morning Again in America '' , the slogan of Ronald Reagan 's re-election campaign . In that year 's presidential election , he buried his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale in a landslide , winning 49 out of 50 states and 58.8 % of the popular vote . The United States could hardly be described as politically harmonious . There was the usual divided government . Republicans retained control of the Senate , but the Democrats kept their stranglehold on the House of Representatives . Reagan 's sunniness was sullied by the launch of his 1980 campaign with a call for `` states ' rights '' , which sounded to many like a dog-whistle for denial of civil rights . His chosen venue was Philadelphia , but not the city of brotherly love , the cradle of the Declaration of Independence , but rather Philadelphia , Mississippi , a rural backwater close to where three civil rights workers had been murdered by white supremacists in 1964 . Reagan , like Nixon , pursued the southern strategy , which exploited white fears about black advance . Still , the anthem of the hour was Lee Greenwood 's God Bless the USA and politics was not nearly as polarised as it is today . Even though the Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill reviled Reagan 's trickle-down economics - he called him a `` cheerleader for selfishness '' and `` Herbert Hoover with a smile '' - these two Irish-Americans found common ground as they sought to act in the national interest . Both understood the Founding Fathers had hard-wired compromise into the governmental system , and that Washington , with its checks and balances , was unworkable without give and take . They worked together on tax reform and safeguarding Social Security . The country was in the ascendant . Not so paranoid as it was in the 1950s , not so restive as it was in the 1960s , and nowhere near as demoralised as it had been in the 1970s . History is never neat or linear . Decades do not automatically have personalities , but it is possible to divide the period since 1984 into two distinct phases . The final 16 years of the 20th Century was a time of American hegemony . The first 16 years of the 21st Century has proven to be a period of dysfunction , discontent , disillusionment and decline . The America of today in many ways reflects the dissonance between the two . In those twilight years of the last millennium , America enjoyed something akin to the dominance achieved at the Los Angeles Olympics . Just two years after Reagan demanded that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall , that concrete and ideological barricade was gone . The United States won the Cold War . In the New World Order that emerged afterwards , it became the sole superpower in a unipolar world . The speed at which US-led forces won the first Gulf War in 1991 helped slay the ghosts of Vietnam . With a reformist leader , Boris Yeltsin , installed in the Kremlin , there was an expectation Russia would embrace democratic reform . Even after Tiananmen Square , there was a hope that China might follow suit , as it moved towards a more market-based economy . This was the thrust of Francis Fukuyama 's thesis in his landmark 1989 essay , The End of History , which spoke of `` the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government '' . For all the forecasts Japan would become the world 's largest economy , America refused to cede its financial and commercial dominance . Instead of Sony ruling the corporate world , Silicon Valley became the new high-tech workshop of business . Bill Clinton 's boast of building a bridge to the 21st Century rang true , although it was emergent tech giants such as Microsoft , Apple and Google that were the true architects and engineers . Thirty years after planting the Stars and Stripes on the Sea of Tranquillity , America not only dominated outer space but cyberspace too . This phase of US dominance could never be described as untroubled . The Los Angeles riots in 1992 , sparked by the beating of Rodney King and the acquittal of the police officers charged with his assault , highlighted deep racial divisions . In Washington , Bill Clinton 's impeachment exhibited the hyper-partisanship that was changing the tenor of Washington life . In the age of 24/7 cable news , politics was starting to double as soap opera . Yet as we approached 31 December 1999 , the assertion that the 20th Century had been The American Century was an axiom . I was in the capital as Bill Clinton presided over the midnight celebrations on the National Mall , and as the fireworks skipped from the Lincoln Memorial down the Reflecting Pool to illuminate the Washington monument , the mighty obelisk looked like a giant exclamation mark or a massive number one . The national story changed dramatically and unexpectedly soon after . While doomsday predictions of a Y2K bug failed to materialise , it nonetheless felt as if the United States had been infected with a virus . 2000 saw the dot-com bubble explode . In November , the disputed presidential election between George W Bush and Al Gore badly damaged the reputation of US democracy . Why , a Zimbabwean diplomat even suggested Africa send international observers to oversee the Florida recount . Beyond America 's borders came harbingers of trouble . In Russia , 31 December 1999 , as those fireworks were being primed , Vladimir Putin took over from Boris Yeltsin . The year 2001 brought the horror of September 11th , an event more traumatic than Pearl Harbor . Post-9/11 America became less welcoming and more suspicious . The Bush administration 's `` war on terror '' - open-ended conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq - drained the country of blood and treasure . The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 , and the Great Recession that followed , arguably had a more lasting impact on the American psyche than the destruction of the Twin Towers . Just as 9/11 had undermined confidence in the country 's national security , the financial collapse shattered confidence in its economic security . With parents no longer certain their children would come to enjoy more abundant lives than they did , the American Dream felt like a chimera . The American compact , the bargain that if you worked hard and played by the rules your family would succeed , was no longer assumed . Between 2000 and 2011 , the overall net wealth of US households fell . By 2014 , the richest 1 % of Americans had accrued more wealth than the bottom 90 % . To many in the watching world , and most of the 69 million Americans who voted for him , the election of the country 's first black president again demonstrated America 's capacity for regeneration . Barack Hussein Obama . His improbable success story seemed uniquely American . Although his presidency did much to rescue the economy , he could n't repair a fractured country . The creation of a post-partisan nation , which Obama outlined in his breakthrough speech at the 2004 Democratic convention , proved just as illusory as the emergence of a post-racial society , which he always knew was beyond him . During the Obama years , Washington descended into a level of dysfunction unprecedented in post-war America . `` My number one priority is making sure President Obama 's a one-term president , '' declared then-Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell , summing up the obstructionist mood of his Republican colleagues . It led to a crisis of governance , including the shutdown of 2013 and the repeated battles over raising the debt ceiling . The political map of America , rather than taking on a more purple hue , came to be rendered in deeper shades of red and blue . Beyond Capitol Hill , there was a whitelash to the first black president , seen in the rise of the Birther movement and in elements of the Tea Party movement . On the right , movement conservatives challenged establishment Republicans . On the left , identity politics displaced a more class-oriented politics as union influence waned . Both parties seemed to vacate the middle ground , relying instead on maximising support from their respective bases - African-Americans , evangelicals , the LGBT community , gun-owners - to win elections . Throughout his presidency , Barack Obama continued to talk about moving towards a more perfect union . But reality made a mockery of these lofty words . Sandy Hook . Orlando . The spate of police shootings . The gang-related mayhem in his adopted home of Chicago . The mess in Washington . The opioid crisis . The health indices even pointed to a sick nation , in which the death rate was rising . By 2016 , life expectancy fell for the first time since 1993 . This was the backdrop against which the 2016 election was fought , one of the most dispiriting campaigns in US political history . A battle between the two most unpopular major party candidates since polling began , ended with a victor who had higher negative ratings than his opponent and in the end , three million fewer votes . Just as I had been on the National Mall to ring in the new millennium in 2000 , I was there again on 20 January 2017 , for Donald Trump 's inaugural celebrations . They included some Reagan-era flourishes . At the eve of the inauguration concert , Lee Greenwood reprised his Reaganite anthem God Bless the USA , albeit with a frailer voice . There were chants of `` USA , USA , '' a staple of the billionaire 's campaign rallies - usually triggered by his riff on building a wall along the Mexican border . There was also an 80s vibe about the telegenic first family , who looked fresh from a set of a primetime soap , like Dynasty or Falcon Crest . The spectacle brought to mind what Norman Mailer once said of Reagan , that the 40th president understood `` the President of the United States was the leading soap opera figure in the great American drama , and one had better possess star value '' . Trump understood this , and it explained much of his success , even if his star power came from reality TV rather than Hollywood B-movies . Yet Trump is not Reagan . His politics of grievance , and the fist-shaking anger it fed off , struck a different tone than the Gipper 's more positive pitch . It played on a shared sense of personal and national victimhood that would have been alien to Reagan . In the space of just three decades , then , the United States had gone from `` It 's morning in America again '' to something much darker : `` American Carnage '' , the most memorable phrase from Trump 's inaugural address . It is tempting to see Trump 's victory this time last year as an aberration . A historical mishap . The election all came down , after all , to just 77,744 votes in three key states : Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin . But when you consider the boom-to-bust cycle of the period between 1984 and 2016 , the Trump phenomenon does n't look so accidental . In many ways Trump 's unexpected victory marked the culmination of a large number of trends in US politics , society and culture , many of which are rooted in that end-of-century period of American dominion . Consider how the fall of the Berlin Wall changed Washington , and how it ushered in an era of destructive and negative politics . In the post-war years , bipartisanship was routine , partly because of a shared determination to defeat communism . America 's two-party system , adversarial though it was , benefited from the existence of a shared enemy . To pass laws , President Eisenhower regularly worked with Democratic chieftains such as House Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson . Reforms such as the 1958 National Defense Education Act , which improved science teaching in response to the launch of Sputnik , were framed precisely with defeating communism in mind . Much of the impetus to pass landmark civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s came from the propaganda gift Jim Crow laws handed to the Soviet Union , especially as Moscow sought to expand its sphere of influence among newly decolonised African nations . Patriotic bipartisanship frayed and ripped after the end of the Cold War . It was in the 1990s the then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole started to use the filibuster more aggressively as a blocking device . Government shutdowns became politically weaponised . In the 1994 congressional mid-terms , the Republican revolution brought a wave of fierce partisans to Washington , with an ideological aversion to government and thus little investment in making it work . House Speaker Newt Gingrich , the first Republican to occupy the post in 40 years , personified the kind of abrasive partisan that came to the fore on Capitol Hill . Grudging bipartisanship was still possible , as Clinton and Gingrich demonstrated over welfare and criminal justice reform in the mid-1990s . But this period witnessed the acidification of DC politics . The gerrymandering of the House of Representatives encouraged strict partisanship , because the threat to most lawmakers came from within their own parties . Moderates or pragmatists who strayed from the partisan path were punished with a primary challenge from more doctrinaire rivals . By the 112th Congress in 2011-2012 , there was no Democrat in the House more conservative than a Republican and no Republican more liberal than a Democrat . This was new . In the post-war years , there had been considerable ideological overlap between liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats . In this more polarised climate , bipartisanship became a dirty word . One leading conservative thinker and anti-tax campaigner , Grover Norquist , likened it to date rape . Would Congress have impeached Bill Clinton , ostensibly for having an affair with an intern , had America still been waging the Cold War ? I sense not - it would have been seen , in those more serious times , as a frivolous distraction . When Congress moved towards impeaching Richard Nixon it did so because Watergate and its cover-up truly rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanours . Clinton 's impeachment signalled the emergence of another new political trend : the delegitimisation of sitting presidents . And both parties played the game . The Democrats cast George W Bush as illegitimate because Al Gore won the popular vote and the Supreme Court controversially ruled in the Republican 's favour during the Florida recount . The Birther movement , led by Donald Trump , tried to delegitimise Barack Obama with specious and racist claims that he was not born in Hawaii . Most recently , the Democrats have cast aspersions on Trump 's victory , partly because he lost the popular vote and partly because they allege he achieved a Kremlin-assisted victory . Over this period , the political discourse also became shriller . Rush Limbaugh , after getting his first radio show in 1984 , rose to become the king of the right-wing shock jocks . Fox News was launched in 1996 , the same year as MSNBC , which became its progressive counterpoint . The internet quickened the metabolism of the news industry and became the home for the kind of hateful commentary traditional news outlets rarely published . Maybe the Jerry Springerisation of political news coverage can be traced to the moment the Drudge Report first published the name Monica Lewinsky , `` scooping '' Newsweek which hesitated before publishing such an explosive story . The success of the Drudge Report demonstrated how new outlets , which did n't share the same news values as the mainstream media , could establish brands literally overnight . This lesson was doubtless learnt by Andrew Breitbart , an editor at Drudge who founded the right-wing website Breitbart News . The internet and social media , trumpeted initially as the ultimate tool for bringing people together , actually became a forum for cynicism , division and various outlandish conspiracy theories . America became more atomised . As Robert D Putnam identified in his 1995 seminal essay , Bowling Alone , lower participation rates in organisations such as unions , parent teacher associations , the Boy Scouts and women 's clubs had reduced person to person contacts and civil interaction . Economically , this period saw the continuation of what 's been called the `` Great Divergence '' which produced stark inequalities in wealth and income . Between 1979 and 2007 , household income in the top 1 % grew by 275 % compared to just 18 % growth in the bottom fifth of households . The Clinton-era was a period of financial deregulation , including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act , the landmark reform passed during the depression , as well as legislation exempting credit default swaps from regulation . Disruptive technologies changed the workplace and upended the labour market . Automation , more so than globalisation , was the big jobs killer during this phase . Between 1990 and 2007 , machines killed off up to 670,000 US manufacturing jobs alone . The Rust Belt rebellion that propelled Trump to the White House has been described as a revolt against robots , not that his supporters viewed it that way . Encouraged by the billionaire , many blamed increased foreign competition and the influx of foreign workers . The opioid crisis can be traced back to the early 1990s with the over-prescription of powerful painkillers . Between 1991 and 2011 , painkiller prescriptions tripled . America seemed intoxicated by its own post-Cold War success . Then came the hangover of the past 16 years . Over the past few months , I 've followed that same westward flight path to California on a number of occasions , and found myself asking what would an impressionable 16-year-old make of America now . Would she share my adolescent sense of wonder , or would she peer out over the Pacific at twilight and wonder if the sun was setting on America itself ? What would she make of the gun violence , brought into grotesque relief again by the Las Vegas massacre ? Multiple shootings are not new , of course . Just days before I arrived in the States in 1984 , a gunman had walked into a McDonalds in a suburb of San Diego and shot dead 21 people . It was then the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history . What 's different between now and then , however , is the regularity of these massacres , and how the repetitiveness of the killings has normalised them . What was striking about Las Vegas was the muted nationwide response to a gunman killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more . Once-shocking massacres no longer arouse intense emotions for those unconnected to the killings . A month on , and it is almost as if it did n't happen . What would she make of race relations ? Back in 1984 , black athletes such as Carl Lewis , Edwin Moses and Michael Jordan were unifying figures as they helped reap that Olympic golden harvest . Now some of America 's leading black athletes are vilified by their president for taking a knee to protest , a right enshrined in the First Amendment . These athletes now find themselves combatants in the country 's endless culture wars . What would she make of the confluence of gun violence and race , evident in the spate of police shootings of unarmed black men and in the online auction where the weapon that killed Trayvon Martin fetched more than $ 100,000 ? Charlottesville , with its torch-wielding and hate-spewing neo-Nazis , was another low point . So , too , were the president 's remarks afterwards , when he described the crowd as including some `` very fine people '' and implied a moral equivalence between white supremacists and anti-racist protesters . I was at the news conference in Trump Tower that day . An African-American cameraman next to me yelled out `` What message does this send to our children ? '' The question went unanswered , but concerned parents ask it everyday about Donald Trump 's behaviour . What about the monuments debate ? The last civil war veteran died in 1959 , but the conflict rumbles on in various guises and upon various proxy battlefields , as America continues to grapple with the original sin of slavery . But what if she landed in the American heartland , rather than flying over it ? Coastal separateness can sometimes be exaggerated , but it would be a very different experience than Los Angeles . In the Rust Belt , stretches of riverway are crowded again with coal barges , and local business leaders believe in the Trump Bump because they see it in their order books and balance sheets . In the Coal Belt , there 's been delight at the rescinding of Obama 's Clean Power Plan . In the Bible Belt , evangelicals behold Trump as a fellow victim of sneering liberal elites . In the Sun Belt , close to the Mexican border , there 's wide support for his crackdown on illegal immigration . In many football stadiums , she would hear the chorus of boos from fans who agree with the president that the take-the-knee protests denigrate the flag . In bars , union branches and American Legion halls , you 'll find many who applaud Donald Trump for `` telling like it is '' , refusing to be bound by norms of presidential behaviour or political correctness . There are pointers of national success elsewhere . The New York Stock Exchange is still reaching record highs . Business confidence is on the up . Unemployment is at a 16-year low . Of the 62 million people who voted for Trump , a large number continue to regard him more as a national saviour than a national embarrassment . In many red states , `` Make America Great Again '' echoes just as strongly as it did 12 months ago . Trump has a historically low approval rating of just 35 % , but it 's 78 % among Republicans . In the international realm , it 's plausible foreign adversaries fear the United States more under Trump than Obama , and foreign allies no longer take the country for granted . The so-called Islamic State has been driven from Raqqa . Twenty-five Nato allies have pledged to increase defence spending . Beijing , under pressure from Washington , appears to be exerting more economic leverage over Pyongyang . However , America First increasingly means America alone , most notably on the Paris climate change accord and the Iranian nuclear deal . Trump has also Twitter-shamed longstanding allies , such as Germany and Australia , and infuriated its closest friend Britain , with rash tweets about crime rates and terror attacks . His labelling of foes such as Kim Jong Un as Little Rocket Man seems juvenile and self-diminishing . It hardly reaches the Reagan standard of `` tear down this wall '' . Indeed , with North Korea , there 's the widespread fear that Trump 's tweet tirades could spark a nuclear confrontation . Few countries look anymore to Trump 's America as a global exemplar , the `` city upon a hill '' Reagan spoke of in his farewell address to the nation . The German Chancellor Angela Merkel is routinely described as the leader of the free world , the moniker bestowed on the US president since the days of FDR . The Economist , which trolls Trump almost weekly , has described Chinese President Xi Jinping as the most powerful man in the world . American exceptionalism is now commonly viewed as a negative construct . `` Only in America '' is a term of derision . Ronald Reagan used to talk of the 11th commandment - No Republican should speak ill of another Republican . So it is worth noting that some of Trump 's most caustic and thoughtful critics have come from within his own party . Senator Jeff Flake called him `` a danger to democracy '' . Bob Corker described the White House as an `` adult day care centre '' . John McCain , a frequent critic , has railed against `` spurious , half-baked nationalism '' . George W Bush sounded the alarm about bigotry being emboldened and of how politics `` seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication '' , without specifically naming the current president . Trump 's determination to be an anti-president has arguably had a vandalising effect on the office of the presidency , and to civil society more broadly . Artists have boycotted the White House reception held ahead of the annual Kennedy Center Awards , a red letter night in the country 's cultural calendar . The Golden State Warriors were disinvited from appearing at the White House after their championship win because of the take-the-knee protest . It 's new for these kinds of commemorations to become contested . Trump has even politicised one of the commander-in-chief 's most solemn acts , offering condolences to the families of the fallen . It led to an indecorous row with a war widow . Small wonder long time Washington watchers , on both the right and left , consider this the nastiest and most graceless presidency of the modern era . The corollary is the historical stock of his predecessors is rising . When the five living former presidents appeared together in Texas earlier this month they were greeted like a group of superheroes donning their capes for one final mission . It speaks of these unreal times that George W Bush is spoken of fondly , even wistfully , by long-time liberal foes . Trump 's claim he could be just as presidential as Abraham Lincoln is one of the more comical boasts to come from the White House . Then there are the falsehoods , the `` alternative facts '' and attacks on the `` fake media '' - his label for news organisations such as the New York Times and Washington Post , whose reporting has rarely been better . Recently he has even threatened to revoke the licences of networks whose news divisions have published critical stories . To some it has shades of 1984 , but Orwell 's version . As for Morning in America , it has a new connotation - checking Trump 's Twitter for pre-dawn tweets . The president commonly starts the day by lashing out at opponents or mercilessly mocking them . The new normal , it is often called . But it seems more apt to call it the new abnormal . There is an extent to which America is politics-proof and president-proof . However bad things got in Washington , my sense has long been that the US would be rescued by its other vital centres of power . New York , its financial and cultural capital . San Francisco , its tech hub . Boston , its academic first city . Hollywood , its entertainment centre . But Los Angeles is reeling from the Harvey Weinstein revelations , the Uber scandal has shone a harsh light on corporate ethics in the tech sector and the Wells Fargo affair has once again shown Wall Street in a dismal light . US universities dominate global rankings , but its top colleges could hardly be described as engines of intergenerational mobility . A study by the New York Times of 38 colleges , including Yale , Princeton and Dartmouth , showed that students from the top 1 % income bracket occupied more places than the students from the bottom 60 % . Of this year 's intake at Harvard , almost a third were the sons and daughters of alumni . Automation will also continue to be a jobs killer . One study this year predicted that nearly 40 % of US jobs will be lost to computers and machines over the next 15 years . Spending time in the Rust Belt valleys around Pittsburgh last year I was struck by how many taxi and Uber drivers used to work in the steel industry . Now America 's one-time Steel City is a centre of excellence for robotics and where Uber is road testing its driverless cars . There 's still truth in the adage that America is always going to hell , but it never quite gets there . But how that is being tested . Presently , it feels more like a continent than a country , with shared land occupied by warring tribes . Not a failing state but not a united states . As I 've travelled this country , I struggle to identify where Americans will find common political ground . Not in the guns debate . Not in the abortion debate . Not in the healthcare debate . Not even in the singing of the national anthem at American football games . Even a cataclysmic event on the scale of 9/11 failed to unify the country . If anything it sowed the seeds of further division , especially over immigration . Some Americans agree with Donald Trump that arrivals from mainly Muslim countries need to be blocked . Others see that as an American anathema . When I made my first journey to the US all those years ago I witnessed a coming together . Those Olympic celebrations were in some ways an orgy of nationalism , but there was also a commonality of spirit and purpose . From Gershwin 's Rhapsody in Blue performed on 84 grand pianos to a polyglot team of athletes bedecked with medals . From the pilot who flew around the LA Coliseum in a jet pack to the customers who left McDonald 's with free Big Macs . There was reason for rejoicing . The present was golden . America felt like America again .

A year ago Donald Trump produced the biggest political upset in modern-day America, but were there historical clues that pointed to his unexpected victory? Flying into Los Angeles, a descent that takes you from the desert, over the mountains, to the outer suburbs dotted with swimming pools shaped like kidneys, always brings on a near narcotic surge of nostalgia. This was the flight path I followed more than 30 years ago, as I fulfilled a boyhood dream to make my first trip to the United States. America had always fired my imagination, both as a place and as an idea. So as I entered the immigration hall, under the winsome smile of America's movie star president, it was hardly a case of love at first sight. My infatuation had started long before, with Westerns, cop shows, superhero comic strips, and movies such as West Side Story and Grease. Gotham exerted more of a pull than London. My 16-year-old self could quote more presidents than prime ministers. Like so many new arrivals, like so many of my compatriots, I felt an instant sense of belonging, a fealty borne of familiarity. Eighties America lived up to its billing, from the multi-lane freeways to the cavernous fridges, from the drive-in movie theatres to the drive-through burger joints. I loved the bigness, the boldness, the brashness. Coming from a country where too many people were reconciled to their fate from too early an age, the animating force of the American Dream was not just seductive but unshackling. Upward mobility was not a given amongst my schoolmates. The absence of resentment was also striking: the belief success was something to emulate rather than envy. The sight of a Cadillac induced different feelings than the sight of a Rolls Royce. It was 1984. Los Angeles was hosting the Olympics. The Soviet boycott meant US athletes dominated the medals table more so than usual. McDonald's had a scratch-card promotion, planned presumably before Eastern bloc countries decided to keep their distance, offering Big Macs, Cokes and fries if Americans won gold, silver or bronze in selected events. So for weeks I feasted on free fast food, a calorific accompaniment to chants of "USA! USA!" Image copyright Getty Images Image copyright Getty Images This was the summertime of American resurgence. After the long national nightmare of Vietnam, Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis, the country demonstrated its capacity for renewal. 1984, far from being the dystopian hell presaged by George Orwell, was a time of celebration and optimism. Uncle Sam - back then, nobody gave much thought to the country being given a male personification - seemed happy again in his own skin. For millions, it really was "Morning Again in America", the slogan of Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign. In that year's presidential election, he buried his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states and 58.8% of the popular vote. The United States could hardly be described as politically harmonious. There was the usual divided government. Republicans retained control of the Senate, but the Democrats kept their stranglehold on the House of Representatives. Reagan's sunniness was sullied by the launch of his 1980 campaign with a call for "states' rights", which sounded to many like a dog-whistle for denial of civil rights. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Ronald Reagan on the campaign trail in 1979 His chosen venue was Philadelphia, but not the city of brotherly love, the cradle of the Declaration of Independence, but rather Philadelphia, Mississippi, a rural backwater close to where three civil rights workers had been murdered by white supremacists in 1964. Reagan, like Nixon, pursued the southern strategy, which exploited white fears about black advance. Still, the anthem of the hour was Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA and politics was not nearly as polarised as it is today. Even though the Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill reviled Reagan's trickle-down economics - he called him a "cheerleader for selfishness" and "Herbert Hoover with a smile" - these two Irish-Americans found common ground as they sought to act in the national interest. Both understood the Founding Fathers had hard-wired compromise into the governmental system, and that Washington, with its checks and balances, was unworkable without give and take. They worked together on tax reform and safeguarding Social Security. The country was in the ascendant. Not so paranoid as it was in the 1950s, not so restive as it was in the 1960s, and nowhere near as demoralised as it had been in the 1970s. History is never neat or linear. Decades do not automatically have personalities, but it is possible to divide the period since 1984 into two distinct phases. The final 16 years of the 20th Century was a time of American hegemony. The first 16 years of the 21st Century has proven to be a period of dysfunction, discontent, disillusionment and decline. The America of today in many ways reflects the dissonance between the two. Dominance In those twilight years of the last millennium, America enjoyed something akin to the dominance achieved at the Los Angeles Olympics. Just two years after Reagan demanded that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall, that concrete and ideological barricade was gone. The United States won the Cold War. In the New World Order that emerged afterwards, it became the sole superpower in a unipolar world. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption A Berliner celebrates in front of the Berlin wall on 15 November 1989 The speed at which US-led forces won the first Gulf War in 1991 helped slay the ghosts of Vietnam. With a reformist leader, Boris Yeltsin, installed in the Kremlin, there was an expectation Russia would embrace democratic reform. Even after Tiananmen Square, there was a hope that China might follow suit, as it moved towards a more market-based economy. This was the thrust of Francis Fukuyama's thesis in his landmark 1989 essay, The End of History, which spoke of "the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government". For all the forecasts Japan would become the world's largest economy, America refused to cede its financial and commercial dominance. Instead of Sony ruling the corporate world, Silicon Valley became the new high-tech workshop of business. Bill Clinton's boast of building a bridge to the 21st Century rang true, although it was emergent tech giants such as Microsoft, Apple and Google that were the true architects and engineers. Thirty years after planting the Stars and Stripes on the Sea of Tranquillity, America not only dominated outer space but cyberspace too. This phase of US dominance could never be described as untroubled. The Los Angeles riots in 1992, sparked by the beating of Rodney King and the acquittal of the police officers charged with his assault, highlighted deep racial divisions. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Police officer acquittals fuelled the Los Angeles riots in 1992 In Washington, Bill Clinton's impeachment exhibited the hyper-partisanship that was changing the tenor of Washington life. In the age of 24/7 cable news, politics was starting to double as soap opera. Yet as we approached 31 December 1999, the assertion that the 20th Century had been The American Century was an axiom. I was in the capital as Bill Clinton presided over the midnight celebrations on the National Mall, and as the fireworks skipped from the Lincoln Memorial down the Reflecting Pool to illuminate the Washington monument, the mighty obelisk looked like a giant exclamation mark or a massive number one. Shattered confidence The national story changed dramatically and unexpectedly soon after. While doomsday predictions of a Y2K bug failed to materialise, it nonetheless felt as if the United States had been infected with a virus. 2000 saw the dot-com bubble explode. In November, the disputed presidential election between George W Bush and Al Gore badly damaged the reputation of US democracy. Why, a Zimbabwean diplomat even suggested Africa send international observers to oversee the Florida recount. Beyond America's borders came harbingers of trouble. In Russia, 31 December 1999, as those fireworks were being primed, Vladimir Putin took over from Boris Yeltsin. Image copyright Getty Images The year 2001 brought the horror of September 11th, an event more traumatic than Pearl Harbor. Post-9/11 America became less welcoming and more suspicious. The Bush administration's "war on terror" - open-ended conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq - drained the country of blood and treasure. The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, and the Great Recession that followed, arguably had a more lasting impact on the American psyche than the destruction of the Twin Towers. Just as 9/11 had undermined confidence in the country's national security, the financial collapse shattered confidence in its economic security. With parents no longer certain their children would come to enjoy more abundant lives than they did, the American Dream felt like a chimera. The American compact, the bargain that if you worked hard and played by the rules your family would succeed, was no longer assumed. Between 2000 and 2011, the overall net wealth of US households fell. By 2014, the richest 1% of Americans had accrued more wealth than the bottom 90%. To many in the watching world, and most of the 69 million Americans who voted for him, the election of the country's first black president again demonstrated America's capacity for regeneration. "Yes we can." "The audacity of hope". Barack Hussein Obama. His improbable success story seemed uniquely American. Although his presidency did much to rescue the economy, he couldn't repair a fractured country. The creation of a post-partisan nation, which Obama outlined in his breakthrough speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, proved just as illusory as the emergence of a post-racial society, which he always knew was beyond him. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Obama in October 2008 During the Obama years, Washington descended into a level of dysfunction unprecedented in post-war America. "My number one priority is making sure President Obama's a one-term president," declared then-Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, summing up the obstructionist mood of his Republican colleagues. It led to a crisis of governance, including the shutdown of 2013 and the repeated battles over raising the debt ceiling. The political map of America, rather than taking on a more purple hue, came to be rendered in deeper shades of red and blue. Beyond Capitol Hill, there was a whitelash to the first black president, seen in the rise of the Birther movement and in elements of the Tea Party movement. On the right, movement conservatives challenged establishment Republicans. On the left, identity politics displaced a more class-oriented politics as union influence waned. Both parties seemed to vacate the middle ground, relying instead on maximising support from their respective bases - African-Americans, evangelicals, the LGBT community, gun-owners - to win elections. Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama continued to talk about moving towards a more perfect union. But reality made a mockery of these lofty words. Sandy Hook. Orlando. The spate of police shootings. The gang-related mayhem in his adopted home of Chicago. The mess in Washington. The opioid crisis. The health indices even pointed to a sick nation, in which the death rate was rising. By 2016, life expectancy fell for the first time since 1993. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US election: Relive the wild ride in 170 seconds This was the backdrop against which the 2016 election was fought, one of the most dispiriting campaigns in US political history. A battle between the two most unpopular major party candidates since polling began, ended with a victor who had higher negative ratings than his opponent and in the end, three million fewer votes. Just as I had been on the National Mall to ring in the new millennium in 2000, I was there again on 20 January 2017, for Donald Trump's inaugural celebrations. They included some Reagan-era flourishes. At the eve of the inauguration concert, Lee Greenwood reprised his Reaganite anthem God Bless the USA, albeit with a frailer voice. There were chants of "USA, USA," a staple of the billionaire's campaign rallies - usually triggered by his riff on building a wall along the Mexican border. There was also an 80s vibe about the telegenic first family, who looked fresh from a set of a primetime soap, like Dynasty or Falcon Crest. The spectacle brought to mind what Norman Mailer once said of Reagan, that the 40th president understood "the President of the United States was the leading soap opera figure in the great American drama, and one had better possess star value". Trump understood this, and it explained much of his success, even if his star power came from reality TV rather than Hollywood B-movies. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Michael Cockerell: The parallels between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump Yet Trump is not Reagan. His politics of grievance, and the fist-shaking anger it fed off, struck a different tone than the Gipper's more positive pitch. It played on a shared sense of personal and national victimhood that would have been alien to Reagan. In the space of just three decades, then, the United States had gone from "It's morning in America again" to something much darker: "American Carnage", the most memorable phrase from Trump's inaugural address. A hangover It is tempting to see Trump's victory this time last year as an aberration. A historical mishap. The election all came down, after all, to just 77,744 votes in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. But when you consider the boom-to-bust cycle of the period between 1984 and 2016, the Trump phenomenon doesn't look so accidental. In many ways Trump's unexpected victory marked the culmination of a large number of trends in US politics, society and culture, many of which are rooted in that end-of-century period of American dominion. Image copyright Getty Images Consider how the fall of the Berlin Wall changed Washington, and how it ushered in an era of destructive and negative politics. In the post-war years, bipartisanship was routine, partly because of a shared determination to defeat communism. America's two-party system, adversarial though it was, benefited from the existence of a shared enemy. To pass laws, President Eisenhower regularly worked with Democratic chieftains such as House Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Reforms such as the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which improved science teaching in response to the launch of Sputnik, were framed precisely with defeating communism in mind. Much of the impetus to pass landmark civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s came from the propaganda gift Jim Crow laws handed to the Soviet Union, especially as Moscow sought to expand its sphere of influence among newly decolonised African nations. Patriotic bipartisanship frayed and ripped after the end of the Cold War. It was in the 1990s the then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole started to use the filibuster more aggressively as a blocking device. Government shutdowns became politically weaponised. Image copyright Getty Images In the 1994 congressional mid-terms, the Republican revolution brought a wave of fierce partisans to Washington, with an ideological aversion to government and thus little investment in making it work. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the first Republican to occupy the post in 40 years, personified the kind of abrasive partisan that came to the fore on Capitol Hill. Grudging bipartisanship was still possible, as Clinton and Gingrich demonstrated over welfare and criminal justice reform in the mid-1990s. But this period witnessed the acidification of DC politics. The gerrymandering of the House of Representatives encouraged strict partisanship, because the threat to most lawmakers came from within their own parties. Moderates or pragmatists who strayed from the partisan path were punished with a primary challenge from more doctrinaire rivals. By the 112th Congress in 2011-2012, there was no Democrat in the House more conservative than a Republican and no Republican more liberal than a Democrat. This was new. In the post-war years, there had been considerable ideological overlap between liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. In this more polarised climate, bipartisanship became a dirty word. One leading conservative thinker and anti-tax campaigner, Grover Norquist, likened it to date rape. Would Congress have impeached Bill Clinton, ostensibly for having an affair with an intern, had America still been waging the Cold War? I sense not - it would have been seen, in those more serious times, as a frivolous distraction. When Congress moved towards impeaching Richard Nixon it did so because Watergate and its cover-up truly rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanours. Clinton's impeachment signalled the emergence of another new political trend: the delegitimisation of sitting presidents. And both parties played the game. The Democrats cast George W Bush as illegitimate because Al Gore won the popular vote and the Supreme Court controversially ruled in the Republican's favour during the Florida recount. The Birther movement, led by Donald Trump, tried to delegitimise Barack Obama with specious and racist claims that he was not born in Hawaii. Most recently, the Democrats have cast aspersions on Trump's victory, partly because he lost the popular vote and partly because they allege he achieved a Kremlin-assisted victory. Over this period, the political discourse also became shriller. Rush Limbaugh, after getting his first radio show in 1984, rose to become the king of the right-wing shock jocks. Fox News was launched in 1996, the same year as MSNBC, which became its progressive counterpoint. The internet quickened the metabolism of the news industry and became the home for the kind of hateful commentary traditional news outlets rarely published. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Home foreclosures skyrocketed at the end of the last decade Maybe the Jerry Springerisation of political news coverage can be traced to the moment the Drudge Report first published the name Monica Lewinsky, "scooping" Newsweek which hesitated before publishing such an explosive story. The success of the Drudge Report demonstrated how new outlets, which didn't share the same news values as the mainstream media, could establish brands literally overnight. This lesson was doubtless learnt by Andrew Breitbart, an editor at Drudge who founded the right-wing website Breitbart News. The internet and social media, trumpeted initially as the ultimate tool for bringing people together, actually became a forum for cynicism, division and various outlandish conspiracy theories. America became more atomised. As Robert D Putnam identified in his 1995 seminal essay, Bowling Alone, lower participation rates in organisations such as unions, parent teacher associations, the Boy Scouts and women's clubs had reduced person to person contacts and civil interaction. Economically, this period saw the continuation of what's been called the "Great Divergence" which produced stark inequalities in wealth and income. Between 1979 and 2007, household income in the top 1% grew by 275% compared to just 18% growth in the bottom fifth of households. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The heroin-ravaged city fighting back The Clinton-era was a period of financial deregulation, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the landmark reform passed during the depression, as well as legislation exempting credit default swaps from regulation. Disruptive technologies changed the workplace and upended the labour market. Automation, more so than globalisation, was the big jobs killer during this phase. Between 1990 and 2007, machines killed off up to 670,000 US manufacturing jobs alone. The Rust Belt rebellion that propelled Trump to the White House has been described as a revolt against robots, not that his supporters viewed it that way. Encouraged by the billionaire, many blamed increased foreign competition and the influx of foreign workers. The opioid crisis can be traced back to the early 1990s with the over-prescription of powerful painkillers. Between 1991 and 2011, painkiller prescriptions tripled. America seemed intoxicated by its own post-Cold War success. Then came the hangover of the past 16 years. Trump's America Over the past few months, I've followed that same westward flight path to California on a number of occasions, and found myself asking what would an impressionable 16-year-old make of America now. Would she share my adolescent sense of wonder, or would she peer out over the Pacific at twilight and wonder if the sun was setting on America itself? What would she make of the gun violence, brought into grotesque relief again by the Las Vegas massacre? Multiple shootings are not new, of course. Just days before I arrived in the States in 1984, a gunman had walked into a McDonalds in a suburb of San Diego and shot dead 21 people. It was then the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. What's different between now and then, however, is the regularity of these massacres, and how the repetitiveness of the killings has normalised them. What was striking about Las Vegas was the muted nationwide response to a gunman killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mourners at a vigil for Las Vegas shooting victims Once-shocking massacres no longer arouse intense emotions for those unconnected to the killings. A month on, and it is almost as if it didn't happen. What would she make of race relations? Back in 1984, black athletes such as Carl Lewis, Edwin Moses and Michael Jordan were unifying figures as they helped reap that Olympic golden harvest. Now some of America's leading black athletes are vilified by their president for taking a knee to protest, a right enshrined in the First Amendment. These athletes now find themselves combatants in the country's endless culture wars. What would she make of the confluence of gun violence and race, evident in the spate of police shootings of unarmed black men and in the online auction where the weapon that killed Trayvon Martin fetched more than $100,000? Charlottesville, with its torch-wielding and hate-spewing neo-Nazis, was another low point. So, too, were the president's remarks afterwards, when he described the crowd as including some "very fine people" and implied a moral equivalence between white supremacists and anti-racist protesters. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What Trump said versus what I saw - by the BBC's Joel Gunter I was at the news conference in Trump Tower that day. An African-American cameraman next to me yelled out "What message does this send to our children?" The question went unanswered, but concerned parents ask it everyday about Donald Trump's behaviour. What about the monuments debate? The last civil war veteran died in 1959, but the conflict rumbles on in various guises and upon various proxy battlefields, as America continues to grapple with the original sin of slavery. But what if she landed in the American heartland, rather than flying over it? Coastal separateness can sometimes be exaggerated, but it would be a very different experience than Los Angeles. In the Rust Belt, stretches of riverway are crowded again with coal barges, and local business leaders believe in the Trump Bump because they see it in their order books and balance sheets. In the Coal Belt, there's been delight at the rescinding of Obama's Clean Power Plan. In the Bible Belt, evangelicals behold Trump as a fellow victim of sneering liberal elites. In the Sun Belt, close to the Mexican border, there's wide support for his crackdown on illegal immigration. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Can coal make a comeback under Trump? In many football stadiums, she would hear the chorus of boos from fans who agree with the president that the take-the-knee protests denigrate the flag. In bars, union branches and American Legion halls, you'll find many who applaud Donald Trump for "telling like it is", refusing to be bound by norms of presidential behaviour or political correctness. There are pointers of national success elsewhere. The New York Stock Exchange is still reaching record highs. Business confidence is on the up. Unemployment is at a 16-year low. Of the 62 million people who voted for Trump, a large number continue to regard him more as a national saviour than a national embarrassment. In many red states, "Make America Great Again" echoes just as strongly as it did 12 months ago. Trump has a historically low approval rating of just 35%, but it's 78% among Republicans. In the international realm, it's plausible foreign adversaries fear the United States more under Trump than Obama, and foreign allies no longer take the country for granted. The so-called Islamic State has been driven from Raqqa. Twenty-five Nato allies have pledged to increase defence spending. Beijing, under pressure from Washington, appears to be exerting more economic leverage over Pyongyang. However, America First increasingly means America alone, most notably on the Paris climate change accord and the Iranian nuclear deal. Trump has also Twitter-shamed longstanding allies, such as Germany and Australia, and infuriated its closest friend Britain, with rash tweets about crime rates and terror attacks. His labelling of foes such as Kim Jong Un as Little Rocket Man seems juvenile and self-diminishing. It hardly reaches the Reagan standard of "tear down this wall". Indeed, with North Korea, there's the widespread fear that Trump's tweet tirades could spark a nuclear confrontation. Few countries look anymore to Trump's America as a global exemplar, the "city upon a hill" Reagan spoke of in his farewell address to the nation. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel is routinely described as the leader of the free world, the moniker bestowed on the US president since the days of FDR. The Economist, which trolls Trump almost weekly, has described Chinese President Xi Jinping as the most powerful man in the world. American exceptionalism is now commonly viewed as a negative construct. "Only in America" is a term of derision. Image copyright PA Ronald Reagan used to talk of the 11th commandment - No Republican should speak ill of another Republican. So it is worth noting that some of Trump's most caustic and thoughtful critics have come from within his own party. Senator Jeff Flake called him "a danger to democracy". Bob Corker described the White House as an "adult day care centre". John McCain, a frequent critic, has railed against "spurious, half-baked nationalism". George W Bush sounded the alarm about bigotry being emboldened and of how politics "seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication", without specifically naming the current president. Trump's determination to be an anti-president has arguably had a vandalising effect on the office of the presidency, and to civil society more broadly. Artists have boycotted the White House reception held ahead of the annual Kennedy Center Awards, a red letter night in the country's cultural calendar. The Golden State Warriors were disinvited from appearing at the White House after their championship win because of the take-the-knee protest. It's new for these kinds of commemorations to become contested. Trump has even politicised one of the commander-in-chief's most solemn acts, offering condolences to the families of the fallen. It led to an indecorous row with a war widow. Small wonder long time Washington watchers, on both the right and left, consider this the nastiest and most graceless presidency of the modern era. The corollary is the historical stock of his predecessors is rising. When the five living former presidents appeared together in Texas earlier this month they were greeted like a group of superheroes donning their capes for one final mission. It speaks of these unreal times that George W Bush is spoken of fondly, even wistfully, by long-time liberal foes. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The five living former US presidents unite Trump's claim he could be just as presidential as Abraham Lincoln is one of the more comical boasts to come from the White House. Then there are the falsehoods, the "alternative facts" and attacks on the "fake media" - his label for news organisations such as the New York Times and Washington Post, whose reporting has rarely been better. Recently he has even threatened to revoke the licences of networks whose news divisions have published critical stories. To some it has shades of 1984, but Orwell's version. As for Morning in America, it has a new connotation - checking Trump's Twitter for pre-dawn tweets. The president commonly starts the day by lashing out at opponents or mercilessly mocking them. The new normal, it is often called. But it seems more apt to call it the new abnormal. There is an extent to which America is politics-proof and president-proof. However bad things got in Washington, my sense has long been that the US would be rescued by its other vital centres of power. New York, its financial and cultural capital. San Francisco, its tech hub. Boston, its academic first city. Hollywood, its entertainment centre. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Adrienne Mccallister, director of Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality business development at Google, speaks during a launch event But Los Angeles is reeling from the Harvey Weinstein revelations, the Uber scandal has shone a harsh light on corporate ethics in the tech sector and the Wells Fargo affair has once again shown Wall Street in a dismal light. US universities dominate global rankings, but its top colleges could hardly be described as engines of intergenerational mobility. A study by the New York Times of 38 colleges, including Yale, Princeton and Dartmouth, showed that students from the top 1% income bracket occupied more places than the students from the bottom 60%. Of this year's intake at Harvard, almost a third were the sons and daughters of alumni. Automation will also continue to be a jobs killer. One study this year predicted that nearly 40% of US jobs will be lost to computers and machines over the next 15 years. Spending time in the Rust Belt valleys around Pittsburgh last year I was struck by how many taxi and Uber drivers used to work in the steel industry. Now America's one-time Steel City is a centre of excellence for robotics and where Uber is road testing its driverless cars. There's still truth in the adage that America is always going to hell, but it never quite gets there. But how that is being tested. Presently, it feels more like a continent than a country, with shared land occupied by warring tribes. Not a failing state but not a united states. As I've travelled this country, I struggle to identify where Americans will find common political ground. Not in the guns debate. Not in the abortion debate. Not in the healthcare debate. Not even in the singing of the national anthem at American football games. Even a cataclysmic event on the scale of 9/11 failed to unify the country. If anything it sowed the seeds of further division, especially over immigration. Some Americans agree with Donald Trump that arrivals from mainly Muslim countries need to be blocked. Others see that as an American anathema. When I made my first journey to the US all those years ago I witnessed a coming together. Those Olympic celebrations were in some ways an orgy of nationalism, but there was also a commonality of spirit and purpose. From Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue performed on 84 grand pianos to a polyglot team of athletes bedecked with medals. From the pilot who flew around the LA Coliseum in a jet pack to the customers who left McDonald's with free Big Macs. There was reason for rejoicing. The present was golden. America felt like America again. .

www.bbc.com

center

IVLlsEYiE32cppKf

test

j4rllqsHDK8Ums7E

fbi

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/30/fbi-questions-ted-malloch-trump-campaign-figure-and-farage-ally

FBI questions Ted Malloch, Trump campaign figure and Farage ally

2018-03-30

Stephanie Kirchgaessner

American once touted as possible ambassador to EU tells of being detained at Boston airport and subpoenaed by Robert Mueller ’ s Trump-Russia inquiry A controversial London-based academic with close ties to Nigel Farage has been detained by the FBI upon arrival in the US and issued a subpoena to testify before Robert Mueller , the special counsel who is investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin . Ted Malloch , an American touted last year as a possible candidate to serve as US ambassador to the EU , said he was interrogated by the FBI at Boston ’ s Logan airport on Wednesday following a flight from London and questioned about his involvement in the Trump campaign . In a statement sent to ███ , Malloch , who described himself as a policy wonk and defender of Trump , said the FBI also asked him about his relationship with Roger Stone , the Republican strategist , and whether he had ever visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London , where the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has resided for nearly six years . Credibility of Trump 's EU ambassador pick called into question by leading MEP Read more In a detailed statement about the experience , which he described as bewildering and intimidating at times , Malloch said the federal agents who stopped him and separated him from his wife “ seemed to know everything about me ” and warned him that lying to the FBI was a felony . In the statement Malloch denied having any Russia contacts . Malloch said he had agreed with the special counsel ’ s office that he would appear before Mueller ’ s grand jury in Washington DC on 13 April . Malloch became a source of controversy in 2016 when he was floated in media reports as a possible US ambassador to the EU , following an aggressive campaign in which , according to several reports at the time , he promoted himself as a strong candidate . European officials , alarmed by the possible pick and his lack of diplomatic credentials , openly criticised Malloch , particularly after he compared the EU to the Soviet Union . Malloch ’ s campaign for the diplomatic post came to an end after a report in the Financial Times detailed several apparently misleading claims made in Malloch ’ s autobiography , including that he was a fellow at Wolfson and Pembroke colleges at Oxford , that he had once been called a “ genius ” by Margaret Thatcher , and that he was the “ first ” to coin the phrase “ thought leadership ” . Mueller ’ s probe into whether or not the Trump campaign received assistance from Russia during the 2016 election campaign is examining various issues , including Donald Trump ’ s business empire and its possible ties to Russia . The special counsel is also examining the 2016 release by Wikileaks of damaging emails that were stolen – allegedly by Russian hackers – from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign . Roger Stone , a strong champion of Trump , appeared to have some advance warning that Wikileaks had the emails before they were published , according to tweets he sent at the time . Stone , who has known Trump since the late 1980s , acknowledged having communications with Assange through an intermediary . He later claimed the middleman was a journalist named Randy Credico , but Credico vigorously denied the allegation . Malloch is ideologically close to Farage , the former Ukip leader who is also close to Trump and his former White House strategist Steve Bannon . Malloch has appeared on Farage ’ s radio show and the pair have been seen together in Brussels . Trump adviser reveals how Assange ally warned him about leaked Clinton emails Read more News of Malloch ’ s detention by the FBI and subpoena was first reported by the far-right conspiracy theory website InfoWars after the controversial contributor Jerome Corsi said an alarmed Malloch had called him during the FBI interview . Malloch said in a statement on Thursday – after he was released – that his role on the Trump campaign was informal and unpaid , that he had only met with Stone on three occasions and never alone , and that he knew nothing about Wikileaks and had never visited the Ecuadorian embassy . He said the agents confiscated his mobile phone and told him it would be taken to Washington DC for a “ full assessment ” . “ I was unfazed and very dubious about why they thought I knew anything , ” he said . He also suggested in the statement that prosecutors could have read a not yet published book that alleged a conspiracy was underway to undermine Trump ’ s presidency , a book he said clearly troubled the “ deep state ” . “ I did … find it objectionable to treat me the way they had , as I was entering my home country , where I am a citizen , ” Malloch said . “ They did not need to use such tactics or intimidation . I was a US patriot and would do anything and everything to assist the government and I had no information that I believed was relevant . ”

American once touted as possible ambassador to EU tells of being detained at Boston airport and subpoenaed by Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia inquiry A controversial London-based academic with close ties to Nigel Farage has been detained by the FBI upon arrival in the US and issued a subpoena to testify before Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Ted Malloch, an American touted last year as a possible candidate to serve as US ambassador to the EU, said he was interrogated by the FBI at Boston’s Logan airport on Wednesday following a flight from London and questioned about his involvement in the Trump campaign. In a statement sent to the Guardian, Malloch, who described himself as a policy wonk and defender of Trump, said the FBI also asked him about his relationship with Roger Stone, the Republican strategist, and whether he had ever visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has resided for nearly six years. Credibility of Trump's EU ambassador pick called into question by leading MEP Read more In a detailed statement about the experience, which he described as bewildering and intimidating at times, Malloch said the federal agents who stopped him and separated him from his wife “seemed to know everything about me” and warned him that lying to the FBI was a felony. In the statement Malloch denied having any Russia contacts. Malloch said he had agreed with the special counsel’s office that he would appear before Mueller’s grand jury in Washington DC on 13 April. Malloch became a source of controversy in 2016 when he was floated in media reports as a possible US ambassador to the EU, following an aggressive campaign in which, according to several reports at the time, he promoted himself as a strong candidate. European officials, alarmed by the possible pick and his lack of diplomatic credentials, openly criticised Malloch, particularly after he compared the EU to the Soviet Union. Malloch’s campaign for the diplomatic post came to an end after a report in the Financial Times detailed several apparently misleading claims made in Malloch’s autobiography, including that he was a fellow at Wolfson and Pembroke colleges at Oxford, that he had once been called a “genius” by Margaret Thatcher, and that he was the “first” to coin the phrase “thought leadership”. Mueller’s probe into whether or not the Trump campaign received assistance from Russia during the 2016 election campaign is examining various issues, including Donald Trump’s business empire and its possible ties to Russia. The special counsel is also examining the 2016 release by Wikileaks of damaging emails that were stolen – allegedly by Russian hackers – from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Roger Stone, a strong champion of Trump, appeared to have some advance warning that Wikileaks had the emails before they were published, according to tweets he sent at the time. Stone, who has known Trump since the late 1980s, acknowledged having communications with Assange through an intermediary. He later claimed the middleman was a journalist named Randy Credico, but Credico vigorously denied the allegation. Malloch is ideologically close to Farage, the former Ukip leader who is also close to Trump and his former White House strategist Steve Bannon. Malloch has appeared on Farage’s radio show and the pair have been seen together in Brussels. Trump adviser reveals how Assange ally warned him about leaked Clinton emails Read more News of Malloch’s detention by the FBI and subpoena was first reported by the far-right conspiracy theory website InfoWars after the controversial contributor Jerome Corsi said an alarmed Malloch had called him during the FBI interview. Malloch said in a statement on Thursday – after he was released – that his role on the Trump campaign was informal and unpaid, that he had only met with Stone on three occasions and never alone, and that he knew nothing about Wikileaks and had never visited the Ecuadorian embassy. He said the agents confiscated his mobile phone and told him it would be taken to Washington DC for a “full assessment”. “I was unfazed and very dubious about why they thought I knew anything,” he said. He also suggested in the statement that prosecutors could have read a not yet published book that alleged a conspiracy was underway to undermine Trump’s presidency, a book he said clearly troubled the “deep state”. “I did … find it objectionable to treat me the way they had, as I was entering my home country, where I am a citizen,” Malloch said. “They did not need to use such tactics or intimidation. I was a US patriot and would do anything and everything to assist the government and I had no information that I believed was relevant.”

www.theguardian.com

left

j4rllqsHDK8Ums7E

test

Vf5g6qA20SlLCiym

national_defense

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-usa-casualties/more-u-s-troops-leave-iraq-over-potential-injuries-as-trump-downplays-brain-risk-idUSKBN1ZL239

More U.S. troops leave Iraq over potential injuries as Trump downplays brain risk

2020-01-22

Alexandra Alper

DAVOS , Switzerland/WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he did not consider the brain injuries suffered by 11 U.S. service members in Iran ’ s recent attack on a base in Iraq to be serious , as the American military moved more troops out of the region for potential injuries . In a statement on Wednesday , U.S. Central Command said that more troops had been flown out of Iraq to Germany for medical evaluations following Iran ’ s Jan. 8 missile attack on the base where U.S. forces were stationed after announcing the 11 injuries last week . Further injuries may be identified in the future , it added , without giving further details . A U.S. official , speaking on condition of anonymity , said about a dozen troops were being transported to Germany . Trump and other top officials initially said Iran ’ s attack had not killed or injured any U.S. service members before the Pentagon reversed course on Thursday , saying 11 U.S. troops had been treated for concussion symptoms after the attack on the Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq . “ I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things , but I would say and I can report it is not very serious , ” Trump told a news conference in Davos , Switzerland . Asked whether he considered traumatic brain injury to be serious , Trump said : “ They told me about it numerous days later . You ’ d have to ask the Department of Defense . ” Pentagon officials have said there had been no effort to minimize or delay information on concussive injuries , but its handling of the injuries following Tehran ’ s attack has renewed questions over the U.S. military ’ s policy regarding how it handles suspected brain injuries . While the U.S. military has to immediately report incidents threatening life , limb or eyesight , it does not have an urgent requirement to do so with suspected traumatic brain injury , or TBI , which can take time to manifest and diagnose . According to Pentagon data , about 408,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury since 2000 . Various health and medial groups for years have been trying to raise awareness about the seriousness of brain injuries , including concussions . “ I don ’ t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen , ” Trump said . “ I ’ ve seen people with no legs and no arms . ” In Washington , a senior military official said that the number of U.S. troops who had been flown out of Iraq was in the “ teens . ” U.S. Air Force Major General Alex Grynkewich , deputy commander of the coalition fighting Islamic State in Iraq and Syria , added that while some counter-ISIS operations in Iraq had resumed , they were still on a limited scale .

DAVOS, Switzerland/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he did not consider the brain injuries suffered by 11 U.S. service members in Iran’s recent attack on a base in Iraq to be serious, as the American military moved more troops out of the region for potential injuries. In a statement on Wednesday, U.S. Central Command said that more troops had been flown out of Iraq to Germany for medical evaluations following Iran’s Jan. 8 missile attack on the base where U.S. forces were stationed after announcing the 11 injuries last week. Further injuries may be identified in the future, it added, without giving further details. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said about a dozen troops were being transported to Germany. Trump and other top officials initially said Iran’s attack had not killed or injured any U.S. service members before the Pentagon reversed course on Thursday, saying 11 U.S. troops had been treated for concussion symptoms after the attack on the Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq. On Wednesday, Trump declined to explain the discrepancy. “I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things, but I would say and I can report it is not very serious,” Trump told a news conference in Davos, Switzerland. Asked whether he considered traumatic brain injury to be serious, Trump said: “They told me about it numerous days later. You’d have to ask the Department of Defense.” Pentagon officials have said there had been no effort to minimize or delay information on concussive injuries, but its handling of the injuries following Tehran’s attack has renewed questions over the U.S. military’s policy regarding how it handles suspected brain injuries. While the U.S. military has to immediately report incidents threatening life, limb or eyesight, it does not have an urgent requirement to do so with suspected traumatic brain injury, or TBI, which can take time to manifest and diagnose. According to Pentagon data, about 408,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury since 2000. Various health and medial groups for years have been trying to raise awareness about the seriousness of brain injuries, including concussions. FILE PHOTO: U.S. Army soldiers from 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Task Force-Iraq, man a defensive position at Forward Operating Base Union III in Baghdad, Iraq, December 31, 2019. U.S. Army/Staff Sgt. Desmond Cassell/Task Force-Iraq Public Affairs/Handout via REUTERS “I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen,” Trump said. “I’ve seen people with no legs and no arms.” In Washington, a senior military official said that the number of U.S. troops who had been flown out of Iraq was in the “teens.” U.S. Air Force Major General Alex Grynkewich, deputy commander of the coalition fighting Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, added that while some counter-ISIS operations in Iraq had resumed, they were still on a limited scale.

www.reuters.com

center

Vf5g6qA20SlLCiym

test

6Kf3bzGO4vxKJqPs

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-deep-state-media-game/

OPINION: The Deep State Media Game

Jeffrey Lord, Greg Jones, Jed Babbin, Geoff Shepard, Roger Kaplan, Mark Hyman, J.T. Young

Trump ’ s national security advisers warned him not to congratulate Putin . He did it anyway . President Trump did not follow specific warnings from his national security advisers Tuesday when he congratulated Russian President Vladimir Putin on his reelection — including a section in his briefing materials in all-capital letters stating “ DO NOT CONGRATULATE , ” according to officials familiar with the call . Trump also chose not to heed talking points from aides instructing him to condemn the recent poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain with a powerful nerve agent , a case that both the British and U.S. governments have blamed on Moscow . The president ’ s conversation with Putin , which Trump described as a “ very good call , ” prompted fresh criticism of his muted tone toward one of the United States ’ biggest geopolitical rivals amid the special counsel investigation into Russia ’ s election interference and the Trump campaign ’ s contacts with Russian officials . Let ’ s recall that what got us to this point is that when to their horror , the friends of Hillary in various government agencies like the FBI , the CIA and the DIA realized she had lost and Donald Trump was in fact set to be the next president , they set to work . The critical part is the Trump/Russia collusion narrative would not have worked unless the likes of Brennan/CIA , Clapper/DIA/ and Comey/McCabe/Strzok from the FBI started feeding leaks to various friendlies in the media . Everybody leaked to the media and they had their constituency with this or that favorite reporter . The question now : Is this still going on ? Based on the evidence , the answer is yes . A few days ago there was this story popping up in USA Today to defend special counsel Robert Mueller . The story features : a conversation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . Then there is ex-Obama CIA Director and careerist John Brennan , now signed on as a contributor for the Trump-bashing MSNBC , saying that the President of the United States is “ unstable , inept , inexperienced and unethical… . I had been very angry at Donald Trump for the things he said and the things he did — I am now moving into the realm of deep worry and concern , our country needs strong leadership. ” And , as my colleague George Neumayr pointed out yesterday in “ John Brennan ’ s Thwarted Coup , ” there was this belligerent coup-style talk also from Brennan to the elected President : “ When the full extent of your venality , moral turpitude , and political corruption becomes known , you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history . You may scapegoat Andy McCabe , but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you . ” Not to be forgotten is former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who made yet another CNN appearance to say that Trump attacked the FBI leadership because it “ posed a threat to him. ” And as investigative reporter and Fox contributor Sara Carter headlined : Former DNI James Clapper Allegedly Leaked to CNN , Investigation Revealed Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper allegedly leaked information to CNN early last year regarding the classified briefings given to then President-Elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama on the salacious dossier claiming the Russians had compromising information on the president-elect , according to government sources , who noted the evidence of the leak was collected during the House Intelligence Committee ’ s Russia investigation . And , but of course , in the wake of his own firing — a firing called “ by the book ” by FBI Director Christopher Wray , the now-ex Deputy Director of the FBI — Andrew McCabe lashed out in public not at the FBI ’ s Office of Professional Responsibility , which recommended his firing . No , McCabe went after the President by saying his firing was “ part of this administration ’ s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the special counsel investigation . ” And , of course , speaking of “ by the book , ” fired FBI Director James Comey is about to hit the book circuit with his own story . Title ? A Higher Loyalty : Truth , Lies , and Leadership . But of course . Question ? What is going on here ? Time after time after time one can only ask… is there a Mueller “ Get Trump ” campaign being waged in the media by Trump enemies in the Deep State with an assist from anti-Trump media ? Is the Department of Justice running a damage control operation through the media ? Is anyone at DOJ or the Special Counsel ’ s office inquiring into just how the information of rogue anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok being shifted around by Mueller — something that happened in the summer but was not reported until December — made it into the media when it did ? Which is to say , conveniently , on the heels of the news of the General Michael Flynn pleading ? What role did Mueller and/or the Department of Justice play in keeping that news from the public — and Congress ? How , exactly , do various pieces of information from inside the belly of the Deep State beast slow roll themselves into public view ? Why , for example , does the news of McCabe ’ s potential firing surface ever so gently on NBC ? As opposed to elsewhere — say , Fox — where the scandal that has been McCabe ’ s conduct might actually be treated as same ? And why , exactly , does that puff piece in USA Today , headed like this , appear ? Rod Rosenstein , deputy attorney general , says Robert Mueller is ‘ not an unguided missile ’ WASHINGTON — Despite unrelenting criticism from the White House on the course of the investigation into Russia ’ s election interference , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Monday offered unqualified support for special counsel Robert Mueller . Back there on December 1 of 2017 , right after it was clear General Michael Flynn was going to plead guilty , out of the blue the New York Times has this story headlined : Mueller Removed Top Agent in Russia Inquiry Over Possible Anti-Trump Texts WASHINGTON — The special counsel , Robert S. Mueller III , removed a top F.B.I . agent this summer from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department ’ s inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views , according to three people briefed on the matter . The agent , Peter Strzok , is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I . counterintelligence investigators . He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified information on her private email account , and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump ’ s campaign and Russia . But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller ’ s investigation to the F.B.I. ’ s human resources department , where he has been stationed since . The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events , like presidential debates , in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump . Over at the Washington Post the same story surfaced . At the same time . The Post story said this : The president ’ s most vociferous defenders in Congress have called for a special counsel to investigate how the FBI handled the Clinton probe and other Clinton-connected matters . Word of the texts could give new fuel to those demands . In other words ? If this story had come out in the summer , the President ’ s “ most vociferous defenders in Congress ” would have had considerable ammunition early on . Instead , the story on Strzok was kept from Congress and the public for months . These stories , both individually but certainly collectively , raise questions . Did the Special Counsel ’ s communications shop or the DOJ ’ s communications office provide the Times or the Post with any of this information ? If not , was there any curiosity in either or both places to ask where this information on the Strzok story and all the rest came from ? If this information did come from the Mueller or Rosenstein offices , were the principals informed ? Did they authorize the release of the news ? Why in December for the Strzok leak — and not “ this summer ” as mentioned in the Times story ? Why the NBC leak on McCabe ? And now , stunningly , there is the leak of a seriously confidential national security note to the President that could only have been handled by a handful of national security staff — everywhere in the media . All of this goes to the question of a corrosion of the system — of a buddy system within the Deep State government to protect one another . That , speaking of Watergate , is precisely what got Nixon Attorney General Richard Kleindienst in trouble . When he died in 2000 the New York Times noted just exactly what got Kleindienst in legal hot water . The Times wrote it this way : His undoing began when he was picked to succeed John N. Mitchell as attorney general after Mr. Mitchell resigned early in 1972 to lead the Nixon re-election campaign . On March 8 , 1972 , Mr. Kleindienst was asked during his Senate confirmation hearings whether the White House had interfered with a Justice Department antitrust action against the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation . “ I was not interfered with by anybody at the White House , ” the nominee replied , repeatedly emphasizing his statement . … On May 16 , 1974 , Mr. Kleindienst pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of refusing to testify accurately before the Senate . A few weeks later , he was fined $ 100 and given a 30-day suspended sentence by a judge who called Mr. Kleindienst a man of “ highest integrity ” but one who had “ a heart that is too loyal . ” In other words , in seeking to protect his friends , the Attorney General was his own worst enemy and it caught up with him . There is a considerable school of thought that the real scandal here is not the fantasy of a Trump/Russia collusion , but rather the seriously bigger-than-Watergate scandal of an insiders attempt to first prevent the election of Trump and , when that failed , to engineer a palace coup to depose the elected president . And to make sure that they protect each other when new information on their behind-the-scenes dealings abruptly pops into public view . Question : Are we seeing a “ modified limited hangout ” — to borrow an old Watergate term ? Run by people who , very much like Watergate , are most concerned with protecting their friends and so engage in two kinds of leaks : those that can damage the President and those that are selectively slow-rolled into public view so they can protect their pals ? For those who came in late , the term “ modified limited hangout ” comes directly from the Watergate scandal , specifically a taped conversation in the Oval Office between then-President Nixon , White House Counsel John Dean , White House Chief of Staff H.R . Haldeman , and Assistant to the President John Ehrlichman . The subject was what information should be released to the public — which is to say the media and the Congress . The conversation went like this : PRESIDENT : You think , you think we want to , want to go this route now ? And the — let it hang out , so to speak ? DEAN : Well , it ’ s , it isn ’ t really that — HALDEMAN : It ’ s a limited hang out . DEAN : It ’ s a limited hang out . EHRLICHMAN : It ’ s a modified limited hang out . PRESIDENT : Well , it ’ s only the questions of the thing hanging out publicly or privately . Whatever is going on here today Americans are seeing some version of this “ modified limited hang out ” from the Deep State . Peter Strzok transferred from Mueller staff ? It takes months to learn . Bruce Ohr involved ? Oh by the way , he was talking to the ex-British agent Christopher Steele about the dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign through GPS Fusion . So we transferred him to a new position . What ? You mean Americans didn ’ t know Ohr ’ s wife worked for GPS Fusion ? Oh , right . Sorry . Well , that ’ s true . By the way , Andy McCabe is a hero . Oh…wait ! Sorry , the Inspector General ’ s report may not be so good for us so ( whisper , whisper ) it looks like Andy McCabe may be fired . But then when information is needed to damage the President ? Why , get that information out pronto . The word on what the President was advised to not say to Putin was out within hours of the call . In short : The Deep State media game afoot here is to protect the Deep State buddies by slow-rolling out the news that affects them negatively — and if possible keeping that news from the public and Congress . But any news that can help sabotage the President ? That is to be leaked ASAP . This kind of thing can and — it seems increasingly likely , will — make Watergate look like a piker . Question ? Is there a Member of Congress willing to ask Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein if they authorized their communications shops to get the word out on Strzok during the time period that everyone was focused on the Flynn indictment ? Did the New York Times and the Washington Post get priority over the Committees of Congress that had jurisdiction on these matters ? Is that a general rule — media first , Congress second if at all ? And if no one in either the Mueller or Rosenstein shops had anything to do with the leaks — did either of those principals show any curiosity at all as to who did ? Or how it happened ?

Isn’t this just a tad curious? Here’s the headline in Wednesday’s Washington Post: Trump’s national security advisers warned him not to congratulate Putin. He did it anyway. The story begins this way: President Trump did not follow specific warnings from his national security advisers Tuesday when he congratulated Russian President Vladimir Putin on his reelection — including a section in his briefing materials in all-capital letters stating “DO NOT CONGRATULATE,” according to officials familiar with the call. Trump also chose not to heed talking points from aides instructing him to condemn the recent poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain with a powerful nerve agent, a case that both the British and U.S. governments have blamed on Moscow. The president’s conversation with Putin, which Trump described as a “very good call,” prompted fresh criticism of his muted tone toward one of the United States’ biggest geopolitical rivals amid the special counsel investigation into Russia’s election interference and the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials. Let’s recall that what got us to this point is that when to their horror, the friends of Hillary in various government agencies like the FBI, the CIA and the DIA realized she had lost and Donald Trump was in fact set to be the next president, they set to work. The critical part is the Trump/Russia collusion narrative would not have worked unless the likes of Brennan/CIA, Clapper/DIA/ and Comey/McCabe/Strzok from the FBI started feeding leaks to various friendlies in the media. Everybody leaked to the media and they had their constituency with this or that favorite reporter. The question now: Is this still going on? Based on the evidence, the answer is yes. A few days ago there was this story popping up in USA Today to defend special counsel Robert Mueller. The story features: a conversation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Then there is ex-Obama CIA Director and careerist John Brennan, now signed on as a contributor for the Trump-bashing MSNBC, saying that the President of the United States is “unstable, inept, inexperienced and unethical…. I had been very angry at Donald Trump for the things he said and the things he did — I am now moving into the realm of deep worry and concern, our country needs strong leadership.” And, as my colleague George Neumayr pointed out yesterday in “John Brennan’s Thwarted Coup,” there was this belligerent coup-style talk also from Brennan to the elected President: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.” Not to be forgotten is former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who made yet another CNN appearance to say that Trump attacked the FBI leadership because it “posed a threat to him.” And as investigative reporter and Fox contributor Sara Carter headlined: Former DNI James Clapper Allegedly Leaked to CNN, Investigation Revealed Carter’s report began this way: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper allegedly leaked information to CNN early last year regarding the classified briefings given to then President-Elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama on the salacious dossier claiming the Russians had compromising information on the president-elect, according to government sources, who noted the evidence of the leak was collected during the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation. And, but of course, in the wake of his own firing — a firing called “by the book” by FBI Director Christopher Wray, the now-ex Deputy Director of the FBI — Andrew McCabe lashed out in public not at the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which recommended his firing. No, McCabe went after the President by saying his firing was “part of this administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the special counsel investigation.” And, of course, speaking of “by the book,” fired FBI Director James Comey is about to hit the book circuit with his own story. Title? A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership. But of course. Question? What is going on here? Time after time after time one can only ask… is there a Mueller “Get Trump” campaign being waged in the media by Trump enemies in the Deep State with an assist from anti-Trump media? Is the Department of Justice running a damage control operation through the media? Is anyone at DOJ or the Special Counsel’s office inquiring into just how the information of rogue anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok being shifted around by Mueller — something that happened in the summer but was not reported until December — made it into the media when it did? Which is to say, conveniently, on the heels of the news of the General Michael Flynn pleading? What role did Mueller and/or the Department of Justice play in keeping that news from the public — and Congress? How, exactly, do various pieces of information from inside the belly of the Deep State beast slow roll themselves into public view? Why, for example, does the news of McCabe’s potential firing surface ever so gently on NBC? As opposed to elsewhere — say, Fox — where the scandal that has been McCabe’s conduct might actually be treated as same? And why, exactly, does that puff piece in USA Today, headed like this, appear? Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, says Robert Mueller is ‘not an unguided missile’ This story, again, out of the blue, beginning: WASHINGTON — Despite unrelenting criticism from the White House on the course of the investigation into Russia’s election interference, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Monday offered unqualified support for special counsel Robert Mueller. Back there on December 1 of 2017, right after it was clear General Michael Flynn was going to plead guilty, out of the blue the New York Times has this story headlined: Mueller Removed Top Agent in Russia Inquiry Over Possible Anti-Trump Texts That story begins: WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent this summer from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department’s inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump. Over at the Washington Post the same story surfaced. At the same time. The Post story said this: The president’s most vociferous defenders in Congress have called for a special counsel to investigate how the FBI handled the Clinton probe and other Clinton-connected matters. Word of the texts could give new fuel to those demands. In other words? If this story had come out in the summer, the President’s “most vociferous defenders in Congress” would have had considerable ammunition early on. Instead, the story on Strzok was kept from Congress and the public for months. These stories, both individually but certainly collectively, raise questions. Did the Special Counsel’s communications shop or the DOJ’s communications office provide the Times or the Post with any of this information? If not, was there any curiosity in either or both places to ask where this information on the Strzok story and all the rest came from? If this information did come from the Mueller or Rosenstein offices, were the principals informed? Did they authorize the release of the news? Why in December for the Strzok leak — and not “this summer” as mentioned in the Times story? Why the NBC leak on McCabe? And now, stunningly, there is the leak of a seriously confidential national security note to the President that could only have been handled by a handful of national security staff — everywhere in the media. All of this goes to the question of a corrosion of the system — of a buddy system within the Deep State government to protect one another. That, speaking of Watergate, is precisely what got Nixon Attorney General Richard Kleindienst in trouble. When he died in 2000 the New York Times noted just exactly what got Kleindienst in legal hot water. The Times wrote it this way: His undoing began when he was picked to succeed John N. Mitchell as attorney general after Mr. Mitchell resigned early in 1972 to lead the Nixon re-election campaign. On March 8, 1972, Mr. Kleindienst was asked during his Senate confirmation hearings whether the White House had interfered with a Justice Department antitrust action against the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. “I was not interfered with by anybody at the White House,” the nominee replied, repeatedly emphasizing his statement. … On May 16, 1974, Mr. Kleindienst pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of refusing to testify accurately before the Senate. A few weeks later, he was fined $100 and given a 30-day suspended sentence by a judge who called Mr. Kleindienst a man of “highest integrity” but one who had “a heart that is too loyal.” In other words, in seeking to protect his friends, the Attorney General was his own worst enemy and it caught up with him. There is a considerable school of thought that the real scandal here is not the fantasy of a Trump/Russia collusion, but rather the seriously bigger-than-Watergate scandal of an insiders attempt to first prevent the election of Trump and, when that failed, to engineer a palace coup to depose the elected president. And to make sure that they protect each other when new information on their behind-the-scenes dealings abruptly pops into public view. Question: Are we seeing a “modified limited hangout” — to borrow an old Watergate term? Run by people who, very much like Watergate, are most concerned with protecting their friends and so engage in two kinds of leaks: those that can damage the President and those that are selectively slow-rolled into public view so they can protect their pals? For those who came in late, the term “modified limited hangout” comes directly from the Watergate scandal, specifically a taped conversation in the Oval Office between then-President Nixon, White House Counsel John Dean, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, and Assistant to the President John Ehrlichman. The subject was what information should be released to the public — which is to say the media and the Congress. The conversation went like this: PRESIDENT: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the — let it hang out, so to speak? DEAN: Well, it’s, it isn’t really that — HALDEMAN: It’s a limited hang out. DEAN: It’s a limited hang out. EHRLICHMAN: It’s a modified limited hang out. PRESIDENT: Well, it’s only the questions of the thing hanging out publicly or privately. Whatever is going on here today Americans are seeing some version of this “modified limited hang out” from the Deep State. Peter Strzok transferred from Mueller staff? It takes months to learn. Bruce Ohr involved? Oh by the way, he was talking to the ex-British agent Christopher Steele about the dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign through GPS Fusion. So we transferred him to a new position. What? You mean Americans didn’t know Ohr’s wife worked for GPS Fusion? Oh, right. Sorry. Well, that’s true. By the way, Andy McCabe is a hero. Oh…wait! Sorry, the Inspector General’s report may not be so good for us so (whisper, whisper) it looks like Andy McCabe may be fired. But then when information is needed to damage the President? Why, get that information out pronto. The word on what the President was advised to not say to Putin was out within hours of the call. In short: The Deep State media game afoot here is to protect the Deep State buddies by slow-rolling out the news that affects them negatively — and if possible keeping that news from the public and Congress. But any news that can help sabotage the President? That is to be leaked ASAP. This kind of thing can and — it seems increasingly likely, will — make Watergate look like a piker. Question? Is there a Member of Congress willing to ask Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein if they authorized their communications shops to get the word out on Strzok during the time period that everyone was focused on the Flynn indictment? Did the New York Times and the Washington Post get priority over the Committees of Congress that had jurisdiction on these matters? Is that a general rule — media first, Congress second if at all? And if no one in either the Mueller or Rosenstein shops had anything to do with the leaks — did either of those principals show any curiosity at all as to who did? Or how it happened? Just asking.

www.spectator.org

right

6Kf3bzGO4vxKJqPs

test

5s1zrefw7JzaIU2N

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/secretary-clinton-champions-gay-rights-for-state-department-and-abroad/

Secretary Clinton Champions Gay Rights for State Department, Abroad

Dana Hughes

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton paid tribute to the State Department 's lesbian , gay , bisexual , and transgender employees at the 20th anniversary celebration of the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies ( GLIFAA ) organization . The ceremony was held in the State Department 's historic Ben Franklin room for the first time . After receiving a standing ovation Clinton thanked the crowd for what she called their courageous actions in the face of historic discrimination . The secretary lamented that homosexuals could not serve openly in the State Department until 1992 . `` The policy forced people to lie or mislead or give up their dreams of serving this country all together , '' she said noting that it was under her husband 's first administration that federal gay employees received equal rights and partner benefits . Clinton said during her tenure she 's made expanding State Department policies to be more lgbt friendly a priority . `` Our people should not have to choose between serving the country they love and living the life with the people they love , '' she said . The secretary has also been a champion for homosexual and transgender rights globally . On International Human Rights Day last December , Clinton gave a speech in Geneva declaring that for the United States , `` gay rights are human rights , '' and led the effort to get the first ever UN resolution on human rights for LGBT community passed . `` When I gave that speech in Geneva and said that we were going to make this a priority of American foreign policy , I did n't see it as something special , something that was added on to everything else we do , but something that was integral to who we are and what we stand for . '' Clinton asked the crowd , a mixture of veteran and young gay State department employees , to stop and reflect on how much progress America has made in advancing gay rights , and how far behind much of the rest of the world still is . `` Remind yourself , as I do every day , what it must be like for a young boy or a young girl in some other part of the world who could literally be killed , and often has been and still will be , who will be shunned , who will be put in danger every day of his or her life , '' she said . `` I want you to leave this celebration thinking about what more each and every one of you can do…to make not only the agencies of our government , but our world more just and free for all people . ''

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton paid tribute to the State Department's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees at the 20th anniversary celebration of the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) organization. The ceremony was held in the State Department's historic Ben Franklin room for the first time. After receiving a standing ovation Clinton thanked the crowd for what she called their courageous actions in the face of historic discrimination. The secretary lamented that homosexuals could not serve openly in the State Department until 1992. "The policy forced people to lie or mislead or give up their dreams of serving this country all together," she said noting that it was under her husband's first administration that federal gay employees received equal rights and partner benefits. Clinton said during her tenure she's made expanding State Department policies to be more lgbt friendly a priority. "Our people should not have to choose between serving the country they love and living the life with the people they love," she said. The secretary has also been a champion for homosexual and transgender rights globally. On International Human Rights Day last December, Clinton gave a speech in Geneva declaring that for the United States, "gay rights are human rights," and led the effort to get the first ever UN resolution on human rights for LGBT community passed. "When I gave that speech in Geneva and said that we were going to make this a priority of American foreign policy, I didn't see it as something special, something that was added on to everything else we do, but something that was integral to who we are and what we stand for." Clinton asked the crowd, a mixture of veteran and young gay State department employees, to stop and reflect on how much progress America has made in advancing gay rights, and how far behind much of the rest of the world still is. "Remind yourself, as I do every day, what it must be like for a young boy or a young girl in some other part of the world who could literally be killed, and often has been and still will be, who will be shunned, who will be put in danger every day of his or her life," she said. "I want you to leave this celebration thinking about what more each and every one of you can do…to make not only the agencies of our government, but our world more just and free for all people."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

5s1zrefw7JzaIU2N

test

20nKXrVtjR0gKjLl

cybersecurity

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/10/apple-china-tech-privacy/

Apple Has ‘Deep Concerns’ That Two Ex-Employees Accused Of Stealing Tech Plan To Flee

2019-12-10

Apple is worried that two of the company ’ s ex-employees who were born in China and are accused of stealing trade secrets from the company could flee to their native countries before the trial . Prosecutors for Apple argued at a court hearing Monday that Xiaolang Zhang and Jizhong Chen are flight risks and should be monitored , Reuters reported . Zhang worked on Apple ’ s secretive self-driving car program and swiped files related to the project , according to prosecutors . Assistant U.S. Attorney Marissa Harris read an Apple statement during the hearing asking the court to consider Chen and Zhang flight risks . “ Apple ’ s intellectual property is at the core of our innovation and growth , ” the statement reads . “ The defendants ’ continued participation in these proceedings is necessary to ensure a final determination of the facts , and we have deep concerns the defendants will not see this through if given the opportunity . ” Federal authorities arrested Zhang in 2018 at a California airport before he could board a flight to China . Chen , meanwhile , took 2,000 files from Apple containing “ manuals , schematics , diagrams and photographs of computer screens showing pages in Apple ’ s secure databases , ” prosecutors said . Agents arrested him in January at a train station before he could take a trip to China . ( RELATED : REPORT : Chinese Big Tech Is Using Zimbabwe Citizens As Guinea Pigs To Identify And Track Black People ) “ This is not an espionage case , ” attorney Daniel Olmos , who represents the men , said Monday . The government “ is not requesting detention , but they are requesting essentially indefinitely location monitoring. ” Olmos said during the hearing that they had family reasons to visit China . Zhang ’ s wife told federal agents he attempted to flee to Canada when agents searched his home . Zhang is a permanent U.S. resident . Prosecutors also said they found documents from several of Chen ’ s former employers at his second home in Maryland . They found a 2011 document from Raytheon Co. that they later determined was classified as “ confidential . ” “ This document contains information relating to Raytheon ’ s work on the Patriot Missile program and was not ( and is not ) permitted to be maintained outside of Department of Defense secured locations , ” prosecutors wrote . A hearing on the case is scheduled for February . Chen and Zhang ’ s case comes as lawmakers and government officials worry China is stealing U.S. technology . Republican Sen. Josh Hawley , for instance , introduced legislation in June seeking to prevent American researchers from using technologies developed by Chinese big tech companies . Universities are “ key targets of espionage and intellectual property theft by not only China , but Russia and Iran , ” the Missouri Republican said in a statement announcing the bill . “ For too long , these countries have sent students to our universities to collect sensitive research that they can later use to develop capabilities that threaten our national security . ” Hawley introduced a bill in May that would force President Donald Trump to restrict technology to China that would contribute to the country ’ s military . That bill would also place heavy restrictions on technology that influences artificial intelligence , semiconductors , and robots .

Apple is worried that two of the company’s ex-employees who were born in China and are accused of stealing trade secrets from the company could flee to their native countries before the trial. Prosecutors for Apple argued at a court hearing Monday that Xiaolang Zhang and Jizhong Chen are flight risks and should be monitored, Reuters reported. Zhang worked on Apple’s secretive self-driving car program and swiped files related to the project, according to prosecutors. Assistant U.S. Attorney Marissa Harris read an Apple statement during the hearing asking the court to consider Chen and Zhang flight risks. “Apple’s intellectual property is at the core of our innovation and growth,” the statement reads. “The defendants’ continued participation in these proceedings is necessary to ensure a final determination of the facts, and we have deep concerns the defendants will not see this through if given the opportunity.” Federal authorities arrested Zhang in 2018 at a California airport before he could board a flight to China. Chen, meanwhile, took 2,000 files from Apple containing “manuals, schematics, diagrams and photographs of computer screens showing pages in Apple’s secure databases,” prosecutors said. Agents arrested him in January at a train station before he could take a trip to China. (RELATED: REPORT: Chinese Big Tech Is Using Zimbabwe Citizens As Guinea Pigs To Identify And Track Black People) “This is not an espionage case,” attorney Daniel Olmos, who represents the men, said Monday. The government “is not requesting detention, but they are requesting essentially indefinitely location monitoring.” Olmos said during the hearing that they had family reasons to visit China. Zhang’s wife told federal agents he attempted to flee to Canada when agents searched his home. Zhang is a permanent U.S. resident. Prosecutors also said they found documents from several of Chen’s former employers at his second home in Maryland. They found a 2011 document from Raytheon Co. that they later determined was classified as “confidential.” “This document contains information relating to Raytheon’s work on the Patriot Missile program and was not (and is not) permitted to be maintained outside of Department of Defense secured locations,” prosecutors wrote. A hearing on the case is scheduled for February. Chen and Zhang’s case comes as lawmakers and government officials worry China is stealing U.S. technology. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, for instance, introduced legislation in June seeking to prevent American researchers from using technologies developed by Chinese big tech companies. Universities are “key targets of espionage and intellectual property theft by not only China, but Russia and Iran,” the Missouri Republican said in a statement announcing the bill. “For too long, these countries have sent students to our universities to collect sensitive research that they can later use to develop capabilities that threaten our national security.” Hawley introduced a bill in May that would force President Donald Trump to restrict technology to China that would contribute to the country’s military. That bill would also place heavy restrictions on technology that influences artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and robots. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

20nKXrVtjR0gKjLl

test

LfrBpSDl9VL0OK0P

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Tom-Cotton-Javad-Zarif-Iran-nuclear-deal/2015/04/30/id/641780/

Iran Foreign Minister Responds to Sen. Cotton's 'Macho Personal Smear'

2015-04-30

Joel Himelfarb

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif lashed out at Sen. Tom Cotton on Thursday after the Arkansas Republican challenged him to a debate on the U.S. Constitution , accusing the senator of engaging in `` smear '' tactics.Cotton issued the challenge in response to comments made by Zarif at New York University on Wednesday , in which he declared that U.N. sanctions on Iran would be lifted if there is a nuclear accord , `` whether Sen. Cotton likes it or not . '' Power Line noted that in his remarks , Zarif declared the United States would be forced to lift sanctions by U.N. resolutions and said Congress would be powerless to stop President Barack Obama from doing this . `` The American president is bound by international law , whether they like it or not , '' the Iranian diplomat said.Zarif added that Obama `` will have to stop implementing all the sanctions , economic and financial sanctions that have been by executive order and congressional . However he does it , that 's his problem . `` Cotton responded to Zarif on social media , tweeting that , `` I hear you called me out today… If you 're so confident , let 's debate the Constitution , '' Politico reported Cotton then offered Zarif the opportunity to meet in Washington at the `` time of your choosing to debate Iran 's record of tyranny , treachery , & terror . `` After issuing the challenge , Cotton followed up with a tweet in which he said he would `` understand '' if the foreign minister declined his challenge because `` after all , in your 20s , you hid in the US during Iran/Iraq war while peasants & kids were marched to death . `` Cotton added that it was not a `` badge of courage '' for Zarif `` to hide in US while your country fought war to survive — but shows cowardly character still on display today . `` Zarif finally responded to Cotton on Thursday , telling him that what is needed today is `` serious diplomacy '' instead of a `` macho personal smear . `` Zarif 's overall attitude `` highlights the necessity for Congressional oversight '' and `` vindicates '' the 47 GOP senators who signed Cotton 's recent letter to Iranian officials reminding them of Congress 's legal authority , Power Line said `` A future president most certainly can extricate the U.S. from a disastrous executive agreement , assuming it is not too late . And Congress can exercise its authority under the Constitution in a variety of ways , including voting to re-impose sanctions . ''

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif lashed out at Sen. Tom Cotton on Thursday after the Arkansas Republican challenged him to a debate on the U.S. Constitution, accusing the senator of engaging in "smear" tactics.Cotton issued the challenge in response to comments made by Zarif at New York University on Wednesday, in which he declared that U.N. sanctions on Iran would be lifted if there is a nuclear accord, "whether Sen. Cotton likes it or not." Power Line noted that in his remarks, Zarif declared the United States would be forced to lift sanctions by U.N. resolutions and said Congress would be powerless to stop President Barack Obama from doing this."The American president is bound by international law, whether they like it or not," the Iranian diplomat said.Zarif added that Obama "will have to stop implementing all the sanctions, economic and financial sanctions that have been by executive order and congressional. However he does it, that's his problem."Cotton responded to Zarif on social media, tweeting that, "I hear you called me out today… If you're so confident, let's debate the Constitution," Politico reported Cotton then offered Zarif the opportunity to meet in Washington at the "time of your choosing to debate Iran's record of tyranny, treachery, & terror."After issuing the challenge, Cotton followed up with a tweet in which he said he would "understand" if the foreign minister declined his challenge because "after all, in your 20s, you hid in the US during Iran/Iraq war while peasants & kids were marched to death."Cotton added that it was not a "badge of courage" for Zarif "to hide in US while your country fought war to survive — but shows cowardly character still on display today."Zarif finally responded to Cotton on Thursday, telling him that what is needed today is "serious diplomacy" instead of a "macho personal smear."Zarif's overall attitude "highlights the necessity for Congressional oversight" and "vindicates" the 47 GOP senators who signed Cotton's recent letter to Iranian officials reminding them of Congress's legal authority, Power Line said "A future president most certainly can extricate the U.S. from a disastrous executive agreement, assuming it is not too late. And Congress can exercise its authority under the Constitution in a variety of ways, including voting to re-impose sanctions."

www.newsmax.com

right

LfrBpSDl9VL0OK0P

test

JH5GggPj4yhOo0JU

supreme_court

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/02/poll-60-want-kavanaugh-confirmed-if-fbi-dismisses-allegations/

Poll: 60% Want Kavanaugh Confirmed if FBI Dismisses Allegations

2018-10-02

John Nolte

If the FBI clears Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct allegations this week , 60 percent of Americans want him confirmed to the Supreme Court . The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,330 registered voters also found some other interesting nuggets that are good news for Kavanaugh and his supporters . The top line numbers show that 40 percent found only Christine Blasey Ford ’ s Thursday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee “ credible. ” Ford testified that when they were both teenagers , Kavanaugh attempted to assault her at a 1982 house party . By comparison , only 23 percent said they found only Kavanaugh ’ s rebuttal testimony “ credible . ” However , 27 percent of those polled found both Kavanaugh and Ford “ credible , ” which means a total of 50 percent found Kavanaugh credible , compared to 67 percent for Ford . “ But the credibility of their testimony does not appear to be the decisive factor , ” pollster Mark Penn writes . “ Rather , the question comes down to corroboration as the standard for tipping public opinion on whether Kavanaugh should ascend to the high court . ” As of now , in the wake of the testimony , only 37 percent want Kavanaugh confirmed , but only 44 percent say he should not be confirmed . But… Because “ corroboration ” is the only standard a wide majority of Americans care about , if this FBI investigation clears him , a whopping 60 percent want Kavanaugh confirmed . Moreover , once those polled were informed “ that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation , this shifts to 57 percent who favor confirmation . ” In other words , once voters know the full truth ( the truth the establishment media are hiding from them ) , they overwhelmingly side with Kavanaugh — those who call for his confirmation jump from 37 percent to 57 percent . There are other numbers bubbling beneath the surface inconvenient to the false reality manufactured by the media . To begin with “ 69 percent agree with Kavanaugh ’ s pronouncement and Sen. Lindsey Graham ’ s ( R-S.C. ) statement that the proceedings have been a national disgrace . ” Secondly , the poll found that a whopping 75 percent believe Sen. Dianne Feinstein “ should have turned over Ford ’ s letter months earlier so that this debacle might have been avoided . ” A full 63 percent believe Kavanaugh will eventually be cleared and confirmed . Follow John Nolte on Twitter @ NolteNC . Follow his Facebook Page here .

If the FBI clears Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct allegations this week, 60 percent of Americans want him confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,330 registered voters also found some other interesting nuggets that are good news for Kavanaugh and his supporters. The top line numbers show that 40 percent found only Christine Blasey Ford’s Thursday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee “credible.” Ford testified that when they were both teenagers, Kavanaugh attempted to assault her at a 1982 house party. By comparison, only 23 percent said they found only Kavanaugh’s rebuttal testimony “credible.” However, 27 percent of those polled found both Kavanaugh and Ford “credible,” which means a total of 50 percent found Kavanaugh credible, compared to 67 percent for Ford. Here is where things get interesting… “But the credibility of their testimony does not appear to be the decisive factor,” pollster Mark Penn writes. “Rather, the question comes down to corroboration as the standard for tipping public opinion on whether Kavanaugh should ascend to the high court.” As of now, in the wake of the testimony, only 37 percent want Kavanaugh confirmed, but only 44 percent say he should not be confirmed. But… Because “corroboration” is the only standard a wide majority of Americans care about, if this FBI investigation clears him, a whopping 60 percent want Kavanaugh confirmed. Moreover, once those polled were informed “that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation, this shifts to 57 percent who favor confirmation.” In other words, once voters know the full truth (the truth the establishment media are hiding from them), they overwhelmingly side with Kavanaugh — those who call for his confirmation jump from 37 percent to 57 percent. There are other numbers bubbling beneath the surface inconvenient to the false reality manufactured by the media. To begin with “69 percent agree with Kavanaugh’s pronouncement and Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) statement that the proceedings have been a national disgrace.” Secondly, the poll found that a whopping 75 percent believe Sen. Dianne Feinstein “should have turned over Ford’s letter months earlier so that this debacle might have been avoided.” A full 63 percent believe Kavanaugh will eventually be cleared and confirmed. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

www.breitbart.com

right

JH5GggPj4yhOo0JU

test

2xFaCXlzIhf3VbUi

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://reason.com/archives/2019/02/17/democracy-in-decline

OPINION: Democracy in Decline?

2019-02-17

Loren Lomasky, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

There is no more satisfying description of democracy than Winston Churchill 's declaration that it `` is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time . '' Among compliments , backhanded ones are the loveliest , first making a show of retreating and then , like a boomerang , returning to hand . One can not deny that democratic electorates occasionally lurch into unfortunate decisions , but Churchill consoles us that other systems are prone to worse . ( He also thereby consoles himself two years after being turfed out of office by an electorate asking , `` Yes , but what have you done for us lately ? '' ) The theoretical case for democracy is not undermined by such wayward episodes because the system 's excellence is comparative , not absolute . Democracy embodies the virtue of moderation in its self-equilibrating disposition to retreat from perils that hurl other political systems off the rails . I have long thought of myself as a Churchillian democrat . I do not believe in the innate wisdom of the masses or in a Rousseauian `` general will '' that unerringly directs the affairs of a politically engaged citizenry . Rather , democracy 's chief achievement is that it makes it possible to peaceably throw the old rascals out . Mistakes are not eliminated but more or less rectified . There is nothing heroic about regular alteration of offices among contending parties , but it is better than the various despotisms that would otherwise arise . And perhaps some heroism is to be seen , after all , in the pattern of democracies in times of crisis bringing to the fore noble exemplars , such as Washington in the 18th century , Lincoln in the 19th , Franklin Roosevelt in the 20th—yes , and Winston Churchill up from the wilderness just in time to save Britain . Sometimes democracies do n't merely sputter ; sometimes they fail disastrously . As Thucydides informs us in his History of the Peloponnesian War , Athenian democracy under the stress of a long war with Sparta bungled things with the imperial overreach of the Sicilian campaign ( and then , as Plato reports , compounded the error with the trial and execution of Socrates ) . German democracy a decade after the Great War produced one unsatisfactory government after another until in 1933 it elevated Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship . As distressing as these events are , they do not seriously undermine the Churchillian dictum . The former episode was very , very long ago , and the latter occurred in a country that had only superficially put on the vestments of democracy over its traditional autocratic garb . These and similar cases constitute evidence that democratic theorists need to analyze carefully . But they do not disconfirm the conclusion that , among imperfect constitutions , democracy is the least bad . My Churchillian inclinations have , however , recently taken a buffeting . In 2016 , the electorate of Churchill 's own country defied pollsters and enlightened opinion to endorse withdrawal from the European Union . In the same year , the Philippines brought to the presidency Rodrigo Duterte , a strongman who , to the general approval of the citizenry , has superintended the slaughter of thousands of individuals alleged to have some connection to traffic in drugs . Brazil recently elected a president with similar views about the merits of extrajudicial executions and who looks back longingly at his country 's days of military dictatorship . Hungary , liberated within living memory from jackbooted totalitarianisms , elected and then re-elected its own strongman , Viktor Orbán , who explicitly praises `` illiberal democracy . '' Poland has done similarly . In the postwar era , Turkey has been championed as the exemplary Muslim state , a staunch member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and , in between the occasional military coup , a tolerant , open democracy . However , popular elections have repeatedly endorsed Recep Tayyip Erdogan , first as reforming prime minister and now as a caliph-in-waiting who smashes all other centers of power . Italy , always whimsical in its political ways , has recently returned a government of left-populists combined with right-populists . And then there was a certain U.S. 2016 election . This is by no means a complete list of recent democratic deviations , and admittedly it omits some cheering upsets : a French government that at a stroke sidelined all the tired , established parties ; Malaysia ejecting the party that had ruled uninterruptedly for six decades since independence . Nonetheless , and with all due qualification , something more may be disturbing democratic waters than the usual tides and eddies . Is there any call for Churchillians to be worried ? I fear that features endogenous to contemporary democracy create a propensity toward decline and , unless checked , decadence . I shall be very pleased to be shown that this judgment is based on hasty observation and faulty reasoning . But first a primer in the anatomy of democracy . Since antiquity , it has been well-understood that democracies , more than any other form of rule , are susceptible to the disease of demagoguery . A would-be leader with fire on his tongue can capture , at least for a while , the rapt allegiance of the citizenry . When democracy was reborn in modern times , its architects , knowing this , tried to immunize it from the demagogic disease by imposing republican structures , two in particular : First , rule of the people is exercised through elected representatives rather than via a vote of the whole . Second , governance is not unitary but rather exercised through a division of powers such as a separate legislature , judiciary , and executive . These two attributes admit of endless variation , and beyond them other features may provide a regime its distinctive form , such as a written constitution , an authoritative listing of rights , a tradition of customary law , and so on . To qualify as a democracy , however , rule must in some way be founded on the expressed and regularly re-expressed will of the people via the ballot box . Theorists have identified two potentially undermining flaws in this model : rational ignorance and rational abstention . The former means it is almost never in voters ' direct material interest to become better informed about the candidates and issues competing for their support . Time invested in political investigation is costly ; it expends energy that could have been used in alternative pursuits . Moreover , study may simply confirm one 's original untested hunches , in which case the effect on the direction of one 's vote is nil . Finally , even in those cases in which study leads one to vote more shrewdly , in an electorate with hundreds , let alone hundreds of thousands , of other voters , it is exceedingly unlikely that one 's own ballot will swing the election . ( Even in the exceedingly rare case in which it does , the likelihood that one may be wrong about which candidate best serves one 's interests is non-negligible . ) For these reasons it is almost always more profitable to study which car to buy , which stock to invest in , which video to view , or which person to marry than to bother unduly about which candidate to back . To the extent electors are rational , they will accumulate shockingly little political knowledge . By similar reasoning , individuals find themselves with much less reason to take time and effort to vote than to use that time for more productive activity . The average voter has only a hazy understanding of what is at stake and has almost no chance of being decisive on the outcome anyhow . To the invitation to exercise the franchise the rational individual will respond : Thanks , but no thanks . Rational ignorance and rational abstention , though , can seem most conspicuous by their absence . In some countries—e.g. , Australia—voting is mandatory . In the United States it is not , yet at every election tens of millions of citizens regularly leave the comfort of their homes to cast a ballot . Leaving aside the degree of their wisdom in matters political , it is incontestable that they voluntarily consume enormous quantities of political ( mis ) information via newspapers , 24-hour cable news networks , Facebook posts , and disputation with the man on the next barstool . Pundits , being pundits , will declaim that this is not nearly enough . Nonetheless , even average voter consumption of political information is orders of magnitudes greater than would be predicted by an economically grounded account of voter rationality , the branch of political economy that goes by the name public choice theory . That theory is embarrassingly unable to answer satisfactorily the questions : Why do individuals bother to vote ? Why do they direct so much of their consciousness to political matters ? No doubt there are many correct partial answers . Some people misjudge the likelihood of their own votes tipping the balance . Some have been propagandized by their high school civics teachers into believing that they have a moral duty to cast informed ballots . Others fear being chastised by friends or family for displaying civic laziness . Not inconsistent with any of these explanations but transcending them is that most voters want to `` have a say . '' That is , voting is not so much a calculated effort to bring about political outcomes as it is an expressive act valued in its own right . Always and everywhere we are a species that relishes admiring and deploring , supporting and opposing , sometimes instrumentally but also for its own sake . From our Paleolithic ancestors ' painting the caves of Lascaux through graffiti on city walls and public restroom stalls and now via endlessly accumulating Twitter storms , we project ourselves onto the world . All political activity does so , but what is distinctive about voting as opposed to running for office or lobbying in support of a bill is that it is almost entirely expressive . It is more like cheering on a sports team than it is like buying or selling in the market . The fan devoutly desires a particular outcome , but she does not scream at the television set because she believes it will enhance that outcome 's likelihood . Nor are voters indifferent as to who wins or loses , else they would have other uses for their time , but their expressions of support are not primarily instrumental . Voting booths are by no means the only venue in which support is expressed , but unlike taverns or social media networks , they are a solemnly institutionalized forum in which matters of great public moment are determined . As a voter you partake of the emotional benefits that come from civic engagement even if you know you are n't deciding the outcome . It is a commonplace of political science that individuals tend to vote their interests . Nothing said above denies that truism , but it does indicate the need to distinguish between material interest and expressive interest . To a considerable extent these coincide . I am a teacher , so policies that benefit teachers benefit me . I therefore am apt to support them as a matter of prudent self-regard . But it is also likely , indeed true , that I regard education as a practice that merits social esteem . Regardless of the extent to which this attitude has been nurtured by my own career path , it holds out the opportunity of expressive returns not linked to my bottom line . I will sincerely and unreflectively do things like cite Socrates on the worthlessness of an unexamined life , thereby reaping the emotive reward of standing up for my values . But although material and expressive interests largely coincide , it is crucial for understanding the workings of democracy to recognize that sometimes they do not . That is true for the generic form of republican democracy , but it is especially salient , I suspect , for understanding democratic distemper in the second decade of the 21st century . Some expressive acts are very costly . Telling your boss to her face what you think of her might be enormously gratifying but might also carry consequences you prefer not to bear . So instead you keep your mouth shut or inaudibly mumble to yourself . One generic feature of casting a ballot in a large-number electorate is that it is very inexpensive . Once you actually bestir yourself to visit the polling station , all you give up by your ballot is the opportunity to have voted for the other side ; influence over outcomes is virtually a nonfactor . This means that expressive acts that in other environments come at a high price can be available almost cost-free in the voting booth . For example , to express support for the cause of the poor by putting $ 100 in the Salvation Army kettle may be in accord with one 's charitable ideals , but unfortunately it costs $ 100 of alternative consumption forgone . On the other hand , to vote for a measure that would tax one $ 100 , the proceeds to the poor cost not $ 100 but only the opposed vote forgone , which , when calculated in expected value terms , is apt to be only a small fraction of a cent . Lofty moral ideals are a natural for ballot booth expression . But so too are animosities . As noted previously , face-to-face confrontations can prove costly . To vote against the despised Other may provide considerable expressive satisfaction at almost zero expense , especially under conditions of ballot anonymity . ( This is one advantage that voting still possesses over many social media ejaculations . ) Accordingly , we can expect under standard conditions of democratic voting greater extremes of both benevolence and malevolence than tend to come to the fore when individuals bear substantial costs for their own expressive activities . A further corollary is that individuals will be more likely to visit the polls when expressive returns in one or another direction promise to be high than when only undramatic business as usual is in the offing . Actors further up on the political food chain , such as candidates and party operatives , will be aware of this calculus and therefore will maneuver to secure votes by appealing not only to material interests but also to emotively rich factors . Because political competition is essentially a zero-sum game , when one side raises the expressive ante it is incumbent on the other to follow along . Doing so simultaneously addresses the rational abstention problem—staying home becomes less attractive if a visit to the polls allows people to satisfyingly vent their spleens—and also provides reasons to direct the vote this way rather than that . Indirectly , that heightening of emotion also responds to rational ignorance . Human beings tend to spend more time and effort learning and thinking about that which is expressively meaningful to them ( for example , the averages of the players on their beloved team ) than to that which may be significant for their material interests but which engages only lightly their emotions ( for example , the preferred policies of local sewage board members ) . My hunch is that in recent democratic politics across much of the world , expressive stakes have tended to tip increasingly away from the positive and toward the negative . That is to say , the joys of providing a comeuppance to deplorable Others supplants beneficence or disinterested moral yearnings as the dominant propulsion behind ballots . Moreover , there is reason to fear that this is not a temporary aberration that will soon be righted but rather a long-wave alteration in democratic propensities that will create an increasingly hostile environment for national and , especially , international comity . It would be a matter of enormous relief to me if this hunch is mistaken , but wishful thinking is not evidence . First and most obvious evidence for this fear are the outcomes themselves . It is not terribly uncommon for campaigns to be succeeded by upsets . In American history , the 1948 defeat of Dewey by Truman has become a classic , in no small measure because of the Chicago Tribune 's embarrassingly premature headline choice ( `` Dewey Defeats Truman '' ) . Churchill 's own defeat three years earlier was of a similar order . One established party more or less surprisingly supplants another , and business goes on . Not so for recent events . Britain 's half-century-long integration with Europe is jarringly thrown into reverse . For decades Italy had seemed to occupy the frontier of political whimsy and yet now leaps miles further along into the surreal . Turkey , Poland , and , yes , the United States confuse and confound . The observer is not merely surprised but aghast . Tectonic political plates have shifted under one 's feet . All across the world of rich democracies , even unto the pure lands of Scandinavia , resentment against would-be entrants gains political potency . And the beggar-thy-neighbor impulse takes precedence even over one 's own bottom line . Second , insularity is in the ascendancy . One way to lose an election is to be less vigorous than one 's opponent in decrying the baleful influence of outsiders or , even worse , their attempts to become geographical insiders . Xenophobia is , of course , nothing new in political practice . The dynamics of Us vs . Them is repeated endlessly , both in war and in peace . Often this phenomenon proves tragically negative-sum . After two world wars in the 20th century ( and one Cold War that flamed dangerously hot at its fringes ) , electorates and their governments increasingly replaced their animosity toward the Other with embrace of practices that promised mutual gain . The Europe that had twice torn itself asunder formed first a trading bloc and then a community . Its free countries joined the United States in a defensive alliance that continues to endure . Tariff barriers were systematically lowered via the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and then massaged further by the World Trade Organization . Polities freely voted to tax themselves to provide aid to impoverished developing countries . Recently , though , centrifugal forces have reasserted themselves . All across the world of rich democracies , even unto the pure lands of Scandinavia , resentment against would-be entrants gains political potency . It is important to note that while some of these moves seem to promise material advantage , many do not . Rather , the beggar-thy-neighbor impulse takes precedence even over one 's own bottom line . Third , rejection of foreigners is accompanied by a similar rejection of domestic experts , hereafter known as `` so-called experts . '' For against whatever statistics and analysis they present , equal and opposed items can be put forth to counter . The technical term for these is `` alternative facts . '' So , for example , when business leaders and economists laden with many advanced degrees declare that exit from the European Union will lower Britain 's national income , other `` experts '' retort that hundreds of millions of additional pounds will be made available to the National Health Service . Voters are free to pick whichever set of facts fits their expressively favored choice . At the turn of the century , postmodernist relativism enjoyed currency only within the rarefied air of the humanities departments of elite universities . Altogether unexpected was that it would come to capture the masses . Not long ago , democracies were disproportionately influenced by the considered opinion of the nation 's elites . For better or worse , deference has turned to disdain . It becomes hard to utter the phrase `` best and the brightest '' without irony . If one aspect of democracy is acknowledgment of equality among citizens , then assigning equal epistemic credit to the opinions of all may be the ultimate progression of the democratic ethos . When high school ne'er-do-wells constitute a majority , why should they not have a turn at defining reality ? I freely admit that I find this prospect appalling , but as the holder of advanced degrees I would , would n't I ? A fourth reason to fear these changes in democratic functioning are likely to linger is that technological developments—I refrain from calling them advances—have thrust credentialed opinion makers from the commanding heights of the communication infrastructure . With the coming of the internet and the social media that surf upon it , the balance of contending forces has changed , sometimes decisively . Those with an interest in getting out a message that contends against the respectable consensus have far more opportunity to do so than back in the era of furtive street corner exchanges and samizdat . Epistemological priorities have been reversed ; instead of interested parties having to form their platforms in light of the facts that have been disseminated , now `` facts '' are manufactured to order and communicated instantaneously . Democracy has never been viewed by theorists as best suited for engaging in careful analysis prior to decisive action , but under contemporary conditions , democratic populaces operate less as a deliberative community than as a conditioned reflex . Individuals across the social spectrum are more able than ever to avail themselves of data and considered opinion that were once the purview of an educated elite . Critics might argue that this is not a negative in assessing the success of rule by the people—rule by the whole people . I admit my own inability to make social media my friend may have biased me in a discreditably reactionary direction . I do admire and approve the way in which modern communications have lubricated the efforts of people endeavoring to remove oppressive boots from their throats , such as during the all-too-brief days of the Arab Spring . Nonetheless , it is not at all obvious that the overall tendency of Facebook , Twitter , and the rest has been for the good . It ought to be recalled that the greatest previous eruption of voices celebrated in our tradition is the Tower of Babel . Very possibly these fears are overstated . Generalizing from a limited number of cases is hazardous . Then again , the number has not really been so limited . To be sure , it is statistically normal to see occasional bunchings of anomalous cases , whether it is hurricanes , 50–1 shots galloping home first , suicides , or political upsets . It is not , however , merely the numbers but rather what can be discerned as underlying these episodes that ought to give one pause . Economic , political , and epistemic disturbants have grown in force and do not show signs of abating . This is not a call to raise the white flags , but any end-of-history triumphalism based on very recent experience is out of place . Although hindsight flattens out terrors of previous days , the rise of dictators in the 1930s was not so very long ago , and not until 1989 did totalitarianism offer clear indications of being on its way out . Moreover , unlike during these earlier periods , a competitor presents itself to many as an appealing alternative to democratic liberalism . Compared to Nazi Germany , China seems positively cuddly , and its ratio of millionaires to gulag prisoners is many times greater than the Soviet Union ever achieved . As democracies fray further around the edges , attraction to the Chinese model and other illiberalisms can be expected to wax . It gives me no pleasure to conclude with an admission that even we Churchillians have grounds for concern that the 21st century may not be kind to our cause .

There is no more satisfying description of democracy than Winston Churchill's declaration that it "is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Among compliments, backhanded ones are the loveliest, first making a show of retreating and then, like a boomerang, returning to hand. One cannot deny that democratic electorates occasionally lurch into unfortunate decisions, but Churchill consoles us that other systems are prone to worse. (He also thereby consoles himself two years after being turfed out of office by an electorate asking, "Yes, but what have you done for us lately?") The theoretical case for democracy is not undermined by such wayward episodes because the system's excellence is comparative, not absolute. Democracy embodies the virtue of moderation in its self-equilibrating disposition to retreat from perils that hurl other political systems off the rails. I have long thought of myself as a Churchillian democrat. I do not believe in the innate wisdom of the masses or in a Rousseauian "general will" that unerringly directs the affairs of a politically engaged citizenry. Rather, democracy's chief achievement is that it makes it possible to peaceably throw the old rascals out. Mistakes are not eliminated but more or less rectified. There is nothing heroic about regular alteration of offices among contending parties, but it is better than the various despotisms that would otherwise arise. And perhaps some heroism is to be seen, after all, in the pattern of democracies in times of crisis bringing to the fore noble exemplars, such as Washington in the 18th century, Lincoln in the 19th, Franklin Roosevelt in the 20th—yes, and Winston Churchill up from the wilderness just in time to save Britain. Sometimes democracies don't merely sputter; sometimes they fail disastrously. As Thucydides informs us in his History of the Peloponnesian War, Athenian democracy under the stress of a long war with Sparta bungled things with the imperial overreach of the Sicilian campaign (and then, as Plato reports, compounded the error with the trial and execution of Socrates). German democracy a decade after the Great War produced one unsatisfactory government after another until in 1933 it elevated Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship. As distressing as these events are, they do not seriously undermine the Churchillian dictum. The former episode was very, very long ago, and the latter occurred in a country that had only superficially put on the vestments of democracy over its traditional autocratic garb. These and similar cases constitute evidence that democratic theorists need to analyze carefully. But they do not disconfirm the conclusion that, among imperfect constitutions, democracy is the least bad. My Churchillian inclinations have, however, recently taken a buffeting. In 2016, the electorate of Churchill's own country defied pollsters and enlightened opinion to endorse withdrawal from the European Union. In the same year, the Philippines brought to the presidency Rodrigo Duterte, a strongman who, to the general approval of the citizenry, has superintended the slaughter of thousands of individuals alleged to have some connection to traffic in drugs. Brazil recently elected a president with similar views about the merits of extrajudicial executions and who looks back longingly at his country's days of military dictatorship. Hungary, liberated within living memory from jackbooted totalitarianisms, elected and then re-elected its own strongman, Viktor Orbán, who explicitly praises "illiberal democracy." Poland has done similarly. In the postwar era, Turkey has been championed as the exemplary Muslim state, a staunch member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, in between the occasional military coup, a tolerant, open democracy. However, popular elections have repeatedly endorsed Recep Tayyip Erdogan, first as reforming prime minister and now as a caliph-in-waiting who smashes all other centers of power. Italy, always whimsical in its political ways, has recently returned a government of left-populists combined with right-populists. And then there was a certain U.S. 2016 election. This is by no means a complete list of recent democratic deviations, and admittedly it omits some cheering upsets: a French government that at a stroke sidelined all the tired, established parties; Malaysia ejecting the party that had ruled uninterruptedly for six decades since independence. Nonetheless, and with all due qualification, something more may be disturbing democratic waters than the usual tides and eddies. Is there any call for Churchillians to be worried? In a word, yes. I fear that features endogenous to contemporary democracy create a propensity toward decline and, unless checked, decadence. I shall be very pleased to be shown that this judgment is based on hasty observation and faulty reasoning. But first a primer in the anatomy of democracy. Rational Ignorance and Abstention Since antiquity, it has been well-understood that democracies, more than any other form of rule, are susceptible to the disease of demagoguery. A would-be leader with fire on his tongue can capture, at least for a while, the rapt allegiance of the citizenry. When democracy was reborn in modern times, its architects, knowing this, tried to immunize it from the demagogic disease by imposing republican structures, two in particular: First, rule of the people is exercised through elected representatives rather than via a vote of the whole. Second, governance is not unitary but rather exercised through a division of powers such as a separate legislature, judiciary, and executive. These two attributes admit of endless variation, and beyond them other features may provide a regime its distinctive form, such as a written constitution, an authoritative listing of rights, a tradition of customary law, and so on. To qualify as a democracy, however, rule must in some way be founded on the expressed and regularly re-expressed will of the people via the ballot box. Theorists have identified two potentially undermining flaws in this model: rational ignorance and rational abstention. The former means it is almost never in voters' direct material interest to become better informed about the candidates and issues competing for their support. Time invested in political investigation is costly; it expends energy that could have been used in alternative pursuits. Moreover, study may simply confirm one's original untested hunches, in which case the effect on the direction of one's vote is nil. Finally, even in those cases in which study leads one to vote more shrewdly, in an electorate with hundreds, let alone hundreds of thousands, of other voters, it is exceedingly unlikely that one's own ballot will swing the election. (Even in the exceedingly rare case in which it does, the likelihood that one may be wrong about which candidate best serves one's interests is non-negligible.) For these reasons it is almost always more profitable to study which car to buy, which stock to invest in, which video to view, or which person to marry than to bother unduly about which candidate to back. To the extent electors are rational, they will accumulate shockingly little political knowledge. By similar reasoning, individuals find themselves with much less reason to take time and effort to vote than to use that time for more productive activity. The average voter has only a hazy understanding of what is at stake and has almost no chance of being decisive on the outcome anyhow. To the invitation to exercise the franchise the rational individual will respond: Thanks, but no thanks. Voting as Expression Rational ignorance and rational abstention, though, can seem most conspicuous by their absence. In some countries—e.g., Australia—voting is mandatory. In the United States it is not, yet at every election tens of millions of citizens regularly leave the comfort of their homes to cast a ballot. Leaving aside the degree of their wisdom in matters political, it is incontestable that they voluntarily consume enormous quantities of political (mis)information via newspapers, 24-hour cable news networks, Facebook posts, and disputation with the man on the next barstool. Pundits, being pundits, will declaim that this is not nearly enough. Nonetheless, even average voter consumption of political information is orders of magnitudes greater than would be predicted by an economically grounded account of voter rationality, the branch of political economy that goes by the name public choice theory. That theory is embarrassingly unable to answer satisfactorily the questions: Why do individuals bother to vote? Why do they direct so much of their consciousness to political matters? No doubt there are many correct partial answers. Some people misjudge the likelihood of their own votes tipping the balance. Some have been propagandized by their high school civics teachers into believing that they have a moral duty to cast informed ballots. Others fear being chastised by friends or family for displaying civic laziness. Not inconsistent with any of these explanations but transcending them is that most voters want to "have a say." That is, voting is not so much a calculated effort to bring about political outcomes as it is an expressive act valued in its own right. Always and everywhere we are a species that relishes admiring and deploring, supporting and opposing, sometimes instrumentally but also for its own sake. From our Paleolithic ancestors' painting the caves of Lascaux through graffiti on city walls and public restroom stalls and now via endlessly accumulating Twitter storms, we project ourselves onto the world. All political activity does so, but what is distinctive about voting as opposed to running for office or lobbying in support of a bill is that it is almost entirely expressive. It is more like cheering on a sports team than it is like buying or selling in the market. The fan devoutly desires a particular outcome, but she does not scream at the television set because she believes it will enhance that outcome's likelihood. Nor are voters indifferent as to who wins or loses, else they would have other uses for their time, but their expressions of support are not primarily instrumental. Voting booths are by no means the only venue in which support is expressed, but unlike taverns or social media networks, they are a solemnly institutionalized forum in which matters of great public moment are determined. As a voter you partake of the emotional benefits that come from civic engagement even if you know you aren't deciding the outcome. It is a commonplace of political science that individuals tend to vote their interests. Nothing said above denies that truism, but it does indicate the need to distinguish between material interest and expressive interest. To a considerable extent these coincide. I am a teacher, so policies that benefit teachers benefit me. I therefore am apt to support them as a matter of prudent self-regard. But it is also likely, indeed true, that I regard education as a practice that merits social esteem. Regardless of the extent to which this attitude has been nurtured by my own career path, it holds out the opportunity of expressive returns not linked to my bottom line. I will sincerely and unreflectively do things like cite Socrates on the worthlessness of an unexamined life, thereby reaping the emotive reward of standing up for my values. But although material and expressive interests largely coincide, it is crucial for understanding the workings of democracy to recognize that sometimes they do not. That is true for the generic form of republican democracy, but it is especially salient, I suspect, for understanding democratic distemper in the second decade of the 21st century. Greater Extremes of Benevolence—and Malevolence Some expressive acts are very costly. Telling your boss to her face what you think of her might be enormously gratifying but might also carry consequences you prefer not to bear. So instead you keep your mouth shut or inaudibly mumble to yourself. One generic feature of casting a ballot in a large-number electorate is that it is very inexpensive. Once you actually bestir yourself to visit the polling station, all you give up by your ballot is the opportunity to have voted for the other side; influence over outcomes is virtually a nonfactor. This means that expressive acts that in other environments come at a high price can be available almost cost-free in the voting booth. For example, to express support for the cause of the poor by putting $100 in the Salvation Army kettle may be in accord with one's charitable ideals, but unfortunately it costs $100 of alternative consumption forgone. On the other hand, to vote for a measure that would tax one $100, the proceeds to the poor cost not $100 but only the opposed vote forgone, which, when calculated in expected value terms, is apt to be only a small fraction of a cent. Lofty moral ideals are a natural for ballot booth expression. But so too are animosities. As noted previously, face-to-face confrontations can prove costly. To vote against the despised Other may provide considerable expressive satisfaction at almost zero expense, especially under conditions of ballot anonymity. (This is one advantage that voting still possesses over many social media ejaculations.) Accordingly, we can expect under standard conditions of democratic voting greater extremes of both benevolence and malevolence than tend to come to the fore when individuals bear substantial costs for their own expressive activities. A further corollary is that individuals will be more likely to visit the polls when expressive returns in one or another direction promise to be high than when only undramatic business as usual is in the offing. Actors further up on the political food chain, such as candidates and party operatives, will be aware of this calculus and therefore will maneuver to secure votes by appealing not only to material interests but also to emotively rich factors. Because political competition is essentially a zero-sum game, when one side raises the expressive ante it is incumbent on the other to follow along. Doing so simultaneously addresses the rational abstention problem—staying home becomes less attractive if a visit to the polls allows people to satisfyingly vent their spleens—and also provides reasons to direct the vote this way rather than that. Indirectly, that heightening of emotion also responds to rational ignorance. Human beings tend to spend more time and effort learning and thinking about that which is expressively meaningful to them (for example, the averages of the players on their beloved team) than to that which may be significant for their material interests but which engages only lightly their emotions (for example, the preferred policies of local sewage board members). Rejection of Foreigners and Experts My hunch is that in recent democratic politics across much of the world, expressive stakes have tended to tip increasingly away from the positive and toward the negative. That is to say, the joys of providing a comeuppance to deplorable Others supplants beneficence or disinterested moral yearnings as the dominant propulsion behind ballots. Moreover, there is reason to fear that this is not a temporary aberration that will soon be righted but rather a long-wave alteration in democratic propensities that will create an increasingly hostile environment for national and, especially, international comity. It would be a matter of enormous relief to me if this hunch is mistaken, but wishful thinking is not evidence. First and most obvious evidence for this fear are the outcomes themselves. It is not terribly uncommon for campaigns to be succeeded by upsets. In American history, the 1948 defeat of Dewey by Truman has become a classic, in no small measure because of the Chicago Tribune's embarrassingly premature headline choice ("Dewey Defeats Truman"). Churchill's own defeat three years earlier was of a similar order. One established party more or less surprisingly supplants another, and business goes on. Not so for recent events. Britain's half-century-long integration with Europe is jarringly thrown into reverse. For decades Italy had seemed to occupy the frontier of political whimsy and yet now leaps miles further along into the surreal. Turkey, Poland, and, yes, the United States confuse and confound. The observer is not merely surprised but aghast. Tectonic political plates have shifted under one's feet. All across the world of rich democracies, even unto the pure lands of Scandinavia, resentment against would-be entrants gains political potency. And the beggar-thy-neighbor impulse takes precedence even over one's own bottom line. Second, insularity is in the ascendancy. One way to lose an election is to be less vigorous than one's opponent in decrying the baleful influence of outsiders or, even worse, their attempts to become geographical insiders. Xenophobia is, of course, nothing new in political practice. The dynamics of Us vs. Them is repeated endlessly, both in war and in peace. Often this phenomenon proves tragically negative-sum. After two world wars in the 20th century (and one Cold War that flamed dangerously hot at its fringes), electorates and their governments increasingly replaced their animosity toward the Other with embrace of practices that promised mutual gain. The Europe that had twice torn itself asunder formed first a trading bloc and then a community. Its free countries joined the United States in a defensive alliance that continues to endure. Tariff barriers were systematically lowered via the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and then massaged further by the World Trade Organization. Polities freely voted to tax themselves to provide aid to impoverished developing countries. Recently, though, centrifugal forces have reasserted themselves. All across the world of rich democracies, even unto the pure lands of Scandinavia, resentment against would-be entrants gains political potency. It is important to note that while some of these moves seem to promise material advantage, many do not. Rather, the beggar-thy-neighbor impulse takes precedence even over one's own bottom line. Third, rejection of foreigners is accompanied by a similar rejection of domestic experts, hereafter known as "so-called experts." For against whatever statistics and analysis they present, equal and opposed items can be put forth to counter. The technical term for these is "alternative facts." So, for example, when business leaders and economists laden with many advanced degrees declare that exit from the European Union will lower Britain's national income, other "experts" retort that hundreds of millions of additional pounds will be made available to the National Health Service. Voters are free to pick whichever set of facts fits their expressively favored choice. At the turn of the century, postmodernist relativism enjoyed currency only within the rarefied air of the humanities departments of elite universities. Altogether unexpected was that it would come to capture the masses. Not long ago, democracies were disproportionately influenced by the considered opinion of the nation's elites. For better or worse, deference has turned to disdain. It becomes hard to utter the phrase "best and the brightest" without irony. If one aspect of democracy is acknowledgment of equality among citizens, then assigning equal epistemic credit to the opinions of all may be the ultimate progression of the democratic ethos. When high school ne'er-do-wells constitute a majority, why should they not have a turn at defining reality? I freely admit that I find this prospect appalling, but as the holder of advanced degrees I would, wouldn't I? A fourth reason to fear these changes in democratic functioning are likely to linger is that technological developments—I refrain from calling them advances—have thrust credentialed opinion makers from the commanding heights of the communication infrastructure. With the coming of the internet and the social media that surf upon it, the balance of contending forces has changed, sometimes decisively. Those with an interest in getting out a message that contends against the respectable consensus have far more opportunity to do so than back in the era of furtive street corner exchanges and samizdat. Epistemological priorities have been reversed; instead of interested parties having to form their platforms in light of the facts that have been disseminated, now "facts" are manufactured to order and communicated instantaneously. Democracy has never been viewed by theorists as best suited for engaging in careful analysis prior to decisive action, but under contemporary conditions, democratic populaces operate less as a deliberative community than as a conditioned reflex. Individuals across the social spectrum are more able than ever to avail themselves of data and considered opinion that were once the purview of an educated elite. Critics might argue that this is not a negative in assessing the success of rule by the people—rule by the whole people. I admit my own inability to make social media my friend may have biased me in a discreditably reactionary direction. I do admire and approve the way in which modern communications have lubricated the efforts of people endeavoring to remove oppressive boots from their throats, such as during the all-too-brief days of the Arab Spring. Nonetheless, it is not at all obvious that the overall tendency of Facebook, Twitter, and the rest has been for the good. It ought to be recalled that the greatest previous eruption of voices celebrated in our tradition is the Tower of Babel. Very possibly these fears are overstated. Generalizing from a limited number of cases is hazardous. Then again, the number has not really been so limited. To be sure, it is statistically normal to see occasional bunchings of anomalous cases, whether it is hurricanes, 50–1 shots galloping home first, suicides, or political upsets. It is not, however, merely the numbers but rather what can be discerned as underlying these episodes that ought to give one pause. Economic, political, and epistemic disturbants have grown in force and do not show signs of abating. This is not a call to raise the white flags, but any end-of-history triumphalism based on very recent experience is out of place. Although hindsight flattens out terrors of previous days, the rise of dictators in the 1930s was not so very long ago, and not until 1989 did totalitarianism offer clear indications of being on its way out. Moreover, unlike during these earlier periods, a competitor presents itself to many as an appealing alternative to democratic liberalism. Compared to Nazi Germany, China seems positively cuddly, and its ratio of millionaires to gulag prisoners is many times greater than the Soviet Union ever achieved. As democracies fray further around the edges, attraction to the Chinese model and other illiberalisms can be expected to wax. It gives me no pleasure to conclude with an admission that even we Churchillians have grounds for concern that the 21st century may not be kind to our cause.

www.reason.com

right

2xFaCXlzIhf3VbUi

test

If9eyXazobjslwX8

race_and_racism

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/06/07/when-should-force-be-used-to-protect-public-health/

When Should Force Be Used To Protect Public Health?

2020-06-07

Jacob Sullum, Ilya Somin, Eugene Volokh, Scott Shackford, Brian Doherty, Eric Boehm, Billy Binion, J.D. Tuccille, Christian Britschgi, John Stossel

During an April 2 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News , Surgeon General Jerome Adams compared deaths caused by COVID-19 to deaths caused by smoking and drug abuse . `` More people will die , even in the worst projections , from cigarette smoking in this country than are going to die from coronavirus this year , '' he said . Wallace questioned the analogy . `` Dr. Adams , '' he said , `` there 's a big difference between opioids and cigarettes , which are something that people decide to use or not to use , [ and ] the coronavirus , which people catch . It 's not an individual choice . '' The distinction that Wallace considered commonsensical is not one that public health officials like Adams recognize . As they see it , their mission is minimizing `` morbidity and mortality , '' whether those things are caused by communicable diseases or by lifestyle choices . Equating true epidemics with metaphorical `` epidemics '' of risky behavior distracts public health agencies from their central mission of protecting people against external threats such as pollution and pathogens . It undermines their moral authority by implying that the rationale for that uncontroversial mission also justifies a wide-ranging paternalism , and it damages their credibility by involving them in high-handed , manipulative propaganda . The ambiguity about what it means for the government to protect public health also makes it harder to think clearly about the limits of state power in responding to literal epidemics . The classical liberal tradition has always recognized that the state has a legitimate role to play in protecting the public from contagious diseases . When we are confronted by an actual public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic , the question is not whether the use of force can be justified but whether a particular policy is appropriate . That question is hard to answer when there is a high degree of uncertainty about the threat posed by the disease and the cost of limiting its spread . Before the new coronavirus came along , the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) spent a lot of time and effort warning us about a very different kind of `` epidemic '' : an increase in e-cigarette use by teenagers , coupled with an outbreak of vaping-related lung injuries . The first concern did not involve any sort of disease ; the latter did , but unlike COVID-19 , the condition that the CDC dubbed `` e-cigarette , or vaping , product use-associated lung injury '' ( EVALI ) was not contagious . And contrary to the CDC 's misleading nomenclature and dangerously misguided initial advice , the two developments appeared to be completely unrelated . Even under a broad understanding of public health , the CDC 's conflation of EVALI with vaping in general was counterproductive , impeding the harm-reducing shift from conventional cigarettes to nicotine delivery systems that are far less dangerous . By fostering confusion about the relative hazards of smoking and vaping , the CDC hurt its own credibility on the eve of a public health crisis in which policy makers and the rest of us were expected to rely on its expertise . As Chris Wallace probably would agree , vaping is something people choose to do . In that respect it resembles many other phenomena that politicians , bureaucrats , and academics have described as public health problems , including smoking , drinking , illegal drug use , overeating , physical inactivity , riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet , gambling , playing violent video games , and watching pornography . COVID-19 , by contrast , is something that happens to people . There is a strong argument for coercive measures to deal with a potentially deadly disease that moves from person to person . That argument is much less compelling when we are talking about actions that may lead to disease or injury but do not inherently endanger other people . The tendency to describe nearly anything that large numbers of people do as an epidemic when others view it as pernicious elides this crucial distinction . If protecting public health is presumed to be a legitimate function of government , an open-ended definition of that term is a prescription for constant political meddling in personal choices through taxes , regulations , prohibitions , and state-sponsored nagging . Likening choices to contagious diseases invites the government to act as if those choices , and the personal tastes and preferences underlying them , are morally no more important than a microorganism 's evolutionary imperative to reproduce by infecting human hosts . Once a particular pattern of behavior has been defined as an epidemic , that framing can lead to policies that make no sense even if you accept the collectivist calculus at the heart of public health as it is currently understood . That is what happened with vaping , which the CDC was predisposed to view as problematic , a prejudice that colored its depiction of EVALI . Even though it was clear early on that vaping-related lung injuries overwhelmingly involved black-market cannabis products , the CDC repeatedly intimated that legal , nicotine-delivering e-cigarettes might kill you . That message endangered public health by falsely implying that people—teenagers as well as adults—would be safer if they smoked . Only belatedly did the CDC recalibrate its guidance to focus on the potential hazards of THC vapes , `` particularly from informal sources like friends , family , or in-person or online dealers . '' It also foregrounded a warning that `` adults using nicotine-containing e-cigarette , or vaping , products as an alternative to cigarettes should not go back to smoking '' —advice that surely is equally sound for teenagers who vape instead of smoking . When the CDC switched gears from vaping to COVID-19 , its habit of misleading people , ostensibly for their own good , was still evident . The agency 's initial advice about face masks and virus tests gave the public false assurances regarding the danger posed by the epidemic while discounting the lifesaving value of those protective tools . Until early April , the CDC advised most Americans against wearing face masks in public . `` If you are sick , '' the agency originally said on its website , `` you should wear a facemask when you are around other people ( e.g. , sharing a room or vehicle ) and before you enter a healthcare provider 's office . '' But `` if you are NOT sick , '' it added , `` you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick ( and they are not able to wear a facemask ) . Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers . '' After much criticism , the CDC revised its recommendations , telling people to `` cover your mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others . '' It explained the shift by citing the risk of asymptomatic infection , a phenomenon that scientists had been describing for months . Like the CDC 's face mask recommendations , its COVID-19 testing criteria were driven by a shortage—in this case , a government-engineered shortage . At first the agency monopolized testing , and the kits it shipped to state laboratories in early February were defective . The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration initially blocked researchers and businesses from developing or conducting tests , which aggravated a shortage that made it impossible to get a handle on the size and severity of the epidemic in its early stages . Making a false virtue of necessity , the CDC set irrationally narrow criteria for testing , initially restricting it to symptomatic travelers from China and people who had been in close contact with them . As of late April , it was still saying that `` not everyone needs to be tested for COVID-19 . '' The truth was that everyone—or at least representative samples—did need to be tested , both for the virus and for the antibodies to it . That was the only way for policy makers to get a clearer sense of how prevalent the virus was , how quickly it was spreading , how lethal it was , and how many people had developed immunity to it . Without wide testing , they could only guess at those vitally important variables , even as they were making policy decisions with potentially devastating economic consequences . While it was giving bad advice about face masks and tests , the CDC was projecting COVID-19 deaths based on a model that counterfactually assumed the absence of voluntary measures such as hand washing , working at home , avoiding crowds , and limiting social interactions . Such worst-case scenarios , which had a strong influence on state and federal policies , presented a false choice between doing nothing and imposing the sort of sweeping restrictions that we began to see across the country in March : orders closing `` nonessential '' businesses and instructing Americans to remain at home except for `` essential '' work or life-sustaining errands . Another obvious option was the targeted use of isolation and quarantine , coupled with contact tracing , to protect the public from known or suspected disease carriers . But that approach was foreclosed by the test kit shortage , which made it impossible to do the screening that such a strategy requires . And because meager testing resources left state and local officials ignorant of crucial facts about the epidemic , they made policy decisions without the evidence necessary to assess their proportionality or cost-effectiveness . The general case for using force in response to outbreaks of contagious illnesses is straightforward . Someone who carries a potentially lethal pathogen , like someone who dumps toxins into the water or air , endangers other people . Government responses to that threat clearly fit within the justification for state action limned by classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill in his 1859 essay On Liberty : `` The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community , against his will , is to prevent harm to others . His own good , either physical or moral , is not a sufficient warrant . '' Mill 's principle distinguishes between the broad and narrow conceptions of public health as a license for government intervention . It rules out paternalistic policies such as alcohol prohibition ( which he opposed ) while allowing the exercise of power over individuals ( such as disease carriers ) who pose a direct threat to others . The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that states have broad authority , under their general `` police power , '' to protect the public from communicable diseases . `` Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own , whether in respect of his person or his property , regardless of the injury that may be done to others , '' the justices observed in Jacobson v. Massachusetts , a 1905 decision that upheld mandatory smallpox vaccination . But the Court also said public health authority has limits : `` An acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary , unreasonable manner , or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public , as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons . '' State quarantine laws , which include safeguards aimed at protecting the rights of alleged carriers , reflect that balance between protecting the public and respecting individual freedom . The quarantine regulations in Washington , the first state to report a COVID-19 outbreak , illustrate the tension between those two goals . Under Washington 's regulations , a local health officer can obtain a court order requiring isolation or quarantine by showing there is a `` reasonable basis '' to believe it is `` necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others . '' Those orders last up to 10 days but can be extended up to a month , based on `` clear , cogent , and convincing evidence that isolation or quarantine is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others . '' There are several restrictions on that authority . The health officer must first make `` reasonable efforts , which shall be documented , to obtain voluntary compliance '' or else determine , `` in his or her professional judgment , '' that `` seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm . '' The rules also specify that `` isolation or quarantine must be by the least restrictive means necessary '' to prevent the spread of a communicable disease . The health status of individuals subject to orders `` must be monitored regularly to determine if they require continued isolation or quarantine , '' and they `` must be released as soon as practicable '' when the health officer determines that they no longer pose a threat . Isolated or quarantined individuals have a right to petition for release , with the assistance of court-appointed counsel , in which case the government has to `` show cause '' for their continued detention . Such due process protections are not merely theoretical . In 2014 , Kaci Hickox , a nurse who had treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone , successfully challenged a three-week home detention order issued by Maine 's Republican governor . To meet the standard set by Maine 's quarantine law , the state had to present `` clear and convincing evidence '' that Hickox posed a `` public health threat '' and that a 21-day quarantine was `` the least restrictive measure '' to deal with it . Charles LaVerdiere , chief judge of the Maine District Courts , ruled that any potential threat posed by Hickox , who had tested negative for the virus , could be adequately addressed by `` direct active monitoring '' to detect the onset of symptoms should she become ill . Since Hickox `` currently does not show any symptoms of Ebola and is therefore not infectious , '' LaVerdiere said , forcibly confining her to her home was not justified . Targeted quarantines like the one that Hickox challenged are a far cry from the stay-at-home orders that state and local governments issued in response to COVID-19 . Those policies were not based on an allegation that any particular individual or group posed a public health threat , and it 's likely that the vast majority of the people affected by the orders were not actually carrying the virus . In early March , a week before local and state governments began imposing COVID-19 lockdowns , Vox asked Lindsay Wiley , a health law professor at American University 's Washington College of Law , about the legality of such policies . Wiley said `` a mandatory geographic quarantine '' would `` probably be unconstitutional under most scenarios '' but noted that the issue had never been squarely addressed . `` The courts would typically require government officials to try voluntary measures first , '' Wiley explained , `` as a way of proving that mandatory measures are actually necessary . Furthermore , any mandated measures would have to be narrowly tailored and backed by evidence….To pass constitutional muster , an order not just urging but requiring all people within a particular area to stay home would have to be justified by strong evidence that it was absolutely necessary and that other , less restrictive measures would be inadequate to slow the spread of disease . '' Around the same time , Cornell law professor Michael Dorf noted the disjunction between lockdowns and the standards prescribed by quarantine and civil commitment laws . `` In normal times , the government may not confine people for the public safety absent 'clear and convincing evidence ' that they pose a danger to themselves or others , '' he wrote in a Verdict essay . `` One would hope that during a pandemic the courts would construe that standard on a population basis rather than one by one . Thus , while there may not be clear and convincing evidence that any particular asymptomatic individual poses a threat , there is such evidence for the population as a whole . '' Even if it were possible to make such a judgment about `` the population as a whole , '' it would require evidence concerning the prevalence of the COVID-19 virus that policy makers did not have when they imposed the lockdowns . Without early and wide testing , politicians had no idea how many Americans were infected , let alone how prevalence varied from one part of the country to another . For the same ███ , they did not know how lethal the virus was , a factor that surely should figure in decisions affecting the liberty and livelihoods of so many people . There is historical precedent in the United States for trying to reduce the spread of disease by legally restricting social and economic activity . During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic , for example , St. Louis banned public gatherings and closed schools , movie theaters , and pool halls . San Francisco shuttered `` all places of public amusement . '' But the restrictions of that era were not as pervasive or as broad as the measures implemented in response to COVID-19 , which confined hundreds of millions of people to their homes except for government-approved purposes . Lockdown supporters thought the experience with the 1918 epidemic reinforced the case for more aggressive and uniform measures . They argued that cities like St. Louis and San Francisco fared better than cities like Philadelphia , which acted later . If more cities had imposed broad restrictions early on , they suggested , the death toll from the pandemic—which ultimately killed some 50 million people worldwide , including about 675,000 in the United States—might have been lower . They may be right about that . But if the effectiveness of those measures remains unclear a century later , what chance did state and local officials have of making wise decisions about COVID-19 in the heat of the moment without knowing how many people were carriers , how many were asymptomatic , how many had developed immunity , or how many could be expected to die from the disease ? Uncertainty about those basic facts made it impossible to properly weigh the costs and benefits of the course they chose . Even as it rejected the plea of a man who objected to mandatory smallpox vaccination in Jacobson , the Supreme Court allowed that judicial intervention might be appropriate when regulations go `` far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public . '' But as politicians across the country shut down the economy this spring and ordered people to stay home until further notice , they did not have the information required to make that judgment .

During an April 2 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Surgeon General Jerome Adams compared deaths caused by COVID-19 to deaths caused by smoking and drug abuse. "More people will die, even in the worst projections, from cigarette smoking in this country than are going to die from coronavirus this year," he said. Wallace questioned the analogy. "Dr. Adams," he said, "there's a big difference between opioids and cigarettes, which are something that people decide to use or not to use, [and] the coronavirus, which people catch. It's not an individual choice." The distinction that Wallace considered commonsensical is not one that public health officials like Adams recognize. As they see it, their mission is minimizing "morbidity and mortality," whether those things are caused by communicable diseases or by lifestyle choices. Equating true epidemics with metaphorical "epidemics" of risky behavior distracts public health agencies from their central mission of protecting people against external threats such as pollution and pathogens. It undermines their moral authority by implying that the rationale for that uncontroversial mission also justifies a wide-ranging paternalism, and it damages their credibility by involving them in high-handed, manipulative propaganda. The ambiguity about what it means for the government to protect public health also makes it harder to think clearly about the limits of state power in responding to literal epidemics. The classical liberal tradition has always recognized that the state has a legitimate role to play in protecting the public from contagious diseases. When we are confronted by an actual public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, the question is not whether the use of force can be justified but whether a particular policy is appropriate. That question is hard to answer when there is a high degree of uncertainty about the threat posed by the disease and the cost of limiting its spread. The Vaping 'Epidemic' Before the new coronavirus came along, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spent a lot of time and effort warning us about a very different kind of "epidemic": an increase in e-cigarette use by teenagers, coupled with an outbreak of vaping-related lung injuries. The first concern did not involve any sort of disease; the latter did, but unlike COVID-19, the condition that the CDC dubbed "e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury" (EVALI) was not contagious. And contrary to the CDC's misleading nomenclature and dangerously misguided initial advice, the two developments appeared to be completely unrelated. Even under a broad understanding of public health, the CDC's conflation of EVALI with vaping in general was counterproductive, impeding the harm-reducing shift from conventional cigarettes to nicotine delivery systems that are far less dangerous. By fostering confusion about the relative hazards of smoking and vaping, the CDC hurt its own credibility on the eve of a public health crisis in which policy makers and the rest of us were expected to rely on its expertise. As Chris Wallace probably would agree, vaping is something people choose to do. In that respect it resembles many other phenomena that politicians, bureaucrats, and academics have described as public health problems, including smoking, drinking, illegal drug use, overeating, physical inactivity, riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet, gambling, playing violent video games, and watching pornography. COVID-19, by contrast, is something that happens to people. There is a strong argument for coercive measures to deal with a potentially deadly disease that moves from person to person. That argument is much less compelling when we are talking about actions that may lead to disease or injury but do not inherently endanger other people. The tendency to describe nearly anything that large numbers of people do as an epidemic when others view it as pernicious elides this crucial distinction. If protecting public health is presumed to be a legitimate function of government, an open-ended definition of that term is a prescription for constant political meddling in personal choices through taxes, regulations, prohibitions, and state-sponsored nagging. Likening choices to contagious diseases invites the government to act as if those choices, and the personal tastes and preferences underlying them, are morally no more important than a microorganism's evolutionary imperative to reproduce by infecting human hosts. Once a particular pattern of behavior has been defined as an epidemic, that framing can lead to policies that make no sense even if you accept the collectivist calculus at the heart of public health as it is currently understood. That is what happened with vaping, which the CDC was predisposed to view as problematic, a prejudice that colored its depiction of EVALI. Even though it was clear early on that vaping-related lung injuries overwhelmingly involved black-market cannabis products, the CDC repeatedly intimated that legal, nicotine-delivering e-cigarettes might kill you. That message endangered public health by falsely implying that people—teenagers as well as adults—would be safer if they smoked. Only belatedly did the CDC recalibrate its guidance to focus on the potential hazards of THC vapes, "particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers." It also foregrounded a warning that "adults using nicotine-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products as an alternative to cigarettes should not go back to smoking"—advice that surely is equally sound for teenagers who vape instead of smoking. Bad Advice and Insufficient Information When the CDC switched gears from vaping to COVID-19, its habit of misleading people, ostensibly for their own good, was still evident. The agency's initial advice about face masks and virus tests gave the public false assurances regarding the danger posed by the epidemic while discounting the lifesaving value of those protective tools. Until early April, the CDC advised most Americans against wearing face masks in public. "If you are sick," the agency originally said on its website, "you should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider's office." But "if you are NOT sick," it added, "you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers." After much criticism, the CDC revised its recommendations, telling people to "cover your mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others." It explained the shift by citing the risk of asymptomatic infection, a phenomenon that scientists had been describing for months. Like the CDC's face mask recommendations, its COVID-19 testing criteria were driven by a shortage—in this case, a government-engineered shortage. At first the agency monopolized testing, and the kits it shipped to state laboratories in early February were defective. The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration initially blocked researchers and businesses from developing or conducting tests, which aggravated a shortage that made it impossible to get a handle on the size and severity of the epidemic in its early stages. Making a false virtue of necessity, the CDC set irrationally narrow criteria for testing, initially restricting it to symptomatic travelers from China and people who had been in close contact with them. As of late April, it was still saying that "not everyone needs to be tested for COVID-19." The truth was that everyone—or at least representative samples—did need to be tested, both for the virus and for the antibodies to it. That was the only way for policy makers to get a clearer sense of how prevalent the virus was, how quickly it was spreading, how lethal it was, and how many people had developed immunity to it. Without wide testing, they could only guess at those vitally important variables, even as they were making policy decisions with potentially devastating economic consequences. While it was giving bad advice about face masks and tests, the CDC was projecting COVID-19 deaths based on a model that counterfactually assumed the absence of voluntary measures such as hand washing, working at home, avoiding crowds, and limiting social interactions. Such worst-case scenarios, which had a strong influence on state and federal policies, presented a false choice between doing nothing and imposing the sort of sweeping restrictions that we began to see across the country in March: orders closing "nonessential" businesses and instructing Americans to remain at home except for "essential" work or life-sustaining errands. Another obvious option was the targeted use of isolation and quarantine, coupled with contact tracing, to protect the public from known or suspected disease carriers. But that approach was foreclosed by the test kit shortage, which made it impossible to do the screening that such a strategy requires. And because meager testing resources left state and local officials ignorant of crucial facts about the epidemic, they made policy decisions without the evidence necessary to assess their proportionality or cost-effectiveness. The Rationale for Coercive Measures The general case for using force in response to outbreaks of contagious illnesses is straightforward. Someone who carries a potentially lethal pathogen, like someone who dumps toxins into the water or air, endangers other people. Government responses to that threat clearly fit within the justification for state action limned by classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill in his 1859 essay On Liberty: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Mill's principle distinguishes between the broad and narrow conceptions of public health as a license for government intervention. It rules out paternalistic policies such as alcohol prohibition (which he opposed) while allowing the exercise of power over individuals (such as disease carriers) who pose a direct threat to others. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that states have broad authority, under their general "police power," to protect the public from communicable diseases. "Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others," the justices observed in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 decision that upheld mandatory smallpox vaccination. But the Court also said public health authority has limits: "An acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons." State quarantine laws, which include safeguards aimed at protecting the rights of alleged carriers, reflect that balance between protecting the public and respecting individual freedom. The quarantine regulations in Washington, the first state to report a COVID-19 outbreak, illustrate the tension between those two goals. Under Washington's regulations, a local health officer can obtain a court order requiring isolation or quarantine by showing there is a "reasonable basis" to believe it is "necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others." Those orders last up to 10 days but can be extended up to a month, based on "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that isolation or quarantine is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others." There are several restrictions on that authority. The health officer must first make "reasonable efforts, which shall be documented, to obtain voluntary compliance" or else determine, "in his or her professional judgment," that "seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm." The rules also specify that "isolation or quarantine must be by the least restrictive means necessary" to prevent the spread of a communicable disease. The health status of individuals subject to orders "must be monitored regularly to determine if they require continued isolation or quarantine," and they "must be released as soon as practicable" when the health officer determines that they no longer pose a threat. Isolated or quarantined individuals have a right to petition for release, with the assistance of court-appointed counsel, in which case the government has to "show cause" for their continued detention. Such due process protections are not merely theoretical. In 2014, Kaci Hickox, a nurse who had treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone, successfully challenged a three-week home detention order issued by Maine's Republican governor. To meet the standard set by Maine's quarantine law, the state had to present "clear and convincing evidence" that Hickox posed a "public health threat" and that a 21-day quarantine was "the least restrictive measure" to deal with it. Charles LaVerdiere, chief judge of the Maine District Courts, ruled that any potential threat posed by Hickox, who had tested negative for the virus, could be adequately addressed by "direct active monitoring" to detect the onset of symptoms should she become ill. Since Hickox "currently does not show any symptoms of Ebola and is therefore not infectious," LaVerdiere said, forcibly confining her to her home was not justified. From Quarantines to Lockdowns Targeted quarantines like the one that Hickox challenged are a far cry from the stay-at-home orders that state and local governments issued in response to COVID-19. Those policies were not based on an allegation that any particular individual or group posed a public health threat, and it's likely that the vast majority of the people affected by the orders were not actually carrying the virus. In early March, a week before local and state governments began imposing COVID-19 lockdowns, Vox asked Lindsay Wiley, a health law professor at American University's Washington College of Law, about the legality of such policies. Wiley said "a mandatory geographic quarantine" would "probably be unconstitutional under most scenarios" but noted that the issue had never been squarely addressed. "The courts would typically require government officials to try voluntary measures first," Wiley explained, "as a way of proving that mandatory measures are actually necessary. Furthermore, any mandated measures would have to be narrowly tailored and backed by evidence….To pass constitutional muster, an order not just urging but requiring all people within a particular area to stay home would have to be justified by strong evidence that it was absolutely necessary and that other, less restrictive measures would be inadequate to slow the spread of disease." Around the same time, Cornell law professor Michael Dorf noted the disjunction between lockdowns and the standards prescribed by quarantine and civil commitment laws. "In normal times, the government may not confine people for the public safety absent 'clear and convincing evidence' that they pose a danger to themselves or others," he wrote in a Verdict essay. "One would hope that during a pandemic the courts would construe that standard on a population basis rather than one by one. Thus, while there may not be clear and convincing evidence that any particular asymptomatic individual poses a threat, there is such evidence for the population as a whole." Even if it were possible to make such a judgment about "the population as a whole," it would require evidence concerning the prevalence of the COVID-19 virus that policy makers did not have when they imposed the lockdowns. Without early and wide testing, politicians had no idea how many Americans were infected, let alone how prevalence varied from one part of the country to another. For the same reason, they did not know how lethal the virus was, a factor that surely should figure in decisions affecting the liberty and livelihoods of so many people. There is historical precedent in the United States for trying to reduce the spread of disease by legally restricting social and economic activity. During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, for example, St. Louis banned public gatherings and closed schools, movie theaters, and pool halls. San Francisco shuttered "all places of public amusement." But the restrictions of that era were not as pervasive or as broad as the measures implemented in response to COVID-19, which confined hundreds of millions of people to their homes except for government-approved purposes. Lockdown supporters thought the experience with the 1918 epidemic reinforced the case for more aggressive and uniform measures. They argued that cities like St. Louis and San Francisco fared better than cities like Philadelphia, which acted later. If more cities had imposed broad restrictions early on, they suggested, the death toll from the pandemic—which ultimately killed some 50 million people worldwide, including about 675,000 in the United States—might have been lower. They may be right about that. But if the effectiveness of those measures remains unclear a century later, what chance did state and local officials have of making wise decisions about COVID-19 in the heat of the moment without knowing how many people were carriers, how many were asymptomatic, how many had developed immunity, or how many could be expected to die from the disease? Uncertainty about those basic facts made it impossible to properly weigh the costs and benefits of the course they chose. Even as it rejected the plea of a man who objected to mandatory smallpox vaccination in Jacobson, the Supreme Court allowed that judicial intervention might be appropriate when regulations go "far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public." But as politicians across the country shut down the economy this spring and ordered people to stay home until further notice, they did not have the information required to make that judgment.

www.reason.com

right

If9eyXazobjslwX8

test

co0CAHsjo55yuPFa

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/keep-your-hypocrisy-stained-hands-off-our-president/

Keep Your Hypocrisy-Stained Hands Off Our President

Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

There is a profound difference between ( i ) the soap-opera charges now being leveled by some opportunistic women against President Donald Trump and leveraged for cheap political gain by the Gillibrand Hypocrites within the Democrat Party and ( ii ) the pants-dropping of The Icon , John Conyers , and the butt-squeezing , tongue-slithering obscenities of Sen. Al Franken ( who now indeed will have to leave the upper chamber , with no Roy Moore to counterbalance ) . Conyers and Franken have lost all legitimacy . By contrast , the American people elected President Trump with full transparent cognition of his public and private portfolio , thereby validating his office . 1 . Personal Character Allegations Were Litigated Fully with Transparency in 2016 , and the Voters Acted as Jury . The difference between the President and Disgraced Franken-Conyers is that the charges against President Trump fully were litigated before the voters during the 2016 Presidential election . We heard the Billy Bush trailer tape . We read the New York Times front-page stories quoting former beauty contestants — some of whom rebutted the allegations and quotes ascribed to them . The voters knew all about it . And , fully apprised , the American people elected Donald Trump to be President . That is how democracy works . Each side sets forth its best case — which , unfortunately , consists mostly of setting forth the other candidate ’ s worst case . There are ads , robocalls , newsmedia exposés and dirt-excavations , and finally debates during which each side gets to throw at the opponent all the dirt , mud , slime , grime , feces , and other schmutz their advisers can get their hands on . Before the debate they shake hands and promise to come out fighting clean . By the end , they not only need to soak their limbs with hand sanitizer but also to drink half a bottle of the stuff . We knew all the filth about Hillary Clinton : her lies , her federal spoliation crimes that still await a fair and proper investigation and prosecution , her two-faced deceitfulness , her role in the Benghazi murders of American heroes and her attempted cover-up , her conniving lying to the bereaved widows and parents of the fallen , her role in approving the transfer of American nuclear material to Vladimir Putin even as her better half got paid $ 500,000 for some reason , her $ 125,000 honoraria for clandestine 15-minute speeches on Wall Street , her utter physical collapse on a Manhattan street on September 11 , the false story of how she was named at birth for Sir Edmund Hillary , the lie that she arrived in Bosnia heroically under gunfire , her episode of screaming for half an hour at the Prime Minister of Israel and deeming Jewish home-building in East Jerusalem to be illegal , her presiding over the fall of the Crimea thanks to her “ reset button , ” her disastrous endorsement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and of other calamitous multi-lateral trade agreements that worked against American workers , her promise to put coal workers out of jobs , her refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline , her giggles remembering the time she helped an admitted child rapist go free , her prior experiences with Whitewater and Cattle Futures and Travelgate and character-assassinating women whom her better half raped or otherwise sexually molested , her calling 63 million good hard-working Americans a “ basketful of deplorables , ” her bleaching her computer hard drive that she had secreted in a bathroom in her home , her playing the race card , her playing the gender card ( “ Deal me in ! ” ) , her playing the ethnicity card , her ignoring Wisconsin , Michigan , and other Rust Belt states while foolishly campaigning to run up the vote in Sunny California where her Harvey Weinstein crowd of Hollywood sycophants pumped her full of bucks after long days on casting couches . That is what a Presidential election or any election is . We saw all the Hillary we could stomach , and we likewise saw the good , the bad , and the ugly of Donald Trump . We heard the Billy Bush tape played so often , night and day , day after day , on the leftist mainstream media that we would have mistaken it for the National Anthem — but for the fact that Colin Kaepernick did not take a knee when it aired . We saw a lifetime of Republican Crowd Debates , and we saw Trump ’ s good side , his ridiculous side , and the side from which we recoiled . We heard and saw Marco Rubio take his best shots at Trump , John Kasich take his best shots , and all the others from Carly Fiorina — what in the world was she ever doing there ? — to Rand Paul to Ted Cruz take their best shots . The election unfolded as it did , and the American people as jury rendered their verdict , choosing Donald Trump to be the 45th President of the United States . 2 . The Hillary Whiners and Democrat Sore Losers Have Rejected the Voters ’ Clear Choice with Blind “ Resistance ” for a Year by Pursuing Cynical Scheme After Cynical Scheme to Sabotage the Duly Elected President . From the day Mr. Trump was elected , the Democrats have concocted one ruse after another to sabotage the democratic will of the American electorate . First they challenged the authenticity of the vote counts . After Trump gained votes during many of the recounts , they shifted course and appealed to members of the Electoral College to violate their sworn oaths and vote for the loser . Then , when the Electors stood by their pledges of honor and elected Donald Trump to be the 45th President of the United States , they challenged the very legitimacy of the Electoral College itself . Then they tried to get celebrities not to perform at the Inauguration . In the alternative , they showed up in their puerile vagina hats , with faux courage saying that they contemplated blowing up the White House . Then they tried to prevent his cabinet choices from being approved . Then they tried blackballing his Supreme Court selection to serve as the next United States Justice . They brazenly emblazoned themselves “ The Resistance. ” They blocked and delayed every Presidential appointment possible . Every time he issued an executive order , they forum-shopped in Hawaii or San Francisco to find a federal judge appointed by Obama or Clinton to block the order , knowing that the injunction would be affirmed by the liberal United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . They went on television , mocking his penchant for tweeting 140 characters to the American people several times daily , as he bypassed their biases and leveraged new technology to articulate his thoughts directly to the public , unfiltered . They said that he spends all day tweeting when he merely was sending out 500-2000 typed characters daily , consuming less time than a fifteen-minute salsa in front of Raul Castro . Then they called him an anti-Semite because of bomb threats anonymously dialed into Jewish Community Centers — as it turned out , phoned in by a mentally ill teen calling from Israel . They never apologized even though he issued warm statements on Jewish holy days , sensitively memorialized the Shoah ( Nazi Holocaust ) , ended eight years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry Hell that saw Israel constantly attacked from a Washington that even allowed Israel to get gang-banged at the United Nations Security Council . They still were calling him an anti-Semite even as he announced finally that the 1995 near-unanimous law of Congress would be implemented , and America formally now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and will move our Israeli embassy there from Tel Aviv . ( Indeed , his daughter is an Orthodox Jew , and several of his grandchildren thus are Jewish — something that many of his leftist Obama-supporting Jewish critics , to their shame , can not say . ) Then the Democrats and left-liberals accused him of colluding with Vladimir Putin to throw the election . These Democrats who never regarded Putin as the problem , who mocked Republican warnings about the Soviets and their Russian successors for half a century , as conservatives pleaded for a stronger American posture amid Putin seizing Crimea and part of Ukraine . In the 2012 Presidential debates , Obama mocked Mitt Romney for deeming Putin a serious foe and obstacle to American values and security . And then suddenly , having run out of anti-Trump obstructions , the Democrats cynically reversed course and elevated Putin to the cause of all woe , the conspirator with Trump . For a full year they have been investigating the Trump White House , spending millions of our tax dollars on a Robert Mueller witch hunt , conducted by the Clinton Deep State All-Stars , a team of partisan Clinton Democrat sponsors and donors , and documented virulent Trump haters . And what has been discovered after a year ? That Paul Manafort conducted private business overseas and bought expensive clothes with his income . That Gen. Michael Flynn spoke with his Russian counterpart to discuss American-Russian national security concerns after the Trump election in the hopes of calming brewing tensions as the Trump succession team prepared to enter elected office . That James Comey leaked FBI documentary information to the New York Times through a professor friend at Columbia Law School , drafted an exonerating letter for Hillary Clinton before even concluding the rigged investigation that spurred her better half to meet on an Arizona airport tarmac for half an hour to discuss with Attorney General Loretta Lynch their common interest in golf , and even allowed a pro-Clinton/Trump-hating partisan to change the wording of the letter to mask Hillary ’ s statutory crime of “ gross negligence ” by altering it to “ extreme carelessness. ” And that a high-up guy in the Justice Department was in cahoots all along with the Fusion GPS Hatchet & Fertilizer Company that prepared the fake Trump dossier , while the guy ’ s wife was working all along in that company ’ s paid employ . And that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the libelous dossier . And that a guy named Podesta , Tony the bro of John , was involved in the sordid mix . That is what Mueller has found so far as his long-running show presumably qualifies for a “ Golden Globe ” nomination and prepares to be picked up for a second season after a summer of reruns . Next they said that Donald Trump is a racist . Somehow , while he had been in public life for half a century before , quite notorious in the public eye , ever the media darling and spectacle , no one ever before had associated him with racism . As he built hotels and casinos , as he hosted a crazy but adorably popular and kitschy reality television show , no one ever whispered “ racist. ” Somehow , no one — no Black leader , no White Democrat liberal , no one in half a century ever saw a racist bone in the loud , brash New Yorker . And it is not because he was admired like Mother Teresa or Father Damien . Everyone always knew about “ The Donald ” and his hubris , his screwy side . But no one , not even Jesse Jackson — who made his “ Rainbow Coalition ” fame and fortune by huckstering for payoffs and shaking down corporate executives with threats that he would boycott them as “ racist ” if they did not cough up moolah — ever called Donald Trump a racist . And then he got elected 45th President of the United States . And suddenly the epithet — racist . The man honors Martin Luther King — and they call him “ racist. ” He goes to civil rights museums , and they call him “ racist. ” He meets in the Oval Office with presidents of Black Colleges , and they call him “ racist. ” If he goes to the Civil Rights museum to honor African American heroes and their struggle for equality and justice , then they will not go . But if he does not go , then they will go and say “ Look at how the racist did not come to the museum. ” For half a century , no one ever accused him of denying people employment or demoting them or underpaying them based on color , ethnicity , creed , or sexual preference . And suddenly the hypocritical likes of Nancy Pelosi , whose Congressional District population is less than ten percent African American , calls him racist . They likewise called him fascist and compared him to Hitler . “ If Trump is elected , we will lose our freedoms and become a fascist Nazi country. ” Did Hitler visit Civil Rights museums and say that all Germans bleed the same red blood ? Did Hitler celebrate Chanukah in the Reichstag and invite rabbis to a telephone conference in advance of Rosh Hashanah to wish all Jewish citizens blessings for a good and healthy New Year ? When President Trump ’ s executive orders on immigration were stifled by liberal Democrat-appointed judges , did he have the judges arrested ? No , he grumbled and tweeted , but he honored the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution . As the Democrats , the “ Resistance , ” have attempted to sabotage his every step , has he had them detained ? No , he has tweeted . He has turned to the American public , exposing the plague of Fake News that permeates everything from the Washington Post ( tweeting half-empty stadiums ? ) to the New York Times ( watching eight hours a day of television ? ) to ABC ( Brian Ross ? ) to MSNBC ( all of it ) to CNN ( employees terminated for Fake News ) . He lives with the Fake News and unjustified smear jobs — Do we really care whether he drinks more Coke than Obama snorted ? — and he responds by appealing to his supporters , honoring the Constitutional process . We know the legislation he has wanted , but when the Republican Senate would not give him the votes , he had to postpone repealing and replacing Obamacare . When his proposed tax bill demanded horse-trading to pass , he traded horses . In every way , he has been the consummate Constitutional President , tested as no one since , yes , Lincoln and Andrew Johnson . They even have the temerity to question his sanity , his mental stability , his fitness under the 25th Amendment to hold high office , claiming that he slurred three words while delivering a teleprompter speech , even though he soon thereafter delivered a masterfully colorful , articulate , and wildly crowd-pleasing 80-minute speech to tens of thousands in Pensacola , Florida a few days later . It is not he but they who slur — him — and the mental examinations that suddenly excite them might first be tested on the likes of their own Maxine Waters to set a base score . 3 . Now the Latest Despicable Outrage : The Cynical Attempt to Equate the President with the Disgraced Conyers and Franken , Hypocritically Led by Kirsten Gillibrand Who Has Built Her Political Base by Enabling Women Sex Abusers . Regard the parasitic Gillibrand Hypocrites who lived luxuriously off the rapacious Clintons until the Clintons had no more to offer them , who abided and chummed with Al Franken and his manifest obscenities until they saw greater value in dumping The Groper for the good of the team . Now these deceitful scoundrels aver that Trump should be challenged based on revived , yet stale , time-barred allegations from the kinds of women who never experienced what Juanita Broaddrick , Paula Jones , Kathleen Willey , or Monica Lewinsky endured at the seat of power . Understand that Kirsten Gillibrand was among the enablers and promoters of the Bill Clinton who sexually abused , physically assaulted , and even raped . We all knew . Everyone knew . Kirsten Gillibrand knew . “ I hope you ’ re as excited as I am that we have President Clinton here in Watertown ! ” she crowed at one campaign rally . The internet is filled with photographs of excited smiling Gillibrand clutching Bill ’ s hands or letting Clinton put his arm around her and laughing with him , exulting that she had spent time with him up-close campaigning alongside him . She knew exactly who he was and what he had done to physically abuse subordinate and defenseless women again and again . No wonder Clinton adviser Philippe Reines wrote about her : “ Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons ’ endorsements , money , and seat . Hypocrite . ” Gillibrand is despicable in her two-faced position on “ defending women. ” Would you call a person who advocates female genital mutilation a “ woman-hating sex abuser ” ? If so , then Kirsten Gillibrand has empowered other women sex abusers . Consider : Linda Sarsour , a prominent hater on the Left , posted this about two Muslim women who publicly have decried radical Islamic extremists : “ Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali . She ’ s asking 4 an a $ $ whippin ’ . I wish I could take their vaginas away — they don ’ t deserve to be women. ” Yet this vicious hater and female misogynist — imagine if Trump had said to Billy Bush “ I wish I could take their vaginas away ” — has been praised repeatedly by Gillibrand . On at least one occasion , Kirsten Gillibrand called this vicious woman sex-abuser “ [ one of the ] suffragists of our time. ” Gillibrand further beamed that “ it was an honor to write about ” Sarsour , praising her in a Time magazine cover story . An avalanche of angry attacks against Gillibrand followed on social media , and even the New York Times published an op-ed educating the public about the hate-filled Sarsour while noting in shock how Gillibrand had gushed over this female misogynist with admiration . This latest Trump-bullying scheme will fail as have all the others . The effort to equate President Trump ’ s legitimacy with the disgrace of Conyers or Franken fails facially . One difference is that Al Franken went to the electorate with his groping background hidden from the voters , his hands in his pockets or stuffing ballots , and his tongue in his own mouth . John Conyers presented himself to the voters while wearing pants . Truly — truly — let Franken now go to the voters , and if they elect him to the Senate now , then touché ! Let Conyers present himself for an Election Day validation , and if validated — good for him ! Charley Rangel did it after being zonked by the House Ethics Committee , and he prevailed . Because that is how America works . It is a democracy , and the voters decide . The people speak and render their verdict as jury . As of now , the people of Minnesota never have been asked whether they would elect to the Senate the Lingua Franken that we now all know . The Detroit voters never have been asked whether they would choose a Congressman who contracts his breeches . By contrast , the American people indeed were presented with the clear understanding of who Donald Trump is , what his background is , where he failed in the past . They knew about and debated the corporate bankruptcies . They knew about Billy Bush in the trailer . And the people of the United States freely decided . He was elected with full transparency by a body-slamming 306-232 electoral college runaway . The issues were litigated fully , the jury returned with a resounding verdict for Trump . That case is closed , free of double jeopardy . Let the message be clear to the Gillibrand Hypocrites who enable sex offenders and gush over sex abusers , and to the Groping Democrat Phonies who have lived off the Harvey Weinsteins , Al Frankens , and iconic John Conyerses for all too long : Keep your hypocrisy-stained hands off our President .

There is a profound difference between (i) the soap-opera charges now being leveled by some opportunistic women against President Donald Trump and leveraged for cheap political gain by the Gillibrand Hypocrites within the Democrat Party and (ii) the pants-dropping of The Icon, John Conyers, and the butt-squeezing, tongue-slithering obscenities of Sen. Al Franken (who now indeed will have to leave the upper chamber, with no Roy Moore to counterbalance). Conyers and Franken have lost all legitimacy. By contrast, the American people elected President Trump with full transparent cognition of his public and private portfolio, thereby validating his office. 1. Personal Character Allegations Were Litigated Fully with Transparency in 2016, and the Voters Acted as Jury. The difference between the President and Disgraced Franken-Conyers is that the charges against President Trump fully were litigated before the voters during the 2016 Presidential election. We heard the Billy Bush trailer tape. We read the New York Times front-page stories quoting former beauty contestants — some of whom rebutted the allegations and quotes ascribed to them. The voters knew all about it. And, fully apprised, the American people elected Donald Trump to be President. That is how democracy works. Each side sets forth its best case — which, unfortunately, consists mostly of setting forth the other candidate’s worst case. There are ads, robocalls, newsmedia exposés and dirt-excavations, and finally debates during which each side gets to throw at the opponent all the dirt, mud, slime, grime, feces, and other schmutz their advisers can get their hands on. Before the debate they shake hands and promise to come out fighting clean. By the end, they not only need to soak their limbs with hand sanitizer but also to drink half a bottle of the stuff. We knew all the filth about Hillary Clinton: her lies, her federal spoliation crimes that still await a fair and proper investigation and prosecution, her two-faced deceitfulness, her role in the Benghazi murders of American heroes and her attempted cover-up, her conniving lying to the bereaved widows and parents of the fallen, her role in approving the transfer of American nuclear material to Vladimir Putin even as her better half got paid $500,000 for some reason, her $125,000 honoraria for clandestine 15-minute speeches on Wall Street, her utter physical collapse on a Manhattan street on September 11, the false story of how she was named at birth for Sir Edmund Hillary, the lie that she arrived in Bosnia heroically under gunfire, her episode of screaming for half an hour at the Prime Minister of Israel and deeming Jewish home-building in East Jerusalem to be illegal, her presiding over the fall of the Crimea thanks to her “reset button,” her disastrous endorsement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and of other calamitous multi-lateral trade agreements that worked against American workers, her promise to put coal workers out of jobs, her refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline, her giggles remembering the time she helped an admitted child rapist go free, her prior experiences with Whitewater and Cattle Futures and Travelgate and character-assassinating women whom her better half raped or otherwise sexually molested, her calling 63 million good hard-working Americans a “basketful of deplorables,” her bleaching her computer hard drive that she had secreted in a bathroom in her home, her playing the race card, her playing the gender card (“Deal me in!”), her playing the ethnicity card, her ignoring Wisconsin, Michigan, and other Rust Belt states while foolishly campaigning to run up the vote in Sunny California where her Harvey Weinstein crowd of Hollywood sycophants pumped her full of bucks after long days on casting couches. That is what a Presidential election or any election is. We saw all the Hillary we could stomach, and we likewise saw the good, the bad, and the ugly of Donald Trump. We heard the Billy Bush tape played so often, night and day, day after day, on the leftist mainstream media that we would have mistaken it for the National Anthem — but for the fact that Colin Kaepernick did not take a knee when it aired. We saw a lifetime of Republican Crowd Debates, and we saw Trump’s good side, his ridiculous side, and the side from which we recoiled. We heard and saw Marco Rubio take his best shots at Trump, John Kasich take his best shots, and all the others from Carly Fiorina — what in the world was she ever doing there? — to Rand Paul to Ted Cruz take their best shots. The election unfolded as it did, and the American people as jury rendered their verdict, choosing Donald Trump to be the 45th President of the United States. 2. The Hillary Whiners and Democrat Sore Losers Have Rejected the Voters’ Clear Choice with Blind “Resistance” for a Year by Pursuing Cynical Scheme After Cynical Scheme to Sabotage the Duly Elected President. From the day Mr. Trump was elected, the Democrats have concocted one ruse after another to sabotage the democratic will of the American electorate. First they challenged the authenticity of the vote counts. After Trump gained votes during many of the recounts, they shifted course and appealed to members of the Electoral College to violate their sworn oaths and vote for the loser. Then, when the Electors stood by their pledges of honor and elected Donald Trump to be the 45th President of the United States, they challenged the very legitimacy of the Electoral College itself. Then they tried to get celebrities not to perform at the Inauguration. In the alternative, they showed up in their puerile vagina hats, with faux courage saying that they contemplated blowing up the White House. Then they tried to prevent his cabinet choices from being approved. Then they tried blackballing his Supreme Court selection to serve as the next United States Justice. They brazenly emblazoned themselves “The Resistance.” They blocked and delayed every Presidential appointment possible. Every time he issued an executive order, they forum-shopped in Hawaii or San Francisco to find a federal judge appointed by Obama or Clinton to block the order, knowing that the injunction would be affirmed by the liberal United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. They went on television, mocking his penchant for tweeting 140 characters to the American people several times daily, as he bypassed their biases and leveraged new technology to articulate his thoughts directly to the public, unfiltered. They said that he spends all day tweeting when he merely was sending out 500-2000 typed characters daily, consuming less time than a fifteen-minute salsa in front of Raul Castro. Then they called him an anti-Semite because of bomb threats anonymously dialed into Jewish Community Centers — as it turned out, phoned in by a mentally ill teen calling from Israel. They never apologized even though he issued warm statements on Jewish holy days, sensitively memorialized the Shoah (Nazi Holocaust), ended eight years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry Hell that saw Israel constantly attacked from a Washington that even allowed Israel to get gang-banged at the United Nations Security Council. They still were calling him an anti-Semite even as he announced finally that the 1995 near-unanimous law of Congress would be implemented, and America formally now recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and will move our Israeli embassy there from Tel Aviv. (Indeed, his daughter is an Orthodox Jew, and several of his grandchildren thus are Jewish — something that many of his leftist Obama-supporting Jewish critics, to their shame, cannot say.) Then the Democrats and left-liberals accused him of colluding with Vladimir Putin to throw the election. These Democrats who never regarded Putin as the problem, who mocked Republican warnings about the Soviets and their Russian successors for half a century, as conservatives pleaded for a stronger American posture amid Putin seizing Crimea and part of Ukraine. In the 2012 Presidential debates, Obama mocked Mitt Romney for deeming Putin a serious foe and obstacle to American values and security. And then suddenly, having run out of anti-Trump obstructions, the Democrats cynically reversed course and elevated Putin to the cause of all woe, the conspirator with Trump. For a full year they have been investigating the Trump White House, spending millions of our tax dollars on a Robert Mueller witch hunt, conducted by the Clinton Deep State All-Stars, a team of partisan Clinton Democrat sponsors and donors, and documented virulent Trump haters. And what has been discovered after a year? That Paul Manafort conducted private business overseas and bought expensive clothes with his income. That Gen. Michael Flynn spoke with his Russian counterpart to discuss American-Russian national security concerns after the Trump election in the hopes of calming brewing tensions as the Trump succession team prepared to enter elected office. That James Comey leaked FBI documentary information to the New York Times through a professor friend at Columbia Law School, drafted an exonerating letter for Hillary Clinton before even concluding the rigged investigation that spurred her better half to meet on an Arizona airport tarmac for half an hour to discuss with Attorney General Loretta Lynch their common interest in golf, and even allowed a pro-Clinton/Trump-hating partisan to change the wording of the letter to mask Hillary’s statutory crime of “gross negligence” by altering it to “extreme carelessness.” And that a high-up guy in the Justice Department was in cahoots all along with the Fusion GPS Hatchet & Fertilizer Company that prepared the fake Trump dossier, while the guy’s wife was working all along in that company’s paid employ. And that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the libelous dossier. And that a guy named Podesta, Tony the bro of John, was involved in the sordid mix. That is what Mueller has found so far as his long-running show presumably qualifies for a “Golden Globe” nomination and prepares to be picked up for a second season after a summer of reruns. Next they said that Donald Trump is a racist. Somehow, while he had been in public life for half a century before, quite notorious in the public eye, ever the media darling and spectacle, no one ever before had associated him with racism. As he built hotels and casinos, as he hosted a crazy but adorably popular and kitschy reality television show, no one ever whispered “racist.” Somehow, no one — no Black leader, no White Democrat liberal, no one in half a century ever saw a racist bone in the loud, brash New Yorker. And it is not because he was admired like Mother Teresa or Father Damien. Everyone always knew about “The Donald” and his hubris, his screwy side. But no one, not even Jesse Jackson — who made his “Rainbow Coalition” fame and fortune by huckstering for payoffs and shaking down corporate executives with threats that he would boycott them as “racist” if they did not cough up moolah — ever called Donald Trump a racist. And then he got elected 45th President of the United States. And suddenly the epithet — racist. The man honors Martin Luther King — and they call him “racist.” He goes to civil rights museums, and they call him “racist.” He meets in the Oval Office with presidents of Black Colleges, and they call him “racist.” If he goes to the Civil Rights museum to honor African American heroes and their struggle for equality and justice, then they will not go. But if he does not go, then they will go and say “Look at how the racist did not come to the museum.” For half a century, no one ever accused him of denying people employment or demoting them or underpaying them based on color, ethnicity, creed, or sexual preference. And suddenly the hypocritical likes of Nancy Pelosi, whose Congressional District population is less than ten percent African American, calls him racist. They likewise called him fascist and compared him to Hitler. “If Trump is elected, we will lose our freedoms and become a fascist Nazi country.” Did Hitler visit Civil Rights museums and say that all Germans bleed the same red blood? Did Hitler celebrate Chanukah in the Reichstag and invite rabbis to a telephone conference in advance of Rosh Hashanah to wish all Jewish citizens blessings for a good and healthy New Year? When President Trump’s executive orders on immigration were stifled by liberal Democrat-appointed judges, did he have the judges arrested? No, he grumbled and tweeted, but he honored the rule of law as laid out in the Constitution. As the Democrats, the “Resistance,” have attempted to sabotage his every step, has he had them detained? No, he has tweeted. He has turned to the American public, exposing the plague of Fake News that permeates everything from the Washington Post (tweeting half-empty stadiums?) to the New York Times (watching eight hours a day of television?) to ABC (Brian Ross?) to MSNBC (all of it) to CNN (employees terminated for Fake News). He lives with the Fake News and unjustified smear jobs — Do we really care whether he drinks more Coke than Obama snorted? — and he responds by appealing to his supporters, honoring the Constitutional process. We know the legislation he has wanted, but when the Republican Senate would not give him the votes, he had to postpone repealing and replacing Obamacare. When his proposed tax bill demanded horse-trading to pass, he traded horses. In every way, he has been the consummate Constitutional President, tested as no one since, yes, Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. They even have the temerity to question his sanity, his mental stability, his fitness under the 25th Amendment to hold high office, claiming that he slurred three words while delivering a teleprompter speech, even though he soon thereafter delivered a masterfully colorful, articulate, and wildly crowd-pleasing 80-minute speech to tens of thousands in Pensacola, Florida a few days later. It is not he but they who slur — him — and the mental examinations that suddenly excite them might first be tested on the likes of their own Maxine Waters to set a base score. 3. Now the Latest Despicable Outrage: The Cynical Attempt to Equate the President with the Disgraced Conyers and Franken, Hypocritically Led by Kirsten Gillibrand Who Has Built Her Political Base by Enabling Women Sex Abusers. Regard the parasitic Gillibrand Hypocrites who lived luxuriously off the rapacious Clintons until the Clintons had no more to offer them, who abided and chummed with Al Franken and his manifest obscenities until they saw greater value in dumping The Groper for the good of the team. Now these deceitful scoundrels aver that Trump should be challenged based on revived, yet stale, time-barred allegations from the kinds of women who never experienced what Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, or Monica Lewinsky endured at the seat of power. Understand that Kirsten Gillibrand was among the enablers and promoters of the Bill Clinton who sexually abused, physically assaulted, and even raped. We all knew. Everyone knew. Kirsten Gillibrand knew. “I hope you’re as excited as I am that we have President Clinton here in Watertown!” she crowed at one campaign rally. The internet is filled with photographs of excited smiling Gillibrand clutching Bill’s hands or letting Clinton put his arm around her and laughing with him, exulting that she had spent time with him up-close campaigning alongside him. She knew exactly who he was and what he had done to physically abuse subordinate and defenseless women again and again. No wonder Clinton adviser Philippe Reines wrote about her: “Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite.” Gillibrand is despicable in her two-faced position on “defending women.” Would you call a person who advocates female genital mutilation a “woman-hating sex abuser”? If so, then Kirsten Gillibrand has empowered other women sex abusers. Consider: Linda Sarsour, a prominent hater on the Left, posted this about two Muslim women who publicly have decried radical Islamic extremists: “Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away — they don’t deserve to be women.” Yet this vicious hater and female misogynist — imagine if Trump had said to Billy Bush “I wish I could take their vaginas away” — has been praised repeatedly by Gillibrand. On at least one occasion, Kirsten Gillibrand called this vicious woman sex-abuser “[one of the] suffragists of our time.” Gillibrand further beamed that “it was an honor to write about” Sarsour, praising her in a Time magazine cover story. An avalanche of angry attacks against Gillibrand followed on social media, and even the New York Times published an op-ed educating the public about the hate-filled Sarsour while noting in shock how Gillibrand had gushed over this female misogynist with admiration. This latest Trump-bullying scheme will fail as have all the others. The effort to equate President Trump’s legitimacy with the disgrace of Conyers or Franken fails facially. One difference is that Al Franken went to the electorate with his groping background hidden from the voters, his hands in his pockets or stuffing ballots, and his tongue in his own mouth. John Conyers presented himself to the voters while wearing pants. Truly — truly — let Franken now go to the voters, and if they elect him to the Senate now, then touché! Let Conyers present himself for an Election Day validation, and if validated — good for him! Charley Rangel did it after being zonked by the House Ethics Committee, and he prevailed. Because that is how America works. It is a democracy, and the voters decide. The people speak and render their verdict as jury. As of now, the people of Minnesota never have been asked whether they would elect to the Senate the Lingua Franken that we now all know. The Detroit voters never have been asked whether they would choose a Congressman who contracts his breeches. By contrast, the American people indeed were presented with the clear understanding of who Donald Trump is, what his background is, where he failed in the past. They knew about and debated the corporate bankruptcies. They knew about Billy Bush in the trailer. And the people of the United States freely decided. He was elected with full transparency by a body-slamming 306-232 electoral college runaway. The issues were litigated fully, the jury returned with a resounding verdict for Trump. That case is closed, free of double jeopardy. Let the message be clear to the Gillibrand Hypocrites who enable sex offenders and gush over sex abusers, and to the Groping Democrat Phonies who have lived off the Harvey Weinsteins, Al Frankens, and iconic John Conyerses for all too long: Keep your hypocrisy-stained hands off our President.

www.spectator.org

right

co0CAHsjo55yuPFa

test

c7gndJVqqfOOtWPF

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/24/gov-jan-brewer-to-cnn-i-will-do-the-right-thing-for-the-state-of-arizona/?hpt=po_t1

Gov. Jan Brewer to CNN: 'I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona'

2014-02-24

Washington ( CNN ) – Arizona Gov . Jan Brewer tells CNN she will make her decision in the “ near future ” about whether to sign or veto a bill that supporters say promotes religious freedom and opponents call discriminatory against gays and lesbians . “ I can assure you , as always , I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona , ” Brewer told CNN in an exclusive interview at the site of the National Governors Association meeting in Washington . Brewer plans to return to Arizona Tuesday , and a source tells CNN those familiar with her thinking say she will likely spend at least one full business day in the state before acting . She has until Saturday morning to sign or veto the bill . If she does nothing , the bill automatically becomes law . The measure would allow Arizona business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers as long as they assert their religious beliefs . “ I 'm going to go home , and when I receive the bill , I 'm going to read it and I 'm going to be briefed on it . We have been following it . And I will make my decision in the near future , ” Brewer told CNN . Although she was cautious in her public comments , some Arizona Republicans who know her well say they are confident that when she says she will `` do the right thing , '' that almost surely means vetoing the bill . Arizona GOP sources say Brewer considers herself a pro-business governor - someone who above all else wants to protect and promote Arizona ’ s economic interests - and she knows full well there will be economic retribution against the state if it has a law on the books perceived to effectively codify discrimination . “ I have a history of deliberating and having an open dialogue on bills that are controversial , to listen to both sides of those issues , and I welcome the input , and information that they can provide to me . And certainly I am pro-business , and that is what 's turning our economy around , so I appreciate their input , as I appreciate the other side , ” Brewer said . Business leaders in Arizona and around the country , including American Airlines ’ CEO , have urged Brewer publicly and privately to veto the bill . The measure is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy , a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage . The group argues the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts . Brewer vetoed a similar bill last year , arguing that the state legislature should focus on more pressing issues , such as a Medicaid expansion plan she was promoting . Sources say she is concerned about this bill taking away from other issues she is now pressing , such as overhauling Arizona ’ s child protective services system .

6 years ago Washington (CNN)– Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer tells CNN she will make her decision in the “near future” about whether to sign or veto a bill that supporters say promotes religious freedom and opponents call discriminatory against gays and lesbians. “I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona,” Brewer told CNN in an exclusive interview at the site of the National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @DanaBashCNN Brewer plans to return to Arizona Tuesday, and a source tells CNN those familiar with her thinking say she will likely spend at least one full business day in the state before acting. She has until Saturday morning to sign or veto the bill. If she does nothing, the bill automatically becomes law. The measure would allow Arizona business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers as long as they assert their religious beliefs. “I'm going to go home, and when I receive the bill, I'm going to read it and I'm going to be briefed on it. We have been following it. And I will make my decision in the near future,” Brewer told CNN. Although she was cautious in her public comments, some Arizona Republicans who know her well say they are confident that when she says she will "do the right thing," that almost surely means vetoing the bill. Arizona GOP sources say Brewer considers herself a pro-business governor - someone who above all else wants to protect and promote Arizona’s economic interests - and she knows full well there will be economic retribution against the state if it has a law on the books perceived to effectively codify discrimination. “I have a history of deliberating and having an open dialogue on bills that are controversial, to listen to both sides of those issues, and I welcome the input, and information that they can provide to me. And certainly I am pro-business, and that is what's turning our economy around, so I appreciate their input, as I appreciate the other side,” Brewer said. Business leaders in Arizona and around the country, including American Airlines’ CEO, have urged Brewer publicly and privately to veto the bill. The measure is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group argues the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts. Brewer vetoed a similar bill last year, arguing that the state legislature should focus on more pressing issues, such as a Medicaid expansion plan she was promoting. Sources say she is concerned about this bill taking away from other issues she is now pressing, such as overhauling Arizona’s child protective services system.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

c7gndJVqqfOOtWPF

test

1IB9cBrfpbQlCKXD

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/franklin-graham-robert-gates-boy-scouts-gay/2015/05/22/id/646387/

Franklin Graham: Gates' Call to End Gay Adult Ban Puts Scouts 'at Risk'

2015-05-22

Sean Piccoli

Robert Gates , shame on you for not having the moral courage to do what is right . Yesterday Gates , the president of Boy ... Posted by Franklin Graham on Friday , May 22 , 2015 The Rev . Franklin Graham , the prominent evangelist , denounced Boy Scouts of America President Robert Gates on Friday and accused him of putting children at risk with his call for an end to the organization 's ban on openly gay scoutmasters . `` Robert Gates , shame on you for not having the moral courage to do what is right , '' Graham wrote in a Friday post on Facebook that had received more than 40,000 `` likes , '' 11,000 comments and had been shared by more than 10,000 people as of Friday evening.Graham , son and successor of famed televangelist Billy Graham , was reacting to remarks by Gates on Thursday at the scouts ' annual meeting in Atlanta.The former secretary of defense , now the scouts ' top official , called the ban unsustainable — reversing an earlier promise to steer clear of the issue . `` We must deal with the world as it is , not as we might wish it to be . The status quo in our movement 's membership standards can not be sustained , '' he said on Thursday.Gates said he did not plan to revoke the membership charters of any local troops known to have gay adults in supervisory roles , an apparent reference to a New York chapter hiring an openly gay scoutmaster this spring . `` What are you thinking ? '' Graham wrote in response to Gates . `` We should n't shift as the winds of cultural change blow through society ; we need to stand for God 's truth and things that are morally right . `` This move is bending to LGBT activist groups and would put young , innocent boys at risk , '' wrote the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan 's Purse , an international Christian charity . `` I encourage every former Boy Scout and every parent involved in the Boy Scouts to let Robert Gates know how displeased you are and that if he leads the organization down this road , they may lose your support , your participation — and your sons , '' he wrote.Gates said he was not asking the organization 's board to make an immediate policy change at the annual meeting . `` But I must speak as plainly and bluntly to you as I spoke to presidents when I was director of CIA and secretary of defense , '' he said.At the Pentagon , Gates oversaw the repeal , beginning in 2011 , of `` Do n't Ask , Do n't Tell , '' the Clinton-era compromise policy that has now given way to openly gay service members in the U.S. armed forces.Gates was elected to a two-year term as the Boy Scouts ' president in 2014 , after the organization voted in 2013 to allow openly gay scouts.He said at the outset that his preference was to also allow gay scoutmasters , but that he would not broach the issue during his term for fear of causing a `` formal , permanent split '' in the organization , Think Progress reported at the time.In the same address at last year 's annual meeting in Nashville , Gates said recruitment had declined in part because of negative publicity surrounding the ban.Prominent companies including aerospace giant Lockheed Martin and Walt Disney have ended longstanding partnerships with the scouts in protest of the ban.Advocates for gay scouts cheered Gates ' remarks while others with ties to the organization were ambivalent , the Los Angeles Times reports . `` It 's one of those things I was hoping I would n't have to think about for years to come , '' said David Barton , an Orange County , California , cubmaster and father of two boys in scouting , told the Times.Barton told the Times that it `` would be silly to think that a higher percentage of gay men want to do harm to boys than straight men , '' but that he still has concerns about gay scout leaders accompanying boys on camping trips .

Robert Gates, shame on you for not having the moral courage to do what is right. Yesterday Gates, the president of Boy... Posted by Franklin Graham on Friday, May 22, 2015 The Rev. Franklin Graham, the prominent evangelist, denounced Boy Scouts of America President Robert Gates on Friday and accused him of putting children at risk with his call for an end to the organization's ban on openly gay scoutmasters."Robert Gates, shame on you for not having the moral courage to do what is right," Graham wrote in a Friday post on Facebook that had received more than 40,000 "likes," 11,000 comments and had been shared by more than 10,000 people as of Friday evening.Graham, son and successor of famed televangelist Billy Graham, was reacting to remarks by Gates on Thursday at the scouts' annual meeting in Atlanta.The former secretary of defense, now the scouts' top official, called the ban unsustainable — reversing an earlier promise to steer clear of the issue."We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. The status quo in our movement's membership standards cannot be sustained," he said on Thursday.Gates said he did not plan to revoke the membership charters of any local troops known to have gay adults in supervisory roles, an apparent reference to a New York chapter hiring an openly gay scoutmaster this spring."What are you thinking?" Graham wrote in response to Gates. "We shouldn't shift as the winds of cultural change blow through society; we need to stand for God's truth and things that are morally right."This move is bending to LGBT activist groups and would put young, innocent boys at risk," wrote the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse, an international Christian charity."I encourage every former Boy Scout and every parent involved in the Boy Scouts to let Robert Gates know how displeased you are and that if he leads the organization down this road, they may lose your support, your participation — and your sons," he wrote.Gates said he was not asking the organization's board to make an immediate policy change at the annual meeting."But I must speak as plainly and bluntly to you as I spoke to presidents when I was director of CIA and secretary of defense," he said.At the Pentagon, Gates oversaw the repeal, beginning in 2011, of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Clinton-era compromise policy that has now given way to openly gay service members in the U.S. armed forces.Gates was elected to a two-year term as the Boy Scouts' president in 2014, after the organization voted in 2013 to allow openly gay scouts.He said at the outset that his preference was to also allow gay scoutmasters, but that he would not broach the issue during his term for fear of causing a "formal, permanent split" in the organization, Think Progress reported at the time.In the same address at last year's annual meeting in Nashville, Gates said recruitment had declined in part because of negative publicity surrounding the ban.Prominent companies including aerospace giant Lockheed Martin and Walt Disney have ended longstanding partnerships with the scouts in protest of the ban.Advocates for gay scouts cheered Gates' remarks while others with ties to the organization were ambivalent, the Los Angeles Times reports."It's one of those things I was hoping I wouldn't have to think about for years to come," said David Barton, an Orange County, California, cubmaster and father of two boys in scouting, told the Times.Barton told the Times that it "would be silly to think that a higher percentage of gay men want to do harm to boys than straight men," but that he still has concerns about gay scout leaders accompanying boys on camping trips.

www.newsmax.com

right

1IB9cBrfpbQlCKXD

test

FkO3E7BvC9kX4n4d

labor

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/02/twitter-suspends-candace-owens-for-telling-michigan-to-go-to-work/

Twitter Suspends Candace Owens for Telling Michigan to ‘Go to Work’

2020-05-02

Alana Mastrangelo

Conservative firebrand and BLEXIT founder Candace Owens was suspended from Twitter on Saturday after tweeting that people in Michigan should open their businesses and “ go to work ” despite the draconian measures implemented by Governor Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) in response to the Chinese virus . “ Apparently [ Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer ] believes she is a duly elected dictator of a socialist country , ” Owens had tweeted . “ The people of Michigan need to stand up to her . Open your businesses . Go to work . ” “ The police think she ’ s crazy too , ” she added . “ They are not going to arrest 10,000,000 people for going to work . ” On Saturday , Owens received a notification from Twitter informing her that her account was suspended over the aforementioned tweet . “ We determined this Tweet violated the Twitter Rules , specifically for : ” read the notification , but did not further clarify which specific rules Owens had violated on the social media platform . Lockdown measures established roughly one month ago in response to the Wuhan coronavirus have already upended businesses across the country , and have plunged millions of Americans into unemployment and financial devastation . Owens told ███ that her options were to either go through a series of admitting that her tweet was in violation of the platform ’ s Terms of Service [ TOS ] , or appeal her suspension . Owens has chosen to appeal the suspension . “ I refuse to admit to a violation , because none were committed , ” Owens told ███ . “ Hence the reason they did not list a rule that was violated . ” “ I unequivocally stand by every single word of my tweet , ” Owens continued . “ If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can use Twitter ’ s platform to encourage workers to walk out and boycott — I should be allowed to encourage lawful citizens to resume work . ” “ The only person breaking any laws is Governor turned Dictator Gretchen Whitmer who is impoverishing millions , ignoring the votes of her state legislature , and as a result , rolling over the constitutionally protected rights of Michigan citizens , ” she added . “ Twitter was unable or unwilling to provide me with any specific rule that I violated , which is why I have appealed their decision , ” said Owens . “ While I am not an expert on twitter TOS , I can not see how suggesting people ought to work would be a violation of anything other than socialist reverie . ” Twitter did not immediately respond to ███ ’ request for comment . You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ ARmastrangelo , and on Instagram .

Conservative firebrand and BLEXIT founder Candace Owens was suspended from Twitter on Saturday after tweeting that people in Michigan should open their businesses and “go to work” despite the draconian measures implemented by Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) in response to the Chinese virus. “Apparently [Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer] believes she is a duly elected dictator of a socialist country,” Owens had tweeted. “The people of Michigan need to stand up to her. Open your businesses. Go to work.” “The police think she’s crazy too,” she added. “They are not going to arrest 10,000,000 people for going to work.” On Saturday, Owens received a notification from Twitter informing her that her account was suspended over the aforementioned tweet. “We determined this Tweet violated the Twitter Rules, specifically for:” read the notification, but did not further clarify which specific rules Owens had violated on the social media platform. Lockdown measures established roughly one month ago in response to the Wuhan coronavirus have already upended businesses across the country, and have plunged millions of Americans into unemployment and financial devastation. Owens told Breitbart News that her options were to either go through a series of admitting that her tweet was in violation of the platform’s Terms of Service [TOS], or appeal her suspension. Owens has chosen to appeal the suspension. “I refuse to admit to a violation, because none were committed,” Owens told Breitbart News. “Hence the reason they did not list a rule that was violated.” “I unequivocally stand by every single word of my tweet,” Owens continued. “If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can use Twitter’s platform to encourage workers to walk out and boycott — I should be allowed to encourage lawful citizens to resume work.” “The only person breaking any laws is Governor turned Dictator Gretchen Whitmer who is impoverishing millions, ignoring the votes of her state legislature, and as a result, rolling over the constitutionally protected rights of Michigan citizens,” she added. “Twitter was unable or unwilling to provide me with any specific rule that I violated, which is why I have appealed their decision,” said Owens. “While I am not an expert on twitter TOS, I cannot see how suggesting people ought to work would be a violation of anything other than socialist reverie.” Twitter did not immediately respond to Breitbart News’ request for comment. You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.

www.breitbart.com

right

FkO3E7BvC9kX4n4d

test

SPtGjFx3i63iu0Pf

justice_department

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-watchdog-finds-comey-defied-authority-fbi-director/story?id=55670834

DOJ watchdog finds James Comey defied authority as FBI director, sources say

The Justice Department 's internal watchdog has concluded that James Comey defied authority at times during his tenure as FBI director , according to sources familiar with a draft report on the matter . Interested in James Comey ? Add James Comey as an interest to stay up to date on the latest James Comey news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest One source told ███ that the draft report explicitly used the word `` insubordinate '' to describe Comey 's behavior . Another source agreed with that characterization but could not confirm the use of the term . In the draft report , Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton 's personal email server , the sources said . On Tuesday morning , President Donald Trump complained of `` numerous delays '' in the release of Horowitz 's final report , which is expected to run several hundred pages long and be released in the coming days . The sources who spoke to ███ were willing or able to address only a portion of the draft report 's complete findings . `` What is taking so long with the Inspector General 's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery James Comey , '' Trump said on Twitter . `` Hope report is not being changed and made weaker ! '' There is no indication the president has seen – or will see – a draft of the report before its release . Horowitz , however , could revise the draft report now that current and former officials mentioned in it have offered their responses to the inspector general 's conclusions , according to the sources . Almost from the start , the long-awaited report was expected to chastise Comey for his handling of the Clinton-related probe . But in apparently describing Comey 's defiance of authority , the draft report was criticizing a man who prided himself on his leadership style at the FBI and has since dedicated his post-government life to promoting a new generation of effective leaders . The draft of Horowitz 's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe , according to sources . Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign . Before Comey sent the letter to Congress , at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy , and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation , ███ was told . In an interview in April , ███ Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Comey : `` If Attorney General Lynch had ordered you not to send the letter , would you have sent it ? '' `` No , '' Comey responded . `` I believe in the chain of command . '' But in backing Trump 's ultimate decision to fire Comey last year , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein slammed Comey 's letter to Congress and said it `` was wrong '' for Comey `` to usurp the Attorney General 's authority '' when he announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not be filing charges against Clinton or her aides . `` It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement , '' Rosenstein said in a letter to Trump recommending Comey be fired . `` At most , the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors . '' Horowitz 's draft report cited Comey for failing to consult with Lynch and other senior Justice Department officials before making his announcement on national TV . While saying there was no `` clear evidence '' that Clinton `` intended to violate '' the law , Comey insisted the former secretary of state was `` extremely careless '' in her `` handling of very sensitive , highly classified information . '' `` I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government . They do not know what I am about to say , '' Comey said before cameras on July 5 , 2016 . By then , Lynch had taken the unusual step of publicly declaring she would accept the FBI 's recommendations in the case , after an impromptu meeting with former president Bill Clinton sparked questions about her impartiality . Comey has defended his decisions as director , insisting he was trying to protect the FBI from even further criticism and `` did n't see that I had a choice . '' `` The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things , but ... I think given what I knew at the time , these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the institutions , '' Comey told ███ . `` I still think it was the right thing to do . '' More than a year ago , as lawmakers increasingly voiced concern over how the FBI and Justice Department handled matters surrounding the 2016 election , the inspector general 's office announced that it had launched an investigation into an array of allegations , including an allegation `` that Department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed in connection with , or in actions leading up to or related to , the FBI Director 's public announcement on July 5 , 2016 . '' A week before the announcement , while the investigation into Hillary Clinton was still underway , a political firestorm erupted in Washington after Lynch happened to run into Bill Clinton in Arizona and briefly met with him inside a plane sitting on a tarmac there . Days later , with questions swirling over whether Bill Clinton tried to improperly influence the investigation into his wife , Lynch haphazardly announced that she would not recuse herself from the matter but would `` fully expect to accept '' whatever recommendation the FBI made . Comey later called it a `` tortured half-out , half-in approach . '' And after such a `` strange '' announcement , `` I decided I have to step away from her and show the American people the FBI 's work separately , '' Comey told ███ . The inspector general 's office seemed to similarly view Lynch 's announcement as strange , with the draft report criticizing her for how she handled the impromptu tarmac meeting and its aftermath , according to sources familiar with the findings . In April , when Comey was promoting his new book `` A Higher Loyalty , '' Lynch issued a statement saying that during the Clinton email investigation she `` trusted '' the `` non-partisan career prosecutors '' handling the case `` to assess the facts and make a recommendation -- one that I ultimately accepted because I thought the evidence and law warranted it . '' Nevertheless , ███ has confirmed that Horowitz 's draft report went on to criticize senior FBI officials , including Comey and fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , for their response to the late discovery of a laptop containing evidence that may have related to the Clinton investigation . That discovery prompted the FBI 's letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the Hillary Clinton email probe . Hundreds of thousands of emails had been found on the laptop of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner , whose wife , Huma Abedin , was a top aide to the secretary of state . It took weeks for the FBI to start analyzing the laptop 's contents , and Horowitz 's draft report criticized senior FBI officials for how long the laptop languished inside the bureau , sources told ███ . The Associated Press first reported that the draft report criticized senior FBI officials for their handling of the laptop . McCabe was fired from the FBI in March , after Horowitz concluded in a separate report that McCabe `` lacked candor '' when speaking to internal investigators about his role in a disclosure to the media . The matter has since been referred to the U.S. attorney in Washington for possible prosecution , and McCabe 's legal team is now seeking a grant of immunity from lawmakers who want him to testify before a Senate panel about Horowitz 's findings . Talking with ███ about his own firing , Comey said he decided to write a book afterward because , `` It occurred to me maybe I can be useful by offering a view to people , especially to young people , of what leadership should look like and how it should be centered on values . '' ███ was unable to ascertain information about another key part of the inspector general 's report : whether animus toward Trump may have influenced the FBI 's investigation of Hillary Clinton 's emails or the subsequent probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election . FBI senior agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page exchanged hundreds of messages in the lead-up to the election , including messages calling Trump `` an idiot '' and saying the Republican Party `` needs to pull their head out of their '' rear-ends . The messages also included critiques of Hillary Clinton . `` There are so many horrible things to tell , the public has the right to know . Transparency ! '' Trump said in his Twitter message on Tuesday . Representatives for Comey , Lynch and McCabe declined to comment for this article . A spokesman for the inspector general 's office also declined to comment .

The Justice Department's internal watchdog has concluded that James Comey defied authority at times during his tenure as FBI director, according to sources familiar with a draft report on the matter. Interested in James Comey? Add James Comey as an interest to stay up to date on the latest James Comey news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest One source told ABC News that the draft report explicitly used the word "insubordinate" to describe Comey's behavior. Another source agreed with that characterization but could not confirm the use of the term. In the draft report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal email server, the sources said. On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump complained of "numerous delays" in the release of Horowitz's final report, which is expected to run several hundred pages long and be released in the coming days. The sources who spoke to ABC News were willing or able to address only a portion of the draft report's complete findings. "What is taking so long with the Inspector General's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery James Comey," Trump said on Twitter. "Hope report is not being changed and made weaker!" There is no indication the president has seen – or will see – a draft of the report before its release. Horowitz, however, could revise the draft report now that current and former officials mentioned in it have offered their responses to the inspector general's conclusions, according to the sources. Almost from the start, the long-awaited report was expected to chastise Comey for his handling of the Clinton-related probe. But in apparently describing Comey's defiance of authority, the draft report was criticizing a man who prided himself on his leadership style at the FBI and has since dedicated his post-government life to promoting a new generation of effective leaders. The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe, according to sources. Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign. Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy, and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told. In an interview in April, ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Comey: "If Attorney General Lynch had ordered you not to send the letter, would you have sent it?" "No," Comey responded. "I believe in the chain of command." But in backing Trump's ultimate decision to fire Comey last year, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein slammed Comey's letter to Congress and said it "was wrong" for Comey "to usurp the Attorney General's authority" when he announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not be filing charges against Clinton or her aides. "It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement," Rosenstein said in a letter to Trump recommending Comey be fired. "At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors." Horowitz's draft report cited Comey for failing to consult with Lynch and other senior Justice Department officials before making his announcement on national TV. While saying there was no "clear evidence" that Clinton "intended to violate" the law, Comey insisted the former secretary of state was "extremely careless" in her "handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." "I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say," Comey said before cameras on July 5, 2016. By then, Lynch had taken the unusual step of publicly declaring she would accept the FBI's recommendations in the case, after an impromptu meeting with former president Bill Clinton sparked questions about her impartiality. Andrew Harnik/AP Photo Comey has defended his decisions as director, insisting he was trying to protect the FBI from even further criticism and "didn't see that I had a choice." "The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things, but ... I think given what I knew at the time, these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the institutions," Comey told ABC News. "I still think it was the right thing to do." More than a year ago, as lawmakers increasingly voiced concern over how the FBI and Justice Department handled matters surrounding the 2016 election, the inspector general's office announced that it had launched an investigation into an array of allegations, including an allegation "that Department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed in connection with, or in actions leading up to or related to, the FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016." A week before the announcement, while the investigation into Hillary Clinton was still underway, a political firestorm erupted in Washington after Lynch happened to run into Bill Clinton in Arizona and briefly met with him inside a plane sitting on a tarmac there. Days later, with questions swirling over whether Bill Clinton tried to improperly influence the investigation into his wife, Lynch haphazardly announced that she would not recuse herself from the matter but would "fully expect to accept" whatever recommendation the FBI made. Comey later called it a "tortured half-out, half-in approach." And after such a "strange" announcement, "I decided I have to step away from her and show the American people the FBI's work separately," Comey told ABC News. The inspector general's office seemed to similarly view Lynch's announcement as strange, with the draft report criticizing her for how she handled the impromptu tarmac meeting and its aftermath, according to sources familiar with the findings. In April, when Comey was promoting his new book "A Higher Loyalty," Lynch issued a statement saying that during the Clinton email investigation she "trusted" the "non-partisan career prosecutors" handling the case "to assess the facts and make a recommendation -- one that I ultimately accepted because I thought the evidence and law warranted it." Nevertheless, ABC News has confirmed that Horowitz's draft report went on to criticize senior FBI officials, including Comey and fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, for their response to the late discovery of a laptop containing evidence that may have related to the Clinton investigation. That discovery prompted the FBI's letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the Hillary Clinton email probe. Hundreds of thousands of emails had been found on the laptop of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, whose wife, Huma Abedin, was a top aide to the secretary of state. It took weeks for the FBI to start analyzing the laptop's contents, and Horowitz's draft report criticized senior FBI officials for how long the laptop languished inside the bureau, sources told ABC News. The Associated Press first reported that the draft report criticized senior FBI officials for their handling of the laptop. McCabe was fired from the FBI in March, after Horowitz concluded in a separate report that McCabe "lacked candor" when speaking to internal investigators about his role in a disclosure to the media. The matter has since been referred to the U.S. attorney in Washington for possible prosecution, and McCabe's legal team is now seeking a grant of immunity from lawmakers who want him to testify before a Senate panel about Horowitz's findings. Talking with ABC News about his own firing, Comey said he decided to write a book afterward because, "It occurred to me maybe I can be useful by offering a view to people, especially to young people, of what leadership should look like and how it should be centered on values." ABC News was unable to ascertain information about another key part of the inspector general's report: whether animus toward Trump may have influenced the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails or the subsequent probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. FBI senior agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page exchanged hundreds of messages in the lead-up to the election, including messages calling Trump "an idiot" and saying the Republican Party "needs to pull their head out of their" rear-ends. The messages also included critiques of Hillary Clinton. "There are so many horrible things to tell, the public has the right to know. Transparency!" Trump said in his Twitter message on Tuesday. Representatives for Comey, Lynch and McCabe declined to comment for this article. A spokesman for the inspector general's office also declined to comment.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

SPtGjFx3i63iu0Pf

test

pYZFVpbwwp4OCxW4

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/09/sally-yates-speaks-and-the-strange-tale-of-michael-flynn-begins-to-unwind-a-little/

Sally Yates speaks — and the strange tale of Michael Flynn begins to unwind a little

2017-05-09

Heather Digparton

Forty-five years ago next month a White House conversation took place that will be remembered by history as the one containing the infamous `` 18-minute gap . '' That was the day after the Watergate break-in , when 18 and a half minutes of a recorded conversation between former President Richard Nixon and his top lieutenant H.R . Haldeman were mysteriously erased from a tape . It was apparently the first time they discussed the event and quite likely when they began to plan the ensuing coverup . Many events pertaining to that crime were revealed over the course of the following two years , the story unfolding in fits and starts , but that gap remains one of the most memorable and mysterious of the details that finally led to the resignation of Nixon in August 1974 . Watergate history buffs undoubtedly heard the echoes of that famous occasion on Monday , when they heard the news media 's repeated references to an `` 18-day gap '' related to testimony by the former director of national intelligence , James Clapper , and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates before the Senate Judiciary Committee 's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism . That 's the length of time it took from the day Yates informed the White House that its national security adviser , Michael Flynn , had possibly been compromised by the Russian government to the day when President Donald Trump finally fired him . The story is pretty straightforward . Yates met with White House counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26 and 27 and had one follow-up phone call to inform the administration of the Department of Justice 's concerns about Flynn . The Washington Post reported in February that McGahn then `` immediately '' briefed Trump on the matter . Nonetheless , Flynn participated in an hourlong phone call with Russia 's President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 28 , for which the official readout was brief and uninformative . Yates was fired two days later , on Jan. 30 , ostensibly for her statement that she did not intend to enforce Trump 's hastily thrown together travel ban . Flynn , however , remained at his post for two more weeks , attending high-level meetings and listening in on calls with other foreign leaders . He was only let go after The Washington Post published a story that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the transition period before Trump assumed office and allowed Vice President Pence to lie to the American people about it . The fact that Trump knew about this and also allowed Pence to continue to lie about it has never been adequately explained . As far as I know , he has n't even been asked about it . Yates ' appearance on Monday did n't break any big news as she was unable to reveal any classified details in public . But it did clarify what motivated the Justice Department officials to take the steps they took . They were concerned because Flynn was lying and the Russians knew he was lying , so he had opened himself up to blackmail . As Yates pithily put it in her testimony : To state the obvious , you do n't want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians . She is right . But that would assume that the only person who had been compromised was the national security adviser . Sen. Al Franken had some thoughts in that regard : Is it possible that the reason that he didn ’ t fire him then was that , well , if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions , what about all the other people on my team who coordinated ? . . . That may be why it took him 18 days — until it came public — to get rid of Mike Flynn , who was a danger to this republic . We have learned since Flynn 's ouster that Trump 's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner also had meetings with the Russian ambassador and Russian bankers . And we know there is an ongoing multiagency counterintelligence investigation of possible collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government , involving other Trump advisers and campaign staff . Franken could be right . It 's impossible to know what was in Trump 's head so it also could be that he just liked Flynn and did n't understand why this information was important . But Yates ' testimony hinted at something more about those contacts that are classified . She told the committee that she told McGahn that Flynn 's `` underlying contact was problematic in and of itself , '' which implies that it was n't just the fact that he did it and lied about it . The suggestion is that Flynn said or did something in those contacts that would have been compromising . In Trump 's overwrought Feb. 16 press conference , when he announced the firing of Flynn , the president said , `` When I looked at the information , I said , I do n't think he did anything wrong . If anything , he did something right . '' He went on to explain that it was Flynn 's giving incorrect information to Pence that was the problem . Clearly , Trump saw no problem with Flynn 's `` underlying contact , '' which would seem to be relevant to the larger investigation about possible coordination . The Republicans on the committee behaved like the worst partisan hacks , for the most part refusing to even address the subject of the hearing and instead grilling Yates on the Muslim ban and ranting about `` unmasking '' procedures and leaks to the press , obviously following the White House line . Sen. Ted Cruz even asked Yates about Hillary Clinton 's emails . Most of the Republicans on the committee did n't even bother to stay for the whole hearing . Yates ' answers about the Muslim ban were devastating to committee Republicans ' cause and the rest of the yammering about leaks sounds particularly hollow when you consider the timeline that I just outlined above . It 's quite clear that if nobody had leaked the information on Flynn to The Washington Post , an obviously unbalanced and possibly compromised man would still be the president 's national security adviser . Meanwhile , Trump behaved the way he normally does in tight situations . He attempted to smear Yates as the leaker in one of his notorious early-morning tweets . It was later deleted , probably after someone mustered the courage to tell him that he was threatening a witness , a move he probably learned during his days in the gambling business in Atlantic City . Meanwhile , according to Axios , Trump has told his people to stop feeding negative stories about Flynn to the media . The official explanation is that Trump believes that Flynn is a good man , that the Russia story is `` fake news '' and whatever went wrong was Obama 's fault . But one can not help but wonder if Trump 's lawyers might have reminded him that Flynn is shopping for an immunity deal and treating him disrespectfully might just loosen his tongue about things the president might not want him to say . Trump probably learned about that sort of thing from certain Atlantic City business associates , too .

Forty-five years ago next month a White House conversation took place that will be remembered by history as the one containing the infamous "18-minute gap." That was the day after the Watergate break-in, when 18 and a half minutes of a recorded conversation between former President Richard Nixon and his top lieutenant H.R. Haldeman were mysteriously erased from a tape. It was apparently the first time they discussed the event and quite likely when they began to plan the ensuing coverup. Many events pertaining to that crime were revealed over the course of the following two years, the story unfolding in fits and starts, but that gap remains one of the most memorable and mysterious of the details that finally led to the resignation of Nixon in August 1974. Advertisement: Watergate history buffs undoubtedly heard the echoes of that famous occasion on Monday, when they heard the news media's repeated references to an "18-day gap" related to testimony by the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. That's the length of time it took from the day Yates informed the White House that its national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had possibly been compromised by the Russian government to the day when President Donald Trump finally fired him. [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2017/05/1ac8d5db0a2d5cf6c9d615c46f6aa79a.mp4" image="http://media.salon.com/2017/05/b9359170c3d2281810d5912fb26fade1-1280x720.png"][/jwplayer] The story is pretty straightforward. Yates met with White House counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26 and 27 and had one follow-up phone call to inform the administration of the Department of Justice's concerns about Flynn. The Washington Post reported in February that McGahn then "immediately" briefed Trump on the matter. Nonetheless, Flynn participated in an hourlong phone call with Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Jan. 28, for which the official readout was brief and uninformative. Advertisement: Yates was fired two days later, on Jan. 30, ostensibly for her statement that she did not intend to enforce Trump's hastily thrown together travel ban. Flynn, however, remained at his post for two more weeks, attending high-level meetings and listening in on calls with other foreign leaders. He was only let go after The Washington Post published a story that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the transition period before Trump assumed office and allowed Vice President Pence to lie to the American people about it. The fact that Trump knew about this and also allowed Pence to continue to lie about it has never been adequately explained. As far as I know, he hasn't even been asked about it. Yates' appearance on Monday didn't break any big news as she was unable to reveal any classified details in public. But it did clarify what motivated the Justice Department officials to take the steps they took. They were concerned because Flynn was lying and the Russians knew he was lying, so he had opened himself up to blackmail. As Yates pithily put it in her testimony: To state the obvious, you don't want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians. She is right. But that would assume that the only person who had been compromised was the national security adviser. Sen. Al Franken had some thoughts in that regard: Advertisement: Is it possible that the reason that he didn’t fire him then was that, well, if I fire him for talking to the Russians about sanctions, what about all the other people on my team who coordinated? . . . That may be why it took him 18 days — until it came public — to get rid of Mike Flynn, who was a danger to this republic. We have learned since Flynn's ouster that Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner also had meetings with the Russian ambassador and Russian bankers. And we know there is an ongoing multiagency counterintelligence investigation of possible collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, involving other Trump advisers and campaign staff. Franken could be right. It's impossible to know what was in Trump's head so it also could be that he just liked Flynn and didn't understand why this information was important. But Yates' testimony hinted at something more about those contacts that are classified. She told the committee that she told McGahn that Flynn's "underlying contact was problematic in and of itself," which implies that it wasn't just the fact that he did it and lied about it. The suggestion is that Flynn said or did something in those contacts that would have been compromising. Advertisement: In Trump's overwrought Feb. 16 press conference, when he announced the firing of Flynn, the president said, "When I looked at the information, I said, I don't think he did anything wrong. If anything, he did something right." He went on to explain that it was Flynn's giving incorrect information to Pence that was the problem. Clearly, Trump saw no problem with Flynn's "underlying contact," which would seem to be relevant to the larger investigation about possible coordination. The Republicans on the committee behaved like the worst partisan hacks, for the most part refusing to even address the subject of the hearing and instead grilling Yates on the Muslim ban and ranting about "unmasking" procedures and leaks to the press, obviously following the White House line. Sen. Ted Cruz even asked Yates about Hillary Clinton's emails. Most of the Republicans on the committee didn't even bother to stay for the whole hearing. Yates' answers about the Muslim ban were devastating to committee Republicans' cause and the rest of the yammering about leaks sounds particularly hollow when you consider the timeline that I just outlined above. It's quite clear that if nobody had leaked the information on Flynn to The Washington Post, an obviously unbalanced and possibly compromised man would still be the president's national security adviser. Advertisement: Meanwhile, Trump behaved the way he normally does in tight situations. He attempted to smear Yates as the leaker in one of his notorious early-morning tweets. It was later deleted, probably after someone mustered the courage to tell him that he was threatening a witness, a move he probably learned during his days in the gambling business in Atlantic City. Meanwhile, according to Axios, Trump has told his people to stop feeding negative stories about Flynn to the media. The official explanation is that Trump believes that Flynn is a good man, that the Russia story is "fake news" and whatever went wrong was Obama's fault. But one cannot help but wonder if Trump's lawyers might have reminded him that Flynn is shopping for an immunity deal and treating him disrespectfully might just loosen his tongue about things the president might not want him to say. Trump probably learned about that sort of thing from certain Atlantic City business associates, too.

www.salon.com

left

pYZFVpbwwp4OCxW4

test

Cn4J2SRQG58rNtk4

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/29/poll-majority-wanted-background-checks-to-pass-senate/

Poll: Majority wanted background checks to pass Senate

2013-04-29

( CNN ) - Nearly two-thirds of Americans say that the Senate should have passed a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales , according to a new national poll . But the survey , released Monday by Gallup , indicates a partisan divide , with Democrats and independent voters not seeing eye-to-eye with Republicans . Two weeks ago , the Senate voted on a number of gun control proposals in the wake of last December 's Newtown , Connecticut elementary school massacre that left 20 children and six adults killed . One of the provisions , the one thought most likely to get passed , was a bipartisan compromise that would expand the background check system to include private sales at gun shows and online . In a 54-46 vote , the Senate came short of the 60 votes needed to move ahead with the legislation . According to the poll , 65 % of Americans say that the Senate should have passed the background checks bill , with just under one in three saying the Senate should not have passed the measure . A Washington Post/Pew Research Center survey released last week indicated that 47 % of the public described themselves as `` angry '' or `` disappointed '' with the Senate vote , with 39 % saying they were `` relieved '' or `` happy '' about the vote . Prior to the Senate 's failure to pass the proposal , most national polling indicated that nearly nine in 10 Americans supported expanded background checks for gun sales . The Gallup survey , like the Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll , points to a partisan divide . Eighty-five percent of Democrats and 64 % of independents questioned said the Senate should have passed the proposal . Republicans were divided , with 45 % saying the Senate should have advanced the measure and 50 % disagreeing . One of the authors of the bipartisan bill , Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia , said Sunday that the measure can still be revised and approved in the chamber . Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to shelve the amendment on background checks , vowing to bring it back to the Senate floor once they feel confident that it could get more support . President Barack Obama , who strongly pushed action on gun control , condemned the Senate 's action , saying it marked a `` shameful day in Washington . '' Speaking from the White House Rose Garden shortly after the amendment failed , the president vowed that this is only `` Round One '' of the fight for tougher gun laws . The Gallup poll was conducted April 22-25 , with 1,043 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points .

6 years ago (CNN) - Nearly two-thirds of Americans say that the Senate should have passed a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales, according to a new national poll. But the survey, released Monday by Gallup, indicates a partisan divide, with Democrats and independent voters not seeing eye-to-eye with Republicans. Two weeks ago, the Senate voted on a number of gun control proposals in the wake of last December's Newtown, Connecticut elementary school massacre that left 20 children and six adults killed. One of the provisions, the one thought most likely to get passed, was a bipartisan compromise that would expand the background check system to include private sales at gun shows and online. In a 54-46 vote, the Senate came short of the 60 votes needed to move ahead with the legislation. According to the poll, 65% of Americans say that the Senate should have passed the background checks bill, with just under one in three saying the Senate should not have passed the measure. A Washington Post/Pew Research Center survey released last week indicated that 47% of the public described themselves as "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate vote, with 39% saying they were "relieved" or "happy" about the vote. Prior to the Senate's failure to pass the proposal, most national polling indicated that nearly nine in 10 Americans supported expanded background checks for gun sales. The Gallup survey, like the Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll, points to a partisan divide. Eighty-five percent of Democrats and 64% of independents questioned said the Senate should have passed the proposal. Republicans were divided, with 45% saying the Senate should have advanced the measure and 50% disagreeing. One of the authors of the bipartisan bill, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, said Sunday that the measure can still be revised and approved in the chamber. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to shelve the amendment on background checks, vowing to bring it back to the Senate floor once they feel confident that it could get more support. President Barack Obama, who strongly pushed action on gun control, condemned the Senate's action, saying it marked a "shameful day in Washington." Speaking from the White House Rose Garden shortly after the amendment failed, the president vowed that this is only "Round One" of the fight for tougher gun laws. The Gallup poll was conducted April 22-25, with 1,043 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

Cn4J2SRQG58rNtk4

test

ecyDyrDnvY1O9KeM

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-dumps-christ-post/2016/11/13/id/758606/

Trump Dumps Christie Over Bridge-gate: 'Stupid Thug Had to Go'

2016-11-13

President-elect Donald Trump is finished with New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie as news continues to come out about his handling of the Bridge-gate scandal , according to The New York Post . The Post reports that Trump is so `` disgusted '' with Christie ’ s management style as revealed in a recent court case that he ’ s `` kicking '' the governor out of his inner circle . Some Trump aides regard the New Jersey governor as `` a stupid thug who really needed to go , '' a transition-team source told The Post . `` Trump thought it was shameful that Christie didn ’ t take the fall for [ convicted aide ] Bridget Kelly , '' a source close to the transition team told the Post . `` Trump is really angry that Christie is sending a soccer mom to jail . He believes 100 percent that Christie was behind it all . '' Kelly , Christie ’ s former deputy chief of staff , was convicted in federal court earlier this month along with former Port Authority executive Bill Baroni . They deliberately caused dangerous traffic tie-ups on the George Washington Bridge in September 2013 as political payback for Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich not endorsing Christie , a jury determined . `` Trump really doesn ’ t like it when married women with kids get hurt in politics , '' the source told the Post . `` Trump was pretty disgusted with Christie . '' Simply put , Trump felt that Christie did not man up and take responsibility for Bridge-gate . Christie has insisted that he knew nothing about Bridge-gate despite frequent testimony that he was fully briefed . Tensions only grew after a Charlie Rose interview in which Christie continued to insist he wasn ’ t responsible . `` She ( Kelly ) was a factor in the decision because Trump didn ’ t like seeing her crying , '' the source said . Christie also was viewed as disloyal after he distanced himself from Trump when the campaign was in a major tailspin . He canceled appearances on Sunday shows after the Access Hollywood video of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women was leaked on Oct. 7 . He also failed to attend the second debate . Christie was officially ousted Friday as chair of Trump ’ s transition team . The job was given to Vice President-elect Mike Pence . `` They want to drain the swamp , and having Christie there is just plugging it up , '' the source said . `` He was tolerated in the past because he was viewed as a kind of nice Tony Soprano . But now that Trump is the president-elect those days are over . ''

President-elect Donald Trump is finished with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as news continues to come out about his handling of the Bridge-gate scandal, according to The New York Post. The Post reports that Trump is so "disgusted" with Christie’s management style as revealed in a recent court case that he’s "kicking" the governor out of his inner circle. Some Trump aides regard the New Jersey governor as "a stupid thug who really needed to go," a transition-team source told The Post. "Trump thought it was shameful that Christie didn’t take the fall for [convicted aide] Bridget Kelly," a source close to the transition team told the Post. "Trump is really angry that Christie is sending a soccer mom to jail. He believes 100 percent that Christie was behind it all." Kelly, Christie’s former deputy chief of staff, was convicted in federal court earlier this month along with former Port Authority executive Bill Baroni. They deliberately caused dangerous traffic tie-ups on the George Washington Bridge in September 2013 as political payback for Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich not endorsing Christie, a jury determined. "Trump really doesn’t like it when married women with kids get hurt in politics," the source told the Post. "Trump was pretty disgusted with Christie." Simply put, Trump felt that Christie did not man up and take responsibility for Bridge-gate. Christie has insisted that he knew nothing about Bridge-gate despite frequent testimony that he was fully briefed. Tensions only grew after a Charlie Rose interview in which Christie continued to insist he wasn’t responsible. "She (Kelly) was a factor in the decision because Trump didn’t like seeing her crying," the source said. Christie also was viewed as disloyal after he distanced himself from Trump when the campaign was in a major tailspin. He canceled appearances on Sunday shows after the Access Hollywood video of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women was leaked on Oct. 7. He also failed to attend the second debate. Christie was officially ousted Friday as chair of Trump’s transition team. The job was given to Vice President-elect Mike Pence. "They want to drain the swamp, and having Christie there is just plugging it up," the source said. "He was tolerated in the past because he was viewed as a kind of nice Tony Soprano. But now that Trump is the president-elect those days are over."

www.newsmax.com

right

ecyDyrDnvY1O9KeM

test

jauOBA4Jip2D1xel

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/anonymous-ye-shall-know-him-by-his-fruits/

Anonymous: Ye Shall Know Him by His Fruits

David Catron, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

The most surprising aspect of the furor surrounding the infamous unsigned New York Times Op-Ed , ostensibly written by a member of the Trump administration , is that anyone believes its author is a senior official . Assuming this person isn ’ t an employee of the Times , and it is by no means unknown for the Gray Lady ’ s journalists to fabricate quotes and attribute them to anonymous “ officials , ” the author of this hit piece is at most a mid-level staffer . Indeed , if this character is actually employed in the Trump administration , it is almost certainly at a level of insignificance verging on invisibility . How is it possible to be so sure ? First , the editors of the Times are virulently anti-Trump . Their assurances about the prominence of this furtive functionary simply can ’ t be trusted . Moreover , as Phelim McAleer at Townhall points out , the nation ’ s “ newspaper of record ” has a long history of exaggerating the seniority of officials it quotes anonymously . He highlights a lengthy anti-fracking article that purported to quote “ senior ” oil industry insiders and federal analysts describing the extraction process as a colossal scam . It was eventually discovered that all the quotes had in reality come from an intern . Not coincidentally , the solipsistic voice and callow perspective that “ Anonymous ” brings to the Op-Ed tends to undermine the claim that it was written by a high-ranking official in any administration . Most senior members of the Trump administration are over 50 years old and many are well beyond 60 . Yet , throughout the entire essay , there is an unmistakable thread of historical illiteracy and presentism that one would normally associate with a Millennial . This is evident in its very first sentence : “ President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader. ” Really ? This means one of two things : Either “ Anonymous ” believes that the modern era began a couple of decades ago or that the Cold War , the Cuban Missile Crisis , the Vietnam War , the Watergate scandal , the OPEC Embargo , the Iran Hostage Crisis , the fall of the Soviet Union , the Clinton impeachment , the 9-11 attacks , and the Iraq War were all relatively minor events for the relevant presidential administrations . It strains credulity to the limit to suggest that a senior official of the Trump administration would compose the hopelessly naïve sentence quoted above and permit it to be published in the New York Times . The opening sentence isn ’ t the only indication that the author of the Op-Ed is a junior time server languishing in the bowels of the Eisenhower Office building . The piece consists primarily of shopworn clichés that can be heard in any bar in any college town in America ( or on CNN if you ’ re stuck in an airport ) . This self-styled “ defender of our democratic institutions ” solemnly states that “ President Trump ’ s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic , ” that he “ shows a preference for autocrats and dictators , ” that “ the country is bitterly divided , ” and that the “ root of the problem is the president ’ s amorality . ” None of this is original . Nor is it accurate . But it does contain a revealing cliché that serves as an indicator of the author ’ s lack of seniority — the tired trope concerning how Trump has bitterly divided the country . It ’ s only possible to believe this nonsense if you are too young to remember the deep divisions in public opinion over Vietnam , the Nuclear Freeze movement , the Clinton impeachment , and Iraq . It is not merely inaccurate to blame Trump for today ’ s political divisions , it ’ s also naïve to believe that polarization is always bad . As David W. Brady and Hahrie Han wrote in the Washington Post in 2014 : Although many contemporary political observers decry polarization and yearn for an era of bipartisanship , the opposite was true in the immediate post-war era . During that time , which was the most bipartisan era of our nation ’ s history , political observers wrung their hands over the inability of parties to present clear alternatives to voters.… The grass is always greener . This wouldn ’ t be news to a “ senior ” official . Nor would it be surprising that a relatively new presidential administration can be pretty chaotic . But the youthful hubris of our anonymous genius is such that it obscures the reality that Trump ’ s successes were actually accomplished by the President and his loyal aides : “ There are bright spots.… But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president ’ s leadership style. ” In other words , “ Anonymous ” has saved the nation from Trump ’ s “ misguided impulses. ” Mark Penn , a veteran of the Clinton administration , puts such delusions into perspective : Aides have felt they know better than their leaders since Joseph and the Pharaoh.… Arriving from Arkansas , the Clintons were as alien to Washington as the Trumps . They faced many of the same problems of runaway staff , investigations , and chaos in the White House . Instead of CNN and MSNBC , they soon would battle a Fox News channel that aimed to set their hair on fire daily . President Trump has , however , been far more effective during his first 19 months in office than Clinton was during two terms . In fact , most of the accomplishments for which the latter now takes credit — including welfare reform — were forced on him by a GOP-controlled Congress . Trump has cut taxes for 80 percent of the public , presided over an economic boom , lowered unemployment , freed millions from the clutches of Obamacare , killed countless federal regulations , begun rebuilding the nation ’ s military , kick-started the energy sector , destroyed ISIS , withdrawn from the Paris Climate scam , etc . All of this and much more has been accomplished by President Trump while “ Anonymous ” works with other low level drones “ to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. ” So , what do we know about the unnamed author of the New York Times hit piece ? If this person is a member of the Trump administration , the taxpayers are footing the bill for the deliberate obstruction of their will as expressed in the 2016 presidential election . The good news is that the sophomoric opinions expressed in the anonymous Times Op-Ed are probably nothing more than the impotent puling of a powerless cubicle critter .

The most surprising aspect of the furor surrounding the infamous unsigned New York Times Op-Ed, ostensibly written by a member of the Trump administration, is that anyone believes its author is a senior official. Assuming this person isn’t an employee of the Times, and it is by no means unknown for the Gray Lady’s journalists to fabricate quotes and attribute them to anonymous “officials,” the author of this hit piece is at most a mid-level staffer. Indeed, if this character is actually employed in the Trump administration, it is almost certainly at a level of insignificance verging on invisibility. How is it possible to be so sure? First, the editors of the Times are virulently anti-Trump. Their assurances about the prominence of this furtive functionary simply can’t be trusted. Moreover, as Phelim McAleer at Townhall points out, the nation’s “newspaper of record” has a long history of exaggerating the seniority of officials it quotes anonymously. He highlights a lengthy anti-fracking article that purported to quote “senior” oil industry insiders and federal analysts describing the extraction process as a colossal scam. It was eventually discovered that all the quotes had in reality come from an intern. Not coincidentally, the solipsistic voice and callow perspective that “Anonymous” brings to the Op-Ed tends to undermine the claim that it was written by a high-ranking official in any administration. Most senior members of the Trump administration are over 50 years old and many are well beyond 60. Yet, throughout the entire essay, there is an unmistakable thread of historical illiteracy and presentism that one would normally associate with a Millennial. This is evident in its very first sentence: “President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.” Really? This means one of two things: Either “Anonymous” believes that the modern era began a couple of decades ago or that the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, the OPEC Embargo, the Iran Hostage Crisis, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Clinton impeachment, the 9-11 attacks, and the Iraq War were all relatively minor events for the relevant presidential administrations. It strains credulity to the limit to suggest that a senior official of the Trump administration would compose the hopelessly naïve sentence quoted above and permit it to be published in the New York Times. The opening sentence isn’t the only indication that the author of the Op-Ed is a junior time server languishing in the bowels of the Eisenhower Office building. The piece consists primarily of shopworn clichés that can be heard in any bar in any college town in America (or on CNN if you’re stuck in an airport). This self-styled “defender of our democratic institutions” solemnly states that “President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic,” that he “shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,” that “the country is bitterly divided,” and that the “root of the problem is the president’s amorality.” None of this is original. Nor is it accurate. But it does contain a revealing cliché that serves as an indicator of the author’s lack of seniority — the tired trope concerning how Trump has bitterly divided the country. It’s only possible to believe this nonsense if you are too young to remember the deep divisions in public opinion over Vietnam, the Nuclear Freeze movement, the Clinton impeachment, and Iraq. It is not merely inaccurate to blame Trump for today’s political divisions, it’s also naïve to believe that polarization is always bad. As David W. Brady and Hahrie Han wrote in the Washington Post in 2014: Although many contemporary political observers decry polarization and yearn for an era of bipartisanship, the opposite was true in the immediate post-war era. During that time, which was the most bipartisan era of our nation’s history, political observers wrung their hands over the inability of parties to present clear alternatives to voters.… The grass is always greener. This wouldn’t be news to a “senior” official. Nor would it be surprising that a relatively new presidential administration can be pretty chaotic. But the youthful hubris of our anonymous genius is such that it obscures the reality that Trump’s successes were actually accomplished by the President and his loyal aides: “There are bright spots.… But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style.” In other words, “Anonymous” has saved the nation from Trump’s “misguided impulses.” Mark Penn, a veteran of the Clinton administration, puts such delusions into perspective: Aides have felt they know better than their leaders since Joseph and the Pharaoh.… Arriving from Arkansas, the Clintons were as alien to Washington as the Trumps. They faced many of the same problems of runaway staff, investigations, and chaos in the White House. Instead of CNN and MSNBC, they soon would battle a Fox News channel that aimed to set their hair on fire daily. President Trump has, however, been far more effective during his first 19 months in office than Clinton was during two terms. In fact, most of the accomplishments for which the latter now takes credit — including welfare reform — were forced on him by a GOP-controlled Congress. Trump has cut taxes for 80 percent of the public, presided over an economic boom, lowered unemployment, freed millions from the clutches of Obamacare, killed countless federal regulations, begun rebuilding the nation’s military, kick-started the energy sector, destroyed ISIS, withdrawn from the Paris Climate scam, etc. All of this and much more has been accomplished by President Trump while “Anonymous” works with other low level drones “to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” So, what do we know about the unnamed author of the New York Times hit piece? If this person is a member of the Trump administration, the taxpayers are footing the bill for the deliberate obstruction of their will as expressed in the 2016 presidential election. The good news is that the sophomoric opinions expressed in the anonymous Times Op-Ed are probably nothing more than the impotent puling of a powerless cubicle critter.

www.spectator.org

right

jauOBA4Jip2D1xel

test

nKOD7aT0UHc1PRw8

us_military

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alleged-deserter-bowe-bergdahl-doubts-fair-trial-trump/story?id=50501256

Alleged deserter Bowe Bergdahl doubts he could get a fair trial after Trump comments

Brian Ross, James Gordon Meek, Brian Epstein, Rhonda Schwartz

Former Taliban prisoner Sgt . Bowe Bergdahl pleaded guilty to charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy after a short military hearing at Fort Bragg , North Carolina , on Monday after expressing doubts that he could get a fair trial after campaign statements by Donald Trump . Interested in Bowe Bergdahl ? Add Bowe Bergdahl as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Bowe Bergdahl news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Despite surviving five years in a Taliban cage , Bergdahl , Trump said in several campaign speeches as a presidential candidate , was a `` traitor '' who should be executed . In an on-camera interview shot last year by a British filmmaker , obtained exclusively by ███ and airing today on `` Good Morning America , '' `` World News Tonight With David Muir '' and `` Nightline , '' Bergdahl says the words of the man who is now his commander in chief would have made a fair trial impossible . `` We may as well go back to kangaroo courts and lynch mobs that got what they wanted , '' Bergdahl says . `` The people who want to hang me — you 're never going to convince those people . '' Bergdahl , a 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment trooper , walked off his combat outpost in Afghanistan in June 2009 and was quickly captured by the Taliban . During his five years in captivity with the Haqqani Network — the same Taliban faction that held American Caitlan Coleman and her family hostage for five years until they were freed last Wednesday — he endured what one U.S. official called the worst case of prisoner abuse since the Vietnam War . He was released in 2014 in exchange for five Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay — a deal that was harshly criticized on the campaign trail by then-candidate Trump , who called Bergdahl `` garbage '' and even suggested that he should have been summarily executed . `` You know , in the old days — bing , bong , '' Trump said as he mimicked firing a rifle . `` When we were strong . '' Speaking to British war filmmaker Sean Langan , who was held captive by the same Taliban group in 2008 , Bergdahl says he wants to fight back against what he calls a false narrative fueled by conservative outlets like Fox News that sought to portray him as a traitor and jihadi sympathizer who had been persuaded to fight against the United States alongside his captors . `` You know , it 's just insulting , frankly , '' Bergdahl tells Langan . `` It 's very insulting , the idea that they would think I did that . '' In 2014 , then–Fox News correspondents Megyn Kelly and James Rosen reported on `` secret documents '' obtained by the network that purported to show Bergdahl had `` shown affection '' for his captors , converted to Islam and become a `` mujahid , '' or jihadi . According to Bergdahl , however , he thought the conditions in captivity might kill him before his captors could . `` It was getting so bad that I was literally looking at myself , you know , looking at joints , looking my ribs and just going , ' I 'm going to die here from sickness , or I can die escaping , ' '' he says . `` You know , it did n't really matter . '' He attempted to escape twice , according to military officials , and he was severely punished after being recaptured . Terrence Russell , a military official who debriefs former U.S. captives for the U.S. Joint Personnel Recovery Agency , says Bergdahl was tortured in a way reminiscent of the brutality visited upon prisoners of war in Vietnam decades ago . `` When they recaptured him and brought him back , the next day they spread-eagled and secured him to a metal bed frame , '' Russell says to Langan in another video . `` They took a plastic pipe … and they started beating his feet and his legs repeatedly with this plastic pipe … The idea was to just beat him and injure his legs and his feet so that he could not walk away again . '' Bergdahl also says he was confined for more than four years to a cage that was only 7 feet by 6 feet . `` From first year , '' Bergdahl says when asked how much time he spent in that cage . `` So second , third , fourth and then into the fifth year . '' It remains a mystery , however , why he walked off his post . Another senior official who spoke to Langan for his documentary was retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn , who , as the former head of intelligence for special operations in Afghanistan and then as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency , was deeply involved in the early search for Bergdahl . He also briefly served as Trump 's national security adviser after working on his campaign , and he tells Langan that he `` absolutely '' believes Bergdahl left his base with the intention to meet the Taliban . But Bergdahl disputes that , saying in a taped conversation with filmmaker Mark Boal that was broadcast in the second season of the `` Serial '' podcast that he walked off post in an attempt to report to senior officers that his platoon commander was `` unfit '' for his position . Bergdahl has not been charged with any crime related to aiding the enemy . Whatever his reasons were , at least two soldiers were seriously wounded during the search to find him , as ███ first reported in 2014 . In response to questions from Army Judge Col. Jeffery Nance on Monday , Bergdahl admitted multiple times that he did not fully appreciate the enormity of his actions . `` At the time , I had no thoughts anyone would come searching for me … however looking back I see it was a very obvious mistake , ” Bergdahl said . “ I believed they would notice me missing , but I did n't think they would pull off a crucial mission to look for one private . '' After his guilty plea , the question remaining before the military is what form of punishment Bergdahl deserves . On that question , even Flynn doubts that justice would be best served by putting a former prisoner back in prison . `` So the guy deserted his men , his soldiers , his squad — no doubt , '' Flynn says . `` [ But ] I do n't think he should serve another day in any sort of confinement or jail or anything like that , because frankly , even though he put himself into this situation to a degree , we — the United States government and the United States military — put him in Afghanistan . ''

Former Taliban prisoner Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl pleaded guilty to charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy after a short military hearing at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on Monday after expressing doubts that he could get a fair trial after campaign statements by Donald Trump. Interested in Bowe Bergdahl? Add Bowe Bergdahl as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Bowe Bergdahl news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Despite surviving five years in a Taliban cage, Bergdahl, Trump said in several campaign speeches as a presidential candidate, was a "traitor" who should be executed. In an on-camera interview shot last year by a British filmmaker, obtained exclusively by ABC News and airing today on "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight With David Muir" and "Nightline," Bergdahl says the words of the man who is now his commander in chief would have made a fair trial impossible. "We may as well go back to kangaroo courts and lynch mobs that got what they wanted," Bergdahl says. "The people who want to hang me — you're never going to convince those people." Bergdahl, a 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment trooper, walked off his combat outpost in Afghanistan in June 2009 and was quickly captured by the Taliban. During his five years in captivity with the Haqqani Network — the same Taliban faction that held American Caitlan Coleman and her family hostage for five years until they were freed last Wednesday — he endured what one U.S. official called the worst case of prisoner abuse since the Vietnam War. He was released in 2014 in exchange for five Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay — a deal that was harshly criticized on the campaign trail by then-candidate Trump, who called Bergdahl "garbage" and even suggested that he should have been summarily executed. "You know, in the old days — bing, bong," Trump said as he mimicked firing a rifle. "When we were strong." Obtained by ABC News Speaking to British war filmmaker Sean Langan, who was held captive by the same Taliban group in 2008, Bergdahl says he wants to fight back against what he calls a false narrative fueled by conservative outlets like Fox News that sought to portray him as a traitor and jihadi sympathizer who had been persuaded to fight against the United States alongside his captors. Such rumors are false, military officials have said. "You know, it's just insulting, frankly," Bergdahl tells Langan. "It's very insulting, the idea that they would think I did that." In 2014, then–Fox News correspondents Megyn Kelly and James Rosen reported on "secret documents" obtained by the network that purported to show Bergdahl had "shown affection" for his captors, converted to Islam and become a "mujahid," or jihadi. According to Bergdahl, however, he thought the conditions in captivity might kill him before his captors could. "It was getting so bad that I was literally looking at myself, you know, looking at joints, looking my ribs and just going, 'I'm going to die here from sickness, or I can die escaping,'" he says. "You know, it didn't really matter." Sean Langan He attempted to escape twice, according to military officials, and he was severely punished after being recaptured. Terrence Russell, a military official who debriefs former U.S. captives for the U.S. Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, says Bergdahl was tortured in a way reminiscent of the brutality visited upon prisoners of war in Vietnam decades ago. "When they recaptured him and brought him back, the next day they spread-eagled and secured him to a metal bed frame," Russell says to Langan in another video. "They took a plastic pipe … and they started beating his feet and his legs repeatedly with this plastic pipe … The idea was to just beat him and injure his legs and his feet so that he could not walk away again." Bergdahl also says he was confined for more than four years to a cage that was only 7 feet by 6 feet. "From first year," Bergdahl says when asked how much time he spent in that cage. "So second, third, fourth and then into the fifth year." It remains a mystery, however, why he walked off his post. Sean Langan Another senior official who spoke to Langan for his documentary was retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who, as the former head of intelligence for special operations in Afghanistan and then as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was deeply involved in the early search for Bergdahl. He also briefly served as Trump's national security adviser after working on his campaign, and he tells Langan that he "absolutely" believes Bergdahl left his base with the intention to meet the Taliban. But Bergdahl disputes that, saying in a taped conversation with filmmaker Mark Boal that was broadcast in the second season of the "Serial" podcast that he walked off post in an attempt to report to senior officers that his platoon commander was "unfit" for his position. Bergdahl has not been charged with any crime related to aiding the enemy. Whatever his reasons were, at least two soldiers were seriously wounded during the search to find him, as ABC News first reported in 2014. In response to questions from Army Judge Col. Jeffery Nance on Monday, Bergdahl admitted multiple times that he did not fully appreciate the enormity of his actions. "At the time, I had no thoughts anyone would come searching for me … however looking back I see it was a very obvious mistake,” Bergdahl said. “I believed they would notice me missing, but I didn't think they would pull off a crucial mission to look for one private." After his guilty plea, the question remaining before the military is what form of punishment Bergdahl deserves. On that question, even Flynn doubts that justice would be best served by putting a former prisoner back in prison. "So the guy deserted his men, his soldiers, his squad — no doubt," Flynn says. "[But] I don't think he should serve another day in any sort of confinement or jail or anything like that, because frankly, even though he put himself into this situation to a degree, we — the United States government and the United States military — put him in Afghanistan." ABC News’ Sarah Kolinovsky and Dylan Goetz contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

nKOD7aT0UHc1PRw8

test

FBD5L49DNFjEO8jy

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47139510

State of the Union: Moments that got social media talking

As US President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress , many people took to social media to discuss the event . Among the political analysis and partisan debate , a number of altogether more light-hearted talking points came up . It is perhaps unsurprising that Nancy Pelosi became the subject of one of the most popular memes on the night . The new House Speaker , de facto leader of the Democratic Party , sat behind President Trump during his address and is one of the most high-profile opponents of the president . Many on social media thought this political rivalry was captured in a photo of Ms Pelosi applauding after Mr Trump called for compromise in politics . It came after Mr Trump broke traditional protocol by not waiting for the customary introduction from the House speaker before beginning his speech . Women on both sides of the house made a powerful political statement by wearing white to celebrate the centenary of women 's right to vote in the US . The move highlighted how many more female Democrats there are compared with Republicans . The female representatives sat stony-faced as President Trump said `` no-one has benefited more from our thriving economy than women '' . After the president said that women `` filled 58 % of the newly created jobs last year '' , they started enthusiastically cheering and clapping each other . Many of the Democratic lawmakers cheering took office after the recent mid-term elections , which saw a record number of women elected , and the Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives . The irony of this was not lost on many Twitter users . While many suggested that Mr Trump did n't intend for his comments on female employment to be associated with the electoral success of Democratic congresswomen , the president did go on to praise the influx of female lawmakers . President Trump and First Lady Melania invited 11-year-old Joshua Trump from Wilmington , Delaware , who has been bullied at school because of his surname . Photos appearing to show the boy , who is not related to President Trump , dozing off during the speech earned him some fans on Twitter . His parents pulled him out of school as they said his classmates had called him an `` idiot '' and `` stupid '' for sharing the same name as the president . Eline , the girl sitting next to him , has been treated for brain cancer . She seemed to enjoy the evening a lot more . The State of the Union is an opportunity for the president to inform the nation of his goals for the year ahead . But some were distracted by less weighty issues - the position of his tie . Many took to social media to point out that the president 's trademark red tie was off-centre . During the almost 90-minute address , many social media users seemed preoccupied by trying to guess what Nancy Pelosi was reading . Some took to Twitter to suggest that Ms Pelosi was being `` disrespectful '' by reading while the president spoke . After President Trump finished his address , Stacey Abrams delivered the Democratic response . While the Georgia politician spoke about immigration , voting rights , healthcare and the economy , Twitter-users homed in on the way the address looked . Ms Abrams could be seen standing at a lectern in front of a group of people blurred out behind her . Many wondered if she was appearing in front of a green screen . However , as can be seen below , after Ms Abrams finished speaking and the camera zoomed out , it is clear that a green screen was not used .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption A photo of Nancy Pelosi clapping after Mr Trump's address has gone viral As US President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress, many people took to social media to discuss the event. Among the political analysis and partisan debate, a number of altogether more light-hearted talking points came up. The #PelosiClap It is perhaps unsurprising that Nancy Pelosi became the subject of one of the most popular memes on the night. The new House Speaker, de facto leader of the Democratic Party, sat behind President Trump during his address and is one of the most high-profile opponents of the president. Many on social media thought this political rivalry was captured in a photo of Ms Pelosi applauding after Mr Trump called for compromise in politics. The image, termed the "Pelosi clap", quickly went viral. It came after Mr Trump broke traditional protocol by not waiting for the customary introduction from the House speaker before beginning his speech. The women in white Women on both sides of the house made a powerful political statement by wearing white to celebrate the centenary of women's right to vote in the US. The move highlighted how many more female Democrats there are compared with Republicans. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The number of white outfits in the house showed the marked increase in women entering politics since Trump's presidency The female representatives sat stony-faced as President Trump said "no-one has benefited more from our thriving economy than women". Image copyright Getty Images Image caption A record number of women are now serving in Congress After the president said that women "filled 58% of the newly created jobs last year", they started enthusiastically cheering and clapping each other. Many of the Democratic lawmakers cheering took office after the recent mid-term elections, which saw a record number of women elected, and the Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The atmosphere turned quickly as the women clapped each other The irony of this was not lost on many Twitter users. While many suggested that Mr Trump didn't intend for his comments on female employment to be associated with the electoral success of Democratic congresswomen, the president did go on to praise the influx of female lawmakers. Melania's guest fell asleep Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Not everyone was exactly gripped by the speech President Trump and First Lady Melania invited 11-year-old Joshua Trump from Wilmington, Delaware, who has been bullied at school because of his surname. Photos appearing to show the boy, who is not related to President Trump, dozing off during the speech earned him some fans on Twitter. His parents pulled him out of school as they said his classmates had called him an "idiot" and "stupid" for sharing the same name as the president. Eline, the girl sitting next to him, has been treated for brain cancer. She seemed to enjoy the evening a lot more. Image copyright AFP/Getty Image caption Joshua won a national bullying award for courage last year Wonky neckwear The State of the Union is an opportunity for the president to inform the nation of his goals for the year ahead. But some were distracted by less weighty issues - the position of his tie. Many took to social media to point out that the president's trademark red tie was off-centre. What is Pelosi reading? During the almost 90-minute address, many social media users seemed preoccupied by trying to guess what Nancy Pelosi was reading. Some took to Twitter to suggest that Ms Pelosi was being "disrespectful" by reading while the president spoke. Green screen? After President Trump finished his address, Stacey Abrams delivered the Democratic response. While the Georgia politician spoke about immigration, voting rights, healthcare and the economy, Twitter-users homed in on the way the address looked. Ms Abrams could be seen standing at a lectern in front of a group of people blurred out behind her. Many wondered if she was appearing in front of a green screen. However, as can be seen below, after Ms Abrams finished speaking and the camera zoomed out, it is clear that a green screen was not used.

www.bbc.com

center

FBD5L49DNFjEO8jy

test

CzTQLeyxPPgzOQmm

national_defense

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49054323

US to send troops to Saudi Arabia as tensions with Iran grow

The Pentagon has said US troops are being deployed to Saudi Arabia to defend American interests from `` emergent credible threats '' . The move comes amid heightened tensions with Iran over the safety of shipping lanes in the Gulf . Saudi Arabia confirmed that King Salman had approved the move `` to strengthen regional security and stability '' . The kingdom has not hosted US combat forces since 2003 , when Donald Rumsfeld announced their withdrawal . The US presence in Saudi Arabia started with Operation Desert Storm in 1991 , when Iraq invaded Kuwait . BBC North America correspondent Peter Bowes says the US is understood to be deploying Patriot air defence missile batteries manned by 500 soldiers to Prince Sultan Base in Saudi Arabia . The US also plans to send a squadron of F-22 stealth fighters to the base . `` This movement of forces provides an additional deterrent and ensures our ability to defend our forces and interests in the region from emergent , credible threats , '' a statement from US Central Command said . Tensions between the US and Iran have worsened since Washington unilaterally withdrew from a landmark 2015 nuclear deal . The US has since tightened sanctions it re-imposed on Iran 's oil sector . Last month , Iran shot down a US surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz , accusing it of violating Iranian airspace . The US insisted the drone had been over international waters at the time , and condemned it as an unprovoked attack . The US has also called on Iran to release a Panamanian-flagged tanker and 12 of its crew , which was seized by Revolutionary Guards on Sunday during a naval patrol . Iran said the vessel had been smuggling fuel . Then on Thursday President Donald Trump said a US warship had destroyed an Iranian drone that came too close . Iran has denied losing a drone . On Friday tensions ratcheted up even higher when Iranian forces seized the UK-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero in the Gulf saying it was in breach of regulations . UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt demanded the tanker 's release , saying there would be `` serious consequences '' if Iran continued to detain it . The US has also blamed Iran for two separate attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman in May and June - an allegation Tehran has denied .

Image copyright AFP Image caption Gen Kenneth McKenzie, Commander of US Central Command, visited Saudi Arabia on Thursday The Pentagon has said US troops are being deployed to Saudi Arabia to defend American interests from "emergent credible threats". The move comes amid heightened tensions with Iran over the safety of shipping lanes in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia confirmed that King Salman had approved the move "to strengthen regional security and stability". The kingdom has not hosted US combat forces since 2003, when Donald Rumsfeld announced their withdrawal. The US presence in Saudi Arabia started with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. BBC North America correspondent Peter Bowes says the US is understood to be deploying Patriot air defence missile batteries manned by 500 soldiers to Prince Sultan Base in Saudi Arabia. The US also plans to send a squadron of F-22 stealth fighters to the base. "This movement of forces provides an additional deterrent and ensures our ability to defend our forces and interests in the region from emergent, credible threats," a statement from US Central Command said. What's the background? Tensions between the US and Iran have worsened since Washington unilaterally withdrew from a landmark 2015 nuclear deal. The US has since tightened sanctions it re-imposed on Iran's oil sector. Last month, Iran shot down a US surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz, accusing it of violating Iranian airspace. The US insisted the drone had been over international waters at the time, and condemned it as an unprovoked attack. The US has also called on Iran to release a Panamanian-flagged tanker and 12 of its crew, which was seized by Revolutionary Guards on Sunday during a naval patrol. Iran said the vessel had been smuggling fuel. Then on Thursday President Donald Trump said a US warship had destroyed an Iranian drone that came too close. Iran has denied losing a drone. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Iran releases video which it claims show its drone still flying On Friday tensions ratcheted up even higher when Iranian forces seized the UK-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero in the Gulf saying it was in breach of regulations. UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt demanded the tanker's release, saying there would be "serious consequences" if Iran continued to detain it. The US has also blamed Iran for two separate attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman in May and June - an allegation Tehran has denied.

www.bbc.com

center

CzTQLeyxPPgzOQmm

test

MY85MtkSEueAEjAW

fbi

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/10/five-questions-for-trumps-fbi-director-nominee-christopher-wray_partner/

Five questions for Trump’s FBI director nominee Christopher Wray

2017-07-10

On Wednesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Christopher Wray , President Trump ’ s nominee to replace James Comey as FBI director . Anyone taking on this critical role must be able to demonstrate that they are committed to independence and to the rule of law — and as such , there are a number of issues that Wray should address as Congress evaluates his nomination . Here are five questions Wray should be asked in the Senate hearing this week : You have spent the last 12 years representing major corporations — including national and international financial institutions , and pharmaceutical , healthcare , and telecommunications companies — against criminal and regulatory investigations and action . And some observers have questioned your approach in white collar enforcement actions , when you headed the Criminal Division , of letting companies submit to monitoring and paying restitution to avoid prosecution . Why should the Senate have confidence in your ability to vigorously investigate and prosecute white collar crime against those and similar interests as head of the FBI ? The FBI is tasked with prosecuting federal election crimes . Our democracy rests on the ability of every voter to cast a ballot that will be counted , and on every ballot being cast legitimately . Fortunately , people showing up at the polls pretending to be someone else and illegally casting a vote under that person ’ s name almost never happens . Despite President Trump ’ s views , study after study has shown that in-person voter fraud is exceeding rare . Do you believe that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem in the United States ? If so , what is the specific evidence supporting your belief ? Your law firm has provided extensive representation to the Russian state-owned oil companies as well as multiple companies engaged in deals with those Russian oil giants . If the Russian influence investigation , or any other FBI investigations , leads to those or related oil interests , will that create a conflict of interest for your involvement ? There have been news reports that your law firm has represented members of the Trump family . Who has your firm represented , and what for ? How would you handle allegations or evidence of illegal activity involving the president , the Trump Organization , or members of the Trump family ?

On Wednesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Christopher Wray, President Trump’s nominee to replace James Comey as FBI director. Anyone taking on this critical role must be able to demonstrate that they are committed to independence and to the rule of law — and as such, there are a number of issues that Wray should address as Congress evaluates his nomination. Here are five questions Wray should be asked in the Senate hearing this week: Advertisement: You have spent the last 12 years representing major corporations — including national and international financial institutions, and pharmaceutical, healthcare, and telecommunications companies — against criminal and regulatory investigations and action. And some observers have questioned your approach in white collar enforcement actions, when you headed the Criminal Division, of letting companies submit to monitoring and paying restitution to avoid prosecution. Why should the Senate have confidence in your ability to vigorously investigate and prosecute white collar crime against those and similar interests as head of the FBI? The FBI is tasked with prosecuting federal election crimes. Our democracy rests on the ability of every voter to cast a ballot that will be counted, and on every ballot being cast legitimately. Fortunately, people showing up at the polls pretending to be someone else and illegally casting a vote under that person’s name almost never happens. Despite President Trump’s views, study after study has shown that in-person voter fraud is exceeding rare. Do you believe that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem in the United States? If so, what is the specific evidence supporting your belief? Your law firm has provided extensive representation to the Russian state-owned oil companies as well as multiple companies engaged in deals with those Russian oil giants. If the Russian influence investigation, or any other FBI investigations, leads to those or related oil interests, will that create a conflict of interest for your involvement? There have been news reports that your law firm has represented members of the Trump family. Who has your firm represented, and what for? How would you handle allegations or evidence of illegal activity involving the president, the Trump Organization, or members of the Trump family?

www.salon.com

left

MY85MtkSEueAEjAW

test

vQPt0yXOPrpxj1CI

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Jeb-Bush-Cuba-repressive-Barack-obama/2014/12/17/id/613609/

Jeb Bush on Cuba: U.S. Shouldn't Negotiate With 'Repressive Regime'

2014-12-17

Andrea Billups

Potential GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush has pushed back on President Barack Obama 's decision to normalize relations with Cuba , saying the U.S. should n't be negotiating with the communist nation until it changed its own human rights record , USA Today reported . Bush , speaking at an event in Florida as Obama made a surprise announcement to end 50 years of sanctions with Cuba , praised the return of American prisoner Alan Gross , but said he believed the president was misguided . `` I do n't think we should be negotiating with a repressive regime to make changes in our relationship [ until Cuba changes ] , '' Bush said.His remarks came as Obama made a historic move to reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba with an eye on setting up an embassy in Havana and other exchanges that would benefit both nations.Other presidential hopefuls are expected to issue their own statements as details emerge on the new accord , The Hill noted . Bush , a former Florida governor who moved to the Sunshine State in the '80s , has bonded with the Cuban exile community there , the Sun-Sentinel reported . He had previously argued for strengthening the U.S. 's long-standing embargo with the communist nation . `` I would argue that instead of lifting the embargo we should consider strengthening it again to put pressure on the Cuban regime , '' Bush said earlier this month to cheers as he spoke at a meeting of the U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC , the Sun-Sentinel said . `` Literally , hundreds of thousands of people travel to Cuba from the United States , spending billions of dollars , '' Bush told the group . `` Would lifting the embargo change the fact that the government receives almost all of the money that comes from these well-intended people that travel to the island ? `` One academic expert said Bush 's position tracks with most that of many conservatives within his party , the Sun-Sentinel added . `` [ Bush 's ] political base has always been the most conservative wing of the Cuban-American community , '' Cuban policy expert William LeoGrande , a professor of government at American University , told the Sun-Sentinel .

Potential GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush has pushed back on President Barack Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba, saying the U.S. shouldn't be negotiating with the communist nation until it changed its own human rights record, USA Today reported. Bush, speaking at an event in Florida as Obama made a surprise announcement to end 50 years of sanctions with Cuba, praised the return of American prisoner Alan Gross, but said he believed the president was misguided."I don't think we should be negotiating with a repressive regime to make changes in our relationship [until Cuba changes]," Bush said.His remarks came as Obama made a historic move to reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba with an eye on setting up an embassy in Havana and other exchanges that would benefit both nations.Other presidential hopefuls are expected to issue their own statements as details emerge on the new accord, The Hill noted. Bush, a former Florida governor who moved to the Sunshine State in the '80s, has bonded with the Cuban exile community there, the Sun-Sentinel reported. He had previously argued for strengthening the U.S.'s long-standing embargo with the communist nation."I would argue that instead of lifting the embargo we should consider strengthening it again to put pressure on the Cuban regime," Bush said earlier this month to cheers as he spoke at a meeting of the U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC, the Sun-Sentinel said. "Literally, hundreds of thousands of people travel to Cuba from the United States, spending billions of dollars," Bush told the group. "Would lifting the embargo change the fact that the government receives almost all of the money that comes from these well-intended people that travel to the island?"One academic expert said Bush's position tracks with most that of many conservatives within his party, the Sun-Sentinel added."[Bush's] political base has always been the most conservative wing of the Cuban-American community," Cuban policy expert William LeoGrande, a professor of government at American University, told the Sun-Sentinel.

www.newsmax.com

right

vQPt0yXOPrpxj1CI

test

neADQPcgfLyFkYOZ

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/c743eaecd9a5948a4576565b12e3230d

Cities brace for increasing unrest, call in National Guard

2020-05-30

Tim Sullivan, Stephen Groves

Police in riot gear prepare to advance on protesters , Saturday , May 30 , 2020 , in Minneapolis . Protests continued following the death of George Floyd , who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day . ( AP Photo/John Minchillo ) Police in riot gear prepare to advance on protesters , Saturday , May 30 , 2020 , in Minneapolis . Protests continued following the death of George Floyd , who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day . ( AP Photo/John Minchillo ) MINNEAPOLIS ( AP ) — Tense protests over the death of George Floyd and other police killings of black people grew Saturday from New York to Tulsa to Los Angeles , with police cars set ablaze and reports of injuries mounting on all sides as the country convulsed through another night of unrest after months of coronavirus lockdowns . The protests , which began in Minneapolis following Floyd ’ s death Monday after a police officer pressed a knee on his neck until he stopped breathing , have left parts of the city a grid of broken windows , burned-out buildings and ransacked stores . The unrest has since become a national phenomenon as protesters decry years of deaths at police hands . Tens of thousands of people were in the streets across the country , many of them not wearing masks or observing social distancing , raising concerns among health experts about the potential for spreading the coronavirus pandemic at a time when much of the country is in the process of reopening society and the economy . After a tumultuous Friday , racially diverse crowds held mostly peaceful demonstrations in dozens of cities , though many later descended into violence as had happened the previous night . Few corners of America were untouched , from protesters setting fires inside Reno ’ s city hall , to police launching tear gas at rock-throwing demonstrators in Fargo , North Dakota , to shattered windows at police headquarters in Richmond , Virginia . — In Indianapolis , police were investigating “ multiple shootings ” downtown , including one that left a person dead , amid the protests . Police gave few details but said no officers were involved . — In Washington , the National Guard was deployed outside the White House , where chanting crowds taunted law enforcement officers . Dressed in camouflage and holding shields , the troops stood in a tight line a few yards from the crowd , preventing them from pushing forward . President Donald Trump , who spent much of Saturday in Florida for the SpaceX rocket launch , landed on the lawn in the presidential helicopter at dusk and went inside without speaking to journalists . — In Philadelphia , at least 13 officers were injured when peaceful protests turned violent and at least four police vehicles were set on fire . Other fires were set throughout downtown . — In Salt Lake City , protesters defied a curfew and National Guard troops were deployed by Utah ’ s governor . Demonstrators flipped a police car and lit it on fire , and another vehicle was later set ablaze . Police said six people were arrested and a police officer was injured after being struck in the head with a baseball bat . — In Los Angeles , protesters chanted “ Black Lives Matter , ” some within inches of the face shields of officers . Police used batons to move the crowd back and fired rubber bullets . A graffiti-covered police car burned in the street . — And in New York City , dangerous confrontations flared repeatedly as officers made arrests and cleared streets . A video showed two NYPD cruisers lurching into a crowd of demonstrators who were pushing a barricade against one of them and pelting it with objects . Several people were knocked to the ground , and it was unclear if anyone was hurt . “ The mistakes that are happening are not mistakes . They ’ re repeated violent terrorist offenses and people need to stop killing black people , ” Brooklyn protester Meryl Makielski said . Not all protests devolved into violence . In Juneau , Alaska , law enforcement officers joined elected officials and residents at a peaceful protest in front of a giant whale sculpture on the city ’ s waterfront . “ We don ’ t tolerate excessive use of force , ” Juneau Police Chief Ed Mercer told the gathering . Back in Minneapolis , the city where the protests began , police , state troopers and National Guard members moved in soon after an 8 p.m. curfew took effect to break up protests , firing tear gas and rubber bullets to clear streets outside a police precinct and elsewhere . The show of force came after three days when police largely avoided engaging protesters , and after the state poured in more than 4,000 National Guard troops to Minneapolis and said the number would soon rise to nearly 11,000 . “ The situation in Minneapolis is no longer in any way about the murder of George Floyd , ” said Gov . Tim Walz , who also said local forces had been overmatched the previous day . “ It is about attacking civil society , instilling fear and disrupting our great cities . ” Minneapolis ’ streets steadily grew calmer as the night went on , and Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell said the tough response would remain as long as it takes to “ quell this situation . ” “ l live here . I haven ’ t been able to sleep , ” said Iman Muhammad , whose neighborhood saw multiple fires set Friday night . Muhammad said she sympathized with peaceful protests over Floyd ’ s death but disagreed with the violence : “ Wrong doesn ’ t answer wrong . ” Trump appeared to cheer on the tougher tactics Saturday night , commending the Guard deployment in Minneapolis , declaring “ No games ! ” and saying police in New York City “ must be allowed to do their job ! ” Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden condemned the violence as he continued to express common cause with those demonstrating after Floyd ’ s death . “ The act of protesting should never be allowed to overshadow the reason we protest , ” Biden said in a statement Saturday night . Overnight curfews were imposed in more than a dozen major cities nationwide , including Atlanta , Denver , Los Angeles , Minneapolis and Seattle . More than 1,300 people have been arrested in 16 cities since Thursday , including over 500 Friday in Los Angeles . The unrest comes at a time when most Americans have spent months inside over concerns surrounding the coronavirus , which the president has called an “ invisible enemy. ” The events of the last 72 hours , seen live on national television , have shown the opposite : a sudden pivot to crowds , screaming protesters and burning buildings , and a stark contrast to the empty streets of recent months . “ Quite frankly I ’ m ready to just lock people up , ” Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields said at a news conference . Demonstrations there turned violent Friday , and police were arresting protesters Saturday on blocked-off downtown streets . “ Yes , you caught us off balance once . It ’ s not going to happen twice . ” This week ’ s unrest recalled the riots in Los Angeles nearly 30 years ago after the acquittal of the white police officers who beat Rodney King , a black motorist who had led them on a high-speed chase . The protests of Floyd ’ s killing have gripped many more cities , but the losses in Minneapolis have yet to approach the staggering totals Los Angeles saw during five days of rioting in 1992 , when more than 60 people died , 2,000-plus were injured and thousands arrested , with property damage topping $ 1 billion . Many protesters spoke of frustration that Floyd ’ s death was one more in a litany . It came in the wake of the killing in Georgia of Ahmaud Arbery , a black man who was shot dead after being pursued by two white men while running in their neighborhood , and in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic that has thrown millions out of work , killed more than 100,000 people in the U.S. and disproportionately affected black people . The officer who held his knee to Floyd ’ s neck as he begged for air was arrested Friday and charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter . But many protesters are demanding the arrests of the three other officers involved . Trump stoked the anger on Twitter , saying that if protesters had breached the White House fence , they would “ have been greeted with the most vicious dogs , and most ominous weapons , I have ever seen . ” Leaders in many affected cities have voiced outrage over Floyd ’ s killing and expressed sympathy for protesters ’ concerns . But as the unrest intensified , they spoke of a desperate need to protect their cities and said they would call in reinforcements , despite concerns that could lead to more heavy-handed tactics . Governors in Georgia , Kentucky , Ohio and Texas also activated the National Guard after protests there turned violent . Police in St. Louis were investigating the death of a protester who climbed between two trailers of a Fed Ex truck and was killed when it drove away . And a person was killed in the area of protests in downtown Detroit just before midnight after someone fired shots into an SUV , officers said . Police had initially said someone fired into the crowd from an SUV .

Police in riot gear prepare to advance on protesters, Saturday, May 30, 2020, in Minneapolis. Protests continued following the death of George Floyd, who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) Police in riot gear prepare to advance on protesters, Saturday, May 30, 2020, in Minneapolis. Protests continued following the death of George Floyd, who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Tense protests over the death of George Floyd and other police killings of black people grew Saturday from New York to Tulsa to Los Angeles, with police cars set ablaze and reports of injuries mounting on all sides as the country convulsed through another night of unrest after months of coronavirus lockdowns. The protests, which began in Minneapolis following Floyd’s death Monday after a police officer pressed a knee on his neck until he stopped breathing, have left parts of the city a grid of broken windows, burned-out buildings and ransacked stores. The unrest has since become a national phenomenon as protesters decry years of deaths at police hands. ADVERTISEMENT Tens of thousands of people were in the streets across the country, many of them not wearing masks or observing social distancing, raising concerns among health experts about the potential for spreading the coronavirus pandemic at a time when much of the country is in the process of reopening society and the economy. After a tumultuous Friday, racially diverse crowds held mostly peaceful demonstrations in dozens of cities, though many later descended into violence as had happened the previous night. Few corners of America were untouched, from protesters setting fires inside Reno’s city hall, to police launching tear gas at rock-throwing demonstrators in Fargo, North Dakota, to shattered windows at police headquarters in Richmond, Virginia. — In Indianapolis, police were investigating “multiple shootings” downtown, including one that left a person dead, amid the protests. Police gave few details but said no officers were involved. — In Washington, the National Guard was deployed outside the White House, where chanting crowds taunted law enforcement officers. Dressed in camouflage and holding shields, the troops stood in a tight line a few yards from the crowd, preventing them from pushing forward. President Donald Trump, who spent much of Saturday in Florida for the SpaceX rocket launch, landed on the lawn in the presidential helicopter at dusk and went inside without speaking to journalists. — In Philadelphia, at least 13 officers were injured when peaceful protests turned violent and at least four police vehicles were set on fire. Other fires were set throughout downtown. — In Salt Lake City, protesters defied a curfew and National Guard troops were deployed by Utah’s governor. Demonstrators flipped a police car and lit it on fire, and another vehicle was later set ablaze. Police said six people were arrested and a police officer was injured after being struck in the head with a baseball bat. — In Los Angeles, protesters chanted “Black Lives Matter,” some within inches of the face shields of officers. Police used batons to move the crowd back and fired rubber bullets. A graffiti-covered police car burned in the street. — And in New York City, dangerous confrontations flared repeatedly as officers made arrests and cleared streets. A video showed two NYPD cruisers lurching into a crowd of demonstrators who were pushing a barricade against one of them and pelting it with objects. Several people were knocked to the ground, and it was unclear if anyone was hurt. “The mistakes that are happening are not mistakes. They’re repeated violent terrorist offenses and people need to stop killing black people,” Brooklyn protester Meryl Makielski said. Not all protests devolved into violence. In Juneau, Alaska, law enforcement officers joined elected officials and residents at a peaceful protest in front of a giant whale sculpture on the city’s waterfront. “We don’t tolerate excessive use of force,” Juneau Police Chief Ed Mercer told the gathering. Back in Minneapolis, the city where the protests began, police, state troopers and National Guard members moved in soon after an 8 p.m. curfew took effect to break up protests, firing tear gas and rubber bullets to clear streets outside a police precinct and elsewhere. The show of force came after three days when police largely avoided engaging protesters, and after the state poured in more than 4,000 National Guard troops to Minneapolis and said the number would soon rise to nearly 11,000. “The situation in Minneapolis is no longer in any way about the murder of George Floyd,” said Gov. Tim Walz, who also said local forces had been overmatched the previous day. “It is about attacking civil society, instilling fear and disrupting our great cities.” Full Coverage: America Protests Minneapolis’ streets steadily grew calmer as the night went on, and Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell said the tough response would remain as long as it takes to “quell this situation.” Some residents were glad to see the upheaval dissipating. “l live here. I haven’t been able to sleep,” said Iman Muhammad, whose neighborhood saw multiple fires set Friday night. Muhammad said she sympathized with peaceful protests over Floyd’s death but disagreed with the violence: “Wrong doesn’t answer wrong.” Trump appeared to cheer on the tougher tactics Saturday night, commending the Guard deployment in Minneapolis, declaring “No games!” and saying police in New York City “must be allowed to do their job!” Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden condemned the violence as he continued to express common cause with those demonstrating after Floyd’s death. “The act of protesting should never be allowed to overshadow the reason we protest,” Biden said in a statement Saturday night. Overnight curfews were imposed in more than a dozen major cities nationwide, including Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle. More than 1,300 people have been arrested in 16 cities since Thursday, including over 500 Friday in Los Angeles. The unrest comes at a time when most Americans have spent months inside over concerns surrounding the coronavirus, which the president has called an “invisible enemy.” The events of the last 72 hours, seen live on national television, have shown the opposite: a sudden pivot to crowds, screaming protesters and burning buildings, and a stark contrast to the empty streets of recent months. “Quite frankly I’m ready to just lock people up,” Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields said at a news conference. Demonstrations there turned violent Friday, and police were arresting protesters Saturday on blocked-off downtown streets. “Yes, you caught us off balance once. It’s not going to happen twice.” This week’s unrest recalled the riots in Los Angeles nearly 30 years ago after the acquittal of the white police officers who beat Rodney King, a black motorist who had led them on a high-speed chase. The protests of Floyd’s killing have gripped many more cities, but the losses in Minneapolis have yet to approach the staggering totals Los Angeles saw during five days of rioting in 1992, when more than 60 people died, 2,000-plus were injured and thousands arrested, with property damage topping $1 billion. Many protesters spoke of frustration that Floyd’s death was one more in a litany. It came in the wake of the killing in Georgia of Ahmaud Arbery, a black man who was shot dead after being pursued by two white men while running in their neighborhood, and in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic that has thrown millions out of work, killed more than 100,000 people in the U.S. and disproportionately affected black people. The officer who held his knee to Floyd’s neck as he begged for air was arrested Friday and charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. But many protesters are demanding the arrests of the three other officers involved. Trump stoked the anger on Twitter, saying that if protesters had breached the White House fence, they would “have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen.” Leaders in many affected cities have voiced outrage over Floyd’s killing and expressed sympathy for protesters’ concerns. But as the unrest intensified, they spoke of a desperate need to protect their cities and said they would call in reinforcements, despite concerns that could lead to more heavy-handed tactics. Governors in Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio and Texas also activated the National Guard after protests there turned violent. Police in St. Louis were investigating the death of a protester who climbed between two trailers of a Fed Ex truck and was killed when it drove away. And a person was killed in the area of protests in downtown Detroit just before midnight after someone fired shots into an SUV, officers said. Police had initially said someone fired into the crowd from an SUV. ___ Numerous AP journalists contributed from across the U.S.

www.apnews.com

center

neADQPcgfLyFkYOZ

test

XYULNFBFtFYQIaae

fbi

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN18V0Y5

Comey to be pressed on whether Trump interfered with Russia probe

2017-06-05

Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Former FBI Director James Comey will be grilled on whether President Donald Trump tried to get him to back off an investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia , key U.S. senators said on Sunday ahead of Comey ’ s testimony this week on Capitol Hill . FILE PHOTO - FBI Director James Comey prepares to testify before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on `` Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation '' on Capitol Hill in Washington , U.S. , May 3 , 2017 . ███/Kevin Lamarque Comey , who was leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation ’ s probe into alleged Russian meddling in last year ’ s U.S. presidential election , was fired by Trump last month , four years into his 10-year term . The move sparked accusations that Trump dismissed Comey to hinder that investigation and stifle questions about possible collusion between his campaign and Russia . “ I want to know what kind of pressure - appropriate , inappropriate - how many conversations he had with the president about this topic ? ” Senator Mark Warner , the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee , told CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation ” program on Sunday . The former FBI chief is due to testify on Thursday before the intelligence committee as part of its own Russia-related investigation . After Comey ’ s dismissal , news reports emerged that Trump asked Comey to end the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn during a February meeting in the Oval Office , the day after Flynn was fired for misrepresenting his contacts with the Russian ambassador . The account , first reported by the New York Times , was based on a memo Comey wrote after the meeting . The Comey memo caused alarm on Capitol Hill and raised questions about whether Trump tried to interfere with a federal investigation . “ It would be unthinkable if the president actually did what was reported , asked FBI Director Comey to , in effect , back off of at least the investigation into General Flynn , ” Warner said . The potential for explosive testimony from Comey that could impact a sitting president makes Thursday ’ s hearing a highly anticipated event , akin to the hearings in the 1970s examining the Watergate scandal , said Linda Peek-Schacht , a political adviser who worked in President Jimmy Carter ’ s White House . “ There are only a few times when Americans come together to watch one thing , ” said Peek-Schacht , founder of a civics institute at Lipscomb University in Tennessee . “ Americans will be watching this . ” U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in January that Moscow tried to sway the November vote in Trump ’ s favor . Russia has denied involvement , and Trump has denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia . Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview that he does not have any relationship with Flynn and only spoke briefly with Flynn when he sat next to him at a 2015 dinner for Russian TV network RT . “ I made my speech . Then we talked about some other stuff . And I got up and left , ” Putin told NBC News ’ “ Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly ” program . “ That ’ s it . I didn ’ t even really talk to him . That ’ s the extent of my acquaintance with Mr. Flynn . ” Republican Senator Susan Collins , who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee , said she is eager to question Comey to find out more about Trump ’ s allegation that Comey told him on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation . “ We need to hear directly from Mr. Comey on these important issues , ” Collins told “ Face the Nation . ” “ The tone , the exact words that were spoken and the context are so important and that ’ s what we lack right now and we can only get that by talking to those directly involved , ” she said . Trump has called the investigation into alleged ties between his campaign and Russia a “ witch hunt ” designed to undermine the legitimacy of his electoral win . After reports that Trump asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein hired former FBI chief Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the FBI ’ s Russia probe .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former FBI Director James Comey will be grilled on whether President Donald Trump tried to get him to back off an investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, key U.S. senators said on Sunday ahead of Comey’s testimony this week on Capitol Hill. FILE PHOTO - FBI Director James Comey prepares to testify before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation" on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque Comey, who was leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into alleged Russian meddling in last year’s U.S. presidential election, was fired by Trump last month, four years into his 10-year term. The move sparked accusations that Trump dismissed Comey to hinder that investigation and stifle questions about possible collusion between his campaign and Russia. “I want to know what kind of pressure - appropriate, inappropriate - how many conversations he had with the president about this topic?” Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” program on Sunday. The former FBI chief is due to testify on Thursday before the intelligence committee as part of its own Russia-related investigation. After Comey’s dismissal, news reports emerged that Trump asked Comey to end the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn during a February meeting in the Oval Office, the day after Flynn was fired for misrepresenting his contacts with the Russian ambassador. The account, first reported by the New York Times, was based on a memo Comey wrote after the meeting. The Comey memo caused alarm on Capitol Hill and raised questions about whether Trump tried to interfere with a federal investigation. “It would be unthinkable if the president actually did what was reported, asked FBI Director Comey to, in effect, back off of at least the investigation into General Flynn,” Warner said. The potential for explosive testimony from Comey that could impact a sitting president makes Thursday’s hearing a highly anticipated event, akin to the hearings in the 1970s examining the Watergate scandal, said Linda Peek-Schacht, a political adviser who worked in President Jimmy Carter’s White House. “There are only a few times when Americans come together to watch one thing,” said Peek-Schacht, founder of a civics institute at Lipscomb University in Tennessee. “Americans will be watching this.” LOOKING FOR ‘EXACT WORDS’ U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in January that Moscow tried to sway the November vote in Trump’s favor. Russia has denied involvement, and Trump has denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview that he does not have any relationship with Flynn and only spoke briefly with Flynn when he sat next to him at a 2015 dinner for Russian TV network RT. “I made my speech. Then we talked about some other stuff. And I got up and left,” Putin told NBC News’ “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” program. “That’s it. I didn’t even really talk to him. That’s the extent of my acquaintance with Mr. Flynn.” Republican Senator Susan Collins, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she is eager to question Comey to find out more about Trump’s allegation that Comey told him on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation. “We need to hear directly from Mr. Comey on these important issues,” Collins told “Face the Nation.” “The tone, the exact words that were spoken and the context are so important and that’s what we lack right now and we can only get that by talking to those directly involved,” she said. Trump has called the investigation into alleged ties between his campaign and Russia a “witch hunt” designed to undermine the legitimacy of his electoral win. After reports that Trump asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein hired former FBI chief Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the FBI’s Russia probe.

www.reuters.com

center

XYULNFBFtFYQIaae

test

Do6OUs1qICPSP1t6

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/august/plans-for-impeachment-latest-trump-tweets-fuel-democrat-dreams-of-defeating-the-president

Plans for Impeachment? Latest Trump Tweets Fuel Democrat Dreams of Defeating the President

2018-08-06

President Donald Trump 's growing frustration with the ongoing Russia investigation spilled over onto Twitter again this weekend . Fake News reporting , a complete fabrication , that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son , Donald , had in Trump Tower . This was a meeting to get information on an opponent , totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere . I did not know about it ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 5 , 2018 It confirms the 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was about gathering opposition research from a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties , and not primarily the issue of international adoptions as previously stated . `` The question is , what law , statute , rule or regulation has been violated ? Nobody has pointed to one , '' Sekulow said to ABC This Week . Trump 's tweet came on the heels of another tweet last week in which he said Attorney General Jeff Sessions `` should stop this rigged witch hunt right now . '' .. This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now , before it continues to stain our country any further . Bob Mueller is totally conflicted , and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 Democrats call the statement obstruction of justice , plain and simple . But Sekulow says , not so fast . `` Obstruction of justice by tweet is absurd , '' he said . `` This theory that 's being bandied around that you can have an obstruction case by tweet - and by the way , ( Attorney General ) Jeff Sessions and Bob Mueller and all of them , the entire Department of Justice are under what ? The Article II branch of government . '' Article II is what grants the president of the United States executive powers over the government . `` And that 's why I go back to saying that at the end of the day this is all about the Constitution , it 's all about Article II and that would be the question if it went to court . That would be the question that the courts would be addressing . For someone to make an allegation of obstruction , those are Article II powers , '' he said . While President Trump 's lawyers say he is willing to sit down for an interview with the special counsel , they 've advised against it , leaving the question for Robert Mueller 's team : to subpoena or not to subpoena ? `` A subpoena for live testimony has never been tested in court as to a president of the United States and there is a lot of language and articles and precedent against that . But if that decision is made , we 'll prepare to handle it in court , '' Sekulow assured . While the president is calling for the investigation to end , Sen. Marco Rubio , R-FL , says it must continue , for the good of the nation . `` I believe it is in the best interest of the president , and of the United States of America and the American people for that investigation to run the course , for all the truth to come out , '' Rubio told Fox News Sunday . `` If there was strong evidence of collusion , I guarantee you it would 've been leaked by now , '' he continued . Meanwhile , visions of a blue wave in the upcoming midterm elections have some Democrats talking impeachment again . `` Two in three Democratic voters say if they win the House , they should begin the process of impeaching president Trump . Would you support that ? '' CNN 's Jake Tapper asked former Massachusetts Gov . Deval Patrick , a possible 2020 presidential contender . `` Yeah , if the grounds are there then we should proceed , '' said Patrick without hesitation . He did , however , say impeachment should not be the first order of business . Others in the party say the Democrats need to be careful when it comes to invoking the `` I '' word .

President Donald Trump's growing frustration with the ongoing Russia investigation spilled over onto Twitter again this weekend. Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018 It confirms the 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was about gathering opposition research from a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties, and not primarily the issue of international adoptions as previously stated. Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow says that isn't a crime. "The question is, what law, statute, rule or regulation has been violated? Nobody has pointed to one," Sekulow said to ABC This Week. Trump's tweet came on the heels of another tweet last week in which he said Attorney General Jeff Sessions "should stop this rigged witch hunt right now." ..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 Democrats call the statement obstruction of justice, plain and simple. But Sekulow says, not so fast. "Obstruction of justice by tweet is absurd," he said. "This theory that's being bandied around that you can have an obstruction case by tweet - and by the way, (Attorney General) Jeff Sessions and Bob Mueller and all of them, the entire Department of Justice are under what? The Article II branch of government." Article II is what grants the president of the United States executive powers over the government. "And that's why I go back to saying that at the end of the day this is all about the Constitution, it's all about Article II and that would be the question if it went to court. That would be the question that the courts would be addressing. For someone to make an allegation of obstruction, those are Article II powers," he said. While President Trump's lawyers say he is willing to sit down for an interview with the special counsel, they've advised against it, leaving the question for Robert Mueller's team: to subpoena or not to subpoena? "A subpoena for live testimony has never been tested in court as to a president of the United States and there is a lot of language and articles and precedent against that. But if that decision is made, we'll prepare to handle it in court," Sekulow assured. MEDIA BIAS: Trump and the Age of the Correspundit While the president is calling for the investigation to end, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says it must continue, for the good of the nation. "I believe it is in the best interest of the president, and of the United States of America and the American people for that investigation to run the course, for all the truth to come out," Rubio told Fox News Sunday. "If there was strong evidence of collusion, I guarantee you it would've been leaked by now," he continued. Meanwhile, visions of a blue wave in the upcoming midterm elections have some Democrats talking impeachment again. "Two in three Democratic voters say if they win the House, they should begin the process of impeaching president Trump. Would you support that?" CNN's Jake Tapper asked former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a possible 2020 presidential contender. "Yeah, if the grounds are there then we should proceed," said Patrick without hesitation. He did, however, say impeachment should not be the first order of business. Others in the party say the Democrats need to be careful when it comes to invoking the "I" word.

www1.cbn.com

right

Do6OUs1qICPSP1t6

test

qN0NoW5hCmIxTl7c

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/09/conservatives-fear-republicans-are-squandering-their-chance-to-govern/

Conservatives Fear Republicans Are Squandering Their Chance To Govern

2017-11-09

The legislative failures marking President Trump ’ s first 10 months in office have conservative leaders worried that Republicans are squandering a rare chance to advance conservative policies while holding the House , the Senate and the White House . Republicans have struggled to keep long-standing promises to conservatives , such as repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act , or defunding Planned Parenthood . Republicans so far have zero legislative achievements in the almost 10 months that President Trump has been in office . Having failed on health care and accomplished little on immigration , Republicans ’ best hope for a legislative victory is passing tax reform , which is no sure thing . Some conservatives have criticized the current GOP tax bill for not doing enough for working families , and three Republican senators have already expressed concern about the bill . House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has said she wants tax reform to fail so Democrats can take back the House . SEAN HANNITY TELLS GOP THEY NEED TO GET IT TOGETHER As their failures have piled up , a flood of Republicans in both the House and the Senate have announced that they will not seek re-election ahead of next year ’ s midterms . The Democratic landslide in Virginia ’ s elections on Tuesday has some Republicans fearing a wave election in 2018 that could lose them the House and possibly the Senate . Grassroots conservatives , meanwhile , fear that years of work helping Republican politicians get elected will be for nothing , if Republicans lose the House in 2018 with little to show for their time in control . “ The voters in Virginia offered a stark warning to Republican leaders : if you don ’ t keep your campaign promises , there ’ s no reason to keep electing Republicans . The top concern was health care , and Republicans failed to deliver on their nearly decade old pledge to repeal failing Obamacare which is killing our health care system , ” Jim DeMint , chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute , told ███ . “ The policy failures of this Republican Congress are dispiriting voters nationwide . Conservatives have done their part to advance the policies that swept President Trump into office , but liberal Republicans are breaking their campaign promises to repeal Obamacare and oppose amnesty , ” DeMint added . “ Still , this Republican Congress continues to show no sense of urgency , taking long weekend breaks and blaming Democrats for their problems . Leaders should keep Congress in session 24 hours a day , seven days a week until they do what they promised : cut taxes , repeal Obamacare , and secure our borders . ” Morton Blackwell , chairman of the Leadership Institute , expressed concern that the Virginia results could be the start of a wave that hands the House back to the Democrats next year . ( Full disclosure : This reporter wrote for Campus Reform , a project of LI , during college . ) “ In my view , there is a political imperative , regardless of whether you are conservative or just a Republican but not committed to conservative principles , for the sake of the party there needs to be immense effort to pass as much as can be done between now and the elections next year , ” Blackwell told TheDC . “ It ’ s so obvious to me that this ought to be done that I ’ m really appalled at how little has been achieved . The House has passed a great many good bills but the Democrats in the Senate have stopped lots of votes on things and the Republicans are not pushing hard , ” Blackwell continued . “ I think it is politically very unwise to have business as usual given the current circumstance , ” he added . Losing the House in 2018 could prove disastrous not just for the conservative agenda , but for the Trump presidency as well , as it could allow Democrats to impeach President Trump . ( RELATED : Gutiérrez Pushes Impeachment Day After NYC Terror Attack ) Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has previously said that a Republican failure on tax reform would guarantee Democrats take back the House in 2018 , likely leading Democrats to impeach the president . “ I can ’ t imagine how [ Trump ] could be successful with Nancy Pelosi running the House , ” Graham said . “ They ’ d try to impeach him pretty quick and it would be just one constant investigation after another . So it ’ s important that we pass tax reform in a meaningful way . If we don ’ t , that ’ s probably the end of the Republican Party as we know it . ”

The legislative failures marking President Trump’s first 10 months in office have conservative leaders worried that Republicans are squandering a rare chance to advance conservative policies while holding the House, the Senate and the White House. Republicans have struggled to keep long-standing promises to conservatives, such as repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, or defunding Planned Parenthood. Republicans so far have zero legislative achievements in the almost 10 months that President Trump has been in office. Having failed on health care and accomplished little on immigration, Republicans’ best hope for a legislative victory is passing tax reform, which is no sure thing. Some conservatives have criticized the current GOP tax bill for not doing enough for working families, and three Republican senators have already expressed concern about the bill. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has said she wants tax reform to fail so Democrats can take back the House. SEAN HANNITY TELLS GOP THEY NEED TO GET IT TOGETHER As their failures have piled up, a flood of Republicans in both the House and the Senate have announced that they will not seek re-election ahead of next year’s midterms. The Democratic landslide in Virginia’s elections on Tuesday has some Republicans fearing a wave election in 2018 that could lose them the House and possibly the Senate. Grassroots conservatives, meanwhile, fear that years of work helping Republican politicians get elected will be for nothing, if Republicans lose the House in 2018 with little to show for their time in control. “The voters in Virginia offered a stark warning to Republican leaders: if you don’t keep your campaign promises, there’s no reason to keep electing Republicans. The top concern was health care, and Republicans failed to deliver on their nearly decade old pledge to repeal failing Obamacare which is killing our health care system,” Jim DeMint, chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute, told The Daily Caller. “The policy failures of this Republican Congress are dispiriting voters nationwide. Conservatives have done their part to advance the policies that swept President Trump into office, but liberal Republicans are breaking their campaign promises to repeal Obamacare and oppose amnesty,” DeMint added. “Still, this Republican Congress continues to show no sense of urgency, taking long weekend breaks and blaming Democrats for their problems. Leaders should keep Congress in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week until they do what they promised: cut taxes, repeal Obamacare, and secure our borders.” Morton Blackwell, chairman of the Leadership Institute, expressed concern that the Virginia results could be the start of a wave that hands the House back to the Democrats next year. (Full disclosure: This reporter wrote for Campus Reform, a project of LI, during college.) “In my view, there is a political imperative, regardless of whether you are conservative or just a Republican but not committed to conservative principles, for the sake of the party there needs to be immense effort to pass as much as can be done between now and the elections next year,” Blackwell told TheDC. “It’s so obvious to me that this ought to be done that I’m really appalled at how little has been achieved. The House has passed a great many good bills but the Democrats in the Senate have stopped lots of votes on things and the Republicans are not pushing hard,” Blackwell continued. “I think it is politically very unwise to have business as usual given the current circumstance,” he added. Losing the House in 2018 could prove disastrous not just for the conservative agenda, but for the Trump presidency as well, as it could allow Democrats to impeach President Trump. (RELATED: Gutiérrez Pushes Impeachment Day After NYC Terror Attack) Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has previously said that a Republican failure on tax reform would guarantee Democrats take back the House in 2018, likely leading Democrats to impeach the president. “I can’t imagine how [Trump] could be successful with Nancy Pelosi running the House,” Graham said. “They’d try to impeach him pretty quick and it would be just one constant investigation after another. So it’s important that we pass tax reform in a meaningful way. If we don’t, that’s probably the end of the Republican Party as we know it.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

qN0NoW5hCmIxTl7c

test

WsTMf4kBrQW8z2TT

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/13/trump-gun-control-google/

Here’s The Former NBC Exec Who’s Pushing Trump On Using Google To Determine Who Owns A Gun

2019-09-13

One of the key figures in talks to push Trump into using Google to determine the next mass shooter is a longtime friend of the president who is a former NBC executive . Analysts argue that Trump ’ s potential use of a big tech algorithms to determine who could commit a mass shooting risks hitting lots of innocent people . The White House refuses to respond to questions about whether Trump is considering using big tech companies to aid in corralling potential mass shooters . One of the chief proponents urging the Trump administration to use big tech companies to collect data on users who could potentially conduct violent actions is a former NBC executive and long-time friend of President Donald Trump . Reports show former NBC chairman Bob Wright has briefed Trump officials on a proposal to create an agency called Health Advanced Research Projects Agency , or HARPA , to design inventive ways to use data for preventing violent incidents . Wright is one of Trump ’ s long-time friends . Ivanka Trump asked people pushing for the new agency if it could prevent mass shootings , one person familiar with the conversations who spoke on anonymity because off the sensitive details told The Washington Post on Sept. 9 . Her questions came after the shootings in El Paso , Texas , and Dayton , Ohio . HARPA would develop “ breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence , ” according to a copy of the proposal . “ A multi-modality solution , along with real-time data analytics , is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis . ” The document notes that such data collection would be up to new forms of technology , including Apple Watches , Amazon Echo and Google Home . Geoffrey Ling , the lead scientific adviser on HARPA , told reporters in August that the plan would require enormous amounts of data and “ scientific rigor . ” “ To those who say this is a half-baked idea , I would say , ‘ What ’ s your idea ? What are you doing about this ? ' ” said Ling , who served as the Founding Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from 2014 to 2016 . DARPA helps the Pentagon develop technology to solve complex problems . Ling did not respond to ███ News Foundation ’ s request for comment about the nature of the program and whether it could be abused . Trump has a close personal relationship with Wright , who founded the Suzanne Wright Foundation after his wife died from pancreatic cancer . Wright , a former chair of NBC who worked at the channel when Trump headlined “ The Apprentice , ” was a supporter of the president ’ s 2016 successful White House run . Wright has not responded to the DCNF ’ s request for comment through his charity , AutismSpeaks . The White House has also repeatedly declined to comment on this story . “ I would love if some new technology suddenly came along that would help us identify violent risk , but there ’ s so many things about this idea of predicting violence that doesn ’ t make sense , ” Marisa Randazzo , former chief research psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service , told reporters . Such a program would probably flag tens , or hundreds of thousands , more possible suspects than actual shooters , Randazzo noted , adding that there ’ s a high possibility of false-positives . It would be difficult to determine which people really were at risk of acting violently and which were merely citizens , she added . Similar circumstances befuddle conservatives on social media platforms . ( RELATED : Conservatives Say Facebook Is Suppressing Much Of Their Content . Here ’ s What Experts Say ) Facebook , for instance , has faced criticisms of censoring conservatives , though some Democrats are also dinging the Silicon Valley giant . Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , for one , has advocated for breaking up what she believes is Facebook and Amazon ’ s monopoly . Conservatives meanwhile have hammered the company during the past few years over concerns related to censorship . Some tech analysts argue evidence of Facebook censorship are actually examples of the big tech company ’ s algorithms suffering false-positives . Emily Williams , a data scientist and researcher based in California , believes Facebook ’ s algorithm likely has a 70 percent success rate , meaning roughly 30 percent of the time moderators are nixing conservatives who are sharing provocative content but not prohibitive content . In short , the company ’ s algorithms are unable to distinguish between valid conservative content and white nationalist content .

One of the key figures in talks to push Trump into using Google to determine the next mass shooter is a longtime friend of the president who is a former NBC executive. Analysts argue that Trump’s potential use of a big tech algorithms to determine who could commit a mass shooting risks hitting lots of innocent people. The White House refuses to respond to questions about whether Trump is considering using big tech companies to aid in corralling potential mass shooters. One of the chief proponents urging the Trump administration to use big tech companies to collect data on users who could potentially conduct violent actions is a former NBC executive and long-time friend of President Donald Trump. Reports show former NBC chairman Bob Wright has briefed Trump officials on a proposal to create an agency called Health Advanced Research Projects Agency, or HARPA, to design inventive ways to use data for preventing violent incidents. Wright is one of Trump’s long-time friends. Ivanka Trump asked people pushing for the new agency if it could prevent mass shootings, one person familiar with the conversations who spoke on anonymity because off the sensitive details told The Washington Post on Sept. 9. Her questions came after the shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. HARPA would develop “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,” according to a copy of the proposal. “A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis.” The document notes that such data collection would be up to new forms of technology, including Apple Watches, Amazon Echo and Google Home. Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA, told reporters in August that the plan would require enormous amounts of data and “scientific rigor.” “To those who say this is a half-baked idea, I would say, ‘What’s your idea? What are you doing about this?'” said Ling, who served as the Founding Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from 2014 to 2016. DARPA helps the Pentagon develop technology to solve complex problems. Ling did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the nature of the program and whether it could be abused. Trump has a close personal relationship with Wright, who founded the Suzanne Wright Foundation after his wife died from pancreatic cancer. Wright, a former chair of NBC who worked at the channel when Trump headlined “The Apprentice,” was a supporter of the president’s 2016 successful White House run. Wright has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment through his charity, AutismSpeaks. The White House has also repeatedly declined to comment on this story. Some analysts worry HARPA sets a potentially dangerous precedent. “I would love if some new technology suddenly came along that would help us identify violent risk, but there’s so many things about this idea of predicting violence that doesn’t make sense,” Marisa Randazzo, former chief research psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service, told reporters. Such a program would probably flag tens, or hundreds of thousands, more possible suspects than actual shooters, Randazzo noted, adding that there’s a high possibility of false-positives. It would be difficult to determine which people really were at risk of acting violently and which were merely citizens, she added. Similar circumstances befuddle conservatives on social media platforms. (RELATED: Conservatives Say Facebook Is Suppressing Much Of Their Content. Here’s What Experts Say) Facebook, for instance, has faced criticisms of censoring conservatives, though some Democrats are also dinging the Silicon Valley giant. Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for one, has advocated for breaking up what she believes is Facebook and Amazon’s monopoly. Conservatives meanwhile have hammered the company during the past few years over concerns related to censorship. Some tech analysts argue evidence of Facebook censorship are actually examples of the big tech company’s algorithms suffering false-positives. Emily Williams, a data scientist and researcher based in California, believes Facebook’s algorithm likely has a 70 percent success rate, meaning roughly 30 percent of the time moderators are nixing conservatives who are sharing provocative content but not prohibitive content. In short, the company’s algorithms are unable to distinguish between valid conservative content and white nationalist content. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

WsTMf4kBrQW8z2TT

test

Dn1JbTReruVnFkcw

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/01/27/stop-telling-us-how-to-be-patriotic

Stop Telling Us How to Be Patriotic

2017-01-27

David Harsanyi, Jacob Sullum, Eugene Volokh, Noah Shepardson, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon

Politicians have no business directing or defining patriotism , especially when their rhetoric sounds like 1950s-era Soviet sloganeering . It was creepy when former President Barack Obama declared his first Inauguration Day as `` National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation '' and called upon us to find `` common purpose of remaking this nation for our new century . '' And it 's creepy when President Donald Trump declares his Inauguration Day as `` National Day of Patriotic Devotion , '' one in which `` a new national pride stirs the American soul and inspires the American heart . '' This kind of self-aggrandizement is what you see under cults of personality , not American republicanism . Far be it from me to lecture anyone on how to love their country , but if your devotion to America is contingent upon the party or the person in office , you 're probably not doing it quite like the Founding Fathers envisioned . It 's bad enough that these inaugurations are treated as coronations . It ca n't be patriotic to treat politicians like quasi-religious figures . Moreover , this kind of devotional ties patriotism—either implicitly or in some cases rather explicitly—to a preferred set of policy initiatives or a political office . We just survived eight years of a messianic presidency with a finger-wagging , patriotism-appropriating administration lecturing us on how to be proper Americans . If you did n't support the administration 's point of view , then-Vice President Joe Biden might accuse you of `` betting against America . '' `` What we need as a nation , '' then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew wrote to Congress in 2014 , echoing the president , `` is a new sens e of economic patriotism , where we all rise or fall together . '' Was Lew talking about our unalienable right of free expression ? No , he was talking about punishing America-based companies that were trying to lower their tax burden , which happens to be one of the highest rates in the free world . By the way , if we 're going to play this game , avoiding excessive taxation is also one of the most American things we can do . So it was creepy when Obama was trying to replace American idealism with progressivism and calling it `` economic patriotism , '' and it 's creepy when Trump does basically the same thing under the guise of economic nationalism . Now , judging from the campaign rhetoric , failing to support tariffs or other counterproductive `` buy American '' economic policies will have you branded seditious over the next four years . Trump 's chief strategist , Steve Bannon , who probably had something to do with the devotion executive order , has referred to himself as an `` economic nationalist , '' a loaded term that means you only love your country if you support mercantilism . Economic nationalists rely on a populism that lays blame on others—Mexico , China , whoever—for American problems . It 's a philosophy , if we trust Bannon or Trump , that values power over most principles , including liberty . It 's a philosophy that sounds like many things , none of them American patriotism . The idea is amorphous , but patriotism , especially in this country , is driven by idealism rather than chauvinism , ethnicity or `` power . '' As George Orwell famously noted , nationalism is n't the same as patriotism . In the American sense , patriotism is a fidelity to a place and the Constitution and is by nature `` defensive , both militarily and culturally . '' Nationalism , on the other hand , `` is inseparable from the desire for power . '' A devotional to our `` new national pride '' strongly hints at the latter . You can hate your president and love your country . You can hope your president fails and still be patriotic . We do n't always have a shared purpose . That 's because presidents are not only commanders in chief but also politicians with agendas . And sometimes those agendas clash with your worldview . Let 's not have devotionals venerating their ascendency every four years .

Politicians have no business directing or defining patriotism, especially when their rhetoric sounds like 1950s-era Soviet sloganeering. It was creepy when former President Barack Obama declared his first Inauguration Day as "National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation" and called upon us to find "common purpose of remaking this nation for our new century." And it's creepy when President Donald Trump declares his Inauguration Day as "National Day of Patriotic Devotion," one in which "a new national pride stirs the American soul and inspires the American heart." This kind of self-aggrandizement is what you see under cults of personality, not American republicanism. Far be it from me to lecture anyone on how to love their country, but if your devotion to America is contingent upon the party or the person in office, you're probably not doing it quite like the Founding Fathers envisioned. It's bad enough that these inaugurations are treated as coronations. It can't be patriotic to treat politicians like quasi-religious figures. Moreover, this kind of devotional ties patriotism—either implicitly or in some cases rather explicitly—to a preferred set of policy initiatives or a political office. We just survived eight years of a messianic presidency with a finger-wagging, patriotism-appropriating administration lecturing us on how to be proper Americans. If you didn't support the administration's point of view, then-Vice President Joe Biden might accuse you of "betting against America." "What we need as a nation," then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew wrote to Congress in 2014, echoing the president, "is a new sens e of economic patriotism, where we all rise or fall together." Was Lew talking about our unalienable right of free expression? No, he was talking about punishing America-based companies that were trying to lower their tax burden, which happens to be one of the highest rates in the free world. By the way, if we're going to play this game, avoiding excessive taxation is also one of the most American things we can do. So it was creepy when Obama was trying to replace American idealism with progressivism and calling it "economic patriotism," and it's creepy when Trump does basically the same thing under the guise of economic nationalism. Now, judging from the campaign rhetoric, failing to support tariffs or other counterproductive "buy American" economic policies will have you branded seditious over the next four years. Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who probably had something to do with the devotion executive order, has referred to himself as an "economic nationalist," a loaded term that means you only love your country if you support mercantilism. Economic nationalists rely on a populism that lays blame on others—Mexico, China, whoever—for American problems. It's a philosophy, if we trust Bannon or Trump, that values power over most principles, including liberty. It's a philosophy that sounds like many things, none of them American patriotism. The idea is amorphous, but patriotism, especially in this country, is driven by idealism rather than chauvinism, ethnicity or "power." As George Orwell famously noted, nationalism isn't the same as patriotism. In the American sense, patriotism is a fidelity to a place and the Constitution and is by nature "defensive, both militarily and culturally." Nationalism, on the other hand, "is inseparable from the desire for power." A devotional to our "new national pride" strongly hints at the latter. You can hate your president and love your country. You can hope your president fails and still be patriotic. We don't always have a shared purpose. That's because presidents are not only commanders in chief but also politicians with agendas. And sometimes those agendas clash with your worldview. Let's not have devotionals venerating their ascendency every four years. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

www.reason.com

right

Dn1JbTReruVnFkcw

test

mIusRpTBKPdftrzz

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/28/donald_sterlings_pathetic_1_percent_ramblings_lets_pity_the_racist_billionaire/

Donald Sterling's disgusting 1 percent ramblings: Let's pity the racist billionaire

2014-04-28

Paul Rosenberg

Racist rancher and welfare cowboy Cliven Bundy got some help from an unexpected quarter over the weekend , as a far more wealthy and powerful racist grabbed the national spotlight , and mercifully tore it away from him . As I write , Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is still disputing the authenticity of a taped conservation with estranged girlfriend V. Stiviano , in which he purportedly berates her for attending Clippers games with Magic Johnson and other black celebrities , and for posting pictures of herself with blacks to her Instagram account . “ Yeah , it bothers me a lot that you want to promo – broadcast that you 're associating with black people , ” the man alleged to be Sterling said on the nine-minute tape reported on Saturday by TMZ Sports . A longer , 15-minute tape released on Sunday morning by Deadspin contained further damning details . With breathtaking negative skill , Sterling — through his club — has managed to dispute the tapes ' authenticity in a careful manner that will likely turn out to be a lie . In a statement , Clippers president Andy Roeser said of the recording that the club does “ not know if it is legitimate or it has been altered . … Mr. Sterling is emphatic that what is reflected on that recording is not consistent with , nor does it reflect his views , beliefs or feelings . It is the antithesis of who he is , what he believes and how he has lived his life . ” Now , it 's true that Sterling may have been able to buy not one , but two “ lifetime achievement awards ” from the local NAACP chapter — plans for a second appear to have been pulled — but more shame on them for that . They appear to be just about the only ones around who share in his delusion . Everyone else familiar with Sterling 's actual record can be excused for laughing out loud in response . “ We all knew that Donald Sterling was a “ racist and an overall horrible human being , ” Deadspin wrote in its initial story based on TMZ 's original report . “ We do know the history of Donald Sterling , there 's nothing new , ” said veteran L.A.-based commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson , on `` Disrupt With Karen Finney , '' shortly after the second tape was released . “ Here in Los Angeles , we 're very familiar with Sterling . I mean , he 's been sued , he 's actually been accused of harassment . There have been a number of things over time about Donald Sterling that are well-known in this community , in terms of his not only bad behavior , misbehavior , but also racist behavior . So when you hear this kind of tape , when you hear Sterling — and that 's Sterling , it is him , there 's no doubt about that — simply because the history has condemned him the history has proven that this man is capable of doing these things . ” Indeed , Sterling 's individual , personal racism is so clearly and publicly established that the incident provides a too-rare opportunity to focus less on his racism , and more on the social structures , context and expressive dynamics that make racism — or , more specifically , white supremacy — a much bigger deal than just the bad attitudes of a few scattered bad actors here and there . Since I already mentioned him , I 'll let Hutchinson get the ball rolling on this . “ Yes , Donald Sterling 's a racist . Yes Donald Sterling 's a bigot . Yes Donald Sterling should be maligned for everything , not only now , but in the past , ” Hutchinson said . “ But also , we really have to look at the NBA . ( Commissioner ) Adam Silver . The board of governors . And also the owners in the NBA . At the end of the day , Donald Sterling is your baby . So , really , the ball is in your court . And really the question that everybody is asking right now — and [ a ] legitimate question — what are you going to do about it ? ” The question of league responsibility is further highlighted and problematized by Sterling 's own comments on the tape . Here 's an excerpt : DS : Well then , if you do n't feel—do n't come to my games . Do n't bring black people , and do n't come . V : Do you know that you have a whole team that 's black , that plays for you ? DS : You just , do I know ? I support them and give them food , and clothes , and cars , and houses . Who gives it to them ? Does someone else give it to them ? Do I know that I have—Who makes the game ? Do I make the game , or do they make the game ? Is there 30 owners , that created the league ? ( emphasis added ) Excuse me . Donald Sterling gives the players on his team food ? Clothes ? Cars ? Houses ? They do n't work their asses off earning what they buy for themselves , building on a lifetime of hard work and practice , and years of unmitigated exploitation as unpaid athletes along the way ? Does anyone other than Sterling have the slightest difficulty in hearing how much he sounds like a classic 19th century slave owner , talking about everything he 's done for his ungrateful slaves ? Certainly his question , “ Who makes the game ? ” recalls the slaveholders ' delusion that they alone created the enormous wealth they enjoyed . It was a believable fiction , I suppose , if first you absolutely convinced yourself that the slaves who did all the actual work were not people at all , but mere property , nothing more than livestock , really . One has to wonder : Is that what Sterling thinks of the men who play on his team today ? If you have to ask , “ Who makes the game ? ” it 's a very interesting question , really , with many different possible ways to answer it . The sub-question , “ Is there 30 owners , that created the league ? ” is a good deal easier to answer : No . The current owners did not create the league . In fact , the NBA 's creation seems to have been designed specifically to demonstrate just how absurd the notion of creation is . Officially the NBA says it was founded as the Basketball Association of America in 1946 . But it only took on its current name in 1949 , when it absorbed some teams from the rival National Basketball League , which was founded a decade earlier than the BAA , in 1937 . Actually , the NBL was founded two years earlier than that , in 1935 , as Midwest Basketball Conference , but changed its name and expanded its size to reach a larger audience . Really , though , all that history is beside the point , because when it comes to professional basketball as it 's played today , the team that created the league as it is was never a part of it : the Harlem Globetrotters . They were the ones who pioneered the style of audacious , mind-bending individual athleticism , combined with incredible teamwork , which makes the game today as far removed from its 1940s form as it is from ice hockey on one of Saturn 's moons . Which is why the idea of any owner carrying on like Sterling did is enough to make anyone die of laughter . But there 's more . In a very different sense , the game is made by a complex web of legal and financial arrangements , not least those making it a legal monopoly , more like the British East India Company than anything America 's Founding Fathers might have conceived of as an American way of doing things . If Sterling or any other owner thinks that he 's the one giving the players everything they eat , wear , drive , live in , or otherwise consume or save—then who exactly does he think gives him his own vast wealth ? Back in 2010 , Forbes described the Clippers in fairly underwhelming terms . Sterling bought the team in 1981 for $ 13 million ; in 2010 it had a player-costs-to-win ratio of 75 -- far below 100 , which is the norm . The team was valued at $ 305 million — a dramatic explosion of value since 1981 — but not because of any particular excellence , particularly on the part of Sterling . In the roundup section , “ The skinny , ” Forbes said : The Clippers posted a mark of 29-53 during the 2009-10 campaign , missing the playoffs for the fourth consecutive year . Since Donald Sterling bought the team in 1981 the Clippers have made the playoffs just four times , the worst record in the NBA over that span . The Clippers have one of the lowest payrolls in the league year-in , year-out , but still manage to get less bank for the buck than most teams . During each of the past four seasons the Clippers had a wins-to-player-costs ratio below 100 , meaning the franchise generated less victories per dollar spent than the average NBA team . But the Clippers are also one of the NBA 's most profitable teams because they pay very little rent at the Staples Center , consistently draw over 16,000 fans per game and have a decent local television deal with FSN Prime Ticket , despite their horrific performance on the hardwood . The team is having a much better year this year , but no one other than Sterling thinks this has anything to do with him . The stadium the Clippers play in , Staples Center , was not built with taxpayers ' money , due to heroic resistance by the City Council in the mid-to-late 1990s , but it was still utterly dependent on city condemnation , property management and tax-increment funding ( story here ) . So once again we have a story of billionaires building their fortunes via government aid , the way it 's almost always done . In short , Sterling 's wealth as a team owner is almost entirely due to the complex web of financial and political arrangements that shield him from the normal vicissitudes of free market competition . And this is the man who thinks he is the source of everything the Clippers are ? Could there be a better poster boy for everything wrong with the 1 percent ? Or , rather , the 1 percent of the 1 percent . But let 's not forget the typical self-pitying , conservative “ I 'm the victim here ” mentality that Sterling so richly displays on the tape itself . The shorter version posted at Deadspin begin like this : V : `` Honey , I 'm sorry . Is there anything I can do to make you feel better ? '' DS : `` No , you can never make me feel better . '' V : `` I 'm sorry . '' DS : `` You 're just a fighter , you want to fight . And I 'm not the man who wants to fight . '' The words alone only tell half the story . V. Stiviano 's tone throughout is soft and supportive , Sterling 's tone is harsh , embittered , softening only for purposes of self-pity . When he says , “ I 'm not the man who wants to fight , '' he sounds like a character on `` Justified '' who of course means exactly the opposite — and not one of the good guys . It goes on in a similar fashion for some time , Sterling acting wounded , trying to start a fight , V. Stiviano trying to lick his wounds for him , which only makes him madder . V : `` I 'm sorry , honey , can I get you a little bit more juice ? I do n't want to fight with you . '' DS : `` Of course you do , you love to fight . '' V : `` I do n't fight . '' DS : `` That 's all you do , you fight with everybody . '' V : `` I 'm sorry you feel that way , honey . I do n't know how this conversation even came about . This corrosively self-pitying stance that Sterling has locked himself into forms the background to the racially ridiculous quotes you may have seen . In his mind , Sterling is n't racist — the world is . And he is just trying to live in it “ realistically ” — it 's all their fault ! At the same time , V. Stiviano is being terribly mean to him , because she refuses to be his 100 percent compliant sock-puppet , but instead tries to be an autonomous , but deeply caring friend , who is trying to see the world in a different light , as a more open-minded place — and to put him in touch with his own power to do the right thing , even if the world were as bad a place as he thinks it is . But the powerless mega-millionaire will have none of it . Hence , there 's this interchange :

Racist rancher and welfare cowboy Cliven Bundy got some help from an unexpected quarter over the weekend, as a far more wealthy and powerful racist grabbed the national spotlight, and mercifully tore it away from him. As I write, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is still disputing the authenticity of a taped conservation with estranged girlfriend V. Stiviano, in which he purportedly berates her for attending Clippers games with Magic Johnson and other black celebrities, and for posting pictures of herself with blacks to her Instagram account. Advertisement: “Yeah, it bothers me a lot that you want to promo – broadcast that you're associating with black people,” the man alleged to be Sterling said on the nine-minute tape reported on Saturday by TMZ Sports. A longer, 15-minute tape released on Sunday morning by Deadspin contained further damning details. With breathtaking negative skill, Sterling — through his club — has managed to dispute the tapes' authenticity in a careful manner that will likely turn out to be a lie. In a statement, Clippers president Andy Roeser said of the recording that the club does “not know if it is legitimate or it has been altered. … Mr. Sterling is emphatic that what is reflected on that recording is not consistent with, nor does it reflect his views, beliefs or feelings. It is the antithesis of who he is, what he believes and how he has lived his life.” Advertisement: Now, it's true that Sterling may have been able to buy not one, but two “lifetime achievement awards” from the local NAACP chapter — plans for a second appear to have been pulled — but more shame on them for that. They appear to be just about the only ones around who share in his delusion. Everyone else familiar with Sterling's actual record can be excused for laughing out loud in response. “We all knew that Donald Sterling was a “racist and an overall horrible human being,” Deadspin wrote in its initial story based on TMZ's original report. “We do know the history of Donald Sterling, there's nothing new,” said veteran L.A.-based commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson, on "Disrupt With Karen Finney," shortly after the second tape was released. “Here in Los Angeles, we're very familiar with Sterling. I mean, he's been sued, he's actually been accused of harassment. There have been a number of things over time about Donald Sterling that are well-known in this community, in terms of his not only bad behavior, misbehavior, but also racist behavior. So when you hear this kind of tape, when you hear Sterling — and that's Sterling, it is him, there's no doubt about that — simply because the history has condemned him the history has proven that this man is capable of doing these things.” Advertisement: Indeed, Sterling's individual, personal racism is so clearly and publicly established that the incident provides a too-rare opportunity to focus less on his racism, and more on the social structures, context and expressive dynamics that make racism — or, more specifically, white supremacy — a much bigger deal than just the bad attitudes of a few scattered bad actors here and there. Since I already mentioned him, I'll let Hutchinson get the ball rolling on this. Advertisement: “Yes, Donald Sterling's a racist. Yes Donald Sterling's a bigot. Yes Donald Sterling should be maligned for everything, not only now, but in the past,” Hutchinson said. “But also, we really have to look at the NBA. (Commissioner) Adam Silver. The board of governors. And also the owners in the NBA. At the end of the day, Donald Sterling is your baby. So, really, the ball is in your court. And really the question that everybody is asking right now — and [a] legitimate question — what are you going to do about it?” The question of league responsibility is further highlighted and problematized by Sterling's own comments on the tape. Here's an excerpt: DS: Well then, if you don't feel—don't come to my games. Don't bring black people, and don't come. V: Do you know that you have a whole team that's black, that plays for you? DS: You just, do I know? I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them?Do I know that I have—Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league? (emphasis added) Excuse me. Donald Sterling gives the players on his team food? Clothes? Cars? Houses? They don't work their asses off earning what they buy for themselves, building on a lifetime of hard work and practice, and years of unmitigated exploitation as unpaid athletes along the way? Advertisement: Does anyone other than Sterling have the slightest difficulty in hearing how much he sounds like a classic 19th century slave owner, talking about everything he's done for his ungrateful slaves? Certainly his question, “Who makes the game?” recalls the slaveholders' delusion that they alone created the enormous wealth they enjoyed. It was a believable fiction, I suppose, if first you absolutely convinced yourself that the slaves who did all the actual work were not people at all, but mere property, nothing more than livestock, really. One has to wonder: Is that what Sterling thinks of the men who play on his team today? If you have to ask, “Who makes the game?” it's a very interesting question, really, with many different possible ways to answer it. The sub-question, “Is there 30 owners, that created the league?” is a good deal easier to answer: No. The current owners did not create the league. In fact, the NBA's creation seems to have been designed specifically to demonstrate just how absurd the notion of creation is. Officially the NBA says it was founded as the Basketball Association of America in 1946. But it only took on its current name in 1949, when it absorbed some teams from the rival National Basketball League, which was founded a decade earlier than the BAA, in 1937. Actually, the NBL was founded two years earlier than that, in 1935, as Midwest Basketball Conference, but changed its name and expanded its size to reach a larger audience. Advertisement: Really, though, all that history is beside the point, because when it comes to professional basketball as it's played today, the team that created the league as it is was never a part of it: the Harlem Globetrotters. They were the ones who pioneered the style of audacious, mind-bending individual athleticism, combined with incredible teamwork, which makes the game today as far removed from its 1940s form as it is from ice hockey on one of Saturn's moons. Which is why the idea of any owner carrying on like Sterling did is enough to make anyone die of laughter. But there's more. In a very different sense, the game is made by a complex web of legal and financial arrangements, not least those making it a legal monopoly, more like the British East India Company than anything America's Founding Fathers might have conceived of as an American way of doing things. If Sterling or any other owner thinks that he's the one giving the players everything they eat, wear, drive, live in, or otherwise consume or save—then who exactly does he think gives him his own vast wealth? Back in 2010, Forbes described the Clippers in fairly underwhelming terms. Sterling bought the team in 1981 for $13 million; in 2010 it had a player-costs-to-win ratio of 75 -- far below 100, which is the norm. The team was valued at $305 million — a dramatic explosion of value since 1981 — but not because of any particular excellence, particularly on the part of Sterling. In the roundup section, “The skinny,” Forbes said: Advertisement: The Clippers posted a mark of 29-53 during the 2009-10 campaign, missing the playoffs for the fourth consecutive year. Since Donald Sterling bought the team in 1981 the Clippers have made the playoffs just four times, the worst record in the NBA over that span. The Clippers have one of the lowest payrolls in the league year-in, year-out, but still manage to get less bank for the buck than most teams. During each of the past four seasons the Clippers had a wins-to-player-costs ratio below 100, meaning the franchise generated less victories per dollar spent than the average NBA team. But the Clippers are also one of the NBA's most profitable teams because they pay very little rent at the Staples Center, consistently draw over 16,000 fans per game and have a decent local television deal with FSN Prime Ticket, despite their horrific performance on the hardwood. The team is having a much better year this year, but no one other than Sterling thinks this has anything to do with him. The stadium the Clippers play in, Staples Center, was not built with taxpayers' money, due to heroic resistance by the City Council in the mid-to-late 1990s, but it was still utterly dependent on city condemnation, property management and tax-increment funding (story here). So once again we have a story of billionaires building their fortunes via government aid, the way it's almost always done. In short, Sterling's wealth as a team owner is almost entirely due to the complex web of financial and political arrangements that shield him from the normal vicissitudes of free market competition. And this is the man who thinks he is the source of everything the Clippers are? Could there be a better poster boy for everything wrong with the 1 percent? Or, rather, the 1 percent of the 1 percent. Advertisement: But let's not forget the typical self-pitying, conservative “I'm the victim here” mentality that Sterling so richly displays on the tape itself. The shorter version posted at Deadspin begin like this: V: "Honey, I'm sorry. Is there anything I can do to make you feel better?" DS: "No, you can never make me feel better." V: "I'm sorry." DS: "You're just a fighter, you want to fight. And I'm not the man who wants to fight." The words alone only tell half the story. V. Stiviano's tone throughout is soft and supportive, Sterling's tone is harsh, embittered, softening only for purposes of self-pity. When he says, “I'm not the man who wants to fight," he sounds like a character on "Justified" who of course means exactly the opposite — and not one of the good guys. It goes on in a similar fashion for some time, Sterling acting wounded, trying to start a fight, V. Stiviano trying to lick his wounds for him, which only makes him madder. V: "I'm sorry, honey, can I get you a little bit more juice? I don't want to fight with you." DS: "Of course you do, you love to fight." V: "I don't fight." DS: "That's all you do, you fight with everybody." V: "I'm sorry you feel that way, honey. I don't know how this conversation even came about. This corrosively self-pitying stance that Sterling has locked himself into forms the background to the racially ridiculous quotes you may have seen. In his mind, Sterling isn't racist — the world is. And he is just trying to live in it “realistically” — it's all their fault! At the same time, V. Stiviano is being terribly mean to him, because she refuses to be his 100 percent compliant sock-puppet, but instead tries to be an autonomous, but deeply caring friend, who is trying to see the world in a different light, as a more open-minded place — and to put him in touch with his own power to do the right thing, even if the world were as bad a place as he thinks it is. Advertisement: But the powerless mega-millionaire will have none of it. Hence, there's this interchange:

www.salon.com

left

mIusRpTBKPdftrzz

test

joJO5BpNFNnxsAHI

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/18/republican-apology-nazis-jews-covid-19-alaska

Republican apologizes for likening Covid-19 curbs to Nazis' persecution of Jews

2020-05-18

Oliver Laughland

Antisemitic and Nazi-sympathizing comments made by a Republican state representative in Alaska , who likened Covid-19 safety measures at the state capitol to the treatment of Jewish people in Nazi Germany , brought widespread rebuke and , eventually , an apology . Alaska ’ s legislature is due to return on Monday and representatives were told by email they would be asked to undergo screening as they entered the building . Those who are screened will be given a sticker to show completion . Those who refuse will not be given a sticker . In an emailed reply to the new measures that was obtained by the Alaska Landmine , Ben Carpenter , a Republican wrote : “ If my sticker falls off , do I get a new one or do I get public shaming too ? Are the stickers available as a yellow Star of David ? ” The reply drew instant rebuke from colleagues in the house . “ This is disgusting . Keep your Holocaust jokes to yourself , ” replied Grier Hopkins , a Democrat . Carpenter initially declined to apologize and in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News made remarks that appeared to show Nazi sympathies . “ Can you or I – can we even say it is totally out of the realm of possibility that Covid-19 patients will be rounded up and taken somewhere ? ” he said . “ People want to say Hitler was a white supremacist . No . He was fearful of the Jewish nation , and that drove him into some unfathomable atrocities . ” On Sunday , facing a national backlash , Carpenter apologized in an op-ed for a local paper . “ I take my responsibility as the voice of the people who elected me very seriously , ” he wrote . “ I also hold the Jewish people in the highest regard . “ I do not take myself so seriously that I can not recognize that the words I wrote , and those attributed to me , do not adequately reflect the esteem I hold for either group of people . I hope to correct that error now . ”

Antisemitic and Nazi-sympathizing comments made by a Republican state representative in Alaska, who likened Covid-19 safety measures at the state capitol to the treatment of Jewish people in Nazi Germany, brought widespread rebuke and, eventually, an apology. Alaska’s legislature is due to return on Monday and representatives were told by email they would be asked to undergo screening as they entered the building. Those who are screened will be given a sticker to show completion. Those who refuse will not be given a sticker. In an emailed reply to the new measures that was obtained by the Alaska Landmine, Ben Carpenter, a Republican wrote: “If my sticker falls off, do I get a new one or do I get public shaming too? Are the stickers available as a yellow Star of David?” The reply drew instant rebuke from colleagues in the house. “This is disgusting. Keep your Holocaust jokes to yourself,” replied Grier Hopkins, a Democrat. Carpenter initially declined to apologize and in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News made remarks that appeared to show Nazi sympathies. “Can you or I – can we even say it is totally out of the realm of possibility that Covid-19 patients will be rounded up and taken somewhere?” he said. “People want to say Hitler was a white supremacist. No. He was fearful of the Jewish nation, and that drove him into some unfathomable atrocities.” On Sunday, facing a national backlash, Carpenter apologized in an op-ed for a local paper. “I take my responsibility as the voice of the people who elected me very seriously,” he wrote. “I also hold the Jewish people in the highest regard. “I do not take myself so seriously that I cannot recognize that the words I wrote, and those attributed to me, do not adequately reflect the esteem I hold for either group of people. I hope to correct that error now.”

www.theguardian.com

left

joJO5BpNFNnxsAHI

test

G3BuKLGxPVE6nwa9

politics

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/a29d1b11326640748713ba0f54a80c6b

Sarah Huckabee Sanders memoir coming in 2020

2019-09-05

FILE - In this June 11 , 2019 file photo , White House press secretary Sarah Sanders talks with reporters outside the White House in Washington . St. Martin ’ s Press announced Thursday , Sept. 5 , that Sanders ' memoir , currently untitled , will come out in the Fall 2020 . Sanders will write about her time in the Trump administration , “ including the most dramatic and challenging moments , ” and will also describe balancing an “ all-consuming job ” with raising a family . ( AP Photo/Evan Vucci , File ) FILE - In this June 11 , 2019 file photo , White House press secretary Sarah Sanders talks with reporters outside the White House in Washington . St. Martin ’ s Press announced Thursday , Sept. 5 , that Sanders ' memoir , currently untitled , will come out in the Fall 2020 . Sanders will write about her time in the Trump administration , “ including the most dramatic and challenging moments , ” and will also describe balancing an “ all-consuming job ” with raising a family . ( AP Photo/Evan Vucci , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — Former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has a book deal . St. Martin ’ s Press announced Thursday that her memoir , currently untitled , will come out in fall 2020 . Sanders will write about her time in the Trump administration , “ including the most dramatic and challenging moments , ” and describe balancing an “ all-consuming job ” with raising a family . “ From Arkansas to the White House and back , I ’ m excited to tell my story about the challenges of being a working mom at the highest level of American politics , and my role in the historic fight raging between the Trump administration and its critics for the future of our country , ” Sanders , who is married and has three young children , said in a statement . Sanders , who stepped down this summer after roughly two years as press secretary , left on good terms with a president known for lashing out at departing officials . The high regard of her former boss , who upon her announced departure called her “ wonderful ” and encouraged her to run for governor in her native Arkansas , was not shared by everyone . Her tenure was marked by a breakdown in regular press briefings and ongoing questions about the administration ’ s credibility , as well as her own . At the White House Correspondents ’ Association dinner in 2018 , comedian Michelle Wolf joked that Sanders “ burned facts ” to create the “ perfect smoky eye. ” Sanders , who was at the podium while Wolf made her comments , later said that she hoped the comedian could “ find some of the same happiness that we all have ” and that she remained committed to touting the “ success story ” of the administration . The book will likely add to speculation that Sanders is planning to run in Arkansas , which votes for a new governor in 2022 . Her father , Mike Huckabee , served as the state ’ s governor from 1996-2007 .

FILE - In this June 11, 2019 file photo, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders talks with reporters outside the White House in Washington. St. Martin’s Press announced Thursday, Sept. 5, that Sanders' memoir, currently untitled, will come out in the Fall 2020. Sanders will write about her time in the Trump administration, “including the most dramatic and challenging moments,” and will also describe balancing an “all-consuming job” with raising a family.(AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) FILE - In this June 11, 2019 file photo, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders talks with reporters outside the White House in Washington. St. Martin’s Press announced Thursday, Sept. 5, that Sanders' memoir, currently untitled, will come out in the Fall 2020. Sanders will write about her time in the Trump administration, “including the most dramatic and challenging moments,” and will also describe balancing an “all-consuming job” with raising a family.(AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) NEW YORK (AP) — Former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has a book deal. St. Martin’s Press announced Thursday that her memoir, currently untitled, will come out in fall 2020. Sanders will write about her time in the Trump administration, “including the most dramatic and challenging moments,” and describe balancing an “all-consuming job” with raising a family. “From Arkansas to the White House and back, I’m excited to tell my story about the challenges of being a working mom at the highest level of American politics, and my role in the historic fight raging between the Trump administration and its critics for the future of our country,” Sanders, who is married and has three young children, said in a statement. Sanders, who stepped down this summer after roughly two years as press secretary, left on good terms with a president known for lashing out at departing officials. The high regard of her former boss, who upon her announced departure called her “wonderful” and encouraged her to run for governor in her native Arkansas, was not shared by everyone. Her tenure was marked by a breakdown in regular press briefings and ongoing questions about the administration’s credibility, as well as her own. At the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in 2018, comedian Michelle Wolf joked that Sanders “burned facts” to create the “perfect smoky eye.” Sanders, who was at the podium while Wolf made her comments, later said that she hoped the comedian could “find some of the same happiness that we all have” and that she remained committed to touting the “success story” of the administration. The book will likely add to speculation that Sanders is planning to run in Arkansas, which votes for a new governor in 2022. Her father, Mike Huckabee, served as the state’s governor from 1996-2007.

www.apnews.com

center

G3BuKLGxPVE6nwa9

test

ReFQLEj11m9iHhbq

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/03/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-charges-republican-congressmen

'Good job Jeff': Trump blames Sessions as Republicans charged before midterms

2018-09-03

Martin Pengelly

Donald Trump has mounted another extraordinary attack on his attorney general , Jeff Sessions , blaming him for charges against two congressmen that he said jeopardised Republican chances in the forthcoming midterm elections . 'The stakes are astronomical ' : Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing will be a battle royale Read more On Monday afternoon , the president tweeted : “ Two long running , Obama era , investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge , just ahead of the Mid-Terms , by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department . Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time . Good job Jeff ...... “ .... The Democrats , none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions , must love him now . ” In fact , one Democratic senator , Joe Manchin of West Virginia , voted for Sessions when he was confirmed as attorney general by a 52-47 vote in February 2017 . Trump did not name the congressmen he was talking about . But last month Duncan Hunter , a California representative , was charged with misuse of campaign funds while Chris Collins of New York was indicted for insider trading – over a share tip alleged to have been made in 2017 , when Trump was in power . The two men were Trump ’ s first supporters in the House . Hunter will run for re-election . Collins will step down . Sessions , a former Alabama senator , was also one of the earliest supporters of Trump . But the president has attacked him repeatedly for his decision in March 2017 to recuse himself from oversight of the investigation into Russian election interference . Sessions made that call after it was revealed he did not disclose to senators meetings with the Russian ambassador during the election campaign . Trump indicated last week that he would fire Sessions after the midterm elections , a move some observers said might presage the firing of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and the special counsel , Robert Mueller , whose work on links between Trump aides and Moscow has circled ever closer to Trump ’ s inner sanctum . Some senior Republicans have indicated they would accept a move against Sessions , which would echo the infamous “ Saturday night massacre ” carried out by Richard Nixon against top law enforcement officials during his downfall in 1973 . Some have said they would not . On Monday , Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska , a frequent Trump critic , said : “ The United States is not some banana republic with a two-tiered system of justice – one for the majority party and one for the minority party . “ These two men have been charged with crimes because of evidence , not because of who the president was when the investigations began . ” Trump ’ s positive remarks about supporters charged with criminal wrongdoing echoed his comments about the case of Paul Manafort , his former campaign chairman who was convicted last month on eight counts of tax and bank fraud brought by Mueller ’ s team . Trump praised Manafort for not “ flipping ” to testify against him , and told Fox News he thought the practice , common in criminal cases , should “ almost ” be illegal . The president has not spoken positively of Michael Cohen , his former personal lawyer who pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and violating campaign finance law brought by federal prosecutors in New York . Cohen said Trump directed him to make payments to women who claim to have had affairs with him . Trump ’ s implication that the Department of Justice runs politically motivated investigations is contrary to stated DoJ policy . Sessions issued a rare response to Trump ’ s threats and abuse last month , saying in a statement : “ While I am attorney general , the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations . ” On Monday afternoon , Trump was at the White House after what appeared to be a trip to his golf course in Virginia was called off , with vehicles and secret service agents waiting . The Washington Post reported that he spent the day watching television . He also tweeted about the FBI director he fired in May 2017 , writing : “ Same thing with Lyin ’ James Comey . The Dems all hated him , wanted him out , thought he was disgusting – UNTIL I FIRED HIM ! Immediately he became a wonderful man , a saint like figure in fact . Really sick ! ” The firing of Comey , which led to the appointment of Mueller , is one aspect of the special counsel ’ s investigation of whether Trump has attempted to obstruct justice in the Russia affair . The attacks on Sessions are also under scrutiny . Every Day is Extra review : John Kerry on Vietnam , Syria , Paris , Iran … and Trump Read more Many election models predict that the Democrats will take back the House in November , with the votes of supporters eager to see Trump impeached . Nonetheless , on Twitter later on Monday , Trump cheerfully anticipated a race for re-election in 2020 against a former Democratic presidential candidate . “ I see that John Kerry , the father of the now terminated Iran deal , is thinking of running for President , ” he wrote , referring to the former secretary of state and 2004 nominee ’ s failure to deny such ambitions while being interviewed about his new memoir on CBS the day before . “ I should only be so lucky , ” Trump wrote , “ although the field that is currently assembling looks really good – FOR ME ! ”

This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Donald Trump has mounted another extraordinary attack on his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, blaming him for charges against two congressmen that he said jeopardised Republican chances in the forthcoming midterm elections. 'The stakes are astronomical': Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing will be a battle royale Read more On Monday afternoon, the president tweeted: “Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff...... “....The Democrats, none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions, must love him now.” In fact, one Democratic senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted for Sessions when he was confirmed as attorney general by a 52-47 vote in February 2017. Trump did not name the congressmen he was talking about. But last month Duncan Hunter, a California representative, was charged with misuse of campaign funds while Chris Collins of New York was indicted for insider trading – over a share tip alleged to have been made in 2017, when Trump was in power. The two men were Trump’s first supporters in the House. Hunter will run for re-election. Collins will step down. Sessions, a former Alabama senator, was also one of the earliest supporters of Trump. But the president has attacked him repeatedly for his decision in March 2017 to recuse himself from oversight of the investigation into Russian election interference. Sessions made that call after it was revealed he did not disclose to senators meetings with the Russian ambassador during the election campaign. Trump indicated last week that he would fire Sessions after the midterm elections, a move some observers said might presage the firing of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and the special counsel, Robert Mueller, whose work on links between Trump aides and Moscow has circled ever closer to Trump’s inner sanctum. Some senior Republicans have indicated they would accept a move against Sessions, which would echo the infamous “Saturday night massacre” carried out by Richard Nixon against top law enforcement officials during his downfall in 1973. Some have said they would not. On Monday, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a frequent Trump critic, said: “The United States is not some banana republic with a two-tiered system of justice – one for the majority party and one for the minority party. “These two men have been charged with crimes because of evidence, not because of who the president was when the investigations began.” Trump’s positive remarks about supporters charged with criminal wrongdoing echoed his comments about the case of Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman who was convicted last month on eight counts of tax and bank fraud brought by Mueller’s team. Trump praised Manafort for not “flipping” to testify against him, and told Fox News he thought the practice, common in criminal cases, should “almost” be illegal. The president has not spoken positively of Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer who pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and violating campaign finance law brought by federal prosecutors in New York. Cohen said Trump directed him to make payments to women who claim to have had affairs with him. Trump’s implication that the Department of Justice runs politically motivated investigations is contrary to stated DoJ policy. Sessions issued a rare response to Trump’s threats and abuse last month, saying in a statement: “While I am attorney general, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” On Monday afternoon, Trump was at the White House after what appeared to be a trip to his golf course in Virginia was called off, with vehicles and secret service agents waiting. The Washington Post reported that he spent the day watching television. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump gets into a limousine before returning to the White House. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters He also tweeted about the FBI director he fired in May 2017, writing: “Same thing with Lyin’ James Comey. The Dems all hated him, wanted him out, thought he was disgusting – UNTIL I FIRED HIM! Immediately he became a wonderful man, a saint like figure in fact. Really sick!” The firing of Comey, which led to the appointment of Mueller, is one aspect of the special counsel’s investigation of whether Trump has attempted to obstruct justice in the Russia affair. The attacks on Sessions are also under scrutiny. Every Day is Extra review: John Kerry on Vietnam, Syria, Paris, Iran … and Trump Read more Many election models predict that the Democrats will take back the House in November, with the votes of supporters eager to see Trump impeached. Nonetheless, on Twitter later on Monday, Trump cheerfully anticipated a race for re-election in 2020 against a former Democratic presidential candidate. “I see that John Kerry, the father of the now terminated Iran deal, is thinking of running for President,” he wrote, referring to the former secretary of state and 2004 nominee’s failure to deny such ambitions while being interviewed about his new memoir on CBS the day before. “I should only be so lucky,” Trump wrote, “although the field that is currently assembling looks really good – FOR ME!”

www.theguardian.com

left

ReFQLEj11m9iHhbq

test

89pHU1cyECYBxckq

nuclear_weapons

The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/27/barack-obama-first-us-president-to-visit-hiroshima-japan

Obama says memory of Hiroshima 'must never fade'

2016-05-27

Justin Mccurry

President lays wreath at memorial and embraces a survivor of the US atomic bombing that killed 140,000 people Barack Obama called on the world to choose a future where Hiroshima was considered “ the start of our own moral awakening ” , as he became the first sitting US president to visit the Japanese city , 71 years after its bombing ushered in the nuclear age he vowed to bring to an end . G7 summit : Obama makes historic visit to Hiroshima – live Read more In a scene many survivors of the US bombing believed they would never live to see , Obama laid a floral wreath at a memorial to the dead of the world ’ s first atomic bombing , pausing in a moment of contemplation , his head slightly bowed . He then paid tribute to the people of Hiroshima , calling on humanity to learn the lessons of the past to make war less likely . “ On a bright , cloudless morning , death fell from the sky and the world was changed , ” he said , adding that humankind had shown that day it had the means to destroy itself . “ Why did we come to this place , to Hiroshima ? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past . We come to mourn the dead , ” he said . “ Their souls speak to us , they ask us to look inward , take stock of who we are . ” In a touching moment , Obama embraced Shigeaki Mori , a 79-year-old survivor who appeared overcome with emotion . “ The president gestured as if he was going to give me a hug , so we hugged , ” said Mori , who spent decades tracing the families of 12 American POWs who died in the attack and ensured their deaths were officially recognised . Obama also chatted to Sunao Tsuboi , the 91-year-old head of a survivors group , who thanked the president for his visit , but reminded him of his responsibility to act on his desire , first made in Prague in 2009 , to bring about a world without nuclear weapons . Obama urged the world to “ choose a future when Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not considered the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening . ” He said : “ Technological progress without equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us . The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of the atom requires a moral revolution as well . “ This is why we come to this place , we stand here , in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell . “ We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see . We listen to a silent cry . Hiroshima and the nuclear age – a visual guide Read more “ Some day , the voices will no longer be with us to bear witness , but the memory must never fade . That memory fuels our imagination . It allows us to change . ” His address included mention of the tens of thousands of Koreans – many of them forced labourers – who died in the attack , as well as the American dead . In the distance stood the burned-out shell of the Atomic Bomb Dome – a peace memorial that is the most potent physical symbol of Hiroshima ’ s tragic past and its recovery from the ashes of war . As expected , Obama did not offer an apology for the decision by his predecessor , Harry Truman , to unleash an atomic bomb over the city . The attack at the end of the second world war on 6 August 1945 killed an estimated 80,000 people soon after the blast . By the end of the year , the death toll had reached 140,000 . Obama and Tsuboi laughed at one point , the president smiling broadly . But mostly he listened , holding the elderly man ’ s hand in his own , an interpreter standing nearby . Tsuboi stamped his cane emphatically while speaking . Obama was accompanied by the Japanese prime minister , Shinzō Abe , whose presence , Obama said ahead of the visit , would “ highlight the extraordinary alliance ” the US had created during the seven decades since the end of the war . After looking at some of the exhibits in the peace museum , Obama wrote in the visitors ’ book : “ We have known the agony of war . Let us now find the courage , together , to spread peace , and pursue a world without nuclear weapons ” – a goal he conceded he may not see in his lifetime . Abe described Obama ’ s visit as “ courageous ” , saying : “ An American president has come into contact with the reality of an atomic bombing and renewed his resolve toward realising a world without nuclear weapons . “ I sincerely welcome this historic visit , which has long been awaited by not only the people of Hiroshima , but by all Japanese people . ” Kaneko Izumi , a Hiroshima resident who was among the hundreds of people who filled the peace park in the evening to pay their respects to the victims , said Obama ’ s speech had offered hope to ageing survivors “ who have been waiting most of their lives for an American president to come here ” . Not all residents were satisfied with the president ’ s speech , however . “ I ’ m afraid I did not hear anything concrete about how he plans to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons , ” said Miki Tsukishita , who was five years old when the bomb was dropped . “ Just cheering his visit is not enough . He is a serving US president ... I wish he had been more specific . ” Obama had long held the desire to go to Hiroshima , despite the potential for the visit to cause controversy in the US . While many Japanese consider the attack a war crime – yet recognise the part their country ’ s militarist leaders played in bringing it about – the consensus in the US is that the attack hastened the end of the Pacific war , saving many more American and Japanese lives . Japan surrendered on 15 August , less than a week after the US dropped a second atomic bomb , on the western port city of Nagasaki , killing more than 70,000 people . Obama said during a visit to Japan in late 2009 that he would be honoured to go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki . “ I certainly would be honoured – it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future , ” he said . Before Friday , the only western leader to have visited Hiroshima while in office was Kevin Rudd , who laid a wreath at the peace park cenotaph in 2008 when he was Australian prime minister . Jimmy Carter visited the atomic bomb memorial in Hiroshima in 1984 , after he had left office , but no sitting US president has ever visited the city . The highest-ranking US official to visit the site was Nancy Pelosi in 2008 when she was House speaker . The ambassador , Caroline Kennedy , attended the 70th anniversary commemorations last year . The White House reportedly decided to proceed with the visit after the largely positive reaction to John Kerry ’ s tribute to the victims of the Hiroshima bombing on the sidelines of the G7 foreign ministers ’ meeting last month . Ahead of Friday ’ s visit , Obama told US Marines and members of the Japanese military at the Iwakuni base in western Japan how it was “ a testament to how even the most painful divides can be bridged . How two nations can become not just partners but the best of friends ” . His trip , he said , was an “ opportunity to honour the memory of all who were lost in world war two ” but also had a message for today . “ I do think that part of the reason I ’ m going is because I want to once again underscore the very real risks that are out there and the sense of urgency that we all should have , ” Obama said . “ So it ’ s not only a reminder of the terrible toll of world war two and the death of innocents across continents , but it ’ s also to remind ourselves that the job is not done in reducing conflict , building institutions of peace , and reducing the prospect of nuclear war in the future . ” Story of cities # 24 : how Hiroshima rose from the ashes of nuclear destruction Read more While polls showed most Japanese welcomed Obama ’ s gesture , other countries in the region warned against allowing the visit to reinforce a one-dimensional view of Japan ’ s role in the second world war . The Chinese foreign ministry said Japan should not forget the “ grave suffering ” it inflicted on its neighbours during the war . “ We hope Japan can take a responsible attitude toward its own people and the international community , and earnestly take history as a mirror to avoid a recurrence of the tragedy of the war , ” ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters . The state-run China Daily went much further , claiming the “ atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of Japan ’ s own making ” . In an editorial on the eve of the visit , the paper accused Japan of “ trying to portray Japan as the victim of world war two rather than one of its major perpetrators ” . The bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified , the China Daily said , as “ a bid to bring an early end to the war and prevent protracted warfare from claiming even more lives ” . It added : “ It was the war of aggression the Japanese militarist government launched against its neighbours and its refusal to accept its failure that had led to US dropping the atomic bombs . ”

President lays wreath at memorial and embraces a survivor of the US atomic bombing that killed 140,000 people Barack Obama called on the world to choose a future where Hiroshima was considered “the start of our own moral awakening”, as he became the first sitting US president to visit the Japanese city, 71 years after its bombing ushered in the nuclear age he vowed to bring to an end. G7 summit: Obama makes historic visit to Hiroshima – live Read more In a scene many survivors of the US bombing believed they would never live to see, Obama laid a floral wreath at a memorial to the dead of the world’s first atomic bombing, pausing in a moment of contemplation, his head slightly bowed. He then paid tribute to the people of Hiroshima, calling on humanity to learn the lessons of the past to make war less likely. “On a bright, cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed,” he said, adding that humankind had shown that day it had the means to destroy itself. “Why did we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past. We come to mourn the dead,” he said. “Their souls speak to us, they ask us to look inward, take stock of who we are.” In a touching moment, Obama embraced Shigeaki Mori, a 79-year-old survivor who appeared overcome with emotion. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Barack Obama embraces survivor Shigeaki Mori. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP “The president gestured as if he was going to give me a hug, so we hugged,” said Mori, who spent decades tracing the families of 12 American POWs who died in the attack and ensured their deaths were officially recognised. Obama also chatted to Sunao Tsuboi, the 91-year-old head of a survivors group, who thanked the president for his visit, but reminded him of his responsibility to act on his desire, first made in Prague in 2009, to bring about a world without nuclear weapons. Obama urged the world to “choose a future when Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not considered the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.” He said: “Technological progress without equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of the atom requires a moral revolution as well. “This is why we come to this place, we stand here, in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. “We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. Hiroshima and the nuclear age – a visual guide Read more “Some day, the voices will no longer be with us to bear witness, but the memory must never fade. That memory fuels our imagination. It allows us to change.” His address included mention of the tens of thousands of Koreans – many of them forced labourers – who died in the attack, as well as the American dead. In the distance stood the burned-out shell of the Atomic Bomb Dome – a peace memorial that is the most potent physical symbol of Hiroshima’s tragic past and its recovery from the ashes of war. As expected, Obama did not offer an apology for the decision by his predecessor, Harry Truman, to unleash an atomic bomb over the city. The attack at the end of the second world war on 6 August 1945 killed an estimated 80,000 people soon after the blast. By the end of the year, the death toll had reached 140,000. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Obama, flanked by prime minister Shinzo Abe, talks to survivor Sunao Tsuboi. Photograph: Carlos Barria/Reuters Obama and Tsuboi laughed at one point, the president smiling broadly. But mostly he listened, holding the elderly man’s hand in his own, an interpreter standing nearby. Tsuboi stamped his cane emphatically while speaking. Obama was accompanied by the Japanese prime minister, Shinzō Abe, whose presence, Obama said ahead of the visit, would “highlight the extraordinary alliance” the US had created during the seven decades since the end of the war. After looking at some of the exhibits in the peace museum, Obama wrote in the visitors’ book: “We have known the agony of war. Let us now find the courage, together, to spread peace, and pursue a world without nuclear weapons” – a goal he conceded he may not see in his lifetime. Abe described Obama’s visit as “courageous”, saying: “An American president has come into contact with the reality of an atomic bombing and renewed his resolve toward realising a world without nuclear weapons. “I sincerely welcome this historic visit, which has long been awaited by not only the people of Hiroshima, but by all Japanese people.” Kaneko Izumi, a Hiroshima resident who was among the hundreds of people who filled the peace park in the evening to pay their respects to the victims, said Obama’s speech had offered hope to ageing survivors “who have been waiting most of their lives for an American president to come here”. Not all residents were satisfied with the president’s speech, however. “I’m afraid I did not hear anything concrete about how he plans to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons,” said Miki Tsukishita, who was five years old when the bomb was dropped. “Just cheering his visit is not enough. He is a serving US president ... I wish he had been more specific.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Barack Obama and Shinzo Abe after the two laid wreaths. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images Obama had long held the desire to go to Hiroshima, despite the potential for the visit to cause controversy in the US. While many Japanese consider the attack a war crime – yet recognise the part their country’s militarist leaders played in bringing it about – the consensus in the US is that the attack hastened the end of the Pacific war, saving many more American and Japanese lives. Japan surrendered on 15 August, less than a week after the US dropped a second atomic bomb, on the western port city of Nagasaki, killing more than 70,000 people. Obama said during a visit to Japan in late 2009 that he would be honoured to go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “I certainly would be honoured – it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future,” he said. Before Friday, the only western leader to have visited Hiroshima while in office was Kevin Rudd, who laid a wreath at the peace park cenotaph in 2008 when he was Australian prime minister. Jimmy Carter visited the atomic bomb memorial in Hiroshima in 1984, after he had left office, but no sitting US president has ever visited the city. The highest-ranking US official to visit the site was Nancy Pelosi in 2008 when she was House speaker. The ambassador, Caroline Kennedy, attended the 70th anniversary commemorations last year. The White House reportedly decided to proceed with the visit after the largely positive reaction to John Kerry’s tribute to the victims of the Hiroshima bombing on the sidelines of the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting last month. Ahead of Friday’s visit, Obama told US Marines and members of the Japanese military at the Iwakuni base in western Japan how it was “a testament to how even the most painful divides can be bridged. How two nations can become not just partners but the best of friends”. His trip, he said, was an “opportunity to honour the memory of all who were lost in world war two” but also had a message for today. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Barack Obama speaks to members of the US and Japanese military at Iwakuni. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP “I do think that part of the reason I’m going is because I want to once again underscore the very real risks that are out there and the sense of urgency that we all should have,” Obama said. “So it’s not only a reminder of the terrible toll of world war two and the death of innocents across continents, but it’s also to remind ourselves that the job is not done in reducing conflict, building institutions of peace, and reducing the prospect of nuclear war in the future.” Story of cities #24: how Hiroshima rose from the ashes of nuclear destruction Read more While polls showed most Japanese welcomed Obama’s gesture, other countries in the region warned against allowing the visit to reinforce a one-dimensional view of Japan’s role in the second world war. The Chinese foreign ministry said Japan should not forget the “grave suffering” it inflicted on its neighbours during the war. “We hope Japan can take a responsible attitude toward its own people and the international community, and earnestly take history as a mirror to avoid a recurrence of the tragedy of the war,” ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters. The state-run China Daily went much further, claiming the “atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of Japan’s own making”. In an editorial on the eve of the visit, the paper accused Japan of “trying to portray Japan as the victim of world war two rather than one of its major perpetrators”. The bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified, the China Daily said, as “a bid to bring an early end to the war and prevent protracted warfare from claiming even more lives”. It added: “It was the war of aggression the Japanese militarist government launched against its neighbours and its refusal to accept its failure that had led to US dropping the atomic bombs.”

www.theguardian.com

left

89pHU1cyECYBxckq

test

eC2YqfAsoy9PsydK

labor

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/3501cbc271c89246afd98511203d1f32

Virus worries haunt workers demanding rights on May Day

2020-05-01

Janet Mcconnaughey, Grant Schulte

Waiter Marcos Huerta , right , serves a grill of fajitas at El Tiempo Cantina Friday , May 1 , 2020 , in Houston . The restaurant reopened their dining room for table service , with limited capacity , Friday . Texas ' stay-at-home orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic have expired and Texas Gov . Greg Abbott has eased restrictions on many businesses that have now opened . ( AP Photo/David J. Phillip ) Waiter Marcos Huerta , right , serves a grill of fajitas at El Tiempo Cantina Friday , May 1 , 2020 , in Houston . The restaurant reopened their dining room for table service , with limited capacity , Friday . Texas ' stay-at-home orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic have expired and Texas Gov . Greg Abbott has eased restrictions on many businesses that have now opened . ( AP Photo/David J. Phillip ) GRETNA , La . ( AP ) — More than a dozen states let restaurants , stores or other businesses reopen Friday in the biggest one-day push yet to get their economies up and running again , acting at their own speed and with their own quirks and restrictions to make sure the coronavirus doesn ’ t come storming back . People in Louisiana could eat at restaurants again but had to sit outside at tables 10 feet ( 3 meters ) apart with no waiter service . Maine residents could attend church services as long as they stayed in their cars . And a Nebraska mall reopened with plexiglass barriers and hand-sanitizing stations but few shoppers . “ I feel like I just got out of jail ! ” accountant Joy Palermo exclaimed as she sat down with a bacon-garnished bloody Mary at the Gretna Depot Cafe outside New Orleans . Meanwhile , the first drug shown to help fight COVID-19 won emergency approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration . In a major study , remdesivir shortened patients ’ recovery time from 15 days to 11 on average and may have also reduced deaths . The virus has killed more than 230,000 people worldwide , including over 64,000 in the U.S. and more than 20,000 each in Italy , Britain , France and Spain , forcing lockdowns that have shuttered factories and businesses , thrown tens of millions out of work and throttled the world ’ s economies . President Donald Trump said Friday that he ’ s hoping the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States will be below 100,000 , which he acknowledged is a “ horrible number. ” Trump ’ s predictions of the expected U.S. death toll have changed over time , with his earlier 60,000 projection now being eclipsed . But he said at a White House event that “ maybe millions of lives ” have been saved by shutting down the economy . With the crisis stabilizing in Europe and in many places in the U.S. , countries and states are gradually easing their restrictions amid warnings from health experts that a second wave of infections could hit unless testing for the virus is expanded dramatically . In much of Colorado , people could get their hair cut and shop at stores again , though stay-at-home orders remained in place in Denver and surrounding counties . Wyoming let barbershops , nail salons , gyms and daycare centers reopen . In Maine , golf courses , hairdressers and dentists opened . Hotels near South Carolina beaches opened and state parks unlocked their gates for the first time in more than a month . But in Myrtle Beach , the state ’ s most popular tourist destination , hotel elevators will be restricted to one person or one family — a potential inconvenience at the area ’ s 15- and 20-story resorts . Texas ’ reopening got underway with sparse crowds at shopping malls and restaurants allowing customers to dine in , though only at 25 % capacity in most places . A video posted on social media showed a city park ranger in Austin getting shoved into the water Thursday while asking people in a crowd to keep 6 feet ( 2 meters ) apart from each other . Police charged a 25-year-old man with attempted assault . At Gattuso ’ s Restaurant in Gretna , Louisiana , Kent and Doris Alimia and their daughters , Molly and Emily , celebrated Molly Alimia ’ s 22nd birthday at one of the outdoor tables , which were screened by plants in wooden planters 5 feet high . “ It ’ s a nice change of scenery to actually get out of the house , ” Molly Alimia said . Outside Omaha , Nebraska , Jasmine Ramos was among a half-dozen shoppers wandering the open-air Nebraska Crossing mall . Most wore masks . “ I do think it ’ s a little soon , but it ’ s kind of slow and there aren ’ t a lot of people here , so I ’ m not too worried , ” Ramos said . Restrictions were still in place in Arizona , but warnings from police and health officials didn ’ t stop Debbie Thompson from serving food Friday inside her Horseshoe Cafe in Wickenburg , a town of 6,300 people about 65 miles ( 105 kilometers ) west of Phoenix . Cheered on by a few customers , Thompson was not arrested , but she later received a call from the state Department of Health Services telling her to stop violating Gov . Doug Ducey ’ s stay-at-home order . Around the country , protesters have demanded governors reboot the battered economy . More than 100 people chanted and carried signs in front of Chicago ’ s Thompson Center , where Illinois Gov . J.B. Pritzker has an office , to call for an end to the statewide lockdown . Pritzker has said he will not lift his order until it ’ s safe , and several counterprotesters expressed support for his position . Nurse anesthetist Benjamin Salazar held up a sign that read , “ Stay home . We are getting tired of seeing people die . ” New Mexico Gov . Michelle Lujan Grisham invoked the state ’ s Riot Control Act as she sealed off all roads to nonessential traffic in the city of Gallup , population about 20,000 , to help control a surging coronavirus outbreak in the former trading post on the outskirts of the Navajo reservation . In the hardest-hit corner of the U.S. , New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo said schools and colleges will remain closed through the rest of the academic year . A New York City nursing home on Friday reported the deaths of 98 residents believed to have had the coronavirus — a staggering death toll that shocked public officials . In Washington state , where the nation ’ s first COVID-19 case was confirmed in January , Gov . Jay Inslee said Friday that he is extending the state ’ s coronavirus stay-at-home order through at least May 31 and that he will ease the restrictions in four stages . Washington also had the first deadly cluster of cases in the U.S. , at a Seattle-area nursing home . And in Michigan , Gov . Gretchen Whitmer said Friday that her stay-at-home order remains in effect through May 15 despite Republicans ’ refusal to extend her emergency declaration . Elsewhere around the world , Beijing ’ s Forbidden City , the imperial palace turned museum that is one of China ’ s biggest tourist attractions , started welcoming visitors again , and Bangladesh began reopening factories . In the U.S. , Shani and Sergei Oveson were excited to resume dine-in seating at their small Salt Lake City restaurant , which has seen an 85 % drop in sales since mid-March . Their place , the Ramen Bar , had only half the normal seating capacity because of social-distancing requirements . “ We ’ re really excited to be open , but at the same time we ’ re scared that the virus will reignite and we ’ ll have to close again , ” Shani Oveson said . “ Owning your own business can be so scary financially , we have to risk getting sick to survive . ”

Waiter Marcos Huerta, right, serves a grill of fajitas at El Tiempo Cantina Friday, May 1, 2020, in Houston. The restaurant reopened their dining room for table service, with limited capacity, Friday. Texas' stay-at-home orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic have expired and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has eased restrictions on many businesses that have now opened. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip) Waiter Marcos Huerta, right, serves a grill of fajitas at El Tiempo Cantina Friday, May 1, 2020, in Houston. The restaurant reopened their dining room for table service, with limited capacity, Friday. Texas' stay-at-home orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic have expired and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has eased restrictions on many businesses that have now opened. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip) GRETNA, La. (AP) — More than a dozen states let restaurants, stores or other businesses reopen Friday in the biggest one-day push yet to get their economies up and running again, acting at their own speed and with their own quirks and restrictions to make sure the coronavirus doesn’t come storming back. People in Louisiana could eat at restaurants again but had to sit outside at tables 10 feet (3 meters) apart with no waiter service. Maine residents could attend church services as long as they stayed in their cars. And a Nebraska mall reopened with plexiglass barriers and hand-sanitizing stations but few shoppers. “I feel like I just got out of jail!” accountant Joy Palermo exclaimed as she sat down with a bacon-garnished bloody Mary at the Gretna Depot Cafe outside New Orleans. Meanwhile, the first drug shown to help fight COVID-19 won emergency approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In a major study, remdesivir shortened patients’ recovery time from 15 days to 11 on average and may have also reduced deaths. The virus has killed more than 230,000 people worldwide, including over 64,000 in the U.S. and more than 20,000 each in Italy, Britain, France and Spain, forcing lockdowns that have shuttered factories and businesses, thrown tens of millions out of work and throttled the world’s economies . President Donald Trump said Friday that he’s hoping the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States will be below 100,000, which he acknowledged is a “horrible number.” Trump’s predictions of the expected U.S. death toll have changed over time, with his earlier 60,000 projection now being eclipsed. But he said at a White House event that “maybe millions of lives” have been saved by shutting down the economy. With the crisis stabilizing in Europe and in many places in the U.S., countries and states are gradually easing their restrictions amid warnings from health experts that a second wave of infections could hit unless testing for the virus is expanded dramatically. In much of Colorado, people could get their hair cut and shop at stores again, though stay-at-home orders remained in place in Denver and surrounding counties. Wyoming let barbershops, nail salons, gyms and daycare centers reopen. In Maine, golf courses, hairdressers and dentists opened. Hotels near South Carolina beaches opened and state parks unlocked their gates for the first time in more than a month. But in Myrtle Beach, the state’s most popular tourist destination, hotel elevators will be restricted to one person or one family — a potential inconvenience at the area’s 15- and 20-story resorts. Texas’ reopening got underway with sparse crowds at shopping malls and restaurants allowing customers to dine in, though only at 25% capacity in most places. A video posted on social media showed a city park ranger in Austin getting shoved into the water Thursday while asking people in a crowd to keep 6 feet (2 meters) apart from each other. Police charged a 25-year-old man with attempted assault. At Gattuso’s Restaurant in Gretna, Louisiana, Kent and Doris Alimia and their daughters, Molly and Emily, celebrated Molly Alimia’s 22nd birthday at one of the outdoor tables, which were screened by plants in wooden planters 5 feet high. “It’s a nice change of scenery to actually get out of the house,” Molly Alimia said. Outside Omaha, Nebraska, Jasmine Ramos was among a half-dozen shoppers wandering the open-air Nebraska Crossing mall. Most wore masks. “I do think it’s a little soon, but it’s kind of slow and there aren’t a lot of people here, so I’m not too worried,” Ramos said. Restrictions were still in place in Arizona, but warnings from police and health officials didn’t stop Debbie Thompson from serving food Friday inside her Horseshoe Cafe in Wickenburg, a town of 6,300 people about 65 miles (105 kilometers) west of Phoenix. Cheered on by a few customers, Thompson was not arrested, but she later received a call from the state Department of Health Services telling her to stop violating Gov. Doug Ducey’s stay-at-home order. Around the country, protesters have demanded governors reboot the battered economy. More than 100 people chanted and carried signs in front of Chicago’s Thompson Center, where Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has an office, to call for an end to the statewide lockdown. Pritzker has said he will not lift his order until it’s safe, and several counterprotesters expressed support for his position. Nurse anesthetist Benjamin Salazar held up a sign that read, “Stay home. We are getting tired of seeing people die.” New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham invoked the state’s Riot Control Act as she sealed off all roads to nonessential traffic in the city of Gallup, population about 20,000, to help control a surging coronavirus outbreak in the former trading post on the outskirts of the Navajo reservation. In the hardest-hit corner of the U.S., New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said schools and colleges will remain closed through the rest of the academic year. A New York City nursing home on Friday reported the deaths of 98 residents believed to have had the coronavirus — a staggering death toll that shocked public officials. In Washington state, where the nation’s first COVID-19 case was confirmed in January, Gov. Jay Inslee said Friday that he is extending the state’s coronavirus stay-at-home order through at least May 31 and that he will ease the restrictions in four stages. Washington also had the first deadly cluster of cases in the U.S., at a Seattle-area nursing home. And in Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said Friday that her stay-at-home order remains in effect through May 15 despite Republicans’ refusal to extend her emergency declaration. Elsewhere around the world, Beijing’s Forbidden City, the imperial palace turned museum that is one of China’s biggest tourist attractions, started welcoming visitors again, and Bangladesh began reopening factories. In the U.S., Shani and Sergei Oveson were excited to resume dine-in seating at their small Salt Lake City restaurant, which has seen an 85% drop in sales since mid-March. Their place, the Ramen Bar, had only half the normal seating capacity because of social-distancing requirements. “We’re really excited to be open, but at the same time we’re scared that the virus will reignite and we’ll have to close again,” Shani Oveson said. “Owning your own business can be so scary financially, we have to risk getting sick to survive.” ___ Schulte reported from Gretna, Nebraska. AP journalists around the world contributed to this report. ___ Follow AP pandemic coverage at http://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak

www.apnews.com

center

eC2YqfAsoy9PsydK

test

dH0rCu7x7StVA2zK

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42242839

OPINION: Is Donald Trump winning?

Jon Sopel

This president has played a lot of golf since he won the election . He seems to do a lot of his business on the lush Trump properties - senators are invited to come and play a round while he can bend their ear to back this or that cause . The way the president does business is not always pretty . There seems to be unnecessary noise and more collateral damage than there needs to be . But who cares that you shanked the ball off the 3rd or hit the ball into the trees on the 5th and found the water on the 14th ? It 's all about how you get yourself out of the rough . The recovery shot . The scramble out of trouble . And every time you think that President Trump finds his ball buried under the sand in a huge bunker , he seems somehow to chip the ball into the hole and emerge smiling . The headlines have been dominated in recent days - understandably - by what is unfolding with the investigation of the special counsel , Robert Mueller , into whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia . We have seen former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI , but more interesting is the fact that Flynn is now co-operating with the Mueller investigation . And we have seen some rather odd tweets from the president 's account , which now we 're being told were n't written by him . Every day - sometimes it seems every hour - there is a new development that will dominate the news cycle . Stories that you think will last a week because of their seeming enormity come and go like passing spring showers , as we await the next downpour . President retweets videos from a far-right British group and gets into spat with Theresa May - been and gone . He says FBI reputation is in tatters - a passing squall . Supporting Roy Moore for the vacant Alabama Senate seat , even though he 's an alleged paedophile ( which he denies ) ? Whatever . Rows with basketball players for not being grateful enough barely make a puddle . And it 's my suspicion that in millions of homes across America ( particularly those that voted for Donald Trump just over a year ago ) this is all filtered out as so much noise and static . Of more interest will be the Senate passing a tax reform bill . And yes , while it will help billionaires more than it will low-paid America ( I suspect not that many will benefit from the tax relief on private jets ) , it will nevertheless benefit them a bit . And there are signs that wages are picking up for blue-collar workers . Unemployment is very low , which means in some sectors there are labour shortages , which in turn means that pay is having to rise to attract workers . The Bureau of Labor Statistics is seeing big growth in demand for production and transportation jobs . Meanwhile , big business America is promising that the slashing of the corporation tax rate that Congress is promising will filter through to greater investment , which in turn will lead to more jobs and higher wages . There is a buoyancy out there . And if you are someone whose pension is tied up in the stock market , you will be looking at the performance of Wall Street and thinking that every day is Christmas , as this president will repeatedly remind you . The performance of shares ( a fickle indicator ) has been extraordinary . Confidence is returning . OK , if you are being pernickety then yes , this bull run on the stock market predates Donald Trump coming to power - the market has been on an upward tick for years . And ditto - the promise of trickle-down economics has been made before with decidedly mixed results . But President Trump is nothing if not a great marketeer - and he will make sure he owns every favourable economic indicator that emerges . And he will make sure every American will be told to believe it is all down to him . Just look at his Twitter feed - the multiple exclamation marks tell you what he thinks . And then you look at the president 's travel ban from six Muslim-majority countries - something which has caused a good deal of outrage around the world , but which was one of his populist key promises during the campaign . The battle is not finished yet , and it may be months or even years before the Supreme Court delivers a final verdict . But the justices gave the president an important fillip this week . They voted by seven to two to allow the wholesale implementation of the measure , pending the outcome of the various legal challenges . That was an important legal victory . And there are a whole range of smaller ticket items where the president has slashed at regulations that were unpopular with his grassroots supporters . For these people he is doing what he promised . I suspect the latest twist in the Russia probe is being met with a barely stifled yawn . And this is having a positive effect on all those jittery Republican lawmakers , as they eye the midterms next November . There is a bit of a change in mood ... if tax reform gets through , if the markets continue to rise , if the president can stay out of too much trouble ( he 's never going to be a choirboy , they accept ) then maybe there are more victories to be had . Going back to golf , one of the great sayings is that there are no pictures on a scorecard . In other words it may not be elegant , your swing may be a heave , you might get lucky with the ball rebounding off the tree - you can win ugly , but as long as you win , that 's all the scorecard is going to record .

Image copyright Getty Images This president has played a lot of golf since he won the election. He seems to do a lot of his business on the lush Trump properties - senators are invited to come and play a round while he can bend their ear to back this or that cause. The way the president does business is not always pretty. There seems to be unnecessary noise and more collateral damage than there needs to be. But who cares that you shanked the ball off the 3rd or hit the ball into the trees on the 5th and found the water on the 14th? It's all about how you get yourself out of the rough. The recovery shot. The scramble out of trouble. And every time you think that President Trump finds his ball buried under the sand in a huge bunker, he seems somehow to chip the ball into the hole and emerge smiling. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The president's former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators The headlines have been dominated in recent days - understandably - by what is unfolding with the investigation of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, into whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. We have seen former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI, but more interesting is the fact that Flynn is now co-operating with the Mueller investigation. And we have seen some rather odd tweets from the president's account, which now we're being told weren't written by him. Every day - sometimes it seems every hour - there is a new development that will dominate the news cycle. Stories that you think will last a week because of their seeming enormity come and go like passing spring showers, as we await the next downpour. President retweets videos from a far-right British group and gets into spat with Theresa May - been and gone. He says FBI reputation is in tatters - a passing squall. Supporting Roy Moore for the vacant Alabama Senate seat, even though he's an alleged paedophile (which he denies)? Whatever. Rows with basketball players for not being grateful enough barely make a puddle. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Congress is poised to send a bill for tax cuts to the president's desk And it's my suspicion that in millions of homes across America (particularly those that voted for Donald Trump just over a year ago) this is all filtered out as so much noise and static. Of more interest will be the Senate passing a tax reform bill. And yes, while it will help billionaires more than it will low-paid America (I suspect not that many will benefit from the tax relief on private jets), it will nevertheless benefit them a bit. And there are signs that wages are picking up for blue-collar workers. Unemployment is very low, which means in some sectors there are labour shortages, which in turn means that pay is having to rise to attract workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is seeing big growth in demand for production and transportation jobs. Meanwhile, big business America is promising that the slashing of the corporation tax rate that Congress is promising will filter through to greater investment, which in turn will lead to more jobs and higher wages. There is a buoyancy out there. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Wall Street, the focal-point of the US financial sector, is enjoying exuberant times And if you are someone whose pension is tied up in the stock market, you will be looking at the performance of Wall Street and thinking that every day is Christmas, as this president will repeatedly remind you. The performance of shares (a fickle indicator) has been extraordinary. Confidence is returning. OK, if you are being pernickety then yes, this bull run on the stock market predates Donald Trump coming to power - the market has been on an upward tick for years. And ditto - the promise of trickle-down economics has been made before with decidedly mixed results. But President Trump is nothing if not a great marketeer - and he will make sure he owns every favourable economic indicator that emerges. And he will make sure every American will be told to believe it is all down to him. Just look at his Twitter feed - the multiple exclamation marks tell you what he thinks. And then you look at the president's travel ban from six Muslim-majority countries - something which has caused a good deal of outrage around the world, but which was one of his populist key promises during the campaign. The battle is not finished yet, and it may be months or even years before the Supreme Court delivers a final verdict. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The travel ban on six Muslim-majority countries was recently upheld by the Supreme Court But the justices gave the president an important fillip this week. They voted by seven to two to allow the wholesale implementation of the measure, pending the outcome of the various legal challenges. That was an important legal victory. And there are a whole range of smaller ticket items where the president has slashed at regulations that were unpopular with his grassroots supporters. For these people he is doing what he promised. I suspect the latest twist in the Russia probe is being met with a barely stifled yawn. And this is having a positive effect on all those jittery Republican lawmakers, as they eye the midterms next November. There is a bit of a change in mood... if tax reform gets through, if the markets continue to rise, if the president can stay out of too much trouble (he's never going to be a choirboy, they accept) then maybe there are more victories to be had. Going back to golf, one of the great sayings is that there are no pictures on a scorecard. In other words it may not be elegant, your swing may be a heave, you might get lucky with the ball rebounding off the tree - you can win ugly, but as long as you win, that's all the scorecard is going to record. This president only cares about the scorecard.

www.bbc.com

center

dH0rCu7x7StVA2zK

test

WjSPZvlFzsDzXhna

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/20/exclusive-monica-crowley-vindicated-by-columbia-university-after-fake-plagiarism-accusations-from-cnn-establishment-media/

Exclusive: Monica Crowley Vindicated by Columbia University After Fake Plagiarism Accusations from CNN, Establishment Media

2019-12-20

Matthew Boyle

Treasury Department Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Monica Crowley has been vindicated by Columbia University after a years-long investigation ultimately concluded she did not plagiarize her thesis , despite allegations by CNN and other establishment media outlets that she did . Crowley , now the Treasury Department ’ s top spokeswoman but previously a Fox News contributor , had been under consideration to join the National Security Council ( NSC ) in the White House at the very beginning of President Donald Trump ’ s administration under his first national security adviser , retired Gen. Mike Flynn . Then , allegations from CNN and Politico , among other publications , claimed that she plagiarized her 2012 book and her thesis at Columbia , sparking Columbia to launch a review of her thesis that has now concluded . The review found Crowley did not commit research misconduct , and sources familiar with the investigation added that the university is “ not disciplining her in any way. ” The university also , the source familiar with the details of the investigation told ███ , found no research misconduct by Crowley . She encourages the public to read her PhD dissertation—which is about U.S.-China relations—because it is a clearly newsworthy topic and added she is proud of her work . “ After CNN and other news outlets falsified my PhD dissertation by omitting nearly 40 footnotes , Columbia University began a process to review the work , ” Crowley told ███ on Friday afternoon . “ I am delighted that they have concluded that there was no research misconduct , as I have maintained all along . I was also happy to address any inadvertent and honest errors and update the work . I am extremely proud of the dissertation , particularly given the fresh timeliness of its subject—the U.S.-China relationship—and hope that others will read and appreciate it . ” A source familiar with the matter told ███ that the university ’ s use of the word “ plagiarism ” in its statement is a purely academic definition , and not the widely accepted use of the term . “ In 2017 , concerns were raised about potential plagiarism in this dissertation , ” Columbia University intends to state publicly about the review . “ Columbia University conducted a formal research misconduct investigation into the allegations , in accordance with its Institutional Policy on Misconduct in Research . The investigation was completed in 2019 . The investigation identified localized instances of plagiarism , but concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Dr. Crowley committed research misconduct . For the dissertation to stand , the University required certain corrections , which Dr. Crowley has provided . ” In other words , the review did find she could have sourced a few things slightly more , and she has offered to make additional annotations—an offer the university has accepted , sources familiar with the matter told ███ . “ They ’ ve accepted her offer to revise the dissertation with additional annotations , ” a source with direct knowledge of the investigation ’ s details said . “ The University has accepted that and concluded their investigation . ” Overall , the attacks from the establishment media—in particular CNN ’ s Andrew Kaczynski and a separate Politico piece—which claimed she engaged in wide-scale plagiarism were deemed untrue by the Columbia University review . A source familiar with the investigation added that it seems as though the political biases of those in media behind these smears of Crowley were a driving motivator of the attacks against her . “ This all started because this CNN guy had an axe to grind against Trump and anybody affiliated with Trump , ” the source , who is familiar with the details of the investigation , added . “ At the time , Monica was being considered to be Flynn ’ s deputy at the NSC . Kaczynski went after Monica because she was an easy target and had a paper trail . Once it went into the news , Columbia had to do an inquiry . They did an inquiry and appointed a committee . Universities are like molasses , they take an enormous amount of time to do anything . This took a long time to do anything . At the end of the day , she was vindicated—there were some footnotes she could have done better , but these corrections are minor . ” A Trump administration official added that the media and American political left have shown their true colors throughout the administration ’ s tenure but that Crowley was “ patient zero ” in fake news attacks on Trump administration officials . “ Monica was patient zero in the ongoing war between the president and those on the left and in the media that wish to impede his agenda by any means necessary , ” the administration official said . “ Nothing is beneath these people and their derangement is so extreme that I expect they ’ ll be going through Monica ’ s trash next . I am beyond thrilled to see Monica vindicated by this review , and I look forward to watching as she continues to communicate the president ’ s outstanding economic agenda . She ’ s a fighter who will continue to fight on behalf of this president against the Fake News media , as well as in the best interests of the American people . ” Two former Trump White House officials added that the fake news media should be ashamed of themselves . “ The media and enemies of President Trump simply can not stand a strong woman serving in the Administration , so they peddle fictitious allegations and outright lies with no regard for what is actually true , ” one former White House official said . “ Monica is a world class talent that serves her country well . We need more people like her , not less . ” “ Monica is a driven and intelligent public servant whose name was senselessly under attack from day one of the administration , ” a second former Trump White House official added . “ This proves that she ’ s an effective messenger who poses a threat to the totally unhinged left who will stop at nothing to tarnish the name of anyone associated with the president . I ’ m glad that justice has prevailed as this marks another blow to the heart of the left and its manufactured resistance . ” After ███ broke the news of Crowley ’ s vindication , the New York Times published its own story on the matter–which some GOP officials have noted does not cite the fact that ███ broke this story before the Times : Your story doesn ’ t mention that this was first reported by @ BreitbartNews . Very dishonest of you . Obviously I ’ m not surprised . — Arthur Schwartz ( @ ArthurSchwartz ) December 20 , 2019 The Times piece confirms all the same details that ███ did about her vindication in particular about the finding that she did not engage in “ research misconduct ” and that she is updating several annotations in her thesis .

Treasury Department Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Monica Crowley has been vindicated by Columbia University after a years-long investigation ultimately concluded she did not plagiarize her thesis, despite allegations by CNN and other establishment media outlets that she did. Crowley, now the Treasury Department’s top spokeswoman but previously a Fox News contributor, had been under consideration to join the National Security Council (NSC) in the White House at the very beginning of President Donald Trump’s administration under his first national security adviser, retired Gen. Mike Flynn. Then, allegations from CNN and Politico, among other publications, claimed that she plagiarized her 2012 book and her thesis at Columbia, sparking Columbia to launch a review of her thesis that has now concluded. The review found Crowley did not commit research misconduct, and sources familiar with the investigation added that the university is “not disciplining her in any way.” The university also, the source familiar with the details of the investigation told Breitbart News, found no research misconduct by Crowley. She encourages the public to read her PhD dissertation—which is about U.S.-China relations—because it is a clearly newsworthy topic and added she is proud of her work. “After CNN and other news outlets falsified my PhD dissertation by omitting nearly 40 footnotes, Columbia University began a process to review the work,” Crowley told Breitbart News on Friday afternoon. “I am delighted that they have concluded that there was no research misconduct, as I have maintained all along. I was also happy to address any inadvertent and honest errors and update the work. I am extremely proud of the dissertation, particularly given the fresh timeliness of its subject—the U.S.-China relationship—and hope that others will read and appreciate it.” A source familiar with the matter told Breitbart News that the university’s use of the word “plagiarism” in its statement is a purely academic definition, and not the widely accepted use of the term. “In 2017, concerns were raised about potential plagiarism in this dissertation,” Columbia University intends to state publicly about the review. “Columbia University conducted a formal research misconduct investigation into the allegations, in accordance with its Institutional Policy on Misconduct in Research. The investigation was completed in 2019. The investigation identified localized instances of plagiarism, but concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Dr. Crowley committed research misconduct. For the dissertation to stand, the University required certain corrections, which Dr. Crowley has provided.” In other words, the review did find she could have sourced a few things slightly more, and she has offered to make additional annotations—an offer the university has accepted, sources familiar with the matter told Breitbart News. “They’ve accepted her offer to revise the dissertation with additional annotations,” a source with direct knowledge of the investigation’s details said. “The University has accepted that and concluded their investigation.” Overall, the attacks from the establishment media—in particular CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski and a separate Politico piece—which claimed she engaged in wide-scale plagiarism were deemed untrue by the Columbia University review. A source familiar with the investigation added that it seems as though the political biases of those in media behind these smears of Crowley were a driving motivator of the attacks against her. “This all started because this CNN guy had an axe to grind against Trump and anybody affiliated with Trump,” the source, who is familiar with the details of the investigation, added. “At the time, Monica was being considered to be Flynn’s deputy at the NSC. Kaczynski went after Monica because she was an easy target and had a paper trail. Once it went into the news, Columbia had to do an inquiry. They did an inquiry and appointed a committee. Universities are like molasses, they take an enormous amount of time to do anything. This took a long time to do anything. At the end of the day, she was vindicated—there were some footnotes she could have done better, but these corrections are minor.” A Trump administration official added that the media and American political left have shown their true colors throughout the administration’s tenure but that Crowley was “patient zero” in fake news attacks on Trump administration officials. “Monica was patient zero in the ongoing war between the president and those on the left and in the media that wish to impede his agenda by any means necessary,” the administration official said. “Nothing is beneath these people and their derangement is so extreme that I expect they’ll be going through Monica’s trash next. I am beyond thrilled to see Monica vindicated by this review, and I look forward to watching as she continues to communicate the president’s outstanding economic agenda. She’s a fighter who will continue to fight on behalf of this president against the Fake News media, as well as in the best interests of the American people.” Two former Trump White House officials added that the fake news media should be ashamed of themselves. “The media and enemies of President Trump simply cannot stand a strong woman serving in the Administration, so they peddle fictitious allegations and outright lies with no regard for what is actually true,” one former White House official said. “Monica is a world class talent that serves her country well. We need more people like her, not less.” “Monica is a driven and intelligent public servant whose name was senselessly under attack from day one of the administration,” a second former Trump White House official added. “This proves that she’s an effective messenger who poses a threat to the totally unhinged left who will stop at nothing to tarnish the name of anyone associated with the president. I’m glad that justice has prevailed as this marks another blow to the heart of the left and its manufactured resistance.” UPDATE 3:30 P.M. ET: After Breitbart News broke the news of Crowley’s vindication, the New York Times published its own story on the matter–which some GOP officials have noted does not cite the fact that Breitbart News broke this story before the Times: Your story doesn’t mention that this was first reported by @BreitbartNews. Very dishonest of you. Obviously I’m not surprised. — Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) December 20, 2019 The Times piece confirms all the same details that Breitbart News did about her vindication in particular about the finding that she did not engage in “research misconduct” and that she is updating several annotations in her thesis.

www.breitbart.com

right

WjSPZvlFzsDzXhna

test

hbHACFx7wR7iYZCJ

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/after-hits-from-king-and-christie-rand-paul-fires-back-on-sandy-aid/?hpt=po_t1

After hits from King and Christie, Rand Paul fires back on Sandy aid

2013-07-29

( CNN ) – Sen. Rand Paul attempted to rebut recent criticism of his stance on national security issues on Sunday , telling attendees of a Republican fundraiser in Tennessee that New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie and GOP Rep. Peter King of New York were depleting the government 's coffers by asking for federal disaster relief . `` The people who want to criticize me and call me names , they are precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending , '' Paul said at a `` Boots and Jeans , BBQ and Beans '' event in Franklin , according to CNN affiliate WKRN-TV . `` They are ' Gim me , gim me , gim me all my Sandy money now . ' Those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not allowing enough money be left over for national defense , '' Paul continued . Paul , a Kentucky Republican , was speaking the same day King told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley that a recent libertarian streak in the GOP threatened to weaken what he said was the party 's traditional strength . King – who , along with Christie , represents an area devastated by last year 's Superstorm Sandy - sharply chastised Paul for suggesting admitted NSA leaker Edward Snowden was performing an act of civil disobedience when he revealed the massive snooping programs . `` This is the anti-war , left-wing Democrats of the 1960s that nominated George McGovern and destroyed their party for almost 20 years . I do n't want that happening to our party , '' King said on CNN 's `` State of the Union . '' King argued that while a debate over the NSA programs could be useful , attempts to defund them were dangerous . The House of Representatives narrowly rejected a measure last week that would have stripped funding from a phone monitoring program . `` I thought it was absolutely disgraceful that so many Republicans voted to defund the NSA program , which has done so much to protect our country , '' King said . `` This is an isolationist streak that 's in our party . It goes totally against the party of Eisenhower , and Reagan , Bush . I mean , we are a party of national defense . We 're a party who did so much to protect the country over the last 12 years . '' Last week , Christie slammed libertarian-minded Republicans who have questioned the NSA spying programs , including Paul . Speaking on a panel for Republican governors , Christie urged caution when discussing ways to revamp U.S. security . And he argued that those opposed to the government spying programs should talk first to families of loved ones who died in the September 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks . `` These esoteric , intellectual debates - I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and orphans and have that conversation , '' Christie said . `` And they wo n't . That 's a lot tougher conversation to have . '' Paul , Christie and King have all suggested they 're considering runs for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination .

6 years ago (CNN) – Sen. Rand Paul attempted to rebut recent criticism of his stance on national security issues on Sunday, telling attendees of a Republican fundraiser in Tennessee that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and GOP Rep. Peter King of New York were depleting the government's coffers by asking for federal disaster relief. "The people who want to criticize me and call me names, they are precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending," Paul said at a "Boots and Jeans, BBQ and Beans" event in Franklin, according to CNN affiliate WKRN-TV. "They are 'Gimme, gimme, gimme all my Sandy money now.' Those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not allowing enough money be left over for national defense," Paul continued. Paul, a Kentucky Republican, was speaking the same day King told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley that a recent libertarian streak in the GOP threatened to weaken what he said was the party's traditional strength. King – who, along with Christie, represents an area devastated by last year's Superstorm Sandy - sharply chastised Paul for suggesting admitted NSA leaker Edward Snowden was performing an act of civil disobedience when he revealed the massive snooping programs. "This is the anti-war, left-wing Democrats of the 1960s that nominated George McGovern and destroyed their party for almost 20 years. I don't want that happening to our party," King said on CNN's "State of the Union." King argued that while a debate over the NSA programs could be useful, attempts to defund them were dangerous. The House of Representatives narrowly rejected a measure last week that would have stripped funding from a phone monitoring program. "I thought it was absolutely disgraceful that so many Republicans voted to defund the NSA program, which has done so much to protect our country," King said. "This is an isolationist streak that's in our party. It goes totally against the party of Eisenhower, and Reagan, Bush. I mean, we are a party of national defense. We're a party who did so much to protect the country over the last 12 years." Last week, Christie slammed libertarian-minded Republicans who have questioned the NSA spying programs, including Paul. Speaking on a panel for Republican governors, Christie urged caution when discussing ways to revamp U.S. security. And he argued that those opposed to the government spying programs should talk first to families of loved ones who died in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "These esoteric, intellectual debates - I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and orphans and have that conversation," Christie said. "And they won't. That's a lot tougher conversation to have." Paul, Christie and King have all suggested they're considering runs for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

hbHACFx7wR7iYZCJ

test

NEx3oICpL9iE0BIl

politics

American Spectator

http://spectator.org/the-491-is-the-alt-right-racist/

OPINION: Is the Alt-Right Racist or Nationalist?

F.H. Buckley, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Veronique De Rugy, Paul Kengor, John C. Wohlstetter, Andrew R. Kloster

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew , Saint Peter asks Christ how often a person should be forgiven ? “ As many as seven times ? ” Not seven times , answers Christ , “ but seventy times seven. ” If one took that literally ( and one shouldn ’ t ) , the 491st sin is unforgiveable . For Conservatives , the 491st sin is an accusation of racism . It ’ s the last refuge of a scoundrel , but it ’ s also effective since no charge arouses greater opprobrium . In American politics , it ’ s a Grosse Bertha , a bunker-breaker which demands that the racist be shunned by all , which labels him a moral leper . It ’ s what the accusation of heresy meant , during the wars of religion , or communism during the days of Joe McCarthy . And so it ’ s not surprising to hear it from Hillary Clinton , and especially so when Trump is courting her supporters in the African-American and Hispanic communities . It ’ s not even surprising to hear her dip into McCarthyite smears , the charge of guilt by association . She didn ’ t exactly say Trump was a racist , only that “ alt-right ” people are , that they support him , and that that kinda , sorta makes him a racist . I don ’ t much know the alt-right people . From casual observation , a few seem to be racists , most decidedly not . I wouldn ’ t even say that they ’ re the biggest racists around . If you ’ re looking for racism , the Black Lives Matter movement would be a good place to start . And you might also take a gander at Hillary Clinton . Asked to choose between “ Black Lives Matter ” and “ All Lives Matter , ” she chose the former . Then there was the Hillary Clinton who voted for an unrepentant Klansman , Robert Byrd , as president pro tem of the Senate . As for Bill Clinton , let ’ s not forget his 2008 remark that “ a few years back Barak Obama would be getting us coffee . ” On the right , the biggest racists I know are libertarians , white friends who have an unhealthy fascination with IQ scores . They take a guilty pleasure in The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein , for it seems to tell them what they long to hear , that they belong to a superior class , that they deserve their reward in a meritocratic country in which intelligence is thought to count for everything and virtue almost nothing . Not that they ’ d be impolite to the African-American they deem inferior . Just the opposite . They ’ d be exquisitely solicitous , and determined to show through officious expressions of sympathy just how kind and thoughtful they really are . Perhaps that explains why I don ’ t know too many African-American libertarians . People who don ’ t think they ’ re inferior don ’ t welcome condescension from false superiors . So before we start bandying around charges of racism , let ’ s ask who ’ s the least racist person around . It ’ s not going to be the religious Christian , who judges people according to their virtues — what Martin Luther King called the “ content of their character ” — and whose belief that we all have souls is the foundation of Western egalitarianism . The sincere Christian might be a bigot , just not a racist . Nor is the racist a nationalist . By definition the nationalist accepts all fellow citizens as his peers . He might be a chauvinist , perhaps even a xenophobe , but not a racist , not in today ’ s America at least . If there might have been a time when America was ethnically homogenous , say in Jamestown in 1607 , it ’ s not that today , and the nationalist will accept America as it is , not as the racist would want it to be . The racist Anglo-American might prefer the English foreigner to the African-American citizen , but not the nationalist . The nationalist will judge our immigration system by how well it serves America citizens , not so much whether it helps foreigners . We ’ ll fault our foreign policies if they foolishly seek to reform the world at the expense of people in this country . When we evaluate our trade agreements , we ’ ll examine the American ledger without taking gains to non-American into account . We won ’ t be indifferent to people in other countries . But we ’ ll prefer our own , including Americans of every race . From what little I know of them , the alt-right people are nationalists , not racists . In any event , Trump himself is a nationalist , not a racist , and that ’ s true of his supporters as well , all save the marginal people to be found at the edge of any party . So it ’ ll be interesting to see who picks up the accusation that Trump supporters are racists , especially amongst the Trump-haters on the right . People like Jonah Goldberg , for example , who anticipated Hillary Clinton by telling us that nationalism is simply a code word for “ white identity politics . ” I ’ m waiting to see who amongst the NeverTrumpers picks that up . I ’ d advise them not to go there . Because it ’ s the 491 .

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Saint Peter asks Christ how often a person should be forgiven? “As many as seven times?” Not seven times, answers Christ, “but seventy times seven.” If one took that literally (and one shouldn’t), the 491st sin is unforgiveable. For Conservatives, the 491st sin is an accusation of racism. It’s the last refuge of a scoundrel, but it’s also effective since no charge arouses greater opprobrium. In American politics, it’s a Grosse Bertha, a bunker-breaker which demands that the racist be shunned by all, which labels him a moral leper. It’s what the accusation of heresy meant, during the wars of religion, or communism during the days of Joe McCarthy. And so it’s not surprising to hear it from Hillary Clinton, and especially so when Trump is courting her supporters in the African-American and Hispanic communities. It’s not even surprising to hear her dip into McCarthyite smears, the charge of guilt by association. She didn’t exactly say Trump was a racist, only that “alt-right” people are, that they support him, and that that kinda, sorta makes him a racist. I don’t much know the alt-right people. From casual observation, a few seem to be racists, most decidedly not. I wouldn’t even say that they’re the biggest racists around. If you’re looking for racism, the Black Lives Matter movement would be a good place to start. And you might also take a gander at Hillary Clinton. Asked to choose between “Black Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter,” she chose the former. Then there was the Hillary Clinton who voted for an unrepentant Klansman, Robert Byrd, as president pro tem of the Senate. As for Bill Clinton, let’s not forget his 2008 remark that “a few years back Barak Obama would be getting us coffee.” On the right, the biggest racists I know are libertarians, white friends who have an unhealthy fascination with IQ scores. They take a guilty pleasure in The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, for it seems to tell them what they long to hear, that they belong to a superior class, that they deserve their reward in a meritocratic country in which intelligence is thought to count for everything and virtue almost nothing. Not that they’d be impolite to the African-American they deem inferior. Just the opposite. They’d be exquisitely solicitous, and determined to show through officious expressions of sympathy just how kind and thoughtful they really are. Perhaps that explains why I don’t know too many African-American libertarians. People who don’t think they’re inferior don’t welcome condescension from false superiors. So before we start bandying around charges of racism, let’s ask who’s the least racist person around. It’s not going to be the religious Christian, who judges people according to their virtues — what Martin Luther King called the “content of their character” — and whose belief that we all have souls is the foundation of Western egalitarianism. The sincere Christian might be a bigot, just not a racist. Nor is the racist a nationalist. By definition the nationalist accepts all fellow citizens as his peers. He might be a chauvinist, perhaps even a xenophobe, but not a racist, not in today’s America at least. If there might have been a time when America was ethnically homogenous, say in Jamestown in 1607, it’s not that today, and the nationalist will accept America as it is, not as the racist would want it to be. The racist Anglo-American might prefer the English foreigner to the African-American citizen, but not the nationalist. The nationalist will judge our immigration system by how well it serves America citizens, not so much whether it helps foreigners. We’ll fault our foreign policies if they foolishly seek to reform the world at the expense of people in this country. When we evaluate our trade agreements, we’ll examine the American ledger without taking gains to non-American into account. We won’t be indifferent to people in other countries. But we’ll prefer our own, including Americans of every race. From what little I know of them, the alt-right people are nationalists, not racists. In any event, Trump himself is a nationalist, not a racist, and that’s true of his supporters as well, all save the marginal people to be found at the edge of any party. So it’ll be interesting to see who picks up the accusation that Trump supporters are racists, especially amongst the Trump-haters on the right. People like Jonah Goldberg, for example, who anticipated Hillary Clinton by telling us that nationalism is simply a code word for “white identity politics.” I’m waiting to see who amongst the NeverTrumpers picks that up. I’d advise them not to go there. Because it’s the 491.

www.spectator.org

right

NEx3oICpL9iE0BIl

test

E1xY5T5YgnUnWGPB

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hatch-scrap-obamacare-tax/2015/02/05/id/622818/

Hatch, Republicans: Scrap Obamacare, Use Tax Credits

2015-02-05

Alan Fram

Three Republican lawmakers eager to repeal President Barack Obama 's health care overhaul are touting tax credits and greater leeway for states and health insurers as the GOP unveiled its first plan this year for replacing the law that the party reviles . Republicans released the outline Wednesday as Democrats continue pounding away at them for pledging to repeal and replace Obama 's law , practically since its 2010 enactment , without advancing a substitute . That 's a growing political liability for Republicans because the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this year , 19 million Americans will receive coverage as a result of the law , including large numbers in GOP-dominated states . `` We need to be prepared to talk about something we could support , '' said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton , R-Mich. , one of the proposal 's authors . Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch , R-Utah , and Sen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , a Finance panel member , also wrote the proposal . The plan — it 's not in legislative language and may not be anytime soon — erases the existing law 's coverage requirements for individuals and employers . It eliminates the state and HealthCare.gov federal insurance marketplaces where insurance can be purchased and ends virtually everything established by the health care law , including taxes it imposes on medical devices and other things to finance enlarged coverage . Also gone would be the health care overhaul 's expansion of Medicaid , the federal-state health insurance program for the poor . Instead , states would be given more freedom to decide how to spend the program 's federal funds . Republican aides said the plan 's sponsors would need to talk to congressional colleagues and governors , and possibly make changes , before translating their principles into a bill . That could be a drawn-out process , but it would further delay the political vulnerability possible when ideas are transformed into detailed legislation . Further stretching the timeline is a Supreme Court decision , expected this June , on a case in which critics of Obama 's law claim that many subsidies it gives millions of people to help them afford health coverage are illegal . Should the plaintiffs win , Congress might have to spend time rewriting parts of the statute . Every voting Republican in Congress opposed the health care law when it was enacted . When the House voted this week to repeal the law — a measure unlikely to pass in the Senate and that faces a promised veto from Obama — only three Republicans voted no . GOP aides said their proposal had no official estimates of cost or the numbers of people it would cover . They said they believed their plan would save money and be competitive with coverage under Obama 's program . As under Obama 's law , insurers would be required to include children up to age 26 under their families ' policies , though states could end that requirement . Unlike Obama 's law , states could decide whether to provide maternity coverage . People with pre-existing medical conditions could not be turned down for insurance , as long as they did not have a gap in coverage that lasted more than roughly two months , congressional aides said . As with Obama 's law , there would be no lifetime limits on coverage . People working for firms with 100 or fewer employees would be eligible for tax credits to help pay for health care , as would people earning up to triple the federal poverty level . That would mean people earning up to approximately $ 35,000 , and larger amounts for families , would qualify for some assistance . For people who do n't sign up for coverage , states would be allowed to automatically enroll some of them in plans . Such people , though , could completely opt out of coverage anyway . To raise money , the GOP plan would impose taxes on the value of employer-provided health coverage exceeding $ 12,000 for individuals and $ 30,000 for families , amounts that would grow as inflation rises . Limits would be placed on awards from medical malpractice lawsuits , and insurance companies would be allowed to sell policies across state lines . Republicans said both steps were designed to help lower coverage costs .

Three Republican lawmakers eager to repeal President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are touting tax credits and greater leeway for states and health insurers as the GOP unveiled its first plan this year for replacing the law that the party reviles. Republicans released the outline Wednesday as Democrats continue pounding away at them for pledging to repeal and replace Obama's law, practically since its 2010 enactment, without advancing a substitute. That's a growing political liability for Republicans because the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this year, 19 million Americans will receive coverage as a result of the law, including large numbers in GOP-dominated states. "We need to be prepared to talk about something we could support," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., one of the proposal's authors. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., a Finance panel member, also wrote the proposal. The plan — it's not in legislative language and may not be anytime soon — erases the existing law's coverage requirements for individuals and employers. It eliminates the state and HealthCare.gov federal insurance marketplaces where insurance can be purchased and ends virtually everything established by the health care law, including taxes it imposes on medical devices and other things to finance enlarged coverage. Also gone would be the health care overhaul's expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. Instead, states would be given more freedom to decide how to spend the program's federal funds. Republican aides said the plan's sponsors would need to talk to congressional colleagues and governors, and possibly make changes, before translating their principles into a bill. That could be a drawn-out process, but it would further delay the political vulnerability possible when ideas are transformed into detailed legislation. Further stretching the timeline is a Supreme Court decision, expected this June, on a case in which critics of Obama's law claim that many subsidies it gives millions of people to help them afford health coverage are illegal. Should the plaintiffs win, Congress might have to spend time rewriting parts of the statute. Every voting Republican in Congress opposed the health care law when it was enacted. When the House voted this week to repeal the law — a measure unlikely to pass in the Senate and that faces a promised veto from Obama — only three Republicans voted no. GOP aides said their proposal had no official estimates of cost or the numbers of people it would cover. They said they believed their plan would save money and be competitive with coverage under Obama's program. As under Obama's law, insurers would be required to include children up to age 26 under their families' policies, though states could end that requirement. Unlike Obama's law, states could decide whether to provide maternity coverage. People with pre-existing medical conditions could not be turned down for insurance, as long as they did not have a gap in coverage that lasted more than roughly two months, congressional aides said. As with Obama's law, there would be no lifetime limits on coverage. People working for firms with 100 or fewer employees would be eligible for tax credits to help pay for health care, as would people earning up to triple the federal poverty level. That would mean people earning up to approximately $35,000, and larger amounts for families, would qualify for some assistance. For people who don't sign up for coverage, states would be allowed to automatically enroll some of them in plans. Such people, though, could completely opt out of coverage anyway. To raise money, the GOP plan would impose taxes on the value of employer-provided health coverage exceeding $12,000 for individuals and $30,000 for families, amounts that would grow as inflation rises. Limits would be placed on awards from medical malpractice lawsuits, and insurance companies would be allowed to sell policies across state lines. Republicans said both steps were designed to help lower coverage costs.

www.newsmax.com

right

E1xY5T5YgnUnWGPB

test

6VcntpPK8ZAZABEl

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/20/cruz-to-cnn-i-dont-work-for-the-party-bosses-in-washington/?hpt=po_c1

Cruz to CNN: ‘I don’t work for the party bosses in Washington’

2013-10-20

( CNN ) - Back in his home state after the reopening of the government , Sen. Ted Cruz didn ’ t rule out the idea of again staging the strategy that helped lead to the 16-day partial shutdown and bashed his fellow Senate Republicans for not trying hard enough to dismantle Obamacare . The Texas Republican , in an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash in San Antonio , was unapologetic for fighting to defund President Obama ’ s health care law in the face of outsized odds , saying he doesn ’ t work for the “ party bosses ” in Washington . Asked whether it bothered him that so many Republican senators expressed outrage at his approach - one that involved a 21-hour talkathon on the Senate floor - the first-year senator said , “ not remotely . ” “ I work for 26 million Texans . That ’ s my job , to fight for them . I don ’ t work for the party bosses in Washington . I work for the people of Texas , and I fight for them , ” he said in the interview that aired Sunday on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union . ” Ted Cruz , back in Texas , rails against fellow Senate Republicans “ Look , the reason people are frustrated all over the country is that far too many people get elected and they think they ’ re there to be part of the club , ” he continued . Bash added that one of Cruz ’ s colleagues told her that Republicans in the Senate strongly opposed the senator ’ s attempt , with one of them saying “ it was like an intervention ” when they privately tried to convince him to back down . “ They told me that you really didn ’ t flinch , ” Bash said . But Cruz said he gave the same answer to his Republican colleagues behind closed doors as he gives in front of the cameras . “ What I say privately to my colleagues is the same thing I say publicly , ” he said . “ And you know what ’ s interesting ? Virtually every person in that room that was criticizing what ( Utah Sen. ) Mike Lee and I were doing would have said very different things if a camera was in this room . Because what they ’ re telling their constituents is very different from what they ’ re saying behind closed doors . ” Cruz was well received at San Antonio event on Saturday . He entered to a standing ovation and his remarks were met with cheers of `` We love Ted Cruz . '' `` It was tremendously uplifting . It 's really good to be home , '' Cruz said , joking that `` it 's kind of like DC , except in D.C. they 're yelling different things . '' House Republicans followed Cruz ’ s rallying cry to attach anti-Obamacare provisions to must-pass spending legislation , but the Democratic-controlled Senate refused to take up anything but a “ clean ” short-term spending bill , meaning one without anything related to health care . House Republicans first passed legislation that would defund the law and then a bill that would delay it . Softening some more , they passed a bill that would delay just the individual mandate . But the Senate , with the backing of the White House , continued to reject the legislation , demanding only a clean bill . With no agreement , the government shutdown took effect October 1 . A defeated GOP wants to unite , move on , fight another day Even though Republicans are the minority in the Senate , Cruz said , the shutdown could have been avoided if those in his party united to support their colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill . “ Imagine if Senate Republicans had come together , had united and stood side-by-side with House Republicans and had said , ‘ we ’ re with the American people . We want to fund our government . We want to fund every aspect of our government , but we want to answer the American people who are being hurt because of Obamacare , ’ ” he said . “ We would have ended up with a very different result . ” Republican Sen. John McCain , however , said Sunday on `` State of the Union '' that the approach `` was a fool 's errand to start with . '' Ultimately , the House and Senate passed legislation last week that would fund the government through January 15 and extend the debt limit through February 7 . In the meantime , select members of the House and Senate will meet to hammer out a long-term budget plan . “ The deal this week was a lousy deal for the American people , ” Cruz argued . While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and McCain have ruled out another government shutdown in the near future , Cruz didn ’ t take the option off the table . McCain : No more shutdowns , ' I guarantee it ' | McConnell : Further shutdowns 'off the table ' “ There will be time enough to talk about specific strategies , specific tactics , ” he told Bash . “ There are a lot politicians in Washington who want to put Obamacare behind us . Say OK , fine , no more . No more discussing Obamacare . And you know what ? The American people are not satisfied with that . ” Some Republican lawmakers argue that rather than taking an aggressive approach against the federal health care law , they just should let it fail on its own , as many of them believe it will . “ There are some Republican gray-beards in Washington who make the point ‘ Let 's just let this collapse … and then Republicans will benefit , ’ ” Cruz said , adding that he “ profoundly ” disagrees with the approach . “ I consider that theory the ‘ Bad Samaritan ’ theory . Basically , inflict a bunch of harm on the American people and hope we benefit politically from it . What a terrible , cynical approach . I am not interested in seeing the American people suffer just because my party might benefit politically if they blame the Democrats for the foolish policies that have been imposed . ” Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET . For the latest from State of the Union click here .

6 years ago (CNN) - Back in his home state after the reopening of the government, Sen. Ted Cruz didn’t rule out the idea of again staging the strategy that helped lead to the 16-day partial shutdown and bashed his fellow Senate Republicans for not trying hard enough to dismantle Obamacare. The Texas Republican, in an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash in San Antonio, was unapologetic for fighting to defund President Obama’s health care law in the face of outsized odds, saying he doesn’t work for the “party bosses” in Washington. Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN ‘Part of the club’ Asked whether it bothered him that so many Republican senators expressed outrage at his approach - one that involved a 21-hour talkathon on the Senate floor - the first-year senator said, “not remotely.” “I work for 26 million Texans. That’s my job, to fight for them. I don’t work for the party bosses in Washington. I work for the people of Texas, and I fight for them,” he said in the interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Ted Cruz, back in Texas, rails against fellow Senate Republicans “Look, the reason people are frustrated all over the country is that far too many people get elected and they think they’re there to be part of the club,” he continued. Bash added that one of Cruz’s colleagues told her that Republicans in the Senate strongly opposed the senator’s attempt, with one of them saying “it was like an intervention” when they privately tried to convince him to back down. “They told me that you really didn’t flinch,” Bash said. But Cruz said he gave the same answer to his Republican colleagues behind closed doors as he gives in front of the cameras. “What I say privately to my colleagues is the same thing I say publicly,” he said. “And you know what’s interesting? Virtually every person in that room that was criticizing what (Utah Sen.) Mike Lee and I were doing would have said very different things if a camera was in this room. Because what they’re telling their constituents is very different from what they’re saying behind closed doors.” Police investigating threats against Ted Cruz Cruz was well received at San Antonio event on Saturday. He entered to a standing ovation and his remarks were met with cheers of "We love Ted Cruz." "It was tremendously uplifting. It's really good to be home," Cruz said, joking that "it's kind of like DC, except in D.C. they're yelling different things." ‘A very different result’ House Republicans followed Cruz’s rallying cry to attach anti-Obamacare provisions to must-pass spending legislation, but the Democratic-controlled Senate refused to take up anything but a “clean” short-term spending bill, meaning one without anything related to health care. House Republicans first passed legislation that would defund the law and then a bill that would delay it. Softening some more, they passed a bill that would delay just the individual mandate. But the Senate, with the backing of the White House, continued to reject the legislation, demanding only a clean bill. With no agreement, the government shutdown took effect October 1. A defeated GOP wants to unite, move on, fight another day Even though Republicans are the minority in the Senate, Cruz said, the shutdown could have been avoided if those in his party united to support their colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill. “Imagine if Senate Republicans had come together, had united and stood side-by-side with House Republicans and had said, ‘we’re with the American people. We want to fund our government. We want to fund every aspect of our government, but we want to answer the American people who are being hurt because of Obamacare,’ ” he said. “We would have ended up with a very different result.” Republican Sen. John McCain, however, said Sunday on "State of the Union" that the approach "was a fool's errand to start with." "It was never going to succeed," he added. Not ruling it out Ultimately, the House and Senate passed legislation last week that would fund the government through January 15 and extend the debt limit through February 7. In the meantime, select members of the House and Senate will meet to hammer out a long-term budget plan. “The deal this week was a lousy deal for the American people,” Cruz argued. While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and McCain have ruled out another government shutdown in the near future, Cruz didn’t take the option off the table. McCain: No more shutdowns, 'I guarantee it' | McConnell: Further shutdowns 'off the table' “There will be time enough to talk about specific strategies, specific tactics,” he told Bash. “There are a lot politicians in Washington who want to put Obamacare behind us. Say OK, fine, no more. No more discussing Obamacare. And you know what? The American people are not satisfied with that.” Some Republican lawmakers argue that rather than taking an aggressive approach against the federal health care law, they just should let it fail on its own, as many of them believe it will. But Cruz said that was an ill-conceived tactic. “There are some Republican gray-beards in Washington who make the point ‘Let's just let this collapse … and then Republicans will benefit,’ ” Cruz said, adding that he “profoundly” disagrees with the approach. “I consider that theory the ‘Bad Samaritan’ theory. Basically, inflict a bunch of harm on the American people and hope we benefit politically from it. What a terrible, cynical approach. I am not interested in seeing the American people suffer just because my party might benefit politically if they blame the Democrats for the foolish policies that have been imposed.” Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

6VcntpPK8ZAZABEl

test

z2m4lLfVcumUkGtn

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/constitutional-crisis-or-dem-crisis-of-confidence/

OPINION: Constitutional Crisis or Dem Crisis of Confidence?

David Catron, John C. Wohlstetter, Dov Fischer, Geoff Shepard, Daniel Oliver, E. Donald Elliott

The same Beltway braniacs who assured us that the President was in league with Vladimir Putin and sundry other Rȕskī reprobates now claim he has precipitated a constitutional crisis . House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler claims Trump is acting like a “ king ” by refusing to relitigate the Russia hoax , allow already-interrogated aides to be requestioned , or permit partisan congressional staffers to rummage through his tax and financial records . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi concurs that a crisis is at hand : “ I do agree with Chairman Nadler because the administration has decided that they ’ re not going to honor their oath of office . ” Yet , the “ get Trump ” crowd is obviously growing increasingly frustrated that Nadler and Pelosi have taken no serious action to resolve the dire threat they claim President Trump poses to the republic . The New York Times , for example , published a column by Michelle Goldberg Friday titled , “ If This Is a Constitutional Crisis , Act Like It. ” Goldberg suggests that contempt votes against administration officials are all very well and good , but they are primarily symbolic and usually lead to protracted court battles that rarely resolve the crises that initially triggered them . Goldberg argues that Pelosi and Nadler should take more radical measures : Pelosi is a sharp and pragmatic woman … But it is incoherent to argue that Trump constitutes an existential threat to the Constitution , and that Congress should wait to use the Constitution ’ s primary defense against such a threat.… In the face of an administration that is trying to amass dictatorial powers , Democrats need to bring to bear all the powers of their own . Trump ’ s outright rejection of congressional authority makes impeachment proceedings necessary , but even impeachment alone is not sufficient . Note that last bit about impeachment not being “ sufficient ” to solve the crisis ? Goldberg urges Congress to “ enforce its own orders , including by sending out the House ’ s sergeant-at-arms to arrest people. ” But even Pelosi isn ’ t that crazy . She knows only a tiny percentage of the public supports impeaching the President , much less the physical arrest of his Cabinet officials . The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that only 17 percent of the voters support ousting Trump , including only 19 percent of Independents . Moreover , the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Trump ’ s approval rating at its highest level since his inauguration . But the will of the people means little to Trump ’ s increasingly irrational antagonists . Former secretary of labor Robert Reich , for example , published a column in the Guardian Saturday that illustrates his inability to think straight about the President : “ It ’ s a constitutional crisis all right. ” Having discharged his duty to parrot that canard , Reich explains why it would be futile and politically perilous for the Democrats to impeach Trump . He then says they should do so anyway because “ it is the right thing to do. ” But there is no consensus , even among liberal legal scholars , that we ’ re in the midst of a constitutional crisis . In Slate , Fordham ’ s Jed Shugerman says not : This current episode is not a constitutional crisis because the Constitution is still functioning as designed , in terms of separation of powers . The key question to me is whether either party bypasses the courts or defies the courts . The House subpoenas documents , the executive branch makes legal arguments against those subpoenas , and the courts will hear this dispute.… A constitutional crisis would be the House trying to arrest [ Treasury Secretary Steve ] Mnuchin or Barr without a court order . Shugerman does a good job of highlighting the illiteracy concerning the Constitution that has dominated every debate during Trump ’ s tenure in office . Note his assertion about separation of powers . His point is that our system of government was designed with the expectation that there would be disputes between the separate branches of government . Conflicts between branches don ’ t signal constitutional crises . Such disputes check over-reach by any single branch and maintain a relative balance of power between the three co-equal branches . Nancy Pelosi evidently failed to get the last part of that memo and has been talking to Michelle Goldberg at the NYT : I think we ’ re a superior branch , quite frankly . We have the power to make the law and the president enforces the law . So we have a big role . We ’ re closest to the people and we have a big role to play.… I have said that the president wants to goad us into impeachment . The point is , that every single day , whether it ’ s obstruction , obstruction , obstruction of having people come to the table with facts , ignoring subpoenas every single day , the president is making a case.… We do have a jail within the basement of the Congress . That was the Speaker of the House , just last week , making it all too clear that she doesn ’ t really get how our government operates . Pelosi is without question a shrewd political operator . It is equally clear , however , that she is no constitutional scholar . Like most Democrats , she believes the term “ constitutional crisis ” means her party is losing . And they are indeed losing . Their grand strategy for getting Trump collapsed when the Mueller probe left them with egg dripping from their faces . They have nothing to offer the voters in 2020 beyond their antipathy for a President who has presided over a booming economy , low unemployment , low taxes , and low inflation . Consequently , Pelosi , Nadler , and their accomplices in the media as well as the federal bureaucracy need a crisis — any crisis — to worry the voters about the President . But claims that he has endangered the republic by “ acting like a King ” or “ trying to amass dictatorial powers ” are just cries of desperation . The system is working exactly as intended . It is keeping our “ leaders ” at each other ’ s throats , which leaves them less time to pick our pockets . To paraphrase the immortal J. Rufus Fears , the Constitution is one of the only things of lasting value to be produced by a committee . There is no constitutional crisis — just a crisis of Democratic confidence .

The same Beltway braniacs who assured us that the President was in league with Vladimir Putin and sundry other Rȕskī reprobates now claim he has precipitated a constitutional crisis. House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler claims Trump is acting like a “king” by refusing to relitigate the Russia hoax, allow already-interrogated aides to be requestioned, or permit partisan congressional staffers to rummage through his tax and financial records. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi concurs that a crisis is at hand: “I do agree with Chairman Nadler because the administration has decided that they’re not going to honor their oath of office.” Yet, the “get Trump” crowd is obviously growing increasingly frustrated that Nadler and Pelosi have taken no serious action to resolve the dire threat they claim President Trump poses to the republic. The New York Times, for example, published a column by Michelle Goldberg Friday titled, “If This Is a Constitutional Crisis, Act Like It.” Goldberg suggests that contempt votes against administration officials are all very well and good, but they are primarily symbolic and usually lead to protracted court battles that rarely resolve the crises that initially triggered them. Goldberg argues that Pelosi and Nadler should take more radical measures: Pelosi is a sharp and pragmatic woman … But it is incoherent to argue that Trump constitutes an existential threat to the Constitution, and that Congress should wait to use the Constitution’s primary defense against such a threat.… In the face of an administration that is trying to amass dictatorial powers, Democrats need to bring to bear all the powers of their own. Trump’s outright rejection of congressional authority makes impeachment proceedings necessary, but even impeachment alone is not sufficient. Note that last bit about impeachment not being “sufficient” to solve the crisis? Goldberg urges Congress to “enforce its own orders, including by sending out the House’s sergeant-at-arms to arrest people.” But even Pelosi isn’t that crazy. She knows only a tiny percentage of the public supports impeaching the President, much less the physical arrest of his Cabinet officials. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that only 17 percent of the voters support ousting Trump, including only 19 percent of Independents. Moreover, the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Trump’s approval rating at its highest level since his inauguration. But the will of the people means little to Trump’s increasingly irrational antagonists. Former secretary of labor Robert Reich, for example, published a column in the Guardian Saturday that illustrates his inability to think straight about the President: “It’s a constitutional crisis all right.” Having discharged his duty to parrot that canard, Reich explains why it would be futile and politically perilous for the Democrats to impeach Trump. He then says they should do so anyway because “it is the right thing to do.” But there is no consensus, even among liberal legal scholars, that we’re in the midst of a constitutional crisis. In Slate, Fordham’s Jed Shugerman says not: This current episode is not a constitutional crisis because the Constitution is still functioning as designed, in terms of separation of powers. The key question to me is whether either party bypasses the courts or defies the courts. The House subpoenas documents, the executive branch makes legal arguments against those subpoenas, and the courts will hear this dispute.… A constitutional crisis would be the House trying to arrest [Treasury Secretary Steve] Mnuchin or Barr without a court order. Shugerman does a good job of highlighting the illiteracy concerning the Constitution that has dominated every debate during Trump’s tenure in office. Note his assertion about separation of powers. His point is that our system of government was designed with the expectation that there would be disputes between the separate branches of government. Conflicts between branches don’t signal constitutional crises. Such disputes check over-reach by any single branch and maintain a relative balance of power between the three co-equal branches. Nancy Pelosi evidently failed to get the last part of that memo and has been talking to Michelle Goldberg at the NYT: I think we’re a superior branch, quite frankly. We have the power to make the law and the president enforces the law. So we have a big role. We’re closest to the people and we have a big role to play.… I have said that the president wants to goad us into impeachment. The point is, that every single day, whether it’s obstruction, obstruction, obstruction of having people come to the table with facts, ignoring subpoenas every single day, the president is making a case.… We do have a jail within the basement of the Congress. That was the Speaker of the House, just last week, making it all too clear that she doesn’t really get how our government operates. Pelosi is without question a shrewd political operator. It is equally clear, however, that she is no constitutional scholar. Like most Democrats, she believes the term “constitutional crisis” means her party is losing. And they are indeed losing. Their grand strategy for getting Trump collapsed when the Mueller probe left them with egg dripping from their faces. They have nothing to offer the voters in 2020 beyond their antipathy for a President who has presided over a booming economy, low unemployment, low taxes, and low inflation. Consequently, Pelosi, Nadler, and their accomplices in the media as well as the federal bureaucracy need a crisis — any crisis — to worry the voters about the President. But claims that he has endangered the republic by “acting like a King” or “trying to amass dictatorial powers” are just cries of desperation. The system is working exactly as intended. It is keeping our “leaders” at each other’s throats, which leaves them less time to pick our pockets. To paraphrase the immortal J. Rufus Fears, the Constitution is one of the only things of lasting value to be produced by a committee. There is no constitutional crisis — just a crisis of Democratic confidence.

www.spectator.org

right

z2m4lLfVcumUkGtn

test

RR0ntQQRhpigw4lY

fbi

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/fbis-weaselgate/

OPINION: FBI’s Weaselgate

George Neumayr, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison, Dov Fischer, John C. Wohlstetter

Andrew McCabe ’ s book is tilted The Threat : How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump , as if to say Trump is part of the terror . The real upshot of the book is that the politicized ranks of the FBI under James Comey and McCabe were too afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome to protect America from real threats . Those ranks took their eyes off real threats and concocted a phony one about Trump and Russia , behaving like members of a cult who turned to retaliation after their dear leader fell in a wholly justified firing . In his recent interviews , McCabe has talked about the firing of Comey as a crisis of the greatest proportions . It wasn ’ t . Trump had the constitutional authority to fire him and plenty of grounds to do so . He was under no obligation to retain an FBI director chosen by his predecessor . Comey ’ s tenure had been marked by unprofessional behavior , and Trump was correct in recognizing that Comey had signed off on unfounded investigations unfairly targeting his campaign and White House . Why should a chief executive let a department of his own branch of government hobble his presidency and treat him like a criminal ? What the media insists on calling “ obstruction of justice ” is nothing more than the ordinary self-defense any chief executive would practice if he saw the executive branch in the hands of political hacks who hated him and were misusing their powers . Instead of jumping to wild conclusions about Trump ’ s motives , FBI and Justice Department officials should have seen the firing of Comey as an obvious and legitimate exercise of Trump ’ s constitutional authority and just gone back to real work . Trump , if anything , has shown too much deference to the Justice Department and the FBI during their torments of him . Under most presidencies , the double-dealing Rod Rosenstein would have been fired a long time ago . He emerges from McCabe ’ s account as one of the chief weasels . According to McCabe , Rosenstein offered to wear a wire to try and catch Trump out in a crime and discussed using the 25th amendment to oust him . Under any other president , those would be automatic firing offenses . But the pressures of the Mueller investigation make it impossible for Trump to control his own Justice Department . The media has been obsessed over this “ abnormal ” presidency , but sees nothing abnormal in an FBI that treats a duly elected president as a criminal on nothing but partisan hunches . McCabe offers no evidence of any criminal activity that would have justified his panic over Trump . He is simply appealing to anti-Trump prejudices amongst the press and political class and using hysteria over Russia as cover for a meritless investigation . Could the threshold for the FBI treating a president as a probable Russian agent really be as low as Trump firing Comey ? That ’ s a ludicrous basis for an investigation . Yet McCabe casts that as one of the “ facts ” justifying it . “ So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder if there is an inappropriate relationship , a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy , the government of Russia , ” he said to CBS . Notice that for McCabe America ’ s most “ fearsome ” threat comes not from Islamic terrorists who have declared war on America but from Putin . So much for McCabe as an expert on weighing “ threats . ” That Trump might have defensible foreign policy motives for trying to improve a relationship with Russia is never given the slightest bit of credence from McCabe . But since when has the evaluation of foreign policy been part of the FBI ’ s investigative authority ? Senator Lindsey Graham , who has vowed to hold hearings on the “ attempted bureaucratic coup ” at the FBI , should ask McCabe such questions . McCabe says that he wrote his memoir in response to Trump ’ s “ relentless attack ” on the FBI . But Trump hasn ’ t attacked the FBI ; he has attacked those who sought to politicize it . The damage to the FBI has come not from Trump but from a cast of liberal partisans who turned it into a branch of the Democratic Party . It is the culture under Comey and McCabe that looks disturbingly abnormal and cult-like . The FBI had become under them a rogue agency with a sense of entitlement so deep that a constitutional firing could become an occasion for overthrowing a president .

Andrew McCabe’s book is tilted The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump, as if to say Trump is part of the terror. The real upshot of the book is that the politicized ranks of the FBI under James Comey and McCabe were too afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome to protect America from real threats. Those ranks took their eyes off real threats and concocted a phony one about Trump and Russia, behaving like members of a cult who turned to retaliation after their dear leader fell in a wholly justified firing. In his recent interviews, McCabe has talked about the firing of Comey as a crisis of the greatest proportions. It wasn’t. Trump had the constitutional authority to fire him and plenty of grounds to do so. He was under no obligation to retain an FBI director chosen by his predecessor. Comey’s tenure had been marked by unprofessional behavior, and Trump was correct in recognizing that Comey had signed off on unfounded investigations unfairly targeting his campaign and White House. Why should a chief executive let a department of his own branch of government hobble his presidency and treat him like a criminal? What the media insists on calling “obstruction of justice” is nothing more than the ordinary self-defense any chief executive would practice if he saw the executive branch in the hands of political hacks who hated him and were misusing their powers. Instead of jumping to wild conclusions about Trump’s motives, FBI and Justice Department officials should have seen the firing of Comey as an obvious and legitimate exercise of Trump’s constitutional authority and just gone back to real work. Trump, if anything, has shown too much deference to the Justice Department and the FBI during their torments of him. Under most presidencies, the double-dealing Rod Rosenstein would have been fired a long time ago. He emerges from McCabe’s account as one of the chief weasels. According to McCabe, Rosenstein offered to wear a wire to try and catch Trump out in a crime and discussed using the 25th amendment to oust him. Under any other president, those would be automatic firing offenses. But the pressures of the Mueller investigation make it impossible for Trump to control his own Justice Department. The media has been obsessed over this “abnormal” presidency, but sees nothing abnormal in an FBI that treats a duly elected president as a criminal on nothing but partisan hunches. McCabe offers no evidence of any criminal activity that would have justified his panic over Trump. He is simply appealing to anti-Trump prejudices amongst the press and political class and using hysteria over Russia as cover for a meritless investigation. Could the threshold for the FBI treating a president as a probable Russian agent really be as low as Trump firing Comey? That’s a ludicrous basis for an investigation. Yet McCabe casts that as one of the “facts” justifying it. “So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder if there is an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia,” he said to CBS. Notice that for McCabe America’s most “fearsome” threat comes not from Islamic terrorists who have declared war on America but from Putin. So much for McCabe as an expert on weighing “threats.” That Trump might have defensible foreign policy motives for trying to improve a relationship with Russia is never given the slightest bit of credence from McCabe. But since when has the evaluation of foreign policy been part of the FBI’s investigative authority? Senator Lindsey Graham, who has vowed to hold hearings on the “attempted bureaucratic coup” at the FBI, should ask McCabe such questions. McCabe says that he wrote his memoir in response to Trump’s “relentless attack” on the FBI. But Trump hasn’t attacked the FBI; he has attacked those who sought to politicize it. The damage to the FBI has come not from Trump but from a cast of liberal partisans who turned it into a branch of the Democratic Party. It is the culture under Comey and McCabe that looks disturbingly abnormal and cult-like. The FBI had become under them a rogue agency with a sense of entitlement so deep that a constitutional firing could become an occasion for overthrowing a president.

www.spectator.org

right

RR0ntQQRhpigw4lY

test

82a9dt98qlpSLJAS

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/bowles-simpson-protested-at-playbook-breakfast/

Bowles, Simpson Protested at Playbook Breakfast

Chris Good

It 's hard to talk about the deficit these days . At the Newseum this morning , bipartisan budget-cutters Alan Simpson , a Republican , and Erskine Bowles , a Democrat , found out just how hard . Protesters interrupted the two as they sat onstage , being interviewed by Politico 's Mike Allen before a small crowd of Beltway interest-group staffers and a smattering of news cameras at a Politico Playbook breakfast-a usually quiet ( some would say stodgy ) event series with newsmakers in D.C . As the interview began , a man rose in the front row to protest their suggested cuts to entitlement programs . `` Pay your fair share of taxes , '' the man shouted as Newseum security escorted him out . `` Pay your fair share . '' After the interview resumed , three more protesters rose to interrupt the event in sequence and were removed . According to a man filming the protesters on an iPad , they are members of the liberal group Our DC , which has organized protests on Capitol Hill in the past . Simpson and Bowles this morning released a rehashed plan to cut the deficit and reshape America 's fiscal outlook . They appeared at the Politico event to promote their new proposal . `` You do n't know how sweet I 've been , '' the sometimes cantankerous Simpson said after the protests had ended . `` If I was 20 years younger , I 'd have been invigorated . '' Playbook breakfasts are as polite and Beltwayish as it gets . Washington lobbying types gather to hear about political and policy issues while balancing small plates of fruit on their knees , quietly networking before and after . That protests interrupted such an event proves how contentious entitlement cuts can be . Simpson and Bowles 's original deficit plan , released in December 2010 , called for reforms to Social Security and Medicare . So does their new proposal . Simpson lamented that whatever he and Bowles propose , he thinks they 'll be attacked . He suggested that faux `` racism '' has become part of the budget debate . ( Three of the four protesters were black . ) `` Forget all the fear , guilt , crap , racism that goes into this and use your brain , '' Simpson said .

Michael Bonfigli/Getty Images It's hard to talk about the deficit these days. At the Newseum this morning, bipartisan budget-cutters Alan Simpson, a Republican, and Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, found out just how hard. Protesters interrupted the two as they sat onstage, being interviewed by Politico's Mike Allen before a small crowd of Beltway interest-group staffers and a smattering of news cameras at a Politico Playbook breakfast-a usually quiet (some would say stodgy) event series with newsmakers in D.C. As the interview began, a man rose in the front row to protest their suggested cuts to entitlement programs. "Pay your fair share of taxes," the man shouted as Newseum security escorted him out. "Pay your fair share." "We'll bring you into the discussion," Allen told him. After the interview resumed, three more protesters rose to interrupt the event in sequence and were removed. According to a man filming the protesters on an iPad, they are members of the liberal group Our DC, which has organized protests on Capitol Hill in the past. Simpson and Bowles this morning released a rehashed plan to cut the deficit and reshape America's fiscal outlook. They appeared at the Politico event to promote their new proposal. "You don't know how sweet I've been," the sometimes cantankerous Simpson said after the protests had ended. "If I was 20 years younger, I'd have been invigorated." Playbook breakfasts are as polite and Beltwayish as it gets. Washington lobbying types gather to hear about political and policy issues while balancing small plates of fruit on their knees, quietly networking before and after. That protests interrupted such an event proves how contentious entitlement cuts can be. Simpson and Bowles's original deficit plan, released in December 2010, called for reforms to Social Security and Medicare. So does their new proposal. Simpson lamented that whatever he and Bowles propose, he thinks they'll be attacked. He suggested that faux "racism" has become part of the budget debate. (Three of the four protesters were black.) "Forget all the fear, guilt, crap, racism that goes into this and use your brain," Simpson said.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

82a9dt98qlpSLJAS

test

OXNoB7Pkbqhz09yZ

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Ben-Carson-Baltimore-riots-youth/2015/04/28/id/641217/

Ben Carson to Baltimore Parents: 'Take Control of Your Children'

2015-04-28

Courtney Coren

Presidential hopeful and former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson is pleading with Baltimore parents to control their children and keep them away from the violence in the streets . `` I urge parents , grandparents and guardians to please take control of your children and do not allow them to be exposed to the dangers of uncontrolled agitators on the streets , '' Carson said in a statement on his Facebook page about the riots in Baltimore following the funeral of Freddie Gray , who died earlier this month while in police custody . `` As a former resident of the city of Baltimore , it is very sad and unfortunate to see the destruction taking place by irresponsible individuals , '' he said . `` It is vital to remember that the best way to create positive change is through peaceful conversation and policy ideas that display a commitment to resolution , '' the presidential hopeful explained . `` My thoughts and prayers are extended to those who are experiencing fear and loss during this troubling time , including the families of Mr. Gray and first responders/officers , '' Carson added.One Baltimore mom is being called `` mom of the year '' after a video captured her slapping her son on the head for taking part in the violent protests.A local ABC affiliate in Baltimore said that the unidentified mother had seen her son on television throwing rocks at the police when she decided to take the matter into her own hands.Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts praised her during a news conference Monday night . `` You had a mother who grabbed their child who had a hood on his head and she started smacking him on the head because she was so embarrassed , '' Batts said . `` I wish I had more parents who took charge of their kids tonight . I think these were youth coming out of the high school and they thought it was cute to throw cinder blocks at the police department and address it that way , '' he added.Violence erupted in West Baltimore Monday following Gray 's funeral and later spread to other neighborhoods in East Baltimore and downtown near Camden Yards.Two dozen people have been arrested and 15 police officers have been injured . Six officers were still in the hospital Monday night.Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has come under fire after some say she gave permission to rioters to engage in violence when she said `` while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on , we also gave to those who wished to destroy space to do that as well . ''

Presidential hopeful and former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson is pleading with Baltimore parents to control their children and keep them away from the violence in the streets."I urge parents, grandparents and guardians to please take control of your children and do not allow them to be exposed to the dangers of uncontrolled agitators on the streets," Carson said in a statement on his Facebook page about the riots in Baltimore following the funeral of Freddie Gray, who died earlier this month while in police custody."As a former resident of the city of Baltimore, it is very sad and unfortunate to see the destruction taking place by irresponsible individuals," he said."It is vital to remember that the best way to create positive change is through peaceful conversation and policy ideas that display a commitment to resolution," the presidential hopeful explained."My thoughts and prayers are extended to those who are experiencing fear and loss during this troubling time, including the families of Mr. Gray and first responders/officers," Carson added.One Baltimore mom is being called "mom of the year" after a video captured her slapping her son on the head for taking part in the violent protests.A local ABC affiliate in Baltimore said that the unidentified mother had seen her son on television throwing rocks at the police when she decided to take the matter into her own hands.Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts praised her during a news conference Monday night."You had a mother who grabbed their child who had a hood on his head and she started smacking him on the head because she was so embarrassed," Batts said."I wish I had more parents who took charge of their kids tonight. I think these were youth coming out of the high school and they thought it was cute to throw cinder blocks at the police department and address it that way," he added.Violence erupted in West Baltimore Monday following Gray's funeral and later spread to other neighborhoods in East Baltimore and downtown near Camden Yards.Two dozen people have been arrested and 15 police officers have been injured. Six officers were still in the hospital Monday night.Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has come under fire after some say she gave permission to rioters to engage in violence when she said "while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave to those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."

www.newsmax.com

right

OXNoB7Pkbqhz09yZ

test

eCQydKuGiX2OP3nW

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51001167

Iran rolls back nuclear deal commitments

Iran has declared that it will no longer abide by any of the restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal . In a statement , it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment , the level of enrichment , the stock of enriched material , or research and development . The announcement followed a meeting of the Iranian cabinet in Tehran . Tensions have been high over the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the US in Baghdad . Reports from Baghdad say the US embassy compound there was targeted in an attack on Sunday evening . A source told the BBC that four rounds of `` indirect fire `` had been launched in the direction of the embassy . There were no reports of casualties . Hundreds of thousands turned out in Iran on Sunday to give Soleimani a hero 's welcome ahead of his funeral on Tuesday . Earlier , Iraqi MPs had passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country after the general 's killing in a drone strike at Baghdad airport on Friday . About 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State ( IS ) group . The coalition paused operations against IS in Iraq just before Sunday 's vote . President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened that the US will strike back at Iran in the event of retaliation for Soleimani 's death , and said it could do so `` perhaps in a disproportionate manner '' . The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran , on life support ever since the Trump administration abandoned it in May 2018 , may now be in its final death throes . Donald Trump , throughout his presidential campaign and then as president , has never failed to rail against what he calls his predecessor President Barack Obama 's `` bad deal '' . But all its other signatories - the UK , France , Russia , China , Germany and the EU - believe that it still has merit . The agreement , known as the JCPOA , constrained Iran 's nuclear programme for a set period in a largely verifiable way . But its greatest significance - even more so given the current crisis - is that it helped to avert an imminent war . Before it was signed , there was mounting concern about Tehran 's nuclear activities and every chance that Israel ( or possibly Israel and the US in tandem ) might attack Iran 's nuclear facilities . Since the US withdrawal , Iran has successively breached key constraints of the JCPOA . Now it appears to be throwing these constraints out altogether . What matters now is what precisely it decides to do . Will it up its level of uranium enrichment , for example , to 20 % ? This would reduce significantly the time it would take Tehran to obtain suitable material for a bomb . Will it continue to abide by enhanced international inspection measures ? We are now at the destination the Trump administration clearly hoped for in May 2018 . But the major powers , while deeply unhappy about Iran 's breaches of the deal , are also shocked at the controversial decision by Mr Trump to kill the head of Iran 's Quds Force , a decision that has again brought the US and Iran to the brink of war . Under the 2015 accord , Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions . US President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018 , saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles . Iran refused , and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the agreement . It had been expected to announce its latest stance on the agreement this weekend , before news of Soleimani 's death . Iranian state media announced on Sunday that the country will no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal . `` Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs , '' a statement said . However , the statement did not say that Iran was actually withdrawing from the agreement and it added that the country would continue to co-operate with the UN 's nuclear watchdog , the IAEA . Iran , it said , was ready to return to its commitments once it enjoyed the benefits of the agreement . Correspondents say this is a reference to its inability to sell oil and have access to its income under US sanctions . The country has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful - but suspicions that it was being used to develop a bomb covertly prompted the UN Security Council , US and EU to impose crippling sanctions in 2010 . The 2015 deal was designed to constrain the programme in a verifiable way in return for sanctions relief . It restricted Iran 's enrichment of uranium , which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons , to 3.67 % . Iran was also required to redesign a heavy-water reactor being built , whose spent fuel would contain plutonium suitable for a bomb , and allow international inspections . Before July 2015 , Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges , enough to create eight to 10 bombs , according to the White House at the time . US experts estimated back then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb , it would take two to three months until it had enough 90 % -enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called `` breakout time '' . Iran 's current `` breakout time '' , should it attempt to build a nuclear bomb , is estimated to be around a year , but this could be reduced to half a year or even a matter of months if enrichment levels are increased to 20 % , for example . The other parties to the 2015 deal - the UK , France , Germany , China and Russia - tried to keep the agreement alive after the US withdrew in 2018 . Late on Sunday , German Chancellor Angela Merkel , French President Emmanuel Macron and British PM Boris Johnson released a joint statement urging Iran to drop measures that go against the deal . `` We are ready to continue talks with all parties in order to contribute to de-escalating tensions and re-establishing stability in the region , '' they said . Earlier on Sunday Mr Johnson said `` we will not lament '' the death of Soleimani , describing him as `` a threat to all our interests '' . EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has invited Iran 's Foreign Minister , Mohammad Javad Zarif , to visit Brussels to discuss both the nuclear deal and how to defuse the crisis over the Soleimani assassination .

Image copyright EPA Image caption Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (R) had threatened to restart enrichment if sanctions continued Iran has declared that it will no longer abide by any of the restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal. In a statement, it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment, the level of enrichment, the stock of enriched material, or research and development. The announcement followed a meeting of the Iranian cabinet in Tehran. Tensions have been high over the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the US in Baghdad. Reports from Baghdad say the US embassy compound there was targeted in an attack on Sunday evening. A source told the BBC that four rounds of "indirect fire " had been launched in the direction of the embassy. There were no reports of casualties. What happened on Sunday? Hundreds of thousands turned out in Iran on Sunday to give Soleimani a hero's welcome ahead of his funeral on Tuesday. Earlier, Iraqi MPs had passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country after the general's killing in a drone strike at Baghdad airport on Friday. About 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group. The coalition paused operations against IS in Iraq just before Sunday's vote. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened that the US will strike back at Iran in the event of retaliation for Soleimani's death, and said it could do so "perhaps in a disproportionate manner". The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, on life support ever since the Trump administration abandoned it in May 2018, may now be in its final death throes. Donald Trump, throughout his presidential campaign and then as president, has never failed to rail against what he calls his predecessor President Barack Obama's "bad deal". But all its other signatories - the UK, France, Russia, China, Germany and the EU - believe that it still has merit. The agreement, known as the JCPOA, constrained Iran's nuclear programme for a set period in a largely verifiable way. But its greatest significance - even more so given the current crisis - is that it helped to avert an imminent war. Before it was signed, there was mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear activities and every chance that Israel (or possibly Israel and the US in tandem) might attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Since the US withdrawal, Iran has successively breached key constraints of the JCPOA. Now it appears to be throwing these constraints out altogether. What matters now is what precisely it decides to do. Will it up its level of uranium enrichment, for example, to 20%? This would reduce significantly the time it would take Tehran to obtain suitable material for a bomb. Will it continue to abide by enhanced international inspection measures? We are now at the destination the Trump administration clearly hoped for in May 2018. But the major powers, while deeply unhappy about Iran's breaches of the deal, are also shocked at the controversial decision by Mr Trump to kill the head of Iran's Quds Force, a decision that has again brought the US and Iran to the brink of war. What is Iran's new stance on the nuclear deal? Under the 2015 accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions. US President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018, saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles. Iran refused, and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the agreement. It had been expected to announce its latest stance on the agreement this weekend, before news of Soleimani's death. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'Nothing off limits for US' Hezbollah warns US Iranian state media announced on Sunday that the country will no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal. "Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs," a statement said. However, the statement did not say that Iran was actually withdrawing from the agreement and it added that the country would continue to co-operate with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. Iran, it said, was ready to return to its commitments once it enjoyed the benefits of the agreement. Correspondents say this is a reference to its inability to sell oil and have access to its income under US sanctions. How soon could Iran develop a nuclear bomb? The country has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful - but suspicions that it was being used to develop a bomb covertly prompted the UN Security Council, US and EU to impose crippling sanctions in 2010. The 2015 deal was designed to constrain the programme in a verifiable way in return for sanctions relief. It restricted Iran's enrichment of uranium, which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons, to 3.67%. Iran was also required to redesign a heavy-water reactor being built, whose spent fuel would contain plutonium suitable for a bomb, and allow international inspections. Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the White House at the time. US experts estimated back then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "breakout time". Iran's current "breakout time", should it attempt to build a nuclear bomb, is estimated to be around a year, but this could be reduced to half a year or even a matter of months if enrichment levels are increased to 20%, for example. How has the international community reacted? The other parties to the 2015 deal - the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia - tried to keep the agreement alive after the US withdrew in 2018. Late on Sunday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and British PM Boris Johnson released a joint statement urging Iran to drop measures that go against the deal. "We are ready to continue talks with all parties in order to contribute to de-escalating tensions and re-establishing stability in the region," they said. Earlier on Sunday Mr Johnson said "we will not lament" the death of Soleimani, describing him as "a threat to all our interests". EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has invited Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, to visit Brussels to discuss both the nuclear deal and how to defuse the crisis over the Soleimani assassination.

www.bbc.com

center

eCQydKuGiX2OP3nW

test

lb9nPC0WDRYBmdCb

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/justin-fairfax-calls-probe-women/2019/02/10/id/902026/

Virginia Lt. Gov. Calls for Probe of Women Accusing Him

2019-02-10

Alan Suderman

Virginia 's embattled lieutenant governor has urged authorities to investigate sexual assault allegations made against him , but has n't heeded calls to resign and it is unclear what comes next for the once-rising star of the state Democratic Party . Two women have made allegations against Lt. Gov . Justin Fairfax . But on Saturday Fairfax issued a statement repeating his strong denials that he had ever sexually assaulted anyone and made clear he does not intend to immediately resign . Democratic Del . Patrick Hope said he wants to introduce articles of impeachment against Fairfax on Monday , but Hope is not a powerful figure in the House and there 's little sign there 's a broad appetite for impeachment with lawmakers set to finish this year 's legislative session by the end of the month . If an impeachment hearing does occur , though , Meredith Watson , 39 , willing to testify that Fairfax raped her while they were students at Duke University in 2000 , her attorney said in a statement . `` Ms. Watson stands ready , although it will be painful , to tell the Virginia Legislature what Mr. Fairfax did to her when she was 20 years old , '' the statement said . Attorneys for Vanessa Watson , a California college professor who said Fairfax forced her to perform oral sex on him at a Boston hotel in 2004 , also released a statement saying their client would be willing to testify . `` We are confident that once the Virginia legislature hears Dr. Tyson 's harrowing account of this sexual assault , the testimony of many corroborating witnesses , and evidence of his attempts to mislead the public about The Washington Post 's decision not to run a story in 2018 , it will conclude that he lacks the character , fitness and credibility to serve in any capacity , '' the statement said . Fairfax has denied both allegations and on Saturday asked that `` no one rush to judgment . `` Our American values do n't just work when it 's convenient — they must be applied at the most difficult of times , '' he said . Meanwhile , Gov . Ralph Northam pledged to work at healing the state 's racial divide and made his first official appearance a week after a racist photo on his 1984 medical school yearbook page surfaced and he acknowledged wearing blackface in the 1980s . Northam has also defied calls from practically his entire party to step down . Two women have accused Fairfax of sexual assault . After the second allegation was made Friday , Fairfax — the second African-American to ever win statewide office — was barraged with demands to step down from top Democrats , including a number of presidential hopefuls and most of Virginia 's congressional delegation . Northam — now a year into his four-year term — has told his top staff he 's staying in office and said he wants to focus the rest of his term as governor on taking concrete steps toward increasing racial equality . In his first interview since the scandal erupted , a chastened Northam told The Washington Post on Saturday that the uproar has pushed him to confront the state 's deep and lingering divisions over race , as well as his own insensitivity . But he said that reflection has convinced him that , by remaining in office , he can work to resolve them . `` It 's obvious from what happened this week that we still have a lot of work to do , '' Northam said in the interview , conducted at the Executive Mansion . `` There are still some very deep wounds in Virginia , and especially in the area of equity . '' Northam said he planned to focus on addressing issues stemming from inequality , including improving access to health care , housing , and transportation . He also repeated his contention that he is not pictured in the photo on his yearbook page that shows someone in blackface standing alongside someone in a Ku Klux Klan hood and robe . But he could not explain how the photo wound up there , or why he initially had taken responsibility for it . `` I overreacted , '' he said . `` If I had it to do over again , I would step back and take a deep breath . '' On Saturday , Northam made his first official public appearance since he denied being in the photo , attending the funeral for a state trooper killed in a shootout . But he made no public comments upon arriving in Chilhowie , four hours west of the tumult in Richmond . Meanwhile , the lieutenant governor did not make any public appearances Saturday and released his statement late in the day , after Republican state House Speaker Kirk Cox and the Democratic Party of Virginia joined a chorus of other calls for Fairfax to resign . Since the two allegations against Fairfax were made , many top Democrats running for president in 2020 have called for Fairfax 's resignation , including Sens . Cory Booker of New Jersey , Kirsten Gillibrand of New York , and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts . Party elders Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Bobby Scott said Fairfax should resign if the allegations against him were true . Other congressional Democrats made unqualified calls for Fairfax to resign . If Fairfax were to leave , it 's unclear who could replace him . Northam may try to appoint a Democrat , while Republicans could mount a legal challenge with the goal of having Sen. Steve Newman , the Senate 's pro tem , serve as both a voting senator and temporary lieutenant governor . The tumult in Virginia began Feb. 1 , with the discovery of the photo on Northam 's yearbook profile page . Northam at first admitted he was in the picture , then denied it a day later , but acknowledged he wore blackface to look like Michael Jackson for a dance contest in 1984 . Attorney General Mark Herring has since acknowledged wearing blackface at a college party in 1980 . Herring — who would become governor if both Northam and Fairfax resign — had previously called on Northam to resign and came forward after rumors about the existence of a blackface photo of him began circulating at the Capitol . Although the Democratic Party has taken almost a zero-tolerance approach to misconduct among its members in this # MeToo era , a housecleaning in Virginia could be costly to them : If all three Democrats resigned , Republican Cox would become governor . Democrats are also despondent about what the scandals have done to their chances of flipping control of the General Assembly . All 140 legislative seats will be up for grabs in November and Democrats had previously been hopeful that voter antipathy toward President Donald Trump would help them cement Virginia 's status as a blue state . Now many fret their current crisis in leadership will not only cost them chances of winning GOP-held seats , but cost them several currently held by Democrats .

Virginia's embattled lieutenant governor has urged authorities to investigate sexual assault allegations made against him, but hasn't heeded calls to resign and it is unclear what comes next for the once-rising star of the state Democratic Party. Two women have made allegations against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. But on Saturday Fairfax issued a statement repeating his strong denials that he had ever sexually assaulted anyone and made clear he does not intend to immediately resign. Democratic Del. Patrick Hope said he wants to introduce articles of impeachment against Fairfax on Monday, but Hope is not a powerful figure in the House and there's little sign there's a broad appetite for impeachment with lawmakers set to finish this year's legislative session by the end of the month. If an impeachment hearing does occur, though, Meredith Watson, 39, willing to testify that Fairfax raped her while they were students at Duke University in 2000, her attorney said in a statement. "Ms. Watson stands ready, although it will be painful, to tell the Virginia Legislature what Mr. Fairfax did to her when she was 20 years old," the statement said. Attorneys for Vanessa Watson, a California college professor who said Fairfax forced her to perform oral sex on him at a Boston hotel in 2004, also released a statement saying their client would be willing to testify. "We are confident that once the Virginia legislature hears Dr. Tyson's harrowing account of this sexual assault, the testimony of many corroborating witnesses, and evidence of his attempts to mislead the public about The Washington Post's decision not to run a story in 2018, it will conclude that he lacks the character, fitness and credibility to serve in any capacity," the statement said. Fairfax has denied both allegations and on Saturday asked that "no one rush to judgment. "Our American values don't just work when it's convenient — they must be applied at the most difficult of times," he said. Meanwhile, Gov. Ralph Northam pledged to work at healing the state's racial divide and made his first official appearance a week after a racist photo on his 1984 medical school yearbook page surfaced and he acknowledged wearing blackface in the 1980s. Northam has also defied calls from practically his entire party to step down. Two women have accused Fairfax of sexual assault . After the second allegation was made Friday, Fairfax — the second African-American to ever win statewide office — was barraged with demands to step down from top Democrats, including a number of presidential hopefuls and most of Virginia's congressional delegation. Northam — now a year into his four-year term — has told his top staff he's staying in office and said he wants to focus the rest of his term as governor on taking concrete steps toward increasing racial equality. In his first interview since the scandal erupted, a chastened Northam told The Washington Post on Saturday that the uproar has pushed him to confront the state's deep and lingering divisions over race, as well as his own insensitivity. But he said that reflection has convinced him that, by remaining in office, he can work to resolve them. "It's obvious from what happened this week that we still have a lot of work to do," Northam said in the interview, conducted at the Executive Mansion. "There are still some very deep wounds in Virginia, and especially in the area of equity." Northam said he planned to focus on addressing issues stemming from inequality, including improving access to health care, housing, and transportation. He also repeated his contention that he is not pictured in the photo on his yearbook page that shows someone in blackface standing alongside someone in a Ku Klux Klan hood and robe. But he could not explain how the photo wound up there, or why he initially had taken responsibility for it. "I overreacted," he said. "If I had it to do over again, I would step back and take a deep breath." On Saturday, Northam made his first official public appearance since he denied being in the photo, attending the funeral for a state trooper killed in a shootout. But he made no public comments upon arriving in Chilhowie, four hours west of the tumult in Richmond. Meanwhile, the lieutenant governor did not make any public appearances Saturday and released his statement late in the day, after Republican state House Speaker Kirk Cox and the Democratic Party of Virginia joined a chorus of other calls for Fairfax to resign. Since the two allegations against Fairfax were made, many top Democrats running for president in 2020 have called for Fairfax's resignation, including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Virginia's Democratic congressional delegation was split. Party elders Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Bobby Scott said Fairfax should resign if the allegations against him were true. Other congressional Democrats made unqualified calls for Fairfax to resign. If Fairfax were to leave, it's unclear who could replace him. Northam may try to appoint a Democrat, while Republicans could mount a legal challenge with the goal of having Sen. Steve Newman, the Senate's pro tem, serve as both a voting senator and temporary lieutenant governor. The tumult in Virginia began Feb. 1, with the discovery of the photo on Northam's yearbook profile page. Northam at first admitted he was in the picture, then denied it a day later, but acknowledged he wore blackface to look like Michael Jackson for a dance contest in 1984. Attorney General Mark Herring has since acknowledged wearing blackface at a college party in 1980. Herring — who would become governor if both Northam and Fairfax resign — had previously called on Northam to resign and came forward after rumors about the existence of a blackface photo of him began circulating at the Capitol. Although the Democratic Party has taken almost a zero-tolerance approach to misconduct among its members in this #MeToo era, a housecleaning in Virginia could be costly to them: If all three Democrats resigned, Republican Cox would become governor. Democrats are also despondent about what the scandals have done to their chances of flipping control of the General Assembly. All 140 legislative seats will be up for grabs in November and Democrats had previously been hopeful that voter antipathy toward President Donald Trump would help them cement Virginia's status as a blue state. Now many fret their current crisis in leadership will not only cost them chances of winning GOP-held seats, but cost them several currently held by Democrats.

www.newsmax.com

right

lb9nPC0WDRYBmdCb

test

AZErgUVxprVPhG3f

lgbt_rights

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/16/17_biblical_rules_for_marriage_the_kim_davis_set_chooses_to_ignore/

17 biblical rules for marriage the Kim Davis set chooses to ignore

2015-09-16

Some people believe that Kentucky—or even all of America—should be subject to biblical law rather than constitutional law . They believe public servants like celebrity clerk Kim Davis owe their highest allegiance to the Bible , which means they shouldn ’ t be forced to give out unbiblical marriage licenses—like to gay couples . The issue is contested by a host of liberals , secularists , Satanists and moderate Christians . But assuming that Bible believers and religious freedom advocates carry the day , public servants will need to know their Good Book . The following 15-item quiz can be used to screen applicants for county clerk positions or as a guide for those already on the job . If Kentucky issues only biblical marriage licenses , to which of the following couples should a county clerk grant a license ? 1 . A man with a consenting woman , but without her father ’ s permission . No . Numbers 30:1-16 teaches that a single woman ’ s father has final authority over legal contracts she may enter . 2 . A man , a nonconsenting woman , and her father . Yes . According to the Law of Moses a female is male property , as are slaves , livestock and children . ( See Exodus 20:17 , Exodus 21:7 . ) Her father can give her in marriage or sell her to a slave master . Female consent in the Bible is not a prerequisite for marriage or sex . 3 . A married man and three other women . Yes . The Old Testament endorses polygamy , and the New Testament does not reverse this—except for church elders ( 1 Timothy 3:2 ) . ( See Biblicalpolygamy.com ) 4 . A childless widow and her husband ’ s reluctant brother . Yes . Genesis 38:8-10 makes it clear that a man has a responsibility to seed children for his deceased brother . In the Gospel of Matthew , Jesus doesn ’ t alter the tradition but does say it will no longer apply in heaven . ( Matthew 22:24-28 ) 5 . Two men . No . Leviticus is clear . Two men having sex is an abomination , just like eating shellfish , getting tattoos , shaving your beard , or wearing blend fabrics . ( Leviticus 18:22 , 20:13 , 11:9-12 , 19:28 , 19:27 ) 6 . Two women . No , not even with their fathers ’ permission . Paul ’ s epistle to the Romans ( 1:26 ) makes it clear that this is degrading and unnatural . 7 . A Christian and a Hindu . No . The Apostle Paul calls this being unequally yoked ( 2 Corinthians 6:14 ) . If the applicants balk at your refusal , you might respond gently with Paul ’ s own words : “ What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness ? And what communion has light with darkness ? ” 8 . A soldier and a virgin prisoner of war . Yes , but you should provide written instructions on the purification ritual required before bedding her . The soldier must shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act . Also , remind him that if she fails to `` delight , '' he must set her free rather than selling her . ( Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ) 9 . A rapist and his victim . Yes , with qualifiers . The woman ’ s consent is not an issue , but her father should be present as he is owed 50 shekels ( approximately $ 580 ) for the damage to his daughter . Also , the contract should have an addendum stating clearly that no divorce will be allowed . The rapist must keep her for life since , obviously , no one else will want the damaged goods . ( Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ) 10 . A man and his wife ’ s indentured/undocumented servant . Yes , although you might remind the man that in this case a marriage license is not a prerequisite for sex , since community property laws apply . However , should God bless this union with babies , any offspring will belong to the man and his wife , not the indentured woman . ( Genesis 30:1-22 ) 11 . A man and his mother , sister , half-sister , mother-in-law , grandchild , or uncle ’ s wife . Probably not . Although God ’ s law is timeless and unchanging , He does seem to shift on this one . In the book of Genesis , God rewards marriages between siblings—for example , the patriarch Abraham and his half-sister Sarah . But later texts specifically prohibit a variety of incestuous relationships ( e.g . Lev . 18:7-8 ; Lev . 18:10 ; Lev . 20:11 ; Deut . 22:30 ; Deut . 27:20 ; Deut . 27:23 ) . 12 . A black woman and a white man , or vice versa . Absolutely not . Scripture is full of verses prohibiting interracial marriage ( Gen. 28:6 ; Exod . 34:15-16 ; Num . 25:6-11 ; Deut . 7:1-3 ; Josh . 23:12-13 ; Judges 3:5-8 ; 1 Kings 11:1-2 ; Ezra 9:1-2 , 12 ; Ezra 10:2-3 , 10-11 ; Neh . 10:30 ; Neh . 13:25-27 ) . 13 . A gentile and a Jew . No . If the Jew should appeal to the Anti-Defamation League , remind them of how dangerous such a union could be : “ Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son , nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son . For they will turn away thy son from following me , that they may serve other gods : so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you , and destroy thee suddenly. ” ( Deuteronomy 7:3-4 ) 14 . A man and a pregnant woman who claims to be a virgin.Yes . You may feel personal misgivings about a marriage that is based in deception from the get-go , but judge not that ye be not judged . One in 200 American women who give birth say they have never had sex . Rather than plaguing this young couple with your corrosive doubt , you can encourage them with the biblical virgin birth story , while taking care to avoid any sex-negative implications that might harm their marriage . 15 . A man and a goat . Don ’ t be ridiculous . Can a goat sign a marriage license ? 16 . A man and a sex-trafficked teen he bought from a gangster . Yes , but not until Kentucky legalizes sex trafficking . Sexual slavery is quite common in the Bible , well regulated ( Exodus 28:8 ) , and frequently sanctioned or blessed by God . However , the New Testament teaches that we should pay our taxes and be law-abiding , even under a secular/pagan government . ( Titus 3:1 ; 1 Peter 2:13-17 ) 17 . Two zombies . Only if they are not Christians . Jesus states clearly that there will be no marriage for Christians in the afterlife ( Matthew 22:24-28 ) . Otherwise , marriage between the undead is not addressed in the Bible , and you should default to whatever the Supreme Court may have ruled on this matter . Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets ; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill . For truly I say to you , until heaven and earth pass away , not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished . Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments , and teaches others to do the same , shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ; but whoever keeps and teaches them , he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven ( Matthew 5 : 17-19 ) . Stand firm . If the Bible is the perfect Word of the living God , your detractors are up against the Almighty himself . And , as the spiritual warfare hymn reminds us , the hordes of ( liberal , gay , atheist , feminist ) darkness can not quench your light .

Some people believe that Kentucky—or even all of America—should be subject to biblical law rather than constitutional law. They believe public servants like celebrity clerk Kim Davis owe their highest allegiance to the Bible, which means they shouldn’t be forced to give out unbiblical marriage licenses—like to gay couples. The issue is contested by a host of liberals, secularists, Satanists and moderate Christians. But assuming that Bible believers and religious freedom advocates carry the day, public servants will need to know their Good Book. The following 15-item quiz can be used to screen applicants for county clerk positions or as a guide for those already on the job. If Kentucky issues only biblical marriage licenses, to which of the following couples should a county clerk grant a license? Advertisement: 1. A man with a consenting woman, but without her father’s permission. No. Numbers 30:1-16 teaches that a single woman’s father has final authority over legal contracts she may enter. 2. A man, a nonconsenting woman, and her father. Yes. According to the Law of Moses a female is male property, as are slaves, livestock and children. (See Exodus 20:17, Exodus 21:7.) Her father can give her in marriage or sell her to a slave master. Female consent in the Bible is not a prerequisite for marriage or sex. 3. A married man and three other women. Yes. The Old Testament endorses polygamy, and the New Testament does not reverse this—except for church elders (1 Timothy 3:2). (See Biblicalpolygamy.com) 4. A childless widow and her husband’s reluctant brother. Yes. Genesis 38:8-10 makes it clear that a man has a responsibility to seed children for his deceased brother. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus doesn’t alter the tradition but does say it will no longer apply in heaven. (Matthew 22:24-28) 5. Two men. No. Leviticus is clear. Two men having sex is an abomination, just like eating shellfish, getting tattoos, shaving your beard, or wearing blend fabrics. (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, 11:9-12, 19:28, 19:27) 6. Two women. No, not even with their fathers’ permission. Paul’s epistle to the Romans (1:26) makes it clear that this is degrading and unnatural. Advertisement: 7. A Christian and a Hindu. No. The Apostle Paul calls this being unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14). If the applicants balk at your refusal, you might respond gently with Paul’s own words: “What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion has light with darkness?” 8. A soldier and a virgin prisoner of war. Yes, but you should provide written instructions on the purification ritual required before bedding her. The soldier must shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act. Also, remind him that if she fails to "delight," he must set her free rather than selling her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) 9. A rapist and his victim. Yes, with qualifiers. The woman’s consent is not an issue, but her father should be present as he is owed 50 shekels (approximately $580) for the damage to his daughter. Also, the contract should have an addendum stating clearly that no divorce will be allowed. The rapist must keep her for life since, obviously, no one else will want the damaged goods. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) 10. A man and his wife’s indentured/undocumented servant. Yes, although you might remind the man that in this case a marriage license is not a prerequisite for sex, since community property laws apply. However, should God bless this union with babies, any offspring will belong to the man and his wife, not the indentured woman. (Genesis 30:1-22) Advertisement: 11. A man and his mother, sister, half-sister, mother-in-law, grandchild, or uncle’s wife. Probably not. Although God’s law is timeless and unchanging, He does seem to shift on this one. In the book of Genesis, God rewards marriages between siblings—for example, the patriarch Abraham and his half-sister Sarah. But later texts specifically prohibit a variety of incestuous relationships (e.g. Lev. 18:7-8; Lev. 18:10; Lev. 20:11; Deut. 22:30; Deut. 27:20; Deut. 27:23). 12. A black woman and a white man, or vice versa. Absolutely not. Scripture is full of verses prohibiting interracial marriage (Gen. 28:6; Exod. 34:15-16; Num. 25:6-11; Deut. 7:1-3; Josh. 23:12-13; Judges 3:5-8; 1 Kings 11:1-2; Ezra 9:1-2, 12; Ezra 10:2-3, 10-11; Neh. 10:30; Neh. 13:25-27). 13. A gentile and a Jew. No. If the Jew should appeal to the Anti-Defamation League, remind them of how dangerous such a union could be: “Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4) Advertisement: 14. A man and a pregnant woman who claims to be a virgin.Yes. You may feel personal misgivings about a marriage that is based in deception from the get-go, but judge not that ye be not judged. One in 200 American women who give birth say they have never had sex. Rather than plaguing this young couple with your corrosive doubt, you can encourage them with the biblical virgin birth story, while taking care to avoid any sex-negative implications that might harm their marriage. 15. A man and a goat. Don’t be ridiculous. Can a goat sign a marriage license? 16. A man and a sex-trafficked teen he bought from a gangster. Yes, but not until Kentucky legalizes sex trafficking. Sexual slavery is quite common in the Bible, well regulated (Exodus 28:8), and frequently sanctioned or blessed by God. However, the New Testament teaches that we should pay our taxes and be law-abiding, even under a secular/pagan government. (Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17) Advertisement: 17. Two zombies. Only if they are not Christians. Jesus states clearly that there will be no marriage for Christians in the afterlife (Matthew 22:24-28). Otherwise, marriage between the undead is not addressed in the Bible, and you should default to whatever the Supreme Court may have ruled on this matter. Note: Some liberal Christian license seekers may complain to you or your supervisor that these guidelines come mostly from the Old Testament, which has been replaced by a New Covenant under Jesus. Ask them if the Old Testament is still part of their Bible. Remind them that the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament—all three versions. Lastly, quote the words of Jesus: Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5: 17-19). Stand firm. If the Bible is the perfect Word of the living God, your detractors are up against the Almighty himself. And, as the spiritual warfare hymn reminds us, the hordes of (liberal, gay, atheist, feminist) darkness cannot quench your light.

www.salon.com

left

AZErgUVxprVPhG3f

test

XA6Yp2zrYGPFpY7D

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/conservatives-gay-marriage-support/2013/03/25/id/496108

Silent or Supportive, Conservatives Give Gay Marriage Momentum

2013-03-25

On a frosty December night last year , about two dozen guests slipped into the Alta Club , a century-old private retreat a block away from the temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that dominates Salt Lake City . Two men , who did n't know each other , were the reason for the dinner : church lobbyist Bill Evans and gay rights leader Rick Jacobs . Evans was a point man for the church 's successful effort to pass California 's gay marriage ban , known as Prop 8 , in 2008 . Jacobs , leader of Courage Campaign , produced a 2008 commercial against the ban showing Mormon missionaries ransacking the home of a lesbian couple . Politics was not on the agenda - just getting to know each other . `` The two hit it off , '' said host Greg Prince , a medical researcher and church member who had come to know both men . He noted that less than a month before the dinner , the church had launched a website with a major change in its view of gays : the site said homosexuality was not a choice . `` There has been a shift of some tectonic plate somewhere , '' Prince said . Shifting attitudes among some conservatives and many businesses is altering the landscape around gay marriage , long considered a uniquely liberal and political issue , at one of its most crucial junctures - its review by the U.S. Supreme Court . On Tuesday and Wednesday , the court 's nine justices will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act , which excludes gay couples from federal benefits . Some jurists look to societal changes when interpreting the law , and scholars speculate that Justice Anthony Kennedy , the possible swing vote in the divided court , will be pondering increased public support for gay marriage . A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found 63 percent of Americans supported gay marriage or civil unions . While the Mormon Church has backed `` traditional marriage '' in Supreme Court briefs , it has been silent in recent ballot battles and has not promoted fundraising as it has in the past . Republicans like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio are supporting gay marriage and publicly conflicting with party leaders , such as House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner . Portman this month said he had switched position on the issue after his son told him he was gay . Corporations , including Goldman Sachs , whose chief executive , Lloyd Blankfein , has campaigned in support of gay marriage , have joined the battle , arguing in briefs to the court that federal policy of not allowing gay marriage is bad for business . The issue is far from settled , however . Gay marriage opponents have been written off as dinosaurs before , including in California , and most states ban same-sex weddings . But the momentum has been moving towards the proponents of gay marriage . Money has played a huge part in the pivot , both in terms of the financing of campaigns in favor of gay marriage and the funding of opposition groups . When the New York State Senate voted to approve gay marriage in 2011 , four Republicans joined Democrats . Republicans led by hedge fund manager Paul Singer , whose son is gay , gave the four financial and moral support , and in the 2012 national race , Singer led a political action committee that spent more than $ 2 million to help pro-gay marriage Republicans . `` You have billionaires telling Republicans 'Vote our way and you 'll receive more money than you 've ever seen , ' '' said Brian Brown , president of the National Organization for Marriage , the leader of the movement to stop gay marriage . `` That was new . '' Pro-gay marriage groups have routed their opponents financially , outraising them three-to-one in November 2012 ballot races that legalized same-sex marriage in three more states , bringing the total to nine states and the District of Columbia . The single biggest fundraising change between 2008 and 2012 was the disappearance from the political arena of the mightiest foe of gay marriage - the Mormon Church . While the church has petitioned the Supreme Court in favor of Prop 8 , it has focused its public messages about gays on personal issues of respect and love rather than politics . In the four November 2012 votes - Maine , Maryland , Washington and Minnesota - the top ballot committees raised about $ 30 million for gay marriage and $ 10 million against it . The $ 20 million difference between the two campaigns last year is close to several estimates of what the Mormon Church and its supporters gave to California 's Prop 8 in 2008 . More than 800 Utahns gave $ 2.7 million to support Prop 8 in 2008 , state campaign finance records show . In 2012 , a total of 16 Utahns gave $ 1,264 to the main ballot committees against gay marriage . `` The Mormon Church left as a major funder , '' concluded Chad Griffin , president of the Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) , the biggest gay rights group . Frank Schubert , who ran the 2008 and 2012 anti-gay-marriage campaigns , downplayed the Church hierarchy 's silence last year . `` Not having a direct statement encouraging people to get involved in the campaign naturally would result in fewer people getting involved in the campaigns , but there were fewer Mormons in these states to begin with , and there was never any expectation that they would be involved . '' California Mormon Brooke Crosland , 27 , gave $ 1,000 in 2008 for Prop 8 and made campaign phone calls , but she stayed out of politics in 2012 . She described a personal search for understanding , which she saw reflected in the church . `` I feel like the ideal for a child is a father and a mother , but I also feel under the law we should have equal rights , '' she said . Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black , whose portrait of gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk won an Academy Award , was approached for informal talks by Mormon officials after he narrated a documentary critical of the church called `` 8 : The Mormon Proposition . '' Church officials were surprised to learn that he , a young , gay man , deeply wanted a family . `` That was this big 'ah ha ' moment , '' he said . But Black said the initial invitation came only after the church was pilloried in public . `` They did n't contact me after making 'Milk ' . They contacted me after making ' 8 : The Mormon Proposition ' , '' said Black , who was raised a Mormon . He since has introduced HRC leader Griffin to church officials , at the December dinner and a concert following , while continuing talks . Church spokesman Michael Purdy said its hospitality did not signal a change in position . `` Being committed to marriage between a man and a woman does not mean that we do not love and care for all of God 's children . Having conversations with gay rights leaders , speaking about compassion and respect for all , and inviting people to attend a concert do not equal pulling back from supporting traditional marriage due to negative publicity during Prop 8 , '' he wrote by email . Meanwhile , gay marriage fans and foes agree that same-sex-union proponents have improved their fundraising . Ted Olson , President George W. Bush 's Solicitor General , made it ok for conservatives to support gay marriage when he agreed to take the Prop 8 case , said Margaret Hoover , a pro-gay-marriage Republican activist . When former Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman in 2010 came out as gay , it was critical mass . `` Nightingales do n't sing unless they hear another nightingale singing . As soon they hear one , another one sings , and another one sings , '' said Hoover . Dozens of Republican leaders , including former California candidate for governor Meg Whitman and former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman , have signed a brief to the Supreme Court in favor of gay marriage . Some 278 businesses , including Goldman Sachs and hotelier Marriott International , whose chairman and major stockholder is Mormon , have signed a similar brief opposing the Defense of Marriage Act . ( Thomson Reuters , the parent of Reuters News , is part of that group . ) The person credited by all sides with cementing the victory in California for the gay marriage ban was a little schoolgirl who told her mother she had just been taught , `` I can marry a princess ! '' The girl was in a commercial for Prop 8 , and for years Evan Wolfson , president of Freedom to Marry , has been asked whether he could beat the `` Princess '' ad . Wolfson , a fundraising and strategy leader for most recent ballot campaigns in favor of gay marriage , said the answer was chiefly to change his own side 's message , rather than chase the opposition . The pro-gay-marriage campaign , which in 2008 had largely focused on appealing to voters to give gays rights because it said they deserved them , took a more personal tone , he said , of affirming the idea of equal rights and respecting loving couples . David Blankenhorn , founder of the family-focused Institute for American Values think tank , was the prime witness in 2010 in the opening round of the federal trial of Prop . 8 . Blankenhorn struck up unlikely friendships with gays while debating the issue in public , and he was sitting at his desk one day last year , when one called and told him to go to a website with a strident , anti-gay article . `` He said , 'Are you sure that this is the side you are on ? ' '' Blankenhorn recalled . He put down the phone , and in that moment realized he had already changed his mind . `` I have a kind of intellectual reason for shifting from one foot to the other foot , '' he said `` But I really , honestly think that it was through just personal interactions ... if you want to stick with your position , do n't get to know people who disagree with you . '' Gay marriage foe Brown says he is not worried by polls that show gay marriage support snowballing . It 's all about how you ask the question , he said , and a majority of voters do not want to redefine marriage . His side has always been behind in the money battle , he added , but has had some banner successes . Politicians can see the danger of switching sides , he said . Of the four New York State Senate Republicans who voted for same-sex marriage , only one returned to office , despite financial backing from sources as diverse as the Service Employees International Union ( SEIU ) union , Wall Street Republicans , and libertarian David Koch . Back in California , Rick Jacobs , the Courage Campaign chief , thinks Prop 8 was the best thing that ever happened to his movement . People sat up and started paying attention when liberal California overturned its own state Supreme Court and took away the right to marry , he said , and the court fight has kept the issue alive . `` It not only galvanized a lot of people who did n't really care about it before that - gay people - but it also galvanized straight people , '' he said . `` People said , 'wait a minute , we do n't like voting on people 's rights . ' '' The night in Salt Lake City left little doubt things had changed since 2008 . After the dinner , the gay rights leaders all headed over to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir 's Christmas spectacular . It was the hottest ticket in town and , as guests of the church , they had VIP seats .

On a frosty December night last year, about two dozen guests slipped into the Alta Club, a century-old private retreat a block away from the temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that dominates Salt Lake City. Two men, who didn't know each other, were the reason for the dinner: church lobbyist Bill Evans and gay rights leader Rick Jacobs. Evans was a point man for the church's successful effort to pass California's gay marriage ban, known as Prop 8, in 2008. Jacobs, leader of Courage Campaign, produced a 2008 commercial against the ban showing Mormon missionaries ransacking the home of a lesbian couple. Politics was not on the agenda - just getting to know each other. "The two hit it off," said host Greg Prince, a medical researcher and church member who had come to know both men. He noted that less than a month before the dinner, the church had launched a website with a major change in its view of gays: the site said homosexuality was not a choice. "There has been a shift of some tectonic plate somewhere," Prince said. Shifting attitudes among some conservatives and many businesses is altering the landscape around gay marriage, long considered a uniquely liberal and political issue, at one of its most crucial junctures - its review by the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the court's nine justices will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes gay couples from federal benefits. Some jurists look to societal changes when interpreting the law, and scholars speculate that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the possible swing vote in the divided court, will be pondering increased public support for gay marriage. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found 63 percent of Americans supported gay marriage or civil unions. While the Mormon Church has backed "traditional marriage" in Supreme Court briefs, it has been silent in recent ballot battles and has not promoted fundraising as it has in the past. Republicans like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio are supporting gay marriage and publicly conflicting with party leaders, such as House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner. Portman this month said he had switched position on the issue after his son told him he was gay. Corporations, including Goldman Sachs, whose chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, has campaigned in support of gay marriage, have joined the battle, arguing in briefs to the court that federal policy of not allowing gay marriage is bad for business. The issue is far from settled, however. Gay marriage opponents have been written off as dinosaurs before, including in California, and most states ban same-sex weddings. But the momentum has been moving towards the proponents of gay marriage. MORMON MONEY, NO MORE Money has played a huge part in the pivot, both in terms of the financing of campaigns in favor of gay marriage and the funding of opposition groups. When the New York State Senate voted to approve gay marriage in 2011, four Republicans joined Democrats. Republicans led by hedge fund manager Paul Singer, whose son is gay, gave the four financial and moral support, and in the 2012 national race, Singer led a political action committee that spent more than $2 million to help pro-gay marriage Republicans. "You have billionaires telling Republicans 'Vote our way and you'll receive more money than you've ever seen,'" said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, the leader of the movement to stop gay marriage. "That was new." Pro-gay marriage groups have routed their opponents financially, outraising them three-to-one in November 2012 ballot races that legalized same-sex marriage in three more states, bringing the total to nine states and the District of Columbia. The single biggest fundraising change between 2008 and 2012 was the disappearance from the political arena of the mightiest foe of gay marriage - the Mormon Church. While the church has petitioned the Supreme Court in favor of Prop 8, it has focused its public messages about gays on personal issues of respect and love rather than politics. In the four November 2012 votes - Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota - the top ballot committees raised about $30 million for gay marriage and $10 million against it. The $20 million difference between the two campaigns last year is close to several estimates of what the Mormon Church and its supporters gave to California's Prop 8 in 2008. More than 800 Utahns gave $2.7 million to support Prop 8 in 2008, state campaign finance records show. In 2012, a total of 16 Utahns gave $1,264 to the main ballot committees against gay marriage. "The Mormon Church left as a major funder," concluded Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the biggest gay rights group. Frank Schubert, who ran the 2008 and 2012 anti-gay-marriage campaigns, downplayed the Church hierarchy's silence last year. "Not having a direct statement encouraging people to get involved in the campaign naturally would result in fewer people getting involved in the campaigns, but there were fewer Mormons in these states to begin with, and there was never any expectation that they would be involved." California Mormon Brooke Crosland, 27, gave $1,000 in 2008 for Prop 8 and made campaign phone calls, but she stayed out of politics in 2012. She described a personal search for understanding, which she saw reflected in the church. "I feel like the ideal for a child is a father and a mother, but I also feel under the law we should have equal rights," she said. Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, whose portrait of gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk won an Academy Award, was approached for informal talks by Mormon officials after he narrated a documentary critical of the church called "8: The Mormon Proposition." Church officials were surprised to learn that he, a young, gay man, deeply wanted a family. "That was this big 'ah ha' moment," he said. But Black said the initial invitation came only after the church was pilloried in public. "They didn't contact me after making 'Milk'. They contacted me after making '8: The Mormon Proposition'," said Black, who was raised a Mormon. He since has introduced HRC leader Griffin to church officials, at the December dinner and a concert following, while continuing talks. Church spokesman Michael Purdy said its hospitality did not signal a change in position. "Being committed to marriage between a man and a woman does not mean that we do not love and care for all of God's children. Having conversations with gay rights leaders, speaking about compassion and respect for all, and inviting people to attend a concert do not equal pulling back from supporting traditional marriage due to negative publicity during Prop 8," he wrote by email. Meanwhile, gay marriage fans and foes agree that same-sex-union proponents have improved their fundraising. Ted Olson, President George W. Bush's Solicitor General, made it ok for conservatives to support gay marriage when he agreed to take the Prop 8 case, said Margaret Hoover, a pro-gay-marriage Republican activist. When former Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman in 2010 came out as gay, it was critical mass. "Nightingales don't sing unless they hear another nightingale singing. As soon they hear one, another one sings, and another one sings," said Hoover. Dozens of Republican leaders, including former California candidate for governor Meg Whitman and former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, have signed a brief to the Supreme Court in favor of gay marriage. Some 278 businesses, including Goldman Sachs and hotelier Marriott International, whose chairman and major stockholder is Mormon, have signed a similar brief opposing the Defense of Marriage Act. (Thomson Reuters, the parent of Reuters News, is part of that group.) The person credited by all sides with cementing the victory in California for the gay marriage ban was a little schoolgirl who told her mother she had just been taught, "I can marry a princess!" The girl was in a commercial for Prop 8, and for years Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, has been asked whether he could beat the "Princess" ad. Wolfson, a fundraising and strategy leader for most recent ballot campaigns in favor of gay marriage, said the answer was chiefly to change his own side's message, rather than chase the opposition. The pro-gay-marriage campaign, which in 2008 had largely focused on appealing to voters to give gays rights because it said they deserved them, took a more personal tone, he said, of affirming the idea of equal rights and respecting loving couples. That strategy had some unexpected converts. David Blankenhorn, founder of the family-focused Institute for American Values think tank, was the prime witness in 2010 in the opening round of the federal trial of Prop. 8. Blankenhorn struck up unlikely friendships with gays while debating the issue in public, and he was sitting at his desk one day last year, when one called and told him to go to a website with a strident, anti-gay article. "He said, 'Are you sure that this is the side you are on?'" Blankenhorn recalled. He put down the phone, and in that moment realized he had already changed his mind. "I have a kind of intellectual reason for shifting from one foot to the other foot," he said "But I really, honestly think that it was through just personal interactions... if you want to stick with your position, don't get to know people who disagree with you." Gay marriage foe Brown says he is not worried by polls that show gay marriage support snowballing. It's all about how you ask the question, he said, and a majority of voters do not want to redefine marriage. His side has always been behind in the money battle, he added, but has had some banner successes. Politicians can see the danger of switching sides, he said. Of the four New York State Senate Republicans who voted for same-sex marriage, only one returned to office, despite financial backing from sources as diverse as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) union, Wall Street Republicans, and libertarian David Koch. Back in California, Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign chief, thinks Prop 8 was the best thing that ever happened to his movement. People sat up and started paying attention when liberal California overturned its own state Supreme Court and took away the right to marry, he said, and the court fight has kept the issue alive. "It not only galvanized a lot of people who didn't really care about it before that - gay people - but it also galvanized straight people," he said. "People said, 'wait a minute, we don't like voting on people's rights.'" The night in Salt Lake City left little doubt things had changed since 2008. After the dinner, the gay rights leaders all headed over to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Christmas spectacular. It was the hottest ticket in town and, as guests of the church, they had VIP seats. © 2019 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

www.newsmax.com

right

XA6Yp2zrYGPFpY7D

test

mEzNJyd2kUOG05on

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/19/trump-blasts-media-its-not-my-job-to-defend-barack-obama/

Trump Blasts Media: It's Not My Job to Defend Barack Obama

2015-09-19

John Nolte

Treating this stupid media controversy like it deserves to be treated , Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump took to Twitter to wrist-flick away the latest bubbled , leftwing mainstream media frenzy . Early Saturday morning The Donald tweeted , “ Am I morally obligated to defend the president every time somebody says something bad or controversial about him ? I don ’ t think so ! ” This is the first time in my life that I have caused controversy by NOT saying something . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 19 , 2015 If someone made a nasty or controversial statement about me to the president , do you really think he would come to my rescue ? No chance ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 19 , 2015 If I would have challenged the man , the media would have accused me of interfering with that man ’ s right of free speech . A no win situation ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 19 , 2015 Christians need support in our country ( and around the world ) , their religious liberty is at stake ! Obama has been horrible , I will be great — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 19 , 2015 After a questioner at an open forum Trump held Thursday attacked President Obama for being a Muslim , our utterly useless and out-of-touch media ginned up a non-troversy over the fact that Trump blew the guy off . According to our Obama-loving media , Trump was obligated to tell tell the guy off and vouch for the president ’ s patriotism and Christian faith . The media also believe that Trump is responsible for a supporter misled by Hillary Clinton . For it was Hillary Clinton who planted the first seeds of the Birther/Obama-Is-A-Muslim conspiracy back in 2008 . Not only is our Islamophobic media acting like being misidentified as a Muslim is a slur , what everyone ’ s forgetting is that Obama might be a much better man were he in fact a Muslim . If nothing else , Obama would not have spent 20 years in Jeremiah Wright ’ s creepy , racist Christian church . To protect Obama , the media ignores the homeless , the unemployed , the under-employed , the EPA disaster in Colorado , the men who died and risked their lives for Obama ’ s precious “ hero ” Bowe Bergdahl … …And now the media ’ s Obama protection racket is so overblown they demand Republicans defend Obama from rumors started by Hillary Clinton .

Treating this stupid media controversy like it deserves to be treated, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump took to Twitter to wrist-flick away the latest bubbled, leftwing mainstream media frenzy. Early Saturday morning The Donald tweeted, “Am I morally obligated to defend the president every time somebody says something bad or controversial about him? I don’t think so!” More common sense and humor soon followed: — This is the first time in my life that I have caused controversy by NOT saying something. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2015 — If someone made a nasty or controversial statement about me to the president, do you really think he would come to my rescue? No chance! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2015 — If I would have challenged the man, the media would have accused me of interfering with that man’s right of free speech. A no win situation! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2015 — Christians need support in our country (and around the world), their religious liberty is at stake! Obama has been horrible, I will be great — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2015 — After a questioner at an open forum Trump held Thursday attacked President Obama for being a Muslim, our utterly useless and out-of-touch media ginned up a non-troversy over the fact that Trump blew the guy off. According to our Obama-loving media, Trump was obligated to tell tell the guy off and vouch for the president’s patriotism and Christian faith. The media also believe that Trump is responsible for a supporter misled by Hillary Clinton. For it was Hillary Clinton who planted the first seeds of the Birther/Obama-Is-A-Muslim conspiracy back in 2008. This is a documented fact. Not only is our Islamophobic media acting like being misidentified as a Muslim is a slur, what everyone’s forgetting is that Obama might be a much better man were he in fact a Muslim. If nothing else, Obama would not have spent 20 years in Jeremiah Wright’s creepy, racist Christian church. To protect Obama, the media ignores the homeless, the unemployed, the under-employed, the EPA disaster in Colorado, the men who died and risked their lives for Obama’s precious “hero” Bowe Bergdahl … …And now the media’s Obama protection racket is so overblown they demand Republicans defend Obama from rumors started by Hillary Clinton. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

www.breitbart.com

right

mEzNJyd2kUOG05on

test

yemiJ3Yf9koevkVS

politics

Salon

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/18/mike-pompeo-donald-trump-and-the-inspector-general-purge-why-this-is-so-dangerous/

Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump and the inspector-general purge: Why this is so dangerous

2020-05-18

Never let it be said that the Trump administration ca n't walk and chew gum at the same time . Even as the president 's minions work overtime to botch every single aspect of the federal response to the COVID-19 crisis and prepare to cover up the number of cases and the number of deaths in order to make his `` numbers '' look good , they still manage to find the time to complete the purge of Trump critics within the government and destroy all mechanisms for accountability . Trump 's forces have pretty much rendered the Congress impotent , going so far as to argue before the Supreme Court last week that not only should a sitting president be immune from any and all investigation and prosecution , he 's also immune from congressional oversight . It 's well within the realm of possibility that the right-wing majority on the court will see it their way — at least when it comes to Republican presidents . ( I would n't expect them to feel bound by their own precedents when it applies to Democrats . ) On Friday night , the administration announced the fourth firing in six weeks of an inspector general , State Department IG Steve Linick , in what the Washington Post has dubbed a `` slow-motion Friday Night Massacre . '' Back on April 3 , Trump fired intelligence community IG Michael Atkinson , in retaliation for his having done his job by passing on a whistleblower 's complaint to Congress about the president 's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky . That seems like another era of history now , but it did indeed lead to Trump 's impeachment . A week later he removed acting Defense Department Inspector General Glenn Fine , who had been tasked with overseeing the $ 2 trillion pandemic relief fund . He was replaced with a Trump loyalist . On May 2 , acting Health and Human Services Inspector General Christi Grimm was removed after Trump learned about a report she wrote that found severe shortages of supplies and equipment in hospitals around the country . Trump told the press that Grimm 's report was wrong and accused her of being an Obama partisan , although she 'd been a career official for two decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations . The latest is Linick , who had come under fire during the impeachment inquiry when he delivered to Congress some bizarre documents he 'd received from Rudy Giuliani about Marie Yovanovitch , who was then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine . Again , Linick was only doing his job , but it was seen as an act of disloyalty to the king . Linick was spared from the purge until last week , perhaps because he 'd been critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's email practices , which no doubt pleased the president . It appears he finally went too far , however , and was investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 's use of State Department personnel for personal use . By all accounts , Pompeo requested Linick be fired and Trump was happy to comply . Considering the vast amount of corruption , graft and self-dealing by Trump and his cronies — even now , during the COVID-19 crisis — this scandal almost seems quaint . It brings back memories of the early days of the Trump presidency when half his cabinet members were behaving like members of Louis XIV 's inner circle , traveling in private planes at taxpayer expense and using staff as their personal valets . Who can forget former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt , who not only spent vast amounts on unnecessary travel , but was so paranoid he had his office soundproofed and demanded around-the-clock security , including 18 agents who cost the taxpayers millions of dollars ? Pruitt did n't even try to hide all that , but it nonetheless took months of blaring headlines before he was finally forced to spend more time with his family ( as the cliché has it ) . Then there was HHS Secretary Tom Price , who finally resigned after multiple investigations into his use of private charter and military jets to travel around the country on your dim and mine . Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke likewise had to resign after it was revealed he too was bilking the treasury for extravagant travel expenses . Others managed to survive , notably Trumpfamily members like Jared Kushner who used his position to pursue a business deal with a Chinese company with ties to the Beijing government , as well as some dubious Middle East dealings to help his family 's real estate business . HUD Secretary Ben Carson remains in his office doing God knows what , despite having been caught spending wildly on office furniture . Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin wriggled out of his own expensive travel scandal . And of course there 's the president himself , who has been promoting his own businesses and profiting from them the entire time he 's been in office . The sheer magnitude of corruption in the Trump administration has been unprecedented and yet it all seems like a distant memory . One of Trump 's great gifts has been to offer up so much carnage , graft , incompetence and scandal that it 's hard to keep track of it all . Pompeo is a different case . His scandal has to do with his wife Susan , to whom he is exceedingly devoted . Indeed , reports suggest she is constantly by his side constantly . When he was CIA director , there was reportedly consternation over the fact that Susan Pompeo commandeered office space at the agency 's headquarters in Langley , Virginia , and was `` assisted '' by CIA employees , who could have been forgiven for thinking they were expected to do whatever the director 's wife told them to . According to the Washington Post , Susan fashioned herself as the `` first lady of the CIA , '' which is n't actually a thing . From the beginning , there have been raised eyebrows in both the CIA and the State Department over Susan Pompeo 's extensive travel with her husband , which he has referred to as a `` force multiplier . '' Apparently she runs meetings as well , in some quasi-official role . Someone filed a whistleblower complaint last summer about the Pompeos tasking staffers with personal errands . No one knows this for sure , the assumption is that Linick , the State IG , was looking into that matter as well , prompting Pompeo to request that he be fired . But something has changed since the days of the Scott Pruitt scandal . Trump and his henchmen no longer care about `` optics , '' if they ever did , and now believe there are no legal constraints on their behavior at all . If a government watchdog displeases them , they just fire her and install a loyal minion in her place . The Department of Justice is their personal Praetorian Guard . They know their media friends will cover for them and they feel no fear of Congress or the courts . The president clearly believes he can put an end to independent watchdogs and whistleblowers altogether : Perhaps Trump will lose in November and a new administration government will be able to put safeguards in place to prevent any future president from manipulating the system this way . But that will be difficult . Trump has demonstrated for all the world to see how easy it is for a corrupt leader with no integrity or honor to use the power of the presidency to dismantle all the levers of accountability , as long as he has enough members of the Senate behind him . A more intelligent and cunning demagogue will be able to use this much more efficiently and ruthlessly than he has done .

Never let it be said that the Trump administration can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Even as the president's minions work overtime to botch every single aspect of the federal response to the COVID-19 crisis and prepare to cover up the number of cases and the number of deaths in order to make his "numbers" look good, they still manage to find the time to complete the purge of Trump critics within the government and destroy all mechanisms for accountability. Trump's forces have pretty much rendered the Congress impotent, going so far as to argue before the Supreme Court last week that not only should a sitting president be immune from any and all investigation and prosecution, he's also immune from congressional oversight. It's well within the realm of possibility that the right-wing majority on the court will see it their way — at least when it comes to Republican presidents. (I wouldn't expect them to feel bound by their own precedents when it applies to Democrats. ) Advertisement: On Friday night, the administration announced the fourth firing in six weeks of an inspector general, State Department IG Steve Linick, in what the Washington Post has dubbed a "slow-motion Friday Night Massacre." Back on April 3, Trump fired intelligence community IG Michael Atkinson, in retaliation for his having done his job by passing on a whistleblower's complaint to Congress about the president's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That seems like another era of history now, but it did indeed lead to Trump's impeachment. A week later he removed acting Defense Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, who had been tasked with overseeing the $2 trillion pandemic relief fund. He was replaced with a Trump loyalist. On May 2, acting Health and Human Services Inspector General Christi Grimm was removed after Trump learned about a report she wrote that found severe shortages of supplies and equipment in hospitals around the country. Trump told the press that Grimm's report was wrong and accused her of being an Obama partisan, although she'd been a career official for two decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Advertisement: The latest is Linick, who had come under fire during the impeachment inquiry when he delivered to Congress some bizarre documents he'd received from Rudy Giuliani about Marie Yovanovitch, who was then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Again, Linick was only doing his job, but it was seen as an act of disloyalty to the king. Linick was spared from the purge until last week, perhaps because he'd been critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email practices, which no doubt pleased the president. It appears he finally went too far, however, and was investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's use of State Department personnel for personal use. By all accounts, Pompeo requested Linick be fired and Trump was happy to comply. Considering the vast amount of corruption, graft and self-dealing by Trump and his cronies — even now, during the COVID-19 crisis — this scandal almost seems quaint. It brings back memories of the early days of the Trump presidency when half his cabinet members were behaving like members of Louis XIV's inner circle, traveling in private planes at taxpayer expense and using staff as their personal valets. Advertisement: Who can forget former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who not only spent vast amounts on unnecessary travel, but was so paranoid he had his office soundproofed and demanded around-the-clock security, including 18 agents who cost the taxpayers millions of dollars? Pruitt didn't even try to hide all that, but it nonetheless took months of blaring headlines before he was finally forced to spend more time with his family (as the cliché has it). Then there was HHS Secretary Tom Price, who finally resigned after multiple investigations into his use of private charter and military jets to travel around the country on your dim and mine. Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke likewise had to resign after it was revealed he too was bilking the treasury for extravagant travel expenses. Others managed to survive, notably Trumpfamily members like Jared Kushner who used his position to pursue a business deal with a Chinese company with ties to the Beijing government, as well as some dubious Middle East dealings to help his family's real estate business. HUD Secretary Ben Carson remains in his office doing God knows what, despite having been caught spending wildly on office furniture. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin wriggled out of his own expensive travel scandal. And of course there's the president himself, who has been promoting his own businesses and profiting from them the entire time he's been in office. Advertisement: The sheer magnitude of corruption in the Trump administration has been unprecedented and yet it all seems like a distant memory. One of Trump's great gifts has been to offer up so much carnage, graft, incompetence and scandal that it's hard to keep track of it all. Pompeo is a different case. His scandal has to do with his wife Susan, to whom he is exceedingly devoted. Indeed, reports suggest she is constantly by his side constantly. When he was CIA director, there was reportedly consternation over the fact that Susan Pompeo commandeered office space at the agency's headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and was "assisted" by CIA employees, who could have been forgiven for thinking they were expected to do whatever the director's wife told them to. According to the Washington Post, Susan fashioned herself as the "first lady of the CIA," which isn't actually a thing. From the beginning, there have been raised eyebrows in both the CIA and the State Department over Susan Pompeo's extensive travel with her husband, which he has referred to as a "force multiplier." Apparently she runs meetings as well, in some quasi-official role. Someone filed a whistleblower complaint last summer about the Pompeos tasking staffers with personal errands. No one knows this for sure, the assumption is that Linick, the State IG, was looking into that matter as well, prompting Pompeo to request that he be fired. Advertisement: But something has changed since the days of the Scott Pruitt scandal. Trump and his henchmen no longer care about "optics," if they ever did, and now believe there are no legal constraints on their behavior at all. If a government watchdog displeases them, they just fire her and install a loyal minion in her place. The Department of Justice is their personal Praetorian Guard. They know their media friends will cover for them and they feel no fear of Congress or the courts. The president clearly believes he can put an end to independent watchdogs and whistleblowers altogether: Perhaps Trump will lose in November and a new administration government will be able to put safeguards in place to prevent any future president from manipulating the system this way. But that will be difficult. Advertisement: Trump has demonstrated for all the world to see how easy it is for a corrupt leader with no integrity or honor to use the power of the presidency to dismantle all the levers of accountability, as long as he has enough members of the Senate behind him. A more intelligent and cunning demagogue will be able to use this much more efficiently and ruthlessly than he has done.

www.salon.com

left

yemiJ3Yf9koevkVS

test

OfpKGMfnJxMDPP0O

fbi

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/comey-draft-said-it-was-reasonably-likely-that-hillarys-server-was-hacked/

Comey Draft Said It Was ‘Reasonably Likely’ That Hillary’s Server Was Hacked

2017-12-14

The FBI assessed last year that it was “ reasonably likely ” that Hillary Clinton ’ s private email server had been infiltrated by hostile foreign actors . But that assessment was watered down in remarks prepared last year for then-FBI Director James Comey . It was replaced with softer language stating that it was “ possible ” that hostile actors had gained access to Clinton ’ s server , which contained thousands of classified documents . The edit was revealed on Thursday in a letter sent by Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson to FBI Director Christopher Wray . The change is one of several made in May 2016 to Comey ’ s so-called exoneration statement in the Clinton case . “ The edits to Director Comey ’ s public statement , made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI ’ s investigation of Secretary Clinton ’ s conduct , had a significant impact on the FBI ’ s public evaluation of the implications of her actions , ” Johnson wrote to Wray . He noted the recent revelations about Peter Strzok , the FBI agent who was a central figure in both the Clinton email probe and Trump investigations . Strzok was discovered to have sent anti-Trump and pro-Clinton text messages to FBI lawyer Lisa Page while he was overseeing both investigations . Strzok conducted the most important interviews in the Clinton investigation . He interviewed Clinton herself on July 2 , 2016 and also met with the Democrat ’ s top aides , Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills . Strzok is also believed to have softened some of the language in Comey ’ s statement . CNN has reported that he removed the legalistic term “ grossly negligent ” and replaced it with “ extremely careless. ” Gross negligence in the handling of classified material is a crime . The edits to Comey ’ s statement “ raise profound questions about the FBI ’ s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation of President Trump , ” Johnson wrote to Wray . The edits were made after Comey sent a draft of his remarks on May 2 , 2016 to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe , general counsel James Baker and chief of staff James Rybicki . On May 16 , 2016 , McCabe sent the draft to Strzok and several other counterintelligence agents asking for edits . In addition to softening the language regarding intrusion of Clinton ’ s server by foreign actors , Comey ’ s draft was edited to remove language that suggested that she and her aides broke the law . The rough draft stated that the private server violated “ the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information ” as well as of the statute regarding “ misdemeanor mishandling ” of classified information . Comey ’ s public statement made no mention of gross negligence or misdemeanor mishandling . The final copy stated that “ although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information , my judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case . ” Clinton ’ s opponents have long speculated that her email server was hacked . Though there was no public evidence that the device was ever breached , Republicans said that Clinton ’ s carelessness ensured that it was . That possibility made it all the more troubling that Clinton flouted federal regulations to operate a private server , they argued . In the pre-edited statement , Comey said that “ we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton ’ s private email account . ” “ Given that combination of factors , we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton ’ s personal e-mail account , ” he said . In his letter , Johnson asked Wray to provide information about which FBI officials made changes to Comey ’ s statement .

The FBI assessed last year that it was “reasonably likely” that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been infiltrated by hostile foreign actors. But that assessment was watered down in remarks prepared last year for then-FBI Director James Comey. It was replaced with softer language stating that it was “possible” that hostile actors had gained access to Clinton’s server, which contained thousands of classified documents. The edit was revealed on Thursday in a letter sent by Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson to FBI Director Christopher Wray. The change is one of several made in May 2016 to Comey’s so-called exoneration statement in the Clinton case. “The edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions,” Johnson wrote to Wray. He noted the recent revelations about Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was a central figure in both the Clinton email probe and Trump investigations. Strzok was discovered to have sent anti-Trump and pro-Clinton text messages to FBI lawyer Lisa Page while he was overseeing both investigations. Strzok conducted the most important interviews in the Clinton investigation. He interviewed Clinton herself on July 2, 2016 and also met with the Democrat’s top aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. Strzok is also believed to have softened some of the language in Comey’s statement. CNN has reported that he removed the legalistic term “grossly negligent” and replaced it with “extremely careless.” Gross negligence in the handling of classified material is a crime. The edits to Comey’s statement “raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Trump,” Johnson wrote to Wray. The edits were made after Comey sent a draft of his remarks on May 2, 2016 to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, general counsel James Baker and chief of staff James Rybicki. On May 16, 2016, McCabe sent the draft to Strzok and several other counterintelligence agents asking for edits. In addition to softening the language regarding intrusion of Clinton’s server by foreign actors, Comey’s draft was edited to remove language that suggested that she and her aides broke the law. The rough draft stated that the private server violated “the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information” as well as of the statute regarding “misdemeanor mishandling” of classified information. Comey’s public statement made no mention of gross negligence or misdemeanor mishandling. The final copy stated that “although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, my judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Clinton’s opponents have long speculated that her email server was hacked. Though there was no public evidence that the device was ever breached, Republicans said that Clinton’s carelessness ensured that it was. That possibility made it all the more troubling that Clinton flouted federal regulations to operate a private server, they argued. In the pre-edited statement, Comey said that “we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s private email account.” Comey’s public statement was much easier on Clinton. “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” he said. In his letter, Johnson asked Wray to provide information about which FBI officials made changes to Comey’s statement. Follow Chuck on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

OfpKGMfnJxMDPP0O

test

6UFIUBATq7odPH18

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/november/donald-trump-names-reince-priebus-as-chief-of-staff

Donald Trump Names Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff

2016-11-13

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus his new chief of staff . He also named conservative media executive Stephen K. Bannon as his senior counselor . `` I am thrilled to have my very successful team continue with me in leading our country , '' Trump said in a statement . Trump 's transition team made the announcement , Sunday , in the first steps toward solidifying the President-elect 's administration . Priebus , is a Washington veteran with deep ties to Republican leadership , particularly House Speaker Paul Ryan , The Associated Press reports . `` It is truly an honor to join President-elect Trump in the White House as his Chief of Staff , '' Priebus said in the statement . `` I am very grateful to the President-elect for this opportunity to serve him and this nation as we work to create an economy that works for everyone , secure our borders , repeal and replace Obamacare and destroy radical Islamic terrorism . He will be a great President for all Americans . '' Bannon is believed to have been in the running for the position , but will now serve as chief strategist and senior counselor . He ran the conservative website Breitbart News before joining the presidential campaign during the general election . `` Steve and Reince are highly qualified leaders who worked well together on our campaign and led us to a historic victory . Now I will have them both with me in the White House as we work to make America great again , '' Trump said . The campaign 's statement described Bannon and Priebus as `` equal partners . ” `` Bannon and Priebus will continue the effective leadership team they formed during the campaign , working as equal partners to transform the federal government , making it much more efficient , effective and productive , '' it said . According to CNN , Trump 's picks signal that he will look to build bridges in Washington and keep continuity with the Republican party 's agenda . `` We will have that same partnership in working to help President-elect Trump achieve his agenda , '' Bannon said .

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus his new chief of staff. He also named conservative media executive Stephen K. Bannon as his senior counselor. "I am thrilled to have my very successful team continue with me in leading our country," Trump said in a statement. Trump's transition team made the announcement, Sunday, in the first steps toward solidifying the President-elect's administration. Priebus, is a Washington veteran with deep ties to Republican leadership, particularly House Speaker Paul Ryan, The Associated Press reports. "It is truly an honor to join President-elect Trump in the White House as his Chief of Staff," Priebus said in the statement. "I am very grateful to the President-elect for this opportunity to serve him and this nation as we work to create an economy that works for everyone, secure our borders, repeal and replace Obamacare and destroy radical Islamic terrorism. He will be a great President for all Americans." Bannon is believed to have been in the running for the position, but will now serve as chief strategist and senior counselor. He ran the conservative website Breitbart News before joining the presidential campaign during the general election. "Steve and Reince are highly qualified leaders who worked well together on our campaign and led us to a historic victory. Now I will have them both with me in the White House as we work to make America great again," Trump said. The campaign's statement described Bannon and Priebus as "equal partners.” "Bannon and Priebus will continue the effective leadership team they formed during the campaign, working as equal partners to transform the federal government, making it much more efficient, effective and productive," it said. According to CNN, Trump's picks signal that he will look to build bridges in Washington and keep continuity with the Republican party's agenda. "We will have that same partnership in working to help President-elect Trump achieve his agenda," Bannon said.

www1.cbn.com

right

6UFIUBATq7odPH18

test